Ralston pleads the fifth

Now, which White House scandal is Susan Ralston attached to again? There are so many it’s sometimes difficult to keep up.

Oh right, the Abramoff scandal.

A former top aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove told Congress she will invoke her right against self-incrimination unless granted immunity to answer investigators’ questions about lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s contacts with administration officials.

It is the first indication that Abramoff-related probes, mainly limited until now to his dealings with lawmakers and federal agency officials, may be advancing into the White House. The former Rove aide, Susan Ralston, previously had served as a top aide to Mr. Abramoff.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, disclosed Ms. Ralston’s decision in a memo yesterday to fellow committee members.

This is not entirely unexpected, but let’s not lose sight of the significance of the development. The White House official who served as Karl Rove’s top aide is in the remarkable position of refusing to testify for fear of implicating herself in a crime.

Last fall, we learned that Abramoff had far more contact with the Bush White House, particularly Rove’s office, than had previously been acknowledged. In particular, we learned that Rove’s Ralston was, as the New York Times explained, “instrumental in passing messages between Mr. Abramoff and senior officials at the White House, including Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman.” Shortly thereafter (late on a Friday afternoon), Ralston resigned.

Now she’s taking the 5th and wants a deal. And in an interesting twist, Waxman hasn’t said yes yet — though that might change.

The AP report notes that Ralston has some interesting information she’s willing to share if she has immunity.

At her May 10 deposition, Waxman’s memo said, Ralston said she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if asked about Abramoff’s contacts with White House officials, including Rove. However, her lawyer, Bradford Berenson, told the committee that if Ralston is granted immunity from prosecution, she would testify about Abramoff’s relationships with White House officials and “the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts” at the Republican National Committee, the memo said.

Ralston has “useful information about both of those subjects,” Berenson told the committee, and “she is more than willing to provide it to the committee” under “a grant of immunity,” the memo said. (emphasis added)

Let’s also not forget that Ralston once admitted that she was “involved in much of what goes on at the White House.” If she’s ready to dish to save her skin….

On the other hand, she may just be intending to pull a Goodling…

  • I don’t know about Ralston, but Goodling is a believer. For people like her, it’s not about politics – it’s about good v. evil, and she’s convinced that she’s on the side of good. Using any means to defeat evil is OK, because by definition it’s moral. Granting her immunity means nothing. If Ralston is similar, there’s nothing to be gained by granting immunity. On the other hand, if she’s a political animal, she might be willing to sing…

  • If anyone should be granted immunity in order to get incriminating evidence it is Ralston. Secretaries always know what is going on behind the scenes. I would put her under protective custody. Waxman has just been too busy to get around to Ralston yet but when he does, this will be good. But then again she might just be trying to get out of being charged with any wrongdoing and will just “not recall or remember” except for all the gifts she kept getting for passing notes(she didn’t read) along to WH officials.

    Do any of these people have any moral convictions?

  • As I recall from the Clinton years, the fifth amendment is not the end-statement on things. There are recourses to get to her besides giving her total immunity. For one thing, she would have to testify to a grand jury if called. I don’t want to trample on people’s rights, but these people shouldn’t get off easy either.

  • I would agree with sarabeth,

    All they got for giving Goodling immunity was an admission that she “unintentionally…might have gone too far” and a reiteration of several WH talking points (The White House and AG weren’t involved. Everyone who has already left the DOJ is responsible). Chances are, in a year or two, she will have a cush job at some think tank or defense contractor.

    Whoever negotiated the immunity agreement certainly didn’t get much to move the investigation forward.

    Why would giving Ralston immunity work out any better?

  • Correction…

    All they got for giving Goodling immunity was an admission that she “unintentionally…might have gone too far” and her statement that she really didn’t know what the White House involvement was but the people who have left the department were heavily involved.

  • Ya know, maybe we are too soft on criminals here in the US of A.

    I mean, where else can you work to destroy the core rights and principles of a nation and still seek the protection of those rights when your arse is in the vice?

    I think Ralston-Purina and other members (in both senses) of this mAdministration should have to be some sort of test to prove they understand and appreciate the BoR before they get to use any part of it. Sort of like the driver’s license test.

  • oh, i think as people get time to (a) unpack Goodling’s testimony, (b) cross-reference it to connect the dots, and (c) subpoena any necessary follow-up in an embarassingly suggestive a way as possible today may be more valuable that it appears at first.

    1) She admitted that candidates were screened on a political basis, likely in violation of the law. Even if she is immune personally, we tar the Republicans generally with that sort of approach to governing.

    2) The slip about Griffin being a known vote-cager when they put him in as a USA is worth the price of admission by itself. It allows lots of nasty follow-up, and it plays perfectly into the building narrative that this was really about stealing elections.

    3) Her testimony about the White House “group” pushes the mystery closer to the top.

    4) The notion that no one knows why these 8 attorneys were let go continues to make everyone involved look worse – 8 people lost their jobs for what?

    And surely more useful stuff will be mined on closer re-reading and dot-connecting. Today was not such a bad day.

  • Hey, Zeitgeist! I wondered where you had wandered off to. And well informed as usual! And reading Pelast to boot….

    Your item #2 is where the whole thing is at! And if the 500 “lost” e-mails turn out to be authentic, that means that RFK Jr. – an expert on voter rights and elections-gets to testify for Waxman! I love it!

  • Comments are closed.