Avenatti fumbles through segment with Jake Tapper, can’t answer simple questions about his own client

[sharenow]

During a TV interview Wednesday evening, creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti seemed either unable or unwilling to answer the most basic questions about his client Julie Swetnick and her salacious allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Swetnick claimed this week that during high school parties she had attended while she was in college in the 1980s, she observed Kavanaugh and his friend Mike Judge present at parties where “gang rapes” of young women occurred. She further claimed she kept attending these parties until she herself wound up getting raped. What remains unclear is who allegedly raped her.

When questioned by CNN host Jake Tapper about these allegations, Avenatti repeatedly deflected.

“She details a horrific assault, saying, ‘In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these gang or train rapes, where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present.’ Now, she didn’t specifically say that Kavanaugh was one of the attackers. Is your client claiming that Kavanaugh raped her?” Tapper initially asked Avenatti in a televised phone interview.

Avenatti promptly deflected, saying, “I’m not going to have any further comment on that specific allegation. She’s going to detail that for the FBI and hopefully for the Senate Judiciary Committee, ultimately, in a public hearing. But I’m not going to provide any …”

The CNN host then abruptly cut him off to ask, “Are you saying that Kavanaugh was present? That Kavanaugh was present in the room? He was in the line? He was in the party? I mean, just to say he was present is a really egregious lack of specificity when you’re talking about charges this horrific.”

And again Avenatti deflected. He offered similar replies when Tapper asked him to cite the specific date that Swetnick had contacted him and name the specific individuals whom his client claims had also witnessed these alleged gang rapes.

“When did you first hear from Julie Swetnick — was it before or after Christine Blasey Ford’s story was published in The Washington Post two Sundays ago?” Tapper enquired.

“It was within the last month,” Avenatti pithily replied.

When Tapper again asked whether his business relationship with Swetnick  began “after Professor Ford’s allegations came out,” Avenatti bluntly admitted, “I don’t know.”

He doesn’t seem to know much of anything. His response to being asked about Swetnick’s corroborating witnesses (none of whom have revealed themselves) was similar.

“There’s a number of men and women who can attest to the facts of the circumstances … and we’re going to provide those witnesses to the FBI as soon as we’re contacted,” he said.

Tapper retorted by noting that it doesn’t appear there will be an FBI investigation and suggesting Avenatti simply release information about the corroborating witnesses to the media. The sleazy attorney refused this offer.

While it’s unclear why the sleazy attorney behaved so sketchily during his interview, social media users had some theories:

The last tweet sounds about right.

DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW

Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
[sharenow]
Vivek Saxena

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles