One of those moments Molly should be here for.

[Welcome National Review readers. The password is still “specimen jar.” Oh, you won’t be returning here to apologize? That’s okay, we didn’t expect you to.]

So, it turns out, according to billing records from the lobby shop he worked for, Fred Thompson did do lobbying work for that pro-choice organization in the early nineties, just as Judith DeSarno claimed he had, complete with minutes of an executive board meeting discussing his work, and her memeories of a lunch at which “Fred” amusingly acted out a death scene from his latest film, which DeSarno remembered having involved cowboys.

Let’s be clear here; what should concern everybody about this little episode, both pro and anti-choicers, has nothing to do with whether or not Thompson is a worthy leader of those who wish to take away the right of every woman in this country to decide whether or not to become pregnant and/or to stay pregnant under any and all circumstances; that is a matter of concern to the anti-choicers only.

Let me state that I have no doubts that jovial Fred will be as implacably authoritarian, fundamentally dishonest, and outrageously blind to the issues of separation of church and state, nay, to the issues of the President’s duty to defend and uphold the constitution, especially in regards to whom he chooses to nominate to the Federal bench, as Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family could hope for. I expect no less of Fred Thompson.

No, what is disgusting here is the readiness of the rightwing movement in this country, and by extension, the Republican Party it has taken over, to lie without remorse when caught in a tough spot, and to attack the character and good name of anyone who raises questions the rightwing Republicans don’t wish to answer.

The New York Times story about those newly found billing records indicates that Thompson had 22, count ’em, 22 phone contacts with Judith DeSarno. Does anyone really believe that Thompson had “no recollection” of any of that? And from that initial denial from Fred & co issued forth the usual attacks on DeSarno’s character, on the character of anyone who backed her up from memories of discussions held at the time, and on the LA Times for carrying the story.

We had a prime example of what I’m talking about right here at Corrente, when from the mighty cave in which the National Review carries on its echo chamber maneuvers, someone deigned to notice our obscure blog and its story about the LA Times story, at which point various of their readers scampered over here to berate our credulity about Ms. DeSarno and Mike Barnes, one pro-choice, the other a Democrat, and thus whose testimony, we were assured, doesn’t count.

What tipped me off to the fact that it was highly likely that Thompson was flat out lying about his memories was the total nature of the denial, and the one-two punch of Thompson having no memories of any lobbying done for this organization, and his spokesman’s total denial that it could ever have happened.

When you really can’t remember something, you are usually careful not to say it couldn’t have happened, since it is in the nature of not remembering not to be able to be sure of much, except that you don’t remember.

That Thompson, his staff and those who supported him insisted that his inability to remember meant Ms. DeSarno’s story must be false suggested guilty knowledge that it was not false, at least on Thompson’s part.

Here’s an example of the National Review’s arguments on behalf of Thompson earlier this month.

Much was made of the fact that DeSarno’s memory of that acted out death scene had disappeared in later on-line versions of the Times story.

Here, once again, is the UPDATE that Lambert got from the LA Times explaining why the first story had contained the incident, the later ones not.

Hi. Thank you for your email. The Thompson article was first posted on the LA Times website on Friday afternoon. It was replaced Saturday morning by the version that was published in the newspaper. The Times often reworks stories between the time of their initial posting on the web and their final publication in the newspaper. The print version is the one that we keep posted on the website. In this case, deletion of the movie reference was one of many final editing changes; we decided to delete the reference until we could confirm the film title, which we were unable to do before final publication. Based on DeSarno’s account, the scene that she said Thompson reenacted appears to be from “Keep the Change,” a TNT television western that would have been in production around the time of the lunch and dinner that she described.

So the LA Times was being vigilant about not publishing information for which they didn’t have sufficient evidence yet, i.e., being able to make sure of which movie Thompson had made which could fit DeSarno’s description of that lunch. As explained, it turned out to be a TNT cable movie, “Keep The Change,” adapted from a Tom McGuane novel.

I’ve republished this explanation because changing versions of a story are a staple of rightwing criticisms of the SCLM; I expect that publishing as yet partially vetted items online as part of the editing process, the final version of which is conformed both online and in print when the first edition is published, may explain many of these incidents. It only took us an email and a day and a half to get the answer to the puzzle.

Partly on the theory that a little dose of schadenfreude is due you every once in a while, and partly to remind us all of the style of attack that is used on the right from Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, all the way up there to those BoHo Olympian Heights were reside folks like David Brooks, I beg your indulgence further to quote from my personal favorite of the critical comments we received on our original piece, wherein “Tully” teaches us how the LA Times should have figured out what likely had happened back there in the early nineties.

It’s real simple. IF Thompson actually did any paid lobbying for them, they’ll have the law firm invoices and cancelled checks for same. If they don’t have invoices and checks, if the law firm (Arent) doesn’t have corresponding billing records, then it’s pretty certain DeSarno and Barns are either lying outright, or substantively misrepresenting what actually occured.

Such as (perhaps) Barnes hooking DeSarno up with a meal-with-Fred or two so she could try to lobby him on the cheap into lobbying for her. And Thompson going “That’s nice, but not my cup of tea. I’m going to work for Arent. Call them if you really want to make arrangements for that kind of lobbying. They know all the right people.”

DeSarno and Barns should need to show the bills from Arent naming Thompson if they expect anyone to believe them—other than credulous LA Times reporters and wingnuts. Any such bill would spcify the lobbyist they’re billing for. Having maybe had a dinner with Thompson and attempting to wheedle him into freebies doesn’t cut it. If he worked for them, they were charged or it, and there’s a paper & money trail. Show the trail.(spelling in the original.)

To be absolutely fair, the “Campaign Spot” at The National Review did seem concerned this morning that those billing records could be a problem for Fred in the area of the department of truthiness.

Not to worry, though, upon further reflection…