We can talk about the process. We will talk about the law. But today, we are going to confront them on the merits of their argument. Now they have the burden of proof. And they have not come close to meeting it. And the fact that they came here for 24 hours and hid evidence from you is further evidence that they don’t really believe in the facts of their case — that this is, for all their talk about election interference, that they’re here to perpetrate the most massive interference in an election in American history. And we can’t allow that to happen. This case is really not about presidential wrongdoing. This entire impeachment process is about the House managers’ insistence that they are able to read everybody’s thoughts, they can read everybody’s intention, even when the principal speakers, the witnesses themselves, insist that those interpretations are wrong. I am not going to continue to go over and over and over again the evidence that they did not put before you, because we would be here for a lot longer than 24 hours. But to say that the president of the United States did not, was not concerned about burden sharing, that he was not concerned about corruption in Ukraine — the facts from their hearing, the facts from their hearing establish exactly the opposite. I want to touch on one last point before I yield to one of my colleagues, and that relates to the whistleblower, the whistleblower who we haven’t heard that much about, who started all of this. The whistleblower — we know from the letter that the inspector general of the intelligence community sent that he thought that the whistleblower had political bias. We don’t know exactly what the political bias was, because the inspector general testified in the House committees in an executive session, and that transcript is still secret. It wasn’t transmitted up to the House Judiciary Committee. We haven’t seen it. We don’t know what’s in it. We don’t know what he was asked and what he revealed about the whistleblower. Now you would think that before going forward with an impeachment proceeding against the president of the United States that you would want to find out something about the complainant that had started all of it, because motivations, bias, reasons for wanting to bring this complaint could be relevant. But there wasn’t any inquiry into that.