From what we know about flimflam mam Julie Swetnick, is there a doubt that if offered the right deal, she would flip on Avenatti as to allegedly perjurious sworn statements against Kavanaugh?
Here’s a thought experiment.
If you were a federal prosecutor, and given the choice, would you prioritize prosecuting:
(a) a clearly disturbed woman with a long history of flimflam, but who in herself has no important societal role but for her outlandish and possibly perjurious sworn statements against a Supreme Court nominee, or
(b) the high-profile lawyer who helped her and a second woman submit possibly perjurious sworn statements, who is a fixture on cable TV, and who has presidential ambitions.
If you say, ‘get the lawyer’ — come on down.
But if you wanted go after the lawyer, what would you need to prove criminal culpability? After all, if you can’t prove the lawyer knew of the falsity of the sworn statements, and took no steps to suborn the perjury, you would need more for a prosecution. Whether it’s a perjury or conspiracy prosecution, what you would need, barring some documentary smoking gun, is for the witness accused of perjury to flip on the lawyer.
“He made me do it” might be enough. It would be in the jury’s hands.
Fast forward to the real world.
Julie Swetnick submitted a sworn statement, through Michael Avenatti, that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh participated in arranging gang rape parties in high school.
Swetnick’s story, dropped just before Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford were to testify, fell apart during Swetnick’s interview with NBC News, Julie Swetnick’s rape train claims against Kavanaugh crash and burn in NBC Interview: