FBI Searches New Fed CIO Kundra's Former Offices 173
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."
First order of business: (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.
Re:Choices... (Score:3, 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.
Re:Offtopic topic? (Score:4, 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.
Re:Choices... (Score:5, 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.
List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (Score:5, Interesting)
For future reference, the list so far:
People who haven't withdrawn, but have had major issues:
Will Vivek Kundra be next on the list?
Re:Offtopic topic? (Score:3, Interesting)
He either didn't know about the corruption... or he was in on it.
Above post has serious blinders on. Other possibilities:
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.
Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (Score:4, 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?
Re:Terrorism? Bribery? What's next? (Score:4, 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?
Re:List of Obama appointees who've had to withdraw (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.
Re:Choices... (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
It's easy to fool people (Score:3, 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!