catch-all. there may be some other things, but in the lawyer's estimations, those are minimal. i would imagine that trump critics are not necessarily going to want to take his attorneys' word for that, even though this is a very prestigious law firm and we have every reason to think that they're on the up and up. however, that is an interesting argument to make, we've reviewed everything, there's nothing in russia, except these things that are in russia. and of course, that raises questions about the emoluments clause going forward. >> the things are things that would have benefited donald trump. and you know the critics will say, hang on a second, and is anything nefarious among those things? >> first, it goes as to whether or not there's a russian connection. and then, secondarily, it goes to the issue of whether or not there's a violation of the constitution's emoluments clause, which says that the president cannot benefit from foreign countries, although, scholars go back and forth on whether or not it literally applies to the president. >> okay. so the emoluments clause on