Senate Judicial Committee on Bove’s Nomination

This week, Senate Republicans will again grapple with whether Emil Bove’s appointment to the Third Circuit should proceed to a full Senate vote. The decision hinges on concerns surrounding his honesty under oath.

Verifying Bove’s background raises some serious red flags. I recall being present when he seemed to threaten my colleague and me, urging us to support a motion that would dismiss a federal criminal case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. While Bove later denied making such a statement during his Senate testimony, his words—or lack thereof—don’t really tell the whole story.

Back in February, as deputy attorney general, Bove directed my former office, the Public Integrity Section, to dismiss a bribery suit against Mayor Adams. He even acknowledged in a memo that the dismissal wasn’t based on legal facts. This situation prompted five prosecutors, myself included, to resign in protest, alongside other prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York.

Since then, the Public Integrity section has dwindled to less than five prosecutors. Essentially, the only part of the Department of Justice’s criminal division focused on public corruption has become more of a title than anything functional.

Addressing the Concerns of DOJ Nominations

In Bove’s written responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he categorically denied any implications of threats towards my colleagues and me. He claimed no intention to pressure DOJ attorneys through any adverse actions or intimidation.

But his denial does seem contradictory, especially considering he had already accepted the forced resignation of a U.S. attorney in New York. This attorney and others had been placed on leave because they wouldn’t carry out his orders regarding the dismissal that sparked so much dissent.

Bove’s nomination could set a troubling precedent. It raises questions about the integrity of testimonies given to the committee. Previous judicial confirmations often questioned a candidate’s qualifications against those who accused them of wrongdoing. Yet, this case feels different—Bove seemed to play to the Republican members, almost as if mocking the whole process.

Hope for the Future

Realistically, the chance to block Bove’s nomination lies with Senator Tom Tillis. The North Carolina Republican has shown a willingness to prioritize principles over party lines, which might make a difference here. After all, he previously halted the confirmation of Edward Martin, who was deemed unqualified.

Bove’s potential lifetime appointment poses a much greater risk, as he seems less inclined to check presidential power. His recent tussle with Leonard Leo and others indicates he might be more loyal to Trump than to any ideological framework.

A weekend before I resigned from my position, I was tidying up my office when I noticed a plaque with an Abraham Lincoln quote: “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Bove was a line prosecutor early in his career. So, he knows the responsibilities that come with the title. However, my experience leads me to believe that if given authority, he might exploit it rather than uphold justice. In his testimony, Bove appeared to bluff, confident that Senator Tillis and others would not dare to oppose him.

All attentive citizens should hope that Senator Tillis finds the courage to stand up against Bove’s nomination, reflecting the character Bove seems to lack.