At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) questioned Emil Bove, nominee to be to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, and current Deputy AG.
00:00Senator Whitehouse raised this so-called deliberative process, privilege.
00:08First, this committee and Congress have never accepted that kind of assertion as a basis to evade questioning in this kind of confirmation hearing.
00:22But I'd like to point out also that this witness has no right to invoke that privilege.
00:30It's a privilege for the government of the United States to invoke.
00:34Now, I notice that the deputy attorney general is sitting right behind the witness.
00:39I didn't hear the deputy attorney general invoke this privilege on behalf of the government of the United States.
00:45And I might point out also that the witness is invoking it selectively.
00:51When he wants to answer the question, no privilege.
00:56When he wants to avoid answering the question, he says he's not at liberty to answer it.
01:04We've never accepted that kind of tactic on the part of a witness.
01:10Yes, nominees have sometimes said they can't comment on a case or an issue because it may come before them as a judge.
01:20But 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.
01:36So 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.
01:54Let me begin my questioning, 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.
02:06Thank you. There it is.
02:07I hadn't I hadn't noticed that, Mr. Chairman, but I thank Senator Whitehouse for pointing it out.
02:12Let me say in the future.
02:15Mr. Mr.
02:16The Whitehouse made very clear the issues you're bringing up and I said I'm willing to discuss them.
02:25We can't 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.
02:36I appreciate your point, Mr. Chairman.
02:40I'll begin my questioning.
02:42Mr. Bovey, you responded to Senator Kennedy's questions about who was consulted about the dismissal of charges against Mr. Adams.
02:52Did you ever talk to Stephen Miller before you filed the memorandum on February 10th ordering the dismissal of the Adams charges?
03:02Senator, I responded to Senator Kennedy's questions based on a publicly filed document that described the Attorney General.
03:09Did you talk to Stephen Miller?
03:10I'm not going to describe the participants in conversations.
03:14So you won't answer that question?
03:16No, I will not, Senator.
03:17Why?
03:18Because it is not appropriate for me to discuss.
03:21It is appropriate for you to tell us whom you consulted before taking action on behalf of the United States of America.
03:30You have no basis to avoid that question, Mr. Bovey.
03:35Respectfully, Senator, I'm answering that question in a manner similar to several nominees before me, including Judge Katzen.
03:43Did you talk to anyone in the White House, including the president, about dismissal of the Adams charges before the February 10th memorandum?
03:52I respectfully refer you back to my answer, Senator.
03:55I 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.
04:14You 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.
04:26Senator, 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've addressed several today.
04:34Well, I have asked you a question that bears on the appearance of impropriety.
04:38Let me go on.
04:41Mr. Bovey, 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.
05:04Do you stand by that?
05:05I don't think that's what I said, Senator, because it's not consistent with the rule, which explicitly provides.
05:12Well, 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, quote, fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under law.
05:30That's what he said about your position, that the decision to dismiss these charges was unreviewable.
05:36Do you stand by that assertion?
05:38I never made that assertion, and the judge granted the motion, Senator.
05:43He granted the motion, but he disagreed with your premise that it was unreviewable.
05:50Let me ask you, are decisions to dismiss cases, as with that one, unreviewable?
05:59The text of Rule 48 requires, in the instances presented by the Adams case, that dismissal will only be provided for with leave of the court.
06:10That's as near a quote as I can give you, and the entire brief that I submitted acknowledged that point, because we were seeking the leave.
06:17You know, Mr. Beauvais, I am concerned about the quid pro quo that the judge concluded had been done.
06:26In fact, he said, everything here smacks of a bargain.
06:29Everything here smacks of a bargain.
06:32But the quid pro quo that really concerns me is the one that brings you here today.
06:39You 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.
06:53And the quid pro quo was a nomination to the Court of Appeals.
06:59That's the appearance that the American people can take away from your sitting before us with that nomination.
07:08And 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.
07:23Let me ask you about a separate issue, the firing of prosecutors and investigators who were involved in the January 6th prosecutions.
07:34You were involved in purging prosecutors who, in good faith and an exercise of their prosecutorial judgment,
07:45they went to court, they brought charges, you purged them.
07:51Isn't that correct?
07:52I don't agree with the use of the word purged, Senator.
07:55Well, you fired them.
07:59I authorized the termination of probationary employees at that U.S. attorney's office, yes.
08:05Because they prosecuted the January 6th rioters?
08:08No, because I was concerned about efforts in the prior administration to embed those prosecutors as permanent employees at the U.S. attorney's office.
08:18And you also fired the FBI investigators involved in the January 6th prosecution, correct?
08:24No, that's not accurate.
08:25You worked with Director Patel in firing them, correct?
08:30No, that's not accurate.
08:32Senator Schmidt.
08:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
08:34I'm going to pivot away from the Democrats' fake outrage.
