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. Repeatedly, Hawley called her out for “gotcha” questions using “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’s 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl.
The recording began with Scott asking Hawley: “You mostly voted for judges that were light on child porn offenders. So isn’t that a double standard?”
Hawley snuffed out the trap: “Not for this court I haven’t. Not for the U.S. Supreme Court.”
The conversation could have ended with the fact that the Supreme Court requires far more scrutiny, but Scott had allies in the Senate Democratic caucus and White House, so she kept going: “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. But when pressed on the facts, they had nothing.
— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) March 21, 2022
Hear the full exchange below. pic.twitter.com/zGDsmVY2QT
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 had “a big problem with” them.
After Hawley reminded her this is only his second Supreme Court nomination, Scott made a second attempt and had to have felt as if she had him dead to rights.
Of course, her epic fail continued onward (click “expand”):
SCOTT: We have looked through your record and it shows that you have voted for at least three federal judges that have imposed lighter sanctions on child porn offenders. So, how do you square that?
HAWLEY: Yeah, same — same answer. Not for this court. 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. And you gotta be careful with that. 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 am concerned about it and have been concerned [INAUDIBLE] —
SCOTT: So do you regret your decision then?
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” like she did, which led Scott to insist she was acting on her own: “It’s not. It’s public information. We actually have it here.”
“Oh, sure,” Hawley replied.
Scott then presented her supposed evidence, which only consisted of two circuit judges (and only their names). Nothing else.
Hawley asked which “cases” they went soft on child sex predators, but all Scott could muster was “you voted for them” and insisted he “be familiar with their records as well.”
Realizing the absurdity of this, Hawley chuckled and called her out for not having done any of her homework.
The ABC liberal started to express frustration, but only did so in partial 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.
It was here that Hawley again lowered the boom before walking away:
How many, well, I expect you to know the facts since you’re asking me about them. So, how many cases did they have? Judge Jackson has seven, I just listed them. What are the ones that these judges had? Are you getting this? 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. Good luck.
To see the full transcript of Hawley’s smackdown of Scott’s nonsense, click “expand.”
Senate hallway
03/21/22RACHEL SCOTT: You mostly voted for judges that were light on child porn offenders. So isn’t that a double standard?
SENATOR JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): Not for this court I haven’t. Not for 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: We have looked through your record and it shows that you have voted for at least three federal judges that have imposed lighter sanctions on child porn offenders. So, how do you square that?
HAWLEY: Yeah, same — same answer. Not for this court. 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. And you gotta be careful with that. 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 am concerned about it and have been concerned [INAUDIBLE] —
SCOTT: So do you regret your decision then?
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. We actually have it here.
HAWLEY: Oh, sure.
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 the 11th Circuit.
HAWLEY: What were the cases?
SCOTT: I mean, you —
HAWLEY: What were the cases?
SCOTT: — voted for them.
HAWLEY: What were the cases though?
SCOTT: Shouldn’t you be familiar with their record as well?
HAWLEY: But what were the cases? You don’t have their record? [LAUGHS] So you haven’t looked at it either.
SCOTT: You don’t know their record?
HAWLEY: But what cases? Was it after they were on the bench or before?
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. So how many cases did they have? Judge Jackson has seven, I just listed them. What are the ones that these judges had?
SCOTT: — the larger point, senator, which I think that —
HAWLEY: Are you getting this? 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. Good luck.
