Nomination of Kristen M. Clarke
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on Kristen Clarke's nomination to head the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division--one of the most powerful positions at the Department of Justice. I will, of course, oppose her nomination.
We get a lot of partisan nominees around here. So that is not very surprising. But Ms. Clarke isn't just partisan. She is extremely partisan. She called Senator Murkowski ``shameful.'' She accused Senator Manchin of being disingenuous. And she casually slandered 200-- 200--sitting, Senate-confirmed judges as ``white male extremists.'' If confirmed for this position, she will be entrusted with representing the U.S. Government in front of those very judges--not exactly a credible advocate for our people, if you ask me.
Ms. Clarke's radicalism doesn't stop with ad hominem insults. It thoroughly infects her professional judgment as well. Ms. Clarke has consistently demonstrated that she is more interested in attacking police and calling everybody a racist than finding the facts or reviewing the evidence.
When it comes to racially incendiary cases, she proudly fans the flames of division. Last year, she repeatedly--repeatedly--spread the falsehood that Jacob Blake, who had a knife and was actively resisting arrest, was, in fact, ``unarmed'' when he was shot by the police. In part because of falsehoods like that one, riots engulfed the city of Kenosha, WI.
She also claimed that Officer Darren Wilson, who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, was only exonerated ``based on racism.'' When I asked Ms. Clarke if she had reconsidered that unsubstantiated opinion, she pretended not to know enough to answer the question, at first, which is remarkable given that the shooting in Ferguson is one of the most publicized and explosive cases in recent years; also remarkable because she apparently knew enough to tar a grand jury of normal American citizens as yes, once again, racist, but not enough to answer simple questions.
Ms. Clarke's opinion on the Ferguson case sets her apart from other staunch liberals like Vanita Gupta and Eric Holder. Both have acknowledged that Officer Wilson was justified in the use of force, echoing the Obama Department of Justice, which came to the very same conclusion. In defiance of all evidence, in spite of her good friend Ms. Gupta's views, Ms. Clarke still dissents from this conclusion. So I cannot believe it--I am genuinely astonished--but Joe Biden has somehow found a nominee more radical than Vanita Gupta. That is an impressive accomplishment, one that should give Senators who supported Ms. Gupta more than ample ground to oppose Ms. Clarke
Moreover, Ms. Clarke is a firm and, until very recently, a vocal supporter of defunding the police. Ms. Clarke wrote an article less than a year ago--not some college paper. Less than a year ago, Ms. Clarke wrote an article with ``Defund the Police'' in the title. She stated: ``Must invest less in police'' three times in the text of that article. She also wrote: ``I advocate for defunding policing operations.''
I don't know. Call me naive. Call me simple. When you write an article entitled ``Defund the Police'' and when you say, ``[W]e must invest less in the police'' and ``I advocate for defunding policing options,'' it sounds to me like you support defunding the police. But, apparently, I am wrong about that because when she was asked about this at her hearing, Ms. Clarke denied--amazingly, denied--that she supported defunding the police. She claimed that when she wrote that ``we should defund the police,'' she actually meant that we should not defund the police. Astoundingly, she blamed an editor for coming up with the title to her piece but conveniently can't recall what an alternative title she suggested would have been or whether she objected to a title that was apparently the exact opposite of what she intended.
Now, maybe this shouldn't be surprising. After all, her article title was ``I prosecuted police killings. Defund the Police--but be Strategic.'' Apparently, the strategy is lying, because that is what we saw at our committee.
We said: Ms. Clarke, the title of your article is ``Defund the Police.''
Like, I didn't choose the title.
Ms. Clarke, you wrote three times in the story ``defund the police.''
She is like: I don't support defunding the police.
But, Ms. Clarke, you wrote here, as well, that we should invest less in the police.
She is like: No, I don't think we should invest less; we should invest more.
The old argument: It is not my dog. It didn't bite you. You kicked him first.
Regardless of what she and her defenders might say, one thing is crystal clear: A vote for Kristen Clarke is a vote to defund the police.
Finally, not surprisingly, we come to Ms. Clarke's consistent dishonesty, duplicity, and evasion throughout her hearing and written statements. In one particularly bizarre incident, Ms. Clarke claimed in her hearing that she was proud to have the endorsement of the National Association of Police Organizations, a group which represents nearly a quarter million law enforcement officers.
Now that would be big news, a huge endorsement. So I asked my staff to get me a copy of the endorsement letter. It turns out they couldn't because it doesn't exist.
Now, that is not good, but people misspeak all the time, especially when under pressure. So I wanted to give Ms. Clarke a chance to correct the record. I asked for clarity in a written question. Thankfully, Ms. Clarke responded that she had misstated the facts.
OK. That is fine, I accept that explanation. Again, people misspeak. No one is perfect. Yet imagine my surprise when I received an answer to another written question that claimed almost verbatim the same thing she had said in her hearing--that she was endorsed by this organization.
She similarly responded to at least three other Senators that she was endorsed by this organization, even after admitting just a few pages earlier in her written answers that she had misstated that she had such an endorsement. At that point, that is not a simple mistake. It is not misspeaking. It is not a fib. It is totally and completely untrue in written testimony to the U.S. Congress. Yet she has not apologized. She has not acknowledged this blatant lie.
This episode sadly proves that she lacks the transparency and honesty to be trusted in such an important position.
You know, my Democratic colleagues have, for the last 4 years, endlessly lectured about the need for the Department of Justice to be free from partisan politics and for it to be run by serious, competent individuals. They seems to have a slightly different view today. From her extremism to her lack of candor, Ms. Clarke is unfit to lead any organization in the Department of Justice--indeed, simply to serve the Department of Justice. If the Democratic Senators vote to confirm Ms.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source