[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 183 (Monday, November 6, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5351-S5352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Judicial Nominations

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered 
several of President Biden's recent judicial appointments.
  I would have thought that they would have figured out by now that 
they hit rock bottom a few months ago with some of these nominees that 
are not out of the mainstream, but they really are far left.
  Here are some examples: Nancy Abudu, she endorsed political violence 
against conservatives; Todd Edelman used his authority to release a 
known criminal who then went on to participate in the murder of a 
child; Marian Gaston opposed residence restrictions for convicted child 
sex offenders; and DeAndrea Benjamin released violent criminals on 
bond, only to watch them offend again.
  But not to be outdone, the White House has continued this trend with 
Seth Aframe's nomination to the First Circuit. The White House and 
Senate Democrats don't have a great track record when it comes to 
putting a nominee forward for this seat.
  Back in February, I came to the floor to oppose Michael Delaney's 
nomination to the First Circuit bench. You will remember that Mr. 
Delaney threatened to expose a 15-year-old sexual assault survivor if 
she came forward with her story. That is right--he threatened to expose 
a 15-year-old sexual assault survivor if she went public.
  Well, that was a shameful debacle. Everyone saw it. You would think 
the President's team would have learned their lessons. But I think we 
were wrong on that, because out of all the talented attorneys and 
judges that are in the State of New Hampshire, the President has 
nominated Seth Aframe, who is disturbingly similar to Mr. Delaney in 
his disregard for victims.
  I want to walk you through two of the cases that Mr. Aframe 
prosecuted. And these cases are things that should disqualify him from 
ever having a seat on the Federal bench.
  Now, the first case that we will go to is U.S. v. Carpentino. This 
involved a criminal defendant guilty of extreme sexual violence against 
a 14-year-old girl with a hearing impairment.
  Now, this defendant kidnapped this precious child and took her to an 
abandoned motel in Vermont, and he raped her. This defendant had just 
been released from a 13-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting 
minors in particularly violent ways. In one case, he smothered a little 
girl with a pillow while he raped her. This is a violent repeat 
offender.
  There was no doubt this person was a clear and present danger to the 
community. Despite all of this, Mr. Aframe, as the prosecutor in this 
case, recommended a sentence far below the probation officer's 
suggested guidelines. Can you even imagine hearing this? And then 
saying: Let's go light on this guy. Let's go light. Let's go easy on 
him.
  Now, what we have learned is that it is clear that Mr. Aframe wanted 
the low sentence. And I will tell you why, and I am going to use his 
own words.
  And I think when the Presiding Officer hears this, you will see, this 
is someone who is not qualified for the Federal bench. He wanted the 
low sentence. He wrote he wanted the low sentence.
  And I quote, he said he felt the low sentence will ``incapacitate the 
defendant until he is in his 60s. Hopefully, by that time, the danger 
that the defendant presents will have subsided.''
  Now, think about this. He wants the low sentence because at the end 
of that low sentence, the guy would be in his sixties and, you know, 
hopefully, by then he won't be such a danger. I tell you, imagine this: 
``hopefully,'' using that. Can you imagine telling this little girl's 
family that, hopefully, this rapist won't do it again? Bear in mind, he 
had already been in prison for 13 years. He gets out, and he does it 
again. And Mr. Aframe is the prosecutor. What does he do? He wants a 
low sentence because the guy is going to be in his sixties and maybe he 
won't do it. Hopefully, he won't do it again. Hopefully, he won't be a 
danger. Hopefully, he will be too old and frail to go rape little 
girls. Unbelievable.
  This is sickening. And this case alone should disqualify Mr. Aframe. 
But there is more. And let's go to this second case.
  Mr. Aframe was the prosecutor in United States v. Smith. And this 
case, reading this made me absolutely sick to my stomach. It is 
repulsive.
  Mr. Smith was found guilty of conduct connected to the manufacturing 
of child pornography. He created not one or two, but six videos of 
himself sexually abusing a 3-year-old girl. Six videos. The details of 
the case are far too disgusting to repeat aloud. But to be clear: He 
raped a 3-year-old girl on camera.
  As prosecutor in this case, Mr. Aframe said the most poignant 
evidence of the harm this defendant caused was--and I quote--``the look 
of fear in the young victim's eyes.''
  Poignant evidence, the look of fear in a toddler's eyes while 
somebody is raping her.
  Despite this, Mr. Aframe recommended a 60-year sentence, nowhere near 
what this sick and depraved and disgusting human being deserved. Mr. 
Aframe noted that the perpetrator was a close friend of the victim's 
family. He worked to gain their trust for years just to commit these 
heinous acts, but Mr. Aframe still recommended a lenient sentence.
  But what did the sentencing guidelines recommend? Life in prison. Mr. 
Aframe himself noted this in his sentencing memo, but when I pressed 
him under oath on why he refused to follow the guideline, he 
misrepresented the facts.
  So let me set the record straight. The sentencing memo, that Mr. 
Aframe wrote himself, stated that the guidelines recommended a sentence 
of life in prison. That is what he should have gotten.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a portion of that 
sentencing memo be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 United States District Court District of New Hampshire: United States 
                        of America v. Brad Smith

                       Crim. No. 1:16-cr-00091-JL


   united states' sentencing memorandum and objection to defendant's 
                     motion for a downward variance

     I. Background
       On May 26, 2015, defendant Brad Smith created six videos of 
     himself sexually abusing a three-year-old girl. From 12:42 
     p.m. to 1:47 p.m., the defendant instructed his victim to 
     perform various sexual acts on him and ultimately placed her 
     on her back, pulled her diaper around her ankles, and raped 
     her. The defendant wore Google glasses while he did so in 
     order to surreptitiously film the abuse.
       On April 7, 2017, a jury found the defendant guilty of six 
     counts of manufacturing child pornography in violation of 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 2251(a), for which the Sentencing Guidelines 
     recommend a sentence of life imprisonment (Total Offense 
     Level 43, Criminal History Category V). For the reasons set 
     forth in greater detail below, the government proposes an 
     incarcerative sentence of sixty years (720 months) to be 
     followed by lifetime

[[Page S5352]]

     supervised release, a sentence which meets the objectives 
     described in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a) and accounts for the many 
     aggravating circumstances in this case.

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I think it is so important that we include that in 
this. This should have been a life in prison sentence for what was 
done.
  You know, I will say to my Democratic colleagues what I said about 
Michael Delaney's nomination: For the sake of men, women, and children 
around this country who are victims of sexual assault, join me in 
opposing this nomination if the President refuses to withdraw this 
nomination.
  Someone who has gone light on sentences that affect these children. 
Someone who has committed crimes against these children and then they 
have sought to get lesser sentences against these pedophiles and 
predators, they have no place on the Federal bench.
  Now, this week, my Democratic colleagues will have two opportunities 
to oppose individuals that I feel are unfit judicial nominees. The 
Judiciary Committee will mark up Mustafa Kasubhai to serve on the 
district court in Oregon. Now, there is a reason that, in my opinion, 
Mr. Kasubhai is not fit.
  He has displayed a disturbing affinity for Marxism. This is something 
that we found in his records. Someone who is displaying an affinity for 
Marxism has no place on our Federal bench. So I would ask that our 
colleagues vote no on him.