inform the other and dovetail but one does not preclude quoting our first thing here is that the commission violated its duty to provide a brief discussion of reasonable alternatives and reasoned walter didn't reasonably discuss it it's that they can reasonably discuss it in light of the sense of the draft is there so our argument is that what happened here we had at the time that we submitted our letter there was a back and forth in your briefs about what about what you're arguing and i understood in your response that you agreed you were not arguing one thing you want to say what it is you're not arguing so it's clear yes so what we're not arguing is that at the time of the return if we should have brought up the fact that the compression alternative should be in the environmental analysis our our argument here is that we did not have only factual findings in the record regarding the russian alternative we had no access that information and we didn't know it existed in fact the entire substance of why the congressional panel gave should be reviewed  environmentally friendly down the compression i could say would have had to clear a new areas for the compressions much right that's that was their submission and submission its sites too so if the company submission has an articulation of why looping is a better alternative than compression and the agency braces why isn't that so it is that that is not i mean that is not what is required underneath what is required under any but is a brief discussion of the alternative at a brief discussion is when you see the draft yet were even what you see you know something that takes you know several pages that actually discusses the issue where as there was no brief discussion other than perhaps back to resource report right which has i'm not which of page single spaced and it weighs pros and cons haven't seen a lot of these things but if if  this were the agency order on explaining environmental pros and cons of the alternatives it doesn't feel arbitrary and capricious to what it just lays out i think it certainly doesn't in cont but i think that the substance of the alternatives when properly considered it's hard to come to a different conclusion other than it's not that that really is and would likely be the preferable alternative because it it impacts far position and they say finding of fact on that position and later agents as an agency as the agency and agency later comes to the exact opposite conclusion again this is staff changing changing their mind there needs to those you're getting to jurisdictional argument so the we base it so there was very specific allegations regarding segmentation that we made in our here across twenty four pages worth of them and some potential confusion cleared up first the resource report that was attached to the application and page and sixteen resource report that's jane one thirty two contains a discussion that doesn't fact the two main points i think over it saying right now is that there are seems to be a bit of confusion of terminology there was no draft environmental assessment there is a i think that the terminology is kind of bleeding into the terms we use for asses what there once was an internal pretty decisional sap document and the idea that that is subject to the same requirements let's say under state farm or brand x and there has to be some connection made between one position held at one time a position held later simply isn't true this is even though there are of course was a privilege invoked here b the same principles apply in order for process there were many drafts i'm sure along the way even though they're not reflected in the record the commission never made a finding of fact in this so called draft this this internal precision document that was entirely the process that staff you have sports that court yes it was it was that is not the record but my presumption this predates my arrival for my presumption is that it was sent in part of the process of consulting with one of the consulting agencies going over the alternatives and seeing what it was that the agencies that were involved had to say about the e a s how do you go there is that i can't say i do not hear so sue keeping in mind that this is a draft internal document requirements are here for the congressional term it simply is not relevant it would be like finding the discovery of any other document that has that mean because there is no entitlement for the petition to comment on internal stamp documents of which there could be thousands not of which are relevant to the case so let's assume we agree with you and we don't consider the draft we thing we still have a final order of the commission which doesn't consider compression and it just has this sick haitian to the application report but it's not it's not entirely clear that it's being cited for an environmental proposition cited for the proposition that the project couldn't be satisfied by compression i mean what what why is that arguably went into detail about exactly how much damage because late it versus the looping proposal that does seem as though it would be it would satisfy the requirement of examining it and in reason it certainly for the sake of bring it to  attention of anybody who wishes to further for the raise the subject the point is that that everybody who is a participant in this case was on notice about the congressional turn from the opening salvo of the process it was in the resource repor a i'm also i'm also happy to just take one second if you want me to talk about the issue of segmentation and why it is that it is acceptable to simply recite the the contents of the face this is the twenty pages of specifications of what their problem is now it may well be that their response to your response too late to make that right maybe maybe that's right but they can certainly raise the issue already and we have to decide whether your response answers their original response but there is statute would this statute would have to be a lot clearer in cutting off if we're getting into some nuance here i realize and i agree that there are potentially aggrieved by the contents of each day and they raise the exact objections again but the entirety of the process that goes into informing the decision making of the commission has a series of steps one of them is to raise your objections the environmental assessment to say here is where we think you made an error this is what you should consider the commission takes all of those comments along with the e a in the work that staff did they look at them they result in together and then make a agencies path can reasonably be discerned and i think that's the case here we would agree with the statements concerning the fact that there's no requirement that you had to publish the  even the inspection reports that they themselves generated were not included in the environmental and were not included in the environmental analysis and that argument didn't change after the hearing or because they didn't they didn't they couldn't there was no way for them to change what was in that yea in order not to say and that's the type of argument that we that we make now in court are exactly the ones that we  there for the for the purpose of the peace process and under the united nations however the act is drawn with more broadly than that and we believe that we could find expenditure of funds revolving around the presence of the mission which would qualify under the  but that is an issue that would probably be best decided by for the faculty is there any argument that in so far as that office functions like an embassy it's not office be i think this is a legal question right i mean is the whatever united kingdom's office in new york for their united nations delegation with addiction of the united mission there are others of syria activities going on surrounding ok fact finding on that yes but just on the legal question is it do you have a rifle shot argument that that can't be right because they're not recognized and i guess i'm just making the point that we have a good bit of both legal and factual work to do before responsible yes yes you know but if this does go remains true in january thirty when congress and the president pass a law regarding foreign policy requires a respectful review by the courts there is no national priority in combating terrorism many of the pee in the field those constitutional challenges all the way when daimler is examined and we see that the individual still maintains a right to consent or waive his or her right to  there is an excellent opinion from the second circuit by judge carney around the martin martin like in martin in twenty sixteen and the judge there was looking at a statute which would've exposed the party in two general jurisdictions of the courts of connecticut had a business nearly signed on to register in the state and in fact if they know that in conducting business in the state the they were arguing that that created general jurisdiction over the corporation for any party for any grip prejudice on players because frank discovery then had ended and then because daimler was now the wall in the case players were required to come up with a specific personal jurisdictions that also cost a lot of money so imagine the stack this statute second a great detail about the and who difference it was a couple of sentences a supreme court brief but that was two months after that was two months after the good years and came up later in another related case call the internet the palestinian usually on the on the preservation issue usually have to preserve arguments right not citation and just assume i know you dispute this but some groups of argument that the general jurisdiction question what was properly preserved at the outset of the case why isn't this nothing more than just there's an issue preserved then there's an intervening decision that makes the case more helpful for one side or the other and they move for reconsideration and it's no different from if goodyear and dimer it come down after district court proceedings are completely done and they go up on appeal and cite goodyear and i'm worried they're going to win they're not going to lose on forfeit structuring their behavior properly in two thousand to over into dozens who they knew they could be sued for the conduct that they were sued for and that's never the question that i will sit down for  and it was a huge benefit for the partisan court is that by your record discovery allowed why isn't there prejudice for the second reason we were exploring which is they're doing the discovery they would have done it anyway but they're operating on these sumption their personal jurisdiction is off the table right the only live issue is a merits question for purposes of the merits all they have to do is connect the attack to an attempt to influence israeli policy and that's pretty easy to do that's a lot easier to do than what they would have to do something like well you know i was i was sent to attack israel issue or perhaps cinches up their merits case i don't think so why would they why would they need well it's very helpful for their merits case so why would they then need to go down this rabbit hole of trying to link the attack to the two attempts to influence the united states a very uncertain question first i think you put your finger on it precisely when you say it's inches  evidence to show that these true trigger men were lying it's not particularly surprising that the people who killed people would say they were aiming at soldiers rather than civilians because the latter is a war crime several points and there are the might respond which is this is precisely the set of inquiries that judge friedman undertook he said what is there out there what else in the ocean have been fully boiled undiscovered is more than just it hackers it's not a question merely of credibility there were seven depositions of the palestinian authority in hilo including three under rule three this is not an issue as to whether the attackers can be held liable under the it's a question of you happen tell me what you need me to give you every opportunity to crystallize your theory and every opportunity tell me what additional discovery you need it was only when he went through that process that he held that you know what not only is the evidence uniformly show no link to the united states he was on wall then but he was getting correctly with this court ruled and of you haven't shown any link to the united states and in fact you have proven the opposite of jurisdiction you have proven consistently from every witness that there was no link to the united states and that's the jurisdictional question as the judge passes from the merits quest and that's why he acted well within his discretion in saying you know what after five years of discovery enough is enough to give you every opportunity and when you tell me you're prejudiced that rings hollow in the sense that what else have you been asking me for five years but more discovery and he something that's not prejudice that's just part of the litigation what about the other part of his argument that wasn't clear that a good year was the law until dr well i think judge friedman did excellent job of summarizing what he said first right the problem is all very nice but the supreme court thought was absolutely plain in geimer of the courts as we made it plain good year the supreme court's has good year made it is not whether or not goodyear changed the standard gold it's whether or not these defendants should have apprehended what other district judges and what right miller didn't actually have that now was the jurisdiction defense was not available to them until the supreme court's decision  person that in two thousand and two their personal jurisdiction vance did exist and their personal jurisdiction defense was that you have to show at home that the latter part is not correct your honor what designed that specific argument asserted in their motion that their contacts with the district of columbia did not render them at home was simply not available the court says it was a bit on our courts and it wasn't in the was is there an excuse for not serving probably to gilmore did not decide that the standard at that time was at home that was the distinction between gilmore and this case and in each other treatment in his opinion on for my clients in terms of waivers the question is whether they acted reasonably and whether judge friedman in terms used his discretion in saying that there was a reason for a three year delay in reason is another question of the law if you thought that there for not moving for reconsideration until they were told everybody you know you've got this wrong we've been trying to be clear about this that the home standard that is the sole context in which that issue arises in this case and gilmore spent the first ten minutes and argument talking about everything but what happened in this record so i think that should convey to this court how much confidence he has in his ability to overturn what judge friedman did he has should have no confidence  was no specific jurisdiction because of no link to the united states there was no link to the united states here that is what if you can consider meticulously and that's why you had such extensive briefings and i'm not i agree with you on all of that but question judge friedman asked but it requires more than the plaintive saying you know what i don't think i've been treated fairly i want more of the what the district judge is supposed to do and what the district judge did here is that ok we want and they could never articulate anything other than we want information about their lobbying in the united states and the fundraising there is that jurisdictional discovery doesn't work by saying i want more it requires concrete particular ation of what we want what they ask for is in lookalike incorrectly in terms of the mission what the statute says it is anybody benefiting from a presidential waiver who then maintains a mission that's irrelevant because there is no ecstatic presidential waiver for the it unlawful for the p l o to establish or maintain any office headquarters m says it's after i assume there has to be a waiver and place or else have to they have the new york mission because recipients going all appear the p l o or do is say i just lame allayed however provided that meets the language of the what we say is even if they can get past the factual errors which shouldn't trouble this court there are legal reasons triggering advance under this statute for reasons we've yes rat so the only relevant triggering advance is whether or not your clients will continue to accept aid your question i want to hold parts attention to the fact that even the court allowed the plaintiffs to file a supplemental be fun at we worried that there wouldn't be time for us to respond to that we have an extensive discussion of our opposition to their motion to  retroactive application number two even if there were any ambiguity which i'm sure mr mcallister will say you know there was this kind of and handed it could be read this way it's quite clear that ambiguity doesn't help in the linda case what the procedural right under a due process to be free of jurisdiction in a forum where the defendant is the one that is not of the siege will that's not a subject matter jurisdiction will that is precisely what aca tries to undo that that's a substantive right because if it's not a substantive rate and lives not doesn't mean what it says which is when this court said the congress can't wish away a constitutional provision can't wish away the substantive rate under the due rated constitutional right to be free under due process cause your jurisdiction but congress is saying if you want aid you gotta surrender that constitutional right that is persuasive with the unconstitutional conditions doctrine cases say congress can't do it and i respectfully refer the court to justice and leaders opinion in the coots case which says you know what every time we go through unconstitutional conditions somebody says it's ok because we don't have to give you this benefit it's an act of legislative grace it witnessed congress surely has more latitude when they're addressing funding conditions than when they're imposing direct requirements only when what they seek to do is either not only people who have renounced terrorism and are making a man's for a past terrorist and that crystallizes the distinction between what the previous statutes of which have said if we're not satisfied that you're behaving the way we want you get no way congress we knew that congress may not do and we could set is every one of our unconstitutional conditions cases deals with gratuitous government benefit but just because the didn't have any discovery of the connections between the camp terror campaign in your israel and the influence came in which was occurring in the united states secondly regarding the he did he did at some point you what are the subjects on which you want further discovery yes you're right and you did not identify the the missing link under nothing in our jurisdictional started with us and our briefly address two points one is was the p a through the a and b deliberately targeting americans in killing americans launching attacks against americans and two was what are the external with that decision and remind me when when did live not come down relative to the procedural history move that was decided by this court last year twenty seventeen after and the judge long after the close of the