Replies

Read the story. Trump is waking back saying it was a Cruz ad. Trump most certainly has been saying that.

Walking it back? That's not likely at this point. Thing is, the image posted by that beast Liz Mair, most definitely *is* an ad, and it most definitely mentions Ted Cruz. There is no stretch of the English language that nullifies it from being a "Cruz ad". It is a "Cruz ad". Let's examine some of the myriad possibilities and angles.

Whether or not Cruz had a thing to do with it is one thing, but his chance of liability here is certainly existent. He could have circumvented that chance greatly by immediately calling Trump and reporting it wasn't from him, and sending a cease and desist to the Lizbian. Instead of that he let it run, in a State with an active election. This will meet the condition of tacit or intentional approval, the degree of which would be presumably determined by a jury or judge if it ever got that far.

If you substitute in any other hot button subject such as violence, child pornography, murder, assassination, and test the same inaction by Ted Cruz, suddenly inaction and deflection doesn't look like the smart play. More to the point, consider how Trump has been accused of everything from supporting the KKK by not denouncing a non-existent endorsement to inciting violence by not denouncing non-existent violence, and you see how lucky Cruz is at this moment. Not to mention being a complete and utter hypocrite.

Of course, there is a more egregious situation if it is found out that he or his campaign had any contact with Lizbo's Super PAC prior to the ad. That would be grade-A prime-beef trouble, a violation of election law in a section badly requiring a test case. My guess is that Lez and Ted would rather not be the test case in a Citizens United sequel. He is not that good of a lawyer judging by his recent actions. And the word on the street is that folks want that ruling overturned, badly. Not good to be poking this bear with a stick.

Someone holds copyright for that image, and they have hardwired intellectual property theft deep into modern law thanks to the Hollywood mafia and RIAA and others. IP theft with profit may include soliciting votes. If anyone should be lawyering up it is that beast Mair. But who reaps the profit off the stolen IP? Well, IF ( profit == votes ) THEN that would be Ted, again a badly needed test case which I'll bet no-one really wants to see their name attached to for all time in Wikipedia. Mair v. Federal Election Commission. Cruz v. Federal Election Commission. Yikes. Lez & Ted's excellent adventure.

Knowing how sensitive bands are to their music being played at a rally because of some far-fetched chance it may indicate endorsement or association demonstrates that it does not take much to constitute copyright breach and to exceed fair use. Such bands may not even hold the copyrights for their own music and still they have standing. YouTube is an active battlefield where all kinds of individuals' personal work is routinely taken down because they had a small amount of music included from some band, even short clips that are probably fair use. The benefit of the doubt has been back door legislated in favor of the alleged copyright holder with burden of proof shifted to user of the work. That would be you Lizbo.

In photos, there are cases where the photographer holds copyright, the photographed subject holds copyright, or sometimes both, all subject to possible contracts. I would expect Trump, if he was with her at the time, made sure there was a contract and both they and the photographer are injured parties. Dear God, I would not want to be the cause of a Trump injured party.

One must wonder what liability extends to the contributors to a Super PAC as well. There is no way I can see a concept of immunity for those that voluntarily contribute to something like this. The First Amendment angle that gave us Citizens United kind of goes out the window when one of these First Amendmenteers points at Lizbo and says: Your honor, it was her talking, not us!". That's twilight zone territory. Test case please.

Another angle is the question as to the merit of the content. I mean, when you read the solicitation to vote for Ted Cruz or else you may wind up with a beautiful woman as first lady for four years, one must wonder if that is a net negative or positive. It sure sounds like a negative to Ted because his face becomes the visual alternative to a lovely first lady ( bet you never thought of that one, eh Lizbo?!! ). Not to mention the fact that there are probably a whole lot less puritans than normal folks, well outside of Utah. This could be spun by Trump to shame those States as haters of beautiful women! The possibilities are endless. One thing is for sure, only a catty bon-bon eating fat woman or maybe a jealous lesbian could bring themselves to write such ridiculous tripe in the first place.

This case really hits on all avenues at once. An enterprising lawyer working for a p!ssed off client could create a tornado of trouble for everyone involved. I hear tell that an entire floor of his Manhattan tower houses a pool of sharks. Word is that his employees adore him and aim to please, so I imagine such folks take personal exception to sleazy tactics aimed at their favorite person. This situation alone should scare the bejeezus out of these GOPe and other snakes.

You know, had Lez Mair been a lonely blogger mindlessly blasting her/his/its madness into some lame article or social feed it would have been one thing, but she has willfully and stupidly placed herself right into the middle of so many political campaigns and controversies, presumably cashed some paychecks making her a "professional", that she is likely in deep trouble if Trump and others feel like giving it to her. ( Wasn't there some idiotic greentard that stepped into a polar bear cage or something, in Germany I think? )

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall at Lez Mair's house? Each time the phone rings she must sh!t a brick. The only thing more interesting would being a fly on the wall in the Cruz household these days.

All things considered it would be a simple matter for Trump to cease & desist every single outlet that hosts the Liz Mair created Ted Cruz advertisement. It says something that Trump has not done that, perhaps he loves the image being out there as much as we love seeing it. All of this indicates that yet another scheme by the anti-Trump cabal has backfired. Trump controls this situation now, he says take it down, they take it down or else be cited as party to an FEC violation and copyright theft. He says jump, they say how high! He says nothing, his lovely wife graces screens everywhere despite the snarky caption written by some woman hater.