The Justice Department Was Behind The Decision To Keep 100,000 Pages Of Kavanaugh’s Record Secret
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Both career lawyers and political appointees reviewed records from some of the Supreme Court nominee's time working in the White House, a source said.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Allison Shelley / Reuters
"The Department of Justice, which has advised both Democratic and Republican administrations on the application of the Presidential Records Act and constitutional privileges, was responsible for determining which documents were produced to the Senate Judiciary Committee," Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said.
The Washington Post and Fox News first reported the acknowledgement earlier Monday evening — the eve of the start of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. The acknowledgement fits with what a source familiar with the process told BuzzFeed News.
The news that the documents were being kept from the public and the committee was reported on Friday night, when the lawyer overseeing the review sent a letter to congressional leaders about the final status of his review. The development was just the latest step in a series of fights over the millions of documents from Kavanaugh's time working in George W. Bush's White House from 2001 until when he was confirmed to his seat on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
The office of former president Bush has been producing some of those documents to the committee in advance of the hearing — a decision that went outside of the usual process for congressional requests under the Presidential Records Act, which is handled by the National Archives.
Instead, lawyers for Bush, led by William Burck of Quinn Emanuel, reviewed the documents requested and then provided the presidential records they found to the Justice Department for review.
"[T]he White House and the Department of Justice have identified certain documents of the type traditionally protected by constitutional privilege," Burck wrote. "The White House, after consultation with the Department of Justice, has directed that we not provide these documents for this reason."
None of those involved — the Justice Department, the White House, or Burck — provided on-the-record comment over the weekend about who made those decisions, beyond what was contained in Burck's letter.
According to the source familiar with the process, both career lawyers and political appointees in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and Office of Legal Policy reviewed those documents, electronically tagging the documents that they believed should not be turned over as "withhold for executive privilege."
Ultimately, that decision was reached with 27,110 documents, amounting to 101,921 pages.
Although Bush could, theoretically, force the Trump administration to go to court to assert privilege to keep the documents under wraps, Burck made clear in his letter that Bush would not force such a step, writing, "[W]e have deferred to the White House, in consultation with the Department of Justice, on any documents not provided on constitutional privilege grounds."
Maintaining the line advanced by the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, DOJ's Flores noted, "The volume, depth, and breadth of the production of Judge Kavanaugh’s documents far surpasses the much smaller and narrower productions for previous nominees."
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
What's a hundred thousand pages, more or less... ?
The REALITY IS THAT SOME 90% of the requested documents are being withheld from Senate!
ONLY 10% of the body of Kavanaugh's work has been released!
WHY?!!!
Trust them!
Just TRUST them!
Don't you dare to post even a cartoon accusing me of being a liar!
Conservative Trumpians will do anything to save their Great White Hope from justice whether or not he has sold out his country and lied thousands of times! Only religionists, white nationalists and the worst among Americans would want a Supreme Court appointee who would likely protect a criminal POTUS from subpoena, indictment and A DAY IN COURT FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY!
In your depraved bias and ignorance of the facts, instead of making a viable rebuttal, you resort to a cartoon … so much like your Jess Willard hero!
As a point of "personal privilege," I ask that no one flag nor remove the literally and figuratively intellectually-cartoonish insult to which I have referenced. Let it stand for all to see where we are today in America!
But it's not 90% of the documents available that would be relevant and informative about his worthiness to be on the Supreme Court. The documents from his time in the White House are the least important documents available. There are many thousands of pages of written legal opinion from the nominee. The people obsessed with White House documents clearly intend to ignore that most relevant evidence.
There's no fucking way you or anyone else knows that without knowing what's in the withheld documents!
No, I don't. But I do know what's not in there: Legal opinions in Kavanaugh's capacity as judge and an 800 page book on legal precedent written by him. That's the kind of evidence that matters to me when considering a nominee to a court. You can count as many documents as you like. None will be as relevant as official legal opinion or legal teaching like his book.
Actually it's a critical time since it would reveal his views about the limits of executive power, specifically things like whether torture is permissible even when it's prohibited by the constitution, by statute and by treaty, etc.
It's not a surprise that those are the documents which a torture advocate like Trump doesn't want the Senate to see, particularly the truly bad judicial appointments which occurred during the Bush regime (like Jay Bybee, one of the torture conspirators who now sits on the 9th CoA).
Maybe some of the documents are about wedding plans and dance lessons. That means they are personal, and to liberals, there is no need to release them.
I don't believe it matters what it reveals about his views on anything. No one who who wants to see these documents has any intention of voting for him. Or is it your position that the Democrats on the committee are looking for reasons to approve Kavanaugh?
How exactly is that responsive to my comment?
I think they're trying to do their job and fully vet and evaluate the nominee. There's no reason at all that any relevant documents should be withheld from the judiciary committee.
You know this HOW?
During that time period, the WH was dealing with torture, warrantless wiretaps, Guantanamo Bay, habeas corpus and indefinite detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS. I can't imagine there is anyone who doesn't think that those issues are important. The FEW documents that were released prove that Kavanaugh WAS involved with back and forth discussion on legal questions and documented HIS opinion.
Just math. The committee already has over 500,000 pages of documents for this hearing. Unless the committee has asked for 5 million pages (it hasn't) then 90% of the documents aren't missing.
By the way, it appears to be undisputed that the amount of documentation for Kavanaugh exceeds that of the last five nominees combined. So the claim that they don't have enough information looks pretty silly.
Be it via the written or spoken word, or a cartoon, when you allege someone has lied … THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU THE ACCUSER!
You imply I'm a liar then, upon calling you on it, you call my response "a bit bullying and a tad threatening," really?
If/when you believe a falsehood or outright lie has been posted, you have every right to either correct the record via specific rebuttal/refutation, and/or to simply state that you question the accuracy of what's been posted; but implying whatever you don't happen to agree with is the statement of a liar … those are "fighting words."
My question is not about the 'number missing', it is about your characterization that the missing documents would NOT be relevant and informative about his worthiness to be on the Supreme Court.
How do you know THAT?
Mmmmm .... Snickerdoodles ......
Well, since many stated they would vote against him from the day he was nominated, I have to say, your comment doesn't hold water.
Could be, but why hide them?
Maybe when there’s nothing but mockery in one’s argument, one should remain silent.
It could have been zero, ya know.
The 100,000 pages not made available beg the question, what are they hiding....
Kavanagh worked for Bush, who made torture legal. We need to know what Kavanagh did.
The request for such documents makes me ask "why don't they want to look at the 300 legal opinions he has written?" It also makes me ask "what's wrong with the 500,000 pages of documents they already have?"
Chances are the stuff not released is either classified or confidential, and most of them are probably not even written by him.
Sounds like you don't know much about the structure of our government since those are readily available to the Senate. No need to ask our Fuhrer to provide them.
Oh my God, that's dumb. Of course I know that.
The point was: why are those readily available decisions insufficient for rendering a decision on whether or not Kavanaugh would make a good judge?
Ummmm......because they're not relevant to his unusual views about executive power, nor do they pertain to his role in the WH on the decision to illegally torture prisoners.
We already know that at least one GOP nominee slipped through the Senate's confirmation process despite being a key member of Bush's torture conspiracy. Members of the judiciary committee have previously said that Bybee never would have been confirmed had they known of his role, so it's important to be much more careful with Kavanaugh......particularly since both Bush and Trump are advocates of torture.
At the very least the public can assume that Kavanaugh was part of Bush's criminal torture conspiracy and is thus unqualified to be a judge of any kind, given what we already know of his role regarding the treatment of prisoners..
Fortunately, we don't do justice in this country based on partisan assumptions.
Uh ... wrong.
We're not supposed to, at any rate.
Never underestimate the power of the Democrats to get their parrots to speak on demand.
Immediately after announcing they would vote against Kavanaugh, the Democrats made the silly request for hundreds of thousands of documents they know they have no right to see. The exact sort of documents Obama withheld from the Committee when Kagan, another government lawyer, was going through the confirmation process. But Schumer knows his parrots don't understand that. He doesn't actually want the documents. They've already announced they aren't voting for him anyway, the contents don't matter one bit.
He just wants the talking point that "documents are being withheld" to keep up his minions perpetual outrage. He's got his talking point and the parrots are squawking.
Hope you at least get a cracker for your efforts.
When the GOP stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat, they set the stage for a miserable battle
If Obama had been as great as he was made out to be by the MSM, and as being as good as he was made out to be, he, and the "Democrats", wouldn't have lost control of congress so quickly !
Blame the Media, Not the Republicans. MSM made Obama and the Democrats to be something he/they really weren't, and it came back to bite them.
Elections have consequences.
Maybe the democrats shouldn't have let Hillaryious Hillary railroad her way to the nomination.
We've been over this. The senate is not obligated to consent to any particular nominee. In that case, the Senate did not consent. Obama could have nominated someone else. He chose not to. Blame him.
Not the point! The Senate Majority Leader regardless of party or politics, has the responsibility to allow regular order … and not be a fucking partisan hypocrite, denying the right of a sitting POTUS to have a SCOTUS nominee voted up or down … because of a coming POTUS election whereby, in the hopes of a Republican winner, a white nationalist sympathizer, anti-Obama, Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation butt boy, might be nominated and approved!
Intelligent, reasonable people, resent having some bullshit-partisan spit in their faces and tell them "it's raining!"
YES.....The POINT.
The past can't be erased. It happened.
Democrats messed up, and now they are placing blame elsewhere...… AGAIN. TYPICAL !
Yep might as well. Ta hell with protocol or appearances or even a possible conflict of interest involving the some of the most powerful people in the world. Idology over country !
.
sarc !
Yep, since they announced publicly on two separate occasions that they wouldn't confirm Republican nominees in similar situations.
Probably not , but getting a chance to go thru all Kavanaugh’s history it would may give those who oppose this mans nomination actual reason(s) to either continue or seize their objection to his nomination. I'm constantly reminded of the screw up on the last president's term. "We have to pass it it find out what's in it." Well I think we ought to stop doing that, and they shouldn't have done it then. We hire these people to do the best job they can according to the rules set up long ago. When they dont do their job, it pisses me off.
This time it's "Get this guy in as soon as possible regardless." WTF is next ?
PS: IMO: I would not trust ANY nominated person 100% who has the power to oversee the one who appoints them, especially when the person doing the appointing is already under some suspicion of wrong doing.
..................................................
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is withholding more than 100,000 pages of Brett Kavanaugh’s records from the Bush White House on the basis of presidential privilege ahead of the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation hearing.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was notified of the action Friday.
..........................................
IF both These Shoes were on the other foot I'll bet the republicans would be none to happy at this time either.
But, I'l bet Kavanagh's confirmed and sitting on the bench before our heads finish spinning.
.
Just makin America great ... ?
Time will tell.
.
Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society , a conservative lawyers' group, advises President Trump on judicial nominations and helped create the list of potential Supreme Court candidates for the president.
................................
Kavanaugh would be a young addition who could help remake the court for decades to come with rulings that could restrict abortion, expand gun rights and roll back key parts of Obamacare.
"He is a brilliant jurist, with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time," Trump said
...............................
AND I'm not going to do research on this but I repeat: IMO: I would not trust ANY nominated person 100% who has the power to oversee the one who appoints them, especially when the person doing the appointing is already under some suspicion of wrong doing.
But also like I said I expect to see Kavanagh in place very quickly !
yep, when ya have the power ya make the rules.
and as usual, Time will tell whether the right decisions were made or not.
We will see after November 6th.
If all potentially relevant documents were released, no one would have to speculate.
That’s precisely the point.
Interestingly the republic survived just fine for 200+ years without constant partisan confirmation nonsense like this.
Both sides are guilty. Guilty as sin.
Defending eithers actions is a fools errand.
Projection at its rightwing "finest."
Is that you Kellyanne?
And what are the Democrats going to do about this? Nothing! As usual. Oh, they WILL whimper as they are confirming this nut, then they'll whimper some more as Roe gets overturned. Maybe one day they will grow up and realise no one is going to come running when they cry, and actually stand up to the Republicans' ruthlessness, but I'm not holding my breath.
Those records have no bearing on his judicial temperament, nor are they a reflection of how Hercules as a Justice.
You know this HOW?
[deleted]
If they were truly problematic they could have just followed the Democrat standard and just "Hillirated" them.
That is to say, intentionally lost, erased or destroyed them .....
Which, of course--and as every other lie about Clinton--never happened: as the Russian theft and then Wikileaks publication of the "missing" 30,000 emails proved.
The hive .... that's where ....
Say what? I want to read her E-Mails.
So did they personally send them to you? I don't know of anyone else who has seen her deleted E-Mails.
I don't know whats funnier your statement or the people that liked it.
So, If it's something Democrats want and doesn't get in THEIR timely matter, The Justice Department is bad. If it's anything Trump is denied, the Justice Department is Good.
Got it !
The Democrats in this "Hearing"
, which is just an introduction meeting for Kavanaugh, Not an Executive Hearing, sound like a bunch of whining Babies !
Booker is one of the worst in the Baby Matter. "Why can't we just Love one another" !
Democrats bitching about "Not Enough Documents".
Kavanaugh has supplied more paperwork than any other Justice that proceeded him.
If that's true it's only because he's been so deep in the filth of republican politics for so long. That's his problem, not the Dems for wanting to expose it all.
Bullshit. Democrats have loved him, before NOW !
He was part of the failed get-Clinton-at-all-costs Starr investigation in the mid 90s and a major player in the derailing of the FL recount in 2000. So, he's been part of the filthy republican political operation for decades.
[deleted]
Okay !
They're taking any credibility they had and lighting it on fire. When you bitch and moan about everything under the sun, it causes people to not listen to arguments over stuff that might actually matter. It's like crying "wolf!"
The Democrats in this "Introduction Hearing", were all smiles when the "Protestors" started "Whining loudly". I'm surprised Booker" didn't get up and "anoint" them.
Senator "Sheldon" is NOW whining about "Justice Roberts" and his Five?, which has NOTHING to do with Kavanaugh.
According to "Sheldon", big money can buy the "Supreme Court" Justices.
[ Deleted ]
And right after Senator Lee urged Democrats to make legal arguments and not the ramifications, Whitehouse wants to bitch about decisions based on who supported them and what (in his opinion) the outcome of those decisions were. [Deleted]
The "Flexible Constitution".
What was REALLY Meant.
Yep !
Just now, Ben Sasse was legendary. Bring back the School House Rock government!
A HYPOCRITE'S HANDWRITING ON THE WALL …
“I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,” Kavanaugh wrote in 2009, three years after Bush appointed him to the D.C. Circuit."
“This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s (when going after the then POTUS, Bill Clinton).
________________________________________________
How convenient … situational judicial ethics prefiguring the saving of the very likely guilty, fat ass-conspiratorial, child-incarcerating, xenophobic racist POTUS via a stacked deck SCOTUS!
And just who is O.K. with this?
The Trump base … t he same people who blame Blacks, Mexicans, Jews and liberals for their problems because they can't be bothered to take a shred of personal responsibility for a single thing, despite constantly passing judgment on others.
The same people who's egos are too fragile to accept things as obvious as the existence of global warming and white privilege.
The same people who carry the water of oligarchs, decrying “class warfare” every time anyone makes even a meager attempt to level the playing field, completely ignoring the fact that the oligarchs declared a silent war on us decades ago. (because they’re too cowardly to just come out and say it). The same people who betrayed their fellow Americans when they elected a treasonous con man to our highest office.
What judicial decisions has Kavanaugh's courts rendered that you disagree with, and why?
Do you believe that SCOTUS should have upheld his opinions 13 times?
Of the 13 times, how many were upheld by a 5-4 vote … strictly partisan?
Your turn to answer questions …
What judicial decisions has Kavanaugh's courts rendered that you AGREE with, and why?
Have you looked at every ruling he made or did you cherry pick this one and for what reason?
Tell us the ones YOU'VE looked at … the one I cited is quite obvious as its potential impact is imminent and a threat to the rule of law.
Instead of asking questions, post an actual rebuttal if when you disagree or don't care for what I post! Make an argument pro or con rather than post a gotcha' question that reveals nothing of your knowledge of the subject at hand.
Kavanaugh turns his back on the father of a daughter murdered by gun violence …
THIS IS WHO KAVANAUGH IS!
[deleted]
Doubtful since he did so prior to 1962 a full 18 years before PETA's founding.
And that changes what he said today, and what PETA is "Today".....how ?
It is kinda fun watching the left spinning around like whirling dervish's on yet another nonsensical non-issue.
But it is getting old ......
If this is what you meant as a that qualifier (13.2.3 above):
it's impossible to tell you were somehow making a reference to stare decisis. But I'll take your word for that's what you had in mind.
The Democrats of the Senate Judiciary Committee are on a roll. And they’re taking some risks to get their points across.
Gotta luv it when Democrat Liberals think it's great when one of their own is willing to "Break the Rules" under the guise of "Justice", yet sit there and whine and cry when they think Trump, and even in this Kavanaugh Hearing, they say the Republicans are "Breaking the Rules" and should be stopped.
What a bunch of Hypocrites.
I hear that "Some Leaks" aren't as Illegal as "Other Leaks", depending on which Democrat you speak to !
What rule was McConnell following when he refused to allow Merrick Garland a hearing? Republicans: Hypocrites R' Us. Don't pretend you give a shit about rules.
We are on Kavanaugh. Didn't you get the memo ?
I thought Liberal types told everyone it is ludicrous to dwell on the past now ?
Did that "Change" ……. AGAIN !
I'll leave it to the creator of this discussion to decide if discussing SC nominations in general is off topic.
Okay ?
You have that in reverse, my friend … cart before the horse.
I hope other democrats follow Booker's lead and release other "committee confidential" documents and, in doing so, declare to Americans …
"YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHEN A POTENTIAL JUSTICE-FOR-LIFE IS LYING TO YOU!"
Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."
The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized ...
From what I understand, those documents were already cleared to be released, and a lot of Senators knew he was going to do it (on both sides). It was a lot of showboating for nothing.
Biden rule..................
Me thinks this Booker guy is looking to run for President in 2020, so what better way to make him look like a martyr than now.
"He's sooooo wonderful and full of that Loooooove and justice Stuff " !
Thats what the rumors are LOL. I just watched an interview with the Bush records rep and he said those records were cleared for release last night and that he was surprised by Bookers "histrionics". I actually read them a few hours ago.
Durbin was "Dumb"....founded, as to who these people were that could make a decision on what was confidential or not. Imagine electing one into office numerous times, and he admits he doesn't know WTF is going on, or who people in his own building are.
Julian Paul Assange and Edward Joseph Snowden are "Wanted Criminals" for doing such.
But then you Have Mr./Miss Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. That was okay because HE....wanted to be a …...SHE ! So nothing to see there.
They're politicians, professional bullshitters LOL, all of them.
I really like Booker. It sounds like some of the documents reveal some racist views on the part of Kavanaugh as well as his anti-choice views.
If true then I'm not surprised that the GOP tried to keep them from the public.
Yeah but the drones eat that shit with a spoon ...... and usually ask for seconds, thirds, fourths and so on .....
They are also available for the public to read
Well now, we can't let the herd know that now can we? Keep digging for more stuff that can be interpreted negatively towards the T and K men ..... the drones will thank us in the morning, then we can .... release the Drones!!!
My sister thinks he didn't even read past the subject line, and thought he had something.
At least that's what the GOP claims now despite the threats Cornyn was making against Booker. Looks like Booker forced their hand.
.
What "news"? Faux News or real news?
When was that a rule? When was that ever used? Hint: NEVER. It was a comment by Biden, nothing else. Never a policy, never done. Until the GOP pulled it out of their asses. So I'd call that a big fat GOP LIE that has been in circulation for a couple of years. I hope one day every shit thing GOP has done comes back to haunt them big time.
I have no idea why this comment was to me. Nothing in my comment had anything to do with what you just said to me.
You characterized Booker’s release of a document as “showboating.” My comment explains why bringing such so-called “secret documents” into the light of day is important, and, provides one very specific reason as rob why Republicans want certain documents kept secret.
There is no bigger showboated/grandstander than Trump himself, generally running his mouth, not to inform, but to invite via lies and demagoguery.
Be consistent ... if you object to showboating ... nail all of it.
Booker just clowned himself.
The really sad part is some people actually fell for it.
You've been referring to, without citing, a figure of being in the majority in 97% of his decisions. Where do you get that number?
The Senators on the Committee. It's been on the TV for the last three days.
Why do you think they fight so hard to get re-elected.
Based on your comment, Pelosi says it best of all about themselves:
"We have to vote for it, so we can know what's in it".
In even simpler wording:
"It gives us 4 more years to ignore it if you do" !
Or....
Stop voting "Name Recognition" so these bozos don't get "Tenure". Ya know how hard it is to fire one with "Tenure".
We will never see term limits.
THE SPECIFICS!
The New Jersey Democrat referred to the documents Thursday when he asked Kavanaugh about an email that described preferences for minorities who faced discrimination as a "naked racial set-aside." The document had been declared confidential by a veteran Republican lawyer who has represented Trump administration officials.
"The emails being withheld from the public have nothing to do with national security," Booker said.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Senate GOP leadership that disregarded legislative norms and refused to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, called Booker's threat "irresponsible and outrageous."
"No senator deserves to sit on this committee or serve in the Senate in my view if they decide to be a law unto themselves," Cornyn said.
Traditionally, the National Archives would review Kavanaugh's papers from his time in the federal courts and his tenure in President George W. Bush's White House, a process that will take until the end of next month.
Instead, Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, over Democratic objections, had Bush lawyer Bill Burck, a veteran Republican attorney who also has represented Trump administration officials go through the papers and decide which ones the panel can see, and which of those can be made public.
Papers released to the members of the committee but not allowed to be made public are considered "committee confidential."
Just because Burke released the 'hold' on the documents doesn't mean that they are no longer 'Committee confidential'. That is unless Sen. Grassley relinquished his Chairmanship over to Burke.
I think you are mistaking me for someone else...
My bad and I sincerely apologize; indeed the comment was intended for someone else ... I will take it down and repost it where intended.
Again, my apology.
No worries.
Another post, another whistle past the grave yard and another weak-ass-I-have-nothing-of-substance-to-add-so-I’ll-rag-on-type-face-choices-then-flag-any-all-come-backs.
Truly Trumpian.
Such a rule is arbitrary and capricious and may be subject to the FOA.
And I question expulsion from the Senate as a viable sanction since a duly elected Senator can only be dismissed via due process.
Trump ass kissers make up shit to pander to the Jess Willard crowd.
It came out in the hearing that there is NO actual 'rule' about how a document is characterized as 'Committee confidential'.
Grassley was making up shit as he went along during this hearing...
Grassley stated, that as Chairman, he had the authority to act 'for the Committee'. In all prior confirmation hearings, 'Committee confidential' documents were minimal [in some cases, just one line in a document] AND agreed to by the Chairman AND the Ranking member.
That should read, FOIA ... Freedom of Information Act.
WTF is 'constitutional privilege'?
As far as I can find, it doesn't exist.
I think it's something that the Republicans and, Trump came up with to "fast track" another judicial appointee through the system.
Sunshine Law, FOA ...
Yes Wally, I realize that y'all have come to believe that the ends justify the means...more's the pity.
Maybe, some shit was exposed during the hearings that some of the Republican Senators don't like or, have campaigned on in the past, if they confirm then the folks back home will know they don't give a flying fuck about those issues and, might not vote for them this time around, which means they will lose their comfy little jobs.
As I said, there are Republicans that would be committing political suicide by voting to confirm, here's one,
All it would take is three Republicans changing their vote in the Senate and, Kavanaugh would be out.