Biden’s SCOTUS pick doesn’t just seem to protect criminals – she even opposed an expert’s definition of a “pedophile”


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Ketanji Brown Jackson opposed an expert witness’s explanation of pedophilia during a sentencing commission hearing.

In February 2012, during a hearing of the sentencing commission, in which Jackson served in the role of Vice-Chair, she contested the definition of pedophilia.

Experts in their fields provided information on their knowledge for the commission.

Digital forensic investigator Gerald Grant, U.S. Department of Justice criminal child exploitation professional James Fottrell and Dr. Gene Abel, a psychiatrist who works with an organization to identify pedophiles, were present.

According to the transcript, Jackson asks,

“And so I’m wondering whether you could say that there is a — that there could be a less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level because their motivation is the challenge, or to use the technology? 

They’re very sophisticated technologically, but they aren’t necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it? “

James Fottrell responded with,

“I think it’s difficult to say that the singular-experience are not dangerous.  

There are certainly examples of that.

If somebody is using a peer-to-peer network and they are searching  23 for “one-year-old,” or they’re searching for a very sadistic content, that would certainly make them serious.”

Jackson followed up with

“I had mistakingly assumed that child pornography offenders are pedophiles. 

So I’m trying to understand this category of nonpedophiles who obtain child pornography. 

And are those the people who you are saying are the nonsexually motivated offenders?”




Senator Hawley took to Twitter to express his frustration with Jackson’s leniency with sex offenders.

He tweeted,

“I’ve been researching the record of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, reading her opinions, articles, interviews & speeches.

I’ve noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”

He noted,

“Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.

She’s been advocating for it since law school.

This goes beyond “soft on crime.”

I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children.”



During Jackson’s recent confirmation hearings, she explained to Senator Graham how the internet is a problem for pedophiles and that just merely clicking for a few minutes could mean lengthy time in jail.

In the video clip, Senator Graham is heard saying he hopes offenders do go to jail.

Her critics argue that she is “soft on crime” and too lenient with the sentencing of pedophiles, terrorists, and drug dealers.


Senator Hawley Tweeted,

“This is a disturbing record for any judge, but especially one nominated to the highest court in the land.

Protecting the most vulnerable shouldn’t be up for debate.

Sending child predators to jail shouldn’t be controversial.”

Jackson has relaxed sentencing for prisoners sentenced for attacking law enforcement.

In 2015, Jackson sentenced David Jenkins only 18 months after he was convicted for the third time for the assault on a police officer. The officer was attempting to arrest Jenkins on a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon.

The request was for 30 months in lock-up. However, after much pleading by his lawyer, Jackson ruled for 18 months.

Yet, during her confirmation hearings, she referred to her brother, who serves in law enforcement, saying,

“I understand the need for law enforcement, the importance of having people who are willing to do that important work, the importance of holding people accountable for their criminal behavior.

I also as a lawyer and a citizen, believe very strongly in our Constitution, and the rights that make us free.”


Senator Hawley expressed his strong concern for the lack of transparency in another Tweet, saying,

“So far, the Sentencing Commission has refused to turn over all Judge Jackson’s records from her time there.

In light of what we have learned, this stonewalling must end. We must get access to all relevant records.”


Deep state corruption? “Nonpartisan” FBI field office planned celebration party for Ketanji Brown Jackson

The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the author, a contributing writer to Law Enforcement Today.

LOS ANGELES, CA- And here we thought law enforcement agencies, especially those on the federal level were supposed to be “non-partisan.”

Of course, that ship sailed in 2016 when the FBI collaborated with the Clinton campaign to perpetrate the Russia collusion hoax via the Crossfire Hurricane scam investigation. Now we’re finding that partisanship is alive and well and still living within the FBI.

According to leaked emails, the Los Angeles field office of the FBI advertised a “nomination party” for far-left radical Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson shortly after Biden nominated her, according to National File, citing an initial report by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Free Beacon received an internally-circulated email sent by the FBI’s Los Angeles Women’s and Black Affairs Committees dated March 11.

The email advertised a “save the date” for an interview with the agency’s assistant director in charge of the LA field office, as well as a “nomination party” for Jackson scheduled for March 23. Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported on the event last week.

“Join us: A dynamic interview, socialization, and lots of celebrating with desserts!” read a leaked invitation to the event, which was scrapped a day later after word got out.

That cancellation was confirmed in an email from the office’s diversity and inclusion department, and was done when FBI leadership concluded that the party would violate the bureau’s “commitment to nonpartisanship.” (insert laugh emoji here)

“The FBI must remain neutral in all political confirmation and nomination processes,” stated the email canceling the event. “Accordingly, a party for any nominee in FBI space would be inappropriate.”

The unnamed employee then apologized for any “misunderstanding.”

The Free Beacon reported they were told by an FBI spokeswoman that the reported party to celebrate Jackson’s nomination was “addressed immediately and does not reflect the high standards of the FBI.”

“An email circulated within the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office recognizing a Supreme Court nomination was issued without proper review and was quickly retracted by FBI management,” the spokeswoman wrote in a statement.

As the Free Beacon noted, the event planned to celebrate Jackson’s nomination once again raises questions about the politicization of the FBI and calls into question whether the agency is, in fact, nonpartisan.

The latest episode appears to confirm concerns Republican lawmakers have had about the agency, especially in light of the 2016 circus involving Crossfire Hurricane.

For example in 2018, the DOJ’s inspector general wrote that he “did not have confidence” that former FBI agent Peter Strzok had acted “free from bias” when he allegedly investigated Hillary Clinton’s private email servicer, or the investigations conducted of Trump.

In his report, the IG wrote that “the public’s trust is negatively impacted when law enforcement officials make statements reflecting bias.

Submit a Correction
Related Posts