President Clinton replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office in 1993?

Question

So what is the big deal with Bush replacing just 8? He didn't even replace all of Clinton's appointees. How come we didn't hear an uproar over Clinton cleaning house in '93?

What Clinton, Reagan and the others did was political as well. That is what happens when the other party gets into power.

Answer 1

It is ok to do it to cover up an investigation of the Rose Law Firm where a US attorney was involved in an investigation of the Clinton's and the illegal activity, just not 8 for political purposes, I guess?

Answer 2

Finally some who has done some homework!!! It is how the system works, really. The reason , in my humble opinion is...no one on capital hill has the guts or lower extremities to tackle the real issues and problems facing the country, of course it may also depend on what lobbyist pocket the congressperson is in too.
All these investigation are just a smoke and mirrors act or dog and pony, wich ever you prefer, to mask the ineptitude of the elected officials in DC.
Just think how bad the economy would be if ALL other workers did as little to produce results as the DC clan.

Answer 3

Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.

Answer 4

I posted a similar question when this waste of time witch hunt began a HUNDRED years ago.

All I got was twisting and hair splitting. Good luck getting anything else. Don't ya know? THAT WAS DIFFERENT! DUH!

WHY does ANY President, Clinton or any other, fire these attorneys?

The bottom line is, these are political appointees, period. They can be hired and fired at the President's (no matter which President) discretion; this does NOT apply ONLY to Presidents you like!

Answer 5

It is not a question of whether or not attorneys get replaced or how many get replaced - the issue here is WHY these particular ones were fired. It is pretty typical for an incoming President to replace federal attorneys for a variety of reasons. However, it is illegal to include in those reasons that they are being replaced for political reasons. That is exactly what the Bush administration is being accused of and what it has, so far, been unable to disprove.

Answer 6

There was a big uproar over Clinton doing it too. I remember it, and I was only like 13 or 14 at the time.

And frankly, I don't really care about partisan politics at all, other than I want it to stop. American domestic polotics have been in shambles since the 50's, in my oppinon.

Answer 7

Wow, this question has been beaten to death. Yes, Bush did replace all of Clinton's appointees when he took office. The current issue is whether he later replaced 8 of his own appointees for not prosecuting Dems vigorously enough or for going after Repubs when they were asked not to. Those are the allegations, read up on the subject and stop listening to Rush for your facts. Whether those allegations are true or not is what the investigations hope to uncover.

Answer 8

Because it is normal to replace them at the beginning of a term. Presidents in both parties before Clinton also replaced all 93 at the beginning of their term. BUSH DID IT TOO! I repeat, BUSH REPLACED ALL 93 U.S. ATTORNEYS AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS FIRST TERM.

Nothing political about that.

What's not normal is replacing some based on their performance in SPECIFIC cases, such as prosecutions of political parties, in the middle of the term. That's blatantly political. It's manipulating justice.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

(Glad to be of service, Ken C. Now you know how the process works.)

Answer 9

Because Clinton did it at the begining of his term. No one is questioning the authority to dismiss D.A.'s but rather the motives behind it. & it would appear that there is some form of backpedalling on the part of the Attorney General & his office. If it is found & proven to be politically motivated then it could mean more trouble for this administration.

Answer 10

because it's a witch hunt... the attorneys serve at the descretion of the President of the United States. Bush could've not liked one of em cause of their haircut and canned em and nothing can be said. that's why nothing will come of this. there's no foundation for it. the dems are just wasting taxpayer money once again and trying to make Bush look bad to the general public. it's sickening. the worse thing that'll happen is Gonzalez will step down. But, i doubt that will even happen. and it shouldn't.

and there is no proof that the attorneys were fired for political reasons... even if there was, whatever. you think Clinton didn't fire those 93 attorneys for political reasons?? please. he was just "smarter" about it. he wiped them ALL out as soon as he took office so that it didn't LOOK like it was political.