National Archives needs until Oct. 31 to review of Brett Kavanaugh's White House papers
Aug 2, 2018 1:58 PM EDT
WASHINGTON — The National Archives and Records Administration said Thursday it won’t be able to complete its review of nearly 1 million documents regarding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s time in the George W. Bush White House until the end of October. This could potentially thwart Republican hopes for quick confirmation before the November election.
The documents being compiled are only the initial request from Republicans. They cover Kavanaugh’s time in the White House counsel office and his nomination to be a judge. But they don’t contain the broader cache of files being sought by Democrats from Kavanaugh’s time as Bush’s staff secretary.
The paper chase is emerging as the biggest battle over President Donald Trump’s nominee as senators scrutinize the record of the 53-year-old conservative appellate judge whose confirmation could tip the court rightward for a generation to come.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But earlier Thursday, he declined to set a date for beginning confirmation hearings, only saying he hoped to start “sometime in September.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/national-archives-needs-until-oct-31-to-review-of-brett-kavanaughs-white-house-papers
Grassley is a ass........................the public has a right to know what this Federalist Society person thinks..........after all he has said that a sitting president......................can run around for four years and commit crimes................
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/kavanaugh-on-presidential-power-law-review-article-on-investigations-of-sitting-presidents/
-snip-
UPDATE: While the focus of this post has been on Judge Kavanaugh’s Minnesota law review article, it’s worth pointing out that in a piece of video posted on Politico, Kavanaugh raised his hand at a 1998 Georgetown Law Journal conference when panelists were asked to indicate if they believed “as a matter of law that a sitting president cannot be indicted during the term of office.” The context of Kavanaugh’s prior remarks, which prompted the vote, strongly indicates that he understood the reference to “as a matter of law” to be referring to “as a matter of constitutional law.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
