There are multiple red flags with the newest allegations of sexual misconduct that were made on Wednesday against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Julie Swetnick, represented by hyper-partisan Democratic lawyer Michael Avenatti, claims that she attended parties in the early 1980s where she witnessed Kavanaugh participating in gang rapes.
Swetnick’s allegations come after Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez both made allegations against Kavanaugh just days before the Senate was scheduled to confirm him to the Supreme Court.
Here is a brief review of the allegations made by each of the three women and relevant background information:
- Ford claims that Kavanaugh tried to rape her at a high school party. She does not remember when or where it happened; she has no evidence; she has no witnesses, and everyone she claims was at the party has denied having any memory of such a party. Ford is a registered Democrat, a left-wing activist, and is being represented by Democratic lawyers, and is being advised by a Democratic operative who was recorded over the summer saying that she was going to work to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation.
- Ramirez claims that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a college party, putting his penis in her face. She has no witnesses; she has no evidence, and she admits that she was so drunk during the incident that she was on the ground in a “foggy” state, “slurring” her words. Ramirez contacted former classmates and told them she wasn’t even sure Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself to her. Ramirez only felt confident about her memories after she spent six days talking it over with her Democratic lawyer. Ramirez is a registered Democrat and an admitted social justice warrior.
- Swetnick claims that as an adult in college, she attended high school parties with minors where alcohol was being consumed and where gang rapes were taking place. Not only did she never report this to the authorities, she repeatedly went back to the parties where these things were taking place. She does not claim that Kavanaugh ever assaulted her, but claims she witnessed him participating in gang rapes, but has no evidence or witnesses to corroborate her claims.
Here are the serious problems with the allegations made by each of the three women against Kavanaugh:
1. The allegations would make Kavanaugh a serial sexual abuser, yet none of this type of alleged behavior showed up in the multiple FBI background checks into him.
If the allegations against Kavanaugh are true, that would mean that he is a serial sexual abuser — a compulsive behavior that would likely persist throughout his life. If Kavanaugh were a serial sexual abuser, there would likely be victims from his law school days, his time in the Bush administration, and from his time serving as a federal judge — yet not a single person has stepped forward from any of these periods and made allegations. Why?
Multiple sources told The Daily Wire that the FBI often looks into the full background of federal judicial nominees, which includes their high school years. One of the sources told The Daily Wire they have received multiple phone calls about judicial nominees they went to high school or middle school with and wanted to know any relevant information from those years in the nominee’s life.
Kavanaugh went through multiple FBI background checks for his appointments to the White House Counsel’s Office and his appointment as the Assistant and Staff Secretary to President Bush.
Democrats fought hard against Kavanaugh being confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in 2003, yet no allegations even remotely close to this ever came out. The Washington Post reports that “Democrats held up the confirmation because of Kavanaugh’s work in the White House and on the Starr report.”
Kavanaugh also underwent another rigorous FBI background check when he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003, yet no allegations like this ever came out.
2. The concrete contemporary details provided in Julie Swetnick’s declaration are details that have been previously reported.
The aspects of Swetnick’s declaration that are considered solid were already reported on days before she came forward with her allegations.
For example, her declaration says, “I have been told by other women that this conduct also occurred during the Summer months in Ocean City, Maryland on numerous occasions. I also witnessed such conduct on one occasion in Ocean City, Maryland during ‘Beach Week.'”
Reports from a week ago already detailed “Beach Week” taking place in Ocean City, Maryland, and it was already widely known that Kavanaugh drank in high school since the legal age in Washington at the time was 18 years old.
3. As an adult, why would Julie Swetnick repeatedly go to high school parties with minors where gang-rape was taking place? Why did she not protect the minors at the party by reporting the drug-induced gang-rapes to the police?
“Where are the witnesses?” Charles C.W. Cooke asks at National Review. “The charge is of gang rape. Leave aside the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh was involved — and forget for a moment that we’re debating whether he should be on the Supreme Court — surely there are a whole host of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses to this monstrous crime. Where are they?”
Kavanaugh says that he has never met Swetnick, who claims that she met him and his friend Mark Judge in 1980 or 1981.
Female friends of Kavanaugh’s, who knew him in high school, have already come out and defended him against this accusation by noting that they never associated with anyone who attended Swetnick’s high school:
Furthermore, the White House released a letter from over 60 men and women who knew Kavanaugh during his high school years who say the charges against him are totally false:
4. The New York Times could not corroborate any of Swetnick’s claims and Avenatti refused to allow the publication to interview her. Why?
The Times reports: “None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.”
If these allegations were true, there should be no shortage of witnesses, yet no one has come forward or confirmed any of Swetnick’s salacious claims.
Men drugging women and gang raping them at multiple parties are serious crimes. Why have no police reports ever surfaced documenting these allegations? Where are the other victims?
5. Regarding the allegations made by Ramirez, neither The New Yorker nor The New York Times could find a single witness who could corroborate any of her claims.
The New Yorker reported:
The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.
The New York Times reported:
The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.
6. A woman who said she used to be best friends with Ramirez said that Ramirez never told her about the incident and initially told The New Yorker that Ramirez’s accusations against Kavanaugh could be politically motivated.
“The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, ‘This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening,'” the woman told The New Yorker. “She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their ‘larger social circle.’ In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.”
7. People who knew Ramirez after she graduated from Yale told The New Yorker that she never mentioned the alleged incident until Kavanaugh’s nomination was pending.
More than 1,500 words into The New Yorker’s article, the report states:
In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.
8. Regarding the accusations made by Ford, her therapist’s notes conflict with her current account of the alleged incident.
The Daily Wire previously reported:
According to her therapist’s notes, Ford told her therapist in 2012 that there were four boys in the room. Now she claims there were only two boys in the room and claims that there were three boys at the party and one girl. She also never told the therapist Kavanaugh’s name.
The fact that her memory appears to have changed this much in only a few years is significant — but not as significant as the fact that all four people who Ford claims were at the party have all denied any recollection of attending the party described by Ford.
9. Ford’s family doesn’t appear to back up her claims, and her timeline also is off.
“Her own immediate family doesn’t appear to be backing her up, either,” Paul Sperry writes at the New York Post. “Her mother, father and two siblings are all conspicuously absent from a letter of support released by a dozen relatives, mostly on her husband’s side of the family.”
Sperry also caught another glaring inconsistency with Ford’s claims, writing: “In another inconsistency, Ford told The Washington Post she was upset when Trump won in 2016, because Kavanaugh was mentioned as a Supreme Court pick. But Kavanaugh wasn’t added to Trump’s list of possibles until November 2017, a full year later.”