When Bill Clinton fired all 93 US Attornies, was it political?

Of course you don't remember! It wasn't a big deal... so why is it that the dems are going after Bush for replacing 2 of them?It was POLITICAL! Just like when the president selects his cabinet members... (Secretary of State, etc)... Those US attorneys are appointees... The PRESIDENT appoints them! That makes it political by nature...The question is... Why could Clinton change ALL of them, but Bush couldn't change 2?

dems looked the other wayThey only have a problem with these types of events if a republican is behind them

yeah and the democrat party wasn't upset.

of course.

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.

Yea, but that's the way the game is played.

Need a link buckaroo. I don't remember that one.

No, it happens almost everytime there is a change of administrations. This is common practice.Edit: The difference was the timing. The ones Bush wanted to change were mid-term, not at the beginning, as is custom.

Of course. Everything Bill did was political. Well, maybe not everything...

I don't know. Why not do some research to figure out what the circumstances were? Bush's aides have admitted to political bias. That's illegal. If they were fired simply because they weren't doing their jobs, or even because Bush didn't like them personally... no illegal activity there. But you cannot legally be fired from your job because of your political leanings, and one of the decision-makers in Bush's cabinet with regard to this issue has already admitted that political leanings were a huge factor in this decision.

US Attorneys are ALWAYS replaced when a new President takes office. Its mid-term firings that aren't considered "kosher".

No, they had all had affairs with Hillary. Duh.YES!

Presidents often put their own people in office.Just ask our current President.I am not excluding the possibility of political influence.

No, of course not...all 93 were so corrupt they had to be fired for the good of America.

It's standard pratice for a new president to do that.

Replacing AGs has always been political..it's a way to reward friends.

First it wasn't two it was eight that were fired. Second there was so much controversy over how it was done and the secret meetings leading up to the event. At least Clinton fired all of them and not single one of them out. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but at least it wasn't a secret. It was the media didn't find it news really worth reporting.

He did what all Presidents including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did, he changed US attorneys at the BEGINNING of his term. The changes made by Bush 43 were during mid terms and it smelled because the majority of these attorneys had been in deep investigations of REPUBLICANS at the time of their dismissals or demotions. Therefore, this was political.Edited to add He fired 8 and demoted 1There were 298 investigations of Democrats versus just 67 of Republicans. The problem they ran into was that there was more evidence being turned up on Republicans than on the people they had hoped would have been dragged down.John Dolittle-R - still under investigationBob Ney-R- convictedTom Delay-R indicted, not tried yet, still under investigationRandy Duke Cunningham-R- convictedWilliam Jefferson -D- indicted not convicted yetRep. Rick Renzi, R- had been under investigation, now indictedJerry Lewis -R-still under investigationTimothy F. Murphy -R-still under investigationGary G. Miller-R stilll under investigationOne of the worst performing US Attorneys was one in WI, U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic. Georgia Thompson was a civil service employee when she was convicted of fraud by him, after being accused of steering a state travel contract to a firm whose top officials were major campaign contributors to Gov. Doyle. Never mind that she knew nothing about the campaign contributions and was just trying to save the state money. This woman was sentenced to 18 months.Then during the election, the Bush surrogates tried to link her to the incumbent Governor Doyle and claimed his administration was corrupt. It did not work and he was re-elected. In a stunning and extremely rare move, a 3-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals acquitted Thompson at the conclusion of oral arguments on April 5, 2007, and ordered her immediate release from prison.The Appellate Court wrote in the brief about the abuse of power and that the US attorney needed to be investigated. Yet he still had his job. He does because he did the political bidding of the then corrupted DOJ and the Bushites instead of actually doing his job based on facts and justice not persecution BUT 5 out of the 9 US attorneys who in the course of their investigations found corruption on the part of Pubs, such as Carol Lam who successfully prosecuted Randy " Duke" Cunningham or Frederick A. Black who had been pursuing Jack Abramoff's corrupt dealings, well they got canned. U.S. Attorney David Iglesias- N.M. was fired because it was felt that he was not indicting Democrats fast enough. Republican Senator Pete Domenici violated Senate Ethics rules by trying to interfere in an on-going (at the time) investigation into a Democrat. He felt that he should have been indicted before the Nov 2006 elections. This did not happen, there was not enough evidence. Then he was fired for "poor" performance. He was able to prove prosecutions were up in his district by 40%.U.S. Attorney Carol Lam-CA was fired because she was pursuing an ever widening corruption probe that had started as a result of the investigation into disgraced Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Lam notified the Justice Department May 10,2006 that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official, Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired The timing of the e-mail suggested that Lam's dismissal may have been connected to the corruption probe U.S. Attorney John Mckay of Seattle was fired because he did not pursue a voter fraud allegation against the Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in the hotly contested 2004. There was absolutely no evidence to warrant an investigation. This was also used a reason not to consider him for a judgeship.U. S. Attorney Bud Cummins AR. was pursuing corruption and fraud cases involving FEMA and he was replaced by a Karl Rove crony who did not have the prosecutorial experience for the job. The Justice Department has acknowledged that Cummins, the Little Rock prosecutor, was asked to resign solely to provide a job for Tim Griffin, a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove. Tim Griffin LIED about the number or proesuctions he had. He claimed he had 30 prosecutions, only to find out he only had 4 and of those 3 were plea bargained and never went to court and on the other one was 2nd chair. Cummins was also "threatened" and told not to talk to anyone about his "dismissal" or else they would take the gloves off and besmirch his reputation.U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden Las Vegas was investigating a reputed kickback scheme that may have fleeced hundreds of millions of dollars. His office boosted firearms prosecutions, secured the convictions of dozens of violent gang members and oversaw the cases against four former Clark County commissioners convicted of taking bribes. A GOP source said Ensign was told that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to "give somebody else that experience" to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs.U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton-AZ was fired as a result of disagreements with the Department of Justice about some office policies.If there had been no shenanigans, why was Congress told it was for poor performance? All but one of the fired prosecutors had received positive job evaluationsThen there is the little remembered U.S. attorney who was ousted to stop an investigation into Jack Abramoff. A US grand jury in Guam opened an investigation of controversial lobbyist Jack Abramoff in 2002, but President Bush removed the supervising federal prosecutor, and the probe ended soon after.U.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black had investigators looking into Abramoff's secret arrangement with Superior Court officials to lobby against a court revision bill then pending in the U.S. Congress. There were some transactions funneled through an attorney in CA to disguise that he was being paid by the lobbyists. These transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002. The subpoena demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, release records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.A day later, the chief prosecutor, U.S. Atty. Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. The investigation went away soon after that.Hell even U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was being considered but that one would have been too obvious.

First of all Bush changed more than two, second usually the hiring firing cycle is done at the beginning of the new prez' term, Thirdly - they specifically selected DA's who wouldn't push BOGUS investigations against DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES - that's interfering in an election and that's a FELONY (for the rest of usanyway - Bush is still in office so I guess he got a pass).