why were the 8 US attorneys fired?

Question

weve heard from Alberto Gonzales under oath. He remembers that he fired them, but not when he fired them or why, but he still wants to take full credit. Since neither the White House nor the Justice Department has so far offered any reason why 10% of the US attorneys were fired I ask you,
Why were 10% of the US attorneys fired?

Answer 1

Yes, when Clinton came in he fired all 93 attorneys and appointed new. So have other presidents. There are some subtle differences that don't seem to be getting across. It is highly unusual for something like this to happen mid-term. The attorneys serve at the presidents discretion, and can be fired for any reason, but not the wrong reason. He can fire one because he doesn't like the color of his tie, but not because he doesn't like the color of his skin (I'm plagarizing someone here) If they were fired because they wouldn't be white house puppets, that is wrong. More scary is why didn't the rest of them get fired.

Answer 2

It is common practice for presidents to fire U.S. Attorneys. Clinton fired a ton of them, and so did Bush Sr. It is a policy that was never questioned until some have noticed a pattern with the recent firings. It's possible that it's because they didn't feel the need to try or not try certain cases that the Bush administration had interest in, but that's not certain. That's why there's hearings on that subject now. None of us "civilians" could pretend to really know why, but the media has pointed at a possible reason. That's why we have officials in government who's job it is to investigate such matters. We have to put our trust in them that they will try their hardest to come to the right conclusion, as hard as that may be.

Answer 3

The US Attorney General can hire/fire the AGs under his control with little or no reason. The latest has it that the US AG fired the 8 AGs because they were not prosecuting enough Democrats. Pretty Lame, but these jobs are subject to the party in office. The main thing here is that the Bush Administration hired all of these people to begin with.

Answer 4

US criminal experts do certainly serve on the President's exhilaration. He does have the extraordinary to fireside them any time he needs. Even for political motives. in spite of the undeniable fact that in the process easy of all the different unlawful issues this administration has finished we won't be able to enable him to run amok and that's what has been occurring till the Congress has finally started making use of its potential of oversight. the only huge mistake he made replaced into attempting to sneak the firings previous Congress. they do no longer seem to be amused by making use of that style of component. Had he recommended Congress that he meant to fireside those specific criminal experts because of the fact of their lack of ability to fulfill his expectancies they might not going have those hearings yet like each thing else they tried to sneak, to be doing the fashion of issues corrupt politicians do and that they have been given caught.

Answer 5

It really does not matter. They are all political appointees. They serve as long as the president wants them to serve. If a Democrat is elected in 2008 they'll all get fired and replaced by new political appointees. It's called a patronage position.

Answer 6

The same reason why 100% of the US attorneys were fired by Clinton when he took office. Politics.

Answer 7

Most of them were either investigating/prosecuting Republican criminals OR refusing to inappropriately investigate/prosecute Democrats without evidence. The Senate should also focus on those cases to make sure there is complete follow through to convict the criminals.

Answer 8

Because they were not happy Bushites. Anyone who is not a Bush supporter gets canned.

Answer 9

Pure and simple they were judged not to be loyal Bushes

Answer 10

Down and dirty, because they can. This is a political move and that is the simplistic answer.