Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) had quite the exchange with a reporter from ABC News after giving his opening statement for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing on Monday.
Reporter Rachel Scott confronted Hawley about voting for to confirm three other judges who also gave lighter sentences for child porn offenders, in the same vein as Jackson, with Hawley noting that line is a talking point from the Biden White House.
"It's not, it's public information, we actually have it here. At least three federal appeals court judges," Scott replied.
But when Hawley asked about the cases she was referring to, Scott was unable to name the cases.
"What were the cases?" Hawley pressed.
"I mean, you voted for them," Scott said.
"What were the cases though?" Hawley asked again.
"Shouldn't you be familiar with their record as well?" Scott asked.
Hawley chuckled as he told Scott it was clear she has not looked into the specifics of the cases she was trying to use in order to ask a "gotcha" question.
"So you expect me to just..." Scott began to ask.
"Well, I expect you to know the facts since you're asking me about them," said Hawley. "So how many cases did they have? Judge Jackson has seven, I just listed them. What are the ones that these judges had...So you don't know, you're just here to do a gotcha. When you know and get the facts, come back to me. I'd be happy to talk to you."
After his opening statement at Judge Jackson's nomination hearing, ABC News tried to play “gotcha” with Sen. Hawley, repeating the White House's latest talking points verbatim. But when pressed on the facts, they had nothing.
— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) March 21, 2022
Hear the full exchange below. pic.twitter.com/zGDsmVY2QT
Here’s Judge Jackson’s record on child porn offenders. See for yourself: pic.twitter.com/TlpYfsWAYw
— Abigail Marone ???? (@abigailmarone) March 22, 2022
ABC News recently tried to do a "fact check" on Hawley's statement about Jackson's history of giving lighter sentences to child porn offenders only to end up admitting he was right but still insisted his comments "neglects critical context."