You need to stop using the whole nevertrump thing as an excuse for not using your brain.
And you use it as a cover to not actually debate when things get too uncomfortable for you.
Actually from 1977 until Clinton fired all 94 in 1993 there was a bi partisan agreement in place to let the U.S. Attorneys serve out their four year terms regardless of which Presidents AG appointed them.
So no it hasn't always been common place and the other side just had to accept it.
But if you would take the time to research these things and not just blindly label anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with you in your blind support of all things Trump as either Democrats or nevertrumpers you might end up making some rational and intelligent posts.
Why would I use 1977-93 ?? I am living in reality, the way reality is right now. Post Clinton/post Obama.
The fact is Janet Reno fired J. Session, at the behest of Pres. Clinton.
For you to suggest that the GOP not act in accordance with this NEW practice, leaves me wondering what your side is.
Here is one of the left's favorite sources,
Politico, talking about Obama firing Bush holdovers.
Obama to replace U.S. Attorneys By Josh Gerstein | 05/15/09 08:34 AM EDT
President Barack Obama plans to replace a "batch" of U.S. Attorneys in the next few weeks and more prosecutors thereafter, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.
"I expect that we’ll have an announcement in the next couple of weeks with regard to our first batch of U.S attorneys," Holder said Thursday during a House Judiciary Committee hearing which stretched out over most of the day due to breaks for members' votes. "One of the things that we didn’t want to do was to disrupt the continuity of the offices and pull people out of positions where we thought there might be a danger that that might have on the continuity--the effectiveness of the offices.But...
elections matter--it is our intention to have the U.S. Attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as they can."
Holder's comments begin to resolve questions in the legal community about whether the new administration would hesitate to replace the chief prosecutors en masse because of the intense controversy that surrounded President George W. Bush's unusual mid-term replacement of nine U.S. attorneys in late 2006. In addition, legal sources said some Bush appointees were looking to burrow in, in part to avoid a grim economic climate for private-sector legal jobs.
However, by using terms like "elections matter," Holder seems to be signaling that Obama plans to install new leadership in most offices.
Pressure from lawmakers and local Democrats to replace the sitting prosecutors has been significant. Holder's comments Thursday came in response to a question from Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) "Many jurisdictions are waiting desperately to see what is going to be done. As we understand it, the protocol has been that U.S. Attorneys would hand in their resignations and would give the new administration an opportunity to make new appointments, we don’t see that happening quite fast enough," she said, pointing to complaints about prosecutors in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
Waters seemed satisfied with Holder's answer, but she was intent on creating a sense of urgency. "There is a danger with some of them being left there. So whatever you can do to move them we appreciate it," she said.
While Holder signaled that a new slate of prosecutors will be nominated, he did not rule out the possibility of holding over or reappointing some U.S. Attorneys named by Bush. Legal experts expect the new administration to retain some who are handling politically sensitive cases, such as Chicago-based prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for his alleged efforts to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Obama.
If the first U.S. Attorney selections from Obama do come in the next few weeks, he will still be ahead of Bush's timetable. He proposed his first U.S. Attorneys on August 1, 2001.
U.S. Attorneys require confirmation by the Senate and are usually proposed with the concurrence of the senators from that state.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2009/05/obama-to-replace-us-attorneys-018390 Read it thoroughly and then again. And only then, get back abut your suggestion I have this wrong, and lack the ability or willingness to research.
Your #nevertrump agenda has blocked you from common sense.
