Harry Reid: Gonzales to Be Gone Within a Month

Bloomberg News reports Harry Reid said on their tv program, to be aired this weekend, Alberto Gonzales will be gone in a month, "one way or the other."

As to the others,

``Certainly, Karl Rove, with his resume, would have to be under oath,'' Reid, 67, said in an interview with Bloomberg TV's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air this weekend. ``He simply in my opinion, and I think the majority of the American people, is not trustworthy.''

The House and Senate judiciary panels voted this week to authorize subpoenas to compel testimony by Rove and other White House officials. The administration is insisting that the officials be permitted to talk in private with lawmakers and not under oath.

Reid stressed that he thinks a compromise is possible, and that not all officials need to give sworn statements. ``Well, I think that there could be some testimony taken in private'' and ``would be recorded,'' Reid said. ``We could do that.''

[Hat tip Raw Story.]

< Rudy Flip-Flops on Guns | Obama's Early Life >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Didn't Reid already say. . . (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:42:07 AM EST
    that Gonzales would be gone in a matter of days -- a week or two ago?

    But seriously, folks (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    this is Paul Begala, to WNYC's Brian Lehrer (with Arianna, too), yesterday 3/23 (available through wnyc.org), answering the host's question on why Rove will have to brought in under oath:

    "He'll lie.  I've known him for over twenty years [- we're sort of friendly] - and I know him.  He'll lie if he's not under oath."  Lying is intrinsic to his being.

    When people who know you say you'll lie if not under oath, you have a lying problem.

    rove and lying (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by orionATL on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 01:22:04 PM EST
    as my dear departed  dad would have said:

    karl rove will lie when it would be easier to tell the truth.

    glad to hear some straight talk, espresso, from sen reid.

    my question is - for whom is gonzales being thrown (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by conchita on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:38:54 AM EST
    under the bus - rove or bush or both?  emptywheel wrote last night Beware the Shiny Object in the Gonzales News and pointed to the fact that the 16 day email gap "started when Kyle Sampson asked Harriet Miers whether or not Bush had to sign off on the firings".  not that i feel sorry for him, but it does make me wonder.

    i'm curious (4.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:47:37 AM EST
    what official govt position does karl rove actually have? it's my understanding that he's bush's political adviser, is this an official federal govt job title? who pays him?

    i realize that a lot of official jobs are political in nature, but they usually have innocuous sounding titles. i have yet to hear of mr. rove's, other than political adviser.

    if he's employed directly by mr. bush, paid personally by mr. bush, or the republican national committee, wouldn't that make him just another private citizen, subject to the same laws as everyone else?

    i ask because i honestly don't know.

    Deputy Chief of Staff (none / 0) (#17)
    by roy on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:02:34 PM EST
    From Wikipedia (and thus to be taken with a grain of salt):

    The Deputy White House Chief of Staff is the top aide to the White House Chief of Staff, who is the senior aide to the President of the United States. The Deputy Chief of Staff usually has an office in the West Wing and is responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the White House bureaucracy, as well as such other duties as the Chief of Staff assigns to him or her. In some administrations, there are multiple deputy chiefs with different duties.


    Karl Rove holds the post of Deputy White House Chief of Staff for Strategic Planning and Senior Advisor to the President.

    Sounds like a government job, but one in which he answers to the President & Chief of Staff rather than the general public.


    What??? (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:48:23 AM EST
    Now the Prez has already said no, how do you think the Demos will make this happen?

    Looks like the SC will get a separation of powers case and the Demos loose.

    That's comforting ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:40:10 AM EST
    ... since all of ppj's predictions turn out to be wrong.

    Bye, bye, abu.


    Under your theory of Separation of Powers (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    The US has become a Monarchy. Congradulations! Madison would be proud...

    Why do you hate our Democratic form of government with checks and balances against too much power being gained by any one branch?

    Why would you want to turn our country into Nicaragua under Somoza or the Dominican Republic under Trujillo?

    What is up with your love affair with Caudillo's? (warning wikipedia- accuracy debatable)


    Molly B .... my thanks (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:43:08 PM EST
    Thank you for noting that I believe in the separation of powers, and resist nonsenscial subponeas issued by a partisan Congress for the sole purpose of trying to force the executive to obey their demands.

    Few others hear seem to understand it as well as you.

    Turn off the light on the way out. It has blinded you.


    Monarchy (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    Don't kid yourself Jimbo, you have no respect for our country or the constitution.

    Since you so dislike and our constitution and our democratic traditions here in the US, you can always move to Cuba...


    Molly (1.00 / 2) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 11:07:58 PM EST
    Molly - You are a nasty person who likes to make incorrect claims about things you know nothing about.

    Please continue your attack to demonstrate my point that the Left is radioactive and dedicated to anything that they think will put someone in power they can control.

    As for loving the country, I gave it ten years.

    Have you even given it 10 minutes??


    Since you will not uphold the constitution (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 09:55:41 AM EST
    why did you bother to give it 10 years?


    A better question (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:15:00 PM EST
    Why didn't you give it 10 minutes??

    I've given 20 plus (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    years to our constitution. I actually believe in it.


    It could get even better (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:37:36 AM EST
    Dean: "Those Who Have Wanted To See Karl Rove In Jail May Get Their Wish"
    New Developments in the U.S. Attorney Controversy:
    Why Bush Refuses to Allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to Testify Before Congress, and What Role New White House Counsel Fred Fielding May Play

    rove (none / 0) (#3)
    by profmarcus on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:04:46 AM EST
    rove will be just as slippery under oath as not... i read a little squib from james moore yesterday (moore, you may remember, is a career rove-watcher) where he expressed no faith that rove under oath would be any more forthcoming than rove not under oath... i'm sure that's true, but, still, under oath, in public, with transcript has to be the only way to go with a man of such consummate darkness...

    And, yes, I DO take it personally

    Well... (4.50 / 2) (#4)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:11:04 AM EST
    Cheney & Bush say it's not torture, so how about giving Rove a ride on a waterboard?

    Gonzo could carry the water (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 08:15:24 AM EST
    He's had lot's of practice...

    Prof - Do you (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:16:22 PM EST
    mean to tell me that there are people who have made a career out of watching Rove????

    Good grief.


    Why Reid's puffing? Not necessary. n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by cal11 voter on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:38:42 AM EST

    Who pays Rove? (none / 0) (#14)
    by naschkatze on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 07:39:24 PM EST
    i'm curious, I think Rove is paid by you and me, the tax payers, but he should be paid by the RNC.

    Who pays? (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 09:38:43 PM EST
    And who pays Pelosi?



    Civix 101 (none / 0) (#20)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 12:47:50 AM EST
    And who pays Pelosi?


    The taxpayers, but unlike Rove, they are accountable to the voters.

    Just so we're clear, how do you believe the American people should hold Rove accountable for his actions?

    Does his job at the White House confer immunity from all forms of investigation?  If the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach ANYONE, how can they be prevented from investigating possible targets of impeachment?

    Do the police in your town get to investigate crimes?  I guess not.

    Who, in your opinion, does the Constitution empower to investigate wrongdoing in the White House, and what tools do they get to do it?

    Unless, of course, you believe that the White House is exempt from any control, and can do anything it wants without limits.  Do you believe that?


    RePack writes (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 07:58:33 AM EST
    Do the police in your town get to investigate crimes?  

    Hmmmm... In most criminal investigations the police investigates after they see a crime, or are told about a possible crime at some point they bring charges, perhaps through the use of a GJ, perhaps not.

    What doesn't happen is that the recently placed in power city fathers try to bring in the targets and make them testify under oath.

    At least that's what happens where I live. Maybe not in Demo land.


    Poor Comparsion (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 10:03:01 AM EST
    If the mayor of your fair city in GOPLAND interfered with criminal prosecutions, your local DA, being an independent constitutional officer, would indict the Mayor. If he didn't, GOPLAND's AG would investigate (in theory anyway- more likely he took a bribe as well).

    The problem here is you are getting to the top of the food chain.  The check on the executive branch is the congress- assuming you believe in our constitutional system. However, Jim is a monarchist who believes the king can do no wrong...


    No Molly (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:20:57 PM EST
    I have it right.

    The Demos have nothing. If they did, they'd have told the world.

    This is just politics. 101.


    Wrong again (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    Why is Alberto's aide pleading the 5th?

    I don't think you understand the difference between investigation and prosecution. You investigate before you prosecute.

    There is sufficient evidence to warrant an oversight investigation. Assuming you believe in our Democratic system and aren't a monarchist who believes King Bush can do no wrong. In which case you stand around and claim there is nothing to investigate.