harry littman, that's one version of it. the indictment version of it is that he tried to intrude on a process of vote counting that does not allow anyone to enter that space and he had to be barred from entering, prevented from entering into the space where the audit was being conducted. the indictment says. and so when you are claiming you're just doing your job as the white house chief of staff, and you're doing something in georgia, in a state where they're auditing a vote, that no one in the history of presidential staff has ever done, how does that claim stand up in federal court, that you were just doing your job? >> less well than a lot of other things that he is going to try to say. it goes to the point of some possibility of possibly dividing the charges against him. but look, contrast this with trump and claims that have already been rejected, where he has tried to argue the same thing, in effect you can remove, if you are within, if you're acting under the cover of your office, and judges have said i don't think