Staff Reports
The Biden administration is once again facing backlash, this time over a judicial nominee with questionable ties and incomplete financial disclosures. Adeel Mangi, the nominee for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, is in hot water for failing to disclose the sources of his substantial income. The conservative watchdog group, American Accountability Foundation (AAF), has called for Mangi to withdraw his nomination, citing his “disqualifying” lack of transparency. It’s clear as day that if you can’t even fill out a form properly, how can you be trusted to uphold justice on the bench?
Despite the White House’s unwavering support for Mangi, at least one Senate Democrat, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, has voiced her refusal to back him. It seems even members of the left are seeing the red flags waving around this nominee. AAF’s scathing letter to Mangi highlights the importance of disclosing income sources to identify any potential conflicts of interest. It’s crucial for a federal judge to be transparent and free from any financial entanglements that could compromise their impartiality.
🚨EXCLUSIVE🚨Watchdog Accuses Biden Judicial Nominee Of Trying To Cover Up Financial Conflicts, Demands He Withdraw from @katesrichardson https://t.co/M8A9PatGBr
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) March 21, 2024
Mangi’s financial disclosure paints a picture of significant earnings but conveniently leaves out the names of his clients, a crucial detail in understanding where his loyalties may lie. What is he trying to hide by keeping this information under wraps? The guidance for nominees is crystal clear — disclose your sources of compensation exceeding $5,000. It’s not rocket science, but Mangi’s omissions have raised serious concerns about his integrity and accountability.
Republicans have seized on Mangi’s association with the Rutgers Law School’s Center for Security, Race and Rights (CSRR), labeling it as promoting “antisemitic extremism.” In a time when political correctness seems to override common sense, it’s refreshing to see the GOP calling out such troubling affiliations. Mangi’s lack of awareness about controversial events he was involved in, such as the 9/11 challenge narrative event, raises doubts about his judgment and due diligence in vetting his commitments.
The opposition to Mangi from law enforcement organizations, including the Alliance of Families for Justice, adds another layer of concern. How can someone who aligns themselves with groups advocating for convicted cop killers be trusted to uphold the law? Cortez Masto’s reservations about Mangi’s affiliations speak volumes about the nominee’s character and values. The White House’s attempt to deflect criticism by attributing it to “hostility” towards Mangi’s Muslim faith is a cheap tactic that doesn’t address the valid concerns raised about his qualifications.
In the end, AAF’s call for Mangi to withdraw is a necessary step to uphold the integrity of the judiciary. Trust and transparency are non-negotiable when it comes to appointing federal judges, and Mangi’s failure to meet these basic standards should disqualify him from serving on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Let’s hope that this episode serves as a lesson for future nominees to prioritize honesty and accountability above all else.
