Why was the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys such a big deal to the lunatic left?

Question

It's a simple question... no hidden tricks.

Though I'd like to know why there was not such an uproar when Bill Clinton fired all 93 attorneys.

Mary W:
Two points-
1) Bill Clinton fired EVERY U.S. attorney, including one who was investigating him during White Water.
2) So by your argument, not ONE of the U.S. attorneys prosecuting cases under the Clinton administration was doing so correctly? That doesn't say much for his choices, or the choices of the AG at the time.

Jose R-
Two words: WHITE WATER

Hypofocus,
If it's illegal in one case, it's illegal in another. This is just typical of you leftists, a total double-standard.

Meanwhile, PROVE its illegality. Cite a law! Show a source! In the meantime, this issue is none of congress' business, and again, I defy you to prove otherwise.

Answer 1

Because they know that they can use the Media to discredit ANYTHING the President does...they are just trying to get as much propaganda as they can to try to get back in the White House in 08...it is sad that they can not see that their job approval rating has fallen as far as they claim the President's is...right around 35-45% of Americans feel they are doing a good job...they all need to be fired because they are not doing what they were hired to do...

Answer 2

Where have you been? This is an old discussion.

Most recent presidents dismiss the US Attorneys at the START of their administrations. Bush waited until he was half way through the second term. Because the firings were politically motivated.

Most Presidents, including Clinton, inform the Senate which someone in the Bush Administration "forgot" to do.

Doesn't it seem kind of strange that only the attorneys who were working on things the Administration didn't approve of were canned?

Why is this Administration's story changing all the time. That happens when lying takes place.

So the hoopla is not over the fact that the US Attorneys were fired but why they were fired and why the Administration tried to sneak it past the Senate.

I would like to know why the lunatic right keeps bringing up "well Clinton did this or that" when we are not talking about Clinton. If you want to talk history than ask why George Washington did thus and such. It is about as relevant.

Answer 3

Several major facts you overlook. I know your talking point from your Repub handbook lists the 'Clinton fired all 93' reply but that doesn't tell the entire story. Yes, almost every president has fired all of the US Attorneys upon taking office and appointed new ones. But that is not what happened here. These 8 were fired in mid term. That has happened only 1 other time. Does the president have the right to fire US Attorneys at his choice? Yes, without giving reasons but reason were given for the 8 fired, namely poor job performance (a now proven lie). It clearly states that the firings can not be of a political nature, the evidence provided clearly shows these were indeed political in nature. Other points, Gonzales knowing lied under oath to Congress about the firings (a felony). Also, other evidence strongly suggests, and we'll find out I hope, that there could be possible Obstruction of Justice charges also brought (again a felony). All that I've outlined are allegations coming not just from Democrats but also from the majority of Repubs that know that Gonzales needs to say bye bye.

Answer 4

You would think that is obvious but, only to the educated few.
It seems like it is a early forced upon us Election Season. Bush sandwiched between two crafty lawyers ( sorry one was disbarred & the 2 bills were the greetin WJ gave to female s he enjoyed or wanted to) See if I get this right, "What you do for us , u do for Bill also" a rape victim, Juanita Broaddrick in a police report. Oh a sexual assault investigation not just a BeeeJ. Twice he lied impeding an investigation!
Clinton-Executive Orders, Clinton- Body count search engine any of them ... I don't get a sources outlet per Y! editors so far today. Do your own homework.
Next stop Alec the ever so Democratic web site. I asked him once to do a spot on Hawaii TV / get out n VOTE his PR replied NEVER. That's him.

Same story , read a paragraph not a whole page , believe a headline spout a opinion,never vote?? Will it change?
HOKIE's motto Invent the Future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
don't repeat it.

Answer 5

A lot of beople--BOTH Republicans and Democrats--have called for Gonzalez' resignation over this--its not a "left" v. "right" issue.

It is an Americans v. the neocons issue. And why is it a big deal? Because those attorneys were fired for either refusing to harrass Bush's political opponents or for investigating Republicans who were breaking the law. IN other words, Bush, Gonzie, etc. havve been deliberately corrupting the Justice Department. And, yes, that is a big deal.

And everyone who is a decent American (in other words, everyone but Bush's supporters) are on the same side on this--its not a party-line issue.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

the adaptation is that as quickly as Clinton fired those attorneys he did no longer do it to fulfill a political time table. Bush fired attorneys because of the fact they does no longer indict harmless Democrats in the previous an election to smear them. Or, to place an unqualified chum of Rove interior the placement. Bush has a astonishing to hire and hearth attorneys yet this replaced into blatantly political and, even worse, they lied with regard to the reason in the back of firing them and blemished those attorneys reputations.

Answer 8

Well, first of all, it's not a simple question because you threw in the word "lunatic". If you really want to be fair, don't start out like that.

The reason it is a big deal is because the firings were apparently for political reasons, and might even have been illegal. And the other issue is if Gonzalez and others lied about it.

Answer 9

When a new president moves into the white house they usually replace staff and U.S. attorneys. It's a normal event, but when you fire certain attorney's that are handling cases that could effect elections going in favor of a certain party, then lie and cover-up e-mails and information about these certain attorneys in question, you are screwed.

Answer 10

Probably the way in which it was done. Those eight attorneys were Republican and they were prosecuting cases correctly. Who do you suppose the "Bushies" get to fill those spots? I wonder if it will be people who will prosecute only democrats or people who have followed Bush's orders no matter what - crooked or not, will those followers have to get clemency???