This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-pickering-nomination.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Democrats Question Kavanaugh’s Testimony About Bush Nominee | Democrats Question Kavanaugh’s Testimony About Bush Nominee |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| WASHINGTON — As a White House lawyer working for President George W. Bush, Brett M. Kavanaugh helped the administration’s effort to win Senate confirmation for one of Mr. Bush’s most disputed judicial nominees, a Mississippi district court judge who was seeking an appeals court seat, internal White House emails show. | WASHINGTON — As a White House lawyer working for President George W. Bush, Brett M. Kavanaugh helped the administration’s effort to win Senate confirmation for one of Mr. Bush’s most disputed judicial nominees, a Mississippi district court judge who was seeking an appeals court seat, internal White House emails show. |
| Among other things, the emails show that Judge Kavanaugh helped work on a binder of documents about the judge, Charles W. Pickering Sr., to give to Senate staff members; drafted a letter to a senator about him; and handled a draft opinion article supporting his confirmation intended for publication under the name of Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel whose staff called him “Judge.” | Among other things, the emails show that Judge Kavanaugh helped work on a binder of documents about the judge, Charles W. Pickering Sr., to give to Senate staff members; drafted a letter to a senator about him; and handled a draft opinion article supporting his confirmation intended for publication under the name of Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel whose staff called him “Judge.” |
| “Any luck on submitting Judge’s op-ed?” Judge Kavanaugh wrote to a White House spokeswoman a few days after passing her the draft of the article. Attaching a Boston Globe editorial that criticized Judge Pickering, he added: “We just continue to take it — without any meaningful administration response.” | “Any luck on submitting Judge’s op-ed?” Judge Kavanaugh wrote to a White House spokeswoman a few days after passing her the draft of the article. Attaching a Boston Globe editorial that criticized Judge Pickering, he added: “We just continue to take it — without any meaningful administration response.” |
| [Read the White House emails here.] | [Read the White House emails here.] |
| Such emails appear likely to become a focus of Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing next month. As an appeals court nominee, Judge Kavanaugh distanced himself from the Pickering nomination, including by turning aside a question about something Judge Pickering had done by saying that he had focused on other nominees. | Such emails appear likely to become a focus of Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing next month. As an appeals court nominee, Judge Kavanaugh distanced himself from the Pickering nomination, including by turning aside a question about something Judge Pickering had done by saying that he had focused on other nominees. |
| “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling,” he testified in 2006. | “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling,” he testified in 2006. |
| Democrats have been mining White House records for ammunition as they scrutinize answers that Mr. Kavanaugh gave as an appeals court nominee to questions about his role in the Bush administration’s handling of terrorism detainees. The glimpse of his work on the Pickering nomination is emerging as fodder for similar attacks, amplifying Democrats’ complaints that Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is moving forward with hearings next month without first obtaining his full record of Bush-era files. | Democrats have been mining White House records for ammunition as they scrutinize answers that Mr. Kavanaugh gave as an appeals court nominee to questions about his role in the Bush administration’s handling of terrorism detainees. The glimpse of his work on the Pickering nomination is emerging as fodder for similar attacks, amplifying Democrats’ complaints that Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is moving forward with hearings next month without first obtaining his full record of Bush-era files. |
| “Testifying under oath before the Judiciary Committee in 2006, Brett Kavanaugh downplayed his role in shepherding the Pickering nomination through the Senate, but the limited documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s Office that Chairman Grassley has made public show that he led critical aspects,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader. The files, he said, raise “serious questions about whether Kavanaugh misled the Senate.” | “Testifying under oath before the Judiciary Committee in 2006, Brett Kavanaugh downplayed his role in shepherding the Pickering nomination through the Senate, but the limited documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House Counsel’s Office that Chairman Grassley has made public show that he led critical aspects,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader. The files, he said, raise “serious questions about whether Kavanaugh misled the Senate.” |
| But Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, accused Democrats of making “increasingly desperate and baseless attacks” on Judge Kavanaugh. He said the judge “accurately told the Judiciary Committee that he was not ‘primarily handling’ Judge Pickering’s nomination within the White House Counsel’s Office, and was unaware of the specific issue prior to it being raised by others.” | But Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, accused Democrats of making “increasingly desperate and baseless attacks” on Judge Kavanaugh. He said the judge “accurately told the Judiciary Committee that he was not ‘primarily handling’ Judge Pickering’s nomination within the White House Counsel’s Office, and was unaware of the specific issue prior to it being raised by others.” |
| And Mr. Grassley said on Twitter that Judge Kavanaugh’s 12 years of appeals court opinions were the best way to evaluate him, adding, “Let’s stop the fishing expedition.” | And Mr. Grassley said on Twitter that Judge Kavanaugh’s 12 years of appeals court opinions were the best way to evaluate him, adding, “Let’s stop the fishing expedition.” |
| The fight over Judge Kavanaugh is the latest in long-running partisan warfare over judges. An earlier chapter included Democrats’ fight against a group of conservative nominees that Mr. Bush put forward after the disputed 2000 election, some of whom were for vacant seats Senate Republicans had refused to let President Bill Clinton fill. | The fight over Judge Kavanaugh is the latest in long-running partisan warfare over judges. An earlier chapter included Democrats’ fight against a group of conservative nominees that Mr. Bush put forward after the disputed 2000 election, some of whom were for vacant seats Senate Republicans had refused to let President Bill Clinton fill. |
| One of those nominees was Mr. Bush’s effort to elevate Judge Pickering, who drew criticism because, among other things, he pushed as a district court judge to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of burning a cross in front of an interracial couple’s house. After Democrats blocked Judge Pickering’s nomination with a filibuster, Mr. Bush used his recess appointment power in 2004 to appoint him without Senate confirmation. | |
| Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony that the Pickering nomination was not one of those he “primarily” handled came in response to a narrow question about whether he knew about Judge Pickering’s solicitation of letters of support from Mississippi lawyers who appeared before him, a step that legal ethics experts criticized. He said he had not. | Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony that the Pickering nomination was not one of those he “primarily” handled came in response to a narrow question about whether he knew about Judge Pickering’s solicitation of letters of support from Mississippi lawyers who appeared before him, a step that legal ethics experts criticized. He said he had not. |
| But he was also asked more broadly to describe his role in the Pickering nomination and to identify which nominees he had worked on “in any capacity” in written questions after an earlier hearing before the Judiciary Committee. | But he was also asked more broadly to describe his role in the Pickering nomination and to identify which nominees he had worked on “in any capacity” in written questions after an earlier hearing before the Judiciary Committee. |
| He wrote that he was one of about 10 White House lawyers on a judicial selection committee deciding who to recommend, all of whom “participated in discussions and meetings concerning all of the president’s judicial nominees.” He also named six appeals court nominees, “among others,” he had aided in the confirmation process, such as by “reviewing nomination paperwork and preparing for hearings,” and did not include Judge Pickering. | He wrote that he was one of about 10 White House lawyers on a judicial selection committee deciding who to recommend, all of whom “participated in discussions and meetings concerning all of the president’s judicial nominees.” He also named six appeals court nominees, “among others,” he had aided in the confirmation process, such as by “reviewing nomination paperwork and preparing for hearings,” and did not include Judge Pickering. |
| Many of the emails showing glimpses of Judge Kavanaugh’s involvement with the Pickering nomination were minor, such as circulating articles or remarks by public officials related to him. | Many of the emails showing glimpses of Judge Kavanaugh’s involvement with the Pickering nomination were minor, such as circulating articles or remarks by public officials related to him. |
| Still, when a room was being reserved for a Pickering event, it was Judge Kavanaugh who was consulted. When the White House press office needed materials about Judge Pickering, it was Judge Kavanaugh who asked the Justice Department for the files and relayed them. When a senator’s chief of staff was coming to the White House to discuss Judge Pickering and another nominee, it was Judge Kavanaugh who planned to meet with her. | Still, when a room was being reserved for a Pickering event, it was Judge Kavanaugh who was consulted. When the White House press office needed materials about Judge Pickering, it was Judge Kavanaugh who asked the Justice Department for the files and relayed them. When a senator’s chief of staff was coming to the White House to discuss Judge Pickering and another nominee, it was Judge Kavanaugh who planned to meet with her. |
| And in May 2003, another White House official told Judge Kavanaugh that she had “asked for the Pickering package they are distributing” and was “sending it your way to review.” When he asked whom “they” referred to, she replied: “The Pickering team. Chip, Chip’s COS and whoever else they are using. You should know them” — adding “hehe.” (Judge Pickering’s son, Charles Pickering, known as Chip, was a Republican congressman at the time, and COS means “chief of staff.”) | And in May 2003, another White House official told Judge Kavanaugh that she had “asked for the Pickering package they are distributing” and was “sending it your way to review.” When he asked whom “they” referred to, she replied: “The Pickering team. Chip, Chip’s COS and whoever else they are using. You should know them” — adding “hehe.” (Judge Pickering’s son, Charles Pickering, known as Chip, was a Republican congressman at the time, and COS means “chief of staff.”) |
| The emails were among about 88,000 pages of Bush White House files involving Judge Kavanaugh made public on Sunday. They had been provided to the committee and approved for release by William A. Burck, a lawyer working for Mr. Bush, who has the authority to disclose his administration’s still secret files. | The emails were among about 88,000 pages of Bush White House files involving Judge Kavanaugh made public on Sunday. They had been provided to the committee and approved for release by William A. Burck, a lawyer working for Mr. Bush, who has the authority to disclose his administration’s still secret files. |
| On Thursday, Mr. Grassley announced that Mr. Burck had provided another 64,000 pages of Bush White House files, bringing the total he has given the committee to about 248,000. About 94,000 are public so far. | On Thursday, Mr. Grassley announced that Mr. Burck had provided another 64,000 pages of Bush White House files, bringing the total he has given the committee to about 248,000. About 94,000 are public so far. |
| A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said several of the still confidential files that the committee has received from Mr. Burck shed significant additional light on Judge Kavanaugh’s work on the Pickering nomination, but provided no details. | A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said several of the still confidential files that the committee has received from Mr. Burck shed significant additional light on Judge Kavanaugh’s work on the Pickering nomination, but provided no details. |
| Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the main issue was not that Judge Kavanaugh worked on a controversial nominee, but “whether he was truthful” about that work. | Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the main issue was not that Judge Kavanaugh worked on a controversial nominee, but “whether he was truthful” about that work. |
| “Some of the narrow set of documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House that we’ve seen and are public show that he led on key parts of the Charles Pickering nomination, which he denied,” she said, adding that it “raises serious questions” and “shows the need for more documents” before the committee moves forward. | “Some of the narrow set of documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House that we’ve seen and are public show that he led on key parts of the Charles Pickering nomination, which he denied,” she said, adding that it “raises serious questions” and “shows the need for more documents” before the committee moves forward. |
| Democrats have complained about relying on documents screened by Mr. Burck, noting that he is under no legal obligation to disclose potentially damaging files. The normal process is for the National Archives to produce historical executive branch files about a nominee to the Senate. | Democrats have complained about relying on documents screened by Mr. Burck, noting that he is under no legal obligation to disclose potentially damaging files. The normal process is for the National Archives to produce historical executive branch files about a nominee to the Senate. |
| The archives is working through about 900,000 pages of Judge Kavanaugh’s White House lawyer files, but its review will not be done until at least late October. In a statement this week, the archives said that Mr. Burck’s separate effort “is something that has never happened before” and “does not represent the National Archives.” | The archives is working through about 900,000 pages of Judge Kavanaugh’s White House lawyer files, but its review will not be done until at least late October. In a statement this week, the archives said that Mr. Burck’s separate effort “is something that has never happened before” and “does not represent the National Archives.” |