Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 22, 2022 - Bannon's War Room

48:56

Episode 1,725 - Child Porn And Judge Jackson; JD Vance On The Neo-Cons in Ohio Senate RaceEpisode 1,725 - Child Porn And Judge Jackson; JD Vance On The Neo-Cons in Ohio Senate Race

Participants

Main voices

jd vance

07:18

mike davis

08:17

steve bannon

13:37

Appearances

joe scarborough

01:23

josh hawley

04:13

terry schilling

03:08

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
josh hawley ▲ ● ▼		United States v. Hawkins.
		This was a child pornography case where the defendant distributed multiple images of child porn, possessed dozens more, including videos.
		The federal sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence of 97 to 121 months in prison.
		Prosecutors recommended 24 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson gave the defendant three months in prison.
		United States v. Chazen.
		In that case, the defendant possessed 48 files of child pornography, The federal guidelines recommended 78 to 97 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended the same.
		Judge Jackson sentenced him to 28 months.
		United States versus Cooper.
		There the defendant possessed dozens of images of child pornography and distributed, I should say distributed dozens of images of child pornography, possessed over 600.
		The federal guidelines recommended 151 to 188 months in prison.
		That's a long time.
		The prosecutor recommended 72 months.
		Judge Jackson gave the defendant 60 months, which was the lowest sentence permitted by the law.
		United States v. Down, that's a case where the defendant distributed 33 graphic images and videos of child sexual assault to an anonymous messaging app, unfortunately a practice that's becoming more common.
		The federal guidelines recommended 70 to 87 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended 70 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson sentenced him to only 60 months.
		Again, that's the lowest level that was permitted by law in that case.
		United States v. Stewart, the defendant there distributed scores of images of children suffering sexual abuse.
		The guidelines recommended 97 to 121 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended 97 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson gave him 57 months.
		In United States v. Sears, the defendant distributed over 100 videos of child pornography.
		The guidelines recommended 97 to 121 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended 97 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson gave him 71 months.
joe scarborough ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Jonathan, the Republicans, a lot of them didn't want to talk about her, didn't want to talk about the history.
		They have this fixation on Kavanaugh.
		Now, let me say, I mean, Meek and I criticized what Democrats did to Kavanaugh at the end.
		Like, you know, suddenly there was Michael Avenatti and they were going, oh, they're raping her.
		A lot of craziness went on there.
		But yesterday they seemed transfixed talking about Kavanaugh.
		It's almost like they didn't want to talk about the history that was happening right in front of them.
unidentified		Well, there's a bit of context to this.
		Let me give you a sense of how McConnell thinks about this particular confirmation.
		In McConnell's mind, this is actually quite a low-stakes confirmation fight.
		And, you know, she is not going to fundamentally change the balance of the court.
		They're still going to have conservative control.
		So in McConnell's mind, this is really an opportunity, and this is why you're hearing this messaging from them, to say, You know, we're going to treat her respectfully.
		It's not going to be the quote-unquote circus like Kavanaugh.
		And they're going to put a few hits in like the crime thing for the midterms.
		But really, they know the Democrats have got the votes.
joe scarborough ▲ ● ▼		But you know, even on the crime thing, Andy McCarthy, Andrew McCarthy, NRO saying, it's just pure demagoguery.
		Any prosecutor looking at that knows it's what Josh Hawley does.
		He just lies.
		He engages in demagoguery while we're having hearings about the Capitol being ransacked.
		He's sitting up there, you know, crossing his legs in the balcony, pretending like he's not paying attention.
		He's a grandstander.
		He's not a serious guy.
		Do you think other people are going to be doing this?
unidentified		Well, the Annie McCarthy piece was specific.
		Very narrow, actually, what he wrote.
		It was about the child pornography stuff.
		And Annie McCarthy has a long history in prosecuting child sex offences.
		So I think that that narrow attack United States vs. Hawkins.
		maybe a couple of others, but you've already seen McConnell himself suggest that her background as a criminal defense lawyer suggests an empathy with criminals. So I do think you're gonna see other Republicans go along that broad line of attack. I don't think it'll just be Josh Hawley.
josh hawley ▲ ● ▼		United States vs. Hawkins. This was a child pornography case where the defendant distributed multiple images of child porn, possessed dozens more, including videos. The federal sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence of 97 to 121 months in prison.
		Prosecutors recommended 24 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson gave the defendant three months in prison.
		United States v. Chazen.
		In that case, the defendant possessed 48 files of child pornography.
		The federal guidelines recommended 78 to 97 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended the same.
		Judge Jackson sentenced him to 28 months.
		United States versus Cooper.
		There the defendant possessed dozens of images of child pornography and distributed, I should say distributed dozens of images of child pornography, possessed over 600.
		The federal guidelines recommended 151 to 188 months in prison.
		That's a long time.
		The prosecutor recommended 72 months.
		Judge Jackson gave the defendant 60 months, which was the lowest sentence permitted by the law.
		United States vs. Down, that's a case where the defendant distributed 33 graphic images and videos of child sexual assault to an anonymous messaging app, unfortunately a practice that's becoming more common.
		The federal guidelines recommended 70 to 87 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended 70 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson sentenced him to only 60 months.
		Again, that's the lowest level that was permitted by law in that case.
		United States vs. Stewart, The defendant there distributed scores of images of children suffering sexual abuse.
		The guidelines recommended 97 to 121 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended 97 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson gave him 57 months.
		In United States v. Sears, the defendant distributed over 100 videos of child pornography.
		The guidelines recommended 97 to 121 months in prison.
		The prosecutor recommended 97 months in prison.
		Judge Jackson gave him 71 months.
joe scarborough ▲ ● ▼		Well, I was going to say, it struck me as a bit ironic that we got lectures from some Republicans saying they weren't going to take this into the gutter, and then Republicans took this into the gutter, saying that the judge was soft on crime and that she somehow was a friend of sexual predators and had her own hidden agendas.
unidentified		I thought that was pretty sad and pathetic.
		Let me address another issue that came up yesterday in the opening phase of this nomination hearing.
		And it's the issue involving child pornography.
		I want to turn to that issue because it was raised multiple times, primarily by the Senator from Missouri.
		And he was questioning your sentencing record in child pornography cases.
		that do not involve the production of pornographic material.
		They're known as non-production cases.
		I wanted to put some context here. The senator from Missouri has in his tweets said of your position on this issue, Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's bring in Mike Davis and we've got Terry Schilling and we'll get back to this.
		And we've also got the live hearing.
		I think we're gonna put it in the box, Real America's Voice, and we will cut in if Hawley or any of the people there are going to answer real questions today.
		Mike Davis, clearly you've struck a chord, brother, because they don't bring Jonathan Swan.
		He's, outside of Mike Allen, one of the heaviest guys at Axios.
		Which is the conventional wisdom tip sheet here in Washington, D.C.
		They bring him into Morning Joe only on the biggest things.
		They had to get that out this morning.
		So Morning Joe could wave around the Andy McCarthy report and saying, Josh Hawley just lies.
		He's a grandstander.
		And that the Republicans are going right into the gutter without bringing up any facts related to this.
		So, Davis, you've done your job.
		You put it out there.
		And now they start off with Dick Durbin.
		That was a long soliloquy in defense of Judge Jackson without getting to the facts.
		Mike Davis, where do we stand on this?
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		I would say this, if Josh Hawley is somehow a grandstander for very carefully, very calmly walking through seven of seven cases where Judge Jackson imposed lenient sentences on people who take pleasure in watching children getting raped, because that's what child pornography is, because they cannot consent, it's child rape,
		What does that make the people who are trying to hide her record?
		Does that make them groomers?
		If he's a grandstander, it's pretty sickening that you can't even talk about a Supreme Court nominee's decisions as a federal district court judge without being accused of being a grandstander and going into the gutter.
		This is a cover-up.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Have they released?
		The one thing you've requested is just put forward all the documents, including 48,000 pages of the U.S.
		Sentencing Commission.
		Has anyone complied with that?
		Or have the Republicans taken that up as like a cause celeb to make sure that that has to be out as far as due diligence goes?
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		So I served as the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
		I was the staff leader for Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation and many other judges during the Trump presidency.
		It is routine that when you have Supreme Court nominees, you release Their records from their prior government service in the executive branch, right?
		And she served on the United States Sentencing Commission as the vice chair from 2010 to 2014.
		And the Senate Republicans put in a routine and narrow request For her records from 2010 to 2013, not when she was a judge on 2014.
		They excluded that in the request and they just wanted her internal documents, her emails, her memos, her deliberations, which is very routine and it's narrow.
		The Senate Democrats, Dick Durbin, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has refused to turn over these documents.
		We now know there are 48,000 pages of these documents and we now know based upon Josh Hawley's expose on Twitter of the Senate Judiciary Republicans research, along with the Article 3 Projects research, that the reason they're hiding these documents is because Judge Jackson took it on herself to have this pet project. And this pet project on the Sentencing Commission, when she was the vice chair, was to look for ways to impose more lenient sentences
		on people who possess and distribute child pornography.
		There is a five-year mandatory minimum sentence imposed by Congress.
		Congress did this because too many prosecutors and too many judges went soft on child pornography.
		And I think it's important to remember what child pornography is.
		It has exploded over the last decade because The internet is so widely available, high-speed internet, and our smartphones with our cameras.
		Child pornography is exploding all over the world, especially in the third world, Southeast Asia.
		And the reason it is exploding is because we have creeps in America who sit around and watch this stuff.
		And the reason they're watching this stuff is because there's not a deterrent.
		We need a greater deterrent, not less of a deterrent.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		They use the term of art there, that these are non-production cases.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Explain to the audience what that means.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		That is their way of trying to downplay people who sit around.
		They think there is this great difference between people who are actually watching, people who are actually raping the kids, those are the producers, versus the creeps who are sitting around getting enjoyment from watching people rape the kids, those are the non-producers.
		They're all bad, and they all need to be in prison.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		I want to, and I understand we have a big audience of families and homeschoolers, and I want to make sure the parents understand that the reason we're doing this is that the Supreme Court, but the depravity here, when we say kids, this is just not young adults or even children.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		This is also includes babies, and we don't need to go into details, but it includes babies and infants.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, these are the sickest people on the planet.
		They're the most depraved people on the planet and they're a danger.
		And that was the point of what she did on the Sentencing Commission.
		She tried to make the case on her own on the Sentencing Commission.
		We have this documented back in 2012 that people who look at child pornography are not Pedophiles that they are essentially technologists who are just looking for a group association And so therefore I think her point was hey, look, they're not they're not pedophiles So therefore they're not a danger to the community for looking at this child pornography So therefore we shouldn't put them in prison for five years, right at least five years that was hang on Hang on back up back that up for a second.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		She said they weren't pedophiles What is there is there in your report a page we actually cite where she said?
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, they're Yeah, it's in the transcript of the report that I put out, and I can get it to you.
		It was a 2012 hearing where she was going back and forth with these expert witnesses that the Sentencing Commission called in to look at the mandatory minimums, the sentencing guidelines for people who possess and distribute child pornography.
		And she raised it as a question whether people who looked at child pornography are actually pedophiles or if they are just interested in the technology And the association around the technology and all the all the X push back and said no no no no they are pedophiles But she made that a key finding in her report Mike they're not hang over a second For the audience, we've got a lot to do today, we've got a lot scheduled, but this is breaking news.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		We've got Terry Schilling, we've got Mike Davis, we're also going to go more, we pulled some clips from the hearing, we're going to get to the next.
		We've got J.D.
		Vance, Mike Lindell, Tina Peters, a jam-packed, Ben Harnwell's at the Italian Parliament, We're going to go to Ben Harnwell.
		Audience, strap in.
		It's going to be a wild one.
		You're in the war room.
unidentified		back in a moment.
		And it's the issue involving child pornography.
		I want to turn to that issue because it was raised multiple times, primarily by the Senator from Missouri.
		And he was questioning your sentencing record in child pornography cases.
		Uh, that do not involve the production of pornographic material.
		They're known as non-production cases.
		I wanted to put some context here.
		The Senator from Missouri has, in his tweets, said of your position on this issue, Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and a policymaker.
		She's been advocating it since law school.
		This goes beyond soft on crime, the Senator said.
		I'm concerned this is a record that endangers our children.
		I thought about his charges as I watched you and your family listening carefully yesterday and what impact it might have had on you personally to know that your daughters, husband, parents, family and friends were hearing the charges that your implementation of this law, sentencing, endangered children.
		Could you tell us what was going through your mind at that point?
		Thank you, Senator.
		As a mother and a judge who has had to deal with these cases, I was thinking that nothing could be further from the truth.
		These are some of the most difficult cases that a judge has to deal with because we're talking about pictures of Sex abuse of children.
		We're talking about graphic descriptions that judges have to read and consider when they decide how to sentence in these cases.
		And there's a statute that tells judges what they're supposed to do.
		Congress has decided what it is that a judge has to do in this and any other case when they sentence.
		And that statute That statute doesn't say look only at the guidelines and stop.
		The statute doesn't say impose the highest possible penalty for this sickening and egregious crime.
		The statute says calculate the guidelines but also look at Various aspects of this offense and impose a sentence that is, quote, sufficient, but not greater than necessary to promote the purposes of punishment.
		When I am dealing with something like this, it is important to me to make sure that the children's perspective, the children's voices are represented in my sentences.
		And what that means is that for every defendant who comes before me and who suggests, as they often do, that they're just a looker, that these crimes don't really matter, they've collected these things on the internet and it's fine.
		I tell them about the victim statements that have come in to me as a judge.
		I tell them about the Adults who were former child sex abuse victims who tell me that they will never have a normal adult relationship because of this abuse.
		I tell them about the ones who say, I went into prostitution, I fell into drugs because I was trying to suppress the hurt that was done to me as an infant.
		And the one that was the most telling to me that I describe at almost every one of these sentencings when I look in the eyes of a defendant who is weeping because I'm giving him a significant sentence.
		What I say to him is, do you know that there is someone who has written to me and who has told me that she has developed agoraphobia?
		She cannot leave her house.
		Because she thinks that everyone she meets will have pictures on the internet.
		At the most vulnerable time of her life.
		And so she's paralyzed.
		I tell that story to every child porn defendant.
		As a part of my sentencing, so that they understand what they have done.
		I say to them that there's only a market for this kind of material because there are lookers.
		That you are contributing to child sex abuse.
		And then I impose a significant sentence and all of the Additional restraints that are available in the law.
		These people are looking at 20, 30, 40 years of supervision.
		They can't use their computers in a normal way for decades.
		I am imposing all of those constraints because I understand how significant, how damaging, how horrible this crime is.
		It is.
		It should be noticed as well that the cases which the senator from Missouri referred to yesterday all resulted in incarceration of some magnitude.
		In the one case, the Hilly case, I want to quote.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		OK, let's go ahead and let's go and kill that.
		I want to bring the two experts.
		That was I'm not a pro at this, but that's a non answer.
		That's just a gobbledygook.
		It's trying to tell, that's a misdirection, and when you do this for a living, that's a misdirection play.
		I'm sorry, Judge Jackson did not answer the question.
		I want to go to Mike Davis first.
		Am I wrong in that, Mike?
		You do this for a living.
		Was that an answer?
		Durbin is trying to run interference for her, and she spit the bit.
		That was not an answer, was it, sir?
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		No, she gave an emotional response, and she didn't respond to Josh Hawley's facts that he put out there.
		They found seven cases where Judge Jackson had discretion to impose a range of sentences while while in the district court related to child pornography cases.
		In all seven, 100%, seven of seven, she's sentenced below the guidelines from the Sentencing Commission.
		She's sentenced below what the prosecutor recommended.
		In one of these cases, Where the guy was facing up to 120 months in prison, she gave them just three.
		And this is part of her pattern, going back to law school and her Harvard Law School note, where she said that sex offender registries are essentially unconstitutionally punitive.
		And this is part of her pattern at the Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014, where she thought five-year mandatory minimum sentences for people who produce and distribute child pornography was too harsh.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		I want to bring in Terry Schilling.
		Terry, are we getting in the gutter?
		You know, mourning Mika, Joe Scarborough said, this is typical of these right-wing fanatics.
		They're getting in the gutter.
		And I have to ask the question, what was she saying about the guys can't use the computers?
		That's the punishment because they can't go into the computers?
		The judge completely lost me.
		Terry Schilling.
terry schilling ▲ ● ▼		Well, you know, Steve, this isn't getting into the gutter.
		This is getting into the policy.
		This is getting into the record, right?
		Like, we're not just slandering her.
		not making up allegations that are reckless that have no effect whatsoever on the rulings that she's going to be making in the future.
		We're looking at her public record and asking tough questions because this look, this is the highest court in the land.
		If she can't deal with questions regarding her very controversial record on child pornography cases, then she doesn't have any right ruling on any other cases that come before her at the Supreme Court level.
		This is the Supreme Court.
		This is bigger than the NBA, right?
		Like, way bigger than the NBA.
		This is the professionals and the highest league.
		So that's number one.
		But number two is, this is all gaslighting, right?
		She's talking about how she understands the gravity of the situation.
		If that's the case, then why is she going lighter on this?
		And Steve, what she's talking about when these guys going through monitoring is they have restrictions on their computers.
		There are other punishments besides just prison and incarceration, but Steve, it's not good enough, right?
		You can get other people's computers.
		There are ways around it.
		If we know anything about humanity, it's that we figure things out and we figure out how to commit complex crimes.
		These people deserve life in prison most of the time.
		They've ruined people's lives and it's all just gaslighting.
		I feel like it's just a total cover.
		It's gaslighting.
		Durbin's running cover.
		She's gaslighting, acting like she knows the severity of this when, in fact, she's been so lenient.
		Anyone that knows the severity of these cases is not going to be lenient at all.
		In fact, they're going to be harsher because they know that the law is probably too lenient as it is written.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, this is the lejour of it.
		I want to go to Mike Davis.
		I've asked you guys, we're going to bring in J.D.
		Vance about the debate last night.
		I would ask you two guys to hold on because we want to come back to you.
		But Mike, give people, we got about a minute, so give people inside baseball.
		Durbin was running interference for her.
		The way it's supposed to work, Durbin runs the interference, pitches, throws the ball to her, but she should, that's a coach pitch, she should go yard on it, right?
		She should specifically address what they need to address, so the media starts tweeting it out and it's, by the time Hawley gets there, this is a nothing burger.
		That did not happen.
		You agree?
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		No, they tried to preempt this and the problem is that she didn't respond to the facts.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		She made an emotional argument and it just opens this up even wider.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		What does our audience need to do now about contacting?
		We're going to put the number up about McConnell.
		You're still demanding, Mike, you think that for full due diligence the 48,000 pages that have not been released have to be released?
		Anything else besides that or is that what you're That is the key they need to grant.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Chairman Dick Durbin, who's running interference for Judge Jackson, needs to release these 48,000 pages of Judge Jackson's internal emails and deliberative documents from 2010 to 2013 when she served as vice chair of the Sentencing Commission.
		They know why they're not releasing these things because she championed leniency For people who possess and child pornography on the Sentencing Commission.
		She serves as the tip of the spear on this.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Okay, Mike Davis, Terry Schilling.
		We're going to try to get them to hang.
		They're going to go back to live coverage of that.
		We're going to take a short break.
		We're bringing J.D.
		Vance.
		Huge debate last night in Ohio in this intense Senate primary race.
unidentified		He'll join us next in The War Room.
		If the Europeans can create a no-fly zone, would you support that no-fly zone?
		If the Europeans do it?
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Okay, welcome back.
		We're in the War Room.
		By the way, MyPillow.com, promo code WARROOM.
		Mike Lindell's going to be here later.
		We've got a square insane sales on there.
		Go there today.
		MyPillow.com, promo code WARROOM.
		Action, action, action.
		Remember, if you're going to man the ramparts, you need a great night's sleep, not a good night's sleep.
		You get that with MyPillow.
		Okay, normally we start, we get the economics, the capital markets.
		We've got so much of that to do today, but there's other work before us this, unto this day, right?
		And that's this confirmation hearing that quite frankly has gone from pro forma to quite controversial.
		It's, I think the child pornography thing is one of the big items.
		They also got the Gitmo and the terrorists.
		They've got, you know, lack of support of, of tough penalties on law and order.
		They've also got the question Mitch McConnell asked about the court packing.
		We'll get to all that throughout the day.
		Mike Davis and Terry Schilling will join us back.
		But last night, a very intense, yet I would say professional, debate in Ohio with the Senate candidates, J.D.
		Vance.
		And J.D., I wanted to bring you on this morning because you came on The War Room and you took a lot of grief from the mainstream media, but you stood your ground when you came in and talked about Ukraine.
		It talked about the southern border and then last night two of your opponents who are and this is the MAGA, you know, Timken Gibbons, Josh Mandel, and you were all going for the MAGA vote, right?
		Dolan's kind of the never trumper going for the MAGA vote and They came out and quite frankly surprised because I know both guys and talked about a European no-fly zone They would support a European no-fly zone like that would get us anywhere out of a shooting war So what are your thoughts on this?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Well look, I think it's crazy, and I said so last night at the debate, a no-fly zone is a terrible idea.
		Let's just walk through the steps here, Steve.
		So if the Europeans implement a no-fly zone in Europe over Ukraine, And then a European jet gets shot down.
		What does that mean?
		Well, that means that NATO Article 5 is triggered, which forces the United States to come into the war on the Europeans behalf.
		It basically creates World War 3.
		And I know what these guys were doing, right?
		They were trying to not answer the no-fly question while still sounding tough.
		But sounding tough like the neocons want you to sound in this moment is dangerous because we've got to remember who's actually leading the U.S.
		military right now.
		Do we want Mark Milley, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to blunder us into war?
		That's who we're empowering when we use this nonstop inflammatory talk about what's going on in Ukraine and Russia.
		And the point that I keep on making, Steve, is we've got to focus on our own problems.
		We've got problems right here at home.
		Let's focus on them.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I want to go, you came on the show, I don't know, three, four weeks ago, and you said this, you said, hey, look, the eastern border of Ukraine, the eastern border of Ukraine, obviously, is an issue, but I want to focus on the southern border, and you got lit up, literally, for days.
		Walk us through your position, and I didn't see you back off anywhere, but I want to make sure this audience understands.
		What is your position, as you see, Zelensky does his world tour, we're going to go to Ben Harnwell in Rome, outside the Parliament, where Zelensky spoke by video today.
		What is your current thoughts On this Ukraine situation, because MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, outside of, you know, the great Tucker Carlson, is just the pom-poms are out for a full-on military engagement in Eurasia on the eastern border of Ukraine.
		What are your thoughts, sir?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's exactly what it is, man.
		We've had to think about this for 20 years.
		We have had disastrous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
		We've learned over the past 20 years that our intelligence services get things wrong and they get them wrong in a big way.
		And we know that the defense contractors get very wealthy.
		When you send weapons or you fight a war overseas, but they don't make anything.
		They don't make a dime when we actually secure our southern border here at home.
		So I take all this together and what I see is a regime, a uniparty on both the left and the right that is trying to force us into these wars that don't have anything to do with our national interest.
		Unfortunately, it looks like Mike Gibbons and Josh Mandel threw in with the uniparty last night.
		The thing we've got to remember is that while we're focused on Ukraine and while Joe Biden gets to act like a tough guy, we've got 100,000 of our own citizens dying of fentanyl overdoses every year.
		We've got a massive sex trafficking problem even here in the state of Ohio.
		We're not a border state.
		It looks like every state is a border state now because we've got sex trafficking coming in from Guatemala, from Nicaragua into Ohio.
		These are problems right at home.
		I gotta be honest with you, Steve.
		When I wake up in the morning, I worry about whether my four or five-year-old son is gonna interact with a sex trafficking victim.
		That's what I care the most about, the problems that are right here at home.
		I worry about whether, you know, some kid in his class, his parent's gonna die of a heroin overdose.
		These are our problems here at home.
		And this debate last night was crazy, because they asked two, three questions about Ukraine.
		They had zero questions about fentanyl, zero questions about the southern border, zero questions about the demographic transformation in this country, zero questions about abortion.
		And those are the issues that, frankly, Ohio primary voters care a lot more about.
		The one thing I was disappointed in the moderators about is they focus way more on Ukraine than on our own border.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Of course they're focused on Ukraine.
		That's what the Uniparty wants you to focus on.
		That's why it's non-stop.
		This is why the media is out there.
		This is one of the reasons that the polling, and they don't ask the questions the right way.
		They said we support a no-fly zone, 70% of the people.
		Then they said, would you support getting into any type of combat with Russian military planes?
		No, 25%.
		This is pure spin.
		This is what the neocons do.
		When you actually explain to the American people What it is, they said, no, we don't want to do that.
		This is my point last week.
		In the middle of the night, J.D., they passed this 1.5 trillion discretionary spending, almost a trillion dollar defense budget.
		That's not affordable.
		We know we're not going to raise taxes to pay for it.
		You can't sell the bonds, so we just print the money.
		That type of irresponsibility is not articulated.
		Here's the question.
		Do you think as an America first guy, and I think about this every day, have we done a good enough job to make a case to the American people?
		We're not isolationist.
		But we are America First versus the neocons that want to be the cops to everybody.
		The problem with their model, it's simply not sustainable.
		It's not sustainable for young people who are going to do it.
		And it's not sustainable for the country's finances, which we can't afford to do it.
		We've got a lot of deadbeat allies that don't pull their weight.
		J.D.
		Vance, have we done a good enough job of making the case for an America First national security and foreign policy, sir?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		No, we can always do better, man.
		And this was one of the things that Trump actually highlighted very well when he went over to NATO and says, look, you deadbeats, you got to get off your rear ends, spend 2% on defense and actually defend your own borders, your own country.
		That's not an isolationist view.
		An isolationist say, well, I don't care what happens in Europe.
		But an America first approach, I think, says, look, the Europeans need to focus on their own sphere of influence.
		They need to be good guardians of the economy and the military issues in their own backyard.
		And we got to focus on our own problems here at home, but not ignore the rest of the world, but actually ensure the rest of the world is doing their own job, is standing up for themselves.
		And when America gets involved, and of course we are gonna get involved from time to time, Trump knocked off Soleimani and Iran, that was a good decision.
		When we do get involved, it's because it serves a vital national security interest.
		This is, you back up on this Russia-Ukraine thing, and you ask people, what vital national security interest does this serve?
		And you get a bunch of ridiculous moralizing.
		Well, we care about freedom, we care about democracy.
		Well, of course we care about those things, but I don't care about anything enough that I'm gonna send a hundred million Americans to die in a nuclear World War III, right?
		Which is what we could be talking about if this escalates with Russia to a significant enough extent.
		I don't care enough about, I don't care enough about what's going on over there that I'm gonna step in it, get a bunch of our citizens killed, and pour more and more money to the war sinkhole while we've got our own problems here at home.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		By the way, on that note, the Committee on the Present Danger, China, which I'm one of the founders of, tomorrow afternoon, I'm going to get the exact time, is going to have a webinar for about an hour about the potential to escalate into a nuclear war and what you've got to think about in a situation like Ukraine.
		I mean, serious people are now having this discussion because you can hit these tripwires.
		J.D., the primary, I think, is supposed to be May 3rd, but there's controversy about what the districts are going to be.
		It could be bumped, right?
		We're waiting to hear that.
		But that being the case, in the four or five weeks or however long you got in the run-up to this, Ohio voters You've been going around the state to these smaller groups.
		Since last night the big TV network there in Cleveland didn't ask about immigration, didn't ask any of the logical things, what do you believe is on the top of the mind of the voters in Ohio?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		It's immigration and inflation, right?
		People are waking up.
		They're finding it hard to pay for the things that they need.
		Of course, the southern border is tearing this country apart.
		It's killing a lot of our people.
		It's orphaning a lot of children.
		Think about it.
		Forcing a lot of grandparents to take care of grandkids they weren't expecting to take care of, all on a fixed income, while inflation makes that fixed income less and less valuable.
		That's what I hear the most about.
		Um, and, you know, at the end of the day, I think that a lot of our voters, I gotta say, man, running for office for the first time, the media thinks our voters are stupid.
		Our voters are very, very smart.
		They're tuned into what's going on.
		They don't trust the narrative they're being fed.
		They're actually very tuned in to not just slogans and talking points, but like, what are you actually going to do to fix the southern border?
		What are you actually going to do to solve these problems?
		So I think we've got a good chance as we come down the stretch.
		The polls are looking better and better.
		At the end of the day, I think that if we just tell our story, man, we're going to win this race.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		By the way, Title 42, if it's pulled off, if it's ripped off by the or taken away by the Biden administration, you're going to have 250,000 to 400,000 in April coming across the southern border.
		So that will add some substance, additional substance to your argument.
		Last question.
		Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, I think, went to Harvard Law School.
		Josh Hawley, I think, went to Yale.
		If memory serves me correctly, you went to Yale Law School.
		Would you push to be on the Judiciary Committee if you did win the primary and then the general election?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I'd like to be.
		Yeah, I'd love to be in the fight with this Supreme Court nomination.
		And I worry a little bit that we're rolling over on this a little bit.
		Of course, Josh Hawley isn't.
		Proud to say he's endorsed me.
		But I feel like a lot of Republicans take this for granted when, look, we've got Joe Manchin out there.
		And remember, Joe Biden went into this confirmation hearing saying that he wanted somebody of a particular skin color and a particular gender.
		I wonder what Joe Manchin's voters in Appalachia think about that.
		I wonder what they think about sex predators getting set free months or years too early.
		I think there's an opportunity to actually get this guy on our side and kill this nomination if we're willing to fight for it.
		But I think a lot of the Republican senators right now are frankly doing a great job.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Whoa, you're actually saying, this is the first I've heard of this, you actually think that her record, because even McConnell brings a good point about the court packing, you've got the soft on crime, you have the Gitmo terrorist thing they're going to get into, and you've got the child pornography.
		Do you believe, as you sit here today, that there's enough here that it actually could end up being a non-confirmation?
		Because this is the first time I've heard anybody say that.
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Look, it's long odds, but I do think we've got a chance.
		Because remember, Joe Manchin represents Appalachian West Virginia, right?
		A very, very poor area of our country.
		A very proud area of our country.
		A country that's been decimated by a lot of the bad policies over the last 20 or 30 years.
		And this guy is not a radical leftist.
		And this Supreme Court nomination is.
		And I think we can make a good argument.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Do you think?
		So you think on her record, you think on her record of what?
		Just back that up.
		We got about a minute.
		Why do you think she's why?
		Why is J.D.
		Vance say she's radical?
		She's come from Harvard Law.
		Looks like she's been all the establishment stuff you're supposed to do.
		And she got confirmed, what, less than a year ago to the to the appeals court in D.C., which is right below the Supreme Court.
		Why does J.D.
		Vance say she's radical?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Well, you got the credentials, man.
		You got to be worried about those credentials, because increasingly the people coming out of those schools are not moderate centrists.
		There really are radical people.
		Two things in particular, Steve.
		I think if you look at her writings and look at some of her intellectual influences, it's pretty clear she's been completely captured by the critical race theory stuff, heavily influenced by it.
		And when you're on the Supreme Court, There's no turning back, right?
		There's no higher court there.
		She's going to get let loose to reveal who she really is.
		The second thing is this child pornography stuff, man, it really suggests a soft on crime approach.
		Well, you've got skyrocketing murder rate.
		You've got a lot of people getting shot in cities like Cincinnati and Columbus.
		We actually need a Supreme Court that reinforces and supports our law enforcement, doesn't destroy it.
		I think it's a good argument to be made that if she gets on the Supreme Court, she's going to be bad news.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		JD Vance, how do people find out more about you and your campaign, sir?
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		JDVance.com, we're on Gitter, we're on Twitter, we're on Truth, we're on all the social media networks.
		Please come and find us, support us if you're able.
		And if you're in Ohio, come out to an event and volunteer for us.
		We need all the help we can get.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		JD, fight on.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for coming.
jd vance ▲ ● ▼		Thanks, Steve.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		An extremely tough primary in Ohio.
		A lot of big personalities, a lot of tough fighters.
		They're going to punch that one out all the way to the end.
		Okay, short commercial break.
unidentified		We're going to come back with the confirmation hearing of Judge Brown Jackson in a moment.
		Conservatives have been helpless to do anything about it.
		Until now.
		Join Getter, the social media platform that supports free speech and opposes cancel culture.
		On Getter, you can express your political beliefs without fear of Silicon Valley liberals coming after you.
		Getter is led by former Trump advisor and War Room co-host Jason Miller, who saw what Big Tech did to President Trump and decided to fight back.
		Getter is the fastest growing social media platform in history, with millions of users, including prominent conservatives like Mike Pompeo, Steve Cortez and Steve Bannon.
		Join Getter.
		It's in the App Store, the Google Play Store and at getter .com.
		Longer posts, longer videos, sharper and clearer pictures.
		And unlike the Silicon Valley oligarchs, Getter will never sell your data.
		Send a message today.
		Join Getter.
		It's time to cancel, cancel culture.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Okay, MyPillow.com, promo code War Room.
		Go to our Square.
		Mike Lindell, he's helped us restock the entire thing.
		The sales are unbelievable.
		Lindell's going to be in the next hour.
		For all the War Room posse, that every time I have a guest on, they all go, what about the machines?
		Next hour, You're in Nirvana, okay?
		You're in Valhalla, right?
		It's going to be nothing but machines.
		We're going to talk about the details of machines all next hour.
		Of course, we've got a big surprise at the top there.
		I've got to go to... let me go to Mike Davis.
		Mike, you just heard J.D.
		Vance say he thinks there could be votes there, giving her a record on some of this, and the weak answers on the child porn thing actually could not be confirmed, which is stunning.
		You're a pro.
		You ran Kavanaugh.
		You used to do this for Grassley.
		Walk us about the internal mechanisms of this process, and is there a possibility now, because this thing was a layup until you started getting involved a week or so ago.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, she was on a glide path until people actually started looking into her record that Chairman Dick Durbin is trying to hide.
		I mean, it is an evenly divided Senate.
		50-50, you need a Kamala Harris to break the tie.
		So you need to have every Democrat on board with this nomination.
		The committee is divided.
		uh... even so you need to have all eleven democrats on board for this nomination and you'll need to have or if it if it walks up in the committee of the splits in the committee uh... tied then they have to have a vote on the senate floor to discharge from the committee and if that would require all fifty democrats and i'll tell you if you're did it because it comes the vice president came bring a tie for judges I didn't think is maybe it's case.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		It might my understanding.
		This is rudimentary, but can she actually break a tie for a judge?
		I thought it had to be.
		I thought they actually had to be a majority.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		No, she can break a tie for that.
		She yeah, she can she break a tie for the judge, but she you have to remember Democrats would have to keep you know this.
		This nomination went from a political win for Democrats, now at best it's going to be a political wash and it might be a political loss in the sense that if you're Joe Manchin, if you're Kyrsten Sinema, if you're one of these Democrats who are running for re-election in a swing state or even a red state this year, this is not going to be a fun vote for you to have to explain to your constituents why you're voting for this nomination.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		No, Mark Kelly in Arizona and the Senator in Nevada.
		This is a big one.
		They talked about they had to have overwhelming support of Hispanics, and Hispanics are law and order, and culturally quite conservative, and the sex trafficking and child porn thing gets all over them.
		Because they're at the brunt of this.
		They understand that.
		They understand what's going on from Central America and from Mexico.
		This is a huge, massive problem at the border, and they understand that.
		This is a brutal vote for Kelly, a brutal vote in Nevada, right?
		It ain't that easy a vote in Colorado.
		So this is a very big deal.
		To be fair to the judge, Quite frankly, so far today, she hasn't really answered or gotten into any details.
		If she had a good backup to this, she would get into those cases one by one.
		I know Hawley's going to do it, but should she have been more proactive when Durbin was running interference for her at the beginning of the day?
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, she should have done less emotion and more facts, and she's not rebutting any facts, any of the facts, any of the factual allegations that Senator Josh Hawley or my group, the Article 3 Project, put out there.
		And it's because she can't.
		They're her record.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Okay, this is a lifetime appointment.
		This is why it's taking so long.
		Mike, real quickly, I know you've got to get back to this.
		How do people get to Article 3?
		How do they get to your reports?
		And how do they follow you on Twitter?
		Because you're like the Associated Press.
		You're putting up things every second.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so article number three, project.org, article three, project.org, and my Twitter is M-R-D-D-M-I-A, M-R-D-D-M-I-A.
		That's my initials in the Des Moines, Iowa, where I'm from.
		So I know I act like I'm from the Bronx, but I'm from Des Moines.
		So, M-R-D-D-M-I-A.
unidentified		Mike Davis, look forward to having you back on tonight.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Good work today.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Mike Davis.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
mike davis ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		I want to go to Terry Schilling.
		Terry, look, one of the reasons that you see this red tsunami building up is the cultural conservatism of the Hispanic community.
		And I got to ask you, as we move on topics, where do you think, how do you think this thing's playing out today?
terry schilling ▲ ● ▼		Look, I think it's, I agree with Mike.
		I think it's playing out to be a disaster.
		I don't think that she is Uh, answering the real questions or the real charges being levied against her.
		And, um, it's, it's really getting to be treacherous grounds right now.
		You know, previous nominations have been recalled for much lower, lesser grounds.
		I mean, Harriet Myers was recalled, uh, not too long ago, and that was just because she wasn't conservative enough.
		Um, and so it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out and where the Democrats fall down on this.
		Joe Manchin, by the way, has already said he will not be voting for her.
		So that's, that's 49 votes right there.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Um, yes.
		No, that's a, that's a, that's a very, that's a very big deal.
		This thing is going to get, uh, this thing's going to be tight.
		Uh, what should people, we got about a minute, uh, how do people get to you and what should they be watching for the rest of this day?
		This is going to be a long one.
		Each Senator has got, I think, 30 minutes today.
		So, so what should people look for?
terry schilling ▲ ● ▼		The big thing to look for right here in these hearings is what does Lindsey Graham do?
		Lindsey Graham is someone that voted for Sotomayor.
		He voted for Elena Kagan.
		Uh, and he is someone that has basically given the president his nominees, regardless of which party they're in.
		What he does today and what he says, uh, this week, uh, will tell us where this nomination is headed.
		And he's someone who's very fair.
		I mean, and in fact, too fair sometimes.
		Um, so we'll, we'll see what happens, but people can find us at AmericanPrinciplesProject.org, or you can follow me on Twitter, Getter, True Social at Schilling1776.
		That's just S-C-H-I-L-L-I-N-G.
		1776.
		Yep.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		And you guys are all over this confirmation hearing?
terry schilling ▲ ● ▼		Yes, we'll be tweeting about it a lot today all over Twitter.
terry schilling ▲ ● ▼		I'll be doing a video update actually to update people as the day goes on.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼		Okay, maybe try to get you back on here tonight.
		Terry, thank you very much.
		You and Mike Davis, fabulous job.
		Okay, 90-second break.
		Big news coming out of Tennessee.
		Michael Patrick Leahy, the Star News Network.
		We've got a very special guest next and a big announcement in the great volunteer state of Tennessee.
		Also, Mike Lindell, Tina Peters, machines, all of it.
		Strap in for the next hour of War Room.
unidentified		Spread the word all through Hong Kong.
		We will fight till they're all gone.
		We rejoice when there's no more.

▲