Slashdot Mirror


FBI Searches New Fed CIO Kundra's Former Offices

CWmike writes "While new federal CIO Vivek Kundra gave a speech here this morning on his vision for the US government's use of technology, the FBI conducted a search of the District of Columbia's IT offices — where Kundra worked until last week — and arrested an employee and another person who works for an outsourcing vendor, say reports. There was no indication that Kundra was connected in any way to the FBI's raid, which was part of a bribery sting operation. And if Kundra was aware of what was going on at his former offices or concerned about the raid, it wasn't evident during his speech at FOSE 2009, a trade show focused on government IT. The FBI would not comment on the reports. President Barack Obama last week appointed Kundra to be the federal government's first official CIO."

173 comments

  1. More by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    change we can believe in?

  2. Come on, I'm a non-Obama fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I find this incredibly biased and designed to make him look bad. It had nothing to do with this new guy.

    1. Re:Come on, I'm a non-Obama fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not as bad as you think.

      The FBI got a report of a noxious smell coming from the office. They had to investigate for a possible chemical weapons attack. But it just ended up being Vivek's curry farts.

  3. Re:Boring by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Excellent troll mod.

    Here's another one for you. I suggest Offtopic this time.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  4. Sigh... by XPeter · · Score: 0

    Another government agent is getting arrested...Pirate Bay is in trial...and on top of that Slashdot now has ads from Fox Business. Please shoot me.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Sigh... by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      This could be unrelated. He hasn't been arrested yet. However, there does seem to be an early stigma on Obama's appointees and corruption. Obama better hope this guy is clean.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Sigh... by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      Hum other than Geithner who are you referring too?

    3. Re:Sigh... by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/03/washington/AP-Obama-Killefer.html

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/opinion/03tue1.html

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05richardson.html

      That is four appointees tied to corruption issues, so the CIO would be the fifth if that were the case.

      Then, there is the Blagojevich scandal, which the media was adamant from day 1 that Obama had no knowledge about, and zero possible connection. The media can't know that for certain. Obama may very well be innocent there, but there is a perception of stigma regardless.

      Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.

      Again, Obama probably doesn't know Burris very well, and had no control over whether or not Burris perjured himself, but none of this is good PR.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:Sigh... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      After the FIRST guy getting outed on tax irregularities you would think they would be a LOT more careful. But no... another...

      I would love to see the Obama administration succeed in many ways for many reasons, but mostly because his success might also lead to the nation's success. But with all this crap coming down, you would think that Obama would have a team of investigators to vet these appointees with a fine-tooth-comb. Can Obama really be that dumb?

    5. Re:Sigh... by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

      Now Obama's replacement, Burris may be charged with perjury and there are calls for him to resign.

      Last I knew, Obama wasn't a support of Burris and wanted him to resign.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    6. Re:Sigh... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I love that I get modded troll for DEFENDING the guy and saying he hasn't been arrested yet.

      It is just common sense that if Obama's appointees are charged with corruption, that isn't good PR for him. How is that trolling to say Obama better hope he is clean?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:Sigh... by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please read the full post where I said Obama probably doesn't know the guy very well, and probably has no connection to his perjury.

      The point is however, that so long as the issue continues to blow up, it will continue to create bad PR.

      After all, there is a slight chance that Obama did have some knowledge that Blagojevich and his wife were both on the take. Burris apparently lied about not knowing. Obama was cleared of wrongdoing before any investigation was done, or any facts came out. Literally, the day it came out that charges were being pressed against Blagojevich, prosecutors said they wouldn't look into Obama.

      However, because the two did work together, there are those that will make accusations. Obama had very slight connections to Ayers, but it was enough for people to use it against him.

      His appointees, like the CIO, are more direct connections. Obama is responsible to appoint the right people. My initial post didn't suggest innocence or guilt. I merely wanted to point out, that Obama better hope his CIO is clean otherwise it will look bad for him.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    8. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude Obama is from Illinois, the politicians from there attracts corruption like a magnet; at least Biden isn't from Louisiana!

    9. Re:Sigh... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > there does seem to be an early stigma on Obama's appointees and corruption

      Whoa there buddy! Haven't you heard? Dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism. Also, everyone remove your "if you're not outraged you're not paying attention" bumper stickers. All is well.

    10. Re:Sigh... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Dude Obama is from Illinois, the politicians from there attracts corruption like a magnet; at least Biden isn't from Louisiana!"

      Hey, from what I've been seeing and reading, IL politics make LA's look VERY clean and innocent!!

      :)

      And say what you will about Jindal's TV thing the other night, but so far, he has done a great job down here...a lot of corruption has been ferreted out down here, many people on state and local levels going to jail. It doesn't feel quite like the 'banana republic' it used to be Pre-K.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Sigh... by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Funny

      there does seem to be an early stigma on Obama's appointees

      Q: What is the difference between Jesus and Obama?

      A: Jesus could build a cabinet.

    12. Re:Sigh... by kklein · · Score: 1

      I'd chalk all of this up to all long-term politicians being crooked as hell. I really, truly believe that Obama isn't. He hasn't been in the game long enough to have either changed his ways (for the worse) or gotten out of the game altogether. We, as a nation, jumped him into that position because of his refreshing naivete, and although I knew that it would be rough going and he'd have to change tack on a lot of things once he got started, I still think we made the right call.

    13. Re:Sigh... by dachshund · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, that's becoming the problem. The Obama team is being so careful in their vetting that some nominees are dropping out, getting fed up with the whole process.

    14. Re:Sigh... by makomk · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of these tax issues are coming out exactly because Obama's team is vetting the appointees with a fine-toothed comb.

  5. Par for the course? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay, so a bunch of his underlings got arrested for a spot of corruption while he was either (a) ignorant or (b) had plausible deniability. I like this guy already. I think he's got a very good handle on what it takes to be a good IT manager. My only other question: Was the soda machine out of Mountain Dew? If so, we have a winner.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Par for the course? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the soda machine out of Mountain Dew?

      Jeeze! You really are a cop.

    2. Re:Par for the course? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the guy is not implicated in the corruption, what does it say about his ability to work with people and take responsibility for his team? Not so sure I'd hand him the keys to the security of all the Federal data and the irony of him touting transparency is a joke. Hopefully the press will check out other folks this guy has supervised to get a good idea of what we can expect. Bad news all around.

    3. Re:Par for the course? by SailorSpork · · Score: 2, Informative

      Update: The guy is already on leave. It's amazing how short your political career can be just by being appointed to something by Obama...

    4. Re:Par for the course? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Maybe Obama should scale back this "transparency" thing. It seems like everyone he knows has something illegal, corrupt, or somehow shady hanging over him.

  6. Choices... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is Obama just making really bad choices, or is everyone at that high a level in .gov just corrupt?

    --
    Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    1. Re:Choices... by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is Obama just making really bad choices, or is everyone at that high a level in .gov just corrupt?

      They're puppets who may or may not falsely believe that they have anything like a will of their own or ideas of their own. The real political power is not the President but the corporations and old-money families who put him into office. They don't put a President into office unless he has views that they find to be either favorable or convenient. That's not a conspiracy theory so much as a proposition that entrenched power tends to act in its own interests, and as such, it should be self-evident.

      I cannot prove this but I will offer some speculation: the more I have heard of his speeches and his intentions and his beliefs, the more I think that John F. Kennedy was a fluke. He was a fluke because he really did want to represent the people and not the interests that got him into office. I believe that is why he was assassinated -- to those interests, this represented a betrayal or a "double-crossing" and they made an example. Certainly the Mafia could arrange such an event, and I will say that I believe that the monied interests who truly run this country make the Mafia look like a bunch of amateurs, though they prefer to buy people off rather than use brute force. Most people's princples are indeed for sale if the price is high enough, and they know this because they know what corruption is. It's just that occasionally there comes someone who cannot be bought and against whom they don't have some other form of leverage.

      I apologize that I do not know the time or place, but this is a quote from a speech delivered by JFK:

      The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are, as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it's in my control. And no official of my administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press or public the facts they deserve to know.

      An open government of the sort he advocated is quite terrifying to the powers behind the throne. So, I think Obama or any other President probably cannot help but to make bad choices or to have corruption. Even if he himself is a sincere man, he is working within a system that is not designed for sincerity.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Choices... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why the hell is this marked troll?

      It's a valid question.

      How many of Obama's choices have had either tax problems or scandals?

      Seriously, troll is 100% wrong moderation.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TFS comprehension fail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Enjoy the country your stupidity has gotten you.

      How the hell is this interesting? How did the parent poster fail to comprehend the story?

      Since you didn't bother quoting it, and for those too lazy to hit "parent" twice, the original was:

      Is Obama just making really bad choices, or is everyone at that high a level in .gov just corrupt?

      So, after appointing the guy who underpaid his taxes and blamed it on TurboTax to head the IRS, we have the guy who worked in an office which has been hit by a federal investigation into bribery working as CIO.

      Considering that a CIO has purchasing power, it seems to me to be quite a coincidence that our new US CIO's former co-workers were found to have taken bribes.

      To add insult to injury, if you read the article (I know, I know), you'll discover that not only were they taking bribes, they were taking bribes to outsource government work to non-citizens. Think about that for a moment. They're taking our tax money, and then sending it overseas. WTF!

      And this person from that office gets nominated to be CIO by Obama.

      Obama's barely been in office a month, and he's already had countless examples of simply bad management skills. It's almost as if we elected someone with no executive experience...

    4. Re:Choices... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      How the hell is this interesting?

      No shit. I am busting my everliving ass to get as many negative mods in this thread as I can, and some jackass comes along and mods me intersting. Trust me, you're nowhere near as unhappy as I am right now.

      To answer your other questions, read my other posts around here.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:Choices... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's a valid question.

      No, it's not. AS TFS says itself, there's not one bit of dirt on the actual appointee, just two ex-subordinates.

      Other Obama appointments might be big bags of fail, but so far, this one isn't. When he is, then GP can make his point. Otherwise, he's just a lazy and biased cunt like you are.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    6. Re:Choices... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      LOL. You kiss your mother with that mouth? (assuming you know who she is)

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    7. Re:Choices... by alexj33 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You must be new here...

      A moderation of "Troll" on /. often (but not always) means: "inconvenient fact."

    8. Re:Choices... by Dripdry · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know what's going on with moderation here, but I'll throw my hat in the ring.
      Why is this modded Troll?
      Why are som of the other posts moderated down?
      The politicizing that seems to be going on here is worrisome.

      --
      -
    9. Re:Choices... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 0, Troll

      Aw man, you got me. I concede. You're the master.

      All bow before Captain Splendid, Slashdot hero.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    10. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other Obama appointments might be big bags of fail, but so far, this one isn't. When he is, then GP can make his point. Otherwise, he's just a lazy and biased cunt like you are.

      Or, he could be a lazy and biased dickhead instead. What's that? You wanna know the difference between a dick and a cunt?

    11. Re:Choices... by causality · · Score: 1

      No shit. I am busting my everliving ass to get as many negative mods in this thread as I can, and some jackass comes along and mods me intersting. Trust me, you're nowhere near as unhappy as I am right now.

      Just curious: if you really meant that and were not just being facetious, then what is the purpose? That's not intended as sarcasm or a put-down or anything like that; I really want to know.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    12. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our affirmative action HNIC from Crook County is nothing but corruption.

      Maybe there will be one person, like Sasha or Malia, who isn't yet corrupted.

      But they will be, by folks like Barney Fag.

    13. Re:Choices... by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Funny

      The politicizing that seems to be going on here is worrisome.

      You must be new here.

    14. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27th 1961 (the JFK quote)

      "Most people's princples are indeed for sale if the price is high enough" -- what a sad reality to have to live in - esp. when it doesn't have to be that way. What happen to the integrity of the history or was that too just a mask?

      "occasionally there comes someone who cannot be bought and against whom they don't have some other form of leverage" - that, my friend, is what we hold out for and pray for...in ourselves when our number is called and in others when the doors are closed and they are left with only their conscience.

      "...(he)cannot help but to make bad choices or to have corruption. Even if he himself is a sincere man, he is working within a system that is not designed for sincerity" -- How true and how beautifully put!

      Blair

    15. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm posting AC because I want to remain neutral and not come across as being a conspiracy theorist or promoting these people's views. However, your post makes this very appropriate and I don't think anyone should ever be afraid of information.

      The Obama Deception is a new documentary that is being officially released on March 15 '09, but it's up on the torrent sites so you can download it right away. I'm sure the creators won't mind people downloading it, either, since it's very political and they're trying to spread their message.

      I watched it today, and it is very conspiracy-theorish, however, they do bring up some excellent points. Mainly that Obama has broken most of his campaign promises (FISA, getting out of Iraq, promoting peace, government accountability etc.) and that the majority of his cabinet appointees are Wall-Street cronies. While they are conspiracy theorists, every point that they make about Obama's policies, cabinet appointees and voting records can be verified. Even if you come out not believing or agreeing with them, I still recommend that you watch it.

      It should also be pointed out that the documentary is non-partisan. The same people also made several documentaries attacking G.W Bush.

    16. Re:Choices... by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I cannot prove this but I will offer some speculation: the more I have heard of his speeches and his intentions and his beliefs, the more I think that John F. Kennedy was a fluke.

      Just like JFK, Barack Obama is a product of Chicago Political Machine(TM) — easily the most corrupt local political system in the nation (think Blagojevich)... I'd rather JFK and Obama were both flukes — having the nation's President come from such gutters as a rule is rather disgraceful...

      So, I think Obama or any other President probably cannot help but to make bad choices or to have corruption. Even if he himself is a sincere man, he is working within a system that is not designed for sincerity.

      Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    17. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You two are so cool. How old do I have to be before I can start insulting people on the internet with the same material I used in middle school?
      I can't wait.

    18. Re:Choices... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1
      MOD PARENT UP!! Thanks for having the courage to talk about this. It's easy to dismiss as "conspiracy theory" or nutty, but it doesn't really require a conspiracy, just an understanding that certain people (and families) have common interests.

      Wake up, people!

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    19. Re:Choices... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      Spot on, AC. I very well could be a lazy and baised dickhead.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    20. Re:Choices... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      I really want to know.

      Read my Journal.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    21. Re:Choices... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0, Troll

      Damn straight. You maggots make we want to puke.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    22. Re:Choices... by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?

      Did the previous president give any evidence of indication that he was a fluke ala JFK ( going against the interests of his class), or was he like JFK solely in the fact that, like JFK, he was born into a wealthy and politically powerful East Coast family?

      Are slashdotters really this simple minded? "This guy seems to think both JFK and Obama don't necessarily represent the interests of the wealthy. I wonder if he would extend the same courtesy to Bush?" Well, can you name a few things Bush did that were more in the interests of the common person, rather than the wealthy?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    23. Re:Choices... by causality · · Score: 1

      Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?

      Did the previous president give any evidence of indication that he was a fluke ala JFK ( going against the interests of his class), or was he like JFK solely in the fact that, like JFK, he was born into a wealthy and politically powerful East Coast family? Are slashdotters really this simple minded? "This guy seems to think both JFK and Obama don't necessarily represent the interests of the wealthy. I wonder if he would extend the same courtesy to Bush?" Well, can you name a few things Bush did that were more in the interests of the common person, rather than the wealthy?

      Brevity is something I've yet to master, so I think you just saved me some effort by explaining that.

      Thank you.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    24. Re:Choices... by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, I think Obama or any other President [emphasis mine -mi] ...

      Were you as forgiving towards the previous President?

      Did the previous president give any evidence of indication ...

      The GGP said: "any other President". Hence it was logical to wonder, if he was as tolerant towards corruption under Bush (who, BTW, had no problems appointing cabinet members without problems of tax-dodging).

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    25. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Obama just making really bad choices, or is everyone at that high a level in .gov just corrupt?

      Just the democrats. /ducks

      Isn't it odd how common tax evasion is among leading senior democrats?

    26. Re:Choices... by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, I think Obama or any other President [emphasis mine -mi] ...

      Were you as forgiving towards the previous President?

      Did the previous president give any evidence of indication ...

      The GGP said: "any other President". Hence it was logical to wonder, if he was as tolerant towards corruption under Bush (who, BTW, had no problems appointing cabinet members without problems of tax-dodging).

      Understanding corruption and accepting the reality of it is not at all the same thing as feeling "tolerant towards corruption" (or excusing it, as you seem to imply), and on that basis I believe you have misunderstood me. I was attempting the former, not the latter.

      I find it useful to understand that this sort of corruption is systemic. We'd like to believe that it's the fault of $ONE_GUY, with the exact identity of $ONE_GUY varying depending on whom you ask. Most people you ask will select someone they don't like for this role, especially someone who personally offends them in some way. Extra points if the perceived "offense" comes solely from subscribing to an opposing viewpoint. This occurs because most people are egomaniacs and don't know it but has little to do with true inquiry. This is part of the "us against them" thinking that has been around for so very long and hasn't done anything to improve our situation. In fact, it has been one of the more active agents of our stagnation, tying up much energy that could be applied elsewhere.

      What I discussed was the reason why the people generally feel under-represented. I also wrote about why it's a rare occurrence that anyone who is in a position to do so would try to remedy this. I wanted to keep the last post simple so there was another reason for this that I did not mention in it. It is something of an issue of probability.

      It is unfortunate that selfless, compassionate, loving people who have wisdom and courage are still relatively rare among the general population. Incidentally, it is for this reason alone that I consider this period of our history to be a Dark Age that is awaiting something far better and will cherish it when it arrives. It may or may not be unfortunate that many people who fit that description are not interested in wielding political power, but certainly the more selfish, controlling, and fearful among us are very interested in political power. In addition to what I described in my last post, these factors also work to ensure that a true servant of the people, a more enlightened type of leader, one who understands pure motive, is unlikely to occupy a high office at any given time. Little or none of this depends on the actual intentions of the person who wins the election.

      On a more mundane level, there were plenty of actions taken by the Bush administration which troubled me quite a bit more than tax evasion. I have personally written about several of them on this site when they were the subject of discussion. I just won't buy into this idea that there should be some contest to see whether "our guy" or "their guy" is easier to denigrate. I don't consider either of them to be "my guy" and far more important things are at stake than a popularity contest masquerading as reasonable discourse. Therefore, I don't see your point. The systemic view I discussed is orthogonal to the question of whether all politicians should be held responsible for any illegal or immoral behavior.

      Knowing that it's not what I was speaking about before, if you still wish to know how I feel about that, I will tell you: yes, I believe that all politicians, no matter who they are, should be held responsible for any illegal or immoral behavior. I believe you felt a need to mention Bush solely because you thought that I was talking specifically or exclusively about Obama. Corruption is universal

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    27. Re:Choices... by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, +5 scary conspiracy theory. Have you stayed up all night playing Deus Ex and drinking coffee?

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    28. Re:Choices... by iocat · · Score: 1

      Why did you ask that as an "or" question? That's no a zero sum option!

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    29. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe there will be one person, like Sasha or Malia, who isn't yet corrupted.

      But they will be, by folks like Barney Fag.

      No - he likes little boys.

    30. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I believe that all politicians, no matter who they are, should be held responsible for any illegal or immoral behavior...Corruption is universally ugly. If you want to understand it and avoid being deceived by it, you have to realize the extent of it. If the "conservative vs. liberal" system could equip you to do that, then I would probably endorse it; however, in reality it has no redeeming qualities." -- I think every thing you wrote could be summed up in this one paragraph. That's the heart of the matter. The rest just builds up and adds to it.

      Blair

      corruption is universally ugly. amen!

    31. Re:Choices... by causality · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, +5 scary conspiracy theory. Have you stayed up all night playing Deus Ex and drinking coffee?

      You'll find that there is a conditioned response (not unlike Pavlov's dogs) to instantly ridicule anything that even looks like a conspiracy theory without ever spending a moment to think about its plausibility. Like all self-limiting responses, this one reduces thinking and limits possibility, not in reality of course but in your mind. Like most of our self-limiting responses, this one appears to come from the media. I mean, if you work at Company X and that company makes widgets, you and all of your co-workers are "conspiring" to make widgets. Some of you reallly need to get over this word and realize that it has no magical connotations. All corruption is a conspiracy because all corruption consists of at least two people who are trying to get away with something, be it bribery or whatever. By your "logic" (well, more like scoffing) there is no such thing as corruption and that is patently false. Incidentally, some things can appear to be about "the other guy" but are not; that built-in absurdity of your position is why you had to adopt a smarmy mocking tone against someone who has not provoked you.

      Now if you are willing to examine something before you dismiss it (I know, I know, not as fun that way), there have been real, documented conspiracies -- one of the scariest I know of is Operation Northwoods. That one alone demonstrates that there is certainly the willingness and the ability for a politically powerful group to conspire against the people of the United States. There is no question that such things do in fact happen. The real question is whether we want to guard against them. Another real question is how many events in our history books have been engineered in this manner? How many of these were successful and were not discovered as Operation Northwoods was discovered?

      I don't think you understand that if I were to find out that you're right and that my beliefs about this really are absurd, that everything in the USA is okay and is exactly as it appears to be, this would be good news to me. There are times when I would like to be wrong and this is one of them. I understand why this is a stumbling block for you -- no one really wants to think that from the highest government officials to the media, we are all being lied to every day. It is not a pleasant thought. The problem with that is that I can quite clearly see the world around me and how it operates, well enough that my choices are to either take the coward's way out and lie to myself or to deal with the reality of the situation. If I were to lie to myself, I would exhibit the sort of mocking denial that you demonstrate. That's because denigrating others is the wrong way of being "right" but it's one of the only ways available to the cowardly. I submit that the naivete you demonstrate is not going to bring you any comfort, nor is it going to bring you any understanding of why things happen the way they do.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    32. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's right. Another conspiracy I know is of Prescott Bush(our previous president's grandfather), some wealthy families and some major corporations attempts to convince a Major General in the Marines, under FDR, to join them in overthrowing the administration and installing a dictatorship, which the Marine later repeated before Congress.

      Article with citations here.

      Mocking suggestions that a large degree of conspiring exists in politics is being obtuse, perhaps deliberately. One cannot exist without the other.
       

    33. Re:Choices... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you as forgiving towards the previous President? More importantly, were the moderators?

      What is this, an entirely useless and closed-minded troll comment with the sole purpose of putting down the OP and calling for the mods?

      "Do you love Bush? You know what to do, mods."

  7. Offtopic topic? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    arrested an employee and another person who works for an outsourcing vendor, say reports. There was no indication that Kundra was connected in any way to the FBI's raid

    So... what's the big deal?

    1. Re:Offtopic topic? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Obviously, Timmeh's not a big fan of Obama. If kdawson is a left-wing tool, only fair we have a right-wing tool to balance things out.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Offtopic topic? by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmmm. Let's rewrite it slightly.

      While new republican CIO John Doe gave a speech here this morning on his vision for the US government's use of technology, the FBI conducted a search of the Texas's IT offices â" where Doe worked until last week â" and arrested an employee and another person who works for an outsourcing vendor, say reports. There was no indication that Doe was connected in any way to the FBI's raid, which was part of a bribery sting operation. And if Doe was aware of what was going on at his former offices or concerned about the raid, it wasn't evident during his speech at FOSE 2009, a trade show focused on government IT. The FBI would not comment on the reports. President George Bush last week appointed Doe to be the federal government's first official CIO.

      Change anything? IMO, it would have. "Look at the corruption, George Bush is now appointing a CIO of the entire USA from a corrupt Texas IT department that is involved in bribery and sting operations!"

      Oh. But this is Obama's administration. Who cares if several appointments of his weren't honest about their taxes (oh, sorry, "forgot" about certain items. Admittedly, in some cases, it did look innocent; but sometimes, not so much, especially for someone that you'd think would know these sorts of things...), that his CIO worked in an IT department that had bribery sting deals going on, or whatever...

      Eh. I know Bush administration wasn't good and that most all government is corrupt, blah blah. But that doesn't mean I should just ignore this because it happens to everyone or whatever. If the place he worked has people getting busted for bribery or whatever, then investigation should continue; no, not because she is guilty until proven innocent, but because I think government officials should be held to a pretty high standard. Especially since, in the last 100 years, they've tended to be dishonest.

    3. Re:Offtopic topic? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not, it's got nothing to do with Dems or Repubs. It's all in this sentence in TFS:

      There was no indication that Doe was connected in any way to the FBI's raid, which was part of a bribery sting operation.

      Which reduces this to a story about a couple of low-level employees getting arrested over nothing. Which is about as far from FP Slashdot fare as you can get.

      Boring.

      And then Timmeh slaps in a quick reference to Obama for the Hell of it.

      Lame.

      I'm not one to bash Slashdot and its "declining standards", but this was just stupid and pointless.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    4. Re:Offtopic topic? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And that's supposed to make us feel good?

      The guy was/is the head of that office. He either didn't know about the corruption (as the frigging FEDERAL CIO for the country, that might be a think he'd be expected to know about corruption in his own office) or he was in on it.

      Either way, for me, this is 100% a bad sign and should raise a huge red flag.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    5. Re:Offtopic topic? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Change anything?

      No. Answer is the same: *yawn* Let me know when he's implicated in any way, then I'll care.

      If Scooter Libby hadn't actually done the Perp Walk, I wouldn't care about him either.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Offtopic topic? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If he was just another low-level person in the office and didn't know about it, ok. And I can understand having employees and upper management isn't really responsible, especially dependent on the size of the office... but it should at least be thoroughly investigated, and should raise flags. Not "Oh my goodness, he is a sting operation person!" but at least a "We should check and make sure he's innocent before proceeding." Wanting to prove innocence != assuming guilty; it's assuming innocence but not ignorantly.

    7. Re:Offtopic topic? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And that's supposed to make us feel good?

      What's all this feel crap? I thought conservatives thought with their heads and only wimpy liberals talked about their feelings? Not to mention it's a complete non-sequitur...

      The guy was/is the head of that office. He either didn't know about the corruption (as the frigging FEDERAL CIO for the country, that might be a think he'd be expected to know about corruption in his own office) or he was in on it.

      So, you want omniscience from your department heads? Nice in theory, but the real world don't work that way.

      Either way, for me, this is 100% a bad sign and should raise a huge red flag.

      No surprises there. But my point is that this barely qualifies as news, let alone front page Slashdot material. Boring. lame. Just because it gets your juices flowing, don't expect me to get my panties all in a bunch as well, you weird deviant.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    8. Re:Offtopic topic? by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Well, it sure sounds like you got upset, whether or not we expected you to. ;)

      Meh, not sure what the stereotype mention is doing for the argument.

      Omniscience from department heads, no. But whether or not he really knew about it is a rather important question at this point, is it not? No, he's not guilty now, and probably won't be, but we should probably make sure. Which it looks like the FBI is doing. And until they conclusively say something about it, I'm not going to defend him and say he's innocent and didn't know about it. Who knows?

      Besides, if you want to pick on the "feeling" thing, what is this doing in the article itself (and the summary):

      And if Kundra was aware of what was going on at his former offices or concerned about the raid, it wasn't evident during his speech at FOSE 2009, a trade show focused on government IT.

      First, he's not even concerned about the raid of his former office? Seems he could at least be concerned about it and say he didn't know about it. Second, how is his speech an indicator of his innocence or guiltiness? Yay, he gave a morale-boosting rally speech that didn't mention his former office being raided. Must be innocent! ... ?

      Again, he probably is and I don't know if he is or not, but the article sure is defending him at this point... to a somewhat silly extent, even saying his speech and his apparent non-concern about the FBI raid ... I mean, if I ran a company of thousands of workers and the FBI raided it and found corruption, I'd at LEAST be upset, especially if I was innocent. I don't understand the article's point, I guess.

    9. Re:Offtopic topic? by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He either didn't know about the corruption... or he was in on it.

      Above post has serious blinders on. Other possibilities:

      • he cooperated with the FBI investigation
      • he was informed of the FBI investigation before the arrests
      • he initiated the FBI investigation

      Any of these is quite likely, and the last is, exactly the kind of action I would want to see a CEO take if in the course of his work he became aware that something suspicious was happening in his business. What would be the alternative? "I'm firing you two because I'm pretty sure that you're guilty of crimes in my company's cubicles?" That would be tacky. That would be SO last year.

      What say we wait and see what the story is before taking such Olympian long jumps to conclusions that might not actually be a landing place.

    10. Re:Offtopic topic? by DrLang21 · · Score: 1

      Is this a sign that /. is becoming "fair and balanced"?

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    11. Re:Offtopic topic? by ptbarnett · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not, it's got nothing to do with Dems or Repubs.

      No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....

      Can you say "partisan"? I knew you could.

    12. Re:Offtopic topic? by SoupGuru · · Score: 1

      Who cares if several appointments of his weren't honest about their taxes (oh, sorry, "forgot" about certain items. Admittedly, in some cases, it did look innocent; but sometimes, not so much, especially for someone that you'd think would know these sorts of things...), that his CIO worked in an IT department that had bribery sting deals going on, or whatever...

      I took all those tax snafus to mean our tax code is so titanic and so flipping confusing that even people that should know better can't make heads or tails of it.

      --
      What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    13. Re:Offtopic topic? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      It doesn't bother you that the guy who is supposed to be the Fed CIO wasn't aware (if that's the case) that there was corruption in his own office?

      Cause it bothers me.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    14. Re:Offtopic topic? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Depends who's got the mod points at any given moment. Check all my comments in this thread for an illustration: Contrary to popular belief, no one "side" on anything controls the discussion here. One of Slashdot's last few charms.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    15. Re:Offtopic topic? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc..

      Yeah, 'cuz everybody's so quiet and respectful in this thread *rollseyes*

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    16. Re:Offtopic topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say "partisan"? I knew you could.

      So far there are no grounds to suspect Vivek Kundra of anything improper.

      But that won't stop the Republicans. As usual, they will spread innuendo and blame it on the Democrats.

      Can you say "sleazy"? I knew you could.

    17. Re:Offtopic topic? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I agree with the Dems....when they say the Republicans are evil and crooked. I also agree with the Repubs.....when they say the Democrats are evil and crooked. They're both right about that much. A plague on both your houses. When will the sheep in this country wise up and stop playing the two party shuffle? The only change I ever see in Washington is from one set of crooks with a false ideology they don't believe in....to another set with a different false ideology they don't believe in. The only good thing I can see so far about Obama is he's a very effective speaker. I know he's full of shit and I still want to believe in him.

    18. Re:Offtopic topic? by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      They're both right about that much. A plague on both your houses.

      Now that's something about which we can violently agree!

      The only good thing I can see so far about Obama is he's a very effective speaker. I know he's full of shit and I still want to believe in him.

      Don't take away his teleprompter, or it will destroy your last positive illusion.

    19. Re:Offtopic topic? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      There must be millions in the USA who are not _correctly_ paying their sales tax and other taxes (e.g. "use tax").

      With such complexity in the US tax system I'd need more info before saying someone's "tax problems" = doing something unethical/immoral.

      --
    20. Re:Offtopic topic? by Draek · · Score: 1

      But that'd be a result more of a witch-hunt against Bush rather than Obama apologism. If this had happened during Bush's first year in office, I believe the popular response would've been "and this is news for nerds?".

      Which is exactly my personal response now.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    21. Re:Offtopic topic? by nmos · · Score: 1

      Above post has serious blinders on. Other possibilities:

              * he cooperated with the FBI investigation
              * he was informed of the FBI investigation before the arrests
              * he initiated the FBI investigation

      Sure but for any of the above to be true we also have to believe one of the following:

      * He forgot to tell the Obama admin about it.
      * He told them but they were too stupid to think they would need to have an explaination ready when the news broke.

      Do either of those seem likely to you?

    22. Re:Offtopic topic? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      What a lovely straw man you've built there.

    23. Re:Offtopic topic? by zaphirplane · · Score: 1

      because they worked for him and he was clueless to the systematic fraud, as the country's CIO it's "bad" (imagine the fraud for that budget)
      Or
      he knew ....

    24. Re:Offtopic topic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes sense. And Reagan should have known about Iran Contra.

    25. Re:Offtopic topic? by zdickinson · · Score: 0

      Of course we would. We had 8 years of evidence that they ran the most corrupt administration of all time. This is early on for Obama, if it becomes a theme, then I suspect we'll be saying it's all Obama's fault. "No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc.... Can you say "partisan"? I knew you could."

      --
      I hate ethics, I avoid them on principle.
    26. Re:Offtopic topic? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. But, the GP's point is correct: if this had been a member of Bush's administration, this article would already have 500 comments of wailing about how it was Bush's fault, Cheney's fault, and the fault of neo-cons, the Illuminati, FBI, CIA, RIAA, MPAA, etc....

      And, he would flutter gently into his new position, his apparent taint of criminality not having harmed his career in the slightest. Under Obama, he steps down. Can you say "Change"? I knew you could! :)

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    27. Re:Offtopic topic? by CharlieKotan · · Score: 1

      So, here we have some guy, the department director, whose immediate deputy is a crook. Bribing / taking bribes, along with at least one other.

      In the real world, he would be Accountable and Responsible. But, it would seem, not in DCland. The guy should NOT be allowed in the Administration.

      And, after the number of crooks this Administration has tried to bring on board, I wonder if some other heads at 1600 Pennsy don't need to roll. Does anybody do background investigations on these clowns?

      At this point, I'd be looking for a new Chief of Staff. This is CHANGE???

  8. Subject by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    obviously, FBI is lacist.

    1. Re:Subject by csartanis · · Score: 1

      You misspelled racist.

    2. Re:Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's from Japan! You insensitive clod!

    3. Re:Subject by csartanis · · Score: 1

      But Kundra isn't!

    4. Re:Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So he has trouble getting his tongue around his R's?

  9. First order of business: by GreenEggsAndSpam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Take a pay cut, show the world that you're not in it for the money, you're in it for the future of technology in the USA.

    Then call the BSA, report software piracy in a government office, collect the rest of your salary as the "reporting bonus".

    Or, in another thought: It really had nothing to do with him. Just because you work with someone who does something stupid/illegal doesn't immediately make you guilty of also being involved in the stupidity/illegalities. Doesn't mean it doesn't, just means it doesn't have to be that he does. Or not.

    --
    When all else fails, use fire.
  10. Band of thieves by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is there even one person in Obama's administration that isn't a crook, in the same field they are appointed to oversee?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Band of thieves by Dan667 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So far he has not declared any wars and has been keeping most of his promises. I'll take it. (especially so after bush)

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

    2. Re:Band of thieves by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hypocrite.

      ( just like those who moderated that post as a troll. )

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:Band of thieves by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sight you list is partisan and very pro-Obama. How can they mark 'no earmarks' as a compromise?

      No. 512: Go "line by line" over earmarks to make sure money being spent wisely
      "And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.

      I thought it was going to be a good sight to follow until I started seeing things like the above.

    4. Re:Band of thieves by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      It is being measured and anything being measured improves. If you don't agree, write them an email and voice your opinion. Maybe they will change it is it is reasonable.

    5. Re:Band of thieves by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      That sight you list is partisan and very pro-Obama. How can they mark 'no earmarks' as a compromise?

      ...

      Maybe the justification is the justification they gave?

    6. Re:Band of thieves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there even one person in Obama's administration that isn't a crook, in the same field they are appointed to oversee?

      Secretary of Transportation

  11. Oh Gee, lots of bibliography. by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, so the first link goes to ComputerWorld, which draws it's information from...
    ...gad zooks!: A ComputerWorld Blog; the writer of whom gets his information from...
    ...gad zooks!: A political blog; the writer of whom gets his information from...
    ...his ass.

    Nice trail.

    1. Re:Oh Gee, lots of bibliography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...gad zooks!: A political blog; the writer of whom gets his information from...
      ...the Washington Post.

      FTFY.

      You might not like the Washington Post, but it hardly qualifies as "his ass."

      There's also the AP and, well, plenty of other hits on Google.

    2. Re:Oh Gee, lots of bibliography. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, on the computerworld one (which is really an editorial, it's obvious what they think, heh). There are lots of other sources though.

    3. Re:Oh Gee, lots of bibliography. by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that's not where those articles linked to. My point was that:
      The CW article cited in TFS FBI searches Kundra's former offices as new federal CIO rallies IT troops had a link labeled "the FBI's raid," which lead me to:
      The CW blog Old office of Obama's CIO pick gets raided by FBI that had a link labeled "raided by the FBI," which lead me to:
      a Politico blog FBI raids office of D.C. CTO, Obama appointee which had no links leading to any of the wire services, including the Washington Post.

      There's no point in links if they don't lead back to the source. So no, AFAICT, the Politico editor took it out of his ass. It's why bibliography is important.

  12. Re:Boring by csartanis · · Score: 1

    I hear you, this stuff is scrolling across the bottom of 5 channels all day long and we have to see it here too. :(

  13. How did that go again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something like..."Fish rots from the head down"?

    Don't expect outrage from the left, it's their corruption now and their poop doesn't smell.

  14. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1, Troll

    is a well known terrorist

    Yes he is.

    but if you deny it you are clearly trolling or obviously ignorant)

    Speaking of disingenuous, you might also want to mention, in the interests of not trolling, of course, that the man was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and that thye word "Terrorist", thanks to the valiant efforts of team Bush, no longer has the same cachet it had 8 years ago.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  15. A BIG no-no!! by MikeRT · · Score: 0

    One of the dumbest things that you can do as a government employee is to try to run a business on the side that has dealings with your agency or other agencies affiliated with yours. Some people at TSA got in trouble for trying to double dip.

  16. Obama IT administration by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

    It seems like the Obama administration has a love affair with Microsoft anyway. Kundra really doesn't seem to be a guy with any great new ideas. Hopefully he's at least competent. I'd be more concerned about the pro-drug-war and pro-overreaching IP attorney general, Mr. Eric Holder.

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Obama IT administration by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      I'd be more concerned about the pro-drug-war and pro-overreaching IP attorney general, Mr. Eric Holder.

      You forgot race-baiting and gun-grabbing in your list of adjectives. Looks like there's something for everyone to dislike!

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  17. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah. Now this is the kind of quality troll that's been missing from /. for a long time.

  18. Subject by z-j-y · · Score: 1

    Why is it interesting?

    If it is not, why are you here and commenting?

    It is very interesting that you think you should make others know that an story is not interesting to them.

  19. He's on his way to being fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI has determined that he is current on his taxes, and is therefore unqualified to be in the cabinet.

  20. The emperor's tailor couldn't have said it better by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    "Forgetting for just a moment that one of President Obama's best friends is a well known terrorist (not going to list all of the sources on this, but if you deny it you are clearly trolling or obviously ignorant);"

    Actually, you're wrong on both counts. Bill Ayers isn't one of Obama's best friends and prior to the last presidential campaign, hardly anyone under the age of 55 had ever heard his name.

  21. Re:Boring by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    How long before "news for nerds" includes fashion and beauty stories?

  22. No, it's just everyone who is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...connected with Obama and the Dems that are the most corruptest and incompetent politicians in government. The Repubs are 2nd place in the corruption, and not too far behind, but they have much greater skill at keeping their corruption under wraps.

  23. Re:Boring by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Funny

    What do you mean? Fashion and beauty would be HUGE news for nerds. I don't think most of them know anything about either one. ;)

  24. List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For future reference, the list so far:

    • Bill Richardson: grand jury investigation for influence peddling
    • Tom Daschle: tax evasion
    • Nancy Killefer: tax lien on home for failing to pay unemployment tax for household workers
    • Judd Gregg: political differences over stimulus plan
    • Annette Nazareth: reason unspecified
    • Caroline Atkinson: reason for withdrawal not specified
    • Sanjay Gupta: reason unspecified

    People who haven't withdrawn, but have had major issues:

    • Hilda Solis: husband has 16 years of tax liens against his business
    • Tim Geithner: tax problems
    • Gary Locke: potentially-suspicious fund-raising history
    • Ron Kirk: failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes

    Will Vivek Kundra be next on the list?

    1. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It should also be noted that Daschle said initially he wouldn't resign over the tax charges, and that Obama said he still stood behind him despite the tax charges. There was some speculation that he changed his mind later because there was more dirt that might come out. Who knows.

      My big question with Daschle is that he isn't a laywer, and he claims that he isn't a lobbyist, and Obama promised not to appoint lobbyists, but the tax scandal was part of 2 million dollars in salary (plus perks) given to him by a law firm that specializes in lobbying.

      What exactly was Daschle doing for the firm as a non-lawyer and non-lobbyist that he was paid 2 million plus perks?

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Daschle is a lobbyist.

      That bill Obama just signed in hiding did have 8,500 earmarks and was his job.

      I really hope that soon he starts doing the things he said he would do and get moving on the major spending problem this country has had with Clinton and Bush.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be taken seriously, you should not link to michellemalkin.com. She will quote random people off the street and use that as "expert" testimony. If a random blogger says a Democrat might be a criminal, she will claim that authorities are "investigating"...

      In short, she has no credibility. You might as well quote Rush Limbaugh...

      Of those listed, vetting should have prevented Bill Richardson, Nancy Killefer, and Hilda Solis from being nominated... so 3 total. The rest either withdrew for their own reasons (4), had tax problems (3), or are alleged to have done wrong by michellemalkin (1).

      Considering the President appoints THOUSANDS of people, 6 (3 errors, 3 taxes) out of thousands is a pretty good record.

    4. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      What exactly was Daschle doing for the firm as a non-lawyer and non-lobbyist that he was paid 2 million plus perks?

      Exactly. He was most likely lobbying on behalf of the law firm. The reason they want to keep it somewhat under wraps is because it's perfectly legal. Who do you think comes up with bills nowadays? Client goes to law firm and says they want a bill that will help them. Law firm draws it up then calls Daschle to figure out who they can get to present it. Then he trades favors for support of said bill (or provision tied to another bill etc...). What a great system we have.

    5. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by jcnnghm · · Score: 4, Funny

      No wonder the Democrats always want to raise taxes. They don't pay anyway!

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    6. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've been told in Australia, members of Parliament are very well paid to encourage bright minds to work in government (as opposed to private sector failures), but at the same time, it is illegal for them to take any outside money.

      Ross Perot suggested such a system a few years ago, and Congress responded by keeping him out of public debates.

      People wonder why the government is so poorly run, and why our economy has issues, but when successful businessmen with a good mind for economics suggest common sense changes (like Forbes and Perot) Congress tries their best to make sure you never hear of it.

      Everyone is caught up in the spin that the right is evil, or the left is evil to the point that they miss the message. No one in Washington is working for you. They all protect themselves and their special interests.

      My concern is that there is so much hope and trust placed in an Obama administration, that Americans will tune out and assume everything is going to be fine.

      No matter the leader, a democracy is best served with informed voters who pressure their government to serve them.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by clampolo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really hope that soon he starts doing the things he said he would do and get moving on the major spending problem this country has had with Clinton and Bush.

      He said he would never allow earmarks: broken campaign promise. He said he wouldn't appoint any lobbyists: broken campaign promise. He said he would fight against NAFTA: broken campaign promise. He said he would fight against wiretapping: broken campaign promise.

      But you are still convinced he isn't another corporate shill like Clinton or Bush. I'm sure he attends Bilderberg because he is looking out for the little guy.

    8. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hear? O will take a year to worry about earmarks for the next budget. I love the excuse - he didn't want to change a budget created before he was president. So by this rational he won't care about Gitmo, the Iraq war, or the economy since it was all from policies created before he was pres. Oh wait, I'm apply rationality to politics. Oops

    9. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well most of these are cabinet or near cabinet level. No excuse here.

      HEIL HITLER! SIEG HEIL!

    10. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      THIS.

      Where are my mod points when I want them?

    11. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by davolfman · · Score: 1

      You forgot Hillary and Whitewater didn't you?

    12. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by natedubbya · · Score: 1

      Considering most of these are top-level positions, you may want to change THOUSANDS to DOZENS. That's not a good record in any context.

    13. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The funny article this week comes from Ann Coulter who pointed out that Obama is cutting the amount that a person can write off of their income because they donated it to Charity. The reason Obama is fine with this is because he donates very little money to Charity. In fact almost no Democrats donate any percentage to Charity which requires two digits to express.

    14. Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Charles Freeman, the paid Saudi agent who Obama appointed to be head of the National Intelligence Council.

  25. My Take by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    The party rallied around him pretty quickly even though he is young and arguably inexperienced. Most of his opponents within the party went from criticizing him in the primaries, to standing behind him later. I don't know if he made promises to them, or he was just wants to take care of them for taking care of him.

    Either way, he has been taking major players in Washington, and giving them jobs. He promises the cabinet would be new faces, and not typical Washington politicians, but that is exactly what he is doing. And maybe he has to make friends early.

    It only makes me wonder, when you spend literally years campaigning, that perhaps you should plan out your cabinet early on, and have time to research these guys. Once in office, you want to assemble a cabinet early and get to work. How much time do you have for lengthy background checks?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:My Take by darth+dickinson · · Score: 1

      See, that's just it. He *didn't* spend years campaigning - in fact, two years ago most people had no idea who Barack Obama was.

  26. Mod up by Icarus1919 · · Score: 1

    You actually looked to see where people are getting their information? GTFO.

  27. Re:The emperor's tailor couldn't have said it bett by Toonol · · Score: 1

    "Forgetting for just a moment that one of President Obama's acquaintances was a little-known terrorist"

    Does that work?

  28. Amusing by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.

  29. I don't like this guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't like this Indian guy already... In his effort to cut technology costs, he's probably going to outsource all our jobs to Bombay!

  30. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by praksys · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Speaking of disingenuous, you might also want to mention, in the interests of not trolling, of course, that the man was not convicted of any crime whatsoever and that thye word "Terrorist", thanks to the valiant efforts of team Bush, no longer has the same cachet it had 8 years ago.

    Why would we want to mention those things? Ayers admits everything he was accused of. Why would the important consideration be that he was never convicted, rather than the fact that he was guilty and admits it? And why would it matter that the term terrorist gets bandied around a lot and applied to some less-than-terrifying activities when Ayers himself was the genuine article - the kind of terrorist who wanted to randomly murder innocent people?

  31. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

    I don't mind Anonymous trolls. Mainly because you can't stop crazy. But the fact that others apparently feel inclined to mod this informative points to crazy being more mainstream than I'm comfortable wtih.

    The best part of the rant: collaboration between Nazis and Communists. The only thing missing in that attack on the Red White and Blue is gays and Mexicans. That's some delusion at work there.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  32. More info from AP. by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

    Acar worked under Kundra, Obama's pick to coordinate federal computer systems. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs would not say whether the White House knew the investigation was under way when it named Kundra last week, but called the case "a serious matter."

    Acar, a 40-year-old native of Turkey, had a $127,468-a-year position purchasing the city's computer equipment and lining up contract workers for numerous city agencies.

    Source: AP

  33. Re:The emperor's tailor couldn't have said it bett by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
    --
    waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  34. Re:The emperor's tailor couldn't have said it bett by Boronx · · Score: 1

    The wife of one of Bush's close friends helped to fund the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and Bush has had dealings with Osama bin Laden's brother, Salim bin Laden. What does that tell you about Bush and terrorism, about Bush's involvement in 9/11?

    You're correct, it tells you nothing.

  35. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Terrorist", thanks to the valiant efforts of team Bush, no longer has the same cachet it had 8 years ago.

    You should mean,

    thanks to the efforts of the Democrat Party in belittling the word,

    but probably don't because your head us so far up Nigger Obama's asshole.

  36. Re:The emperor's tailor couldn't have said it bett by Toonol · · Score: 1

    I could care less about Ayers, I was just seeing if fixing the flaws the GP poster pointed out would result in an acceptable statement. It sounds like it won't.

    Regardless, your parallel with Bush is not relevant, because it (for one thing) is much more indirect, and was only investigated as a possibility. Read the article you linked to: "An investigation by her office has found the princess sent money to a woman on her charity recipient list and that woman then sent the money to the students."

  37. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    Why would the important consideration be that he was never convicted,

    Because you still technically exist in a Nation of Laws. And his status under the law is the only one that matters, at least in general. That's why, you know, he's a professor, and not dead or in jail. If you don't like that, your problem's not with him, but the system.

    randomly

    Have you listened to or read Ayers at all? His goals and actions were not random: His objective and targets were clear.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  38. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're ignorant and a troll. But I would like to point out that if this had been under the last administration, majority of the people at /. would be trying to tie this to Bush much the same way. The same people who are now calling you Flamebait. Just saying, gotta love a double standard.

  39. bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somehow, someway, someone will tie this to Bush, or say it's his fault.

  40. Unfair Implication By Headline by InternetVoting · · Score: 1

    I think it's important to point out the Kundra is not a target of the investigation. Let's also be clear that exactly 2 people in an office of 300 have been charged with a crime. There's no indication that Kundra was involved in any way.

  41. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by praksys · · Score: 1

    Because you still technically exist in a Nation of Laws.

    The rule of law means you don't go to jail if you don't get convicted. It does not mean that murdering people is fine so long as you don't get caught.

    This is exactly why some people are troubled by Obama's association with Ayers. It indicates that, just like you, and far too many lawyers, he can tell the difference between legal and illegal, but he has no clue when it comes to the difference between right and wrong.

  42. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    he can tell the difference between legal and illegal, but he has no clue when it comes to the difference between right and wrong.

    And thank fuck for that, say I. Once again, nation of laws, not nation of whatever random dispshit thinks is "right" and "wrong". (Hint: Yours are not mine, vice versa and double for everybody else.)

    Thanks for playing.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  43. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Mo+Bedda · · Score: 1

    Nice use of irony. Labeling a man who would attack his own government a terrorist, then suggesting the overthrow of the government. Troll+1

  44. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Mo+Bedda · · Score: 1

    Ayers admits everything he was accused of.

    That is far from true.

    Ayers himself was the genuine article - the kind of terrorist who wanted to randomly murder innocent people

    This for example.

  45. FIRST? Try '93 by midicase · · Score: 1

    Clinton lost some nominations, most notably Baird over the "nanny tax" in 1993. Many of these people on the expunged list have been around long enough to remember. Heck, Daschle was in the Senate at that time.

  46. So he's in charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but doesn't know what's going on.

    How is this going to make a good C*O???

  47. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when did attempted murder switch from being illegal to merely being "some random dipshit's opinion of wrong." Did I miss something? Oh, I get it. We only punish people who AREN'T part of the Democrat party power structure. Carry on, then!

  48. DOPES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah that would be you who voted for Blobama who will make Bush look totally likeable and capable, dumbshits!

  49. It's easy to fool people by hessian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Flatter them.

    Promise them big ideas and big, vague solutions.

    Tell them that everyone is equally important.

    That's how you make a Crowd happy. Of course, to do that you, you have to be a cynical bastard. That's why most Revolutionary leaders are corrupt people who plunge their countries into New Dark Ages.

    Obama, coming from the most corrupt political machine in North America (the Chicago machine), is undoubtedly aware of all these things, and knows how to manipulate them for personal gain. Again, very cynical. But that's the RealPolitik(tm) when you have a huge crowd of people out there who vote with their emotions, based on the appearance of realities they're too lazy to research.

    Hope! Change! Hope! Change!

    1. Re:It's easy to fool people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's how you make a Crowd happy. Of course, to do that you, you have to be a cynical bastard. That's why most Revolutionary leaders are corrupt people who plunge their countries into New Dark Ages."

      Are you certain you're not referring to what Bush has done for the last 8 years?

  50. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    People who believe otherwise usually forget that its possible all the people who disagree with their 'right and wrong' may end up with the power to make their own actions illegal.

    While good strong moral behaviour has its benefits, it is not the purview of the legal system, and should not be.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  51. Stop Vivek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work with this guy years ago. He was a protégé of our investor - Sanju Bansal, COO of MicroStrategy. He is very well politically and financially connected; he also did some fundraising for Bobby Jindal. But boy, he is an ignorant idiot. He could not write a simple white paper on our technology in 4 month! He is a fake!

  52. the new entry for Kundra . . . by vaporland · · Score: 1
    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  53. Re:The emperor's tailor couldn't have said it bett by Boronx · · Score: 1

    It's pretty relevant, because while Ayers is a known terrorist, friendship between Ayers and Obama is conjecture based on the fact that they live in the same neighborhood and have met. While Princess Haifa has retained plausible deniability WRT 9/11 (as thin as it is, since Saudi "charity" organizations were well known pathways for rich Saudis to funnel money to terrorists), her friendship with the Bush family is well established.

  54. Re:Boring by Slumdog · · Score: 1

    Awesome! And very responsive. Now, we might as well complete the trifecta and call this one overrated. Thanks in advance!

    Dude, your projections were incorrect. Maybe if you predicted correctly, you'd end up with +1 informative.

  55. Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when did attempted murder switch from being illegal

    When Dubya decided that ragheads blowing up random people wasn't criminal.