Fred Thompson - TRIAL ATTORNEY
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Jarod, did you see this? I posted this yesterday, it was buried on page 31 of the NY Times:
Thompson Linked to Work for Libyans
By JO BECKER
A little over three years after Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, Fred D. Thompson provided advice to a colleague about one of his law firm’s new clients: The man representing the two Libyan intelligence officials charged in the terrorist bombing.
The colleague, John Culver, a partner at the Washington firm of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn began advising the two suspects’ Libyan lawyer in February 1992. Mr. Thompson, according to a memorandum from that era written by his secretary, held “discussions with Culver re: Libya” that same month.
At the time, Libya was facing international outrage for refusing to comply with a United Nations demand that the two suspects be extradited to the West for trial in the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people. Revelations that American firms were representing Libyan interests provoked a furor among the Pan Am victims’ families. Some law firms refused to represent the country or the suspects, while others withdrew
Thompson Linked to Work for Libyans
By JO BECKER
A little over three years after Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, Fred D. Thompson provided advice to a colleague about one of his law firm’s new clients: The man representing the two Libyan intelligence officials charged in the terrorist bombing.
The colleague, John Culver, a partner at the Washington firm of Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn began advising the two suspects’ Libyan lawyer in February 1992. Mr. Thompson, according to a memorandum from that era written by his secretary, held “discussions with Culver re: Libya” that same month.
At the time, Libya was facing international outrage for refusing to comply with a United Nations demand that the two suspects be extradited to the West for trial in the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people. Revelations that American firms were representing Libyan interests provoked a furor among the Pan Am victims’ families. Some law firms refused to represent the country or the suspects, while others withdrew
Let me go on the record as saying, I have no problem with any of this. I am merely pointing it out to illistrate the hypocracy of the Republicans who use these same type of things to smear Democratic canidates every day.
Lets see how and if its used against Senator Thompson.
Lets see how and if its used against Senator Thompson.
How would you know that the anecdotal story of those "upset at his church" were all conservatives? Did you go in and poll them on their political ideology?
Its just what my uncle told me, and it is a VERY conservative church, one of those that is very politically active.
I have a big problem with the Lockerbie thing. First of all, it's just a little bit beyond the pale. And secondly, these sob's are calling dems soft on terror, and saying if you want to be safe and win the war on terror (whatever that means), you have to vote for them? and in the meantime, they are providing the terrorists with legal counsel! Unacceptable! Period. Unacceptable.
I agree they are HYPOCRATES, but I just dont belive a lawyer should be attacked for his clients. Everyone should have access to legal representation.
So he said, "Well, these conservatives at my church are upset at me for having children!"
If the entire church is 'very conservative' then there must be other 'conservatives' at his church that are not upset with him for having children late. That isn't one of the big conservative issues there, it is sadly anecdotal and very cheesy.
Now, what is Thompson's stance on litigation limits?
1) He told me it was the core group that was politically active, the very conservative group. It is just antidotal, but to me its consistant with the behavyor of social conservatives.
2) I dont know Thompson's stance on tort reform, I would like to know, but thats not what this thread is about. This thread is about the hypocritical nature of political attacks that have come from the Conservative side lately!
I'm having far more fun poking at the anecdotal story about conservatives against people having more kids. I have never seen such a group.
Its not conservatives against people having more kids. (you have changed the intent of the story.) Its about conservatives telling senior citizins they should not be having more children. They seem to belive that there is a proper age to have kids and an age that is inproper! I personally do not agree.
I haven't met these people. When people who have wives die on them, among the conservatives that I know, there seems to be a push for them to get married and have more kids, even at an advanced age.
I haven't met this group, but it is certainly not indicative of all "conservatives". This anecdotal story shouldn't be used to promote the 'hypocrisy' of any party.
Very little is indicative of "all" conservatives or even "all" liberals for that matter!