Sunday, January 11, 2009

Word from Chicago

I have it from an unimpeachable insider in Chicago that the lawyer to watch in the Blago mess is one Sheldon Sorosky. While the other attorneys will be in the spotlight, Shelly is the real fixer of the team. He was a successful prosecutor who became a defense attorney. While he has been considered the small-time member of the team, my insider tells me it was he who convinced Blago to make the Burris appointment (which was a stroke of brilliance, handing Harry Reid the loaded, cocked pistol) and is waiting out Fitzgerald to find out what he really wants in all of this. As is noted here, watch for Sorosky's name on court filings and for reports on his representation before the bench, as that will give you the best bead on where things are headed. Locally, he's known for representing politicans and those associated with them, often getting his clients' charges dismissed or getting them acquitted while others in the same case take the hit. Keep your eye on him.


Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

"unimpeachable insider in Chicago"

Uh, is that sentence even possible?

Just asking.

(You guys must just love handing out straight lines.)

CT Bob said...

We should start a prediction thread on what will happen to Blagojevich.

Here's my guess: Blago will agree to step down in exchange for all charges against him dropped, except for one misdemeanor count of "displaying a bad haircut in public", for which he'll do 40 hours of community service at a South Side barber shop. Roland Burris will be seated and become Joe Lieberman's best friend in the Senate. Harry Reid will claim that he wanted Burris all along, and he was only delaying the inevitable as a favor to the Republicans.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

". Roland Burris will be seated and become Joe Lieberman's best friend in the Senate."


Burris has an existing long term relationship that should steer him towards others, most notably

Anonymous said...

It means nothing once we start calling and having national strikes to force the facists out of washington. We can then have elections where no one who is worth more than $100,000 can run. The people WILL get the goverment back from the 2 party swine presently oppressing us. Soon the rich mans debt will have to be paid.

CT Bob said...

How oppressed can you possibly be if you have a computer and internet access? I'd think if you were seriously oppressed, you wouldn't have those luxuries.

Hey, I feel oppressed because I can't drive 100 mph without the state-sponsored fascists pulling me over and giving me a ticket, maaaaaaaannnnn!!!

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

"I feel oppressed because I can't drive 100 mph without the state-sponsored fascists pulling me over and giving me a ticket"

Why can't we?


Does Germany leap to the forefront of your mind when you hear the word "Liberty"??

What's the deal with heavy radar/laser and even aircraft surveillance typically where someone *could* safely open up their Pantera, Porsche, Ferrari, etc. such as north of Manchester on I-84; CT RT 9 etc.

If some of the Autobahn can be free of speed limits, why can't any parts of the U.S. highway system be the same?

It's BS and has bothered me for 41 years.

[Note to those that are afraid of high speed driving - no one's endorsing reckless driving or high speeds through New Haven or any other typically congested roadway.]

Sue said...


Anonymous said...

Seriously, if I lived in Germany and paid five bucks a gallon for gas I would want the freedom to speed over one hundred mph,
GIVE ME FREEDOM OR GIVE ME A TAX BREAK! Seriously, I'm too old to be driving with eighteen wheel trains on I-84. J.C. Sr.

Bob Symmes said...

Last september, you paid nearly that much...and as far as I could tell, most of you were STILL driving that fast on 95 to get to the casinos.....

Bob Symmes said...


Unless you're a brain surgeon going to the OR, there's no need to go that fast.

On the other hand, most of the idiots I see going that fast should be going to the OR as brain surgery patients.

There's an issue of of many drivers we have in this area. Pups like CT Bob don't remember the times of yore (like we old farts do) when you could open up on a road and reasonably expect to encounter no other vehicles. I remember (from the dark ages of the early 1980's) hearing from an old coot (about our age now) about racing a 1930's ford up route 80 at 100 mph - judged by a town cop!

Times change...and we have to change with the times (or be seen in court).

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>"there's no need to go that fast."

Sounds Marxist.

No one NEEDS a Ferrari either, or a Monte Cristo cigar for that matter.

Who cares?

The point is, we *can't* go zoom even when public safety isn't the issue and that's BS.