Clinton fired all of his AG's to cover up for the ones he really wanted to fire... specifically the one investigating Whitewater. Nobody gave it a second thought. But Bush fired 8, and the Dem's are having all these investigations... when Bush did NOTHING WRONG!
Shouldn't we impeach members of congress for encroaching on separation of powers?
2007-07-12 01:45:38 · 12 answers · asked by Mike 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yeah,, you are right... I did mean Federal prosecutors... small brain fart...
2007-07-12 01:59:06 · update #1
There is nothing wrong in either case, the AG's serve at the pleasure of the President, He can fire them at any time for any reason. Only the Dimacrats are making a big deal about nothing because that's their plan. Do nothing while in control of Congress and call for investigation after investigation and vote on non-binding resolutions. They are worthless.
2007-07-12 01:49:04 · answer #1 · answered by booman17 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
There are a number of factual inaccuracies in this statement:
1. You probably mean Federal Prosecutors and not Attorney Generals. There is only one Attorney General.
2. Clinton cleaned house when he came into office firing all 93 Federal Prosecutors from Republican administrations. We wouldn't expect anything different. Did Bush Jr. Keep any of Clinton's Federal Prosecutors? Nope. This was not to cover up Whitewater, which was not even really a case at that point.
3. The problem in the current controversy is wheather Bush or other White House (or Senate) officials pressured the prosecutors to conduct political hit operations before the 2006 election. This would be a gross violation of U.S. laws, in spirit and letter.
4. Remember that the system is a balance of powers in addition to a separation of powers. Although each branch has a distinct role to play, they also have a role in balancing each other. This is the point of the Veto, Judicial review, and congressional oversight. This is certainly not a separation of powers.
Hopefully that clears some things up. I hope to have an honest discussion about this issue and am not sure that Bush is in the wrong (it would be helpful if he were truthful). But, we do need to get the facts straight first.
2007-07-12 08:56:12 · answer #2 · answered by C.S. 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Check your timeline, YouAsk. Clinton fired the prosecutors as he entered the white house (so he could appoint his own), as did Bush, and as have most Presidents--this is not unusual. What he did NOT do was fire prosecutors when they started investigating his old friends (remember Whitewater?), or for refusing to prosecute his enemies. This is what Bush is alleged to have done, thus the big stink over the whole issue.
2007-07-12 10:42:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it’s how the process is designed. Clinton didn't fire attorneys in 94-95 when the sh!t was hitting the fan.
2007-07-12 09:00:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe that you might actually be talking about Federal Prosecutors as there is only One Attorney General on the Federal Level. They do all serve at the pleasure of the President, yet one needs to wonder just why these 8 and what was the underlying reasoning. If there is nothing for the Esteemed Mr. Bush to hide, then why can he not just send his folks to Congress, get the investigation completed and let us move on. Even if this is benign, the stalling leads one to wonder what is behind the actions. Just as Mr. Cheney's recent Revelation that he is not part of the Executive Branch of Government. We need more transparency, not less, for the public to have any faith in their government. It is after all WE THE PEOPLE.....
~
2007-07-12 08:53:46 · answer #5 · answered by fitzovich 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Because Bush is Bush, and that's all the excuse a lot of people need.
By the way, lundstroms2004, it's completely within the Constitution to impeach members of Congress -- it says "any public officer." Unless Congressmen's status have changed, it's unlikely that your claim is true.
2007-07-12 11:24:42 · answer #6 · answered by Richard S 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The republicans made a little stink but Clinton fired them when he first took office not wait till he was almost out of office like Bush, also look how many democrates Clinton got rid of then look how many republicans Bush got rid of. Bush only did this as a response to D's taking control of congress.
2007-07-12 08:55:52 · answer #7 · answered by disabled_usmc 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush is a republican...duh.The media loves Clinton, but hates Bush. What else needs to be explained?
2007-07-12 09:24:29 · answer #8 · answered by southfloridamullets 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You cannot impeach congress members. They are voted out by congress, but they do not go through impeachment. Only members of the executive and the judiciary go through impeachment.
2007-07-12 08:56:04 · answer #9 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the current President is only serving Bagdad
2007-07-12 17:11:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋