Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What did Jeffrey Epstein do to ensure Brett Kavanaugh was appointed to the supreme court? Which Senators were involved?
Executive summary
Available reporting in the provided dossier does not show evidence that Jeffrey Epstein took steps to ensure Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court; the sources focus on the 2018 confirmation process, allegations against Kavanaugh, and limits of the FBI background check rather than any link to Epstein (not found in current reporting). The closest relevant reporting documents are investigations and commentary about a constrained FBI supplemental background check and senators who relied on its findings when they voted to confirm Kavanaugh (e.g., at least eight senators cited the FBI’s limited findings) [1].
1. What the records and reporting actually cover: a confirmation shaped by allegations and a limited FBI check
The core contemporaneous story in these sources is that Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 nomination became engulfed by sexual-misconduct allegations and that the Trump White House and the FBI conducted a narrowly scoped supplemental background inquiry that many have criticized as incomplete; that limited inquiry was cited by at least eight senators when they voted to confirm him [1].
2. No sourcing shows Epstein "ensured" Kavanaugh’s confirmation
None of the provided items link Jeffrey Epstein to actions that “ensured” Kavanaugh’s appointment; the materials discuss Epstein files, calls to release them, and retrospective commentary about double standards, but they do not assert Epstein intervened in Senate voting or the White House’s handling of the nomination (not found in current reporting) [2] [3] [4].
3. Who in the Senate publicly relied on the FBI’s limited report — the vote count and named senators
Reporting notes that multiple senators pointed to the FBI’s supplemental investigation when justifying confirmation votes. The Guardian identifies senators who cited the FBI’s findings, including then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senators Shelley Moore Capito, Jeff Flake (then a senator), Bob Corker, Chuck Grassley and Susan Collins; the reporting states at least eight senators did so when they voted to confirm Kavanaugh [1]. Ballotpedia records the final confirmation vote was 50–48–1, with Joe Manchin the only Democrat voting to confirm and Lisa Murkowski the only Republican opposing [5].
4. What critics say about how the investigation was handled
Investigations and inquiries cited in the sources argue the supplemental FBI probe was narrowly focused, involved only a “handful” of interviews, and omitted potential witnesses — including people who had offered corroborating information — and even did not contact some people Senators say they informed the FBI about [1]. The Guardian reports Senator Chris Coons alerted FBI Director Christopher Wray about a relevant account that was not pursued [1].
5. Competing perspectives and political context
Supporters of Kavanaugh and many Republican Senate leaders emphasized the FBI finding of “no corroborating evidence” and used that to justify confirmation; critics — including some Democrats and later investigative accounts — say the FBI’s limited probe was insufficient and that the White House protected the nominee from a full investigation [1]. Opinion pieces and columns in the files also argue broader media and institutional double standards around Epstein-era reporting, but these are interpretive and do not produce new documentary evidence linking Epstein to Kavanaugh’s confirmation [3].
6. Epstein files and later political fights — why the topic keeps resurfacing
Separate reporting shows ongoing political and legislative fights about releasing the so-called Epstein files; Democrats in recent years sought to compel release, arguing institutional betrayal of survivors and pressing for transparency, which keeps Epstein-related materials in public discussion but does not, in the provided reporting, tie Epstein to Kavanaugh’s 2018 confirmation actions [2] [6] [4].
7. What’s missing and how to evaluate claims
Available sources do not mention any direct contact, payments, lobbying, or coordination by Epstein or his associates to affect Kavanaugh’s nomination or Senate votes (not found in current reporting). If you have seen a claim asserting Epstein “ensured” Kavanaugh’s appointment, that claim is not corroborated by the provided articles; corroboration would require contemporaneous documents, witness testimony, or investigative findings tying Epstein to the confirmation timeline (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for readers
The records here point to a controversial confirmation shaped by allegations against Kavanaugh and a limited FBI supplemental inquiry that some senators cited in voting to confirm him; they do not document any role by Jeffrey Epstein in securing Kavanaugh’s seat. For any definitive link between Epstein and Kavanaugh’s confirmation, look for direct documentary or witness evidence in future releases of files or investigations — the current reporting in this packet does not provide it [1] [5].