Judiciary Committee Democrats pen second letter to DOJ over Barrett disclosures: 'raises more questions than it answers'

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are once again pressing the Justice Department and President TrumpDonald TrumpBiden to hold virtual bilateral meeting with Mexican president More than 300 charged in connection to Capitol riot Trump Jr.: There are 'plenty' of GOP incumbents who should be challenged MORE's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett about omissions from materials she submitted as part of the Senate Judiciary questionnaire (SJQ).

"Late Friday night, the Committee received a supplemental SJQ from Judge Barrett – just three days before her confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin. Unfortunately, Judge Barrett's supplemental SJQ raises more questions than it answers," reads the letter from the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne Emiel FeinsteinProgressive support builds for expanding lower courts Menendez reintroduces corporate diversity bill What exactly are uber-woke educators teaching our kids? MORE (Calif.), and other Democrats on the panel.

The Democrats noted that Barrett had provided the committee with information related to an advertisement for an organization opposed to abortion on Friday following news reports revealing the ads' contents earlier in the week.


Barrett also revealed to the committee that she had given two talks about women's reproductive rights in the supplemental disclosure provided to the panel on Friday, the panel noted.

"Both talks, which were omitted from Judge Barrett's 2017 SJQ and attachments, were made public in press reports yesterday. It is troubling that Judge Barrett supplemented her SJQ to include these talks only after they were identified by the press," the committee's Democrats wrote.

They added, "These new omissions raise more questions about the reliability of Judge Barrett's SJQ and her candor before the Committee. These new omissions also raise serious concerns about Judge Barrett's rushed confirmation rushed confirmation process and the hasty process of collecting materials responsive to the SJQ."

"Please immediately provide an explanation for the omission of these materials and please provide any other responsive materials that have not been disclosed by Judge Barrett," the lawmakers concluded.

Democrats sent a similar letter last week complaining that Barrett's failure to disclose the fact that she had signed a 2006 newspaper ad that opposed abortion "raises concerns that the process of collecting materials responsive to the SJQ, like the nomination process itself, has been rushed, for no legitimate reason."

A White House spokesperson pointed out on Twitter in response that the ad was not authored by Barrett, but signed by her as part of her membership in the University of Notre Dame’s Faculty for Life and Fund to Protect Human Life, an anti-abortion group.

"Nominees are only required to disclose materials they 'wrote or edited,' and Judge Barrett neither wrote nor edited this ad," said Ben Williamson.