In The News

Michael Avenatti Found Another Kavanaugh Accuser, But Can He Answer These Questions?

You probably saw that Michael Avenatti brought out another accuser today, right? It seems that they are just hell-bent on finding someone that can offer a shred of believability so they can destroy Kavanaugh once and for all.

 Well, here is a refresher course for you in case you didn’t see it.

Here is more from Chicks on the Right:

1. Why do both Julie Swetnick AND this new accuser’s written statements refer to Quaaludes and grain alcohol? Like – those are literally things I would never casually refer to ever, unless of course I was being coached by a sleazy porn lawyer. And while I’m younger than the accusers, I’m not younger by much. If I was talking about spiked punch, I’d say it was spiked with alcohol, because I’m normal, and not a freaking weirdo like the psychos that seek out creepy porn lawyers to represent them.

2. Weren’t Quaaludes off the market in the early 80s, and even if they weren’t, wouldn’t you basically need to be an Actual Pharmacist to know how to crush and then use them to spike punch with the right dose in order to a) drug girls of varying sizes enough to gang rape them but not kill them and also b) mysteriously be able to not do the same to whatever dudes were drinking the punch and c) do all of the above without causing ANYONE TO EVER ALERT AUTHORITIES EVER. I mean, keep in mind that unless there was a sign over the punchbowl that literally said, “ONLY GIRLS SHOULD DRINK THIS” (which would immediately arouse suspicion), then guys would be completely passed out from the concoction too. Which defeats the purpose of the whole gang rape thing.


3. What person attending an HS/College party in the 80s thought they were drinking NON-ALCOHOLIC PUNCH? Because the whole POINT of drinking the punch at these parties was to get LIT. HELLO.

4. If you’re attending a party where you observe chicks getting loaded off of spiked punch that you believe is being used specifically to be able to gang rape them, why do you attend MORE THAN 20 OF THOSE PARTIES?

5. Why hasn’t Avenatti released the name of this chick, who claims to know both Christine Ford AND Julie Swetnick really well? Why not give Ford a chance to corroborate? And given the age gap between Swetnick and Ford, isn’t it bizarre AF that this new chick knows both of them really well?

6. This chick claimed she witnessed “FIRSTHAND” Kavanaugh spiking the punch with “Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol.” Well – which is it? If you saw it first hand wasn’t it either one or the other? Or was it Quaaludes one time and then grain alcohol another? If she saw it, why use the term “and/or” at all? Why not just say “and?” I’ll tell you why. It’s because it gives her an “out” with this being a sworn affidavit, and Avenatti is sleazy and conniving enough to know it.

I don’t about you but I have to agree that this entire case is absolute crap.


To Top