so, for a court nominee that only has two years of appellate court rulings on which to be assessed, it looks like this is gonna be a
bolton-esque stonewall for documents all over again. whether or not there is incriminating info in there or not, don't they understand that it makes all of them
look like they're hiding something?
''We hope we don't get into a situation where documents are asked for that folks know won't be forthcoming." so it's kind of like 'we knew you'd want these and so we told you you couldn't have them before you even asked so don't even bother asking in the first place' . . . dicks.
someone tell me why i'm wrong here because i'm really hoping that this isn't tuning into another d.c. pissing contest that's embarrassing for everyone involved (when it seemed like it was going to be a relativly smooth proces based on his appointment).
c.
