Yeah, he should have been tougher like Bill Clinton and fire all of them.
Dems would be pissing on themselves, oh wait they are over 8. LOFL
Top maybe you should stick to economics and leave politics to the women.
It's common practice for new adminstrations to bring in an entire new team of federal prosecuters. Clinton did it in 93 and George W did it in 2001.
What is not common practice is firing a number of prosecuters that you yourself appointed in mid-term. Let me try and give you an analogy that you might grasp. Of course, a new President appoints a new Attorney General. We don't consider the sitting Attorney General to have been "fired". He's been replaced by the incoming adminstration. Common practice. Now say, two years into their appointment, the Attorney General is asked NOT to investigate alleged wrong-doing in the current adminstration. He refused to go along, and is then fired. That would create a firestorm. It is exactly why Clinton could not fire Freeh when he was director of the FBI, even though, Freeh hated Clinton and went along with some highly questionable investigations at the behest of Republicans. Even with that, had Clinton fired him it would have been a political mindfield.
Do you understand why? Neither the Judiciary branch, nor the Justice department can be used as a tool of the Executive branch. If they are, we no longer have a functioning Democracy.
Now, turn off whatever right wing radio show you are listening to and think. Why are Republicans up in arms over these firings? Is it because "clinton did it too" and it's "common practice"? Or, do you think that there might be a frigging problem here?