Prosecutor Email - Text of threat letter

I'll be up a while tonight and thought I'd transcribe a few letters from the emails to make it easier for everyone to dig through. Here's a list of the Judiciary Committee's emails
http://judiciary.house.gov/



This is number 1-10
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt1-10070319.pdf
I'm not sure why I'm starting at the end but I do that with books too...


From H.E. Cummins
Subject: on another note


Mike Elston from the DAG's office called me today. The call was amiable enough. But clearly spurred by the Sunday Post article. The essence of his message was that they feel like they were taking an unnecessary flack to avoid trashing each of us specifically or further. But if they feel like any of us intend to continue to offer quotes to the press or organize behind the scenes congressional pressure, then they would feel forced to somehow pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully. I can't offer any specific quotes, but that was clearly the message. I was tempted to challenge him say something movie-like such as "are you threatening me", but instead I kind of shrugged it off and said I didn't sense that anyone was intending to perpetuate this. He mentioned my quote on Sunday and I didn't apologize for it, told him it was true and that everyone involved should agree with the truth of my statement, and pointed out to him that I stop short of calling them liars and merely said that IF they were doing as alleged they should retract. I also made it a point to tell him that all of us have turned down multiple invitations to testify. He reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying and it seemed clear that they would see that as a major escalation of the conflict meriting some kind of unspecified form of retaliation.

I don't personally see this as any big deal, and it sounded like the threat of retaliation amounts to a threat that they would make their recent behind doors. Senate presentation public. I didn't tell him that I heard about the details in that presentation and found it to be pretty weak threat since everyone that heard it apparently thought it was weak.

I don't want to stir you up conflict or overstate the threatening undercurrent in the call, but the message was clearly there and you should be aware before you speak to the press again, if you choose to do that. I don't feel like I am betraying him or reporting this to you because I think that is probably what he wanted me to do. Of course, I would appreciate maximum operation security regarding this e-mail and ask that you not forwarded or let others read it.

Bud


///////////////////////////

The rest of this pdf is from the Senate Hearing and continues onto 1-11. The last pages of 1-11 is unintelligible and heavily redacted... clearly a national security issue is at stake... "mustn't let the terrorist's know why were firing our prosecutors"