That is true only if records that old still exist.
I maintain the man is innocent. He has not been convicted in a court of law and he has earned the right to defend his reputation.
Until I see a fact that proves he did something wrong come to light, I’m backing Cain.
>> Until I see a fact that proves he did something wrong come to light, I’m backing Cain.
That’s where I’m at. Considering the stakes involved (POTUS) and the integrity of the press (vanishingly small), the *only* thing that will sway my opinion at this point is hard evidence.
These media vermin can gin up an endless stream of false witnesses if they so choose. Perhaps I’m jaded but I don’t find any of them convincing.