Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson is on the defensive following disclosures a key fundraiser has a history of drug trafficking and gambling.

The Washington Post revealed this weekend that Thompson campaign co-chair Phillip Martin pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking and conspiracy charges in 1983. Thompson has used Martin’s private jet during his campaign. Thompson says he was not aware of Martin’s criminal past.

I have mixed feelings on this--even tho Im not a Thompson supporter I think Drugs and Gambling should be legal or at least decriminalized so Im not sure this should count as a scandal

fred is a nonstarter anyway, he has no chance of getting the nomination

good he doesnt deserve it--hes dull witted

Yeah I heard about this on sunday talk shows. So fred claims he did not know about it. it was 20 some years ago. The man got probation and did his debt to society.

Should we crucify him too ?

Whats the point of the post ?

Your statement Fred Thompsons campaign chair is a drug dealer should be changed to was a drug dealer in 1983.

I think its mute since Thompson didnt know about this . He said he will look into it. I bet he cans the guy. who knows. non issue boring.

I dont think Thompson is dull witted thats just a i dont like the guy name calling.

its like saying hillary is stupid she isnt shes a smart cookie. She just cant remeber things when questioned under oath.

I did not like how he answered several social conservative answers though. bleh

__________________
Hardcore Conservative !

I said Conservative not necessarly Republican or Democrat. Liberals are in both of those parties.

How do you figure that matters to the GOP? I thought it was a prerequisite.

__________________

I think its a non issue myself too--but I bet if this was a story about Hillarys campaign the media would be making much more out of it and Im not saying this as a Hillary-supporter I just think the media has a GOP bias

Moot not "mute", pedantic I know but they mean two different things

Otherwise I'd broadly agree with you, the guy had form 27 years ago, if he's done his time and kept a clean nose ( in more ways than one ) since then does it really matter ? People can and do change, so lets give him the benefit of the doubt.

__________________
England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests - Palmerston

If its a non issue, why did you post it? And why did you slander this guy. He is not currently a drug dealer. You also quoted and did not post a link. Off to bad start here.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I posted it cause it was breaking news

This has to do with Martin and the 'criminal justice' system that dealt with him than FDT but he was busted for 11 pounds of cocaine plus another drug bust with bookmaking whilst still on probation for the pounds of cocaine--and got probation again for the new offences and the probation violation. That man years ago was a serious drug trafficker and crime figure as evidenced by that poundage and crimes. His sentences were anything but 'paying his debt to society' but walking away on a big owed tab on deserved prison time, bills unpaid. Today he'd have been slapped with mandatories on prison and would still get some time if he cooperated with busting his sources and connections. Nothing is said if he did so to get those probation sentences, but it would tell much more about him who he flipped if he did. I'm glad he apparently reformed but it also leaves me to wonder what is the genesis source of his wealth today, i.e., illicit washed and rebuilt drug and bookie funds. If it is, then it should have been forfeited and he may well be 'reformed' only by quitting whilst ahead and having won the race to wealth game with foundational crime revenue to wash, preserve and build upon it with conversion to legitimate sourcings and workings. That wouldn't waive the 'reformation' wand for me due to unclean hands.

I'm also very sceptical on FDT's claim that he didn't know about his past. Those charges are public records of notoriety, and he was and remains a close friend of him since the early 90s. I wouldn't hold it against someone for having a friend who has a record. Most people know someone with a record, even myself, and I believe in giving people second chances. I have no objection to FDT's comment that he still considers him a friend. Martin is apparently long inactive in serious crime, and friendships have their own merits. But, it's too hard for me to accept on face value that the subject or the information escaped his attention given the length and seriousness of the friendship and the research and access abilities to such information with FDT's, friends, suppoerters, campaign and connections. I think it would have been better on credibility for him to have simply stuck with the 'loyal friend' and 'redemption' line he also took. That would have not raised the eyebrow.

I think that people who served their sentence have a right to redemption

Totally agreed. It's only fair and wise to do so. People can't even try to live legitimate if they want if society puts their heel on them forever. I'm a big advocate of legislative and court practices such as first time offender diversionary programmes, sealing records for long term genuine reform, statutes that prevent employment discrimination for past offences unrelated to the job tasks, etc. It has to be genuine reform though. If Martin's current wealth has a legitimate source, then I have no issue with his redemption given the offences happened long ago. But, if they have a dirty genesis and form the foundation of how he built them to what he has today, that would be a different story for me. Many criminals are wise enough to quit whilst they are ahead and use their gains to 'go legit'--except it never is because they got the base from the illegitimate. I'm sure I could live quite well with lawful investments with an illicit startup wealth. It's actually the goal of all smarter criminals. That's why forfeiture laws exist.
Nobody should benefit from their wrongdoing.

I also think felons should have their right to vote restored too

So do I once their sentences are complete. I look extremely negatively on depriving any citizen of their right to vote, especially because they pay taxes. To me it's unacceptable to claim a person did the time society felt their conduct warranted and then deprive them of the right to vote and yet require them to pay taxes, obey the laws and hold allegiance to those who exclude them from a say as those who claim to rule and bind them have and keep for themselves. Serving a criminal sentence aside, I would disavow personal allegiance and obligations such as paying taxes to any society that barred me from any right to have any say in it through the vote.