Friday, October 26, 2018

The kind of thing we're up against

NBC sat on essential information about Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti:

To NBC News' credit, their reporting is the entire reason we know about the discrepancies in Swetnick's accounts. It was their October 1st report—during the height of the Kavanaugh sexual misconduct debate—that first revealed that Swetnick would not or could not confirm several of the details she made in a sworn statement to Congress.
But per the newest story, these are the details NBC News knew for a fact during the Kavanaugh debate, and chose not to report:
  • On September 30, Avenatti forwarded an anonymous woman (I'll call her Woman B) to NBC claiming she could corroborate Swetnick's story. On the contrary, she said of the punch spiking "I didn't ever think it was Brett" and when asked if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards women replied, "No."
  • On October 2nd, Avenatti publicized a sworn statement from an unnamed woman claiming she had "witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, ‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol" and he engaged in "inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature."
  • The same day, Avenatti confirms to NBC News that the woman is Woman B.
  • On October 3rd, Woman B tells NBC she only "skimmed" the statement she made to Congress.
  • The same day, when asked about the discrepancies, Avenatti suddenly backtracks and claims the woman is not Woman B.
  • On October 4th, Woman B texts NBC: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch … I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."
  • The same day, when asked about her denials, Avenatti responds, "I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions."
  • Five minutes later, Woman B texts NBC: "Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue."
  • Minutes later, NBC calls again, and Woman B again reiterates she never saw Kavanaugh spiking punch or being sexually inappropriate.
  • On October 5th, she texts NBC: "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."
Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed October 6th. At the time of his confirmation, there was a sworn statement before Congress indicating that the Supreme Court nominee was a sexual assailant and drugged women. As far as the Senate and public knew, there was nothing indicating that statement was false.

Still, the pro-fetal-death camp stands by Swetnick. Here's Planned Parenthood's latest tweet about the matter:

We still believe Julie Swetnick.
Real evil is afoot in post-America.



  1. Yeah, if the anti-sexual assault forces didn't have such a clear and overwhelming advantage, Brett "Kegger" Kavanaugh would have been CONFIRMED for a lifetime associate justice spot on the highest court in the land. Oh, the injustice...

  2. But these forces are poised to respond as viciously to the next originalist appointee.

    1. With no evidence and no rational justification for that suggestion (Gorsuch, whose entire nomination was illegitimate and yet faced no such problems, leaps to mind as instructive), let us just hope that your pathetic response is never put to the test.

  3. If a dude didn't keg it in HS and college (especially law school) they'd say there'd be something wrong with him. And if he ever assaulted anyone, well, where is the proof? Looks like the Dems who I counted as my own for half a century really really showed their asses so much during K's confirmation hearings that they blew a double digit lead in the polls before midterms. Disgusting!

    1. Drinking in high school is one thing...lying about it under oath in your mid-50's is something else entirely again. As for proof, what standard do you require? No criminal charges at stake. Had his nomination been rejected, he faced the terrible consequence of a quarter-million bucks a year pretending the Founders would support a pro-corporate agenda on the SECOND highest court in the land -- absent the filing of any charges he deserves for Congressional perjury. Your arguments and lamentations are ridiculous.

      P.S. Wow, this midterm has tightened up as the election approached just like they usually do and have since dust. I'm stunned.


    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. I will forever blame the Democratic mobs and their largely enabling electorate for the failure to dump heavily on Trump this election if that happens. My former party now largely disgusts me. Yet I will vote for our own Hoosier Blue Dog--a rarity these days. He was disgusted too.