Klipps logical errors

Realize I may get down voted for this, but I post not to draw attention to KK but rather the talking points he is repeating, bc they may show the contours of the broader impending smear campaign:

The surgeon analogy

KK has at least twice now (on Rising & BP) posed the question, Would you want/trust an alcoholic surgeon? As a way to demonstrate why Grusch’s alleged alcohol issues should cast doubt on his credibility. This analogy is bogus. An alc surgeon poses an immediate lethal threat, whether due to shaky hands from withdrawal or diminished capacity due to intoxication. (It is not as if KK asked “Would you trust an alcoholic surgeon to tell/know the truth?”) This analogy is so dumb and imprecise, it needs to be challenged wherever it pops up.

The security clearance double standard

Again twice, KK has insinuated Grusch essentially benefited from lax discretion wrt to his security clearance. Just look at all those staffers who got dinged for admitting to smoking weed! I’m 💯 for legalization, but weed is federally illegal, and said staffers were applying for federal jobs, admitting to breaking federal law. I’m not clear on what law grusch is even alleged to have broken with his alcohol episodes. (Threatening/requesting suicide might be technically illegal? idk.) I know mental state is also a factor here, but given the federal law issue I don’t see how this alleged double standard is relevant to Gruschs case. KK and anyone repeating this analogy should be directly challenged on this. If he can otherwise demonstrate Grusch got lax treatment, fine, but he hasn’t done that.

The accusation of alcoholism

A wife stating in an obviously heated and scary moment that her husband is an alcoholic doesn’t make it true. Period. KK is an investigative reporter and surely knows this, but has chosen to keep pushing this convenient logical leap. It will no doubt be repeated by those trying to discredit Grusch. In addition, KK tried on Breaking Points to distance Gruschs PTSD from his alcohol struggles which seems dubious at best, disingenuous at worst.

There’s surely more I’m missing, but these three points really stuck out to me. They’re enough for incurious, nefarious, or “skeptical” folks to build a case on, and they’re bullshit.