Democrats registered a new complaint Monday about the process for Judge Brett Kavanaugh with the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, complaining that President George W. Bush’s lawyer isn’t giving them enough information.
The lawyer, William Burck, was tapped by Mr. Bush to process documents from the Bush archives related to Judge Kavanaugh’s work in the White House counsel’s office from 2001-2003.
But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said he’s not explaining his redactions.
She said the usual process done by the National Archives details why certain parts of documents are blacked out — whether for privacy issues, attorney-client protections or other reasons. But Mr. Bush’s lawyer isn’t doing that.
“Several documents reference attachments, memos or emails that have not been provided,” Ms. Feinstein explained Monday in a letter to Mr. Burck.
The California Democrat asked Mr. Burck to provide a list to the committee of all the documents where there’s been a redaction thus far, as well as his method for redactions and his reasoning for any alterations. She wants the information by Wednesday. Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing begins next week.
“Without any explanation of what is being done and why, we cannot have confidence in the integrity of the documents that we have received, which unfortunately still represents only a fraction of Judge Kavanaugh’s full record,” Ms. Feinstein said in her letter.
The Bush lawyer is speeding documents to the committee faster than the National Archives process, which is also ongoing.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, said his panel has received more than 430,000 pages of records — twice as many as any other previous Supreme Court nominees.
Mr. Grassley said his staff has reviewed all of those documents in preparation of the confirmation scheduled to begin Sept. 4.
“I assume democrats have done the same so they are ready for his hearing,” Mr. Grassley tweeted.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.