The Dictatorship

Why Emil Bove’s judicial nomination just brought more than 900 former DOJ lawyers together

Published

11 months ago

July 17, 2025

Why Emil Bove’s judicial nomination just brought more than 900 former DOJ lawyers together

Well over 300 federal, Article III judges across the country are former federal prosecutors. They have been nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents in larger numbers than any other group of lawyers. And yet I cannot recall such fierce and widespread opposition to a former prosecutor’s nomination — not just from a range of ideological backgroundsnot just from the legal community generallybut from more than 900 former Justice Department attorneys and former judges — until the nomination of Emil Bove.

Bove has demonstrated a total disregard for the high ethical standards to which most federal prosecutors hold themselves.

Bove is a former Southern District of New York prosecutor-turned-Donald Trump defense lawyer, now serving as the principal associate deputy attorney general at the Justice Department, and he previously was the acting deputy attorney general. He has been nominated by Trump for a lifetime seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote this week on whether to advance his nomination to the full Senate.

Since his nomination, former federal prosecutors and judges have been ringing alarm bells with rare intensity and in great numbers opposing his nomination. Why? The short answer: Bove has demonstrated a total disregard for the high ethical standards to which most federal prosecutors hold themselves, and, perhaps worse, he has shown a complete disregard for other lawyers who refuse to do the same.

First, there was Bove’s conduct undoing the prosecutions of Jan. 6 Capitol rioters and punishing those public servants who had been part of the prosecutions. Trump’s pardon dismissals — which Bove helped make happen — of thousands of prosecutions by a prior administration that included trial verdicts, guilty pleas, lengthy sentencing proceedings by judges, months of hard work and sweat by prosecutors and federal agents, is not just bad practice by the Justice Department; it’s a slap in the face to those public servants who worked on these cases and the law enforcement officers injured and traumatized by the events of that day.

Even more shocking, Bove led a politically motivated purge of law enforcement professionals who worked on the cases. He was instrumental in the firing of prosecutors who worked on cases because of the claim that they could not be trusted to carry out “President Trump’s agenda” — something that should have no place in employment decisions of federal prosecutors — and he was behind the firing of FBI agents who had done nothing more than work on cases to which they were assigned. He claimed that these public servants participated “in what the president appropriately described as a ‘grave national injustice’ that has been perpetrated upon the American people.” And Bove did all of this despite the fact that as a national security prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, he had worked on these very same cases.

In his role as acting deputy attorney general, Bove orchestrated a brazen dismissal of criminal charges against New York Mayor Eric Adamsin what appeared to be a quid pro quo, in exchange for his cooperation with the Trump administration in immigration enforcement efforts. As if that were not bad enough, he tried to force other prosecutors into compliance.

Trump’s interim U.S. attorney in SDNY, as well as several other prosecutors in New York, resigned over the episode, stating that it would violate their ethical and legal obligations to be part of this dismissal. Bove then reportedly assembled members of the Public Integrity Section at the Justice Department and threatened disciplinary action, including possible firing, if one of them did not sign the motion to dismiss — something I have never heard of happening under any Justice Department leader prior to this. One career attorney who was near retirement ultimately agreed to sign the motion in order to save his colleagues.

In his role as acting deputy attorney general, Bove orchestrated a brazen dismissal of criminal charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams.

Judge Dale Ho ultimately dismissed the Adams case, noting that he could not force the government to prosecute, but he dismissed it with prejudice, meaning the charges cannot be refiled, rather than without prejudice as the government had requested (which would have allowed the administration to continue to hold the charges over Adams’ head). The judge wrote a blistering opinion and agreed that the attempted dismissal by Justice Department and Bove appeared to be part of a corrupt deal between Adams and the administration. He also found, contrary to Bove’s representations, there was absolutely no evidence prosecutors had done anything improper by bringing the case and called Bove’s argued reasons for dismissal “pretextual.”

This kind of critique by a federal judge of one’s integrity would humble if not shame most federal prosecutors — but not Bove.

Most recently, a Justice Department whistleblower has made serious allegations about Bove’s role in deliberate defiance of the very federal bench that he now seeks to join.

Erez Reuveni, a 15-year veteran Justice Department prosecutor who litigated some of the most divisive cases the department has ever defended and was promoted under Trump, was then fired because he dared to tell a federal judge the truth: that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison by mistake.

Reuveni has filed a whistleblower complaintwhich includes a great deal of damaging information about the administration’s disregard for due process and defiance of the courts and about Bove’s leadership of those efforts. The complaint discusses a meeting at the Justice Department in mid-March — after the administration decided to rely upon the Alien Enemies Act to deport the Venezuelan immigrants — at which Bove said that the deportations were a “highest priority” for the president and that the planes with the Venezuelans would be taking off in the next 24 to 48 hours “no matter what.”

In the most explosive allegation, Reuveni reported that Bove said that if they were confronted with a court order to halt the deportations, they would need to consider telling the court “f— you” and continuing anyway — which is exactly what happened. During an emergency hearing as the flights were about to take off, Chief U.S. District Judge Boasberg of the District of Columbia ordered that the deportations be halted and that any planes already on their way be ordered to turn back. The government defied that order, the planes landed, and the immigrants were sent to the supermax prison. During his confirmation hearing, Bove denied advocating defiance of the courts and claimed he could not recall using vulgar language, but emails strongly corroborate Reuveni’s description.

When Trump nominated Bove, the president said Bove would “do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” That is not a qualification for prosecutors or federal judges, who should do everything they can to uphold the Constitution and act with integrity and candor consistent with legal ethics, even if it conflicts with a political agenda. Violating these principles is bad enough, but trying to coerce other attorneys of integrity to do so for your own political gain, as Bove has, is unforgivable.

I rocah

Miriam E. Rocah is the former Westchester County (N.Y.) District Attorney, and former AUSA and Chief SDNY.

The Dictatorship

8 convicted in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison

Published

4 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

8 convicted in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — Eight protesters accused by the Justice Department of having ties to antifawere sentenced Tuesday to decades in federal prison over a shooting outside a Texas immigration detention center that wounded a police officer. Prosecutors have called the shooting an act of terrorism.

One of the defendants, a former U.S. Marine Corps reservist convicted of opening fire during the July 4 demonstration outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas, was sentenced to 100 years in prison, the maximum punishment.

The lengthy sentences were condemned by family members and supporters in a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. Hope Song, whose son Benjamin Songreceived the heftiest sentence, disputed prosecutors’ claims that her son shot the officer and said he didn’t intend to hurt anyone.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, one of two judges overseeing the proceedings, said what happened wasn’t a protest but “an assault on democracy.”

“The need to deter this type of conduct is high,” O’Connor said.

The seven other protesters received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.

Prosecutors said the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization and a targetof the Trump administration. Antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.

President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.

The defendants deny any affiliation with antifa and maintain they attended the demonstration in support of detained immigrants.

Prosecutor Frank Gatto urged the judge to impose stiff penalties.

“People with that kind of extremist beliefs need extra time in prison,” Gatto said. “They believe violence is justified.”

Phillip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the courthouse that he takes issue with the idea that the protesters are extremists.

“This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Hayes said. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”

Prosecutors said in court that Song had yelled “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking a police officer who had just pulled up to the center.

Hayes argued that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet hit the officer after he arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. He said his client will appeal the 100-year sentence.

“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” Hayes said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”

Other defendants and their family members pleaded for leniency in court.

Autumn Hill said the gathering “seemed more like a party to me than anything else” and that she and others who participated “didn’t expect or want any violence or destruction of property to occur.”

Amber Lowrey told the judge that her sister, Savanna Batten, is a compassionate person with dreams of opening a bakery. She said Batten’s activism started with animal rights and evolved into anti-war and human rights advocacy.

“She’s the best person I know,” Lowrey said.

Hill and Batten both received 50-year sentences.

Other defendants previously pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.

Critics warn the case could have a wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.

Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 peoplewith impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdownin Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.

The Dictatorship

Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’

Published

4 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’

About a month into Donald Trump’s second term, Senate Republicans weighed whether to confirm one of the president’s worst nominees. Indeed, the list of reasons to reject Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence was not short.

The former congresswoman lacked the requisite experience in intelligence matters. She had an indefensible habit of echoing Russian propaganda. She struggled to explain her record of defending Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. Senators heard from former national security officials who issued unsubtle warnings about elevating Gabbard to an important and influential position.

But in case that weren’t quite enough, let’s also not overlook the fact that Gabbard was a member of a secretive Hare Krishna offshoot religious sect that is considered by many of its former members to be an abusive cult.

Gabbard, who wrapped up her tenure as DNI last week, has long insisted that any suggestion that she was somehow enthralled to or controlled by this sect or its leader, whom she has referred to as her “guru,” is just bigotry against her faith.

But it’s against this backdrop that The Washington Post obtained hundreds of secret memos prepared for Gabbard during her congressional tenure, which were put together by members of the alleged cult and which included thousands of pages of specific directives to her on policy and politics.

After careful analysis of thousands of these documents, which have not been independently verified by MS NOW, the Post determined that they likely came from Gabbard’s secretive guru, a man named Chris Butler.

The memos, starting in 2013, when the Hawaiian first arrived on Capitol Hill, reflect a dynamic in which Gabbard didn’t just take direction from the materials, but essentially took dictation from the alleged cult leader: Memos told Gabbard what she should do as a member of Congress, and she often did exactly that, sometimes word for word.

The Post’s Jon Swaine spent months trying to get Gabbard to respond to questions, but to no avail. Her spokeswoman reportedly encouraged Swaine to drop the story, saying, “I cannot imagine WaPo’s readers would be interested in yet another uncredible, bigoted attack on the DNI’s faith.”

On May 20, Swaine nevertheless alerted the DNI and top members of her staff to the fact that the Post was prepared to publish his reporting anyway on her association with Butler.

On May 22, Fox News reported that Gabbard was leaving the administration, ostensibly because of a health issue involving her husband.

This week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke on the Senate floor and commented on the reporting:

There are reports that Tulsi Gabbard was receiving instructions from a so-called guru and repeating them word for word. That ought to concern all of us if it’s true. No one knows who this guru really is, what his connections are, and where the instructions came from. … We need answers.

The New York Democrat’s comments made sense, though it’s worth considering who, exactly, “we need answers” from.

It stands to reason, for example, that Gabbard has some explaining to do, but I’m also interested in the answers from those who elevated her to an influential intelligence office in the first place.

In February 2025, confronted with an avalanche of reasons to reject Gabbard’s nomination, 52 Senate Republicans — every GOP member except Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell — shrugged off every red flag and voted to confirm her as the nation’s DNI, including so-called “moderates” such as Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.

The question for these 52 senators seems obvious: Do you regret that confirmation vote and now recognize it as a mistake? Or do you still think it was a good idea to put Gabbard in this influential intelligence position?

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump ignored warnings before launching Iran war, reporters tell MS NOW

Published

4 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump ignored warnings before launching Iran war, reporters tell MS NOW

Jun. 23, 2026, 2:30 PM EDT

In the lead-up to the Iran war, President Donald Trump dismissed the possibility that Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz despite warnings from his top military adviser, authors of a new book told MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday.

In their first televised interview about “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump,” New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan said Trump also disregarded warnings from Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the potential effects on American weaponry and about casualties.

The initial closure of the strait, a narrow passageway through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, led to a spike in gas and oil prices. According to Swan, Trump thought Iran would have limited time to take action because the war would be over quickly — a claim he has made repeatedly during the nearly four-month-long war.

“He felt that this regime was a paper tiger, that this was going to be a fast war,” Swan said on “The Last Word.” “He just said he felt that that was going to be the case, that they were going to collapse very quickly.”

“It’s a form of magical thinking, actually, is what it all boils down to,” he added.

The revelation is just one of several in the book — which is based on more than 1,000 interviews — that illustrate how Trump repeatedly bases geopolitical decisions on his own whims rather than experts’ assessments.

Another example of such thinking was when Trump floated a plan to expel 2 million Palestinians from Gaza so he could turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Haberman and Swan wrote in the book that one senior aide characterized the idea as “legitimately nutso … but very on-brand.”

Haberman also spoke about “how scared” people were inside the White House ahead of last year’s so-called Liberation Daywhen Trump unveiled sweeping global tariffs. (The Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in February.)

“They were scared at how close the bond markets came to just completely melting down seven days later, which was finally what got him [Trump] off of it, but again, it was the willingness to just go straight to the brink” that was jarring, Haberman said.

Despite such fear among Trump’s staff, Haberman added, the White House makes up “a group of people who genuinely want to see him succeed.”

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.