Thompson Responds To Story Charging He Consulted For Flight 103 Bombers
On the trail this afternoon, Fred Thompson addressed some of those nagging questions about the report today saying he did consulting work for a colleague representing two Libyans implicated in the terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people. Here's how he dealt with it:
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Thompson provided advice to a colleague at the Washington law firm of Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn when he worked there in the early 1990s."As I recall, one of the senior partners at a law firm, asked me questions about -- I believe it was about -- venue; where a trial like that would take place," Thompson said.
Thompson said he had a background in handling that type of question and was only consulting with the other attorney.
But does this really change the story in any appreciable way?
Comments (15)
DCCyclone wrote on September 10, 2007 5:21 PM:Honestly, this is a silly non-story. Lawyers represent all kinds of shady people, and it's part of the United States Constitution that anyone accused of a crime has a right to counsel.
And now we learn Thompson may have been consulted on venue? This is a purely procedural issue, having nothing to do with the substance of the crime. Hell, he very possibly could have been consulted exactly the same on a case involving a defendant accused of an ordinary street crime.
Thompson's having represented a pro-choice group was a more relevant story because that comes much closer to a political choice on his part.
But representing criminal defendants is just normal business for lawyers, and being consulted on a procedural issue like venue couldn't be more pedestrian and far removed from the substance of the case.
To make a long story longer: yes, Greg, it changes the story in an appreciable way. Fred didn't really do anything.
(And, no, I'm not a Fred supporter or a Republican troll, I'm a liberal Democrat and an Obama supporter.)
Captain Nemo wrote on September 10, 2007 5:24 PM:"Honestly, this is a silly non-story. Lawyers represent all kinds of shady people, and it's part of the United States Constitution that anyone accused of a crime has a right to counsel."
except of course, unlawful enemy combattants, such as terrorists!
MarcNYC wrote on September 10, 2007 5:33 PM:"Honestly, this is a silly non-story. Lawyers represent all kinds of shady people, and it's part of the United States Constitution that anyone accused of a crime has a right to counsel."
This is exactly what you would hope that any attorney (I am one) who understands the oath that he/she took when they were admitted to the bar would say. Unfortunately, Thompson doesn't have the spine to say it. Once again, pandering to to the base is apparently more important than the Constitution.
fafner1 wrote on September 10, 2007 5:42 PM:How would the Republican slime machine treat it if a Democrat was found to have provided legal advice to terrorists. I think this is a non-issue as long as Thompson is willing to be honest and forthright, but don't kid yourself about what sort of slime fest it would be if a Democrat was caught in the same situation.
POed Lib wrote on September 10, 2007 6:16 PM:When you are a whore, it is confusing to you to defend your approach. You can say, "Well, I needed the money." or "Everyone else in the whorehouse was a whore too, so I was just going along to get along." However, there is no getting around the basic fact: When you are a whore, you sell your credibility, honor, and discretion for money.
This is not the lawyer thing, either. This is PR flacking, not legal defense. So, enough with that "The accused is entitled to defense." Here, he was doing PR work for the rehabilitation of the Libyans.
Fred's a whore, and his ethics go for $500/hour.
EH wrote on September 10, 2007 6:23 PM:A whore does not sell anything but the thing they're selling. It is moralistic and patronizing say that it means anything more. If it does to you, the fundamentalist's line starts (way) over there.
kim wrote on September 10, 2007 6:33 PM:just because it has to be said again and again until we set this non story aside.
few months ago we were all outraged about a bushie trying to intimidate lawyers working w the victims of gitmo. we all said, "that's what lawyers do, as per the constitution".
fred did what lawyers do.
he's still a mindless, policyless idiot, let's focus on that.
limited acting skills too, but tv and the viewing public are easy.
Should he be the Rep. nominee, if the Dems don't use this against Thompson (visualize how the Reps. would use this kind of info. against a Dem) then they are not worthy of recapturing the White House.
Righteous Bubba wrote on September 10, 2007 6:53 PM:fred did what lawyers do.
he's still a mindless, policyless idiot, let's focus on that.
Watching him squirm at things like this is both revealing and entertaining.
BillMcD wrote on September 10, 2007 7:00 PM:Yes, because the next time we get pissed off about the trampling of civil liberties on the constitutional right to due process, we really want to have opened ourselves up to 'Oh, it's fine for lawyers to represent ARAB terrorists, but not LIBYAN terrorists?'
Let's not be hypocritical here, folks. This is a non-issue. This is what lawyers do. It's what we want them to do. It's what we trust them to do. So let's not start telling them they're only supposed to do it when it suits our political agenda, huh?
kcwdad wrote on September 10, 2007 8:50 PM:Whether it could be or should be a story are different questions. If Democrats care to borrow pages from Rove et al they could keep this in the news simply by repeating it.
Was Travelgate really a story in 1990s? Is it still relevant now? Probably no, and definitely no, but it's still brought up to rile up the GOP base and perhaps cast a bit of doubt among the simple-minded (to the extent they are two different groups).
Swift Boat, uranium, "fight them over there"... Republicans don't have a monopoly on conflation and inuendo, but they've certainly tested the lower limits on logic required to score a point (and proven the threshold to be frighteningly low).
So "Fred did legal work on behalf of a known terrorist..." By the time an active reader/listener/viewer gets to the heart of the matter, some collateral damage has already been done. A good chunk of the voting public may never get past the line I just wrote.
So do we want Democrat politicians using these PR techniques? How about "left wing bloggers"? Would it backfire or prolong the sense that "Democrats are just as bad as Republicans"? Like negative campaigning in general, seems a legitimate machievellian question of integrity vs. effectiveness.
reino wrote on September 10, 2007 10:57 PM:"Thompson's having represented a pro-choice group was a more relevant story because that comes much closer to a political choice on his part."
Was Thompson forced to help terrorists? Oh great lawyers, please explain to me where in the Constitution it states that all lawyers must help all terrorists.
Nell wrote on September 10, 2007 11:01 PM:"Nagging questions"??
This gets more despicable every time you touch it. Drop the Rovian b***sh**, please/
MarcNYC wrote on September 11, 2007 7:52 AM:"Was Thompson forced to help terrorists? Oh great lawyers, please explain to me where in the Constitution it states that all lawyers must help all terrorists"
Our Constitutuion says that everyone is entitled to counsel, no matter who they are. The protection of our liberty often rests on the willingness of counsel to take on hard/unpopular cases. This is just as true for Fred Thompson as it was for Wiliam Kunstler. Kunstler spent his entire career defending unpopular clients and their civil liberties.
Thompson's refusal to stand up and say "I did what lawyers are supposed to do to make our system work" should be the story here. His reflexive pandering to the base at the expense of principle speaks volumes about who he is.
KT wrote on September 11, 2007 10:44 AM:The only change I see is that Thompson is arguably being unethical by discussing what work he did for a client -- that's confidential and privileged (I highly doubt he got the terrorist/client's consent to say this) and it's not up to Fred to describ his work just because he thinks it will help him politically.
