GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Former procurement chief 'numb' after court grants new trial

• 53012
  

  AF HR did you miss the Clinton impeachment trial?? The Senate ruled that lying under oath no matter how many times is not a crime. What's good for the goose is good for the gander

  Dan ketter Posted June 24, 2008 10:18 AM
• 52691
  

  Congratulations David! Congratulations for standing up to a politically based Anti-Bush "see I told you so" smear campaign. Congratulations for trusting in the court system - I would not have anymore than anyone else involved in this event did - see above. Thank you for your effort to protect Federal employees from over indulged, self-empowered and legally unreliable ethics lawyers, politically appointed IGs and Senate "staff investigators." Thank you for fighting to preserve the Executive Service - to allow personel relationships to continue after appointment - so as to attract leaders of caliber, vice the real hacks that we too often get. And thank you for your willingness to stand up for all the the CoSs, special assistants, OSBDU and other procurement folks in government, who have conversations about what our agencies are doing and planning to do on a daily basis. The key here is that there was never any charge - much less a conviction -that procurement sensitive information, bribes or even any quid-pro-quos were exchanged. Had there been it would have been different, but the standard that these political opponents tried to impose would have put many more Feds at risk.

  DC Fed Posted June 19, 2008 11:26 AM
• 52675
  

  While some will knock the accuracy of Wikipedia, and I admit any references or positions taken from there must be researched as should all sources of information; they've come a long way on providing sources and references for their articles. Vetting is a task seldom done to the extent it should be done.

  So saying, I looked up good ole Dave in the aforementioned reference. I was wondering how such a boychick, who has been schmoozing Abramoff "and [his] merry men" since before he was anointed by the King, came under fire. If there isn't any connection, there sure is that previously mentioned "appearance" and a definite whiff of something in the air. How such a pisher could go from a nebbish to a macher so quickly must beggar some questions.

  As for tapping the ethics officer for advice, we've always been told "When in doubt, check it out."

  Regardless, I'm surprised he got convicted in the first place. I have no question on guilt; I don't have sufficient data for even a good guess. My question is ... How did a man with these obvious contacts, who's been playing the game since he walked onto the field, get thrown to the wolves in the first place? If you can't say anything else in defense of King Shrub, he does stand by his choices; malodorous though they may be.

  Tip off Posted June 19, 2008 9:49 AM
• 52620
  

  As a career govt contracting agent, long suffering under the 'guidance and leadership' of Safavian-types, I've endured dozens of policy memos, 'lightning bolts' and other admonisments that any appearance of conflict of interest is unacceptable. The idea he didn't understand that is pure bat guano and a bold face lie. What's good for the goose is good for the gander -- hang him high!

  DO THE RIGHT THING Posted June 18, 2008 3:31 PM
• 52614
  

  Mr K, that's ridiculous. Lying under oath, knowingly giving false info to law enforcement, if done by one of us "just folks," is MOST CERTAINLY AGAINST THE LAW, try it if you doubt that. Let us know how that came out.

  AF HR Posted June 18, 2008 2:29 PM
• 52593
  

  The Senate has previously ruled that lying under oath is not a crime. Jack was being held to a new standard

  Dan ketter Posted June 18, 2008 12:18 PM
• 52590
  

  Safavian was head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy even though he was GSA's Chief of Staff when all of this took place. Safavian went on a golfing junket with a lobbyist and disclosed inside information to that lobbyist. Is any of that in dispute? And Martha Stewart is the one who goes to jail for burning the lasagna???

  KO Posted June 18, 2008 12:11 PM
• 52582
  

  "The court ruled that the ethics officer did not have the power to permit or forbid Safavian from taking the trip; the office's function is simply to offer advice" So, why do we have ethics offices? This case should be studied in law schools when they get to Ethics cases!

  Jimmied43 Posted June 18, 2008 11:09 AM
• 52558
  

  Let me if I may borrow a comment if I may from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) "The guidance that was provided during this period of time, I think, will go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and shortsighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military and intelligence communities," And I will add all US Courts. God help us all.

  R. Fisher Posted June 18, 2008 8:42 AM
• 52543
  

  This is a federal employee and all federal employees are SUPPOSED to know what is ethical and what isn't. MAYBE this is one of the "golden haired" federal employees who are above the law. If he voluntarily went to an ethics officer, then he had questions as to whether he was doing the right thing. Most federal employees are told to avoid doing anything that might even have the appearance of impropriety. Now I don't knw about you but I think Safavian knew he was doing wrong all along. Once again we'll probably see no penality for wrong doing because who he is, who he knows or what he knows on someone else. MORE CROOKED POLITICS.

  SATOS Posted June 18, 2008 7:36 AM
• 52542
  

  Thank goodness for the Judiciary. They saw through the OIG and Ethics Officer's shameful behavior to "get" the former GSA Chief of Staff at all costs in this case. Unfortunately, this happens throughout govt, where staff have the resources to charge and prosecute employees for years, without any consequenses for their behavior of mis-using the system. In this case, the OIG and Ethics Officer should be held accountable. This is the only way that this type of prosecution will stop.

  frank Posted June 18, 2008 7:35 AM