Final note to Dr. Tabak RE: Request for concurrence -Gustav O. Lienhard Award -A. Fauci

Fauci Awards Package (Redacted), p.34 · fauci_awards:email:00056

Date: 2021-02-18 15:40
Type: email · email
sender: Gretchen Weaver
to: Hall, Randall
Topics: Intelligence community assessments Awards, honoraria and recognition

Randy - Did you want to respond to Dr. Tabak? I had forgotten that I rote to him on Tuesday to let him know we had sent the question to OGE (see below). This is what I would send, but let me know if you want to send and want something different. Thanks, Gretchen Dr. Tabak: Good afternoon. It is sooner than I expected, but I am writing because OGE has responded to our request. Unfortunately, OGE has concluded that the NASEM/NAM is/are a "person" under the government-wide rules restricting gifts from outside sources and that they are a person that can be "substantially affected by the performance or non-performance" of Dr. Fauci's duties. As a result, we are unable to change our prior determination that he cannot accept the $40,000 cash gift associated with the Lienhard Award. Please let us know if you have any questions. Gretchen H. Weaver, J.D. Supervisory/Senior NIH Ethics Counsel DHHS/OGC/Ethics Division phone: fax: NOTICE: THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), ETHICS DIVISION IS INTENDED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMES ABOVE AND MAY CONTAIN PROTECTED, PRIVILEGED, OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO UNAUTHORIZED ADDRESSEES. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. EMPLOYEE RECIPIENTS ARE COUNSELED THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ETHICS REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE UPON THE PRIOR ADVICE OF ANY AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL, PROVIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. IF EMPLOYEE CONDUCT IS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS UNDER CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RELATED STATUTES, RELIANCE OF THE ADVICE OF AN AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL IN INTERPRETING THE SCOPE OF SUCH STATUTES IS A FACTOR THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN EXERCISING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION. EMPLOYEES ARE CAUTIONED THAT DISCLOSURES TO AN OGC ATTORNEY ARE NOT PROTTECTED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. ALL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING AGENCY ATTORNEYS, ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
As a result, we are unable to change our prior determination that he cannot accept the $40,000 cash gift associated with the Lienhard Award.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
EMPLOYEE RECIPIENTS ARE COUNSELED THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ETHICS REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE UPON THE PRIOR ADVICE OF ANY AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL, PROVIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
IF EMPLOYEE CONDUCT IS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS UNDER CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RELATED STATUTES, RELIANCE OF THE ADVICE OF AN AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL IN INTERPRETING THE SCOPE OF SUCH STATUTES IS A FACTOR THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN EXERCISING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION.	quoted / not their view	hypothetical conditional framing	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

As a result, we are unable to change our prior determination that he cannot accept the $40,000 cash gift associated with the Lienhard Award.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

EMPLOYEE RECIPIENTS ARE COUNSELED THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ETHICS REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE UPON THE PRIOR ADVICE OF ANY AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL, PROVIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

IF EMPLOYEE CONDUCT IS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS UNDER CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RELATED STATUTES, RELIANCE OF THE ADVICE OF AN AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL IN INTERPRETING THE SCOPE OF SUCH STATUTES IS A FACTOR THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN EXERCISING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION.

quoted / not their view

hypothetical conditional framing

asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-02-18 15:40 Gretchen Weaver

Randy - Did you want to respond to Dr. Tabak? I had forgotten that I rote to him on Tuesday to let him know we had sent the question to OGE (see below). This is what I would send, but let me know if you want to send and want something different. Thanks, Gretchen Dr. Tabak: Good afternoon. It is sooner than I expected, but I am writing because OGE has responded to our request. Unfortunately, OGE has concluded that the NASEM/NAM is/are a "person" under the government-wide rules restricting gifts from outside sources and that they are a person that can be "substantially affected by the performance or non-performance" of Dr. Fauci's duties. As a result, we are unable to change our prior determination that he cannot accept the $40,000 cash gift associated with the Lienhard Award. Please let us know if you have any questions. Gretchen H. Weaver, J.D. Supervisory/Senior NIH Ethics Counsel DHHS/OGC/Ethics Division phone: fax: NOTICE: THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), ETHICS DIVISION IS INTENDED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMES ABOVE AND MAY CONTAIN PROTECTED, PRIVILEGED, OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE TRANSMITTED TO UNAUTHORIZED ADDRESSEES. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. EMPLOYEE RECIPIENTS ARE COUNSELED THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR VIOLATING FEDERAL ETHICS REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE TAKEN AGAINST ANY EMPLOYEE WHO HAS ENGAGED IN CONDUCT IN GOOD FAITH RELIANCE UPON THE PRIOR ADVICE OF ANY AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL, PROVIDED THAT THE EMPLOYEE HAS MADE FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. IF EMPLOYEE CONDUCT IS POTENTIALLY SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL SANCTIONS UNDER CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND RELATED STATUTES, RELIANCE OF THE ADVICE OF AN AGENCY ETHICS OFFICIAL IN INTERPRETING THE SCOPE OF SUCH STATUTES IS A FACTOR THAT MAY BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN EXERCISING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION. EMPLOYEES ARE CAUTIONED THAT DISCLOSURES TO AN OGC ATTORNEY ARE NOT PROTTECTED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. ALL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING AGENCY ATTORNEYS, ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

Full conversation →