• Chuck Grasslay refers Avenatti and Julie Swetnick to DOJ for prosecution
    10 replies, posted
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/chuck-grassley-refers-michael-avenatti-and-julie-swetnick-for-investigation.html Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred lawyer Michael Avenatti and a woman he represented to the Justice Department and the FBI for criminal investigation, claiming they made potentially false statements to Congress about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and alleged sexual misconduct. 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." 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 a tweet responding to Grassley's referral, Avenatti said he and Swetnick "welcome the investigation" and hit the senator for allegedly not showing enough interest in Swetnick's claims as Grassley pushed to confirm Kavanaugh. When asked for comment by CNBC, Avenatti referred to his tweet and added: "Sen. Grassley has just made a major mistake." "Let the investigation into Kavanaugh and his lies begin," Avenatti said. Swetnick said she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys." "I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room," Swetnick said. "These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh." But in her NBC News Interview when asked if she saw Kavanaugh or Judge spike drinks, she said she saw Kavanaugh "around the punch containers" and had seen him "giving red cups to quite a few girls during that time frame." But, Swetnick added, "I don't know what he did. But I saw him by them, yes." Also in that interview, Swetnick said that boys at these parties were not "lined up" but "huddled by the doors." She said that she only realized the purpose of these groups when she became the victim of a gang rape. The criminal investigation referral is the latest in a string of bad news for Avenatti. On Monday, a judge said he must pay nearly $5 million to an attorney at his former law firm in a dispute over compensation. Last week, another judge dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Daniels against Trump.
cited "overarching and serious credibility problems pervading the presentation of these allegations. Chucky, you'd best shut the fuck up about "overarching credibility problems" considering your President has openly voiced support for candidates who were alleged pedophiles.
This could backfire fucking horribly lmao
DoJ does investigation, finds some serious shit on Kav they couldn't during that sham investigation, Kav has the shortest justice tenure of all time?
there's no mechanism to remove a sitting justice other than themselves and congress. you could literally have a murderer on the bench and they'd still be a justice (even in jail)
I am aware, but corruption got Abe Fortas, maybe Collins and others would vote to impeach if 2020 odds are looking bad for their reelection
So we've hit the point where the Republicans are done talking about taking political prisoners, and are actually trying to do it.
Single action is a pretty decent mechanism. If somewhat dated.
I've seen some disagreement on that. Personal favorite theory I've heard is a SCJ can be arrested. They would still technically be part of the SC, but it would be impossible for them to fulfill their duties on it.
Swetnik is not a reliable client. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/30/julie-swetnick-has-extensive-legal-history/ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh-n924596 Avenatti didn't vet her well and he is also a slimeball. "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 Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "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."
We're heading that way, in all likelihood, but referring Avenatti to the DOJ ain't the same thing as actually opening a criminal investigation into him.. It's basically just a statement to the DOJ to the effect of,, "hey, we think this guy did some crime. Investigate him. Here's why." The DOJ can then determine whether there is reasonable suspicion to pursue an investigation or not and takes it from there. In this case, there is no rational metric whatsoever by which it could be reasonably suspected that Michael Avenatti or his client committed crimes before Congress. So, this won't go fuckin' anywhere. In fact, if it did actually lead to an investigation, it would in all likelihood backfire spectacularly, since in order to prove that Avenatti and his Client were committing the crime they're being accused of, the FBI would have to actually investigate the relationship between Kavanaugh and the client, including sworn testimony from the client, Kavanaugh, and all the witnesses that they were previously disallowed from interviewing. It's all just a dumb stunt. The GOP wanted this headline to rile up their base and distract from the real shit that's happening right now, but will never legitimately follow through because they know that so doing would risk exposing Kavanaugh.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.