Yesterday, TIME magazine (yes, like an H. P. Lovecraft creature, TIME and News
weakweek are still clomping about the cellar, refusing to die) released a profile of virtually bankrupt and evicted Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti. In it was this interesting insight into why Avenatti thinks he would be a great candidate for president on the Democrat ticket:
Is there anybody that you like in the Democratic political class? Or do you think [the 2020 nominee] should be someone from outside politics?
I think it better be a white male.
100%. And I don’t say that because I want it to have to be a white male. I say that because of just the realities of the situation. I think if the Democrats nominate anyone other than a white male at the top of the ticket, they’re gonna lose the election. I’d be willing to bet anything. I feel highly confident in that. And it shouldn’t be that way for this election–
So I do think it is a critical mistake for anyone other than a white male to lead the top of the ticket in 2020. And I wish I didn’t have to say that. I wish it was different. But it’s not, in my view. That’s just my view. I might be wrong about this.
One of the reasons why I’ve been effective with women — and others, but especially with women — is because I think it’s different when you have a white male making the arguments. I think they carry more weight. Should they carry more weight? Absolutely not. But do they? Yes. It’s no different than when I make arguments on behalf of Hispanic families at the border. Because I happen to be a white guy, I think that they carry more weight. I think there’s a segment of our population that looks at that and doesn’t immediately discount what I’m saying, because I happen to be one of them. Which is outrageous, that people view things that way. That’s not right. That’s not right. But the reality of the situation is that it’s important that we have white males standing up for women, standing up for minorities.
If you were offended by Megyn Kelly’s discussion of blackface as a Halloween costume, by now your cerebral artery has ruptured and you are squirting blood from your eye sockets so stop reading and call 911…and thanks for the click.
What is stunning is not that a left-wing douche would hold patently racist views
— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) October 26, 2018
but that this interview took place on June 25 and is only now seeing the light of day. Wasn’t this relevant when he was fluffing the Julie Swetnick story during all of his 65 or so appearances on CNN?
There is even more evidence of the media covering for Avenatti so long as he was useful in the character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh. This from NBC:
In the second statement, the unidentified woman said she witnessed Kavanaugh “spike” the punch at high school parties in order to sexually take advantage of girls. But less than 48 hours before Avenatti released her sworn statement on Twitter, the same woman told NBC News a different story.
Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, “I didn’t ever think it was Brett,” the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick’s claims. As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.
When asked in the phone interview if she ever witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately towards girls, the woman replied, “no.” She did describe a culture of heavy drinking in high school that she took part in, and said Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were part of that group.
Yet, despite this knowledge, at least two news outlets ran with the “spiked drink” story despite knowing it was false. I say they knew the stories were false because you can’t give an interview to multiple reporters on September 30 refuting a critical allegation in a sworn statement and believe that several days later that the #MeToo industrial complex at The New Yorker and Newsweek’s reporters didn’t know.
October 2, The New Yorker ran New Avenatti Witness Says She Saw Brett Kavanaugh Spike Drinks. Byline of Madeleine Aggeler.
October 3, Newsweek ran NEW WITNESS COMES FORWARD CLAIMING SHE SAW BRETT KAVANAUGH SPIKE DRINKS DURING PARTIES. The byline is Ewan Palmer, keep that in mind if you ever are forced to read Newsweek.
Back to the NBC story:
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.”
When pressed about abusive behavior towards girls, she wrote in a text: “I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female.”
In fact, now that Kavanaugh is safely ensconced on the Supreme Court and Avenatti is making noises about running for president as a Democrat on the “I’m a white guy” platform, his best friends seem to be running away.
This is how NBC is framing the story:
Was this an intentional attempt to mislead our reporters? Evidence points that way… https://t.co/MOxE8WiGK4
— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) October 26, 2018
This is disingenuous in the extreme. At no time did NBC ever run a story refuting scurrilous allegations they a) knew to be false and b) knew were being bandied about by their media colleagues. For that matter neither did anyone else which begs the question of how a so-called competitive media collectively decided to sandbag this story.
65 appearances on CNN including 20 from Anderson Cooper, 12 from CNN's New Day and 8 from Don Lemon. https://t.co/nP21GmjmK2
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) October 26, 2018
“Our” roll? The guy spends so much time in the CNN green room that local tax authorities are debating whether to declare it his legal residence. https://t.co/4LhSXrFPl4
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 26, 2018
This is not unusual or aberrant. This is exactly how the media works and why it should always be considered as the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. Back in 2000, media outlets sat on the George Bush DUI story until the Thursday before election day. That ensured that the major topic of the Sunday shows before voters went to the polls was Bush’s DUI and the fact that he hadn’t disclosed it. Before then, recall that the Monica Lewinsky story was actually broken by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek but the magazine spiked the story until Matt Drudge blasted the rumor out. Time and again we find that the media hides derogatory information when it damages their preferred candidates and causes and coordinates release of the same for maximum effect when it hurts an opponent.
I suspect that now that Avenatti is no longer useful we will see much less of him on television and we’ll read a lot more about what kind of a horrible human being he is.
EXCLUSIVE: Avenatti denies ever telling Time magazine that Dems should run a "white man" in 2020. Told me such comments are "complete bullshit"https://t.co/lYDeeg8USh
— Booe! Gabriel Simonson 👻 (@SaysSimonson) October 25, 2018
I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.