 There's no definite definition of it. They punted on it. And to me, that's where they dropped the ball. I totally said before the decision came out, I think that the president has to enjoy a certain level of immunity to do what a president does as leader of the free world. But for them not to define it or to give us those boundaries, say the lower court needs to do it, I think punted it. The other thing I think that the Supreme Court was wrong, and they said you can't even question the motives of the president when it comes to these actions. And I went back to Watergate.