Why is Bush firing 8 attorneys worse than Clinton firing 93?

Question

Yes they serve at the President's discretion. The best explanation I've read (and I'm not sure who to credit)is that they can be fired for no reason but not the wrong reason. You can fire them for the color of their tie, but not the color of their skin.This one smacks of political motivation.

Answer 1

Because Bush did it, hell if he forgot to put the toilet seat down the democrats would want an oversight committee!

Answer 2

This is a question that has been addressed to Congress, because solely based upon the Patriotic Act; it allows the President to fire any Federal Prosecutor at his discretion. However; what's fishy about the entire ordeal; is the lies and cover-ups illustrated by his staff members.

In addition; the motive for firing the 8 Federal Prosecutors, is obviously Political Retaliation. Everyone of the eight; was terminated because of they upheld the law; and went after corrupted officials. The light came on, just at the right time for Mid-term Elections. The White House wasn't happy with the results; thus the payback.

Answer 3

Bearlicious,

Completely wrong. This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Every president has the prerogative to do what President Bush did. And Clinton did fire all 93 federal attorneys at the drop of a hat.

This is just Bush bashers being Bush bashers.

Answer 4

the reason that Bush firing 8 attorneys worse than Clinton firing 93 is because America's media is primarily liberal. Clinton could have fired all of them and we wouldn't have heard a peep out of the liberal media. but if Bush had fired only 1 and the liberal media would have a feeding frenzy. It's a comlete double standard.
Bush fired the attorneys because they weren't doing their jobs good enough/right. It wasn't politically driven thats bull!

Answer 5

The problem is that the Department of Justice is supposed to be an unbiased prosecutorial department; yet, it appears that the firings were politically motivated.

For example, Carol Lam's firing was supposed to be performance-based. Yet, her firing came at a time after she had successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham for bribery and corruption. Duke was a Republican Congressman who awarded government contracts to certain parties, who in turn made pay-offs in the form of real estate sales, yacht "rentals", and other forms of quid pro quo.

Duke also "cooperated" with the Department of Justice; meaning that he gave out information that would likely lead to the prosecution of other parties, and possibly testify against these other parties, as a condition of his plea agreement.

Thus, Carol Lam was on the road to prosecuting other corrupt government officials; possibly more Republicans.

With David Iglesias, Republican Congressmen had inprudently contacted him concerning prosecuting Democrat politicians for alleged election improprieties. Due to lack of evidence, the prosecutions were delayed and ultimately deferred. David Iglesias was fired thereafter.

Although the President is within his right to fire US Attorneys at his pleasure, there appears to be a cover-up as to his motives for the firings in these cases.

There has been no reliable evidence presented that shows these US Attorneys actually were lax in there duties; however, there is evidence showing that their firings were due to the US Attorneys properly performing their jobs, to the detriment of several Republicans; thus making their firings inappropriate.

Answer 6

That's a good question, though it's not clear what side of the fence you're sitting on.

Hillary says the difference is that Bill was just arriving in the White House and to appoint attorneys within your political party is commonplace. She claims that what Bush did was different, because he was an incumbent that was re-elected.

I see the point she's making, but there's nothing within the confinements of law that says it "shouldn't" or "can't" be done. In addition, I'd be curious to know how many other incumbent presidents did the same thing after being re-elected and to what extent.

Answer 7

This is the first time in American History where there was a systematic purge of prosecutors in the middle of a sitting president's term. Clinton did not single out certain attorneys, but when arriving in office simply brought in a new slate of them all.

To go after individual attorneys because they are not politicizing their office sufficiently is grossly unconstitutional and criminal.

Answer 8

Ok, for the sake of being balanced...

It's his right as the President to hire and fire judges as he sees fit. If anyone thinks that it hasn't happened before for political reasons, you're delusional.

Was this done for political reasons? I can't prove it, but I would think probably so.

Like I said, if you think that it hasn't happened before by both parties, you're living under a rock.

The bottom line is this. It's legal, it's his perogative, and there is nothing the Dems can do about it other than cry because they didnt' get their way.

Of course, they will cry to their media who will scream it to the masses and the Dems will begin litigation as they do EVERYTIME they lose a political fight.

Answer 9

It doesnt matter if its politics or not, they are political appointees which others fire daily without a stink, I believe we hae bigger issues to tackle rather than 8 unemployeed lawyers, and the investigation is being launched at tax payer expense, is that why we elected them, or was it for other issues?

Answer 10

Watch a Sunday morning political talk show and you'll find out. I am sick of answering this question already.

Answer 11

he did it the right way, bush did it wrong, remember clinton had a republican controlled congress but they could'nt do anything about it because he did it right. we have rules and they should be followed.