-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source