Patterico has lots on Fred Thompson's billing records. I'm just wondering what kind of a President Thompson would make if his controversial billing records can only be hidden for a week - why not the best?
« Rudy's Colleagues For Non-Rudy | Main | Geez, Did Anybody See That Coming? »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Uhmmm, sorry to go OT. But here's another great reason that treating terrorists like criminals isn't going to work..
From Rednecks Revenge.
Three potential jurors in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial were sent home Monday after each said they were afraid their service might put them or their families in danger.
"Sounds like some pretty serious charges to me," said one man, moments after he was told why he was asked to show up at the federal courthouse. "I don't feel comfortable. ... This ain't like a parking ticket."
"Would the fear of retaliation affect the way you looked at the case?" defense attorney Greg Westfall asked.
"Yes," the man said.
I wonder how many of the Jurors in the Libby trial feared for their safety?
Posted by: Pofarmer | July 19, 2007 at 09:12 AM
I think Patterico has a point here:
"Never say 'never'" (along with "only fools are positive" [ed.--are you sure? Positive!]) is proper politico policy, and the incident suggests Thompson's team isn't ready for prime time. The underlying event, however, is an adequate substitute for Ambien. So unless you're a professional political handicapper, a yawn seems about right.Posted by: Cecil Turner | July 19, 2007 at 09:40 AM
I believe he said he had no recollection of it. As Capt Ed points out 19 hours over so many years is peanuts and the record indicates that was mostly consulting with others in the firm who carried on the lobbying effort. For a paper which seemed singularly unaware of Villaregosa's affair, the LAT seems to be trying to make Mount Everest over an anthill.
Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2007 at 09:53 AM
"Never say 'never'"
IIRC the "never" claim was withdrawn within a day or so. Long before any confirmation was provided.
Posted by: boris | July 19, 2007 at 09:57 AM
Didn't I read somewhere that Fred made $100,000 in cattle futures?
Or was that someone else?
Posted by: MikeS | July 19, 2007 at 10:25 AM
On a more serious and relevant note, Musharaff may be driven out in Pakistan fall thanks to the intentional efforts of Maulana Ghazi and the 'dupes' involved in the Jalangir judge crisis. I see this connection in light of the previous NY media's misrepresentation of the Diem Govt seen in Mark Moyar's Triumph Forsaken. You know the drill; Chiang had to go because of
corruption, Batista had to go, because of corruption and ineptitude, Diem, Somoza,
the Salvadoran junta; Nnn Lol, the Pahlavis, and likely the Sauds after that. When Mao, the Sandinistas, FMLN, the mullahs, and the Wahhabi Shura council
put together their turbas, Year Zero checklists, CDR's etc; we are not to criticize them; because after all we're responsible for their rise, and we're responsible if they fall. You know the drill.
Posted by: NARCISO | July 19, 2007 at 11:05 AM
"Why not the best?"
Wasn't that Clinton's 1992 campaign book? An appropriate, but obscure allusion.
Posted by: Ralph L | July 19, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Maybe it takes a village to hide the records?
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Maybe it takes a village to hide the records?
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 11:26 AM
What do you think of the Badger's reporting, narciso?
=================================
Posted by: kim | July 19, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Who's the Badger: Dalrymple
Posted by: NARCISO | July 19, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Narciso the WSJ was on that page , too, yesterday.
Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2007 at 12:13 PM
This just speaks of the strength of B. Hussein's candidacy. He's never done anything.
Posted by: Pofarmer | July 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Narciso, the push to get "Musharraf" to allow in a more deomcratic structure has been wacko and it has been the prejudice of this Administration for day one. I've been hoping all along that a gimlet eyed view of turning Peshawar into a New Hampshire townhall was just a cynical ploy. I continue to hope that's true, and that this time "the best you have isn't good enough" ploy will fail.
Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2007 at 12:32 PM
**Narciso, the push to get Musharraf to allow in a more democratic structure has been wacko and it has been the prejudice of this Administration from day one. I've been hoping all along that a gimlet eyed view of turning Peshawar into a New Hampshire townhall was just a cynical ploy. I continue to hope that's true, and that this time "the best you have isn't good enough" ploy will fail.*************
Posted by: clarice | July 19, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 19, 2007 at 01:19 PM
Patrick Sullivan:
Thank you for your info on Judy Miller. I bet it just kills Chris Matthews that he can't talk about this topic. Remember he is the one who was hyperventilating about neocons and prompted Libby to call Russert in the first place and we all know how that turned out.
Posted by: maryerose | July 19, 2007 at 01:45 PM
You're right, this proves that Thompson is no good. Next thing you know, we'll probably find out he lobbied for tobacco companies. In fact, can anyone disprove that Fred Thompson is a distant relative of Jack Abramoff? I didn't think so.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Posted by: Nick Kasoff | July 19, 2007 at 01:56 PM
'I bet it just kills Chris Matthews that he can't talk about this topic.'
He's full of it, and so is Judy. They can talk about it, but for obvious reasons they don't want to.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 19, 2007 at 02:15 PM
Judge has dismissed Plame lawsuit, Fox reporting.
Posted by: Jane | July 19, 2007 at 02:54 PM
There is a 41 page opinion written by the judge. Now that will be an interesting read!
Posted by: ordi | July 19, 2007 at 03:04 PM
I just heard Plame's suit against Bush, et al was dismissed. I look forward to reading about that here.
Posted by: cfoster | July 19, 2007 at 03:14 PM
The judge in the Plame lawsuit must be PART OF THE CHENEY CONSPIRACY! Isn't it obvious?
Posted by: PaulL | July 19, 2007 at 03:15 PM
More on tossed Plame lawsuit.I say Hillary ,bad timing old girl.
Posted by: PeterUK | July 19, 2007 at 03:16 PM
Judge in Plame bullshit case calls her case "Bullshit". No doubt Joe Wilson will be along shortly to tell us all that Judge is a know nothing lowlife who is covering up for the soon to be impeached Dick Cheney, or some other such nonsense.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 03:17 PM
When can we expect Judge Walton's memorandum opinion on this ruling?
Posted by: Publius | July 19, 2007 at 03:17 PM
Judge in Plame bullshit case calls her case "Bullshit". No doubt Joe Wilson will be along shortly to tell us all that Judge is a know nothing lowlife who is covering up for the soon to be impeached Dick Cheney, or some other such nonsense.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 03:18 PM
N'iso:
arablinks.blogspot.com
=============
Posted by: kim | July 19, 2007 at 03:18 PM
--No doubt Joe Wilson will be along shortly to tell us all that Judge is a know nothing lowlife who is covering up for the soon to be impeached Dick Cheney, or some other such nonsense.--
Well a few weeks back he was bragging that Bate's wasn't buying defendants oral arguments.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | July 19, 2007 at 03:19 PM
Bearing and rearing children is disempowering? What utterly mad mod hogwash.
===========
Posted by: kim | July 19, 2007 at 03:19 PM
The syrup of figs and prune cocktail will be hitting moondatia any minute..NOW!
Posted by: PeterUK | July 19, 2007 at 03:20 PM
Publius
Walter left a link to it in Plame Day? thread - I think it was Plame Day thread
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | July 19, 2007 at 03:21 PM
Thanks for the heads up Topsecretk9, but I was looking for Judge Walton's opinion. He has one on everything dosen't he?
Posted by: Publius | July 19, 2007 at 03:28 PM
OH - sorry, I read too fast. Yes we should see a memo of footnotes any minute now.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | July 19, 2007 at 03:30 PM
the decision -
is https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52
Posted by: cfoster | July 19, 2007 at 03:33 PM
As I understand the Judge, he says the law says the sole and exclusive remedy available to the plaintiffs is the Tort Claims administrative claim process. Gosh I wonder why they did not avail themselves of this much cheaper process? Ohhhh, the book needed publicity. Check.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 03:51 PM
As I understand the Judge, he says the law says the sole and exclusive remedy available to the plaintiffs is the Tort Claims administrative claim process. Gosh I wonder why they did not avail themselves of this much cheaper process? Ohhhh, the book needed publicity. Check.
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Boy Publius, you nailed it about Judge Walton! (thanks for the laugh of the day!)
Posted by: centralcal | July 19, 2007 at 04:07 PM
More Plame jubilation
Posted by: PeterUK | July 19, 2007 at 04:14 PM
Brief timeout on the Plame down the Drain news.
I feel compelled to comment on Fred.
But Cecil earlier said exactly what I would have said.
Had I his eloquence.
Posted by: hit and run | July 19, 2007 at 04:23 PM
Even Carol Leonnig gets it:
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | July 19, 2007 at 04:33 PM
"I say Hillary, bad timing old girl."
My dear Mr Uk, the rapist's consort's appointment of Ambassador Munchausen may be more in reaction to his "psst, wanna see some pictures of Bongo Bill's real African Adventure?" comment to a campaign manager than to any perceived benefit with the nutroots. After all, Munchie's clame to fame was his success in making "arrangements" for that trip and "arrangements" is a word that covers the entire waterfront and, where Bill is concerned, the adjacent red light district.
Not that the Munchausen's would actually stoop to blackmail. Unless they had to, of course.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 19, 2007 at 04:40 PM
Mr Ballard,
Are you saying an ex-ambassador has been pssting in the ear of the wife of an ex-president?
What about protocol?
Posted by: PeterUK | July 19, 2007 at 05:04 PM
or on her boots all the while telling her it was "raining".
Posted by: Gmax | July 19, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Judges Bates and Walton both were appointed to the FISA Court by Supreme Court Chief Roberts. Maybe Bates and Walton can share their thoughts?
In reading Bates's decision, I wasn't sure whether he was accepting all of Wilson's lies about there being no Saddam interest in yellowcake and that Wilson recognized that the documents were forged, or if Bates was merely saying that was the way reporters had reported it.
Posted by: PaulL | July 19, 2007 at 05:32 PM
I wasn't sure whether he was accepting all of Wilson's lies
For the purpose of a 12(b)(6) motion the court presumes plaintiff's factual allegations are true and so the facts are likely a recitation from a plaintiff's brief.
Posted by: cfoster | July 19, 2007 at 05:54 PM
The Shrew from Crew, Melanie Sloan, said on Hardball today that this decision would be appealed to the SC, if necessary, to obtain justice.
Phwwet...
Posted by: everson | July 19, 2007 at 05:59 PM
Thanks, cfoster.
Posted by: PaulL | July 19, 2007 at 08:08 PM
Essentially the court says, "Even if everything the plaintiff says were true, she STILL did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted."
Posted by: cfoster | July 20, 2007 at 01:39 AM
Freds the best!
Posted by: Fred Thompson | August 03, 2007 at 07:38 PM