I've tried to fact check a right-wingclaim that Janet Reno fired 93 U.S. Attorney, but only

[Baitball Blogger]

find right-wing sources. Not even snopes has anything on it.

[DinahMoeHum]

1. Then the burden of proof is on them, NOT you. Or us.

Don't let them bully you otherwise.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Meanwhile, the misinformation spreads on Facebook.

This is how it gets out of hand. In the past, I have been able to dispute claims and stopped these things in their tracks.

[Jim__]

2. This is from CBS News.

From CBS News:

"It is true that Janet Reno, as her predecessors before her had done, asked for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. This is standard operating procedure designed to allow the President to have in place his own federal prosecutors. What is different about this current episode is that a Republican White House sought to replace Republican-appointed federal prosecutors mid-stream who were by all accounts doing precisely what they had been asked to do. We now know, from last week's testimony, why in some cases this was so and the answers we got make it clear that the reasons were not high-minded or lofty.”

My understanding is that the attorneys who asked to be allowed to remain to finish specific cases were allowed to.

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Great answer, thank you.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. U.S. Attorneys not Attorneys General

And I believe that 93 were asked to submit their resignation at the beginning of Bill Clinton's first term...not sure if Janet Reno made the request or Bill Clinton. But it's pretty standard procedure for incoming administrations to ask for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys, since they are political appointees.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. Fixed it, thank you.

[Vinca]

5. I think it's true and I vaguely remember the brouhaha around it at the time.

The difference between that event and the current dismissal is the Clinton administration didn't give them notice to get out in a couple of hours.

[pkdu]

8. Respond with this..

Why did Trump fire Preet Bhahara after meeting him Dec 2016 and getting him to agree to stay on....then replace him with Roger Ailes personal lawyer ( hint: Fox News is under investigation in SDNY )

[BainsBane]

9. New administrations typically replace the sitting

US Attorneys. What is different about this is that they fired them all without having replacements ready. The previous appointees have always stayed until their replacements are confirmed.

[Whiskeytide]

11. I think you meant "confirmed" ... BUT...

... in the case of a Trump appointed US atty, "conformed" is actually more appropriate. If you meant it for that reason, then you are playing several chess levels above me!

[BainsBane]

13. No, on my IPad

I'm lucky it didn't come out confit or something even stranger.

[DURHAM D]

10. President Clinton removed all but did it over a period of time.

I think it took up to two years and replacements were already chosen.

[OKNancy]

12. Right and most were given 6 to 8 months notice.

[procon]

14. Your search parameters are off; Clinton ordered the firing, not Reno.

Try it again, weeding out the rightwing propaganda junk, and you'll find many legitimate news articles covering both the Clinton and Bush administrations fired all the U.S. attorneys, but they also allowed many prosecutors to stay until their successors were confirmed.

That's the significant difference in maintaining the continuity of their ongoing investigations and lawsuits. To wipe them all out at one time indicates Trump is trying to hide something.