Ed Morrissey writes that Fred’s billing records have been found:

The Los Angeles Times will report in the next day or so that billing records have been found at Arent Fox which show some consultations between Fred Thompson and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. The records will show that Arent billed the NFPRHA for nineteen hours of consultation over a period of fourteen months. The time period corresponds roughly to the time frame between when the NFPRHA claims they hired Thompson as a lobbyist, in September 1991.

It must be annoying for them to have blogs running around scooping them on everything.

So what does this mean?

To me, the controversy over Fred Thompson’s alleged lobbying for an abortion rights group has little to do with his views on abortion, and more to do with his honesty.

I have said I don’t much care if he did lawyer’s work for an abortion rights group. But I’ll be upset if it turns out that he has lied to us about it.

Ed writes:

We can expect the billing records to make a big splash in the blogosphere. However, a few points should be noted. Fred Thompson made it clear that he never represented this group as a lobbyist, and that he never lobbied John Sununu on their behalf. Sununu verified Thompson’s denial. Thompson never denied nor confirmed that he provided some consultation on their behalf through Arent Fox, saying that he could not recall either way.

I’m not so clear on this. The original L.A. Times story on this said:

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. “Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period,” he said in an e-mail.

Now, is that bolded part accurate? Or is it a sloppy L.A. Times gloss on a more limited denial of lobbying? I haven’t seen Corallo’s e-mail, so I don’t know.

But I do know that the same story has Corallo admitting that Thompson “may have been consulted by one of [his] firm’s partners who represented this group in 1991,” and adding that it was “not unusual for one lawyer on one side of an issue to be asked to give advice to colleagues for clients who engage in conduct or activities with which they personally disagree.” Now, that’s an unusual admission for a guy who supposedly issued a blanket denial that Thompson had ever worked for them.

What was the context of this admission by Corallo? I think that’s important.

The admission may have been forced by an L.A. Times reporter, who countered an initial denial with evidence of the board minutes. The article implies that this is the case, but does not clearly say so. If this is the case, Thompson looks weaselly — denying lobbying initially, but (in a sin of omission) forgetting to mention that he had done work for the group, only to admit the possibility when confronted with documentary evidence.

Or, the admission by Corallo may have accompanied the initial denial of lobbying: Thompson didn’t lobby, but he may have done some consulting. If that’s the case, then the reporter spun the message to make Thompson look bad.

Only a look at the e-mails themselves would tell us for sure.

Ed says: “If the source has the details correct, it would appear to support Thompson’s statements. A lobbyist who only bills 19 hours in 14 months would be a highly unsuccessful lobbyist, and the client idiotic.” Hmm. But Corallo has offered this possible scenario:

“He has no recollection of doing any work for this group. And since he was of counsel and not a member of the firm, it was not unusual for the firm’s partners to trot their clients in to meet him, get his views and even some advice.”

19 hours of partner’s trotting clients into Thompson’s office? I’m not sure that flies.

So, did Fred lie? I don’t know. Let’s wait and see what the story says.

UPDATE: Well, that was quick. The New York Times has the story, and the details are not good for Fred’s campaign, or for the pre-spinning at Captain Ed’s. Details here.