Moonglow
Diamond Member
Already a thread.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The problem is many liberals don't see a big problem with child porn, think it is a victimless crime. They don't understand that in the making of the pictures, a child has to be abused, and if there were no demand for it there would be no industry. Some of this stuff is so sick it is unspeakable.
I've seen logs floating down the Shenandoah that are brighter than she is.She’s just uneducated.
it takes a really stupid person to have a degree in the judiciary.I've seen logs floating down the Shenandoah that are brighter than she is.
It's USMB rules, not Kennedy's.Why are you protecting the child abuser?
The problem is many liberals don't see a big problem with child porn, think it is a victimless crime. They don't understand that in the making of the pictures, a child has to be abused, and if there were no demand for it there would be no industry. Some of this stuff is so sick it is unspeakable.
Truth.it takes a really stupid person to have a degree in the judiciary.
This woman fits right in with the evil people in the deep state.
After these reveals how can anyone in the Senate support her? If they do it will out them too.
Senator Josh Hawley tweeted tonight that he’s found an alarming pattern in the opinions, advocacy and judicial decisions when it comes to sex offenders and those preying on children.Hawley says he’s seeing a “pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes.”He also notes that she’s advocated for getting rid of “existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn” and says she’s argued that some people found with child porn are NOT pedophiles, that they are only in it for the collection or are “looking to find status in their participation in the community.”As far as her judicial decisions, Hawley writes “In every single child porn case for which we can find records, Judge Jackson deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines in favor of child porn offenders.” He demonstrates the she’s deviated quite drastically, I might add.There’s much more so check out the full tweet thread below. It’s somewhat long but it’s important:
...
This woman fits right in with the evil people in the deep state.
After these reveals how can anyone in the Senate support her? If they do it will out them too.
Senator Josh Hawley tweeted tonight that he’s found an alarming pattern in the opinions, advocacy and judicial decisions when it comes to sex offenders and those preying on children.Hawley says he’s seeing a “pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes.”He also notes that she’s advocated for getting rid of “existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn” and says she’s argued that some people found with child porn are NOT pedophiles, that they are only in it for the collection or are “looking to find status in their participation in the community.”As far as her judicial decisions, Hawley writes “In every single child porn case for which we can find records, Judge Jackson deviated from the federal sentencing guidelines in favor of child porn offenders.” He demonstrates the she’s deviated quite drastically, I might add.There’s much more so check out the full tweet thread below. It’s somewhat long but it’s important:
...
Why are you?Why are you protecting the child abuser?
Did YOU look it up…particularly in the context of the laws at the time?too lazy to go look it up yourself? throw shade n giggle is a worn the fuck out leftist tactic.
yes.Did YOU look it up…particularly in the context of the laws at the time?
Yeah CNN analysts were saying that Jackson is in-line with 80% of "Length of sentencing" for child stuff. As in, she is about 80% in line with other Justices across the country.Did YOU look it up…particularly in the context of the laws at the time?
Was basing my response on the tone in your post.yes.
anything else you'd line to ask? why must you always be confrontational?
the tone I was talking to someone else with? that tone?Was basing my response on the tone in your post.