Left Rudder

Seems Jeri Thompson, GOP operative and GOP Presidential Candidate Trophy Wife, is getting a bit antsy.

The shake-up comes amid consternation inside the campaign about the active role played by Thompson’s wife, Jeri, a lawyer, media consultant and former Republican National Committee official.

Hmmmm. Seems not too long ago, the GOP were very concerned that Hillary Clinton seemed ambitious.

Republicans familiar with the Thompson circle said she is an influential figure and that her role has been a cause of concern for some operatives signing on to the fledgling exploratory campaign.

I understand Young Master Bush wants to be seen as a loyal kind of guy. I understand he wants to be perceived as someone who doesn’t bend to pressure. I can even imagine the Dimwit-in-Chief may want to stick a thumb in the eye of Congressional leaders who are demanding Abu Gonzales be fired or removed.

But he’s doing his friend no favors. In an exchange with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), it was apparent Abu Gonzales couldn’t keep his lies straight and he managed to contradict himself several times in under a minute on the same issue.

SCHUMER: I’d like to just pick up where Senator Specter left off, about the TSP program. Just a few preliminaries. First, I take it that there was just one program that the president confirmed in 2005. There was not more than one.

GONZALES: He confirmed one, yes, intelligence activity. Yes, one program.

SCHUMER: Thank you. OK. Now, you — and you’ve repeatedly referred to the, quote “program,” that the president confirmed in December 2005. Let me just — I’m going to put up a chart here. Here’s what you said before this committee on February 6th of 2006. You said, quote, “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program the president has confirmed. With respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you were identifying had concerns about this program.” This was in reference to a question I asked you, “Was there any dissent here?”

This was before Comey came to testify. It was in February. But we had some thoughts that maybe that happened. And now, of course, we know from Jim Comey that virtually the entire leadership of the Justice Department was prepared to resign over concerns about a classified program. Disagreement doesn’t get more serious than that. And what program was the ruckus all about? And this is the important point here. At your press conference on June the 5th, it was precisely the program that you testified had caused no serious dissent. You said, “Mr. Comey’s testimony” — and he only testified once — “related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people some time ago.”

SCHUMER: These are your words, right? You don’t deny that these are your words. This was a public press conference.

GONZALES: I’m told that in fact here in the press conference I did misspeak, but I also went back and clarified it with the reporter.

SCHUMER: You did misspeak?

GONZALES: Yes. But I went back and clarified it with the reporter…

SCHUMER: When was that? And which — what was the reporter’s name?

GONZALES: At The Washington Post two days later.

(CROSSTALK)

GONZALES: Dan Eggen was the reporter.

SCHUMER: OK. Well, we’ll want to go follow up with him. But the bottom line is this: You just admitted there was just one program that the president confirmed in December…

GONZALES: The president…

SCHUMER: … just one. Is that correct, sir?

GONZALES: The president talked about a set of activities…

SCHUMER: No, I am just asking you a yes-or-no simple question, just as Senator Specter has. And just like Senator Specter and others here, I’d like to get an answer to that question. You just said there was one program. Are you backing off that now?

GONZALES: The president…

SCHUMER: Was there one program or was there not that the president confirmed?

GONZALES: The president confirmed the existence of one set of intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: Fine. Now let’s go over it again, sir, because I think this shows clear as could be that you’re not being straightforward with this committee; that you’re deceiving us. You then — then you said in testimony to this committee in response to a question that I asked, “There has not been any disagreement about the program the president confirmed.” Then Jim Comey comes and talks about not just mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Department to the rafters. And here, on June 5th, you say that Comey was testifying about the program the president confirmed. You, sir…

GONZALES: And I’ve already said…

SCHUMER: Sir.

GONZALES: … I have clarified my statement on June 5th. Mr. Comey was talking about a disagreement that existed with respect to other intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: How can we — this is constant, sir, in all due respect with you. You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that you’re deceiving the committee. And then you go back and say, “Well, I corrected the record two days later.” How can we trust your leadership when the basic facts about serious questions that have been in the spotlight, you just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly, telling mistruths? It’s clear here. It’s clear. One program. That’s what you just said to me. That’s what locks this in. Because before that, you were, sort of, alluding — in your letter to me on May 17th, you said, “Well, there was one program,” — you said there was the program, TSP, and then there were other intelligence activities.

GONZALES: That’s correct.

SCHUMER: You wanted us to go away and say, “Well, maybe it was other” — wait a second, sir. Wait a second.

GONZALES: And the disagreements related to other intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: I’ll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you’re getting right close to the edge right here. You just said there was just one program — just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn’t directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second — you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I don’t know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement…

SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect — and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman — in all due respect, you’re just saying, “Well, it was clarified with the reporter,” and you don’t even know what he said. You don’t even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you’re bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don’t even know. I’ll give you another chance: You’re hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You’re now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?

GONZALES: I don’t know, but I’ll find out and get back to you.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your Attorney General.

The Story:

This could be real trouble for almost-announced Republican candidate Fred Thompson.

The former Tennessee senator, who will soon seek the Republican nomination for president as a pro-life candidate, apparently once accepted a lobbying assignment from a family-planning group to persuade the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction.

The Semi- but Not Quite Denial:

WASHINGTON - Fred Thompson says he “has no recollection” of lobbying on behalf of a family planning group.

The Spin:

This story is seeing bigger and bigger holes blasted through it every day by the blogosphere, and it’s getting easier and easier to believe Thompson’s claims that it is all a straight out lie as this story falls apart around the L.A.Times’ ears.

And what of the Hillary Clinton connections I mentioned a few days ago? How deep are Hillary’s hands in this incident one has to wonder?

The Denial:

The abortion “gag rule” was a major political flashpoint at the time. Thompson’s lobbying would clash directly with the anti-abortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his campaign for president. Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family-planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail.

In a telephone interview, he added: “There’s no documents to prove it, there’s no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn’t happen.”

The Truth:

Billing records show that former Sen. Fred Thompson spent nearly 20 hours working as a lobbyist on behalf of a group seeking to ease restrictive federal rules on abortion counseling in the 1990s, even though he recently said he did not recall doing any work for the organization.

According to records from Arent Fox, the Washington law firm where Thompson worked part time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992.

The records show that Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.

The New Spin:

As one of the commenters on this post wrote, this story is a nothingburger.

John Lott.

Many gunloons–although this number is slowly dwindling–will cite John Lott as “proving” more guns equal less crime. After all, Lott did author a book by the title of More Guns, Less Crime.

But there are serious questions as to Lott’s–how shall we say this–credibility. These questions are legion. Perhaps the most succinct wrapup of Lott’s rather dubious conduct can be found on Tim Lambert’s site.

Instances of Lott’s questionable behavior abound:

Perjury, obstruction of justice?

No problem, IOKIYAR.

The sad part of this is that Libby’s criminal conduct may end up being the best career move of Libby’s life. Some GOP-funded “think tank” will sweep up Libby and pay him huge sums of money to write the occasional op/ed.