Changes

It is true that U.S. Atty's serve "at the pleasure of the president", and can therefore be fired for no reason, or for reasons for which other employees could not be fired. However, there are many reasons for which it would be illegal for the president to fire a US Atty. For example, if he did so in order to obstruct an investigation or prosecution, it would arguably be illegal; if a USAT was fired for refusing to take a religious oath, it would clearly violate the Establishment Clause and Article VI of the Constitution. if a USAT was fired for a criminal purpose (for example, to further a criminal conspiracy, etc.) this too would likely be illegal. I'm not saying this is what occurred in the USAT, but it the article is incorrect where it states that USAT's can be fired "for any reason."

It is true that U.S. Atty's serve "at the pleasure of the president", and can therefore be fired for no reason, or for reasons for which other employees could not be fired. However, there are many reasons for which it would be illegal for the president to fire a US Atty. For example, if he did so in order to obstruct an investigation or prosecution, it would arguably be illegal; if a USAT was fired for refusing to take a religious oath, it would clearly violate the Establishment Clause and Article VI of the Constitution. if a USAT was fired for a criminal purpose (for example, to further a criminal conspiracy, etc.) this too would likely be illegal. I'm not saying this is what occurred in the USAT, but it the article is incorrect where it states that USAT's can be fired "for any reason."