the transcript makes it clear that trump is finding out about this after the fact. so he didn't set it up. the transcript makes clear that he was thinking about buying back what ami, the parent company of the "national enquirer," had through a legitimate corporate entity. so it shows it's not a campaign violation. and there is no proof that he ever paid back david pecker even though they have a conversation about it in here, which proves he wasn't paying pecker back, which means pecker wasn't doing a donation for him to help his campaign. assess. >> well, it's hard to know in a vacuum. but i would say is this clearly shows at some point in the process he was aware of the payment. the question is when was he aware, and what did he do at that point? so it's really hard to say from one limited conversation. it strikes me that this is, you know, we're essentially seeing one -- like one sentence in a conversation. what i would say is, you know,