Monday afternoon during a break in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, ABC congressional correspondent Rachel Scott embarrassed herself in having tried to corner Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) over concerns with Jackson’s light sentencing for child sex predators. Hawley constantly called her out. “gotcha” Use questions “White House talking points,” rendering her speechless.
It’s doubtful ABC and Scott would air this smackdown in full, so Hawley’s staff published audio of the back-and-forth on his Senate Twitter account in a move that harkened back to the Trump White House Taping President Trump’s60 MinutesInterview with Lesley Stahl
Scott began the recording by asking Hawley questions: “You mostly voted for judges that were light on child porn offenders. So isn’t that a double standard?”
Hawley managed to elude the trap. “Not for this court I haven’t. Not for the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Although the conversation could have been ended by the Supreme Court needing far greater scrutiny, Scott still had allies within the Senate Democratic Caucus and the White House so she continued: “But how is it acceptable for a lower court if it wasn’t — if it’s not acceptable for the high court?”
After his opening statement at Judge Jackson’s nomination hearing, ABC News tried to play “gotcha” with Sen. Hawley, repeating the White House’s latest talking points verbatim. They didn’t have any facts when they were pressed for them to.
You can hear the entire exchange here. pic.twitter.com/zGDsmVY2QT
— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) March 21, 2022
Hawley kept cool, noting that it’s never “acceptable and, if I had known about that — I’m not sure which judges you’re referring to — if there are judges who have been soft on child sex offenders in a systemic kind of a pattern,”He would have done it. “a big problem with” them.
Scott tried again after Hawley reminded him that this was only the second Supreme Court nomination. She must have felt like she could not rhyme with Scott.
Of course, her epic fail continued onward (click “expand”):
SCOTT: Our records show that at least 3 federal judges have placed lighter penalties on child porn offenders. What do you think?
HAWLEY: Yeah, same — same answer. This court is not for me. And I think that, you know, the pattern is going to be a problem wherever I’m aware of it, so just — in this instance, I think — I know that’s the White House talking point and I think it’s a dangerous one. This is something you need to watch out for. I mean it’s, you know, the old ‘well everybody else is jumping off a clip so I will too.’
SCOTT: But shouldn’t you have been concerned about it then if you’re concerned about it now?
HAWLEY (OH): I have always been worried about this. [INAUDIBLE] —
SCOTT: Did you then regret your decision?
Hawley reiterated he didn’t know “which judges you’re talking about” seeing as how he hadn’t “seen the White House’s talking points” Scott thought she was acting alone, just like she did. “It’s not. It’s public information. We actually have it here.”
“Oh, sure,” Hawley replied.
Scott then gave her supposed evidence. She only presented two circuit judges, and only their names. There was nothing else.
Hawley asked who “cases”They were soft on the child predators of sex, but Scott was able to get by. “you voted for them” And insisted that he “be familiar with their records as well.”
Hawley laughed and said that she was shocked at the absurdity.
Although the ABC Liberal expressed frustration at times, it was only in part thoughts. lamenting he “expect[s]” her “to just” know things when “the larger point” was what we could only guess she was starting to say is a hypocrite.
Hawley then lowered again the boom and walked off.
How many, well, I expect you to know the facts since you’re asking me about them. What was the number of cases they had? Judge Jackson is the only one who has seven. How many did they have? Is this what you are seeing? So, you don’t know, you’re just here to do a gotcha. When you know and get the facts, come back to me, I’d be happy to talk to you about it. Best of luck.
To see the full transcript of Hawley’s smackdown of Scott’s nonsense, click “expand.”
Hallway to the Senate
03/21/22RACHEL SOTT: Most people voted for judges who are light on child porn. So isn’t that a double standard?
SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Not for this court I haven’t. The U.S. Supreme Court.
RACHEL SCOTT: But how is it acceptable for a lower court if it wasn’t — if it’s not acceptable for the high court?
HAWLEY: Oh, I wouldn’t say it is acceptable and, if I had known about that — I’m not sure which judges you’re referring to — if there are judges who have been soft on child sex offenders in a systemic kind of a pattern, well, that would be big problem with that if I had known that at the time, I would not have been supportive. But again, I’ve only voted for one Supreme Court justice. And I don’t think — I don’t think there’s a pattern there.
SCOTT: After looking through your records, we found that you voted at least three times for federal judges who imposed lighter punishments on child porno offenders. What do you think?
HAWLEY: Yeah, same — same answer. This court is not for me. And I think that, you know, the pattern is going to be a problem wherever I’m aware of it, so just — in this instance, I think — I know that’s the White House talking point and I think it’s a dangerous one. This is something you need to watch out for. I mean it’s, you know, the old ‘well everybody else is jumping off a clip so I will too.’
SCOTT: But shouldn’t you have been concerned about it then if you’re concerned about it now?
HAWLEY (OH): I have always been worried about this. [INAUDIBLE] —
SCOTT: Did you then regret your decision?
HAWLEY: — well, I don’t know which, I’m not sure which judges you’re talking about because I haven’t seen the White House’s talking points on this. I know that this is their new line, but —
SCOTT: It’s not. It’s public information. It’s actually here.
HAWLEY: Oh, sure.
SCOTT: A minimum of three federal appeals court judges.
HAWLEY: Which one is it?
SCOTT: Joseph Bianco from the Second Circuit.
HAWLEY
SCOTT: Andrew Brasher from the 11th Circuit.
HAWLEY – What happened to the cases?
SCOTT: I mean, you —
HAWLEY – What happened to the cases?
SCOTT: — voted for them.
HAWLEY: But what were the actual cases?
SCOTT: Shouldn’t you be familiar with their record as well?
HAWLEY – But which were they? You don’t have their record? [LAUGHS] So you haven’t looked at it either.
SCOTT: You don’t know their record?
HAWLEY: What cases are they referring to? HAWLEY: Was it before or after they had been on the bench?
SCOTT: So do you expect me to just —
HAWLEY: How many, well, I expect you to know the facts since you’re asking me about them. What were their cases number? Judge Jackson is the only one who has seven. How many did they have?
SCOTT: — the larger point, senator, which I think that —
HAWLEY – Are you understanding? So, you don’t know, you’re just here to do a gotcha. When you know and —
SCOTT: — I —
HAWLEY: get the facts, come back to me, I’d be happy to talk to you about it. Best of luck.
About Post Author
