Trending

No tags found
Monday May 23, 2022

After Scott of Hawley SCHOOLS ABC he pedaled the WH talking point at SCOTUS

During a break in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday afternoon, ABC Congress correspondent Rachel Scott tried to corner Senator Josh Howley (R-MO) over concerns about Jackson’s light punishment for child sex offenders. . Repeatedly, Howley called him “Received” Questions using “The point of the White House,” Silent rendering to him

It is doubtful that ABC and Scott will fully air this smackdown, so Howley’s staff released front-to-back audio on his Senate Twitter account that Trump returned to the White House. Tape President Trump 60 minutes Interview with Lesley Stahl.

The recording begins with Scott Howley asking: “You voted for most of the judges who were light on child pornography offenders. So isn’t that a double standard? “

Howley pulled out the trap: “I am not for this court. Not for the US Supreme Court. “

The conversation may end with the fact that the Supreme Court needed further scrutiny, but Scott had allies in the Senate Democratic Caucus and the White House, so he continued: “But how is it acceptable for the lower court if it is not – if it is not acceptable for the high court?”

Howley kept it cool, noting that it never was “Acceptable and, if I knew about it – I’m not sure which judges you’re referring to – if there were judges who were soft on child sex offenders in a systematic pattern.” He will “A big problem with” Them

After Hawley reminded him that it was only his second Supreme Court nomination, Scott tried a second time and he felt like he had died for rhyming.

Of course, his epic failure continued (click “expand”):

SCOTT: We looked at your record and it shows that you voted for at least three federal judges who imposed light bans on child pornography offenders. So, how do you square that?

Hawley: Yes, the same answer. This is not for the court. And I think, you know, the pattern is going to be a problem wherever I am aware of it, so just – in this example, I think – I know the point of the White House talking and I think it’s a dangerous one. And you have to be careful with that. I mean, you know, the old ‘everyone else is jumping off a clip so I’ll do it too.’

Scott: But if you’re worried about it now, shouldn’t you be worried about it?

Hawley: Oh I’m worried and anxious about it [INAUDIBLE] –

Scott: So you’re regretting your decision?

Howley reiterated that he did not know “Which judge are you talking about?” See how he was not “I saw the White House talk.” As he did, Scott insisted he was acting: It’s not. This is public information. We’re actually here. “

“Oh, sure,” Howley replied.

Scott then presented his presumed evidence, which contained only two circuit judges (and only their names). Nothing else.

Hawley asked that “Case” They went soft on child sex predators, but had all the Scots could collect “You voted for them” And he insisted “Get acquainted with their records.”

Realizing this absurdity, Hawley smiled and called her to do no housework.

The ABC Liberals began to express frustration, but only in partial thought, Lament he “expected[s]We can only assume that he started telling lies when he had a “bigger point” to know “his” only “things”.

Before walking here, Howley lowered the boom again:

How many, well, I hope you know the information since you are asking me about them. So how many cases have they had? Judge Jackson has seven, I’ve listed them. What were these judges? Are you getting this? So, you never know, you’ve come here just to make a bunch. When you find out and get the information, come back to me, I will be happy to talk to you about it. Good luck.

To see a full transcript of Howley’s smackdown on Scott’s nonsense, click “Expand”.

Senate Hallway
03/21/22

Rachel Scott: You voted for most of the judges who were light on child porn offenders. So isn’t it a double standard?

Senator Josh Howley (R-MO): I did not do this for the court. Not for the US Supreme Court.

Rachel Scott: But how is it acceptable to the lower court if it is not – if it is not acceptable to the high court?

Hawley: Oh, I wouldn’t say it’s acceptable and, if I knew about it – I’m not sure which judges you’re talking about – if there were judges who had a systematic kind of leniency towards child sex offenders of a pattern, well, with that. It would be a big problem if I knew that at that time, I would not support. But again, I only voted for one Supreme Court judge. And I don’t think so – I don’t think there’s a pattern.

SCOTT: We looked at your record and it shows that you voted for at least three federal judges who imposed light bans on child pornography offenders. So, how do you square that?

Hawley: Yes, the same answer. This is not for the court. And I think, you know, the pattern is going to be a problem wherever I am aware of it, so just – in this example, I think – I know the point of the White House talking and I think it’s a dangerous one. And you have to be careful with that. I mean, you know, the old ‘everyone else is jumping off a clip so I’ll do it too.’

Scott: But if you’re worried about it now, shouldn’t you be worried about it?

Hawley: Oh I’m worried and anxious about it [INAUDIBLE] –

Scott: So you’re regretting your decision?

Hawley: Well, I don’t know which one, I’m not sure which judge you’re talking about because I haven’t seen the White House talk about it. I know this is their new line, but –

Scott: It’s not. This is public information. We’re actually here.

Hawley: Oh, of course.

SCOTT: At least three federal appeals court judges.

Hawley: Which one?

SCOTT: Joseph Bianco of the Second Circuit.

Hawley: And what were the cases?

SCOTT: Andrew Brasher of 11th Circuit.

Hawley: What were the cases?

Scott: I mean, you –

Hawley: What were the cases?

SCOTT: – Vote for them.

Hawley: What were the cases?

Scott: Shouldn’t you be familiar with their record?

Hawley: But what were the cases? Do you have a record of them? [LAUGHS] So you didn’t even look at it.

Scott: You don’t know their record?

Hawley: But in what case? After they were on the bench or before?

Scott: So what are you expecting from me-

Hawley: How many, OK, I hope you know the truth since you are asking me about them. So how many cases have they had? Judge Jackson has seven, I’ve listed them. What were these judges?

Scott: The bigger the point, the senator, I think –

Hawley: Are you getting it? So, you never know, you’ve just come here to make a bunch. When you know and –

Scott: – I –

Hawley: Know the information, come back to me, I’d be happy to talk to you about it. Good luck.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to Top