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."

Comments

More

[Anonymous Coward]

change we can believe in?

Choices...

[Amazing Quantum Man]

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

Re:Choices...

[causality]

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.

Re:Choices...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Choices...

[mi]

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?

Re:Choices...

[causality]

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

Offtopic topic?

[mcgrew]

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?

Re:Offtopic topic?

[CannonballHead]

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.

Re:Offtopic topic?

[Captain Splendid]

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.

Re:Offtopic topic?

[ptbarnett]

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.

Band of thieves

[nurb432]

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

Re:Band of thieves

[nurb432]

Hypocrite.

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

Re:Band of thieves

[EastCoastSurfer]

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.

Re:Sigh...

[erroneus]

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?

Re:Sigh...

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Sigh...

[cayenne8]

"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.

Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw

[clampolo]

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.