On March 23, 1993, Janet Reno fired all 93 Unites States Attorneys. Why are we still talking about firing eight?
According to Drudge, Hillary Clinton thinks that her husband's actions through Reno are different than Bush's actions through Gonzales. She argues that it is a President's perrogative to clean house upon arrival, but not to interfere with ongoing investigations.
1) No president had ever fired all AUSA's, ever. Clinton was the first. Some perrogative.
2) AUSA's serve 4 year terms, ergo all of the attorneys fired by GWB were GWB appointees. Clinton cleaned out all the Elder Bush's appointees and filled every spot with his own. It is a stretch for me to believe that a president can fire all of someone else's appointees but cannot fire his own. Which one sounds more political?