--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> 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.
They're *expected* to offer their resignations. Whether or not > the resignation is accepted depends on the President > and what position the person currently holds. But usually U.S. attorneys' resignations *are* accepted. > > > The right-wingers who are pretending this was unusual > > are simply trying to take advantage of the public's > > ignorance. > > >
