Thompson Adviser Has Criminal Past (here we go)

The Washington Post ^ | Nov 3, 2007 | Matthew Mosk

[quantim]

Duh.

[seekthetruth]

“Why couldn’t he have found out about this before he became associated with the guy?”
“That’s a good question. And that’s why it’s a problem.”

I wondered that myself. However, I read the article again and noticed that Fred has been friends with this guy only since the early 90’s. This is most likely why Fred knew nothing about what this guy did 24 years ago.

[donnab]

Wonders how many of WaPo has criminal records? ..just curious.smirks

[Reagan Man]

Can’t bring yourself to say it?

Okay, I’ll say it for you. Fred is guilty of nothing!

In Liberalville, its not the nature of the evidence that counts most, its the seriousness of the charge. In this case, neither the evidence or the charge amounts to a hill of beans.

[dsc]

“This is most likely why Fred knew nothing about what this guy did 24 years ago.”

Yeah, but when you play in the bigs, you do BIs on all associates.

Can’t the Republicans find anybody to run who doesn’t have skeletons in the closet?

[Lancey Howard]

I wondered that myself. However, I read the article again and noticed that Fred has been friends with this guy only since the early 90’s. This is most likely why Fred knew nothing about what this guy did 24 years ago.

Yes, I noticed that as well. And although this certainly doesn't compare to Giuliani's incredible blunder with Bernard Kerick, it is something that calls into question the Thompson campaign's due diligence in vetting associates and donors.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Can’t the Republicans find anybody to run who doesn’t have skeletons in the closet?

Even though several people are trying to make this into a scandal, Fred is guilty of nothing. There has been no wrong doing on Fred's part. Period.

[RDTF]

How do you know he is unaware? I would bet not.

[RDTF]

to clarify - I doubt this is a surprise to Fred

[Lancey Howard]

Reagan Man, you are a terrific freeper and I know we are on the same page. But this exchange is reminding me of those bizarre exchanges many of us had with Buckeroo a few years back.

Fred IS guilty - - guilty of failing to properly vet somebody who is closely associated with his campaign. Like you said, “the Dems will exploit anything”. Well, Fred has handed the rats prime rib on a silver platter. Not good. He needs to address this story and take action to snuff it out quickly and decisively.

[ansel12]

This is the old type smear piece and perfectly timed front page release, that many of us remember when a good conservative is ready to breakout.

There is nothing we can do except groan and know that the viable conservative in a presidential race will always have to overcome a very focused and deadly national media.

[RDTF]

This is prime rib to you? You can’t be serious?

[Lancey Howard]

This is prime rib to you? You can’t be serious?

Read much? I said it was prime rib to the rats.

[RDTF]

“Read much? I said it was prime rib to the rats.”

Comprehend much? You know exactly what I meant. And it seems your only purpose on this thread is to cause conflict.

[seekthetruth]

“How do you know he is unaware? I would bet not.”

I did not say I knew he was unaware. I just noticed according to the article that Fred only knew the guy since the early 90’s. If the guy’s problems were 24 years ago, perhaps Fred did not know about it. Ovbiously vetting was not done, which should have been done.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Fred IS guilty ...

Just what I expected. Thats why I got in your face. You jumped to a conclusion, sounding very accusatory.

This is a hit piece from the liberal media. Its not to be taken seriously by informed conservatives. If the MSM wants to attack Fred over this issue, we can't stop them. Now can we? Best thing to do is ignore it.

Bottom line. Fred is guilty of nothing.

[Doogle]

....and don’t forget Chinese Army cash in bags floating around the WH in “96”

[dsc]

“Fred is guilty of nothing.”

He is guilty of being a presidential candidate with a scumbag associate. That shows, at the very least, a lack of thoroughness. A presidential candidate should vet all his associates.

[Lancey Howard]

Oh, okay. Fred should just ignore the whole thing and let the rats (and his primary opponents) peck him to death. Here’s a tip: Keep your day job.

[kcvl]

Matthew Mosk

Mosk got his hands on the messages between Steffen and a Free Republic poster still only known as MD4Bush without, according to Mosk, knowing who MD4Bush is.

“Reporter Matthew Mosk did view the chat room postings between Joe Steffen (NCPAC) and MD4Bush on freerepublic.com a couple of months after the postings had occurred using sign-on information given to him by someone acting on MD4Bush’s behalf.”

In other words, Mosk had to know that MD4Bush was some kind of political operative — at best, someone with a grudge against Steffen and at worst, a foot soldier for the state Democratic party. Yet Mosk chose to conceal that from his readers.

Mosk didn't address the issue of how the O'Malley campaign knew in advance about the Washington Post report.