If Bush broke the law by firing a few US Attorneys, did Clinton break the law by firing all of them?

Answer 1

a President can hire and fire any attorney he wants.
Clinton fired all of them at once. (unprecedented at the time)Bush fired a few.
Which is worse?

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

Answer 2

Bush broke the law by why he fired the attorneys. Carol Lam in San Diego was fired on paper because her border convictions were down. This is ironic given how much he seems to hate enforcing that border. Also the numbers were in line with the other US attorneys in that area.

The real reason Lam had to go was because she had taken down Randy "Duke" Cunningham in 2005 at the first part of the Abramhoff scandal. Duke was a big time hawk and losing him to a bribery scandal as well as the trials of the San Diego councilmen on bribery charges was quickly depleting the Republican leadership base in San Diego. She had to go

If you think that these political trials had nothing to do with Lam's firing, then you need to set down the Kool aid and seek help.

Answer 3

The GOP says Clinton first politicized the Justice Department. But numbers show an older pattern.

23 Mar 2007 //

WASHINGTON — Three weeks ago, Justice Department officials settled on a "talking point" to rebut the chorus of Democratic accusations that the Bush administration had wrongly injected politics into law enforcement when it dismissed eight U.S. attorneys.

Why not focus on the Clinton administration's having "fired all 93 U.S. attorneys" when Janet Reno became attorney general in March 1993? The idea was introduced in a memo from a Justice Department spokeswoman.

The message has been effective. What's followed has been a surge of complaints on blogs and talk radio that it was the Clinton administration that first politicized the Justice Department.

The facts, it turns out, are more complicated.

In a March 4 memo titled "Draft Talking Points," Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos asked, "The [White House] is under the impression that we did not remove all the Clinton [U.S. attorneys] in 2001 like he did when he took office. Is that true?"

That is mostly true, replied D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. "Clinton fired all Bush [U.S. attorneys] in one fell swoop. We fired all Clinton [U.S. attorneys] but staggered it out more and permitted some to stay on a few months," he said.

A few minutes later, Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul J. McNulty replied to the same memo.

"On the issue of Clinton [U.S. attorneys], we called each one and had them give us a timeframe. Most were gone by late April. In contrast, Clinton [Justice Department] told all but a dozen in early March to be gone immediately," McNulty said.

The difference appears minor. Both McNulty and Sampson acknowledged that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, brought in a new slate of U.S. attorneys within a few months of taking office.

But historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan.

Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.

The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.

Nonetheless, the idea that Clinton and Reno broke with precedent and fired all U.S. attorneys upon taking office has played a key role in the public debate in recent weeks.

Answer 4

I honestly cannot believe that you think that people feel that the president broke the law. What most are upset about is that these firings were carried out for political reasons with an obvious bias. That, and the fact that the administration is encouraging, if not ordering, those with knowledge of the circumstances behind the dismissals to remain silent. Personally I have no affiliation, but these constant childish attacks on the "other" side bore me to tears. Instead of attempting to tear down your so called opponents, why not promote your side by showing its positive aspects.

Answer 5

The issue here is that the justice department is not there to serve a party's agenda and carry out witch hunts against the political opposition or dissenters.
Surely we can all agree on that.

It is clear thats what bush was doing.

and if clinton did the same, he was wrong too.

YOu people need to get this partisan bull crap out of here....if you want decent well run government.

Clinton was a more successful president than bush, but he was not perfect and had faults...they all do. I disagreed with some things that Clinton did. But I disagreee with great majority of Bush actions.

Answer 6

Firing US attorney's is perfectly legal. But firing them for political reasons, which Bush did is not. Neither is having your Attorney General lie about it.

Answer 7

Yes
And I say that because it would be a logical fallacy to deny that. The converse would also be true, that Bush did NOT break the law by firing the US attorneys, And neither did Clinton. but Attorney general GONZALES did when he lied about it, under oath. Just like Clinton did , when he lied under oath.

Answer 8

No, for two reasons.

First, it's common practice in EVERY administration to fire political appointees when there was a change of office. So, the actions of Clinton, and Bush Sr. and Reagan (and even Bush Jr. earlier in his term) are all legal.

However, federal laws DO prohibit firing such people based purely on partisan politics -- that's illegal political discrimination. And we don't know know if that is what happened, because the investigation is not yet done.

Answer 9

Bush didn't break the law...neither did Clinton...what these hearings have uncovered is the incompetence of Gonzales....nothing will come of the attorney firings, but Gonzo has lost the faith of everyone, even Republicans.

Answer 10

Clinton did what a lot of incoming Presidents did, he cleaned house and appointed others.
Bush did what no sitting President has ever done, he selected some U S Atty's that would not get into a witchhunt and prosecute citizens for political reasons.

If you want the type of justice that comes from Political reasoning instead of good constitutional decisions then you should be real satisfied with what Bush has set up.