U.S. grand jury probing contractor that vetted Snowden: WSJ

[struggle4progress]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The company that conducted the most recent security review of former U.S. spy agency contractor Edward Snowden is the subject of a federal grand jury investigation into its background check processes, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday, citing people involved with the probe.

Federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are investigating whether USIS, a U.S. government contractor, rushed its cases without doing a proper review, which would be a violation of the False Claims Act, the Journal said.

The grand jury has issued subpoenas to former USIS officials in recent days, the paper reported.

US Investigations Services, LLC did not immediately respond to requests for comment ...

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/130804/us-grand-jury-probing-contractor-vetted-snowden-wsj

[Cha]

1. thanks struggle4progress

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. What difference will that make one way or 'tother???

.
.
.

The horse is outta the barn . .

CC

[randome]

8. Because cheating and lying your way into a national security position is...bad?

[davidpdx]

3. This is the story most people on DU ignored when the whole thing broke

Myself and a few others posted about it over and over again. Not only does the contractor need to be investigated, the way in which background checks were done needs to be as well.

[bigtree]

4. that seems like a weak and subjective standard of guilt

I doubt anyone will be able to prove they were deliberately negligent - I assume intent needs to be proven to convict someone of this.

It just looks like another flailing attempt by the government to defend their petty turf; most of the flak coming from the WH, certainly reeks of the authoritarianism that some throw around here to describe a particular pov; a distinction that only really matters when we're talking about folks with the power and (assumed) authority to affect someone's life.

Can't overstate just how heavy this government hand is - and, how vindictive and anti-democratic this appears.

[Fumesucker]

5. Leave the poor contractors ALOOONEE!!!

[bigtree]

6. ?

Have at them. I don't really give a shit.

The spectacle of the feds scrambling to mop up everything they can find that has Snowden's name on it is just embarrassing and sad . . . kind of like the woman in your pic upset over criticism of her apparent idol, Ms. Spears.

[Fumesucker]

7. ??

If you were trying to be sarcastic or ironic in your first post I apologize, it flew right by me since I'm not familiar with you posting in that style.

A grand jury investigation is now the heavy hand of government?

What, they might issue a warrant?

[bigtree]

10. I'm sure it's all me

. . . thinking that 'Federal prosecutors and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are investigating' looks suspiciously like part of the government effort to rein in Snowden.

I'd personally more like to see federal investigators looking into some of the snooping abuses by these intelligence agents, but, I understand that the government is more concerned with defending their own prerogative for snooping and keeping those efforts as secret as possible. Better for them to discredit this man than be forced to address what he's drawn attention to and highlighted.

[Fumesucker]

12. Ah, I see

A big whoosh on my part..



You might enjoy this I found looking for the other image..

[randome]

9. Really? Snowden's resume was a lie. The company that vetted him should pay a price.

[bigtree]

11. maybe

. . .but criminally liable?

I think that's a longshot. I'd think Snowden would be more responsible for that, given that they should need to show intent to be negligent or defraud on the part of the agency. I don't know what the standard is, but I'd think simple negligence would be part of some other agency's jurisdiction and not the purview of the FBI.

[randome]

13. Negligence for a national security position should be treated differently.

You don't just 'drop the ball' on something that important. It definitely is a big deal when the company you depend on to do background checks allows a clearly fraudulent resume to somehow pass.

More like conspiracy or bribery or collusion or something like that. It will be interesting to see where this leads.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

14. really? Doesn't sound like U.S. jurisprudence

. . . of course, we're free to assume the company was in collusion with Snowden to deceive.

Like I said, there may well be a stricter standard than I imagine, but I don't think they'll have any luck finding anything more nefarious than a lax in standards at the agency.

[struggle4progress]

16. The investigation of USIS predates the Snowden story: the company has a multibillion dollar monopoly

on background checks, and they don't always seem above-the-board

[struggle4progress]

17. Dead Among Those Interviewed in Faulty Background Checks

By Chris Strohm & Nick Taborek - 2013-07-08T17:01:08Z

Anthony J. Domico, a former contractor hired to check the backgrounds of U.S. government workers, filed a 2006 report with the results of an investigation.

There was just one snag: A person he claimed to have interviewed had been dead for more than a decade ...

Domico is among 20 investigators who have pleaded guilty or have been convicted of falsifying such reports since 2006. Half of them worked for companies such as Altegrity Inc., which performed a background check on national-security contractor Edward Snowden. The cases may represent a fraction of the fabrications in a government vetting process with little oversight, according to lawmakers and U.S. watchdog officials ...

Among the 10 background-check workers employed by contractors who have been convicted or pleaded guilty to falsifying records since 2006, eight of them had worked for USIS ...

Kayla M. Smith, a former investigative specialist for USIS, submitted some 1,600 falsified credit reports, according to the inspector general’s office ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-08/dead-among-those-interviewed-in-faulty-background-checks.html

[struggle4progress]

18. Former background investigator pleads guilty to falsifying work on investigations

Former background investigator pleads guilty to falsifying work on investigations
Published June 21, 2013
Associated Press

WASHINGTON – A former investigator who worked for the firm that conducted a background check on ex-National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden has pleaded guilty to charges of falsifying work on background investigations of other federal workers.

Ramon Davila pleaded guilty on Thursday to making a false statement. He did not work on the Snowden background investigation ...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/21/former-background-investigator-pleads-guilty-to-falsifying-work-on/

[struggle4progress]

20. Corrupt security clearance/background check contractor USIS is back on the Police blotter

By NEIL GORDON
POGO Investigator
Thursday April 12, 2012

.. Bryan M. Marchand of Montgomery, AL, became the latest in a string of background investigators prosecuted in recent years for falsifying their work claiming to have interviewed a source or reviewed a record regarding the subject of the background investigation when, in fact, they had not done so. Former USIS employee Miccah L. Dusablon pleaded guilty in January. Stewart Chase, who worked as a background investigator for both USIS and top 100 defense contractor CACI International, pleaded guilty last July.

According to the DOJ, in the last three years, 11 background checkers and two record checkers have been convicted of making false statements while working on federal background investigations ...

https://ssl.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?letter_id=8166442911

[struggle4progress]

21. Dozens of Security Clearance Reports Falsified

Office of Personnel Management IG Investigates Top Contractor
By Eric Chabrow, June 24, 2013

.. The federal government has identified dozens of cases of alleged falsification of reports submitted by investigators examining individuals being considered for security clearances.

In testimony at a Senate hearing June 20, the inspector general of the Office of Personnel Management said there are 20 cases in which investigators - federal employees and contractors - were either found guilty or were about to plead guilty to falsifying security clearance reports. The office also is investigating dozens more cases, he said ...

http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/dozens-security-clearance-reports-falsified-a-5853/op-1

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Currently owned by Providence Equity Partners; before that, Carlyle Group (same as Booz Allen)

http://www.usis.com/Fact-Sheet.aspx

http://www.carlyle.com/news-room/news-release-archive/usis-announces-agreement-be-acquired-providence-equity-partners-new-growth

[millennialmax]

19. Good. This has been the most troubling aspect of the Snowden affair.

We need to strengthen our vetting process for issuing security clearances, including blacklisting supporters of leakers.