Why did Clinton fire all 93 federal attorneys?

Question

wasnt there a better way than that to get rid of the one guy who was working on Clinton's criminal activity regarding whitewater

Answer 1

What makes you think it was only one? Clinton had enough going on to keep all 93 busy.

Answer 2

Clinton fired all 93 attorneys at the BEGINNING OF HIS TERM, as did Reagan, Bush 1 and 2. That is customary.
All of Clintons appointees had to be approved by the Senate.

What the Bush Administration has done is fire certain attorneys, in the MIDDLE OF HIS TERM after the Patriot Act was passed and has appointed replacements who DO NOT require senate approval, taking advantage of a provision in the Patriot Act. AND Gonzalez and the Justice Department lied about his involvement in the decision to fire, and they sure are trying to hide a lot of other stuff that went on -- creating the perfectly reasonable suspicion that maybe some of them were working on cases against prominent republicans. The whole things smells and it's going to get worse.

Siting Clinton as a comparison to what the BUsh adinistration has done is a very poor analogy and a lousy defense for Bush Administration actions, especially Gonzalez's, who even conservates are calling on to resign.

Answer 3

Why do people keep asking this question. You know the answer and you know the differences between what Clinton did at the beginning of his administration and what Bush has done near the end. You know That Clinton just did what every new incoming President does and Bush's firings were purely politically motivated. And yet every day I find this question on here and I know it is just to ruffle peoples feathers.

I can't wait to see what your questions will be after the next election.

They serve at the pleasure of the President so the question isn't whether the President has the right to fire them. He absolutely does. The question is did he fire them because they did not go after the President's enemies (Democrats). And they did prosecute his friends. The other question is are they covering it up, and has Gonzalez lied about it?

Answer 4

Bush had an identical precise and chance, as Clinton did, to hearth all of them. as a count number of truth George H W Bush fired all of them too. the position the precedence lies is once you lie and say performance subject matters, (2 of the 8 were optimal in convictions and case a lot) the different problem is the real rationalization for the firings. If a President or criminal professional customary fires a prosecutor because he received't unjustly crucify someone over a political vendetta, its incorrect. also if the firing is to avert justice by technique of technique of having an criminal professional brushed aside so he can no longer pursue incorrect doing by technique of the events doing the firing, it really is inaccurate. So now you realize the different complicated truth Why take care of this so venomously at the same time as George W Bush and Gonzales have both suggested blunders were MADE

Answer 5

every President remakes his cabinet and rebuilds the Justice Dept., the difference here is not that he replaced some mid-term (which is not usually done) but that the reason they may have been replace is because they were investigating Republican election fraud and that they were not investigating Democratic voter fraud as a priority. That is what the hackles are up about. If the Attorney General can not be trusted to fairly execute the application of the law and instead resorts to base political partisanship in the execution of his duties...then he will find that the Congress can make his position untenable

Answer 6

Same reason that Reagan fired all of the federal attorneys when he was elected. Oh, everyone seems to forget that. Let's just focus on Clinton!

Both cleaned house to get rid of political appointees, Bush did too. It is just the few he got rid of recently were because they were not toeing the party line.

Answer 7

Clinton never did fire the 93 attorneys. If you noticed it was mentioned for a couple days and shut up. In fact From Regean to Bush Jr. only 2 attorneys were fired over a 25yr span.

Answer 8

Once again those on the Right try to dig up the Clinton years to avoid what's happening right now. As far as I know, Clinton's Attorney General wasn't caught lying about firing anyone. If Gonzo's so innocent, and all this is over nothing, then what's with all the lies?

Answer 9

Because he has every right to in his first term as President. Bush's mistake is that he fired them, with the advice from Karl Rove and during his second term.

How many people were fired during the Bush Administration or Quit compaired to the Clinton administration ? Boo Yah

Answer 10

Clinton this, Clinton that.
Hey everybody, look over here, 10 years ago!

Answer 11

was a political move when Pres Clinton got elected all the attys were previous appointees bu Pres Bush 41 its not uncommon to come in and clean house.... just as the recent firings i see it as no big deal when it was done in the past