johnSwifty @
112

Any interest in a Webb/Clark ticket?

Webb/Waters

they’re smart, standup people: Who Are Not Afraid

Many bases would be covered with this pair and the demographics are very solid. plus if the both did a double victory sign the graphic would be really cool ………..

My friend, you have an absolute gift for a good visual. But, small things like that are a fulcrum by which great events are leveraged.

I do not know much about Mr. Waters’ policies or beliefs, but I have a very great appreciation for Mr. Webb’s intelligence and sense of honor. If Waters is anything of the same type then the visual alone would be worth the run. Anything but Hillary…and I’m not entirely sold on Obama.

I’ve stated before and I might state it again; I never thought I’d see the day when I wanted Al Gore to run again; but more and more, I really, really do!

I mean, I can still remember the chills I got down my back reading Anne Frank’s diary in 5th grade, y’know?

JPL @ 110

(sorry – long-time Clarkie – can’t help it!)

Me Too, but not just because of foreign policy but also because of his progressive economic policies.

Any interest in a Webb/Clark ticket?

Webb/Waters

they’re smart, standup people: Who Are Not Afraid

Many bases would be covered with this pair and the demographics are very solid. plus if the both did a double victory sign the graphic would be really cool ………..

Re Timmeh’s credibility:

Wouldn’t it be funny if Wells went after Timmeh’s credibiity by pointing out how much of an Administration tool Little Russ is?

I guess we shouldn’t hope for that right now. We want the jury to just LOVE Little Russ. My guess is that Wells will try the “didn’t you really hear this from David Gregory, isn’t it possible you heard it from him, did you take notes on your conversation with him, were you in bed when he called” cross.

Jeff @ 153: what makes you think there is a possible mystery witness? Because it would be a great follow-up to Wells’ attempted cross of Timmeh based on Gregory for Gregory himself to come loping out to say, “I never talked to Russert about Plame. Period.”

Fitzgerald made reference to a witness they’re going to need to discuss who will appear between the presentation of Libby’s grand jury testimony and Russert’s testimony. I think Gregory is a very good guess.

Though it could also be McClellan, to talk about Libby and Cheney coming to him to complain about his failure to clear Libby in fall 2003.

Guess I’ll have to find out – I sure like the bill he’s introducing!

Suspicious that Rove and Novak might have devised a cover story during that conversation to protect Rove, federal investigators briefed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft on the matter in the early stages of the investigation in fall 2003, according to officials with direct knowledge of those briefings.

http://news.nationaljournal.co…..525nj1.htm

Molly, your voice will not be silenced, even in death. Thank you for speaking so eloquently for those of us who stuttered often.

RIP.

Wouldn’t it be funny if Wells went after Timmeh’s credibiity by pointing out how much of an Administration tool Little Russ is?

I guess we shouldn’t hope for that right now. We want the jury to just LOVE Little Russ. My guess is that Wells will try the “didn’t you really hear this from David Gregory, isn’t it possible you heard it from him, did you take notes on your conversation with him, were you in bed when he called” cross.

Jeff @ 153: what makes you think there is a possible mystery witness? Because it would be a great follow-up to Wells’ attempted cross of Timmeh based on Gregory for Gregory himself to come loping out to say, “I never talked to Russert about Plame. Period.”

If that’s what Matthews is in it for, I think he’s going to be sorely disappointed. Russert is going to be Fitzgerald’s dramatic finish – in substance contradicting Libby’s central lie and in form bringing to bear all of the massive credibility he has. Regardless of whether you or we share the judgment that Russert is a respectable man, trustworthy and credible, likable and so on, Fitzgerald has clearly made the judgment that the standard juror will find him that way.

This is why Fitzgerald, who has proceeded with witnesses basically in chronological order of their main role in the narrative, is going out of order and putting Russert last, after the witnesses who will testify about Libby’s role in the investigation and his grand jury testimony. (There’s also a mystery witness, who could possibly be David Gregory, or more excitingly perhaps someone from the White House like Rove or whoever.) This is also why the defense spent so much time in jury selection asking potential jurors about MTP/Russert.

And I don’t think the defense is going to go after him either; I think they’re trying to suggest he may have forgotten, he’s only human, not that he’s making stuff up or non-credible.