Less than a year into the new president's administration, the FBI director was fired. His conduct had been scrutinized before the election, but when the opposition party won, it took months for him to be out of a job.

William S. Sessions, fired in July 1993, was until Tuesday the only FBI director dismissed in the middle of a 10-year term. He claimed politics led to his ouster, a view held to this day by some supporters.

There are some similarities between President Bill Clinton's firing of Sessions and President Donald Trump's firing of James Comey, as well as many foundational distinctions.

Both Comey and Sessions faced bipartisan criticism spanning a change in leadership and at least some reports of internal dissent before being canned months into the new administration.

But the specific facts and the possible ramifications differ significantly.

Comey is accused in a document written by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein of improperly airing “derogatory” information about Hillary Clinton ahead of last year's election while allegedly usurping the Justice Department’s decision-making process about whether to charge her for having classified information on a private email server.

Rosenstein cites bipartisan criticism of Comey from former Justice Department leaders, but there’s concern among lawmakers of both parties about timing as the FBI investigates Russia’s alleged hacking of Democrats to disadvantage Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

The scandal that brought down Sessions focused on personal finances and officials involved recall it getting much less attention.

President Barack Obama appointed James Comey, a Republican, to be FBI director in 2013. (Susan Walsh/AP)

Sessions, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, faced allegations that he improperly billed taxpayer $10,000 for a fence around his home, claimed a tax exemption for his official limousine and took official travel for personal reasons. He allegedly refused to cooperate with a probe of the terms on a mortgage.

Still, "they could have stood by Sessions longer than they did," says Harvard Law School professor Philip Heymann, deputy attorney general at the time.

Heymann can’t recall personally lobbying one way or the other but says in retrospect he believes politics were at play.

“To the extent I can remember, I don’t think it was justified,” Heymann says.

“I think [Sessions] being very liberal angered some senior FBI guys and they made a lot of the ‘corruption’ of building a fence," he says. "That doesn't seem to me a very good reason to replace him.”

Others involved in the process of firing Sessions say there were many good reasons.

"The main leadership in the bureau, the career leadership, had lost confidence in him and there was a lot of acrimony and turmoil inside the bureau," says William Barr, attorney general under George H.W. Bush from 1991 to January 1993.

Barr recalls the transition process interrupting his effort to fire Sessions.

“I recommended that he be terminated, which the president agreed to,” he says. “And then obviously we lost the election, so [Clinton Attorney General Janet] Reno had to do it.”

FBI Director William Sessions, right, was fired in July 1993 by President Bill Clinton. (AP Photos)

Barr says Sessions accused him of political motives, but that the claim was unfounded.

“He said the turmoil in the FBI was caused by a ‘cabal of Hooverites’ and that I was in league with them,” he says. “That is what he told Reno. He tried to say that she shouldn’t follow up on the recommendation, but she eventually did.”

Sessions' claim of unfair treatment – including his wife accusing a deputy of leading a revolt – didn't have legs in the press.

"The whole thing was non-controversial. There wasn't a lot of blowback from the Hill. I was never called to testify about this," says Stuart Gerson, who served as acting attorney general in early 1993.

Gerson, a Bush holdover, drafted a report recommending Sessions’ firing, building on a previous document compiled by Barr, and he denies any political influences. Reno accepted the recommendation and Clinton made the call.

“There are some loose parallels but also some fundamental differences," Gerson says.

“There wasn't any possible allegation that either President Bush or President Clinton were attempting to cover something up," he says.

In another key difference between the firings, Comey was not notified personally by Trump. He reportedly learned of his firing on TV and told the group he was addressing that it was an amusing joke.

Bill Clinton called Sessions, who previously had been offered a chance to resign.

Heymann recalls being in the room with Sessions when Clinton called.

“It wasn’t treated as a major event at the time,” Heymann says. He believes Sessions said, “Yes, Mr. President,” and accepted the outcome, though there was a discussion of when the firing would take effect. The New York Times reported Clinton called a second time to say the firing was effective immediately.

In the years since, Heymann says he’s come to know and respect Sessions – the father of Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, but unrelated to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who along with Rosenstein recommended that Trump fire Comey.

Sessions, now 86, is in poor health and not giving interviews, says a representative of the Constitution Project, with which he is affiliated.

The delay before Sessions' termination was attributed by the White House to efforts to seek an amicable exit – something not at play with Comey. With the siege of a Waco, Texas, compound belonging to the Branch Davidian religious sect in early 1993 and appointees slowly winning confirmation, it may also have been seen as a low priority.

"I got affirmative feedback [from the White House and] was told in due course it would happen," recalls Gerson, who relinquished leadership duties to Reno following her March 11 Senate confirmation.

Gerson agrees with Barr that a significant motivation behind Sessions' ouster was internal FBI turmoil. By contrast, “it is my understanding that Jim Comey enjoyed fairly widespread respect," he says.