now. and even earlier. how do you think the d.a.'s team will present that kind of evidence to the jury without it getting too complicated about how elections work and why it is not fair to have people have off the books payments. >> it is a really great question. it goes to the heart of why this is not just a tawdry, salacious matter about the payment of money to keep an extramarital affair from your wife and voting public, but it could conscript into service members of the media. when you think of the "national enquirer," but many people get their news from there and it has tremendous reach so that part is really interesting. it is also notable that during jury selection, the prosecution asked prospective jurors if they could understand the difference between the hitman who you hire to kill someone and the person who has orchestrated it. drawing a distinction, there may