oh, one other thing. why would anyone take the word of a person who will go on TV with talking heads to refute staements and charges while refusing to testify under oath (which means she's subject to criminal charges if found to be lying) over a person who makes his statements under oath, to a bipartisan commision that is sure to have hostile questioners, and in public while fully aware of these same risks? seems to me you've got to be pretty ideologically petrified to buy that bill of goods.