What role did the Reverend Hillary Clinton play in the firing of 93 US Attorneys in 1993?

Question

Or did that occur on the same day she was busy firing the White House Travel Office staff for no reason?

Answer 1

Yeah, she was just involved in firing the White House Travel Office. It was all Bill and his attorney general that went after the 93.

Answer 2

Hillary didn't have to, when an administration changes so do political appointees. If the previous administration had been a Democrat, there would have been no need to change them, but they serve at the pleasure of the president so guess what, stop looking so desperately for excuses for Bush, he (Bush) actually fired his own prosecutors, ones that he put in office, Republicans themselves. Just not the kind he wants in a prosecutorial position, the kind that will do his bidding on judicial matters and overlook justice in favor of kissing his fanny first. Hmmmm.
Travelgate was made much of, but again there was a reason that didn't get much press, mainly because the Press was angry at Clinton for eliminating a perk they had become accustomed to. It seems the head of the travel department was taking money and putting into his own account, not for illicit purposes, but just to hold the money til it was needed. Then he would return it, no one said he did anything illegal, but it sure looked bad so he was fired.
I don't know why I bothered answering, I know you only want to hear your thinking that Hillary is a swamp creature confirmed, but I though that since I was actually alive at the time you might want to know what really happened.

Answer 3

You human beings make me concern for a fashion ahead for our united states. The selective memory on both area of the aisle is basically magnificent. ok, some information right here. First, that's straightforward practice for a clean President to change the old President's appointees, which may comprise those judges. So there is no longer some thing unusual about what Clinton did. i think Reagan did a similar issue with all of Carter's appointed judges. i think Carter did a similar with all of Ford's. at the same time as the White homestead ameliorations activities, this can be an straightforward issue. that's basically no longer undemanding to do it in the technique an administration, and that's no longer undemanding to do it because the human beings in that position are not transferring quick adequate on investigations into Democratic election options in the run-as a lot as a nationwide election, which looks the case that those judges are making. even if there is any actuality to their claims, i don't know. and those of you whose brains for sure have holes in them look to imagine that Clinton not in any respect were given hounded for some thing he did. You look to have forgotten that Clinton were given slammed by ability of the media for firing the finished White homestead commute team. You look to have forgotten that each easily one of the 1993 WTC bombers were arrested and convicted. You look to have forgotten that when the Embassy bombings, we released missiles at al Quida preparation bases. (likely unnecessary, yet he did some thing.) You look to ignore that the Yemeni authorities rounded up and improsoned the united statesCole bombers. You look to ignore that there are more beneficial procedures to wrestle international terrorism than with the 82nd Airborne. You look to have forgotten those impeachment courtroom circumstances and Ken action picture star and 'that lady' that he 'not in any respect had sex with'. Clinton replaced into the most fowl-dogged President i have ever undemanding, and that i lived by Watergate. So i'd recommend that you attempt to get some thing to plug up the holes on your heads that are apparently allowing your brains to leak out, except that i think it is your mouth it truly is the priority.

Answer 4

OK, jackhole, here's the deal...

On a change in administration (translation for dimwits like you: when a new president is elected), it's customary for all US attorneys (and other appointive-position holders) to tender their resignations, and most of them are indeed accepted. When Bill Clinton was elected, this happened, just as it did when Reagan was elected in 1980.

What's different about the current situation is that it was an attempt by Bush toadies to change the entire line-up DURING an ongoing administration for entirely political purposes.

US Attorneys are like Federal judges - a president appoints them, AND THEN NEEDS TO LEAVE THEM ALONE.

It's also just sorta kinda important to note that even though the travel office debacle was a boneheaded debacle, it just ain't the same as firing US attorneys, regardless of when it's done.

By the way, Hillary Clinton isn't a member of the clergy. If she had anything to do with the 1993 changeover of US attorneys, it would have been because she was one of the top 100 most influential and important American attorneys herself, according to Bar ratings.

I don't even like Hillary - but that's beside your specious point.

Answer 5

She was the First Lady at the time.

Pretty much none, becauase it's standard political practice to remove political appointees when there is a change of administration, especially if the other party had been in control for a dozen years. So, what Clinton did was common practice.

That is entirely different than the current scandal. See the dozens of other posts on this topic over the last few days.

Answer 6

Why is it suddenly so important that presidents for the last 100 years have released and hired US Attorneys at their will. It is something they have the right to do with Senate approval.

It seems like the Hate Slingers are using this to mask the illegal distribution of Grand jury testimony by Alberto Gonzales.

Go big Red Go

Answer 7

I hate to tell you that the request for resignations in 1993 and the firings at the end of last year are apples and oranges.
If Gonzales and his staff did nothing wrong then why is the AG issuing public apologies and members of his staff resigning?

Answer 8

Who cares what role she played, its no secret that past administrations fire or dismiss Attorney Generals at the beginning of there terms. But please do tell me this. What reason did the WH have for lying about there motives for firing the eight AG's that they did fire? Why has Rove been caught with his hand in the cookie jar yet again? You cons want ever one to conveniently forget that small detail. I'm waiting for answers.

Answer 9

There's a big difference between those firings & the ones in the Bush administration now. Why don't you do some research & find out what it is before opening your big stupid mouth?
Rove/Libby scandal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16770023/

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Prosecutors_say_silence_in_CIA_leak_0524.html

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/karl_rove/index.html?inline=nyt-per

NY times article on US attorney’s firing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Answer 10

US Attorneys are political apointees. They all expect to be fired when the government changes hands.