« Shorter Henry: Nice Try, Brad Berenson | Main | How to Spike the Lewis Investigation »

May 23, 2007


Yup - I think you're right on this.

Immunity for Ralston could well end up (or have ended up) being a way of doing the job that they were originally trying to do by getting Lam fired and Yang removed.

But really - could they possibly have thought Waxman would fall for this? That seems like desperation to me.

Marcy, you're so very right. I've been thinking about Iran-Contra ever since I read Novak's column last week. Sue Ralston is in such deep do-do over everything she did with Abramoff, both before and after moving to the White House, it's clear that she's just trying to save her butt. That Davis thinks we've all forgotten the '80s is pretty stupid on his part; Waxman's no fool, and no Lee Hamilton.

i bow before your majestic
command of the nuanced material,
here -- really -- i am awe-struck.


no immunity. nope.

thanks for the cerebral-view. . .

Slightly of-topic, but: why does anyone respect Lee Hamilton? He's like a retired HJoe Lieberman, a poor man's Bob Kerrey.

Speaking of immunity, Monica G. seems to be in the process of using it to confess to as many memory problems as AGAG. "I don't recall..." Amazing, isn't it? I hope someone is holding some memory refreshing material, at least enough to make her want a plea bargain, too.

Thanks for filling in your gaps, still wasn't quite following you last nigth, but see what you're saying now.

Actually, thanks for filling in MY gaps. Good posts this morning. I don't know how you find enough hours in the day.

Are we going to see a rush of requests for immunity now? Now that Monica Goodheart has succeeded in avoiding jail so far, do the rats come out of the woodwork? It would seem in a certain "If you don't have anything to worry about..." context that requests for immunity are admissions of guilt or complicity, no? I'm not a big fan of this kind of associative guilt, but Ralston?

So it's a Rove-to-Novak Hail Mary again, is it?

Allow me to revisit the Plame investigation, simply to think this through:

July 14, 2003 - Novak 'outed' Plame, thereby acting as a tool of the neocons who sought to smear Joe Wilson.
Sept 29, 2003 -- WaPo article (1x2x6) stated that 'senior White House officials used everything they'd had to 'get back' at Joe Wilson' for his "What I Didn't Find In Niger" NYT OpEd. Rove is both a WH official and also one of Novak's long-time sources; consequently, Rove needed cover.
Oct 1, 2003 -- Novak's column stated that Plame's identity was 'an offhand revelation' from someone who was 'no partisan gunslinger'. Novak deflected attention from Rove.

Novak now claims that " According to her friends, [Ralston] has nothing to say that would cause problems for Rove. Her request for immunity, they explained, resulted from caution by her attorneys.
The immunity is simply an act of 'caution'.
Rove had nothing to do with it; it was all thought up by her attorneys.
Nothing she says would cause problems for Rove.

Will Novak's next column inform us that Ralston never knew who Rove spoke with, how Rove operated, nothing about Rove's numerous email accounts, nor Rove's interactions with Sampson....? Will Novak tell us that Rove and Abramoff only met in passing?

Anyone want to bet how long it will be before Rove starts smearing Ralston? I'd give it 48 hours, but I'm open to other views.
My heavens, watching pigs fly is really fairly entertaining.

Gary are you a troll? Ad hominem attacks barely related to this thread add nothing to this discussion.


"This memo was published to make it clear--to Committee Members, to us, and to Karl Rove--that Ralston would not be getting immunity any time soon." quote EW

Does any time soon mean that immunity will have to wait until later this week, or next week, or when she testifies?

little d, you may be jumping the gun a little bit. Gary was simply responding to MB William's post at 10:55. I see nothing ad hominem about it.

Ralston was in too many offices where there was spying going on or information going through unauthorized and unsecured servers.

In addition to what she knows about the people and who said what to whom or who met where, we also need to question her about national security and preservation of data. Anything being deleted, rerouted, copied, sent overseas outside of normal channels opens weaknesses in the system.

Where are her loyalties?

I'm quite glad that immunity isn't being offered to her. She would act as another stonewall and escape culpability for enabling so much criminal activity.

Who has her computer/blackberry/laptop/etc. now?


To the author of this blog, can you clarify the motivation for inclusion of assurance to Mr Rove in Mr Novak's column?As if Mr Novak wants to create a climate in which committee will be forced to grant immunity,suggestion that witness does not have pertinent information will only hinder achievement of such objective.

simpleaccounts, The answer to your question is simple. Novak doesn't possess your depth of analysis and is therefore completely oblivious to his paradoxical blathering.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad