Fred Thompson: Obstructing Justice Or Just Plain Dumb?

by hilzoy

I've always agreed with Kevin Drum that the rise of Fred Thompson's candidacy is "a measure of GOP desperation." After all, Thompson has essentially no record as a Senator, spent the rest of his time lobbying for "for a savings-and-loan deregulation bill that helped hasten the industry's collapse[,] a failed nuclear energy project that cost taxpayers more than a billion dollars", and "a British reinsurance company that wanted to limit its liability from asbestos lawsuits"; and ran a PAC that spent $70,000 on political campaigns and $170,000 on payments to his son -- one of two sons who discovered callings as lobbyists after their father's election as Senator. (One had previously been a Xerox salesman, the other a landscaper.)

And then, of course, there's his authenticity, symbolized by the red pickup truck he made a point of driving throughout his Senate campaign:

"Finishing his talk, Thompson shakes a few hands, then walks out with the rest of the crowd to the red pickup truck he made famous during his 1994 Senate campaign. My friend stands talking with her colleagues as the senator is driven away by a blond, all-American staffer. A few minutes later, my friend gets into her car to head home. As she pulls up to the stop sign at the parking lot exit, rolling up to the intersection is Senator Thompson, now behind the wheel of a sweet silver luxury sedan. He gives my friend a slight nod as he drives past. Turning onto the main road, my friend passes the school's small, side parking area. Lo and behold: There sits the abandoned red pickup, along with the all-American staffer."

But now it turns out that Thompson was also a Nixon mole on the Watergate Committee. From the Boston Globe:

"The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.

Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.

"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was." (...)

When Thompson learned of Butterfield's admission [that there was a white house taping system], he leaked the revelation to Nixon's counsel, J. Fred Buzhardt .

"Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decided to call Fred Buzhardt at home" to tell him that the committee had learned about the taping system, Thompson wrote. "I wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action."

Armstrong said he and other Democratic staffers had long been convinced that Thompson was leaking information about the investigation to the White House. The committee, for example, had obtained a memo written by Buzhardt that Democratic staffers believed was based on information leaked by Thompson.

Armstrong said he thought the leaks would lead to Thompson's firing. "Any prosecutor would be upset if another member of the prosecution team was orchestrating a defense for Nixon," said Armstrong, who later became a Washington Post reporter and currently is executive director of Information Trust, a nonprofit organization specializing in open government issues."

And why did he call Nixon's counsel to inform him that the Committee knew about the tapes? "Thompson, in his 1975 memoir, wrote that he believed "there would be nothing incriminating" about Nixon on the tapes, a theory he said "proved totally wrong.""

Think about this for a minute. A committee conducting an investigation into serious charges learns that there is crucial evidence concerning the crimes they are investigating. A lawyer on that committee then takes it upon himself to inform the lawyer of the person being investigated of this discovery. That's crazy, and it's just plain wrong. It gives the person being investigated a chance to destroy or alter the evidence -- for instance, by erasing 18 1/2 minutes of one of the tapes.

The very best possible spin that you can put on it is that the lawyer who did this was very, very trusting, very, very dumb, and wholly unprofessional. In this case, we'd probably have to add: very ambitious, and willing to but ambition ahead of principle and professionalism. The worst interpretation, of course, is that he was participating in the obstruction of justice. In neither case, however, should he be President. Especially not now, when we need someone who will at least try to restore people's trust in the rule of law and the basic fairness of our institutions.

Comments

[Crust]

This is certainly of a piece with Thompson's advocacy for Libby's pardon, even to the point of holding a fundraiser in his own home for a man he didn't know before the controversy.

I assume the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice has long since run out?

[hilzoy]

Crust: I don't know, but I would assume so. I wasn't thinking of this as a prosecutable offense, more of another in a series of reasons why this guy should not be President. Not that the rest of the Republicans strike me as worthy of being President either, with the exception of McCain and Tommy Thompson. And (as the inclusion of McCain should make clear) the test here isn't whether I agree with them; it's whether I think they meet basic, basic threshholds, like not being nuts, having some basic level of competence, and also some tiny shred of character. Not spectacular virtue, just that bare minimum of character needed not to tip off the person you're allegedly investigating, and stuff like that.

[zmulls]

But he was so honest in THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. And he was in uniform.

[A.L.]

Hil, I was thinking the same thing when I read that article. Though there would be no way to prove it, isn't the most plausible inference that Thompson was attempting to give the White House the opportunity destroy or alter incriminating evidence? The image that instantly popped into my head was Matt Damon's character in The Departed calling "Dad" to let him know what the police department was up to.

[Batocchio]

I need to break out my copy of the PBS special Watergate: Thirty Years Later again. Thompson comes off as a loyalist running some interference there, but not an active mole. The detail in this article is pretty damning. I want to see Thompson grilled on this relentlessly.

[Your Kidding?]

You mentioned that Republicans are desperate by picking Fred Thompson, and that he has "no record" as a Senator.

LOL

All three of your Democrats leaders have great Senate records?

What has Hillary done in the Senate? Where's her crowning achievement?

How about Edwards? LOL!

Or Obama, who after only 2 years in the Senate, yet he's ready to be President!

Where are their big records?

Thanks for the softball guys. That was too easy. ;)

[liberal japonicus]

Given that Thompson has presented no policy initiatives I'm aware of, and has seemingly placed himself on the wrong side of the issues he has spoken about, coupled with the behavior as a lobbyist and on the Watergate investigation, I think you're kidding, Your Kidding.

[Chris Matthews]

Obstruction of justice shmobstruction of justice. Look at those sideburns! (thud)

[Katherine]

oops. That was me, and I screwed up the html...hopefully this'll fix it.

[Gromit]

Your Kidding (or should that be My Kidding?), We've had quite a few imminently qualified presidents who had no experience in the Senate whatsoever (and a couple of unqualified ones, to be sure). Nothing in Hilzoy's comment suggested that Thompson's lackluster Senate record alone rendered him a candidate of desperation, as you would appear to infer. She did talk about, you know, some other stuff in the post, as well.

[Anderson]

Well, we now know why Thompson is so adamant that politicos shouldn't be jailed for obstruction of justice.

[Anderson]

Why no link to the Boston Globe article in the post?

[hilzoy]

Anderson: would you believe sheer stupidity? (But not obstruction of justice!)

Thanks; I'll fix it now.

[LFC]

Hey, "Your Kidding". Maybe you should look back at this Obsidian Wings post from back in October. Sounds like Obama actually has a pretty decent record.

Of course, Cheney and Rumsfeld were experienced, and look at their accomplishments in the Bush administration. Rudy was experienced enough to put and emergency command center in the only building in NYC that was ever a terrorist target. And who knows what Flip Flopney stands for at any given moment.

[Davis X. Machina]

Fred is qualified to be AG, though. His heads-up to the Nixon White House is more than vaguely reminiscent of this:

And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday sent a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card asking for an explanation of the so called "12 hour gap." That refers to the length of time it took then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to inform White House staffers that the federal investigation was about to begin -- and that all documents pertaining to the leak of Valerie Plame's name should be retained.

The night he learned about the impending investigation, Gonzales told only Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Gonzales says he waited until morning to let other White House officials know, since most of them had gone home.

Democrats are suggesting that Gonzales' 12-hour delay in informing Bush administration officials was calculated to give them time to destroy documents.

.

Fred was a man ahead of his time...

[cleek]

Fred was a man ahead of his time

or... Gonzales isn't even novel in his treachery.

[CaseyL]

Fred was a man ahead of his time

or... Gonzales isn't even novel in his treachery.

Am I the only one hereabouts who remembers Mr. Law 'N Order Edwin Meese (famous for saying that trials weren't really always necessary, since a suspect wouldn't be a suspect if he wasn't guilty) calling Ollie North 12 hours before the Senate Investigators arrived to clean out his Iran-Contra documents?

Am I the only one hereabouts who remembers North boasting about sneaking out incriminating documents in Fawn Hall's underwear?

[Jesurgislac]

In neither case, however, should he be President.

Yeah, but without any system of ensuring honest elections where every vote is counted, how are you going to stop him, if that's who the GOP want to be President?

[OCSteve]

Hilzoy: I still consider him viable at this point – you have months though to convince me otherwise (and you have before). It may well be desperation but corruption-wise there is little you can hang on him that I can’t come back with worse on the D side. Does that make him a good candidate? No. The one on my side that sux the least. So far…

[Doug H.]

Yeah, but without any system of ensuring honest elections where every vote is counted, how are you going to stop him, if that's who the GOP want to be President?

The GOP wanted Ken Blackwell to be governor of Ohio, and look how well that turned out for them.

[Doug H.]

I still consider him viable at this point – you have months though to convince me otherwise (and you have before).

I'm not Hilzoy, but I can at least offer you this question: What would Thompson do in office that would be any different than what Bush has done?

[hilzoy]

Well, I am hilzoy, so I'll bite: are you (OCSteve) saying that each of the Democrats has done something as bad as this? As bad as all the things I listed? I mean, it wouldn't mean much if there were one Democrat who had, but the others were pure as the driven snow; then you could just vote for one of those other Democrats and be happy.

If you do mean that each has done something this bad -- as bad as tipping off the object of one of the most serious political investigations of the last century about the discovery of potentially damning evidence, which the person being investigated still had access to, and could thus still destroy or alter -- then what is the analogous thing about Obama?

[Jesurgislac]

Doug: The GOP wanted Ken Blackwell to be governor of Ohio, and look how well that turned out for them.

The GOP wanted the Ohio electoral college votes for George W. Bush, and look how well that turned out for them.

[cw]

The GOP wanted Ken Blackwell to be governor of Ohio, and look how well that turned out for them.

I still remember several days before the vote, when Blackwell mentioned they were trying to get the vote within the margin of error. And then something about getting the final vote over the top. I'm still trying to come up with some explanation, other than the possibilities of fraud, for a candidate caring about the vote being within the margin of error. Blackwell was, remember, the Secretary of State at the time, in charge of the election.

As it turned out, the governor's vote was not within the margin of error. The amount of fraud needed to swing that election would have had to have been massive, probably beyond anyone's capability to hide it.

I can't comment on any possibilities for Ohio's presidential race; I was out of the country at the time, only hearing about Bush's victory a week later.

[Phil]

The GOP wanted the Ohio electoral college votes for George W. Bush, and look how well that turned out for them.

Uh, they probably wanted all of them, but to my recollection did not receive them.

[OutSourced]

Imagine if Fred Thompson had been an AUSA in Manhattan working on a Gotti-like case. He learns that his boss knows that a mob boss has audio tapes going back years, covering all his most secret meetings and orders to his chief lieutenants. These may well include orders to lie, cheat, steal and murder.

Imagine also that AUSA Fred Thompson calls up said mob boss' lawyers and tells them his boss knows about the tapes and is about to storm the mob boss' home with a subpoena and collect them.

Would Fred be guilty of violating his oath of office? Guilty of having violated his code of ethics as a lawyer? Guilty of ostructing justice by knowing that his information will be used by the target of a federal investigation to destroy vital evidence that is likely to lead to the target's conviction?

If Fred Thompson is still a lawyer, he should be disbarred. If the statute of limitations hasn't passed, he should be investigated, and if convicted, given at least Irving Lewis Libby's thirty months, or better yet, the national average sentence for obstruction in a federal case - seventy months. (So much for Shrub's claim that Irving Lewsi Libby's sentence was "excessive".)

Or was Fred a DC lobbyist for eighteen years because he could do all those things and get away with them?

[Jesurgislac]

Uh, they probably wanted all of them, but to my recollection did not receive them.

No, all 20 of Ohio's electoral college votes went to George W. Bush. (In case my recollection was wrong, I looked it up; there was a challenge, but it was overturned.)

[Phil]

Um, I think you read it wrong. "All of them" = "All of them in the US." And since I already know what you're going to reply with, I've looked up the state-by-state popular vote totals and will have followup questions.

[OCSteve]

are you (OCSteve) saying that each of the Democrats has done something as bad as this?

No – I don’t know what I’m saying actually. It just seems like the media etc. have been trying hard to come up with whatever they can on Thompson before he officially gets in the race. He dated a lot of women, check out that look he gave his wife, etc. I think it’s safe to assume he will be an official candidate, but he is not yet.
Not being a lawyer, I’m not certain how serious this might be. I mean at some point the defense side has to be informed of such things right? And why weren’t the tapes just completely destroyed?

If we’re going to go back more than 30 years to find whatever dirt we can on candidates then most would fair poorly. You can find questionable stuff in anyone’s past if you go back far enough.

[Jesurgislac]

No – I don’t know what I’m saying actually. It just seems like the media etc. have been trying hard to come up with whatever they can on Thompson before he officially gets in the race.

Perhaps I'm just being terribly British about this, but isn't that the media's job?

If we’re going to go back more than 30 years to find whatever dirt we can on candidates then most would fair poorly.

Oh, I don't know. Go back 30 years to 2004 for John Kerry, and there was so little dirt to find that his right-wing detractors had to make whole stinking barrelfuls of it up. Go back 30 years for George W. Bush, and there's nothing but dirt.

People do vary. Some people genuinely do lead decent, worthwhile lives, and their detractors just have to invent bad stuff. Some people genuinely do have dirty backgrounds.

[Hartmut]

It is also a question about what kind of dirt can be found. A collection of speeding tickets but without accidents vs. repeated DUI. Pot in college vs. shady financial deals. Hunting (for food) without permit vs. notorious cruelty towards animals etc. (no targeting of specific candidates here). Some dirt (even with noting strictly illegal involved) may allow an insight into the character even when long ago, other things may not (the great tomato theft from neighbour's garden at age 10).

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: I am not a lawyer, so other people can correct me, but I think that while the other side does have to be informed if you have exculpatory evidence, in a case like this, the normal route would be to inform them by issuing a subpoena, violation of which would be against the law. You certainly don't have to tell the other side about the evidence in advance of making any arrangements to make sure they don't destroy it, which is what Thompson did.

Plus, note that by his own account, he acted on his own, without any authorization.

Personally, I could not care less about his dating history. But this is not something any evil press person made up; it's something he wrote in his own book. (In 1975, presumably long before he was thinking of running for President.)

The media are supposed to scurry around looking at the histories of the various candidates. In a perfect world, they would not make mountains out of molehills, or (alternately) decide to disregard things that were actually important. In the present world, unfortunately, I think it's up to us to decide whether we think the stuff they find matters.

As I said, as far as I'm concerned, Thompson could have been dating oysters or ferrets; I don't care. I find his lobbying history more troubling, not because there's anything illegal about it, as far as I know, but because you have a choice about who to lend your voice to, and I don't much care for his choices. I think his Senate career is pretty unimpressive; whenever I've read articles written at the time, they tend to say things like: lots of Senators are workaholics who spend their time obsessing about policy. Not Thompson!

But this is different: as I said, it's either very dumb or obstruction of justice.

Probably it would be good if a lawyer weighed in on the propriety of tipping off the object of an investigation about evidence still in their possession without authorization, though.

[john miller]

OCSteve, although I tend to agree with you that sometimes there is an over-emphasis on the far away past, it is something the Republcian party has been doing for years.

Actually, I am sure that if I were running for President that somewhere a press report would surface about soemthing I did long long ago in a galaxy far far away, and I am as pure as the driven snow. :)

IANAL but I believe that the prosecution has to make the defense aware of the evidence it has collected, but that it would be completely wrong to warn the otherside of evidence that is going to be collected. And, BTW, if all the tapes were destroyed that woudl have looked very bad.

I keep looking for the Republicans to have a candidate enter the race that I can respect and so far Tommy Thompson and maybe Huckabee are the only two, neither having a chance to win the nomination.

A couple days ago you called yuourself a (somewhat) reformed Republican. I tend to think of you as an old school Republican. The current Republican Party has betrayed you and millions like you. I can understand that you want to think positive about the potential leaders of your party.

In the past, when the Democrats were laying in the gutter I did too. Yet I think the only way the Republican Party can reinstitute itself is if it suffers such a massive defeat that the current leadership is totally swept away. It may take a few election cycles to remake itself into the party you remember and cherish, but it can happen.

[OCSteve]

But this is different: as I said, it's either very dumb or obstruction of justice.

I guess I just have an issue with obstruction when the charge was never leveled much less prosecuted. So I tend to go with dumb. ;)

Obama admits to having committed a felony crime when he was younger (cocaine) – but I don’t think that should automatically rule him out for the job.

it is something the Republcian party has been doing for years

Very true, and you’ll get no argument from me on that point.

I can understand that you want to think positive about the potential leaders of your party

I suppose that pegs me pretty well at this point. Wishful thinking. ;)

[john miller]

Nothing wrong with a little wishful dreaming. Someday you may get that pony. ;)

[hilzoy]

OCSteve: I probably shouldn't have introduced the term 'obstruction of justice', since to me the fact that it's against the law is only part of the problem. I mean: I am opposed to breaking the law period, not that I always practice what I preach, at least not where speed limits are concerned. And I do think it's a strike against someone that they broke a serious law (e.g., not illegal parking), though I tend to cut high school students (Obama) more slack than practicing attorneys (Thompson), both on the grounds that it's worse when you're grown up and on the grounds that lawyers, of all people, should know what the law is and why it matters.

But the point remains even without the legal term. Did Thompson think that he should alert Nixon's lawyer because there might be evidence of wrongdoing, and Nixon's people might want to make that evidence go away? If so, that's just wrong, besides being illegal. Or did he just assume that there was no wrongdoing, as he says in his book? In that case, he was both naive and unprofessional (given that his job was investigating, not leaping to conclusions, and that he acted without authorization and in ways the Committee would surely have disapproved of.)

[Charles Bird]

This post has the feel of a hit piece, long on criticism and short on exculpatory.

First, I have no problem with you or Drum opining that the GOP interest in Thompson is a "sign of desperation", but I can tell you that the prevalent emotion among the party faithful is dissatisfaction with the current field. Among the top three candidates not named Thompson (the rest are irrelevant), Giuliani is seen as too liberal, McCain as too maverick, and Romney as too wishy-washy and Mormon, to put it in the very briefest of terms.

Second, while I'm sure that 99.9% of the readers here will accept your assertion at face value that Thompson "essentially has no record as Senator", personally I would prefer that you back that up. In 2004, your party nominated a Senator with an obviously meager record, so I didn't think that was an issue. Apparently, now it is.

Third, I agree that Thompson used his red pickup as a political prop. I am shocked that a politician, any politician, would use props in their campaigns.

Fourth, there appears to be some dispute about Scott Armstrong's recollections. Quote: "First of all, Thompson has NEVER claimed to have broken the case wide open with his questioning. Yes, the question was known to the White House... because the committee let the defendant's know the line of inquiry before the questioning on National Television."

Fifth, on the lobbying, a brief answer. Over the coming weeks, there will be additional scrutiny on his role in Watergate and his lobbying activities (and those of his two boys), and I hope more fully-fleshed answers will be forthcoming. But for me, I wouldn't be so quick in passing judgment, particularly since his campaign is in "exploratory committee" mode and hasn't kicked into high gear. He's been pretty good about answering critiques made by conservatives, notably his response to Ramesh Ponnuru. Whether he'll do the same for liberals during the primary season, I don't know.

Sixth, the fact that opposition research is coming out on Thompson is an indicator that the Dems view him as a viable candidate. There one poll that puts him in a tie with Hillary.

Seventh, full disclosure. At this point, I have McCain and Thompson in my top tier, and Giuliani and Romney in the second one. But quite frankly, I don't have strong leanings toward any. I'm not thrilled about Thompson's take on the immigration bill or the Libby commutation, to name two issues where we depart. The Democrat whom I favor most, Richardson, has little to no chance for the top slot.

[J Thomas]

It just seems like the media etc. have been trying hard to come up with whatever they can on Thompson before he officially gets in the race.

Let's for a moment hypothesise that there's some GOP organisation (or some organisation that tends to support the GOP) that's very good at swiftboating people.

In the past this organisation backstabbed McCain -- he was not the GOP candidate they wanted. They presumably will go after GOP candidates who're serious threats to their choice, and then go after the Dem nominee.

If Thompson isn't their choice, why wouldn't they try to spike his guns before he gets started too much? If he sparks a lot of imagination and then they stop him, a lot of Thompson enthusiasts might not much like the chosen candidate.

Now try it a different way. Imagine that the media is like a herd of wildebeests. Every now and then they get startled and they all stampede together in some random direction. This is an all-purpose explanation, it can explain practically anything the media does.

[Jesurgislac]

Given that all the current candidates for leadership of the Republican party have enthusiastically endorsed Bush's giving a free pass to Libby, why would any of them merit a honest conservative's support?

[hilzoy]

Charles: About Thompson's Senate record: I wrote that because I once looked at it in some detail, and found that he had passed next to no legislation, four or five bills in toto, and several of them were things like naming post offices. I can't find a list now, but I did find this, though, which supports the recollection without giving specifics: "Of the 90 bills he introduced during his eight years in the Senate, only four became law."

About point 4: The claim that Thompson called Nixon's lawyer is not based on Armstrong's recollections; it's based on Thompson's having said so in his book. So I don't see how Armstrong's credibility affects the main point. Moreover, the question whether or not Thompson took credit for the question isn't relevant to the main issue, but the Globe is quite clear that T. does not say that in his book, though it does quote his exploratory committee's website as saying this: "Indeed, the website of Thompson's presidential exploratory committee boasts that he "gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office.""

About the lobbying: this seems to me just to be a matter of fact, about which people can come to different judgments. If it turns out that he did not lobby for the bill that weakened oversight over the S&Ls, and thereby set the stage for the S&L crisis, fine. Likewise, if it turns out that he did not decide to spend his time trying to prevent people with asbestos-related injuries from getting insurance money, also fine. If he did, then I'm not sure what response would make me think that either was a good way for a person to spend his time. Your mileage may vary, of course.

[African connection]

Did Thompson think that he should alert Nixon's lawyer because there might be evidence of wrongdoing, and Nixon's people might want to make that evidence go away? If so, that's just wrong, besides being illegal.

That's the million dollar question...

[Phil]

Third, I agree that Thompson used his red pickup as a political prop. I am shocked that a politician, any politician, would use props in their campaigns.

The problem is not that Thompson used the (not his, it was never his) red pickup as a political prop. The problem is that, rather than simply note that and move on, Our Liberal Media can't get over how the red pickup and all of Thompson's other props make him a manly-man man of the people, all down-home, cornpone Ronald Reagan blah blah blah blah blah. And that's the narrative they're running with: Good ol' down-home man of the people Fred Thompson. When in fact he is a longtime member of Sodomite Liberal Hollywood and a do-it-for-the-money lobbyist, two things Republicans tend to hate.

[Charles Bird]

Hil,
Thanks for MSNBC link. As for Watergate, you have a 20-years-out-of-print book and a partisan investigator. It seems like there's more to the story than what Kranish reported, not to mention the stories on his lobbying efforts and senatorial efforts. That's why I'm not passing judgment at this time. I'm noticing that the knives have really come out the last few days on Thompson (here's another example), particularly since he is now closer to the head of the pack. How he responds (not his mouthpieces) to all this over the next few days will be an indicator of his viability as a candidate. His response a few weeks back to Michael Moore was brilliant, but he's going to have to put some more meat on the bones for these more recent challenges.

[Nell]

Charles: a 20-years-out-of-print book

A book _written by_ Fred Thompson. What about it having been written thirty years ago makes it less true?

[hilzoy]

Charles: what Nell said. I mean, it is his book. Unless he has some sort of hidden agenda of destroying himself, which he set in motion several decades ago in anticipation of this moment, or unless he was somehow lying then, and making himself out to be closer to an extremely unpopular ex-President than he really had been, I don't see that this is open to much dispute.

[okidoke]

Fred Thompson earns his pay on TV every time he utters the word "justice" without smirking.

[liberal japonicus]

This discussion is going on in two threads, so apologies for spreading it out, but I'm wondering about Charles suggestion that it is not FT's actions, but his response to the challenges about his actions, so it comes out as don't pay attention to what I did, pay attention to what I say. This seems more than a bit risky to me. I'm not suggesting that you need to join the I Hate Fred Thompson club, but the way you phrase things suggests that virtually no past character flaw would make you discount a candidate.

[Phil]

but the way you phrase things suggests that virtually no past character flaw would make you discount a Republican candidate.

Fixed.

[Phil]

And Charles, if you think that piece of cornpone nonsense from Thompson in re Moore was "brilliant," I shudder to think what would happen to you if you ever encountered actual brilliance. Let's see, in 38 rapid seconds, Thompson managed to:

1. Not address the question of whether he does, in fact, smoke embargo-violating cigars. (I happen to think the embargo is stupid, but it is the law.)
2. Toss in the ad hom of "your buddy, Castro."
3. Attempt to condemn Castro for an action he would almost certainly approve of if the Bush administration were doing it to "enemy combatants."
4. Close with the favored Republican response to anyone who makes them uncomfortable: "You are crazy and should be in a mental institution."

Yeah, brilliant.

[Nell]

And on those very tapes, that Thompson was so sure would contain nothing incriminating...

Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not "very smart."

"Not extremely so," Buzhardt agreed.

"But he's friendly," Nixon said.

"But he's friendly," Buzhardt agreed. "We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination."

Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the Dean cross-examination.

"I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day," Buzhardt said. "Uh, perfectly prepared to assist in really doing a cross-examination."

Later in the same conversation, Buzhardt said Thompson was "willing to go, you know, pretty much the distance now. And he said he realized his responsibility was going to have be as a Republican increasingly."

Obstructing justice and just plain dumb.

[Charles Bird]

Yep, it was brilliant, Phil, because it placed into perspective the larger problems of Castro's regime and Moore's uncritical praise of the dictator's health care system. That it got a rise out of you is just icing on the cake. Who knows if the cigar was Cuban or not. Maybe an investigation should be launched.

...but I'm wondering about Charles suggestion that it is not FT's actions, but his response to the challenges about his actions, so it comes out as don't pay attention to what I did, pay attention to what I say.

No, LJ. I'm waiting to hear Thompson explain his actions. Perhaps there are other actions we don't know about. All I'm saying that I'm not rushing to judgment. How that can be construed as (responding to Nell) "virtually no past character flaw would make you discount a Republican candidate" is simply nonsense.

[cleek]

FT reminds me of both Boss Hogg and Joe Don Baker (aka "Mitchell", to MST3K fans).

wouldn't want either of them as president.

[J Thomas]

No, LJ. I'm waiting to hear Thompson explain his actions. Perhaps there are other actions we don't know about. All I'm saying that I'm not rushing to judgment.

I have found it works better to take a different approach.

Since I'm not on a jury that might wrongfully convict him, or anything else like that, it does very little harm for me to go ahead and rush to judgement. At this point Thompson looks like an utter scoundrel.

When I see his explanation then I might very well change my mind and decide there's nothing wrong with him.

This approach has various advantages. First off and very important, it's fun.

Also, if the whole thing blows over without any explanation from him, next time his name comes up I'll remember where I stood. Much easier than remembering that I was going to be fair and wait for his explanation that has not yet come.

I wouldn't use this approach for most democrats, because with democrats who get accused of things the media is likely to thoroughly smear them first, and then lose interest and never publish their explanations. In that case it's better to reserve judgement until they've had time to come up with effective rebuttals and I've done a search for those rebuttals. (Also, when it's a legal thing then it's good to see what the court decided.)

But in this case where the evidence is clear on its own, better to go ahead and make a judgement and then change it if new data comes in. Far less wearing on me, more fun, and I'm more likely to get a correct result.