Clinton fired no Federal Prosecutors except for what is called "cause," once he named all 92 or so. One attorney actually bit somebody, so he was let go. Others were fired for not showing up, or doing bizarre things. There was no sense that his prosecutors were doing anything but enforcing the law as they knew it; they aren't there to do the president's bidding, but to enforce the law.
At no point has anyone stated they are there "to do the President's bidding" but as I have commented all along, they serve at the pleasure of the President and the Liberal Media's coverage of President Bush firing a dozen or so of them was "a huge miscarriage of justice" where as President Clinton firing 92 wasn't mentioned. Just one more blaring example of the obvious Bias in today's Mainstream Media.
Its pretty common to fire attorneys when a new president takes over. In fact that's happened with every new presidency. The difference was that Bush fired attorneys in the MIDDLE of his term, not the beginning, as common precedent, which the conservative media won't tell you.
I am amazed that many people do not understand what "serves at the pleasure of the President" means. It makes no difference if he removes them 1 second into his term or 1 second before it is up. The interesting part is that these attorneys were not following the President's views but the media painted it as something illegal when they were dismissed -- Clinton was not treated the same.
Starmanres - Do you really belief that? Do you really think these two issues are the same. Do you think that what Bush/Gonzo did was a proper use of White House discretion? I just want to better understand those that still have faith in this president. A majority of america does not feel as you do, and I just want to better understand that. Thank you.
The majority of America is spoon fed the biased agenda of the Liberal media. They attempt and often succeed to influence elections, wars and public perception through their "news". Most Americans have become sceptical of anything run by the media. It's no longer the truth but "written and produced".
But it doesn't matter. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. He could say he didn't like their hairstyles. There is no crime or cover up.
Everytime they talk about the 8 attorneys that were fired, they bring this up too. Point is, Clinton wasn't trying to hide why he fired his attorneys; whereas Bush is. At least Clinton's administration all had their story straight; Gonzalez's former aide testified to Charles Schumer(D)NY just 2 days ago that Gonzalez story is not what he is saying.
Clinton fired no Federal Prosecutors except for what is called "cause," once he named all 92 or so. One attorney actually bit somebody, so he was let go. Others were fired for not showing up, or doing bizarre things. There was no sense that his prosecutors were doing anything but enforcing the law as they knew it; they aren't there to do the president's bidding, but to enforce the law.
Swift2001 4 years ago
At no point has anyone stated they are there "to do the President's bidding" but as I have commented all along, they serve at the pleasure of the President and the Liberal Media's coverage of President Bush firing a dozen or so of them was "a huge miscarriage of justice" where as President Clinton firing 92 wasn't mentioned. Just one more blaring example of the obvious Bias in today's Mainstream Media.
starmanres 4 years ago
Its pretty common to fire attorneys when a new president takes over. In fact that's happened with every new presidency. The difference was that Bush fired attorneys in the MIDDLE of his term, not the beginning, as common precedent, which the conservative media won't tell you.
johnso80 4 years ago
I am amazed that many people do not understand what "serves at the pleasure of the President" means. It makes no difference if he removes them 1 second into his term or 1 second before it is up. The interesting part is that these attorneys were not following the President's views but the media painted it as something illegal when they were dismissed -- Clinton was not treated the same.
starmanres 4 years ago
Starmanres - Do you really belief that? Do you really think these two issues are the same. Do you think that what Bush/Gonzo did was a proper use of White House discretion? I just want to better understand those that still have faith in this president. A majority of america does not feel as you do, and I just want to better understand that. Thank you.
mitcham13 4 years ago
The majority of America is spoon fed the biased agenda of the Liberal media. They attempt and often succeed to influence elections, wars and public perception through their "news". Most Americans have become sceptical of anything run by the media. It's no longer the truth but "written and produced".
starmanres 4 years ago
But it doesn't matter. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. He could say he didn't like their hairstyles. There is no crime or cover up.
starmanres 4 years ago
Everytime they talk about the 8 attorneys that were fired, they bring this up too. Point is, Clinton wasn't trying to hide why he fired his attorneys; whereas Bush is. At least Clinton's administration all had their story straight; Gonzalez's former aide testified to Charles Schumer(D)NY just 2 days ago that Gonzalez story is not what he is saying.
skylarportland 4 years ago