No, that was the original author of the Jane Doe letter. We don't know who she is.
Swetnick claims that she was gang raped at a party that Kavanaugh attended. Not that she was raped by Kavanaugh.

However she also says she witnessed him and Mike Judge "consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women", and efforts by him and his friend Mike Judge "to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms and many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh,"

Swetnick allegations however have been treated less seriously than accusations against Kavanaugh from two other women: Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.

I would call that person out.  I would also recant my statement if there were contradicting evidence because I would never falsely accuse anyone of such wrong doing that would ruin his and his family's lives.  You do know that after the most recent FBI investigation, someone has come out to claim that is was possibly him who was with Dr. Ford and not Justice Kavanaugh, right?

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Studies indicate false claims happen between 2-10%. I'd call that not common. You found an instance where it happened and tossed out another one and you want to use that to make claims about overall trends. Do you even math, bro?

Wait so, if a scenario where you know somone has committed a serious crime against you (I don't necessarily mean sexual assault), you would be more concerned about about ruining their life with your accusations. Doesn't matter if he is rapist/murderer/fraudster etc

I don't mean scenario where you think you know, I mean are certain it was them.

You also site a 'claim' that it was 'possibly' this other person in the alleged incident. How do you know that this person isn't making their story up for attention, like so many people say Dr Ford is?

Considering law have "innocent until proven otherwise", "burden of proof", "total and ample defense", "false accusations", "false testimony" even 2 or 10% is enough reason to not accept a simple claim as solid proof as many try to push for sexual assault trial don't you think?

Reread my response.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Even accusers.  Even you... like now.

Reread my response. I'm not talking about a scenario where you think it is somone, I mean a scenario where you categorically KNOW it is them who did it. 

They call you a liar, the papers says who made it up for attention. Somebody else says maybe it was possibly it was actually them (not who you 'falsely' accused) they don't remember that well. Guess that this random claim means you're definitely lying, as this other person can't be making it up like you are.

But you know it was them, their face burned I to your brain forever. Still, some people make a thread online that says you should go to jail because you're a liar and have ruined someone else's life with you accusations and pursuit of justice.

The problem is you are taking her side and believing her words. Just cause she says that she is 100% certain, and no mistake, ect, doesn't mean that it is true.

Was there something more Ford wanted to tell the FBI that she couldn't tell the Senate?  What's the basis of this complaint?

Several people have confirmed that Devil's Triangle was a drinking game both at Kavanaugh's school and also by people who say Kavanaugh taught him the game.

And if you think they're all lying, I'll remind you that the term was used several times in that yearbook.  And then I'll also remind you that this was the early-80s and we're talking about a bunch of boys at a prep school.  Now, do you think it's likely that there was a ton of guys at Kavanaugh's school that yelled out to the world that they liked to get naked with other dudes?

The devil's triangle perjury is wishful thinking.

The two charges of perjury that Democrats had previously been making were specious at best and relied on reading individual sentences instead of the broader scope of the answers.  For example, in one Kavanaugh said he wasn't handling Pickering's nomination.  Democrats found an email where he talked about the Pickering nomination.

Aha right!?  Well, no.  Kavanaugh, in his original testimony went on to say that he was somewhat involved and may even have participated in a mock hearing with him.  "Handling" meant more that Pickering was his judge.

Aside, Pickering was falsely accused of racism by Democrats.  So smearing a person's good name for political reasons is an old game for Democrats.

Same thing with the other one involving Democrats having their emails leaked.  Democrats actually knew this back when Kavanaugh was first confirmed as a Circuit judge, but didn't even accuse him of perjury back then, not because they didn't have documents, but because it was a ridiculous charge as it didn't contradict his full statement.

BTW, those leaked Democrat emails?  Well, they showed Democrats getting together to deny a Latino a judgeship specifically because they were afraid that he'd become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.  The method they decided to use?  Well, they just kept demanding documents be released until the Bush administration had to exert executive privilege, and then Democrats made him (Miguel Estrada) the first nominee ever killed by a filibuster.

Yeah, Democrats have been playing the game of making unreasonable demands for documents and then using it as an excuse for killing a nominee as well.  It's a favorite strategy.

His reputation and life will never be the same.  His life will be permanently in danger because of this.  He has lost a job over this.  His daughters will face consequences.  His wife will face consequences.  This will be the first thing mentioned when he dies.

There's a certain smugness in the whole notion that having basic human emotions in response to an injustice is itself disqualifying.  It's not just you, I know that the final argument made against him was, "Well, we can't prove this, but look, he didn't take his public humiliation with humility.  That proves he's not qualified."  However, it's a ridiculous standard to put someone up against.