As predicted by just about everyone who leans even slightly to the right of Stalin, another accuser with information against Brett Kavanaugh has found their way to the frontlines. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Good Shepherd of this as yet unnamed “victim” is none other than “Creepy Porn Lawyer” Michael Avenatti.
The complicit news media has accepted that such a woman exists and appears to be following Avenatti’s calls to delay (again) the confirmation vote until she has had her chance to speak. In predictable fashion, this latest revelation was launched on the lawyer and presidential hopeful’s Twitter feed:
“I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.”
Avennati shared his list of demands with Chief Counsel for Nominations for U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Mike Davis, via email, before promptly posting the exchange to his online followers. Here’s what he wrote:
Dear Mr. Davis:
Thank you for your email. We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcholol/drugs in order to allow a “train” of men to subsequently gang rape them. There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly. As a starting point, Senate investigators should pose the following questions to Judge Kavanaugh without delay and provide the answers to the American people:
- Did you ever target one or more women for sex or rape at a house party? Did you ever assist Mark Judge or others in doing so?
- Did you ever attend any house party during which a woman was gang raped or used for sex by multiple men?
- Did you ever witness a line of men outside of bedroom at any house party were you understood a woman was in the bedroom being raped or taken advantage of?
- Did you ever participate in any sexual conduct with a woman at a house party you understood to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs?
- Did you ever communicate with Mark Judge or anyone else about your participation in a “train” involving an intoxicated woman?
- Did you ever object or attempt to prevent one or more men from participating in the rape, or taking advantage of, a woman at any house party?
Please note that we will provide additional evidence relating to the above conduct both to the committee and the American public in the coming days.
Even though Avenatti has yet to release the alleged victim’s name (he does state that it is not Deborah Ramirez), her existence appears to the complicit media to be beyond question.
The questions being demanded serve one purpose: To place Brett Kavanaugh in a position where he can next be accused of perjury. If these questions are asked and answered, testimony will be provided suggesting that he did, in fact, carry out one of these acts; making the accusations against him more serious than they presently are.
Of course, it is unlikely that any real evidence (other than testimony) will be presented, but it does allow the anti-Kavanaugh mob a new form of ammunition that will be helpfully wielded by the press.
The final question demand on the list, “Did you ever object or attempt to prevent one or more men from participating in the rape, or taking advantage of, a woman at any house party?” is a trick question designed to make damning soundbites. It is in the same vein as the now infamous “When did you stop beating your wife?” question.
If Kavanaugh answers in the positive, he is guilty of allowing vile abuse to take place without reporting it. Should he answer in the negative, it is almost a tacit admission that he was aware sexual assault was taking place but refused to act.
It’s time to stop playing the game by a set of ever-changing rules that are only decided by an opposition team.
Let us know what you think of these demands in the comment section. Is it just another ploy to delay and frustrate? Is it perhaps part of a larger operation?