 immunized. But I also think that she's right that this is a terrible idea. I mean, I think the notion that a former president who commits crimes that Hugh, the Supreme Court believes, are subject to prosecution could nevertheless thwart that prosecution simply because some of the evidence involves official acts really, I think, is hard to square with basic principles of evidentiary law. And it's really, I think, going to make it impossible, even in cases, Hugh, where we might all agree