“Dewhurst stepped in it with the false attribution against Cruz, trying to connect him directly to representation for some Chinese firm needing legal advise. That law firm Cruz works for has 1200 lawyers, and maybe a hand full worked on the Chinese business assignment. Cruz was not one of those.”
You lie.
There was NO false attribution about Cruz in that case whatsoever.
Cruz is the attorney of record in that case and he is leading the appeal of a judgement already won by an American in court in a jury trial against the Chinese firm that stole his designs and the Cruz delaying tactics are successfully enabling the Chinese Corporation to manufacture and make money on their thievery to this day.
I never agree with you on much of anything so I wonder why your avid interest in more of the same ole, same old. You know, Cruz has sworn to lay across the railroad track if that’s what it takes to stops Obamacare. Dewhurst prefers to analyze it to death, which always includes ice & tea with Democrats.
Check this out:
From a Texas Monthly commenter to a Burka column....
” John from Houston says:
This is all pretty silly. He’s a lawyer defending a client. John Adams defended the redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre, and that didn’t make him a loyalist. Abraham Lincoln actually defended BOTH sides of the slavery issue.
The real question, considering the obviously planted nature of this story, is why is liberal icon Paul Burka shilling for David Dewhurst? Is he the only hope for Democrats, considering they don’t have a serious candidate of their own running for Senate? “