Interesting story just coming out: Julie Swetnick had a restraining order filed against her in Miami by her former boyfriend.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
…
When asked if the allegation of a restraining order were true, Avenatti said: “I don’t know one way or another,” adding he would research it further.
Oh yeah, I see that stuff all the time, and not just from random yahoos on the Internet, but Congresspersons and commentators you’ve heard of. My only creative addition was repurposing the nonexistent Comet Ping Pong basement.
Fortunately, the Senate Dems seem to be handling that well, saying they’re only going to pay attention to the allegations that aren’t anonymous, that there are already plenty of those.
I have to admit, I’m not sure Swetnick’s story is true. I completely believe Ford, but this other story of gang rape seems so outrageous…
I really hope Avenatti vetted the hell out of her story. If he did a slipshod job in any way he’ll have pissed his presidential aspirations down the toilet.
I’m losing track of the timeline here, but did Avenatti first hint about Swetnick before or after the story broke that Judge’s ex-gf had mentioned he’d been involved in a gang bang with a drunken girl?
Those aspirations exist only in his head, of course, but hopefully that’s sufficient motivation to do it right.
What makes me suspicious is that Avenatti didn’t know about the restraining order. He should have known (if true).
I have to admit, I like the idea of someone swinging back hard. Difficult to exaggerate how much contempt I feel for so many politicians right now. Though, a qualified nominee would probably be the smart choice…
Rasor says that Judge “told her ashamedly” about an incident in which he and other boys took turns having sex with a drunk woman, per The New Yorker. He seemed to think it was consensual, she added, and he didn’t name anyone else who had been involved. There is no indication that Kavanaugh was one of the boys, The New Yorker notes.
An hour after the report was published, attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted an email in which he claimed to have “significant evidence” that Kavanaugh, 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.”
YET 538’s aggregator is showing the generic House tracker going from R 39.6 2 weeks ago to 40.9 now and while D has increased too it has by less. The total move R-ward of 0.6 aint big but it is not evidence that this episode is hurting them anyway. Heck Trump is moving up too - from -13.8 to -11.4.
As I was listening to a report on who this woman is I was thinking the same thing. This does not sound like someone who would cotton to the job of attacking an alleged victim in defense of an apparent sexual assaulter. She is someone who very much understands the why victims don’t tell for many years. He job has been getting perps behind bars.
She may have accepted the job on the condition that she be allowed to actually question as if she is trying to determine what the facts really are. She may turn out to be a very fair person.
I think GOP leadership can easily live with these hearings resulting in Kavanaugh’s withdrawing before a vote, so long as they are not the faces that caused it. They still get a conservative in the SCOTUS seat.
Of course given that she knows the best ways to get the perps convicted she also likely knows the best ways to defend against that …
I find that quite plausible. Certainly the smart thing for the Pubs would be to withdraw the nomination and move on. But they need to find a work-around for the problem that their President ain’t smart. This could be it.
There is no ‘reason’ for failing to call Judge that is remotely convincing or logical. I am hoping the Democrats will highlight this in tomorrow’s hearing.
On the slightly more general topic of ‘how the GOP and Kavanaugh explain their “don’t let the FBI investigate” position’: a reminder that the Fox News host actually asked the question—of Kavanaugh’s wife Ashley—and Brett interrupted his wife to keep her from saying anything about it, while deflecting vigorously away from the question himself:
It would be nice if the Democrats, in the hearing, would demonstrate that Kavanaugh will utterly refuse to address the question ‘why haven’t you called for an FBI investigation to clear your name?’
A thought about Democrat masters of covert conspiracy. No way. Kinda wish maybe they were, but no. I’m reminded what, according to legend, Saul Alinsky said about Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin: “Those guys couldn’t organize a Hadassah luncheon.”
Interesting two part interview with Rachel Mitchell. The focus in the venue is more on sexual abuse in a church setting but still …
Now maybe this person has strong beliefs that would make her want a strong conservative on the court, and she is a Republican. But this sounds like not only her deeply held beliefs but what has been her life’s work … serving as the tool to make victims afraid to speak up, that convinces them that they will not be believed, that the perp can will get away with it and you’ll be the one to suffer? It just does not seem like the person who gave that interview would be the person to do that.
Maybe I’m wrong but she may be very fair and the D side should calibrate their questioning accordingly.
Why is it outrageous? Do you think gang rapes are rare events? I hate to tell you this, but they’re not. They’re sadly very common. And her ex-boyfriend filing a restraining order against her has nothing to do with what she’s alleging against Kavanaugh.
One thing that makes me question her a bit is that she had prior knowledge of Kavanaugh and his crew drugging and raping girls at parties yet she continued to attend them until she was victimized herself. I find that absolutely baffling. Was she unaware of what they were doing with those girls until it happened to her or is she one of those people who’s indifferent to the suffering of others unless it affects her?
I’m not suggesting that any possible hypocrisy on her part discredits her accusations. I 100% believe her. But I want to know why she continued to hang around boys she knew to be rapists. This is a crucial piece of information that can be used against her.
She didn’t know what was happening to those other girls until she became one of them.
If she’s anything like Dr. Ford, I’m guessing she stopped hanging out with that social circle once she got to see exactly what all those boys had been lining up for.
Her lawyer stated she didn’t fully appreciate what was going on until it happened to her. Then she stopped going. That’s when she realized what had been occurring earlier.
Her statement makes it seem more clear (and less credible). At this point we’d need to hear her tell her story before picking apart the statement.
Yeah, given her age at the time of the disgusting events, that appears to make the most sense. A lot of glaringly obvious things can go over your head when you lack the wisdom to put two and two together. I just needed to see if anyone else noticed the contradiction in the affidavit and could explain it.
This needs to be cleared up quickly before it’s used against her. Lots of people are pointing this out.
I’m guessing, like a lot of young people, she wanted to hang out, get drunk, have fun, and be accepted by her peers. Plus, I don’t imagine when that type of sexual assault is taking place at a party, that there’s ominous music playing, red lights flashing and scary/skeevy looking dudes wearing trenchcoats with knives in their pockets waiting in line under a sign that says “Gang rape this way!” The 'R" word probably doesn’t even come into play.
I could see that the whispered buzz at the party is that there’s an “Orgy in the guest room, where so-and-so is doing such-and-such! Holy cow, can you believe it!” Then some assholes go “Hell yeah!” and hop in line. Other dudes go “Yowza!” and keep on drinking with their buddies. And the girls go, “Ugh gross!” But then probably just go on with what they’re doing because 1) They’re drunk and not necessarily thinking straight themselves, and 2) The assumption is that it’s just a gang bang, not a gang rape, so as long as it’s not them or their friend in the bedroom, it’s none of their business.
Essentially, if you’re at these parties, but you’re not interested in that orgy in the guest room, then you likely just keep drinking and have fun, mainly because no one is probably thinking about this as a “gang rape.” Until you’re the young female laying on the damn bed.
ETA: Or what monstro and CoolHandCox said, but much more concisely.