charges related to bank fraud. with regard to those charges, they need to show the motive that he was running out of cash. so that's why he was involved with this money. so there are two different motives. two different theories for the two different sets of cases. the legal standard under the rules of evidence is the evidence should be permissible unless it is substantially more prejudicial than it is probative. because it is probative, these the things he himself bought. it is hard to argue that it is substantially more substantial than probative. >> and josh, what about the big question that we've teed up tonight and has come up before in reporting in the "new york times" and your publication, as well, that this was an unusual volunteer arrangement? >> there is no question about that. and at a particular moment. i think it's because this is case spans a long period of time from 2010 or back to 2005 to 2016 and 2017 right into the heart of the trump campaign and beyond.