[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 50 (Thursday, March 21, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2504-S2508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Adeel Abdullah Mangi
Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an exceptional
American, Adeel Mangi, who is a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. He is eminently, extraordinarily, very
impressively qualified.
He has degrees from Oxford University and Harvard Law School. For
over 20 years, he has been a highly respected complex litigation
attorney in one of our country's premier law firms, where he has become
a star, a star in the legal profession as one of the very best trial
attorneys in our country.
Beyond finding success after success professionally for his clients,
he has spent countless hours providing pro bono services for causes
fundamental to our American ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice.
The support of Adeel Mangi has inspired, for his nomination,
incredible support. It has seen support across the ideological spectrum
and speaks to the character and integrity of the man. Dozens of
prominent State and national organizations, ranging from civil rights
groups, law enforcement associations, anti-hate groups, professional
legal groups, all have endorsed his nomination, including so many from
New Jersey and of course the New Jersey State and Federal bar
associations. Mr. Mangi has received the highest possible rating for
judicial nominees from the American Bar Association.
A bipartisan--bipartisan--group of former State attorneys general
have written in support of his nomination, writing:
It is our collective judgment that Mr. Mangi is eminently
qualified to sit on the Court. Mr. Mangi's legal career has
been exemplary of a commitment to the rule of law and
upholding constitutional principles.
Folks from the left, folks from the right, law enforcement, civil
rights groups, and more--he has not only earned this nomination from
the President of the United States, but his qualifications from that
have been celebrated by groups all across our political spectrum and
people in charge of our public safety in New Jersey.
Despite all of this though, what is outrageous to me, disappointing,
and disheartening is that he is facing unimaginable attacks, not on
anything that he has said or written, not on any of the cases that he
has successfully tried, but he is facing attacks on his character.
And these attacks are recalling some of the darkest chapters of our
Nation's history. The attacks on him are unwarranted. They are
untruthful. They have no basis in fact. And, sadly, they smack of
bigotry.
They intend to exploit people's fears. They intend to exploit
people's fears of his faith. They are attacks on his character and his
reputation, attempts to smear, attempts at fear.
I was blown away when the Republican leader came to the floor today
and said something I never imagined I would hear on this floor about a
man of such character.
He said that Mr. Mangi has ``anti-Semitic affiliations.'' Now, I know
how people here feel when someone calls someone else racist or a bigot
or makes accusations of hate, but the Republican leader said he has
``anti-Semitic affiliations.''
He said Mr. Mangi ``has repeatedly chosen . . . to mingle with
supporters of terrorists and cop killers.''
That is a staggering charge, and yet it is the pattern that we have
seen against Mr. Mangi--attacks not on his writings, not on his legal
work, not on anything he has said, one quote that has come from his
mouth. They are making an accusation that he mingles with supporters of
terrorism, people who want to threaten the lives of Americans.
This is a continuation of what he faced in his confirmation hearing.
I read to you the interrogation that was given to him by the junior
Senator
[[Page S2505]]
from Texas. When asked if he would condemn an event by the Center for
Security and Race at Rutgers Law, which had an event with a panelist
who had been convicted once before of terrorism--an attempt to make an
association, a trial of his character based on no association--Mr.
Mangi responded: I never heard of this event prior to today. It was
never brought to the advisory board, which met once a year to discuss.
You see, he was on the advisory board of this organization at Rutgers
Law that met once a year to evaluate scholarly writings to be included
in an academic journal.
And so Senator Cruz read a 2021 letter from the Center for Security,
Race and Rights at Rutgers Law School related to the Israel-Gaza
conflict. Mr. Mangi, again, explained that he had never seen the letter
before. He was continuing to press that the letter--and repeatedly
interrupted as Mr. Mangi tried to answer again and again.
Mr. Mangi: ``Senator, I said this earlier, but let me repeat it
because I think it is critical.''
He is interrupted by Senator Cruz and asked a question that had never
been asked before to any nominee--ever--before the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Cruz: ``Do you condemn the atrocities of Hamas terrorists?''
Mr. Mangi immediately, ``Yes. That was what I wanted to address.''
Mr. Cruz: ``Is there any indication of those atrocities?''
Again, a question never asked before.
``Senator, I will repeat myself,'' Mr. Mangi says.
Interrupting him, ``I am going to ask you again, is there any
justification for those [horrors]?''
Mr. Mangi: ``This was going to be my next sentence, Senator, which is
I have no patience, none, for any attempts to justify or defend those
events. Senator, I don't think anyone feels more strongly than me.''
And the Senator asked him whether he supported the 9/11 attacks--a
question posed to no other American before our committee--the attacks
of 2001.
Mr. Mangi: ``Senator, I don't think anyone feels more strongly about
what happened on 9/11 than someone who was there, who saw with my own
eyes the smoke billowing from the towers.''
What American is asked such questions? What American has to defend
their condemnation for the 9/11 attacks? What American has to declare
that they don't support terrorism? What American? Adeel Mangi, who
happens to be a Muslim American.
This is disgusting. This reeks of sort of old-style attacks to appeal
to fear in order to smear someone's character based upon who they are,
based upon their faith.
And an accusation by our Republican leader that Mr. Mangi somehow
mingles with supporters of terrorists and cop killers, while the Anti-
Defamation League--the preeminent American organization that fights
against anti-Semitism, the preeminent organization that investigates
anti-Semitism, the preeminent organization that time and time again
condemns anti-Semitism--sprang to Mr. Mangi's defense.
I quote from their letter:
Mr. Mangi was subjected to aggressive questioning unrelated
to his professional expertise or qualifications. Rather, he
was forced to provide responses to a wide range of inquiries
regarding his views on global strategic considerations in a
manner that inappropriately politicized these issues and
raised serious questions regarding pretext and bias.
Just as associating Jewish Americans with certain views or
beliefs regarding Israeli government actions would be deemed
antisemitic, berating the first American Muslim federal
appellate judicial nominee with endless questions that appear
to have been motivated by bias towards his religion is
profoundly wrong.
The ADL then called on Senators to offer Mr. Mangi a fair vote, based
on his qualifications, his fitness for the job, his legal acumen, his
sense of fairness.
But the ADL wasn't alone in responding to these attacks on his
character. As the Republican leader said, ``mingling with supporters of
terrorists and cop killers,'' ``anti-Semitic affiliations,'' Jewish
groups jumped to his defense. The American Jewish Committee, the
National Council for Jewish Women, a coalition of 15 Jewish
organizations, representing more than a million Jewish Americans, have
also voiced their condemnation of this line of attack and their support
for Mr. Mangi.
In Mr. Mangi's hearings, my colleagues asked the unbelievable that
any American would be insulted to be asked: Was there any justification
for 9/11?
Was there any justification for 9/11?
Never before asked to any other appellate nominee, but a Muslim
American has to endure such questioning. This is unique and insidious
to be directed to the first Muslim ever nominated by a President.
And yet, even so, Mr. Mangi sat there in that hearing with grace and
dignity and unequivocally affirmed his patriotism, unequivocally
affirmed his condemnation of terrorism. With dignity and grace and a
calm voice, he rejected anti-Semitism outright. He said there is no
justification for terrorist attacks like 9/11; there is no
justification for the horrors of October 7; and he reaffirmed his
belief in the right for Israel to exist. This is all on the record.
Mr. Mangi has faced accusations that tried to smear his character, to
whip up fear against him, to turn him into something he is not. But
this isn't the only angle of unfounded attack. Mr. Mangi is said to
be--and I quote again--``he is said to be mingling with cop killers.''
``Mingling with cop killers''--the absurdity of that statement, the
falsity of it is extraordinary. It is extraordinary in the face of all
the law enforcement groups in my State that support him. It is
extraordinary in the face of all the legal leaders and the law
enforcement leaders in my State who support him.
And where does this accusation even come from? What could possibly
fuel such an accusation? It is because he served on an advisory board
for a nonprofit called the Alliance of Families For Justice. What does
this organization do? It supports formerly incarcerated individuals and
their families through reentry services, legal support, and political
advocacy. That is the organization.
And how did he get affiliated with this organization? Well, as a pro
bono case, he chose to represent the family of an inmate in New York
State prison, a man who had disabilities, mental disabilities, who was
murdered by correctional officers. And as is a tradition in our legal
system, he provided that family not with criminal support but in a
civil case. And he won that civil case. Not only did he win that civil
case showing it was a wrongful death, but he won the biggest settlement
for the family.
Pastor Julia Ramsay-Nobles sent a letter to the Senate about this
case. It captures the truth about Mr. Mangi's work with the Alliance
For Families of Justice. It says:
Dear Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Graham:
My name is Julia Ramsay-Nobles. I am a Pastor who lives in
upstate New York. I recently learned that my attorney, Adeel
A. Mangi, has been nominated to serve as a Circuit Judge for
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. I
was so happy and proud to hear the news. I wanted to send you
a letter to help you know Adeel as I know him.
In April of 2015, I received the worst possible news: my
brother, Karl Taylor, who was incarcerated in an upstate New
York prison, had died. Karl suffered from serious mental
health challenges. The prison officials told me that he was
``code blue,'' but did not explain what that meant. I could
not get any answers. I felt so powerless and helpless.
Several months later, a community group introduced me to
Adeel and his team of lawyers . . . While I was hopeful--I
never give up hope--I also felt skeptical. Why would these
people care about what happened to my brother? Would they
care about me?
Over the following five years, I came to know Adeel as a
man of integrity and an extraordinary lawyer. He and his team
spent five years investigating my brother's death and holding
the powerful to account. They delivered the answers that I
was seeking, horrific as they were. While we are from very
different backgrounds, we formed a close bond that I cherish
to this day.
A Christian pastor, a Muslim lawyer, working together for American
justice. And that affiliation with this organization focused on helping
families of incarcerated people, an advisory board that he sat on that
never had a meeting, where he just agreed to accept cases, that is the
affiliation which has earned him to be called by one of the most
powerful people in our country ``someone who mingles with supporters of
cop killers.''
That is a lie. It is a lie. It is smearing the character of an
American who
[[Page S2506]]
stood up for the powerless. It is a lie, an attack on a man because of
who he is.
Never before has a judicial nominee before the Judiciary Committee
been asked to renounce terror, never before has a nominee before the
Judiciary Committee been accused of such baseless attacks.
This is the world's most deliberative body, but we have not brought
the world's most deliberative body to the point where we are not
evaluating the character or the fitness of a supremely well-qualified
nominee to serve in our judiciary. But what has this room become now? A
place where ad hominem, salacious attacks that have no basis in fact,
in fact, twist the truth, which is: This is a man who stands up for our
shared values and our shared ideals, who stands for the honor of our
flag and country. It is character assassination. It is guilt by
association. It is a cancer on our society.
We deserve better. Mr. Mangi deserves better. This is a man whose
parents left their home country, yearning for a better future. They
worked hard to put him through the best schools they could. They came
to the United States because they believed in this Nation; they
believed in our ideals. They had hope for the future that America would
bring. They are proud Americans.
He studied at Harvard Law School to pursue a legal career to uphold
the ideals of justice that we swear to, the ideals of liberty and
justice for all. He reached the heights of his profession. And because
at the heights of his profession, he made a decision to serve his
country, he is before us as a nominee by the President of the United
States, the first Muslim-American nominee to the Federal Appeals Court.
This should be a great American story. It should be something we
celebrate. And yet he is attacked not because of what he has written,
not because of what he has said, not because of cases he has taken, not
because of an interview, not because of a college law school or grad
school paper. He is being attacked by made-up charges that have been
debunked time and time again by the facts.
And how would any of us feel if we were applying for a position to
serve our country--be it on the bench, be it in the military, be it in
administration--and be subjected to this type of attack and accusation?
Think about what they are going through now as a family. When you
Google ``Adeel Mangi,'' when his children do or his grandchildren do,
do you know what comes up? The Washington Times article which published
an image that superimposed the green Hamas flag onto his face. When his
children or grandchildren Google him, what will come up? The Judicial
Crisis Network, a rightwing front group dedicated to attacking
President Biden's judicial nominees. They have spent tens of thousands
of dollars running an ad calling him ``Anti-Semite Adeel,'' complete
with video of planes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11.
It pains me to repeat those words into this historical record, but
there is no other way to express how debasingly low groups have gone to
attack him. It is grotesque.
When Muslim Americans or any American that has their faith that might
be different looks to the highest deliberative body in the land and
what did they do when the first Muslim tried to reach for the appeals
court to serve as a judge? What happened to him? This is the story that
will be told. This is toxic. This is dangerous. This is cancerous.
The attacks recall some of the darkest chapters of our history. It
speaks back to the time when loyal Americans were sent to internment
camps, not because of their beliefs, loyal Americans were sent to
internment camps not because of things they said or they wrote; loyal
Americans were sent to internment camps just because they were
Japanese. It goes back to the dark chapters of our country, the Red
Scare that led to the blacklisting, the persecution, the loss of jobs,
the loss of reputation because of the Red Scare that was spread.
There was a courageous Republican who stood on this floor during that
time of the Red Scare, a courageous Republican. I want to read Margaret
Chase Smith's words, perhaps to wake up the echoes of this body of how
horrible and dark this moment is to maybe cast some light.
Margaret Chase Smith, in the time of the Red Scare, spoke from this
floor:
I think that it is high time that we remembered that we
have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think it
is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as
amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of
trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.
Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a
character prosecution [here] in the Senate, there is little
practical distinction when the life of a person has been
ruined.
Margaret Chase Smith continues:
Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in
making character assassinations are all too frequently those
who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic
principles of Americanism.
The exercise of [our] rights should not cost one single
American . . . his reputation or his right to a livelihood
nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or
livelihood merely because [of what happens to be his beliefs
or, I add, his faith.]
As a warning to a Republican leader that accuses a good American of
mingling with supporters of terrorists and cop killers, of saying that
he has anti-Semitic affiliations, I read these final words of Margaret
Chase Smith:
I do not want to see the Republican party ride to political
victory on the Four Horseman of Calumny--Fear, Ignorance,
Bigotry, and Smear.
I doubt if the Republican party could, simply because I don't believe
the American people will uphold any political party that puts political
exploitation above national interest.
Adeel Mangi is a great American. Adeel Mangi has served his nation.
Adeel Mangi has risen to the top of his profession. Adeel Mangi has
dared to represent the poor against the powerful. Adeel Mangi has
become the first in our country's history to be nominated by a
President of the United States to the highest court--to the highest
appeals court.
What has he been greeted with? A fair evaluation of his character? A
fair evaluation of his body of work? A fair evaluation of his writings?
A fair evaluation of his speeches? A fair evaluation of his
temperament? No. He has been accused of mingling with terrorists and
cop killers. He has been accused of being anti-Semitic. Why? Is it
because he is Muslim?
I heard a speech against him reading all the groups that stand
against him. I read some of the supporters: the AFL-CIO; the SEIU; the
Association of the Federal Bar of New Jersey; the Asian Pacific
American Lawyers of New Jersey; the Capital Area Muslim Bar
Association; Muslim American Judicial Advisory Council; Muslim Bar
Association of New York; New Jersey Muslim Lawyer's Association;
National LGBTQ+ Bar Association; New Jersey State Bar Association;
South Asian Bar Association of New Jersey; South Asian Bar Association
of North America; former attorneys general, Republican and Democrat,
and U.S. attorneys, Republican and Democrat, of New Jersey; a group of
New Jersey sheriffs; Hispanic American Law Enforcement Association; New
Jersey Asian American Law Enforcement Officers Association; LGBTQ Law
Enforcement Liaison of New Jersey; Muslim American Law Enforcement
Association; the National Black State Troopers Coalition; NOBLE of New
Jersey; NOBLE, Region 1; the National Organization of Black Women in
Law Enforcement; the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and
Jurists; the American Jewish Committee; the Anti-Defamation League; the
Alliance for Jewish Renewal; Bend the Arc; Jewish Action; Carolina Jews
for Justice; Jewish Community Action; Jewish Democratic Council of
America; Jewish Women International; National Council of Jewish Women;
New York Jewish Agenda; Society for Humanistic Judaism; T'ruah: The
Rabbinic Call for Human Rights; the Shalom Center; the Workers Circle;
Zioness; Alliance for Justice; the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights; the National Women's Law Center; the NAACP Legal Defense
Fund; the NAACP of Hunterdon County; People for the American Way;
American Indivisible; Muslim Advocates; Muslims for Progressive Values;
the Republican-appointed Honorable Timothy K. Lewis, former judge, U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; members of New Jersey's
local leadership; former colleagues from a joint defense group;
[[Page S2507]]
Partners of Jewish Faith; the letter I read from Pastor Julia Ramsay-
Nobles; and the list goes on.
Mr. President, I beg your indulgence because this is one of the
sadder days I have had in the U.S. Senate. I believe in this place. I
believe in these values. But I see this moment that we are about to
take a step to break a barrier in this country. Even the State of
Israel has had Muslims on their supreme court. But as soon as we try to
elevate a Muslim man to our court of appeals, he gets attacked by the
words of the Republican leader for ``mingling with terrorists and cop
killers,'' for being an anti-Semite, denounced by Jewish groups, but
yet those charges will forever be a part of this Record, that this
deliberative body made those allegations against this man.
Yes, I am sad, and yes, this is personal because my parents told me
as a little boy, when I was the first one just to go to grade school,
my brother and I, the first Black children to cross the threshold and
go to a school--my parents told me: Stand proudly, and pledge
allegiance to that flag because this country stands for you even though
your skin color is different. This country's values are your values
even though you go to a different church in town; that, yes, you may
face discrimination by people who are cultivating in their baseness of
values, but don't stop believing in love and community and peace and
justice. That will light your way--good people from all backgrounds.
You may be the only Black boy in your class, but it is an American
classroom, and this country stands for justice and liberty and peace.
Those values and that faith and that hope have driven me every single
day to try to make this Nation better and more real. And then 10 years
into my Senate career, I sit proudly as our President does something
never done before--to nominate a Muslim for the court of appeals. And I
see what happens to him. I see him slandered and maligned, dragged
through the mud and accused of the most heinous things, having to
defend his beliefs, having to say over and over again that he condemns
9/11.
So I want to take this moment to say this is a great American. No
matter what happens to his nomination, this is a great American who
should be proud of his work. We should celebrate him whether we vote
for him or not. We should cherish a moment like this that makes
history.
For all of those children in our country who have parents like mine
who say ``You may be different. You may look different. You may pray
different. Your family may come from a different corner of the globe.
But this is still the country for you,'' I tell those children ``Don't
give up even though this ugly example hangs in the air. Don't give up
even though this man has been trashed and smeared and maligned. Don't
give up on this country.'' Do you know why? Because Adeel Mangi has not
given up.
You can write him down in history with your bitter, twisted lies, but
no matter what you do to guys like him or me or everyone who loves this
country, we will rise. Nothing you can do will ever, ever impinge the
character of this great American. Nothing you can do will ever dim his
love for this Nation.
This is a sad time in the U.S. Senate. More people should be on this
floor condemning what is happening to this man.
But, today, I say ``God bless America'' because our truth, no matter
what others do to it, I promise you, will go marching on.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is Mr. Matt Turner, one of
my colleagues in my Senate office.
Mr. President, I want to talk about one of President Biden's nominees
to be on the Federal Bench, but first I want to digress for a moment.
I love animals, and I especially love dogs. If only people had the
hearts of dogs, the world would be better off.
The Presiding Officer and I, of course, are in the same profession--
politics. Politics takes a big heart and a lot of wind and a thick
skin. I try not to worry too much about what anybody thinks of me--
except dogs. I really like dogs.
I used to have a beagle. His name was Roger. I loved Roger to death.
We lost him a few years ago to cancer.
Roger was a stray. Actually, Roger was raised to hunt rabbits. If you
know anything about beagles, when a beagle gets on a scent, the beagle
is oblivious to everything else. They just follow that scent. Roger got
on the scent and got lost and showed up at my house, so Becky and I
took Roger in.
Roger was a rascal. He was a rascal. He loved us, but he couldn't
help himself. Whenever there was a small crack in the door, Roger was
gone. He was out and gone, and he stayed gone 2 or 3 days. I would
worry incessantly. Oh, is he hurt? Will he come back? I love Roger.
He would always come back. But about half of the time when Roger
would come back, he would come back dragging roadkill. I wouldn't let
him inside with his roadkill, so he would go in the backyard, and he
would hide his roadkill--he didn't think I was watching--Roger would
hide his roadkill under the back porch.
I miss Roger.
Sometimes--not always but sometimes--the nomination process that the
White House uses to select Federal judges--the nomination process is
what I am talking about--looks to me like something Roger was hiding
under my back porch. I just don't understand it. I don't understand the
criteria or the process the Biden White House uses to put people on our
Federal bench.
Now, I am not suggesting that President Biden hasn't made some good
nominations because he has, and I voted for his nominations who I
thought were qualified. But I think it is also--any fairminded person
would have to conclude that over the past several years, President
Biden has nominated some people to the Federal bench who, quite
frankly, are not qualified to judge a pie contest. That is just a fact.
That is my opinion, but if you go look at the testimony of all of those
nominees, I think you will see I am right.
With respect, the President's pick of Mr. Adeel Mangi is, frankly,
one of his worst.
Mr. Mangi is affiliated with an organization that calls itself the
Alliance of Families for Justice--the Alliance of Families for Justice.
In fact, Mr. Mangi is not just affiliated with this group; he is on its
advisory board.
One of the Alliance's founders was a member of a domestic terrorist
organization. What does that mean? One of the Alliance's founders was
convicted of murdering police officers in cold blood. He killed cops.
Now, the Alliance of Families for Justice on whose board Mr. Mangi
sits--or at least sat--advocates for the release of people who kill
cops. Let me say that again. I didn't know such organizations existed.
The organization on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi sits or sat
advocates for the release of people who kill cops.
This organization has even called people who kill police officers
freedom fighters. Freedom fighters. Why? I know that sounds crazy. That
is because it is. It is also why so many law enforcement organizations
have sent all of us on the Judiciary Committee letters opposing Mr.
Mangi's nomination. I have never gotten so many letters or phone calls
from law enforcement supporting or opposing--in this case, opposing--a
nomination.
For example--I am not going to read all of them. I would be here the
rest of the evening. For example, take the National Sheriffs'
Association. I think most of us have heard of them. The National
Sheriffs' Association wrote to all members of the Judiciary Committee,
and here is what they said. I am quoting now. These are not my words
but the sheriffs' words. ``Mr. Mangi's association . . . with an
organization advocating the release of convicted cop-killers is
seriously disturbing.'' That is coming from the sheriffs.
According to the National Sheriffs' Association, the Alliance's
position--on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi sat or sits--according to
the sheriffs, the Alliance's position ``is not only tone-deaf to the
sacrifices made by law enforcement [officials], but also disrespectful
to the victims of heinous crimes, as well as the family and friends of
officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.''
We also heard from the National Association of Police Organizations.
I think most people have heard of them.
[[Page S2508]]
They said this about Mr. Mangi's nomination: Mr. Mangi's ``conscious
work with the Alliance shows an anti-victim and anti-police bias that
would certainly cloud his decisionmaking as a judge.'' That came from
the police. Those aren't my words; those are law enforcement's words.
By itself, Mr. Mangi's work for and with this organization that I
refer to as ``the Alliance'' should be disqualifying, but there is
more. There is a lot more.
From 2019 to 2023--4 years--Mr. Mangi also served on the advisory
board of another group, and this group calls itself the Center for
Security, Race and Rights--the Center for Security, Race and Rights.
This organization is steeped in hatred and anti-Semitism. I don't know
any other way to put it. I think any reasonable person who looked at
the center's work would agree with me, at least as to my description.
Now, every single American I know--and I will bet this is true for
the Presiding Officer too--every single American I know remembers where
they were on September 11, 2001. We call it 9/11. We don't even have to
explain ourselves anymore; we just say ``9/11,'' and every American
knows what you are talking about.
On the 20th anniversary of 9/11, Mr. Mangi's Center for Security,
Race and Rights, on whose advisory board Mr. Mangi either sits or sat,
sponsored an event. Here is the title of their event: ``Whose
narrative? 20 years since September 11, 2001.'' The purpose of this
event was to blame America and blame Americans for 9/11. That is why
they held the event. This event and the speakers there blamed ``U.S.
imperialism''--not the terrorists; ``U.S. imperialism''--for the 9/11
attacks that killed thousands of innocent American citizens.
The event featured some of the most despicable speakers that even the
most fertile imagination would be challenged to come up with. One of
those speakers was Mr. Sami Al-Arian. Mr. Al-Arian was convicted of
providing support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Another speaker,
Mr. Rabab Abulhadi, has ties to terrorist hijackers. A third speaker,
Mr. Hatem Bazian, publicly called for an intifada in the United States.
Hard men. Rough words. American imperialism.
Mr. Mangi claims that he didn't know about this event--that is what
he told the Senate committee--but his center has a long, long history
of sponsoring vile, hate-filled events, and that is just a fact. That
is not rhetoric; that is just a fact. Are we really expected to believe
that Mr. Mangi had no idea what the center was up to? He sat on its
advisory board, for God's sake.
Now let's talk about the director of this center on whose advisory
board Mr. Mangi sat. The director also has a vile history of bad
behavior. In 2021, the director of this organization on whose board Mr.
Mangi sat signed a letter. That letter is posted on the Alliance's
website. So far as I know, you can go to it and read it right now.
In the letter, the director says that she is ``in awe''--``in awe''--
``of the Palestinian struggle to resist violent occupation, removal,
erasure, and the expansion of Israeli settler colonialism''--``Israeli
settler colonialism.''
Hamas murdered, raped, maimed Jewish men, Jewish women, little Jewish
children, and according to Mr. Mangi's organization's director, it is
Israel's fault.
The center's director describes himself as being in respectful awe. I
think the vast majority of Americans would describe themselves as being
nauseated.
The center's director, of whom I speak, also personally recruited Mr.
Mangi to serve on the center's advisory board.
Again, are we really expected to believe that Mr. Mangi didn't know
about the director's vile behavior? Did Mr. Mangi not even run a single
Google search on this person?
On top of all of that, I do not believe--this is one person's
opinion--I do not believe that Mr. Mangi told me the truth in our
Judiciary hearing. When I asked him about his involvement with this
radical organization, Mr. Mangi told me he only provided ``advice on
academic areas of research.'' That is what he told me. He said: My only
involvement is ``advice on academic areas of research.''
Those aren't my words; those are Mr. Mangi's words. But it turns out
he was also funneling money to the organization--tens of thousands of
dollars from himself and from his law firm. I didn't know that at the
time of the hearing. I wish that I had.
With these facts in mind--and I have tried just to stick to the
facts--I find it very hard to believe that anyone can in good faith--
no. Strike that.
I find it hard to believe that a fairminded, objective person who is
not involved in this nomination can defend Mr. Mangi's nomination. Some
of my Senate colleagues are doing that. That is OK. Sometimes people
disagree, and that is a good thing. I believe in having two sides,
opposing sides, come together in a dialectic. Sometimes that is how you
find the truth. But it has gotten kind of personal. I regret that.
Some people--not all people; the Presiding Officer doesn't do this--
some people, when they are losing an argument, tend to rely on
epithets, you know--``You are a racist'' or ``You are a sexist'' or
``You are a misogynist'' or ``You are a Nazi'' or ``You are a bigot''
or, as in this case, ``You are Islamophobic.'' Some of the Members of
this body have made that suggestion. They have suggested that all of
the people who are opposing Mr. Mangi's nomination based on the facts
that I have just tried to describe as fairly as I could--some Senators
have suggested that asking Mr. Mangi questions about his involvement
with these organizations is Islamophobic.
One of my colleagues--which, again, is his right--came down to the
Senate floor, and he said that certain Republican members of the
committee ``believed that he,'' referring to Mr. Mangi, ``must be a
terrorist because he is a Muslim.'' Wow. That got my attention. That is
not true.
I believe that Mr. Mangi is not qualified to be a Federal judge
because he supports organizations that celebrate people who kill law
enforcement officers; he supports organizations that hate Americans;
and he supports organizations that hate Jews.
When President Biden, as I said earlier, has nominated qualified
people to serve on the Federal bench, I have supported them regardless
of their race, regardless of their gender, regardless of their
religion.
I confess to asking tough questions in committee. That is my job.
When you are put on the Federal bench, you are there for life--for
life. You are unelected, and you are there for life, and you have the
full power of the United States of America, the most powerful country
in all of human history, behind you, so you had better get it right.
Just a few years ago, for example, I voted to confirm one of
President Biden's nominees, Mr.--now judge--Zahid Quraishi. Mr.
Quraishi happened to be at the time the first Muslim-American Federal
judge. I voted for him. He is doing a great job. Unlike Mr. Mangi,
Judge Quraishi was not on the board of an organization that celebrates
and advocates for the release of cop killers. He was not on the board
of an organization that sponsors anti-American events and blames 9/11
on American imperialism. Judge Quraishi was qualified and is qualified
to serve on the Federal bench. Mr. Mangi is not. He is just not. That
is not Islamophobia; that is just a fact. And I think anyone who is
being honest with themselves--particularly if you go look at the
confirmation hearings and read the evidence--I think any person who is
being honest with themselves would agree.
So, for these reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose Mr. Mangi's
nomination, and I urge President Biden to withdraw it.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.