To the Editor:

The letter from Ms. Kathryn van Heyningen in the last issue contained some valid points, but she unfortunately omitted others. As reported in the Oct. 6-12 issue of The Economist, a highly respected weekly newspaper, “Whatever the FBI finds, Brett Kavanaugh’s own testimony should disqualify him from America’s highest court.”

Lying under oath while testifying at his confirmation hearing should have disqualified him. Perjury is not a minor offense. As the article reports: “Lots of American teenagers drink before they are legally allowed to. They do not mislead the Senate about it three decades later.” The article also reported on other lies under oath, including incorrect definitions of the “Devil’s Triangle” and “Boofing.” He also claimed that he could legally drink at 18, but from that same article, by the time he was 18, Maryland had increased the drinking age to 21.

As a former investigator in the Air Force, I have conducted many, many background investigations. I am certain that the bureau was restricted in the scope of its investigation, either by the White House or by Senate Republicans. According to news reports, a lawyer of one of the accusers sent the FBI a list of 20 individuals who could provide corroboration, but not one was interviewed. 

I was a Republican for over 50 years and almost never voted for a Democrat, but I’m now an unaffiliated voter. I did not leave the GOP, it left me.

Clark Pearson

Sylva