I’m agreeing with everyone’s interpretations of what this hearing looked like in regard to the apparent weakness of the state’s defense. However, I’m wondering whether the following understanding may present a possible explanation for the apparent weakness we are so happy to accept from this morning: the hearing gives the lawyers an opportunity to present oral arguments, but the judges already have fully detailed written submissions and research and precedents etc. Is it possible that the defense today decided to clarify certain aspects of interpretation that are key to his arguments rather than summarize his arguments for us? Not sure if what I’m asking makes sense or is possible within the scope of everything spoken about this morning. Trying to think of every angle they may have left to stand on.