I don't know what you're doing. I let you speak.
We don't believe there's a hypothesis under which a reasonable hypothetical is going to allow a court to strike down a murder or treason offence, so there was no need to include that here.
Am I correct in the supposition that, because these are such heinous crimes, we feel we can exempt them from the safety valve because they would never be struck down in the first place for anybody? Would that be correct?