Cory Booker Tells Emil Bove To His Face He Hopes Evidence Will Come Out Proving He's Lied to Senate

Forbes Breaking News

At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) questioned Emil Bove, nominee to be to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, and current Deputy AG.

Transcript

00:00Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I make one point? Yeah. We know we are operating under a five-minute rule,

00:06but you've given some latitude, for example, to the last senator, and I'm not objecting to it.

00:10What did you say? I'm saying the time to speak has been five minutes established.

00:15We've gone over that as a convenience to our colleagues, and I hope we'll continue that. Okay.

00:20Okay. In 2018, Mr. Bovee, a group of federal criminal defense attorneys and former SDNY prosecutors in Manhattan

00:30were so alarmed by your pattern of unethical conduct that they wrote your supervisors at SDNY to warn them about you.

00:39I'd like to enter into the record a letter that I sent to acting U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton of SDNY

00:45requesting more information about any internal or external complaints about you as a prosecutor.

00:52The letter contains the full text of that 2018 email from lawyers in which they describe you,

00:58and I'm quoting here, they describe you as, quote, vindictive, always looking for leverage and power,

01:06a prosecutor, prosecutor version of a drunk driver, completely reckless and out of control,

01:12quote, needing adult supervision. One attorney said that you, whether, whether due justice,

01:18whatever due justice is supposed to mean, it doesn't apply to Bovee. A former federal prosecutor

01:25who later litigated against you said what Mr. Bovee enjoyed most as a prosecutor was wielding power,

01:33a quality they described as the single worst possible trait for a public servant.

01:38Now, I read these because they're important that these complaints are not an attempt to derail your

01:44nomination. This is from 2018. Person after person, these complaints come from attorneys

01:51who practiced in federal court, some former federal prosecutors, warning a U.S. attorney's office

01:58that one of their prosecutors was, quote, a real recurring problem and that you were not

02:07representing the office in a way that they thought the office would want it represented.

02:12Your conduct was so beyond the pale back in 2018 that they wrote your supervisors to say you were

02:19a liability for the office. I think this is important because it shows a pattern of behavior.

02:26The allegations align with reports about your abuse of power now at the DOJ.

02:31I want to follow up in this pattern with what Senator Durbin's questions about the mandatory

02:37teams meeting you scheduled for all remaining public integrity section attorneys on February

02:4414th, 2025. We already know that you're refusing to tell this committee whether you talk to Stephen

02:50Miller or others at the White House. All the chiefs and supervisors had resigned at this point,

02:57so all of the remaining and available attorneys were line attorneys in that meeting. Is that

03:02correct? Approximately 20 attorneys were on the team's call. I do hope, Senator, that at some

03:13point I'll have an opportunity. You were trying to find two attorneys to sign a motion to dismiss the

03:20Adams case without prejudice. Is that correct? Yes. During the meeting you told attorneys that it is

03:29their job to implement the president's agenda and that they have to follow orders from the president

03:34and that there's no room for dissent in the chain of command. Is that correct? No. You told them that

03:43they had one hour to find two attorneys to sign the motion. They weren't allowed to ask questions.

03:49Is that correct? No. You started the meeting by emphasizing to the line attorneys that Danielle

03:57Sasson and Hagan Scott had failed to follow orders and that Ms. Sasson was going to be reassigned

04:05before she resigned. Correct. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the last part of that question. I will

04:12state again. You stated, started the meeting by emphasizing to the line attorneys that Danielle Sasson

04:19and Hagan Scott had failed to follow orders and that Ms. Sasson was going to be reassigned

04:26before she resigned. Is that correct? No. Okay. You also told them that whoever signed the motion would,

04:37quote, emerge as the new leaders, end quote, of the public integrity section for doing so. Correct?

04:45I don't recall saying that. So you don't know if you said that or not?

04:52I don't recall saying that. Edward Sullivan volunteered to sign the motion. As promised,

04:59Sullivan was promoted to acting chief of the public integrity section for dismissing that case.

05:04Is that correct? No. So you are saying that as the leader of the DOJ, you don't know who is in

05:11charge of public integrity? No. I'm saying that the causal relationship that you implied in your

05:18question is not accurate. Okay. We have you on the record on all of those points. You worked on

05:24January 6th cases while a prosecutor at the SDNY, correct? A supervisor, yes. An FBI agent described

05:32you as treating the January 6th cases as a priority when you were prosecuting those cases. But then you

05:39fired dozens of prosecutors and eight senior FBI officials working on the case. Is that correct?

05:47No. So, Mr. Bove, I am hoping that more evidence is going to come out that showed that you lied before

05:56this committee. And I'm wondering where the lines are for you. What's the line in the sand when you

06:04wield awesome power of government? What is that line for you? Because clearly lying to a court isn't a

06:11red line. Referring to follow court or refusing to follow court orders isn't a line. Doxing judges and

06:17government officials isn't a red line. Intimidating attorneys you supervise into doing things they

06:22believe is unethical is not a line. So what's your red line? I really wonder, what could the

06:30president ask you to do that you wouldn't do? What wouldn't you do to win? A judge has to uphold

06:36core values and principles, independence, impartiality, integrity, diligence. A judge must be free from undue

06:45influence. A judge must decide cases fairly without prejudice or favor. A judge must ensure that anyone

06:52who appears before them in court will get a fair shake. Everything we're hearing you say makes me

06:59believe that you're incapable of that. The pattern didn't just begin when you were nominated by this

07:04president. Peers of yours, prosecutors, attorneys who served with you, and judges in your past year

07:11have again and again cited you as someone who is not capable or qualified of doing this job in which

07:19you're nominated for. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bovey, thank you so much for being here today.

Category

Transcript

Recommended