I know Clinton fired all 93, and Bush fired 8, but what about the other Presidents? And, what is the difference between Bush acting under his authority and any of the others?
2007-03-21 17:02:34 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Clinton fired 93 federal attorneys? Boy, the news media sure kept quiet about that. Clearly Fox News must have been on the Democrats' payroll. I sense you like our president and that is your right. How you can like someone that has caused all this harm, not only to American soldiers coming home in body bags or with missing limbs or brain damage, for NO REASON, someone who has dragged the United States' good image through the mud in front of the rest of the world, someone who has done more harm to this country than any other U.S. president, is beyond me. If he meant well, he is simply a bungler. If he didn't mean well, he is one evil son of a b itch.
2007-03-21 17:11:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They did NOT "fire" any. ALL they did was not appoint the ones that were present upon the start of their administrations, and appoint those they wanted... but NOT fire anyone mid-term of their administration... which seems highly unusual... and raises questions that deserve answers. For example, were they involved in trials that involved some with political ties...cronies of the White House? The fact is that those fired were Republicans and even some Republicans in the Senate want to know why those AGs were fired; some of Gonzalez' aides admited that they did not even look into the background or even met the AGs fired but went about doing as they were told...by the White House...? WHY??? WHY won't the White House rat-pack testify UNDER OATH if they have nothing to hide (as they fondly love to say to others whose Constitutional rights are being violated).
EDITED: Eagleflyer, the media also kept just as quiet when all the previous Presidents did the same at the BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS IN OFFICE... THAT is the difference, plus the fact that they were not investigating White House cronies. Faux News distorts everything in favor of one party... and they avoid telling the WHOLE truth but mislead the public (mostly near-illiterate yokels and rednecks); that's nothing new.
2007-03-22 00:10:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Clinton didn't fire a bunch of his own appointees 6 years into his presidency.
It looks like these folks were fired because they weren't carrying out the political vendettas of the Republican Party.
Even most of the Republican politicians think that such an act, if that is what happened, warrants at least the firing of the Attorney General.
2007-03-22 00:14:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think that 42 previous presidents replaced US Attorneys. (Well maybe 41, W H Harrison probably didn't).
2007-03-22 00:32:39 · answer #4 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty much all of them.
The issue with these recent firings by Gonzales is the potential reason they were fired. The accusations are that Gonzales fired them because they were non-partisan and refused to abuse their office by making partisan attacks.
The Dept of Justice is supposed to be non-partisan. The idea that senior federal prosecutors were fired because they had too much integrity, and refused to abuse their power, is frightening.
2007-03-22 00:39:01 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A lot of presidents fired us attorneys in the beginning of their term. The difference with Bush is he fired them midterm, and he cherry picked eight attorneys who were investigating republicans instead of dems.
2007-03-22 00:06:47 · answer #6 · answered by kberto 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I have no data on Presidents preceding Clinton. There is no difference.
2007-03-22 00:37:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋