Fred Thompson - TRIAL ATTORNEY

froggie said:
Why is this always the lame come back when the media posts the point of interest about a candidate?

News like the Lockerbee defense should come out when this candidate wants us to stay the course in Iraq and he is big on terrorism. He seems to be talking out both sides of his face!
Click to expand...

How is this of interest froggie? That he provided 3.3 billed hours of legal advice on Jurisidiction issues? THAT is an issue?
 
Darla said:
I did? I'm laughing right now, but I can't believe I would have. I have claimed to be a lot of things though, just to be annoying, so it's possible. Oh that is so funny.

No, Italian/Irish.
Click to expand...

Well, that makes more sense, especially given your name... :)
 
froggie said:
Why is this always the lame come back when the media posts the point of interest about a candidate?

News like the Lockerbee defense should come out when this candidate wants us to stay the course in Iraq and he is big on terrorism. He seems to be talking out both sides of his face!
Click to expand...
What come back? I have been against Thompson before he ever came out. It only took me long enough to know his support and his pressure to run come from the same supporters of Bush to know he wasn't the candidate for me.
 
Jarod said:
So its somehow less hypocitical to fight against something if you have made your welth off it!
Click to expand...
Who said anything about hypocritical? That was you. I just don't agree with trial lawyers that fight against tort reform when it so clearly has become a problem (ie: skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates putting doctors out of business and increasing cost to the rest of us).

Look Alex, you know me, I'm about the last person to argue for more regulations even on places I despise like Hollywood for instance. But there is no free market deciding here, there is a courtroom with a judge and/or jury that simply awards based on whatever they FEEL like, not based on economics or what can be absorbed or what is or a mass market of regular citizens. If I launch a stupid lawsuit for whatever I feel like against Enron in San Francisco, I have a very high chance of receving a very high award due to prevailing anti-corporate hate.
How do you deal with that? Anti-capitalists in anti-Capitalist cities should not be rewarded with ridiculous awards for next to nothing at the expense of the rest of us.
It's about the only area I can argue for more regulation.
 
Superfreak said:
I know you did not, but you implied that we wouldn't have a problem with Thompson being a trial lawyer. I was informing you that you are incorrect. While that is not the only reason I would not vote for him, it is one of them.
Click to expand...



Let me ask you, if it were a very close election between THompson and Clinton who would you vote for?
 
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, because there is no proof that those in GITMO are guilty! It seems we have let quite a few of them go home with no trial.

You have to be careful of your past when you run for President. Representing terrorist and trying to war on them don't match up...in my opinion.
 
Jarod said:
Let me ask you, if it were a very close election between THompson and Clinton who would you vote for?
Click to expand...

A third party. I would not waste my vote on either of the two. Thompson is too far to the right socially and Clinton to far to the left econmically for me to justify voting for either. If I were FORCED to pick between just those two, then it would be Thompson.... the tie breaker would be my extreme dislike of the Clintons and the fact that we have had enough of the Clinton/Bush reign.
 
Darla said:
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.
Click to expand...


I bet they are! They use the Rove technique, go after his strong points!
 
Jarod said:
Let me ask you, if it were a very close election between THompson and Clinton who would you vote for?
Click to expand...


Groan...who ever else is running, the vote has already been decided by the time Alaska votes, anyway!
 
froggie said:
Yes, because there is no proof that those in GITMO are guilty! It seems we have let quite a few of them go home with no trial.

You have to be careful of your past when you run for President. Representing terrorist and trying to war on them don't match up...in my opinion.
Click to expand...

1) He did not represent the terrorist. He provided jurisdictional advice to the lawyer that was representing the libyan lawyer that was representing the terrorists. A far stretch to say he represented the terrorists.

2) When you are talking about something that occured over a decade ago, you also have to allow for changes in opinion. I am sure many peoples views on terrorists changed after 9/11.
 
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...


Money, money, money and fame!
 
Damocles said:
What come back? I have been against Thompson before he ever came out. It only took me long enough to know his support and his pressure to run come from the same supporters of Bush to know he wasn't the candidate for me.
Click to expand...

"Why does the left fear this guy so much?" lame!
 
Superfreak said:
1) He did not represent the terrorist. He provided jurisdictional advice to the lawyer that was representing the libyan lawyer that was representing the terrorists. A far stretch to say he represented the terrorists.

2) When you are talking about something that occured over a decade ago, you also have to allow for changes in opinion. I am sure many peoples views on terrorists changed after 9/11.
Click to expand...

You are not seriously thinking that a thing like this can be nuanced in a campaign? Oh, I didn't provide advice to the actualy terrorist, but only to their attorney!

I don't know, I think this has legs.
 
Superfreak said:
A third party. I would not waste my vote on either of the two. Thompson is too far to the right socially and Clinton to far to the left econmically for me to justify voting for either. If I were FORCED to pick between just those two, then it would be Thompson.... the tie breaker would be my extreme dislike of the Clintons and the fact that we have had enough of the Clinton/Bush reign.
Click to expand...

Well, I can respect that. How is Thompson too far right for you socially?
 
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...


Right, Thompson was telling him all those many hours not to take the case, keep on believing that. My mother always told me, you are judge by the company you keep. If Edwards gets a black eye for working for a lender whose practices may not have been good for Americans, then Thompson gets a black eye for counseling the counselor of those who blew up a plane full of people!
 
Darla said:
You are not seriously thinking that a thing like this can be nuanced in a campaign? Oh, I didn't provide advice to the actualy terrorist, but only to their attorney!

I don't know, I think this has legs.
Click to expand...

I agree! If they can make a war hero like Kerry into a cut and run egotist, Imagine what they can do with Thompson.

The problem is the same people who swift-boated Kerry are now working for Thompson!
 
Darla said:
You are not seriously thinking that a thing like this can be nuanced in a campaign? Oh, I didn't provide advice to the actualy terrorist, but only to their attorney!

I don't know, I think this has legs.
Click to expand...

He provide advice to an attorney who was providing advice to the terrorists attorneys on JURISDICTION issues.

so yeah, I don't this this dog will hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top