Posted on 03/25/2016 11:58:42 AM PDT by NYRepublican72
Bwahahahahahahshhaha ! UntwusTED!
The Enquirer was accurate in its reporting of the existence of a rumor of a scandal. The Enquirer did not report the story as fact. There is nothing to retract.
Because Cruz is a public figure, the Enquirer's report on the existence of an allegation is not deemed to be libelous. Cruz could attempt to sue for defamation, but that is also difficult to prove in court. Hillary will be well into her second term by the time Ted Cruz would recover any monetary damages....which is why Donald fed this story to the Enquirer in the first place.
If any of the alleged 5 women identified by this smear are legally deemed to NOT be public figures, they would have an easier path for a defamation lawsuit.
But you and the other Trumpanzees already know about this legal primer on libel and defamation because it has been posted several times. You just like repeating your snide "question" of "why doesn't Ted sue?"
The Enquirer specifically reported that it is a rumor. That is how the Enquirer avoids libel suits from public figures. Cruz could attempt to sue for defamation, but oral arguments would not likely be heard until summer 2018.
If Ted Cruz believes he is being slandered he has every right to call the NE out and demand they cease and desist and threaten to sue for libel. He is doing none of the above.
The Enquirer story on the existence of a rumor is not libelous because Cruz is a public figure. Cruz could attempt to sue for defamation, but such a lawsuit does not compel an immediate retraction or a cease and desist.
Don't you remember your beloved Donald complaining a few weeks ago about how he wanted to change libel and defamation laws so he could silence news sources that would dare to use the 1st amendment to report news that was not flattering to him?
btw, Slander is a false oral statement. Libel is a false written statement.
Doesn’t Hillary have a connection to the National Enquirer through a guy named Roger Altman and didn’t one of her bimbo eruption lawyers, David Kendall, go on to represent the Enquirer as well?
I think you're mischaracterizing Trump's intent.
I've counted 2 news stories since then about Trump that were complete and utter lies, intended to damage his campaign.
These were not even the typical "sly insinuation" type articles. They were just flat-out lies.
You kind of remind me of Obama. If you can just repeat your argument one more time maybe everyone will believe it. LOL!
I'm sure that Ted set out with the best of intentions. and all of this recent bull is just more election cycle muckraking. How he deals with it leaves a bit to be desired.
In the court of public opinion, it isn't a matter of whether you are innocent or guilty; it's the seriousness of the charge that looms in the backs of peoples’ minds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.