FBI probe on Kavanaugh could make two things clearer

It is obvious either Judge Brett Kavanaugh or the accuser or both are mistaken and/or lying about the 36 year old “event,” yet booze may make recollections unreliable.

It is also true that no one outside the room knows what happened in there or if Brett was in there.

There are two things an honest FBI investigation could possibly shed some light on: Was he there? Did Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh or Mark Judge tell anyone about the incident before the therapist visit six years ago? That could be valuable because lying about it is clearly disqualifying.

Even then, we won’t know because our politics is so filled with dirty tricks, and a great number of non-politicians are so heated up that it is likely some number of them will say what they think will advance their preferred agenda that the FBI could investigate every source and still not be sure any were telling the truth rather than seeking an outcome.

If the president and nominee could trust the FBI to be honest, thorough, and expeditious, I’m sure both would not ask but demand an investigation to clear his name and avoid a lifetime taint, though Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork might say good luck with that.

It is clear that the nominee’s adult life has been exemplary and his background checked by the FBI six times, yet I’d like to be sure he isn’t lying now and though I support him. I sure don’t want to wonder, yet the taint lingers.

I also prefer not to doubt or dismiss Ford’s accusation as either more corruption and venal politics, false victimhood, or mistaken memory yet the taint lingers partly because of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s dirty tricks of waiting over two months to spring this. At least the Republicans weren’t hiding what they were doing to Garland’s chances.

Ernest Palmer III, Northfield

Impeachable offense

While the GOP muddles over how to cover up Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual predation, we forget he has committed an impeachable offense — repeatedly lying to Congress under oath. No one of such character deserves elevation to the high court.

Lee Knohl, Evanston

Still relevant?

In the court of public opinion, one might ask the question: If the woman who contributed to the torture of Elizabeth Smart can be vindicated after 15 years and released, why after 36 years can an unproven incident alleged of Brett Kavanaugh of misconduct as a 17-year-old still be relevant? If if it was documented and proven, which it wasn’t, should he be held to a 36-year sentence?

Priscilla Laff, Westchester

Confusing story

The AP story in in Saturday’s edition has me confused. It offered that “Stocks lift U.S. household wealth — but mainly for the rich.”

Apparently that’s because those who put money into the market, investing in our economy, yet knowing they may possibly lose some, or even all of their investments, are the ones driving this booming economy. Those who won’t or can’t invest won’t see a portfolio gain, but are nevertheless included, with new jobs created and higher wages.

As such, everyone should be thanking the “wealthy” rather that bad mouthing them, as many politicians (wealthy themselves) choose to do on a regular basis.

Stuart Rudy, Wheeling