Swetnick Falls Apart During Interview, Literally Calls Kavanaugh by Wrong Name
As it became clear that Julie Swetnick — the much-ballyhooed Brett Kavanaugh accuser represented by Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Michael Avenatti — was unlikely to be interviewed as part of the FBI’s one-week investigation into Supreme Court nominee, Avenatti was outraged.
“We have not heard anything from the FBI, and with each passing hour, I’m growing increasingly concerned that this is a sham of an investigation,” he said in a statement Saturday.
As it turns out, Swetnick couldn’t even stand up to questioning by TV journalists.
In a Monday night television interview on NBC, Swetnick backpedaled from her sworn statement like a quarterback trying to avoid a blitzing defense.
Perhaps the most damning bit involved the claim in her statement that she “became aware of efforts” by a group of male students, including Kavanaugh, to “spike the punch at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘no.'”
That’s pretty unequivocal. However, as the Washington Examiner pointed out, that quickly turned into something far more vague: The idea that Kavanaugh was merely “by” the punch.
And of course, she couldn’t get his name right.
“I saw him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls during that time frame and there was grain punch at those parties,” Swetnick said. “I would not take one of those glasses from Mark Kavanaugh — Brett Kavanaugh, excuse me.”
“I saw him around the punch, I won’t say bowls, the punch containers,” she added. “I don’t know what he did. But I saw him by them, yes.”
Yes, I understand that one of the other principals in this case bears the first name “Mark,” but when anyone is out spreading stories that could destroy a man’s reputation, it doesn’t help the credibility of the smear when the source can’t even get something as important as the name correct.
Swetnick’s credibility was already low. A mistake like that one puts it at basically zero.
But that’s not the only problem with Swetnick’s story. Saying she “became aware of efforts” by Kavanaugh to spike the punch at these parties is a pretty bold accusation. That now becomes Kavanaugh being “around” the punch bowls and/or containers.
As for the alleged rape of Swetnick, let’s again go back to her sworn statement: “In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” she said.
And when interviewed on NBC? “I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me,” Swetnick said, adding that Kavanaugh was only in vaguely the same area of the house she says the assault took place.
As for corroboration?
Stop me if you’ve heard a paragraph like this before: “Swetnick provided NBC News with the names of four friends who she said went to the parties with her. One is deceased, while two others did not respond to requests for comment. A fourth told NBC News he didn’t remember Swetnick and didn’t think he’d socialized with her.”
Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas summed up the journalistic worth of the interview in one tweet:
NBC: We can’t corroborate any of the claims made by Julie Swetnick, also her claims have shifted https://t.co/jqRH1yJfnl
— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) October 2, 2018
Swetnick’s alternate universe where “gangs” of prep school boys participate in “train” rapes of young women facilitated by alcohol and drugs sounds like a plotline in the worst B-movie script ever.
That’s not the only other thing disqualifying it: Swetnick’s history of serial legal foibles, her attorney Avenatti’s dubious media-manipulation tactics and the fact that nobody seems to have even heard of her are all big red flags.
So, what says Avenatti? “We have multiple witnesses that support the declaration. We look forward to speaking to the FBI and providing those witnesses,” the lawyer said after the interview.
When one can’t even clear the NBC hurdle, one perhaps might rethink the strategy of lobbying the FBI for an interview.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
