campaign expenditures is sort of outrageous. can you imagine spending, you know, campaign funds to make those kinds of payments. carrie, is the analysis that simple? are you with ross? well, what s interesting, first of all, michael cohen pled guilty to it. so michael cohen could have challenged the government s assertion that these particular payments were campaign contributions by paying off the women in an intenuated way. ami could have challenged the government s assertion, but instead pecker took immunity. they could have made claims in terms of challenging the government s argument. nobody did that. instead, they went ahead and either took immunity in pecker s case or they took the plea in michael cohen s case. the edwards case, which everybody sort of points to as the last example had an actual trial. in this case, these types of contributions and the argument the government s making has not actually been borne out in a trial situation. but in this case, there s not an