Senate confirms Trump lawyer Emil Bove, pushing past whistleblower claims
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Bove has accused FBI officials of 'insubordination' for refusing to hand over the names of agents who investigated the attack and ordered the firing of a group of prosecutors involved in those Jan. 6 criminal cases.
Advertisement
Democrats have also cited evidence from two whistleblowers, a fired department lawyer who said earlier this month that Bove had suggested the Trump administration may need to ignore judicial commands —
Advertisement
The audio is from a private video conference call at the Department of Justice in February in which Bove, a top official at the department, discussed his handling of the dismissed case against Adams, according to transcribed quotes from the audio reviewed by The Associated Press.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the whistleblower has not made the recording public. The whistleblower's claims were first reported by the Washington Post.
None of that evidence has so far been enough to sway Senate Republicans — all but two of them voted to confirm Bove as GOP senators have deferred to Trump on virtually all of his picks.
At his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Bove addressed criticism of his tenure head-on, telling lawmakers he understands some of his decisions 'have generated controversy.' But Bove said he has been inaccurately portrayed as Trump's 'henchman' and 'enforcer' at the department.
Senators at the Judiciary Committee hearing asked Bove about the February 14 call with lawyers in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, which had received significant public attention because of his unusual directive that the attorneys had an hour to decide among themselves who would agree to file on the department's behalf the motion to dismiss the case against Adams.
The call was convened amid significant upheaval in the department as prosecutors in New York who'd handled the matter, as well as some in Washington, resigned rather than agree to dispense with the case.
According to the transcript of the February call, Bove remarked near the outset that interim Manhattan U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon 'resigned about ten minutes before we were going to put her on leave pending an investigation.' But when asked at the hearing whether he had opened the meeting by emphasizing that Sassoon and another prosecutor had refused to follow orders and that Sassoon was going to be reassigned before she resigned, Bove answered with a simple, 'No.'
Advertisement
At another moment, Bove said he did not recall saying words that the transcript of the call reflects him as having said — that whoever signed the motion to dismiss the Adams case would emerge as leaders of the section.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Tuesday that he believes Bove will be a 'diligent, capable and fair jurist.'
He said his staff had tried to investigate the claims but that lawyers for the whistleblowers would not give them all of the materials they had asked for. The 'vicious rhetoric, unfair accusations and abuse directed at Mr. Bove' have 'crossed the line,' Grassley said.
The first whistleblower complaint against Bove came from a former Justice Department lawyer who was fired in April after conceding in court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison.
That lawyer, Erez Reuveni, described efforts by top Justice Department officials in the weeks before his firing to stonewall and mislead judges to carry out deportations championed by the White House.
Reuveni described a Justice Department meeting in March concerning Trump's plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni said Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used a profanity in saying the department would need to consider telling the courts what to do and 'ignore any such order,' Reuveni's lawyers said in the filing.
Advertisement
Bove said he has 'no recollection of saying anything of that kind.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Tariffs Threaten American Battery Production
Trump-era clean energy policies are slamming the breaks on the United States' battery war with China. While lithium-ion batteries were invented in the United States, China has been outpacing the nation in terms of both battery manufacturing and technological innovations. But while U.S. companies have been scrambling to keep up, gutted clean energy incentives and tariffs on critical materials have made a U.S. victory all but impossible. The domestic battery industry had been gaining considerable ground under the Biden administration thanks to major incentives including the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act. Tax credits, in particular, 'helped close the price gap between U.S.-made batteries and those made in China, the world's main supplier of lithium-ion battery modules, cells, and materials,' according to Canary Media. Realizing that the Trump administration would bring a less encouraging policy environment for clean energy technologies, makers of lithium-ion batteries promised the federal government that they would collectively spend a cumulative $100 billion by 2030 to build up an independent and totally domestic grid battery industry. In exchange, they asked for continued political support. So far, that plea seems to be falling flat. Just this month, the Trump administration accused Chinese suppliers of dumping graphite into U.S. markets – meaning that they are selling graphite more cheaply abroad than in their own markets. As a result, the United States has imposed a formidable 93.5 percent tariff on Chinese graphite. This could have immediate and serious consequences for United States batterymakers, as almost all refined graphite in the world comes from China. In fact, this tariff alone could 'easily add $1,000 or more to the price of a battery' according to the New York Times. As a result, the nation's once-thriving 'battery belt' is faltering. 'Projects are being paused, cancelled, and closed at a rate 6 times more than during the same period in 2024,' reports 'The Big Green Machine,' a site affiliated with Wellesley College that tracks domestic clean energy investments. And this biggest projects are the ones suffering most. Politico reports that 'prospects dimmed for 34 projects that are worth more than $31 billion and were expected to create almost 28,000 jobs.' This includes projects that are either paused, canceled, delayed by at least six faced by a slash in funding, or scaled down. But the overall impact of recent political shifts are still unclear, and overall the domestic clean energy sector is still growing. Related: 'The policies Republicans have passed are so recent that they may not have worked their way through the economy,' reports Politico. 'In the last three months, Congress has passed and President Donald Trump has signed bills that removed key tax credits, taken the teeth out of fuel-economy rules and neutered California's ability to force automakers to sell EVs.' Taken together, all of these compounding policy measures create an uncertain policy and investment environment at minimum. More likely, it will cause an extreme contraction of the domestic battery sector at a time when Beijing was already pulling away. "Unquestionably, the Chinese are ahead in manufacturing technology," Bob Galyen, a retired executive who worked with both GM and the Chinese battery giant CATL, told NPR. He says that Chinese battery research and development is receiving major influxes of cash at a time when U.S. manufacturers are struggling for funding. "Clearly, the U.S. is lagging behind,' he finished. Ironically, these measures are hitting Republican districts the hardest. The so-called 'battery belt' is mostly comprised of red states. As a result, according to Politico, 'GOP districts saw 60 percent of the funding decline, while Democratic districts saw 39 percent.' By Haley Zaremba for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
American Eagle Defends Sydney Sweeney Ad Campaign Amid Controversy: ‘Her Jeans. Her Story… Great Jeans Look Good on Everyone'
American Eagle is standing by its controversial ad campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, which includes various commercials with the tagline: 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans.' The campaign creates a pun around 'great genes,' which ignited outrage online over American Eagle glorifying the Emmy nominee's white heritage and thin physique. Some users on social media even compared the ads to 'Nazi propaganda.' 'Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans' is and always was about the jeans. Her jeans. Her story,' the company said in a statement posted on social media. 'We'll continue to celebrate how everyone wears their AE jeans with confidence, their way. Great jeans look good on everyone. More from Variety JD Vance Urges Democrats Angry Over Sydney Sweeney Jeans Ads to Keep It Up: 'Continue to Tell Everybody' Who Thinks She Is Attractive That They're 'a Nazi' White House Says Liberal Outrage Over Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle Jeans Commercial Is 'Moronic' and a 'Big Reason Americans' Voted for Trump Katy O'Brian Says Sydney Sweeney 'Didn't Care' About Getting Hurt During Fight Scenes in Christy Martin Biopic: 'She Was Like, "If You Break My Nose, That's Fine"' Sweeney's American Eagle campaign caused so much chatter online that even Trump's White House weighed in on the backlash, with communications manager Steven Cheung calling the backlash a prime example of 'cancel culture run amok.' 'This warped, moronic and dense liberal thinking is a big reason why Americans voted the way they did in 2024,' Cheung added. 'They're tired of this bullshit.' Vice president JD Vance also mocked liberals for creating a hysteria around the American Eagle campaign, saying on an episode of the 'Ruthless' podcast: 'My political advice to the Democrats is continue to tell everybody who thinks Sydney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi. That appears to be their actual strategy.' Vance continued, 'I mean, it actually reveals something pretty interesting about the Dems, though, which is that you have, like, a normal all-American beautiful girl doing like a normal jeans ad, right? They're trying to sell, you know, sell jeans to kids in America and they have managed to so unhinge themselves over this thing. And it's like, you guys, did you learn nothing from the November 2024 election? I actually thought that one of the lessons [Democrats] might take is we're going to be less crazy. And the lesson they have apparently taken is we're going to attack people as Nazis for thinking Sydney Sweeney is beautiful.' Even Stephen Colbert, who frequently speaks out against Trump and the White House, called the backlash against Sweeney and American Eagle overblown 'Now, some people look at [the ads] and they're seeing something sinister, saying that the genes-jeans denim wordplay in an ad featuring a white blond woman means American Eagle could be promoting eugenics, white supremacy and Nazi propaganda,' Colbert said this week on 'The Late Show.' 'That might be a bit of an overreaction.' Sweeney has yet to publicly comment on the outcry over the advertisements. Best of Variety New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week What's Coming to Disney+ in August 2025 What's Coming to Netflix in August 2025
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
9th Circuit keeps freeze on Southern California ICE patrols
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a stinging blow to the Trump administration's mass deportation project Friday night in a fiery opinion upholding a lower court's block on 'roving patrols' across much of Southern California. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the panel wrote. The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order barring masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Southern California without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles wrote in her original order. 9th Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung and Ronald M. Gould agreed. 'There is no predicate action that the individual plaintiffs would need to take, other than simply going about their lives, to potentially be subject to the challenged stops,' the opinion said. Fourth Amendment injunctions are hard to win, experts say. Plaintiffs must show not only that they were hurt, but that they are likely to be hurt again in the same way in the future. One way to meet that test in court is to show the injury is the product of a government policy. Throughout a hearing Monday, the appellate judges repeatedly probed that question, roughly doubling the administration's time to respond in an effort to get an answer. 'After the district court injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, 'We are going to continue doing what we're doing' — so that's not a policy?' Berzon asked. 'The policy is to follow the 4th Amendment and to require reasonable suspicion,' said Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov Roth. Roth also rebuffed questions about a 3,000-arrests-per-day quota first touted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May. In a memo to the panel on Wednesday, Roth clarified that 'no such goal' had been established. The court rejected that argument Friday, writing that 'no official statement or express policy is required' to prove one exists. 'Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks ... some repeatedly in the same location,' the opinion said, making the likelihood of future stops 'considerable.' The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for 'misreading' the restraining order it sought to block, and said it 'mischaracterized' Judge Frimpong's order. And it rejected the government's central claim that its law enforcement mandate would be 'chilled' by the district court's order. 'Defendants have failed to establish that they will be 'chilled' from their enforcement efforts at all, let alone in a manner that constitutes the 'irreparable injury' required to support a stay pending appeal,' the panel wrote. The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September. But the 'shock and awe' campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6 has all but ceased in the seven counties covered by Frimpong's order: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. 'The underlying 4th Amendment law is not complicated,' said Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California — part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. 'Even a more conservative panel would have been concerned about what the government is doing.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city was among a number of Southern California municipalities allowed to join the lawsuit this week, celebrated the news. 'Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the city of Los Angeles,' Bass said. 'Los Angeles will stand together against this administration's efforts to break up families who contribute every single day to the life, the culture and the economy of our great city.' The Trump administration has previously signaled its intent to fight judicial limits on its deportation efforts any way it can. It was not immediately clear where an appeal would proceed.
