The Next Hurrah: Shorter Henry: Nice Try, Brad Berenson

« Did Orrin Hatch and Byron York Get Their Oppo Research from Monica? | Main | Or Should I Have Said: Nice Try Tom Davis? »

May 22, 2007

Shorter Henry: Nice Try, Brad Berenson

by emptywheel

There has been a lot of discussion already about the Ralston news from today--that she asked for immunity so she could testify about Abramoff contacts with the White House. What seems to be missing from those stories is the takeaway: Henry Waxman's not giving Ralston immunity anytime soon.

Waxman provides a helpful map of what happened. Ralston gave a deposition on May 10--over a month after Waxman first invited her to visit. While there, she "testified on a number of subjects unrelated to the Abramoff matter." [Note to Novak and Rove--that bit's just there to make you sweat.] But as for the rest, Waxman describes what sounds like an unsuccessful attempt on the part of designated firewall defense lawyer Brad Berenson to convince Waxman to give Ralston immunity for stuff she's still under investigation for with the DOJ probe. Henry helpfully shows us the roadmap Berenson laid out for us:

Susan is here this morning voluntarily. She wants to assist the committee in its investigation to the extent she is able to. She is not under subpoena. We understand that the purpose of this morning’s deposition is really twofold: first, for her to provide the information that she can provide on a couple of subjects where she can testify without precondition … and, secondly, to make a record for the committee of the subjects on which she does not feel she can testify without a grant of immunity based on concerns that the testimony may reasonably form some link in a chain of evidence that someone could regard as inculpatory of her.

The subjects this morning that she will be unable to testify to on those grounds are the subjects of the relationship between Jack Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, including Ms. Ralston, and the subject of the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts at the RNC.

She has material, useful information about both of those subjects. She is more than willing to provide it to the committee. However, she will, as we have previously discussed, require a grant of immunity before she is comfortable going forward.

And if you can't read that road map, Henry gives you an even more specific one:

She was personal friends with a number of the individuals on Abramoff’s staff, and as the
committee’s own report makes clear, was frequently the recipient of communications from them, even if the substantive matters under discussion related only to activities by other officials in the
White House.

So let me read the road map for you all:

Ralston would incriminate herself if she talked about Jack Abramoff's contacts with the White House.
Ralston would incriminate herself if she talked about the political emails at the RNC.
Ralston got frequent emails from people on Abramoff's staff discussing activities relating to "other officials in the White House."

But, Waxman says, Ralston isn't going to get immunity to talk about these things--there are plenty of people (like Michael Scanlon or the other Abramoff lobbyists who have flipped) who can testify about these things.

Curiously, Waxman doesn't say how he's going to get to the RNC emails without Ralston. But since Ralston says that, too, will incriminate her, I suspect her non-testimony has renewed Waxman's interest in getting the emails.

May 22, 2007 at 23:04 in Bush/Republican Scandals, Contributor--emptywheel, Law | Permalink

Comments

i think you may have you slipped on "waxman".

there's one waxman too many in the last paragraph.

thanks for the info: i've been wondering what actually happened with the ralston deposition.

and i'm also wondering who is going to be the alexander butterfield (or some such), of this mammoth scandal,

the person who gives the whole game away.

iglesias says the sweet little m&m girl might be the one.

i guess we'll test this hypothesis tomorrow.

Posted by: orionATL | May 22, 2007 at 23:21

Orion

Right you are, thanks.

Goodling won't do it all, if for no other reason than she's trying to get immunity while still protecting people.

Posted by: emptywheel | May 22, 2007 at 23:41

EW - Why do you think Waxman is holding out on giving immunity to Ralston?

My thought is that could be getting good data from other people that will put her in a much tighter spot, thus when it comes time to negotiate with her, she'll be much more eager to walk the dog (rover) than to play firewall.

I don't know seem odd to me. I can't imagine that he has information enough from others as to make her moot.

Posted by: Dismayed | May 22, 2007 at 23:58

Dismayed

He saw Iran-Contra, the movie. And doesn't care to see the sequel.

If Ralston is the key player, and doesn't bring others down, it'll do no good. You need Ralston to remain perfectly liable for her crimes. And if that requires trusting in PI at DOJ, so be it.

Posted by: emptywheel | May 23, 2007 at 00:02

Yes, Lone Ranger. Seem odd to me too.
geez

Posted by: Dismayed | May 23, 2007 at 00:02

Marcy,

I love your analysis. Stop making sense! Someone in the damn House and Senate might hear you.

Posted by: dunderhead | May 23, 2007 at 00:13

So it goes back to someone's comment "I like my stoolies under indictment"

Thus, your gut feeling is that they are closing on her in a very tanigible way. It that's so, it's going to be one hell of a bomb when Wax sets it off.

Sometimes I get the feeling that we are watching one big dog and pony show where both sides are players that know their parts. From where we are now if we don't get some real heads on the platter I fear I'll look at Washington with about the same disdane as WWF.

Posted by: Dismayed | May 23, 2007 at 00:14

I hope to the powers that be that something will really happen. I'm so tired of tough talk but no action.

Posted by: TJ | May 23, 2007 at 00:25

The conundrum for the paleocons/sons of watergate is the cost benefit analysis/risk assessment of firewall defense versus the election cycle. The emerging chess game of constitutional rules and legal time should enthrall all of us because the sensibilities of the Founders were incredibly accurate. The scoundrals are always with us and the only hope is to have institutions and structure that keep them at bay.
Ms. Ralston and Ms. Goodling serve as prime examples of innocence gone awry. Neocon fodder for the cause. I don't think there will be a Alexander Butterfield, but rather a cascading effect of culminating behavior that Christ might more readily identify with the Sadducees and Pharisees than his disciples.

Posted by: Ace Armstrong | May 23, 2007 at 00:25

Early indications are that Goodling is going to try to protect her old friends (Rove et. al.) while trying to do something to justify the immunity grant by her new friends (Congress).

Where is the evidence that she is savvy enough to pull that off?

Posted by: Albert Fall | May 23, 2007 at 00:47

the person who gives the whole game away.

please, "the person", step forward ... people are dying here

Posted by: obsessed | May 23, 2007 at 02:45

And if that requires trusting in PI at DOJ, so be it.

excuse my acronymous thick-headedness, but what, pray tell, is "PI"?

Posted by: obsessed | May 23, 2007 at 02:48

3.1415926535897932384626433

Sorry couldn't stop myself.

Posted by: Dismayed | May 23, 2007 at 03:05

Ralston will get immunity.

These committee hearings need fresh testimony to keep going.

Posted by: Jodi | May 23, 2007 at 03:32

This is an incredibly bizarre Kabuki dance Berenson is laying down on/off the record as cited by Waxman in the May 22,2007 Memorandum. I am curious if it comes across the same way in the cold transcript as it does in Waxman's Memo. Who is the "Majority Counsel" referred to in the Memorandum that conducted the deposition of Ralston for the Committee? There is some agreement or understanding between Berenson and either Waxman or, alternatively, the majority Counsel on Waxman's behalf, that we are not seeing here.

Posted by: bmaz | May 23, 2007 at 05:13

On this thread Tokyo Jodi says: "Ralston will get immunity. These committee hearings need fresh testimony to keep going"

But just a few threads earlier, Tokyo Jodi said: "Now why am I so scarcastic here? It is because everyone is looking at the wrong thing. Look at Iraq people! That is where the smoking guns, and the dead bodies are. All the rest is just side street theater."

LMAO.

Posted by: John Casper | May 23, 2007 at 05:29

great stuff, EW! --

it seems that rep. henry waxman
(or "his people"!) read your
fine blog, EW -- well-after midnight
last night the ACTUAL WAXMAN MEMO
text was UPDATED, with a shiny new
paragraph that makes what you said
just as clear as day -- IN THE END
OF THE REVISED MEMO.

yep -- i've marked it all, on mine.

great job, EW!

imo, unlike ms. goodling -- there should
be no quick move toward immunity for
ms. ralston. as waxman's revised memo
indicates -- let's subpoena karl rove,
among others, FIRST!

Posted by: nolo | May 23, 2007 at 08:07

So, Tokyo John Casper,,

you are saying that Ralston won't get immunity?

Posted by: Jodi | May 23, 2007 at 15:13

promote enneagon stratic palaeophytic embankment sclerodermic dermatotherapy veadar
5
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/7.html
6
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/11.html
14
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/13.html
17
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/3.html
18
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/12.html
2
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/9.html
15
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/4.html
10
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html
8
http://www.angelfire.com/ahfohm/1.html
14
http://www.freewebs.com/ielohv/16.html

Posted by: Lee Figueroa | September 05, 2007 at 15:25

promote enneagon stratic palaeophytic embankment sclerodermic dermatotherapy veadar
Pacific Northwest Gifts
http://qoicadoh.info/130.html

Posted by: Harley Ross | October 08, 2007 at 09:28

promote enneagon stratic palaeophytic embankment sclerodermic dermatotherapy veadar
Testicular Implants
http://eskldeuv.info/146.html

Posted by: Keith Coffey | October 15, 2007 at 12:30

promote enneagon stratic palaeophytic embankment sclerodermic dermatotherapy veadar
Record Dvd To Vcr
http://www.angelfire.com/ojsqzkuy/gb.html
Hot Chilli Sauce
http://www.angelfire.com/kllqd/1x.html
Candid Wedding Photos
http://www.angelfire.com/xifnka/1xs.html
National Fire Alarm Services
http://www.angelfire.com/gslblsuh/34t.html
Cnn Front Page News
http://www.angelfire.com/mjfjecs/383.html
Atlanta Film Festival
http://www.angelfire.com/vbdumfl/2hu.html
Usb Driver For Windows 98
http://www.angelfire.com/yogkb/4qf.html
Leather Chair And A Half
http://www.angelfire.com/vjpkuph/7h.html
Fly Away Lyrics
http://www.angelfire.com/sytyhht/4f7.html
Full House - Tim S Tv Showcase
http://www.angelfire.com/mwsmo/2yx.html
Columbus Ohio Public Libraries
http://www.angelfire.com/offimgh/1vh.html
Lake Victoria Map
http://www.angelfire.com/vbdumfl/562.html
Shabby Chic Style
http://www.angelfire.com/yedsszev/a5.html
Electric Super Bike
http://www.angelfire.com/nxobgmhp/kj.html
Coumadin Diet K Vitamin
http://www.angelfire.com/pevnbir/1kk.html
Nurse Practitioner Job
http://www.angelfire.com/cquve/5a4.html
Turbo Tax 2003
http://www.angelfire.com/dkkceqep/ei.html
Nc Boxer Rescue
http://www.angelfire.com/sucoag/31y.html
See My Girl Friend
http://www.angelfire.com/fqlsa/2tr.html
Delete Windows Xp Password
http://www.angelfire.com/vbdumfl/14t.html
Linens N Things Canada
http://www.angelfire.com/idweka/3f7.html
Soccer Goal Net
http://www.angelfire.com/xifnka/1d5.html
Schools For Special Needs
http://www.angelfire.com/ewhgybkk/5mn.html
Royal Caribean Cruise Line
http://www.angelfire.com/rjdlxdq/1lj.html
Design A Logo
http://www.angelfire.com/dkkceqep/5mr.html
Hotel Management Instutions In Banglore
http://www.angelfire.com/jpykugk/5vm.html
Ladies Golf Club Reviews
http://www.angelfire.com/jpbukpo/2fg.html
The Finish Line Bike Shop El Centro
http://www.angelfire.com/xifnka/4xw.html
Unlock Boost Mobile I835 Free
http://www.angelfire.com/yivfho/12l.html
Endless Yard Sale
http://www.angelfire.com/qfgefoo/4vv.html