Powerline is actually somewhat interesting today - they have a retraction of their dishonest argument that tired to blur the distinction between being a lawyer practicing at the bar of a courtroom, and being a lobbyist buying people martinis at the bar of Jack Abrahamoff's restaurant.
In the post entitled "Much Ado about Not Much," he is at once dismissive
It occurs to me that my discussion of lobbying Fred Thompson may have performed in 1991 on behalf of an abortion rights group is somewhat superficial.
And goes on to try to act as if the line is a bit dim:
The line isn't quite that bright, though, because litigation can affect national policy -- the one time I declined to participate in a representation was such a case -- and lobbying can be about an individualized matter).
It's not, and he's writing pure crap - please refer to my post in which I argued against his position.
More importantly, he fails to criticize Thompson for making the same false argument that he tried to promote. If Powerline is wrong, and he is, then Thompson is as well, and for some reason Powerline fails to mention this.
(h/t memeorandum)
Comments