They're Installing Someone With Contempt for Courts and Suppressing the Whistleblower (And Expecting Us to Not Focus on the Details)
The focal point of our discussion centers on the recent nomination of Emil Bovey III to a lifetime position as a federal appeals court judge, a decision that has raised significant concerns regarding judicial integrity and adherence to democratic principles. On July 17, 2025, a mere three days subsequent to a collective appeal from over 900 former Justice Department attorneys and 75 former federal judges urging his rejection, 12 Republican senators proceeded to confirm Bovey, a former personal attorney to Donald Trump, amidst allegations of misconduct. The expeditious manner in which this vote transpired—combined with the refusal to permit a crucial whistleblower to testify—exposes a concerted effort to undermine the Senate's constitutional responsibilities. Such actions not only reflect a troubling departure from the tenets of accountability and transparency but also signal a broader trend of prioritizing partisan loyalty over the rule of law. As we delve into this episode, we shall examine the implications of this nomination on our democratic institutions and the urgent need for active resistance against such encroachments on our judiciary.
Click to Access Sources and Episode Materials
Takeaways:
- Emil Bove III's nomination creates unprecedented conflicts of interest - no president's personal criminal defense lawyer has ever been nominated to a federal appeals court.
- Republican senators deliberately suppressed a Justice Department whistleblower who documented Bove allegedly telling lawyers to consider telling courts "fuck you" and ignore judicial orders.
- 900 former Justice Department attorneys and 75 former federal judges opposed his nomination based on documented evidence of his contempt for judicial authority.
- Bove caused mass resignations of career prosecutors after interfering in corruption cases and led the purge of prosecutors who held January 6 rioters accountable.
- Chuck Grassley, supposedly a champion of whistleblowers, refused to allow sworn testimony that could expose Bove's unfitness for judicial office.
- Installing someone with alleged contempt for judicial authority as a federal judge destroys the principle that courts must check executive power rather than serve it.
Transcript
Welcome to Democracy Spark Rapid response Updates, where headlines meet history.
Speaker A:I'm Bonnie Ross with Democracy Spark.
Speaker A:We break down the events that don't just make news.
Speaker A:They challenge democratic norms and connect them to the authoritarian patterns outlined in On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder.
Speaker A:Today we are focusing on the Emil Bovey nomination.
Speaker A: ,: Speaker A:On Thursday morning, July 17, while most Americans were planning their weekend, 12 Republican senators voted to install Emil Bovey III into a lifetime position as a federal appeals court judge.
Speaker A:Bovey was Trump's personal criminal defense lawyer.
Speaker A:This happened just 72 hours after more than 900 former Justice Department attorneys and 75 former federal judges urged the Senate to reject his nomination.
Speaker A:The vote was 120 because every single Democrat walked out of the hearing room in protest.
Speaker A:Chairman Chuck Grassley had cut off debate and refused to allow a Justice Department whistleblower to testify under oath.
Speaker A:The timing exposes the Republican majority's strategy as deliberate constitutional sabotage.
Speaker A:They rushed the vote specifically to avoid hearing testimony from Erez Reuveni.
Speaker A:He's the DOJ whistleblower who who documented Bovey telling government lawyers they might need to consider telling the courts f you and ignore any court order that blocked Trump's deportation efforts.
Speaker A:When someone seeking to become a federal judge suggests defying court orders, that should disqualify them immediately.
Speaker A:Instead, Republicans made sure we couldn't hear the evidence under oath.
Speaker A:This creates a systematic attack on the constitutional principle that judges must respect the rule of law above personal loyalty.
Speaker A:Bovey spent months as Trump's personal attorney, defending him against federal criminal charges.
Speaker A:Then he moved directly into the Justice Department's third highest position.
Speaker A:Now he seeks to rule on cases involving the very administration he served.
Speaker A:Conflict of interest isn't subtle.
Speaker A:It's the entire point.
Speaker A:And to this I say, oh, hell no.
Speaker A:This is not okay, and this is not normal, and we cannot let them pretend it is.
Speaker A:Daniel Sassoon spent years as a federal prosecutor going after corruption, real corruption, the kind that hurts communities and destroys trust in government.
Speaker A:She was good at her job.
Speaker A:So good that she became the Acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Speaker A:And when Emil Bovey interfered with her corruption case against Eric Adams, she said, I'm out, and resigned.
Speaker A:Think about that.
Speaker A:A career prosecutor walked away from her life's work rather than be part of whatever Bovey was doing that tells you everything you need to know about this guy's character.
Speaker A:We're talking about putting Trump's personal lawyer on the federal bench for life.
Speaker A:The guy who defended him in criminal court for life.
Speaker A:Let's think about what that means.
Speaker A:This isn't some political appointment where the next president can fix it.
Speaker A:This is forever.
Speaker A:And when 900 former Justice Department attorneys write a letter saying this guy sent shockwaves through the ranks and caused mass departures, we should listen.
Speaker A:These are people who've spent their careers in courtrooms, people who know what judicial temperament looks like.
Speaker A:But here's what really gets me.
Speaker A:Chuck Grassley.
Speaker A:This man built his entire reputation on protecting whistleblowers for decades.
Speaker A:If you were a government employee who saw wrongdoing and wanted to speak up, Chuck Grassley was your guy.
Speaker A:And last week, he refused to let a Justice Department whistleblower testify under oath about Bovee telling lawyers to.
Speaker A:To consider saying F you to federal judges.
Speaker A:Chuck Grassley.
Speaker A:Protecting the powerful from whistleblowers.
Speaker A:That's how far we've fallen.
Speaker A:That's how completely they've abandoned everything they claim to stand for.
Speaker A:And if Chuck Grassley won't defend whistleblowers when it matters, then we have to defend ourselves.
Speaker A:Here's what they don't want us to focus on.
Speaker A:Grassley claims the whistleblower allegations represent a political hit job done for maximum media splash, with minimum substance.
Speaker A:This is deliberate misdirection.
Speaker A:Rouvaini volunteered to testify under oath.
Speaker A:That's the gold standard for credibility that Grassley himself has demanded from whistleblowers for decades.
Speaker A:When someone offers to swear an oath and face perjury charges for lying, that's evidence of judicial misconduct by a nominee, not a hit job.
Speaker A:They want us to focus on Bovey's qualifications as a prosecutor instead of his actions as Trump's enforcer.
Speaker A:They want us to debate legal technicalities instead of recognizing that.
Speaker A:That they're installing someone who allegedly counseled defiance of orders as a federal judge with the power to issue those same orders.
Speaker A:Most importantly, they don't want us to focus on what this says about Republican senators character.
Speaker A:Every Republican who votes for Bovey knows about the whistleblower allegations.
Speaker A:They know about the mass resignations of career prosecutors.
Speaker A:They're choosing to install him anyway because they value party loyalty over constitutional responsibility.
Speaker A:This isn't a failure of the system.
Speaker A:It's Republican senators deliberately breaking the system to serve Trump's interests.
Speaker A:Let me tell you what we deserve versus what we got.
Speaker A:What we deserve, we deserve federal judges who demonstrate unwavering commitment to the rule of law above personal loyalty.
Speaker A:We deserve a Senate confirmation process that thoroughly investigates nominees fitness.
Speaker A:This means hearing from whistleblowers under oath and examining documented evidence of misconduct when 900 former Justice Department attorneys and 75 former federal judges raise alarm about a nominee's qualifications.
Speaker A:We deserve senators who take those concerns seriously rather than rushing to suppress evidence.
Speaker A:And what we got we got Chuck Grassley suppressing a Justice Department whistleblower to protect a judicial nominee from testimony about his alleged misconduct.
Speaker A:We got Thom Tillis, who positioned himself as an independent voice willing to break with Trump, revealing that his independence was performative theater.
Speaker A:Tillis voted against Ed Martin for defending Jan. 6 rioters, then voted for Emil Bovey despite Bovey's role in purging the prosecutors who held those same rioters accountable.
Speaker A:We got your senators choosing to install someone with disqualifying character defects because party loyalty matters more than constitutional responsibility.
Speaker A:Watch for what's next.
Speaker A:Expect more Trump loyalists with disqualifying character defects nominated to federal judgeships.
Speaker A:The Senate will normalize appointing people with alleged misconduct to positions of judicial authority.
Speaker A:Career prosecutors will face accelerated purges as independence becomes grounds for firing.
Speaker A:Federal courts will transform from constitutional checks on presidential power into instruments of that power.
Speaker A:Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny teaches us that defending institutions requires active resistance before they are completely captured.
Speaker A:Note that resistance is always guided by lesson 20 be as courageous as you can.
Speaker A:We are not all positioned to take each of these actions.
Speaker A:Consider what you can do given your circumstances.
Speaker A:Know that for every action of resistance you engage in, you are also representing those who are not able to stand up due to vulnerability, ability or means.
Speaker A:Defend institutions the Senate confirmation process represents one of the few remaining institutional checks on presidential power to reshape the judiciary.
Speaker A:When senators suppress evidence to rush through unfit nominees, they're destroying the process that protects us from judicial corruption.
Speaker A: -: Speaker A:Tell them you know about the whistleblower allegations and that voting to confirm someone who allegedly counseled defiance of court orders disqualifies them from representing you.
Speaker A:Lesson 10 Believe in truth Republicans claim Bovey's nomination represents normal judicial politics and that whistleblower allegations lack substance.
Speaker A:The truth is that a Justice Department whistleblower has provided documented evidence of Bovey's alleged misconduct, and Republicans are suppressing that evidence to rush through his confirmation.
Speaker A:Share documented facts about Bovey's alleged misconduct with people who don't follow politics closely.
Speaker A:Most Americans don't know their senator is voting to install someone who allegedly counseled defiance of court orders as a federal judge.
Speaker A:Be wary of paramilitaries.
Speaker A:While this lesson typically applies to armed groups, it also applies to the corruption of institutions meant to check government power.
Speaker A:When judges become extensions of executive authority rather than independent arbiters of law, they function as instruments of presidential power rather than constitutional checks on that power support legal organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Brennan center for justice that challenge unconstitutional government actions in federal court.
Speaker A:The Bovee confirmation represents Republican senators choosing to install someone with alleged contempt for judicial authority as a federal judge because party loyalty matters more than constitutional responsibility.
Speaker A:Every senator who votes to confirm Bovey is choosing Trump's interests over their oath to defend the Constitution, and we must hold them accountable for that choice.
Speaker A:Your democracy depends on institutions staffed by people of character.
Speaker A:If we lose that standard, we lose the foundation that makes constitutional government possible.
Speaker A:For your action resources, check out the description of this audio.
Speaker A:You'll find a link to our cited sources and to subscribe to our Democracy Action tools.
Speaker A:When you subscribe, you get Truth Telling Tuesdays that's weekly advocacy templates you can copy, paste and send to your representatives in 30 seconds.
Speaker A:Plus audio versions of all the week's analysis so you can catch up while walking or commuting.
Speaker A:And good news Friday Democracy wins and Resistance Victories delivered to your inbox to keep you going.
Speaker A:Remember hours of research to deliver clear analysis without the panic.
Speaker A:$8 a month for empowerment.
Speaker A:Democracy Spark makes it quick and easy to stand up for democracy.
Speaker A:Literally just minutes of your time to help those in this fight.
Speaker A:Our efforts are inspired by lesson eight from On Tyranny.
Speaker A:Stand out the moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken and others will follow.
Speaker A:This is Bonnie, the founder of Democracy Spark, and I invite you to stay loud and stay kind.
Speaker A:Thank you for listening.
