of legal discussion, somewhat more political discussion, jon, that's not a surprising observation at all. you know, the counterargument would be bringing in law which is that begs the question, however, of whether it did or didn't happen, which is what everybody is saying. but the point is, discussion one is did this happen? did it not happen? we will use the mechanisms to figure it out. discussion two is wait a minute. look at the timing, how many years have lapsed. when did senator feinstein first have this letter? jon: back in july apparently. >> circumstances under which she disclosed it and it goes on and on from there. the observation that there is political hay to be made out of the idea that if the republican controlled judiciary committee were to go to a vote without hearing her testimony, regardless of why, jon, i mean, you will hear all kinds of screaming in strictly political context about how could you not give her the forum to present her version and you went to the vote.