Former DOJ official says Gonzo's approach was "appalling"

[Claudette]

"In contrast to the 2006 dismissals, Presidents rarely dismiss U.S. attorneys they appoint.[59][60] Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff at the Department of Justice, noted in a January 9, 2006, e-mail to Harriet Miers: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision." (underlining original).[62] There is no precedent for a President to dismiss several U.S attorneys at one time while in the middle of their terms."

also from the above link

Numbers are irrelevant. You aren't listening. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political appointees, plain and simple. They can be dismissed for whatever reason the President sees fit.

This isn't that hard; yet, you choose to make more of it than is there in your neverending quest to point a finger at the right.

Actually, that's true and not so true. As the Gonzales case shows, there can be fallout from firing US attorneys because they refuse to use the law for political vendettas. What would you say if next year Obama fired all of his US attorneys because they refused to bring cases against republicans that he wanted brought regardless of the lack of evidence.

That would be AOK with TM.

After all Barry is her hero and nothing he does could ever be wrong. He is that shinning light of freedom, truth, justice and the American way. God gag me. LOL