NYT: Billing records show Fred did lobby for abortion group; Update: Pro-Fred blogger apologizes to LA Times
posted at 8:44 am on July 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Patterico beat me to the punch. What on earth was Mark Corallo thinking when he told the LA Times no way nuh uh never happened when he didn’t know that for a fact? Did the campaign even think to check the billing records? If not, or if they couldn’t, then why not just spin it in a more fact-friendly way from the outset? E.g., “He didn’t really want to lobby for them but he was new at the firm and felt obliged to do whatever they asked at first” or “His profound moral opposition to abortion didn’t calcify until he reached the Senate, as his voting record bears out.” Now, instead, they look like liars. Flashback:
Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail…
Corallo, the spokesman for Thompson, was asked Friday about the board minutes and the five people who said they recalled Thompson accepting the lobbying assignment. He responded in an e-mail, saying that Thompson “may have been consulted by one of [his] firm’s partners who represented this group in 1991.”
Corallo said it was “not unusual for one lawyer on one side of an issue to be asked to give advice to colleagues for clients who engage in conduct or activities with which they personally disagree.”
And now compare today’s Times:
Billing records show that former Senator Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.
According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf…
The billing records from Arent Fox show that Mr. Thompson, who charged about $250 an hour, spoke 22 times with Judith DeSarno, who was then president of the family planning group. In addition, he lobbied “administration officials” for a total of 3.3 hours, the records show, although they do not specify which officials he met with or what was said.
Patterico notes that Fred himself was careful all along to use the “lawyers don’t always agree with their clients” defense — which is weak in the context of an issue as morally important to the base as this one but beats lying, at least — and Corallo backed off his earlier blanket denial a few days after the LAT story broke, telling Politico, “He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.” (As Patterico notes, incredulously, they trotted people in for 19 hours?) But meanwhile, a meaningless story that should have been defused the first day suddenly has oxygen again 11 days later. And his third-tier opponents, at least, are already taking advantage.
Eh, I doubt it’ll matter. Pro-lifers have nowhere else to go realistically among the top candidates. Still, as Patterico says, “To me, the controversy over Fred Thompson’s alleged lobbying for an abortion rights group has little to do with his views on abortion, and more to do with his honesty.” Exit question: Does it? Or does it prove what his aides have been saying about the campaign not being ready for primetime yet, which is why they need to wait a while longer to declare? (Shortly after Labor Day, according to the Times.)
Update: Fred 29, Rudy 28.
Update: Nice job here by Joe Carter. He’s gone and violated the 12th Commandment — on the “Blogs For Fred” site, no less!
[T]hose of us on the front lines of the campaign are putting our integrity on the line whenever we defend our (still unannounced) candidate. When a spokesman for Thompson speaks on his behalf, we need to be able to trust that the message is honest and accurate. It also needs to be conveyed clearly, and not require the nuance of a DC lawyer to differentiate between fact and supposition.
I claimed that the LAT article was a “hit piece”, when the basic premise was later confirmed to be true. I implied that that the people from NFPRHA might be lying, only to find that their central claim–that Thompson lobbied for the group–was largely true. I may not agree with their motives, but it was wrong of me to unfairly malign the LAT and the NFPRHA leaders. I owe them both an apology.
I don’t like being wrong. I don’t like having to apologize to abortion advocates. And I really don’t like finding I put my own integrity in question.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Yep Ed and Patterico pretty much show this so called bombshell to be nothing more than a milk bottle full of..er well milk…
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:47 AM
OK….I guess I’ll vote for RudyMitt then.
NOT!
omnipotent on July 19, 2007 at 11:47 AM
I like some of the comments at captains quarters (link provided above):
And some here are ready to vaporize Fred into oblivion.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I’m not asking you to agree, cs. I know you won’t. :)
I merely point out that there is a good explanation for a mistake, not a prevarication. Again. 19 hours over 14 months. That, in itself is a real eye-opener for me. A working attorney deals with hundreds of clients over a thirty-year period. 19 hours. 14 months. Not a block of time, and NOT representation of someone else’s client.
It’s called consulting.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 11:48 AM
And according to theworldisnotenough…
Theworldisnotenough on July 19, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Speaking of straw man arguements… LOL…
You can stop the personal insults anytime as well. Your rhetoric has become more and more inflamitory as time has gone on…
Interesting that it coincides with Freds! increase in the polls…
Yep… Fred! Derangment Syndrome.
Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:50 AM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Sorry but those billing records dont prove that it did. In fact what they do prove is that he was a paid consultant and nothing more. Oh and I rather like what Brian Epps over at Patterico had to say, so I’ll just cut and paste it here.
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Again, not the point I’m making. If you don’t know, say you don’t know and will look into it. THAT is how a principled person works.
Another point you fred? apologists need to remember….fred? is an attorney, he should know better than to deny something he can’t prove. So even if you reject my assertion that he lies, at the very least you should be concerned that there is a disconnect between his supposed greatness as an attorney, and this stupid so-called “unforced error”. You can’t have it both ways, he is either savvy or he’s a dope. You pick, since you reject that he’s a liar.
I call BS and so should you. He’s hiding something.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Ok, this is gettiing boring and predictable.
Just one question for you Fred heads to ponder. If it doesn’t matter, why did Fred and his campaign spokesman (which is his official voice) issue a strong denial that this ever happened?
Leave the goal posts alone. If it doesn’t matter what Fred did or said about abortion then it doesn’t matter for any candidate.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Another comment at CQ:
Yeah, the man had a job to do. Let’s gang up and vaporize him!
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Strike two.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Nothingburger, I love it. Did I mention that I will NOT be voting for Mark Corallo?
RushBaby on July 19, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Yes, another ignorant opinion. People who makes bullets don’t LIE about it.
Next bull$hit rationalization for freds? habitual lying.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 11:56 AM
No, you’re on way more than strike two, you have already struck out and been thrown out of the game for unsportsmanlike conduct.
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Yup. since we don’t know the content of the conversations ‘Uh, you know, these people want this. What do you think?’ could have been the extent of it. I don’t know. Neither, apparently, does anyone else. The rest of it was discussing whatever with DeSarno. Content? Again, we dunno.
Another question: Which ‘federal rule on abortion counseling’ did this org want eased? Why? Uh, dunno?
I talked to a Reyes staffer about illegal mid-easterners in Chaparral a couple days ago. They didn’t know anything about it and didn’t care, so, in reality, no, I don’t really think that 3 1/3 hours 20 years ago means diddly in the grand scheme of things.
Carollo should be taken to task. But I find the interest in a non-candidate to be interesting, especially compared to the positions of those actively seeking the job.
TinMan13 on July 19, 2007 at 11:59 AM
From: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/07/do-the-views-of.html
Interesting take. Also, do we really TRUST the NYT, and the LAT to vet Republican candidates? Or does it only matter with some and not others.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:02 PM
I’m drawing different conclusions, my friend. Naturally.
The Thompson Campaign issued the flat denial. Fred denied ever meeting with John Sununu, after looking into it — your words — by calling Sununu and asking him if he remembered it.
I’m not saying it wasn’t a mistake. It was! And a gaff, to boot. But it’s a bump-in-the-road gaff by a campaign that has not even announced.
They were wrong to issue the flat denial. They weren’t, however, wrong in saying that Fred never lobbied for them. He consulted on behalf of another attorney in the firm. Consulted. Not lobbied. Dumb mistake. Oops mistake, But a fatal mistake and indicative of character flaws? I think it’s too early to start spinning up the wattage on the chair.
As Captain Ed said, it’s a nothingburger.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:03 PM
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Are you trying to horn in on csdeven dishonesty territory? Come on Jack, you’re better than this. Fred’s campaign spokesman issued a strong denial that this ever happened, whereupon Fred stepped up and immediately corrected that statement by stating that he could not remember if he had or not.
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Yeah, you got that right. Pretty soon this will be all about little old csdeven. Well, rest assured, I’m not going to lower myself to their level today. I’ll let em cool down for a while.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Wow… please point out your proof that he is a HABITUAL LIAR.
Thats a pretty strong accusation.
And don’t say you’ve prooven it and we were not paying attention… because I have been paying attention to your attack dog posts for some time now…
Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 12:05 PM
If I looked at this instance in a vacuum, I’d probably agree with that, but I don’t. I am taking into account the entire fred?, and so far, the scales are bottomed out against him.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:07 PM
No cs, I never said he was perfect, and I never was a mindless drone supporter, you’re the goddamned liar. I’ve always been more annoyed by your rabid hatred of Fred than been devoted to his campaign. We haven’t seen him actually seen him campaign, so its unfair for you or me to assume he’s a fraud and a liar, you’re looking for any excuse to hammer him, your hatred is ridiculous and pathological, now FOAD you slimy little twit, and don’t ever f*cking call me a liar again.
Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Again, has anyone not considered the source for this? The NYT, for crying out loud. Do we really expect the NYT to vet our candidates for us? Do we really think the NYT and the LAT with thier daily hit pieces on Fred are going to do the same for Hitlery?
All they do is further inflame those who already suffer from FDS.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:09 PM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Define
Because otherwise you are a lair, senile, or stupid, plus I cant wait to call you a liar, just like Fred when you dont.
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Now you’ve done it. His head is sure to explode. Any second now, he’ll issue some order for you to go away, or something.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I’m pretty sure I understand your point of view on this. And if I came at it in the same way you do, I might agree.
However. I don’t. I come from the point of view that everyone deserves a fair shot at being presumed honest and trustworthy. Then I take those things that you cite and see a totally different picture than you do.
I don’t agree with your conclusions. But that’s not going to stop me from attempting to turn you around. :)
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:10 PM
It’s getting that way from your side too. You and the other sufferers of Fred Derangement Syndrome are a mirror image of those that would support Fred even if they saw a video of Fred eating cute cuddly little puppies.
thirteen28 on July 19, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Fake red pickup trucks. Saying he was pro-life since 1994 when he filled out a questionaire saying he was pro-choice. The lie we are discussing now. He lied about his announcement date. Several times. He lied about the reason for going to London and then blamed that on a staffer.
It’s always the staffer with fred?.
Add to all that his refusal to be an honest to goodness candidate, and the pattern is very clear. Truth and facts are not something fred? is interested in spending time on.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM
thirteen28 on July 19, 2007 at 12:11 PM
But…csdeven told me that puppy stew was gooood….
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Crybaby.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:14 PM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM
This coming from the guy who just proved himself to be a big fat liar.
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Heh. I thought that was you yesterday:)
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Fair enough. :-)
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I’m not horning in on anyones territory. He flat out said it never happened. When an official campaign spokesman says he asked his man and he issued a flat denial, that’s a flat denial. It doesn’t get any more clear.
Question remains, if, as the new theme seems to be, it was only a small amount of lobbying and doesn’t really matter, why didn’t Fred just come out day 1 and say “Well I can’t be sure but even if I did it’s no big deal.”?
I don’t hate Fred. I know what Fred’s record is and have been stating here over and over. I’m not the one being inconsistent. Fred ran as a pro-choice candidate from a purple state. In other words, he didn’t need to be pro-choice he chose to be. Once he got in the Senate he but up an extremely thin body or work, the highlight being his work on and support of McCain/Feingold.
Based on that, he is my least favorite of the top tier candidates. Unless he proves to me that he has changed and will repudiate his previous positions, I have no reason to support him over Rudy or Mitt.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 12:18 PM
thirteen28 on July 19, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Barbecued, or baked? I like mine medium rare :-}
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:18 PM
No, that was the truth that bothered you. That is your problem.
It was the “crybaby” remark where I lowered myself to your level.
I apologize and that’ll will be it on this thread.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Let me wade in here again
The 20 hours could also have been researching the opposition and reasons for the resistence against an pro abortion bill
In other words Fred could have been told to call prominent congressmen and poll them why they would oppose a bill
that would explain the denial easily since lobbying activities also include research canvassing opposition
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:03 PM
While csdeven may go a little overboard with the “lying” stuff, I think it’s beneficial to everyone for Fred to take a few lumps for this. A lot of people are treating him as if he’s some sort of “conservative savior.” He’s not. Nobody is. If people would stop pretending that he is, and quit it with the cult of personality stuff, this wouldn’t matter, and we could talk about other things.
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM
It was someone else, because my preference has ALWAYS been baby Canadian seals with mango salsa.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM
There’s lots of info at Captains Quarters here:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010566.php
And plenty of followup links from there. Well worth looking at, to get a much better idea of what this is all about. A tempest in a teapot in my opinion. A “nothingburger”.
But some here will call for the vaporization of Fred nonetheless.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:23 PM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Too greasy for my tastes…
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Yup. To the entire comment.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Fake red pickup trucks. Um, you mean a publicity gimmick that worked? that the truck didn’t exist? You do know he now OWNS the truck?
Saying he was pro-life since 1994 when he filled out a questionaire saying he was pro-choice. OH, the one the staffer filled out… but then he voted Pro Life on every vote?
The lie we are discussing now.Please point out where HE lied!
He lied about his announcement date. Several times. He has NEVER announced a date. Theres been a LOT of rumour from “unnamed staffers” but no announcement of a date.
He lied about the reason for going to London and then blamed that on a staffer. Did HE lie? or did a staffer make a wrong announcement?
It’s always the staffer with fred?.which may be why they have not formally entered the race? Because he does not have a good enough staff???
Add to all that his refusal to be an honest to goodness candidate, and the pattern is very clear. And enter the race EARLIER than any other race in history… this is called a TACTIC, and it seems to be working.
Truth and facts are not something fred? is interested in spending time on. So that is your proof that he is a HABITUAL Liar? Because staffers have said wrong things? POINT OUT ONE THING DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO FRED! WHERE HE LIED!!!!
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM
You are attributin Personal characteristics and character flaws to Fred! based on the actions of his staff, and innuenedo, and rumour… I’ll grant you his staff is not ready for Prime time… does that make him a “habitual liar”?
Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Calling you out as a lying little twat makes me a crybaby? Nah, it really doesn’t, you’re a pathetic lying little bastard who now has to construct a false reality, you’re now reaching Truther/Ron Paul levels of insanity, I’m done playing this game with you.
Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 12:24 PM
It’s definitely an acquired taste.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 12:18 PM
And apparently these billing records support what he claims. So where is your objective honesty now? 17 hours over 14 months talking to a law partner and 3 hours over 14 months talking to somebody in the White House isn’t lobbying, it’s consulting at the absolute most. That works out to a little over 1 hour a month, for god’s sake no wonder he couldn’t remember it happening.
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I think a little perspective is called for. Check out the post at captains quarters. Good info there, I think.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I’ll tell you one thing, Allah. When I started this thread, I had a very heavy heart, feeling like I’d been lied to because of all of the remarks here. Did a little research from people who have better connections than I have, and I understand now what hit pieces do much better than I did before.
With a little nuance, the left has us eating our own without bothering to check the facts. But when the facts are checked, the nuance disappears and the real story comes out.
I just wanted to thank you for jolting me out of my complacency this morning and making me make that mature judgment based on the evidence.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Almost perfect, but I fixed the one glaring mistake.
Bad Candy on July 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Lol, I thought so.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Must be. ;-}
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Oh, his campaign is taking its lumps. But only the deserved lumps, not the inferred lumps.
A nothingbuger served with a helping of mud-on-the-face pie.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Wonder what tomorrows hit piece will be?
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:29 PM
As usual, I feel like I’ve missed something. Mark Corallo is not Fred Thompson. As his spokesman, it’s his job to get the facts straight. However I haven’t seen where Fred Thompson himself denied doing something only to be disproved later. Rather it was his spokesman who was mistaken. Are we now to judge a candidate for the mistakes of his employees? Who will make Presidential decisions if Thompson is elected? Fred or Mark Corallo?
Guardian on July 19, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Nice.
RushBaby on July 19, 2007 at 12:35 PM
A spokesman, by definition, speaks for the candidate. It is like saying that what Tony Snow said about the immigration bill on behalf of the president is not representative of the president. It is a bad precedent to say that a spokesmen doesn’t represent the candidate to simply add another layer of ‘plausible deniability’. That will move politics even one more step away from the truth.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:36 PM
This is getting embarassing. Fred’s partner remembered it. Fred’s client remembered it. And now the billing records that you guys were demanding have surfaced. Fred was a registered lobbyiest because that’s what he did, lobby.
I don’t care whether he did it for 15 minutes or the 20 hours. He lobbyied on behalf of an abortion rights group and then tried to run away from it because he knows that is something that 1) doesn’t fit the image he has tried to manufacture and 2) will turn off the Christian right.
You guys can keep spinning this as much as you want but you are reaching into “what’s the meaning of is” territory.
JackStraw on July 19, 2007 at 12:37 PM
You know full well most of your “explanations” have been proven. freds? use of the red pickup truck was to HIDE his position as the epitome of the Washington insider. Thus, it was a out and out lie.
fred? said “he didn’t do it” when it is proven that he did. THAT is a lie.
How do you know he hasn’t announced because his staff is weak?
A tactic. Possible, but I thought you just said it was because his staff was weak? And, if it is a tactic, how can fooling your supporters be a wise tactic?
The final telling proof is that fred? allows these “nuanced positions” to continue with no care for the truth. He has yet to fire a staffer. He has yet to come out with a statement that settles once and for all that he and he alone will announce the date. He is certainly actively playing coy with the date.
Look, it’s clear by now that you really do not care what fred? says or does that conflicts with your view of what you want him to be. So be it. But you’ll excuse me as I try to shame him into telling the truth because I have a different view as to what a conservative should be.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Excellent piece at Captains Quarters:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010567.php
Says what some of us here have been saying for a while.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
jdawg
Thanks for the link, I wrote my thesis at Tulane on time billing and consulted for several highly connected law firms with Senators and congressmen on the letterheads
I wrote part of the “Jurist” Time writing system modifications as well many years ago for a 9 figure law and lobbying firm.
I’ve reviewed millions of dollars in legal and lobbying entries, billings contracts
19 hours in 14 months is nothing probably billing out a retainer for a senior partner is what this activity seems to be.
Its called filler
Now I’m a Fred Head cause well, he’s not written a book on his life (thank you Jesus) and he’s know one’s son, spouse, nephew, cousin, nor is he a inheritance zillionaire.
Just for balance
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Don’t you see that fred? has had the opportunity to point out the staffer was wrong and that fred? NEVER said the things the staffer attributed to him?
Nothing. He accepts the staffers remarks and tries to nuance his position further.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Sorry for the grammer this damn arabic/english contraption over here
That and I’m stupid
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I think you’d provide some excellent background for this. I personally find it interesting that every day we are treated to one hit after another that turns out to be little more than a tempest in a teapot. Makes me think “they” find Fred to be a credible threat.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Also
Fred has that annoying habit of just stating his positions and not explaining himself
Like McCain wanted to do and Reagan always managed to do
He’s about as close to Teddy Roosevelt as we are going to get in our lifetime
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Inferred lumps, or mud on the face, are important too, because people will decide to play games (poker? :) ) with crap like this instead of discussing the more important issues. I know you’re not one of them, but a larger than is comfortable portion of the online Fred supporters seem to view him as the embodiment of the conservative ideal while he is not. I get into these silly arguments not so much to rage about the candidate, but moreso to play Devil’s
advocatelobbyistconsultant, and to express my dismay with the candidate’s apparent embrace of such silliness by trying to run a stealth campaign.Big S on July 19, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Remember last week when I mention the death of one thousand cuts? This is like the 20th tempest in freds? teapot.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Jdawg
Its called a buttwhoopin is coming and they are shifting one foot to the other
People want leadership not whinership
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Tennman,
This is the kind of stuff I’m talking about.
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
CSDeven
Remember the 100,000 cuts Reagan took? They slammed his age, his wife, his real estate deals, his calling out the guard on berkley, his Union Presidency, his hair, his weight
Worked didn’t it…..
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:48 PM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Damn…why couldnt I just have seen that on my own????
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM
If you are speaking of me, in what way is fred? a credible threat to a position I have?
Let there be no mistake, I do see fred? as a credible threat, but your context and mine are probably different.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Awesome. Now I’ve only got Jefferson and Adams left on my list to check off. (Fred hurt my politic bingo board by not announcing on the 4th).
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:50 PM
My thoughts. It’s nice to be proven right ;-)
Assuming Fred’s rate was $500 per hour, that 20 hours earned him $10,000. That must be more than what Rudy gave to Planned Parenthood. What’s worse, giving money to a cause or accepting $$$ from a cause to throw your political weight around to advance the cause?
Here is the reasons why I think Fred lied. His “I cannot remember”s were coupled with caveats. “I don’t recall, but you can’t judge an attorney by his clents, yada, yada.” He was giving himself an exit path if the evidence surfaces. Also, the flat out denial was issued by a staff member. Thus, he can get the benefit of a flat denial if the evidence never comes out, but he has plausible deniability about the denial if the evidence surfaces — yet an other exit path. “My staff member was a little over zealous, I guess. He probably should have checked with me, yada, yada.” (One wonders if it was the same staff member that checked the box that he was pro-choice.) This is a very disturbing pattern. Though, I have never been a fan, I have to agree with csdeven — Fred is not only a liar, he is a conniving liar.
He must have known ever since he did his flip flop on abortion that this was a skeleton in his closet. You wish you could forget your skeletons, but you can’t. He remembered and was trying to cover it up, but was leaving his escape rout. Mark my words — “My staff didn’t check with me, don’t judge a lawyer by his clients.”
Finally, that last excuse is BS. A lawyer representing a client in litigation or in a crminal prosecution can make that argument, because the lawyer is playing the part in an adversarial sysyem where the other size is also represented by another lawyer who is also under an ethical duty to zealously represent the opposing side. In the battle of advocates, the truth is suppose to emerge vicorious. A lawyer can zeoulously represent a guilty child molester with a clear conscience knowing that even a child molester is entitled to representation under our system and so long as the prosecutor does his job properly, the child molester will be convicted. The same cannot be said for lobbying. It is not part of a classical adversarial system. There may or may not be someone on the other side or even an OTHER SIDE. The confrontation does not take place in open court, but over three martini lunches where political weight is thrown around and politicians are cajoeled, bribed, etc. You would have to be a whore of the highest order to take a lobbying job for an issue that you abhore.
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Actually Fred compared himself to Adams by implication in his letter that was @ Powerline. That means a comparison to Jefferson is all that is left. There has be to someone here who wants to do it….
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:55 PM
You would have to be a whore of the highest order to take a lobbying job for an issue that you abhore.
Boy you sure don’t know much about lawyers.
Tman on July 19, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Disclaimer: These comments are not necessarily in defense of Fred?! or a petition for rationality.
To those who believe in the infallibility of the human spirit/mind………..
Lieing is in a category all its’ own. Lieing implies intent to distort, obfiscate, hide the truth, etc. People exaggerate, diminish culpibility, kiss butt; all manner of mind games that, in itself, weakens debate or spices up conversation. Intent has to be proven. That is why, when the libs say Bush lied, people died, they have to believe that they know absolutely his intent was hide the real truth. They must be gods to know this. Let’s leave lieing in its’ own unique, un-nuanced category.
captivated_dem on July 19, 2007 at 12:56 PM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Like EricPWJohnson said, they did this to Reagan, and that worked real good, now, didn’t it?
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I think they’re skeered we just might pick Fred….
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM
I think that’s tomorrows hit piece…
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 12:49 PM
By “they”, I’m referring to the media-DNC-Hitlery complex. It’s also a jab at conspiracy types who always reference some nebulous “they”. Certainly you don’t fall in that camp, do you?
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Yeah, that really frosted me, too.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:57 PM
PPSSSEEEPPP!!!! LOL, Thanks for the laughs, now help me clean the coffee out of my keyboard.
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 12:57 PM
tommylotto
When you bill out 500 dollars here’s what usually happens
20% goes to the firm overhead
15% goes to the originating partner
10% goes to the Senior Leadership Pool
5% goes to your direct staff expenses
Then you get the Rest.
also there were no meetings billed
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:57 PM
EricPWJohnson on July 19, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Question: Don’t they also bill time any secretary may spend typing something, or filing something?
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:55 PM
If Fred turns out to be all his supporter hope for, my best stab at a historical parallel is actually Coolidge. Not a bad person to be compared to, but we might need someone a little more assertive, IMHO.
Big S on July 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Me…me…me…
Jefferson was a lawyer…Fred is a lawyer…Fred is just like Jefferson…..Thank you…thank you…I’ll be here all week…
doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
You are not alone soulsirkus. It is not illegal to obtain an abortion so what is all the stink about? For those who are against abortion I say don’t get one and quit trying to impose your morals on others.
As for Fred!! - Unless somebody can prove to me he has been in bed with little boys, I will vote for him. He couldn’t be as bad as Bush (I voted for him twice) has been and in my opinion he will be a helluva’ lot better than anybody on the other side. So there!
OBX Pete on July 19, 2007 at 1:03 PM
lol. Close but I’m going to hold out for one that is earnestly meant; it’ll happen :-)
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 1:03 PM
So what you are saying is he took only $4,000 for himself and $6,000 for his buddies at the firm from an abortion rights group to throw around his political weight for three and a half hours with adminstative officials in an effort to ease restrictions on abortions.
What is next. Are you going to argue that he just took their money, pretended to lobby but didn’t. Honestly, I would believe you. Billing fraud seems consistent with Fred’s behavior.
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 1:04 PM
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Actually, I do. Having been one for over 15 years.
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Did the “August Silly Season” start early this year?
rhuppertz on July 19, 2007 at 1:08 PM
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Now you’re just being
dishonesta lawyer…Oh and Fred only charged $250 and hour.doriangrey on July 19, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Interesting thought, I’m going to muse on it. Coolidge himself claimed that the political steps he took were, until a certain point, to advance his career as a lawyer. And as Mencken said - The itch to run things did not afflict him; he was content to let them run themselves. That is rather consistent with what we know of Fred.
Spirit of 1776 on July 19, 2007 at 1:08 PM
tommyboy,
So being a lawyer for 15 years prevented you from ever having to either lobby or represent for someone or something you found personally distasteful? Must be a nice gig you got. Where do you practice? Disneyland?
Tman on July 19, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Wasn’t that the general election? I was just out of High school and that was my first vote, so I could be mistaken.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM
15 years huh? Then you must be familiar with the libel laws!
OBX Pete on July 19, 2007 at 1:15 PM
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM
I remember the Reagan years very well, and he was slammed his whole time in office.
jdawg on July 19, 2007 at 1:16 PM
And in freds? case, he ALWAYS took the side of the client with the money. The poor victims of asbestos poisoning had no money and NEEDED an advocate to twist arms in the back rooms of congress.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM
May want to take a long look in a mirror…
Please point out ONE direct quote by Fred! in which HE lied!
ANY politician cannot stand up under the spot light of a total check of their records… can’t do it… and if this is the BEST you can come up with… that he drove around a Red Truck during a campaign… or that a staffer screwed up and made him look bad… or he can’t remember somthing from many years ago…
I’ll take that over Rudi and his sanctuary city…
or Mitt and his questionable religious upbringing… and flippy flops (and yes, your upbringing really does matter… and I’m agnostic…)..
or Obama going to a racist church…
or Hillary lieing to my face… and perjuring herself…
or McCain and his amnesty….
or Edwards and his hypocracy…
Much like Bush in the last election… its a question of the lesser of evils… and so far Fred! is by FAR the least tainted candidate out there…
Romeo13 on July 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM
You mean the third from the left on Mt. Rushmore? That Teddy?
Gee, that would be awful if Fred were like that!
I’m kidding. I’m kidding.
Big S, these things happen. They’re bad and they’re forgettable. Or they’re good and they’re forgettable. Either way, this is a nothingburger moment, not carved in stone like Rushmore.
Tennman on July 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM
You’ve missed the context. The context is the vetting of fred? in a primary where we still have a choice as to who the candidate will be. The thousand cuts (or 10,000 cuts) would be less than effective with Reagan because he had a presidency to prove his value with, and we had already decided he was our guy and were going to see it through. fred? isn’t my guy, hell, he isn’t anyones guy until he announces, so this is the time to dig into his history to find out what is beneath the facade he is showing us now.
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 1:22 PM
That is why I asked, instead of assume.
Do you want to know why I consider fred? a credible threat? :-)
csdeven on July 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Did you read what I wrote. I made a distinction between litigation and lobbying. I have represented parties with meritorious lawsuits that I did not personally agree with. However, I have never lobbied for a position that I disagreed with. That would raise ethical concerns in my mind.
tommylotto on July 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »