 That's the basis of the conflict, like I said, also in the lower courts of appeal, which is that corrupt language, corruptly influenced or rewarded, you know, is kind of internally inconsistent because typically gratuities, gifts don't require that kind of corrupt intent. So is this really a bribery statute or does it cover both? And I'm not disagreeing that it's confusing or ambiguous. I'm not saying the dissent's position is crazy.