of a michael cohen. so, david pecker, there's no surprise, now, why they opened with david pecker as their first witness. they started with a bang, and the effects of that bang are still being felt now in closing arguments. but, i really believe, we're getting to the area that the prosecution really needs to shore up. i believe they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that cohen paid stormy daniels. i don't think anyone disagrees with that. i think they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that cohen was reimbursed. there's no dispute there. i think where you get into the difficulty are concepts like the intent to defraud, and whether that intent to defraud included whatever included means, and an intent to promote or to conceal some other crime. i think now we're getting into the areas that the prosecution knows, they need to shore up, if, for no other reason then this is a novel application of the law. anyone who says they have experience with this particular application of the law...