president. instead, the defense is arguing that anything trump did that is within the outer perimeter of his official conduct, that should be absolutely immune. the key to the argument is, which is very strange to me, because they need to vote exactly one page to it and debris. the key is arguing that what trump did, investigate, as they frame it, election interference fell within the outer perimeter of the presidential duties. i think that is factually stretch. i think you can ask yourself the question, what if the tables were turned? what if trump got inward that there was election interference but it favored him, caused him to win. do we really think he would have made phone calls to the georgia secretary of state, if he knew that something nefarious was up that was helping hip. >> no. >> the answer is no. and the common sense answer, i think, it should factor in if you are analyzing whether or not what trump did's conduct that falls within the outer perimeter of presidential conduct. >> ryan, i'm gonna be outside the court on thursday for the former president's civil fraud