With SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh having now secured the 50th and 51st Senate votes to assure his confirmation, attention has turned to Michael Avenatti‘s role in the failed political effort by Democrats to prevent his ascension to the nation’s highest court.
Avenatti is, of course, the showboating attorney represents aging porn star Stormy Daniels as well as one of the women who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.
After the media unearthed and vetted accusations by Mr Kavanaugh’s first two accusers, Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Ms Deborah Ramirez, Avenatti decided to skip the middle man with a third.
After several days of making the cable TV rounds teasing his new client, he released an affidavit from a woman named Julie Swetnick that not only included the most serious accusations to date – that Kavanaugh appeared to have participated in gang rapes – but also did so with the least corroboration.
Many media outlets treated the accusation with scepticism, and Ms. Swetnick’s past was probed for litigiousness and other issues.
Ms Swetnick also appeared to temper some of the claims and implications contained in her affidavit during an interview with NBC News.
By the end of the SCOTUS confirmation battle, the Swetnick allegation became a key GOP talking point – alleged proof positive that, while allegations such as Dr Ford’s could perhaps be taken seriously, this was at least in part a political effort using frivolous and ridiculous charges.
MSNBC host Chuck Todd said Friday that Michael Avenatti, the outspoken attorney representing one of the women who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, is “probably the best thing to happen to” the Supreme Court nominee.
“Michael Avenatti is probably the best thing to happen to Brett Kavanaugh,” Todd said on “MTP Daily.” “All these Democrats that have been flirting with him, they’ve got to really be embarrassed by him now.”
As the Free Beacon reported
Todd was leading a panel discussion on Sen. Susan Collins’ (R., Maine) announcement earlier Friday that she will vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Collins, who had been the last undecided Republican vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, criticized Avenatti and his client in a speech on the Senate floor.
“Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important,” Collins said. “I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used this weakened state to participate in gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forward without any supporting evidence and simply parroted in the public statements of others.”
“That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness,” Collins added.
As Ms Collins delivered her speech, simmering doubts about Mr Avenatti’s actions and their helpfulness bubbled up on social media.
Naturally, Avenatti responded by attacking Collins on Twitter.
Jackass
While the media unearthed and vetted accusations by Mr Kavanaugh’s first two accusers, Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Ms Deborah Ramirez, Avenatti decided to skip the middle man with a third.
After several days of making the cable TV rounds teasing his new client, he released a sworn affidavit from Julie Swetnick that not only included the most serious accusations to date – that Mr Kavanaugh appeared to have participated in gang rapes – but also did so with the least corroboration.
Many media outlets treated the accusation with scepticism, and Swetnick’s past was probed for litigiousness and other issues.
Swetnick also appeared to temper some of the claims and implications contained in her affidavit during an interview with NBC News.
By the end of the confirmation battle, the Swetnick allegation became a key GOP talking point – alleged proof positive that, while allegations such as Dr Ford’s could perhaps be taken seriously, this was at least in part a political effort using frivolous and ridiculous charges.
That a man with eyes for the 2020 Democratic nomination was behind them made that argument easier to make., according to The Washington Post.
Putting Ms Swetnick’s allegation directly into the public domain – rather than running it through media vetting or just going to law enforcement – put Democrats in a tough spot.
Did they treat all the women’s allegations as credible, or did they focus on some and confess (either publicly or implicitly) to being more dubious about others?
If they did the latter, it would lend credence to the idea that some of these allegations were indeed frivolous.
It would put them in the position of explaining why one largely uncorroborated allegation was important and believable, but another wasn’t.
Even The Post has been forced to conclude: “politicians make decisions about when to insert themselves into issues. And Mr Avenatti, to the extent he’s going to be a Democratic politician and a voice for that party, made a move that will cause the party to evaluate his wisdom.”
