Posted on 04/04/2016 11:53:11 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Now this… The National Enquirer is releasing a new report this week on the cheating scandal and it doesn’t look good for Ted Cruz. Via Radar Online:
Radar has learned The National ENQUIRER will this week report its findings of yet another exhaustive and investigative probe that will quote journalist detectives who claim the mystery candidate almost certainly “has to be Cruz.”
Investigator Wayne Madsen, who was on a team of reporters hired by Hustler Magazine’s boisterous owner Larry Flynt to investigate the madam, told The ENQUIRER that Cruz should be concerned!
“If Montgomery Sibley has what he says he has, it has to be Cruz,” he said in an interview — an advance copy of which was provided to Radar.
PHOTOS: Blac Chyna’s Latest Instagram Diss To Kylie Jenner Is The Worst Yet – Proof Tyga Is Cheating!
“Going on what I know about the other male candidates still in the race, it isn’t any of them, and Palfrey didn’t provide call boys, so it wasn’t Hillary.”
Before a restraining order was slapped on the records, Sibley said he supplied copies of the papers from three of the four boxes to Dan Moldea, another Washington investigative reporter who interviewed the madam for a possible book after she was busted for prostitution in 2006.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
It’s true, here they are on the sofa together.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3413953/posts?page=42#42
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3414247/posts?page=179#179
“Ted is a smart enough guy to KNOW that if he has been dallying around, it WOULD come out in the national news if he ran for President.”
Why? He wasn’t smart enough to consider people might OBJECT when it came out that he was born in CANADA. Or that he FORGOT that TPA was an Obama boondoggle when he voted for it.
Breitbart supports Cruz? Ben Shapiro would differ.
When you state it that clear how could anyone have a doubt!!
This is what I am thinking. Till I see some evidence, it's all just accusations at this point.
Jim Hoft has gone a little crazy in his support for Trump. I've been ignoring the stuff he has been saying about Cruz. Same thing with the "Conservative Treehouse."
Maybe after the primary the crazy will recede a little bit.
That is YUGE!
Quick, write a blog about it so you can post it as a breaking news article on FR.
Leaving the Capitol grill with who? Is it with Amanda? Again and again and again? Only those two? Never any Heidi with em? Never any malevent staffers?
Sure...it wasn’t a date. Lol
Yep, as a Trump supporter I am with you. The only thing wonky so far in all this is Amanda Carpenter. She's a freak.
“Washington Madams telephone records were to Cruz’s office.”
I read the linked article. I somehow missed that fact.
This is Sh*t. I’m surprised this site allows it.
“Branch Trumpidians”
Priceless. Perhaps the most imaginative epithet I have seen in this season of hall of fame insults.
Cruz doesn’t matter anyway, I agree.
Yep.
Which is actually pretty smart, because as long as it’s phrased like that, there’s no way to file a libel suit. It’s true that somebody thinks there must be a story, and a publication can’t be sued for stating a truth.
What is really interesting to me is that Trump supporters don’t give a lick that he actually cheated on his wife (or wives) but are frothing at the mouth at the very possibility that Cruz might have.
Interesting and befuddling times.
I don’t know who the salacious material, read any of Donald’s books.
At this point the story is irrelevant. In two or three weeks Cruz will have no mathematical way to get a majority of delegates before the convention. It is time for hostilities here to wind down. The notion that Cruz will somehow get the nomination on the second vote is complete foolishness.
Standard technique for manufactured scandals
1. print a story citing allegations by an unnamed source, not actually accusing the target of a sex scandal, but claiming that the unnamed source claims that the target is guilty of a sex scandal.
2. wait for a broad rebuttal
3. claim that the rebuttal was not specific enough and therefore must be false
4. wait for a specific rebuttal
5. claim that the specific rebuttal took too long and therefore must be false.
6. print a story citing new allegations by another unnamed source, not actually accusing the target of a sex scandal, but claiming that the unnamed source claims that the target is guilty of a sex scandal.
7. repeat
Isn't this a name that has been more or less associated with Democrats in the past? I've seen the name before in the past, and I don't remember having good thoughts related to that name, but I might be mixing Moldea up with someone else.
Brietbart supports Cruz? Wow, what color is the sky on your home planet?
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.