Two articles suggest that Michael Avenatti hurt more than helped the Democrat’s attempts to thwart the Kavanaugh nomination.
This was discussed on MSNBC yesterday:
“Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking, in particular, not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape,” Collins said from the Senate floor, an apparent reference to Julie Swetnick’sallegations against the judge. “This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.”
(Kavanaugh has denied all of the allegations against him.)Collins’s speech seemed to confirm that the involvement of Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing Swetnick, had caused moderate Republicans to second-guess their sympathy to Ford and to brush off other allegations as part of a concerted partisan hit job. As one Democratic Senate aide told me earlier this week, “Every time Michael Avenatti’s name comes out, it hurts. He is toxic and counterproductive and should go away.” (Notably, Collins omitted from her speech the account of a third woman Deborah Ramirez, who claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself and thrust his genitals in her face during a dormitory party in college.)
As Collins delivered her speech, simmering doubts about Avenatti’s actions and their helpfulness bubbled up on social media. (Examples below)
Just because Republicans cited Avenatti, of course, doesn’t mean he actually hurt the cause. But putting Swetnick’s allegation directly into the public domain — rather than running it through media vetting or just going to law enforcement — put Democrats in a tough spot. Did they treat all the women’s allegations as credible, or did they focus on some and confess (either publicly or implicitly) to being more dubious about others? If they did the latter, it would lend credence to the idea that some of these allegations were indeed frivolous. It would put them in the position of explaining why one largely uncorroborated allegation was important and believable, but another wasn’t.
Element removed
What do you think about Micahel Avenatti taking a major role in Democratic politics in the future? Take the poll and please comment.
My feeling is that he’ may have outlived his usefulness to us because he comes across as too egotistical and abrasive, too Trumplike. It hurts his credibility that he is signaling that he is considering a presidential run himself.