What exactly is he being accused of? And why does he have to prove he didn't do whatever it is? Schumer said the burden of proof is on him to prove the accusations are false. That's bass ackwards.
Since when is someone guilty until proven innocent?
2007-04-19 06:51:09 · 8 answers · asked by Philip McCrevice 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3598.html
“The attorney general needs to give specific details,” Schumer said. “Who made the initial complaints? Who investigated the complaints, and why was this U.S. attorney fired and the other wasn’t? The burden of proof is on the attorney general.”
2007-04-19 07:03:37 · update #1
Because Patrick Leahy has nothing better to do with his time than to waste taxpayer dollars.
Oh yeah, he's up for re-election.
2007-04-19 06:54:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I don't think Gonzales should have to prove anything. This is all about the 8 prosecutors getting fired and was it because Bush told Gonzalez to get rid of them. Last I heard, the attorney general was a Presidential Appointment and he works for the President. If the Democrats can win the next Presidential Election, the Attorney General knows that he is gone. The Democrats will appoint a Democrat Attorney General (Dah!). In the mean time congress needs to quit wasting our money and their time over the issue and get back to funding our military and other vital legislation. If the prosecutors that were terminated believe that it was a wrongful termination, they're all lawyers and I'm sure can figure out how to file a wrongful Termination Law Suit. Anyhow, I agree with you, our system says you are innocent until proven guilty and the accused doesn't have to prove anything.
2007-04-19 14:05:58 · answer #2 · answered by Jim 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Remember, he's not being charged of a crime... (yet)... he's being charged with impropriety in the firing decisions of the U.S. Attorneys, among other things. First he claimed he didn't know anything about it and that there were no political forces at work. Then the e-mails came up showing that he did know about it and did know that Rove had input. If Schumer said he had to "prove the accusations are false" (I'd like to see a cite for that), he's talking about the congressional investigation, not any sort of burden of proof in a court of law.
2007-04-19 13:58:21 · answer #3 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, these are "information gathering" hearings. The congress is trying to find out if Gonzalez knew of the firing of 8 US Attorneys from his office and had anything to do with them because they all appear to be "politically motivated". I guess they (the attorneys) were asked if they would prosecute a case against a very "high powered" Republican political figure (of that I am unsure, but Mr. Rove's name keeps popping into this), and they answered they would, and intended to pursue the charges. Suddenly the 8 were fired for "job performance".
Again, this is not a "trial" in the conventional sense - there is no jury, and no judge. Gonzalez is being questioned by a bunch of lawyers trying to find the answers to the questions. He is being drilled so they get some answers. So the presumption of guilt isn't even a factor in these hearings.
2007-04-19 14:02:11 · answer #4 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The US Congress is an unusual beast.
They can hold "hearings" on just about anything they wish. There does not have to be an alleged crime, or even a question of illegal activity. They have subpoena power and testomony is under oath. It is a crime to give false testomony to congress.
There is no Grand Jury, no judicial review of warrants/subpoenas. They can fish all they want. Suspected criminals and criminal defendants have more rights and protections than do government officials and US citizens called to appear before a congressional committee.
Pretty scary, eh?
.
2007-04-19 14:12:44 · answer #5 · answered by brweldon81 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There aren't crimanal charges filed at this point so it's not really a matter of guilt or innocence yet. The question is in regards to the purpose of the firings, were they politically motivated, the evidence shows that they were. And the administration is dodging the answers all over the place.
To me it's not so important about the purpose of the firings, it's a matter of the administration's cover up. Does any of this sound familiar?
2007-04-19 13:58:01 · answer #6 · answered by labken1817 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, our system is like that.
If you break the law, you are arrested and held as guilty.
You are forced to tgo and defend yourself.
If you are called the defendant, then you are assumed guilty, right?
2007-04-19 13:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by jim c 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There will be some cleaning up amongst the corrupt Bush compatriots. Gonzales is only one of them.
2007-04-19 13:57:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋