Mmm hhhmm, like Clinton wasn't intentionally removing the Atty investigating Dan Rostenkowski or the Arkansas Attorney overseeing Whitewater. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.Sure, but never in the history of the country has any class of Assistant US Attorneys General been fired mid-term, and in response to allegations of corruption in the executive branch by Congress and the press...Very fishy...
The political removal of 2, 3, or 4 atty's is one thing...Removing nearly 200 to avoid prosecution of yourself, your cabinet, and your advisors is in a wholly different league...And remember: Clinton was actually prosecuted, and lost. Neither pot nor kettle, here.Mmm hhhmm, like Clinton wasn't intentionally removing the Atty investigating Dan Rostenkowski or the Arkansas Attorney overseeing Whitewater. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Clinton, like every other newly elected president in nearly 110 years, removed the class of AG's when he took office...Just like bush did in 2K. This midterm removal, though not against the law, is interesting...Not stink-raising, but interesting.Clinton removed all 93 states attorneys general. Bush removed 8. These attorneys can be removed at the whim of the President. Neither President violated any law or did anything wrong. It's amazing that such a stink is being raised.
No prob.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.