Fred Thompson - TRIAL ATTORNEY

Damocles said:
I'm amazed at the amount of negative to come out nearly immediately on a man who has barely announced his candidacy. Shoot, they're holding the pictures of Giuliani in drag for later... Why does the left fear this guy so much?
Click to expand...

What makes you think it's the left? Any hit jobs being done at this time, comes from within, you know that.

Who's holding the drag pics of Rudy? Not the left. Romney of course. And now, Thompson. Who is going to flood the bible belt with them before the R primaries? Not the left.

Who fears Thomspon right now? The left, or Mitt and Rudy?
 
Darla said:
What makes you think it's the left? Any hit jobs being done at this time, comes from within, you know that.

Who's holding the drag pics of Rudy? Not the left. Romney of course. And now, Thompson. Who is going to flood the bible belt with them before the R primaries? Not the left.

Who fears Thomspon right now? The left, or Mitt and Rudy?
Click to expand...
Ahh, I see. So the threads where the "right" are attacking HillBilly are lying bastages and should look to themselves?

I agree. However, all the stories that I have seen about Thompson being a trial attorney have him 'defending' himself against the people who are supposedly, in this thread, 'hypocrites' for not liking this....

Hmmm... I wonder where they got the statistical data for the poll of how many conservatives are ignoring those particular things?
 
Damocles said:
Ahh, I see. So the threads where the "right" are attacking HillBilly are lying bastages and should look to themselves?

I agree. However, all the stories that I have seen about Thompson being a trial attorney have him 'defending' himself against the people who are supposedly, in this thread, 'hypocrites' for not liking this....

Hmmm... I wonder where they got the statistical data for the poll of how many conservatives are ignoring those particular things?
Click to expand...

No, not threads, the news stories. They're being planted, they are always planted, and it always comes out later. Don't try telling me you don't know that. I mean, if I was talking to Topper, I'd believe it.

There are negative stories hitting the media about Thompson because he announced and both Mitt and Rudy consider him a threat. He is a threat. But not to the left yet. He'll be nice and soft by the time we get him. And oh, if it should only be Rudy, who will by then, be known as Rudella throughout the South, keeping the religious base home.

All to happen in the primaries.
 
Darla said:
No, not threads, the news stories. They're being planted, they are always planted, and it always comes out later. Don't try telling me you don't know that. I mean, if I was talking to Topper, I'd believe it.

There are negative stories hitting the media about Thompson because he announced and both Mitt and Rudy consider him a threat. He is a threat. But not to the left yet. He'll be nice and soft by the time we get him. And oh, if it should only be Rudy, who will by then, be known as Rudella throughout the South, keeping the religious base home.

All to happen in the primaries.
Click to expand...
I don't think Thompson will win. I don't worry at all about the whole "Rudella" thing either. I think that one will backfire, especially when he was doing it for charity. The one with him and his treatment of his wife may have some sticking power.
 
Damocles said:
I don't think Thompson will win. I don't worry at all about the whole "Rudella" thing either. I think that one will backfire, especially when he was doing it for charity. The one with him and his treatment of his wife may have some sticking power.
Click to expand...

He dressed up and played Rudella in Bloomies while Donald Trump nuzzled his bosoms (and I really am getting naseous just writing that, the ech factor is huge, and I"m a east coast liberal) for charity?

I think Thompson could win, because all of the religious righties that I know, and they vote in the primaries...he's their guy. I don't know why, I think it's process of elimination. I mean, you have the three times married cross dresser, and the Mormon.
 
Jarod said:
Who else knew Fred Thompson made his money as a trail attorney?

I want to see how many people who attacked John Edwards for having the same profession will now support Fred Thompson!
Click to expand...

All the republicans plus a few more fools will support Thompson.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why not? The lawyers pick their clients, it's not like "Oops, it turned out I represented a monster" They know the accusations beforehand on what they are being convicted of.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait just a minute... aren't the dems all about providing legal council for the terrorists in Gitmo?

That said, there is no way Thompson would ever get my vote.
 
Jarod said:
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.
Click to expand...

Funny, because most conservatives (especially those with strong religious convictions) I have met would applaud the fact of him and his wife having kids regardless of age. Not once have I ever encountered a conservative saying that someone was too old to have kids. I think you are making this shit up.
 
Superfreak said:
Wait just a minute... aren't the dems all about providing legal council for the terrorists in Gitmo?

That said, there is no way Thompson would ever get my vote.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that it is un-American to withhold legal representation from anyone, and many if not all of the prisoners in gitmo aren't terrorists.

I feel that accepting a client who resides in Libya, and not America, who blew up an airliner, is a bit beyond the pale though. Personally, I would have turned down the money, but I'd represent those charged and held without trial (clearly un-American) in Gitmo, for free. Not least because they are on American soil and didn't blow up anything. But that's a personal feeling, which we are all going to differ on.

What cannot be debated, and will not be debated is that when you run on a platform of vote for me, because if you vote for them they will let the terrorists get away, and meanwhile, you have been providing legal counseling for people who blew up a civilian aircraft, then that is unacceptable. It's my opinion that whoever runs against him, whether within the r primary, or in the general were he nominated, should just run excerpts from the Times article, Thompson's picture, and the word Unacceptable in red stamped across it.

If I were running the Rudy campaign, who he is a threat to, that is the commercial I would be drawing up right now.
 
Superfreak said:
Funny, because most conservatives (especially those with strong religious convictions) I have met would applaud the fact of him and his wife having kids regardless of age. Not once have I ever encountered a conservative saying that someone was too old to have kids. I think you are making this shit up.
Click to expand...

Why am I not suprised that the Independent "I'm not a republican"-SF, gallops into the defense of thomspon? ;)


I don't care about the kid thing. I do know Thompson is a well known womanizer, who doesn't practice the abstinence-only crap that his Con base preaches.


The Tennessee stud: U.S. presidential candidate Fred Thompson's womanising ways

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=480740&in_page_id=1811&in_a_source=
 
Superfreak said:
Funny, because most conservatives (especially those with strong religious convictions) I have met would applaud the fact of him and his wife having kids regardless of age. Not once have I ever encountered a conservative saying that someone was too old to have kids. I think you are making this shit up.
Click to expand...

It sounds like a woman thing.

there are certainly women who will say that, whether in church or out of it.
 
Cypress said:
Why am I not suprised that the Independent "I'm not a republican"-SF, gallops into the defense of thomspon? ;)


I don't care about the kid thing. I do know Thompson is a well known womanizer, who doesn't practice the abstinence-only crap that his Con base preaches.


The Tennessee stud: U.S. presidential candidate Fred Thompson's womanising ways

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...rticle_id=480740&in_page_id=1811&in_a_source=
Click to expand...

Sometimes what I really can't get over, is that some of these guys can get enough women to be "womanizers". You've got to be kidding me, hello? He looks like a bulldog folks!
 
"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."

Lets read that carefully now... ANOTHER lawyer was providing counsel to the Libyan lawyer... NOT Thompson. Thompson is said to have held "discussions" with that other lawyer with regards to Libya. Do we have any idea what those discussions entailed? For all we know at this point those discussions could have been Thompson telling Culver that it was a bad idea to take on that case.

That said, as I already stated, Thompson won't be getting my vote regardless of this story.
 
Darla said:
Sometimes what I really can't get over, is that some of these guys can get enough women to be "womanizers". You've got to be kidding me, hello? He looks like a bulldog folks!
Click to expand...


He's like 60 years old, but looks like he's going on 75. I have no idea why Chris Mathews and other NeoCons think this guy is some kind of sex idol.
 
Superfreak said:
"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."

Lets read that carefully now... ANOTHER lawyer was providing counsel to the Libyan lawyer... NOT Thompson. Thompson is said to have held "discussions" with that other lawyer with regards to Libya. Do we have any idea what those discussions entailed? For all we know at this point those discussions could have been Thompson telling Culver that it was a bad idea to take on that case.

That said, as I already stated, Thompson won't be getting my vote regardless of this story.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so, it was billable hours, and if that was what he advised, the law firm would have said so because they were desperately trying to save his ass on this. You can see that in the story. Instead they said that it was only natural because "Mr. Thompson’s background as a former prosecutor, as well as his government relations experience — he had close ties to senior officials in the first Bush administration — “gave him insight on jurisdictional issues such as that.”

I think this can hurt him. We'll see, because if it can, you'll see Rudy and/or Mitt riding it hard.
 
Darla said:
No, I don't think so, it was billable hours, and if that was what he advised, the law firm would have said so because they were desperately trying to save his ass on this. You can see that in the story. Instead they said that it was only natural because "Mr. Thompson’s background as a former prosecutor, as well as his government relations experience — he had close ties to senior officials in the first Bush administration — “gave him insight on jurisdictional issues such as that.”

I think this can hurt him. We'll see, because if it can, you'll see Rudy and/or Mitt riding it hard.
Click to expand...

"who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, briefly provided Mr. Culver with advice about the suspects’ case, billing the firm for 3.3 hours of his time. "

Ok, so he billed 3.3 hours... which means he probably had about 15 minutes in real time of providing advice. Even if it was a real 3.3 hours... this is ridiculous to even try to make this an issue. It will likely blow up on whomever tries to make it an issue.

"The firm was hired to provide guidance on the tense questions surrounding where the two men should be tried, Mr. Fleischaker said, and Mr. Thompson’s background as a former prosecutor, as well as his government relations experience — he had close ties to senior officials in the first Bush administration — “gave him insight on jurisdictional issues such as that.”"

Ok... so the firm was hired to provide guidence on WHERE they should be tried?
 
Superfreak said:
"who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, briefly provided Mr. Culver with advice about the suspects’ case, billing the firm for 3.3 hours of his time. "

Ok, so he billed 3.3 hours... which means he probably had about 15 minutes in real time of providing advice. Even if it was a real 3.3 hours... this is ridiculous to even try to make this an issue. It will likely blow up on whomever tries to make it an issue.

"The firm was hired to provide guidance on the tense questions surrounding where the two men should be tried, Mr. Fleischaker said, and Mr. Thompson’s background as a former prosecutor, as well as his government relations experience — he had close ties to senior officials in the first Bush administration — “gave him insight on jurisdictional issues such as that.”"

Ok... so the firm was hired to provide guidence on WHERE they should be tried?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the victims families wanted them tried in the United States.

I just don't see how, in an election that the R's will attempt to make Terrorism the number one issue, if only because they can't make it the only issue, that this could be a non-issue. Let's see who has better political instincts SF.
 
Darla said:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the victims families wanted them tried in the United States.

I just don't see how, in an election that the R's will attempt to make Terrorism the number one issue, if only because they can't make it the only issue, that this could be a non-issue. Let's see who has better political instincts SF.
Click to expand...

Well, that would be me. YOU seem to think the boar would have a shot at winning. Talk about being politically naive. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top