Ralston’s Deposition
/in emptywheel /by emptywheelOh, this is getting good. As part of his interim report on RNC emails, Waxman released Susan Ralston’s testimony before the committee. Reading the deposition, it becomes pretty clear why Tom Davis was trying to warn Rove of the danger of Ralston’s testimony. Because even what she was willing to testify to makes it clear that Rove is in some deep legal trouble. And then when you look at the areas where she carves out immunity for herself, you realize that if she were ever to testify under immunity, Rove would be in deeper trouble.
The carved out areas, as already reported, pertain primarily to the Abramoff scandal and the use of RNC emails–both area where Ralston’s position as Karl’s gatekeeper would implicate her in the larger workings of the WH. For example, here is Brad Berenson, the GOP’s  designated firewall defense attorney, explaining the limites of Ralston’s testimony on RNC emails.
Berenson. Yes. We have decided this morning to allow her to talk aboutsome of the mechanics of Mr. Rove’s use of e-mail accounts, but when itcomes to the reasons of why he vvas using political e-mail accounts,there ìs a reasonable, well-founded concern that a discussion of thereasoning behind the use of those accounts may sweep more broadly thanMr. Rove himself , and may go part of the way toward explaining apattern of usage among other officials, potentially including Ralston,and so that’s why vve are goìng to decline to answer that question thismornìng.
At one point, Berenson reveals something more specific they’re trying to hide.
Q Do you know if anybody received briefings about how to use the different e-maiI accounts?
Mr . Berenson. I ‘m goìng to interpose our previous objection there for the same reasons stated at the outset.
Anyone want to guess a) that there was a briefing and b) that they made it very clear that they should dump anything illegal into RNC emails? Well, Ralston knows, but she won’t tell until you give her a stay out of jail free card.
Light Bloggging
/in emptywheel /by emptywheelShorter Abu Gonzales: Throw Libby in Jail for at Least 30 Months
/in emptywheel /by emptywheelI’ve been meaning to point out a little hypocrisy among the Republican faithful. You see, the Republicans are celebrating Alberto Gonzales’ recent call to crack down on federal convicts. They want to reverse the SCOTUS decision that allows judges to treat sentencing guidelines as a suggestion, and return to the era of required minimum sentencing. And they think this is a good campaign issue.
The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decisionby pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly allcriminals.
[snip]
In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General AlbertoGonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentencesagainst federal convicts — and not let judges consider such penalties"merely a suggestion."
Such an overhaul, in part, "willstrengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety andsecurity of all Americans," Gonzales said in the speech, deliveredthree days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violentcrime during 2006.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this Republican party talking about making this a campaign issue … it’s the same Republican party led by people threatening retribution because Scooter Libby, federal convict, might have to go to jail, right? And the same Republican party that thinks Steven Griles, Read more →
Throwing Another Admin Official in Jail for Obstruction
/in emptywheel /by emptywheelIn spite of signing a plea agreement for the charge of obstructing a Senate investigation, Steve Griles is trying to get his already light 10 month sentence reduced to three months of home confinement and community service on two non-profits Griles set up himself (in a scandal, of course, in which non-profits have routinely been used to launder money). The government is not so crazy about that deal, as they explain that Griles’ lies materially affected the Senates investigation into Abramoff.
The United States submits that had defendant Griles not lied and withheld material information, the Senate Committee would not have credited the defendant’s testimony in precipitously concluding its investigation into Abramoff’ s alleged influence and access within DOl. Rather, the Senate Committee would have dug deeper and probed further and likely would have discovered the truth about the extent of Abramoff’s access to the second highest-ranking official within DOl.
The government’s response explains why they recommended such a light sentence for Griles: put simply, they haven’t figured out how Griles benefited from helping Abramoff yet.
Given the seriousness of defendant Griles’ criminal conduct, and theconsequences that flowed directly therefrom, we deem it necessary tonote the single reason why the United States agreed to recommend anon-binding "split sentence" of ten (10) months imprisonment. Simplyput, to date, the United States has uncovered no evidence thatdefendant Griles personally accepted any money or gifts from Abramoff.That said, had we discovered otherwise, the charge(s) and thesentencing recommendation would not have been so limited.
The government basically suggests the judge cannot justify a lower sentence (though of course guidelines are not mandatory), because Griles refused to cooperate.
Defendant Griles has declined the United States’ invitation tocooperate in this ongoing criminal investigation, precluding him fromreceiving a substantial assistance departure under U.S .S .G. § 5K1.1.We have thus reached the proverbial floor of the applicable advisorySentencing Guideline range and there is no basis in fact or in law todig into the basement.