 Have you ever heard of the term, but for causation? It's a legal term. And the idea is basically that the actions of someone at point A cause the devastating results of those actions at point B. But for causation. For instance, when Donald Trump stood in front of a group of radicalized young Americans and he talked about how they should fight for their country and he encouraged them to storm Capitol Hill. They acted based on his rhetoric. And so after his speech, a group of young Americans went and they stormed Capitol Hill. Now, as a direct consequence of that action, five people were killed. But for causation. The term but for means if it wasn't for. But for Donald Trump, those five people would not have died. But for causation. Let's bring it down to the local scenario. If it wasn't for Chilofiatale, insama, the prosecutor would not have died. But for Chilofiatale, insama would still be alive. Chilofiatale took a bogus case to the anti-corruption commission. It was looked at carefully. It was it went to court. It was thrown out. But because of his rhetoric, because of his actions, it resulted in the direct death of insama insama. But for Chilofiatale, insama insama would still be alive today. But for causation. And nobody, and you know what amazes me about this is that nobody talks about this. Nobody talks about the but for causation of Chilofiatale's carelessness. Why? Why should it be that way? You guys need to take a closer look at that guy. I'm serious. I'm very serious.