4 ms·

A quote past the first paragraph of the story: > the IG said "we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated proposals and mad

A quote past the first paragraph of the story: > the IG said "we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated proposals and made the source-selection awarding Microsoft the JEDI Cloud contract were not pressured about their decision on the award of the contract by any DoD leaders more senior to them, who may have communicated with the White House." As with most articles, the juicy, salacious lines are at the beginning but the real details are 10 paragraphs in. Based on the following paragraphs, the IG did find evidence of ethical misconduct by Amazon as they hired the DOD guy who helped form the JEDI program.

ceejayoz 7y ago
"The evidence we received" is fairly meaningless when coupled with "we weren't allowed to obtain the evidence we wanted".
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  I've lived through an IG investigation. You generally only want to respond in writing so you give a correct and complete answer instead of misspeaking and having it used against you, your project, or agency later on. It doesn't hold the legal consequences of screwing up an FBI interview but can be devastating professionally.
  - IAmEveryone 7y ago
    Did you miss the quote literally starting this (sub)thread? Senior Defense Department officials were barred from answering questions on the subject during interviews
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > you give a correct and complete answer The article asserts no answer; that they were forbidden to answer those questions. Written or otherwise.
    - beerandt 7y ago
      >barred from answering questions on the subject during interviews
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        There's such a thing as a written interview. There's no indication they answered the questions in a written form; it appears quite clear the White House asserted privilege, which would apply to any form of questioning.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        beerandt 6y ago
        If "during interviews" was meant to cover any form of questioning then the sentence is obviously and improperly redundant. >barred from answering questions on the subject during interviews. vs >barred from answering questions on the subject when asked questions on the subject. vs >barred from answering questions on the subject. It's a limiting modifier phrase, so the default is to assume it was meant to modify the meaning.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        You can read the report, if you like. It indicates the WH claimed privilege. Privilege applies to the questions/answers, not the medium in which they’re asked.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    But they were interviewed. So unless you can show that the questions they were barred from answering on the subject during their interviews were, in fact, responded to in writing later (which I haven't heard of happening)... then the distinction you're drawing doesn't seem to be relevant here, right?
IAmEveryone 7y ago
That sentence seems purpose-build to be so obviously trying to hide the truth as to be giving it away. It means the "DoD personnel who evaluated proposals" were not pressured by senior DoD leaders, but by White House officials directly. Or why would the statement explicitly mention "DoD leaders more senior to them"? If they were not pressured, why not simply say "DoD personnel were not pressured to award..."? And why would they be barred from testifying?
- zo1 7y ago
  This is the sort of thing I think of when I hear the term "fake news". Sentences that get buried, sentences that get purposefully constructed in order to obscure/misdirect, etc. Personally, I don't care for an article or piece to be "artistic" in any way, they just need to give us facts and explanations, along with all the things they tried to ask, what they investigated, what info they weren't able to find, etc. Journalism shouldn't be an art, it should be a form of fact condensation and transference, aimed at a broad audience.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The sentence quoted comes directly from the IG report, not the journalists. Don't blame them for the IG's wording.
  - IAmEveryone 6y ago
    This is what I think of when I hear "reading comprehension is going downhill. Most people are functionally illiterate these days."
pnw_hazor 7y ago
"However, we concluded that Mr. Ubhi’s brief early involvement in the JEDI Cloud Initiative was not substantial and did not provide any advantage to his prospective employer, Amazon, in the later JEDI Cloud contract competition, which was decided two years after Mr. Ubhi’s resignation from the DoD. Although Mr. Ubhi’s actions from September through October 2017 was misconduct, his minimal contributions to the JEDI procurement process did not affect the conduct or outcome of the JEDI Cloud source selection." JEDI ROI, Page 8, Paragraph 3 IG Report PDF https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REPORT%20ON%20THE%20JOINT%20ENTERPRISE%20DEFENSE%20INFRASTRUCTURE%20(JEDI)%20CLOUD%20PROCUREMENT%20DODIG-2020-079.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REP...
phonon 7y ago
Well, let's read the actual report [1] "We sought to review whether there was any White House influence on the JEDI cloud procurement. We could not review this matter fully because of the assertion of a “presidential communications privilege,” which resulted in several DoD witnesses being instructed by the DoD Office of General Counsel not to answer our questions about potential communications between White House and DoD officials about JEDI. Therefore, we could not definitively determine the full extent or nature of interactions that administration officials had, or may have had, with senior DoD officials regarding the JEDI Cloud procurement. We provided the DoD Office of General Counsel with a list of questions, separated specific to each witness, and requested that they convey these questions to the White House Counsel’s Office for review and determination as to whether the White House would in fact invoke the presidential communications privilege. The DoD Office of General Counsel told us they then asked White House Counsel to review the list of questions and identify the subject areas, or specific questions, over which the President would assert the presidential communications privilege. After our repeated requests for a response, on February 25, 2020, the DoD Office of General Counsel stated that White House Counsel was only willing to allow witnesses to provide written answers to our questions where the presidential communications privilege was invoked; however, it stated that no representation could be made as to the number or extent of questions that could be answered, and that any written responses would require further review by White House Counsel on the issue of maintaining the privilege. We carefully considered this response and concluded it would not be an appropriate and practical way to conduct our review, because there was no assurance as to which questions would be answered, it would unduly delay the report, it would not allow for an interview and inevitable follow up questions, and it would not assure that we would be receiving full information from the witnesses. We therefore declined to proceed in this manner. We further discuss the details regarding this matter in Section III below. However, we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated the contract proposals and awarded Microsoft the JEDI Cloud contract were not pressured regarding their decision on the award of the contract by any DoD leaders more senior to them, who may have communicated with the White House. We interviewed the personnel involved in the factor evaluation and source selection processes, including factor and selection board chairs, the Source Selection Authority, and the Procuring Contracting Officer. Most of their identities and involvement in the procurement award were unknown to White House staff and even to the senior DoD officials. None of these witnesses told us they felt any outside influence or pressure for or against a particular competitor as they made their decisions on the award of the contract. These witnesses also told us that public statements from the President and “media swirl” about the contract did not directly or indirectly influence the integrity of the procurement process or the outcome of the JEDI Cloud source selection. Yet, these media reports, and the reports of President Trump’s statements about Amazon, ongoing bid protests and “lobbying” by JEDI Cloud competitors, as well as inaccurate media reports about the JEDI Cloud procurement process, may have created the appearance or perception that the contract award process was not fair or unbiased." [1] https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REPORT%20ON%20THE%20JOINT%20ENTERPRISE%20DEFENSE%20INFRASTRUCTURE%20(JEDI)%20CLOUD%20PROCUREMENT%20DODIG-2020-079.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REP...

ceejayoz 7y ago

"The evidence we received" is fairly meaningless when coupled with "we weren't allowed to obtain the evidence we wanted".

caseysoftware 7y ago
I've lived through an IG investigation. You generally only want to respond in writing so you give a correct and complete answer instead of misspeaking and having it used against you, your project, or agency later on. It doesn't hold the legal consequences of screwing up an FBI interview but can be devastating professionally.
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  Did you miss the quote literally starting this (sub)thread? Senior Defense Department officials were barred from answering questions on the subject during interviews
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > you give a correct and complete answer The article asserts no answer; that they were forbidden to answer those questions. Written or otherwise.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    >barred from answering questions on the subject during interviews
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      There's such a thing as a written interview. There's no indication they answered the questions in a written form; it appears quite clear the White House asserted privilege, which would apply to any form of questioning.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - beerandt 6y ago
        If "during interviews" was meant to cover any form of questioning then the sentence is obviously and improperly redundant. >barred from answering questions on the subject during interviews. vs >barred from answering questions on the subject when asked questions on the subject. vs >barred from answering questions on the subject. It's a limiting modifier phrase, so the default is to assume it was meant to modify the meaning.
        ceejayoz 6y ago
        You can read the report, if you like. It indicates the WH claimed privilege. Privilege applies to the questions/answers, not the medium in which they’re asked.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- crazygringo 7y ago
  But they were interviewed. So unless you can show that the questions they were barred from answering on the subject during their interviews were, in fact, responded to in writing later (which I haven't heard of happening)... then the distinction you're drawing doesn't seem to be relevant here, right?

IAmEveryone 7y ago

That sentence seems purpose-build to be so obviously trying to hide the truth as to be giving it away. It means the "DoD personnel who evaluated proposals" were not pressured by senior DoD leaders, but by White House officials directly. Or why would the statement explicitly mention "DoD leaders more senior to them"? If they were not pressured, why not simply say "DoD personnel were not pressured to award..."? And why would they be barred from testifying?

zo1 7y ago
This is the sort of thing I think of when I hear the term "fake news". Sentences that get buried, sentences that get purposefully constructed in order to obscure/misdirect, etc. Personally, I don't care for an article or piece to be "artistic" in any way, they just need to give us facts and explanations, along with all the things they tried to ask, what they investigated, what info they weren't able to find, etc. Journalism shouldn't be an art, it should be a form of fact condensation and transference, aimed at a broad audience.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The sentence quoted comes directly from the IG report, not the journalists. Don't blame them for the IG's wording.
- IAmEveryone 6y ago
  This is what I think of when I hear "reading comprehension is going downhill. Most people are functionally illiterate these days."

pnw_hazor 7y ago

"However, we concluded that Mr. Ubhi’s brief early involvement in the JEDI Cloud Initiative was not substantial and did not provide any advantage to his prospective employer, Amazon, in the later JEDI Cloud contract competition, which was decided two years after Mr. Ubhi’s resignation from the DoD. Although Mr. Ubhi’s actions from September through October 2017 was misconduct, his minimal contributions to the JEDI procurement process did not affect the conduct or outcome of the JEDI Cloud source selection." JEDI ROI, Page 8, Paragraph 3 IG Report PDF https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REPORT%20ON%20THE%20JOINT%20ENTERPRISE%20DEFENSE%20INFRASTRUCTURE%20(JEDI)%20CLOUD%20PROCUREMENT%20DODIG-2020-079.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REP...

phonon 7y ago

Well, let's read the actual report [1] "We sought to review whether there was any White House influence on the JEDI cloud procurement. We could not review this matter fully because of the assertion of a “presidential communications privilege,” which resulted in several DoD witnesses being instructed by the DoD Office of General Counsel not to answer our questions about potential communications between White House and DoD officials about JEDI. Therefore, we could not definitively determine the full extent or nature of interactions that administration officials had, or may have had, with senior DoD officials regarding the JEDI Cloud procurement. We provided the DoD Office of General Counsel with a list of questions, separated specific to each witness, and requested that they convey these questions to the White House Counsel’s Office for review and determination as to whether the White House would in fact invoke the presidential communications privilege. The DoD Office of General Counsel told us they then asked White House Counsel to review the list of questions and identify the subject areas, or specific questions, over which the President would assert the presidential communications privilege. After our repeated requests for a response, on February 25, 2020, the DoD Office of General Counsel stated that White House Counsel was only willing to allow witnesses to provide written answers to our questions where the presidential communications privilege was invoked; however, it stated that no representation could be made as to the number or extent of questions that could be answered, and that any written responses would require further review by White House Counsel on the issue of maintaining the privilege. We carefully considered this response and concluded it would not be an appropriate and practical way to conduct our review, because there was no assurance as to which questions would be answered, it would unduly delay the report, it would not allow for an interview and inevitable follow up questions, and it would not assure that we would be receiving full information from the witnesses. We therefore declined to proceed in this manner. We further discuss the details regarding this matter in Section III below. However, we believe the evidence we received showed that the DoD personnel who evaluated the contract proposals and awarded Microsoft the JEDI Cloud contract were not pressured regarding their decision on the award of the contract by any DoD leaders more senior to them, who may have communicated with the White House. We interviewed the personnel involved in the factor evaluation and source selection processes, including factor and selection board chairs, the Source Selection Authority, and the Procuring Contracting Officer. Most of their identities and involvement in the procurement award were unknown to White House staff and even to the senior DoD officials. None of these witnesses told us they felt any outside influence or pressure for or against a particular competitor as they made their decisions on the award of the contract. These witnesses also told us that public statements from the President and “media swirl” about the contract did not directly or indirectly influence the integrity of the procurement process or the outcome of the JEDI Cloud source selection. Yet, these media reports, and the reports of President Trump’s statements about Amazon, ongoing bid protests and “lobbying” by JEDI Cloud competitors, as well as inaccurate media reports about the JEDI Cloud procurement process, may have created the appearance or perception that the contract award process was not fair or unbiased." [1] https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REPORT%20ON%20THE%20JOINT%20ENTERPRISE%20DEFENSE%20INFRASTRUCTURE%20(JEDI)%20CLOUD%20PROCUREMENT%20DODIG-2020-079.PDF https://media.defense.gov/2020/Apr/15/2002281438/-1/-1/1/REP...