Jake Tapper Confronts Avenatti on ‘Egregious Lack of Specificity’ in New Allegation Against Kavanaugh

 

Michael Avenatti spoke to Jake Tapper this afternoon regarding the serious allegations against Brett Kavanaugh from his client Julie Swetnick.

Tapper first asked Avenatti if President Donald Trump has a point that his history “might color the way” people see these allegations. Avenatti said he hopes not and remarked that it’s outrageous Trump and other Republicans would attack him over this.

He said there should be a proper investigation by the FBI where everyone, Kavanaugh included, is interviewed, calling it “a search for the truth before this man is voted on as it relates to potentially serving on the highest court of the land for the rest of his life.”

At one point Tapper read from Swetnick’s declaration and asked to clarify, “She didn’t specifically say that Kavanaugh was one of the attackers. Is your client claiming that Kavanaugh raped her?”

Avenatti responded, “I’m not going to have any further comment on that specific allegation. She’s going to detail that for the FBI and hopefully for the Senate Judiciary Committee, ultimately, in a public hearing.”

Tapper remarked that this is a very serious issue to just “hang out there”:

“Are you saying that Kavanaugh was present? That Kavanaugh was present in the room? He was in the line? He was in the party? I mean, just to say he was present is a really egregious lack of specificity when you’re talking about charges this horrific. And I’m not saying that I don’t believe them. I’m just saying, what exactly are you saying or is she saying that he did?”

Avenatti said this in response:

“Jake, I disagree completely with what you just said. Let me be clear about something. This is not my declaration. These are statements by my client. These are her statements about what happened. And let’s just eliminate that paragraph from the declaration in its entirety, just for the sake of argument. Do you mean to tell me that the balance of the declaration still permits him to be sworn in as a sitting Supreme Court justice? No, it does not. The conduct that is littered throughout this declaration is outrageous. There are plenty of men and women in the United States that serve as attorneys and judges that don’t have this kind of conduct in their background.”

Watch above, via CNN.

[image via screengrab]

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Filed Under:

Josh Feldman is a Senior Editor at Mediaite. Email him here: josh@mediaite.com Follow him on Twitter: @feldmaniac