'Creepy porn star" Lawyer Michael Avenatti has finally produced a third accuser, and if there were so many holes in the first two accusers accounts that they resemble Swiss cheese, the amount of "wrong" within this latest woman's claims is a hole big enough for a truck to fit through.
Her name is Julie Swetnick, and according to her she met Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his high school friend Mark Judge in 1981. Also according to her declaration(PDF here) after that first introduction she "attended well over ten house parties in the Washington DC area during the years of 1981-1983 where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."
Swetnick claims she witnessed the two drink excessively, engage in high inappropriate conduct and fondling and grabbing girls without consent. She also claims that during 1981 - 1982 she witnessed both men cause girls to become inebriated so they could be gang-raped in a side bedroom. While she never witnessed Judge or Kavanaugh rape anyone, she does claim she witnessed them standing in the lines at the doors to the bedroom, awaiting their turn. She also claims that in 1982, she became one of the victims of the "train" or "gang" rapes.
THE INCONSISTENCIES AND POSSIBLE CRIME ON HER PART
The immediate reactions by social media liberals were aghast, without anyone questioning the fact that Swetnick claims she knew what happened at these alleged parties, yet attending at least 10 that included Kavanaugh and Judge. Strangely, her declaration also claims she continued to attend these parties, even after she was allegedly raped in 82, as her initial claim was she attended those 10 parties between 1981 and 1983. (Note- She said more than 10, but that was only in relation to parties that she claims Judge and Kavanaugh were present at.)
Swetnick's allegation, just like the two previous accusers, provides no corroborating evidence, no witnesses (Ford gave names, but all denied the event in question), and only an indirect allegation that the gentlemen in question were present (no corroboration for that either) and she witnessed them acting inappropriately and getting girls inebriated. Never once does she claim she "saw" either of the two men rape a woman or participate in the "trains."
Here is where we see massive irresponsibility on the part of her chosen lawyer, Avenatti.
In 1982, when Swetnick admitted to attending these alleged parties, Kavanaugh was 17, while she was 19. The legal age of majority in Maryland is 18.
Swetnick, again according to her own declaration, attended more than 10 house parties between 1981-1983, when she was 18, 19 and 20 years old respectively, stating that she was aware, as an adult attending these parties, that men at these parties, which she specifically names Kavanaugh and Judge were "spiking" the punch at house parties with drugs and grain alcohol to cause the girls to lose their inhibitions. She also claims that as an adult, since we have already established her age, she witnessed those girls being taken to rooms to be "gang" or "train" raped.
Her accusation against Kavanaugh and Judge is that she claims they were lined up to take their turn, but once again, she never witnessed them raping anyone.
Now..... as the adult, this brings about some legal liability for Swetnick for being present at an event where minors were given alcohol and drugs and allegedly raped and she did nothing about it.
We also have to wonder what an adult-aged women was doing partying with high school aged teens.
Then we have the declaration itself, which appears to have a sentence added after the original declaration was originally typed up, and those differences just happen to be in regards to the "Beach Week" reference.
Recently portions of Judge Kavanaugh's 1982 calendars were released and in one is showed in very large print the scheduled for June 1982 BEACH WEEK, shown below.
Now note the screen shot taken from Swetnick's declaration published after Kavanaugh's calendar pages were publicly released, paragraph nine, specifically the line referencing "Beach Week," and the difference in type size on that one line in comparison with all the other type size in that paragraph.
Reminder: The original Ford accusation letter that Democrat Denator Diane Feinstein initially sat on for approximately six weeks, before making its existence public, and which she refused to share with Republicans on the Judiciary Committee until recently, also had the same type of anomaly with the type size apparently being different than the rest of the letter.
Is it a coincidence that to separate allegations apparently had information added after the initial document was typed up, both instances including information damaging to Judge Kavanaugh?
THE ACCUSERS
I am not bothering with the second accuser because she had admitted to friends that she couldn't be "sure" if Kavanaugh was the person she remembers waving his penis in front of her face, according to New York Times investigation, so her claim after six days of having her memory "prodded" by lawyers and Democrats, isn't something I even consider even remotely credible.
FORD: Christine Blasey Ford claimed there were five people, including herself, present at a party she claimed Brett Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her, and all four others, including her "long time friend," denied attending a party where the people she named were present. She didn't remember how she got to the party, nor how she got home. Was not able to even say when the party happened. She also couldn't provide the location where the part occurred.
Democrats are screaming for an investigation, yet there are no details to investigate.
SWETNICK: An adult, admitting to attending parties when she was over the age of majority, where drugs and alcohol were given to minors, with said adult claiming she was also aware that sexual assault was occurring, and that even after she was allegedly assaulted, continued to go to said parties.
Sorry, but this stinks to high heaven.
THE TIMING IS SUSPECT
The timing of the Ford allegation being brought to the attention of the public just days before the Judiciary Committee was due to vote to have Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation recommended to the full senate to vote on, was curious, but this latest declaration being published just a day before the first accuser, Ford, and Kavanaugh are due to testify before the Judiciary committee, is beyond suspect.
In the meantime, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has schedule the committee vote for Kavanaugh to be recommended for a full Senate vote, for Friday, 9:30 am.
BOTTOM LINE
Democrats are are scraping the bottom of the barrel here to stop the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh. As political pundit Erick Erickson states "To believe all the accusations about Kavanaugh is to disregard everything we intuitively know about human behavior."
Erickson gets the bottom line.
He has been through six FBI background checks. The drug running operation that everybody knew about never came up. The rape gangs never came up. The sexual assaults never came up. There've been no mistresses, no assaults, no nothing about the guy during the course of his professional career when a guy who had that much power could have wielded it to his advantage. He did not.
Maybe there is another Brett Kavanaugh out there who failed at life.
But this Brett Kavanaugh is an accomplished husband, father, lawyer, and judge who has a highly regarded personal and professional reputation. That quote at top is right. One does not go from running rape gangs in college to the US Court of Appeals after serving Presidents and Supreme Court Justices. It just does not happen.
'Nuff said.
NOTE TO READERS: ANP Needs Your Help. With digital media revenue spiraling downward, especially hitting those in Independent Media, it has become apparent that traditional advertising simply isn't going to fully cover the costs and expenses for many smaller independent websites.
Any extra readers may be able to spare for donations is greatly appreciated.
One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card:
