Democrats walk out of Bove, Pirro meeting as panel advances controversial Trump nominees
Bove, one of President Trump's former criminal defense attorneys who is now in the No. 3 spot in the Justice Department, has been nominated for a lifetime appointment as a jurist on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
He has been accused by a whistleblower of saying the administration should consider telling the courts 'f‑‑‑ you' and defy any injunctions imposed by judges blocking their use of the Alien Enemies Act.
Pirro, a former county judge and Fox News host, was confirmed as a nominee for U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C.
The meeting made for an unusual scene, as Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) appealed to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on personal terms after Grassley, the committee chair, cut off requests for continued debate and did not allow all Democrats to speak on the Bove nomination.
'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?' Booker said.
'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?'
Booker then exited alongside the rest of his colleagues, a rare protest leaving the Democratic side of the dais completely empty.
Democrats had centered most of their focus on Bove, who in addition to the whistleblower allegations, was behind the dismissal of multiple prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases, and also pushed for the dismissal of bribery charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, prompting a wave of resignations.
Erez Reuveni, the whistleblower who made the complaint against Bove, was fired after a disclosure he made in a related case when he told a judge that El Salvador migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported back to his home country in error.
But as the Trump administration planned to send Venezuelan men to be imprisoned in a notorious Salvadoran facility, Reuveni said he witnessed Bove suggesting court defiance was an option ahead of an episode where the administration withheld information from a judge and failed to turn around deportation flights as ordered.
Reuveni has offered to appear before the Senate panel but Grassley said the disclosure smacked of 'a political hit job.' He declined to take up a motion from Booker to take a vote on hearing from the whistleblower.
'Let's start with a credible whistleblower who came forward with texts and emails that show that Mr. Bove said 'F you' to the courts and instructed federal officials to ignore a court order….I'm hard pressed to believe that someone who dedicated 15 years to public service would jeopardize the career, the safety of themselves and their families for no reason,' Booker said.
Bove has said he doesn't recall whether he used the expletive but sidestepped questions about whether he floated defying court orders, telling the committee during his confirmation hearing that he 'certainly conveyed the importance of the upcoming operation.'
A judge overseeing challenges to the deportation flights later found probable cause to begin an inquiry into whether the Trump administration defied his order to halt the planes.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) later chimed in, saying texts among Justice Department staff show the expletive-laden directive was 'so abundantly corroborated in real time communications.'
'Prosecutors don't get better corroboration than that.'
Grassley called the complaint an example of 'vicious partisan attacks.'
'Like clockwork, just before a hearing or vote, we get another breathless accusation that one of President Trump's nominees needs to be investigated,' he said.
'Even if you accept most of the claims as true, there's no scandal here. Government lawyers aggressively litigating and interpreting court orders isn't misconduct—it's what lawyers do.'
Beyond the whistleblower allegations, Democrats have sparred over Bove's roles in sidelining and firing prosecutors who worked on Jan. 6 cases.
Bove has been the target of numerous letters urging lawmakers to reject his nomination, including 900 former Justice Department attorneys who have accused him of dismantling key functions to keep the department independent from the White House.
'Federal prosecutors, career professionals have raised strong reservations about Mr. Bove, who had undermined their legitimate work to hold accountable people who did the most horrific acts of violence,' Booker said, noting some fired prosecutors were unable to secure meetings with Republicans on the committee.
'[It's] 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 Jan. 6 and you won't listen to the people who spent months and months and months prosecuting those cases,' Booker said.
Efforts to highlight Bove's role in terminations were a clear appeal to Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who told CNN he would not support nominees who have excused Jan. 6.
But Tillis backed Bove on Thursday, saying Democrats failed to show he condoned the riots.
'Does anybody really believe that if I was convinced that Bove 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,' Tillis said, quashing the prospects of a nominee Pirro was then tapped to replace.
'We have to distinguish between those 2-or-300 thugs that I believe should still be in prison — and disagreed on the Senate floor with the president pardoning them — from the from the boneheads, that for some reason, thought they should enter the Capitol through broken windows and doors,' TIllis said.
'Do your homework on finding a hard example and count me in to refuse confirming that nominee. But don't finesse it when you simply don't have the facts on your side,' he said.
The meeting ended before either side had a chance to discuss Pirro, whose nomination garnered less attention in the wake of the focus on Bove.
Republicans had praised Trump for a thoughtful choice in tapping a former judge and prosecutor to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. Pirro has already been serving in the role on an interim basis.
But Democrats have argued Pirro floated false claims about the 2020 election, making her too loyal to Trump to be counted on as a fair-minded prosecutor.
'She's an election denialist, recklessly peddling President Trump's Big Lie despite even her own Fox News producers and executives warning her to reel it in,' Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) the top Democrat on the panel, said after a Wednesday meeting with Pirro.
'And ultimately, she's a Donald Trump loyalist, vengefully attacking his perceived political opponents and showing no willingness to put the rule of law ahead of the President's wishes.'
Updated: 11:45 a.m.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's DOJ puts companies on notice: Don't evade tariffs
The Justice Department is putting American companies on notice that they could be prosecuted if they chose to evade President Trump's tariffs, even as the legality of the president's "Liberation Day" duties remain unsettled in US courts. The message came in a DOJ announcement earlier this month stipulating that prosecutors would step up investigations into suspiciously classified imports and charge those who misidentify products with fraud. 'While the DOJ has always taken some customs cases, this is a different, more aggressive, visible stance than they usually would,' said Thompson Coburn trade lawyer Robert Shapiro. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances The plan — to be carried out by the DOJ's new Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit — marks a shift in enforcement tactics from prior administrations that relied mostly on policing misconduct through administrative proceedings, even during Trump's first term in office. The new Trump administration instead wants to prioritize criminal charges against companies and individuals that try to evade US tariffs. The overarching strategy was first outlined by Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, who wrote in a May memo that an increasing focus on white collar crime would include "trade and customs fraudsters, including those who commit tariff evasion." At the same time, the Trump administration finds itself in the unusual position of defending the legality of the duties it pledges to enforce. Oral arguments in a federal lawsuit challenging the president's tariffs are set to take place before the US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., this Thursday. The small business importers challenging the legal standing of the duties already proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, following their own lower court victory. 'We're going to raise the ante' Tariff violations can be prosecuted under civil or criminal laws. However, even fraud cases were often handled administratively by past administrations, according to Shapiro. 'I think the administration is just saying we're going to raise the ante on this,' Shapiro said. University of Kansas School of Law professor Raj Bhala said laws against customs fraud have long been in force, but the appetite for the DOJ and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to clamp down on violations has increased. Historically, Bhala and other trade lawyers said, prosecutors focused government resources on suspected tariff violations by US adversaries such as China, Iran, and North Korea, and particularly on export controls meant to keep controlled items from shipping to those countries. Producer-exporters, especially in China and other high-tariff regions, have been using evasion techniques for decades, mostly to skirt anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, Bhala said. But now, under more imposing tariffs, incentives to evade duties have spiked 'enormously.' 'What is clear is that a lot of companies are looking for a way to limit the impact of the duties,' Shapiro said. In this new tariff and enforcement environment, trade experts suspect that corporate America and its trading partners are on high alert. Erika Trujillo, a trade attorney with customs risk management firm SEIA Compliance Technologies, said the shift toward more enforcement happening at the DOJ and less through administrative procedures could increase politically motivated targeting of companies viewed as adverse to the Trump administration's interests. 'I do think trade restrictions were used as both a sword and a shield for foreign companies, or in terms of dealing with international trade,' Trujillo said. Common tariff evasion techniques include misclassifying goods, falsely labeling a product's country of origin, making minor modifications to a product while it's in a lower-tariff jurisdiction to pass it off as manufactured there, and transhipping goods through lower-tariff jurisdictions. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs 'It's hard to imagine that any well-run company that has supply chains stretching across the globe — particularly in higher-tariff jurisdictions like China or Cambodia — would not be having vigorous discussions to ensure every step in the supply chain is properly documented and audited,' Bhala said. Bhala cautions that the stakes are high for importers subject to US jurisdiction. 'They're the importer of record and they're the ones who are liable for the tariffs,' he said. 'And false declarations are what we call 'go to jail stuff.'' For fraud, fines can also be assessed, up to the domestic value of the merchandise. For civil violations made based on negligent actions, maximum penalties are two times the underpayment of duties, in addition to original duties. For violations based on gross negligence, penalties increase to four times the underpayment of duties. For businesses looking to assess their risk, US Customs maintains an electronic system called the Automated Commercial Environment (ACT) that allows importers to view what their classification data looks like to customs. Small and midsize companies may find it more difficult to evaluate their compliance risks compared to multinational firms. 'If you're an SME, you probably have one or two lawyers, and they're not necessarily trade specialists,' Bhala said. Plus, there are different rules for thousands of products. For example, a typical NAFTA good, he explained, traverses the US-Canada border roughly four times. 'It's really difficult for companies of that size to be dealing with this,' Trujillo said. One major challenge is finding affordable internal expertise. 'Almost every company I know is actively hiring for both customs and export controls, and sanctions. You're basically stuck going to law firms or other external consultancy, and the small and medium-sized firms are maybe not going to have the budget to pay $1,100 an hour.' Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet For certain suspected violations like those made by mistake, Shapiro said it doesn't make economic sense for the DOJ to get involved. 'They don't have the manpower for it,' he said. But a new enforcement policy seems to fit the Trump administration's broader tariff agenda, he added. 'If you're going to have this tariff policy, you're going to have to take a more aggressive stance, because it's a huge ocean of imports, and it's very hard for customs to enforce against everyone.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump
Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 – with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on – the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order. The answer, a half-year later, is no. That was underscored this month by the court's decisions allowing Trump to fire another set of independent regulators, to dismantle the Department of Education and to deport migrants to dangerous countries where they have no citizenship or connection. Meanwhile, the fissures among the nine have deepened. They have condemned each other in written opinions and revealed the personal strains in public appearances. The conservative majority that controls the court has repeatedly undercut the US district court judges on the front lines who've held hearings, discerned the facts, and issued orders to check Trump actions. In the most significant case so far related to Trump's second term, touching on birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointedly addressed the role of lower court judges, saying they have a limited ability to block arguably unconstitutional moves. '(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Barrett wrote for the conservative majority as it reversed a series of lower court decisions. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' Dissenting in that late June case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the majority had essentially 'shoved lower court judges out of the way.' More recently, last Wednesday, the conservative majority overrode US district and appellate court judges to let Trump fire Biden-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who'd been confirmed by the Senate and were still serving their terms. To justify the action, the conservative majority referred to an earlier action in May letting Trump remove members of two independent entities that protect private employees and federal workers, respectively, the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. Neither in the earlier case nor the new one centered on the commission that shields consumers from hazardous products did the majority acknowledge that a 1935 precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, had protected such independent board members from being fired without legitimate reason such as misconduct. As lower court judges have noted, the justices have never reversed Humphrey's Executor, leaving it as a precedent that judges – at least those below the nine justices – must follow. Without formally taking up the issue, calling for briefing and holding arguments, the high court is nonetheless signaling a new course – obliquely. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the Supreme Court said in its unsigned order on July 23. 'The stay we issued in (the May case) reflected 'our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.'' The message: They did it before, they can do it again. Referring to the consequences, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote, 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.' The high court similarly brushed aside lower court determinations when it ruled on July 14 against states and labor unions that had sued the Department of Education for its actions to dissolve the agency. The majority declined to offer any hint of its rationale. However, the dissenting liberal justices in a 19-page opinion picked up lower court judges' emphasis on the history of the agency created by Congress nearly a half-century ago: '(T)he Department plays a vital role in this Nation's education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.' Referring to Education Secretary Linda McMahon's directives removing half the staff and aiming for an eventual shutdown of the department, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, added, 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' The six Republican-appointed conservatives have expressed no dread, offered no warnings that Trump's actions might ever go too far, unlike the Democratic-appointed liberal dissenters. The conservatives, in fact, took pains to avoid any disapproval of Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship – that is, the constitutional guarantee that children born in the US become citizens even if their parents are not – as they clipped lower courts' power to impose nationwide injunctions. That June 27 decision's effect on his proposed lifting of birthright citizenship is still working its way through lower courts. Sotomayor and Jackson have routinely protested in provocative terms. When Sotomayor dissented in a high-profile deportation case earlier this month, she warned that migrants flown out of the US to South Sudan could face torture or death. The two liberals have also referred to the personal costs. Sotomayor said in a May speech that she sometimes returns to her office after a decision is issued, closes her door and weeps. Jackson, who seems most isolated from the rest of the justices, told an audience earlier this month she is kept up at night by 'the state of our democracy.' The conservatives who dominate have directed any angst or anger not toward the executive branch but toward their judicial colleagues. In the birthright citizenship case, Barrett (in the majority) and Jackson (dissenting) traded insults that suggested a lack of mutual respect. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument,' Barrett wrote, even as she criticized her for choosing 'a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. … Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Jackson wrote that the Barrett majority had reduced the case to 'a mind-numbingly technical query.' And Jackson, writing alone, asserted, 'the majority sees a power grab—but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.' Roberts signed onto all of Barrett's opinion in that late June case. If he and fellow conservatives engage in any special regard or deference, it's not for their lower court colleagues or the liberals with whom they sit. It's for Donald Trump.
CBS News
19 minutes ago
- CBS News
Chaotic scene in Midtown Manhattan after shots ring out in office tower, killing 4 including police officer
Fear and confusion were rampant after a gunman shot and killed four people and wounded another in a Midtown Manhattan office tower Monday evening before, authorities said, taking his own life. Police identified him as Shane D. Tamura, 27, of Las Vegas. New York Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said surveillance video shows the suspect leaving a double-parked black BMW alone and entering the building on Park Avenue with an M4 rifle in his right hand. He immediately opened fire at NYPD officer Didarul Islam, killing him. The gunman then shot a woman who'd taken shelter behind a pillar, then moved through the lobby, peppering it with gunfire, officials said. He then shot a security guard who'd taken cover behind a security desk. Another man who was wounded told police at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital he was shot in the lobby, Tisch said. The police commissioner said at one point the gunman was waiting for an elevator to arrive and when it did, a woman came out but he let her to walk by unharmed. The gunman then took the elevator to the 33rd floor offices of Rudin Management and "began walking the floor, firing rounds as he traveled," Tisch said, killing one person before walking down the hallway and shooting himself in the chest. One man who works in the building told CBS News New York he "heard all these loud bangs, had no idea what it was ... I turn around all these people are running. ... I came out five minutes later (and) one of my co-workers came out and he said he saw two people get shot, and five minutes after that another one of our co-workers came out and said he saw two police officers trying to go up to the elevator banks that go to the higher floors." A woman who also works in the area told CBS News New York, "We rushed the window in the direction where the helicopters are going, and then, we look and there's cop cars everywhere, and then someone pulls up Twitter and we find out that there is an active shooter." The building houses the headquarters of the NFL and Blackstone, one of the world's largest investment firms, and has numerous other well-known tenants. A perimeter was blocked off around the building for blocks in every direction. NYPD officers and caution tape warned passersby away. Helicopters passed overhead for hours. People were told to shelter in place in buildings in the vicitniity. Jacob Stern, who works in one of them, told CBS News New York, "The building personnel said, 'Stay in place, there's an active shooter, don't leave, get away from the windows.' Your adrenaline rushes and, you know, it's pretty scary when the building says 'don't go by the windows.'" A number of tourists kept asking what had happened as they walked by and darted off with looks of concern when they learned there'd been a shooting. Two Blackstone employees in white-collared shirts and dress pants stood on a corner making calls and seemed relieved when they were told not to come in to work Tuesday. A young man who moved to New York only two weeks ago to work for Bank of America came to check out the scene. At an building nearby, people were ordering in late takeout food and gathering in the lobby. They told of colleagues who'd stepped out to get food as it was happening, not realizing what was going on down the block. Even hours after the shooting, one young woman seemed unsure if it was safe to leave. Late into the night, the streets were ablaze with flashing lights from police and FDNY vehicles lining the scene's perimeter. Local TV footage showed lines of people evacuating the office building where the shootings took place with their hands above their heads in the hours after the killings, according to The Associated Press. Nekeisha Lewis was eating dinner with friends on the nearby plaza when she heard gunfire. "It felt like it was a quick two shots and then it was rapid fire," she told the AP. Windows shattered and a man ran from the building saying, "Help, help. I'm shot." Lewis said. Kyle Marshall, 38, was working at a nearby Morgan Stanley office when his mother texted him about an active-shooter incident, asking if he was OK, Reuters reports. "Then she texted me the address, and I was, like, 'Oh my God. That's right next door to my building,'" he said. Marshall lives in the San Francisco area but comes to New York monthly for work. "It doesn't make me feel less safe to be in Manhattan," he said. "The police responded quickly." A man who only gave CBS News his first name, Kendall, works nearby. "After things calmed down," he said, "yu start to see just, just worry. It went fromkind of frantic, 'Are you safe?' ... and then it went straight to worry. And just hoping for the best."
