In front of a packed Georgetown auditorium on Tuesday, the Supreme Court justice that has become a leftist feminist icon praised the Supreme Court justice portrayed by many of her fans as the embodiment of patriarchal privilege. The reason Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was singing the praises of Justice Brett Kavanaugh? His work promoting gender equality.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/36839/kavanaughs-first-action-supreme-court-justice-james-barrett">The Daily Wire</a> reported back in October 2018, newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, fresh off the vicious and hyperpartisan confirmation process — which featured a series of uncorrobated allegations leveled at the judge in the eleventh hour — appointed an all-female law clerk staff. He was the first justice to ever do so.
&#8220;A majority of my 48 law clerks over the last 12 years have been women,&#8221; Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee in his testimony. &#8220;In my time on the bench, no federal judge — not a single one in the country — has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the Supreme Court than I have.&#8221;
At Georgetown Law School on Tuesday, RGB made a point of, once again, praising Kavanaugh for appointing an entirely female staff. This is now at least the second time Ginsburg has publicly cheered Kavanaugh for his historic decision.
&#8220;There is a very important first on the Supreme Court this term and it&#8217;s thanks to our new justice, Justice Kavanaugh,&#8221; said Ginsburg, in comments reported by <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-praises-brett-kavanaugh-and-reflects-on-gender-equality-georgetown-2019-07-02/">CBS News</a> Wednesday.
&#8220;I should say what we were doing in the &#8217;70s — we were getting rid of all of the over-explicit gender-based classification,&#8221; she said. &#8220;There was nothing subtle about it. It was women can&#8217;t do this, women can&#8217;t do that.&#8221; Ginsburg said that while most of those &#8220;explicit barriers&#8221; are gone, &#8220;unconscious bias&#8221; against women still has an impact.
CBS notes that the famous justice &#8220;made history herself as being only the second woman in history to be added to the Supreme Court after being nominated by former President Clinton in 1993.&#8221;
The first female justice — whose name CBS fails to provide — was Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, another detail that goes unmentioned in the report.
As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/48190/justice-ginsburg-praises-brett-kavanaugh-paul-bois">The Daily Wire</a> noted last month, Justice Ginsburg also praised Kavanaugh&#8217;s actions during a speech at a conference of judges in New York in early June.
&#8220;Justice Kavanaugh made history by bringing on board an all-female law clerk crew,&#8221; she said. &#8220;Thanks to his selections, the court has this term, for the first time ever, more women than men serving as law clerks.&#8221;
After a brutal confirmation hearing marked by a series of sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/36820/breaking-kavanaugh-confirmed-51-49-vote-frank-camp">confirmed</a> by the Senate on Oct. 6, 2018, 50 &#8211; 48. A month later, the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/38006/senate-judiciary-committee-report-45-interviews-james-barrett">report</a> on the accusations against him and announced that, after speaking with 45 individuals and taking 25 written statements, it did not find &#8220;any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations&#8221; against him.
&#8220;After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations brought against Justice Kavanaugh,&#8221; the committee concludes. &#8220;In other words, following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38006/senate-judiciary-committee-report-45-interviews-james-barrett">Senate Judiciary Committee Report: 45 Interviews, Zero Evidence To Corroborate Claims Against Kavanaugh</a>

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Praises Kavanaugh, Again

Brett Kavanaugh

Christine Blasey Ford

Julie Swetnick

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

A university dean who defended Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault has resigned from his leadership post.
Will Rainford, Catholic University&#8217;s dean of social service, had held his position for five years, but was suspended after tweeting logical questions of the women who came forward to accused Kavanaugh just before he was set to be confirmed.
&#8220;Swetnick is 55 y/o,&#8221; Rainford said on in a since-deleted tweet, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/11/21/catholic-us-dean-social-service-quits-after-controversial-tweets-about-sexual-assault-allegations/?utm_term=.3515d50fbe0e">according to The Washington Post</a>. &#8220;Kavanaugh is 52 y/o. Since when do senior girls hang with freshmen boys? If it happened when Kavanaugh was a senior, Swetnick was an adult drinking with&amp;by her admission, having sex with underage boys. In another universe, he would be victim &amp; she the perp!&#8221;
Many people questioned the age difference between Swetnick and Kavanaugh at the time she made her ludicrous accusations, which initially claimed Kavanaugh spiked the punch at parties in order to get women drunk for gang-rapes. She <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/36562/watch-kavanaugh-accuser-swetnick-walks-back-some-ryan-saavedra">contradicted her salacious claims</a> in an NBC interview in early October, which aired even though the media outlet acknowledged it couldn&#8217;t find any evidence to corroborate her claim.
Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, have since been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37601/breaking-avenatti-swetnick-referred-criminal-ryan-saavedra">referred for criminal investigation</a> for making false statements. Unsurprisingly, The Washington Post failed to mention this in its article about Rainford&#8217;s tweets. All it said was that &#8220;Kavanaugh denied Swetnick&#8217;s allegation.&#8221;
Rainford tweeted this from a now-deleted account, @NCSSSDean, which gave away his position as dean of the National Catholic School of Social Service.
In another tweet, Rainford questioned why Kavanaugh&#8217;s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, took a polygraph test prior to making her accusation.
&#8220;Riddle me this,&#8221; Rainford said, according to the Post. &#8220;Why would the accuser of Kavanaugh take a polygraph, paid for by someone else and administered by private investigator in early August, if she wanted to remain anonymous and had no intention of reporting the alleged assault?&#8221;
These are pretty standard questions that many Americans had. They don&#8217;t demean the accusers, unless you&#8217;re part of the &#8220;Believe All Women&#8221; crowd who opposed Kavanaugh anyway and demanded we believe each outlandish claim even after alleged corroborating witnesses said they remembered no such event.
Rainford was suspended by his university over the tweets. Catholic University President John Garvey called the tweets &#8220;unacceptable&#8221; when he announced Rainford&#8217;s suspension.
&#8220;We should expect any opinion he expresses about sexual assault to be thoughtful, constructive, and reflective of the values of Catholic University, particularly in communications from the account handle @NCSSSDean,&#8221; Garvey <a href="https://communications.catholic.edu/news/2018/09/statement-on-will-rainford.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">said at the time</a>. &#8220;While it was appropriate for him to apologize and to delete his Twitter and Facebook accounts, this does not excuse the serious lack of judgment and insensitivity of his comments.&#8221;
By &#8220;thoughtful, constructive, and reflective of the values,&#8221; he means Rainford should have accepted the accusations at face value and considered the women victims without any evidence, as colleges and universities across the country demand.
Side note: Catholic University was sued in 2017 by a male student accused of sexual assault after the school&#8217;s Title IX coordinator helped the accusing female &#8220;create a coherent narrative&#8221; to explain why her text messages didn&#8217;t match her allegation. She had repeatedly told the male student the sex was consensual but a year after their encounter filed a complaint alleging sexual assault. The school was also accused of &#8220;selectively excluding evidence that would have shown Jane Doe was not telling the truth.&#8221;
Back to Rainford&#8217;s tweets. He apologized for them and said he &#8220;unfortunately degraded&#8221; one of Kavanaugh&#8217;s accusers.
On Wednesday, Rainford resigned from his leadership position with the university.
&#8220;After much prayer and discernment, I am submitting my resignation to you as Dean of the National Catholic School of Social Service, effective immediately,&#8221; Rainford wrote. &#8220;I do so with all good will for the University and School. Given the needs of the faculty and direction of the School, I believe a different academic leader is warranted.&#8221;
Rainford will remain a tenured associate professor at Catholic, and <a href="https://communications.catholic.edu/news/2018/11/rainford-resigns-as-dean-of-ncsss.html">will return to teaching in the spring semester</a>.

A University Dean Defended Brett Kavanaugh. You Can Guess What Happened Next.

Education

Sexual Assault

As you&#8217;ve heard, esteemed legal professional Michael Avenatti has been arrested for domestic abuse. Details about the charges and the victim have been minimal so far. We have no objective reason to assume that Avenatti is guilty of anything.
One cannot help but notice the context, though. Avenatti has been a crusader for the #MeToo movement. He has insisted that we must believe women. When Brett Kavanaugh faced decades-old accusations with no evidence to support them, Avenatti did not once caution that Kavanaugh deserves the presumption of innocence. In fact, he contributed to the smear campaign by presenting even more allegations, these from an unbalanced woman with a known history of lying. He wanted us to believe Julie Swetnick even though Swetnick&#8217;s claims were unsubstantiated and ludicrous on their face.
Given these facts, it seems only fair to believe Michael Avenatti. We should believe him when he tells us to believe women. We should believe him when he insists that uncorroborated allegations be taken seriously. We should believe him when he implies that it is right and good to drag a man through the mud based on unproven claims. Indeed, we ought to respect Michael Avenatti&#8217;s wishes, listen to his arguments, adopt his position on this subject, and therefore assume that he is guilty as sin. It&#8217;s what he would want, after all.
Now, I am not quite Machiavellian enough to actually put this into practice. I won&#8217;t summarily declare him guilty and I wouldn&#8217;t want to see him punished for something he didn&#8217;t do. I want to see him punished for the things I&#8217;m fairly sure he did do, like conspiring to falsely accuse Brett Kavanaugh. &#8220;Innocent until proven guilty&#8221; is a bedrock notion of our justice system. We cannot suspend it for anyone, even someone as repugnant as Michael Avenatti.
On a karmic level, however, I cannot deny that Avenatti deserves to get a dose of what he dished out. Can we really feel sorry for someone who charges to the front of the pitchfork mob and then gets trampled underneath it? Can we have any sympathy for a man when his own deranged principles are applied to him? I have no idea if Avenatti is guilty of domestic abuse, but I know what conclusion Avenatti himself would draw if one of his political enemies faced the same accusation. I know that he has no problem destroying a man with rumors and innuendo. Does he deserve to suffer the same fate? Yes, absolutely.
But luckily for him, the justice system is not really designed to give people what they deserve. It&#8217;s designed to find the truth. And hopefully we will soon find out the truth in this case.

WALSH: Michael Avenatti Deserves To Be Believed

Michael Avenatti

Michael Avenatti has been a ubiquitous guest on CNN and other Democrat-friendly news outlets which have helped sell him to the public as a man willing to fight for abused and mistreated women &#8212; particularly those abused and mistreated by the president and his Supreme Court nominees. But on Wednesday, the lawyer of porn star Stormy Daniels and Julie Swetnick found himself in front of cameras outside a jailhouse stating emphatically that he has &#8220;never struck a woman&#8221; and &#8220;will never strike a woman&#8221; after being arrested for suspected felony domestic violence.
&#8220;I have never struck a woman. I never will strike a woman,&#8221; Avenatti told reporters after making his $50,000 bail for the charges brought against him. &#8220;I have been an advocate for women&#8217;s rights my entire career, and I&#8217;m going to continue to be an advocate. I am not going to be intimidated from stopping what I am doing. I am a father to two beautiful, smart daughters. I would never disrespect them by touching a woman inappropriately or striking a woman. I am looking forward to a full investigation at which point I am confident that I will be fully exonerated.&#8221;
Donald Trump Jr. is among the many Avenatti critics who has found the turn of events too ironic to ignore. Don Jr.&#8217;s first post on the case was a retweet that included Avenatti&#8217;s adamant denial online of the charges. &#8220;I want to be clear: I DID NOT commit domestic violence nor have I ever committed domestic violence,&#8221; wrote Avenatti, who has since suggested that he&#8217;s being framed. &#8220;I did not strike any woman nor have I ever. I did not strike my ex-wife in the face nor did I hit anyone else in the face. I am a decent man &amp; I look forward to being exonerated.&#8221;
As Trump Jr. highlights via a tweet by Newsmax TV&#8217;s John Cardillo, Avenatti&#8217;s statements sound similar to those made by the man he accused repeatedly without any corroborating evidence of heinous actions when he was in high school 35 years ago:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MichaelAvenatti</a>, when Brett Kavanaugh issued a similar denial about 35 year old allegations you presented with no evidence, you tried even harder to destroy his life.
Your case is days old with a complaining victim displaying physical injuries.
Let&#8217;s play by your rules. <a href="https://t.co/lXihevsBPo">https://t.co/lXihevsBPo</a>
&#8212; John Cardillo (@johncardillo) <a href="https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1063058275816615936?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Trump then tweeted out TMZ&#8217;s coverage of Avenatti&#8217;s arrest, underscoring that he is a would-be &#8220;Democratic presidential candidate&#8221;:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Avenatti Arrested for Felony Domestic Violence <a href="https://t.co/EU5TJlcBJn">https://t.co/EU5TJlcBJn</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/TMZ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TMZ</a>
&#8212; Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1062845440205426689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Retweeting a post by The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ryan Saavedra, Trump drew attention to all the publicity and credibility CNN attempted to give the so-called &#8220;creepy porn lawyer,&#8221; yet now is glaringly ignoring the unignorable story:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Avenatti has been on CNN 100+ times in recent months.
This is why no one trusts CNN. <a href="https://t.co/OFEvXH0VKS">https://t.co/OFEvXH0VKS</a>
&#8212; Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1063148779249926144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
The Avenatti arrest was first reported by <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/38368/avenatti-arrested-suspected-felony-domestic-abuse-james-barrett">TMZ</a>, which provided some ugly details from unnamed law enforcement sources about what supposedly went down:
<blockquote>
We&#8217;re told Wednesday afternoon the woman was on the sidewalk on her cellphone with sunglasses covering her eyes, sobbing and screaming on the phone, &#8220;I can&#8217;t believe you did this to me. I&#8217;m going to get a restraining order against you.&#8221;
We&#8217;re told security brought her inside the building, took her upstairs and Michael showed up 5 minutes later and ran into the building. He screamed repeatedly, &#8220;She hit me first.&#8221; We&#8217;re told he angrily added, &#8220;This is bulls***, this is f***ing bulls***.&#8221; We&#8217;re told he tried getting into the elevator but security denied him access.
</blockquote>
Avenatti has since suggested that the whole thing is <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38394/michael-avenatti-blames-jacob-wohl-assault-arrest-amanda-prestigiacomo">a set-up</a> by 20-year-old &#8220;right-wing Twitter troll&#8221; Jacob Wohl. &#8220;First Mueller and now me. When we are fully exonerated I am coming for you Jacob Wohl aka Surefire,&#8221; Avenatti tweeted Thursday.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
First Mueller and now me. When we are fully exonerated I am coming for you Jacob Wohl aka Surefire.
&#8212; Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1063080419606749185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Avenatti&#8217;s accusation comes in response to a cryptic post by Wohl&#8217;s group seeming to take credit for his arrest. &#8220;Surefire Intelligence strikes again,&#8221; the group wrote.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Surefire Intelligence strikes again. <a href="https://t.co/hdbWEjN38h">https://t.co/hdbWEjN38h</a>
&#8212; Surefire Intelligence (@SurefireIntel) <a href="https://twitter.com/SurefireIntel/status/1062843160663998465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Wohl responded to Avenatti&#8217;s post by denying any involvement. &#8220;Michael &#8216;She Hit Me First&#8217; Avenatti is now blaming ME for the fact that he was arrested for brutally beating a woman &#8212; This guy is a SICKO!&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;Michael Avenatti seems to believe that I am responsible for him raising his hand to a woman. I am not. Will he release the pictures of his battered victim?&#8221;
After leveling outrageous and evidence-less accusations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick have been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38062/senate-judiciary-committee-heres-evidence-we-found-james-barrett">referred</a> by the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Justice Department for submitting false statements to the committee in violation of federal law. Avenatti is also suspected of potential witness tampering in the Kavanaugh investigation.
UPDATE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38630/prosecutors-decline-felony-charges-avenatti-may-ryan-saavedra">Prosecutors Decline Felony Charges For Avenatti, May Face Misdemeanor Charges</a>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38382/stormy-daniels-responds-domestic-violence-james-barrett">Stormy Daniels Responds To Domestic Violence Allegations Against Avenatti</a>

Donald Trump Jr Points Out Some Ironic Details Of Avenatti Arrest Story

Donald Trump

Donald Trump Jr.

Trump Administration

Michael Avenatti, the celebrity lawyer of Donald Trump-accuser Stormy Daniels and Brett Kavanaugh-accuser Julie Swetnick, was arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of felony domestic violence.
The arrest was originally reported by <a href="http://www.tmz.com/2018/11/14/michael-avenatti-arrested-domestic-violence-stormy-daniels-attorney/">TMZ</a> and has since been confirmed by the Los Angeles Police Department. &#8220;We can confirm that today LAPD Detectives arrested Michael Avenatti on suspicion of domestic violence,&#8221; the LAPD said in a statement Wednesday. &#8220;This is an ongoing investigation and we will provide more details as they become available.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;We can confirm that today LAPD Detectives arrested Michael Avenatti on suspicion of domestic violence. This is an ongoing investigation and we will provide more details as they become available.&#8221;
&#8212; LAPD HQ (@LAPDHQ) <a href="https://twitter.com/LAPDHQ/status/1062858851618156544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
TMZ&#8217;s law enforcement sources say Avenatti was taken into police custody Wednesday after a woman filed a felony domestic violence complaint against him on Tuesday. According to the sources, the accuser&#8217;s face was &#8220;swollen and bruised&#8221; and she had &#8220;red marks&#8221; on both cheeks.
&#8220;Our sources say the alleged incident occurred Tuesday night, but there was another confrontation Wednesday between the two at an exclusive apartment building in the Century City area of L.A.,&#8221; TMZ reports. &#8220;We&#8217;re told Wednesday afternoon the woman was on the sidewalk on her cellphone with sunglasses covering her eyes, sobbing and screaming on the phone, &#8216;I can&#8217;t believe you did this to me. I&#8217;m going to get a restraining order against you.'&#8221;
After security brought her back inside the building and escorted her upstairs, TMZ reports, Avenatti appeared about five minutes later and ran into the building screaming, &#8220;She hit me first!&#8221; and &#8220;This is bulls***, this is f***ing bulls***!&#8221;
TMZ&#8217;s sources say the lawyer with presidential aspirations was denied access to the elevator by security. Police arrived, spoke with Avenatti for &#8220;5 to 10 minutes,&#8221; then took him into custody, the outlet reports.
Law enforcement sources say that Avenatti appears to have kicked the woman out of his apartment, which prompted the alleged violence, TMZ notes. She returned Wednesday to retrieve her stuff apparently after having filed a complaint and notified police ahead of time in case the situation devolved again.
Social media, where Avenatti has had a major presence since he first made his national appearance as Daniels&#8217; lawyer, has erupted over the news, with conservatives slamming Democrats and the media for propping up the &#8220;creepy porn lawyer,&#8221; Democrats disavowing him, some calling for &#8220;calm&#8221; while the facts come out, and others using Avenatti&#8217;s past quotes against him, like this one highlighted by <a href="https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/11/14/some-of-michael-avenattis-greatest-hits-are-coming-back-to-bite-him-hard/">Twitchy</a>:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
You are right. I should have turned my back on my client. Told her to &#8220;shut up&#8221; and stay quiet because people like you apparently believe assault victims are to blame. This line of thinking is disgusting and offensive to all survivors. And it makes lawyers not want to help them.
&#8212; Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1048363877350723595?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 6, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Below are some examples of the explosion of posts from all over the ideological spectrum prompted by the Avenatti domestic violence reports:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
At least he keeps his word. <a href="https://t.co/7CG5L5qYzW">pic.twitter.com/7CG5L5qYzW</a>
&#8212; The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReaganBattalion/status/1062847200848437249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Michael Avenatti&#8217;s Twitter profile says: &#8220;Attorney, Advocate, Fighter for Good. &#8220;Win. Unify. Restore.&#8221;&#8221; Well, turns out he&#8217;s not lying about the &#8220;Fighter&#8221; part of that. Is &#8220;She hit me first&#8221; a legal defense? or is it the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DefinitionofIrony?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DefinitionofIrony</a>? <a href="https://t.co/V773FwYPwN">https://t.co/V773FwYPwN</a>
&#8212; Bob Eastwood (@Bob_EPR) <a href="https://twitter.com/Bob_EPR/status/1062849510295056384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Michael Avenatti is uncharacteristically quiet on Twitter today! Wondering why?
He&#8217;s in jail! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KARMA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KARMA</a>
&#8212; CJ Pearson (@thecjpearson) <a href="https://twitter.com/thecjpearson/status/1062851337992499203?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Progressive Twitter is about to get real awkward.
Stormy Daniels&#8217; Attorney Michael Avenatti Has Been Arrested On Suspicion Of Domestic Violence <a href="https://t.co/LaugjQsx1h">https://t.co/LaugjQsx1h</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/CJRosenbaum?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@cjrosenbaum</a>
&#8212; Elizabeth Henderson (@LizHenderson02) <a href="https://twitter.com/LizHenderson02/status/1062848017760305152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The Trump Twitter clock countdown begins now:<a href="https://t.co/tKCcxvqhJd">https://t.co/tKCcxvqhJd</a>
&#8212; adam nagourney (@adamnagourney) <a href="https://twitter.com/adamnagourney/status/1062851773172498434?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I assume with the Avenatti arrest we&#8217;re going to be inundated with presumption of innocence reminders on conservative Twitter tonight.
&#8212; Brian Tannebaum (@btannebaum) <a href="https://twitter.com/btannebaum/status/1062854302132305921?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Michael Avenatti, who has made headlines representing Stormy Daniels in her case against Donald Trump, is in police custody following domestic violence charges filed Tuesday night.<a href="https://t.co/WvFk1R9TC2">https://t.co/WvFk1R9TC2</a>
&#8212; Twitter Moments (@TwitterMoments) <a href="https://twitter.com/TwitterMoments/status/1062851383164977153?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Republicans running to Twitter to gloat after Michael Avenatti got arrested because they actually think that he represents Democrats&#8230;.. <a href="https://t.co/Ay2jIfdPxz">pic.twitter.com/Ay2jIfdPxz</a>
&#8212; Jes (@DoYouEvenLIf) <a href="https://twitter.com/DoYouEvenLIf/status/1062845376351350789?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
&#8220;Michael Avenatti&#8221; In every tweet I&#8217;ve written about him I&#8217;ve used the word &#8220;thug&#8221;. I&#8217;m a Crim Defense Atty &amp; he did some decent things but he&#8217;s been a big jerk. &#8220;She hit me 1st.&#8221; Twitter will have fun with that.
&#8212; Dawn Durante (@dawnddurante) <a href="https://twitter.com/dawnddurante/status/1062851710899625984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Moment he was saying &#8220;Democrats are weak!&#8221; I dived off. 
Glad I did early and got that Avenatti Twitter blocking. 
I&#8217;ll wear it with a badge of honor now&#8230;
&#8212; Kevin D. Grüssing (Pronounced Grew-Sing) (@KevDGrussing) <a href="https://twitter.com/KevDGrussing/status/1062855757622902784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Lets not all jump on the hate Avenatti train quite yet, there is a lot going on and mixed/unreliable sources. Twitter can be so reactionary, lets take a measured approach and take things as they are confirmed. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MichaelAvenatti?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MichaelAvenatti</a>
&#8212; Luke Martin (@mrmartinbath) <a href="https://twitter.com/mrmartinbath/status/1062861548899762177?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 15, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
UPDATE: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38630/prosecutors-decline-felony-charges-avenatti-may-ryan-saavedra">Prosecutors Decline Felony Charges For Avenatti, May Face Misdemeanor Charges</a>

Avenatti Arrested For Suspected Felony Domestic Abuse; Social Media Erupts

Stormy Daniels

Twitter

In its report on its findings regarding the sexual misconduct allegations against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Senate Judiciary Committee details the evidence that prompted the committee to refer accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for review for &#8220;potential violations of Senate rules, potential witness tampering, and potential false statements made to the Committee in violation of federal law.&#8221;
In the committee&#8217;s <a href="http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20Kavanaugh%20Report.pdf">summary</a> of its findings released November 2, it states that after an exhaustive review &#8212; including over 40 interviews and 25 written statements from potential witnesses &#8212; it did not find &#8220;any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations&#8221; against Kavanaugh. It did, however, find evidence that some of Kavanaugh&#8217;s accusers potentially broke federal law. One of those accusers was Judy Munro-Leighton, who later admitted to having fabricated allegations against Kavanaugh for what she described as an attempt to &#8220;get attention.&#8221;
&#8220;As explained below, I am writing to refer Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction), for materially false statements she made to the Committee during the course of the Committee&#8217;s investigation,&#8221; committee chair Sen. Chuck Grassley <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37928/senate-judiciary-refers-another-kavanaugh-accuser-ryan-saavedra">announced</a> the same day the committee published its report. &#8220;Ms. Munro-Leighton confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she &#8216;just wanted to get attention&#8217;; (2) &#8216;it was a tactic&#8217;; and (3) &#8216;that was just a ploy.&#8221;
The committee also referred celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick &#8212; the so-called &#8220;third accuser,&#8221; whom several Democrat senators declared a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/36838/democrats-blame-avenatti-kavanaugh-confirmation-james-barrett">&#8220;credible&#8221; witness</a> in the height of the Kavanaugh circus &#8212; for review.
After presenting summaries of the sworn statements of the witnesses and the evidence the committee reviewed, the committee concludes that it &#8220;found no verifiable evidence to support Swetnick&#8217;s allegations. Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee&#8217;s investigation.&#8221;
&#8220;Accordingly, the Committee referred both to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation and potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371, § 1001, and § 1505 on October 25, 2018,&#8221; the committee explains. &#8220;In addition, on October 26, 2018, the Committee made a second criminal referral against Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation), based upon the NBC story that evidenced that Mr. Avenatti may have fabricated allegations by a second declarant.&#8221;
Below is the committee&#8217;s summary of the Swetnick allegations followed by the section presenting the evidence reviewed by the committee:
<blockquote>
The Swetnick Allegations
On September 23, 2018, Michael Avenatti tweeted that he was representing a woman with &#8220;credible information&#8221; regarding Justice Kavanaugh.51 Avenatti revealed his client&#8217;s name as Julie Swetnick on September 26.52 He simultaneously posted her declaration, in which she alleged that a teenage Justice Kavanaugh orchestrated gang rapes of inebriated women.53
The Committee staff contacted Avenatti ten minutes after he posted his September 23 tweet. Avenatti responded with a list of questions for Justice Kavanaugh related to the allegations by Swetnick. Although Avenatti alluded to having evidence to support his client&#8217;s claims, he refused to produce anything for several days, notwithstanding the Committee&#8217;s repeated requests. Ultimately, Avenatti provided the Committee with only a sworn declaration from Swetnick. He posted a redacted declaration from an alleged supporting witness on his Twitter account on October 2 and 3, but he refused to identify the author.54
Committee investigators attempted to schedule an interview with Swetnick, but Avenatti refused. Swetnick, however, did participate in a televised interview with Kate Snow of MSNBC.55 In that interview, Swetnick made several statements that differed from her declaration. For example, although she maintained that she saw Justice Kavanaugh drink heavily and act aggressively toward women, she did not say that she actually saw him spike the punch or wait in a line to take part in gang rapes at the parties, as she asserted to the Committee via her declaration. Despite the fact her signed statement claimed it was based &#8220;on personal information,&#8221; when challenged by CNN about the inconsistencies, Avenatti later conceded: &#8220;One of her friends informed her of what she just put in the declaration or what was attested to in the declaration.&#8221;56
Committee investigators interviewed Justice Kavanaugh regarding the allegations on two occasions&#8212;first, after Avenatti posted his September 23 tweet, and second, after Avenatti revealed Swetnick&#8217;s identity. Justice Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegations during both calls, and stated that he does not even know Swetnick. The Committee also conducted interviews with 11 individuals who knew Justice Kavanaugh or Julie Swetnick during the timeframe of the alleged gang rapes. The Committee also obtained a letter from 64 men and women who knew Justice Kavanaugh well in high school. None of the signers knew Swetnick, and none witnessed any behavior that even approached the conduct described in Swetnick&#8217;s declaration.
As Mr. Avenatti refused to provide additional information or witnesses, or make Ms. Swetnick available for an interview, Committee investigators attempted to investigate her claims. Committee investigators searched for information about Swetnick to assess her credibility. Committee investigators examined public sources for information on Swetnick&#8217;s background and readily determined that she has a lengthy history of litigation, including as a plaintiff in a sexual-harassment suit in which she was represented by Debra Katz&#8217;s firm, the same Debra Katz who represented Dr. Ford.57 Committee investigators learned that Swetnick was sued for defamation for making apparent false statements and retaliatory allegations against an Oregon company. The company also alleged she engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct at work. Committee investigators also received additional information from another individual, [REDACTED], who had frequent contact with Swetnick at local bars in the D.C. area. These men separately and independently described Swetnick as not credible and stated that she had never mentioned the name &#8220;Brett Kavanaugh&#8221; or any of the alleged sexual misconduct described in her affidavit. Another man, [REDACTED], said Swetnick never mentioned to him being raped or the name Brett Kavanaugh. Some witnesses described her as &#8220;opportunistic&#8221; and Committee investigators determined that Swetnick was in significant debt. Her ex-boyfriend also sought a restraining order against her after she threatened to kill him and his unborn child.
</blockquote>
In its interviews sections, which contains several redacted names, the committee notes that witnesses described her as a &#8220;gold digger,&#8221; &#8220;the least credible person you can ever imagine,&#8221; &#8220;beyond crazy,&#8221; a &#8220;serial manipulator,&#8221; and a constant &#8220;problem&#8221; for her parents.
Below is the evidence reviewed section (which generally summarizes the separate interviews section, not included below):
<blockquote>
Evidence Reviewed Related to Swetnick&#8217;s Allegations
&#8226; Declaration of Julie Swetnick (dated Sept. 25): Swetnick alleged that she attended house parties with Justice Kavanaugh and Mark Judge during 1981 to 1983. She stated that the two men spiked the punch at high school parties with alcohol or drugs in order to take advantage of women. She also asserted that Judge and Justice Kavanaugh lined up to take part in the gang rape of inebriated women.58
&#8226; Declaration of Mark Judge (dated Sept. 28): Judge categorically denied Swetnick&#8217;s allegations and stated that he does not know her. He said that he did not spike punch to get anyone drunk, nor did he witness Justice Kavanaugh engaging in that conduct. He also said that he never engaged in the gang rape of any woman.59
&#8226; Declaration of Anonymous Witness (dated Oct. 2): Michael Avenatti sent the Committee a redacted declaration from an unidentified witness who claimed to know Mark Judge and Justice Kavanaugh. The witness asserted that he or she attended house parties with Judge and Justice Kavanaugh and observed Justice Kavanaugh spike punch, drink excessively, and become sexually aggressive with women.60
&#8226; Letter from Michael Fegan (dated Oct. 1): Fegan was Justice Kavanaugh&#8217;s classmate at Georgetown Prep. He stated that he and Justice Kavanaugh did not know any girls from Swetnick&#8217;s high school, and that the parties they attended never had punch drinks, hard liquor, or drugs. He said that he would have reported any sexual misconduct to police.61
&#8226; Letter from High School Friends of Justice Kavanaugh (dated Sept. 26): Sixty-four men and women who knew Justice Kavanaugh in high school wrote to the Committee to say that none of them ever recalled meeting Swetnick. They asserted that they never witnessed Justice Kavanaugh engage in any of the conduct alleged by Swetnick, and they described him as &#8220;a man of honor, integrity, and compassion.&#8221;62
&#8226; Text messages between Dennis Ketterer and [REDACTED] (dated Sept. 27): A Facebook Messenger conversation provided to Committee investigators by Ketterer showed a conversation he had with a friend where he was notified of the existence of Twitter messages that mentioned an individual who knew Julie Swetnick and had a negative opinion of her. One of those messages was from an individual Committee investigators later interviewed, and that message mentioned that Swetnick was known to have suffered from mental problems.63
· MSNBC Interview (Oct. 2): Swetnick took part in a televised interview on MSNBC. During the interview, she walked back several of the claims in her declaration. Instead of saying she saw Justice Kavanaugh spike the punch, she said she saw him &#8220;near&#8221; the punch bowl at the house parties. She also refused to go so far as to accuse of him taking part in gang rape. She instead said that she saw him huddle with other boys outside closed rooms, but she admitted that she did not know what occurred inside.64
· NBC News article (Oct. 25): Mr. Avenatti submitted an anonymous declaration on October 2, 2018, purporting to corroborate allegations raised by Julie Swetnick. However, according to this news report, the declarant denied making the key allegations, saying that Avenatti &#8220;twisted [her] words.&#8221;65 The article thus suggests that Mr. Avenatti likely committed a fraud with a second sworn declaration.
· Declaration of Dennis Ketterer (dated Oct. 2) Ketterer stated that he and Swetnick met at a bar in 1993 and maintained a physical relationship. He said that Swetnick never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or rape and that she never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh &#8220;in any capacity.&#8221; According to Ketterer, Swetnick&#8217;s father warned him that Swetnick had &#8220;psychological and other problems.&#8221; Ketterer also noted that Swetnick said she enjoyed having group sex with more than one man at a time and that her first experience was in high school.66
· Declaration of Richard Vinneccy (dated Oct. 4) Vinneccy stated that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Swetnick for seven years. While they were dating, she never mentioned being raped or attending any parties where she witnessed sordid sexual activities. Vinneccy characterized Swetnick as financially unstable and said she &#8220;always wanted to be the center of attention and exaggerated everything in her life.&#8221; Vinneccy asserted that Swetnick stalked him for almost two months after their breakup and that she threatened to kill him and his unborn child, accuse him of rape, or have him deported. He informed the Committee that although he sought a restraining order against Swetnick, he ultimately decided not to pursue it when he learned he would have to confront Swetnick in court.67
</blockquote>
Below is the full text of the conclusions section:
<blockquote>
Committee Conclusions 
The Committee found no verifiable evidence to support Swetnick&#8217;s allegations. Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee&#8217;s investigation. Accordingly, the Committee referred both to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation and potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371, § 1001, and § 1505 on October 25, 2018. In addition, on October 26, 2018, the Committee made a second criminal referral against Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation), based upon the NBC story that evidenced that Mr. Avenatti may have fabricated allegations by a second declarant.68
</blockquote>
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38008/senate-judiciary-heres-everyone-we-interviewed-james-barrett">Senate Judiciary: Here&#8217;s Everyone We Interviewed About Ford&#8217;s Allegations And What They Said</a>

Senate Judiciary Committee: Here’s The Evidence We Found Against Swetnick’s Kavanaugh Allegations

U.S. Senate

On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee released a 414-page document presenting its <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20Kavanaugh%20Report.pdf">summary report and exhibits</a> regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct against now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In the 28-page summary of its findings, the committee explained that after speaking with 45 individuals and taking 25 written statements, it did not find &#8220;any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations&#8221; against Kavanaugh.
&#8220;The revelation of last minute allegations tested the committee in many ways,&#8221; said Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in a statement Friday. &#8220;But these investigative efforts rose to the occasion and were critical to helping us obtain the truth. This was a serious and thorough investigation that left no stone unturned in our pursuit of the facts. In the end, there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against the nominee.&#8221;
In its <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/senate-judiciary-committee-releases-summary-of-investigation-from-supreme-court-confirmation">announcement</a> of the report, the committee notes that its investigators &#8220;spoke with 45 individuals and took 25 written statements relating to the various allegations made in the course of the Supreme Court confirmation process.&#8221; Citing the supplementary FBI investigation ordered by the committee, the committee states that neither found &#8220;any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations.&#8221;
The committee also notes that it has submitted multiple people to the Justice Department for review for &#8220;potential violations of Senate rules, potential witness tampering, and potential false statements made to the Committee in violation of federal law,&#8221; including Kavanaugh-accuser <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38062/senate-judiciary-committee-heres-evidence-we-found-james-barrett">Julie Swetnick, lawyer Michael Avenatti</a>, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37928/senate-judiciary-refers-another-kavanaugh-accuser-ryan-saavedra">Judy Munro-Leighton</a>.
&#8220;Despite the Committee&#8217;s best efforts to ensure a timely and thorough review, an eleventh-hour news report released the day before a scheduled Committee vote on Justice Kavanaugh&#8217;s nomination disrupted the Senate&#8217;s exhaustive confirmation process,&#8221; the committee states after summarizing the extensive background review of the nominee it conducted. &#8220;On September 12, 2018, the media reported that Ranking Member Feinstein possessed a letter from an unidentified woman detailing an incident involving her and Justice Kavanaugh when they were in high school. As details of that allegation unfolded, the Committee&#8217;s Majority Nominations Unit paired with the Committee&#8217;s Oversight and Investigations Unit to investigate the allegations. These joint efforts, with up to 40 attorneys, law clerks, and other professionals from the Chairman&#8217;s staff, continued over the following month as the Committee received several additional allegations of sexual misconduct.&#8221;
&#8220;All interviews were conducted in an objective and fair manner aimed at producing a final determination of fact with respect to the allegations levied against Justice Kavanaugh,&#8221; the committee asserts. &#8220;In order to accomplish that, investigators conducted extensive interviews with individuals who knew Justice Kavanaugh in high school and college; investigators also conducted extensive interviews with individuals who knew the accusers in order to better weigh the credibility of their allegations. In sum, the Committee spoke to 45 individuals and collected 25 written statements.&#8221;
The committee also notes that a &#8220;large portion of individuals providing testimony in support of Justice Kavanaugh asked that their names be redacted out of fear that their statements might result in personal or professional retribution or personal physical harm &#8211; or even risk the safety and well-being of their families and friends,&#8221; so the committee respected those requests for anonymity and redacted their names from documents.
&#8220;After an extensive investigation that included the thorough review of all potentially credible evidence submitted and interviews of more than 40 individuals with information relating to the allegations, including classmates and friends of all those involved, Committee investigators found no witness who could provide any verifiable evidence to support any of the allegations brought against Justice Kavanaugh,&#8221; the committee concludes. &#8220;In other words, following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh.&#8221;
The committee goes on to cite all of the people it interviewed about the most high-profile allegations, including those by Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick, the last of which was referred to the Justice Department for criminal investigation for &#8220;providing false statements, obstructing congressional investigations, and conspiracy to violate federal law.&#8221;
Regarding Ford&#8217;s claims, the committee says it contacted all of the alleged witnesses she named &#8211; Mark Judge, Patrick J. (P.J.) Smyth, and Leland Keyser &#8211; as well as 14 former classmates of Ford and Kavanaugh. &#8220;None of them had any knowledge of the conduct alleged against Justice Kavanaugh by Dr. Ford or of the gathering at which she claimed to have been assaulted,&#8221; the committee underscores. &#8220;The Committee also reviewed a letter submitted by 65 women who have known Justice Kavanaugh since high school stating that he has a reputation for treating women with decency and respect.&#8221;
The committee also notes that it was contacted separately and independently by two men who &#8220;believed they had an encounter with Dr. Ford around the time of the alleged incident. Although each individual described details that in some respects seemed to fit Dr. Ford&#8217;s allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, both men described consensual encounters.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/38008/senate-judiciary-heres-everyone-we-interviewed-james-barrett">Senate Judiciary: Here&#8217;s Everyone We Interviewed About Ford&#8217;s Allegations And What They Said</a>

Senate Judiciary Committee Report: 45 Interviews, Zero Evidence To Corroborate Claims Against Kavanaugh

Supreme Court

It&#8217;s odd, isn&#8217;t it? Democrats screamed and cried in front of cameras for weeks, insisting that Brett Kavanaugh is a dangerous rapist. Then the dangerous rapist was actually confirmed to the Supreme Court &#8212; a fact that should provoke more anger, not dampen it &#8212; yet those same Democrats have largely stopped talking about Kavanaugh altogether.
Now, I&#8217;m no expert on these matters, but if I were a politician running for office and my opponent played a part in getting a serial sex offender installed on our nation&#8217;s highest court, I would never shut up about it. I would throw it against him every chance I got. &#8220;Remember Kavanaugh,&#8221; would be my rallying cry. Unless, of course, the serial sex offender was no sex offender at all, and the whole thing was a brazen smear campaign that I had helped orchestrate. In that case, after the campaign fell apart and my party was exposed, the cry, which I would not actually say out loud, would be more like: &#8220;Forget Kavanaugh. Talk about anything other than Kavanaugh. Look there&#8217;s a squirrel!&#8221;
After reviewing all of the evidence and speaking to 40 different people, the Senate Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/no-evidence-to-back-kavanaugh-accusers-claims-senate-panels-report-on-fbi-probe-finds">released</a> a damning 414-page report this past weekend. It confirms what had already been apparent: there is no evidence for any of the accusations. There is nothing and no one to substantiate any charge made against Kavanaugh. Indeed, the evidence goes entirely the other way.
Julie Swetnick and her pseudo-lawyer have been recommended to the FBI on suspicion of criminal conspiracy. Another woman is facing potential prosecution after admitting that she fabricated her rape story. Investigators also conducted an extensive interview with a man who says he was probably the one who had a (he says consensual) encounter with Christine Ford. He remembers an incident at the time in question, around the place in question, at a house very similar to the one Ford describes, with a girl very similar to Ford who also had a one-piece bathing suit under her clothing. Their make-out session was interrupted when a second guy jumped on top of them, just as Ford recounted. He believes that Ford conflated him with Kavanaugh.
All told, there is a significant amount of incredibly compelling evidence not only casting doubt on every allegation, but actively proving his innocence on nearly every count. That&#8217;s a remarkable fact when you consider the 35-year gap between the alleged incident and today. I doubt that I could marshal half as much evidence to prove that I&#8217;m not the one who <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/13/who-did-this-someone-put-googly-eyes-historic-georgia-statue-police-want-answers/?utm_term=.c37180e80d84">put googly eyes</a> on a Revolutionary War statue in Georgia last month. It&#8217;s almost impossible to prove a negative, even a very recent negative. Kavanaugh, though, managed to prove a 35-year-old negative.
This is all quite embarrassing for Democrats. Worse than embarrassing. Much worse. It exposes them as liars and smear merchants who will resort to literally anything, and tell literally any falsehood, no matter the consequences, for the sake of political advantage. It shows that they are truly unfit for political office and some of them should probably be in jail for their role in the conspiracy. They really, really hope you forget about all of this as you head to the polls on Tuesday. Please don&#8217;t.

WALSH: On Election Day, Democrats Want You To Forget About Their Kavanaugh Smear Campaign. Don’t.

Democratic Party

President Trump blasted one of Brett Kavanaugh&#8217;s &#8220;Jane Doe&#8221; accusers at a Montana campaign rally on Saturday, saying &#8220;she made up the lie&#8221; as he derided the accusation as &#8220;fake.&#8221;
Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had requested an investigation of the accuser, Judy Munro-Leighton, who anonymously claimed that Kavanaugh forced her to perform oral sex on him. Committee investigators found that the woman had &#8220;fabricated&#8221; her accusation, according to a letter from Grassley to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Munro-Leighton was interviewed by investigators on Thursday in which she &#8220;admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original &#8216;Jane Doe&#8217; letter,'&#8221; Grassley&#8217;s office said.
Said Trump: &#8220;One of his [Kavanaugh&#8217;s] false accusers just came out, a little while ago, and said it&#8217;s all a lie &#8230; she made up the lie. &#8230; It was fake.&#8221;
The president also took to Twitter, where he wrote: &#8220;A vicious accuser of Justice Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you imagine if he didn&#8217;t become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
A vicious accuser of Justice Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you imagine if he didn&#8217;t become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1058715144442781696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
According to a 414-page report released by Grassley, investigators interviewed more than 40 people and reviewed all evidence, but found no corroboration of allegations against Kavanaugh. &#8220;Following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh,&#8221; the report states.
&#8220;The revelation of last minute allegations tested the committee in many ways. But these investigative efforts rose to the occasion and were critical to helping us obtain the truth. This was a serious and thorough investigation that left no stone unturned in our pursuit of the facts,&#8221; Grassley said. &#8220;In the end, there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against the nominee.&#8221;
In addition, Grassley also requested an FBI investigation into accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney, porn star lawyer Michael Avenatti, who also represents Stormy Daniels. &#8220;Swetnick&#8217;s credibility was questioned after an ex-boyfriend told Fox News that &#8216;she exaggerated everything&#8217; and threatened to kill his unborn child,&#8221; Fox News reported.
<blockquote>
Investigators found no evidence to support either woman&#8217;s claims. Swetnick also made several contradictory statements about her claims during television interviews and refused to speak with committee investigators, the letter said. &#8220;Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee&#8217;s investigation.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Read the <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/summary-report-on-investigation_-kavanaugh-allegations">full Senate report here</a>.

Trump Rips Dems After Kavanaugh Accuser Admits To Making False Rape Claim

Charles Grassley

An NBC reporter who interviewed one of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh&#8217;s accusers, and who admitted to sitting on evidence that two of his accusers were not credible, is now trying to defend herself and her network.
It&#8217;s not working.
Kate Snow interviewed Julie Swetnick on Oct. 1. Swetnick claimed in a sworn statement to her attorney, Michael Avenatti, that she saw Kavanaugh act aggressively toward women, spike punch with drugs to get women drunk, and line up outside of rooms to gang-rape women. On NBC, Swetnick <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/36562/watch-kavanaugh-accuser-swetnick-walks-back-some-ryan-saavedra">walked back her most important claims</a>: She didn&#8217;t see Kavanaugh spike any punch and she never saw men lined up to gang-rape women (they were just &#8220;huddled by doors).&#8221;
Kavanaugh said he doesn&#8217;t even know Swetnick. One of the people Swetnick named to corroborate her story also didn&#8217;t remember anyone with that name.
Snow opened her interview by acknowledging the network couldn&#8217;t verify any of Swetnick&#8217;s claims. Yet the network still chose to give her a 13-minute primetime interview.
Last Thursday, NBC acknowledged that a second accuser represented by attorney Avenatti, whose name is still unknown, said her words were &#8220;twisted&#8221; in her sworn statement and that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. NBC had this information days before Kavanaugh&#8217;s confirmation vote, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37637/nbc-sat-information-undermined-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow">but didn&#8217;t report it until now</a>.
On Saturday, Snow took to Twitter to defend herself and her network for sitting on information that could have helped Kavanaugh gain some of his reputation back after the salacious allegations.
&#8220;Important context to my and <a href="https://twitter.com/annaschecter">@annaschecter</a>&#8217;s story regarding a second woman Michael Avenatti put forward to corroborate Julie Swetnick&#8217;s claims about Brett Kavanaugh,&#8221; Snow began her eight-tweet thread.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
My interview with Ms. Swetnick aired on October 1. She was making serious claims, so we took care to provide viewers the full context around her allegations and our reporting with a 13+ min piece 2/8
&#8212; Kate Snow (@tvkatesnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/tvkatesnow/status/1056225120098942981?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
So, because she made &#8220;serious claims,&#8221; she was given a primetime interview, even though her claims couldn&#8217;t be verified.
&#8220;We also made clear &#8211; in the interest of full transparency &#8211; that NBC News had not been able to independently verify her claims,&#8221; Snow continued, as if that makes it okay to give uncorroborated, horrific allegations air time when a man&#8217;s reputation is at stake.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We also made clear &#8211; in the interest of full transparency &#8211; that NBC News had not been able to independently verify her claims. 3/8
&#8212; Kate Snow (@tvkatesnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/tvkatesnow/status/1056225122141511681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Snow then explained the story NBC wrote on Thursday.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
By the time we were able to find the woman independently from Mr. Avenatti, who declined to give us her full legal name and phone number, and fully report and vet her story, the Kavanaugh confirmation process was over and the news value was limited. 5/8
&#8212; Kate Snow (@tvkatesnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/tvkatesnow/status/1056225125664808961?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
This isn&#8217;t true. NBC knew at the time Avenatti released the second woman&#8217;s statement that she wasn&#8217;t credible, on Oct. 3. Kavanaugh was confirmed on Oct. 6. NBC &#8212; according to Snow&#8217;s own reporting &#8212; contacted this woman on Oct. 3 after Avenatti released her statement. The woman said she only &#8220;skimmed&#8221; the declaration. On Oct. 4, she texted NBC to say she didn&#8217;t see what she was alleged to have seen in the affidavit.
Snow also reported that Avenatti confirmed the woman they talked to and his second client were one and the same, and had some more back and forth messages with her and Avenatti, ,separately. The last text from this woman &#8212; again, according to NBC&#8217;s own reporting &#8212; came on Oct. 5, the day before Kavanaugh was confirmed.
Even if it were true that NBC couldn&#8217;t &#8220;fully report and vet her story&#8221; before the Kavanaugh confirmation, the &#8220;news value&#8221; would not be &#8220;limited.&#8221; The man is sitting on the Supreme Court and a large chunk of the American people think he is a gang-rapist. Providing evidence that he is not would certainly be newsworthy, go a long way to repairing Americans&#8217; trust in the media, and repair Kavanaugh&#8217;s reputation.
Further, Snow admits her and her network&#8217;s left-wing bias by claiming they couldn&#8217;t post the story on Avenatti&#8217;s second client because they couldn&#8217;t &#8220;fully report and vet her story,&#8221; when they put Swetnick on air with a disclaimer they couldn&#8217;t verify her story. The woman accusing Kavanaugh of gang-rape was given an interview without verification, the story about how Avenatti&#8217;s clients disagreed with their sworn statements was not posted without verification.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
To be clear &#8211; we did NOT have enough reporting to publish the second woman&#8217;s account until after Justice Kavanaugh secured enough votes for confirmation. 6/8
&#8212; Kate Snow (@tvkatesnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/tvkatesnow/status/1056225127422148609?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
But they did have enough reporting to present suspicions about her account before the Kavanaugh hearing. And, as I mentioned before, they went forward with outlandish, salacious accusations against Kavanaugh without vetting those.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We always want to be clear and fully transparent around our reporting, and that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re doing here. 8/8
&#8212; Kate Snow (@tvkatesnow) <a href="https://twitter.com/tvkatesnow/status/1056225131901665282?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) did not make the story newsworthy again. It was always newsworthy. NBC proved that it only cared about sexual assault accusations against Kavanaugh to stop his confirmation. Once he was confirmed, NBC didn&#8217;t care whether the accusations were true or not, because he was already on the court.
Snow&#8217;s attempt to defend herself and her network just dug them a deeper hole.

NBC Tries, Fails To Defend Itself After Sitting On Information That Undermined Kavanaugh Accusers

Media Bias

Celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti has been referred for possible additional violations regarding his representation of clients who accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
The <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-26%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Second%20Avenatti%20Referral)%20-%20with%20enclosures_Redacted.pdf">additional complaint</a>, from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), includes information about a second client Avenatti represented, whose name is unknown. This woman backed up Julie Swetnick&#8217;s claims that Kavanaugh spiked punch at parties to get women drunk so they could rape them.
On Thursday, Grassley referred Avenatti and his client, Swetnick, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37601/breaking-avenatti-swetnick-referred-criminal-ryan-saavedra">to the Justice Department for criminal investigation</a>, alleging they provided false statements, obstructed a congressional investigation, and conspired to violate federal law with their allegations against Kavanaugh. On Friday, Grassley provided additional information supporting the charges against Avenatti, based on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37637/nbc-sat-information-undermined-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow">a report from NBC</a> that his second client &#8212; the unnamed woman &#8212; told the news outlet that the celebrity attorney &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/37630/witness-avenatti-twisted-my-words-about-kavanaugh-james-barrett">twisted</a>&#8221; her words.
&#8220;In light of this new information, I am now referring Mr. Avenatti for investigation of additional potential violations of those same laws, stemming from a second declaration he submitted to the Committee that also appears to contain materially false statements,&#8221; Grassley wrote to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Shortly after Grassley sent his first referral, NBC reported that Avenatti&#8217;s second client told them on multiple occasions that what was written in her sworn statement was not accurate, and that she never saw Kavanaugh spike the punch and that she didn&#8217;t know Swetnick until well after high school. She also said she never saw Kavanaugh act inappropriately toward women.
Avenatti told NBC, according to NBC, that he had recordings of the woman making the claims included in the sworn statement. Shortly after this conversation, the woman texted NBC to affirm what the affidavit said.
NBC called the woman yet again, and she again disputed what was said in the sworn statement.
&#8220;Simply put, the sworn statement Mr. Avenatti provided the Committee on October 2 appears to be an outright fraud,&#8221; Grassley wrote. &#8220;According to NBC News, the purported declarant denied &#8212; both before and after the sworn statement was released &#8212; the key allegations Mr. Avenatti attributed to her. She stated she was clear and consistent &#8216;from day one&#8217; with Mr. Avenatti that those claims were not true.&#8221;
Grassley added that when Avenatti was questioned about the discrepancies between the sworn statement and what the woman told NBC, &#8220;Mr. Avenatti attempted to deceive them in an apparent effort to thwart the truth coming out.&#8221;
&#8220;Accordingly, in light of the seriousness of these facts, and the threat these types of actions pose to the Committee&#8217;s ability to perform its constitutional duties, I hope you will give this referral, as well as my prior one related to Mr. Avenatti, the utmost consideration,&#8221; Grassley concluded. &#8220;Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.&#8221;
Neither the Justice Department nor the FBI have responded to Grassley&#8217;s letter.
In a tweet sent Friday evening after Grassley&#8217;s letter became public, Avenatti responded, asking: &#8220;How ignorant is Grassley?&#8221;
&#8220;He keeps publicly demanding an investigation knowing full well that it will likely never happen &#8211; it is all for show,&#8221; Avenatti wrote. &#8220;And if it does, he has placed Kavanaugh at risk of being removed from the SCOTUS.&#8221;
&#8220;This is what happens when you never attend law school,&#8221; he added.

Michael Avenatti Referred For ADDITIONAL Criminal Investigation Regarding Kavanaugh Allegations

Department of Justice

In yet another stunning display of media bias, NBC <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh-n924596">now acknowledges</a> that it had information that undermined the credibility of some of the women who accused then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, but didn&#8217;t report it at the time.
On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) referred celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick <a href="NBC%20Sat%20On%20Information%20That%20Helped%20Brett%20Kavanaugh">to the Justice Department</a>. Swetnick, in a sworn statement, accused Kavanaugh of drinking too much, acting aggressive toward women, spiking the punch at parties and orchestrating teenage gang-rapes. Her claims were ludicrous on their face, but the left-leaning media &#8211; eager to torpedo Kavanaugh&#8217;s nomination for fear he could be the deciding vote in overturning Roe v. Wade &#8211; ran with them anyway.
NBC was the worst offender. The network interviewed Swetnick even though it said up front it couldn&#8217;t verify her claims. This is Journalism Malpractice 101; you don&#8217;t put out possibly defamatory information you can&#8217;t verify. Of course, the media was totally okay with doing this if it meant keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. They didn&#8217;t care about the consequences to his family or his reputation.
NBC interviewed Swetnick on October 1. At the time, she backtracked on her key claims regarding Kavanaugh, and undermined her own story. Once her story crumbled, Avenatti released a second sworn statement from an unnamed woman, alleging almost identical claims as Swetnick.
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Yet another accuser has come forward (see sworn stmt below). She is prepared to meet with the FBI today and disclose multiple facts and witnesses. <a href="https://t.co/eNsCAau6no">pic.twitter.com/eNsCAau6no</a>
&#8212; Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) <a href="https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1047447758993547265?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 3, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
That was on October 3, two days after Swetnick was interviewed by NBC, but three days before Kavanaugh would be confirmed.
NBC says it spoke to this woman two days before Avenatti released her statement, and didn&#8217;t seem to find her credible. The outlet said the woman told NBC a different story than what was presented in the affidavit.
&#8220;Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, &#8216;I didn&#8217;t ever think it was Brett,&#8217; the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick&#8217;s claims,&#8221; NBC reported Thursday night. &#8220;As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.&#8221;
This alleged corroborating witness then told reporters she never witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately toward women, but said everyone at these parties drank heavily.
NBC again contacted this woman on October 3, the day Avenatti tweeted out her statement. At this time, she told the media outlet she only &#8220;skimmed&#8221; the declaration. The next day &#8211; October 4 &#8211; she texted NBC, saying: &#8220;It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn&#8217;t see anyone spike the punch &#8230; I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one.&#8221;
She also told NBC she would never let anyone abuse women in her presence.
NBC says Avenatti confirmed to them that the woman they spoke to on the phone was the same as the one in the new affidavit, but when confronted with the discrepancies, he said he was &#8220;disgusted&#8221; with the outlet and added: &#8220;How about this, on background, it&#8217;s not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?&#8221;
NBC says it received more texts from this woman disputing the sworn statement, and again reached out to Avenatti, who said he had the statement and recordings of her backing up that statement. He said the woman must have been confused by NBC&#8217;s questions.
&#8220;Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti,&#8221; NBC reported. &#8220;&#8216;Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue,&#8217; the text read.&#8221;
NBC called the woman again, and again she disputed the affidavit. On October 5, she texted NBC once more, writing: &#8220;I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words.&#8221;
Kavanaugh was confirmed the next day, on October 6. It is now the end of October, and we are just now hearing all of this from NBC. The outlet sat on information that one of Kavanaugh&#8217;s accusers disputed her sworn statement, presented by Michael Avenatti. This information would have called into question the statement from Swetnick, Avenatti&#8217;s other client. This also would have called into question NBC&#8217;s decision to air an interview with Swetnick, who changed her story about what she witnessed 30 years ago.
NBC sat on this information, which would have undermined some of Kavanaugh&#8217;s accusers, and is only now releasing it after Kavanaugh was confirmed and its interview was mentioned in a referral to the DOJ.

Menu