nomination. It's nice to see you again. Congratulations to all of
your family. I know this is a big moment for you and for them, And
rightly so. I enjoyed our meeting a couple of weeks ago.
You know, As I've said, the folks who asked about it, one of the
things I particularly appreciated about our meeting. Besides, how
much time you gave me was how candid and forthcoming you were, which
I really respected and I look forward to a candid conversation.
Again in the days that come and buy the women Beiring how you're
sitting so stoically through all of us all the senator talk, but
I'm looking forward to visiting with you again. You did me the honor
when we sat down and being very candid, and I hope I was candid with
you. I've been candid since I want to be candid with you today. So
you know exactly what it is. I want to talk about.
And so you know exactly where my head is at. So let me let me say
a few things that I'm concerned about aspects of your record that
trouble me. This will come as no surprise. I've said it in public
already.
But I want to be again very candid in the interests of an open and
honest discussion and specific so here are I hope in the next couple
of days, some of the cases from your time on the on the court, the
district court, the federal District Court that I hope that
We can talk about. Let me just run few through a few of them. So
you know exactly which ones I mean, United States versus Hawkins.
This was a child pornography case where the defendant distributed
multiple images of child porn possessed dozens more, including videos.
The federal sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence of 97 to
121 months in prison.
Prosecutors recommended 24 months in prison.
Judge Jackson gave the defendant three months in prison.
United States vs Chazen, There's that case the defendant possessed
48 files of child pornography.
The federal guidelines recommended 78 to 97 months in prison. The
prosecutor recommended the same
Judge Jackson sentenced him to 28 months.
United States versus Cooper.
There. The defendant possessed dozens of images of child pornography
and distributed distributed dozens of images of child pornography
possessed over 600.
The federal guidelines recommended 151 to 188 months in prison. That's
a long time the prosecutor recommended 72 months.
Judge Jackson gave the defendant 60 months, which was the lowest
sentence permitted by the law.
United States versus down That's a case for the defendant distributed
33 graphic images and videos of child sexual assault to an anonymous
messaging app. Unfortunately, practice that's becoming more common.
The federal guidelines recommended.
70 to 87 months in prison.
Prosecutor recommended 17 months in prison to Jackson sentenced him
to only 60 months again. That's the lowest level that was permitted
by law in that case.
The United States versus Stewart.
The defendant. They're distributed scores of images of Children suffering
sexual abuse. The guidelines recommended 97 to 121 months in prison.
The prosecutor recommended 97 months in prison.
Jackson gave him 57 months.
In the United States versus Sears, the defendant distributed over
100 videos of child pornography.
The guidelines recommended 97 to 121 months in prison.
The prosecutor recommended 97 months in prison.
Jackson gave him 71 months.
In the United States versus Savage. The defendant was convicted of
traveling across state lines to engage in sexual intercourse with
the child and also possessed six separate thumb drives of child pornography.
The guidelines recommended 46 to 57 months in prison.
The prosecutor recommended 49 months in prison.
Judge Jackson sentenced him to 37 months in prison Now those are
seven cases.
That represent as near as we can tell all of Judge Jackson's cases
dealing with child pornography from her time on the district court,
in which she had some discretion to hand down a sentence. There's
some other cases in which the law she didn't have any discretion.
The law bound that the sentence that she had to
Had to give and what concerns me and I've been very candid about
this is that in every case and each of these seven
Judge Jackson handed down a lenient sentence that was below what
the federal guidelines recommended and below what prosecutors requested.
And so I think there's a lot to talk about their and I look forward
to talking about it now. I will note
That some have said that the federal sentencing guidelines are too
harsh on child sex crimes, especially child pornography. I've heard
that argument a lot and recent days, the chairman quoted
Someone earlier today who takes that point of view. I'll just be
honest, I can't say that. I agree with that.
I mean, the amount of child pornography in circulation is absolutely
exploded in recent years. Here's The New York Times report from 2019
I'm quoting now. Last year, tech companies reported over 45 million
online photos and videos.
Of Children being sexually abused more than double what they found
the previous year.
The report goes on to say this 20 years ago, these online images
were problem. 10 years ago, they were an epidemic.
Now the crisis is at a breaking point. Unfortunately, it's even worse
than that. Just last week, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children
Reported finding 85 million files of child pornography and 2021.
Of course, this committee has heard testimony from prosecutors and
others who are grappling with the problem of how to get at this porn
and those who distribute it, how to prosecute them and hold them
accountable. Here's my point. I think it's difficult against this
backdrop to argue.
That the sentencing guidelines are too harsh or outmoded or that
we should be.
Somehow treating child porn offenders more leniently, then the guidelines
recommend, But I want to be clear about this. But those arguments
that I've just been rehearsing those who say that those are that's
not what judges Jackson has said.
She hasn't had the chance yet to respond to this, and she deserves
that chance. So others have made these arguments. I don't agree with
them.
But I think it's important we hear from Judge Jackson and we'll have
the chance to in coming days.
And I think again the candor that Judge Jackson has shown previously
I look forward to and she deserves the ability to speak for herself
on this issue.
So I will just say in closing, Mr Chairman. Some have asked. Why
did I raise these questions ahead of the hearing?
Why not wait until the hearing and spring them on Judge Jackson as
it were, And my answer? That is very simple. I'm not interested in
trapping Judge Jackson. I'm not interested in trying to play. Gotcha.
I'm interested in her answers.
Because I found in our time together, But she was enormously thoughtful,
enormously accomplished, and I suspect has a coherent view, an explanation
and instead of thinking way of thinking about this that I look forward
to hearing
And I think she deserves the chance to talk about it. I think the
American people deserve
The chance to hear her answers.
So they're my concerns, judge there. The cases I imagine will be
others that we can talk about another subject, But I'd like to talk
about those. So you know exactly where I'm coming from. Thanks again
for giving me the time a few weeks ago. Congratulations again. I
look forward to finally hearing from you tomorrow. Thank you, Mr
Chairman.