Business meeting to consider S.1038, to direct the Attorney General to include a data field in the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System to indicate whether the last known location of a missing person was confirmed or was suspected to have been on Federal land, S.1098, to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Grant Program, S.1528, to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to ensure that businesses and organizations that work with vulnerable populations are able to request background checks for their contractors who work with those populations, as well as for individuals that the businesses or organizations license or certify to provide care for those populations, the nominations of Emil J. Bove III, of Pennsylvania, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Edward L. Artau, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Kyle Christopher Dudek, Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, and Jordan Emery Pratt, each to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, and Kurt Alme, to be United States Attorney for the District of Montana, for the term of four years, Nicholas Chase, to be United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota for the term of four years, Lesley Murphy, to be United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska for the term of four years, Jeanine Pirro, of New York, to be United States Attorney for the District of Columbia for the term of four years, Daniel Rosen, of Florida, to be United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota for the term of four years, Erik Siebert, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for the term of four years, and Kurt Wall, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana for the term of four years, all of the Department of Justice.
Committee on the Judiciary
2025-07-17
Participants
Transcript
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
respectfully with the whistleblower, the whistleblower lawyers, and others who have come forward to discuss these allegations throughout the process. I've treated the complaint in good faith, as I always do. But that doesn't mean that I'm always going to agree with the allegations raised earlier this week. I led an effort to review the disclosure document by document and analyze the facts. The results, almost none of the material, I wanna make clear, almost none of the material references Mr. Bovee at all. More concerningly, the Democrat summary, grossly mischaracterizes the documents that it purports to summarize. In short, the documents don't say what my Democratic colleagues say they do. Now let's say even if we accept most of the claim as true, there's no scandal here. Government lawyers aggressively litigating and interpreting court orders isn't misconduct. It's what lawyers do all the time. Concerningly, the minority repeatedly recast discussions of litigation strategy. Now, they crafted litigation strategy as wrongdoing. Even discussions that reflected the government's official litigation positions some of which prevailed on appeal.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
These documents then give no reason to delay this nomination. So let's stick to the facts. The whistleblower alleges misconduct, but 10 days after the key event he described, he signed a brief stating without qualifications that, quote, the government has complied with the court orders in this case, end of quote. If he believed the department defied court orders, why sign a brief as an officer of the court saying that it had complied? During the hearing, Mr. Povey's firmly denied the allegations. He testified under oath, quote, I did not advise any Justice Department attorney to violate court orders, end of quote. Recent public reporting backs this account, his account as well. I'd like to enter into the record, and I have it right here. Months before the whistleblower came forward, His former supervisor wrote in a letter that Mr. Bovee advised, quote, advised our team that we must avoid a court order holding an upcoming operation to implement the act at all costs, end of quote. This statement confirms Mr. Bovee advised his team to avoid triggering a court order, not defy one, and that's consistent with his testimony. My staff has also interviewed multiple people who were present for the March 14th meeting described in the whistleblower disclosure.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
Now we have four separate people other than Mr. Bovee who were present in the meeting telling us the following. There was never any directive to ignore a court order And each of them left the meeting with the understanding that the Justice Department would aggressively litigate but would follow court orders. To my Democratic colleagues then, you've been accusing each of president nominees of insufficiently respecting the court. I have a few questions. Where was the outrage when Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez said in response to a decision about abortion drug access, quote, I believe the Biden administration should ignore this ruling, end of quote. Where was the indignation when Senator Wyden took to the Senate floor and said, quote, there are moments in history where Americans and their leaders must look at circumstances like this one and say enough, not let's see how the appeals process plays out or let's hope Congress can fix this down the road, just enough. President Biden and the FDA must ignore it, end of quote. Where was the outcry a few weeks ago when Biden appointed Judge Brian Murphy flatly defied a Supreme Court ruling or when Justice Tolwani ordered the executive branch to violate federal law and spend taxpayers' money in defiance of a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
And when it comes from their side Just as I've indicated, there's silence. No press releases, no hearings, no letters. So what does that add up to? A double standard, undermining their latest partisan attacks against Mr. Bovee. This Congress alone, Congress, Democrats have sent at least 26 letters to 17 agencies or parties demanding records, delays, or investigations into President Trump's nominees. I'm holding them right here in a stack of letters that I've held up already. Like clockwork, just before hearing or vote, we get another Now, another breathless accusation that one of President Trump's nominees needs further investigation. We've seen the slanted stories and reckless accusations before. We've been down this road. It's become routine, this Congress, but it is not new. We all remember what Democrats did to Justice Kavanaugh. As I said during Director Patel's nomination, quote, this is becoming a pattern and I will not facilitate a campaign to undermine the results of the election by delaying the consideration of nominees, end of quote. Mr. Bovee has a strong legal background and has served his country honorably. He deserves fair treatment. The vicious partisan attacks and obstruction of nominees that we've seen from Democrats this Congress has to stop.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
R
Richard J. Durbin
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case is baffling. It's frustrating the American people, and it's exacerbating the mistrust in the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In February, Attorney General Bondi, 17 days into the job, said in a Fox News interview that the Epstein client list was, quote, sitting on my desk right now to review, end of quote. The White House then staged a major media release of Epstein-related files on February 27th, including preparing binders for conservative influencers and commentators. However, the files released were largely already publicly available. There was nothing new. After intense blowback, Attorney General Bondi went back to Fox News, the mothership, and claimed that a whistleblower, quote, assured her there were more files, and that, quote, New York, Southern District of New York was sitting on thousands of pages of documents. And she promised on Fox, and I quote, we will get everything, and the country will see, quote, the full Epstein files. These are quotes from Attorney General Bondi voluntarily appearing on Fox News to explain the situation. For the next four months, the Department of Justice and the FBI were silent. What happened during that period? Well, we received information that Attorney General Bondi pressured the FBI to assign, now get this, approximately 1,000 agents in its Information Management Division and hundreds of additional agents from the New York field office to work 24-hour shifts to review and produce more documents on Epstein on an arbitrarily short deadline.
R
Richard J. Durbin
These officials were told to, quote, flag any records in which President Trump was mentioned. But after this flurry of activity using tens of thousands of personnel hires in March, it took DOJ and FBI three additional months to produce no new documents, but rather an unsigned memorandum on July 7th finding that, quote, this systemic review revealed no incriminating client list. Naturally, after all of the public promises Attorney General Bondi has made, the public is really suspicious of her finding. This suspicion has been exacerbated by public reporting that FBI Director Patel and FBI Deputy Director Bongino disagree with Attorney General Bondi's handling of this matter. Public mistrust has been fed by other claims in the July 7th memorandum. This memorandum included links to surveillance video footage from outside Epstein's cell in the hours leading up to his death. The July 7th memorandum describes one of the videos released as full, raw footage, yet experts who analyzed it concluded the video was likely modified. The Trump administration has essentially created a new controversy rather than solving one. President Trump is not helping matters at all. despite his administration continuing making promises about the transparency on Jeffrey Epstein and claims about the existence of records that have not been produced. He is currently telling the country the president is saying this is all, quote, a scam, close quote. Yesterday, President Trump posted on his personal social media site, and I quote, my past supporters have bought into this BS hook, line, and sinker. They haven't learned their lesson, and they probably never will. That's from the President's personal social media. This is the President talking about his own constituents who are concerned about claims his own campaign surrogates and administration have continually raised.
R
Richard J. Durbin
President Trump and Attorney General Bondi are directly responsible for all this confusion and mistrust, and they need to be fully transparent and he should release all of the documents for the public to review as quickly as possible. On another subject, I want to speak on the nomination of Emil Bovee, who should not be seriously considered by the Senate for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, lifetime.
A
Adam B. Schiff
R
Richard J. Durbin
and he has been trailed by a history of complaints, long predating his affiliation with President Trump, about his temperament, his poor judgment, and lack of candor before the court. Think of it. We're talking about a judge for life. Attorney General Bondi conveniently did not announce her plan to keep the Epstein files hidden until shortly after our opportunity to question Mr. Bovey under oath about his involvement in this issue had passed. Given his role as principal deputy associate attorney general, it's hard to believe he wasn't involved in the Epstein cover-up.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
R
Richard J. Durbin
Mr. Bovee refused to respond, but that's not the only issue that's grown more pressing in recent days. Erez Ravini, a career Justice Department attorney who defended the first administration's immigration policies, filed a whistleblower complaint with my office ahead of Mr. Bovee's hearing. The complaint recounted that Mr. Bovee suggested Department of Justice might need to say, quote, F.U. to federal courts that issued orders that the administration opposed. Remarkably, Mr. Bovee couldn't deny delivering this message.
R
Richard J. Durbin
that he did not recall whether he had used that kind of explicit language. So I asked Mr. Raveni whether he could substantiate his claims. In response, Raveni provided text messages, email exchanges, and other documents collaborating his allegations that Mr. Bovee had waxed poetic about violating court orders and spearheaded efforts to defy court orders and mislead federal counts. Mr. Chairman, despite your opening statement, this gentleman This whistleblower, Mr. Ravini, has volunteered to appear under oath before this committee. We asked you to hold his hearing on this, Mr. Bovee, until that opportunity was taken, and you decided not to. I think that's a mistake. If you question the veracity of Mr. Ravini, he's ready to stand before you, raise his right hand, take an oath, and testify under oath. What more can you ask about credibility than that? And the Republicans refuse to even consider him. His attempts to account for actions have ranged from absurd to nonsensical. This is Mr. Bovee. But one thing is clear. He has repeatedly excused the conduct of those violent January 6th criminals. Mr. Bovee was the ringleader in an effort to punish federal prosecutors for putting January 6th offenders behind bars. I have this memo ordering their termination right here. Understand what we're talking about. You're a member of the Department of Justice staff. You're a prosecuting attorney. You're given an order to proceed with the prosecution of an individual. You do so. You execute it in a professional and legal way. What happened in this case is it happened to be a January 6th insurrection mobster. you can be dismissed from the Department of Justice under President Trump. Think about what that says about our Department of Justice. Mr. Brovey was the ringleader in an effort to punish these prosecutors.
R
Richard J. Durbin
And in his memo, he wrote that the prosecutions of January 6th offenders were, quote, a grave national injustice that's been perpetrated upon the American people. Not the conduct of the mobsters, the conduct of the Department of Justice attorneys who held these insurrectionists responsible for the damage that they did to our Capitol building and the threats to our government. These individuals desecrated our Capitol. Every member of this panel, virtually every member, some are new, every member of this panel who's been here for any period of time will never forget that day as long as they live. I respect this Capitol building as more than just a building. It is a symbol of who in the hell we are. And when these mobsters ran through it, rifled through our desks, posed for pictures, brought in Confederate flags. That was a sad moment in the history of the United States. You would never know it if you listened to Mr. Bovee's recounting of what he believes happened. He has called this a grave national injustice that they would be held accountable for attacking police. Each of you walked into this hearing room today confident that you were safe and secure. And you know why? because that gentleman sitting in the back of the room is risking his life to make sure that happens, and 100 plus did so on January 6th. Are we to take these policemen for granted? I think that's awful. These individuals, these mobsters, desecrated our Capitol and attacked law enforcement officers who keep us safe to this very moment. To excuse their behavior by claiming that punishing them is a, quote, grave injustice, is a disgusting insult to law enforcement officials who literally risk their lives to protect members of Congress, staff, and legitimate visitors to this hallowed building. Mr. Bovee further insulted law enforcement by falsely claiming that, quote, heavy-handed tactics by prosecutors are, quote, equally unacceptable as physical violence against police.
R
Richard J. Durbin
Think about that. He tried to equalize the prosecution of these individuals for crimes with the commission of these terrible acts on January 6th. I want to emphasize that point. This man believes that those who aggressively punish cop beaters are as bad as the cop beaters themselves. This false equivalence is deeply offensive by a man who wants a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. It shows a deep, a ditch deep flaw in the character and judgment of this nominee. Mr. Bovee also has acknowledged that he provided legal advice on President Trump's disgraceful decision to pardon violent January 6th offenders. His conveniently faulty memory came into play once again when he said he couldn't recall. He couldn't recall whether he assisted President Trump on this issue. Oh, pardons of 1,600 people who've been prosecuted, full unconditional pardons. Can't remember. Was I part of that? Mr. Bovee lacks the judgment and temperament to sit on the bench. In the words of President Trump, the real reason he's been nominated is because President Trump believes he will, quote, do anything. that is necessary to make America great again. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
C
Cory Anthony Booker
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
To be clear, I've been interested in this Epstein thing as chairman of this committee or as a member of this committee since 2019. I wanted the same information that I started to try to get in 2019 from the Trump administration. I tried to get it from the Biden administration, and yet my Democratic colleagues didn't seem to care about it back then. As a matter of fact, Democrats blocked our efforts to get information. Indeed, I wrote a letter again referring to August 2019 during the first Trump administration about the Epstein criminal case. Since then, I've followed up with the new Trump administration seeking records and more information. I'm also an extensive review of that public information and court records. What Epstein did was pure evil and I don't believe everybody, everyone has been held accountable. It should have been. The Democrat, the department memo states that Epstein harmed over 1,000 victims. Those victims deserve closure and I'm more than willing to open to work with the department to protect their privacy and safety. Now my Democrat colleagues can't have it both ways. They've had four years with the gavel to obtain records in the Biden administration, and I think it's legitimate to ask why they didn't. Moreover, in 2020, Senator Johnson and I released a report on the Biden family criminal conduct. We obtained treasury records that captured conduct that occurred during Obama-Biden administration. Those treasury records confirmed that Hunter Biden was involved in transactions consistent with human trafficking. The records show that Hunter Biden would send funds to non-resident women in the United States who were citizens of Russia and Ukraine.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
The women would then wire funds to individuals located in Russia and Ukraine. The Treasury records specifically noted that some transactions are linked to what quote, appears to be an Eastern European prostitution and human trafficking ring, end of quote. On July the 7th, 2022, I sent a letter calling on then Attorney General Garland and Director Wray to investigate these allegations. Not once did I hear my Democratic colleagues call for more answers and transparencies or even lift a finger to help me. So if my Democratic colleagues are to be consistent, I'd request that they join me in my efforts to obtain more information about this matter. We know that the FBI has within its holdings information relating to Hunter Biden's potential trafficking crimes. Therefore, I invite my Democratic colleagues to work with me. Senator Blackburn.
K
Katie Elizabeth Britt
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as you have said, this issue dealing with Jeffrey Epstein is something that we have worked on for years. And the way we have approached this is to find out Who was bankrolling this business? And I know, Senator Durbin, you're trying to reframe that at this point, but I think it's important to stay focused on a goal. And that is to get the information to find out who is benefiting and who is bankrolling this $150 billion a year human trafficking industry. And we know that there are in these trafficking rings thousands of innocent victims, and this is indeed modern-day slavery. And I will say again, it is important, and I am hopeful, that we can uncover the information through his financial records and find out who is involved. Now, I think it is fair to say that most of us care deeply about protecting children, and I hope that we will work together to get justice for young women and girls who are being trafficked and who are sexually abused. And in that same vein, I hope that everyone will work with Chairman Grassley and with me to get justice for what we now know is hundreds of thousands of migrant children who went missing under President Biden's watch, we now know that 10,000 of those children have been recovered.
K
Katie Elizabeth Britt
But, you know, Senator Durbin, under your leadership, the committee really failed to act on what is a humanitarian crisis. And this unfolded for the four years of the Biden presidency with that open southern border. And we do have a law and order president, President Trump, back in the White House. We have a DOJ and an FBI that is focused on law and order, and I hope we can decide to work together to get justice for these women and children. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
T
Thom Tillis
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You look remarkably good for somebody I was having a conversation with just six hours ago on the floor. And thank you for holding this markup. Folks, I just want to talk about some assertions that were made and Senator Durbin's comments. Does anybody really believe that if I was convinced that Beauvais had made any statements condoning the violent acts against Capitol Police officers that I'd be voting for him. Just ask Ed Martin whether or not that's a red line. The fact of the matter is I can't find one piece of evidence where he said that the violent act against police officers were okay or condoned. If you find it, let me know. and anyone else that comes before this committee who condone violence on police officers. What we have here is very, we have to distinguish between those two or three hundred thugs that I believe should still be in prison and disagreed on the Senate floor with the President pardoning them from the boneheads that for some reason thought they should enter the Capitol through broken windows and doors that I think Tucker Carlson or some talking head called mostly peaceful tourists. That's a lot like my Democrat friends saying that Kenosha was mostly peaceful protesters with the backdrop of a burning building. Folks, let's just get real here, okay? The fact of the matter is, anybody who comes before this committee where I have hard evidence that they have made a statement supporting violence against Capitol Police officers, they needn't even have a hearing because I'm not going to vote for them. I feel very strongly about that. So did somebody reference something in a meeting, or did somebody say something between friends? I don't know, but even that would be disqualifying, and that yet has not been presented for this nominee. So I challenge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That's a disqualifying event for me for the remainder of my time in the U.S. Senate, which admittedly is only 18 months.
T
Thom Tillis
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
C
Cory Anthony Booker
Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley. This process with Emile Bovey started with my office as well as Senator Andy Kim saying to the White House we were willing to work with them to find someone. The President of the United States or the White House counsel completely violated the process we had agreed upon and thrust this judge onto the state of New Jersey, a judge, excuse me, a candidate nominee who we had already written letters of complaint about for his role in the prosecutor's office around issues around January 6th. Bove directed Ed Martin to fire the January 6th defendants. And that was something we were actively investigating before he was even being considered as this. Imagine any senator here having somebody put in as a circuit court nominee in their state when there is an active investigation going on about something as serious as the January 6th nominations. That is something that everybody here would consider a violation of process. Now, I understand that there are folks here in good faith who are looking for issues and understanding, but we should all know we have an obligation, a duty, constitutional duty, to advise and consent that requires full and fair consideration. At this moment, there are still unanswered questions surrounding this nominee, evidence and data coming out, at least one whistleblower who's come forward. Moving forward with this vote before this committee has addressed these issues and concerns would undermine the integrity of this process. Mr. Bovee's answers at his hearing and questions for the record raised serious questions as to whether he actually misled this committee, even lied to this committee. Multiple members of this committee have pending requests for critical information regarding Mr. Bovee that must be fulfilled for us to responsibly and thoroughly evaluate this person's qualifications for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
Let's start with a credible whistleblower who came forward with texts and emails that show that Mr. Bovee said F you to the courts and instructed federal officials to ignore court order. The whistleblower is a 15-year career lawyer at the DOJ who served in Republican and Democratic administrations and defended the Trump administration's immigration policy during the first term. This is hardly someone that lacks credibility and legitimacy. And he came forward in a climate that we all know. When folks like this come forward, they are targeted with hate, with threats. Yet this person, who has such integrity and such experience, daringly, courageously stepped forward. And this committee won't even hear from him? I'm hard pressed to believe that someone who dedicated 15 years to public service would jeopardize their career, the safety of themselves and their families for no reason. After learning that in 2018 members of the Federal Defense Bar in SDNY, many of whom were former prosecutors, took the unprecedented step in 2018 of alerting Mr. Bovee's supervisors of his unethical conduct, These are Democrats and Republicans, former federal prosecutors. Many of my colleagues on this committee requested information from the SDNY about any internal or external complaints against him during this tenure. And after weeks of outreach, we haven't gotten any response. Just yesterday, did the DOJ respond only to refuse to honor the request. And yet we're moving forward. This committee is moving forward without all of these former prosecutors, federal prosecutors, federal defenders, their legitimate claims. being heard. Finally, after receiving credible information, I sent a letter to Mr. Bovee requesting that he explain his role in reviewing and withholding information about the Epstein files.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
That's something that should be basic for this committee. Just give us the information. He held a leadership role at the Department of Justice since the beginning of the Trump administration after months of public statements about, quote, unquote, truckloads of documents in the Epstein files. The DOJ and the FBI suddenly decided that there's no need to do any kind of disclosures. There's nothing to see here. Look away. Which one is it? The public has a right to know, and a person being nominated for one of the highest courts in our land, who clearly played a role in this matter of grave national concern, including child sex trafficking, should actually, we should know what he knew and what he did in this matter. I've requested responses to these questions by 9 a.m. this morning, and we have heard nothing as a committee. And yet we're moving forward. Time and time again, there are relevant allegations made against this nominee by independent people, by Republicans, by career professionals, and we are not listening to them or demanding answers. These unanswered questions strike at the very core of whether Bovey is fit for a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. Does he respect the rule of law? they raise the alarming possibility that he deliberately lied and concealed critical information to this committee. Mr. Chairman, there are federal prosecutors who held accountable those who attacked the US Capitol and assaulted law enforcement on January 6th. I'm grateful for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talking about the severity of this issue. Federal prosecutors, career professionals, have raised strong reservations about Mr. Bovee who had undermined their legitimate work to hold accountable people who did the most horrific acts of violence.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
Listen to these folks who are law enforcement professionals and what they're saying about Mr. Bovee. Several of these prosecutors reached out to my Republican colleagues on this committee to share their grave concerns but not one of them were met with by anyone on the other side of the aisle. Not even to listen to these prosecutors who did their job, who faithfully served the rule of law, who were instruments and agents of justice. One would expect that their concerns should be heard, but unfortunately not one meeting almost as if they don't want to hear the truth or the facts or the details. How can you say you were concerned about what happened on January 6th and you won't listen to the people who spent months and months and months prosecuting those cases? How does that make sense? To not even want to hear from these folks who have legitimate concerns, who've expressed grave concerns I don't understand why we are willfully refusing to hear the legitimate concerns, not of politicians, not of elected officials, but of career folks, many of them Republicans, who've expressed grave concerns. One group literally said, and this isn't from the time that Trump nominated him, this is before he even served in the Department of Justice, a group of lawyers, federal prosecutors and defendants said, that he is the prosecutorial version of a drunk driver. He is reckless and dangerous. And have we asked to hear from those folks? Here's a guy... that was given the worst ever condemnation from a judge in the SDNY for withholding exculpatory evidence as a prosecutor.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
There are former prosecutors on this committee. Imagine that kind of flaunting of the rule of law. the grave ethical violations in that case. Imagine that we are about to put that person now to be a judge. That is stunning to me. There is no need to vote on this nominee today. It is a false urgency. My guess is the White House has issued orders to move this along as quickly as possible. Don't let these independent arbiters, with legitimate insight into this nominee's qualifications, don't let them be heard. Dear God, we are hearing that there are other whistleblowers who are wondering if they should come forward. We're hearing that they are afraid to come forward. They have lawyered up and we better get this thing through as quickly as possible before other people come through. With more time, we would get more answers. With more times, the things that Mr. Bovee has done at the DOJ and throughout his career would come to light, not by elected officials, but by legitimate people whose voices should be heard. Why are we refusing to hear them? Why are we silencing those people? It's gonna get harder and harder for my colleagues to ignore the truth, so let's rush these things through. But let's hear a little bit of the truth. Mr. Chairman, I wanna submit a number of letters into the record. First, an opposition letter of current and former state and federal prosecutors from around the country. These prosecutors state, quote, Bovie not only refused to hold accountable those who attacked our nation's capital and attempted to block our democratic process on January 6th, but he punished and dismissed career Justice Department employees who investigated and prosecuted that insurrection. Another letter I'd like to submit from almost a thousand former DOJ prosecutors.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
This is unprecedented that almost a thousand former DOJ prosecutors would write this committee and say that they are alarmed, quote, by DOJ's leadership's recent deviations from constitutional principles and institutional guardrails. They identified Mr. Bovee as the leader in this assault. They say it is intolerable to us that anyone who disgraces the Department of Justice would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land. And the third letter I'd like to submit is from 75 former federal and state judges, including a former Third Circuit judge who was appointed by President Bush. Jurists are writing This is what they say, elevating a nominee whose record reflects a pattern of misconduct, disregard for lawful authority and political entanglement would not only compromise the integrity of the courts, it would set a dangerous precedent that judicial power may be wielded in the service of personal fealty rather than constitutional duty. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit a letter from former federal prosecutors who have collectively more than 450 years of experience trying cases. These former federal prosecutors, 450 of them, urge there is only one way this committee can determine whether Mr. Bovee has violated a court order. It's by hearing the testimony of Mr. Revenet, the whistleblower. Failure to take the time now to do so before voting on this nomination will forever brand this decision as rubber stamping. Mr. Chairman, I make a request, and as I understand the rules of this committee, I have the right to do that. Mr. Reveny, witness the DOJ leadership plan to defy court orders. I would like to ask under rule four of this rules of the committee that the chairman is required to entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee for a vote.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
I'm making a motion to bring this matter to a vote. I request a roll call of this committee so that the record may show where each member stands on allowing a whistleblower an independent prosecutor who worked in Democrat and Republican administrations for 15 years, who courageously stepped forward, who put his life at risk, who is being threatened right now, who felt like it was worth to come forward to speak to this committee. I'd like to request that before voting on this nominee, we hear from this nominee. I'd like a roll call vote on that according to Rule 4 of this committee.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
C
Cory Anthony Booker
But, sir, we can, in all sincerity, we could take the time. We could set the whistleblower coming next week. It would give us more time and then enough time to review all of the things that you're concerned about. The level of gravity of the charges of an independent prosecutor for 15 years who literally has put his life on the line by coming forward. We could do the necessary work to prepare for such a hearing to hear from this prosecutor.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
S
Sheldon Whitehouse
Thank you, Chairman. As to Emil Bove, let me start with this nominee. having told a roomful of Department of Justice lawyers that if the federal courts didn't back off on restricting unlawful deportations, they would have to tell courts FU. I hope we can agree that telling courts FU is not an attribute we want. in someone seeking to be a judge. We know that he said it because it is so abundantly corroborated in real-time communications among the lawyers present. They talk in texts about the FU comment contemporaneously in that very matter. Prosecutors don't get better corroboration than that. We'd also be on solid ground concluding that he lied about it to us in committee. He said he didn't recall. Really? Didn't recall saying something like that in a Department of Justice meeting surrounded by career lawyers? It's not remotely credible. Lying to our committee also is not a great attribute of a candidate to be a judge. Somehow, he seemed to know that he would get away with it.
S
Sheldon Whitehouse
He also played a bit of verbal dodgem, saying he never instructed anyone to disobey a court order Correct, but that was not the allegation. He told them to be ready to disobey court orders to tell courts F.U. Obviously, if you change the statement, you can mislead the committee, but we should demand better than that. Meanwhile, over in the United States District Court of Appeals, There is an order suspending Judge Boasberg's investigation into this matter. He announced a contempt investigation to look into what the hell went on at the Department of Justice with respect to these illegal deportations. Emil Bovee is in the thick of that. He absolutely will be part of that contempt investigation. And two Trump judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals suspended that investigation. There's a lot of commentary now about how on earth that temporary hours and days suspension has now lasted, what, a month? Perhaps just in time for this committee to ram through this nominee, likely to be a subject of that criminal contempt hearing, while it's delayed. If we are being played that way
S
Sheldon Whitehouse
With Trump judges delaying a contempt hearing that necessarily involves our nominee so that he can be shoved through, something is really rotten in Denmark. This whole mess around those deportations and his lying to this committee is all consistent with Bovey's lawless character. He helped cook up an improper deal in a criminal case against the mayor of New York, which his own DOJ colleague called a quid pro quo and an improper offer of immigration enforcement assistance in exchange for a dismissal of his case. That is disgraceful prosecutorial behavior. That colleague, the acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, then resigned rather than go along with that rotten scheme. And another Trump administration crony also admitted it. Borders are Tom Holman appeared on Fox News with that mayor and said, speaking of the mayor, if he doesn't come through, if he doesn't deliver the immigration support we need, I'll be back in New York City and we won't be sitting on the couch. I'll be in his office up his butt saying, where the hell is the agreement we came to? The agreement. Separately, this nominee tried, with acting US Attorney Martin, to confect a fake criminal investigation. Tried to confect a fake criminal investigation. Listen to those words. To allow an improper seizure of funds Congress had appropriated and that were obligated and disbursed to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Career prosecutors pointed out You can't have a criminal investigation with no crime, with no predication, with no basis.
S
Sheldon Whitehouse
And the career criminal chief who'd worked through multiple administrations was forced out of her job for her pains, pointing out that this was a fake criminal investigation and they went forward with it anyway, Bovey and Martin. These are not minor prosecutorial glitches. These are true violations of the basic oath of a prosecutor. Another principle prosecutors follow is not to publicly disparage subjects of your investigation, both because it's low, it should be beneath a prosecutor, and because longstanding DOJ policy prohibits it. Bovey's official client, the EPA administrator, made repeated public statements accusing the fund and its participants and its administrators, by the way, among its participants, was that notorious criminal organization Habitat for Humanity. Accused them of being corrupt, of being criminal, of engaging in kickbacks, of theft, and of graft. None of that is even remotely appropriate. All of it is in violation of DOJ policy, and we couldn't even get answers about that violation. I ask consent that my June 18, 2025 letter to the Department of Justice on these topics be entered into the record.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
S
Sheldon Whitehouse
These are truly evil abuses of DOJ's powers that this person led. Those are some of the problems with this nominee. Then come the problems with our committee process, in which he was pre-licensed to refuse to answer questions. The committee conceded something Congress has never before conceded, that deliberative process and attorney-client privileges overcome our constitutional powers of oversight and advice and consent. Senator Kennedy and I noted this in our bipartisan report on executive privilege in December of 22. I quote, Congress maintains that all other components of executive privilege besides presidential communications that the executive branch recognizes including deliberative process and attorney-client privilege, still quoting here, are not constitutionally grounded and therefore cannot supervene Congress's oversight authority. The majority, having made that astounding reversal and concession, then didn't even follow the rules for assertion of those supposed privileges, neither as to their scope nor as to the process for claiming them. These privileges need to be asserted It's notable that this nominee never actually asserted them. He likely realized that they don't, in fact, actually pertain, and he didn't want to get caught out in the legal error of asserting a non-pertinent privilege. Plus, he didn't have to, since his non-answers were blessed in advance by the majority. Instead, he hid behind vague claims not privilege assertions, vague claims of inappropriateness, or things not being public, or failures to recall. Just to remind, attorney-client privilege and deliberative process privilege, even if they pertain here, do not apply to administrative decisions within a department.
S
Sheldon Whitehouse
And deliberative process, indeed any executive privilege, does not apply where the allegation is misconduct. Again, from my report with Senator Kennedy, quoting the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the privilege disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred. We have enormous reason to believe that this individual, now a nominee, participated in government misconduct. The only executive privilege that Congress does recognize requires some proximity to the president. It is not applicable in ordinary agency administration, and the president must invoke it according to the Reagan memo. None of that took place under the blanket authorization to refuse to answer. We are dealing here with the nominee's attempts from a very high position in the Department of Justice to cook up a fake criminal investigation and to use an existing criminal case for political leverage over an elected official with too many accompanying violations of DOJ rules and practices to count. And we can't even get answers? The result was a hearing that more resembled a rackets hearing from the Godfather than a nomination hearing for a Circuit Court of Appeals judgeship. Throw in the attorney general and deputy showing up in person to give Republicans in this committee the eyeball, and the resemblance gets worse. Hearing by hearing, month by month, the bar is lowered and lowered and lowered for our constitutional advice and consent oversight. Now to the point where a witness can say, I don't recall, and it would be inappropriate, and that's not public to any question, no matter how bad the behavior, no matter how good the corroboration, and get away with it.
S
Sheldon Whitehouse
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Cory Anthony Booker
T
Thom Tillis
C
Cory Anthony Booker
Mr. Chairman, you should at least acknowledge my rule four point of order. You're out of order. I don't understand this. What are you afraid of about even debating this? Putting things on the record, hearing from every senator, dear God, that's what our obligations are. It's to state our reasons for debate. At least address the rule four point of order that we're calling. There's no need to rush this. What are we afraid of? We're not pressing for the two-hour rule like you all did when you were in the minority. We're simply asking for a credible amount of time to air our concerns before the vote. We respect each other in this committee. We respect the understanding that we have things to say. But yet we're doing this in a way that makes no sense to me. And it makes no sense to me because we're not trying to do things like force the committee to close or force a two-hour rule. This is about understanding that people on this side have a responsibility to state their issues. Mr. Sir, you could call me out of order because this is out of order. This undermines the basic decency of this committee. Yes, maybe overrule a rule four, but at least address the rule four point of order that senators were elected to debate issues and debate nominees. This is absolutely insane. What is the rush? Sir, I am interrupting because you're interrupting a regular point of order. At least address my point of order. I have the right to do that by the rules of this committee. If you want to overrule the rules of committee, then do so. But this is not in any way in order. You are obligated to address a point of order according to the rules of this committee. You could overrule me by a Senate vote. You're violating your own rules. Stop. The parliamentarian has been clear about this. The parliamentarian has been clear. You can overrule the rule, the point of order I'm doing, but you have to follow the precedence and procedures of this committee.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
This is outrageous that you're not allowing senators to have their fair say before a controversial nominee is being done. This is unbelievable. This is unjust. This is wrong. It is the further deterioration of this committee's integrity with a person like this. What are you afraid of? Are you afraid of hearing from Chris Coons? From hearing from one of my colleagues? From hearing from Adam Schiff? What is the fear here? Have at least the decency to have a vote on my point of order regarding rule four. I have respect for you, Mr. Chairman. We've served together for more than a decade, but this is outrageous. This is unacceptable. This is wrong. It is wrong. And why? Why? What is the rush to take another half hour to listen to people? What is the rush? What are we afraid of, Mr. Chairman? What are we afraid of? I do not understand why senators can't debate a nominee as we've done when both sides have been in the majority to take the time. What is the thing that you are so afraid of from hearing from my Senate colleagues? This is a violation. of the precedence of this committee. We're not trying some stunt here to try to force a two-hour rule like you all did when you were in the minority. We just want to be heard before a controversial vote. Sir, this is wrong, and you know it. You are a person of integrity. How could you be doing this? At least have a vote on my point of order. Sir, with all appeals to your decency, with all appeals to your integrity, with all appeals to past jurisdiction and past precedent, why are you doing this? This is outrageous. This is a kangaroo court. That's what we have here, Mr. Chairman. This is wrong. To violate your own rules without going by the mandates of the parliamentarian. This is unbelievable. There's a way to do this. If you want to force this through, if you want to ram this through, there's a way to do it in accordance to the rules as spelled out by the parliamentarian.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
It is simple. It is clear. There's a pathway to achieve what you're trying to achieve. But sir, this lacks decency. It lacks decorum. It shows that you do not want to simply hear from your colleagues. This is absolutely wrong. And sir, this is to me one of those moments where we are not showing common respect for each other on both sides. I have sat here when we were in the majority and listened to my colleagues' arguments, listened to their passionate statements, and then we voted. This is not that. This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration. Sir, God bless America. You are a good man. You are a decent man. Why are you doing this? What is Donald Trump saying to you that are making you do something which is violating the decorum of this committee, the rules of this committee, the decency and the respect that we have each other to at least hear each other out? Nomination is... I've sat through so many long speeches of my colleagues, heard their objections, listened with sincerity to try to see what their arguments are. But we are not doing that. Sir, this is wrong. And you know it. There are some people on this committee who are the least firebrand people. and they've walked out. Some of the least controversial people in the Senate, some of the people that worked the hardest to find bipartisan common ground have just walked out of this committee. And you don't even seem to care, but I know you do. I know your heart, Senator Grassley. This is wrong. I know the kind of person you are, and you know this is wrong. This is not necessary. What is another half an hour to allow senators to be heard? It's what the Constitution mandates. It's the ideals of the United States Senate. The world's most deliberative body should take a decent amount of time to deliberate. But here we're not doing that. Here we are jamming this through with some sense of false urgency.
C
Cory Anthony Booker
It's one thing not to hear from whistleblowers. It's another thing not to hold another hearing. But to not even allow my colleagues to have their moment to speak against this justice, it's just wrong. And I know you know this. I know you know this. The only time this rule has ever been overturned by both parties was done when one minority was trying to pull some stunt to stop the committee from hearing. This is not that. This is not the two-hour rule. This is a basic element of the ideals of this committee, sir. It is the basic understanding of having debate and deliberation. It's a basic understanding of we can listen to each other even if we disagree. That we should have time and space and a forum to listen. Sir, this is just wrong in every way. It is wrong in every single way. This is an abuse of power. It's an undermining of the well-being and the integrity of this Senate. and this committee that I, for so long, I've been so honored to be a part of. This is wrong, sir, and I join with my colleagues in leaving. This is a sham. This is wrong.
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
T
Thom Tillis
J
John Neely Kennedy
J
Joshua (Josh) Hawley
J
John Neely Kennedy
T
Thom Tillis
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
L
Lindsey O. Graham
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Cornyn
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
P
Peter Welch
J
John Neely Kennedy
T
Ted Cruz
J
John Neely Kennedy
J
Joshua (Josh) Hawley
J
John Neely Kennedy
T
Thom Tillis
J
John Neely Kennedy
M
Marsha W. Blackburn
J
John Neely Kennedy
K
Katie Elizabeth Britt
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Neely Kennedy
J
John Cornyn
?
Unknown
M
Mike Lee
J
John Neely Kennedy
T
Ted Cruz
J
John Neely Kennedy
J
Joshua (Josh) Hawley
J
John Neely Kennedy
T
Thom Tillis
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Neely Kennedy
M
Marsha W. Blackburn
J
John Neely Kennedy
E
Eric Stephen Schmitt
J
John Neely Kennedy
K
Katie Elizabeth Britt
J
John Neely Kennedy
R
Richard J. Durbin
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
L
Lindsey O. Graham
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Cornyn
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
M
Mike Lee
?
Unknown
T
Ted Cruz
?
Unknown
J
Joshua (Josh) Hawley
?
Unknown
T
Thom Tillis
?
Unknown
J
John Neely Kennedy
M
Marsha W. Blackburn
J
John Neely Kennedy
E
Eric Stephen Schmitt
J
John Neely Kennedy
K
Katie Elizabeth Britt
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
L
Linda T. Sánchez
J
John Neely Kennedy
C
Charles (Chuck) E. Grassley
On this vote, the ayes are 12. That'll be favorably reported. Before you disband, I'd like to have everybody that's here know that What happened here today is no different than when Democrats cut off debate on Judge Kashubi and Judge Lee against Republican protests that continued debate in November of 2023. In that markup, Senator Blackburn and others were not offered an opportunity to speak on those nominees. And Chairman Durbin ordered the vote. Just like the obstruction we saw here, I ordered the vote this time. So if you'll spread that word that this is not unprecedented, either the actions of the minority walking away or what we did here as a majority, it's happened before. And we have to move things along. And I thank everybody for participating. Meeting adjourned.