fireworks on day two of the questioning of supreme court nominee ketanji brown jackson. another aggressive round of questioning by republicans on the judiciary committee. texas senator ted cruz is questioning judge jackson now. we're going to listen in. >> and you read this script in every one of these cases. so you talk about that these are terrible, terrible crimes.

but you also -- in hess you said, "i have to say that what i found particularly disturbing about your offense was that "you apparently concocted a story about having photographed your own daughter who you purportedly were willing to take pictures of to trade with other people. i know from your comments and from those who know you that you are unlikely to ever harm a child," which i find remarkable that you've got a child predator in your court who says you're unlikely to harm a child you say you told me that so clearly you're unlikely. but you say in the context of the crime you represented that you would. that in and of itself is astonishing. so you talk about it as astonishing. you nonetheless sentenced him to the very lowest possible sentence allowed under law. and what's striking is in these cases, and half of them in five, you sentenced the defendant to the absolute lowest sentence under law. let's look at another case. let's look at united states versus chazin.

now, chazin is a particularly nasty case. in chazin the defendant was accused -- accessed a dropbox that contained 35 videos and 13 partially downloaded files of prepubescent minor females engaging in sexually explicit conduct. at least three of the instances of prepubescent female children were engaged in sexual activity with adult men. the images included the sexual abuse of children including those as young as toddlers. and several of these cases that you had involved the sexual abuse of toddlers, which is truly horrifying. in this instance chazin pleaded guilty. the guidelines recommended a sentence of 78 to 97 months. the prosecution argued that should be what the sentence was. and you sentenced chazin to just 28 months.

why did you sentence someone who had child pornography of toddlers being sexually abused to 28 months, 64% below what the prosecutors asked for? >> thank you, senator. you've picked out, i don't know, seven, eight cases. i've sentenced more than 100 people -- >> but not to child pornography -- >> in every case, senator, i look at the evidence, i look at the recommendations of not just the government, because my duty as a judge is to consider all of the arguments that are made in a case. i look at the evidence. i talk to the defendants about the harms that they have engaged in. many of these defendants are people who -- >> okay, judge, with respect, you're not answering my question. you're right. you talk to them about the

harms. let me read you again from what you said at the bench. you said in this instance with mr. chazin, you said "among the nationwide who received a below guideline sentence on a downward variance as opposed to a departure the average sentences ranged from 84 to 2 months." 92 months. that's what you lay out as the average. our democratic colleagues say well, other federal judges sentence below the guidelines. that is true. a number of federal judges do. our democratic colleagues have not pointed to a single federal judge in the country who 100% of the time sentences child porn defendants to markedly below what the prosecution has recommended unless you have a mandatory minimum and no ability to do so. in this case you say comparable defendants are sentenced to 84 to 92 months. sentencing guidelines by statute require you to have similarly situated defendants sentenced to

similar sentences. but you don't sentence clazin to 84 to 92 months. you sentenced him to 28 months. why? >> senator, i've said what i'm going to say about these cases. no one case is stand in for a judge's entire record -- >> okay, but i'm discussing every one of the cases. >> i understand -- >> if you're not going to -- >> senator, would you please let her respond? >> no, not if she's not going to answer my questions. >> if you're just going to give a speech -- >> you're not taking my time. if you want to filibuster you're welcome -- >> i would at least give you an opportunity to speak. and you should give her an opportunity to respond. >> if she wants to answer the question. i asked her why -- >> please allow her to answer the question. >> i asked her why she sentenced clazin to 28 months when comparable defendants in her own words were sentenced to substantially higher and she said she's not going to answer. did you -- i would welcome your answer. >> i didn't hear that -- >> senator, i didn't say i'm not going to answer. i said my answer -- >> please tell us in this case, chazin why did you sentence him to 28 months? >> senator, you're looking at the record. i don't have the record here.

what i will say is that in every case i looked at the recommendations of not only the government but also the probation office, the defendant, the record, the evidence, i took into account the seriousness of the offense and -- >> by the way, one of the striking things in chazin, the prosecutor comes in front of you and says -- this is the prosecutor's argument at this point. and the prosecutor says, "i understand from my experience before your honor your honor's objection, policy objections to the 2 g 2.2 sentencing guidelines." and he goes on to say, "however, in this case in particular the four-point specific offense characteristic is justified because it contains sadomasochistic images of infants and toddlers." i'm trying to understand how you see someone that possesses images of infants and toddlers

being sexually violated and you sentence them to 64% below what the prosecutor's asking for. you don't provide a justification other than a generic concern that the guidelines are too high. you don't provide a justification as required by statute. so i'm asking you to take the opportunity to explain to this committee and the american people why in 100% of the cases you have people with vile crimes and you have language saying they're vile crimes but then you sentence them to very, very low sentences and why do you consistently 100% of the time choose to do that? >> senator, no one case can stand in for a judge's entire sentencing record. i've sentenced more than 100 people. you have eight or nine cases in that chart. >> okay, judge, you said that before. these are the eight or nine

cases -- >> i'll is state to the judge there's no point in responding. he's going to respond v interrupt you. >> i appreciate the chairman trying to filibuster. if you don't like the witness's answers you're welcome to provide your own. she is declining to answer the question. and chairman durbin, if you want to join her on the bench you can. chairman durbin -- >> my job is -- >> chairman durbin, i'm not interrupting your questioning. >> i'm asking you to give her a chance to answer. you're refusing -- >> but she's consistently said she's not going to answer. i want to clarify the case i was discussing is cooper and not chazin. but chazin is -- the case that i was reading from your transcript was cooper but chazin -- all right. let's get to chazin. i pulled the wrong tab. chazin is equally horrifying. and you say in chazin, this is something senator graham asked you. the guidelines lay out different enhancements and you said repeatedly, and this is true in all your cases you say you disagree with the guidelines, you think they're wrong. and the two guidelines you

disagree with is one there's an enhancement for use of a computer. and you say the world has changed and now all of these are on a computer. i understand that. i don't agree with you but i understand that. that is an understandable thing to say. but the second thing you say over and over again is there's an enhancement for the number of images and you say repeatedly, for example, in chazzin you say whatever the state state of the law at the time the guidelines were first adapted neither the use of the computer nor the number of images are especially aggravating factors today. now, i find that bizarre. and you say it in every case. you say the number of images, it's not an aggravating factor, it doesn't matter and you won't apply the enhancement. do you really believe that a predator that has hundreds or thousands of images of hundreds or thousands of children being sexually violated has not committed an offense that is more serious than someone that has a single picture of a single child? a single picture of a single

child is horrifying. but hundreds of children that have been violated. do you really believe that is not a more serious offense? >> senator, i did not have any cases involving hundreds of thousands of pictures -- >> no, i said hundreds or thousands. you had cases involving hundreds and you had cases involving thousands. you're right. you didn't have hundreds of thousands. >> and i also aapplied an enhancement, just not to the degree of the guidelines. >> you're right. it's a five-point enhancement of the guidelines. you provide two. >> yes. so not zero. not the suggestion that i -- >> but are you suggesting the number of images doesn't matter? because you say it in court over and over again that the number of images doesn't reflect it's a more serious crime. do you really believe that? >> senator, as i said to senator graham, the court is taking into account a number of circumstances. the commission has done a report about the operation of the guidelines, which enhancements actually reflect different levels of culpability with --

>> so let me ask you this, judge. you said the purpose of sentencing is to distinguish and distinguish between crimes that are not as serious from truly egregious crimes. is that right? >> no, senator. >> so what is the purpose of sentencing if it's not to distinguish from less serious crimes from truly egregious crimes? >> it is to assign proportional punishment. it is to do justice in cases where you have defendants who are convicted of the same conduct but have different, differing levels of culpability. >> well, i will point out that you have a pattern it doesn't matter how egregious the case is. senator hawley talked about the hawkins case where you had an 18-year-old with pictures of boys as young as 8 being sexually assaulted and raped and you sentenced him to just three months in jail. and i will point out the stewart case, the last one on this list, because we're running out of time. the stewart case you described that he had over 6,700 images

and videos. so that's a lot. 6,700. that's a lot of kids -- >> the time has expired. ? -- being sexually assaulted -- >> you have taken over a minute of my time, mr. chairman. >> i'll give you -- you've been given extra time. you usually ask for it. you're given it. >> okay. i know you want to interrupt. i know you don't like -- >> i just want you to play by the rules. >> i know you like to interrupt -- >> i like to play by the rules. >> a substantial portion of my questioning. and i'm going to ask my questions and you can -- if you want to testify you're welcome to. >> senator, you play to the same rules as every other senator. >> in the stewart case you said from the bench thus, although this is not necessarily an atypical case, your child pornography possession crime was egregious in the court's view. okay. so this is a bad one. if you're actually sentencing defendants, you said this was egregious. what did you sentence stewart for? the guidelines said 97 to 121

months. prosecutor said 97 months. you said it's egregious. 6,700 images. you come in with 57 months. why -- >> the time has expired. the senator is two minutes over the allotted -- >> in the stewart case. do you want to address that? you're claiming it's cherry-picking. in fact, you're welcome to explain any of these cases but let's take the stewart case. why did you sentence him for half the amount? >> you're not recognized, senator. >> you don't want her to answer that question? >> you wouldn't allow her anyway. >> mr. chairman, she may answer the question. i've asked her why she sentenced stewart -- >> you've gone over the time, senator, by two minutes and a half. >> because you've interrupted me for two minutes, mr. chairman. will you allow her to answer the question or do you not want the american people to hear why with someone she described as an egregious -- >> there comes a point, senator, where you get a little bit -- >> chairman durbin, will you lou her to answer the question? >> you won't allow her to answer the question. >> i will happily allow hir -- the question is -- an egregious child pornography possessor -- >> so judge jackson -- >> to half the amount requested

by the prosecutor. >> please, senator. >> will you allow her to answer the question, chairman durbin? >> senator coons. >> why are you not allowing her to answer the qi -- >> you're -- >> i'm not asking another question but allow her to answer the question, chairman durbin. >> thank you, chairman durbin -- >> why do you not want the american people to know what happened in the stewart case orfully of these cases? scharm durbin, i have never seen the chairman refuse to allow a witness to answer a question. [ gavel ] >> you can bang it as loud as you want. >> i can just tell you at some point you have to follow the rules. >> okay. will you let her answer the question? you've been interrupting -- and by the way, with senator graham it went ten minutes over. you've -- >> it sure did. >> you've take ayn big clunk of the time. will you allow her to answer the question? >> you've given her -- >> why are you afraid -- >> she's welcome to answer it right now. will you let her? >> senator coons. >> will you -- so no, you don't want her to answer the question? >> senator coons. >> will you let her answer the question? >> chairman durbin -- >> apparently you are very afraid of the american people haefrg the answer to that

question. >> we here in the senate, in this committee today, are in the middle of a policy fight. it's my understanding that across this nation more than 70% of district court judges who impose sentences in cases such as the ones that have been so vigorously debated here depart downwards from the sentencing guidelines, from the request of the prosecutors. and as you've explained repeatedly and in detail that's because the sentencing judge is required to weigh a whole series of factors. how many opinions have you written as a judge, your honor? >> i have written at least 570 opinions, senator. >> and in how many cases have you imposed sentences as a federal judge? >> more than 100 cases. >> and across all of those we've just heard very forcefully assertions made about you and your character and your capabilities and your background, narrowing in on just a few. and i would simply put for those who are watching and trying to understand what all of this is about that in an attempt to

distract from your broad support, your deep record, your outstanding intellectual and legal credentials that we are taking what is a policy dispute that should be decided by members of the senate. if we want to change the sentencing guidelines to make them mandatory rather than advisory, if we want to change the structure within which a federal judge imposes sentences, we could do that. but to demand that you be held accountable for this practice that is nationwide and is years old i view as an unfair misrepresentation of your record. so if i could, let's go to something that you did as the vice chair of the sentencing commission, an important vote that you took in 2014. because in my view it shows how fundamentally misguided are the attacks that try to mischaracterize you as someone who at all costs will do what you can to help criminal defendants. let me just lay out the context

for a moment. in 2010 congress, enacting a policy choice, unanimously passed the fair sentencing act, a bill that reduced the disparity in sentences between crack cocaine and powdered cocaine from 100 to 1 to 18 to 1. this law meant those currently in prison on crack offenses could seek to shorten their sentences. four years later the commission further concluded that individuals who provided substantial assistance to the government, people who cooperated, who helped out the prosecution, could use this law to shorten their sentence retroactively beyond any break they might have gotten for their cooperation. but you disagreed. in your public remarks at the time you explained that although given your prior service as a federal public defender it might seem logical you'd support this direction you could not do so because you concluded it was manifestly inconsistent with the

law and would create unfair disparities between those previously sentenced cooperators and those sentenced today. essentially, if i understand your view, it was that the sentence of a cooperator shouldn't be understood to be based on the sentencing ranges modified by the fair sentencing act that was best understood as a fixed discount of the mandatory minimum that i affair sentencing act had not changed. i know this is technical. but i just wanted to make sure i'm characterizing this correctly before reaching a conclusion. do i understand the context correctly in which you made this decision? >> yes, senator. perfectly. it was debate among the commission, run of the very few in which we couldn't reach agreement about the retroactive application of the fair sentencing act reduction. >> and so just to finish the framing the sentencing commission, which often decides things unanimously, was sharply divided. and here's who was on each side. you voted to deny relief to

cooperators, to deny them a pathway toward reducing their prison sentences. and you were joined by two conservatives well known to us, judge william pryor and now judge dabney frederic. and the three of you were outvoted by four commissioners, which included judge hinojosa, an individual nominated by president reagan and described as a hard-nosed, no-nonsense judicial conservative, who was on the other side of the argument from you. so you've got four commissioners including an outstanding conservative reagan nominee and they thought the law could be interpreted to give a break on sentencing. and you were on the other side of that argument. if as someone has tried to paint you simply were determined to give every break you could to criminal defendants all you had to do was join the majority and this would have passed. but that's not what you did. help me understand why not. >> thank you, senator.

as you say, this is a sort of technical kind of in the weeds discussion. but the top line is that when i looked at the issues and when i looked at the law it was my opinion that the law did not provide for the further reduction that was being considered. >> so across an incredibly broad range of sentences you've had to impose in cases on which you've had to opine, i'm picking this one in part because it's not getting any attention from this confirmation process. you but for folks who'd like some insight into how you make decisions and how you explain those decisions there's a video. it's publicly available. in april of 2014 of the public meeting of the sentencing commission where you laid out your position. so i encourage folks to just watch that. and they'll see a jurist who understands that her commitment above all is to determine what the law requires and then follow it.

in my view that's an individual who belongs on the supreme court. by the way, your position that the law required that there not be further breaks given in this context ultimately won the day. my sclaeg from new jersey made a point of mentioning a relevant case, united states versus booker yesterday. i have to say in this case it was decided in coons versus united states, with a k, not a c. we all have our judicial record from which we work. but supreme court ruled for exactly the same reasons you did in this argument that you did was made public. i just think, your honor, this is an example of you looking hard at the law, making a tough decision, ultimately being vindicated in that decision, but taking a position that is not the caricature that's been proffered by some of you. yesterday i ran through a number of the letters and statements

that debunk some of the attacks that have been levied based on a handful of sentencing decisions. there was the national review piece by a conservative former prosecutor who calls out the smear on your sentencing practices in cases involving child pornography. the statement by the fraternal order of police and the international association of chiefs of police endorsing your evenhanded and judicious approach to the law. the glowing letter from 24 prominent conservative attorneys and the resounding recommendation we heard in person from judge griffith. there's also been received here a letter from a number of retired federal judges including two republican nominees rejecting this mischaracterization of your sentencing record. as i've said, this is a policy dispute that we should be deciding, not an appropriate basis on which to mischaracterize your record or your character. we have letters from the national coalition of domestic violence in addition to these law enforcement leaders, from survivors, advocates, crime victims. the breadth of your support from

the very communities my colleagues have suggested you're making less safe shows just how off base these attacks are and in my view is a testament to your qualities and qualifications. so we all agree, all of us, that it's critical to protect our children and prevent the kinds of heinous crimes we've heard about in some detail earlier today. it's why i'm introduing a bipartisan reauthorization of the victims of child abuse act, something we could act on as a committee to do our job, which is to set policy and pass laws. but i also frankly think we need to be mindful that we're asking of you to get engaged in that policy dispute in front of this committee, which is not the role of a judge, something you well understand. let me turn if i could to another reason i think you're deeply qualified and that you will bring something important to the supreme court. brian stevenson, one of america's leading civil rights lawyers and by happy coincidence

a delaware native, has spoken about how achieving justice requires being proximate to the people most impacted by the criminal justice system. and you've done that. as a public defender you've represented individuals in the criminal justice system. as a district court judge you have looked individuals in the eye and told them that for their crimes against society they will spend years or decades in prison. you have met with, fought for, and advocated for victims. you have also studied the big picture as an effective and engaged member of the sentencing commission you've pored over data, reviewed thousands of letters and thought hard about the appropriate national approach to just punishment in a more policy-oriented role. you've also thought about the big picture as a judge when considering the precedent that your opinions set. i'd be interested briefly in how your experience on the sentencing commission shaped your approach as a district court judge and how the interplay of all these factors might shape or contribute to

your decisions as a supreme court justice. >> thank you, senator. one of the things district judges, sentencing judges often say when asked about the task is that sentencing is the hardest thing that a judge has to do and it's in part for the reasons that you have articulated, that the one thing to understand the law, to read it in a book, it's one thing to look at data and numbers and make policy based on that. it's quite another to have someone in the courtroom whether as a victim of crime or a defendant who's perpetrated a crime and have to decide how to proceed and pronounce sentence

on that individual. the work that i did on sentencing commission, which was prior to my becoming a district judge, i think enabled me to understand unwarranted sentencing disparities, to understand some of the policy reasons behind the guidelines, and to make the kinds of evaluations that the law now requires since the guidelines are no longer mandatory. and i felt -- i felt better in a sense about the task of calculating the guidelines, which is what courts have to do at the beginning of a sentence. they can be a little complex. and having been on the sentencing commission, i think that helped. and some of these cases do make their way to the supreme court.

so i think i am prepared to handle the cases that involve sentencing that do go to the court. >> in preparing for this confirmation i went back and read a lecture you gave but it was later published in the "harvard law review" about the balance, the challenge of sentencing, about that moment. i had the joy, the blessing of clerking for a judge on the 3rd circuit. my legal skills and talents did not allow me the opportunity to clerk for the supreme court, as you did. but -- and also the district court and also the circuit court. but i clerked for a judge who i first met when she was a district court judge in imposing a sentence on someone who was a crack dealer. and she did a remarkable job of speaking to the victims, speaking to the community, speaking to the prosecutor and the defense attorney and then speaking directly to the defendant in imposing a very long sentence. and as i got to know her later, i recognized that as a member of our community and as someone who

saw the importance of that moment, that public moment of helping the defendant understand what they'd done so they might somehow change but also helping the victims understand what had happened, that she took that very seriously, incredibly seriously. in the "harvard law review" publication of your remarks you said that you're persuaded by the theories of punishment that accept all human beings are responsible moral agents and you view punishment as a necessary consequence of the defendant's decision to engage in criminal behavior. you also went on to say that the challenge is balancing the acknowledgment all of us are more than just the worst thing we've ever done but there's a need to ensure the defendant is adequately addressed and punished. what i think you say in that lecture, what you've shown across the arc of your public service reveals someone who understands the appropriate need for punishment in our society but who is also striving to follow the balance of recommendations, guidelines,

statute and the context and facts. and i trust that as members of this committee and the senate as a whole and the general public take the time, which they should do, to give a fair reading to the whole scope and arc and reach of your service that they'll see you as someone who cares deeply about our constitution and the rights that make us free, as you said in your opening statement. your career in the law, your service on the bench, your thoughtful responses to questions put to you, the way you've maintained your composure all impress me. as i mentioned, i don't think labels such as a judicial philosophy are always that meaningful or dispositive. i think in your case a deep admiration for the constitution and an understanding that the role of a judge is a limited one are critical and qualifying. you opened yesterday by referencing how your parents were educated in racially segregated schools in florida

but how you, just one generation later, were raised in integrated schools and had far greater opportunities to put your evident god-given talents to work in service to our nation. you cited this one-generation change as an example of the greatness of america. of course the supreme court played a central role in more correctly interpreting the constitution and applying it in a manner that allowed this reversal of unjust law to occur. i think the experiences of your own family and your connection to the experiences of trailblazers who came before you on whose shoelds you stand has meaningfully shaped what kind of justice you will be. i think you know in your bones how important our constitution and the role of law is. and i think as someone who served on the sentencing commission, a public defender on the trial court and an appellate court judge you have an ability to see across the whole scope and reach of how the law impacts families, communities and our nation. and last and in some ways i think most importantly i've

learned that as a person and a judge you have humility. judge griffith, who came before this committee, introduced you and scores of others we've heard from i've just referenced have lauded your practice of judicial restraint. and you've said a core component of your philosophy is your understanding that the judge's role is a limited one. well, i think restraint is a core part of your approach to decision-making partly because you are a judge who is humble enough to know that the constitution and the laws passed by congress say what the law is. the judge has a limited role in deciding questions of law based on facts presented. penn law professor lisa fairfax, your other introducer, your dear friend, explained that since college at harvard and then through law school you've been a mentor and a role model. she praised your warmth and intelligence, your devotion to friends and family, but she also mentioned your humility. she knew you were honored and humbled by the significance of this moment, not what it means for you but what it means for our nation. i remember thinking about this on monday, and i had a chance to talk to your brother ketaj and

he mentioned that he knew you were destined for this moment your whole life. i am sure he would say you've been exceptional since you were student body president at palmetto high school. i suspect your wonderful family upbringing is partly responsible for this facet of your character. i suspect your faith has played a role in sustaining you, as mine does and so does many others' in this room. i've often found instruction and comfort in the verse "what does the lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your god." i'm not going to ask you to reflect on that verse, your honor, but i wouldn't be surprised if it's one of your favorites that sustains you. let me close by returning to what judge griffith said when he told us in his heartfelt introduction of you on monday and something you've also shown in the hours you've been grilled by this body. he'd already written a letter to this committee delivering his endorsement. he took the extra step to then amplify it in person.

and he did so because of confidence in you and because he was delivering a message to us as a committee that supreme court confirmations should be more than just exercises in partisan tribalism. he said there should be nothing unusual about a judge who just happened to be appointed by a republican president and who holds conservative legal views coming forward to support a nominee with your impeccable qualifications and character, especially a nominee whose legal opinions, whose actions and decisions as a judge he was in a position to review for years given that you were a district court judge and he was a circuit court judge. look, our confirmation hearings for justices have sadly been devolving over many years into longer and longer exercises of partisan politics punctuated by brief glimpses of a nominations decision-making and the constitution which should properly be our main focus. i have to believe this sad state

of affairs troubles my colleagues of both sides and all who watch this. but as i reflect on these hearings i'm hopeful that your gracious, thoughtful exchanges with some members will be remembered as just one more service you've rendered to our nation, and i hope some watching these hearings will be reminded that even though we disagree with the policy preferences or opinions of a nominee we should all recognize when a nominee is fundamentally qualified, deeply committed to the constitution and rule of law, and a person of great character. judge griffith reminded us at the outset of this week, and i quote, "as justice scalia taught us for so long an indispensable feature of the republic the constitution created is an independent judiciary of judges who've taken an oath not to a president or party but to the american people and to god that they will be impartial." i couldn't agree more with judge griffith. you've demonstrated your unwavering commitment to that oath and your impartiality, your

abundant qualifications. it will be my honor to support your confirmation for associate justice. with that, mr. chair, i yield. >> thank you, senator coons. the senator from nebraska, senator sasse. >> thanks, chairman durbin. judge, welcome back. i'd like to associate myself with parts of what chris said there in his closing. i would differ with him about whether or not getting to precision on judicial philosophy matters. but you know that. you know i've been wrestling about it for a couple of weeks. but i'd like to affirm chris's point about the beauty of the hymn to america you told and through the eyes of your parents and the changes, the growth in the country over the course of the last two generations. and the "wall street journal" had an editorial this morning that said pretty much the same thing as chris just said, which is that the hymn to america that you gave in youring opening on monday afternoon and some of your comments yesterday were inspiring and beautiful. so i associate myself with senator coons on that. i'd like to talk a little bit

about your time as a judge and particularly how you see development and growth and change over that time. so take us back nine years and maybe five years ago and then today. how has your approach to being a judge changed from year one to year five to today? >> thank you, senator. i do think there was a little bit of growth. i hope there was a little bit of growth. certainly in year one and year five i was still a district judge and both of those years differed dramatically from my work as an appellate judge, which is where i'm currently stationed. in every job in year one you're new, you're trying to figure things out. i don't know that i had quite pinned down at the very beginning exactly how i would approach cases, but by the time i got to year five i think i had

a really good sense of this judging thing and was able to demonstrate in my opinions, the many, many opinions that i've written the way in which i go about making my decisions. i was able to demonstrate -- >> you have been listening of course to judge ketanji brown jackson and her confirmation hearing to become the next supreme court justice of the united states. and what we've just witnessed over the last 40 minutes or so, particularly as it relates to senator ted cruz, was a series of sharp exchanges. part of a trend and tone that we have seen throughout part of the day here, notably with senator lindsey graham earlier on. i want to bring in garrett haake, who is on capitol hill. we're also joined by our msnbc legal analysts, paul butler a former federal prosecutor and melissa murray who served as i aclerk for justice sonia soet maer. garrett, let me start with you. and it been a bit of a tone roller coaster.

with the temperature turning up and turning down and then turning up and turning down. and i think we saw some of the most tense moments play out today between senator cruz and judge jackson who at points looked visibly exasperated, i would say, with this line of questioning. >> yeah, i think that's fair. so what we saw from ted cruz here was a return to a line of questioning that several other republican senators have also explored about her record in sentencing for child pornography chases. in short, republicans who have followed this line of questioning believe that she has been outside of sentencing guidelines and that that somehow suggests that as a supreme court justice who doesn't sentence anyone, let alone for child pornography cases specifically, but that she might not follow the law as written. that seems to be what they are trying to get at. but what this has devolved into is a series of senators asking questions on this topic and then unsatisfied with her answers stopping, starting, interrupting. you've had the chairman of this committee, dick durbin, trying to get involved to manage the flow of the conversation, with little to no success.

and then democratic senators after those republicans' time has expired trying to reroute the train back onto the tracks here. none of this is likely to change the overall confirmation picture here, but it does veer dangerously close into the territory republicans said they didn't want to go to in this hearing, devolving from a respectful look into her record into something less than that. hallie. >> what's it been like in the room, garrett? tonewise. i should say moodwise. i know that, you know, there have been moments when there's been some crowd reaction, right? >> there was certainly some exasperated crowd reaction during lindsey graham's questioning earlier today. you saw some exasperated reaction from fellow senators during ted cruz's. amy klobuchar, the democratic senator, holding her head in her hands at one point. i think there's real frustration among the supporters of judge jackson in the room. and to that i would even include

some of the democratic senators, that this is what republicans have chosen to make their time about today. >> melissa murray, let me go to you and your takeaways over the last couple of hours we've been watching. >> well, i think judge jackson has really acquitted herself well. she's remained poised and confident and composed. this is in stark contrast to other fiery exchanges we've seen in this chamber. i'm thinking particularly of brett kavanagh's fiery exchange with the senators during his confirmation battle. we're not seeing that from her. she's been the model of judicial temperament here. and again, the questions really are a quite marked shift in tone. almost to the point of blatant disrespect. i think it's a really poor look for the republicans. i think garrett's exactly right. they veered into territory that they were hoping to avoid. but there we are. she's remained absolutely unflappable, a true model of a judicial nominee. >> there was some news made as we were coming on the air in that line of questioning separate from what we're discussing and what garrett has

laid out around her sentencing of child sex predators, which is on this affirmative action case related to harvard and judge jackson saying clearly it is her plan, paul butler, to recuse herself from that. talk about the significance there and give us the background. >> so it's not required under the law. supreme court justices make their own decisions about whether to recuse themselves. a lot of legal scholars said that it wasn't necessary. so this is clearly about the appearance of justice being just as important as justice itself. it's also about her avoiding any issues that might get her in trouble with regard to confirmation. but hallie, let's not call what the republicans are doing here questioning. these performances have nothing to do with their constitutional responsibility to advise and consent the president on the most important nominations. it's almost like they're in a contest to see who can do the most race-baiting and be the

most disrespectful to the first black woman nominated to the supreme court. they're treating her like she's a defendant in a criminal case. they're attacking her character, suggesting something sinister about her sentencing of sex offenders. this is dealing the racist card from the bottom of the deck. >> you have seen some of the democrats in the room, paul, look to essentially give judge jackson some support, some backup, right? for example, i'm thinking earlier today of senator ossoff asking her to talk about her family's history with law enforcement, et cetera, to try to combat some of the lines of questioning you've heard from the republicans. >> that's right. and to be clear, questioning kbj about her sentencing as a judge and her policy perspectives from her time on the u.s. sentencing commission is a legitimate area of inquiry. the problem with people like senator graham is he's using it as an opportunity for personal attacks on kbj. from his bizarre questioning yesterday about how many times

she goes to church to using profanity today and his repeated interruptions just like cruz. it's extraordinarily disrespectful and hard not to take as racist and sexist. >> i want to go to pete williams, our nbc news justice correspondent who is joining us now. he's been watching this hearing as we have been too live this afternoon. so pete, we mentioned to paul just a minute ago the news of this planned recusal that judge jackson -- i think this is the first time, pete, correct me if i'm wrong, that she's been that specific about her intentions. i know she's been asked about recusals more generally but in this instance senator cruz asked specifically about this harvard case. give us the backstory. >> yeah, she said that's her plan. this is a case that the supreme court will hear next term. it's the latest in a series of cases that have come before the supreme court on whether affirmative action is unconstitutional. the court in the past have left the door open to it. but two of the justices that were critical to that decision, anthony kennedy and ruth bader ginsburg, are no longer on the

court. so the fact that the supreme court has agreed to take this case is a pretty bad sign, a worrisome sign for people who are advocates of affirmative action. and the fact that she would now not sit on that case potentially deprives harvard of one of the votes it would have had. but she says because she's on the board of overseers that has some policy oversight over harvard that she -- it's appropriate for her to recuse. i will say this, that judges in her position, on the lower courts, recuse much more often than the supreme court justices do for this simple reason. she's not the -- when she was on the district court, she was not the only one. and if she recused, another judge could take the case. same on the court of appeals. there are no spares on the supreme court. so when a justice of the supreme court recuses, it reduces the number of justices who are going to hear the case. so nonetheless, justices do recuse from time to time if they were involved in the case. elena kagan recused when the

supreme court last revised -- took a look at this issue because she was solicitor general at the time the case was argued. it's understandable why she would say she was going to recuse. but you know, it's a big deal. >> garrett, let me turn to you because one of the i think pieces of news that has come out over the last 24 hours, and i hesitate to say news, it's more like speculation i think on the part of hill observers is these questions around whether or not senator joe manchin may end up getting his support for judge jackson as it exists eroded because of this line of questioning from republicans. that is part of the goal of republicans, is to see potentially if they could undercut his support here with the rest of his democratic colleagues. based on your reporting, garrett, can you give us a reality check, a gut check on that? how real is that or how much is that wish casting be on the part of those who would like to see judge jackson not on the bench? >> i think the latter, hallie. i think the likelihood joe

manchin would break on this is highly unlikely. he's voted for every nominee so far. stopping that record now seems extraordinarily unlikely. i think it's more likely you might see him get frustrated -- be part of the backlash here to the way this has been handled. whatever else you think about manchin and his policies he's big on bipartisanship and trying to treat people with respect. if he feels like this judge is getting piled on in this hearing i think that could push him further into her corner rather than away from her. >> senator leahy said today he's been distressed by the tone of the hearing. is that something you've heard reflected from others, garrett? >> absolutely, on the democratic side. i've not heard publicly that from republicans, although i have to say as is often the case these senators have other day jobs. those who are not on this committee aren't necessarily watching in real time. give us some time to smoke those feelings out, hallie. >> give us the timeline before we hit a break here, garrett. we've got the rest of the evening to go here. i think a dinner break, right? the rest of the night. outside witnesses tomorrow. what's the timeline after that? >> yeah. so they're running about an hour

behind here just today. this will go longer. but it won't go into tomorrow, at least in terms of questioning of the judge. that will be outside witnesses. then it's probably another week or so until this committee votes. they'll probably have to move things onto the floor. the whole process could be slowed down a small amount if the committee deadlocks. remember, 50-50 senate means you've also got evenly divided committees. if there's no republican vote for judge jackson on this committee, as think it's fair to assume at this point, it certainly looks that way now, like you might see a 50-50 split on the committee, it slows the process of getting things to the floor only slightly. but democrats are still confident they can get a floor vote before their easter vote. >> garrett haake, paul butler, melissa murray, pete williams, thank you so much for your perspective. we are waiting sometime in the next five, ten minutes perhaps for president biden to land in brussels for that nato summit. we've got two live reports from overseas. what to expect as he heads to multiple meetings with these

world leaders. and we'll bring you the latest from inside western ukraine. and an art gallery transformed into a hub for supplies. the shortage volunteers are sounding the alarm about, when we get back. ut, when we get back. it's still the eat fresh refresh, which means subway's upping their bread game. we're talking artisan italian bread, made fresh daily! the only thing fresher than their bread is the guy reading this. subway keeps refreshing and refreshing and refreshing and re- i heard they're like a peach a little bit. is tim okay??? we got the new my gm rewards card. so, everything we buy has that new car smell. -stahp. -i will not. food's here! this smells like a brand-new car! yup. best-in-class rewards, and a great way toward your next chevrolet, buick, gmc or cadillac. and with all those points on everything we buy... ...we're thinking suv. with leather! a new kind of appreciation with that new car smell.

this is vuity™, the first and only fda approved eye-drop

that improves age-related blurry near vision. wait, what? it sounded like you just said an eye drop that may help you see up close. i did. it's an innovative way to... so, wait. i don't always have to wear reading glasses? yeah! vuity™ helps you see up close. so, i can see up close with just my eyes? uh-huh. with one drop in each eye, once daily. in focus? yep. [laughs] like, really? really. vuity™ is a prescription eye drop to help you see up close. ow! wait, what? wait. wait? wait, what? see for yourself. use vuity™ with caution in night driving and hazardous activities in poor light. also, if your vision is not clear, do not drive or use machinery. contact your doctor immediately if you have sudden vision loss. most common side-effects are headache and eye redness. ♪ ♪

one of my favorite supplements is qunol turmeric. moturmeric helps withcts are heahealthy jointsredness.

and inflammation support. unlike regular turmeric supplements qunol's superior absorption helps me get the full benefits of turmeric. the brand i trust is qunol. any minute now you are looking on a left side of the screen the runway where air force one is set to land really some point. could happen live on the air. could happen after 4:00. he is set to arrive in brussels and bringing proposals on how to hit back against russia. the u.s. is making a big declaration. secretary of state blinken saying that u.s. officials assess that russia military committed war crimes. >> there have been numerous credible reports of hospitals,

schools, theaters, et cetera being intentionally attacked and indiscriminate attacks. russia's forces destroyed apartment buildings, schools. critical infrastructure. those who are responsible must be held accountable. >> i juan to bring in kelly o'donnell live for news brussels and gabe gutierrez. the president makes the arrival? brussels. top u.s. officials were briefing our colleagues in the pool and whether russia should remain in the g20. >> reporter: a concern is how to further isolate russia in the international community in ways that mat ere to russia and some

of these organizations through the bodies like the g20. and it adds the kind of stature and stability that russia has long enjoyed. in 2014 when russia invaded crimea russia denired membership in the group of eight nations. it's now the g 7 as a punishment and now discussion to knock russia out out of the g20 and ways to isolate vladimir putin and make clear to his government and filter to the russia people a sanction internationally, especially as russia and all mechanisms is saying that this is a justified war, trying to protect ukraine from the kinds ofdy information carried out by

russia and an element discussed and a high stakes trip for president biden who's trying to further unify a substantially unified leaders with vulnerabilities to russia and economic relationships. they have different geographic positions and so to try to have the nations be as close to a unified step on this as has a challenge at times and there's been progress in that. now that they have done so many things in sanctions and taking steps with military support what can they do in this set of conversations to further comment in a broad way one month into this conflict to try to further stop russian war crimes and bring it to a peaceful solution. there's so much at stake and

what the u.s. is trying to do is lay the foundation for a number of steps in a broad way to take action with partners the president is trying to bring together in a forceful way. >> gabe, give us the view from where you are in lviv. >> reporter: hey there. i want to talk about what's going on to my east in kyiv, of course. intense bombing increasing there from russian forces around the city of kyiv as russia trying to creep forward but there's new that is ukrainian forces are clawing back a suburb of kyiv and all this catastrophe in mariupol with a desperate situation there but we stopped by a distribution center earlier today and wasn't just a month ago but it was an art gallery, the art palace.

now it has donations across europe and sent 11,000 shipments to refugees and the military alike but what volunteers there are telling me is there's a dire need for one medical supply. tourniquets because military units are requesting up to 300 tourniquets but can only give them five at a type and literally trying to stop the bleeding. we spoke with the head of medical supply distribution. take a look. >> how critical are these right now? >> very. extremely critical. it will help him to stop bleeding extremely quick and other way no chance to stop the bleeding by something. of course, you can use things like -- anything you have but it

is the best way to save your life. >> reporter: there were also refugees from across this country. signing up to get simple things. we spoke with mothers looking for strollers, food items. an incredible situation here in the west as still thousands of refugees are streaming through here each day. >> thank you so much to both of you. for now "deadline: white house" picks up after the break. those'll probably pass by me! xiidra works differently, targeting inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no! it can provide lasting relief. xiidra is the only fda-approved non-steroid eye drop specifically for the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra.

common side effects, include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. after using xiidra, wait fifteen minutes before reinserting contacts. talk to an eye doctor about xiidra. i prefer you didn't. xiidra. not today, dry eye.

♪♪ hi there. 4:00 in new york. i'm chris jansing in for nicolle wallace. in just a few moments president biden will be landing in brussels for an emergency nato summit and greeted by belgium's prime minister as attacks wipe out ukraine. here at home supreme court nominee ketanji brown jackson still in the midst of another long day of questioning that at times so contentious senator