Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: President Obama fired every Bush appointed ambassador upon his election.

Q1: Did Obama remove all previously appointed Bush Ambassadors when he took office?
A1: The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.

The clean slate will open up prime opportunities for the president-elect to reward political supporters with posts in London, Paris, Tokyo and the like. The notice to diplomatic posts was issued this week.

Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration, but the sweeping nature of the directive suggests that Obama has little interest in retaining any of Bush's ambassadorial appointees.

Most ambassadors, of course, are foreign service officers, but often the posts involving the most important bilateral relations (such as with Great Britain, Japan and India) or desirable locales (such as the Bahamas) are given to close friends and well-heeled contributors of the president.

Q2: Were they Fired?
A2: No they rotated out of their positions as political appointees do with every administration.
user
justification: "Fired" is a strong word to be used in this claim. "Political ambassadors sometimes are permitted to stay on briefly during a new administration..." are the words used in the source evidence. Therefore cherry-picking is the claim label chosen.

verdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'
assistant