Only as a witness to a traffic accident. My point is this was a publiahed article. The folks who prepped him should have anticipated hostile questions based on published critical articles. He should not have answered "no" if he wasn't prepared to claim his accuser was lying. Under the circumstances, the best answer would have been the full truth, followed by a "so, what's your point?" He isn't getting the nomination anyway -- never was -- so why wimp around?