Excellent piece of investigation. First-rate reporting on a pivotal issue. Certainly looks here like Thomson's lying as the LA Times has revealed much more information than the headline. This misstep could sink his candidacy.

I think that the LAT needs to question the sourcing of this report...DeSarno and Barnes are well known leftists--contributing time and money to candidates--and there is no evidence of any billing hours or any other actual documents. In a fair piece, the background of the two major critics would be noted...and the lack of actual hard facts/documents would be noted as well. The LAT is the first salvo, no the NYT's slam today on Fred's "trophy" wife is the first salvo, in the campaign to give Fred feet of clay...well, News Trust is the kind of new media that will keep the dead tree media from getting away with misleading stories. Folks, efforts such as this one are the way that we, as citizens, can bring back reason and true ... More »

Hit piece against Fred Thompson by the LA Times. Sources are democrats and/or pro abortion lobbyists. There is a document but it's from a pro abortion group who might be out to cause Fred trouble and it is 15 years old. Fred and his people deny the story. There are no billing records from the law firm at which Fred was working at the time.

Well, it appears when you are not the incumbent, you are not teflon, even if you're Republican. For what it is - floating a balloon to see if this story will catch news cycles in an election - this story is balanced. It quotes for and against. What it fails to do is provide some key context. If this is a "Swift Boat" kind of smear, to what end? Who benefits? Guiliani? Surely not Democrats. Billing records is a red herring, when we're talking 16 years ago. A stronger point is buried in the story: "The Tennessean newspaper reported that Thompson, when filling out a 1996 Christian Coalition survey, marked himself as "opposed" to a constitutional amendment protecting "the sanctity of human life." The newspaper said he included a ... More »

Clearly a biased piece. The headline and sub-headline both provide the conclusion the LA Times want to reach. Note that the denial by Sunnunu is not mentioned until the sixth paragraph. The only supporting documentation is a copy of minutes with a one sentence statement, no check records, no follow up minutes with further information about his progress, etc.

So, an abortion activist is saying Thompson, as a lawyer, managed to lobby for abortion without leaving behind any billing records? So, obviously Thompson is smarter than Hillary whose billing records eventually did show up. Now does that mean the abortion activist says that Democrats should support Thompson because his support for abortion is good? Or is it the usual Democrat smear? Well, since it is the LA Times that answer is clear on its face.