Media-hound lawyer Michael Avenatti added to the growing list of victims of 53-year-old Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, claiming his client, Julie Swetnick, was gang-raped at a party attended by the former D.C. Circuit Court judge. Followed by Christine Blasey-Ford and Deborah Ramirez, Avenatti’s bombshell comes 24-hours before Blasey-Ford’s high-stakes testimony tomorrow in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Despite Ramirez, who insisted Sept. 24, that Kavanugh engaged sexual misbehavior 35-years-ago at a Yale dorm party and Svetnick, will not get their day to testify in the Committee. When Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, dropped her bombshell Sept. 14, detailing Blasey-Ford’s account of Kavanaugh’s attempted rape in 1982, Democrats thought they had a bulletproof way to sabotage Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Kavanaugh’s consistently denied the allegations, appearing Sept. 24 with his wife, Ashley, on Fox New with Martha McCallum. Without responding to all of McCallumn’s questions, Kavanaugh repeated that all he wanted was a fair hearing, stating he never sexually assaulted anyone. When you read between the lines, Kavanaugh did not say nothing happened, other than denying he attended a party with Blasey-Ford. Blasey-Ford plans to substantiate her claims of sexual assault with sworn statements by several individuals, including her husband, that she told them she was sexually assaulted by a federal judge, now seeking to join the Supreme Court. “This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone,” said Kavenaugh in a statement. “I don’t know who this is and this never happened,” referring to Swetnick’s charge that she was gang-raped with Kavenaugh waiting his turn in line.
Neither Swetnick nor Ramirez will testify at tomorrow’s Judiciary Committee hearing involving Blasey-Ford. When Blasey-Ford reads sworn statements corroborating her story, she’ll find plenty of validation from Democrat members of the Committee. Only Republicans on the Committee will question her recollection when she says it was Kavanaugh that fateful 1982 night in Maryland as a 15-year-old when she claims Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee has asked Maricopa County Sex Crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to interview Blasey-Ford. Citing sworn statements for other people won’t convince Mitchell that the alleged sexual assault took place. Mitchell understands what happens to childhood and teenage memories of sexual assaults, decades removed from the alleged incidents of childhood or teenage sexual assault.
Democrats have put all their faith in Blasey-Ford’s testimony, hoping to sink Kavanaugh’s nomination. When you listen to all the partisan talking heads, you’d surely believe Blasey-Ford’s account of the events, daring anyone to question her. Biased reporting from the mainstream press has eviscerated Kavanuagh’s presumption of innocence under Constitutional law. To the media, if you question anything of Blasey-Ford’s report, it’s proof of male chauvinism, asking questions about her story. “That’s totally false and outrageous. I’ve never done any such thing, know about any such thing,” Kavanaugh told McCallum Monday. Avenatti staked his career on his client Swetnick’s statements that Kavanaugh attended gang rape parties back in the early ‘80s. Swetnick told Avenatti she was drugged and gang raped, insisting Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge attended the parties.
With such wild speculation, Blasey-Ford has her work cut out for her convincing GOP members of the Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a high school party in 1982. Getting sworn statements from her friends that she informed them about her sexual trauma, doesn’t mean Kavanaugh was the perpetrator, or, for that matter, that anything along the lines she describes ever happened. Whatever Blasey-Ford recalls, it doesn’t mean it happened exactly as it did 36-years-ago. If Blasey-Ford can’t establish Kavanaugh was at the so-called “party,” it’s going to be difficult for the Judiciary Committee implicate Kavanaugh in the alleged act. Media reports about Kavanaugh’s past cavorting or extracurricular activities in high school, college or law school, don’t lend any credibility to Blasey-Ford’s charges. She must have sworn eyewitness reports, not statements of what she told friends.
When you consider how partisan the Kavanaugh issue has become in the Judiciary Committee, it’s difficult too imagine to many minds will change after the hearing. If Blasey-Ford appears credible, it’s going to put pressure on Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to vote no on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. On the other had, if Mitchell raises some doubts about Blasey-Ford’s recollections, it could give Kavanuagh the benefit of the doubt or presumption of innocence. “If our Republican colleagues proceed without an investigation, it would be a travesty for the honor of the Supreme Court and our country,” said Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Schumer’s past colleague, former Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.), argued in 1991 at Clarence Thomas’ confirmation.hearing that no FBI investigation could resolve the issue.
