--- title: Why Brett Kavanaugh Can't Be Trusted description: Four former counsels to Democratic Senators write that there are two questions about whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh misled Congress canonical: https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/ author: TIME article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2018-09-17T15:34:28.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-10-13T07:54:27.194Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted og:description: We know because we worked for Senators when he was in the Bush White House og:url: https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1807bc3d89d74090/69893a54457a520facd5f624/kavanaugh-brett-supreme-court-nominee.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2405 og:image:height: 1353 og:image:alt: Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nominee og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted twitter:description: We know because we worked for Senators when he was in the Bush White House twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1807bc3d89d74090/69893a54457a520facd5f624/kavanaugh-brett-supreme-court-nominee.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted. We Know Because We Worked as Counsel to Senators When He Was in the Bush White House > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=fc9e3683-8017-4cb9-b883-c909447b3200&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=fc9e3683-8017-4cb9-b883-c909447b3200&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=fc9e3683-8017-4cb9-b883-c909447b3200&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=fc9e3683-8017-4cb9-b883-c909447b3200&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1) ## Video: Kavanaugh Hearings Disrupt Bipartisanship [Watch (HLS stream): Kavanaugh Hearings Disrupt Bipartisanship](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/O4vq7fAa.m3u8) (4:49)  _Published 2018-09-19. Disputes along party lines becoming the new normal for Senate confirmations._ by [Bob Schiff](https://time.com/author/bob-schiff/), [Kristine Lucius](https://time.com/author/kristine-lucius/), [Jeff Berman](https://time.com/author/jeff-berman/) and [Lisa Graves](https://time.com/author/lisa-graves/) Sep 17, 2018 3:34 PM UTC Disputes along party lines becoming the new normal for Senate confirmations. by [Bob Schiff](https://time.com/author/bob-schiff/), [Kristine Lucius](https://time.com/author/kristine-lucius/), [Jeff Berman](https://time.com/author/jeff-berman/) and [Lisa Graves](https://time.com/author/lisa-graves/) Sep 17, 2018 3:34 PM UTC We watched the testimony of [Judge Brett Kavanaugh](http://time.com/5387414/kavanaugh-president-subpoena/) before [the Senate Judiciary Committee](http://time.com/5387712/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-day-two/) with dismay and disbelief. His many misleading and false statements cast serious doubt on whether he should be confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The events of this weekend only make it clearer the Senate must not act in haste. At the very least, the Senate should not vote on his nomination until still-secret documents from his time in the George W. Bush White House are made public and until [the sexual misconduct allegations](http://time.com/5398157/brett-kavanaugh-assault-allegation/) that have just become public are thoroughly investigated. This is not about the dance many nominees attempt in order to avoid expressing an opinion on legal issues they might face on the court. It is about a pattern of deceptive answers on a range of questions about his past activities and agenda to change our laws through the courts. We believe this deception, both earlier this month and in his 2004 and 2006 nomination hearings for the D.C. Circuit, was intentional. His truthfulness, of course, is very much at issue in the latest allegations against him, since he has categorically denied the sexual assault of which he is accused. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit in July 2003 was highly controversial because of his role in very partisan matters, including judicial nominations. Emails revealed during the hearing, and some just a few weeks before, show that he went to great lengths to mislead Senators in 2004 and 2006 about his true role in those matters, as well as his knowledge of and reliance on confidential information about the strategy of Democratic Senators, whose files had been stolen by Manuel Miranda. Miranda, who worked closely with Kavanaugh on judicial nominations, was at the time a Republican staffer for Sen. Orrin Hatch and then the nominations counsel for Majority Leader Bill Frist. This is important because the American people need judges who are honest on both the facts and the law. Kavanaugh’s deception was about files that were stolen from the Senate itself and about his role promoting judicial nominees with very controversial records that caused their nominations to stall. Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony goes to the heart of the question of whether he should be entrusted with a lifetime job on our highest court. He should not. Miranda’s thefts over the period from December 2001 through early April 2003 were as serious an incident as we experienced during our congressional service — police tape was wrapped around the committee server room when the thefts were discovered. And an extensive report on the incident was issued by Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle in March 2004 the month before the Judiciary Committee’s first hearing on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit. Makan Delrahim, who President Donald Trump appointed last year to head the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, worked for Hatch at the time of the theft. In connection with his nomination hearing, [he said](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Delrahim%20Responses%20to%20Leahy%20Follow-up%20QFRs.pdf), “I find the misconduct described in the \[Pickle Report\] to be completely inappropriate, do not excuse it, and deeply regret that any such conduct by Senate Judiciary Committee staff occurred.” Chairman Hatch, Delrahim’s boss, concurred at the time of the report, [saying in March 2004](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31425-2004Mar4.html), “I am mortified that this improper, unethical, simply unacceptable breach of confidential files occurred.” At his first confirmation hearing in April 2004, [Kavanaugh said](https://www.congress.gov/108/chrg/shrg24853/CHRG-108shrg24853.htm) he had never received material stolen from Democrats. [He repeated](https://www.congress.gov/109/chrg/shrg27916/CHRG-109shrg27916.htm) that testimony in May 2006 under questioning by both Democratic Senators and Chairman Hatch. But emails released earlier this month, after originally being deemed “committee confidential,” show that Kavanaugh was in frequent contact with Miranda and received material that had been stolen from the Senate Judiciary Committee server. These emails contradict his testimony under oath. When confronted by Senator Leahy in the 2018 hearing, Kavanaugh stood by his earlier testimony, claiming that he never suspected the material he received was stolen and even arguing that it was “common” for the White House to receive strategic materials, like confidential letters or talking points, of Democratic staff. He repeated the claim that it was typical multiple times. He even testified: “It seemed like a lot of times the staff was cooperating at times … about judicial nominations. And so, it would not have raised anything in particular in my mind if we learned, _Oh, Senator Leahy is concerned about this._” As former staffers who were there at the time, we find this testimony preposterous. While Democrats and Republicans worked together on non-controversial legislation and nominations, the fights over nominees Senators did oppose strongly — such as Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor and Charles Pickering — were full-fledged and often bitter on both sides. To suggest it would have been common to receive contents or descriptions of our memos, talking points, letters and other items about Democratic Senators’ strategies on how to defeat these highly controversial nominees is ridiculous. This is yet another deceptive claim by this nominee. Kavanaugh also misled the Senate in his 2006 nomination hearing about his involvement in pushing controversial nominees like Pryor and Pickering. Then, he said the Pryor nomination was not one that he had “worked on personally,” and that the Pickering nomination was not one that he had “primarily handled.” He denied awareness of Pryor’s incendiary comments that _Roe v. Wade_ was the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law,” and of Pickering’s unethical solicitation of recommendation letters from lawyers with cases pending before him as a trial judge. But this no longer appears true. The limited number of [documents now available](https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/document-shows-judge-kavanaugh-misled-durbin-under-oath-about-his-work-on-controversial-judicial-nomination-) show that Kavanaugh interviewed and recommend Pryor for the 11th Circuit defended Pryor’s record to the Washington _Post,_ drafted letters and prepared background material for Senators and their senior staff on Pickering, coordinated strategy with the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee, and took part in or was invited to meetings about the nominees, including with Pickering’s son and other top supporters. All of this was known to Kavanaugh when he testified under oath in 2004 and 2006, but it was not known to Senators until emails contradicting his testimony were released this year. That Kavanaugh was pushing to nominate someone who made statements like Judge Pryor did about [_Roe v. Wade_](http://time.com/5388690/kavanaugh-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/) certainly casts doubt on his statement in 2004 that he rarely had knowledge of nominees’ ideological views Whether any of these statements should be the subject of federal charges for perjury or impeachment proceedings is a question for prosecutors, the courts and Congress. What is clear now, however, is that Brett Kavanaugh knew what he was being asked in his hearings and was intentionally evasive and misleading in his answers to questions under oath. Why would he do that? Because downplaying his participation in the most partisan and hard-fought judicial nominations of that period was a key part of the effort to secure his own spot on the federal bench. Had the documents that are now available to the public been seen by Senators in 2006, he very well might never have been confirmed to the D.C. Circuit. It is crucial to note that the Senate still does not have access to all of Kavanaugh’s records on these matters. The National Archives has estimated that it has millions of pages of documents from his time as a political appointee in the Bush White House. We simply do not know what’s still being hidden from the committee and the American people about these and other issues. What we do know is that Kavanaugh’s former Deputy, Bill Burck, has asserted a blanket claim of privilege on over 100,000 pages of documents, including those about Kavanaugh’s work on Bush judicial candidates. We are unaware of any previous time where executive privilege has been used to block the release of documents to the Senate during a Supreme Court nomination. It would be unprecedented and unwise for the Senate to act on the nomination without reviewing the full record. Furthermore, especially in light of the serious and credible charges that became public this weekend, it would be irresponsible for the Senate to rush this nominee to a vote with so many unresolved questions about his honesty and integrity. To uphold the integrity of the U.S. Senate’s nomination process, and maintain the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination must not move forward. ## Transcript [ MUSIC ] The dramatic confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court reveal a new status quo for how modern day justice Justices are confirmed. The hearings have been a highly partisan spectacle with both party's political goals taking center stage. If Kavanagh is confirmed by the Republican lead Senate, the conservative leaning judge from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit would cement a conservative majority on the high High court for the next generation. But despite their Senate minority status, the Democrats have made it clear that they're not going to just roll over during the process. Time and again they've tried to shut down the hearing by complaining that Republicans are withholding documents around Kavanaugh's extensive legal career. And Need to press the candidate for his viewpoints on abortion rights, affirmative action, and other major social issues. Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body? Trump claims he has an absolute right to pardon himself, does he? Meanwhile, Republicans have accused Democrats of political grandstanding Grandstanding as they race to confirm Kavanaugh before the Supreme Court session begins in October. And well before midterms in November to ensure they hold the high courts swing seat. Unfortunately we have all these interest groups screaming from the sidelines and putting pressure on my Democratic collegues to make this hearing about politics. To make it about pretty much anything except Judge Kavanaugh and his qualifications. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg provided a scathing critique of the poppin show as of late saying this at George Washington University. Adversity. The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong. Think of Justice Scoliea who's certainly a known character. The vote was unanimous, every Democrat and every Republican voted for him. But that's they way it should be. Instead of where this has become a highly partisan show. Bug Ginsburg's remarks came prior to Christine Basley Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in the 1980s when they were both teenagers in high school. Kavanaugh denied these allegations saying, this is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser described. To her Or to anyone. The Senate Judiciary Committee moved to push back Kavanaugh's hearing timeline to hold a public hearing on September 24th so both Kavanaugh and Ford can share their testimony on the assault allegations. But the date is not set, because Ford wants a full investigation by law enforcement officials before any senate hearing. Previously, Justice Clarence Thomas' confirmation in 1991 stood alone as one of the most Contentious in U. S. history. The allegations against Kavanaugh draw additional eerie parallels to Thomas's confirmation. Then- nominee Thomas was accused by his former aide, Anita Hill, for sexual harassment. Hill testified Before the Senate judiciary committee and became the face of what was at the time arguably the biggest sexual harrasment case the country ever saw. But conservative Thomas still won the confirmation with a 52 to 48 vote. At at time when the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Since then, there's been a consistent decline in the number of senators willing to cross party lines to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. In 1993, President Clinton's nominee, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg won with a 96 to 3 vote. In 2005 President George W. Bush's nominee, Chief Justice John G Roberts Roberts Jr. won on a 78- 22 vote. In 2009, President Obama's nominee Justice Sonia Sotomayor won on a 68- 31 vote. And last year, Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee, won by a 54- 45 vote. Senators from both major parties often share their desire for a neutral judge who will follow the law and rule fairly without bias. Is. But their actions tell a different story. In July of 2016, Republicans joined together to block even a hearing for Chief Judge Merrick Garland, of the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, who is regarded as highly qualified and was Obama's nominee. The shift from bipartisan governing, and increasingly polarized Supreme Court nominations are what some say is the result of an unhealthy Healthy trend in congress. Nebraska republican senator Ben Sasse summarized the dilemma. Is that this transfer of power means the people yearn for a place where politics can actually be done, and when we don't do a lot of big Through a political debating here. We transfer it to the supreme court. And that's why the supreme court is increasingly a substitute political battle ground in America. It is not healthy, but it is what happen. And it's something that our founders wouldn't be able to make. Make any sense of. As it stands, to block Kavanaugh's confirmation, Democrats would need two Republicans to reject his nomination in addition to unanimous opposition support within their own party. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/"},"headline":"Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted. We Know Because We Worked as Counsel to Senators When He Was in the Bush White House","datePublished":"2018-09-17T15:34:28.000Z","dateModified":"2026-10-13T07:54:27.194Z","description":"There are now two major questions about the judge's truthfulness to Congress","url":"https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/","keywords":["politics"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1807bc3d89d74090/69893a54457a520facd5f624/kavanaugh-brett-supreme-court-nominee.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Bob Schiff","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/bob-schiff/"},{"@type":"Person","name":"Kristine Lucius","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/kristine-lucius/"},{"@type":"Person","name":"Jeff Berman","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/jeff-berman/"},{"@type":"Person","name":"Lisa Graves","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/lisa-graves/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt1807bc3d89d74090/69893a54457a520facd5f624/kavanaugh-brett-supreme-court-nominee.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nominee","caption":"Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nominee","creditText":"Melina Mara—The Washington Post/Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/politics/","name":"politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/","name":"Brett Kavanaugh Can’t Be Trusted. We Know Because We Worked as Counsel to Senators When He Was in the Bush White House"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"Kavanaugh Hearings Disrupt Bipartisanship","description":"Disputes along party lines becoming the new normal for Senate confirmations.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/O4vq7fAa/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2018-09-19T20:30:43.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/O4vq7fAa.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/","duration":"PT4M49S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/5398191/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-senators/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```