I think some people forget that they serve at the whim of the President, He is their boss and if he disapproves of their work, he can replace them, just like any other appointee or General that serves him.
Maybe a better question would be, why were some of these guys refusing to bring indictments on any Democrats until after the 2008 election.
2007-03-13 13:21:13 · 11 answers · asked by RusH2112 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Liberals will be liberals. Thats all you can say.
They play politics every chance they get.
Blind hatred is not patriotism
2007-03-13 13:26:56 · answer #1 · answered by John 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush had a similar correct and chance, as Clinton did, to fireside all of them. as a count number of actuality George H W Bush fired all of them too. the position the priority lies is once you lie and say performance topics, (2 of the 8 were maximum in convictions and case a lot) the different problem is the real clarification for the firings. If a President or lawyer prevalent fires a prosecutor because he received't unjustly crucify someone over a political vendetta, its incorrect. also if the firing is to keep away from justice by ability of technique of having an lawyer pushed aside so he can no longer pursue incorrect doing by ability of the activities doing the firing, it truly is inaccurate. So now you know the different not straightforward actuality Why take care of this so venomously at the same time as George W Bush and Gonzales have both suggested mistakes were MADE
2016-12-01 23:14:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I see some one commented on the fact that Clinton fired U.S. attorneys when he came into office. This was not unique to Clinton. Bush did not retain most of the U.S. attorneys that had been appointed by Clinton. Bush 41 did the same, however, this case is not the same. These guys WERE appointed by Bush BUT they were doing their jobs which was to follow the evidence, if there was sufficient, they went after them, if not , they did not. They did their job by seeking justice, not persecution.
As David Iglesias, one of the 9 pointed out, he was called by the republican senator numerous times to indict but he did not because the evidence was not there. Now surprisingly, he had "poor" job performance which led to his firing. This was a crock and Mr. Iglesias was able to prove he had favorable ratings up until this dust up with the Republican Senator.
Now if you notice I said 9, not 8. This is because in the mix there is a long forgotten demotion that took place in the U.S. territory of Guam.
The U.S. attorney there had been opened an investigation into Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay and the Marianas Islands 2 years ago. He went bye bye and the investigation went away.
This is the pattern with the White House, protect the friends at all costs, to hell with justice
2007-03-13 13:38:29 · answer #3 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it's common practice, especially after the opposing party has been in control for a dozen years, to remove political appointees. It's like spring housecleaning.
If Bush had fired all of the USAttys in 2001, or even 2005, then nobody would be questioning it. The scandal isn't that he DID fire them. It's potentially WHY he fired them.
As to your "better question", thank you for proving my point. The USAttys should not be bringing (or not bring) charges to people based on election timelines, especially not based on their political affiliation.
Charges should be brought when there is sufficient evidence of a crime to go to trial. That's the only measurable standard.
Using the office for political and propoganda purposes, by bringing or withholding charges based on election cycles, is exactly the kind of malfeasance that people are complaining about.
2007-03-13 13:28:23 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
A prosecutor takes an oath that he will preserve the U,S, constitution, and avows he will hold his office above the standards set for Prosecutors, that their job is not merely to get a conviction, but, to see justice is done, very few take this vow seriously, same as marriage vows most people forget them before they even kiss the bride or bridegroom,
most prosecutors want to have record of having 98.9 %onviction ratio when every one who reads this knows there is no way anyone can get a fair trial with those ratios, yet the stupid sheepel o public will say wow he is a good prosecutor, so lets make him or her a congressman or ? same as they did the prosecutor from Ill, who had 47 men convicted to death and knew some of these men were not guilty when he prosecuted them, the feds proved 35 of these men were not guilty and he had lied the cops had lied , but he is now the Attorney General for the state??? so much for Justice
2007-03-13 13:40:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Clinton fired his in the beginning like every President. Bush fired these Federal Prosecutors for trying to protect America.
Bush and the Republicans are evil.
2007-03-13 13:27:50 · answer #6 · answered by Stop_the_Klan@yahoo.com 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Seems a lot of people know it's common practice. Bone up on your presidential politics instead of being one-sided. Besides, you asked two questions and the second one is irrelevant to Clinton. He's been gone for more than six years - oy!!
2007-03-13 13:34:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the vast majority of them had no idea Clinton did fire all 93 of them.
They arent interested in issues that are questionable unless its a conserv/repub that they can then point their finger at.
2007-03-13 13:27:12 · answer #8 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Liberals hate freedom and that includes the freedom someone's boss has to fire them whenever he wants
2007-03-13 13:33:04 · answer #9 · answered by archangel72901 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm just curious, if it's nothing that's illegal, then why did Alberto look like he was about to cry at the press conference today?
Why did he basically flee the room once he was done?
2007-03-13 13:26:15 · answer #10 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋