question that could -- beyond the immunity question could be sent to another court to decide and delay this in an even more meaningful way than just the back and forth between an en banc hearing and between the supreme court. >> by the way, if mr. trump's lawyers have not taken an solutist position, this is the logic for them. they could have said, sure, there might be a circumstance under which a president or former president could be prosecuted criminally, but this one ain't it. all they had to do was argue that what he is charged with in the underlying indictment was an official act, and then it's not an enormous leap to claim immunity for official acts. but they didn't do that. to your earlier point, they staked out this solutist position, painted themselves in the corner, and of course judge henderson or another one of the judges was going to ask precisely that question because that's the fallacy, that's the weakness in their argument.