Where’s the call for retraction of I’ll sue?
Carpenter admitted in that same segment on CNN that she had already lawyered up prior to going on CNN that night. The Canadian Cruz Line, well, he has been lawyered up with the same law firm that went to bat for Barry Soetoro with his eligibility problem since the Cruz Liner got into the 2016 presidential race last year.
Nothing to hide, then why lawyer up?
“Nothing to hide, then why lawyer up”
Ahead of time at that.
First you question why he’s not suing, which would take lawyers.
Then you accuse him of having something to hide since has has lawyers.
You could say the same thing about Trump and his questionable "university". People often lawyer up when confronted with libel, real or perceived.
>> Where’s the call for retraction of I’ll sue? ... then why lawyer up? <<
Uh... to sue?
The problem is that the article is so vague, it’s hard to sue. When you name sources, all you have to do is get the source to deny or sue the source. But Nat Ex didn’t name any sources, other than Stone’s “analysis.” So the lawyers have to break the stonewall.
>> Where’s the call for retraction of I’ll sue? ... then why lawyer up? <<
Uh... to sue?
To be clear: all of the women are unnamed and published as denying it. The fact that Nat Examiner DID write that they all are denying it means that Cruz’ campaign can’t turn the women against the magazine then sue the magazine. Nat Examiner has decades of practice beating slander lawsuits... and writing articles to know exactly how to make any slander suits against them beatable.