Why is okay for Clinton administration fire all 93 federal prosecutors but not okay for Bush to fire 8 ?

Question

Nancy Pelosi and her team are crying foul over the firings of eight U.S. federal attorneys.

But the hard truth is this: federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. It is perfectly legal for him to fire any - or all - of the U.S. attorneys for any reason at all.

In March of 1993, the Clinton administration fired all 93 federal prosecutors with absolutely no fanfare. No controversy. No congressional subpoenas or public hearings.

But the House of Representatives - and now a Senate panel as well - have issued the ''OK'' for subpoenas of key aides to the President.

Answer 1

Certainly wasn't illegal to terminate the employment of anyone who (admittedly) serves at the pleasure of the president.

Just don't try to convince me that it wasn't politically motivated, because that's a bald-faced lie. The AG's credibility has been destroyed.

To say it was performance-related puts good people in an undeservedly bad light. These people need a livelihood, too.

Answer 2

Bush had the same right and opportunity, as Clinton did, to fire them all. As a matter of fact George H W Bush fired all of them too.

Where the problem lies is when you lie and say performance issues, (two of the 8 were highest in convictions and case loads)
The other problem is the real reason for the firings.

If a President or Attorney General fires a prosecutor because he will not unjustly crucify someone over a political vendetta, its wrong. Also if the firing is to circumvent justice by means of getting an attorney dismissed so he can not pursue wrong doing by the parties doing the firing, that is wrong.
So now you know the other HARD TRUTH

Why defend this so venomously when George W Bush and Gonzales have both said MISTAKES WERE MADE

Answer 3

Libs will say that its "customary" to replace the officials at the beginning of the term. BUT, where is there a law saying you can't replace them later? Are attorneys not working at the will of the president? A complete non-story pumped up by the LIBMEDIA who want a Dem in the white house to go along with the cut and run congress.

Answer 4

I think it's because of the war the libs and Dem's are mad at Bush because he still strongly supports it in spite of all their efforts to end it.So their in turn going to make his life as miserable as humanly possible.Also the attorneys who were fired probably weren't doing their jobs which the libs and Dem's can whole heartedly relate to.So they sympathize with them about being fired.Nancy Pelosi wants to run off at the mouth so she can be perceived as a woman who takes charge and well don't get me started.I hope and pray none of these whack jobs becomes our next president.If they do we're all doomed.Just so you know Bill Clinton was one of them so why would they criticize anything he does?

Answer 5

I see some one commented on the certainty that Clinton fired U.S. legal professionals while he got here into place of work. This replaced into not unique to Clinton. Bush did not maintain lots of the U.S. legal professionals that have been appointed by way of Clinton. Bush 40-one did an identical, inspite of the undeniable fact that, this undertaking isn't an identical. those adult adult males have been appointed by way of Bush yet they have been doing their jobs which replaced into to persist with the info, if there replaced into sufficient, they went after them, if not , they did not. They did their pastime by way of in seek of justice, not persecution. As David Iglesias, between the 9 stated, he replaced into noted as by way of the republican senator distinctive cases to indict yet he did not because of the fact the info replaced into not there. Now exceedingly, he had "undesirable" pastime overall performance which led to his firing. This replaced right into a crock and Mr. Iglesias replaced into waiting to coach he had favorable rankings up until eventually this airborne dirt and dirt up with the Republican Senator. Now in case you spot I stated 9, not 8. it rather is because of the fact in the mixture there's an prolonged forgotten demotion that occurred in the U.S. territory of Guam. The U.S. lawyer there have been opened an study into Jack Abramoff, Tom delay and the Marianas Islands 2 years in the past. He went bye bye and the study went away. it is the trend with the White domicile, shield the acquaintances in any respect expenditures, to hell with justice

Answer 6

it's okay for both of them , but there is not a conservative media , it is liberal and only reports things that make republicans look bad . Don't believe me , watch cnn for an hour then go to fox news for an hour , fox will report everything cnn just reported then everything else

Answer 7

Good question, and Bush didn't even do it to cover his own *** like Clinton did.