Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Kavanaugh of handing out plastic solo cups at a high school party after she had already graduated, is represented by porn, fame-lusting lawyer, Michael Avanatti.

Avenatti has been in contact with the Senate Judiciary Committee, insisting that Swetnick’s allegations be taken seriously.

Tuesday, Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee responded to Avenatti’s demands.

From: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 5:35 PM
To: ‘Michael J. Avenatti’
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Avenatti:

We have already reviewed your client’s allegations. We focus on credible allegations. Please stop emailing me.

Thank you,

Mike Davis

Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Chairman
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Avenatti responded thusly:

From: Michael J. Avenatti
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 4:59 PM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: Re: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Davis:

Respond to my emails in substance. You may think you are above the law but you are not. You are paid by the taxpayers – not the Republican Party.

Michael

Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.

I guess Avenatti thinks this is a zinger? Maybe he’s just mad he won’t have more fodder for talk shows?

The entire email thread is beneath, but I’ve removed email addresses and direct contact information for obvious reasons:

From: Michael J. Avenatti
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 5:22 PM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Davis:

Stop playing games. If you are the Chief Counsel, then you need to do your job. Please respond to our requests.

Michael

_________________________________

From: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 2:11 PM
To: Michael J. Avenatti
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Avenatti:

I noticed that you copied Jennifer Duck (staff director) and Heather Sawyer (general counsel) from Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein’s office. And Senator Feinstein is your home-state senator. So you should contact her office directly. Time is of the essence.

Jennifer or Heather, do you want me to give Mr. Avenatti your direct numbers?

Thank you,

Mike Davis

_________________________________

On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep) wrote:

Mr. Avenatti:

I would like to direct you (and your Twitter followers) to two press statements made by the Chairman’s office:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-receives-statement-regarding-swetnick-allegations

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-refers-potential-false-statements-for-criminal-investigation

Thank you,

Mike Davis

_________________________________

From: Michael J. Avenatti
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 4:39 PM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick
Importance: High

Mr. Davis:

On repeated occasions, you have failed to respond to my correspondence relating to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and the ability of my client Ms. Swetnick to sit down with the FBI and share facts and witnesses regarding what she witnessed. This is entirely unprofessional and demonstrates a complete lack of good faith on your part and those that you report to. I once again ask that you immediately respond and take all steps to arrange an FBI interview.

Further, attached please find another declaration from another witness who supports a number of allegations of Ms. Swetnick. She knows both Ms. Swetnick and Dr. Ford. The identify of this witness will be released to the FBI once they contact me to arrange an interview as she does not want her name publicly disclosed at this time.

Time is of the essence. Please respond.

Michael

_________________________________

From: Michael J. Avenatti
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 2:13 PM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Davis:

Please respond. Time is of the essence.

Regards,

Michael

_________________________________

From: Michael J. Avenatti
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Davis:

We are STILL awaiting a response to my email. It has now been over 30 hours and you have failed to respond. We have heard nothing from the Committee.

In light of Senator Flake’s comments moments ago, please let us know when we can meet with the FBI and provide the facts and evidence supporting my client’s sworn declaration. Time is of the essence.

Regards,

Michael

_________________________________

From: Michael J. Avenatti
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:05 PM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Davis:

I sent the below e-mail nine (9) hours ago and have yet to receive any response. As you know, time is of the essence.

As stated below, my client Julie Swetnick is prepared to come to Washington, D.C. to testify under oath before the Committee. I also believe that at least one, if not two, other witness(es) are likewise prepared to come to Washington, D.C. to testify as to the accuracy of the statements in my client’s declaration.

Please confirm that my client and the supporting witness(es) will be permitted to testify under oath before the Committee ASAP. Under no circumstances should a vote be taken on the nominee without first hearing from my client and the supporting witness(es).

Please get back to me as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Michael

_________________________________

From: Michael J. Avenatti
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 5:58 AM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Duck, Jennifer (Judiciary-Dem); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: Kavanaugh Nomination – Allegations of Julie Swetnick

Mr. Davis:

As you know, I represent Ms. Julie Swetnick, a woman that has provided a detailed declaration under penalty of perjury relating to the claimed abhorrent conduct of Brett Kavanaugh, including sexual assault.

You and the Committee leadership first learned of these allegations on Sunday and yet have done basically nothing to investigate them. In fact, after I emailed you in detail on Monday morning, you failed to even respond for days. Simply put, you blew us off all day Monday and Tuesday. It was not until yesterday that you finally responded and you only did so then because the press started contacting you for comment.

Your conduct does not evidence any desire to get to the truth or to fulfill your duties to the American people (who pay your salary). To the contrary, you and the leadership seem intent on confirming Brett Kavanaugh as quickly as possible so as to avoid any real investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations made by my client and many other women.

To be clear, my client Ms. Swetnick demands the following:

FBI Investigation.The Committee and Senator Grassley must immediately refer this matter to the FBI for a complete and fair investigation. My client is prepared to meet with the FBI today to disclose how she was victimized and what she observed. She is also prepared to disclose multiple additional cooraborating witnesses with knowledge of the conduct of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, as well as additional evidence.

In my experience, women that are fabricating stories do not offer to immediately meet with FBI agents to discuss their allegations. The FBI is used to investigate the many of the most serious allegations and crimes in America every day (i.e. 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing). Why are you and Senator Grassley refusing to refer this matter to the FBI for investigation or request that they intervene?

Sworn Testimony Before the Committee. Ms. Swetnick demands the opportunity to present sworn testimony before the Committee as to what she witnessed and how she was victimized. She is prepared to be questioned as to her allegations for as long as it takes to get to the truth. Please confirm that she will be allowed to testify and contact me so that we may agree on the logistics.

Polygraph Examination. My client is prepared to undergo a polygraph examination in further substantiation of her claims provided that Mr. Kavanaugh likewise agrees to undergo an examination. As you know, while the results of such an examination are generally not admissible in a court of law, they are routinely used in the federal government for the granting of security clearances and the like at the highest levels, including at our intelligence agencies. There is no reason why they cannot be used in this circumstance. Please confirm that both polygraph examinations will proceed.

Mark Judge. I am still awaiting an answer as to if the Committee has requested that Mark Judge appear to testify and if not, why not. As detailed in my client’s sworn declaration, Mr. Judge has detailed knowledge of the conduct of Mr. Kavanaugh and witnessed it firsthand. This is likewise true as it relates to other allegations from other women. Thus, there is no excuse for the Committee refusing to make a demand that he testify. Indeed, seeing as Mr. Judge is one of Mr. Kavanaugh’s closest friends from the time period at issue, one would think that Mr. Kavanaugh would want him to testify unless he is hiding something. Please confirm that Mr. Judge is being asked to provide sworn testimony.

Knowledge by the Committee. Press reports have stated that certain members of the Committee were aware of allegations similar to those set forth in my client’s declaration well before Sunday. Is this accurate? If so, please provide the details of this knowledge and explain why it was not investigated sooner.

Please respond to the above as quickly as possible as time is of the essence. Once again, this process must be a search for the truth as opposed to a partisan attempt to ram a Supreme Court nominee through at all costs, including at the expense of women who claim to be victims of sexual assault.

Regards,

Michael