In 2006, Brett Kavanaugh told a Senate committee that he wasn’t “primarily” involved in shepherding the nomination of controversial circuit court nominee Charles Pickering when Kavanaugh worked in the George W. Bush White House. But emails released Wednesday show that Kavanaugh conducted meetings with Republican senators and was closely engaged in Pickering’s nomination.

Democrats are now arguing that Kavanaugh was not forthright under oath during his confirmation hearings to be a circuit court judge more than a decade ago, and are zeroing in on his work on behalf of Pickering. The Mississippi judge faced questions at the time about his record on civil rights and was blocked by the Senate after Bush nominated him.

Story Continued Below

During his confirmation hearing in 2006, Kavanaugh told senators that Pickering was “not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling” as part of his work in the White House counsel’s office. A New York Times report last month raised questions about that statement, citing internal White House emails from the time.

Since then, additional emails have surfaced, including more than two dozen released on Wednesday that show Kavanaugh strategized on Pickering’s behalf, including by meeting with Senate staffers regarding his nomination, and fretted over the judge’s confirmation prospects.

Nothing in the emails directly contradicts Kavanaugh’s testimony before the Senate when he was a circuit court nominee. Democrats say the documents show Kavanaugh was less than forthcoming about his role in the Pickering confirmation, though the judge’s defenders say he was truthful and not obligated to elaborate.

At his Supreme Court confirmation hearings last week, Kavanaugh was not asked by Democrats about the emails, in part because they said some were provided shortly before the hearings while others were still being held within the committee and not made available for public consumption.

According to confidential documents provided by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kavanaugh met with staff of former GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and planned to meet with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine regarding the Pickering nomination. Booker said on Wednesday that the documents show Kavanaugh “misled the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

In one email, dated Jan. 21, 2003, Kavanaugh wrote to then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales that he and another White House staffer “had a good meeting today with Chafee people about [nominee Priscilla] Owen and Pickering (and we meet with Collins people tomorrow).”

“One of the Chafee people made the point that we should try harder to get out the facts about Pickering, which he said were ‘impressive and compelling,’” Kavanaugh continued.

Kavanaugh also attached to that email a draft op-ed written by Gonzales defending Pickering, whose nomination was defeated on the Senate floor over Democratic concerns about his civil rights record. Bush eventually gave Pickering a recess appointment, though he served for less than a year.

Pickering told National Review in August that he “cannot recall a single interaction with Brett Kavanaugh about my judicial nomination.” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who was the Judiciary chairman at the time, said on Wednesday he didn’t remember whether his committee worked with Kavanaugh on the Pickering nomination.

White House spokesman Raj Shah said “Judge Kavanaugh never argued he had no involvement whatsoever in Judge Pickering’s nomination, he said he wasn’t ‘primarily handling’ it.”

“The fact that 30 unique people are on these leaked emails, and surely there couldn’t be 30 people ‘primarily handling’ it, undercuts the Democrats’ entire argument,” Shah said.

When questioned last week about his work to confirm another controversial judge, William Pryor, Kavanaugh explained that one person in the counsel’s office would handle each judicial nominee’s confirmation process. But the White House said that doesn’t preclude a lawyer in the office from doing some work on other nominations.

The White House said Noel Francisco, now the U.S. solicitor general, was the lead White House lawyer on the Pickering nomination. But Democrats question why Kavanaugh was sometimes the only associate counsel included on emails about Pickering’s confirmation; Francisco is not always copied in the newly released emails, though he is included on a handful of them.

“These latest documents raise more serious and concerning questions about Judge Kavanaugh’s honesty before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is clear that Kavanaugh was far more involved than he previously claimed with the nomination of a controversial federal judge who once defended a state law banning interracial marriage and campaigned for an avowed segregationist,” Booker said in a statement.

In December 2002, before Pickering was renominated, Kavanaugh wrote that it was important that “judge” see an email strategizing on how Hatch should talk about Pickering on TV. And on Jan. 27, 2003, as the American Bar Association said it would give new ratings for nominees, Kavanaugh said: “I fear a ‘new rating’ on Pickering.”

On April 25, 2003, Brian Benczkowski of the Justice Department emailed Kavanaugh informing him that Pickering was asking about travel plans to testify before the Senate. Benczkowski offered to call Pickering back, but not “without your blessing and instructions.”

Three days later, Kavanaugh told Gonzales to talk to White House Capitol Hill liaison David Hobbs and Hatch about the timing of Pickering’s nomination. No one else was included on the email.

Other emails show that Kavanaugh was kept apprised of progress on Pickering’s nomination. On March 12, 2003, Kavanaugh and other White House staff set up a meeting with then-Rep. Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), the judge’s son. And on April 29, 2003, Kavanaugh was informed by White House special assistant Wendy Grubbs that Pickering’s nomination hearing had been moved back; no other White House staffers were included on the email.

Other emails show that Kavanaugh helped place pro-Pickering op-eds and stories.

No one more thing, no wireless charged AirPods, no AirPower. Apple said both would happen in 2018.

— Stephen Nellis (@StephenNellis) September 12, 2018

Senate Republicans are in a jam when it comes to Jeff Sessions.

While resigned to President Donald Trump firing the attorney general after the election, they suspect that perhaps only a sitting senator could win confirmation as Sessions’ replacement — that is, someone they could trust not to interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. But no one from their ranks seems to want the job.

Story Continued Below

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said any new nominee must pledge to protect the Mueller investigation, and it would help if it was “Somebody from the body or someone who has had experience … or somebody you know personally, you know what you’re getting.” But he said it’s not going to be him, despite private belief among his colleagues he’s eyeing the job.

“No. I like being a senator. There are plenty of more qualified people than me. Bunches of them, thousands,” Graham said on Wednesday.

Asked about Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, a fellow Senate lawyer who was considered as FBI director, Graham said: “He’d be great if he wanted to do it.”

No dice, said Cornyn.

“We already have an attorney general,” said Cornyn, who some colleagues think could be confirmed to replace Sessions. “I love my job.”

And Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who some Republicans think might be interested in the job, is “very happy” in his current role as senator, a spokesman said.

With few obvious applicants for a job that seems to have built-in clashes with the president, some senators even suggest Trump might have to nominate a Democrat to have any hope of getting a new attorney general confirmed.

“Trump may very well want a change,” said retiring Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “If I was the president I’d even consider picking a Democrat if I thought I couldn’t get anybody else through.”

The president, however, is looking for a staunch defender like Eric Holder was to Barack Obama, or a “guy looking out for his own interests,” said a Republican close to the White House. This person said that perhaps a senator could be persuaded to take the job, but was unsure anyway would meet Trump’s criteria of loyalty.

“I’m not sure that there’s anybody in the Senate besides maybe Lindsey Graham that Trump would want and even Lindsey, he really likes Lindsey, but I don’t know if he trusts him,” this person said. “I don’t know that there’s anybody in the Senate he feels that way about or that they feel that way about him.”

One Republican senator said a senator nominated as attorney general would have to have a squeaky clean record of praise for Trump and estimated that perhaps only four members of the Senate would qualify, calling it a “pretty small universe” of candidates.

The problem is acute enough that Republicans are pessimistic about a confirmation in the lame duck, when there will be little political imperative for red state Democrats to go along with a new attorney general. And if Republicans lose the Senate, an attorney general confirmation becomes even more difficult, if not impossible.

It’s a problem compounded by the fact that some Republicans, like Ben Sasse of Nebraska, have already said it would be “really difficult” for them to support a successor should Trump fire Sessions. Asked if he was confident he could confirm a Sessions successor this month, McConnell instead defend the attorney general and said he hopes he sticks around.

“Assuming that the Democrats voted together against the nominee, I think you would have some Republicans who may well vote against the new nomination,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

The most optimistic Republicans say that the cloud may lift after the election, especially if Mueller’s investigation concludes. Many Republicans are worried about the politics of confirming a new attorney general amid the sensitive probe.

One out could be if Sessions leaves his job voluntarily. Firing Sessions seems to be a red line for some in the GOP.

Sasse “finds it difficult to envision a circumstance where he would confirm a successor to Attorney General Sessions if he is fired for faithfully executing his job. Attorney General Sessions has allowed Mr. Mueller to do his work and Senator Sasse believes that’s the way it should be,” said James Wegmann, a Sasse spokesman.

The problem for the White House extends beyond filling the top job at the Justice Department. Trump has for months been mulling the prospect of replacing Defense Secretary James Mattis, who is now expected to be dismissed or to resign after the midterm elections, too. Once enamored of the retired Marine general and his nickname, “Mad Dog,” the president bragged to donors, “The guy never loses a battle, never loses.” But he has slowly come to realize that Mattis’s political views are more moderate than his sobriquet suggests and taken to referring to him behind closed doors as “Moderate Dog.”

But the White House’s short-list of prospective replacements for Mattis includes two Republican senators who have signaled they aren’t interested in the job, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Graham, both of whom are up for re-election in 2020, according to people familiar with the matter. And Cotton has already announced his campaign for reelection.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the newly installed Senate Armed Services chairman, said he’s advocating for Mattis to stay and whether he stays may “depend on whether I have anything or not to say about it.”

“He does a great job,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Mattis should “absolutely” stay on, he said.

Already the EPA administrator job is vacant and filled by an acting leader, in part because the Senate GOP is not confident it can confirm a successor. Two more vacancies after the election in critical positions would be an unwelcome development unless Republicans find a way to expand their majority this fall.