very generous are very generous offer the first time which was not accepted which was not accepted except then the judge intervenes and then the cats except the same pattern repeats itself there's an offer by the government it's rejected by the client  where there was discussions about having to go to the process i think this is worse than the worse it's worse in the villa because first of all the thought that the timing is the problem out of this is the but when you focus on nothing the only reason why a defendant would reasonably think that is because he understands that the judge has said go along with it and you won't get her that's really what has what does that mean you won't get hurt you get a probationary sentence no not a probationary the government didn't accept that and then ultimately accepted and the government gave him two additional options so it was a whole new accepting your counteroffer classic contract and then only on december thirteenth the government come out with its you got two options you can go either zero or twenty years  president or ten to fifteen years depending on the restitution of the account right but it's so as to the first one of those the december fifth except and the reason why that was accepted was because they had a was looking to harris for an assurance that the deal was going to go down the way it was described to him at harrah's gave them but for your clients conduct it would have gone down the way it was advertised right but the further his fraud often knowingly the question is certainly ways that you have got you have paris had to know that weinstein would misappropriate money or wanted him to do so right of whether the drugs had been who had flushed the drugs down the toilet he was in the house or drunk or flushed down the toilet really said i didn't do it therefore early two people house in effect he was saying by implication that the other person did do it and it was used the trial that's very different than what happened here the attorney knew that the person had drugs and was flushing them down the toilet here mr harris did not necessary no evidence that we have the mr harris knew that anything was you know basis to know everything was right and that's what i think could be explored further at the hearing but certainly on the board the search and that made by rotten howards as reason to be concerned what about this double jeopardy know at that time and the government says it didn't know anything at that time found out later on that there was additional things going on including the very well mr weinstein was not on on bail is that correct allegation is and why isn't there any conceivable modus operandi doing the same type of thing twice doesn't make double jeopardy it has to be the same crime this is like different people maybe the same m o but different people different amounts taken it's more than just the same m o there is overlap in yes it's all what court has ever said that what court has ever said that you're asking us to get you know reversed without even having without you know b was it grant and remain and what court has ever said what you just said i think that that's what the leotard factor is look it's not what court has ever said that the government here could not indict if there's other people involved in a fraud that involves in my case i am broke who was part of first and smith who was not part of the first month i think there's no remedy for smith it well it depends when it's after the second date victims or in israel i think the reason why the government conceded that factor in the district is because regardless of where the victims actually live the kind of took place in new york and new jersey all the representations by wein