Clinton did and it was not like every other President before him. Statements like this give the impression that your Clinton defense is instinctual. My apologies if that was not your intention and I misinterpreted.
I became involved in this thread because the story is a non-story. Other Presidents have fired AGs, more of them and under much more suspicious terms, than Bush. And yet when these facts are presented, the "Oh you can't bash Clinton" people come out. Why can't we review the acts of past Presidents to compare to the current one? What Bush has done is not a precedent. It sure wasn't pretty. But the story is more about the sound of the Dems unsheathing their sabres again than anything actually done wrong or illegal.
I don't like to bash clinton, because as I see it, his wrongs are so greatly outweighed by his rights; and the one thing harped on most during, and forming the basis of, the failed attempt to impeach him, was lying about getting some strange. Picking on him seems almost nit-
picky...In light of the whoppers told by the whole bush admin, and the descent into two failed wars...
We can review past presidential behavior, of course; but, like much of history, although the acts of prior presidents can (and ought to) inform the present, contemporaneous happenings are always more interesting to me in the "now" than moot acts by replaced-executives, especially when these modern happenings are yet another aspect of (a long history of disingenuous behavior by this admin especially, but) any
current admin. I remember Monica, Whitewater and Desert One very well, Iran Contra very well, have some memory of both Vietnam and Watergate, and I still find the current situation "interesting" coming at this time in the admin, and after the progression of current events, that's all. Nobody has fired so many AGs mid-term
. EVER. I don't think it is a non-issue, but interesting. Not earth-shattering, not a "precedent" (though it will precede something, so technically, it is a precedent, but of what, we do not know...It certainly sets no "legal precedent," but so what?) as you seem to use the term, but again how can we know, until another mid-term pres removes a stack of AGs?