don can you it worked in the little separate room but now it's not can you you want to take i actually it works before we put him into the waiting room but i'm thinking is good and you have you want me to call him eternity was the only one to testify the attorney made it clear when he testified there was no agreement for judge they're gonna be doing anything i was cases it was just a hope for favorable outcomes that the judge always had discretion in his cases i so the question for the court today is is that evidence sufficient to show an agreement for bribery if there is no quid pro quo meeting in the minds and merely intice a patient not a promise in count one of the indictment that dealt with conspiracy to commit federal program bribery it was plain that of course you know the elements of it the st element required a value of five thousand dollars or more i've been on the un able to find a suggest was that the five thousand dollars face value p r bomb is not the value of a specialist there's no cost and merely a signature bomb and all that i'm just your client was convicted i think of eight counts for different offenses regrets but no money no exchange that was the defense the jury heard mr pres was under cross examination forever and there were recordings they're pretty inculpatory at least in terms of inferences so i have a more difficult time accepting that the jury couldn't a for infer from at least for rezzes redirect that there were bribes here and an agreement to take money in exchange for p r bonds but i didn't want to ask more questions about the transactional amount so let me raise a question marmalade zero is our best case but the jury would have been free to say well mr presence clients are willing to risk five thousand dollars so that's a perfectly good way to value what it is to be let free what's wrong with that inference the jury could draw because the five thousand dollars on the p r does not necessarily just like you would as opposed to what you would have in a detention hearing for instance in federal court like marmalade who is our president and there it's a conjugal visit these are really intangible benefits devalue and our court said there are methods of valuation plural it's not just a bribe amount and so why not say hey it was valuable enough that they'd d be willing to lose five thousand dollars why can't the jury what's the case says a jury can't value it find remember the district court struck paragraph thirty one as a valid overt act so the jury didn't even have the truck as an overt act when it went back but it it had these would sales for two hundred and fifty instead redirected several but on a redirect the government asks mr president lee why didn't you say when you handed him two hundred and fifty dollars here is private money and mr president says because i didn't want anyone to know i don't recall that your are the testimony was very clear that the offer that was sealed disputed on then i don't have a case number on it and i may be completely wrong we'll hear from the government that that would that would make no sense donate to the campaign just filled out to see obama wrote and then later a few days later when he opened the ob la he realized there was more money in there than was allowed by contribution time runs out i just want to ask one question about sentencing at sentencing and then in your brief to us usenet you didn't object that the truck should be excluded from the to see one point one benefit received correct didn't say it should at minimum be two levels down because the truck can't count as a benefit received that wasn't an objection at sentencing and it wasn't presented to us i believe that's rep your own i republic benefit value being forty five thousand five case the government agreed with the just report that they should redact earth grass thirty one if there was no evidence that the truck actually was a bribe wasn't that portion of the indictment redacted as an overt act before the indictment went back to the jury i can't think for certain your honor i'm not i believe you're correct that i can't think for certain i don't remember that i am correct then if i am correct then you're saying that the conspiracy spent decades there actually the government agreed that they hadn't proven that it started in two thousand and eight i disagree your honor i think we did her that st arctic with a truck that he accepted this truck and one  argument is you have to cooperate in code senate and you had tons of tapes and yet he never says he bribed the cop in never uses the word bribe and he's the government's witness and he's on the stand forever and he actually doesn't say bribe them to my his testimony and all of the other evidence your honor which included the case files audio and video that shows your honor that there was a conspiracy that there was an overt act by one or two members of the conspiracy and that application but it's not the only one and that when you look at the purpose of the statue you how the and that is there can be limiting principle for a jury you know if you're what they received was freedom it just goes to the jury and they get to put some dollar value to freedom and now your honor they don't know what we instructed and what the jury instruction has from the the path of the th circuit pattern jury in the jury was instructed on the word balance which means t our market value or our cost price either or a reason we are going to the jury you can find that we met the transactional alman by the face of the p r on which were five thousand dollars it's at least worth five puts it in all sorts of weird places like the beer beer bag or whatever and then he gets favorable outcomes for his clients i win that alone allow a jury to infer they've been in agreement because your honor of  what the attorney said about no understanding no meeting of the minds consistently throughout his past ok i agree that that's obvious when he just knows i'm in a