0 activism and advocacy as it concerns sexual predators that stems back decades and that is concerning. you wrote your note on the harvard law review on sex crimes. your note is your major academic work on the law review "prevention versus punishment toward a principled distinction in the restraint in it you argue and i quote "a recent spate of legislation reports to release sex offenders by requiring them to notify local law enforcement and submit to civil commitment for indefinite term. many say it violates the rights of individuals that have been sanctioned for their crimes. the contusionalty of sex offender statutes depends on their characterization as essentially preventsive rather than punitive. you explain if they're viewed an punitive, they're unconstitutional. if they're preventative, they are not. throughout the course of your note, you argue they should be viewed as punitive and therefore unconstitutional. indeed in the second to last page you go through each of those for categories. you say requirements that sex offenders register may or may not be unconstitutional depending upon whether "in which sex offenders have no privacy right or registration and blood sample." you suggest that may or may not be constitutional. you raise doubts about it. you raise very significant doubts about community notification and you heavily suggest that civil commitment for sexual predators is unconstitutional. do you still agree with the sentiments you expressed in your law school note? >> respectfully, senator, those are not the sentiments that i impressed in my law school note. my law school note was about sex offender registration laws, which at the time were relatively new. as you know from our time in law school, one of the things that law school students do, they look for new developments in the law and they try to analyze them. that's something that makes for good fodder for a law school note. my note that came out in 1996 was shortly after there were new megan's laws. the point that i was making is not that the laws were bad, that the laws were wrong, i was trying to assess something that is sort of fundamental in terms of the characterization of the laws. i didn't say that they were unconstitutional one way or the other. what i was trying to assess is how they are character sized. that has a certain set of consequences. some courts would call them punitive. that has a certain set of cons sequences. i was trying to figure out how to make the determination whether they were punitive or preventative. >> well, your note argued that they were punitive. i would note that that view, there's been some on the bench that have advocated that. the supreme court in 1997 upheld kansas statue. that was a 5-4 vote. that has been close at the supreme court. i would note beyond that in terms of the prevalence of these statutes, all 50 states have registry requirements. 47 states have communication requirements. all 50 states have dna or blood banks for sex offender requirements and 20 of the states the federal government in dc have laws that allow for the detention of sex offenders. i would note in the state of texas, a state court of appeals relying on the same sort of reasoning that you advocated for in your note struck down texas' sexually violent predator civil commitment law. at the time i was the solicitor general of texas, i argued that appeal in the texas supreme court. texas supreme court unanimously reversed the court of appeals and upheld our statute. if the views you advocated in law school prevail, civil commitment laws across the country would be struck down, releasing sexual predators and under the argument community notification and dna bank laws could well be struck down as well. is that an outcome that should concern people? >> senator, my note wasn't advocating for the striking down of those laws. my note was trying to identify criteria that i thought could be applied consistently to determine whether the laws were punitive or preventative. >> with respect -- you argued that they were punitive and you further say in the note, if they're punitive, they're on unconstitutional. >> let's take civil commitment laws. if you look at civil commitment laws right now, the ucla school of law estimates more than 6,300 sex offenders are detained in civil commitment programs. if the view yes advocated, those 6,300 would be released to the public is. that an outcome that should be concerning? >> senator, in law school when i was writing a note, i was looking at a brand new set of laws that had not previously been enacted in any jurisdiction. they were new. i was assessing at the time as law school students do what criteria i thought might be used by courts to make a determination in the future as to whether or not they should be treated as punitive and not unconstitutional and as therefore ones that carry with them certain rights versus preventative. >> okay. judge jackson, so you've pointed these were -- listen, i will recognize all of us when we were students may have views that as time and maturity passes on we may change. what troubles me, this is not just a law school but one that has continued. when you were vice chairman of the sentencing commission, you expressed significant concerns that the white house has argued that your quotes were taken out of context. i want to provide the full context of your quote, you said yes, i want to ask you about the means in which we can distinguish more or less serious defenders. all of you touched on that. you talked about going from singular to one onone to group experience. i'm wondering if there's some sore of natural progression from one stage to the other that could say the least serious offenders from the serious stage. i was surprised at some of the testimony with the respect of the motivation of offenders and talking about child pornography offenders and people that get involved that may not be pedophiles and may not be interested in the child pornography but may haveinterest in the use of technology and being in the group and why people might engage in this. i'm wondering if you could say there could be a less serious child pornography offender. their motivation is the challenge or the use the technology. they're very sophisticated technology but are not interested in the child pornography piece of it. i find that a pretty remarkable argument that people in possession of child pornography are not actually interested in the child porn. they're not pedophiles. they're just interested in technology. is that -- i wanted to provide the whole quote. the white house said that portions of this were used out of context. this is your entire quote. do you agree with that sentiment that there's some meaningful population of people that have child pornography but are not in fact pedophiles or getting satisfaction from it? >> thank you, senator, for allowing me to address what appears to be a question that i was asking in the context of a hearing on child pornography. you provided the entire quote and it looks as though i was asking that of someone, not taking that position. the position that i have taken in all of my sentencings involving child pornography offenders is to ensure that despite attitude and view of many of the offenders that came before me when i was a trial judge that they were just lookers, they weren't really harming anyone, that they were cure rating their collections and they never touched a child, i made sure that they understood that not withstanding there collecting behavior that they were causing significant harm. >> so judge jackson, you raise your actual sentencing. that is very productive. let's take a look at your actual sentencing. you've had ten different cases involving child pornography. these are the cases. there's two u.s. versus butress and u.s. versus cann for which the government did not make a recommendation. you said earlier, it was a sickening and egregious crime, which i agree with and the guidelines lean to extreme departures. okay. let's look at what the prosecutors are asking for. i would note this is in the district of columbia where prosecutors are far more liberal than many prosecutors in this country. in every space in which -- united states versus hess, a mandatory of 60 months. you had no discretion. united states versus nickerson, there was a mutual agreement to 120 months. that's what you imposed. in every other case, united states versus chazin, the prosecutor asked for 78 to 97 months. you imposed 28 months. 28 months is a 64% reduction. in united states versus cooper, the prosecutor asked for 72 months. you imposed 60 months. that was a 17% reduction. in united states versus downs, the prosecutor asked for 70 months. you imposed 60. that was a 14% reduction. the united states versus hawkins, the prosecutor asked for 24 months. you imposed three months. that was an 88% reduction. in united states versus savage, the prosecutor asked for 49 months. you imposed 37. that was a 24% reduction. the united states versus stewart, the prosecutor asked for 97 months. you imposed 57. that was a 41% reduction. every single case, 100% of them when prosecutors came before you with child pornography cases, you sentenced the defenders to substantially below, not just the guidelines which are way higher, but what the prosecutor asked for on average of these cases 47.2% less. now you said you made sure the voice of the children was heard. do you believe in a case like united states versus hawkins where the prosecutor asked for 24 months and you sentence the offender to three months? do you believe the voice of the children is heard when 100% of the time you're sentencing those in possession of child pornography to far below what the prosecutor is asking for? >> yes, senator, i do. >> could you explain how? >> i will. a couple of observations. one is that your chart does not include all of the factors that congress has told judges to consider, including probation office's recommendations in these cases. >> judge, we don't have those -- the committee has been given the probation office's recommendation. we would welcome them. mr. chairman, i would love to see them. we don't have access to them. >> the second i would say is that i take these cases very seriously as a mother, as someone who -- as a judge who has to review the actual evidence in these cases and based on congress' requirement take into account not only the sentencing guidelines, not only the recommendations of the parties, but also things like the stories of the victims. also things like the nature of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant. congress is the body that tells sentencing judges what they're supposed to look at and congress has said that a judge is not playing a numbers game. the judge is looking at all of these different factors and making a determination in every case based on a number of different considerations. in every case i did my duty to hold the defendants accountable in light of the evidence and the information that was presented to me. >> in 100% of the cases, was the evidence less than what the prosecutors asked for? >> senator, the evidence in these cases are egregious. the evidence is among the worst that have seen. and yet, as congress directs, judges don't just calculate the guidelines and stop. judges have to take into account the personal circumstancesdant requirement of congress. judges have to consider things talking about making sure that victims circumstances are heard, it was about my sentencing practices that i -- >> -- victims being heard with respect. thank you, mr. chairman. >> in 2012, the sentencing commission on a unanimous bipartisan basis issued a record recommending changes for sentences to nonproduction child pornography, which is the subject at hand offenses because of widespread concern among judges and other stakeholders. for example, 70% of surveyed judges said the guideline ranges for possession receipts were too high. notably the report was supported by every member of the commission. i believe the question which the senator from texas is referring to was part of the proceedings that led to that commission report, unanimous bipartisan basis commission report. >> mr. chairman, very briefly, i would ask unanimous consent that the books i referenced be entered into record. >> no objection. senator koonce? >> thanks. judge jackson, good to be with you. >> good to be with you, senator. >> i'd like to take a few minutes if i could and give you a chance to address some of the issues just raised. my colleague suggested you never sentenced a defendant in a child pornography case consistent with what the government requested, what the prosecution requested. that's just not true. let me ask you about three specific sentencing case. do you remember u.s. v. nickerson? you sent charles nickerson to 12 years in prison what the government asked for. >> i do remember. >> you remember u.s. versus pfife? >> i do. >> and you recall u.s. v mcgin. you sentenced him to what the prosecution requested? >> i do, senator. >> in these three cases, it's also true that the government, the prs -- prosecution suggested below the guidelines? in 70% of the cases and in your district 80% of the cases downward departures from the guidelines are the norm. >> that is correct, senator. >> so to the extent there's some effort to try to characterize you as being soft on crime or somehow unconcerned about child safety, i just wanted to take another moment and give you a chance to respond to that. as a parent, as the member of a family that has had several members who have served your brother, your uncled in law enforcement, could you share a bit about how having loved ones who serve as law enforcement officers and in one case a detective on a sex crimes unit has had an impact on your senses of balance of justice and mercy in the case of ensuring that we hold to account those that commit crimes against children. >> thank you, senator. as a mother, these cases involving sex crimes against children are harrowing. what i think is important to understand is that trial judges who have to deal with these cases are presented with the evidence or descriptions, graphic descriptions. these are the cases that wake you up at night. because you're seeing the worst of humanity when there are victims' statements, that are presented. people talk about how their lives have been destroyed as children, how the people who they trusted to take care of them were abusing them in this way. and then putting the pictures on the internet for everyone to see. i sometimes still have nightmares about the mainwitness, the woman i mentioned earlier who cannot leave her house because of this kind of fear. the vulnerability, the isolation. these crimes are horrible. so i take them very seriously just as i did all of the crimes, but especially crimes against children. >> your honor, if i could, the characterization that was just presented, in a present column in the national very view a conservative publication, has a character view of you as a smear that appears meritless to the point of demagoguery as mainstream and correct. i'll remind my colleagues and those watching that two of the largest most substantial law enforcement advocacy organizations in our country, the national fraternal order of police and the national association of chiefs of police have spoken up in support of your qualifications and capabilities. the fop letter says there's little doubt that you have the temperament, legal experience to earn this appointment. the same sentiment was echoed by the iacp. in their letter they said they believe you have a deep understanding for the challenges and complexities confronting the policing profession and you have during your time as a judge displayed your dedication to ensuring on communities are safe. i find it hard to believe that these organizations having looked closely at your sentencing decisions, your lifetime conduct would have taken those unusual steps to be that forceful in supporting you, if in fact you had somehow a disturbing report of coddling child pornographiers on being soft on crime. in fact, your record demonstrates you're an even-handand impartial judge. i can look at that in very politically charged or partisan interests. you've delivered rulings on both sides for plaintiffs and defendants and in my review of your records, you put any personal views aside, based your decisions on the arguments of the parties, the facts in the record and the applicable law and thorough opinions that you've written show to me a judge striving to make even-handed decisions based on facts and law, not on some caricature of a leftist agenda. don't just take my word for it. we've received an outpouring of support for your nomination as we'll hear on thursday. a very wide change of groups and individuals have sent letters or testimony to this committee in support of your nomination. it's no surprise that your legal mind, your experience, your temperament inspires strong support from some of the best and brightest of our legal community. it's worth highlighting that among those many that have written to us are well-respected conservative and republican lawyers and republican-appointed judges that agree with my characterization that you're an even-handed and impartial judge. we received a letter from 24 conservative lawyers that held positions in republican administrations and well-known for their conservative reviews that wrote this committee to urge your speedy confirmation. they praised your character and intellect and call you an excellent person. i like to focus on the way these conservative lawyers character sized your judicial decision making, which is the issue before us. you're the sort of the judge that the district court, the circuit court that should be elevated to the supreme court. they note in this letter that in nearly ten years on the bench as a district judge and in the court of appeals, judge jackson has been involved in thousands of cases running the full range of federal law. your approximately 500. more than 570 opinions written during this time have demonstrated complete command of the legal subject matter. an even-handed approach a fine ability to express yourself with force and great clarity. they have also demonstrated and i'm quoting another attribute essential for a judge, a sense of empathy for the situations of others. judicious and even-handed. these prominent conservative lawyers want this committee to know your judicious and even-handed and recommend you nor the court without reservation despite having noted that they differ with you regarding some political or partisan issues. they're not alone. judge griffith in a letter to this committee and followed up with personal testimony in your introduction yesterday, a judge appointed by former president george w. bush enthusiastically supporting your nomination. i was struck by his description of your intellectual capacity, your keen legal mind. now i'm quoting from his testimony to this committee yesterday. judge jackson, he told us is an independent jurist that adjudicated based on the facts and the law, not as a partisan. he went on. as justice scalia taught us, an indispensable feature is those that is not just taken an oath but to the american people and to god that they will be impartial. he concluded that you, judge jackson, have demonstrated an unwaivering commitment to that oath. that's a conservative judge appointed by republican president that told his committee he's confident he will decide cases based on the facts and the law. not as a partisan. i value the working relationships with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we can and do at times have fierce policy disagreements but we also work together to try to find ways as lawmakers and individuals to respect each other. i take it as a personal badge or source of pride with someone who i disagree with one issue is able to legislate with me on another. i imagine it must be gratifying that a judge that set in judgment, reviewed dozens and dozens of your opinions -- i think he reversed you once. >> more than. >> here's someone that red in review your decisions and sat in review of your work over years as a district, hundreds of opinions as a district court judge. and has such unequivocal praise for the way you approach decision making. can you briefly share what me what it means to you that someone like judge griffith has such confidence that you would make an excellent member of our highest court? >> thank you, senator. it means the world to me to have the support of judge griffith, his coming here yesterday and testifying on my behalf was so gratifying. i have tried in every respect to follow my methodology that enables me to rule impartially in every case and to understand the limits of my own judicial authority and thereby reach decisions without fear or favor. my record demonstrates that i am not proceeding from any sort of preconceived notion about how a case comes out. i'm not ruling consistent with any sort of ideology. i'm doing what impartial and fair judges do, what is to decide in every days based on the facts and the law of that case. i'm very, very pleased that judge griffith has seen that in the years that he's supervised me effectively as a court of appeals judge when i was a district judge. i think it is wonderful that he was able to come here and testify to that. >> judge, for those watching and for those following this, that they might be puzzled because my colleague, the junior senator from the state of texas, has tried to ascribe all sorts of views to you in his recent questioning that try to paint you as some kind of an activist with a radical agenda. in my review of your experience and your record, these letters from judges and scholars, i don't see anything that remotely substantiates that claim. we're here to evaluate your qualifications, your judicial decision making. so let me get at a full of these points specifically if i could. i've heard references to the 1619 project and critical race theory. but i didn't hear that cited in any reference to your opinions as a judge. in your nine years on the bench as a district court judge, more than 570 decisions, have you ever cited this 1619 project? >> no, senator. >> in your nine years on the bench, have you ever cited the journalist or principal author of that 1619 project? >> i have not. >> in your nine years on the bench and 570 decisions, have you ever used, employed, relied upon critical race theory to determine the outcome of any case or to impose any sentence or as a frame work for your decision make something. >> no, senator. >> would you just explain to us briefly what sort of factors you do in fact consider in your analysis? >> senator, when i analyze a case, i am looking at the arguments that the parties raise in the case, i'm looking at the record, which is the facts of the case developed if i'm on the court of appeals, developed below, and i'm looking at the law. i'm looking at any statutes. i'm hhuing to the text and looking at the case at issue. those are the inputs that are appropriate for a judge to consider and those are the only things that i use in my decision making. >> well, i appreciate your laying that out. let me dig into two cases that i think are also probative here. i agree with the wide change of supporters that we heard from that you demonstrated and even an impartial judicial approach in your record, this is true not in just the hundreds of the middle cases that are considered by district court judge, but in several that have been highly charged and really quite political in terms of their consequences. i'd like to discuss your opinion in the center for biological diversity. do you remember that case? >> i do. >> it was between the trump administration and department of homeland security. the dispute was aboutn't trump's efforts to construct a physical border wall between the united states and mexico. i'm sure i don't have to remind you that at the time democrats were about unanimous physically building a wall from coast to coast was not the wisest use of resources to secure the border. there were other ways to do it. with republicans pretty much unanimously willing to defend it. so it was a policy matter with some sharp divisions and some political consequences. you ruled in favor of the construction of the wall and against an attemptpy environmental groups to halt its construction through legal cases. can you discuss what you recall of the claims presented and how you came to a decision in favor of the trump administration? >> senator, the claims in that case, which as you say were brought by an environmental organization related to the administrative procedures act, which is something that we often see in the district of columbia. and whether or not the agency could waive certain environmental laws pertaining to the construction of the wall, whether or not the agency's determination to do so was lawful. and i looked at the relevant circumstances. i ended up, i believe, dismissing that case on threshold grounds before getting to that point in the analysis. consistent with what you said, i was guided by my understanding of the law and what it required. not by anything else. >> i could spend a lot of time on the details of this case, but let me try to summarize it this way. you analyzed the statute, you concluded that congress blocked the courts from hearing nonconstitutional challenges. there was no jurisdictional bar. you looked for precedent, you fund one. not controlling, you thought it was sound and persuasive. there was no controlling circuit court or supreme court precedent that stopped you. if you were in fact an activist judge, a motivated partisan determined to let these environmental groups proceed, you could have. there was no clear precedent that barred that from happening. you analyzed the statute. you applied the best precedent you could find. you reached a result without regard to the political consequences. >> that is correct. >> i wanted to talk about this case because there's really nothing unusual or special about it from your perspective. >> that is correct. >> for those of us up here, there was a lot about it. it was a highly charged partisan and political issue. but you looked at the statute and you applied it and went on to the next case. let me ask about another decision. in a case addressing another very politically charged issue. specifically this involves the e-mails of former secretary of state hillary clinton. now, the republican national committee or the rnc is opposing your nomination publicly accusing you of being a partisan democrat. they argue you could not possibly be an impartial justice. in 2016, you presided over a case brought by the rnc and usaid related to then presidential candidate clinton and you ruled in favor of the rnc. both the substance and the timing of the case are quite striking. >> i did. >> the rnc made freedom of information act requests for certain e-mails involving the former secretary. despite what the rnc would have us leave, in this case you reinforced your deserved reputation for following the law, not a partisan agenda. you ordered usaid to produce thousands of pages of documents related to secretary clinton. do you recall when you issued that order? >> i don't. >> i'll tell you, it was just before the presidential conventions. so if there was a moment when the rnc had a political objective, it was right before the convention and you issued a ruling that they were entitled to e-mail production from the usaid on the basis of legal arguments presented to you, the statute at issue and the evidence. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> for all the back and forth in senate hearings and academic circumstances about the judicial philosophy of supreme court nominees, you have shown what the experience of nearly a decade overwhelmingly spend on the district court has produced. an approach that lookses at the facts and the arguments and reaches a result without taking in to partisan issue at stake. you know, i don't believe a judicial philosophy is always all that meaningful. the judge for whom i clerked spent years as a district court judge. when i asked her her judicial philosophy, she said i call balls and strikes on the judge that rules before me in the exact same frame that you offered. a judicial philosophy does not in and of itself constrain a judge. what constrains a judge is a judge that is willing to be constrained. who understands that the role of the federal judiciary is a limited one. so the real question a president should consider when they make a nomination, the question that we as senators need to make decisions and the question that i think resonates best with the american people that are concerned about this hearing and this nomination and how it will impact the country and their lives is sort of what kind of justice will you be. will you be faithful to the constitution and to the rule of law. you been a judge almost ten years and you have written more than 570 opinions. i'd say your record as a judge is the best answer to the question what kind of justice you'll be. how would you say, your honor, that your approach to judging on the district court relates to the way that you're judging on the circuit court and what approach do you think you'll bring with you if confirmed to the supreme court. >> thank you, senator. my approach all the way through is one that i believe is required by my duties, by my oath as a judge. we rule wut -- without fear or favor and independent in our responsibilities. at the district court level, at the court of appeals level and at the supreme court, that judges are restrained, constrained in the exercise of our power under our constitutional scheme. my methodology is designed to help me make decisions within those confines at every level. it's no different now that i'm on the court of appeals than when i was on the district court with respect to my understanding of the constraints on my authority and my responsibility to be impartial in my rulings. i think it would be no different at the supreme court. >> your honor, i know we've walked through just a few cases today now. in some ways we've only scratched the surface of your decades and the 570 opinions that you've given. it's clear to me from what i reviewed and this sample as we also heard from colleagues, conservative lawyers and judges that wrote to the committee that you are judicious and even-handed, you have a demonstrated record of excellent. that you adjudicate based on the facts and the law, not a partisan. i encourage my colleagues that want to know what kind of justice that you'll be to take a fair and even-handed look at your record and impartiality. your experience is extensive and broad. your commitment to follow the law impartially without the influence of politics is evident in your record. your keen record is plain to all. as judge griffith told this committee, your demonstrated the way you approach cases is based on the law, not on some political agenda. you understand the reason why the robes of our federal judges are black, not red or blue? the american justice system as many have said is rooted in the impartiality of our judicial system as one of the most bulwarks of our civil liberty. no wonder when you came here for the direct court and the circuit court, you earned and receive barn support. i know president biden counts nominate ago supreme court justice among the most significant decisions of his presidency. our role here in the senate in confirming a justice to our highest court is among our greatest privileges. in nominating you, i believe our president has met his mission and it will be my honor to join your overwhelming majority of my colleagues in supporting your confirmation as an associate justice of the united states supreme court. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, senator coons. we relieved a letter from the national coalition of domestic violence. survivors urging you to be entered to the supreme court. they received letters from nine organizations representing survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. the letter said judge jackson is highly qualified for the position as a career and demonstrate her historic confirmation as the supreme court's first black woman and the sixth woman overall will represent monumental progress to the nation. it's charged to serve and that values all of its citizens equally. the organizations noted judge jackson's ruling reflect the consensus. i move to enter these letters into the report. senator sasse, you're next up. we're on the cusp of a vote. we'll take a break at this point. >> i thought we were taking a break and go vote. but if you want me to go first -- >> no, we ought to go over there and return quickly. why don't we declare this break time for 20 minutes. 4:05 back in the room. >> martha: with that, we have been watching the hearing for judge ketanji brown jackson. this afternoon rather strong line of questioning came in from senator ted cruz and then we heard a lot of praise and back and forth with senator coons of delaware. with that, let's bring in jonathan turley who has been watching this, george washington law professor and a fox news contributor. jonathan, you've been watching this throughout the day. interesting line of questioning we heard from senator klobuchar who teed up senator cruz. he got into the question of crt with her, which she had mentioned in a speech at a university in michigan. then he also had some demonstrations on her sentencing in child pornography cases which he contended in many cases had fallen below the sentence that the prosecutor had been seeking. so what stood out for you in this recent segment that we just watched? are you hearing me okay, jonathan? >> yes. i can hear you now. yes. >> your thoughts on what we just watched with senator cruz. go ahead. >> okay. you know, the difficulty with the crt criticism is that she noted, you know, her -- this is not influencing her view as a judge and how she interprets. they didn't get into much in terms of her judicial philosophy. you heard senator coons say judicial philosophy is not that porned. it sure was important with barrett. many of them same senators said they would vote against barrett because she has a conservative colleagues. now many are crying afoul because issues of crt have been raised. it's part of the worldliness of these hearings. the senators that threw grenades are thoughing accolades. the other side is different. we're used to that we're not getting much information on judge jackson's actual judicial views, how she engages in con constitutional and statutory interpretation. what she has described is not her philosophy but her methodology. as i mentioned earlier, that's like asking someone what the clothes style they like and they describe how they put clothes on. it doesn't tell us much about how she will approach the text of the constitution or a statute. she was reversed earlier because she was accused of ignoring the text of a statute. in fairness to her, judges are reversed. she has many judges across the spectrum that think the world of her. >> all right. jonathan, thank you very much. they're in about a 20-minute break in this hearing process. i know you'll be watching it with us this afternoon. we'll check back in with you later. thank you. so back at the white house, national security adviser jakes sullivan addressing the war in ukraine where the people that live there who did not pose a threat to russia are being killed, they're being starved and china so far has really done their best to sit on the sideline here. they have not condemned the actions of the russian military and they have not endorsed putin's war. >> we have not seen since those meetings or since the president's conversations with xi to provision of military equipment by china to russia. of course, this is something that we're monitoring closely. we will continue to monitor it. the president made clear to president xi the implications and consequences of any such provision of equipment. they well understand one another. >> jake sullivan, the national security adviser on what is going on in terms of china's position here and the potential that they could weigh-in with military assistance. it's not happened yet. let's bring in peter schweizer. how american elites get rich helping china win. the title of your book has a picture of president biden on it. it points out the difficulties in the nuances here with these relationships around the globe with china. peter, your thoughts on how china is responding so far quite carefully walking the line here. >> yeah, i mean china is looking out for china's interests. they want an alliance with russia because they like russia's natural resources, something that they need. on the other hand, russia's move in to ukraine has united the west. they're playing at this time way you expect. they want russia to succeed but they don't want the west unified because it will make things more difficult for them. >> martha: we're going to go to john kirby as the pentagon. as i mentioned, the title of your book. we remember that president vice president biden was in charge of overseeing relationships with ukraine. his son, hunter biden, had business relationships with ukraine and china and there's new light shed on that, especially in the light of "the new york times" has decided, yes, it was hunter biden's laptop that those e-mails are on. what is instrumental in looking at this biden china relationship now? >> i think the thing that we have to keep in mind is regards to what is gooing on in the ukraine, the biden family has received funds from three countries, principally involved. they received millions from pro putin oligarchs. that was spelled out by the u.s. senate. they received money from ukraine, particularly from a company owned by an oligarch that helped put zelensky in to power. you have the relationship with china. my view is simple. washington d.c. is about follow the money. if politicians are getting contributions from wall street or big oil, that's a story. we're talking about the millions from the biden family has received that needs to be part of the conversation and discussion. you can't separate their personal financial interests that the decisions that he has to make in this situation. >> martha: we now know thanks to the cover of the "new york post" that the 50 plus intelligence agency officials from current and past that said that the russian -- the laptop was highly likely to be russian disinformation are completely mum on this topic and not really fessing up to any criticism that comes their way with regard to how they could make that statement in light of what we now know. thanks, peter. sorry our time is so short. hope you come back soon. thanks for being here. we're going to swing to be pentagon where john kirby is answering questions about the war in ukraine. let's listen in. >> we didn't get them tabulated until last fall. ate while before we have seen the 21 numbers. the secretary has seen enough of the 20 data and the reporting coming in throughout the court of 21, he's seen enough to know that we have to do something different. we have to try to take additional and more creative action. one suicide is one tomorrow. he visited alaska. there's bases in alaska part of the installations visited by the independent review committee. he spent a lot of time when he went out to fairbanks talking with troops and commanders about the challenges with respect to mental health and suicide. he's going to stay focused on this. it's not waiting for the 21 data to come in. on your second question about the suburb of kyiv, we're not in position to confirm that that suburb has been retaken by the ukrainians. we have seen indications that the ukrainians are going a bit more on the offense now. they have been defending very smartly, very creatively in places that they believe are the right places to defend. we have seen them now in places particularly in the south near kyrsan. they have tried to regain territory. we don't have great fidelity of tactical movements, but we have seen them make these efforts. i will tell you, the ukrainians themselves several days ago said they were playing on attacks. we've seen indications that they're moving in that direction. next question. travis? >> i want to follow up on the suicide issue. this has been a huge problem for years and years and a lot of time that the department and military branches have invested in trying to get active. toes the secretary have any initial assessment on why he believes this is so difficult problem and what can be done that is different than has been done in the past? my second question involves ukraine. you mentioned the secretary is traveling to poland again. we have thousands of members there, the 82nd. can you give us an update on what they're doing there, whether they are involved in exercises with the poles, whether they're hunkered down. what is their status and what are they up to now? do you have an updated number in the number of americans that they have assisted that fled from ukraine? >> there's a lot there. tackle one at a time. if the secretary were here, he would tell you if he knew how to prevent suicides, if it was that easy, we would have solved it by now. it's a complex problem. each suicide is very individual. there's not going to be and hasn't been a silver bullet and we're not looking for one, travis. one of the things -- well, several of the things he heard when we went to fairbanks, he had a chance to spend time with some mental health experts, particularly from the university there. came in and spend time. they walked him through some of the complexities that they have seen with respect to suicide and suicide prevention efforts. each one is an individual tragedy and it's difficult to wrap your arms around what is causing it. i think the secretary believes that one problem that we have to get after is the sigma of seeking help from mental health problems, which is still a problem in the military. there's still a feeling by too many service members that if i'm having problems, dealing and coping, i can't seek help because it will be held against me on my next promotion board or may be held against my on my assignments or maybe my commanding officer will think different. i think the secretary firmly believes we have to work harder getting at the stigma. you've heard him talk about this, majority of suicides -- i shouldn't say the majority. there's a significant amount of suicides in the military that are gun fire related. gunshot related. personal firearms. one of the things that he wants to do is work with commanders on storage of firearms in the home or on base. make sure that we have that well-in hand. and then the other thing, travis and that is why i think you'll see in the memo that the secretary is putting forward, a list of some initial installations that he wants visited by the end review commission, is the geographic isolation in some of our assignments and where our troops and families are working as well as the resources at those installations with respect to mental health. it's very complex. i think we would be doing ourselves and our teammate as disservice if we tried to simplify this as here's one thing or two things that can fix it. it's very complicated. it's so individualistic. we have to start with understanding the mental health needs of our troops and their families, reducing stigma and making sure that be we're going to say hey, you're not going to be held against you for seeking mental health counselling that we can get that counselling to you. it's available. so it's a resourcing issue as well. look, we look forward to seeing what the independent review committee comes back with. the reason of standing this up is to try to help answer your question. that's what the secretary wants down. i just totally forgot your other questions. >> ukrainian and -- >> yeah. thank you. they're still there. you know, poland hosts thousands of u.s. the troops on rotational orders of course. the 82nd are there. they are conducting training with our polish allies. they're doing training and exercises. they were ready to assist with the evacuation of american citizens coming from ukraine. they had several facilitation areas that they could help with folks that needed transportation assistance, some food, some water, some medical care. there wasn't a large number. i with get you the exact number. i don't have it with me. it was a handful that ended up needing support from the 82nd airborne and what they were ready to do was again, food, water, internet access, helping them move on. most of the americans, the vast majority and i think it's been several thousand, i think, since the course of the invasion that left ukraine already had tickets in hand, places to go. they were ready. they didn't really need u.s. military support. we wanted to be there just in case. the other thing they're doing,
Related Keywords
Mexico , New York , United States , Texas , Alaska , Washington , China , Fairbanks , Kyiv , Kyyiv , Misto , Ukraine , Russia , Poland , Michigan , Polish , Americans , Ukrainians , Ukrainian , Russian , American , Jake Sullivan , Brown Jackson , Peter Schweizer , John Kirby , Vladimir Putin , Charles Nickerson , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz , Note , Predators , Advocacy , Sex Crimes , Activism , Harvard Law Review , Distinction , Prevention Versus Punishment , Work , Restraint , Sex Offenders , Law Enforcement , Legislation , Spate , Commitment , Individuals , Rights , Term , Characterization , Crimes , Sex Offender Statutes , Contusionalty , Preventative , Second , Course , Punitive , Peach , Page , Registration , Whether , Blood Sample , Privacy , Categories , May , Doubts , Community Notification , Senator , Sentiments , Law School Note , Sex Offender Registration Laws , Travis , Things , Law School , Law School Students , Developments , One , Something , Law , Fodder , 1996 , Point , Terms , Civil Commitment Laws , Making , Megan , Way , Mother , Character , Consequences , Courts , Set , Cons Sequences , Determination , View , Supreme Court , Bench , Vote , Statue , Kansas , 4 , 1997 , 5 , States , Statutes , Prevalence , Communication Requirements , Blood , Dna , 47 , 50 , Government , State Court , Sort , Appeals , Estate , Sex Offender Requirements , Detention , Reasoning , Banks , Dc , 20 , Court Of Appeals , Texas Supreme Court , Appeal , Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Law , Solicitor General , Statute , Country , People , Outcome , Dna Bank Laws , Argument Community Notification , My Note Wasnt Advocating , Criteria , Down , Respect , Lets Take Civil Commitment Laws , Programs , Ucla School Of Law , 6300 , Public , Jurisdiction , Ones , Ketanji Brown Jackson , Wall , Were , Sentencing Commission , Views , White House , Quotes , Vice Chairman , Students , Concerns , Maturity , Defenders , Quote , Context , Means , Offenders , Stage , Group Experience , Progression , Singular , Least , Sore , Some , Testimony , Motivation , Child Pornography Offenders , Child Pornography , Technology , Pedophiles , Use , Group , Child Pornography Offender , Challenge , Possession , Argument , Child Porn , Child Pornography Piece , Sentiment , Portions , Population , Fact , It , Satisfaction , Someone , Position , Question , Hearing , Sentencings , Many , Child , Trial Judge , Collections , Tlookers , They Weren T , Anyone , Cure Rating , Attitude , Sentencing , Behavior , Harm , Cases , Us , Look , Versus Butress , Ten , Two , Crime , Recommendation , Icann , Prosecutors , District Of Columbia , Guidelines , Departures , Which , Space , Case , Versus Nickerson , Discretion , Agreement , Versus Hess , 60 , 120 , Reduction , Versus Chazin , 78 , 97 , 64 , 28 , Versus Cooper , Downs , 72 , 17 , Versus Hawkins , Three , 24 , 14 , 70 , Versus Stewart , Prosecutor , Versus Savage , 37 , 88 , 49 , Child Pornography Cases , 41 , 57 , 100 , Average , 147 2 , Children , Offender , Voice , Yes , Judges , Factors , Congress , Probation Office , Chart , Couple , Observations , Republican National Committee , Mr , Chairman , Recommendations , Access , Evidence , Requirement , Account , Sentencing Guidelines , Parties , Offense , Victims , Defendant , Characteristics , Body , Stories , History , Nature , Sentencing Judges , Numbers Game , Number , Considerations , Duty , Information , Defendants , Flight , Don T , Worst , Stop , Circumstancesdant , Circumstances , Sentencing Practices , 2012 , Record , Changes , Basis , Sentences , Hand Offenses , Subject , Stakeholders , Concern , Report , Member , Guideline Ranges , Example , Possession Receipts , Commission , Part , Commission Report , Basis Commission Report , Proceedings , Led , Thanks , Koonce , Consent , Books , Objection , Good , Issues , Chance , Colleague , Prosecution , Sentencing Case , Prison , 12 , V Mcgin , Pfife , Prs , District 80 , Extent , Norm , 80 , Effort , Child Safety , Members , Loved Ones , Family , Law Enforcement Officers , Bit , Parent , Uncled , Brother , Justice , Sex Crimes Unit , Detective , Impact , Senses , Mercy , Balance , Trial Judges , Graphic Descriptions , Descriptions , Statements , Humanity , Lives , Care , Woman , Internet , Pictures , Nightmares , Everyone , Mainwitness , Kind , Isolation , Fear , Vulnerability , Honor , Column , Smear , Character View , Publication , Colleagues , Law Enforcement Advocacy Organizations , Demagoguery , Fraternal Order Of Police , Support , Qualifications , Fop Letter , Police , Doubt , Capabilities , Chiefs , Association , Letter , Challenges , Experience , Understanding , Temperament , Policing Profession , Complexities , Appointment , Iacp , Organizations , Communities , Sentencing Decisions , Dedication , Safe , Pornographiers On Being Soft Crime , Steps , Lifetime Conduct , Coddling , Decisions , Review , Arguments , Sides , Interests , Records , Rulings , Plaintiffs , Facts , Opinions , Show , Nomination , Letters , Groups , Agenda , Word , Caricature , Outpouring , Mind , Worth , Community , Best , Brightest , Surprise , Lawyers , Republican , Reviews , Confirmation , Positions , Administrations , Issue , Decision Making , Person , Intellect , Judge , Circuit Court , District Court , District Judge , Thousands , Orange , Command , Subject Matter , 570 , 500 , Approach , Situations , Sense , Clarity , Force , Ability , Empathy , Attribute Essential , Court , Injudicious , Others , Reservation , Griffith , Georgew Bush , Introduction , Description , Capacity , Partisan , Jurist , Justice Scalia , Oath , Feature , God , Have , President , Committee , Relationships , Ways , Times , Each Other , Aisle , Lawmakers , Policy Disagreements , Another , Source , Pride , Badge , Judgment , Dozens , Red , Sat , District Court Judge , Praise , Hundreds , District , Circuit Court Or Supreme , World , Confidence , Behalf , Methodology , Impartially , Limits , Authority , Notion , Preconceived , Ideology , Watching , Questioning , Junior Senator , Sorts , Scholars , Activist , Claim , Anything , Project , Race Theory , Points , References , 1619 , Reference , Nine , Author , Journalist , Sentence , Decision , Frame , Briefly , Analysis , Text , Hhuing , Inputs , Change , Playing , Supporters , Several , Opinion , Center For Biological Diversity , Administration , Efforts , Dispute , Border Wall , Department Of Homeland Security , Aboutnt Trump , Resources , Wisest Use , Border , Coast To , Construction , Favor , Republicans , Policy Matter , Divisions , Attemptpy , Claims , Organization , Administrative Procedures Act , Agency , The Wall , Anything Else , Lot , Details , Hearing Nonconstitutional , Precedent , Persuasive , Bar , Activist Judge , Result , Regard , Perspective , Nothing , E Mails , Secretary Of State , Democrat , Usaid , Candidate , Clinton , 2016 , Secretary , Requests , Timing , Substance , The Rnc Made Freedom Of Information Act , Reputation , Pages , Documents , Leave , Order , Conventions , Convention , Objective , I Don T , Ruling , Production , Hearings , Back , Judicial Philosophy Of Supreme Court , Nominees , Forth , Philosophy , Stake , Strikes , Balls , Role , Judiciary , Senators , Constitution , Rule Of Law , Answer , Duties , Responsibilities , District Court Level , Power , Exercise , Scheme , Constraints , Confines , Level , Responsibility , Surface , Sample , Conservative Lawyers , Excellent , Impartiality , Politics , Law Impartially , Influence , Broad , Reason , System , Blue , Probes , Black , Vice President Biden , Barn Support , Counts , Wonder , Bulwarks , Civil Liberty , Senate , Presidency , Privileges , Majority , Mission , Associate Justice , You , Senator Coons , Domestic Violence , Survivors , Coalition , Career , Sexual Assault , Supreme Courts First Black Woman , Citizens , Nation , Progress , Break , Consensus , Cusp , Senator Sasse , Room , 05 , Line , Martha , Jonathan Turley , George Washington , Delaware , Fox News , Senator Klobuchar , Crt , Contributor , University , Demonstrations , Speech , Segment , Thoughts , Difficulty , Crt Criticism , Porned , Coons Say Judicial Philosophy , Barrett , Worldliness , Afoul , Side , Accolades , Grenades , Thoughing , Con Constitutional And Statutory Interpretation , Clothes , It Doesn T , Spectrum , Fairness , War , Hearing Process , National Security , Jakes Sullivan , China S , Sideline , Threat , Military , Actions , Conversations , Xi , Meetings , Putin , Military Equipment , Equipment , Provision , Implications , President Xi , Military Assistance , Security , Potential , Book , Title , Elites , Picture , China Win , Difficulties , Nuances , Globe , Hand , Natural Resources , Alliance , Move , West , Pentagon , Charge , Laptop , Hunter Biden , There , Business Relationships , The New York Times , Flight Shed , Thing , Funds , Gooing , Biden Family , Money , Millions , Countries , Us Senate , Pro Putin Oligarchs , Oligarch , Politicians , Relationship , Company , Put Zelensky , Needs , Conversation , Contributions , Story , Discussion , Wall Street , Big Oil , Officials , New York Post , Situation , Cover , Statement , Criticism , Topic , Disinformation , Questions , Numbers , 21 , Data , Reporting , Action , Suicide , Troops , Commanders , Installations , The Independent Review Committee , Bases , Mental Health , Suburb , Indications , Places , South , Movements , Territory , Fidelity , Kyrsan , Suicide Issue , Attacks , Direction , Problem , Assessment , Department , Military Branches , Toes , Exercises , Status , Update , Poles , 82nd , 82 , Suicides , Hasn T , Silver Bullet , To Fairbanks , Mental Health Experts , Suicide Prevention Efforts , Tragedy , Arms , Help , Mental Health Problems , Problems , Feeling , Dealing , Service , Coping , Sigma Of Seeking , Assignments , Commanding Officer , Promotion Board , Stigma , Amount , Gun Fire Related , Firearms , Storage , Gunshot , Home , List , Base , Memo , Families , Review Commission , The End , Disservice , Teammate , Counselling , Resourcing Issue , Mental Health Counselling , Review Committee , Cup , Training , Borders , Evacuation , Facilitation Areas , Allies , Handful , Food , Water , There Wasn T , Transportation Assistance , Folks , Most , Internet Access , 82nd Airborne , Invasion , Tickets , Doing , Us Military Support ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.