host

Back on Jan. 27, I wrote to the nytimes ombudsman, public@nytimes.com to request that his LIBER-ULL newspaper correct this Jan. 26 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27judge.html?_r=1">story</a>
so that it includes the facts about Susan Ralston's background and recent raise in salary and promotion to "special assistant to the" POTUS. I got no response, and no correction has been made. Today, the LIBER-ULL press is stumbling over itself to get out the "facts" about the Abramoff/Ralston?Rove connection, but still the "press" refuses to report the information contained below, even though it is previously reported fact that Ralston has been promoted from Rove's assistant to Bush's special assistant, and that she <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/06/06/CU2005060601310.html">sits</a> just four office doors from the oval office:
117 listings http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...moff&scoring=d for the same "news report" that omits the information contained below:

As far as pictures, this may be as good as it gets..... Either the thugs underestimate the damage that this association has the potential of causing if it is broadcast properly, or....they are confident that this investigation and resulting prosecutions can be contained via the interim appointment of their own "hack", Alice Fisher as head of DOJ's criminal division, stacking the SCOTUS with Roberts and Alito, and of course, the "pardon card"! We must continue to publicize the following "info" thoroughly..... tirelessly....constantly...

(If this was not an area of concern for this Junta, why would they trot out <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/28/AR2005122801588_pf.html">"steno Sue" Schmidt from WaPo</a>, on Dec. 28, to "muddy" the facts as to how Ralston came to work for Bush and Rove, shortly after they took office in 2001. These thugs are alarmed enough to spread the "story", that the so far unindicted Ralph Reed was responsible for Ralston's hiring, and not Jack Abramoff, himself.)

This BS comes from the office of the POTUS, the most powerful politician in the world, but nonetheless, a petty, desparate, cornered rat, still deluded by ego and ambition.

<b>"'Upset' Ralston says she's not going anywhere
Rita M. Gerona-Adkins, Dec 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. --- Susan B. Ralston has determined to clear the air once and for all after speculations about her job at the White House have been published, including in the <a href="http://www.philippinenews.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=443b32a25f85eed21d2cd07e9b945192">Philippine News.</a>

“I am focused on my job serving the President in my current capacity,” she said in a telephone call from her office at the White House on December 12 to this correspondent....."</b>

<center><center><img src="http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/thumb-ralston.jpg">

<a href="http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal#ralston">RALSTON IS ROVE’S RIGHT-HAND</a>

From Newsweek, May, 2005:
<i>...."But the lobbyist’s ties to the White House extended well beyond money. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7577133/site/newsweek/?page=2&#note">When top Bush adviser Karl Rove was looking for an assistant in early 2001, Abramoff suggested his own top aide, Susan Ralston.</a> She remains one of Rove’s top deputies. At the same time, Bush tapped Abramoff as member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues. That level of close access to Bush, DeLay and other GOP leaders has been cited by many of the Indian tribes who hired Abramoff with hopes of gaining greater influence with the administration and Congress on gaming issues. Whether the tribes got their money’s worth is a question still being investigated by Congress, but there’s no question some doors were opened. In 2001, Bush met personally with a group of Indian leaders—including at least one tribe represented by Abramoff—to talk about his tax cut plan. The meeting was reportedly arranged by Grover Norquist, a prominent GOP activist with close ties to the administration and Abramoff.

While many GOP lawmakers have sought to distance themselves from Abramoff, the White House has remained largely quiet on Bush’s ties to the controversial lobbyist. <b>Last fall, when Congress opened hearings into Abramoff’s lobbying and fund-raising, the Bush-Cheney campaign pointedly refused to return a $2,000 contribution check from the lobbyist and said there was no reason to question any other checks Abramoff brought in as a top fund-raiser for the campaign.</b>

Editor's Note: On April 21, a White House spokesman told NEWSWEEK that Abramoff had played no role in Rove's hiring of Ralston."</i>
<i>"It's also interesting <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/8/3/141256/2833">to note</a> that one of Ralston's <a href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50318">primary functions in Rove's office</a> is to "take messages for Rove at the White House, then call [Grover] Norquist to tell her whether she should put the caller through." Now, this is undoubtedly just the case for lobbyists. There's no way in the world that Karl Rove is having calls from journalists screened by Grover Norquist. I know this crowd is corrupt, but that would just be plain stupid.

However, it makes you wonder how many calls to Rove go unrecorded in the logs. If Rove is denying the existence of other phone calls with journalists and citing his phone logs as evidence, Fitzgerald may have caught Rove in a bit of a pickle. Even if this isn't the case, <b>Ralston is the one person with intimate knowledge of what calls come into and go out of Rove's office.</b> I can see where this would make her very valuable to the grand jury, despite the insistence of at least one Rove loyalist, who said her questioning was simply a matter of "wrapping up the loose ends.""</i>

Susan Ralston "coverage" at <a href="http://www.google.com/custom?domains=philippinenews.com&q=susan+ralston&sa=Search&sitesearch=philippinenews.com&client=pub-4889336541841884&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en">philippinenews.com</a>

Susan Ralston's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/06/06/CU2005060601310.html">"neighborhood"</a>
Susan's office is "no. 9" on the WaPo west wing map, published in May, 2005, just 4 doors down from the chimperor...

<b>As an aside.....</b>
Ralston worked for Jack Abramoff at Preston Gates, and she followed him to Greenberg Traurig. What level of security clearance does she enjoy? What are the odds that she has tipped Abramoff off regarding information that the white house certainly has obtained in it's efforts to stay up to date on the details of DOJ's Alice Fisher's "prosecution" of Abramoff?

In a prosecution of Abramoff that actually is "no holds barred", managed by a non-partisan prosecution with unquestioned integrity, wouldn't it be odd to find someone like Ralston, former key aid to Abramoff, documented in publicly available emails to have "controlled" the distribution of "bribes" to legislators, as the indictment of Abramoff describes free meals and other "considerations" (premium tickets to DC area sporting events) to clearly be categorizes as....

working in close proximity to the chief law enforcement officer, of the applicable jurisdiction, in this case the office of the POTUS? Shouldn't Ralston be deemed a material witness at the least, or a person under investigation? Wouldn't a truly uncomprimised prosectution team be pressuring Ralston to "roll over" on Abramoff, to provide confirmation that he has provided reliable and detailed information regarding the "perks" (bribes) that he bestowed on legislators?

Ralston still working in the white house, with a $25,000 raise and a promotion, does not pass the "smell test" at this stage in this scandal. The opposition must pressure the DOJ and the executive branch about these inconsistancies.
<h4>Wouldn't a U.S. press with a "liberal bias" be making an effort to refute Bush's denials about his ties to Abramoff, by enthusiastically reporting the background, salary raise, and job promotion of Susan Ralston?</h4>