Michael Avenatti

Chuck Grassley Asks the Justice Department to Investigate Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick for False Statements

"The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation."

|

Avenatti
Kristin Callahan/ACE Pictures/Newscom

The Senate Judiciary Committee has referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, to the Justice Department for investigation.

Chairman Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) would like the feds to determine whether Swetnick and Avenatti engaged in a conspiracy to make false sexual misconduct allegations about Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

"While the Committee was in the middle of its extensive investigation of the late-breaking sexual-assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Avenatti publicized his client's allegations of drug- and alcohol-fueled gang rapes in the 1980s," said Grassley in the statement. "The obvious, subsequent contradictions along with the suspicious timing of the allegations necessitate a criminal investigation by the Justice Department."

This request does not amount to a formal charge of wrongdoing—that's for the Justice Department to decide. But it's not hard to see why Grassley decided to take this step: Swetnick subsequently contradicted her sworn statements about Kavanaugh's alleged misbehavior when she discussed the matter with NBC News.

As I wrote at the time, Swetnick jumbled the timeline of her decision to come forward, changed her mind about whether she actually saw Kavanaugh spiking girls' drinks, and could not state that Kavanaugh was involved in her own assault. Swetnick provided names of people she believed would back up her account, but these leads did not pan out—alleged witnesses either couldn't be reached, or didn't remember Swetnick at all.

Whether anything will come of this matter remains to be seen. I tend to think false allegations, when made in an official or formal capacity, ought to be punished if they can be definitively disproven. I don't know if that's the case here—and it may be difficult to determine that the things Swetnick alleged absolutely never happened—but we'll see.

Of course, there's a political angle: Avenatti, who also represents Stormy Daniels, is a well-known critic of President Donald Trump, and he may even run for president in the 2020 Democratic primary. If he does, he will be the gift that keeps on giving, at least for Republicans.

NEXT: 'Fairness' Outweighs Objective Data When Americans Evaluate Risks

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But it’s not hard to see why Grassley decided to take this step…

    Bases need to be fired up as the midterms approach?

    1. like Grassley knows it’s October.

      1. Congressional Republicans should do their damnedest, and try to get this out of their system, while they can because January will be here soon enough.

        1. Strange that you of all people would counsel them to save their energy for the victory party.

          1. Fuck off Hihn.

    2. Make more profit weekly… This is an awesome side job for anybody… Best part about it is that you can work from comfort of your house and earn 100-2000 dollars every week … Apply for the job now and have your first check at the end of the week.

      linked here…..=====??? http://www.Jobs73.com


  2. Swetnick subsequently contradicted her sworn statements about Kavanaugh’s alleged misbehavior when she discussed the matter with NBC News.

    You know what I find bizarre? How many cases where national news stories of interest revolve around proven perjury and nothing else happens. That’s basically like saying our entire justice system is a sham, which…well ok it is a sham but this is shouting it from the rooftops.

    1. Well, not for common folk. Ask Martha Stewart. It’s a good thing.

      1. Then we wouldn’t get this delectable jailjam.

        1. Sister gone bad. True story: The Kingpin from Daredevil was modeled on Martha Stewart.

    2. Several of Trump’s cabinet members are themselves demonstrated perjurers, but crickets from the GOP…

      1. Like I said, nothing else happens. Not sure why it matters if it’s the Trump of the Obama administration. In fact, it doesn’t. They both get away with it.

        1. Why aren’t political figures regularly prosecuted for perjury? Or impeached? Does anyone think they shouldn’t be?

          1. I’ve been advocating flogging for a while now, but so far nobody’s listening to my suggestion.

          2. Why? You’re really asking why we aren’t trying more vigorously to turn every political disagreement into a criminal trial?

      2. Unless it was a sworn statement it can’t be prosecuted as perjury.

        1. Shh, don’t confuse Simon with facts.

        2. Which is why Hillary was not required to answer questions under oath about her email server.

        3. There’s a law making ANY false statement meant to influence a government employee’s decisions prosecutable, whether or not under oath. You don’t even have to say it to their face.

      3. Did anyone from Trump’s cabinet accuse anyone of rape?

  3. There’s a much stronger probability that Kavanaugh lied and coordinated with others to suppress evidence to discredit honest accusations. He needs a referral.

    1. Right, because Occam’s Razor is a Republican plot.

      1. Why not, when reason itself is determined by some to be patriarchal.

        1. And racist too don’t forget.

        2. It’s linear, like a penis. Feminist logic is circular, like a vagina – or something.

    2. He needs a referral.

      There is little to no point to discussing this.

      Until January, perhaps.

    3. At least you’re proving your as shitty at math as you are at other areas of your life Chandler.

    4. “Much stronger possibility” meaning “I really want to believe?”

    5. There’s a much stronger probability that Kavanaugh lied

      Please explain this “much stronger probability”. Because you didn’t explain it here at all.

      1. Well, a lot of people define perjury as “Congressional testimony that doesn’t not advance my position”.

  4. It was already disgusting the way Republicans “spiked the football” after rushing through Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Now this? Simply unconscionable.

    This is what we intersectional feminists mean when we talk about rape culture and victim blaming. It’s apparently not enough that Swetnick has suffered so much already. Now they want to punish her even more?! It’s the type of thing that happens on The Handmaid’s Tale.

    #BelieveWomen
    #MeToo

    1. #BelieveBillToo
      #StillWithHim
      #InternsToo
      $ChildrenToo

    2. Has anyone watched the Handmaid’s Tale? how does that ugly chick from mad men keep getting roles?

      1. She is easy to confide in.

      2. Well I haven’t watched it, and for a second I thought you were calling Christina Hendrix ugly. Had to look it up to see she’s not the one in Handmaid’s Tale.

      3. Has anyone watched the Handmaid’s Tale? how does that ugly chick from mad men keep getting roles?

        QED

    3. >>>”spiked the football”

      kicking Swetnick while she’s down seems rapey

    4. “#BelieveWomen
      #MeToo”

      #Sellingaccessforbribes
      #StealingWHsilverware
      #Classifiedmaterialasshoppinglists
      #Airbnblincolnbedroom

    5. #lunatic

    6. Dear God! Swetnick suffered?!? You’ve got to be a deep troll. No actual person could be so insufferably stupid.

      1. OBL is a long-established parody account.

    7. See Ordinary Person, this is how you fucking do it.

    8. What has she suffered? Embarrassment over being outed as a liar?

  5. You’d think getting a douchebag fratboy rapist on the supreme court would be enough of a win for Republicans.

    1. We don’t ever get onto the Supreme Court, Past Me. Hell, we never even get nominated.

      1. Sorry (fun with syntax!), I didn’t mean douchebags who rape fratboys, but fratboys who rape.

        1. That your loss on this drives you this insane is delicious.

          1. efreet|10.25.18 @ 3:23PM|#
            “That your loss on this drives you this insane is delicious.”

            As enjoyable as that the loss by that criminal hag.

        2. Maybe Trump can nominate Lindsay Graham for the SCOTUS next, and we can have our first gay Supreme.

          1. Interesting post. Either you’re seriously outing him, which is cunty, or you think calling a straight man gay is funny, which is also cunty. Based on the rest of your trying-too-hard posts in this thread, it’s probably the second choice.

            1. 3rd option. Chipper is Graham, and this is his secret way of coming out.

              1. Then.. he wouldn’t be coming out…? Would he?

                1. He’s testing the waters. You know politicians.

              2. 4th. Chipper and Graham are romantically involved and Chipper just can’t keep it a secret any longer. It’s not cunty when you do it because of love, right?

            2. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between gay and Southern.

              But I’ve been around the block a few times, and if Sen. Graham doesn’t regularly treat nubile young men to nice dinners, I’ll eat my fucking hat.

              1. But you don’t own a hat, Past Me.

                Unless you’re counting your ass, which you routinely wear as a hat.

                But if you try to eat your own ass you’ll snap your spine, and then I’ll cease to exist because we’ll both be dead.

                1. I do own hats but never, ever wear them. Don’t spend a lot of time outdoors or being a cowboy or hipster, so what’s the point?

                  1. Past Me, you seem to forget that I’m Future You, and I know you don’t own any hats.

          2. Kagan’s a lesbian I think. Souter is a “lifelong bachelor,” but he’s also just weird.

        3. I thought you meant rapists that raped douchebag fratboys.

    2. You’d think getting a douchebag fratboy rapist

      But enough about JFK.

      1. Exactly how many centuries back does whatabaoutism go?

        Can I just invoke Hitler every time you criticize anyone I like? Seems like the simple thing.

        1. Forever, that’s the point of it. I learned from the best.

          Oh, just an FYI, Ford never accused Kavanaugh of rape. Only Swetnick did and, well, yeah.

          1. She accused of attempted rape from which she narrowly escaped. Supreme court material!

            1. So you admit you were lying.

            2. She had two doors on her house to prove it!

            3. “She accused of attempted rape from which she narrowly escaped. Supreme court material!”

              Well no, she obviously isn’t, I mean, apart from having proven to be a liar, she isn’t even qualified.

              1. Did you mutilate small animals as a child?

                1. No Tony, I don’t have thay in commin with you, stop trying to find solidarity.

                  1. But think really hard.

                    1. Ok, I found something, we both think you’re distasteful.

                    2. Oh the irony. You truly are a mindless bot.

                    3. I will never tire of the losers I piss off taking on sock personas to pathetically take swipes at me.

            4. Or possibly attempted assault. Or possibly rude, drunk 15 year old behavior until his friend
              starting wrestling with him. I’m sure she was scared, but what exactly transpired or might have
              transpired 40 years ago, who knows.

            5. Then you should probably stop calling him a racist you fucking hack.

          2. Oh, just an FYI, Ford never accused Kavanaugh of rape.

            And with the evidence provided, we can’t be sure it didn’t happen during the Kennedy Administration with or wihtout magic bullets.

      2. How bad is the case against Kavanaugh? So bad that his case for defamation is far stronger than anything alleged against him. Even if he actually did it.

        1. Everyone in Washington knows the stories are true. They rammed him through anyway. What better way to get the spotlight off a frat douche rapist than give him a job he can’t get fired from?

          1. D.c. does have one of the worst school systems in the world, so you could be right about Washington believing that. Explains your beliefs as well.

          2. Tony|10.25.18 @ 5:12PM|#
            “Everyone in Washington knows the stories are true.”

            Shitbags like Tony think that might mean something,

          3. Everyone in Washington knows the stories are true.

            Do they? I am not aware of one single person who has said “these stories are true.”

          4. Really? Because even Diane Feinstein said she had no idea whether they were true.

          5. They didn’t ram anything through. But please, cry more Tony, your tears are delicious.

          6. Argumentum ad populum? Well, at least you’re getting some variety in your fallacies now.

            1. “Argumentum ad populum? Well, at least you’re getting some variety in your fallacies now.”

              Naah. A well-traveled bit of dishonesty for out lefty fucking ignoramus.
              Like turd, he is dishonest as decent people breathe; by habit.

        2. How bad is the case against Kavanaugh? So bad that his case for defamation is far stronger than anything alleged against him. Even if he actually did it.

          Check out Perry Mason over here.

          1. More Hamilton Burger. Whom they called Ham.

    3. Not as much of a win as the Demoncrats got when they got Komrade Kagan, the person who profoundly Queered Harvard law School on SCOTUS so they could shove through homo marriage & the whole LGBT Fascist Agenda….The same Komrade Kagan, who along with Monkey-Face Ginsburg ignored the law & did not recuse themselves from the marriage case even though they had both publicly performed homo marriages!

      1. Having performed gay marriages wouldn’t necessarily be grounds for recusal. However, having worked on the government’s behalf on that particular case, as kagan did, should have.

        1. I disagree….The point of recusal is to avoid any hint of bias & both women for a long time publicly endorsed same-sex marriage & performed them….it does not get any more clear than that!

  6. Somehow this ends with Avenatti being the 2020 nominee…and President Bill Weld, much to the chagrin of Reason libertarians.

    1. Trump vs Avenatti vs Weld vs Stein (Placeholder for Greens).

      Vermin Supreme for my vote in that race.

      1. Vermin Supreme is the only person that can politely kick Japanese businessmen in the face.

  7. Whatever happened to the worldly Soave and deboner Robbie? The Dems AGAIN trotted out a liar to bark accusations at a Gee-Oh-Pee nominee, perhaps hoping to be forced less often to pee into Dixie cups, who knows? What we do know is that BOTH of these looter parties absolutely worship the initiation of force, fraud and violence, and silly is the libertarian who expects any less from them. OF COURSE they’re all lying! But ask yourself this: When was the last time you saw a Beltway insider caught, charged, convicted and sentenced to more than a handslap for preserving this noble tradition?

    1. Hank, can you draw a picture of dignity for us?

      1. want me to call the cat, and have the cat guess? cuuuuuz the cat’s gonna get it

      2. Chip, you’re spitting.

    2. Off-hand? Former Congressman William “Cold cash” Jefferson (D) in 2009. “He was the first official to be charged with violating that act, which makes it illegal to bribe foreign government officials.” He did 5 years.

  8. I wonder how much money it would take to get Avenatti to represent that Honduran horde that is writhing it’s way northwards.

    And how much for him to put himself physically at the head of of the column.

    That would be electoral gold for the Rs.

  9. It’s going to be difficult to get anything on Swetnick as she can credibly and sympathetically be described as mentally ill.

    So instead of trying to jam her up legally I would make her out to a be the unwitting, innocent victim of a Svengali-like Avenatti.

    That would make the lefty loons make a choice between the two and hopefully cause infighting amongts their factions.

    1. It’s going to be difficult to get anything on Swetnick as she can credibly and sympathetically be described as mentally ill.

      Already there.

      So instead of trying to jam her up legally I would make her out to a be the unwitting, innocent victim of a Svengali-like Avenatti.

      Already there.

    2. “amongts”

      ?

      Obviously, I meant “a Hmong”.

  10. “Avenatti, who also represents Stormy Daniels, is a well-known critic of President Donald Trump, and he may even run for president in the 2020 Democratic primary. If he does, he will be the gift that keeps on giving, at least for Republicans.”
    Yeah, I just can’t stay mad at this guy.

    1. Dems send fake bombs in the mail, the GOP bears the stereotype-to-end-all-stereotype sleazy attorneys.

  11. But there was no time to investigate a Supreme Court nominee.

    1. No time? He has undergone 6 investigations. His nomination was made last summer and he was investigated then. Feinstein knew had the letter since July but didn’t turn it over until just before the vote and after the investigation had closed. She knew it was a flimsy charge but used it for political purpose. Despite the four named witnesses giving sworn statements that they either could not recall any party where Brown was there or outright denying it, they reopened the investigation. This was after both parties gave testimony, with both being questioned by a well respected prosecuted who specializes in sexual assault cases. This same prosecuted also sent a sworn statement to the committee stating that, in her professional opinion, there was not enough evidence to warrant continued investigation. Yet despite this, they reopened the investigation. Again, after questioning witnesses, the FBI could find no corrobating evidence or even enough evidence to recommend further investigation. So your post is factually incorrect in all aspects.

      1. Don’t forget that they also did not have any basis for investigating since the accusation lacked a place and date. Before her final testimony, it even lacked a year. We still cannot prove whether or not the party actually happened, much less that he did what was accused.

    2. Cry more, pussy.

    3. Robes Pierre|10.25.18 @ 6:32PM|#
      “But there was no time to investigate a Supreme Court nominee.”

      Aw, poor lefty loser still whining.
      Grow up, loser. And fuck off.

    4. Hmm? There were 89 days between Kavanaugh’s nomination and confirmation vote; that was plenty of time for an investigation. Particularly since 1,036 days had previously passed between when he was nominated for (July 25, 2003) and confirmed to (May 26, 2006) the nation’s second-most-important court.

      So, if anybody had any credible charges to make against Kavanaugh, there was plenty of opportunity to make them public in a timely manner. If they didn’t, well, they must not have considered them actually disqualifying.

  12. Avenatti/Swetnick 2020!!!

    He’s on top!!!

  13. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is behind the recent pipe bomb terrorism.

    The only evidence we have so far is “Debbie Wasserman Schultz” on the return address. She’s the only suspect.

    That’s a credible accusation.

    Or, can you prove she didn’t send the pipe bombs?

    1. I hope you’re kidding. A sitting US Congresswoman sends half-baked bombs to friends with her own misspelled name as a return address in order to frame the opposition party? She’s clearly not a suspect.

      1. I don’t know. If the name was actually misspelled, it actually strengthens the argument that it was her.

  14. “Avenatti, who also represents Stormy Daniels, is a well-known critic of President Donald Trump, and he may even run for president in the 2020 Democratic primary. If he does, he will be the gift that keeps on giving, at least for Republicans.”

    Umm, Trump should be the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats, except he’s not. Avenatti can say the stupidest stuff ever, and he will have an audience, just like Trump.

    1. The main difference is that Trump has at least some successes to point to, whereas Avenatti increasingly looks crooked. So much so that he just lost his rather comical slander case against Trump and is in increasing legal trouble for hair dirty business deals.

      1. Not saying Trump was a clean business man, but Trump was semi successful, Avenatti doesn’t appear to be successful at anything.

        1. I partially agree, but Trump inherited wealth and was involved in multiple bankruptcies. Getting elected President is a HUGE personal achievement, and so that alone separates him from Michael Avenatti. My cynicism involves the success of Trump’s methods…attacking everybody who doesn’t like you and forming an ideology based on people who do. I don’t think he really believes in anything. Avenatti’s the same. If it weren’t for Stormy Daniels, Trump and Avenatti could be BFFs…playing golf together.

          1. mchughjj|10.25.18 @ 10:10PM|#
            “I partially agree, but Trump inherited wealth and was involved in multiple bankruptcies”

            See below; 4 out of 500. Hope I do so well in my investments.

        2. Not sure what you mean by “clean”, but he seems to have done less grabbing at the taxpayer wallet than, say Musk.
          Regarding his bankruptcies, I’d never checked on the facts until now.
          Turns out four of Trump’s (500) companies have filed for bankruptcy:
          https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete
          r/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-
          fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/
          And they were all C-11, re-org bankruptcies. From the link, it looks like none of the creditors seems to have suffered harm.

  15. Might as well speculate about Bozo the Bomber. Most experts are thinking it is a single individual and because of that theory confidence is quite high that it won’t be long before BtB is caught. The perp is kinda smart enough to assemble all these devices and get them packaged up and delivered, but very few individuals would be wise to all the ways that our federal agencies charged with such responsibilities have of analyzing physical clues anymore.

    Which brings me to this thought. Suppose a few more days go by and there is no arrest and the bombs keep coming. Maybe even a couple of them are now different in appearance, avoid detection, and actually explode doing real harm.

    If all that comes to pass, I would suggest that the odds just went way up that there is more than one person involved and that conspiracy is solidly organized, maybe even supported by a nation state. For whatever reason they started off playing dumb. Perhaps they have a whole election-influencing strategy worked out that key on getting the media to obsess on certain narratives and then progress to other narratives.

    1. “Which brings me to this thought. Suppose a few more days go by and there is no arrest and the bombs keep coming. Maybe even a couple of them are now different in appearance, avoid detection, and actually explode doing real harm.”

      Yeah, because a lumpy package addressed to a politico will be sent right through; maybe, maybe, maybe….
      None of them exploded (and we have no idea if they even could have). We know that as a result, there is a whole lot of physical evidence available. A WHOLE lot, by the pound and in many forms; we got chicken, lettuce, aspirin and beer, for pete’s sake! We know that inputting that number of suspicious packages into the USPS is problematic and probably traceable back to the input site. We know that POs have security cameras up the wazoo.
      Like the Boston bomber, does this person think no one is going to recognize his/her ‘walk’? It is almost as if the person doing this is begging to be caught.
      If there is no tentative ID by the end of the week, I’ll be curious about who’s asleep at the wheel.

      1. I’m pretty sure they couldn’t explode; I managed to find the model of stick on dash clock used on the bomb CNN provided a photo of. It doesn’t even have an alarm function!

        Anybody with a technical education who looks at those “bombs” sees a badly made theatrical prop, not a functional bomb.

    2. Add some copycat bombers, and it gets real interesting.

      1. “Add some copycat bombers, and it gets real interesting.”
        Given the physical evidence, it’s pretty certain that any ‘copycat’ would be spotted instantly; a ‘copycat’ has nothing to copy.

    3. Right now I’m looking at two things:

      1) The devices were literally incapable of detonating.

      2) The targets known so far were Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Maxine Waters, Robert De Niro, George Soros, and John Brennan, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the return address. A Congresswoman and a bunch of former officials and an actor, instead of, say, a list of current officials and candidates, like Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Nelson, Andrew Gillum, Tom Perez, or the like.

      You know what that looks like to me? That the sender not only wasn’t interested in hurting anyone, but also wanted to make sure that no currently-important Democratic officials or candidates would be inconvenienced by the stunt. The whole thing was calculated for maximum media attention with minimal actual damage or disruption to the “targeted” political side.

  16. October has not been the best of months for the Creepy Porn Lawyer.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.