Last Updated Nov 16, 2017 7:18 PM EST
The top members on the Senate Judiciary Committee say that the documents that Jared Kushner's lawyer submitted to the panel are "incomplete."
In a letter to the attorney of the president's son-in-law, Abbe Lowell, Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said that the committee requested documents from Kushner on Oct. 18 and acknowledged that Lowell provided documents to the panel on Nov. 3.
"We appreciate your voluntary cooperation with the Committee's investigation, but the production appears to have been incomplete. In addition, you asked for clarification on the scope of the request. Therefore, we write today to clarify the scope and reiterate our requests for documents," the letter said.
The senators said that the documents from Kushner's lawyer failed to include "several documents that are known to exist" concerning September 2016 email communications to Kushner about.
"Such documents should have been produced in response to the third request but were not. Likewise, other parties have produced documents concerning a "Russian backdoor overture and dinner invite" which Mr. Kushner also forwarded. And still others have produced communications with Sergei Millian, copied to Mr. Kushner. Again, these do not appear in Mr. Kushner's production despite being responsive to the second request. You also have not produced any phone records that we presume exist and would relate to Mr. Kushner's communications regarding several requests," they wrote.
Millian is a Belarusan American businessman who is said to be the source of some of the material in thewhich contained unverified allegations about Donald Trump's connections to Russia.
Kushner's lawyer in addition, didn't produce documents requested from the committee from an SF 86, a security clearance form.
"However, if Mr. Kushner or his counsel retained copies of the forms, you should produce them. The SF-86 instructions explicitly advise the applicant to "retain a copy of the completed form for your records,"" the letter said. "Moreover, with regard to your claim that the documents are confidential, while the Privacy Act limits the government's authority to release the information provided to it, there is no restriction on your client's ability to provide that information to Congress."