nope, my bad, sorry.
that's still Feingold speaking.
I'm not sure about that, KP. Notice that there are two consecutive Feingold labels. If it was one continuous statement by Feingold, why would they label it twice? Also, the paragraph in question reads like an answer, though it could be background for a question. It seems a little too informative to be part of a question, almost like he'd be leading the guy. I think they failed to label that paragraph as a Roberts response.