House Dems Finally Ask For Millions Of Brett Kavanaugh's Hidden Documents

[kag]

Source: Huffington Post

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday requested the National Archives produce millions of documents from Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s time in President George W. Bush’s administration.

Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), chairman of a subcommittee with oversight of federal courts, made the request. Activist groups have long been demanding an investigation into Kavanaugh’s background, claiming the Senate Judiciary Committee failed to carry one out before approving his nomination last year.

Read more: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-investigation_n_5d49d56ce4b01ae816c9c6a4

---

About damn time!

[Rebl2]

1. Good luck with that

I’m sure they will find a way to block it

[forgotmylogin]

8. Didn't they dismiss at least one pending case?

He's a judge now, so he gets a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card.

[FBaggins]

2. They won't get them... and I doubt they'll be surprised

Even the Senate would have a tough time winning that battle when the documents related to an attorney in the counsel's office. The only reason Senate Judiciary might theoretically get them is that they get to vote on nominations and could say that "they may be privileged but we won't vote on you without them" (obviously not going to happen in that Senate).

Tying the request to legislative priorities is pretty weak sauce. I doubt that many judges (especially knowing that the target sits above them) would give them much.

But I also doubt that's the point. This is for the headline. They know Trump will say no (not sure when since they give no deadline)... and we can add it to the list of things they're withholding.

[jaysunb]

3. I love it anyway :) n/t

[iluvtennis]

10. x2 nt

[mysteryowl]

4. I am pleased to hear this!

Thank you to the activists groups keeping the pressure on!!!!
Thank you for your work!!!


Yeah to activists groups!

[Kurt V.]

6. +1000

[ehrnst]

14. We should not be impeaching him until a Dem president can nominate a replacement.

And a Dem Senate can make sure that the nominee is seated.

[mysteryowl]

15. Understood.

Yet, I say bring on the inquiry and get into it. Congress will move slow anyway, especially if they actually move forward to impeach trump.

[mahina]

5. Right, we're the activists. Not him. Pfffffth.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

7. And how will they enforce compliance?

Just wondering.

[ehrnst]

21. From the article:

The National Archives must turn over documents requested by a congressional committee chairman with relevant oversight authority. The White House, however, could intervene and declare privilege over the documents to prevent their disclosure, or it could slow the process down in a number of ways that could have the effect of blocking disclosure.

But that only goes so far. Kavanaugh has a lifetime appointment, and President Donald Trump does not. If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020 and the party maintains control of at least one branch of Congress, there would be no means to block disclosure of these Kavanaugh documents.

Being as that we don't want to impeach him now, documenting resistance or interference on his behalf by this administration will be useful in a future impeachment case when we have a Dem POTUS and Senate.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

24. Thankyou!

I wish we could impeach now! Every day is a nightmare with that orange blob.

[ehrnst]

25. Impeachment won't get rid of him....

And he'll just do a victory lap when the GOP Senate votes not to convict.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

26. No, I know that's what would happen if we impeached now...

I just *wish* he’d disappear. Mitch, too, while I’m wishing.

[Luciferous]

9. A little late...

[ehrnst]

12. Late? You really want him impeached while Trump can name his replacement? (nt)

[Polybius]

16. He'll never be impeached and removed

Sorry to sound negative, but his replacement will be ready around 2052.

[ehrnst]

19. If there is evidence, and we get a Dem POTUS and Dem Senate... (nt)

[Polybius]

28. A President is irrelevant in impeachment of a judge or Justice, as they have no say in the matter

What kind of "Dem Senate" are you expecting? You need 67 votes to remove. We're never going to see super-majorities like that again.

[ehrnst]

29. A Dem POTUS would be the one appointing the replacement justice.

That's a very relevant consideration when impeaching a justice.

And I said "if" we got a Dem Senate.

[Polybius]

30. There won't be a replacement for 30 years

There’s zero chance we’re getting 67 votes to remove. A “Dem Senate” is 51 Democrats out of 100. You need 67 out of 100 to remove.

[ehrnst]

31. I explained why a Dem POTUS would be relevant.

[Polybius]

32. Yes you did

But you didn’t explain where 67 Democratic Senators are coming from. You need 67 out of 100 to convict. No Republican is going to vote to convict Kavanaugh, especially with a Democratic president picking his replacement.

[ehrnst]

33. Why did I need to?

[Polybius]

34. Well, you're the one talking about it

But to remove and convict requires 67 votes. Im just asking an honest question. Do you think we can get the 67 votes?

[ehrnst]

35. I said if. I didn't say when. We can't even say when the next Democratic POTUS

will be elected for certain.

Go back and read the thread...

[Polybius]

36. I did

It read it like you seemed that you thought impeachment and removal was a possibility. If you don’t think that, then my bad.

[ehrnst]

37. I said IF.... we got a Dem POTUS and Senate

Go back and read my posts if you don't believe me.

Again... nothing is sure, nothing is certain in 2020. Not even a Dem POTUS. If you want guarantees, go see a psychic.

If you're convinced none if it will never happen, that's your prediction. You seem to be rather upset that someone doesn't agree with you lockstep, submit to your opinion, and declare you "the winner!"

[Polybius]

38. Now re-read my last reply

My last post I said if I misread you, then my bad. My bad means I’m sorry. That’s the part where you’re supposed to say “no problem, no hard feelings.”

[ehrnst]

39. No, you posited a false dillema.

That is a problem, and doesn't inspire good feelings.

But if you're wanting to be "forgiven" for doing that, fine. Consider yourself forgiven.

[Polybius]

40. And I said if I misunderstood you thaen I'm sorry

It wasn’t my intention.

[ehrnst]

41. I think you understood me just fine.

I think you wanted me to say you are right and I am wrong.

I am doing neither.

This is the part where you realize that you are not going to get the answer you want from me.

[Polybius]

42. No I don't want you to say that at all

Just like with jokes, sometimes it needs to be explained before I say ooooohhhh!

I just want you to know it wasn’t intentional because there would be no point in that. Republicans jump into things to stir up trouble.

[ehrnst]

43. OK.

[Luciferous]

27. Yep, I think at this point we are stuck with him.

[Farmer-Rick]

11. The sending of the letter establishes an evidence trail

It's like putting a book mark on Brett's crimes. Even if no data is received it sets up a record of concern to move forward on impeachment later when we have taken back our government.

[ehrnst]

13. +1000. (nt)

[riversedge]

17. They have to try to get them even if refused.

[RT Atlanta]

18. Does the request include info on how the large debts of Kavanaugh were paid off

That's another piece of the puzzle that we, the people, should know and understand. Who paid the debts for him (if he didnt himself) and, if someone paid the debts for him, did Kavanaugh pay taxes on that extra income?

[ehrnst]

20. Unless they were part of his correspondence or work related docs during the Bush Administration

I doubt they would be in the request to the Archives.

The article didn't talk about any other Kavanaugh documents that the commitee might be seeking from other sources.

I imagine that these are going to be used as evidence to show that he perjured himself during testimony concerning his statements on his time in the administration.

[DeminPennswoods]

22. Didn't GW Bush say it was ok for these documents

to be released? That sticks in my mind, but please correct me if I'm wrong about it.

[BlueIdaho]

23. Millions? nt.