Again, had Fred actually denied the charge, this thread would not be in existence.
1) Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo told the Times in an e-mail: “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period.”
2) On Thursday, Corallo offered a less sweeping comment about Thompson and the group: “He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.”
Ignoring the editorializing at the start of #2, these statements are not in conflict with each other. The first statement, that Thompson never lobbied for the group, is absolutely true -- not even the Clinton operatives dredging up this bogus story claim that he actually performed any lobbying (they try to imply it, but even they don't go as far as to claim it explicitly).
The statement in #2 is more ambiguous, because it is much, much broader. Doing "any work" covers the type of advice described several times in this thread. It is possible that he did provide this type of quick consult, but that he does not remember ever having done so. He does not flat-out deny it, because it could have happened, and if documentation to that effect does happen to turn up and there's a flat denial, then that's a gotcha, even though it's otherwise a complete non-issue.
But the denial on doing any actual lobbying work was made, has not been retracted, and is confirmed by all of the other principal players.
That's why your objections are silly -- they are based on nonsense and not the facts at hand. Good lord, when did FReepers start accepting the LA Times and Clinton operatives at face value?
That article contains no new information that we didn’t have yesterday. It’s a rehash with a slant that the anti-Freds like.