text:  things around January 6th. No, I take your point, but did you think that the court would take that into account because their argument was that he has a lot of authority and he used it in this case and that what he did was in the scope of his official authority or rather that the lower court has to make that determination what was official, what wasn't official, but they said he should have the presumption of immunity. Did you think that they might rule differently?