Technically true. Grassley effectively claimed it on Trump’s and Kavanaugh’s behalf.
One can only wonder what they’re afraid of revealing huh?
I’m not sure how the Dems are feigning their outrage over these documents with a straight face. I don’t care if these documents show Kavanaugh helping old ladies cross the street or volunteering for the special olympics: they will still not vote for him. What are they looking for in these documents?
And again, nothing in these documents will bear upon Kavanaugh’s qualifications. They are again simply voting against a nominee because of partisan politics, showing their misunderstanding that the Court should be an activist body.
They didn’t even bother giving their advice, unless one regards ‘fuck off, Mr. President’ as advice.
The Constitution doesn’t say it has to be friendly advice.
Regards,
Shodan
Evidence that he lied in his previous confirmation hearings.
If you believe that, then what’s the problem? Release the [del]Kraken[/del] documents!
(Seems like lying under oath would bear on his qualifications. But maybe that’s JMHO.)
As distinct from refusing to vote on, or even consider, a nominee because of partisan politics.
Completely different, yes. Sorry, but that ship’s sailed so long ago, I can see it coming back into harbor after a circumnavigation of the globe.
Nothing in the Constitution requires them to give their advice.
OK, gotta give you props for that one. 
Evidence the Republicans and their mouthpieces cannot dismiss of how he’d *really *rule on key isses. Kinda their jobs, wouldn’t you say? Just for instance, what way do you really think he’d rule on the indictability of a President? The way he says now, or the way he said when a Democrat held the job? For another, how would he rule on the acceptability of torture? We know that too, but it’s also being strenuously hidden from public view.
Only if you wish to maintain the fiction of his impartiality. The evidence to the contrary is out there, so it’s no wonder that there’s a panic to keep it hidden and rush this through.
But it’s okay to vote *for *him because of partisan politics? Help us out here.
There it is, then. Kavanaugh, from what we know *would *be an activist Justice, by any definition other than the common one of using the word to mean “Democrat”.
I’ve not heard that there was an allegation that he lied under oath previously. Do you have a link or a cite?
Further, this request for documents has far reaching consequences for attorney/client privilege. What exactly do you hope to find in them?
BTW, I believe that it is an Eighth Amendment violation for Kavanaugh to have to sit and listen to all of this bloviating for a full day. He puts on a hell of a face acting like he cares, even taking notes at times!
It’s a rarely use parliamentary tactic known as kal-if-fee.
Just told you.
Not to mention, someone in an appropriate position (e.g. Solicitor General’s office) ought to be making the determination of executive privilege, not a private attorney of Donald McGahn’s and GWB’s who is also a friend and former associate of Kavanaugh’s. (Any claim of GWB’s to confidentiality would have been in his capacity as POTUS, not his personal capacity.)
Hillary Clinton says hi.
Are you talking about the ones that aren’t being released, or the ones Republicans lied about reading?
Would you care to give us a list of the Senators who voted against his confirmation?
Why do you think the consent needs to be affirmatively given? That is, that the Senate is obliged to vote against in order to withhold consent. The president gets to appoint SCOTUS justices as long as he has the consent of the Senate. He didn’t get it, so his nominee doesn’t get seated.
This is, like, total deja vu. But for reals.
Anyone watching Lisa Blatt, liberal Dem lawyer who is speaking in favor of Kavanaugh? This is how judicial confirmation proceedings should be had: not listening to hysteria by the left or right.
I have no such list. Do you have the list of 51 Senators (or 50 plus the VP) who voted in favor? Without your list, there is no confirmation.
Also, did anyone notice how the hot chick in the blue dress has been put aside so that Condi Rice is in full view during Kav’s opening statement? 
I hate politics.
I had some meetings, just tuning into Kavanaugh’s statement now. When was there a hot chick in blue?
Stay focused, gentlemen.
soon-to-be-Justice Kavanaugh sounds like a really nice guy.