go to events, did someone put it in their pocket? that's a very straightforward factual issue that in audits should be able to determine. then you get into the other subsidiary questions which are was there some sort off improper motive, improperly connection between donors and what they got. i mean, it is worth remembering that our whole political system at some level is based on pay to play. people give money to the inaugural for mixed motives at best. so i think that is very much a subsidiary question unlikely to be proven improper. but if somebody stole the money they stole the money and that's obviously a crime. >> and greg, randi kaye, we heard from sarah sanders in her piece. she beak said president trump's only role in the inauguration was to take the oath of office. does that seem plausible to you that he had no idea what was going on underneath him? >> that seems implausible to me. what is i would imagine for then