Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Julie Swetnick’s rape train claims against Kavanaugh crash and burn in NBC Interview

Julie Swetnick’s rape train claims against Kavanaugh crash and burn in NBC Interview

NBC can’t corroborate, she backtracks on Kavanaugh alleged involvement, and her key contemporaneous witnesses are dead or don’t know her.

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/julie-swetnick-speaks-about-alleged-behavior-by-judge-kavanaugh-1334265923929?v=raila&

Julie Swetnick, Michael Avenatti’s client, has the most incredible of all the accusations against Brett Kavanaugh — that he participated in organizing and running rape train parties in which girls were given spiked drinks then gang raped.

Her original declaration is here.

Both Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, who Swetnick also implicated, denied the accusations:

Previous attempts to corroborate any part of her story proved fruitless. Yet Avenatti has been taunting Senate Republicans that her story would be proven.

NBC News interviewed Swetnick, and her story collapses to such a degree that NBC cautioned viewers that her story was not corroborated and contradicted, in important details, her sworn affidavit submitted by Avenatti.

Here’s the interview:

Here’s an analysis by Robby Soave at Reason, Julie Swetnick Told NBC Her Brett Kavanaugh Story, and She Has Serious Credibility Issues

In the course of the interview, Swetnick contradicted her previous written statement, jumbled the timeline of her decision to come forward, and expressed uncertainty about whether Kavanaugh was actually involved in her own assault. She also borrowed a few key phrases from the story told by Christine Blasey Ford, the initial Kavanaugh accuser who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week….

This was not lost on Snow, who cautioned that NBC could not corroborate Swetnick’s story, and had discovered that several of her proposed witnesses were deceased. One person whom Swetnick claimed attended the house parties with her—parties at which women were routinely sexually assaulted, according to Swetnick—told NBC he didn’t know her.

“This morning, Swetnick provided four names of friends she says went to the parties with her,” said Snow. “One of them says he does not recall a Julie Swetnick. Another of the friends is deceased. We’ve reach out to the other two, but haven’t heard back.” …

But there’s good reason to doubt this part of her story. In her sworn written statement, Swetnick claimed Kavanaugh would spike girls’ drinks—and yet, in her interview with Snow, Swetnick merely claimed that she saw Kavanaugh near the punch bowl.

“I did see him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls,” said Swetnick. “I saw him around the punchbowls. I don’t know what he did.”

Swetnick also claimed in her initial statement that the boys at these parties would line up outside bedrooms, waiting their turn to rape the incapacitated women inside. But she told Snow that the boys were merely huddled near the doorways of the rooms.

“I would see boys standing outside rooms, congregated together, sort of like a gauntlet,” she said. “I would see them laughing.”

It seemed quite possible Swetnick was reading far too much into this.

According to Swetnick, she was sexually assaulted at one of these parties. She could not say with any certainty that Kavanaugh was involved. She recalled being “shoved into a room” and hearing laughter, and that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were present. These are details that resemble Ford’s story so closely it raises suspicion (of Swetnick, not of Kavanaugh).

Swetnick claimed she told her mother and a specific police officer about the assault; both are deceased. NBC is working to obtain the officer’s files from the time period. If a record exists of her speaking with this officer, it will bolster her credibility. For now, this is by far the sketchiest of the accusations against Kavanaugh.

Mediaite writes Kavanaugh Accuser Julie Swetnick Backtracks on Some Claims in Extensive NBC News Interview:

NBC News noted there were differences in Swetnick’s initial statement and her comments to the outlet, notably her assertion that Kavanaugh spiked punch at the parties so that groups of boys could rape girls.

Swetnick did not confirm that she saw Kavanaugh spike punch, but simply said she “saw him around the punch containers.”

“I don’t know what he did,” she told NBC.

She also appeared to backtrack on her suggestion that Kavanaugh was involved in gang rapes, saying she only saw him congregated with other boys outside of rooms. When Snow asked if she thought the boys were gathered in order to rape girls in the rooms, Swetnick replied “yes.”

“It’s just too coincidental,” she said.

She continued that she came to that realization when she was raped herself. She said her assault happened at a party at the hands of multiple boys after her drink was spiked. She said that while she did not know if Kavanaugh and Judge participated in her rape, they were at the party near her where she began to feel sick.

One of Swetnik’s key witnesses denies knowing her:

The reaction to the interview, even from mainstream journalists, is that Swetnick is not credible.

https://twitter.com/jonathanwald/status/1046892713617035264

Swetnick has a legal history that damaged her credibility even before the interview:

It gets worse. Megyn Kelly, who has lambasted Swetnick, tweets that Swetnick had another questionable lawsuit:

A lot of people are complaining that NBC should not have run the interview since Swetnick obviously is not well and her story doesn’t hold up. I don’t agree, we needed to hear it from her, since her accusations already are out there.

After this interview, it’s fair to add this to the hoax category.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Comanche Voter | October 1, 2018 at 9:28 pm

I dunno. Maybe Ms. Swetnick pulled a train (so to speak) for a local chapter of the Hells Angels.

    Herpes ridden wench.

    LUDICROUS! why would she go back to Party’s where gang rape was a normal occurrence? What kind of girl if she witnessed this she bears blame for NOT reporting these Assults! One more person in the Grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

    I don’t see any other alternative. Who else would go to a party where young girls are drugged and gang raped and attend 9 more parties with the same lunatics. I wonder if she committed a crime by not reporting multiple felonies. Of course no one really believes any of this.

    At first I laughed at this – I assumed you were joking.

    But then I got to thinking – there were women who attended these kinds of parties – “biker chicks.” This could be a stereotype or urban legend or just the things of bad movies – I never saw or heard about anything like this in real life.

    Anyone have real info?

      Ragspierre in reply to bhwms. | October 2, 2018 at 12:26 pm

      BIG distinction, even if Hunter S. Thompson was a fantasist…

      biker chicks weren’t raped. They were volunteers.

      But the whole Swatnick story is bullshit, start to finish.

Christopher B | October 1, 2018 at 9:28 pm

That would imply there’s a NON-hoax category.

“This sounds increasingly like a hoax.”

LOL. Gee, ‘ya think?

Yeah, that top photo just says “sane” all over it.

So far I’ve found everybody who has brought accusations against Judge Kavanaugh to be incredible witnesses.

in·cred·i·ble – inˈkredəb(ə)
adjective
1.
impossible to believe.
“an almost incredible tale of triumph and tragedy”

This is utter garbage. Why the hell is NBC airing this stuff, if it has to provide a glaring disclaimer as to the content’s total absence of corroboration? This is a major network, a Comcast subsidiary, airing an utterly-unsupported and baseless allegation, fanning the flames of an venomous slander campaign against an innocent man.

There should be civil legal consequences and penalties for this sort of recklessness.

Armchair psychology from me, but, I don’t care — these women are all transparent narcissists and sociopaths. Manifestly unhappy in their own lives, for whatever reason, and, desperate for some attention, in order to find meaning and a temporary sense of purpose, as self-perceived “Resistance” heroines.

This is sick stuff.

You drag a hundred dollar bill through a liberal trailer park, guess what you get. Look who represents this w**re. Did anyone ask her why, as an adult, she repeatedly when to rapetrain parties? AND, never reported these crimes? Inquiring minds want to know.

“Rape train” has turned into a “train wreck”

These democrats are now trying to criminalize our Beer. I don’t think so. Lock and load.

Others have said this and I think it bears repeating:

Avenetti might be on Trump’s payroll. Notice how Swetnick is eating up the headlines and cratering this as the circus it truly is?

    Colonel Travis in reply to Andy. | October 1, 2018 at 10:36 pm

    Look, I’m all for creative thinking but this scenario is beyond insane.

    PSSST – c’mere. I’m gonna pay you a lot of money so you can see how low you can limbo under the perjury bar, then whatever the remainder is of your already-crumb-sized reputation, you can flush down the toilet.

    Sign me up!

      oldgoat36 in reply to Colonel Travis. | October 2, 2018 at 12:07 am

      Though both Avenatti and Swetnick are reported to have money problems, I don’t see Trump trusting either enough to pay them to do this.
      I can see Soros or one of the other wealthy leftists who are funding the Democrats big time, with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, being able to wipe out their debts, and even give them nice walk around money.
      Never underestimate how low a person would go for serious money. And if it lines up with other goals you might have, so much the better.

      There’s really no downside for her. Reputation? Heck, the Left will be making little shrines to her for the next few decades. Employment? Nope, secure in her position, plus a guaranteed book deal and however many hundreds of thousands in the Gofundme account. Criminal prosecution for perjury? Don’t make me laugh. Never will happen.

They are trying to ban our beer.

You guys see what I mean? There is something wrong with the water or air up here. Or maybe its radon poisoning. But this woman is not an outlier – people here in Maryland are nuts. Wife and I called it “spore disease” first week we moved up here when first 3 peeps we asked couldn’t give basic directions to the nearest gas station.

Stay away from Maryland.

    Arminius in reply to Fen. | October 3, 2018 at 6:25 am

    You don’t need to tell me, Fen. Naval Air Station Patuxent River or Pax River is on the Chesapeake down toward the southern tip of the state. It’s good duty for aviators as that’s where Navy Test Pilot school is and where the Marines and Navy do all the Test and Evaluation of new aircraft.

    But other than that…

    The nickname they have for the locals is SMIBs. Southern Maryland In-Breds.

So her previous affidavit… Does the “under penalty of perjury” clause mean anything, or was that just thrown in there to make it look good?

I’m assuming that posting it on Twitter has no legal force… was it submitted anywhere that counts?

Close The Fed | October 1, 2018 at 10:46 pm

She needs to be prosecuted.

    zennyfan in reply to Close The Fed. | October 2, 2018 at 8:45 am

    That won’t happen as long as Jeff Sessions is at DOJ — no meaningful prosecution of Awan or Wasserman Schultz, no investigation of DiSpy and her spying staffer, no meaningful investigation of Hillary’s various scandals, or the spying on the Trump campaign by agencies of the U.S. government. The man is worse than asleep. He’s fully invested in protecting the “independence” of the DOJ/FBI and any Democrats whose actions would bring charges in a just world.

Quick, call the boys in the white coats. This woman is the perfect candidate for the rubber room.

I have some advice for Mrs. Sweatlick. If you see guys in white running at you, run because they ain’t the Good Humor Men.

Avenarcissus may have to go into defense attorney mode for his newest client.

    MajorWood in reply to healthguyfsu. | October 2, 2018 at 5:03 pm

    She seems capable of filling Brynn Hartman’s shoes as queen of the psychowhores.

    She may also be joining the cast of “Mom.” Would fit right in.

My take, she has been scouring the news for anything about herself. There are numerous stories that have come out with questions regarding “what was she doing, as a college student, at these parties”, so she cleans that up a bit with the oh, everybody was there, 25 year olds… then what the hell were 15 year olds doing there? That age disparity is huge, and despite there being attraction from a 15 year old boy, they would have been run out of there.
She of course lifted the details from Ford’s story and used them in her expanding tale. This to back up her own story with Ford’s.
She is a nut job.
Then again so is the reporter who said we will see how her story goes WHEN other incidents are reported. Yeah, not biased. And they aren’t discounting her story, just minor details like the whole story focus of her statement (it isn’t an affidavit) changed dramatically AFTER Ford’s tall tales, all made to fit the two together.
The laughing was thrown in for that purpose. The bit about the clothes, all meant to bolster Ford’s tale about the threat she is claiming.
Funny how all the people who could back up her claims are dead. Or the one still alive having no clue as to who she is.
The month to track down the alleged reporting for this “everybody knew” rapists utopia, to help delay the confirmation too.
She is a pro. A pro liar. But she is shy.
So is Ford.
I cannot imagine having such tales told about me while being completely innocent. These people need to be investigated. If there is a shred of truth to their stories, then by all means nail Kavanaugh, but I don’t believe either one of them, and if it is found that they lied about the main incidents they are accusing him of (we already know they lied and changed their stories to cover the weaknesses of their stories) then they need to prosecuted to the fullest degree possible.

Another crazy-eye psycho at home in the democrat party.

Are there any who arent corrupt rageaholics? No.
Scary, scary stuff – considering we allow the crying boehners to hog the GOP leadership.

Flake!-Sessions! in 2020

This one’s a sleaze, not a nutter like Ford. A nutter would double down on her inconsistencies, not back off. Gang rape is a big deal, but remembering a crowd of boys standing around a doorway is hardly the stuff of national news, even if a couple of them were laughing. She’s backed off so far she’s in the ditch, and the view from there is of no interest to anybody.

So, what’s in it for a sleaze? She doesn’t strike me as the angling-for-a-book-deal type. So it’s more likely a cash payoff. That sounds like IRS territory. Time for the Tax Police to do something useful.

She claims she missed out on modeling gigs. What was she modeling for, Alpo?

I have a question here no one has seem to have brought up anywhere. If this woman claims she was a college sophomore attending these high school parties, isn’t she admitting to having committed statutory rape and contributing to the delinquency of minors? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me the minimum legal drinking age at the time, depending on the state, was between 18 and 19. This would have made her responsible for any alcohol being served at these parties. Even if she did not porvide it in the first place.

    NavyMustang in reply to Stan25. | October 2, 2018 at 5:41 am

    See this article on Maryland statutory rape laws:

    https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/maryland-statutory-rape-laws.htm

    See this money quote from the website:

    “For example, under Maryland’s laws, a 19-year-old cannot be prosecuted for engaging in a consensual sexual act with a 16-year-old, and a 15-year-old cannot be prosecuted for having consensual sex with a 13-year-old.”

    Looks like she’s in the clear, at least in this case.

      NavyMustang –

      That is the Statutory Rape law as it is written now. It may have been different then.

      There may not have been a “Romeo and Juliette” provision at the time of the alleged occurrence, which would make it a “strict liability” crime (intention / mental knowledge [mens rea] has no bearing on it, either she had sexual relations with a younger individual or not).

      Stan25 in reply to NavyMustang. | October 2, 2018 at 8:26 am

      This may be true in the stated scenario, but most college sophomores are usually 20 years old and that would put her outside of the stated examples. Thus, if she was 20 years old, like some the first articles posted about her, she would have been in deep doo do at the time. For not only the alcohol, but also the sex offenses. But as we all know, it is rare for a woman to be charged with statutory rape at anytime. On the other side of the coin, all a man has to do is just look at a woman below a certain age, he is charged with a whole boatload of sex crimes.

If Ford had accused a liberal running for office, he would have said, “sure, I was there, we were all pals and we rough housed a little. Its obvious, by her own admission, that we didn’t rape her. Didn’t know she saw this event like this so its an obvious smear job.” Msm would say, “yup” obvious smear over simple high school hijinks, nothing to see here, move bnb along. Non liberal= guilty as charged plus 10 years for attempting to run for office. Liberal= feather in cap for assault and getting away with it plus $ for campqign

Another bug eyed freak.

What a crazy bitch.

These women really make me mad. Women worked hard to be believed when they make accusations and the message they are sending to an entire new generation is that seemingly normal looking, professional women are likely crazy wackos who will cook your child’s bunny.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend