Bob, let me start with you on the specifics of the North Carolina case.

This is a very close race.

There are millions of votes cast, and I think it was an, you know, an 800 vote margin,

a 734 votes.

It's a bummer to lose by that close.

It's a very close race.

I wouldn't say otherwise.

The claim here that 60,000 people voted illegally seems highly dubious to me.

And the fact that the Republican Supreme Court Republican majority is now going to get to

select whether or not they could choose another Republican for their majority also seems

a little sketchy.

Well, first, on the question of whether the North Carolina Supreme Court is going to make

a decision, there's an appeal to the U.S. Fourth Circuit on the decision to send it back.

So we've got to wait and see which court actually ends up with jurisdiction of the case.

But you have to remember this is a game plan.

And you mentioned that the things that Trump and the Republicans learned from 2020, and that is you don't go into court

with crazy theories and a weak crew of lawyers. And so this has been teed up well before the

notes for election to go in and challenge certain categories of voters that they arguably, at least according to the complaint, weren't eligible to vote.

And so, you know, on the one hand, you don't want to see riders in the street like we saw on January 6, four years ago.

But we also want, if they're legitimate legal questions,

to let the court system play out. And I was talking to the professor at Harvard, Stephen

Levisky, who writes about sort of, you know, democratic backsliding. And he said this thing that's

...