Comments on: Obama technology appointee’s office raided by Feds – Bribery Sting http://www.poligazette.com/2009/03/12/obama-technology-appointees-office-raided-by-feds-bribery-sting/ Because Common Sense Transcends Distance Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:11:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Will http://www.poligazette.com/2009/03/12/obama-technology-appointees-office-raided-by-feds-bribery-sting/comment-page-1/#comment-87312 Will Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:50:00 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=11240#comment-87312 I agree that this does not bode well for the Presidents cabinet, but you must also understand that the FBI does not come under direct control of the Executive Branch of our government and therefore is not required to advise the President on any ongoing investigations, for those of you who can remember just look at Hoover during J.F.K's. administration or Louis Freeh during Clinton administration. So it is not unusual for a President to have so many choices with bad backgrounds, we normally do not hear about it as former Presidents (like Bush) kept things like this secret until they were sure they were not to be embarrassed. President Obama has chosen to release all names and deal with the consequents as a matter of public record. We have only had two Presidents who chose this route President Grant and President Lincoln. They too were criticized for not having vetted better. You can not blame the administration for the lack of truthfulness on the part of the perspective appointees who are just want a ride on the history train instead of actually serving the people of this great nation as public official. As a nation we are to blame for this situation. I feel it is refreshing to have a public official put himself out there to try to make a difference instead of one creates a conflict to deflect attention Thank You I agree that this does not bode well for the Presidents cabinet, but you must also understand that the FBI does not come under direct control of the Executive Branch of our government and therefore is not required to advise the President on any ongoing investigations, for those of you who can remember just look at Hoover during J.F.K’s. administration or Louis Freeh during Clinton administration. So it is not unusual for a President to have so many choices with bad backgrounds, we normally do not hear about it as former Presidents (like Bush) kept things like this secret until they were sure they were not to be embarrassed. President Obama has chosen to release all names and deal with the consequents as a matter of public record. We have only had two Presidents who chose this route President Grant and President Lincoln. They too were criticized for not having vetted better. You can not blame the administration for the lack of truthfulness on the part of the perspective appointees who are just want a ride on the history train instead of actually serving the people of this great nation as public official. As a nation we are to blame for this situation. I feel it is refreshing to have a public official put himself out there to try to make a difference instead of one creates a conflict to deflect attention
Thank You

]]> By: Michael Merritt http://www.poligazette.com/2009/03/12/obama-technology-appointees-office-raided-by-feds-bribery-sting/comment-page-1/#comment-87288 Michael Merritt Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:05:20 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=11240#comment-87288 I know, PM. It seems like the FBI is headed up by yet another incompetent Obama appointee. Oh, wait a minute... I do agree, though. Why didn't they mention an investigation? That should have been enough to scare the pants off the Obama administration. Of course, after knowing about tax issues for at least two of its three appointees, one wonders. I know, PM. It seems like the FBI is headed up by yet another incompetent Obama appointee.

Oh, wait a minute…

I do agree, though. Why didn’t they mention an investigation? That should have been enough to scare the pants off the Obama administration. Of course, after knowing about tax issues for at least two of its three appointees, one wonders.

]]> By: Jay_C http://www.poligazette.com/2009/03/12/obama-technology-appointees-office-raided-by-feds-bribery-sting/comment-page-1/#comment-87253 Jay_C Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:42:17 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=11240#comment-87253 The trend of appointing / "palling around with" bad company doesn't reflect well on our President. Quite frankly it is worrisome, but was expected from the beginning, by many as a trend we would see more of as time went on. The trend of appointing / “palling around with” bad company doesn’t reflect well on our President. Quite frankly it is worrisome, but was expected from the beginning, by many as a trend we would see more of as time went on.

]]> By: Polimom http://www.poligazette.com/2009/03/12/obama-technology-appointees-office-raided-by-feds-bribery-sting/comment-page-1/#comment-87247 Polimom Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:02:45 +0000 http://www.poligazette.com/?p=11240#comment-87247 From <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/12/1833992.aspx" rel="nofollow">MSNBC</a>: <blockquote>The FBI vetted his White House appointment. If he had been thought to be involved in any corruption at that point, it would have been flagged, one official says. But, the official cautions, who knows where the investigation will go from here?</blockquote> I don't get this. If the FBI was investigating, wouldn't you think that would've been mentioned in the FBI's vetting? From MSNBC:

The FBI vetted his White House appointment. If he had been thought to be involved in any corruption at that point, it would have been flagged, one official says. But, the official cautions, who knows where the investigation will go from here?

I don’t get this. If the FBI was investigating, wouldn’t you think that would’ve been mentioned in the FBI’s vetting?

]]>