Posted on 10/31/2018 7:26:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels and a 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful, jumped into the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation battle on the afternoon of Sept. 23. On that day, The New Yorker had published the allegations of a woman named Deborah Ramirez, who claimed that a drunken Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a party at Yale sometime in 1983 or 1984. Almost immediately, Avenatti took to Twitter with an allegation of his own.
Avenatti said he had a client, "a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge." He did not reveal her name.
Within minutes, Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations at the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent an email to Avenatti. "You claim to have information you consider credible regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge," Davis wrote. "Please advise of this information immediately so that Senate investigators may promptly begin an inquiry."
Avenatti responded quickly. "We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C., area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them," Avenatti wrote. "There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly." Avenatti supplied a list of questions Senate investigators should ask Kavanaugh, and also said he would "provide additional evidence" to the committee in the days to follow.
Of course, it wasn't true. Still, Avenatti's allegation poured fuel on an already raging partisan fire over the Kavanaugh nomination. First there was the Christine Ford allegation. Then came the Ramirez accusation, which, coming after Ford, gave Kavanaugh's opponents the occasion to claim a "pattern" of Kavanaugh's alleged abuse of women. Then Avenatti's allegation -- gang rape -- sent it into another dimension.
Avenatti's client was identified as Julie Swetnick, who had lived in the Washington area during Kavanaugh's high school years. Avenatti sent the committee an affidavit in which Swetnick made her claims. Beyond that, he provided no other evidence to support the allegation -- beyond the promise of "multiple witnesses." Nevertheless, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee took it very seriously.
"In light of shocking new allegations detailed by Julie Swetnick in a sworn affidavit, we write to request that the committee vote on Brett Kavanaugh be immediately canceled and that you support the re-opening of the FBI investigation," committee Democrats wrote Republican chairman Charles Grassley.
The committee immediately began investigating Avenatti's claim, using staff time and resources it could have devoted to other parts of the Kavanaugh matter. According to Grassley, the committee interviewed 10 associates of Swetnick, working late nights and a weekend in the process. "Committee staff sought to interview Ms. Swetnick," Grassley later wrote, "but Mr. Avenatti refused."
Not long after, NBC aired an interview with Swetnick in which she backed away from her most incendiary accusations. In addition, Swetnick gave NBC the names of four people she said knew about the gang rapes. The network reported that one of the people did not know a Julie Swetnick, another was dead, and two others did not respond to inquiries.
Avenatti also gave the committee a declaration from an anonymous "witness" who said that in 1981 to 1982, she personally saw Kavanaugh "'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say 'No.'"
Avenatti would not tell the committee who the "witness" was. But, recently, NBC reported that its journalists talked to the witness, who did not back up the declaration that Avenatti gave the committee on her behalf. "It is incorrect that I saw Brett 'spike' the punch," the woman told NBC. "I didn't see anyone spike the punch ... I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one.
"I do not like that he (Avenatti) twisted my words," the woman said.
Putting aside the question of why NBC waited to report the woman's statement until after the Kavanaugh vote was over, the entire Avenatti episode left Grassley angry that the publicity-seeking lawyer had hijacked the committee's time and energy at a critical moment, with claims that were obviously untrue. So on Oct. 25, Grassley formally referred Avenatti (and Swetnick) to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation into their conduct.
"It is illegal to knowingly and willfully make materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statements to congressional investigators," Grassley wrote in the referral. "When charlatans make false claims to the committee -- claims that may earn them short-term media exposure and financial gain, but which hinder the committee's ability to do its job -- there should be consequences."
With Avenatti, there have so far been no consequences, beyond the loss of whatever credibility some cable TV news organizations conferred on him in repeated appearances over the last several months. Now, with the Grassley referral, that could finally change.
This deadbeat needs to pay up.
It takes some serious brass ones to concoct things to congress and think there will be no consequences, but I think this guy got his sense of invulnerability bolstered by the tabloid cable news programs that repeatedly put him on the air and allowed him to say whatever he wanted to, not only without any check against false assertions, but likely encouraging it.
Because its rhetorical. NBC hopes that withholding that information would help torpedo the Kavanaugh nomination and damage Trump.
And now this POS wants to run for President?
They should throw the book at this pig.
Maybe they can throw the Bench at him, too...
He fits right in with the CommieCrats.
He will receive a slap on the wrist — at most.
I hope they follow through and hold him responsible.
I think the Dems just want him to go away.
It does but these cretins have NEVER dealt with a President like Donald Trump before. They completely expected that if they kept piling on accusations that Trump would eventually pull the nomination or that Kavanaugh would pull himself. Any other Republican would have folded! Trump and Kavanaugh are both men!
“And now this POS wants to run for President?”
As a democrat. This whole episode enhanced his rat creds.
“It takes some serious brass ones to concoct things to congress and think there will be no consequences,...”
________________________________________________
Normally, I would agree with you, z3n.
However, in this case, the Republicans have not made anyone suffer any consequences of lying or manipulating the system. The CPL had nothing to fear.....
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for any consequences to affect the CPL....
I always wondered why an adult women would attend so many 15-16 year old parties. The media ignored that fact of course. Plus, did she willingly have sex with any 15-year old boys? I’d love to see that at least investigated. Probably out of statute of limitations but still needs answered. It is not normal for adult to attend 15-year old parties especially so many.
I’m baffled that anyone considers Avenatti a presidential possibility (viable or fantastical). Practically nobody had heard of him pre-Trump, he was introduced to the public as “porn star lawyer”, and flamed out with absurdly hyperbolic claims re: Kavanaugh. On those points alone he’d lose so many Democratic votes as have no chance. Despite an open mind seeking rationalizing all kinds of nonsense (just to see where it ends up), I can’t conceive of why anyone would even start with “hey, this guy should run for President”.
Why the surprise? We have had other POS running for POTUS in the not too distant past. Some of them are still with us.
“I hope they follow through and hold him responsible.”
And that’s the problem. Responsible for what? He was never deposed and placed under oath so he can say anything he wants short of slander. And taking witness to people’s claims in representation doesn’t make him part of the equation any more than the media that did the same thing by reporting accusations. He’s not even being looked at as the low life scum he is because he is not responsible for what they said, they are.
Besides, it’s going to be very difficult for him to get elected as POTUS since he wished Trump to be impeached for having a tryhist years ago with a prostitute when he’s hot property in courts himself:
His law firm, Eagan Avenatti LLP, and a company he started were hit with back-to-back court judgments ordering them to repay millions of dollars in outstanding debts. In the past year alone, more than a dozen creditors—including a former colleague, a law firm and former landlords—have gone to court to collect millions of dollars more in debts they allege are owed them by Mr. Avenatti, his law practice or his corporate entities.
I’m not sure having sex with a hooker reaches the level of high crimes or misdemeanors. But I can promise you, freeloading creditors for millions of dollar does. Better try running for dog catcher, Mike.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.