Now Wait A Minute, Fred

I might like Fred Thompson, I may even end up supporting him. But there's something wrong with his decision to post this blog post at Powerline right now. h/t Glenn. Particularly, see the items in bold below.

A lawyer who is a candidate or a prospective candidate for office finds himself in an interesting position because of the nature of the legal profession and the practice of law.

I’ve experienced another gambit of those schooled in the creative uses of law and politics: dredging up clients – or another lawyer’s clients – that I may have represented or consulted with, and then using the media to get me into a public debate as to what I may have done for them or said to them 15 or 20 years ago. Even if my memory serves me correctly, it would not be appropriate for a lawyer to make such comments.

When allegations recently arose that Thompson lobbied for an abortion-linked group, what we heard from the Thompson people was a clear and firm denial:

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.

In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen."

Now, look here, folks ... if I can half-way slip into Fred-speak, as this post is amazing, written by a genuine talent for capturing Thompson's pace and general tone. Why, I bet it may even be Ol' Fred himself. Heck, I can almost hear him, or, I don't know, maybe Andy Griffith reading it. But buried in that smooth, sweet prose is what looks to me like a back-slide from a very firm position his people took just yesterday. And, if that's the case, Ol' Fred needs to decide whether he intends to be a direct and honest statesman, or a pleasing but vague and constantly shifting image one can ... well, just never quite put their finger on, if you know what I mean. It may play welll in Peoria, but I fear that there dog may not hunt for all too long what with the media attention coming his way in the Fall. If you get my drift.

Comments

[A Newer World]

I rarely agree with you Dan, but on this you are absolutely right.

This column is a real masterpiece of political rhetoric. I too can here Thompson's voice come through.

But his argument is spin. Really, it's BULLSH_T.

Fred Thompson’s Principles Were Definitely for Sale
http://anewerworld.org/?p=1064

[Buckeyefan]

An honest article about Fred Thompson. Think I am going to faint. Thanks for telling it like it is because you never know where the actor leaves off with this guy.

My guess is that someone has found some records so now we get the weasel wording. Typical of a Rove candidate.

[Tommy]

He is not so much refering to the prior case as he is to another story the LA Times is trying to put together with even weaker ties. This is to intercept the fact that he represented some weasels as a defense attorney, and the LA Times are going to try to hit him about it. See the recent NRO post.

[Tommy]

Buckeyefan,
I'm holding you to those comments over at race408.

[tally]

My advice to Fred would be to tell his staff to zip it. There's no way for them to know all of his cases or clients.

[Brian Epps]

Not a backslide at all. The way it looks is that he was brought in to consult about the legal issue, but didn't lobby. Remember, the start of this was a question of Thompson was lobbying for this group. It has now devolved to one of any work for them, which would then be twisted back up into lobbying. Often consulting consists of examining what thew client can do and how to stay within the law in his attempt.

Attorney-Client Privelege applies, if I remember the rules correctly. If he were to talk about it, he'd have the very same people screaming about him divulging priveleged info to save his political neck and calling for disbarment, and they would be right. WTF is a lawyer to do? He obeys the rules, that's what.

[ajacksonian]

The way *out* is for Fred to contact said clients and ask if he may be relieved of attorney/client privilege so that he may speak openly about his memories. He puts forth his honor to hold to that agreement and can ask, with that same honor intact, if the client would allow him to forgo it, and can then put forward when he did so and what the client's response *was*.

Said privilege is not a part of the law, but is a personal pledge to one's clients that is understood. If questions get raised and you inquire of your client if you may be allowed to speak about that relationship, then you will have carried out your pledge to them, let them know there are questions about it and that you wish to ensure that a perfectly lawful activity had NO overtones to it beyond what is normal business between attorneys and their clients.

That works for me... and I don't care if you are a liberal or conservative or just plain everyday lawyer. That demonstrates that you believe your work to be honorable, that you abide by your word and that this is done for the benefit of the client, not for you to weasel out of answering questions. If your *client* wants you to remain silent, then report so and then say that questions must be directed to *them* as it was and IS their business brought to you.

Their business in which you performed a service. Not your business.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Oh, come off it guys --- you especially, Dan. Thompson made a straightout statement; now he's making a more general statement about the method.

[Phoenix]

Nothing like being reasonable, eh, AJ?

No one listens because it's much more fun to imagine and spread the worst possible scenario. Thompson should do just what you suggested. His clients, if asked, can laugh in anyone's face as it IS their business.

By the way: Wasn't 'honor' just declared an anachronism by the dems? (Methinks is was farcical for repubs for the most part.........sigh...)

[RepublicanWomenAgainstFredThompson]

Basically what Fred is saying that he has many skeleotns in his closet and being a lobbyist for abortionists is only the tip of the iceberg. Looks like his campaign will go the way of the Titanic.

[seekeronos]

People are too willing to conflate what FDT did as a lawyer with his actual views on key issues.

What he did as a lawyer working for a law firm, defending clients or representing their interests - was done as a condition of his employment.

And, FDT should do as AJ suggested: either get permission from his client to discuss the details of the case (now over 15 years adjudicated) as pertaining to his participation in it, or keep it under wraps per client-attorney privilege.

FDT has not obfuscated so much as he honouring his clients' wishes.

Now if evidence turned up that he actually boinked a "lady of il repute", or was snorting 8-balls off of their backs... and he tried to dodge and dance around that, then his detractors would be spot on.

But for now, they are only grasping at anything that can be used to paint FDT with a broad brush of thier hatred for a sensible candidate.

[RepublicanWomenAgainstFredThompson]

I work at medical facility that doesnt perform abortions because I am against such. Now I could go work for a facility that does perform the procedure and maybe make a lot more money, but my conscious wouldnt allow it. I just cant be bought like. But thats me and I would never take money from, or help anyone advance the cause of killing the unborn. Fred Thompson has. His actions speak to his characther or the lack there of. His phoney baloney lawyerish answer when confronted with his own past actions, only yet again highlights his lack of moral clarity and consicuous.

[chris]

Fred used his abortion-lobbying money to buy himself a pole-dancing wife. Nice purchase, Fred!

[JeriThompsonsPlasticSurgeon]

Yes, thank you Fred for all that lobbying, it has afforded me my new Mercedes and a vacation in Costa Rica! So what if a few million had to be aborted so that you could afford for me to cut on your wifes face and mammories. These detractors are just jealous.

[Medicated]

I work daily providing expert wittness testimony to a great number of trial lawyers in civil cases. The great majority end up going after anyone and everyone, whether they are responsible or not. Ethically, it's disgusting to me and were it not for the money, I couldn't do it. Fred chose the money, too. Yes, everyone is entitled to legal representation, but you, as an attorney, are not obligated to represent them. This was not some truly picturesque example of America's greatness, this was highly profitable influence peddling. The current state of lobbying in America is a disgrace to the very notion of "democracy," don't try and convince me that lobbying was your patriotic obligation to your country, Fred. He made a conscious choice to lobby for this organization. That may be an indicator that he doesn't care either way about abortion (as he has stated, he wants it left to the states to decide), or it may simply say that he values money more than his convictions. I think it's both.

[Fred Beloit]

So Christian and Jewish lawyers can't represent those accused of murder because "Thou shalt not kill." What nonsense.

[SCSoxFan]

My personal opinion is that Thompson was "the face" of Arent Fox for the NFPRR. He was brought on as an "of counsel" attorney, which means he didn't do a whole hell of a lot of actual lobbying. His job was to schmooze clients. My guess is that he did meet with the people from ths group. He buttered them up and gave glowing reports on what the firm was doing for the client. He may have even given some advice to the lawyers who actually did the lobbying, like how to approach a certain member of the Administration, what restaurants they liked, stuff like that. If he did any actual lobbying, even if it was just a few phone calls, it was billable and the client would have records of it with their bills from Arent Fox. The fact that no records other than the minutes of one board meeting were given to the LAT tells me that there are not any billing records and Thompson never actually did anything. To me, its also telling that Thompson didn't remember the group when it was first brought up. There are lists, from the public record, of the groups he did lobbying work for and the NFPRR is not on them. The amount of involvement he had was probably so small he didn't remember. But, he would now be in a no-win situation. He can't deny that he did SOMETHING, no matter how small. But the NFPRR blew it WAY out of proportion in an attempt to knock him down with the GOP base. His best move is to just say nothing further.