Stumped

by emptywheel

Damn. I hate being stumped by Bob Novak--he's usually such an easy read.

It's not that I don't understand his portrayal of the Grand Inquisitor Henry Waxman versus the bewildered Bush Administration.

As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Waxman is tirelessly making life miserable for a confused administration during George W. Bush's last two years as president. Bringing down Rove ranks high on Grand Inquisitor Waxman's agenda.

[snip]

Since assuming the chairmanship on Jan. 4, Waxman has acted as though he had spent the past dozen years in the congressional minority contemplating how many investigations he could launch. His committee has aimed at the General Services Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, constraints on global-warming scientists, the misrepresentations of Cpl. Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan, private contractors in Iraq and the Plame leak, among other things.

The Bush team has seemed confused and disorganized in the face of this fusillade. Warnings by Rep. Tom Davis  of Virginia, Waxman's Republican counterpart on the committee, fell on deaf ears at the White House. The president's agents appear uncertain about how much they should meet Waxman's demand for documents.

How like Novak, after all, to oversell the power of the other side while depicting his own Republicans as hapless. If I were Waxman, I'd paint this column purple and put it on the door to the Committee staff office; it seems the only appropriate way to treat it.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out what's going on with Susan Ralston's bid for immunity, nor with Novak's spin on it.

GOP House members learned that Susan Ralston is requesting immunity to testify before Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's investigating committee.

[snip]

Ralston appears to be seeking immunity for self-protection rather than nailing her former boss, and she could be a blank fired by the fierce political marksman from westside Los Angeles.

[snip]

Waxman's committee sought testimony from Ralston about Rove's e-mails. She was deposed behind closed doors last month before her request for immunity. Ralston told one Republican on the committee last week that her lawyers wanted her to seek immunity, and another GOP committee member told me she is doing so. According to her friends, she has nothing to say that would cause problems for Rove. Her request for immunity, they explained, resulted from caution by her attorneys.

Is this really a warning to Rove--that Waxman wants "his scalp"? As if Rove didn't know that? Or reassurance, a message sent from Ralston's friends to Rove that she doesn't intend to flip on him? Or an attempt to dissuade Waxman from calling Ralston to testify publicly by suggesting she'll be a dud?

Novak seems to have learned of Ralston's impending testimony from two Republicans on the Committee (and note--he describes Tom Davis warning the White House, so I presume Davis is one of them). From there, he seems to have gotten Ralston's friends--but not Ralston herself--to provide reassurances that she won't hurt Rove. Novak reports that Ralston's lawyers counseled her to get immunity, though he doesn't mention that Ralston is represented by designated firewall defense lawyer Brad Berenson (whom Novak doesn't name). Berenson's other illustrious firewall client, Kyle Sampson, has revealed enough about Rove to justify SJC's subpoena of Rove, but not enough to pin Obstruction of Justice on him. Would Ralston, with the shield of immunity, reveal more (about Abramoff or about Rove's disappearing emails)?

Most importantly, how plausible is it that, after Waxman got a deposition from Ralston, he'd then consider immunity from her without knowing she had something significant to offer?

Then finally, why couple this revelation with the complaints about Rove's attacks on Republican Congressmen for their leaks about the confrontational meeting with Bush. Novak says the Ralston news broke on the same day as Rove's attacks (which would make this a well-kept secret for most of the week). Is that designed to be a threat?

If I had to guess, I'd say it was an attempt to play to Waxman's ego, to dissuade him from actually giving Ralston immunity, all the while laundering a leak, from Davis and others, to warn Rove of Ralston's appearance. Stealing Waxman's thunder on Ralston's testimony, all the while raising the stakes for her appearance. All signed with a cute note to Rove: Republicans on the Hill are willing to protect you in this way, but stop with the public attacks.

Comments

[Albert Fall]

Seems like Prisoner's Dilemna to me:

All of Rove's people get their own individual maximum outcome by coordinating and stonewalling with the same story.

However, as each one lawyers up, he or she makes an individual choice on how to avoid jail time.

It makes me wonder if they are worrying that Monica is not on the team, or if there is some early rumor mill running that she is going to name Rove.

[tekel]

You know, stories like this make me sad that mob lynchings are so out of style.

[Rayne]

Albert -- after reading this, I'm wondering if Sampson already named Rove on a specific point and a second corroborating bit is being sought from either Goodling or Ralston.

Ralston is already on the hook because of the Abramoff scandal, having deliberately used non-White House email to conduct White House business during pre-election period, and having provided assistance to bypass ethics rules on reporting requirements. There's probably more than Hatch Act content here, too, given the pre-election timing. Rove knew she was on the hook, or she wouldn't have been moved down the hall and then out of the White House after the Abramoff emails were released by Waxman. But Waxman as ranking minority member of Oversight at the time the Abramoff emails were release, could likely do nothing to force the issue at the time, and has waited to use it as leverage.

There could be far more damaging content uncovered during the original Abramoff investigation of which Ralston is aware but we are not; she may be pleading immunity not because she's afraid of being forced to squeal, but because she's already in legal jeopardy. She may not have lawyered up and asked for immunity until now, because doing so before the issue was forced would have reflected poorly on Rove and the White House, and hurt the election outcomes if she'd done it last year.

IMO, Novak's tipping off Rove, but only part of it is about Davis.

[Jane S.]

In the Libby trial, Novak testified that "Rove was a very good source" or some such thing. Can't Novak just pick up the phone and call Rove? Does Novak communicate with everyone in DC by writing columns about them?

And I'm just crying a river for these poor Republicans who are just horrified by the constitutional obligation of oversight! Did anyone catch Turley last night on Olberman, he said before the Dems took control that he had to meet John Conyers in the basement to talk b/c they wouldn't let Conyers have a conference room?!

[Woodhall Hollow]

I think your Sampson theory is a good one. I remember during his testimony in the Senate that there were a whole raft of questions he was supposed to follow up on--since we haven't seen any angry letters from Leahy reprimanding him, I have assumed that he was cooperating. What is more interesting is that he has not plead the 5th, nor has he been granted immunity. Which would lead one to believe that he was in a position to finger-point, and would (at this point, after seeing how Rove treats those who are no longer useful) not have anything to gain by refusing to cooperate with Congress--and a lot to loose, personally, if he didn't. That is, if he wants to stick to his story that he was just a well-meaning little worker bee.

As for Ralston--one wonders if at this point she would love to get this over with and move on. The Abramoff thing has been hanging over her head for like years now.

As for Novak--I think that he just can't stand the idea that he has become such a parody of himself, which was a parody in the 1st place. And is desperately trying to maintain his sense of his own importance in his own mind.

[Semanticleo]

If one assumes Novak to be a shameless conduit of manipulation and disinformation, one will hardly ever be wrong. He's been an egg-sucking weasel for 5 decades and your suspicion is well founded, EW. Although his disappointment with this WH may be genuine, his back-door compliment to Waxman does not include his admiration for the LEGAL activities necessary to stop the 'scofflaws' he prefers.

[stagemom]

you're not stumped! you are always onto it, nancy drew!
novak is a bloviated fool (i think of toad, in wind in the willows), and he's ready to make a big, big
slip of his forked-tongue.
you go, girl.
for all us.

[Frank Probst]

I'd go with the obvious--she needs immunity for her role in the Abramoff scandal(s). Abramoff is clearly singing like a canary to try to get his jail time reduced. And Ralston worked for Abramoff before she worked for Rove. She's in a bit of a tight spot right now--she has to be worried that Abramoff will offer up Rove in exchange for less jail time, and she's a no-brainer witness to anything that happened between the two of them. I don't think she's in any direct danger of being charged, but if Abramoff and Rove end up in some sort of Godzilla vs Mothra showdown, Ralston is going to be the first person to get squashed. An immunity deal would be a prudent move for her right now.

[orionATL]

tekel

i'm with you,

but a point of clarification.

are you talking about a mob of the citizenry hanging just one miscreant?

or a mob hanging a mob of bush mobsters?

i'd opt for the second, more sweeping, action.

and i'd throw novak in to boot.

[JEP]

Marci; What you recognize here is a veritable conspiracy between many of the players you talk about in "Anatomy of Deceit."

While Rove's cover may be thinning faster than his hair, there's no doubt they (the many minions of the DC cocktail-weenie power circuit) are protecting him, many of them ILLEGALLY, at every juncture...
from today's WaPo; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602443.html
In a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a senior Justice official said the department scoured (there's an ambiguous word, I BET they scoured their computers, as in "cleaned thoroughly") its computers in response to a subpoena and found just the single e-mail chain written earlier this year. It already had been released publicly. The possibility that Rove had a role in the removal of the U.S. attorneys has become a central issue in Congress's investigation. (...does anyone doubt this is just more obvious proof of Rove's minions' latest anti-truth syndrome, habitual deletion disorder...)

[Jim DeRosa]

Doesn't Novak see the irony in his own report.

"His committee has aimed at the General Services Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, constraints on global-warming scientists, the misrepresentations of Cpl. Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan, private contractors in Iraq and the Plame leak, among other things."

Shouldn't the Press be investigating these issues too?

[emptywheel]

Frank

Yes, it may well be Abramoff. But on that point, I'd suggest three things:

• She may be in a good deal more stew than you make out--even the emails already released show that she was conspiring to get Abramoff access
• She may well have already gotten immunity in the legal investigations (would we know?)
• The warning to Rove may simply be that this is coming public--as opposed to Rove's slow implication in Abramoff that we currently have

Not sure if any of that is true. But Abramoff ties Rove in. Even if she's just talking about Abramoff, it may lead to Rove.

[Quzi]

I'm with Frank on Ralston being squeezed between Abramoff and Rove...she was undoubtedly in the thick of everything.

Novak is always sending messages. I agree with EW it is probably to tip off Rove that his involvement is coming public soon.

[a reader]

Interesting post as usual. What does this mean?

"If I were Waxman, I'd paint this column purple and put it on the door to the Committee staff office; it seems the only appropriate way to treat it."

Purple? hang it on the door?

[Neil]

"...you are always onto it, nancy drew!"

Nancy Drew, I like that. You're the best EW. Good idea to invite all to give it a close read... good ideas come from many places.

I'd say it was an attempt to play to Waxman's ego, to dissuade him from actually giving Ralston immunity, all the while laundering a leak, from Davis and others, to warn Rove of Ralston's appearance. Stealing Waxman's thunder on Ralston's testimony, all the while raising the stakes for her appearance. All signed with a cute note to Rove: Republicans on the Hill are willing to protect you in this way, but stop with the public attacks.

The play to his ego insures the article will come to his attention so that it can be effective in the other intended ways. I don't see how it might dissuade Waxman from giving Ralston immunity... unless her immunity raises the stakes for a revealing questioning and then her testimony flops like Gonzalez' testimony. If you are right, Waxman doesn't know what Ralston would say with immunity.

[Mimikatz]

Why would Novak need a column to get a warmomg to Rove? Won't Rove take his phone calls? Blackberry messages? I lean more to the theory that it is Novak puffing himself up. This is not to say that Rove may be in some danger, however, gods willing.

Ralston is really in a bind, I would think. During the Abramoff shenannigans, none of them thought they would ever get caught, because they were ensuring the triumph of the 1000 year GOP reign, and they must have bene pretty sloppy. She can't serve two masters, and has to think about her own personal future. Sampson is a more interesting figure in many ways. More than a little blinded by the light, but not stupid.

[Jodi]

High hopes as usual.

I would only caution that any attorney worth his salt will be telling his clients to get immunity because of the Libby case's demonstration of the effects of conflicting testimony, well meaning or not.

And if the person has actually worked for or with a convicted person who had/has real charges against them, as opposed to the current NO CHARGES AT ALL situations as regards emails, USAs, then it is all the more imperative.

What many bloggers don't seem to realize is that a lot of these smaller people are frightened and dismayed at the power arrayed against them. They see the political pressure to find anyone, anyone at all to hang.

They see Libby.

Welcome to the post Wilson-Plame-Rove world.

[emptywheel]

a reader

Only because doing both would give it the proper false gravitas and amused celebration that Novak deserves. As if to say, "look at me, Novak called me the Grand INquisitor!"

[greenhouse]

Jodi, far off in another orbit as usual. Hello, Susan Ralston connected to Abramoff (convict).

[zhiv]

I don't really know about these things, but is it possible that Ralston, with lots of legal advice, repeatedly took the 5th when she was deposed, and that's why they're talking about immunity now?

[William Ockham]

Well, I tried to post a comment earlier, but Typepad's captcha system thinks I'm a robot. Anybody got one of those things from BladeRunner to prove I'm human?

This column is Rove leaking the information about Ralston's immunity request in a friendly forum so that he can prove he's not scared about it. If it came out in a McClatchy newspaper, there would be an entirely different spin to the whole thing. Rove can't afford to have people think he's in danger. The minute people stop fearing him, he's toast and he knows it. Which leads me to think that he really is worried about Ralston's testimony. Lawyers don't recommend their clients ask for immunity unless there's something to worry about. If Ralston's lawyers are worried, then Rove should be too.

[Woodhall Hollow]

Libby one of the "small people" !!!

That has got to be one of the funniest things I have heard all day!

[Jane S.]

I think William Ockham's take is interesting because I don't really buy that Rove and Novak communicate via his columns. I suspect that they chat on the phone quite frequently. Rove has been identified by Novak as a frequent source. And like Mr. Ockham, I didn't know whether to take this thing seriously b/c of the source it was coming from--so in a sense, Novak writing this, did send me a message that Rove wasn't in danger from Ralston.

I hope to hell that he is...

[obsessed]

Question: Do we know if Ms. Ralston's appearance will be public or behind closed doors?

Idjo: The list of people who could almost certainly bring down Karl Rove is massive, and it only takes one: Abramoff, Ralston, Goodling, Sampson, Gonzales, Libby, Sara Taylor, DeLay, Scott Jennings ... each one is a boiling kettle with a clattering, hissing lid that Karl has to keep securely in place. Rove is like Caesar - omnipotent until someone plunges in the first dagger.

[Rayne]

WO 13:29 -- I see your point, but let's try the flipside of that argument. Would McClatchy carry Novak? Would we think it was less spin and more news if it came from Novak in any other outlet? Would we think it was Rove's ghost writing through Novak, no matter which paper carried him? Nah, I guess I don't buy it, I think it's other entities foreshadowing back to Rove.

Mimikatz 12:42 -- Don't you think that Rove would be avoiding direct contact with Novak or vice versa, if the Plame investigation is inactive but not closed? I know if I were either of them, I would. And certainly no emails between them; they could be used in a test of document production if there was a subpoena to produce all correspondence between them in the future. On the other hand, Rove was fired once before in his lifetime for leaks to Novak; maybe he still hasn't learned since it takes dogs at least 4 attempts to learn a trick.