3 ms·
When both the state and his lawyer were pressing him to take the deal, both the state and his lawyer believed he was guilty. The charges were withdrawn, as I u
by JackFr 5y ago
When both the state and his lawyer were pressing him to take the deal, both the state and his lawyer believed he was guilty.
The charges were withdrawn, as I understand it, when the Department of Energy clarified the understanding of the grant application for the US attorney and they came to the conclusion that there was not a duty to disclose the particular affiliation.
There’s no doubt that this caused professional harm to him. At the same time the US government has a reasonable interest in knowing of the foreign government affiliations of researchers it funds, and should reasonably pursue those who flout the rules.
Was this prosecution flawed? It seems very much so. Was it pursued reasonably and in good faith? It’s hard to say it wasn’t, unless your outlook is to be immediately suspicious of prosecutors.
- jhugo 5y agoYou seem to imply that he flouted the rules, but we don't know if he has any ties to China beyond the ties that anybody born there would have.
- JackFr 5y agoNo I don't imply that at all. The article is clear, at least seemed to be to me, that he had affiliations with Chinese organizations, he did not disclose them, and most importantly to the charges being dropped, based on Department of Energy regulations, he was under no obligation to disclose them. The US attorney brought charges based on the idea that he was obligated to disclose them. The US attorney was wrong according to the Department of Energy, who administered the grant.