Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Michael Avenatti, not Julie Swetnick, helped get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed

Published

on

Michael Avenatti not Julie Swetnick helped get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed

In the aftermath of the announcements by three swing Senators to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court tomorrow, a battle erupted based on Senator Susan Collins’ assertion that the third sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh may have swayed her towards supporting him.

“This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others,” Collins said in her speech on the Senate floor.

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for third accuser Julie Swetnick and coincidentally the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels, took to Twitter to attack Collins.

So far, Collins hasn’t replied to the Tweets. Hopefully she won’t.

Thanks to Collins, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), and all Republican Senators other than Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Kavanaugh is almost certain to be confirmed Saturday. What role did Avenatti play in this? Quite a bit, to the point that some on the left are even questioning Avenatti’s loyalties and motives:

The third accusation

When Christine Blasey Ford came forward, nearly everyone on the left called for a full stop while some on the right wanted to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. She accused him of attempted rape when they were in high school. The second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, had a story in New Yorker Magazine that drew criticism from even leftist publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for lack of corroboration, but it was a plausible story in light of the Ford accusations. Allegedly at a college party Kavanaugh exposed himself and touched Ramirez with his penis.

Avenatti orchestrated the grand unveiling of the third accusation by Swetnick. Instead of doing what any good attorney would do in this situation, he instead teased its release on social media to shine the spotlight on himself. He promised a bombshell. What he delivered was Swetnick’s story of over ten parties she attended where Kavanaugh and his cronies gang raped teenage girls and at least one adult – Swetnick herself.

The obvious questions started popping up such as why an adult woman would continue to attend parties where she knew teenage boys were constantly gang raping girls. Her sworn statement was loaded with outrageous accusations that seemed to be peppered in with an intended focus on Swetnick’s accusations that Kavanaugh would get very drunk and aggressive towards girls.

It didn’t make sense. Why focus the attention on aggressive drunken behavior with brief mentions of gang rapes? Then, Swetnick did an interview on Kavanaugh-hating MSNBC. Reluctantly, the interview had to place a disclaimer ahead of the interview because she and her producers realized there were multiple inconsistencies between her sworn statement and the answers she gave during the interview.

Avenatti botched the sworn statement. Then he botched preparations for his client ahead of the interview. While Democrats rightly wanted to focus on Ford’s accusation and testimony, Republicans were able to invoke Swetnick’s gang-rape-ringleader accusation to point out how outrageous ALL of the claims were. It played well for supporters of Kavanaugh and left his detractors in a lurch.

It’s very possible that had Avenatti properly guided his client through the process from sworn statement to interview, Kavanaugh may have lost a vote or two. Collins’ indications and history would make her a prime candidate to vote against if it weren’t for the gang rape allegations that seemed too outrageous to be anything other than a smear by Democrats.

If Swetnick had a good lawyer, her sworn statement would have done a better job at portraying the events as Swetnick remembered them. A better lawyer would have prepared Swetnick to deliver an interview that matched the story in her sworn statement. A better lawyer would have allowed Swetnick to be the focus of the story instead of himself.

Do you know the names of Ford’s or Ramirez’ lawyers? I’d need to look them up.

The unhinged left, of which Avenatti is a card-bearing member, will do anything to discredit conservatives. Americans are learning this and realizing they can’t just take their words at face value.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

Daniel Horowitz says what most lawmakers hope you won’t find out about the First Step Act

Published

on

Daniel Horowitz says what most lawmakers hope you won't find out about the First Step Act

When people hear that something has “bipartisan support,” they usually assume it’s a sign that it represents common-sense legislation that made all sides happy. The First Step Act, the latest iteration of criminal justice reform, isn’t one of those. It gives many lawmakers, especially those in the mushy middle, a campaign tool they can use to target minority voters.

This is a tactic often used by the left, but even some on the right are embracing it in hopes that it won’t be as bad as some experts believe. They’re betting on enough distance between the signing of the bill and the first instance of avoidable violent crime perpetrated by one of the criminals released under the new law. Their hope is that the “good” that comes from the bill overshadows the negatives and modern day mainstream media is likely to give them the cover they need.

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz posted an article today pointing out the many foibles of this reform bill. It’s likely to pass despite opposition from some on both the far right and far left (for different reasons, obviously), setting the stage for dangerous criminals to be let back out on the streets sooner rather than later.

But it isn’t just the dangers that will be unleashed as a result. There’s a clear fiscal irresponsibility attached to the bill that nobody’s wanting to discuss. We should be accustomed to both Democrats and Republicans failing to safeguard the nation’s financial future, but doing so while simultaneously putting American citizens in danger is a bold new normal.

Here’s a poignant quote from the article:

“More crime, more gangs, more drug traffickers, more strained federal and state law enforcement, and we are all left with the tab for the welfare and increased crime.”

Read the whole thing. It’s worth it:

CBO: First Step Act will release dangerous criminals … and add to the deficit

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/cbo-first-step-act-will-release-dangerous-criminals-and-add-to-the-deficit/Even if one believes there are a few individuals here and there who can and should be released early, there is no denying that if you cast such a wide net of early release on such a sizeable portion of the most advanced felons in the country, it is a recipe for a public safety and law enforcement nightmare. As a group of police officer associations, narcotics officers, and federal prosecutors noted in a joint letter to the Senate, it will “have serious consequences upon public safety and the capacity of law enforcement to effectively respond” because the “releases will involve twice as many federal prisoners as those whose sentences were selectively commuted by President Obama throughout the entirety of his presidency.”

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Social media and internet searches could cost you your gun rights

Published

on

Social media and internet searches could cost you your gun rights

If you look up the word “deviant” in the dictionary, you’ll find it defined as “straying or deviating especially from an accepted norm” or “someone or something that deviates from a norm.” It’s an accurate word to use when describing the behavior of people whose actions are markedly different from what is or has been considered normal or acceptable.

This is why I often use it to describe the LGBTQ-WXYZ movement. However, did you know that using it to describe homosexuals is considered “defamatory” hate speech? In fact, even the word “homosexual” has been labeled offensive by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

If you’re wondering where I’m going in today’s article, here it is: Under a recently introduced bill, using the words “deviant” or “homosexual” on social media or in an internet search would cost me my Second Amendment gun rights if I resided in New York.

Specifically, the bill (SB9191) would give state and local police the green light to investigate for “commonly known profane slurs or biased language to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.”

Under the measure introduced by state Senator Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), gun-permit applicants would be required to provide user names and passwords to the state so that they can search 1-3 years of the applicant’s search histories and social media accounts.

The measure requires, “social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms.”

So, why should we care what the Democratic Socialists in New York are doing? Because every bad federal law was at one time a bad state law resulting in unintended consequences.

According to Assemblywoman-Elect Jamie Romero, this bill is an obvious extension of the “red flag” laws sweeping the country, where guns can be seized from citizens without due process. In other words, it’s an unintended consequence of so-called reasonable gun-control.

I’ve written in the past about how federal red-flag laws — aka Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) — have been proposed in the Senate and how such laws enjoy the support of Donald “Take the guns first, go through due process second” Trump.

With ERPO laws already in the Washington bloodstream, it’s simply a matter of time before a bill like this latest one in New York becomes law, catches fire, spreads across the nation, and eventually becomes a national law.

One last thought.

Many will resist this assault on gun rights by claiming that social media and internet searches are protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech. However, Trump once referred to free speech as “treason” and the GOP has proposed laws to restrict free speech they don’t approve of. I don’t think they’ll let one right they don’t respect get in the way of voiding another right they don’t respect.

Besides, thanks to renewing laws like FISA702, the federal government already has access to your computer records, so resistance is futile.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Two steps to gun confiscation

Published

on

By

Two steps to gun confiscation

Six years ago, the Liberty grabbers on the Left dropped the mask, going full throttle for taking guns.

Image Credit: Gun Owners of AmericaConsider the situation 6 years ago, Obama has just won re-election, the Left held a tight grip on the government and then the Sandy Hook mass murders took place, changing the way the Left approached the subject of gun confiscation. Obama and the rest of the nation’s Socialist-Left seized on the issue of Liberty control with a vengeance. They were finally were going to vanquish the common sense human Right of Self-defence.

It was at this time that they made a major course change in how they talked about the issue of our basic civil rights. They had previously denied what was obvious about their assaults on Liberty. After the tragedy in Connecticut, the dam burst on their demands for gun confiscation as can be seen in the updated lists on the subject. These are excerpts in how they’ve telegraphed their plans for this over the years.

How the Left plans on confiscating guns.

Leftists will often signal how they plan to carry out certain parts of their agenda, with their final solution to the Liberty problem being no exception. Many talked about how they wanted to grab our guns, with one prime example coming from the Daily Kos entitled: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process. Another similar but malevolent screed was also published later on with the ominous title of Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban.

The author in the first piece began with emotional arguments in preparation for the illogical and unfair punishment of 120 million innocent people. Then the author talks about how it’s a good thing that this has to be done incrementally because of non-compliance with laws that would violate our Liberty. Both clearly lay out how they plan to deprive the people of their natural Right of self-preservation. We begin with their first step in the process.

Step one: Expand background checks to develop lists of gun owners.

Both articles detail how they would develop these lists, with the one article emphasising that they must make it ‘easy’ to get on the mandatory gun confiscation lists.

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners.

[Our emphasis]

The author also emphasises that they must have control over personal property with ‘expanded’ [Intergalactic, Comprehensive, Universal, common sense, etc. or whatever they are calling them this week] Background Checks. In essence, they want to make it illegal for someone to have control over their private property:

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

[Our emphasis]

Now with the current situation in Boulder, we see why they obsess over government control of personal property. As reported in the Daily Camera, only 85 assault weapons certified in Boulder as ban compliance date looms even with the threat of ‘fines, jail time, plus confiscation, destruction of firearm

Along with forcing innocent people to jump through hoops to keep what they already own, the authorities perform a background check to see someone is worthy of keeping their possessions.

The police department then performs a background check and, if the owner is clear, issues two copies of a certificate with the owner’s name, date of birth and signature; the make, model and serial number of the gun, and the date of issue and issuer’s name. Both copies go with the gun to prove it was owned before June 15, 2018.

[Our emphasis]

It’s also claimed that this isn’t registration. However, with the simple expedient of keeping records of these background checks, they will have a de facto registration system with a list of gun owners. Thus we see how they want to accomplish the first step of the gun grabbing process.

Step two: Set up the equivalent of confiscation with gun registration.

So, now with lists of gun owners, they can initiate tight control over guns by having the ATF descend upon Federal Firearms License dealers and find out who didn’t get permission to keep a basic human right.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around.

So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry.

In the later ‘National Semi-Auto Ban’ piece the author fantasies about an enhanced ATF shutting down thousands of private businesses for ‘days, or week(s) until the audit is complete’. If some of those dealers go out of business due to the heavy-handed audit, the author of the piece considers it a win.

The result would be gun owners having to obtain government permission to keep their private property – Registration. The example from Boulder showing that would entail as yet another background check to keep what people already own.

Gun Registration is virtually Gun Confiscation.

This point has been made in the past, especially in these columns from Dean Weingarten on Gunwatch: Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The holy grail of the anti self defense and anti rights special interest groups is gun registration. This is because once your gun is required to be registered, it is in effect, already confiscated. Only a little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for criminal action. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is then found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.

Then later in this column in Ammoland:

Washington Post: The Purpose of Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The Takeaway

Being disarmed is a mistake a free people only get to make.. once. We close with a link to an article from Fox news: Venezuelans regret gun ban, ‘a declaration of war against an unarmed population’.

Collectivists always depend upon force to achieve their aims, this is why they always work to disarm the people so the people cannot ‘resist’. This is also why the Democrats obsess over attaining unlawful government control over personal property with ‘Expanded’ Background Checks.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report