nonviolent counsel let me let me ask the question i think to me is the difficult one it is case and see how you can help the the cardio the conduct that constituted the offensive self i think we all agree is not sufficient to establish that it was calculated to do the things that the advancement prohibits the question is how much past that elemental conda can we look to determine what your client's intent was what he was intending to do and there's lots of evidence in this case from conversations with f b i agents to downloading of a bomb manual to all sorts of stuff that if considered it seems to me would support judge briars conclusion that his conduct was intended to do the things that the enhancement prohibits so my question is how far can we look past the simply the elements what's required to establish the elements of the fence because if we can't do that then this offense can never be were these facts could never support the the the advancements or what your answer to that well i think i think your owner is itself violent of of law and so the question is what was it intended to do sometimes twitter accounts can be used for nonviolent purposes sometimes they can be used for violent purposes as we see every day in this country a fortune so my question is when we look for his intent which is really what the it has with his do was it calculated to bring about these results how far can we be a government has show a specific and bite your client in this case and basically satisfy the requirements of the government changing and i write regular ok i don't i mean you're not taking the position that he did not understand what isis was are you're not at all you are but understand what isis is is an element of the substantive offense right not gets to be enhanced no i understand there but it don't you think a judge is in is within their rights or within their responsibility to look at the natural but we still have the the question of what how far we can range to look at what his calculation was if you will when he committed the original offense and here speak with o's and call for violence if the united states government syrian government iraq government basically every government i suppose and that's that chat room that really sort of on to the activity  was a lot of broken course of conduct evidence in an instant all along the horror people just doesn't square with just reports finding incentives and so on mr all he got he was a twenty one year old kid who said a lot of terrible things and had a reputation of being a before those chads appeared at the government say show his knowledge or ask what was his intent in the government's response there was there must be some kind of back story in other words there is no evidence in the record that he knew or he saw these it's just an analytical question i want to make sure i'm going to write i'm under right track here you do agree that the fact that the crime of conviction doesn't require this intent doesn't resolve the question for us i do agree or i think that we just need the judges entitle them to say look you don't need to have an intent to intimidate or harm to have violated the material age statute i