Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick, infamously mispresented his client’s views in his effort to defame Justice Kavanaugh.  Avenatti was on his never-ending crusade for publicity that has him currently facing trial for extortion.  Now, the actions of another lawyer for a Kavanaugh accuser are raising questions about their motives and the underlying accusations. 

As former Senate Judiciary Committee Counsel Mike Davis points out:

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath that she didn't have a political motivation in bringing her allegations against Justice Kavanaugh: https://t.co/So2SkYUkEm. But her attorney Debra Katz said that Ford did, in fact, have a political motivation: https://t.co/d75UutXLWi https://t.co/Q08g71tWgq

— Mike Davis (@mrddmia) September 8, 2019

Breaking this down further, here is what Dr. Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz said:

“[Justice Kavanaugh] will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”

The latter is very troubling, as Dr. Ford testified that this was not her motivation. 

Senator Hirono:  I’ll just ask you very plainly Doctor Ford.  Is there a political motivation for your coming forward with your account of the assault by Brett Kavanaugh? 

Dr. Ford:  “No.  And I would like to reiterate that again that I was trying to get the information to you while there was still a list of other, what look like equally qualified candidates."

This is not the first time that contradictions between her Attorney Debra Katz and Dr. Ford became apparent.  Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Gassley both privately in letters to Debra Katz and publicly through tweets made clear that the Senate Judiciary Committee would do just about anything to accommodate Dr. Ford’s requests to be interviewed and not have a public hearing on her accusations against Justice Kavanaugh.   

 Dr. Christine Blasey Ford indicated that she had not been made aware of multiple offers made by Chairman Chuck Grassley to send staff to California to interview her, a format that she said she would have preferred.  Those offers were made in public statements and in statements directly to Dr. Ford’s attorneys in the days leading up to her public testimony. . . .

• Dr. Ford said, “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.”
• When Dr. Ford was asked if her attorneys had told her about the committee’s offer to meet her in California, her lawyers objected to her answering the question.  She answered anyway, saying “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you—had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not—it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”

The Senate Judiciary conclusion at the time seems to be proven once again:

Clearly, Dr. Ford’s attorneys did not tell her that we could protect her privacy and speak to her in California. The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to consult with his or her client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives—including informing the client of settlement offers. It is deeply unfortunate that Dr. Ford’s Democratic-activist lawyers appear to have used Dr. Ford in order to advance their own political agenda.

Like Avenatti, Katz’s motivations undercut and call into further question the unsupported allegations of her client against Justice Kavanaugh.