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

Par for the course?

[girlintraining]

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.

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...

[Dripdry]

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.

Re:Choices...

[ptbarnett]

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

You must be new here.

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?

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?

[Em Emalb]

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.

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

[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...

[Enderandrew]

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.

List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw

[FleaPlus]

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?

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

[Enderandrew]

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?

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

[jcnnghm]

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

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.

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:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next?

[praksys]

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?

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:Sigh...

[thrillseeker]

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.