Here we go again with this BS hit piece . This makes about the sixth time today this has been posted . Will you post it again tomorrow as well ?
The DUmmies are scared to death of Fred.
Hillary behind story of Fred Thompson lobbying for abortion:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1862148/posts
Of course there is also the lil form he filled out but who cares..HE IS THE NEW REAGAN!!! RIGHT? RIGHT?
So if they are lying about that, what do you think the odds are that they are lying about the whole thing? The whole TANG fiasco with President Bush shows the left is very willing to manufacture documents to support their claims.
YOUR WELCOME!!!!
Previous posts by the RG fan club...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862195/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862152/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862152/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1862148/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1861995/posts
He already has. Do a FR search on Thompson and abortion. Read what’s out there.
The RATS are really, really running scared of FRed. Hasn’t even announced yet and he’s being treated as a serious contender. I bet FRed has a big grin on his face. I bet he eats this up!
It’s to easy for FRed, I’m alive am I not!
I know Michael Finnegan. I have to work with Michael Finnegan. Michael Finnegan does not BREAK stories -- especially in campaigns. He re-types reports handed to him by liberal Democrat operatives. This whole thing stinks.
I was hired to wash a car today. That doesn’t mean I like cars or washing them. Just means I have to earn a living, and today I earned it washing a car.
that’s it ? that’s your best shot on Fred ?
This charge should be easy enough to prove one way or the other. Family Planning can sign a release to Thompson, and he can request Family Planning bank records to see if Family Planning paid him. Also, his Lobbying firm can produce records of what he worked on during that period of time (they bill like lawyers, don’t they, work is tracked by client?).
Isn’t this the way the left attacked Clarence Thomas? Some skank erupted out of the ooze and pointed a slime-dripping finger with no proof. All the evidence was against her and still the media said she was believable.
Isn’t this the way the left attacked Ahhnold when he ran for governor? Some skank erupted out of the ooze and pointed a slime-dripping finger with no proof. She had no evidence, and he said it was so long ago he didn’t remember her.
Do I see a pattern?
No, he doesn’t. The burden of proof is on the “family planning” group, which hasn’t presented any billing records or cancelled checks. That’s the only way they can say with any credibility that Fred did any work for them. The minutes from a meeting where DeSarno SAYS she hired Fred don’t quite rise to the level of convincing proof.
This kind of crap is to be expected of liberal Democrats who donated to Hillary’s campaign, but to see Duncan Hunter’s alleged supporters so willing to side with them in their attempted smear of Fred makes me want to throw up. You guys really are pieces of work.
“This matters, of course, because Thompson has been wooing the anti-abortion activists and social conservatives so important to winning the Republican nomination. They’re on the jury.
If this story gains legs, that increases Thompson’s challenge in winning over that group.”
Hardly. Seems they’ve got a litany of excuses for justifying every unacceptable red flag that pops up about Fred Thompson, just exactly doing like the Rudybots did.
The chutpah of the mainstream media, Weaseldom, is mouth-dropping.
The only target of such malicious tripe is the Conservative base.
But the loyal and inspired base of Thompson will instead take down the House of Weaseldom.
Ask Dan Rather and CBS news about us.
Chicago Tribune, you Communist mutherphuckers, you are next.
Anti-Thompson Campaign By Hillary Donors
An interesting question came to me from CQ reader Adam W regarding the Los Angeles Times' story about Fred Thompson and his supposed work for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in 1991. The only evidence of this work comes from a copy of the NFPRHA's board minutes from September 14, 1991 that claims that the group had hired "Fred Thompson, Esq. as counsel to aid us in discussions with the administration" to end the rule barring abortion counseling at clinics that received federal funds. A couple of the group's principals swear that they hired Thompson; Thompson denies working for them, and the man whom Fred would have had to meet categorically states that he never discussed the gag rule with Fred at all.
Now a new bit of indirect evidence has been found. Arent Fox brought Thompson into the firm to be "of counsel" in 1991 for his expertise in their lobbying business, including the representation of foreign governments. Anyone involved in such lobbying has to register with the Foreign Agent Registration Unit at the Department of Justice. Arent Fox filed its registration for its lobbyists, complete with the listings of all its lobbyists -- including their start and termination dates.
Take a look at registrant #2661 in the FARA search system (unfortunately, the results are unlinkable). Fred D. Thompson, according to their records, starts as a lobbyist for foreign business on 10/10/1991 and terminates on 9/17/1993, which is when he decided to run for the remainder of Al Gore's term in the Senate. That gives some indication that Thompson started lobbying for Arent in October and not September of 1991. It's possible that Arent had limited Thompson to lobbying for domestic clients until October, but that seems rather odd, given their desire to have him on board as a major attraction for DC lobbying.
I'd be interested to know when he started lobbying for Arent -- with an exact date. This implies that Thompson wouldn't have been available to the NFPRHA in Septemer 1991, and make the document on which the Times based its entire story somewhat suspect.
All of the so-called "witnesses" that just "learned contemporaneously" of an act would not be witnesses. Rather they would be giving hearsay evidence, and would be laughed out of court. This is exactly the case with this matter. Some pro-abortionist made an unsubstantiated claim about Thompson, and a few started repeating it.
This charge against Thompson comes from the left. Why are conservatives repeating it? It doesn't have legs.