six months play the record doesn't reflect that though just as a record doesn't reflect that she came back to to repeat my star and your claims here asking very eerie because she claims she was prejudiced by the fact that this person was sitting in the  courtroom knowledge that you don't think the person was necessary work your honor your honor i think it's irrelevant i would argue it's irrelevant that whether she left the damage had been done the superior of the witness and not just the just the the deciding official in this case miss morphy wants to stay the witnesses on the stand already the record does reflect that the damage had been entirely within the discretion of the presiding judge i've presided over lots of trials and i find it alarming that someone would appeal something so much within the discretion of a official presiding over a trial except here your honor the the the error was an error the judge was not exciting your discretion she insisted she insisted that she had no authority to issue in the case was was whether it was the fact that the a j did not rule out the affirmative defense of retaliation for i find that congresswoman came in and the time she had her notice removed so your contention was that the sense of the notice of people was because they found out that she had some letter that on line that was that was the contention before the hearing my contention today is that the sentence about the rule i would i would hope that i would hope that she would be required to explain why if there's a conclusory sentence may not be sufficient but certainly it could be and in that context missile sorrow did mention the fact that shit sent a letter to the congress one of the that's my question is yes she raised to the e o and letter to congress and she didn't mention the fact that evidence proffered the hearing other than some limited testimony regarding the letter of missiles are never actually introduced the letter of congressman norm at the hearing it wasn't on her witness list accident exhibit list it was on the agency's exhibit list no it isn't it is in the record that she was notified the congresswoman that her privacy has somehow been violated now as i said the letter is actually in the record and if you look at and this is another reason why the court should suffer from the board's decision if you look at the contents of the letter what the letter says is again she alleges that her privacy was somehow somehow affected she also makes a big allegations that the national archives had somehow revise it's policies and  those policies are somehow now discriminatory but she doesn't say what those policies are shouldn't say how they're discriminatory is not the issue we're deciding the question is whether or not there was any merit to her intention and of side is that suggesting that we necessarily have to find the intention and our in our point is that she simply didn't put on sufficient evidence to prove her claim and that's what the minister of judge said by saying you know other than the fact that you felt she knew your complaint there is no evidence of any other retelling of any retaliation but our point is also that setting that aside let's assume she did raise the issue of the letter to congressman norm on its face it's not a protected disclosure under the statute it's not about unlawful conduct it's not about a gross waste of resources it's not about gr right she did not make that final but our point is that if on the face of the letter it's not a protected disclosure it's a reman to the mr george is pointless this this court can this court reviews judgments not opinions and based on the fact  what about his sort of what about the protected activity of simply being able to write your congressman is the other side suggest let's assume you have a good lawyer that file that actually files assume that the employer says you shouldn't be writing your congress forth the various personal actions are conserved but are not permitted to be eight is where this letter could potentially fall if it actually included protected disclosures but b it's pacifically says it has to be about unlawful activity in other words it can't just be any letter to your congressman or congresswoman it has to be a protected disclosure and i ask you about the second issue then raised from it seems to me that just agreement between you and the other side is  not as strong but it seems does it not that with the name jay rule was that she had no discretion to exclude the witness and isn't that wrong we would disagree  there is a national security concern or minors they do not have the authority to close here in other words unless there is a good reason minister mr dolan said there was some kind of legal issue involved with this is there any legal issue involved here at all the question is whether or not mr judge abused absolutely this is something entirely within the discretion of the judge in the judge is the one that we entrust to maintain order in his or her court room right that's right and then less there is some enormous abuse of discretion we would ever presume to tamper with thing happened the judge would have at his or her disposal vast resources to correct the problem that right that's right and that's why this appellate court wouldn't even time to this sort of an argument w throw your honor and i also a judge for taking this time please go back yard and just to make one final point in that regard your honor but i heard counsel say that this kind of knowledge of the government may be right that the witness in fact did leave the retaliation whether there are congressional letters or anything else that was or wasn't raised there was no evidence of retaliation anywhere and other than the iau complaint which she disposes of is also saying there's no retaliation so is there is a finding on the record here isn't there a finding on the record that there was no there there was no evidence of retaliation of the any kind from a congressional standpoint from a legal standpoint from any other standpoint i think the judge is clearly there or the administrative judge is clearly there referring to the to the complaint that she says other than the e e o complaint there is no evidence and then she goes on to dispose of the iau complaint so it's very clear that it's a statement that the congressional letter or any other allegation of retaliation is is not supported by any form of evidence that's what the sentence says don't should we read that the way it's written well your honor i i i would i would think that the judge would it would be after spending three pages talking about the e o she would mention the word there's no evidence she wouldn't have anything to write about would she so maybe she puts the one sentence in because that's all she has to say well we know there is evidence we know there's there's evidence there's evidence of the letter there is evidence that she was fired there's evidence that there were curtain days apart maybe that's sufficient maybe it's not but the judge ruled on we didn't rule on that said there's no evidence well you do do you read that differently and i respectfully disagree o r i don't read it that way i think that she's only referring to the what she says other than the complaint there is no evidence she's ruling the e o complaint out and then saying there's no other  i think how do you read that otherwise the way i would parse it is she saying that she's saying that there is there is no evidence to support the plight the retaliation complaint and she's not referring to it we're not talking about other everett's we're actually talking about quite quite common for the board to adopt as its own it hasn't ignored the issue it's adopted the opinion of the administrative judge and so we are reviewing the board's find that is reflected in the administrative judge's decision agreed so we're reviewing the board the board didn't ignore anything i've nothing further the court has nothing from humans to do a