if you can you can rise virtually that's all right good good morning and welcome to the next circuit for our sitting or virtual sitting room so you know i'm not sure our people are actually in seattle i know that three judges are in the las vegas in fairbanks and  with regard to the search warrant related to hillary clinton that that was took place not over two thousand and sixteen with the court's permission i'd like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal ok keep your eye on the clock and do you have a clock so you can see find that the supervisory special agent might have been gauged in this contact and most likely did engage in misconduct in seeking the search warrant from even the presidential election and the nd point i would address is that public the evidence of the wrongdoing is set forth for the most part inspector general report which in is littered with statements from witnesses all of whom agree and conceded that there was no likelihood of evidence that was going to lead to a crime prosecution in this case and virtually every every witness statement in the inspector general report made that same comment they didn't believe there was evidence of a crime to be found on proceed with the search warrant and he agreed to it and he had an opportunity to object and in this case under fabulous the appellate needs to show that there might have been impropriety and by based on the search be an experienced and aggressive agent he had four agents working under him just on this he was canned he was picked to be honest with the air i mean that's made here investigative teams which was investigating a presidential d he was thought well of and he supervised the p c people that they really didn't expect to find anything on anthony weiner's laptop but don't sort of has proper we go forward all the the information that the government was seeking which was as stated in the report and elsewhere the government was seeking not the classified e mails that are set forth in the search warrant application but the government was seeking for the probable cause i mean we've got missing e mails we've got somebody with a private laptop who's wife hillary's right hand person and they can i don't get the absence of probable cause let me explain your honor there was a mid year investigation against hillary clinton regarding her e mails it was considered a this was back this with prior to the anthony weiner laptop discovery they though that was can you hear me on or that now i can ok the st investigation to know the st investigation of hillary clinton related to what's considered as a spill cleanup of containment and that's and that that investigation and it is a lie and the director concluded that there was no evidence of a crime and during that investigation the team decided that they were not going to go outside of hillary clinton's private server and see e mails and devices from other her aides or anyone else that had been decided early on in july when this situation came up in in september october of two thousand and sixteen they still had the team still had no desire to go outside and look at other devices but they did and they decided to go after anthony weiner's laptop when every witness said they didn't think there was information on there related to those early e mails which the government had decided it was the only e mails that would new york office agents had a search warrant for anthony weiner's laptop they were not allowed by that search warrant to look at the content of the e mails and so they were talking at the headers that the e mails and the dates there was no way for them to reveal to the government that they had a basis to believe that there were e mails on there between whom avidly hillary clinton in the early months of clinton's tenure hillary clinton's tenure at the state department and there's no is there no room for will cause to believe that early e mails would have been all well but there but for probable cause that you must have evidence that a reason to believe that there would be and there wasn't there was the there was no reason to no reason to believe that those emails would have been any different than the emails that the media investigative team spent the year revealing there was no reason believe every anything different found on that  what they already have looked at and there's no reason to believe that there would have been emails from the early period of time that didn't exist on the clinton server that they previously looked at so last month my question do you want to come back to that why why wouldn't there the agency itself and the witnesses in an investigative report unanimously stated that they didn't believe they were going to find anything different on this computer they didn't and they did they didn't believe they were going to find evidence of a crime and  that and that that that is quite smelling as far as the probable cause and in this case we don't we have we have to show that it is that this investigative i don't rightly i don't really see the point of that argument i mean it's like somebody telling you are it's not worth going fishing you walk i mean warmest number of computers and hard drives are seized every day just on that basis if i can touch on that and supervisor came to his team and to this agent and said am i off base here he wanted to know if he had enough should they seek the search more that was the opportunity for this agent to object or seek more international yes you're on a future argument that you know you to object equated to misconduct well that failure to object and then to proceed to sign a search warrant affidavit and application when there wasn't probable cause argument no your honor but where it's where it's evident when there's overwhelming evidence that there isn't probable cause and there isn't a reason to believe that the information you're seeking is going to lead to a the evidence of a crime they didn't seek these early e mails they never misleading to the court to say they were only looking at one of the look at the classify e mails that's not what the government traffic is there any evidence in the record that if this particular agent had object to you are the only participant because that would be a question we would want to ask this major we don't know and we don't have know the name of this agent he hasn't he hasn't had not we the public hasn't had an opportunity to engage in and find out all the information regarding this sufficient justification to get the name of the well in this case in this case when when the evidence shows that a reasonable person could believe that there might have been missed on death by the government official in fact that's he look at the public interest and then if the public interest outweighs the personal privacy interest which we would suggest it does here then that section seven see that privacy is disclosure is warranted and that's what savage hold and here this name being kept secret so we won't be bothered by the porters from other people asking them questions and the done might not sound right to all of us but that's what that's the supreme court talking  agent at issue might have engaged in official misconduct and that we will leave we have to show the business if this agent knew or should have known that there wasn't there was no basis for this search warrant to find the early e mails  discussion of the holding they said but maybe in another case there would be and you're saying d but maybe statement is the whole that this is the case we believe faddish is talking about work government where a government employee engages in significant meaningful evidence that their speculation there won't be evidence of a crime and other people might think there would be respectfully these are the people that were on the team the investigative team that were deciding whether to pursue a search warrant and these were these people and these agents made the statements to the inspector general that they didn't believe there was it was going to lead to evidence of a line in fact of the f b i attorney lisa paige she was texting shortly before this search i'm saying as if the entire team and particularly if the agent and the one who submitting the affidavit i mean application does not believe there's probable cause and there's there is no evidence to show there's a reason to believe you're going to find the information that you're seeking and it's not even in pro disclosure and it's a check from the government it allows a citizen to know what the government is up to six the citizens to know and it allow it requires that that those that govern are accountable to the govern please the court my name is joseph beuys so i'm here on behalf of the f b i is that hillary now the ground on which this appeal can be resolved is the recognition that merely knowing the name of this motor level f b i agent would not add to the public's understanding of the basis on which this warrant was soft or the decision to seek it and for that use and we urge this court to affirm i don't have an interest in repeating the arguments rule twenty six there's no question but what this would be discoverable information in the sense of potentially relevant to the x it may or may not produce information that the other side is making so i'm not decision to seek it on the basis on the this is beside the point what you're saying now what they want is the name as you say they've already got the words they want the name and the way a name would be useful i think judge lectures  about discovery in an ordinary civil suit is really critical what they meant want the name for the st thing they do probably is google it and find out if that individual was somebody who  before the supreme court ruled in fabric i might have expected for you to go the same way but they did will in fact and so now we're supposed to do this balancing with the public interest in the name which is basically finding out if the guy is the sort of person who would do something bad and if the f b i did something bad and balance that against the interests than that individual being hounded by reporters and lawyers and neighbors and whoever they have the supreme court said i'm fabulous he should be protected from so to speak to that would i be happy to your honor i think this eighteen when the government klein's prosecutions people thought there were reasons good reasons to decline to prosecute but of course whether or not there is probable cause to search is unrelated to the government's discretionary charging decision and here it is undisputed that there was probable cause to search all of the e mails between secretary clinton and ms obviously and on that laptop for classified information and that  as a fact witness attesting to the truth of everything in the application nothing plaintiff design alleges that anything in the application was untruthful if plaintiff wants to criticize the decision to seek this warren's plaintiff knows where to go team of lawyers from the d o j and the f b i including the ben general counsel of the f b i and the lead agents but not the agent and issue here is that general's report does not describe him taking any role in the drafting over context to ensure that f b i agents lower level frontline people when they're assigned to a very controversial matter we need to give them the confidence that d if they do their job that they will not be automatically when we put three minutes on the clock and see what it is thank you your honor three points i'd like to make number one this was not a low level agent has described just now your honors this was a lead field agent in a high i he's much higher on the organization chart of the f b i but that's just for this team but in any event he he had a significant role in this and he wasn't he wasn't a clerical worker he was a lead field agent on this case and he was he all of the e mails of hillary clinton during the st investigation so there was even less reason to believe there was going to be anything that the government hadn't seen on this on this on this laptop well we have somebody says this is a this is not to check to see will you give me every will and and and the point your honor in the st investigation this invest this same investigative team decided the data sufficient they did not ask they didn't see any additional devices or improper behavior true but in the forest service this case the twenty two m lawyers that were at issue as far as seeking information personal information regarding those employees they were not accused of official wrongdoing in fact six look at the inspector general report shows that there was absolutely no reason to believe that there was going to be any e mails on this laptop other than the ones the government already see the government made a decision not to pursue it further supervisory agent has to take responsibility for supplying and signing this affidavit and search warrants and the governor the public is entitled to know everything that happened with regard to this pretextual search warrant that led to no evidence of a