Mr. Cummins,

I am sorry for the assault on you and your colleagues' reputation. Don't wait for an apology from these folks because it will never happen.

I guess my only question about this would be why did you accept the resignation if you knew it was all about politics in the first place. Is it because you wanted to move on or was it because you like many others realized what a corrupt bunch of thugs these people were and you did not want to cross them then and still don't?

Please tell that you only knew how rotten these people were when they trampled all over your reputation, but if you knew this before hand it would have been better if this would have been handled while you were there not when you left and the story became public by other means.

Hello, I just want to thank you for speaking about the recent firings in the justice department. It is quite damning to have a senior aide take the fifth in front of congress, even if the aide is only doing it for "political" reasons. It looks shabby in the extreme, and is an insult to you folks who have tried to do your jobs in service of law and justice. I surely hope and expect that you will be supported by many others in the department who believe in the rule of law. There is no other line to hew to.

Thanks again,

Sincerely,

Tony Eastham

Mr. Cummins, I regret your firing, but I find your excusing of it altogether too kind on the perpetrators.

The phrase "at the pleasure of the President" does NOT cover [or excuse] obstruction of justice. When the President or his minions decide to fire a US Attorney because of a case that attorney has chosen to prosecute, without reference to the merits of the evidence, but merely on the basis that the prosecution is against a member of the President's political party, THAT is obstruction of justice.

The appropriate response by an "officer of the court" [and I am one, although retired] is to refuse to participate. Perhaps you're too young to remember Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson. If so, go back to your Con. Law books.

You only get one chance to hold on to your credibility. My team, which holds temporary custody of the Department of Justice, has blown it in this case. The Department of Justice will be paying for it for some time to come.

It's your team which has blown it. When the other team takes over, credibility can return -- unless, of course, your team insists on painting the DOJ as lacking in credibility. But they wouldn't do THAT would they?

What a shame that people such as Mr Cummins et al have had their reputations blackened by this bunch of cowardly, morally and ethically bankrupt, draft dodging fools, I really feel for the majority of the American people when I say this, yes, I know politics is a hard game, but these dogs in power now are just way beyond the pale, they’re behaving just like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, not the beacon of democracy the world expects America to be. Indict, impeach and imprison them soon, for your sakes and the rest of the worlds.

The president had an absolute right to fire us. We served at his pleasure, and that meant we could be dismissed for any reason or for no reason.

While it is true that the President may fire U.S. attorneys, you are incorrect that he may fire you for any reason. He may fire you for no reason, or he may fire you for any lawful reason. He may not fire you for unlawful reasons.

Obstruction of justice is a crime. Selectively prosecuting members of the opposing party is an outrage. It appears that these firings may have be motivated by these factors.

No matter how pleasurable it is to the President of the United States to use to power of the U.S. Attorneys to screw his political opponents and reward his political allies, it is a pleasure that is not permitted.

Mr. Cummins,

Because the motives and integrity of the US Attorneys that remain at DoJ will be questioned, the fact that you were fired, ironically, validates for me your personal integrity, motivation and commitment to your oath of office. Thank you for taking this stand for the truth. You return to our profession some of the honor that has been stolen by the AG, his staff and the White House.

I was talking to my dad tonight about some of the effects of this politicization of the DoJ. For instance, I fully expect that New Mexico Senate President Pro Tem Manny Aragon's counsel will be attempting to depose you, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Sampson, Ms. Goodling, AG Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Where, prior to these actions, defense counsel could only plead political bias, they now can establish reasonable allegations of actual political bias. This will be an intersting case to follow.

I am happy to read Mr. Cummins' essay and will point to it in conversation with family and friends. But let's not forget that the injecting of politics into the Justice department is not only what is getting the Senate (indeed the country) so upset. It is that the replacement attorneys were appointed without Senate approval using a provision in the USA Patriot Act inserted late at night by Sen. Spector (R).

I read somewhere, recently, that this maneuver actually does rise to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' if one goes back to the late 1700s and reads the rationale behind presidential appointees that are required to be approved by the Senate.

The sad point that we should take away, apart from the doubt that any good defense attorney can now play on, is that this politicization of the government is likely going on EVERYWHERE. The recent GSA PowerPoint "scandal" is a case in point. These guys are corrupt to the core. The arrogance of breaking the Hatch act, AFTER the Democrats took back both chambers, is alarming. They ooze hubris. And it smells bad.

Rgds,

Ken