As everyone gears up today for the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee, several developments in Kavanaugh-gate have occurred. First, Michael Avenatti's alleged victim came forward yesterday. Julie Swetnick, who was three years ahead of Kavanaugh, claimed, "Kavanaugh took part in efforts in high school to get girls intoxicated so that a group of boys could have sex with them." But, a former boyfriend of Swetnick claimed she is not credible at all.
An ex-boyfriend of Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, filed a restraining order against her in Florida in 2001, Politico reported.
Vinneccy filed the complaint on March 1, 2001 alleging that Swetnick, 55, threatened him after he broke up with her after a four-year relationship.
Swetnick, who is being represented by Michael Avenatti, sent a declaration to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday claiming that she attended house parties in the early 1980s where she saw Kavanaugh mistreating women and spiking their drinks.
She also claimed that she was gang raped at a party in 1982 where Kavanaugh was present. She did not accuse the judge of taking part in the attack, but she said she saw Kavanaugh at other parties lined up outside of a door with other boys waiting to gang rape women.
Vinneccy, a registered Democrat, stated that after he and Swetnick ceased their relationship, she not only threatened him, but his wife and baby as well. He also claimed to have evidence that Swetnick's claims are fabricated but refused to release any information until after speaking with an attorney.
A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.
According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
As for Swetnick, Avenatti told Politico that he had not heard of the restraining order against her, but he dismissed it nonetheless and accused the Politico reporters of attacking Swetnick.
“Complete nonsense. No truth to this at all. Her ex-boyfriend fraudulently used her resume to apply for and obtain jobs and was caught by her,” Avenatti told Politico. “Why are you all attacking a sexual assault victim? Would that be appropriate in a court of law?”
A fourth woman has come forward accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct/assault. The complaint, originally sent to Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), stated the incident involved her daughter and several others, but she wanted to remain anonymous.
According to Infowars:
“I will remain anonymous, but I feel obligated to inform you of this 1998 incident involving Brett Kavanaugh,” the complaint says, according to the transcript. The complaint’s author, who wished to remain unnamed, wrote that the incident involved her daughter and several other people.
“[My daughter’s] friend was dating him, and they left the bar under the influence of alcohol,” the complaint reads. “They were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually.”
“There were at least four witnesses, including my daughter,” it continues. “Her friend, still traumatized, called my daughter yesterday, September 21, 2018, wondering what to do about it. They decided to remain anonymous.”
So, everyone in this fourth complaint, which is reported via a third party, decided to "remain anonymous" but wanted to report the incident at the last minute to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If this isn't enough "skunk and Donkey" theater for everyone, an individual, going by the name Jeffrey Catalan on Twitter, accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting a close acquaintance on a 36-foot boat in Rhode Island. The Washington Times indicated the complaint went through Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). According to Whitehouse, the constituent claimed a "close acquaintance was 'sexually assaulted by two heavily inebriated men she referred to at the time as Brett and Mark' in August 1985 on a 36-foot boat in Newport, Rhode Island."
On Twitter, Catalan called Donald Trump a "domestic terrorist" and "Bozo", even accusing the president of "manslaughter."
Catalan has since recanted his allegation, claiming he "made a mistake."
Some have speculated the Catalan account is fake or a bot.
Two men have come forward to tell Senate investigators they, not Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, could have been responsible for the encounter Christine Blasey Ford describes when she says she was sexually assaulted at a high school party 36 years ago.
The Judiciary Committee Republican staff did not release any details about the men, but said each had been interviewed, and one had provided a written statement.
Each of the men described “in some detail” their recollection of their encounter with Ms. Blasey Ford, the GOP staff said in a memo late Wednesday, less than 12 hours before Ms. Blasey Ford is slated to testify about her memories of the assault.
According to the report, Ford has "rebuffed requests to go through the same interviews."
And, in what can only be described as incredulous, The Washington Times, in the same piece, reported, "the committee memo reveals yet another anonymous complaint lodged against Judge Kavanaugh from someone who signed the letter 'Dane Joe, Oceanside CA,' and alleges Judge Kavanaugh and others raped her in the back seat of a car. The letter does not give a place, date or any other details."
These are serious allegations made by "anonymous" individuals and incidences that not one FBI investigation of Kavanaugh over the years uncovered. Either the FBI has totally incompetent agents who are responsible for its investigative process or these allegations are baseless. With the timing of these allegations, an alleged victim's former boyfriend filing a restraining order against her, a third party (hear-say) anonymous report, an anonymous report without details, a recanted allegation, two men coming forward to claim responsibility for what happened to Ford, and one who refused to cooperate with the Senate committee, it leads one to lean toward the allegations being baseless.
Kavanaugh has denied all the allegations against him and witnesses that were named by Ford and Ramirez have denied the incidences occurred or could not recall the parties or events.
These allegations accomplished several things. It fired up the extreme fringe anti-constitutionalists to the point of threats being levied against Kavanaugh's family. It has postponed a confirmation vote of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court so the committee can go "snipe hunting." It has tried, convicted and sentenced Kavanaugh in the "court of public opinion" without any evidence to substantiate one claim against him. It has cost the taxpayers money in resources and time to investigate the unsubstantiated claims. If it hasn't already, it was a political move by Democrats designed to completely destroy Kavanaugh and his family in an attempt to keep him from being confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.
The alleged "victims" claimed this is about justice. But, it is not; it is politically motivated. There was not one report filed with police or other authorities at the time these alleged violations supposedly took place. All waited years, some over 30, to even come forward, with one having to spend time with a Democratic politician lawyer to implicate Kavanaugh. One claim was reported by a third party, in what lawyers would term "hearsay", claiming all would remain anonymous. One alleged victim has been challenged on credibility by an ex-boyfriend who had to file a restraining order against her. One report was recanted, potentially a hoax, and another was anonymously made without providing details. And, the "cast net" of the Democrats pulled in two Yale University professors whose accusers, again, remain anonymous to all, including the professor who has an internal investigation ongoing by Yale officials.
This is an entire embarrassment to the American citizenry. None of this would hold water in a court of law. Yet, those sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee are willing to lend credence to claims made where the alleged victims' memory is fuzzy at best, the other claims are made anonymously, and no actual evidence, anecdotal or physical, exists to substantiate or disprove the claims. How convenient for this committee to operate above the law when any judge worth a judicial grain of salt would throw all of this out of court in a heartbeat.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.