Waxman denies Ralston immunity, for now.
Waxman denies Ralston immunity, for now.
More details on former Rove aide Susan Ralston. Ralston’s lawyer says that if she 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.”
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.
But Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) is going to deny immunity for now. “‘Providing immunity to a witness is a significant step with legal consequences for potential prosecutions.’ Before deciding on Ralston’s request, he said, the committee ’should seek to obtain information about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the White House from other sources.’”
UPDATE: Emptywheel has much more.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Rep. Waxman is wise to be cautious about granting Ralston immunity.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 pmHenry Waxman appears to be one of few—perhaps the only—Democrat who understands exactly what the voting public expects from this Congress. He seems to be in the process of triangulating fire on Shrub’s administration, and I hope he drives the knife in deep, twisting all the while.
Give ‘em hell, Henry!
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 pmGood work, Rep Waxman.
Don’t give in to this slimey one just yet.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:27 pmOooooh, Ms. Ralston, you’re in trouble.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH…
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm“the committee ’should seek to obtain information about the relationship between Mr. Abramoff and the White House’â€
Um…what have you been doing for the past five years?
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pmwaxman knows what he is doing.
unfortunately,
he is suffering the follies of conyers and others in the congress who either did not understand the implications of granting immunity or just wanted a politician’s short term solution to a problem -
the better to move on to the next problem, my dear.
kind of like the real estate agent who sells your house in a hurry for less than its value,
so she can go on to her next sale.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:33 pmEt Tu, Waxman? Another Democrat cave in!
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 pmReality check Ms. Ralston. If we granted immunity to everyone, there would be no one left to prosecute, my dear. Tick Tick
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 ambeefeater, I almost hate to ask but what are you talking about???
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 amThey are going to wait until Goodling testifies to see whether Ralston’s immunity would play well in their little politcal theater as well.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:06 amHey, Beefeater, don’t you and Jake have a date tonight?
Wink-wink…
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:09 amWhy do Republicans hate the “Rule of Law”? Just 8 short years ago that term gave them spontaneous orgasms.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:18 amFor the record, there’s nothing wrong with the rule of law. As soon as Bush admits to lying under oath, I’ll call for his resignation too.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 am“beefeater, I almost hate to ask but what are you talking about???
Comment by JPark — May 23, 2007 @ 12:00 am”
The strategery would seem to be not to get caught up in a Libby type deal. After all the Fitzmas stuff, what came out of it? Was Rove indicted? Exactly. So keep pleading the 5th. I you want her to talk, grant immunity, but she’s not sitting still for any tricks. Her attorney isn’t going to let a Waxman witch hunt put his client in legal jeopardy.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 ambeefeater, I am guessing you don’t have a problem with all of these Bushites claiming the 5th? If it were a witchhunt, taking the 5th is illegal. As you righties LOVE saying…”If you have nothing to hide…”
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 amJake, that is moronic. As soon as Bush admits to lying under oath???
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:34 amBeefeater, are you standing Jake up?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 amSh!t, as soon as Dahmer admits to eating young men…moron.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 ambeefeater, I am guessing you don’t have a problem with all of these Bushites claiming the 5th?
Comment by JPark — May 23, 2007 @ 12:33 am
I have no problem with anyone “taking the 5th”. Clinton should have done it too, well except for that DNA on the little blue dress, and He might have gotten away with it. Libby really should have used it too. It seems to be a right under our constitution. And how would it be illegal if this is a witch hunt?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 amBecause if you take the 5th for no reason it is illegal!!! How do you not get that?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 amThe 5th amendment is not a shield against testifying against others. It is a shield against incriminating yourself. Der.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 amStop da snitchin’
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 amThen again, you have a Scalia view of the constitution so never mind.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 amit 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.
i appear here, to note,
for the record, the great job
done blogging the issue by
empty wheel!
it seems that rep. henry waxman
(or “his people“!) read yours,
and the fine blog EW runs — as well-
after midnight last night the ACTUAL
WAXMAN MEMO text was UPDATED,
with a shiny new paragraph
that makes what she said just as
clear as day — AT THE END OF
THE REVISED MEMO. . .
yep — i’ve marked it all, on mine. . .
now, imo, unlike ms. goodling — there
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 amshould be no hasty move toward immunity for
ms. ralston. as waxman’s revised memo
indicates — let’s subpoena karl rove,
among others, FIRST!
Certainly, wait as long as needed to make an optimal case. However, Ralston should be put immediately into the (potential) witness protection program.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 am