jim nasium wrote:

I think what we have established is that the GAO wasn't investigating
criminal behavior.

I don't think I said it was.

it was investigating conflicts of interest and
particularly whether or not proper procedures were being followed
according to the information provided to GAO by those being

That's more or less correct, as I understand it. But such an inquiry by
its very nature is somewhat substantive as well, because it
neccessarily involves some analysis, or classifcation of conflict,
perceived and real...apparent or waived.

it wasn't an evidentiary investigation, it was a
procedural investigation.

Well, was "evidentiary" to the extent that it was primarily
focused on procedural violations and failed to produce any evidence of
such. I do think I remember passges relating to actual conflicts that
were acknowledged and waived, though. (I haven't read it in some time).