A follow-up to this post: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has tweeted out that the claims in the New York Times article are “utterly false.” Blanche states that he “was at the meeting described in the article and at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”
Three quick comments on Blanche’s response:
1. The letter on behalf of DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni identifies six individuals who, along with Reuveni, were at the March 14 meeting and refers to unnamed “other OIL [Office of Immigration Litigation] attorneys.” It makes no mention of Blanche.
One possibility is that the whistleblower forgot to mention Blanche. It would be strange to forget the most senior person at the meeting. And there would be no apparent reason to omit mentioning him if he were there. Indeed, the account of Bove’s “f*** you” would be all the more remarkable if Blanche were present.
Another possibility is that Blanche is recalling a different meeting. In that event, his denial is of course immaterial.
2. Blanche’s vehement denial implicitly acknowledges how troubling Bove’s alleged comment would be if he in fact made it. It also would seem to waive any claim that Bove would have to decline to testify under oath whether he made the comment. Similarly, if Blanche is free to speak about his recollection of what he thinks to be the “meeting described in the article,” then the seven to ten (or more) other lawyers that Reuveni has identified or referred to should be free to speak about theirs.
3. Blanche also tries to dismiss Reuveni as a “disgruntled former employee.” As Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, an ardent defender of whistleblowers, knows, lots of whistleblowers are indeed disgruntled former employees. The relevant question is why Reuveni, who was promoted into his position by the Trump administration, became disgruntled. His letter seems to provide a compelling answer.