2007-03-21 12:44:51 · 16 answers · asked by chuckimagine 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Both Clinton and Bush replaced attorneys when they took office, this is about firing prosecutors who are investigating alleged corruption.
Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office.
Presidents Reagan and Clinton immediately dismissed all 93
US attorneys when they came to office.
When President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.
In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.
2007-03-21 12:55:06 · answer #1 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's a great and totally valid question. OK, here it is:
These judges are appointed by the President. When Clinton fired those judges they were hired by the previous George Bush (Ronald Reagan also did it conservatives! Read!). It's very typical in President appointed positions that when a new President comes in, those appointed by the last administration usually willingly submit their resignation or get fired. What makes this situation weird is that Bush appointed these people himself, then fired them with no explanation. That's the difference! For people to just say "it's typical liberal do what I say not as I do" is total ignorance!
2007-03-21 20:11:06 · answer #2 · answered by shelly 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ask the Republicans that did not protest or complain... ! OR ask Slick Willy and hope he won't want to whup your fundament!
Don't you get bored of asking the same questions that have been answered multiple times already? Hey, nothing illegal was done, booby... stop looking for some dirt where they ain't any to find! OR go get an education!
EDITED: bigsey93ortiz34, but as repukes are fond of saying... "if you have nothing to hide..." why worry?
EDITED: Kevin A, let me repeat this for the umph-time... all Presidents have the right to change certain people from certain positions at the beginning of their term by simply NOT re-appointing them to office; those that were recently FIRED (not the same as not being re-appointed, mind you) were Republicans put there by Dubya and since it happened in mid-term, even other Republicans are demanding to now why... it seems that those AGs were not going along with the secret agenda set forth by Dubya and his White House cronies and it does reek of improprieties and wrong-doing underway... so, IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE... why don't they just answer UNDER OATH... why are they now putting themselves above the same laws, ethics and morals they impose on the rest of America and the entire world?
Clinton no longer President and is still getting Bushwhacked for the horde of misinformation by Faux News and some ill-informed Repukes, and is not given credit for over 8 months of trying on multiple times to advise the Bushit administration of the impending dangers of the terrorists that had been uncovered by covert activities... until 9/11 and then they claimed that no one told them squat. And, isn't it strange that Clinton the only President (Democrat) who had a Republic Secretary of Defense... go figure!
Now, the Democrats are asking why some AGs were fired mid-term (a very UNUSUAL practice) even though they were appointed by Dubya... and still Repukes find reason to gripe and whine...? Hey, even Republican elected officials are asking the same questions, booby... why those AGs were fired, not just the Democrat Liberals!
2007-03-21 19:49:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't know. I just did not care. If my memory serves me right, wasn't Clinton gone from the WH over 6 YEARS AGO?
So Clinton fired thousands and thousands of " Attorney Generals" , ( Janet Reno x 1000 ? ). And what is your point? Hmmm ?
2007-03-21 19:51:52 · answer #4 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
At least half of those fired were in the middle of investigation of major corruption cases involving partisan republicans. So it gives the appearance of trying to kill investigation of his friends. In democratic systems the appearance of corruption is the same as real corruption if not fully investigated and proved.
2007-03-21 20:06:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Those fired were in the midst of investigations and prosecutions of Republicans. That would make it seem like it was in an effort to thwart justice.
2007-03-21 19:49:19 · answer #6 · answered by ihaterepublicans 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Now now, Clinton was a democrat. He was allowed to fire those attorneys and Bush is a republican. He's just not allowed to fire anyone. That's the way the liberal world wants it.
2007-03-21 19:53:16 · answer #7 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
This topic has been done to death. Elections are coming up, Congress cannot fulfill the promise they made, so they are on a witch-hunt to appease people until they figure out how to fulfill said promise.
2007-03-21 19:48:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
It's not the act that's being questioned. It's the method.
2007-03-21 21:09:35 · answer #9 · answered by coka-ko-lah 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
most likely the media thought that a non-story and it was not reported 24/7 back then, and what is not reported, most people don't care about. if it's not on entertainment tonight with mary hart, most people don't give a care.
2007-03-21 19:50:23 · answer #10 · answered by curious_One 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋