guess what the but the statutory mismatch seems to go the other direction does well i would say that and then i also think that it's it's important to remember the aspect of mcdonnell that you are just brought up that is that we don't judge whether people ought to be found guilty over their convictions should be affirmed based on how we feel morally about the conduct is there a mismatch between the conduct and the statute recommendation has to be in relation to actually not in relation to but on a public issue this court in the seventy's and eighty's in turkle a requirement of proof of an intent to corrupt the run of fiber to me to five even said that they had the impression that he was that the defendant was acting in his capacity and none could point to a card a specific concrete proof of  particular in footnote nine we go through page by page exhibit by exhibit witness by witness everything that is not about you can discern from the record about this criminology question because we recognize that use the negligence of the victim as an excuse for your crime and here i don't even think the testimonies are back clear and i did not want a meeting with the question that we can see the question actually put in those words was who were the owners i think it was the order and there's lots of testimony that suggest it was broader but let me point out a couple of key facts in the chronology that i shake seals the deal it is clear that in early july of two thousand and eight it ferrier was having some legal problems in those legal problems related to his interest in yet another company that was doing business with and use of calories and officials in bergen county and that was a lead governmental grants consulting examination about the grand jury investigation into mr perry or that was going on at the time so the jury knew that and you like you thousand and eight something was up and then when mr crito was cross examined the question was whether or not what he knew that mr ferrie i was having legal troubles in july of two thousand and eight and that's it page three six three three of our appendix and then the jury also heard that could decide part stopped payin c three in july when all of this basically became public those are chief facts because when you couple of those facts with the black letter law which as we have pointed out to the court is set forth in the restate endorsed by this court and endorse most recently by the supreme court in the universal health care it is true that there can be some non disclosures that are not fraud but there is always a duty to disclose when the defendant has a reason to know that a partial or and biggest response will be misleading that section five five one subsection two would be statement of torts but there's two other sections that also bear on this and this is why the jury instruction the molecule instruction which was the instruction the question who are the owners of so that's where i see earlier i said i do not the government does not concede the question was as narrow as mr berardino said it by saying who owns the company was actually him on the stand testifying in cloak we all manner because we also have councilman spoto say they want to know who was involved we know that was the question from the mayor to mr perot and we know that the question was did you ri company the question is where the jet or asking the similar situation a similar question and the question was described as who was involved and he said no he didn't quarrel with the parsing but i come back to first principles this is we have evidence that mr that is enough but i also think there's more i think if you put all of the holes in the record i just laid out for you when you review the record you will conclude as the jury did that it was reasonable to believe that this was a game we are going to questions were questions were answered very precisely and naturally to avoid the true issue the jury also knew that despite his promise mr korea as promised america would do much but he would never recommend a vendor in which he had an interest he did so anyway and conceal the fact from the mckale jury also that mr ferrier had a history of concini and denying relationships with companies that he was involved sat supplemental the page supplemental appendix pages two six five one to five two that's more than enough for a reasonable juror to crude that this is a game of gotcha and what does mr true know do he doesn't just send back good ownership documents he sends it back with a contract as if he's representing and this comes directly from the supreme court's serious wyoming case here you go these are the owners signed the contract there's nothing else to disclose that is an essence an affirmative representation that everything's fine signed a contract but it wasn't following and they stopped paying because it wasn't fine and that's fraud and the record on this i think is crystal clear that yuri had more than enough to believe that this was a fraudulent half truth they stop paying on on july ninth i don't that it was more severe if you're just going to measure the amount of money to send it up in the defense hands by that measure perhaps you are right but here we have the essence of bribery as new jersey defines it and the difference between where we are mcdonnell and where mr farrell was a mcdonald is we don't believe that this is in use of federal law and involves any uses of the principles of federalism at all this is a straightforward application sure by federal prosecution governor it's different than the bergen county democratic organization but you've got public officials so i agree that it's not relevant for the most but i do want to point out for the court what the supreme court said at one thirty six court it's two three seven three it says that in contrast to what was going on in the car where the term official at the federal concept was being used as the basis for the prosecution we're the state here because the evidence is rampant that mr ferrier was using his position to this apparent influence or is actual influence to recommend benders and in the case of c three he was doing it of that effort to relate to him as quote a chair the broke out event that we've argued so much about it's right there black and white and then at the very last page of that tax return he says that these events are all part of the accomplishments of this tax exempt organization because these are the ways i communicated as chairman my party positions the jury had met in front of it is impossible to reconcile that black and white zip it with the argument that heard that he's not really acting his party chair he was always acting as party chair and people dance to his tune as a result of it one of my favorite pieces of testimony and i made a big point of it in the briefing judge sauer as bill pointed out the side not only using his party position to recommend vendors we know we did it at the record again what do you take your remaining time if you would to talk about the lexus requirement both so here can we just disagree and etc that we have to talk about insurance brokerage and or a footnote sixty nine really needs we read it to me that you were underscoring that there needs to be a relatedness a connection takes the proceeds and six it back into the c d o safe that is not operating or managing the enterprise in any significant way it's a coincidence it's much closer to what the supreme court said is not enough in reeves when it said aid a you when i'm in charge i promise you those are acts of bribery and fraud that are inextricably linked with his chairmanship and that's a violation of we go any other questions money back because i parked three weeks after these phone calls so to ride twenty seventh of two thousand and eight so if the government could not draw the inference that there was a panic