--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 10:12:38 A.M. Central Standard Time, > > willytex@ writes: > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > Thank you. That is what I've been hearing for the past couple of > > days and I do remember Clinton firing a whole bunch when he first > > took office. > > Political appointees--especially if they were appointed > by a president of the other party--are always asked for > their resignations by a newly elected president. >
They always OFFER their resignations. Whether or not the resignation is accepted depends on the President and what position the person currently holds. > The right-wingers who are pretending this was unusual > are simply trying to take advantage of the public's > ignorance. >
