Cummins: GOPer Probe Didn’t Lead to Firing

Earlier, we noted an article in today’s Los Angeles Times, which quoted former U.S. attorney Bud Cummins as wondering whether his forced resignation had anything to do with his office’s investigation into Missouri’s Republican governor Matt Blunt.

In response, Cummins wrote in to TPMm, wanting to make it clear that ” I do not know of any connection whatsoever to the Missouri investigation and my firing. I am not asking myself (or anyone else) about that.”

We’ve posted his entire email below.

The email:

I noted today that you have referenced a LA Times article in which it is suggested that I harbor doubts about a connection between an investigation I conducted in Missouri and my termination as a US Attorney. I am quoted in the article as saying ‘Now I am asking myself-what about the Blunt deal.” It has stimulated about 6 media calls this morning from Missouri. Unfortunately, that isn’t what I said, or at least what I intended to say, and it is not the case.

The context of my conversation with LA Times reporter Richard Serrano was clearly that I do not know of ANY connection between the Missouri investigation (which actually had nothing to do with Governor Blunt) and my termination. The quote he offered (and I think he misunderstood what I actually said) was made if at all during my discussion of the unfortunate affect these events have had on the credibility of DOJ. I explained that DOJ lives on credibility and without it they are unable to perform their mission.

As I explained to Mr. Serrano, the public must perceive that every substantive decision within the department is made in a neutral and non-partisan fashion. Once the public detects partisanship in one important decision, they will follow the natural inclination to question every decision made, whether there is a connection or not.

Now, it appears that improper political considerations were on the table when some or all of the US Attorneys were fired. This has cost DOJ its credibility. Now, many folks are asking questions they weren’t asking before about the motivations behind various prosecutions and policies. I submitted to the reporter that one example was his call to me. I believe I probably said “Now you are asking me — what about the Blunt deal?” to illustrate the point that people are questioning things that weren’t an issue before the information about the firings was recently disclosed.

At any rate, I will tell you here: I do not know of any connection whatsoever to the Missouri investigation and my firing. I am not asking myself (or anyone else) about that.

I am asking myself why the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are not making it a priority to retract the lies that have been told about my seven colleagues (they have essentially told the truth in my case). I do not know why the seven were fired. It no longer matters to them or me. We served at the pleasure of the President, we were asked to leave and we did.

But it did not have to do with their “performance”. They all served loyally, professionally, ethically, and effectively. There is no evidence that performance was any consideration in these decisions at all. The President may now want to go in a different direction. The move is unprecedented, but is his absolute legal right. But he should be thanking them and commending them for excellent service, not permitting his subordinates to slander those professional reputations to protect themselves. It is simply wrong.