1 Boring Old Man

Ralston’s Deposition

Oh, this is getting good. As part of his interim report on RNC emails, Waxman released Susan Ralston’s testimony before the committee. Reading the deposition, it becomes pretty clear why Tom Davis was trying to warn Rove of the danger of Ralston’s testimony. Because even what she was willing to testify to makes it clear that Rove is in some deep legal trouble. And then when you look at the areas where she carves out immunity for herself, you realize that if she were ever to testify under immunity, Rove would be in deeper trouble.

The carved out areas, as already reported, pertain primarily to the Abramoff scandal and the use of RNC emails–both area where Ralston’s position as Karl’s gatekeeper would implicate her in the larger workings of the WH. For example, here is Brad Berenson, the GOP’s  designated firewall defense attorney,  explaining the limites of Ralston’s testimony on RNC emails.

Berenson: Yes. We have decided this morning to allow her to talk about some of the mechanics of Mr. Rove’s use of e-mail accounts, but when it comes to the reasons of why he vvas using political e-mail accounts, there ìs a reasonable, well-founded concern that a discussion of the reasoning behind the use of those accounts may sweep more broadly than Mr. Rove himself , and may go part of the way toward explaining a pattern of usage among other officials, potentially including Ralston, and so that’s why vve are goìng to decline to answer that question this mornìng.

At one point, Berenson reveals something more specific they’re trying to hide.

Question: Do you know if anybody received briefings about how to use the different e-maiI accounts? Mr . Berenson: I ‘m goìng to interpose our previous objection there for the same reasons stated at the outset.

Anyone want to guess a) that there was a briefing and b) that they made it very clear that they should dump anything illegal into RNC emails? Well, Ralston knows, but she won’t tell until you give her a stay out of jail free card.

Later, Ralston describes how someone on the Bush campaign staff contacted her to inform her (and through her, Karl) that they were excepted from the email retention policy.

By somebody on the campaign staff. So it was staff wide e-mail, and the e-maiI explained the retention policy, but somebody on the campaìgn staff — and I don’t recall who specifìcally called me to say that it didn’t apply to myself and to Karl, and to let him know that when he saw it, it did not apply.

And Ralston says this means Rove’s emails were retained, rather than specifically not retained.

So we have had general conversations like that with RNC staff , whìch led both of us to believe that they were retaining his e-mails.

Following this exchange, Berenson interrupted to get Ralston to clarify that she had not been told specifically that the policy did not apply. Just a wildarsed guess, here, but I’m guessing the RNC set it up so Rove and Ralston would have plausible deniability.

It appears that Susan Ralston knows plenty about all this email business. It’s no wonder that she has asked for immunity from prosecution in order to testify. The damage to this country was not from the Administrative Staff like Susan Ralston and Monica Goodling, it was from the people they worked for. I say, "Give her immunity."

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind who is the target of this game – one Karl Rove – the Rasputin of the Bush Administration. Mr. Rove is undoubtedly behind the DoJ being drawn into the service of the Republican Party in a blatant attempt to control the outcome of our elections. And it appears that the Republican Party itself is up to its neck in this soup, as well as the Bush/Cheney 2004 Campaign Organization. I suppose the modern mantra is "follow the email" much as "follow the money" was the royal road to Watergate in All the President’s Men. If Susan Ralston is the key to that trail,  give her a "get out of jail card" [if and only if her testimony will be the truth about the underground email traffic on the Bush Administration]. By all rights, they should be as culpable for destroying the email as they probably are for what those emails said.