Avenatti to Grassley: 'Let's start the investigation tonight'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Lawyer Michael Avenatti tweeted Thursday that he is ready to cooperate with a Justice Department investigation into himself and client Julie Swetnick as soon as "tonight."

His tweet, directed at Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), came hours after Grassley announced he is referring Swetnick and Avenatti to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation into whether they made false statements to Congress about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

"@ChuckGrassley, let’s start the investigation tonight," Avenatti tweeted on Thursday evening. "I will make my client available for a sworn interview and you can make Judge Kavanaugh available for a sworn interview."

"We also have 9 other witnesses we want interviewed and specific documents we want requested," he added. "Let’s go."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/413229-avenatti-to-grassley-lets-start-the-investigation-tonight

[brush]

1. Grassley should've retired years ago. He screwed up with this.

Maybe the Kavanaugh affair isn't over after all.

[onenote]

2. How did he screw up?

Avenatti can make all the demands he wants, but the target of a criminal investigation has no discovery rights and no rights to tell the investigators who to interview.

[D00ver]

4. Pretty sure he would

Be able to do interviews as the lawyer of someone accused of misleading the Senate. That would be a criminal investigation and the defense would be allowed to depose people they deemed relitive the to defend their case. Otherwise that’s not an investigation. They would have access to all witnesses and be able to supply witnesses for their defense. They would also have access to all evidence that the Senate has. Not sure Grassley would really persue a criminal case with the obvious cover up. The FBI did a background check, that’s privileged. Proving lying to Congress would open up all that info and any other that the defense sees as necessary to defend its client.

[onenote]

12. Pretty sure you're wrong.

There is no right to pre-indictment discovery. The target of a criminal investigation does not get to know who the investigators are interviewing or what evidence they are gathering. Nor does the target have a right to know who testifies before a grand jury or what evidence they've given. And the target has no right to force anyone to give a pre-indictment deposition or otherwise submit to an interview.

Think of it this way: if you were right, then attorneys for Trump, Manafort, Stone etc etc would have the right to know who Mueller is interviewing, what is being provided to the grand jury and would have the right, before any indictments, to question those witnesses.

[D00ver]

18. You are correct

I was assuming if it went to trial. I do think that if the house flips there will be open to public investigations and questioning done though. If Senate tries to prosecute it will allow for the discovery though

[brush]

6. And you don't think any of Avenatti's client's claims will be investigated...

or the stories of those she claims will corroborate her story?

And none of it will leak out?

[D00ver]

7. Probably

I don’t think he’s to concerned with the public finding out about any of this. As a matter of fact he’s been very vocal about the Senate being transparent. I think that’s his whole point in the first place

[brush]

8. I agree with your take on it. The whole story will come out if this proceeds...

and I don't think Swetnick made her story up.

[onenote]

13. I think investigative reports that put Avenatti and Swetnick in a bad light will leak out.

I'm far less confident that anything that would back them up will leak out.

[brush]

14. Well if it's conducted like the Kavenaugh investigation was that might be true.

If this goes forward it will likely be more than a four day investigation though.

And most likely this will happen, if it does happen at all, after the election and if we win the House there will likely be new and thorough investigations not run by repugs.

And why is it I get the feeling you don't want the investigation to be open and thorough?

[onenote]

15. I don't know why you get that feeling. I want it to be thorough. I just have my doubts that anything

helpful to us will see the light of day.

[brush]

16. Read my post again. I added that if we win the House there will likely be...

Dem-led investigations into this that Grassley and the repugs won't control

[Kaleva]

19. No but he can go to the media and twitter with this. As he's doing now.

It's a PR fuck up on Grassley's part.

[triron]

20. Avenatti (and Seth Abramson) thinks he screwed up. Are you a practicing attorney?

[onenote]

21. Yes. 40 years.

Avenatti can tweet till the cows come home, but he can't influence the investigation any more than Trump's tweets can influence the Mueller investigation. (If the target of an investigation could demand who gets interviewed or even to know who gets interviewed, don't you think lawyers for Trump, Manafort, Stone, etc etc would be obtaining that information every single day?)

I've read the letter that Grassley sent to DOJ, and its pretty unconvincing. I doubt DOJ will pursue this very far, if at all. I doubt they'll present anything to a grand jury. I doubt Grassley even wants them to. What he gets from it is putting into the record a letter that slams Avenatti and Swetnick with little risk that any real investigation will follow from it.

[lagomorph777]

17. Brilliant move Chucky! Remind millions of women why they need to VOTE!

What a fool.

[OhZone]

3. Love Avenatti!

An investigation that will only prove him right and hurt the GOP! OHYEAH!

[libdem4life]

5. A badly needed gift to Avenatti.

IDK if he aspires to be King of the World and rides in on a Unicorn...he knows how to kick dirt in their smug, and in Grasley's case, shriveled, skeleton-like faces. He's getting another chance, probably for a short time, as the FBI did't care about a recent murder. One can hope, however.

[VOX]

9. Love this dude. He's not afraid to punch or punch back harder.

And there’s a LOT of punching to do. Figuratively speaking, of course.

[msongs]

11. where is the investigation into kavanaugh for making false statements to congress? nt

[Alhena]

22. Avenatti's problem is his own witness contradicted what she submitted to the Senate

According to the second woman's declaration that Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, she said: "During the years 1981-82, I witnessed firsthand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. I understood this was being done for the purpose of making girls more likely to engage in sexual acts and less likely to say 'No.'"

The statement also said that Kavanaugh was "overly aggressive and verbally abusive to girls. This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature."

But reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only "skimmed" the declaration. After reviewing the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: "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."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh-n924596

So apparently NBC has an actual text message from this woman saying the statement she submitted to the judiciary committee was materially false and that Avenatti knew it. That's a problem for Avenatti, which is made a lot worse by NBC's report that he personally made misleading statements to them:

"Shortly after tweeting out the woman's allegations on Oct. 2, Avenatti confirmed to NBC News that it was the same woman interviewed by phone on Sept. 30. But when questioned on Oct. 3 about the discrepancies between what she said in the phone interview and the serious allegations in the sworn declaration, Avenatti said he was "disgusted" with NBC News. At one point, in an apparent effort to thwart the reporting process, he added in the phone call, "How about this, on background, it's not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?"