Washington, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, yesterday delivered remarks on the Senate floor outlining his opposition to the confirmation of Debo Adegbile for U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.

“I hope we don’t move forward with this nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me and others in voicing opposition to this nomination moving ahead,” said Flake.

Text of Flake’s remarks can be viewed below:

***

I rise to discuss the nomination of Mr. Debo Adegbile to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

I attended Mr. Adegbile’s hearing in the Judiciary Committee and submitted additional written questions after the hearing.

Unfortunately, even after hearing his testimony and reviewing his responses to questions, I remain concerned with Mr. Adegbile’s ability to set aside more than a decade of advocacy on behalf of this and other liberal causes and serve as a neutral enforcer of our nation’s civil rights laws.

It appears I am not the only person who has reached this conclusion.

His nomination is opposed by numerous law enforcement officers, including those represented by: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Major County Sheriffs’ Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the New Jersey State Policeman’s Benevolent Association, and the National Narcotic Officers’ Association.

This widespread opposition is clearly not driven by partisanship, but by a heartfelt concern that this nominee is not suited for the position.

I have no doubt Mr. Adegbile is an intelligent and hardworking lawyer with a commendable record of advocacy, but that does not mean he should head the Civil Rights Division.

One of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is to handle citizens’ allegations of civil rights violations by law enforcement officers from across the country.

However, serious questions have been raised about Mr. Adegbile’s ability to apply the law fairly in these cases, given his advocacy on behalf of a convicted cop killer.

As the Fraternal Order of Police stated in its letter of opposition, in the decades Mr. Adegbile pushed this effort, he “falsely disparaged and savaged the good name and reputation of a lifeless police officer” in order to further his case.

The National Narcotic’s Association shares this analysis of Mr. Adegbile’s advocacy, noting that he “fabricated a baseless and unproven defense while also defaming the victim, Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, which raises serious questions about the nominee’s judgment, especially considering the important position to which he has been nominated.”

There was no doubt as to Mumia Abu-Jamal’s guilt. Afterward, he bragged about shooting Daniel Faulkner, and four witnesses saw the shooting.

After being convicted and sentenced, Mumia’s lawyers filed dozens of appeals on his behalf, which would suggest he had more than adequate legal representation.

However, almost 28 years after his conviction, Mr. Adegbile decided to volunteer his time to assist Mumia. In a series of appeals and press events, Mr. Adegbile’s organization called into question the motivations of the law enforcement officers responsible for Mumia’s conviction, and distorted the record, calling his conviction and sentence a “relic of a time and place that was notorious for police abuse and racial discrimination.”

As the Philadelphia’s district attorney’s opposition letter states, Mr. Adegbile’s work on this case “sends a message of contempt to police officers who risk their lives every day to maintain the peace.” The DA concluded that Mr. Adegbile “is ill-suited for a pivotal role in the Justice Department.”

The appalling facts of this case are well-known. In fact, in 2006, the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the history of this case and recognizing the culpability of Mumia by a vote of 368-31. There are others, like me, now serving in this chamber who voted in favor of that resolution.

It is deeply troubling that we are faced with voting on this nominee now, after Senate rules have been broken and the minority has no say in executive or judicial nominations.

Requiring the support of at least some minority senators discourages both the nomination and appointment of fringe or problematic nominees – something that benefits the country as a whole.

Those rules ensured that the Senate was the cooling saucer that George Washington and the other founders intended.

And they ensured that the heads of executive agencies were responsive to both the majority and minority parties.

I do not think we would be moving forward on such a divisive nominee – one who elicits widespread opposition from across the political spectrum – if the majority had not employed the nuclear option last November.

Mr. President, I hope we don’t move forward with this nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me and others in voicing opposition to this nomination moving ahead.

###