In light of the sentencing of Michael Avenatti for extortion charges, Reagan wrote about some of the media's greatest hits in fawning all over this disgraced former lawyer.
Reagan also mentioned the gang rape allegations against now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which were brought forth by a woman Avenatti was representing, Julie Swetnick.
"During the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti elevated outlandish and unfounded claims in attempt to derail the confirmation," she wrote. "None of Avenatti's claims were found to be true," Reagan wrote about this claim, and countless more.
Avenatti said he had "credible information" about what amounted to "gang rape" at parties Kavanaugh attended. Swetnick claimed to have been at those parties, though she could hardly get her facts straight.
Back in October 2018, while this circus was going on, Guy highlighted how ridiculous these claims were.
It's what one would expect from Avenatti, though.
There was Tina Nguyen writing for Vanity Fair "Is Avenatti's 'Gang Rape' Bombshell the End of Brett Kavanaugh?" from September 26, 2018, when that so-called bombshell was released. She referred to Avenatti as "potential Democratic 2020 candidate" and claimed that "Swetnick’s allegation was a stunning blow to Republican senators."
That being said, Nguyen herself had just written the day before "'No Comment': Democrats Tiptoeing Around Avenatti's 'Gang Rape' Land Mine."
Nguyen began that piece noting "As Washington braces for Thursday’s media frenzy, an even more ominous prospect hangs over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court: a sinister allegation teased by Michael Avenatti that could explode Kavanaugh’s confirmation—or be another dud."
Remember, though, Democrats were wary of these allegations from Swetnick who was yet to be named at the time, especially in contrast to those they believed were more believable accusers:
Contrast that with the Democrats’ stentorian defense of Deborah Ramirez, Kavanaugh’s second accuser, who told The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her when both were Yale undergrads. Multiple Democrats told Politico that they had reason to believe Ramirez, despite her own admission that her recollection was hazy, and called for the Senate to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation until both Ford and Ramirez’s accusations were fully investigated...
A short time later, Abigail Tracy would go on to write "Did Democrats Overplay Their Hand in Protesting Brett Kavanaugh?" for the outlet.
The Democrats particularly seemed to hate Avenatti for this move in addition to those "dud[s]" which made him so unbelievable and shady a character to begin with. He derailed what was already their witch hunt in progress against this man.
Examples of similar reporting came from:
- CNN's Manu Raju writing "Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh
- Kevin Breuninger with CNBC's "Some Democrats are blaming Michael Avenatti for muddying the waters on sexual misconduct allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
- Steven Perlberg and Lissandra Villa's "Washington Democrats Think Michael Avenatti Is A Nuisance. He Thinks They’re Out To Get Him for BuzzFeed;"
- WaPo's Aaron Blake writing "Did Michael Avenatti help doom the case against Brett Kavanaugh?"
Granted, Blake went on to include Avenatti as the 14th candidate in his "The top 15 Democratic presidential candidates for 2020, ranked" from November 2018. He ranked a spot better than Rep. John Delaney, who did run for president.
We know what happened. Judge Brett Kavanaugh became an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Avenatti and Swetnick were even referred to criminal investigation by then Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley. They're lucky they escaped that one, though ultimately Avenatti could not help himself with his law breaking, and here we are today.