Blumenthal Grills Trump Loyalist & Nominee for Federal Judgeship Emil Bove on Handling of Eric Adams Case, Striking Deal to Drop Corruption Charges
[WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) today pressed Emil J. Bove III, President Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, about his role in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams reportedly in exchange for Adams’s promise to cooperate with the President’s immigration policies. During the hearing, Blumenthal called out Bove for evading questions about his role in the DOJ’s decision to drop the charges against Adams and raised concerns about Bove’s ethical standards and disregard for the rule of law.
“I am absolutely flabbergasted that you would come before this Committee and refuse to tell us basic facts about a case that is at the core of the challenges to the appearance of impropriety that should disqualify you. You have the opportunity to clear the air, to come clean with the American people, as well as this Committee, and you are evading and avoiding these questions,” said Blumenthal.
“I am concerned about the quid pro quo that the judge concluded had been done. In fact, he said, ‘everything here smacks of a bargain.’ Everything here smacks of a bargain. But the quid pro quo that really concerns me is the one that brings you here today. You were virtually the only attorney in the Department of Justice willing to go to court and make a claim that career prosecutors said violated their basic standard of ethics,” Blumenthal continued.
A video of Blumenthal’s full interaction with Bove can be found here, and a transcript can be found below.
U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my questioning and the clock starts, I would like to add my voice on the point that Senator Whitehouse raised, this so-called deliberative process privilege. First, this Committee and Congress have never accepted that kind of assertion as a basis to evade questioning in this kind of confirmation hearing. But I’d like to point out also that this witness has no right to invoke that privilege. It’s a privilege for the Government of the United States to invoke. Now, I noticed that the Deputy Attorney General is sitting right behind the witness. I did not hear the Deputy Attorney General invoke this privilege on behalf of the Government of the United States. And I might point out also that the witness is invoking it selectively. When he wants to answer the question, no privilege. When he wants to avoid answering the question, he says he is not at liberty to answer it. We have never accepted that kind of tactic on the part of a witness. Yes, nominees have sometimes said they cannot comment on a case or an issue because it may come before them as a judge. But this kind of selective invoking of a privilege smacks of evasion and defiance, and I think reflects on us as a Committee if we accept it in this context, Mr. Chairman. So, I hope that the witness may be instructed to answer these questions or we can have a resolution somehow on the legitimacy of this kind of privilege and ask the witness to come back. Let me begin my questioning.
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): Mr. Chairman, I think the clock was started on Senator Blumenthal while he made his point of order. Might be a courtesy to allow it to be—there it is.
Blumenthal: I had not noticed that Mr. Chairman, but I thank Senator Whitehouse for pointing it out.
U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Let me say in the future…
Blumenthal: Mr. Bove…
Grassley: … I think Whitehouse made very clear the issues you are bringing up, and I said I'm willing to discuss them.
Blumenthal: Thank you.
Grassley: But we cannot take the time of this Committee to hear a repeat of everything from every Member that would disagree with what I said in my opening statement.
Blumenthal: I appreciate your point, Mr. Chairman. I will begin my questioning. Mr. Bove, you responded to Senator Kennedy’s questions about who was consulted about the dismissal of charges against Mr. Adams. Did you ever talk to Stephen Miller before you filed the memorandum on February 10 ordering the dismissal of the Adams charges?
Emil Bove: Senator, I responded to Senator Kennedy's questions based on a publicly filed document that described the Attorney General…
Blumenthal: Did you talk to Stephen Miller?
Bove: I'm not going to describe the participants in conversations.
Blumenthal: So, you will not answer that question?
Bove: No, I will not, Senator.
Blumenthal: Why?
Bove: Because it is not appropriate for me to discuss…
Blumenthal: It is appropriate for you to tell us whom you consulted before taking action on behalf of the United States of America. You have no basis to avoid that question, Mr. Bove.
Bove: Respectfully, Senator, I'm answering that question in a manner similar to several nominees before me, including Judge Katz.
Blumenthal: Did you talk to anyone in the White House, including the President, about dismissal of the Adams charges before the February 10 memorandum?
Bove: I respectfully refer you back to my answer, Senator.
Blumenthal: I am absolutely flabbergasted that you would come before this Committee and refuse to tell us basic facts about a case that is at the core of the challenges to the appearance of impropriety that should disqualify you. You have the opportunity to clear the air, to come clean with the American people, as well as this Committee, and you are evading and avoiding these questions.
Bove: Senator, if you have a question about the position that I took in public with respect to the Mayor Adams case, I’m happy to address it, and I have addressed several today.
Blumenthal: Well, I have asked you a question that bears on the appearance of impropriety. Let me go on. Mr. Bove, in court you represented first that there was no quid pro quo, but you said that the decision, even if there were a quid pro quo, was unreviewable—unreviewable by the court. Do you stand by that?
Bove: I don’t think that’s what I said, Senator, because it is not consistent with the role which explicitly provides…
Blumenthal: You said it not only once, but you said it a number of times, and the judge observed, Judge Ho said, that your position was, “Fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law.” That’s what he said about your position, that the decision to dismiss these charges was unreviewable. You stand by that assertion?
Bove: I never made that assertion, and the Judge granted the motion, Senator.
Blumenthal: He granted the motion, but he disagreed with your premise that it was unreviewable. Let me ask you, are decisions to dismiss cases, as with that one, unreviewable?
Bove: The text of Rule 48 requires in the instances presented by the Adams case that dismissal only be provided for with leave of the court. That is as near a quote as I can give you, and the entire brief that I submitted acknowledged that point, because we were seeking…
Blumenthal: You know, Mr. Bove, I am concerned about the quid pro quo that the judge concluded had been done. In fact, he said, everything here smacks of a bargain. Everything here smacks of a bargain. But the quid pro quo that really concerns me is the one that brings you here today. You were virtually the only attorney in the Department of Justice willing to go to court and make a claim that career prosecutors said violated their basic standard of ethics. And the quid pro quo was a nomination to the court of appeals. That is the appearance that the American people can take away from your sitting before us with that nomination. And I think it does grave damage to respect for the rule of law—notwithstanding your assertions about your adherence to it—for you to be here as a result of that stand by you.
Let me ask you about a separate issue, the firing of prosecutors and investigators involved in the January 6 prosecutions. You were involved in purging prosecutors who in good faith and in exercise of their prosecutorial judgment. They went to court, they brought charges, you purged them. Isn’t that correct?
Bove: I don’t agree with the use of the word, “purged,” Senator.
Blumenthal: Well, you fired them?
Bove: I authorized the termination of probationary employees at that U.S. Attorney’s office, yes.
Blumenthal: Because they prosecuted the January 6 the rioters?
Bove: No. Because I was concerned about efforts in the prior Administration to embed those prosecutors as permanent employees at the U.S. Attorney's office.
Blumenthal: And you also fired the FBI investigators involved in the January 6 prosecutions, correct?
Bove: No, that is not accurate.
Blumenthal: You worked with Director Patel in firing them, correct?
Bove: No, that is not accurate.
-30-