Third Whistleblower Accuses Trump Judicial Nominee of Misleading Lawmakers About Eric Adams’ Corruption Case

Emil Bove, attorney for former US President Donald Trump, sits Manhattan criminal court during Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case in New York, Jan. 10, 2025. (Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg via AP, Pool, File)

A whistleblower has accused federal judicial nominee Emil Bove of misleading lawmakers about his handling of New York Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case.

Bove — President Donald Trump’s former defense attorney and an acting deputy attorney general — was nominated by the president to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The court’s jurisdiction includes Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The nomination was met with pushback from both sides of the aisle, and the advancement of Bove’s nomination resulted in Senate Democrats staging a walkout.

Months prior, Bove sparked controversy with his move to drop the corruption charges against Adams. At the time, the deputy attorney general said he was instructed to do so as part of Trump’s movement to end the “weaponization” of the justice system.

According to reporting from The Washington Post, the whistleblower shared evidence with lawmakers allegedly proving that Bove misled Congress during his confirmation hearing. The Post reported:

According to Sen. Cory Booker’s office, the latest whistleblower shared evidence first with Booker, a Judiciary Committee member who represents New Jersey. Booker and other Democrats have reviewed the evidence, multiple Senate staffers told The Post, which Booker has publicly described as significant.

“We have substantial information relevant to the truthfulness of the nominee,” Booker said in a speech on the Senate floor ahead of a preliminary vote on Bove’s nomination. At the time, he invited his Republican colleagues to review the claims. None immediately took him up on his offer, Senate staffers said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was also given the opportunity to review the evidence, but the whistleblower’s lawyers said it could not be done with Grassley’s staffers alone. As a result, Grassley had not seen the evidence for himself at the time of writing. Grassley’s spokesperson also called the evidence a “bad faith attempt to sink a nominee who’s already received committee approval.”