There were two particularly damning interviews involving Brett Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick that aired Monday night.
One involved Swetnick herself on NBC, walking back most of her allegations against the Supreme Court nominee and saying she couldn’t even be sure he was part of the drugging and raping she’d described in a sworn statement.
The other involved Swetnick’s former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who claimed on Fox News that Swetnick had threatened to kill the unborn child Vinneccy had fathered with another woman. He said Swetnick had never mentioned anything about a sexual assault.
“Right after I broke up with her, she basically called me many times and at one point she basically said, ‘You will never, ever see your unborn child alive,'” Vinneccy, appearing on “The Ingraham Angle” with his lawyer, said.
He also states that she told him, “I’m just going to go over there and kill you guys.”
“Never, never once (did) she mention that to me,” Vinneccy said.
“We used to talk about everything. She never once mentioned that at all. … If you ask me personally if I believe her, I don’t believe her. I really don’t believe her. Nobody knows Julie Swetnick better than me.”
Vinneccy told Ingraham he thought she was making her claim against Kavanaugh out of narcissism.
“She always wanted to be the center of attention,” he said.
“She was exaggerating everything. Everything that came out of her mouth was just exaggerations.”
Let me start with the caveat that ex-whatevers usually aren’t the most unbiased source of information you can run across. In light of that, we should view Vinneccy’s narrative of events with skepticism.
Then again, we should have viewed everyone’s narrative of events in this case with skepticism, but that boat’s long out of harbor at this hour.
That being said, this isn’t pure, uncorroborated narrative. Vinneccy had filed a restraining order against Swetnick back in 2001, as reported by Politico.
Eventually, according to Politco, “the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.”
But the story Vinneccy told Politico was at least similar to what he told Ingrham.
“According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child,” Politico reported.
“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 told Politico. “I know a lot about her.”
Vinneccy’s statement isn’t the first to accuse Swetnick of having an estranged relationship with the truth. As the Conservative Tribune reported Sunday, Swetnick had been dismissed and sued by an employer in 2000 for defamation and fraud, according to The Daily Caller. The suit, which was eventually dismissed, also noted that she had lied about graduating from Johns Hopkins University and had engaged in “unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct” toward male employees during a lunch.
That’s not exactly a sterling recommendation.
Furthermore, if you want a reason why Swetnick might be lying, you could do worse than the fact “(s)he always wanted to be the center of attention.” I mention this only because of one factor: Michael Avenatti.
Say what you will about the fact that Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, lawyered up with Democratic operatives galore., it wasn’t a horrible strategy on her part. It did, however, cast some doubt on her narrative among conservatives and independents.
However, what do you say about the kind of person who brings in Michael Avenatti as her solicitor and mouthpiece when making these kinds of accusations against a Supreme Court nominee? Yes, the man Tucker Carlson dubbed the “creepy porn lawyer” has very high name recognition, but that’s only because his media schedule is a lot more hectic than his courtroom one.
In the high court of Trump, Avenatti is an antagonistic jester. I’ve failed to find anyone who thinks that he’s anything but a phenomenal publicist. Publicists are great if you like attention, but significantly less helpful when people start poking holes in your sworn statement.
These are merely my personal takeaways from the interview. Objectively speaking, Vinneccy’s story — and the fact there’s at least one corroborating court document to back it up — proves that this is yet another problem Swetnick needs to address if her accusation is to be taken into account when the Senate votes on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Then again, if Richard Vinneccy is to be believed, maybe that’s not even what this is about.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.