Remember Julie Swetnick? She's the woman that CPL Avenatti brought out to claim that Bret Cavanaugh had organized a series of parties while he was in high school at which women were drugged and then gang raped. She claims that she realized what was happening, but still went to ten of the parties over a year and a half. Indeed, she also claims that she herself was gang raped and still went to the parties. In other words, her allegations are ridiculous.
But let's put aside the content of the allegations and look for a moment at Ms Swetnick's past. The AP put out a story this morning that is headlined "3rd Kavanaugh Accuser Has History of Legal Disputes". It sounds like Swetnick is litigious, right? That's no big deal. If you read the article, however, you find buried in the bottom of the story that Swetnick was involved with a lawsuit with a former employer that let her go after it got reports from multiple other employees that Swetnick had behaved in a sexually aggressive and inappropriate way at work and even in meetings with clients of the company. Swetnick responded by making claims that other employees had sexually harassed her and that the company maintained a hostile work environment. In any event within a month of being hired, Swetnick was fired. The lawsuit was begun shortly thereafter, but it was quickly settled with no money changing hands and Swetnick was not rehired.
This is an important bit of history for Swetnick. It means she has previously made charges of sexual misbehavior by others, charges that were quickly dropped when challenged. It also means that she herself has been accused of this same sort of misconduct. It casts a further shadow on her story (although her charges are so bizarre as to be completely unbelievable.)
So why did the AP bury the most important fact about Swetnick? The answer is obvious. To tell the story accurately would mean undermining one of the Kavanaugh accusers. The media can't do that, because it might harm the narrative which is now that the Judge ran a series of gang rape parties.
The AP owes Kavanaugh and all of us an apology.
But let's put aside the content of the allegations and look for a moment at Ms Swetnick's past. The AP put out a story this morning that is headlined "3rd Kavanaugh Accuser Has History of Legal Disputes". It sounds like Swetnick is litigious, right? That's no big deal. If you read the article, however, you find buried in the bottom of the story that Swetnick was involved with a lawsuit with a former employer that let her go after it got reports from multiple other employees that Swetnick had behaved in a sexually aggressive and inappropriate way at work and even in meetings with clients of the company. Swetnick responded by making claims that other employees had sexually harassed her and that the company maintained a hostile work environment. In any event within a month of being hired, Swetnick was fired. The lawsuit was begun shortly thereafter, but it was quickly settled with no money changing hands and Swetnick was not rehired.
This is an important bit of history for Swetnick. It means she has previously made charges of sexual misbehavior by others, charges that were quickly dropped when challenged. It also means that she herself has been accused of this same sort of misconduct. It casts a further shadow on her story (although her charges are so bizarre as to be completely unbelievable.)
So why did the AP bury the most important fact about Swetnick? The answer is obvious. To tell the story accurately would mean undermining one of the Kavanaugh accusers. The media can't do that, because it might harm the narrative which is now that the Judge ran a series of gang rape parties.
The AP owes Kavanaugh and all of us an apology.
No comments:
Post a Comment