Well, the Cooch can't take a hint, so he decided to refile against his Civil Investigative Demand (text at the link) against the University of Virginia trying to thread the needle through the microscopic hole the judge left when he squashed the previous fishing trip into Michael Mann's files. Although Cuccinelli was told that he could not butt into federal grants, there was a single intramural grant from UVa on which Mann was not the PI but a co-PI dealing with how interactions between the biosphere and atmosphere in the African savannah.
Even after a couple of hours there are articles on this already everywhere (deSmog, Washington Post, Mother Jones, Real Climate and more), but Eli has a suspicion, actually two. In trying to tie the UVa grant to the Mann, Bradley and Hughes papers there is some funny language in the CID
To the extent that Dr. Mann did reference or rely on his past work in these papers (or others like them) to aid in the winning of the grant when he should knew of should have known of the potential of the papers (or others like them) to mislead the grantor, such actions would subject him to potential FATA liability . . .What makes this interesting is that this "reference" could have been in a list of publication on the bio sketch, a very thin reed indeed. The other part that could bring the whole house of cards down is they could have had like $5 left by January 1, 2003.
Further if the work on the grant built on any prior work that suffered from the same or a similar flaw, Dr. Mann would also be subject to liability. This would apply to any claims for payment or payments made under the grant listed below after January 1, 2003.
The only interesting thing is that pages 17 to 28 of the CID are the usual denial hash, the question that the bunnies are asking is who wrote it. Therein lies the tale.