in

Let's be Logical about Brett Kavanaugh

Sometimes when I flip on the television or read a newspaper I worry that somehow our common  sense is so eroded that we have lost all sense of logic. 

First let’s check out the definition of vetted. Vetted -investigate (someone) thoroughly, especially in order to ensure that they are suitable for a job requiring secrecy, loyalty, or trustworthiness. Judege Kavanaugh has been vetted on several occasion. He is a sitting judge. He has passed the vetting.

Dianne Feinstein learns that someone alledges that Brett Kavanaugh committed a horrible crime some 32 years (?) ago. The victim cannot remember the year, the date, the location and the identity of the other person she alledges was a part of the crime. Then a week or so passes when this is perhaps discussed behind closed doors.  It already doesn’t pass the smell test.

At first glance, from a logical point of view, a person who can’t remember the details of a sexual assalt doesn’t go public but reaches out to a politician with her concerns. She doesn’t go to the police. She doesn’t go to the FBI, she goes to a politician. Then it is not clear if she gave Dianne Feinstein permission to share her story. It is not clear who is  paying for her attorney. The accuser has been in therapy because she has therapy notes. It is not clear if part of that therapy has been hypnosis. 

Before we have yet another investigation on someone who have been vetted several times, perhaps we could ask some logical questions.

What do you think?

5 points
Legend

Written by Ghostwriter

 

 

Wordsmith BuddySmarty PantsBeastBookwormLoyal BuddyPoll MakerStory MakerQuiz MakerImage MakerEmbed MakerUp/Down VoterEmoji AddictGallery MakerList MakerVerified UserContent AuthorYears Of Membership

6 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. I am concerned about how long it took her to make her claims. I am concerned about who she “came out” to.If she had gone to legal people, even a simple lawyer or police that would seem logical. Instead she went political. To me that points to motive, for example I want to embarrass him, I want political gain, or things of that sort. It doesn’t say I want justice.

  2. Excellent summary. There are some major problems with the woman’s charge. She says that she doesn’t know the date or even the year but she knows that she was 15 at the time. Couldn’t she figure out which year she was 15 years old?

    Also, the person she named as a witness denies that anything like this ever took place.

    Finally, there’s Diane Feinstein. Earlier this year the California Dems told her that they were going to support her opponent in the primary election instead of her. Might she not be trying to get back on their good side by being the person who took down Kavanaugh? Her motives are not trustworthy.

  3. I think, there are two distinct sides to this issue. THe vetting process is wholly dependent on the level of security clearance as to its depth. In the case of a sitting US federal judge that is roughly public trust (one of the lowest levels) based on that it is highly likely they didn’t go back further than 5 years max. So side one is it is easy to miss things in the “vetting” process.

    Side two is the reality of reporting in this country. I have a good friend who was attacked a number of years ago. She didn’t report it for nearly 5 years. Mostly out of fear and embarassment. I guess the two sides are tough to reconcile.

Leave a Reply