Yes, thnx. I didn’t put it well but I wanted to be sure the block here comes from Trump, not Bush.
-
-
Replying to @sdkstl
Here, the block is from the Trump admin, yes. In theory, Bush could, I suppose, say that he plans to release them anyway, at which point Trump would have to seek to block them by formally invoking executive privilege.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @sdkstl
According to the NARA letter,it gave notice of intent to release the nom. files on August 1. Under the EO those files should be releasable within 30 days (ie, by 9-4 at the latest) unless there has been a formal claim of executive privilege or an extension of time under 2(b).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Not really sure (1) what letter you're talking about or (2) what files you're talking about, since there have been several letters and several files.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @sdkstl
I was referring to the Aug. 2 letter from Gary Stern to Grassley (which is linked in your article). The files in question appear to relate to Kavanaugh’s nomination (I originally thought he meant nominations Kavanaugh worked on, which would have been more significant obviously).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Still, the question is whether NARA is continuing to follow the PRA process and whether it has given or will give any additional notices under the EO.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Anyway, your article is very helpful in understanding what is going on (other reporting on this has been totally unclear), but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Oh OK! Now I understand where you got confused. Yeah, that was just as to Grassley's 3d part — the DC Cir nom — and those were released earlier this past week.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
As to whether NARA is proceeding, I believe it is — as of now. There have been some follow ups, but they relate to Grassley requests for specific things in advance of the hearing. See here:https://www.archives.gov/foia/congressional-correspondence-related-to-the-nomination-of-brett-kavanaugh …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner @sdkstl
Thanks. Looking at NARA’s letter of August 29, it appears it is withholding information from the committee without any formal invocation of executive privilege. Not sure how that squares with the act or EO, but will take a closer look tomorrow.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think it has to do with the wording of the request itself, which could obviate the need for a formal assertion of privilege — but I am still not sure (a) how that works or (b) if the letter does that. (But note the part in the most recent letter about staff discussions.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.