Susan Ralston answers questions about Karl Rove's e-mails. He used private accounts "from day one."
Earlier today, we referenced the deposition of Susan Ralston by the House Oversight Committee. Excerpts of the transcripts -- not just links to the pdf documents -- have now been posted at The Gavel. Definitely worth a read. We're including two sections about Rove's e-mail usage:
BY MS. AMERLING: When did Karl Rove first start usìng his RNC e-mail account to send and receive e-mails from the White House?
A From day one.
[…]
Q For how long did Mr. Rove continue to use his political e-mail account to send e-mails from the White House?
A The entire time that I worked for hìm.
[…]
Q For how long did Mr. Rove continue to use his polit’ical e-mail account to send e-mails from the White House?
A The entire time that I worked for hìm.
Q Do you know how frequently he used this account?
A It would be hard for me to quantify how much. He used it a lot.
Q Did Mr. Rove have a BlackBerry provided by the RNC?
A I don’t know if the RNC actually provided the equìpment. It was a political BlackBerry, I don’t know if the BlackBerry came on — if he had it during the campaign — it was a political BlackBerry.
Q Did you ever see him use it?
A Yes.
Q When did he first start using this BlackBerry?
A I don’t know when he started using it in the White House. My best recollection is that he had it at the very beginning, but I can’t say exactly when it started.
Q Do you know how often he used it?
A He used it daily.
Q Many times over the course of a day?
A Yes.
Q Did he have a White House BlackBerry, an official White House BlackBerry?
A No, he did not.
[…]
Q Beyond Mr. Fitzgerald’s requests, were there other requests from other investigators for Mr. Rove’s e-mails?
A The only — there may have been, but the only other major investigation that I recall specifically was related to Enron.
Q Do you know when that would have been?
A I believe that was in 2001 sometime.
Q And you think in 2001 that Mr. Rove searched his e-mails to respond to a request for investigators relating to Enron?
A He or I searched.
Q And that search included a search of political e-mails sent over the political account?
A Correct.
Q Were other White House officials aware that Mr. Rove in 2001- was providing e-mails from his polìtical accounts to investigators who were looking at Enron?
A I believe so, because all of the documents that we collected were then turned over to the White House Counsel’s Office.
And then there's Rove other private, but not RNC, e-mails:
Q Do you know what hi s personal e-maìl account address was?
A It was an AOL account. I don’t remember right now,
Q Do you know whether Ken Mehlman used a political e-mail account?
A You know. Karl also had a “Rove.com” e-mail address .
Q You are referrìng to a personal e-mail address?
A Well, it was — it wasn’t — I don’t know how you would classify it, but it was a “Rove.com” e-mail address. There were — I can’t remember when, but at some point his Rove. com e-mai ls all went to the same political account. So if you sent an account — if you sent an e-maìl to George W. Bush.com or if you sent an e-mail to him at Rove.com, it went to the same place.
Q Do you know why his e-mail was set up that way?
A I don’t.
Q Do you know whether he made any official communications over his Rove.com e-mail account?
A He may have, but I can’t think of — I mean, he may have, because he used it all the time.
Q Do you know whether e-mails sent or received on his Rove.com account were provided to investigators who sought e-mail records from Mr. Rove?
A I believe so. They took his political laptop; and, as I mentioned, that laptop was taken durìng the leak investìgation. All of the e-mails just kind of got funneled into the same potitical server.
Ralston
"Yet, Ralson is not ordinary witness: She's an attorney, knowledgeable of the rules of the House Oversight Committee committee; in a position to rely on counsel; and knowledgeable of the DC Bar atty Standards of Conduct."
******
Ralston is NOT an attorney. She was Karl Rove's secretary. Get your facts straight.
Getting facts straight
Ralston is currently reported to be President, SBR Enterprises,LLC, which is apparently a lobbying firm she organized.
She reportedly left the White House Staff in Oct., 2005, departing after she was connected publicly with Black Hat Jack Abramoff.
She is reported to have had a number of functions, assignments, titles, etc. as a White House staffer. Some of these are: special assistant or executive assistant to Rove, Special Assistant to the President & Assistant to the Senior Advisor, Senior White House Staff member.
The description as Rove's secretary does not seem fitting. She graduated from Loyola of Chicago reportedly with honors and holds an MBA, and held some important responsibilities as a WH staffer.
Another possibility
Berenson may indeed have sought clarification by his prompt. Ralston may have fuzzed on her own volition. She could be talking to others besides Berenson about the form of her testimony. Ralston may be hoping to finesse her testimony, weaving a path among the pitfalls of false testimony while trying to maintain some secrets. On this premise, Berenson possibly was aware that Ralston could have testified differently and was concerned that his client might have mis-stepped. It is a fair assumption that Berenson is working in his client's interest, and her interest only.
In other words, Ralston might be hoping to obscure something without confiding this intent to Berenson.
Check Ralston's Blind CC: E-mail Opening Times
Let's focus on the issue with this Ralston re-statement
I don't recall. I don't have a recollection of anyone discussing with me specifically that claim.
Note: She's focusing on a discussion, meaning she's leaving open the option that she was told via e-mail, a written briefing, or a blind CC: e-mail sent to Rove, that she may have been sent indirectly. Also, she's leaving open the option that there are other claims.
However, if she did get a Blind:CC via RNC e-mail, there's a problem: Once someone like Ralston opens a blind:CC e-mail, that's tracked. Berenson wants to get immunity before Ralston will talk. Not so fast: The solution is to look at Ralston's time sheets, and all people who send Blind CC: e-mails to Ralston, then look at the times that she opened these Blind:CC e-mails. We're not looking at content, only looking at what she was reviewing first, ignoring, and the sequences of what she's opening or not opening. This will give insight into what she was focusing on, when, and what she was ignoring just on the basis of the subject-sender.
Then, we can look at something else: Take a look at the blind:CC times that DoJ Staff e-mails were sent; the time that Ralston opened them; and compare these with the workflows assigned through/coordinated with OPM, EOP, DoJ, and Goodling. This will give you an idea of who was on the routing list; the scope of the attendeees at a given meeting; and the size of the group/attendee list. This list of e-mail contacts can be compared to the budget codes issued for reimbursement if there was travel in support of a specific activity, DoD-DoJ program, or a small business area related to DoJ or another OMB-funded A-76 contract.
What we're looking for are the IP numbers that Ralston was reading the e-mails from. Again, we're not looking at the content, only at the header information related to the Blind:CC opening. When Ralston opens an e-mail, and if that IP is not with EOP, we'll want to notice: Was she at home, at DoJ, outside counsel's office; and does this actual IP-opening number that Ralston is using square with the time sheets/schedules/calendar information she's provided.
It would appear, based on Berenson's correction, and his assertion that Ralson has info about the RNC e-mails, that before we grant immunity to Ralston, the line of questions should focus on what IP numbers and Blind:CC opening times Berenson and Ralston have on these e-mails; and use this to see whether they have any patterns to the opening/closing/accessing times on basis of subject. There's no reason to given immunity to this "unknown" information that is really available through the Blind:CC opening logs from the sender. It only takes one e-mail. Recall how the NSA was tracking the e-mail connections: GOPO is trying to block the same -- prevent one IP number/e-mail getting connected to the second. Whatever the RNC/EOP was assuming was a basis to track US citizens via FISA violations, you may presume the RNC is attempting to block these same connections.
Why do US citizens have to be sujbected to intrusions which the RNC-GOP says are not applicable to them in re US Atty/RNC e-mails? This is backwards. US citizens have not been imposed with a record retention requirement under Hatch; but the GOP did.
The real question on Rove's email accounts
The real question is which email accounts did Rove used in correspondence of Plamegate mostly according to timeline:kr@gwb43.com (which is owned by RNC) or rove.com (which Karl Rove & Co. owns that domain or another email account that we don't know about. And how much of rove.com emails does Congress, HJC, and Senate have in their possession?
SP Biloxi
Justice League
Giuliani's campaign
Giuliani's campaign fundraising kept him from commitment to panel studying Iraq.
BY CRAIG GORDON Newsday
June 18, 2007, 11:41 PM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Rudolph Giuliani's membership on an elite Iraq study panel came to an abrupt end last spring after he failed to show up for a single official meeting of the group, causing the panel's top Republican to give him a stark choice: either attend the meetings or quit, several sources said.
Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.
He cited "previous time commitments" in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why -- the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani's lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.
Giuliani failed to show up for a pair of two-day sessions that occurred during his tenure, the sources said -- and both times, they conflicted with paid public appearances shown on his recent financial disclosure. Giuliani quit the group during his busiest stretch in 2006, when he gave 20 speeches in a single month that brought in $1.7 million.
On one day the panel gathered in Washington -- May 18, 2006 -- Giuliani delivered a $100,000 speech on leadership at an Atlanta business awards breakfast. Later that day, he attended a $100-a-ticket Atlanta political fundraiser for conservative ally Ralph Reed, whom Giuliani hoped would provide a major boost to his presidential campaign.
The month before, Giuliani skipped the session to give the April 12 keynote speech at an economic conference in South Korea for $200,000, his financial disclosure shows.
Foreign Affairs Credentials
Giuliani's trip to East Asia helps to give him the foreign policy background he needs to be President. These economic conferences are important and 200,000 dollars is a lot of foreign policy. And no doubt as the campaign continues, he will acquire even better credentials. In foreign policy.
Is China in East Asia?
Is this real? did Giuliani really go collect $200,000 in Korea? Is it not against the law to take political money from all those foreigners?
Syndicate this content
Berenson-Ralston Apparenty Agreed To Signaling System
Issue: DC Atty Standards of Conduct in re DOJ OPR, ongoing Congressional Review [Tribunal, US Atty E-mails, RNC E-mails, House Oversight Committee, Abramoff, FBI]:
It appears as though Berenson coached Ralston how to respond to Berenson's reactions/comments. I noticed Berenson interrupted the questions when Ralston said "no" to one of the questions. The way Ralston revised her remark, it suggested she and Berenson had arranged some sort of signal if she should change her answer from, "I know nothing," to "I don't recall."
The issue on the table: If this Berenson-Ralston arrangement were real [allegedly Berenson signalling Ralston to revise her remarks], would this amount to witness tampering; some sort of pre-meeting Between Ralston and Berenson with the intent to adjust recollections; and what kind of issues would this raise for Berenson in re candor before a tribunal and the Atty Standards of Conduct? [Link: Deposition]:
She's essentially repated the qualifying terms of the question, but broadened the response from just Rove to "anyone" but repeated the questions words: "this/that claim". All she had to do was answer, "No." This indicates that she's well aware of the words being used; shows ample evidence that shes able to track the precise language in the questions. Yet, contrast that later with her answers to other questions: [paraphrasing"] "Can you repeat the question. Ralston appears to have played stupid, stalling for time when she appears to be able to repeat verbatim the qualifying words of a specific question despite being interrupted by her own counsel.
A witness to have a specific recollection of something, and answer "No" says one thing; but for counsel to [a] know that the answer may not be correct; and [b] interject with a comment; and [c] get the witness to change her answer from a certain answer to the opposite, uncertain, is curious.
Notice this contrast:
Again look at her response:
She's gone from "No" to "I have no recollection/don't recall." Yet, she's able to state with precision, as Goodling did, some things she is not recalling, but leaves open the question: What does she recall; what other claims that she may have not necessarily discussed, but have read, heard about, overhead, or been sent a blind copy via her RNC e-mail account sent from someone else?
Berenson And the RNC Blind Copy E-Mails
Yet, Ralson is not ordinary witness: She's an attorney, knowledgeable of the rules of the House Oversight Committee committee; in a position to rely on counsel; and knowledgeable of the DC Bar atty Standards of Conduct.
It appears the Berenson prompting of "clarification" was a signal to Ralston to do do the opposite: Provide ambiguity, this would amount to misleading the tribunal.
Arguably, Berenson public assertion of "requesting clarity" sounds like a good thing; but Ralston's response suggests the message Berenson was communicating was the opposite: To retract a statement, and provide ambiguity, arguably, in violation of the DC Bar rules which compel counsel to provide candor before the tribunal, not a double-meaning message with the intent to have the tribunal believe counsel was assisting the tribunal to get a precise answer. rather, Berenson's comment appears to do the opposite, hide the intent of his message, and induce Ralston to do the opposite of what the Tribunal thought Berenson was communicating.
Issues for Berenson in re Tribunal:
What kind of coaching did Berenson have with counsel to ensure that when he asked her the question she did above, that she would know to [a] understand her response needed to be changed; [b] understand she needed to revise her remark; [c] to stumble or argue with counsel; and [d] seamlessly transition from a certain answer to one that asserts the obvious: Uncertainty.
Berenson had a duty to be impartial [DC Bar Rule 3.5] and a duty to disclose adverse information [dC Bar Rule 3.3]
The standard applies to legal counsel. Whether we're talking about Ralston to
Berenson, the same DC Bar rules apply:
Once it appeared as though Ralston and Berenson had coordinated their answers, and adjusted testimony, did Berenson appropriately disclose the scope of the coordination he and Ralston had? Arguably, once Berenson corrected Ralston, this raised the issue that there had been coordination; and that because Berenson publicly correct her on the record, the scope of his coordination with Ralston is admissible.
Berenson did not disclose anything to the tribunal, as required by the DC Bar Rules, merely prompted Ralston; and it was not Ralston who provided the inconsistent statements to the DC Bar, but to the Congressional committee.
Once Ralston and Berenson have allegedly agreed to abide by unwritten terms, agreements -- apparently not disclosed to outside/opposing counsel -- how did that non-disclosed arrangement affect the proceeding?
Did Berenson-Ralston's apparent prior meeting to adjust responses based on Berenson's prompting amount to legal counsel violating Rule 3.4, and did Berenson in violation of 3.4 "assist" Ralston to conceal the truth: That Ralston on her own was certain of something; but that counsel hoped to adjust her responses to interject ambiguity and uncertainty?
Arguably, Ralston-Berensons's interchange rise questions about alleged obstruction of justice, the scope of Berenson's pre-deposition coordination with Ralston, and the appropriateness of Berenson's comments in light of Ralston's initial assertion of certainty, then an an apparent prompting to adjust her response to be ambiguous.
The other problem Berenson-Ralston have, given the lack of disclosure on tall the ground rule and the agreements between Berenson-Ralston and the Congress, there is a reasonable basis to have doubts about Berenson's compliance with
What restrictions by the Govt Oversight Committee were there in place when Ralston was deposed prohibiting counsel from inducting witnesses to adjust their answers?
Is there a specific rule, regulation, or guideline unique to the Government Oversight Committee that expressly prohibits what Berenson and Ralston have appeared to have done: Have a signalling system; offer testimony that was adjusted based on non-disclosed agreements?
Let's consider the other clients and information Berenson and Sidley Austin have, which remain undisclosed. Was there something about at&T, Boeing, or another client involved with the RNC e-mail communications -- in a to-be-understood capacity -- that induced Berenson to get Ralston to retract her statement?
If, as it appears, Berenson wanted to take Ralston's response ambiguous, and not certain, how might Ralston's "final answer" of ambiguity assist another Sidley Austin client; and in turn, what inducement, if any, has Berenson or anyone else made to others to not challenge, corroborate, but provide similarly ambiguous responses to answers they might, on their own, answer with certainty and precision?
Why would Congressional counsel be satisfied with Ralston's response -- which is vague, as less clear -- yet the prompting from counsel wanted the opposite: Clarification?