Was there an investigation into this and Congressional hearings?
2007-03-16 09:53:23 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Every last one and there was nothing wrong with that. The president can fire them for any reason he wants, even a political one. Until the law changes, that's just the way it is. But libs are gullible and they hate Bush so they don't care if there is or isn't a reason to attack him.
2007-03-16 10:05:13 · answer #1 · answered by VoodooPunk 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Somebody's been reading "Hell To Pay, The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton" by Barbara Olson again.
That's okay. I read it too after 9/11. (The plane Barbara was on hit the Pentagon.) After seeing her interviewed by Larry King, I wanted to see the Cheerleader on paper. What I wasn't expecting was all of those GREAT pictures of Hillary! Can you say "Cat Fight"?
I'm a moderate with a swing, but I'd still recommend the book. Biased. Slanted. But that was to be expected. Lots of facts too ... facts as unflattering to Hillary as those pictures.
2007-03-16 17:05:42 · answer #2 · answered by ... 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bill Clinton did what most presidents do when they take office. They requested the resignation of political appointees from the previous administration. Bush did the same thing at the beginning of his term. It is virtually unheard of for a president to fire prosecutors in the middle of his term. Gonzales fired 8 in one day, and replaced them with patronage appointments.
There's more but bottom line is referencing the Clinton firings to justify this latest group of firings is weak at best.
2007-03-16 17:10:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
180 something,, doesn't matter,, stop changing the subject to Clinton again,,, it's the intentions,, the reasoning behind the firings,,, when will Republicans stop answering every relevant question with,, but Clinton did this,, and Clinton did that,,, it's been more than 7,,, SEVEN YEARS,,, already,,, count them,,, 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 -5 -6 - 7 damn YEARS!
2007-03-16 17:01:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
83 U.S. attorneys given the hatchet by Janet Reno. Primarily to cover up the firing of the U.S> attorney in Little Rock, AR.
2007-03-16 17:05:53 · answer #5 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe it was 137. Janet Reno let them go under Clinton
2007-03-16 17:02:40 · answer #6 · answered by 1st Buzie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
93 I believe, it was like all but 1. No one made a big deal then because THE RPESIDENT CAN FIRE ANY OF THEM WITHOUT ANY REASON IF HE WANTS. But when it s republican its a conspiracy somehow.
2007-03-16 17:14:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it was an administrative change at the very "beginning" of Clinton's Presidency. It didn't come 5 years later. Had Clinton done what Bush did, a lot of people would have been asking a lot of questions.
2007-03-16 16:56:40 · answer #8 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 5⤋
All 93 of them including one in Arkansas that was doing an investigation of him and Hillary.....
Double standards with those Democrats....
2007-03-16 16:57:44 · answer #9 · answered by chefantwon 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The answer, of course is zero.
No attorneys were fired. They were not renominated as "holdovers" from Bush I.
2007-03-16 16:56:25 · answer #10 · answered by jw 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋