With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Milam agreed in the resolution of her formal complaint that Marton, Deen, and Tofilon had committed no fraud. By the relator’s own admission, there was no evidence of misconduct prior thereto. In October, 1987, Marton and Deen talked to officials at NIH about the problems they were encountering with some of Tofi-lon’s data. NIH was also informed of the Selby retraction. While the government’s knowledge of the problems with the research is not an absolute defense, it “may be relevant to a defendant’s liability.” United States ex rel. Kreindler & Kreindler v. United Technologies Corp., 985 F.2d 1148, 1156-57 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2962, 125 L.Ed.2d 663 (1993); see also United States ex rel. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 929 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Boisjoly v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 706 F.Supp.

A: holding that the knowledge requisite to knowing violation of a statute is factual knowledge as distinguished from knowledge of the law
B: holding that knowledge possessed by officials of the united states may be highly relevant such knowledge may show that the defendant did not submit its claim in deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard of the truth
C: holding trial courts finding omission of information was not intentional or with reckless disregard for truth was not clearly erroneous
D: holding informants veracity reliability and basis of knowledge are highly relevant to inquiry
B.