intensely, isn't going to make me think that this person's prior bad conduct means that if they did it, then they did it now the judge wants to know in advance what will be presented before this jury. now, there hashing it out right now for a number of things. >> the prosecution wants to bring up things like the prior civil fraud trial and conviction. >> they want to bring up the e jean carroll defamation and sexual abuse case. they want to bring up any other instances of fraud as well. why? to show so some pattern or practice of behavior not to show they committed this crime, but that there's informative for the jury and the probative value outweighs. now, what's happening the court right now is the judge's saying, look, i'm not going to have a trial within a trial there. meanwhile, saying if you want to bring up any of those civil things, just know the jury might be confused between a preponderance of evidence entered besides a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. and interestingly enough, they brought up michael cohen and said, all right of trucks it was prior bad acts are fair game. why not? michael cohen's the judge, shut that down and said, i'm not going to compare