Why is such a big deal that the district attorneys got fired? Every president has done it.?

Question

Bill Clinton fired every single district attorney under him.

Answer 1

First, you display your ignorance by calling them "district attorneys." They are called "U.S. Attorneys" with the designation of their district appended. So, Patrick Fitzgerald is the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

Second, Clinton fired the attorneys at the start of his term, just like Reagan. Bush's midterm firings are unprecedented.

Third, Clinton did it with the advice and consent of the Senate, which bush bypassed by use of the recently passed Patriot Act provision.

Fourth, there is no indication that Clinton did it to shortcircuit investigations.

Fifth, Alberto Gonzalez lied about this under oath to Congress. He stated that he played no role in the firings. This statement was contradicted by his chief-of-staff Kyle Sampson, and by internal emails that showed he was at an hour long meeting discussing the topic.

What is worse, this is a serious threat to our justice system. For instance, Carol Lam was fired to short circuit an investigation into Brent Wilkes and the Pentagon. David Iglesias was fired for not rushing indictments against the Nevada Senator's wishes to go after a political opponent. The prosecutor in Washington was fired for refusing to pursue bogus voter fraud allegations cooked up by Karl Rove.

If the prosecutors pursued any of these actions, they would have been disbarred, and worse, put innocent people in jail, or allowed guilty ones to go free.

I also highly advise that you read the following article as well. It is by a former federal prosecutor.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704020386apr03,1,5787814.story

I cut and pasted it in the "sources" section.

Answer 2

This isn't a question, it's a polemic. Of course cons are too stupid to know what a polemic is--that's why they're such suckers for Bush.

One, Clinton didn't "fire" the attorneys. He let their terms expire and replaced them with his. That was his privilege.

However, they all had to be confirmed by the Senate. Confirmations occurred, according to law.

However, some Bush flunkey slipped a little-known provision into the PATRIOT Act that allowed Bush to freely hire and fire USAs without going through Senate confirmation.

Unlike Clinton, Bush appointed these attorneys and then selectively fired eight of them under circumstances which the Republican, Bush-appointed, Bush-supporting THEMSELVES found very fishy indeed.

Then Abu Gonzales started the lie machine, only it wasn't well-lubricated enough and broke down. Now DOJ staffers are falling like shingles on a house that can't be sold.

I love the way cons keep using the phrase, "the pleasure of the President," when it really has some very strong homoerotic overtones. Way to go, cons!

Answer 3

Its about why it was done.

The justice system is suppossed to be non-partisan. That means once appointed (which is totally political!), judges, and district attorney are not suppossed to be obligated by party politics. The fact that people were being fired for taking action that "the administration" did not approve of it not acceptable. We cannot have an exectutive branch intervening in the judicial branch over personal differences of opinion. The system was designed to prevent just that sort of thing.

So i dont know about the history of presidents doing it. But the buck needs to stop somewhere. All americans (united states citizens i mean) say they are tired of corrupt politicians. Well here is a case where we have proof of the executive over-reaching. Thats why its such a big deal, this type of corruption threatens the very fundamental foundation of our system.

Answer 4

You are right, Clinton did fire every one of the DA's as have other Presidents before him. There is, however a difference.

The problem is not that the DAs were fired it is because they were fired for political reasons unlike the ones Clinton and the others fired. When DAs are fired it is customary to inform the Senate which Clinton and the others did but Bush did not do.

Most presidents, including Clinton do it at the beginning of their first term. Bush waited until half way through his second term to do that. Waiting that long raises suspissions.

To summarize; it is not the fact that the attorneys were fired but how it was done and why that has Congress upset.

Answer 5

the place have you ever been? this is an old communicate. maximum cutting-component presidents brush off the U. S. attorneys on the beginning up of their administrations. Bush waited until he replaced right into a million/2 way interior the direction of the 2d term. because of fact the firings have been politically inspired. maximum Presidents, including Clinton, tell the Senate which somebody interior the Bush administration "forgot" to do. does not it look variety of unusual that for the duration of ordinary terms the attorneys who have been engaged on issues the administration did no longer approve of have been canned? Why is this administration's tale changing each and all of the time. that occurs whilst mendacity occurs. So the hoopla isn't over the incontrovertible fact that the U. S. attorneys have been fired yet why they have been fired and why the administration tried to sneak it previous the Senate. i could decide to be attentive to why the lunatic stunning keeps stating "properly Clinton did this or that" as quickly as we are no longer talking approximately Clinton. in case you elect to speak historic past than ask why George Washington did consequently and such. that's approximately as suitable.

Answer 6

Federal district attorneys terms end with the Presidents term. Bill Clinton did not fire those district attorneys, their terms ended and he did not rehire them. What is happening now is that several Republican politicians were complaining about district attorneys that were investigating other Republicans. And eventually these district attorneys were fired. There is the appearance at least of interference with federal investigations which itself is a crime.

Answer 7

It is not that they "got fired" it is "how they got fired" that is the burning issue.

Yes, U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. When letting go of someone in this level means "thanking them" on the way out the door. Thanking them merely allows that person to have the dignity of finding another position with either with a law firm or an educational institution. These firings occurred were listed as "performance based" which suggests that these 8 U.S. Attorneys weren't up to "par" with with their colleagues in the Department of Justice.

Politically speaking someone "shot themselves in the foot" on this one. Agree or disagree even President Bush has stated that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President; however, he is disappointed with the way that the firings were handled.

Hope this answers your question - remember to vote and stay in tune with your local community.

Answer 8

"Bill Clinton fired every single district attorney under him."

And so did Reagan and Bush I, but Republicans don't talk about that right.

And this is where we KNOW something bad happened, trying to associate what you did with your opponent.

What Bush did differently is he fired the attorneys mid-term, some of them were in the middle of investigations, one involved the Jack Abramoff scandal.

And there lies the crime.

Answer 9

Because the Dems won Congress - now it's a means to get to Rove, the Lib's boogeyman extraordinaire

and for the conspiracy nuts that think it was done to thwart an investigation into a drug cartel, BS. Obviously, firing the US Atty would not stop an investigation. That woman (Lam) was a Clinton hack with no prosecution experience

Answer 10

The timing indicates it was for particular reasons, usually investgating someone on the 'team'. The lady from CA was in the middle of a case involving one of the biggest drug cartels IN THE WORLD. Wonder where that case will go now.