Janet Reno fires 90 attorneys and keeps her job. Alberto Gonzales fires 8 and he's under fire. Why?

Answer 1

Because the Democrats and their enablers, the Liberal Media, are doing all they can to stir up the mud, and to keep the American People focused on the phony scandals. This way the Democrats do not have to do anything, like work for their pay, and the People are not suppose to notice!
The Democrats believe that the Republicans will be too busy defending against the Liberal Democrats' attacks, that they, the Liberal Democrats, Owned by MoveOn. org, will easily fool the Dumb Voters into putting them in complete control of this Country.

Answer 2

God all you retarded republicans. First, the problem is Gonzalez, under oath, said the replacements were NOT political, then e-mails surface suggesting they were. This is perjury retards, you know, that thing you impeached Clinton over and now pretend isn't a real crime.

Second, no one seems to know how a provision got slipped into the Patriot Act that allows the attorney general to appoint a permanent temporary US attorney. This has allowed Bush to avoid Senate confirmation of his replacements. This is a violation of the separation of powers and what has the republicans mad too because traditionally the president will ask a Senator of his party from the state where the attorney will go to give him some names. Bush didn't do it so ego's are hurt.

Finally Reno fired all 90 in 1992, when Clinton took office, it is common for 70-100% of all US attorneys to be fired at the begining of a new presidents term and then subject the new one to Senate confirmation. Bush fired the majority of them in 2000. These 8 were fired mid-term. Congress ordered a study of such midterm replacements from 1981-2005 and they came up with a number and once you eliminated ones who were promoted or decided to run for political office you were left with 3: One bit a stripper and was forced to resign, one choked a reporter and was forced to resign and no one found any info regarding the third. The other difference among those 3, all of their replacements were approved by the Senate.

Answer 3

you will possibly have been on the sidelines extreme of Clinton and Reno in the event that they took no action. What surpassed off at Waco grow to be a cult like that of Jim Jones. Do choose make David and Jim now saints for what they did?

Answer 4

He fired them for a political reason not a performance reason and it is documented through e-mails. Most do however they aren't arrogent or stupid enough to leave a paper trail.

Answer 5

The firings were done at the BEGINNING OF THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, not in the middle and they were not politically motivated. Investigations into Democrats were at a 7:1 ratio over Republicans. There were 298 investigations of Democrats versus just 67 of Republicans. The problem they ran into was that there was more evidence being turned up on Republicans than on the people they had hoped would have been dragged down.

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias- N.M. was fired because it was felt that he was not indicting Democrats fast enough. Republican Senator Pete Domenici violated Senate Ethics rules by trying to interfere in an on-going (at the time) investigation into a Democrat. He felt that he should have been indicted before the Nov 2006 elections. This did not happen, there was not enough evidence. Then he was fired for "poor" performance. He was able to prove prosecutions were up in his district by 40%.

U.S. Attorney Carol Lam-CA was fired because she was pursuing an ever widening corruption probe that had started as a result of the investigation into disgraced Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Lam notified the Justice Department May 10,2006 that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official, Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired The timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam's dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe

U.S. Attorney John Mckay of Seattle was fired because he did not pursue a voter fraud allegation against the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in the hotly contested 2004. There was absolutely no evidence to warrant an investigation. This was also used a reason not to consider him for a judgeship.

U. S. Attorney Bud Cummins AR. was pursuing corruption and fraud cases involving FEMA and he was replaced by a Karl Rove crony who did not have the prosecutorial experience for the job. The Justice Department has acknowledged that Cummins, the Little Rock prosecutor, was asked to resign solely to provide a job for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove.
He was also "threatened" and told not to talk to anyone about his "dismissal" or else they would take the gloves off and besmirch his reputation

U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden Las Vegas was investigating a reputed kickback scheme that may have fleeced hundreds of millions of dollars. His office boosted firearms prosecutions, secured the convictions of dozens of violent gang members and oversaw the cases against four former Clark County commissioners convicted of taking bribes. A GOP source said Ensign was told that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to "give somebody else that experience" to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs.

U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton-AZ was fired as a result of disagreements with the Department of Justice about some office policies.
If there had been no shenanigans, why was Congress told it was for poor performance? All but one of the fired prosecutors had received positive job evaluations

Then there is the little remembered U.S. attorney who was ousted to stop an investigation into Jack Abramoff. A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2002, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.
U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black had investigators looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court revision bill then pending in the U.S. Congress. There were some transactions funneled through an attorney in CA to disguise that he was being paid by the lobbyists. These transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002. The subpoena demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, release records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.

A day later, the chief prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. The investigation went away soon after that.

Hell even U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was being considered but that one would have been too obvious.

Answer 6

It is called a double standard. It is on page one of the "How to be a Democrat" manual.

Write the DNC they'll mail you one.

Why is the leader of this crusade against Gonzales the one who is responsible for getting Democrats elected?

Answer 7

It was not politically motivated. That was a turnover at the beginning of an administration and is routine, that was not the first time that has happened. The REPUBLICAN 8 that were fired were fired solely because the were prosecuting Republicans and not being "tough enough" on Democrats.

Answer 8

Because he works for a Republican. Pres Bush does not defend himself against partisan attacks and the liberals take more and more.

Answer 9

Why? Because of the spin that the liberal media put on the situation, in my opinion.