Republican Sen. Josh Hawley’s examination of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record when it comes to sentencing those convicted of sex crimes involving minors caused Democrats and the media to circle the wagons during the hearings. Sen. Hawley demonstrated how many of the sentences handed out by Judge Jackson fell well below guidelines and prosecutor recommendations. Here’s one such example:
Neil Stewart tried to cross state lines to rape a 9 year old girl. He had 6,700 images & videos of child pornography.
The guidelines recommended 97-121 months. Judge Jackson gave him 57 months.
"Would it surprise you to learn [he's] a recidivist?" asks @HawleyMO pic.twitter.com/W8SGhW44rr
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 23, 2022
Meanwhile, Politifact’s fact-check probably won’t surprise you:
Sen. Josh Hawley said Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is soft in her sentencing of child pornography offenders. He cherry picked his data. https://t.co/GDkSoDwpxN
— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) March 24, 2022
First off, here are Politifact’s bullet points at the top of the “fact-check”:
–In most cases, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s sentences were below the guidelines and below the prosecutors’ recommendations.
–But Jackson’s approach to sentencing in child pornography cases did not differ significantly from that of other judges, data show. A federal study found that in more than two-thirds of these cases, judges issue sentences below federal guidelines.
–For cases that included both possession of child pornography and attemped or actual sexual abuse of a minor, Jackson generally agreed with prosecutors’ recommendations.
–In addition to sentencing people to prison, Jackson’s decisions included long periods of supervised release, generally for 10 years after serving time, and in one case for 20 years.
Recommended
Sen. Hawley’s press secretary, Abigail Marone, has spotted the “fact-checkers” doing their thing again:
This @PolitiFact article is next level brain worms 🧠🪱
They admit @HawleyMO is factually correct and then rate his claim mostly false 😂😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/CzlzxPLnZ0
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 24, 2022
“True but false” is a very familiar approach for many so-called fact-checkers:
“Hawley’s claim has an element of truth.”
An element?? They admit he’s the whole claim is accurate – they just think lenient sentences for pedophiles don’t make her “soft on crime” 🤡🤡🤡
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 24, 2022
“Hawley failed to prove that Jackson is any more lenient than federal judges on average.”
1 – not even the argument he was making. Judge Jackson is the only judge being nominated to SCOTUS, no one else
2 – other judges being lenient on sex offenders does not debunk the claim
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 24, 2022
“Fact-checkers” are so incredibly predictable.
This is true of almost every “fact check” I’ve read. Masters at gaslighting.
— Pamela 🇺🇸 (@Pamela_Jones) March 24, 2022
Must read thread:
The Libs are flat out lying as usual about @HawleyMO's position…
Their "argument" literally boils down to "other Lib judges are also soft on pedophiles."
That proves EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they think it does. https://t.co/MOWKSpMBr4
— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) March 24, 2022
The notion that fact checkers are actually checking facts has been fact checked as false. https://t.co/ZZ1jylUse3
— Mark R. Weaver (@MarkRWeaver) March 24, 2022
Marone also got the Washington Post to take back a claim they made while fact-checking what Sen. Hawley said during the hearings:
“Shifted the goal posts” during the hearing?
Did you even read the responses we sent to your first Narrative Check *LAST WEEK* ?? @HawleyMO said the exact same thing you’re now claiming is new… https://t.co/ekMeEuKKEB pic.twitter.com/Fnxo8HkIHc
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 24, 2022
thank you! pic.twitter.com/Vbq7rNkjpP
— Abigail Marone 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) March 24, 2022
You have to watch the “fact-checkers” like a hawk.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member