believe it's over. okay, so, if she does testify, should it be open or closed? again, there are sensitivities involved. the professor reportedly has threats against her and her family. they are living outside the home. she has become part of this political maelstrom. let me tell you, we get a tiast of it here with what we do. maybe she wants it be to closed. you can't judge her for that. however, if it's closed, not only can the full complement of senators not get access to what's said, not only does it become subject to what is an obviously poisoned political environment, but the rest of us, we just won't have a basis of trust. so i believe it's got to be open. we have to hear the accuser. we have to hear the accused get his right to defend himself and confront those accusations and let credibility be the guide because that's all we have. all right. now, and on this note, who gets the benefit of the doubt in this kind of situation? you can say 14th amendment, due process, presumption of