Vam wrote:

---

🎯👏🏻👏🏻 yes!

Syl, when you get a moment, you should maybe check out the last 6 minutes of the vid I posted. You’d need a heart of stone not to be moved by her words at the end 

---

 I watched, and she certainly spoke with great feeling.

Vam, I have never heard of her before. Is it true that she gives pornographers very light sentences?

I was hoping the chairman would allow her to answer the question that the bombastic Cruz was firing (repeatedly) at her. 

Syl wrote:

---

Vam wrote:

---

🎯👏🏻👏🏻 yes!

Syl, when you get a moment, you should maybe check out the last 6 minutes of the vid I posted. You’d need a heart of stone not to be moved by her words at the end 

---

 I watched, and she certainly spoke with great feeling.

Vam, I have never heard of her before. Is it true that she gives pornographers very light sentences?

I was hoping the chairman would allow her to answer the question that the bombastic Cruz was firing (repeatedly) at her. 

 

---

 A little light, but it's not like she just gave them slaps on the wrist either.

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-sentencing-in-child-porn-cases/

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

Vam wrote:

---

🎯👏🏻👏🏻 yes!

Syl, when you get a moment, you should maybe check out the last 6 minutes of the vid I posted. You’d need a heart of stone not to be moved by her words at the end 

---

 I watched, and she certainly spoke with great feeling.

Vam, I have never heard of her before. Is it true that she gives pornographers very light sentences?

I was hoping the chairman would allow her to answer the question that the bombastic Cruz was firing (repeatedly) at her. 

 

---

 A little light, but it's not like she just gave them slaps on the wrist either.

 

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-sentencing-in-child-porn-cases/

---

 Not slaps on the wrist, but a couple of those shown in that article are pretty low.

This one in particular..

"The most significant case, which wasn’t mentioned by Hawley, involved Charles Hillie, who court records show sexually abused two of his partner’s children between 2007 and 2014. He surreptitiously filmed one of them while she was in her room alone and in the bathroom with a friend. He was charged for the abuse and for the recording. Court records show that prosecutors asked for 45 years. The White House told us that probation office recommended 41 years. Jackson sentenced him to 29.5 years."

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

Vam wrote:

---

🎯👏🏻👏🏻 yes!

Syl, when you get a moment, you should maybe check out the last 6 minutes of the vid I posted. You’d need a heart of stone not to be moved by her words at the end 

---

 I watched, and she certainly spoke with great feeling.

Vam, I have never heard of her before. Is it true that she gives pornographers very light sentences?

I was hoping the chairman would allow her to answer the question that the bombastic Cruz was firing (repeatedly) at her. 

 

---

 A little light, but it's not like she just gave them slaps on the wrist either.

 

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/03/the-facts-on-judge-jacksons-sentencing-in-child-porn-cases/

---

 Not slaps on the wrist, but a couple of those shown in that article are pretty low.

This one in particular..

"The most significant case, which wasn’t mentioned by Hawley, involved Charles Hillie, who court records show sexually abused two of his partner’s children between 2007 and 2014. He surreptitiously filmed one of them while she was in her room alone and in the bathroom with a friend. He was charged for the abuse and for the recording. Court records show that prosecutors asked for 45 years. The White House told us that probation office recommended 41 years. Jackson sentenced him to 29.5 years."

---

 Low would be 29.5 months, not years..

Jackson isn't my cup of tea, but 30 years will have about the same impact as 40.

I'm far more worried about the pedophiles that serve months and are out and a threat right now..

Syl wrote:

---

There were some of those in the link you provided too.

---

 Yeah, that happens too. I'd have to look at each case..I just know overall she wasn't an outlier, even if she was lower than average in terms of sentencing..

She's a liberal that comes from the public defender side. She's going to lean towards slightly lower than average sentences for many defendants..

And conservatives will throw away the key on someone if they can..🤷

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

There were some of those in the link you provided too.

---

 Yeah, that happens too. I'd have to look at each case..I just know overall she wasn't an outlier, even if she was lower than average in terms of sentencing..

 

She's a liberal that comes from the public defender side. She's going to lean towards slightly lower than average sentences for many defendants..

 

And conservatives will throw away the key on someone if they can..🤷

---

 Exactly this ^^ as MD says, Syl.  From what I understand, rightly or wrongly, she was sometimes inclined to err on the side of caution in some of her adjudications and sentencing. 

But you’re right, the Chairman should have let her reply to that braying Cruz aberration. I’m sure, given the chance, she would have eloquently justified her ruling in that case, whether we would have agreed with her rationale or not.

imo, none of that detracts from her professionalism, her integrity and all her amazing accomplishments.

Vam wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

There were some of those in the link you provided too.

---

 Yeah, that happens too. I'd have to look at each case..I just know overall she wasn't an outlier, even if she was lower than average in terms of sentencing..

 

She's a liberal that comes from the public defender side. She's going to lean towards slightly lower than average sentences for many defendants..

 

And conservatives will throw away the key on someone if they can..🤷

---

 Exactly this ^^ as MD says, Syl.  From what I understand, rightly or wrongly, she was sometimes inclined to err on the side of caution in some of her adjudications and sentencing. 

But you’re right, the Chairman should have let her reply to that braying Cruz aberration. I’m sure, given the chance, she would have eloquently justified her ruling in that case, whether we would have agreed with her rationale or not.

imo, none of that detracts from her professionalism, her integrity and all her amazing accomplishments.

 

---

 I'm sure she would have loved the opportunity to answer, and shut that braying twit up.