It seems mud-raking attorney to the porn stars, Michael Avenatti, was worried he was being overlooked in the lead up to the Judge Brett Kavanaugh hearings this week. Lo and behold, a woman emerged from the shadows to declare a then-sixteen-year-old Brett Kavanaugh was involved in numerous “gang rape” high school parties more than thirty years ago. The woman, Julie Swetnick, was an adult allegedly attending these high school parties and went back to them repeatedly despite what she now alleges was happening there. The media are now looking at both Avenatti and Swetnick with increased skepticism as both appear poised to jump the shark on this entire politically-driven fiasco.
Via The New York Post:
Seven questions for Julie Swetnick and Michael Avenatti
Swetnick’s accusations against the Supreme Court nominee raise seven questions:
1) Given the seriousness of these allegations, why did Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick decline to go directly to the police?
2) Likewise, why did Avenatti and Swetnick bypass the press? Did anyone in the press look into this story? What did they find? The New York Times confirms that “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.” Why?
3) Where are the witnesses? 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?
4) Is is not a little strange that there are only two details provided, and that they happen to be public knowledge already? The two names given are Mark Judge’s and Brett Kavanaugh’s. The time given is “BEACH WEEK,” which is listed on the calendar that Brett Kavanaugh released this morning. Why is there nothing new?
5) According to The New York Times, Swetnick left school in 1980, and then went on to college. Swetnick claims that she “attended at least 10 house parties in the Washington area from 1981 to 1983 where the two were present.” That means that, at the time of the alleged incident(s), she was between 18 and 20 years old at the least, and that Kavanaugh and Judge were between 16 and 18 at the most. Why was she, an adult, attending high-school parties with minors?
6) Kavanaugh says that he’s never heard of the accuser. Is there anyone who can testify to the contrary? If so, how did they meet? What relationship did Kavanaugh have with her school, Gaithersburg High? Swetnick claims that she “met Judge Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge in 1980 or 1981.”
Why did she, an 18- or 19-year-old, start hanging out with Kavanaugh and Judge, who were 15 or 16, depending on the year?
7) Why would an adult go repeatedly to parties at which minors were being gang-raped, and, having figured out what was going on, resolve only to “avoid the punch”? Did Ms. Swetnick tell anybody what she had seen? Why did she keep going back?
Indeed. Swetnick’s scenario would have us believe that an adult woman attending multiple high school parties was involved in a “gang rape” and then not only chose NOT to go to the police but instead continued to attend those same parties, never told the authorities, (she still has not gone to the police perhaps because making a false statement would place her into legal trouble) and only now, more than 35 years later, is coming forward to spread these outlandish allegations.
America has to be smarter than to put up with this nonsense.