Reverie
Toronto Escorts

Trump admin withholds 100,000-plus pages of Kavanaugh docs

Charlemagne

Well-known member
Jul 19, 2017
15,451
2,484
113
Trump admin withholds 100,000-plus pages of Kavanaugh docs

(CNN)The Trump administration will hold back more than 100,000 pages of documents related to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's service because the White House and the Department of Justice have determined they are protected by constitutional privilege, according to a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

William Burck, a lawyer charged by former President George W. Bush with reviewing the documents housed in the presidential library, disclosed the exemptions in a letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Friday. Burck explained that, in all, he received just under 664,000 pages of documents and that Bush had directed him to "proceed expeditiously" and "err as much as appropriate on the side of transparency and disclosure."

Burck said he has given the committee "every reviewable" document that he received except those that fell into exemptions that included "presidential records protected by constitutional privilege."

The disclosure comes days before Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings, which are slated to begin Tuesday, and intensifies a battle between Grassley, who says he has produced a record number of documents, and Senate democrats who question the review being led by lawyers for the Trump administration and Bush. Democratic senators argue that Grassley is refusing to produce documents from Kavanaugh's years serving as staff secretary in the White House from 2003 to 2006.

Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer called the decision to withhold the documents a "Friday night document massacre."

"President Trump's decision to step in at the last moment and hide 100,000 pages of Judge Kavanaugh's records from the American public is not only unprecedented in the history of Supreme Court nominations, it has all the makings of a cover up," he said in a statement.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee countered that Burck's letter provided a "full accounting" of Kavanaugh's records and that Grassley has expanded access to confidential material beyond that for any other Supreme Court nominee. In a release, the committee pointed out that Grassley had promised to facilitate the release of another set of documents, currently available only to members, if senators keep their requests targeted to specific documents.

White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah responded on Twitter to Schumer by saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee requested access to "non privileged" presidential records. "That has been satisfied to the tune of over 440,000 pages of executive branch documents, more than what was produced for the past five #Scotus nominees combined," he wrote.

Kavanaugh's confirmation is complicated by the sheer number of emails that exist during his years in the White House. In 2005, for instance, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Democrat who was then in the minority, requested documents from then-chief justice nominee John Robert's service in the Office of Solicitor General during Robert's confirmation battle.

Then-Assistant Attorney General William E. Moschella wrote back that the department had determined that documents pertaining to "internal discussions" among lawyers were covered by both "deliberative process privilege" and "attorney-client privilege." But the privilege was never formally asserted.

In his letter, Burck defined the withheld documents as those that "reflect deliberations and candid advice concerning the selection of judicial candidates" as well as advice submitted directly to Bush, substantive communications between White House staff about discussions with the President and "substantive deliberative discussions relating to or about executive orders or legislation considered by the Executive Office."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/01/politics/trump-kavanaugh-bush-supreme-court-documents/index.html
 

b4u

Active member
Jul 23, 2010
1,790
10
38
White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah responded on Twitter to Schumer by saying that the Senate Judiciary Committee requested access to "non privileged" presidential records. "That has been satisfied to the tune of over 440,000 pages of executive branch documents, more than what was produced for the past five #Scotus nominees combined," he wrote.


There will be no stopping Kavanaugh.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
At least compared to most of the Trump Cabinet.
By any reasonable measure.

It should be noted for the uninformed that a Supreme Court Justice is not a member of the executive but of the judicial branch.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
More documents have been provided on this nomination than the prior 2-3 combined. You’ve all swallowed your talking points without a reasoned gag.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,120
2,768
113
More documents have been provided on this nomination than the prior 2-3 combined. You’ve all swallowed your talking points without a reasoned gag.
That would be pages of documents, not documents.

Also more pages of documents have been withheld and not provided with this nomination than all other nominations combined. Especially relevant documents during his time with the GWB administration.

Basically, the American people get only less than a 10% glimpse of the person who will reign over them for more than a generation.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,120
2,768
113
Garland had a fatal flaw- he didn't have the votes.
Just out of curiosity, what was the vote count during Garland's Senate confirmation hearing?
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Should be mentioned that the Privilege is being asserted by President Bush. Who was the subject of eight years of screaming and hair pulling on TERB.
 

Anbarandy

Bitter House****
Apr 27, 2006
10,120
2,768
113
A self answering question isn't it.
Why would you say that?

'jcpro' states he didn't have the votes and since we're talking about a SCOTUS confirmation hearing which will include yeah or nay votes, the question is valid
.
So once again, "what was the vote count during Garland's Senate confirmation hearing?"
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Just out of curiosity, what was the vote count during Garland's Senate confirmation hearing?
Do you understand how the Senate works?
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
He’s qualified.

Mcconnell has the votes (Kyle from AZ helps)

He has hundreds of opinions from the DC Circut - the second most important court in the land.

All the spoiled children temper tantrums today were just that.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts