Myth vs. Fact: Michael Avenatti’s Statements on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Investigation into his Clients Allegations

Myth: Michael Avenatti alerted the Senate Judiciary Committee of his client’s allegations on Sunday evening, but the Committee’s investigators did not get back to him until Wednesday.

 

Fact: Chairman Grassley’s Chief Counsel for Nominations proactively reached out to Michael Avenatti within ten minutes after he tweeted out his vague and anonymous allegations against Judge Kavanaugh on Sunday night. Committee investigators specifically requested that Mr. Avenatti “advise us of [the] information immediately so that Senate investigators may promptly begin an inquiry.”

 

Instead of responding to our request, an hour and a half later, Mr. Avenatti sent a list of questions he demanded be posed to Judge Kavanaugh “without delay.” The investigators responded within 20 minutes, reiterating requests for information. Instead of providing evidence, Mr. Avenatti again changed the subject, inquiring about testimony of a witness for a separate investigation for separate allegations.

 

For the third time Sunday night, Committee investigators specifically requested evidence of the allegations, so that they could meaningfully begin an investigation. On Monday morning, Mr. Avenatti sent a list of demands of the Committee before he would be willing to share any information at all. Instead of responding to his demands of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including informing him alone of still-confidential portions of our investigation, the Committee instead continued its investigation.

 

The committee staff have made six separate attempts to gather further information from Mr. Avenatti, and has repeatedly invited him and his client to a staff interview.

 

Myth: The Senate Judiciary Committee has not investigated the claims raised by Mr. Avenatti on behalf of his clients.

 

Fact: Chairman Grassley’s Committee investigators immediately moved to set up a follow-up interview with Judge Kavanaugh regarding the claims in our possession regarding Mr. Avenatti’s client. Despite Mr. Avenatti’s refusal to cooperate or provide any information so that more specific questions could be asked, Committee investigators interviewed Judge Kavanaugh on Tuesday. Committee investigators even specifically asked the questions posed by Mr. Avenatti. Judge Kavanaugh unequivocally denied all claims alleged by Mr. Avenatti. Committee investigators asked him again about the allegations in an interview on the night of September 26. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully and unequivocally denied all allegations.

 

Mr. Avenatti appears to be offended that the Senate Judiciary Committee has not given him complete access to our internal investigation, but to do so would be inappropriate. The Constitution entrusts the United States Senate, not Mr. Avenatti, with the advice-and-consent duties.

 

Myth: Michael Avenatti argues that an FBI investigation was necessary.

 

Fact: As then-Chairman Biden stated: “The next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion.” The Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigators are more than capable of investigating the claims presented by Mr. Avenatti. Even if the FBI were to engage in a new background check to take into account these allegations, the FBI would simply report their interviews with the relevant witnesses. This is no more than the Senate Judiciary Committee has done and continues to do.

 

Mr. Avenatti conditioned his willingness to cooperate with Senate investigators on the existence of an FBI investigation. The Senate Judiciary Committee does not need permission from an Executive Branch agency to perform the Senate’s constitutional duties. We have and will continue to conduct our independent investigation of these allegations.

 

Myth: The Senate Judiciary Committee is hiding witnesses.

 

Fact: Mr. Avenatti repeatedly demanded Mark Judge be subpoenaed to testify regarding his client’s claim prior to the committee even being provided any evidence regarding these claims. Mr. Judge has stated that he “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

 

The repeated, systematic, drug-fueled, assault allegations set out by Mr. Avenatti’s client do not comport with Mr. Judge’s statement to the committee—made under penalty of felony. Demanding a subpoena of Mr. Judge prior to presenting any evidence to the Committee reflects a partisan stunt uninterested in finding the truth efficiently and effectively.

 

-30-