Today is going to be frenetic. Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who first came forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh, is set to testify and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She alleges that a then-drunken 17-year-old Kavanagh tried to sexually assault her at a high school party. Then, Deborah Ramirez alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a college party at Yale. And now, we have Julie Swetnick alleging the most absurd of all: Kavanaugh was part of a gang-rape ring in high school.
JUST IN: White House releases letter it says is from more than 60 men and women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in HS, refuting Julie Swetnick's new allegations - NBC News pic.twitter.com/cGaFFdxzA2
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) September 26, 2018
Via NBC News:
The woman, Julie Swetnick, said that she was the victim of one of these gang rapes in approximately 1982. She did not allege that Kavanaugh participated in the rape, but said he and his friend Mark Judge were present when it occurred, adding that she was incapacitated by a drug placed in her drink without her consent and was unable to fight off her attackers.
She also said she saw Kavanaugh and Judge lined up at other parties "waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room."
[…]
In a sworn declaration released by Avenatti, Swetnick said she attended a public high school near Georgetown Prep, where Kavanaugh was a student. (Avenatti said she graduated in 1980.) She said she met Kavanaugh and Judge at a house party in the area in approximately 1980-81.
Swetnick said that she attended more than 10 parties with Kavanaugh and Judge between 1981 and 1983. "I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s," she said.
She added that they “engaged in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking “no” for an answer. This conduct included the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent."
According to her letter:
— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) September 26, 2018
•Swetnick was in COLLEGE
•She went to HIGH SCHOOL parties
•Girls were drugged and gang raped
•She watched it all happen
•She kept going back to those high school parties 10+ times
•She never reported any of this
•She is now 37 years later
??
BREAKING: Avenatti has been asked SIX TIMES since Sunday to make his client available to be interviewed by Senate Judiciary Committee attorneys regarding her allegations that Brett Kavanaugh was the mastermind behind a secret child gang rape cartel. He has refused all requests.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 26, 2018
Well, a few things, this woman supposedly witnesses terrible sex crimes at these parties…and continued to attend future gatherings, allegedly, and never told anyone, never warned anyone. The BS factor is off the charts on this one. The lawyer representing Swetnick, porn lawyer Michael Avenatti, can’t remember when he first heard of his client’s allegation. Also, there’s no evidence, no witnesses, and once again The New York Times couldn’t corroborate anything from this account. Can they do it? Doubtful; Avenatti isn’t making her available for an interview:
Did Avenatti just tell Jake Tapper he doesn't know when he first heard his client's story?
— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) September 26, 2018
Avenatti just refused to say when he first spoke to his new client. "Within the last month."
— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizWFB) September 26, 2018
Jake Tapper asks, "Was it before or after Ford's allegation?"
Avenatti: "I honestly don't know."
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.
Does this sound familiar? Yes, The Times came to the same conclusion about the Ramirez allegation [emphasis mine]:
"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." #Basta
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) September 26, 2018
In a statement, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation from the woman, Deborah Ramirez, and called it “a smear, plain and simple.” The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.
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. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
With Ford, she has no witnesses in her claim either. No evidence. Reports say she wanted to remain anonymous, but she retained the services of an anti-Trump lawyer, and a former FBI agent gave her a polygraph. All of this points to a woman who wanted to come forward. And given how her allegation was dropped, at the very last minute, this all reeks of a political hit job. Oh, and remember how The Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel noted something odd about The Washington Post’s initial report on Ford about who was there? Well, the results of the polygraph were released and, uh…there are problems. What we need is the therapist’s notes. The Washington Post, turn them over.
So, bravo, New York Times—take a bow for not stepping on a rake and doing some good work, showing that these allegations are so thin, you can’t really do deep-dives of your own into these claims. Nice, kill shot.
Dr. Ford's polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein. Polygraph letter says "4 boys and a couple of girls" were at party. Letter to Feinstein says "me and four others." No way to reconcile the two—irrespective of whether she's counting herself in polygraph letter. pic.twitter.com/aWJ10vTDna
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 26, 2018
This is important. And remember, therapist notes said four boys in the room. These are basic details, which she cannot seem to keep consistent. https://t.co/JriQbWj2ML
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) September 26, 2018
Wow...
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) September 26, 2018
Not only was the only question just about the written statement, not any specifics, but th statement has multiple edits and contradictions. She started w 4 people (matching letter to Feinstein), then adjusted to 4 boys (matching account to WaPo) and a couple of girls (?). https://t.co/HKH2H9N3Yf
Make sure to check out our live coverage of the Kavanaugh hearing on our new live blog.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member