with arrested for violence and battery. his daughter told police he punched her, choked her and threw her to the ground and today, he stood in his pulpit and said anyone who says he abused his taur is lying. the truth is she was not choked, she was not punched, there were not any scratches on her neck, but the only thing on her neck was a prior skin abrasion from eczema. anything else is exaggeration. something happened that police felt was enough to arrest him. here is a question. he says somebody is lying. so who? somebody is trying to discredit him so who? are we watching a family spat or does southbound someone have a real beef here? the point that he made in his service today is that it is tough to discipline a child. this is not 20 years ago. i got hit with a belt. that was part of a conversation we had out there. this is an issue for him. how do you discipline a child in today s society. he is saying one side of the story is he did not rush his daughter or tr
do you accept that ultimately, you are responsible for this whole fiasco? no. you are not responsible? who is responsible? the people that i trusted to run and then maybe the people they trusted. the murdochs did their best to distance themselves from the worst allegations, but the question still remains what exactly did they know? and what actions did they condone? one lawmaker thinks they know more than they let on. are you familiar with the term willful blindness? mr. sanders, would you care to elaborate? it is a term that came up in the enron scandal. willful blindness is a legal term. if there is knowledge that you could have had and should have had, but chose not to have, you are still responsible. mr. sanders, do you have a question? respectfully, i don t know what you d like me to say. my question is are you aware i m not aware of that particular phrase. now are you aware of the term because i ve explained it to you. thank you, mr. chairman