Your post history says otherwise. The term “evidentiary hearing” wouldn’t have been such an extensive topic. I referenced a phrase found in your 1 page link and spent the next two days trying to convince you it was there. The PCP doesn’t directly mention non criminal activities yet somehow they were able to deal with Ridley. The PCP mentions criminal convictions are not necessary. Criminal charges are not mentioned as a requirement. Watson has been accused of sexual harassment. He hasn’t been convicted. How you don’t see a way for the PCP to apply to Watson is mind numbing. I’m happy to dive into “the point” or rather “the next point”. Pleas explain to me the difference between a court of law and a labor dispute as it applies to my misunderstanding: my only claim so far (correct me if I’m wrong) is that witness testimony will be gathered and evaluated. It’s laughable that you think no victims gave sworn testimony at the Watson grand jury.