So apropos of my question last night about who paid for the GATech researchers, I remembered that @ProfMJCleveland had sent FOIA requests to the University, so I asked her if any related to when the billing to DARPA began, & one did. See her tweet here 👇
Since the USAF wouldn't concur w/DARPA to let GATech bill on to contract before it was officially awarded, that most likely means GATech paid for the research work. This is important for the issue of whether there was mis-billing to the federal govt by Joffe; it appears not./2
That would support my analysis yesterday that Joffe appears to have off-loaded the costs of the research he was doing to his company that doesn't have a govt contract & to someone else - turns out it was GATech. This helps him avoid a criminal false claim charge. /3
It appears that he knows exactly where the criminal line is on govt contracts and he was careful to stay on the good side of it. It does also support an inference, however, that he knew what he was doing was not kosher, so he structured it in a way that would minimize fallout. /4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reading the indictment again it seems clear that Joffe affirmatively tried to structure the project to avoid a false billing (to the govt) problem. He had to use Neustar’s data but he offloaded the actual work to GATech & employees of a sub that only had private sector clients./1
And to their credit, I will say, & good for them, even they questioned it & said it wasn’t really a use to which that the data should be put. /2
This is Company-3. The indictment specifically says they had private sector clients. (Good prosecutors don’t put things in indictments for no reason.) These were the employees Joffe used to write some of the reports, not Neustar’s.
/3
According to Durham, Joffee “tasked” researchers to find the data that was given to the feds. How did the research time get billed?
That could potentially be a fruitful avenue - fraudulent billing, (apropos of what criminal statutes are available.)
You can’t bill the govt for work that doesn’t benefit the govt customer under your contract or grant with them.
Lorenzen also. (Originator-1) She was a researcher at GA Tech & guided the 2 researchers for Joffe's "tasking." Who paid for the time spent on that? GA Tech? DARPA? Won't be surprised if it was the latter, tho it might be the former as the K wasn't final yet.
@ProfMJCleveland@15poundstogo@Techno_Fog So in this case it could be new charges or it could be a hearing on a violation of release conditions, or it could simply be that the clerk issued a summons that he's required to appear at the hearing coming up that the judge set for the discovery issues, tho that's less likely.
What's interesting about this, legally, is that the Speech & Debate Clause protects members of Congress from being questioned about their views/positions/etc. "in any other Place," meaning they can't be questioned by police or other executive branch actors or in the courts.
/1
The clause applies to materials prepared for use in the legislative branch too, but not to materials produced for other purposes, say for example, a newsletter. So, you could sue a congressman for defaming you on Twitter for example. The clause is a separation of powers tool. /2
This is one of the constitutional elements that prevent the courts from shutting down congressional investigations, for instance. And why the courts apply a very broad interpretation of the "legislative purpose" test when evaluating claims to quash congressional subpoenas. /3
Using Reagan’s nomination of O’Connor to justify the affirmative action that Biden is currently engaging in is nonsense.
Until Reagan nominated her, women - of all colors - had been deliberately prevented from attaining the credentials necessary to sit on the Court by sexism. /1
O’Connor & Ginsberg & their peers were the first generation of women to be - reluctantly - allowed to attain them. The current generation of women nominees did not face that barrier. They are around my age - early 50s. My class (‘96) was the 1st at Gtown to be 50% women. /2
We were not (& younger women are not now) deliberately prevented from becoming lawyers, judges, or Justices as were women in the past.
In reality, women - of any color - have not been deliberately prevented from becoming Justices since the day O’Connor was nominated. /3
For those interested in Carter Page's case, our team filed 2 Oppositions to the 9 Motions to Dismiss that were filed by the Defendants. One, an "Omnibus" Opposition covers the arguments made by the 8 Individual Defendants, & one responds to the Govt's motion. Links follow:
1/4