They like to point out that Clinton fired all U.S. Attorneys and nobody complained. But do they ever go find out why nobody complained? I did. Turns out it's normal to replace the attorneys when a new administrations comes in. Previous presidents have done it too, including Reagan. But replacing YOUR OWN appointees for blatant political reasons - like they didn't investigate members of the opposite party enough - is a threat to the independence of the entire Justice Department. As usual, the right wingers throw around facts they don't even understand.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150001
2007-05-19 13:33:11 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
David P - my source is credible, but if you don't like it, read the objective sources it cites. Nobody disputes these facts - they just didn't check to see the details. You can't cite any source disputing them.
mckenzie - yes, he could have fired them all, but he didn't. Now he's doing it for very different reasons that are a danger to the integrity of justice, not just normal turnover after an election.
cyclops - wow, what an intelligent, well-supported response. For you, anyway.
2007-05-19 13:48:21 · update #1
Whenever they are found to do something wrong, they blame Clinton. It's sick.
2007-05-19 13:36:23 · answer #1 · answered by Reba K 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The problem seems to be in the timing of the replacement of the attorneys. Past Presidents replaced the attorneys almost immediately, this President waited until there were matters on the table that need the assistance of attorneys & Bush didn't like what he was hearing from the ones he fired! He really did nothing illegal, these attorneys serve by Presidential request & may also be requested to leave when the President feels they are not doing their duty to him. Although they may have been doing their duty, it just didn't please him to hear what they were saying, so bye-bye!
2007-05-19 20:52:30 · answer #2 · answered by geegee 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You're correct. It's normal to replace them all at the begining of a term. However to replace them years after being elected is unheard of, and is a threat to the independence of the DOJ.
Also there probably wouldn't have been much complaint with it being done if they had simply admitted why they did it. Instead as normal they lied, got caught, and now try and act like there's nothing wrong.
2007-05-19 21:36:15 · answer #3 · answered by caffeyw 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, they are merely using Talking Points in an attempt to deceive.
GWB also turned over all the US Attorneys at the beginning of his admin.
When will Alberto update the inquiring Senators on the Anthrax Killer investigation ;)?
2007-05-19 20:37:43 · answer #4 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
ANY firing of US attorneys is NORMAL. Clinton also fired many of the US attorneys HE hired later in his term. No one complained about that either.
2007-05-19 21:39:38 · answer #5 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you look at it that way, President Bush left the previous U.S. attorneys in office too long. He could have fired them immediately.
For this, he's in trouble?
2007-05-19 20:37:10 · answer #6 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Mediamatter.org is a liberal org. Just because some journalist writes that it's OK to critize Bush is suppose to be all I need.
2007-05-19 20:41:32 · answer #7 · answered by LIL_TXN 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Hope you believe your own BS , nobody else will.
2007-05-19 20:37:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋