March 24, 2022 - Bannon's War Room
51:55
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| You've heard a lot about this case and your three-month sentence of Wesley Hawkins, but you got another crack at him in 2019, Judge. | ||
| In 2019, you sent Wesley Hawkins back under conditions of confinement with the Bureau of Prisons for six months with additional restrictions on his computer usage. | ||
| That's twice the amount of time in custody that you sentenced him to in 2013. | ||
| What did Wesley Hawkins do in 2019, Judge? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, I don't remember, Senator. | |
| I have a lot of defendants who I've sentenced, who are on supervision, who violate conditions of supervision. | ||
| If in our system, someone like Mr. Hawkins, especially given the crime, the egregious crime that he committed, was likely on a very long period of supervision. | ||
| And during that time, he would likely be under computer restrictions for 10, 20 years or something, where he's not allowed to do certain things with a computer. | ||
| And a probation officer is monitoring, they put software on the computers of, uh, individuals who are, um, who have these kinds of conditions imposed. | ||
| Um, and that restricts their ability to access certain information on the internet. | ||
| And so it's not uncommon for a probation officer to report violations of supervised release, not just in this area, but across all crimes. | ||
| And then the court has to determine how to handle that. | ||
| And you could, in fact, send someone back to jail for violating conditions of supervised release that are not themselves criminal behavior. | ||
| It's just, you know, the court says, In their supervision order, I'm imposing a 20-year, whatever it is, sentence of supervision. | ||
| And during this time, you're not allowed to access your computer, et cetera, et cetera. | ||
| So if he were to do that, it wouldn't be additional criminal behavior, but it would be a violation of my order. | ||
| And when he comes back to the court on violation, the court has Factors that we look at to determine whether or not to treat that essentially as the kind of violation that would require him to go back to jail. | ||
| Judge, yesterday we had an extended conversation of your sentencing of a man named Keith Hodges, a fentanyl kingpin. | ||
| That sentencing occurred in 2018. | ||
| You had very detailed recall of that sentence. | ||
| To my knowledge, that's the only time anyone's asked you about Mr. Hodge's sentence. | ||
| You've been asked repeatedly over the last two days about the Hawkins case. | ||
| It's been in the news, as Senator Durbin has cited, for days on end. | ||
| This sentencing happened in, re-sentencing happened in 2019, and now you're saying you don't have any recollection of it. | ||
| of it. Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. This is the order you sign judge on April 17th 2019 in the USA v Hawkins. | ||
| And it says that you concur with the recommendation of the Probation Office to return him to a residential reentry facility for 180 days and to engage in various kinds of computer monitoring and search. | ||
| There's your signature over there, Judge. | ||
| You really don't remember? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, that is a very, very common thing that judges do. | |
| I've sentenced over a hundred people and supervised release, which is the kind of post-incarceration condition that judges ordinarily impose, is something that's done on a standard form, which is what that is. | ||
| I understand you've done a lot, Judge, but none of them have been the centerpiece of your hearing for the last two days. | ||
| Do you really do you really expect this committee believe that you don't remember what happened in this Hawkins case when it came back before you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, Senator. | |
| I do expect you to believe that's my testimony. | ||
| I don't find it credible, Judge. | ||
| It's been in the news for days. | ||
| Senator Durbin has cited it being in the news for days. | ||
| You've been asked about it probably more than any other case you've ever had, and I just don't find it credible that you weren't prepared Let's turn though to your work for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. | ||
| I think he got caught with child pornography again, and he wouldn't have if he had been in prison for the 8 to 10 years the guidelines called for in 2013 when he first sentenced him. | ||
| Let's turn, though, to your work for detainees at Guantanamo Bay. | ||
| First off, let me just ask, do you think most detainees at Guantanamo Bay were mostly terrorists or mostly, I don't know, innocent goat farmers? | ||
|
unidentified
|
course. | |
| Senator, it's impossible for me to answer that question. | ||
| The people at Guantanamo Bay had been accused by the government of engaging in terrorist activities and therefore classified Um, by the executive branch as, um, enemy combatants. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Do you think it would America would be safer or less safe if we released all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, I'm I'm trying to figure out how to answer that question. | |
| Um, 9-11 was a terrible attack on our country and the executive branch, pursuant to authority that the Supreme Court said it had, designated people as enemy combatants and sent them to Guantanamo Bay. | ||
| The Supreme Court also said that anybody who was so detained could seek | ||
| Review of their detention and as a federal public defender, my role and responsibility was to make arguments in defense of the Constitution and in service to the court that was trying to assess, based on the authority given to it by the Supreme Court, whether or not people were | ||
| adequately classified what the legal circumstances were, how these habeas petitions were going to be processed. | ||
| This was a series of legal challenges in a novel environment that federal public defenders and lawyers across the country were engaged in helping the court to evaluate so that we can understand what the Constitution required in this time of emergency. | ||
| Okay, so no opinion on whether America would be safer or less safe if we released all the detainees from Guantanamo Bay. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, America would be less safe if we don't have terrorists out running around attacking this country. | |
| Absolutely. | ||
| America would also be more safe in a situation in which All of our constitutional rights are protected. | ||
| This is the way our scheme works. | ||
| This is how the Constitution that we all love operates. | ||
| It's about making sure that the government is doing what it's supposed to do in a time of crisis. | ||
| As Justice Gorsuch said, the Constitution is not suspended in times of crisis. | ||
| The government still has to follow the rules. | ||
| And so Criminal defense lawyers make sure that in times of crisis, the government is following the rules. | ||
| Okay, let's turn to the actual cases. | ||
| How many of these terrorists at Guantanamo Bay did you represent? | ||
|
unidentified
|
When I was a defender, four cases were assigned to me in our office. | |
| I don't know how many cases came into the office in total, but... You personally had four? | ||
| I was assigned to them along with another defender who worked on the same cases. | ||
| She was more senior. | ||
| She did a lot of, she did all of the sort of fact gathering related to the cases and as an appellate defender, I worked on the legal arguments. | ||
| Did you ever represent any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay when you were not a public defender? | ||
|
unidentified
|
One of the people who I'd represented while I was in a federal defender, his case got spun off and taken up by a law firm. | |
| Law firms around the country were also engaged in this work. | ||
| I'm well aware of what law firms were doing at the time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| And I left the federal public defender's office. | ||
| I joined a law firm and The one of the people that I had represented was now at that law firm. | ||
| They had him as a client. | ||
| That's Mr. Al Salam. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Al Qahtani. | |
| Al Qahtani was the one? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Was the one. | |
| Coincidentally, both he and you went to Morrison and Forrester. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, Senator. | |
| Okay. | ||
| What about Mr. Al Salam? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know what happened to Mr. Al Salam. | |
| You were listed as counsel for two years during your time at Morrison and Forrester. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What happens is when you leave, um, when you leave from any place, firms or government service, um, you have to let the court know or their records, their records reflect where you are in the system and not so much the case in terms of your address. | |
| So to go back to Mr. Al-Qahtani. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| So he, Just coincidentally, it's a small world, went to Morrison and Forrester at the same time you did, and then you represented him, and you did file multiple motions on his behalf. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So I don't know if it was at the same time. | |
| I'm not sure. | ||
| But you did file multiple motions for him in 2008 and 2009. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't recall whether it was multiple, but he was still at the habeas stage of the process. | |
| And I don't know when he came. | ||
| Because the partners who picked up the case were in Los Angeles. | ||
| I was in Washington, D.C. | ||
| They contacted me to say, oh, we see on the docket that you had previously represented him and now you're with our firm. | ||
| Will you assist us with looking at these briefs, working on these briefs? | ||
| There were many lawyers who were working on the filings that you're talking about. | ||
| After you left the Public Defender's Office, did you continue in your representation of any other client you had had at the Public Defender's Office? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I didn't continue my representation of any client. | |
| I left the Federal Public Defender's Office and then picked up Mr. Al-Qahtani through the circumstances that I talked about, and there were no other clients that I represented in that way. | ||
| I have to say that sounds like continuation. | ||
| You represented him at the Public Defender's Office and then you represented him in private practice as well. | ||
| And you're telling us that's the only person you represented at both the Public Defender's Office and in private practice? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| So you didn't continue to provide any kind of pro bono work for murderers or rapists or anyone else, but you did continue to represent this terrorist at Guantanamo Bay? | ||
|
unidentified
|
When I got to the firm and they told me that the case was there and they recognized that I was at the firm and had previously worked on the case. | |
| And by they, I mean the partners in the firm. | ||
| They asked me, um, as a member of the Supreme Court and appellate group of the firm, which is where, what was my practice, if I would help review and work on some of the briefing that they were submitting, um, on his behalf, given my familiarity with the case. | ||
| Were you representing him pro bono at Morrison and Forrester? | ||
|
unidentified
|
The firm takes on pro bono representations, which means that the person isn't paying. | |
| Let's turn to your amicus briefs. | ||
| You had two briefs in Guantanamo cases, one for a think tank, one on behalf of a group of former judges. | ||
| I think, as anyone who's done amicus work knows, sometimes the client seeks out the lawyer, sometimes the lawyer seeks out the client. | ||
| For either of those amicus briefs, were you involved in any way in seeking or recruiting those clients or suggesting the idea for an amicus brief in the first place? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, Senator. | |
| Were both of those briefs done on a pro bono basis? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, because the Supreme Court, an appellate group in a law firm, has paid clients and also has pro bono clients. | |
| And the briefs that I worked on One brief was 20 former federal judges who wanted to make an argument in the Boumediene case that was in the Supreme Court and one of them was a partner at my law firm. | ||
| She was a former federal judge whose idea it was and she knew the other judges and wanted our group to work on the brief. | ||
| The other was | ||
| Not just one think tank, it was the Cato Institute, the Rutherford Institute, and the Constitution Project, an ideologically diverse group of non-profits who wanted to make arguments in another case that the Supreme Court had taken up related to these issues because all of this was novel and a lot of issues were being evaluated by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of executive authority during this time of crisis. | ||
| Okay, so you've done pro bono work for, on behalf of, detainees at Guantanamo Bay. | ||
| Have you ever done pro bono work for the victims of terrorism? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, I'm not aware of any such cases in my law firm. | |
| I was in a group of lawyers that was often approached to ask Would you file a brief for some group? | ||
| And I'm not aware that any victims of terrorism asked our firm to participate. | ||
| So we've talked a lot about the people you represent. | ||
| Let's talk a little bit about the defendants in those cases and how you characterize them. | ||
| I'll remind you that those were the President, the Secretary of Defense, and active duty Army officers. | ||
| Senator Graham and Senator Cornyn said that you called them war criminals. | ||
| You disputed that and Senator Durbin has repeatedly denied it as well. | ||
| And I'll concede, you didn't use those exact words. | ||
| You didn't say war criminals. | ||
| But you did say in multiple court filings that they committed acts that constitute war crimes. | ||
| I'm sorry, but I got to confess, I don't understand the difference between saying someone is a war criminal and saying they've committed acts that constitute war crimes. | ||
| So can you explain that difference to me? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, I will. | |
| Thank you for the opportunity. | ||
| So when you file a habeas petition under our law, You can't file it against the United States because of sovereign immunity. | ||
| The way our law works, you have to file it against individual officers in their official capacity. | ||
| That's the way in which you're able to file a habeas petition. | ||
| So whoever is the executive at the time becomes the named party in the brief. | ||
| And a habeas petition is like a complaint in a civil case. | ||
| Making allegations to begin the litigation about the person's detention. | ||
| Judge, official capacity, personal capacity, all that is just a bunch of procedural gobbledygook. | ||
| These are the people that you said committed acts that constitute war crimes. | ||
| With respect, Senator- I just don't understand the difference between calling someone a war criminal and saying they committed acts that constitute war crimes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
With respect, Senator, they were not sued in their individual capacity. | |
| We weren't making allegations about those individuals. | ||
| And in fact, over the course of the case, the names changed. | ||
| So, later on, the habeas petition became against President Obama because he then became the executive for the purpose of the habeas petition. | ||
| I'm well aware of the name change. | ||
| It probably changed from Bob Gates or from Don Rumsfeld to Bob Gates as well. | ||
| But they were not the ones in office. | ||
| They were not the ones who were overseeing the government when you filed these suits and you said they committed acts that constitute war crimes. | ||
| I just don't, I don't understand how you expect this committee to believe there's a difference between saying someone's a war criminal and saying they committed war crimes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you for the opportunity to explain, Senator. | |
| One of the allegations that had been publicly reported with respect to the group of people who were in Guantanamo Bay was an allegation concerning the use of torture. | ||
| When you make that allegation, you bring it under laws that themselves constitute, um, crimes of war. | ||
| That's the way in which the law works. | ||
| So if you, if you were in a, if you're writing a habeas petition and you say, um, upon information and belief, Mr. Al-Qahtani was tortured, that allegation is made under a law that says that | ||
| There was a war crime that occurred as a result of that torture and anyone, and you're making that allegation against the United States, but because you can't sue the United States, the actual petition is named in the name of whoever's leading the United States at the time. | ||
| So later in this, the course of this, it moved from President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld to President Obama. | ||
| It didn't, it's not about the individual. | ||
| It's about the allegation that Mr. Al-Qahtani, upon information and belief, had been tortured in the lead up to his detention. | ||
| I don't know, Judge. | ||
| Sounds like a debate about how many terrorists can dance on the head of a pen to me. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Senator Cotton. | |
| I ask unanimous consent to enter a letter in the record from nine former national security officials. | ||
| defending Judge Jackson's Guantanamo representation. | ||
| The signatories include former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson, and the former Judge Advocate General of the United States Navy, Senator Booker. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Judge, after me, only five to go. | |
| But sit back for a second, because I don't have much to say. | ||
| You're in the war room. | ||
| I've got Mike Davis, I've got Terry Schilling, and it has been explosive all day from the very beginning, and we've had some incredibly intense moments. | ||
| We had a packed show today of other topics, but this thing's been so explosive. | ||
| We are brooming that and we're going to get Mike Davis and Terry Schilling in here. | ||
| Right there, Tom Cotton going at it both on the child porn, on the sentencing, and then on referring to people as war criminals or doing acts as war criminals or acts that were war crimes. | ||
| So it's been this intense all day. | ||
| We've got some clips we're going to play. | ||
| I want to bring in Mike Davis. | ||
| And Terry Schilling. | ||
| Mike, what is your assessment? | ||
| And I'm going to play the clip. | ||
| So let's not talk about the sentencing. | ||
| Part of it was Cruz and it has been in a total Donnybrook all day with Dick Durbin. | ||
| And I've never seen this type of really going at it. | ||
| And they said, Mike, you've done this for a long time. | ||
| Have you ever seen anything this intense and particularly among panel members? | ||
| Even during the Kavanaugh situation, which just that was his politics of personal destruction. | ||
| That wasn't about judgments he had made or his reading of the law or clients. | ||
| That was the politics of personal destruction. | ||
| Have you ever seen this anything this intense about how a judge has comported herself on the bench? | ||
| No, it's this is this is there are a lot of fireworks today. | ||
| I'll tell you, this is a massive cover up by the Senate Democrats, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin. | ||
| Uh, Judge Jackson is blaming the probation office's recommendation for her seven instances, uh, seven of seven times when she sentenced people who possess and distribute child pornography below the sentencing guidelines range and below what the prosecutor recommended. | ||
| And these, uh, these probation office recommendations are in pre-sentence reports. | ||
| They are confidential. | ||
| They're not to be shared with the public. | ||
| Judge Jackson's not even a district court judge and Chairman Dick Durbin just said that it was Judge Jackson's chambers who released these probation reports. | ||
| That is a big problem. | ||
| That is potentially illegal for them to do this because you have to have a very good reason to disclose these to the public and helping your political chances at a confirmation hearing may not fall into that category. | ||
| But regardless, the Democrats are citing to these confidential, non-disclosed, alleged They have alleged probation recommendations for why she sentenced below the guidelines, but they're not turning over the they're not turning over the recommendations. | ||
| They're not turning over the pre-sentence reports, even redacted versions, even versions that they can view view and in confidence for for nonpublic disclosure. | ||
| So it is a bizarre cover up. | ||
| And it's a pattern where where they are. | ||
| The Democrats are covering up Judge Jackson's records. | ||
| Forty thousand pages. | ||
| Is this where it is? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Let me play a package. | ||
| Durbin says it's a bridge too far to turn this over. | ||
| I think this package has it. | ||
| I hope it does. | ||
| We'll talk about it. | ||
| Let's play this package right now. | ||
| Mike Davis, Terry Shilling, come in and talk about it. | ||
| So in each of these cases, you read from the same script. | ||
| So in each of these cases, you say that the distribution of child pornography is an extremely serious federal crime. | ||
| And you point out that the crime involves people who are taking pictures and videos of real children while the children are being sexually abused. | ||
| In Hess, you pointed out that he had hundreds, hundreds of images of children in sexually compromised position. | ||
| Some of them engage in sadomasochistic acts. | ||
| All of this I'm reading from you on the bench. | ||
| And most importantly, the children in these Pictures are not knowing and willing participants in the degrading conduct that was being depicted. | ||
| They were being forced, forced by someone off screen to commit unspeakable acts of sexual violence for the pleasure of the people filming them and for the gratification of people everywhere. | ||
| And what concerns me is that many of those people have absolutely no shred of empathy for what that conduct does for the children who were being abused in this way. | ||
| And you read this script in every one of these cases. | ||
| So you talk about that these are terrible, terrible crimes. | ||
| But you also, and in Hess you said, I have to say that what I found particularly disturbing about your offense was that, quote, you apparently concocted a story about having photographed your own daughter who you purportedly were willing to take pictures of to trade with other people. | ||
| I know from your comments and from those who know you that you are unlikely to ever harm a child, which I find remarkable that you've got a child predator in your court who says, I'm unlikely to harm a child. | ||
| And you say, well, you told me that, so clearly you're unlikely. | ||
| But you say, but in the context of the crime, you represented that you would. | ||
| That in and of itself is astonishing. | ||
| So you talk about it as astonishing. | ||
| You nonetheless sentenced him to the very lowest possible sentence allowed under law. | ||
| And what's striking is in these cases, in half of them, in five, you sentenced the defendant to the absolute lowest sentence under law. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I treated those cases and every case very seriously and imposed a sentence that was sufficient but not greater than necessary to promote the purposes of punishment. | |
| Would it surprise you to learn that Mr. Stewart is a recidivist? | ||
| Warrants issued again for his arrest just three years after you sentenced him. | ||
| Would it surprise me? | ||
| Yeah, would it surprise you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You know, Senator, there is data in the Sentencing Commission and elsewhere that indicates that there are recidivism Mr. Chairman, I'm asking to be recognized to make a point to the chairman. | |
| I believe he recognized me. | ||
| May I proceed? | ||
| Mr. Chairman? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Chairman, I waited my turn here and I've been on this committee for 47 years. | |
| I think we ought to follow the regular order. | ||
| Mr. Chairman, the witness just said that we cannot understand those cases without the pre-sentence reports. | ||
| I'm sorry, Senator. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't want to go through this again. | |
| I have a letter that I want to enter into the record that's signed by ten senators on this committee. | ||
| Are you not even going to allow a letter from ten senators on this committee? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Any letter, you can do it. | |
| This letter that is signed by ten senators on the committee addressed to you makes the point that the White House gave you probation information for Democrats that was not provided to the minority on this committee. | ||
| And just now Judge Jackson told Senator Hawley you cannot understand these cases without reading the probation reports. | ||
| Ten senators on this committee are asking the chairman to provide those reports so we can do what Judge Jackson just said. | ||
| Which is to assess those reports. | ||
| And here is the letter. | ||
| I ask unanimous consent that it be admitted to the record. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I know the junior senator from Texas likes to get on television. | |
| But most of us have been here a long time trying to follow the rules. | ||
| And he could very easily hand you a letter to go in the record. | ||
| He's saying he's doing this to help Senator Hawley. | ||
| Senator Hawley could have put it in and he didn't. | ||
| Let's get back to record order. | ||
| Senator Hawley didn't write the letter. | ||
| Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be admitted to the record. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator Orono. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| Are you denying consent? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. | |
| Aloha, Judge Jackson. | ||
| Aloha. | ||
| I'm going to try and spread some aloha into this room. | ||
| Okay, I want to get the, well let's get the right, that's not the right clip, let's get that last clip. | ||
| Producer, tell me when we're ready to go, and let me have the right clip when I ask for it, okay? | ||
| I want to go to Mike Davis, there's even a more explosive one than that, that we're going to get to momentarily. | ||
| Mike Davis, explain to the audience, what is this all about? | ||
| So for Judge Jackson's nomination, you are supposed to turn over records. | ||
| Durbin is hiding her records from the Sentencing Commission. | ||
| Now he is preventing Senate Republicans from getting records of the probation office. | ||
| Judge Jackson has a history, actually it's her policy, where she sentences people who possess and distribute child pornography below what the United States Sentencing Guidelines recommend. | ||
| And what the prosecutors recommend. | ||
| She blames her low sentences seven of seven times. | ||
| She has sentenced just over a hundred defendants in eight years on the bench. | ||
| Seven of them have been criminals who have possessed and distributed child pornography. | ||
| They face pretty hefty sentences. | ||
| She sentenced them seven times significantly below The guidelines range and what the prosecutors recommended. | ||
| She blames the probation office for this. | ||
| She says that the probation office essentially recommended a lower sentence. | ||
| But hang on, hang on. | ||
| They have these pre-sentencing, that is confidential. | ||
| But is it extraordinary not to give that to, I mean, should that be as part of the due diligence? | ||
| We got about 30 seconds. | ||
| We're going to go to break. | ||
| Should that be a normal? | ||
| It's not normal, but the problem is they're raising it as part of her political defense. | ||
| So because they've leaked these records, her chambers have leaked these records, potentially illegally, to help her in her political defense at this confirmation hearing. | ||
| The Senate Republicans are now saying, you're citing to these records, give us the records. | ||
| Okay, fine. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to be back. | ||
| More explosive testimony. | ||
| We've got other clips we're going to go through. | ||
| Mike Davis from Article 3. | ||
| Terry Shirling from American Principles Project. | ||
| Be back. | ||
| this historic confirmation hearing of Judge Brown Jackson will continue in the war room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Chairman. | |
| Since you just responded to the letter that I wrote and was submitted on behalf of ten senators, I will point out that in Judge Jackson's answer to Senator Hawley, she said that he and this committee did not have sufficient information to assess her sentencing decisions. | ||
| Because we heard the arguments of the prosecutors in the transcript, but we did not have the recommendation from the probation office. | ||
| And what she testified under oath is you can't understand why she issued her sentences without having those probation reports. | ||
| You are right that there can be sensitive victim information in those reports. | ||
| And everyone on this side, I'm confident, would agree to redacting out any information that would violate the privacy of a victim. | ||
| But Judge Jackson has told us it is relevant to understanding those cases, and that's why ten of us have requested we have those reports, and there's explicit statutory authority for us to do so that is cited in the letter we just submitted. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, I don't know where other members of your caucus stand on the basic question of this nomination. | |
| They can decide on their own and they will and they should. | ||
| That is their responsibility. | ||
| I think I know where you're headed. | ||
| And I would just suggest that we ought to think long and hard, my friends, about members of the Judiciary Committee endangering the lives of innocent people to pursue this line of questioning. | ||
| We spent two days, 15, 16, 17, 18 hours, and a large part of it on this issue. | ||
| I don't believe these pre-sentencing reports are going to change anyone's disposition if they're going to vote on this issue. | ||
| And I do not want it weighing on my conscience that I gave the green light to release this information so that it might endanger the lives of innocent victims. | ||
| I'm sorry. | ||
| That's a bridge too far for me. | ||
| I think the issue before us on sentencing, you each had a chance to hear plenty of testimony on it. | ||
| And I believe this should be taken up with the individual caucuses on both sides if you wish. | ||
| But that to me is, it's gone way too far. | ||
| Way too far. | ||
| I don't want it on my conscience. | ||
| A bridge too far. | ||
| We have both process and we have content. | ||
| So I'm gonna go to Mike Davis and get Terry Schilling here. | ||
| What is the process problem? | ||
| Why is he, for our audience that, you know, is not familiar with this thing, as I am not, why is the pre-sentencing memo so, he's saying people could be hurt, people could be damaged, I put people in jeopardy. | ||
| What is he talking about, Mike Davis? | ||
| He's this is a cover-up. | ||
| It's it's that that it's that plain and simple. | ||
| Judge Jackson said that she couldn't follow. | ||
| She didn't follow the sentencing guidelines. | ||
| She didn't follow the prosecutor's recommendation because she followed what was recommended by the probation office. | ||
| The probation office gives district court judges a confidential pre-sentence report that contains facts that are not necessarily in evidence about the defendant so that the judge can consider that along with the other factors in making a recommendation. So what are these reports are confidential, but the Democrats have made the conclusions of these reports public. Apparently, apparently, Judge Jackson's DC Circuit Court Chamber somehow got a hold of these confidential reports | ||
| from the probation office. I don't know how they did that legally, but they gave these reports to the Biden White House and the Biden White House's selectively leak in information from these reports without turning over these reports. | ||
| The Biden White House leaked it to reporters. | ||
| They leaked it. | ||
| These numbers are in press reports. | ||
| The Senate Republicans are simply saying, let us have access to these reports ourselves so we can see what are in these reports. | ||
| And Durbin is covering up. | ||
| Durbin is refusing. | ||
| So Ted Cruz is in the right here, is what you're saying, to demand this and to get 10 senators on the committee to sign the letter saying we must have these turned over? | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| When you're referring to documents, when you're referring to information contained in documents, you have to turn over the documents. | ||
| You can't just take hearsay representation of documents. | ||
| You have to produce the documents so people can look at the documents for themselves. | ||
| And the reason it's important, she's justifying these below minimum sentences on the pre-sentencing memo. | ||
| So just to summarize, if I go to Terry, Mike, you're going to hang with us. | ||
| There's two things that have not been turned over, if I'm correct. | ||
| 55,000 pages of the internal debates and papers on the U.S. | ||
| Sentencing Commission, of which she was vice chairman of. | ||
| And in addition, the pre-sentencing memos are related to the specific cases of child pornography? | ||
| Seven cases, yes. | ||
| So it's the 48,000, not 55,000, 48,000 pages. | ||
| 48,000 pages of her deliberation documents from the Sentencing Commission, where she pushed the Sentencing Commission to go softer on people who possess and distribute child pornography, plus these seven pre-sentence reports, where Judge Jackson said that she relied on these pre-sentence reports to sentence these people below the guidelines. | ||
| By the way, I've got the Pfizer thing on my mind from Dr. Wolf. | ||
| Just to remind everybody, 7 o'clock tonight, right after our next show is the one that deals in politics, we're in Battleground. | ||
| The webinar tonight on filing criminal charges against school officials over mass and vaccine mandates by the team of lawyers that did the civil charges a couple of weeks ago. | ||
| That'll be 7 p.m. | ||
| tonight. | ||
| Website's Daily Clout, all one word, dailyclout.io. | ||
| Want to put that up on all of our platforms so people get it. | ||
| That's where I was thinking about the 55,000. | ||
| Given that you did this, and you were the staff person in charge of doing this, is it extraordinary not to turn over full papers and materials to vet and for the committee to do due diligence beforehand? | ||
| Is this pretty extraordinary not to have this? | ||
| And obviously Durbin has now formed a firewall around Judge Jackson so as not to turn these over? | ||
| So it is it's definitely a cover up of the 48,000 pages of records at the Sentencing Commission. | ||
| Those are routine that those are turned over. | ||
| It's not routine to turn over these pre-sentence reports, but it's also extraordinary, potentially even illegal, that the White House leaked out The pre-sentence reports, the recommendations from the pre-sentence reports to reporters and then to just the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and not the Republicans. | ||
| So what makes the pre-sentence reports fair game now is that the Biden White House, the Judge Jackson's chambers and the Biden White House have potentially illegally leaked this information. | ||
| The one thing I want to make sure that people know, here's the tell about how explosive this is. | ||
| MSNBC and CNN is not covering it. | ||
| They're talking about Ukraine and the NATO trip. | ||
| They're talking about everything else but this. | ||
| If they were proud of what was going on, if they thought that she was a strong candidate, it would be wall-to-wall. | ||
| It is not. | ||
| MSNBC has not played this, particularly when you've had the Republicans hammering away, as they should. | ||
| This is a lifetime appointment. | ||
| Let's go to Terri Schilling. | ||
| By the way, give me the TRT of my first package so I know how long I've got. | ||
| Terri, what about the content? | ||
| How has she comported herself today on her answers on some of this tough direct questioning? | ||
| Well, Steve, I think that you hit the nail on the head just a little bit ago when you mentioned that MSNBC and CNN are not covering this. | ||
| If she was doing a really good job and if it was apparent that Republicans were treating her unfairly, as the Democrats did with Kavanaugh, they would be blasting this all over their media outlets and they wouldn't stop playing it. | ||
| They wouldn't try to distract us with these other issues. | ||
| This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, and frankly, I think that This, this, this nomination hearing keeps getting worse and worse and worse, not just for her, but frankly, Steve, it's, it's a bit depressing. | ||
| I'm, I'm a bit sad seeing all of this stuff come out. | ||
| It's, it's not, this has turned into, you know, an explosive revelation from Senator Hawley last week about her leniency on child pornography to now being exposed for promoting critical race theory on the board level at Georgetown Day School. | ||
| And now, you know, hearing Senator Tom Cotton talk about her leniency with terrorists and representing Gitmo detainees and not representing any of the victims of terrorism, it's just one thing after another. | ||
| And frankly, I don't know how he got here in America, right? | ||
| Like this is 20 years ago, a nominee that was this bad on child pornography, this bad on terrorism, this bad on racism. | ||
| There's no way they would even make it through the appellate court system or as a nominee for any other lower court. | ||
| Somehow or another, this person has been nominated for the highest court in the land. | ||
| It's just embarrassing, and frankly, it's a sad day for America. | ||
| Real quickly, Mike, if you've got a jump, just tell people how they follow your Twitter feed. | ||
| I know you want to get back to watching this. | ||
| How are people following you on Twitter? | ||
| Thank you, Steve. | ||
| It's M-R-D-D-M-I-A. | ||
| M-R-D-D-M-I-A. | ||
| And I appreciate you having me on. | ||
| Okay, brother. | ||
| Let's play the first package right now. | ||
| We'll go to break with this. | ||
| Let's go to play the first package. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It really matters whether the person has distributed one or five or a thousand. | |
| And so the guideline says, you know what? | ||
| We're going to treat a person who's distributed a thousand a lot worse. | ||
| Because that shows that this person is really engaged in this really horrible behavior. | ||
| In comes the internet. | ||
| On the internet, with one click, you can receive, you can distribute tens of thousands. | ||
| You can be doing this for 15 minutes, and all of a sudden, you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison. | ||
| Good. | ||
| Good. | ||
| I understand. | ||
| Absolutely good. | ||
| I hope you are. | ||
| Good. | ||
| Allow her to finish, please. | ||
| I hope you go to jail for 50 years. | ||
| If you're on the internet trolling for images of children and sexual exploitation. | ||
| So you don't think that's a bad thing? | ||
| I think that's a horrible thing. | ||
| That's not what the witness said. | ||
| In the Stewart case, you said from the bench, thus, although this is not necessarily an atypical case, your child pornography possession crime Okay, so this is a bad one. | ||
| If you're actually sentencing defendants, you said this was egregious. | ||
| What did you sentence Stewart for? | ||
| The guidelines said 9,721 months. | ||
| Prosecutors said 97 months. | ||
| You said it's egregious! | ||
| 6,700 images. | ||
| You come in with 57 months. | ||
| Why did you sentence him to just 57 months in the Stewart case? | ||
| Do you want to address that? | ||
| Because you're claiming it's cherry picking. | ||
| In fact, you're welcome to explain any of these cases, but let's take the Stewart case. | ||
| Why did you sentence him for half the amount? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You're not recognized, Senator. | |
| Senator Coons. | ||
| You don't want her to answer that question? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You wouldn't allow her anyway. | |
| Mr. Chairman, she may answer the question. | ||
| I've asked her why she sentenced Stewart, an egregious... You've gone over the time, Senator, by two minutes and a half. | ||
| Because you've interrupted me for two minutes, Mr. Chairman. | ||
| Will you allow her to answer the question, or do you not want the American people to hear why, with someone she described as an egregious... There comes a point, Senator, where you get a little bit... Chairman Durbin, will you allow her to answer the question? | ||
|
unidentified
|
You won't allow her to answer the question. | |
| I will happily allow her to... The question is why you sentenced Stewart, an egregious child pornography possessor. | ||
| To half of the amount requested by the prosecutor. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Please, Senator. | |
| Will you allow her to answer the question, Chairman Durbin? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator Coons. | |
| Why are you not allowing her to answer the question? | ||
| There's not another senator here that you've not allowed her to answer the question. | ||
| I'm not asking another question, but allow her to answer the question, Chairman Durbin. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Chairman Durbin. | |
| Why do you not want the American people to know what happened in the Stewart case? | ||
| Or any of these cases? | ||
| Chairman Durbin, I've never seen the chairman refuse to allow a witness to answer a question. | ||
| You can bang it as loud as you want. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I can just tell you at some point you have to follow the rules. | |
| Okay, will you let her answer the question? | ||
| You've been interrupting and by the way with Senator Graham it went 10 minutes over. | ||
| You've taken a big chunk of the time. | ||
| Will you allow her to answer the question? | ||
| Why are you afraid of her? | ||
| She's welcome to answer it right now. | ||
| Will you let her? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator Coons. | |
| So no, you don't want her to answer the question? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator Coons. | |
| Will you let her answer the question? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Chairman Durbin. | |
| Apparently you were very afraid of the American people hearing the answer to that question. | ||
| On the other side of their terms of imprisonment, I ensured that they were facing lengthy periods of supervision and restrictions on their computer use so they could not do this sort of thing again. | ||
| That's what Congress has required of judges, and that's what I did in every case. | ||
| You always, under the recommendation of the prosecutor, Many times the parole people and to be honest with you, Judge, a 32 year old man who sent an image of his own 10 year old daughter, you substantially reduced the guide, not only the guidelines, but the recommendation. | ||
| And all I can say is that your view of how to deter child pornography is not my view. | ||
| I think you're doing it wrong. | ||
| And every judge who does what you're doing is making it easier for the children to be exploited. | ||
| If you're on a computer right now looking at a kid in a sexually compromising situation and you get caught, I hope nobody gives you a break because you used the computer. | ||
| Big Tech monitors us, censors us, de-platforms us. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Okay, this is a historic day. | ||
| It's an explosive day. | ||
| Nerves are on edge over at the United States Senate, and things are getting explosive and even more explosive, I think, as we go on, and I know the audience. | ||
| Remember, this is a lifetime appointment for the highest court in this land, and there's so many important things coming to the Supreme Court, so that's why we're giving this such intense coverage. | ||
| The tell, let me just repeat this, the tell, all that explosive Testimony, back and forth, the committee fighting like I've never seen before. | ||
| You know, you have Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, three individuals, their presentations have been stated, making star turns. | ||
| MSNBC and CNN are not covered. | ||
| MSNBC's got Andrea Mitchell in Brussels for the pregame on the Biden thing. | ||
| I mean, they're literally doing everything they can, and I'm just saying this, If they were proud of this, if they thought this was helpful, it'd be wall-to-wall coverage. | ||
| Wall-to-wall coverage, you know that, and they know that. | ||
| They're not seeing a second of it. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| So this is explosive. | ||
| There's a webinar tonight, 7 o'clock. | ||
| Go to DailyClout.io, 7pm. | ||
| This is on filing criminal charges against school officials over masks and vaccine mandates. | ||
| You're going to have a team of lawyers to walk you how to do this legally, right? | ||
| These are the same group that did the civil charges. | ||
| We're also, I'm dealing with Mike Lindell. | ||
| We're going to do a webinar. | ||
| With the two technical professionals that are on today, people got so much out of that, and a lot of people came to me, including some very sophisticated hedge fund guys, and said, hey, what you did was great, but we need much more, and we're going to do that. | ||
| We're going to get them for a webinar that they're going to walk through in detail about this situation with the machines, because as I tell you, I'm not a machine guy, as you can tell from today, but we walk them through as much as you can do, and we're going to have a webinar there, too. | ||
| Make sure you go to MyPillow.com, Promo Code War Room. | ||
| We've got a whole slate of sales including products we've never offered before. | ||
| So go to MyPillow.com, Promo Code War Room. | ||
| Take action, action, action. | ||
| Use your agency. | ||
| Also, we've got the copy of my Bible finally got here. | ||
| Okay, the God Bless the USA Bible, it's absolutely amazing. | ||
| God Bless the USA Bible, had my old working copy, got my brand new copy. | ||
| My God Bless the USA Bible, go to GodBlessTheUSABible.com. | ||
| This is the Bible that has not just the King James Version, Old and New Testament, but also all the founding documents. | ||
| This is the one the publisher rejected from Lee Greenwood, and we've pardoned with him. | ||
| Go there, and if you're so inclined and you want to get it, put in promo code WORM, you get free shipping and handling. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| God bless the USABible.com. | ||
| And man, on a day like today, you need the Bible more than ever. | ||
| What an explosive day. | ||
| Terry Schilling. | ||
| This is your line of country, it's not mine, but it's been pretty shocking the last couple of days. | ||
| And I think just this whole area and about her logic on how she came to these sentences, the information has been held back, clearly a lot of information has been held back for whatever reason. | ||
| Talk to us about the content over the last, this is the third day, what's your assessment? | ||
| Well, I think that this is, overall, my takeaway from this entire ordeal is I'm just disgusted and I'm appalled. | ||
| This is someone that should never have even been nominated for any lower courts, let alone the highest court in the land. | ||
| I want to especially focus on the child pornography accusations levied against her, specifically her leniency towards these criminals. | ||
| So we have to be very clear that these criminals that actually get put before her are the worst of the worst. | ||
| Law enforcement, because of the advent of the internet, Law enforcement is overwhelmed with how much child pornography is available and being spread, and not just the amount, but the egregious nature of it. | ||
| The internet has made it very easy to transmit this stuff, and it's made it easy to replicate it. | ||
| It's a total nightmare, and it's a travesty, and those aren't even the best words to describe it. | ||
| There aren't words to describe how bad child pornography has gotten on the internet. | ||
| And to have a nominee for the highest court in the land justify her lenient sentences simply because it's easier to distribute this stuff now. | ||
| It's disgusting and appalling. | ||
| It should be harder. | ||
| Your sentences should be more extreme. | ||
| They should go harder and more. | ||
| The law should punish these people even heavier because of how easy it is. | ||
| To set the example, criminals commit crimes to you for two reasons. | ||
| One, because they think they'll get away with it. | ||
| And two, because the punishments aren't that bad for it. | ||
| This is leading to more child pornography. | ||
| When you're lenient in the law and enforcing it, when you don't enforce the law, you get more of these crimes. | ||
| And that's what's so egregious about this person. | ||
| She should be nowhere near any courts, let alone the highest court in the land. | ||
| And to know that there are Democrats on this Senate Judiciary Committee that are running cover, that are obfuscating the facts, that are covering all this up, it should have all of us We're going to do that, but also Romney is running cover for real quickly. | ||
| How do people get to you? | ||
| I know you're for action, action, action. | ||
| You got a minute. | ||
| What are you going to do? | ||
| And how can people help? | ||
| We need to light up the Senate switchboard. | ||
| Every single senator, I don't care if you're in a blue state or a red state, they need to hear from you right now. | ||
| And you need to tell them to vote against this nominee. | ||
| The Senate number is 202. | ||
| 2-0-2-2-2-4-3-1-2-2-1. | ||
| 2-0-2-2-2-4-3-1-2-1. | ||
| Call the switchboard, ask to be connected to your senator, just tell them the state that you're in, and they will connect you. | ||
| Light up that switchboard, light up their phone lines, and tell them to vote no. | ||
| This person should be nowhere on the Supreme Court. | ||
| How did they follow you on social media? | ||
| How did they get to American Principles Project? | ||
| Just shilling 1776 across all the platforms and AmericanPrinciplesProject.org. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Thank you, Terry. | ||
| Next hour, stick around. | ||
| Going to be intense politics. | ||
| We're going to cut back into the confirmation hearing. | ||
| We've got Timpkins, Gritens, Royce White, huge article today in Guardian. | ||
| We've got Sharona Bishop. | ||
| We're going to go from New Hampshire to Caroline Leavitt. | ||
| We're going to go from New Hampshire to Colorado, Missouri, all over. | ||
| The intense politics that war and battleground does. | ||
| But we're also going to cut into this explosive hearing. | ||
| See you back here in a couple of minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Bring it on and I will fight to the end. | |
| Just watch and see. | ||
| It's all started. | ||
| Everything's begun. | ||
| And you are over. | ||
| Cause we're taking down the CCP. | ||
| Spread the word all through Hong Kong. | ||
| We will fight till they're all gone. | ||
| We rejoice when there's no more. |
Export Selection