If I could just interject an objection on the basis of the relevance. I think the relevance of this whole matter is so tangential as to not justify the questions. And that being these payments - the point is that the witness, whether he received money from a campaign or Johnson-Sirleaf and he's indicated he received some money. The amount of money he was getting outside of that, how that relates to how important - obviously it has some relation to how important it was to him, the money he received from the Johnson-Sirleaf campaign. That has so little relevance, in our opinion, to the testimony of this witness that it should not be admitted.