--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MDixon wrote: > > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? > > > They all serve at the discretion of the President. President Clinton > fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the > mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire > the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas.
As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly elected president to ask for the resignations of political appointees, including U.S. attorneys, especially if they were appointed by the other party. What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys a president has appointed before the president's term is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause. In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that the "cause" in question was these attorneys' unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by the White House and Justice Department for political purposes. The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- are supposed to be independent of political influence. The even more important question here is, how many of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their jobs because they *did* submit to political influence? > > Were they union? > > > No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their jobs, out > of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply good candidates for > replacement. >
