should that just be left to collateral review here's what i'd like to say about that if the right to assistance of counsel means anything in a criminal case it means that when you walk into that courtroom you're not alone least one person on your side and i think the record in this case shows that at some point during this trial this comes counsel essentially turned against her pointed the finger at her as being responsible for don't really know we don't know what went on between the two of them the outside of you know and i'd be asleep when your client that's every lawyers nightmare when your client right when you're making your closing argument start you know interacting and saying things in front of the jury you just want to put you know you want to put a bag over their head and wish that it you know had never happened i understand that there is some additional information that was in the sentencing that the record the sense of hearing videotape that she had met him that she didn't know him these were three statements that were made in the course of an investigation that lasted for a couple of years which this cummings w made this whole thing up from the gate and the fact that she denied knowing this mr lyons or that it i don't we have to look at the full context is judge can be said of the f b i investigation and if we thought that but for the fact if there's if it could whether any person who says no per client the point here is that because those statements don't have any intrinsic value in terms of to the to a federal government agency or any natural tendency by themselves to influence a government agency you have to look at the context and if you look at the context of just those statements all we have is the agent showing her a videotape he never explains why he even shows this to her she's already told him according to your testimony the jury never saw the video so we don't have the details but that's what he testified and if she says i don't know him what does she mean does she mean she doesn't know that well it was eight accept that that's a lie with then happy material yes but again you cannot make that in fright i realize you're arguing otherwise so it really kind of comes down to that keep in mind that you made many other statements that the age i mean there was a lot of the many other things going on in this investigation this was one little part of that with really in this on this record nothing to explain why i was asking her those questions at that time what he did in response to those question statements only these statements that's all she was charged with so they have to show that these statements were material and i really believe that the evidence doesn't prove that that that's the case there was so much else going on in this  statement produced again you or your honour's this statement has to be viewed not only in its context but it's tiny as the united states has argued from the beginning this particular statement was absolutely material because it was offered at the onset of i think the fact that she stated she didn't know kirk lines had such an effect on the investigation because of the fact that had f b i known that that she had a personal relationship with mr lines that spanned over ten years old in a relationship specific to the area nation and part of that materiality became her misleading and misleading the f b i about mr divel is connection to the area nation versus her own personal connection and this is just one of the statements that relates directly to her personal in fact cooperate himself in providing a written statement that he in fact had classified documents in the storage shed part of the problem the f b i had from the beginning in this case is everything was gone by the time maybe even knew anything happened they had to go back in trying to recreate an entire history of military history by mr develop that was over a decade long to try to recreate what he might have had access to to review his statement in the context of this coming statement and much of the misinformation that she was feeling and so i appreciate judge whaley's position i think the united states position respectfully is far different than that i don't know that the jury completely agreed that there was no cost by documents that were missing i think that they did in fact  agree that there were we could not prove which specific documents were going on and that was kind of soft as a cat you know he's married to two women at the same time or whatever and so that you know but that it but it seemed that the f b i got to sort of linear view and was intent on getting him but and so you know i wonder if that has anything to do i mean did they even pick you know i mean did they consider that to be material i think what the f b i considered to be material  ex husband says i had classified documents i wasn't supposed to have in the storage shed and now we've got to go back and figure out what they were and where they went and that is why the state minister mr lyons used so material because had she indicated on the onset of that interview that she was the one that had the relationship to the area nation and the f b i his direction in this case would have been totally different they ended up doing a search warrant on mr cummings apartment a year after almost a year after those initial statements i think some of record that on its face establishes that the representation was so inadequate as to justify a direct review at this time i think that the record would have to be built for the court to truly understand as the court has intimated this was a complicated case there was a lot of strategy involved in fact a case that i think i still have some reaction to even after so many years it was a very difficult case defense counsel was very involved there was all kinds of strategy that was represented to all to during the course of this if the hearings during the course of those two years that the case was litigated prior to going to trial and i don't think that defends the defendant has made it before this can now anything to classified documents were missing i think the judge wally did provide the copy on that he was not present does not know all of the things that the government knows but certainly that mr cummings was responsible for a house of cards that created a tumbling totality of this case review those factors and believe that such a departure was warranted because we are talking about an individual who's representing false facts and statements relative to the national security of the united states that is not something that is and of those factors of what was said in a full appreciation for the context clearance and that's not here in this case as far as the sentencing goes what judge whaley did here was he sentenced in this cummings because of other lies that he thought she told the those was such that he felt she deserved an exception a sentence the problem with that is that thirty five fifty three and lately do not allow the judge to decide the someone committed some other crime and punish them additionally for that you can only punish for the crying of which you've been convicted by the jury if the if judge well he had limited his comments to i believe that this lie that you were convicted of caused this effect and that effect was such that you deserve an except the sentence that would be different he didn't do that here he said it was these other lies that he believes she stated and he is going way beyond the thirty five fifty three factors in doing that he's also violating this coming sixth amendment right to have those issues whether or not you have a moment this is one of these areas that i think is really still problematic blakeley try to fix i believe what was a problem with the guidelines in terms of what the guidelines calls relevant conduct the guidelines when it talks about relevant conduct really are very often talked about other prize other acts that could be crimes in in addition to the crime for which someone's been charged and convicted likely look at that and it wasn't a guy like case but it looked at the sort of similar especially risky and i said that's a problem because what you're doing now is you're having a judge decide whether this other crime was committed and adding punishment on that determination and like they said that's not allowed even if the guidelines allowed because it violates your sixth amendment right that's exactly what happened here judge willy decided she had committed additional crimes other than the one for which she was convicted and punished her for those crime