Clinton fired 83 Federal Attorneys. Are Dems being Hateful when They Moan About Bush Getting Rid of 8?

Question

Seems VERY hypocritical and hateful of Dems

Answer 1

Yes...but what Dems oppose ANYTHING done by this administration, simply because it is this administration.....I don't think they ever got over the fact that the supreme court made Florida respect their election laws and didn't let them change them.

Answer 2

Then maybe you should understand that Clinton did this when he took office. Since they all serve at the pleasure of the President when he brought in his DAs, there was nothing unusual about it, the previous 12 years had had Republican presidents and he was a Democrat. He, and any other president has a right to have DAs who reflect the concerns of their leadership. There was still congressional approval.
Bush fired his own appointees. HIS OWN CHOICES. In mid term and appointed his own replacements without congressional vetting. Apparently the last rubber-stamp congress had that included in the Patriot Act without having read it through.
Once in office, a DA is supposed to follow the investigation to its conclusion and not do things on a purely political basis, its the idea of justice for all, you know, the one in the Constitution? Not only did he fire seven of them for poor performance, even thought they all had good evaluations, but the eighth was told to resign so a friend of Karl Rove could be put in his place. now, that's naked politicizing of the office.
Thats wrong, that will have a chilling effect on the level of justice in the country if only one party, especially the party in power has the ability to interfere in investigations into its own members.
This is OUR country we are talking about here, not Dem not Rep and I want to know that no party has the ability to stop investigations, I want an open government accountable for its actions no matter which way the chips fly.
I know that several of the DAs were supposedly investigating Clinton when he fired them, it didn't stop anything though and I wonder how many more investigation did we need to pay for past the millions we wasted on Clinton as it was. In the end, it wasn't Watergate, which had been examined many times in the past, it was a false statement made in a deposition, in a trial that never went to trial that made this country subject to the sight of a mans sex life, in every detail turn up on the web. He shouldn't have done it, but neither should they.

Answer 3

Hateful? No, most Presidents make this change at the beginnning of there terms, so why is Bush the first President in a long time to make changes this far into his second term? Why have some of these Attorney's gone on record saying they were fired for very suspicious reasons? You are aware that Bush appointed the ones that were fired aren't you? Do you know who Carol Lam is and who she was about to investigate before she was fired? She prosecuted Duke Cunningham, a republican, and was about to bring up charges against Dusty Foggo of the CIA. Don't belive me? Google it.

Answer 4

Well, first off, you don't have your facts straight. Clinton fired 93 prosecutors....all of them. There was no effort to weed out the DEms from the Repubs, no analysis of their records, no political agenda, and no smear with "poor performance" as a reason. It was simply a wholesale house cleaning, and it's the president's right to do that, just as he has the right to fire the entire cabinet and bring in his own people.

This is the polar opposite of what was done by the Bush administration who smeared (lied) about the attorneys' performance, casting a cloud over their careers. They picked attorneys who they didn't feel were prosecuting the people they wanted prosecuted, and who prosecuted friends of the administration. this is sleezy in the extreme, and mark my words, they're gonna pay a heavy price.

Answer 5

Get your facts straight first. It was 93, not 83.

And Bush says he didn't know anything about it.

So ask yourself if it makes sense that a select number of Bush's own handpicked US Attorneys (with top performance evaluations no less) were fired 6 years into his term without his knowing it.

And then ask why the Attorney General gave several different answers about why they were fired.

And then ask why the Presidents top political advisor was involved in the process. And why he is afraid to testify under oath about his role.

And then ask why only lawyers who had prosecuted Republican criminals and not enough Democratic criminals were singled out.

Just about every Republican who has commented on it said it was absolutely wrong to try to influence the criminal justice system for political ends.

Answer 6

Sorry pal, but the majority of Americans aren't interested in the Hippocrasy your selling.

When your done trying to irrelevantly equate this matter in comparison to the Clintons or the Kennedy's or some kind of Liberal dilemma--let us know.

Your tax dollars are paying the salaries of these clowns, why not inquire about the job they are doing for you? Being in favor of a political party directly controlling the outcome of matters of law based on their idealogy and not the rule of law is simply a ridiculous point of view. It's a Democracy thing, not a Democrat thing--Know the difference.

Answer 7

Why do you keep repeating this non-talking point?

Are you even aware that Bush fired all the prosecutors when he took office, too? You're not? How embarrassing for you...

The unusual part is firing attorneys during bush's term - highly unusual - and firing attorneys who are investigating corrupt republicans.

Why are you focused on the Dems rather than the criminals in power? To say it another way, to say it like Jesus said it, why are you focused on the splinter in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in your own?

Tell the truth - did your handlers tell you that Bush fired every attorney but one when he came in, just like Clinton did? IF not, aren't you mad at your handlers for using you like a fool?

Answer 8

The replacements that Clinton chose all had to be approved by Congress, due to the Patriot Act, this was not the case with the Bush appointees.

Answer 9

It is all partisan politics. The libs will even lie to make their point such as Massive did in his response. Clinton did not have congressional approval for the firings they weren't even consulted. Some of them are on record as finding out they were fired from the Washington Post.

Answer 10

What a double standard on Washington! No way!!! Dems are so lost in the fog liberalism if make the blind to reality...

Answer 11

Any president may fire anyone in his administration for whatever reason, and congress can do ABSOLUTELY nothing about it. congress knows this, but it does give the Dem's and their willing accomplices in the media something to "get the pres. with".