Congress members will have to foot legal bills to settle sexual harassment claims

This is legislation passed this week that should have been passed when George Washington was checking his teeth for wood termites. Members of Congress who are accused of sexual misconduct will no longer have a slush fund to cover their legal costs but will have to pay out of their own pockets.

The final version of the bill passed Thursday, according to the Huffington Post . They said it went "sailing" through the House and Senate by unanimous consent, because if it didn't those who refused to sign would have been closely scrutinized by both legislative bodies. It will be on the president's desk for his signature by week's end.

“Time is finally up for members of Congress who think that they can sexually harass and get away with it. They will no longer be able to slink away with no one knowing that they have harassed. ...They will pay back the U.S. Treasury,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), one of the main sponsors of the bill told reporters on Thursday, according to Reuters.


The bill was being considered for quite a while Speier pointed out in her speech: 

“We want to thank 1,500 former staff members of Congress who wrote a letter to us who made the case all too clear, that sexual harassment in Congress was a huge problem."

You can see how slow the U.S. legislature moves when you consider that Speier and a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders began drafting the bill last year. 

When the "#MeToo" movement went viral across social media, a slew of powerful men in Hollywood, the media, and even in the Federal government, our politicians knew they had to get rid of the taxpayer-funded slush fund politicians were using to cover their legal costs. 

Both Sen. Al "Frogface" Franken (D-MN) and Rep. Blake "The Other Pajama Boy" Farenthold (R-TX) resigned their positions in Congress after past indiscretions came to light in late 2017 and early 2018.

Farenthold spent more than $84,000 in Federal slush fund money defending himself against a suit brought by a former legislative director who claimed the then-Congressman used inappropriate, sexually charged language in an interaction. Another aide also claimed Farenthold created an unsafe work environment through his sexualized language and foul exploits.


HuffPo reports that the bill goes further than merely limiting cash flow, reforming a grievance reporting system mired in the 1990s: 

"Under the current law, which has been in place since 1995, Capitol Hill staffers who claim they’ve been harassed or discriminated against have to undergo counseling, mandatory arbitration and a 30-day 'cooling off' period before going to court. They won’t have to do any of that anymore."

The bill doesn't accomplish everything Speier set out to do, such as castrate all white male lawmakers in the GOP who are found guilty, but she's hoping it will eventually make its way into the bill in the future when Democrats take over the House.

Also, the law isn't retroactive, like the texting tax Speier's state of California is hoping to impose on residents with cell phones.

The provisions in the bill are limited to sexual harassment claims and sexual misconduct claims only. The bill doesn't cover claims of discrimination, even if those claims are sexual in nature.

 The bill also doesn't provide representation to alleged victims free of charge. Why should it when there are people such as Christine Blasey Ford and Julie Swetnick who make uncorroborated accusations?

There's still a presumption of innocence for the accused so both parties need to start out on equal footing.

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. 

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

Tweet

Deadbeat Avenatti evicted from Calif. offices over unpaid $2l3G rent

The lawfirm of Eagan Avenatti skipped paying four months rent for its California offices totaling $213,000. They have been ordered to be evicted after the judge dismissed Michael Avenatti's attempt to block the eviction.

Michael Avenatti is a Democratic hopeful for the 2020 presidential election. He is also the attorney for pornography performer, Stormy Daniels [aka: Stephanie Clifford], and the lawyer for Julie Swetnick, whose testimony against Justice Kavanaugh was proven to be false  for which Avenatti must testify after Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley accused the porn lawyer of conspiring to provide false statement to Congress.

He also owes over $1 million of unpaid taxes on companies he once owned.

He also owes owes $4.85 million in a dispute with a former colleague.

Avenatti was also arrested this week on a felony domestic violence charge and released on $50,000 bond. His defense originally was that "she hit me first." Now he's denying he was involved in the physical assault on a woman who claims he hit her.

But let's get back to Avenatti's current problem so that he can get his life back and become the Democratic front-runner in 2020.

His firm was ordered to vacate a Newport Beach office building after the court asserted its previous ruling that ordered the vacate.

The landlord of the building in question, Irvine Co, won the case in October and ordered Avenatti's firm to vacate the premises by November 1st.

But true to form, he did not vacate but instead symbolically flipped off the law and did nothing, in true Democratic fashion.

Sure, he requested a reprieve, which put back the eviction until this Friday's hearing, and he argued on behalf of Avenatti & ASSociates, another firm he owns, that he had an "oral rental agreement with the landlord," a claim the landlord denied. [You can see what a great lawyer Avenatti is, thinking that an "oral agreement" would sit well with the court. He must have been thinking the court was like Stormy Daniels, if you know what I mean.]

True to form, as usual, Avenatti was a no-show at both hearings.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss reportedly asked the attorney for the landlord if he heard from Avenatti, to which he said that he spoke with him on Tuesday but haven't heard again.

"There were other events that transpired so I haven't heard from him since then," lawyer Mark Kompa said, according to the Times.

Avenatti told the Times that the conviction is a "non-event" because they "was already in the process of moving." [As opposed to the "process of paying what they owed in back rent."]

So if Avenatti can beat the charge of felony domestic violence [the victim has clear physical injuries, which is what makes it an alleged felony], pay back all the money he owes, and beats the rap put forth by Chuck Grassley and the DOJ, he will make a superior Democratic candidate to go up against President Trump.

Can you imagine what that would be like?

His campaign slogan: "She Hit Me First!"

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Sen. Judiciary Committee's evidence found against allegations vs Kavanaugh

The Senate Judiciary Committee detailed evidence that prompted them to refer the accuser of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Julie Swetnick and her lawyer Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for review regarding "potential violations of Senate rules, potential witness tampering, and potential false statements made to the Committee in violation of federal law."

On November 2nd, the committee released a summary of its findings which states that after an exhaustive review of more than 40 interviews and 25 written statements from potential witnesses, it did not find "any evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations" against Justice Kavanaugh.

However, it did find that some of Kavanaugh's accusers potentially broke federal law. One accuser was Judy Munro-Leighton, who later confessed to having fabricated allegations against Kavanaugh for what she said was an attempt to "get attention."

She will indeed.

"As explained below, I am writing to refer Ms. Judy Munro-Leighton for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction), for materially false statements she made to the Committee during the course of the Committee's investigation," committee chair Sen. Chuck Grassley announced the day of the report. "Ms. Munro-Leighton confessed to Committee investigators that 91) she 'just wanted to get attention'; (2) 'it was a tactic; and (3) 'that was just a ploy.'"

Both Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick--the so-called "third accuser,"--whom several Democratic senator hacks called a "credible witness"--for review.

Avenatti has not as yet challenged Senator Grassley to a MMA fight.

After presenting summaries of the sworn statements of witnesses and evidence reviewed by the committee, the committee concluded that it "found no verifiable evidence to support Swetnick's allegations. In fact, the evidence appeared to support the position that "Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee's investigation."

"Accordingly, the Committee referred both to the Department of Justice and FBI for investigation and potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371, § 1001, and § 1505 on October 25, 2018," the committee explained. "In addition, on October 26, 2018, the Committee made a second criminal referral against Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department and FBI for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (knowingly providing materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction of a congressional investigation), based upon the NBC story that evidenced that Mr. Avenatti may have fabricated allegations by a second declarant."

Below is part of the committee's summary of the Swetnick allegations followed by the section presenting the evidence reviewed by the committee:

The Swetnick Allegations:

Committee investigators attempted to schedule an interview with Swetnick, but Avenatti refused. Swetnick, however, did participate in a televised interview with Kate Snow of MSNBC.55 In that interview, Swetnick made several statements that differed from her declaration. For example, although she maintained that she saw Justice Kavanaugh drink heavily and act aggressively toward women, she did not say that she actually saw him spike the punch or wait in a line to take part in gang rapes at the parties, as she asserted to the Committee via her declaration. Despite the fact her signed statement claimed it was based “on personal information,” when challenged by CNN about the inconsistencies, Avenatti later conceded: “One of her friends informed her of what she just put in the declaration or what was attested to in the declaration.”56

Committee investigators interviewed Justice Kavanaugh regarding the allegations on two occasions—first, after Avenatti posted his September 23 tweet, and second, after Avenatti revealed Swetnick’s identity. Justice Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegations during both calls, and stated that he does not even know Swetnick. The Committee also conducted interviews with 11 individuals who knew Justice Kavanaugh or Julie Swetnick during the timeframe of the alleged gang rapes. The Committee also obtained a letter from 64 men and women who knew Justice Kavanaugh well in high school. None of the signers knew Swetnick, and none witnessed any behavior that even approached the conduct described in Swetnick’s declaration.

As Mr. Avenatti refused to provide additional information or witnesses, or make Ms. Swetnick available for an interview, Committee investigators attempted to investigate her claims. Committee investigators searched for information about Swetnick to assess her credibility. Committee investigators examined public sources for information on Swetnick’s background and readily determined that she has a lengthy history of litigation, including as a plaintiff in a sexual-harassment suit in which she was represented by Debra Katz’s firm, the same Debra Katz who represented Dr. Ford.57 Committee investigators learned that Swetnick was sued for defamation for making apparent false statements and retaliatory allegations against an Oregon company. The company also alleged she engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct at work. Committee investigators also received additional information from another individual, [REDACTED], who had frequent contact with Swetnick at local bars in the D.C. area. These men separately and independently described Swetnick as not credible and stated that she had never mentioned the name “Brett Kavanaugh” or any of the alleged sexual misconduct described in her affidavit. Another man, [REDACTED], said Swetnick never mentioned to him being raped or the name Brett Kavanaugh. Some witnesses described her as “opportunistic” and Committee investigators determined that Swetnick was in significant debt. Her ex-boyfriend also sought a restraining order against her after she threatened to kill him and his unborn child.

In its interviews sections, which contains several redacted names, the committee notes that witnesses described her as a "gold digger," "the least credible person you can ever imagine," "beyond crazy," a "serial manipulator," and a constant "problem" for her parents.

Evidence Reviewed Related to Swetnick’s Allegations:

• Declaration of Julie Swetnick (dated Sept. 25): Swetnick alleged that she attended house parties with Justice Kavanaugh and Mark Judge during 1981 to 1983. She stated that the two men spiked the punch at high school parties with alcohol or drugs in order to take advantage of women. She also asserted that Judge and Justice Kavanaugh lined up to take part in the gang rape of inebriated women.58

• Declaration of Mark Judge (dated Sept. 28): Judge categorically denied Swetnick’s allegations and stated that he does not know her. He said that he did not spike punch to get anyone drunk, nor did he witness Justice Kavanaugh engaging in that conduct. He also said that he never engaged in the gang rape of any woman.59

• Declaration of Anonymous Witness (dated Oct. 2): Michael Avenatti sent the Committee a redacted declaration from an unidentified witness who claimed to know Mark Judge and Justice Kavanaugh. The witness asserted that he or she attended house parties with Judge and Justice Kavanaugh and observed Justice Kavanaugh spike punch, drink excessively, and become sexually aggressive with women.60

• Letter from Michael Fegan (dated Oct. 1): Fegan was Justice Kavanaugh’s classmate at Georgetown Prep. He stated that he and Justice Kavanaugh did not know any girls from Swetnick’s high school, and that the parties they attended never had punch drinks, hard liquor, or drugs. He said that he would have reported any sexual misconduct to police.61

• Letter from High School Friends of Justice Kavanaugh (dated Sept. 26): Sixty-four men and women who knew Justice Kavanaugh in high school wrote to the Committee to say that none of them ever recalled meeting Swetnick. They asserted that they never witnessed Justice Kavanaugh engage in any of the conduct alleged by Swetnick, and they described him as “a man of honor, integrity, and compassion.”62

• Text messages between Dennis Ketterer and [REDACTED] (dated Sept. 27): A Facebook Messenger conversation provided to Committee investigators by Ketterer showed a conversation he had with a friend where he was notified of the existence of Twitter messages that mentioned an individual who knew Julie Swetnick and had a negative opinion of her. One of those messages was from an individual Committee investigators later interviewed, and that message mentioned that Swetnick was known to have suffered from mental problems.63

· MSNBC Interview (Oct. 2): Swetnick took part in a televised interview on MSNBC. During the interview, she walked back several of the claims in her declaration. Instead of saying she saw Justice Kavanaugh spike the punch, she said she saw him “near” the punch bowl at the house parties. She also refused to go so far as to accuse of him taking part in gang rape. She instead said that she saw him huddle with other boys outside closed rooms, but she admitted that she did not know what occurred inside.64

· NBC News article (Oct. 25): Mr. Avenatti submitted an anonymous declaration on October 2, 2018, purporting to corroborate allegations raised by Julie Swetnick. However, according to this news report, the declarant denied making the key allegations, saying that Avenatti “twisted [her] words.”65 The article thus suggests that Mr. Avenatti likely committed a fraud with a second sworn declaration.

· Declaration of Dennis Ketterer (dated Oct. 2) Ketterer stated that he and Swetnick met at a bar in 1993 and maintained a physical relationship. He said that Swetnick never mentioned being the victim of sexual assault or rape and that she never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh “in any capacity.” According to Ketterer, Swetnick’s father warned him that Swetnick had “psychological and other problems.” Ketterer also noted that Swetnick said she enjoyed having group sex with more than one man at a time and that her first experience was in high school.66

· Declaration of Richard Vinneccy (dated Oct. 4) Vinneccy stated that he was involved in a romantic relationship with Swetnick for seven years. While they were dating, she never mentioned being raped or attending any parties where she witnessed sordid sexual activities. Vinneccy characterized Swetnick as financially unstable and said she “always wanted to be the center of attention and exaggerated everything in her life.” Vinneccy asserted that Swetnick stalked him for almost two months after their breakup and that she threatened to kill him and his unborn child, accuse him of rape, or have him deported. He informed the Committee that although he sought a restraining order against Swetnick, he ultimately decided not to pursue it when he learned he would have to confront Swetnick in court.67

So there you have it. Now we have to wait and see what happens next. Will the "Three Stooges" face prison or will Avenatti run against Trump in 2020?

What is very clear is that the three people in this review didn't care one iota for the fact that they would be ruining a man's reputation, his career and his life for their own gains. I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for any of them and I hope justice will be served.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Senate panel's FBI report finds 'no evidence' to support Kavanaugh accusers' claims

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is in the clear. The accusations made by multiple women of sexual misconduct found zero witnesses that could provide evidence to back their claims, a letter to Senate Republicans from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said Friday.

According to the report released by Grassley, the FBI interviewed more than 40 people, social media and news reports. Information provided by Kavanaugh and his accusers was also reviewed.

"Following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh," the report states.

Among those questioned were Mark Judge, PJ Smyth, and Leland Keyser. These individuals were claimed by accuser Christine Blasey Ford to be in the house when Kavanaugh allegedly threw her on the bed and sexually assaulted sometime in the 1980s.

Last month, Grassley requested an investigation be performed by the FBI into accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney, the execrable Michael Avenatti, known as the porn star lawyer for representing Stormy Daniels in her allegations against President Trump. Swetnick's credibility was questioned after an ex-boyfriend revealed to Fox News that "she exaggerated everything' and even threatened to kill his unborn child after he married someone else.

The investigation could not find evidence to support either Swetnick's or Ford's claims. In fact, Swetnick made several contradictory statements about her claims during TV interviews and refused to speak with committee investigators, the letter stated.

"Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruck the Committee's investigation," Grassley said.

Grassley also requested an investigation into Judy Munro-Leighton, who anonymously claimed Kavanaugh struck her and forced her to perform oral sex on him.

Munro-Leighton contacted the committee last month claiming she wrote an anonymous letter accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, but Grassley said she later recanted authorship of the letter and admitted to not knowing Kavanaugh when questioned by the committee.

"She later admitted that she was not the author of it and merely used it as a "ploy" to "get attention" and had never met Justice Kavanaugh," the letter stated.

There was no evidence of any wrongdoing on Kavanaugh's part, but given the chance, the Democrats would try to impeach him anyway because they don't want a conservative justice screwing up their plans for a socialist nation.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Grassley's Office: Kavanaugh accuser in trouble for her false statements

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred a Justice Kavanaugh accuser, who claimed he raped her "several times" in a car, to the Department of Justice for "materially false statements" and "obstruction."

Judy Munro-Leighton, in a "Jane Doe" letter to Sen. Kamala Harris, "alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her 'several times each' in the backseat of a car."

But after her claim was investigated, inconsistencies in her story came to the surface.

Grassley's office wrote:

"Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky."

Grassley's office added in a Friday referral to the DOJ:

"Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by . . . Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe' letter.

"When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the 'Jane Doe' from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: 'No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe's letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee . . . I saw it online. It was news.

"In short, during the Committee's time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a 'ploy' and a 'tactic,' She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation."

Last week, Sen. Grassley referred scumcrumpet attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick for criminal investigation regarding a potential "conspiracy" to provide false statements to Congress and obstruct its investigation. Swetnick accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct and had zero evidence to support her claim.

Avenatti is a possible 2020 Democratic presidential candidate who is most known for his work with pornography performer Stormy Daniels.

Daniels claims to have had a consensual sexual tête-à-tête [aka: schtupping] with President Trump some years before his election.

Avenatti represented Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh during the confirmation proceedings of being involved in, or present at "gang" and "train" rapes at high school parties in the 1980s when she was in college and attended about ten parties before deciding it might be a bad idea to get raped.

So she got on her unicorn and fled.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Woman who claimed cop raped her proved a liar

Bellevue, Washington -- A police chief who was charged with raping a woman was cleared of those charges after it was discovered the woman created fake emails to prove her accusation.

Bellevue Police Chief Steve Mylett was accused of rape by an unnamed woman, who will likely be charged with multiple crimes relating to her claims. The Seattle Times  reported that Mylett was cleared after a ten-week investigation by Bothell police.

The Issaquah, WA woman, who is 44, accused the chief that he raped her two years ago at his Bothell home during an encounter arranged "through an adult sex website. The woman also accused two other Bellevue detectives, which led to domestic violence and witness tampering charges against one of them (those charges were dropped earlier this month).

"Bothell investigators found Mylett's accuser had gone so far as to create phony, backdated email exchanges that contained the address of a Bothell rental home where Mylett temporarily lived," the Times reported. "But lease records and other evidence proved Mylett had moved out of that house prior to when the woman claimed the assault occurred. Also, "DNA tests ruled Mylett out as a possible match to genetic evidence gathered from clothing the woman turned over as part of the case."

It's a good thing the accuser wasn't simply believed in this case.

Mylett had been put on administrative leave when the allegations were made.

The accuser has a history of meeting up with men she found on Craigslist and then claiming the consensual encounters as rape, the sheriff's office stated. Due to her mental health issues, she had not been previously charged but it appears she may have crossed that line this time.

"Bothell police have since forwarded probable-cause findings against the woman recommending charges of perjury, tampering with evidence and making a false statement to police," the Times reports. "Prosecutors are now reviewing the case. A lawyer representing the woman said earlier Tuesday he wasn't able to comment on the open investigation for ethical reasons."

Although the identity of the woman has not been revealed, it is not too far-flung to say that it might be Julie Swetnick, but we don't know at this time. Probably not.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.


Tweet

Liberal party always believes their man over his accuser

If you're a Democrat and commit domestic violence but deny it, chances are excellent your party will believe you and even defend you against the woman who makes the claim, even if she has evidence to corroborate her allegation.

Ken Martin chairman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) directly challenged the credibility of a credible woman accusing Attorney General nominee and Louis Farrakhan buddy, Keith Ellison of domestic violence. Martin told a reporter, "I don't believe her."

See how that works?

Instead, Martin said he "believes our investigation," a probe conducted by a partner law firm that donated half a million dollars to Democrats since 1998. Of that total, $50,000 was donated by them to Ellison.

See how that works? The DFL is affiliated with the Democratic Party--of course they're going to believe in Ellison--they have a lot at stake.

They believed Ford and Swetnick over Brett Kavanaugh, in spite of zero evidence. But they don't believe Karen Monahan, Ellison's former girlfriend, who has corroborating evidence that he sent her threatening text messages, once screamed obscenities at her as he violently dragged her off a bed by her feet. She had injuries from the incident and claims to have video taken by her son of the incident but refuses to publicly disclose it, saying it's "embarrassing."

 But they claim to believe Ellison. You gotta give 'em credit--they put their mouths where their money is.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Sleazy Avenatti hit with 2nd criminal probe over Kavanaugh

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who gained notoriety representing porn performer Storm Daniels in a case against President Trump, is in hot water after his client said that he "twisted" her words about now Justice Kavanaugh.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley referred Avenatti to the Department of Justice for a second criminal investigation amid reports the woman he represented recanted her allegations against Justice Kavanaugh even before Avenatti submitted her sworn declaration.

Grassley's referral follows one already issued on Thursday alleging the crap weasel Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick engaged in a "conspiracy" to provide false statements to Congress regarding Kavanaugh's alleged sexual misconduct--after Swetnick stepped away from some of the allegations.

This latest referral is about the second sworn declaration Avenatti submitted to the committee that supposedly backed up Swetnick's claims.

Grassley cited an NBC News report that revealed almost three weeks after Kavanaugh's confirmation that a second, unidentified accuser walked back her allegations even before Avenatti could post her statement on social media, saying the shyster lawyer "twisted" her words. Supposedly, she saw Kavanaugh "spike" the punch at the alleged parties.

But prior to the release of the statement, she told NBC News on September 30th, "I didn't ever think it was Brett" who spike the drinks and denied ever seeing Kavanaugh acting inappropriately towards women.

After she read her statement posted by Avenatti, she told the media that "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch. ...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

"I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence," she added. "Male or female." She also said that she did not "like that [Avenatti] twisted my words."

The referral letter by Grassley to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Chris Wray said that the woman's sworn testimony submitted to the committee Oct. 2 "appears to be an outright fraud."

"In light of this new information, I am now referring Mr. Avenatti for investigation of additional potential violations of those same laws, stemming from a second declaration he submitted to the Committee that also appears to contain materially false statements," Grassley added.

Avenatti responded to the referral by going on a Twitter attack: "How ignorant is Grassley? He keeps publicly demanding an investigation knowing full well that it will likely never happen--it is all for show. And if it does, he has placed Kavanaugh at risk of being removed from the SCOTUS. This is what happens when you never attend law school," the arrogant scum crumpet wrote.

Avenatti is an embarrassment to his profession.

Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Avenatti ordered to pay $4.8 million in back pay to attorney at his former law firm

Porn performer lawyer, Michael Avenatti, who represented Stormy Daniels and found a home and makes his bed at the Comedy News Network (CNN) where he attacked President Trump almost daily, alleging he slept with his client, was ordered to pay $4.8 million to his former law firm, a California judge ruled on Monday.

Avenatti, one of the worst lawyers to come down the pike, also represented Julie Swetnick, another woman who claims that a gang rape ring, run by Justice Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Supreme Court, which was summarily found not to be in the least bit credible.

It's also rumored that Avenatti is considering the 2020 election as the Democratic presidential candidate. Can you imagine if he made it and went head-to-head with President Trump? That would be the most entertaining election in the history of the universe!

The judge at the hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court said Avenatti [who did not attend the hearing] must pay $4.8 million because he personally guaranteed a settlement with attorney Jason Frank in a lawsuit over back pay. Frank alleged the firm misstated its profits and he was owed the millions.

Avenatti had tried to delay the hearing by having the matter moved to federal court, but Superior Court Judge Dennis Landin denied the request, seeing it as a delaying tactic.

Monday's decision comes after an earlier ruling from a U.S. bankruptcy court judge who ordered Avenatti's former firm to pay $10 million to Frank.

So what does Avenatti do? He attacks the attacker saying that Frank owes him and the firm $12 million "for his fraud," but of course, he provided no details of what constituted the alleged fraud.

The shylock lawyer had another recent setback a day after The Daily Beast wrote how Avenatti reportedly lived an extravagant lifestyle while owing millions of dollars in unpaid taxes.

Last week, a federal judge tossed out a defamation lawsuit brought by Avenatti on behalf of Stormy Daniels against President Trump.

"I just beat in a big case. ... Beat him badly. In fact, he has to pay me legal fees," Trump told Fox Business' Trish Regan. "I don't think he has any money, but he and [Stormy Daniels] have to pay me a lot of legal fees."


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.



Tweet

Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick had misconduct allegations in her past

The circus will be back in town next week, so stay tuned. Meanwhile it has been discovered that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's third woman accuser of sexual misconduct has some misconduct in her own past. In fact, she faced "inappropriate conduct" allegations during her short-term employment with an Oregon tech company, according to reports.

Webtrends, the Portland-based tech company filed a lawsuit in 2000 alleging that Julie Swetnick, 55, falsely claimed to be a Johns Hopkins University graduate and falsified her work experience, The Oregonian reported. The suit was voluntarily dismissed one month later.

Swetnick's asshat lawyer, Michael Avenatti, called the case "completely bogus," as if he was there when it happened.

"The lawsuit never had any merit as evidenced by how quickly it was dismissed," the bald-headed finklefuts told the paper in an email. "It was originally filed in retaliation for my client making claims against the company."

The Kavanaugh accuser worked for Webtrends off-site for several months in 2000 as a professional services engineer, wrote The Oregonian.

The allegations included: engaging in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct and making false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her. The suit claimed she engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo with two male employees at a business lunch with clients present, and that she claimed two other co-workers sexually harassed her.

The company determined Swetnick acted inappropriately but she could not prove the allegations against her co-workers. [This appears to be habitual behavior on her part.]

Swetnick took a leave of absence during her employment for sinus issues in July 2000. She received short-term disability payments, according to The Daily Caller.

A week after the disability payments stopped in mid-August, Webtrends received a note from Swetnick's doctor claiming she suffered a nervous breakdown and needed to take another leave of absence.

Then a few weeks hence, Webtrends learned that she had applied for unemployment benefits in Washington, D.C. She never told Webtrends' human resources staff why she applied for the benefits and claimed they had illegally tried to obtain her medical information protected under the law.

The following year, after she left the company, her ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, filed a restraining order against her in Florida, according to Politico.

Vinneccy claimed Swetnick threatened him and his family when he ended their four year relationship.

"She was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time," he told Politico.  "I know a lot about her. She's not credible at all. Not at all."

Avenatti said Vinneccy's statement against Swetnick is "complete nonsense," according to the report. But why only believe the woman and not believe the man? It's the new trend. It's the MeTooScrewYouDude movement.

"No truth to this at all," Avenatti said without actually knowing if he was telling the truth.

Swetnick, who was in college at the time, attended a high school party where boys were allegedly lined up outside a room waiting for their "turn" with a drunk girl.

Swetnick's statement reads: "In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present. During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking."

A college woman, a young adult, going to a high school party is strange. To go to ten of these 'gang rape' parties is hard to imagine, and then to be raped after the tenth one you've attended is incredible.

Personally, I believe Vinneccy's claim. She sounds like a crazy deadbeat.


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page.



Tweet

Avenatti accused of lighting his flatulence at sex parties to force girls to cooperate

The porn lawyer for Stormy Daniels and Julie "Hot Times" Swetnick, has been accused by a woman [who wished to remain anonymous due to her fear of public display] of hosting "Flaming Flatulence Parties" when he was a randy student and stud at Parkway Central High School, in high in Chesterfield, Missouri.

The woman said that "Michael would throw these cool parties at the homes of his friends whose parents were away.  There was always plenty of drugs like Joe Fridays or some Maui Wowie and he'd get the girls all messed up and show off to them by lighting his farts in a dark bedroom where they would glow these cool and impressive colors. They were like in high school so it didn't take much to get them primed, if you know what I mean.

"Then Mikey, he'd get on top of the girl and threaten her saying that if she didn't cooperate, he'd light up more than just his gas, if you know what I mean. It was scary and disgusting all rolled up into one. The girls were scared out of their wits."

If the allegations turn out to be credible, which Republicans say they are, Avenatti faces sexual misconduct charges including rape, assault, and attempted arson with a dangerous substance.


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page.


Tweet