Posted on 03/25/2016 12:20:50 PM PDT by Enlightened1
I have no idea whether or not the cover story about Ted Cruz in this week’s issue of the National Enquirer is true or not, but I had absolutely nothing to do with it, did not know about it, and have not, as yet, read it.
Likewise, I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchman and then pretend total innocence. Ted Cruz’s problem with the National Enquirer is his and his alone, and while they were right about O.J. Simpson, John Edwards, and many others, I certainly hope they are not right about Lyin’ Ted Cruz.
I look forward to spending the week in Wisconsin, winning the Republican nomination and ultimately the Presidency in order to Make America Great Again.
- Donald J. Trump
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
It wasn’t a pro-Cruz PAC.
Trump is a gentleman. He’ll let Melania walk up the ramp first. ;)
No, Trump may have been sleazy in the 1990s, but Cruz appears to be the current “sleazy” candidate—and I’m referring to more than just this latest story, which has yet to be proven or disproven, but which doesn’t look good for Cruz based on the National Enquirer’s track record for this sort of claim. John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, Tiger Woods, Gary Hart, and many others have also denied the National Enquirer’s accusations against them, but we all know how that turned out. I don’t know how anyone can be so sure that Trump is the bad guy here and that Cruz is innocent, unless they are running solely on their emotional reaction. Of course, it’s easier when one has been willfully blind to the numerous lies and dirty tricks that have come from the Cruz campaign over the last few months (which not only Trump called him out on, but also Rubio, Carson, and even Kasich recently).
There is no evidence Trump had anything to do with Cruz’s Bimbo eruption. They knew from before this was Rubio camp and #TheThing, They have been told, but then they are not regular chatters either but paid social media workers trying to control the narrative.
I didn’t claim that Cruz was affiliated with the PAC. I said it was a “pro-Cruz PAC,” which it undeniably is at this point in the campaign cycle. Hannity backtracked because he didn’t want to be misunderstood and/or he got a lot of flak for his phrasing. However, the ad clearly was pushing for people to vote for Ted Cruz in the wording of the very ad itself. Hence, it was self-evidently pro-Cruz, and Cruz shouldn’t have waited a couple of days to condemn this ad that was made on his behalf and using his name. It almost seems as if he was waiting with the hope that an upset Trump would say something rash in return. Otherwise, why not just immediately say, “I believe that candidates’ spouses are off limits and do not want any more ads like this created on my behalf”?
Please stop lying the Beans was his wife’s opposing agenda to Cruz’s stated positions. So you are lying and its getting tiring.
The Melania Trump attack ad included the words in big print “support Ted Cruz on Tuesday.” How is that not explicitly “pro-Cruz”?
4 non lies out of out of ten thousand lies and fairy tales is a good track record?
Gee, I don’t know. How DID “Mr. Trump means this curious phrase?”
Ironic when someone calls themselves HoosierWordsmith, huh?
Trump is correct. N.E. has been validated in several large cases including murder investigations (Cosby & OJ). They have exposed numerous celebrity and political cheaters (Tiger Woods.) It’s 100% Ted’s job to defend himself, and no one else’s. To immediately attack the NE is wrong, given their track record.
Hopefully, it’s just a fishing expedition based strictly on rumors. NE’s goal is to sell any story as long as possible and use teasers to draw in collaborating witnesses or photos. They may already have some stuff, none of us knows.
“Donald is a believer in the big-lie theory,” his lawyer had told me. “If you say something again and again, people will believe you.”
“One of my lawyers said that?” Trump said when I asked him about it. “I think if one of my lawyers said that, I’d like to know who it is, because I’d fire his ass. I’d like to find out who the scumbag is!”
One of Trump’s first major deals in New York was to acquire a large tract of land on West Thirty-fourth Street being offered by the bankrupt Penn Central railroad. Trump submitted a plan for a convention center to city officials. “He told us he’d forgo his $4.4 million fee if we would name the new convention center after his father,” former deputy mayor Peter Solomon said. “Someone finally read the contract. He wasn’t entitled to anywhere near the money he was claiming. It was unbelievable. He almost got us to name the convention center after his father in return for something he never really had to give away.”
Trump’s first major real-estate coup in New York was the acquisition of the Commodore Hotel, which would become the Grand Hyatt. This deal, secured with a controversial tax abatement from the city, made Trump’s reputation. His partner at the time was the well-respected Pritzker family of Chicago, who owned the Hyatt chain. Their contract was specific: Trump and Jay Pritzker agreed that if there were any sticking points they would have a ten-day period to arbitrate their differences. At one point, they had a minor disagreement. “Jay Pritzker was leaving for a trip to Nepal, where he was to be incommunicado,” a lawyer for the Pritzker family told me. “Donald waited until Jay was in the airplane before he called him. Naturally, Jay couldn’t call him back. He was on a mountain in Nepal. Later, Donald kept saying, ‘I tried to call you. I gave you the ten days. But you were in Nepal.’ It was outrageous. Pritzker was his partner, not his enemy! This is how he acted on his first important deal.” Trump later even reported the incident in his book.
“Give them the old Trump bullshit,” he told the architect Der Scutt before a presentation of the Trump Tower design at a press conference in 1980. “Tell them it is going to be a million square feet, sixty-eight stories.” “I don’t lie, Donald,” the architect replied.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2015/07/donald-ivana-trump-divorce-prenup-marie-brenner
best
election
ever
How would any source other than Ted Cruz, or, if it is fabricated, the reporter, know it is false? If it is fabricated, would the reporter tell Michael Wiener?
Wiener's statement makes no sense. He don't know jack, and if he knows one of the women, or a friend of the women, he only knows what they tell him.
LOL!
I love watching these folks twist into knots trying to explain away the candidates corrupt PACs.
“It wasn’t a pro-Cruz PAC, it was an anti-Trump PAC attempting to discredit Trump for a secret unknown person who has no involvement in anything and has no idea what is happening.”
Exactly! Here is how it may go down - just like with all other lying, adulterous, cheating candidates who have been found out...
#CruzSexScandal (Twitter)
1. Denial
2. Attack Trump – not National Enquirer
3. “Shame on YOU Trump” - attacks by Cruz + his supporters
4. Admission of guilt
5. Forgiveness from God with the poor wife standing by side
6. Leave the race
7. Forever labeled
I am starting to believe all these career lawyers turned politicians go to D.C. because it’s one big whore house, where everyone humps on each other. They even lit up the White House like some gay dive bar in Hollywood.
No wonder the entire country is in decline.
Your mother is right!
Looks like they got him with hookers too. The number looks to be at least 8 women.
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.