On Tuesday, just one day after NBC conducted an exclusive interview with questionable Brett Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, a panel of journalists on Megyn Kelly Today proceeded to dismantle credibility of the Michael Avenatti client. They all agreed that Swetnick’s story had significant “inconsistencies.”
“So, you know, guys, the buzzword in this whole process has been really credibility. Everyone’s credibility, right? I want to talk about Julie Swetnick a bit,” proclaimed NBC News correspondent Stephanie Gosk at the top of the segment, filling in for anchor Megyn Kelly. Gosk pointed out: “Avenatti provided NBC News with four witnesses. Two of them didn’t get back to us, one of them has passed away, and one said that he doesn’t recall Julie Swetnick.”
PBS In Principle host Amy Holmes clarified: “He doesn’t know her, is what he said.” Gosk continued: “Right. And there are also inconsistencies in the statement that she gave the Senate Judiciary Committee and what she said to Kate Snow.”
Political commentator and MSNBC contributor Noah Rothman emphasized: “I thought her inconsistencies were significant, her change in story was significant, and her demeanor in that interview was, to me, problematic.” He further observed:
One of the things that I thought she did, changing her story a little bit, was to borrow examples of things that Dr. Blasey Ford said in her far more credible story. Examples like the laughing, that, “I heard these individuals laughing when they were involved in that,” watching, sort of bystanders in this series of sexual assaults that occurred in tandem. And that, to me, struck me as trying to make her story more credible by taking details from somebody else.
Holmes followed up with some background information about Swetnick:
Yeah, in watching it, and we discussed it yesterday on this show, that Miss Swetnick has a very colorful, shall we say, past of being accused of sexual harassment, accusing others of sexual harassment. Her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, when he was first informed that an ex-boyfriend had tried to seek a restraining order, he didn’t know that.
As Holmes referenced, during a panel discussion on the morning show 24 hours earlier, host Megyn Kelly offered viewers a point-by-point examination of Swetnick’s major credibility problems:
And it’s emerged from various reporting this weekend, she faced allegations of her own misconduct during a stint at a Portland company 18 years ago. That company claims she told them she graduated from Johns Hopkins, but they learned the school had no record of her. She also falsely described her work experience at a prior employer. They said she engaged in unwelcome sexually offensive conduct herself. They said she made false and retaliatory allegations against her co-workers, that they had been inappropriate with her. They said she took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits. At the same time, in D.C., there was a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend, who claims she harassed him, his wife and their baby. I could go on.
On Tuesday, Today show co-host Craig Melvin seemed to acknowledge that Swetwick’s claims didn’t amount to much: “I just don’t know if Julie Swetnick is going to be the thorn in the side of Judge Kavanaugh.”
Instead, he tried to change the subject to another line of attack that Democrats have been pushing against Kavanaugh:
I think the larger issue right now, for the White House and for Judge Kavanaugh, is this story that he told about his relationship with beer and his relationship with alcohol. And the picture that he portrayed in the hearing versus what we are hearing now from people who apparently knew him back then. Those are starkly different pictures.
Melvin even made the stunning admission that none of the claims against Kavanaugh may matter: “And there is now – there’s been some talk that it may not ultimately be one of these women that undoes the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, it may be his relationship with the truth.”
Gosk chimed in: “Yes, and you have heard the p-word thrown around. You’ve heard people talk about perjury in terms of his statement.”
Rothman quickly put the brakes on their wishful thinking: “And you would have to establish not just a sin of omission, but an attempt to dissemble and to mislead the senators. And I don’t think we’re anywhere near that.”
As the accusations from Swetnick began to crumble, NBC was already looking for another way to take down Kavanaugh. As Senator Lindsey Graham declared Monday night, NBC’s “journalistic integrity has been destroyed” by its abysmal coverage of this story.
Here is a transcript of the October 2 panel discussion on Megyn Kelly Today:
9:05 AM ET
(...)
STEPHANIE GOSK: So, you know, guys, the buzzword in this whole process has been really credibility. Everyone’s credibility, right? I want to talk about Julie Swetnick a bit. Avenatti provided NBC News with four witnesses. Two of them didn’t get back to us, one of them has passed away, and one said that he doesn’t recall Julie Swetnick.
AMY HOLMES: He doesn’t know her, is what he said.
GOSK: Right. And there are also inconsistencies in the statement that she gave the Senate Judiciary Committee and what she said to Kate Snow. There is a police record that is out there. She said she went to the police. We tried to get our hands on that record. We were told it would take 30 days. I wonder why Avenatti didn’t have that record to begin with. What are your thoughts about Julie Swetnick and what are we to make of her?
NOAH ROTHMAN: I thought her inconsistencies were significant, her change in story was significant, and her demeanor in that interview was, to me, problematic. One of the things that I thought she did, changing her story a little bit, was to borrow examples of things that Dr. Blasey Ford said in her far more credible story. Examples like the laughing, that, “I heard these individuals laughing when they were involved in that,” watching, sort of bystanders in this series of sexual assaults that occurred in tandem. And that, to me, struck me as trying to make her story more credible by taking details from somebody else.
HOLMES: Yeah, in watching it, and we discussed it yesterday on this show, that Miss Swetnick has a very colorful, shall we say, past of being accused of sexual harassment, accusing others of sexual harassment. Her lawyer, Mr. Avenatti, when he was first informed that an ex-boyfriend had tried to seek a restraining order, he didn’t know that. And a lot of people are asking, why did she go to Mr. Avenatti to be her lawyer? In watching a lot of this, I have to tell you, Stephanie, last night I watched her, I watched the ex-boyfriend, I watched – like I don’t actually want to know these people. I don’t want this cast of characters in my life. I really don’t.
GOSK: Well, that my be the case, but here they are. And what are we to make of them, Craig?
CRAIG MELVIN: I just don’t know if Julie Swetnick is going to be the thorn in the side of Judge Kavanaugh. I think the larger issue right now, for the White House and for Judge Kavanaugh, is this story that he told about his relationship with beer and his relationship with alcohol. And the picture that he portrayed in the hearing versus what we are hearing now from people who apparently knew him back then. Those are starkly different pictures. And there is now – there’s been some talk that it may not ultimately be one of these women that undoes the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, it may be his relationship with the truth.
GOSK: Yes, and you have heard the p-word thrown around.
MELVIN: Perjury, yeah.
GOSK: You’ve heard people talk about perjury in terms of his statement.
ROTHMAN: And you would have to establish not just a sin of omission, but an attempt to dissemble and to mislead the senators. And I don’t think we’re anywhere near that. Judge Kavanaugh said that he over-consumed alcohol. He said he went to sleep, which colloquially we would call passing out. These are things he has admitted to in testimony.
(...)
