Michael Avenatti’s fumbled attempt to cash in on the campaign to destroy Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh largely ruined the celebrity attorney’s good standing in Democratic and press circles, transforming him from a possible 2020 Democratic candidate and media darling into a universally reviled huckster.
Yet, in an otherwise comprehensive expose this week detailing the porn lawyer’s swift fall from grace, the L.A. Times managed somehow to omit all mentions of the Kavanaugh debacle.
On its own, reporting on Avenatti’s evolution from Democratic folk hero to alleged tax felon without also mentioning one of the major events of his rapid downward spiral is an omission of mind-boggling proportions. But then one remembers how much ink and effort the Times dedicated last year promoting the fantastic allegations of Avenatti’s Kavanaugh accuser, and the paper’s decision this week to act like it never happened suddenly makes sense.
“Michael Avenatti’s life of luxury hangs by a thread as IRS comes calling,” reads the headline to a report the Times published Wednesday.
The report begins, “Long before he was Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, well before he was accused of trying to shake down Nike for millions of dollars, Michael Avenatti was an Orange County plaintiff’s attorney living a luxe life adorned with fast cars, high-end properties and expensive jewelry.”
Suddenly, with his arrest Monday in Manhattan for allegedly scheming to extort $20 million from the sportswear giant, the rest of the world got a glimpse into the tangled life of the pugnacious litigator and, prosecutors assert, his reckless venality.
The article goes to great lengths recounting details of Avenatti’s personal and professional profile, including his recent rise and fall as an anti-Trump celebrity.
The attorney “made his living by filing class-action lawsuits against big corporations,” the report reads. It adds he, “crashed into the nation’s consciousness a year ago as the representative of Daniels, an adult-film actress who sought to nullify a hush-money agreement stemming from an alleged 2006 sexual dalliance with Donald Trump,” to whom Avenatti would soon become a “tormentor.”
Before concluding, the article is sure to make one last mention of Avenatti’s emergence “as a political hero” and “leading avatar of the anti-Trump resistance.”
“At one point, Avenatti pursued a short-lived run at the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination,” the report reads.
Absent from the Times’ profile, however, are two words: Julie Swetnick.
Swetnick, you may recall, emerged during the Kavanaugh confirmation battle to allege she witnessed the conservative justice participate in gang rapes when he couldn’t have been any more than 15 years old. The Times was on it. Here’s just a brief overview of the headlines and news reports Swetnick’s story earned from the L.A. newspaper:
- Read Julie Swetnick’s declaration accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct
- Key passages from Julie Swetnick’s declaration alleging sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh
- Third accuser Julie Swetnick alleges Kavanaugh attended 1982 party where she was gang-raped
- The three accusers who threaten Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation
Though Avenatti, who represented Swetnick, claims he has proof of Kavanaugh’s crimes, the porn attorney has yet to produce a single piece of evidence. Moreover, when Swetnick herself appeared on NBC News to repeat her uncorroborated and frankly absurd allegation, she contradicted key details from her own affidavit. If this all sounds absurd to you, you’re not alone. The Swetnick nonsense was cited as a major reason moderate GOP Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was convinced to vote to confirm Kavanaugh.
After the judge’s successful confirmation by the U.S. Senate, and with newsrooms reporting that Democrats were furious with Avenatti’s bungled efforts to block his confirmation, it has been all downhill from there for the celebrity attorney.
It’s good the L.A. Times has taken a closer look at Avenatti’s allegedly felonious finances, but why would the paper omit his accidental contribution to the Kavanaugh nomination from its coverage? The paper had no problem last year repeating the obviously absurd allegations that the porn lawyer’s obviously untrustworthy client had leveled.
