English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

When Bill Clinton FIRED ALL 93 US Attorneys in 1992, there was NO outrage from the press. Allbeit belated, Bush should be able to weed out US Attorneys, especially those he allowed to stay on (imprudently?).

2007-03-27 07:31:53 · 5 answers · asked by acct10132002 4 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

5 answers

Democrats are experts with shredders.

2007-03-27 07:36:28 · answer #1 · answered by Matt 5 · 0 2

Your basic premise is wrong. U.S. attorneys cannot order their assistants to shred pending cases. That would violate the law and would be useless anyway. The court would have a copy of the cases.
What President Clinton did and what probably every governor does is request the resignation or fire the appointees of the prior administration who serve at the will of the executive branch. What President Bush did, which has not been done before, was to fire U.S. attys mid-term and then the administration lied about the reason. N.M. U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was not on a list to be fired until after he was contacted by his Republican Congresswoman and Senator and said he was not indicting certain Democrats before the November election because the FBI had not finished the investigation. Senator Domenici hung up on him and suddenly he appeared on a list to be fired.

2007-03-27 14:36:10 · answer #2 · answered by David M 7 · 0 0

It is customary for an incoming President to replace all staff with his own. Bill Clinton took office in 93 so there was no public outcry because he was doing what was expected of him and what is normal.

What isn't normal however, is to fire a bunch of US Attorneys because they are doing their job but you don't like the outcome and it is more than half way through your term. If Bush would have fired these US Attorneys when he first took office nothing would have been thought about it and you know it.

I have seen this question raising this point many times with just the wording changed ever so slightly. It is just not endearing the American Public to President Bush with all of these shanagans going on. It reminds me of the Nixon administration days.

2007-03-27 14:44:47 · answer #3 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 0 0

Why do you use President Clinton as the example of what a president should do? Can't you make an infomed decision on what happened to the current set of US Attorneys with out resorting to some kind "They did if first!" excuse?

2007-03-27 14:42:04 · answer #4 · answered by Ernie 4 · 0 1

If Bill Clinton did it illegally and got away with it, that is no reason why others should be able to get away with it.

An investigation needs to happen to make sure that no laws were broken. If they were then punishment needs to happen. Simple as that.

2007-03-27 14:37:03 · answer #5 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers