enough facts of this case to adjudicate whether or not an act of sexual harassment occurred. as you know, the women have not been able to come forward apparently as a result of the way that this settlement agreement was structured, so we have not heard fully their side of the story, but, you know, i was thinking back again to the fact that this was 12 years ago, and we just celebrated or just marked the 20th anniversary of the anita hill testimony at the clarence thomas senate nomination, senate confirmation hearings for the supreme court, which means that this was less than a decade after that, and employers were very kind of sensitized to the question of sexual harassment in the workplace. it had become much more of an issue after those hill/thomas hearings, and so the idea that someone could have faced an accusation, one that then led to a financial settlement or a severance of employees and have no memory of it, i m realizing, you know, again just today as i ve been thinking about
you would, of the top two or three candidates. right. even if they have not reached out right now to pat leahy or harry reid, let alone to the republicans. jeff, let me bring you in here. i know you worked on the senate side of this, borg, kennedy, suitor and the thomas hearings. this is the rhetoric coming out of the senate as of today. senator john cornyn. listen. oh, we don t have the sound bite here. i ll read you what he said. our nation deserves a supreme court nominee who is committed to deciding cases impartially based on the law, not on personal politics, preferences, or what is in the nominee s heart. it reads kind of like a warning shot i guess to the president already. how big of a fight in your view are we talking about here? well, i think that really is going to depend on who controls the republican party these days.