Kavanaugh Accusers Lied, Referred To FBI For Investigation
Kavanaugh Accusers Lied, Referred To FBI For Investigation.While we don't know the full details we can now say according to NBC News that Julie Swetnick and another unnamed witness provided statements under penalty of felony but later recanted some of those statements. One woman claimed that Michael Avenatti twisted her words and she recanted some of the statements she made in her sworn declaration.The two possible scenarios both involved the accusers having lied. Either they lied in their sworn statements or they lied to NBC news. Lying to the press is not a crime so the FBI will likely go off of the sworn statements but with one woman claiming Avenatti twisted her words he might be on the hook for some of the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Yesterday we heard that a Senate panel was referring Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick to the FBI and the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation.
They are being accused of providing potentially misleading statements to the Senate panel in regards to Brett Kavanaugh.
For those that aren't familiar, Julie Swetnick is the third accuser.
She's the one who claimed that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were engaging in parties where they would drug women, line up outside of rooms, and gang rape them.
Many people thought that accusation was absolutely ridiculous.
In an NBC interview, Julie Swetnick actually walked back her claims.
And NBC said they couldn't even verify her claims, so many people believe that there may be no credibility to the story.
When we then hear that Avenatti and Swetnick are being referred to criminal investigation, people have to wonder, is there any evidence they actually did lie?
Well, now we're learning there is, and there actually was, NBC News knew that one of the witnesses who provided a statement was lying, either to NBC or in their sworn statement.
And based on NBC's reporting, it sounds like they actually knew the woman was recanting her sworn statement and may have been lying the whole time.
Why this wasn't reported far and wide during the hearings is beyond me, but let's take a look at some of these stories to figure out exactly what happened, who may or may not be lying, and what's going on with this criminal referral.
Before we get started, please head over to patreon.com forward slash timcast to help support my work.
Patrons are the backbone of the content I create, so if you like these videos and you want to see more like it, then please go to patreon.com forward slash timcast and become a patron today.
From CNBC yesterday, Senate panel refers Avenatti Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick for criminal investigation.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley refers lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.
He claims they made potentially false statements related to sexual misconduct accusations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, cited contradictions between what Avenatti's client Julie Swetnick originally told the Judiciary Committee about Kavanaugh in an affidavit in late September and what she said about the then-Supreme Court nominee days later in an interview with NBC News.
In his letter Thursday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray asking for an investigation, Grassley listed potential violations of federal criminal code, specifically conspiracy, false statements, and obstruction of Congress.
Swetnick made her allegations in a sworn statement to the committee on September 26.
In an October 1 interview with NBC News, however, Swetnick specifically and explicitly backtracked or contradicted key parts of her sworn statement on these and other allegations the Judiciary Committee said in a statement.
In subsequent interviews, Avenatti likewise cast serious doubt on or contradicted the allegations while insisting that he had thoroughly vetted his client, according to the statement.
The committee said there was a lack of substantiating or corroborating evidence about Swetnick's claims, and also cited overarching and serious credibility problems pervading the presentation of these allegations.
In response to the referral, Michael Avenatti tweeted, It is ironic that Senator Grassley now is interested in
investigations.
He didn't care when it came to putting a man on the SCOTUS for life.
We welcome the investigation as now we can finally get to the bottom of Judge Kavanaugh's lies and conduct.
Let the truth be known.
Many people called out Julie Swetnick when she walked back her claims, including CNN.
unidentified
I just mentioned the name Julie Swetnick.
You've probably heard it before.
That's the Judge Kavanaugh third accuser.
Now, she's talking to the press again about her recollections of Kavanaugh when under the influence of alcohol years ago, but she is backing away, I would suggest, from some of her claims.
Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick walks back some of her explosive allegations.
NBC can't verify any of her claims.
Right away when we saw this, we knew there was a contradiction and there was a problem.
If Julie Swetnick provided a sworn statement under penalty of felony that certain things happened, But later in an interview said some of those things didn't happen or walked back those claims.
We could only assume that either she lied in the affidavit or she was lying on TV.
Which is it?
This is why Grassley referred Avenatti and Swetnick for criminal investigation.
But here's where it starts to get really interesting.
The other day I made a video about this on my second channel where I said Avenatti probably wouldn't be on the hook for this because he's just representing her.
She's the one who signed the sworn statement.
But now we're learning from NBC News that following the referral to the FBI and the DOJ, they are reporting that they spoke with one of the witnesses who provided a sworn statement who backtracked on her claims and said Avenatti twisted her words.
In which case, Avenatti might actually be on the hook for lying to Congress.
From NBC News, new questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh.
Quote, I do not like that he twisted my words, one woman says of lawyer Michael Avenatti.
They start by mentioning the referral and say that in the NBC News interview that aired on October 1st, Swetnick backtracked on or contradicted parts of her sworn statement where she alleged she witnessed then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be gang raped in a side room or bedroom by a train of boys.
NBC News also found other apparent inconsistencies in a second sworn statement from another woman, whose statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bid to bolster Swetnick's claims.
In the second statement, the unidentified woman said she witnessed Kavanaugh spike the punch at high school parties in order to sexually take advantage of girls.
But less than 48 hours before Avenatti released her sworn statement on Twitter, the same woman told NBC News a different story.
Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, quote, I didn't ever think it was Brett, the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on September 30th after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick's claims.
As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.
When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, no.
She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in and said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were part of that group.
According to the second woman's declaration that Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said, During the years 1981-82, I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh together with others spike the punch at house parties I attended with quaaludes and or grain alcohol.
I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say no.
The statement also said that Kavanaugh was overly aggressive and verbally abusive to girls.
This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature, but reached by phone independently from Avenatti on October 3rd.
The woman said she only skimmed the declaration.
After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on October 4th to NBC News, quote, It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch.
I didn't see anyone spike the punch.
I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one.
They say that Avenatti confirmed to NBC News they did interview the same woman from the affidavit.
But when questioned on October 3rd about the discrepancies between what she said in the phone interview and the serious allegations in the sworn declaration, Avenatti said he was, quote, disgusted with NBC News.
At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, How about this?
On background, it's not the same woman.
What are you going to do with that?
Defending the declaration, Avenatti said to NBC News, I have no idea what you are talking about.
I have a signed declaration that states otherwise, together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration.
There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions.
He sent a follow-up message moments later.
I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct.
she must have been confused by your question.
Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally worded text backing Avenatti,
quote, please understand that everything in my declaration is true and you should not contact
me anymore regarding this issue, the text read. But when reached by phone minutes later,
the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately
toward women.
She said she's been consistent in what she's told Michael.
In a subsequent text on October 5th, she wrote, I will definitely talk to you again, and no longer Avenatti.
I do not like that he twisted my words.
This is crazy for so many reasons.
This is going back to the beginning of the month.
NBC News said they couldn't verify any of Swetnick's claims, and the reason for it was probably this woman.
In trying to reach out to the witness who would corroborate her story, the woman recanted.
And Michael Avenatti even, according to NBC News, tried to obstruct the reporting process by backtracking and claiming the woman they interviewed wasn't actually the same woman who provided the declaration.
This is ridiculous.
This is complicated.
And extremely hard to understand, but what we can say is that Julie Swetnick herself walked back her own claims.
And the witness Michael Avenatti provided actually walked back her claims, too.
This might actually suggest Michael Avenatti knew there was no merit to Julie Swetnick's claims.
Why NBC News did not report this sooner is beyond me.
You'd think this would be extremely pressing information to put out as soon as possible.
That Michael Avenatti was obstructing the reporting process, that the woman signing a sworn affidavit was now backtracking, and even ended the conversation by saying she would no longer confer with Michael Avenatti but would continue to talk to NBC News, and even claiming Avenatti twisted her words.
There now may be grounds for an actual investigation.
When I first heard that Grassley was referring Avenatti and Swetnick to the FBI and the DOJ for an investigation, I thought it was partisan.
Look, there's partisan fighting.
There's, look, are the Democrats going to refer them?
No, of course not.
But Grassley is a Republican, so of course he is.
And it seems to me like while there may be reason to believe they were lying, it feels political.
But now with this NBC News reporting on top, information that should have been made public a long time ago, it seems like there actually may be evidence and a witness claiming Avenatti actually lied.
He twisted her words and she's backtracking on her sworn statement.
So here we are now.
Both Swetnick and the other witness have backtracked on their sworn statements.
So maybe Avenatti did or didn't lie.
I don't know.
It's the women who sworn the signed statement, not Avenatti.
And again, he's just a lawyer.
So even if he did twist her words, she's the one who signed that.
So maybe he'll get in trouble, maybe not.
But there is something else to consider.
Before Swetnick came out, it was being alleged that Avenatti was hoaxed by 4chan and he didn't actually have a witness to bring forward.
He then made his Twitter account private briefly.
And then shortly after that came forward with this witness and a ridiculous story about gang rape parties that were happening nonstop over the course of years.
And a witness corroborating that Kavanaugh and Judge were putting quaaludes and grain alcohol in punch to drug these women.
But with both women having walked back their claims, perhaps the story might be That Michael Avenatti really was hoaxed by 4chan, and in a desperate bid to maintain his credibility, found a witness with a dubious story, and then got a second witness, and twisted their words.
All we know right now is that Swetnick and this other woman have walked back their claims, and one of the women is blaming Michael Avenatti for twisting her words.
So, the criminal referral might actually go somewhere.
And if it does, that can be huge, because Avenatti wants to run for president in 2020.
He's posted a list of his stances on issues.
I think it's fair to say he's definitely going to be running.
But with all of the really bad things that have been happening, perhaps he won't be able to.
Because it seems like he might actually get in trouble for lying to Congress.
But let me know what you think in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
Do you think the story was false?
I think it's fair to say, based off the statements of the actual witnesses, by now we know The story is likely false, because their own statements to NBC News contradict the actual affidavits.
They both can't be true, so they're definitely lying, either on the affidavit or to NBC News.
Which is it?
They're definitely lying.
Pick one.
Again, comment below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter, at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
I've got more videos coming up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6 p.m.
