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
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.”
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.
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.
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
Senate Judiciary Committee has not investigated the claims raised by Mr.
Avenatti on behalf of his clients.
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.
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.
Avenatti argues that an FBI investigation was necessary.
“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.
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.
Senate Judiciary Committee is hiding witnesses.
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
that he “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”
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.