Clinton assumed that all 93 US attornies were NO GOOD since a Republican had hired them. Since NO GOODNESS is 10-20 times more rampant among Godless,hedonistic, reprobate,abortion-loving, etc Democrat non blue dog Zell Miller types...WHY NOT?
2007-03-26 13:33:20 · 8 answers · asked by uncle_derk 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Clinton shot from the hip fired many. Bush took his time and gave benefit of doubt unlike Buba. P.S. Ms Clinton if elected said she will fire all shooting from hip(my way or no way). Heard that most/all that Bush got rid of didn't follow his priority's. Its his right to fire If not right change the procedure. But Ms Clinton won't support it.
P.S. Lesson learned for Rep. If elected fire all the ones that are appointed by a Dem. It does not pay to try and get along with a LIB
2007-03-26 13:51:05 · answer #1 · answered by retired_afmil 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through his Attorney General, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind. What is unusual about the current situation is that it happened in the middle of a term. These were all appointed by the current administration. Probably doesn't help Bush or Gonzales that neither "had anything to with it" but the emails show they did. Odd. In the past 25 years, only 5(before this 8) have been fired midterm(and were fired for cause). Odd.
2007-03-26 13:52:32 · answer #2 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
maximum presidents hearth the legal professionals on the starting up of their time period. Clinton did that yet Bush waited till 0.5 way by his second time period. maximum presidents tell the Senate of what's happening with the legal professionals. Clinton did that. Bush tried to sneak round hoping no one could observe. apparently purely legal professionals who were on cases investigating incorrect doing by technique of this administration or no longer pursuing trumped up prices or lack of info cases antagonistic to administration enemies were singled out for dismissal. That smacks of partisanship. Why is it on each occasion Bush does some thing unlawful the little ones come out of the woodwork asserting "properly Clinton did it too and he did not get stuck"? If Clinton did do it and wasn't stuck it became because Congress led by technique of neocons weren't doing their pastime. frequently Clinton did not do it both yet infantile as they're the Bushbots look to target to deflect grievance whining like little young children. If Bobby breaks a rule does that propose that's ok for each person else to break the rule of thumb too only because Bobby did not get stuck? if you're utilising alongside and also you get to a provide up signal you roll by and quicker or later you get a fee ticket for no longer preventing do you may get a fee ticket because the cop wasn't there to resign you the different cases? If Bob kills Jon and Ned kills Sam does it make it ok for Ned to kill Sam only because Bob killed Jon? I have a feeling if the firings of the legal professionals became an remoted incident the position someone per chance made a mistake the Congress does no longer be investigating. besides the indisputable fact that the administration of George W. Bush is notorious for corruption and lies so that's no ask your self that Congress feels they opt for to look into. that's, by technique of ways Repbulicans as well as Democrats who opt for solutions.
2016-12-02 21:00:39 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Huh?! Clinton had the right to fire those 93 attorneys and Bush had the right to fire those, what? 6. The rest of this nonsense makes little sense. And I'M a Republican!
2007-03-26 13:41:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Clinton had the right to and did it at the beginning of his administration, just as Bush has the right to. The difference is Bush fired them later during his SECOND term and under questionable circumstances because they were questioning the "decider."
2007-03-26 13:38:48 · answer #5 · answered by CC 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
you know that clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorney's but you dont know that he thought they were NO GOOD. and not even going to touch the dem bashing.
2007-03-26 14:18:17 · answer #6 · answered by eawolfpack04 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
US attorneys can only be terminated due to just causes under the law and Bush cannot just fire them impulsively.
2007-03-26 13:55:01 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bravo! Well said.
2007-03-26 13:38:50 · answer #8 · answered by C_Alexander 2 · 0⤊ 6⤋