If someone worked on behalf of a Chinese company to destroy American jobs, would you want to elect that person to the U.S. Senate? What if he deliberately tried to distract the public about how involved he was?
Those questions are at the heart of the Fishman case, specifically Ted Cruz’s role as the Counsel of Record for a Chinese company that tried to steal the intellectual property of American businessman Jordan Fishman.
Cruz, for his part, has attempted to whitewash his role in the case, and he even set up a page on his campaign website dedicated to spinning the facts in his favor. The main point Ted Cruz has made is that this case was actually between two Chinese companies, and didn’t impact any American jobs. It’s listed right there on his website:
Could that really be the case? Jordan Fishman maintains that he lost more than forty American employees after his blueprints were stolen and sold to Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., the company which then hired Ted Cruz’s law firm.
But read the website carefully: Cruz says the case did not involve any U.S. manufacturing jobs. Cruz’s campaign has repeated that carefully crafted message, like when spokesman James Bernsen recently told the Houston Chronicle: “Not a single American manufacturing job was affected…”
It’s an important clarification, because Fishman says the lost jobs were in sales and distribution, not manufacturing. But by saying that the case “didn’t affect even a single U.S. manufacturing job,” Ted Cruz is trying to hide from his fellow Texans the fact that his client did kill American jobs.
Cruz has also claimed — and indeed maintained — that he had “nothing whatsoever to do with the trial.” Once again, these are carefully chosen words intended to confuse and distract. Ted Cruz may not have argued anything in front of a judge, but he was indeed involved in the case, and even carefully admits he was involved in the case — though he significantly downplays his role.
And as it turns out, the Cruz campaign can’t even get its facts straight about which companies were Chinese.
Scroll down on Ted Cruz’s webpage and you’ll find a statement that the case involved multiple companies, but that only one of them was Chinese (key section highlighted below):
Wait, didn’t Ted Cruz claim the case was between two Chinese companies? Isn’t that the core of his argument that no American
manufacturing jobs were lost, and indeed the central thrust of his entire response?
Who knows — this could be just another example of Ted Cruz hiding behind cleverly worded statements to distract from his role in assisting a Chinese company as it tried to steal property from an American businessman.
For what it’s worth, and in case you missed it, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ted Cruz’s Chinese client last week.