I always view the news and ask myself, “Now what would the headlines and comments be if the other side did this”. Very seldom do I think they be the same.
If this was 8 years ago the press would be applauding the clean out of all the Bush prosecutors, it would be a damn good thing the one guy who refused to resign was fired, and all the comments here would be rah, rah. Oh yes, and Obama’s assurance to the one guy he would stay in the job would not be mentioned at all.
Your hypothetical retroactive clairvoyance is truly eerie. Why not use your gift to divine the jackpot-winning numbers to last year’s lotteries?
Fox.
And Friends.
and Facebook.
Are you trying to answer the question I posed? Does your use of conditional verb conjugation mean Obama did not do this eight years ago?
And Facebook.
It is standard for the new party to replace all (or almost all)* the US Attorneys. Clinton fired all 90-odd en masse when Reno took office. Bush slowly fired everyone between January and May. Obama replaced them in “batches” beginning, I think, in May. Every president since Reagan has replaced essentially all of the US Attorneys within the first two years.
Firing isn’t like to disrupt a major prosecution because those are likely being handled by career prosecutors in the US attorneys office and/or from Main Justice. Sure, a change in command can shift enforcement priorities (or substantive legal positions taken by the office), but, like Eric Holder said when firing the Bush-era US Attorneys, “elections matter.”