Senator Schiff Explodes at Emil Bove Over Shocking DOJ Claims.

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]In the complaint, it says Bovey stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts [ __ ] you and ignoring any such court order.

[00:00:08]Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?

[00:00:12]Senator, I've no recollection of saying anything of that kind. To the extent I used >> Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bovey, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers that maybe they should consider telling the court [ __ ] you? It seems to me that would be something you'd remember, unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.

[00:00:29]Well, I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the department to fight hard for valid positions that we have to take in defense of our clients.

[00:00:38]>> suggested that they say [ __ ] you and ignore court orders? Is that also something you frequently do such you might not remember doing it on this occasion? No, and as I explained, I've never directed >> you or did you not make those comments during that meeting?

[00:00:52]Which comments, Senator?

[00:00:54]You really need me to repeat it? Did you suggest, as Mr. Rubeni wrote, that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts [ __ ] you and ignore any such court order?

[00:01:03]I did not suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were no court orders to discuss.

[00:01:12]Well, did you suggest telling the courts [ __ ] you in any manner?

[00:01:16]I don't recall. You just don't remember that. Adam Schiff and Emil Bove clash in a tense Senate moment. A whistleblower complaint sits at the center, and Schiff pushes hard for clear answers, while Bove resists giving direct responses. Uh well, let me ask you this. It also says in the complaint Bovey indicated and stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what. These are the planes that a judge was ordering not be used to render people to a maximum security prison outside the country. Did you say during that meeting, did you stress to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what?

[00:01:52]Senator, your characterization is not accurate. It's not my characterization.

[00:01:56]It's the characterization of a decorated prosecutor who was in that meeting. Are you saying that he's lying?

[00:02:03]As I said at the beginning of the hearing >> I'm not interested in what you said at the beginning of the hearing. I'm interested in whether you stressed to people in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what. Did you say that?

[00:02:16]I certainly conveyed the importance of the upcoming operation. Well, don't don't paraphrase here.

[00:02:22]Did you tell people in attendance the planes needed to take off no matter what? I don't recall the specific words that I used.

[00:02:28]>> Wouldn't you recall saying that if you had instructed that the planes needed to take off no matter what, including whether the court ordered otherwise? You wouldn't remember that? This is a mischaracterization, Senator. There were no court orders at this point.

[00:02:40]>> Well, there was a court order, wasn't there? Wasn't there a court order by Judge Judge Boasberg, if not in this specific case, then in related cases, that that people not be sent out of the country until the court could rule?

[00:02:52]Wasn't there a court order?

[00:02:54]Not at the time of that meeting, sir.

[00:02:55]>> Did you Did you participate in the decision not to disseminate that oral court order prior to the written court order to other agencies so those planes would not take off, so those planes would turn around? Were you involved in the decision to withhold that court order from the responsible agencies? I think it's clear that I participated in this I participated in this matter and I'm not going to get into the contents of legal advice. I did over the course of time, as many lawyers have, >> No, no, I'm not interested in what happened over the course of time. I'm interested in whether you participated in the willful violation of court orders as alleged in this complaint. Let me ask you this, Mr. Boeve, if there are notes of that meeting, will you provide them to this committee?

[00:03:33]I defer to the committee and to the executive branch on the procedure.

[00:03:37]>> the committee requests them, will you provide those notes to the committee? I defer to the executive branch on the handling of that request.

[00:03:42]>> And let me ask you about notes from another meeting. What really happened in that closed-door meeting? Schiff's strategy is simple but sharp. He keeps pressing for yes or no answers. Did Bove suggest ignoring legal limits? Did he push officials to act regardless of consequences?

[00:03:58]Instead of clarity, he gets hesitation and memory gaps. That alone raises eyebrows. which you're contesting here, and that is the meeting over the decision to dismiss the case in New York, the corruption case against the mayor of New York.

[00:04:11]According to Ms. Sassoon, the US attorney at the time, during the meeting with Adam's attorneys, where she described um Adam's attorneys repeatedly urging what amounted to a quid pro quo, that you admonished one of the lawyers in the room to stop taking notes. Is that true?

[00:04:32]I don't believe I instructed that attorney to stop taking notes. I did remark on the fact that he was taking extensive notes, yes.

[00:04:38]>> And and why did it concern you that he was taking notes of that meeting?

[00:04:42]Because at that point in the meeting, we were discussing who was responsible for media leaks, and I was making the point that only the prosecutors had created an extensive record that could support detailed leaks.

[00:04:51]>> And you were concerned, were you, that information about this this potential quid pro quo might become public? Was that the concern? I've explained that there was no quid pro quo. Will you provide the notes of that meeting, which you, according to the US attorney, instructed be collected at the end of the meeting?

[00:05:08]I think a member of my staff may have given that instruction outside my presence, and I defer to the committee and the executive branch on records requests and how they should be handled.

[00:05:16]>> Well, I would request that we seek these records, which go to the truthfulness or lack of truthfulness of this witness.

[00:05:21]There There's a reason why, if I may, my colleagues have gone over at least as much as as this.

[00:05:28]There must be a reason why prosecutors quit rather than following orders from you they considered unethical. There must be a reason why prosecutors complained about you in your own office. Why defense attorneys complained about you in your own office.

[00:05:41]Why the judge in the case involving the dismissal of the charges in New York said, "Everything here smacks of a bargain. You testified earlier that the objective evidence overwhelming made it clear that it was not a bargain. That that There must be a reason why everyone disagrees with you, Mr. Boeve, and people feel it necessary to give up a job they love at the Department of Justice and quit because they won't go along with what they consider unethical and immoral orders from you. There must be a reason why that is so true of so many, and this court needs to get to the bottom of it.

[00:06:14]I yield back.

[00:06:16]If the claims are false, why not shut them down clearly? And if they are true, what does that say about leadership inside the Justice Department? Another key issue is the alleged urgency around an operation involving flights and detainees.

[00:06:30]Schiff seems concerned about whether decisions were made too fast, possibly ignoring legal safeguards.

[00:06:36]Boeve insists the situation is being misrepresented. But here is the problem.

[00:06:41]When timelines, authority, and legal orders are unclear, public trust suffers. Shouldn't transparency be the default in matters this serious?

[00:06:51]Then comes the fight over notes from critical meetings. Schiff wants them released to verify the truth.

[00:06:57]Boeve defers to higher authority, avoiding a commitment. This is where things get interesting.

[00:07:03]If those notes exist, they could confirm or destroy the allegations.

[00:07:07]So why the hesitation? Is it about legal process, or is there something more to protect?