Re: Pentagon linked to shaming attack on RMS

Jean Louis wrote:
> * Jacob Bachmeyer <[email protected]> [2021-04-03 05:17]:
>   
>> Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>     
>>> Its all in the last picture
>>>
>>> Paul Tagliamonte, seconded the motion in Debian, with the co-founder of
>>> Rebellion Defense and the top brass at the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> https://debian.community/paul-tagliamonte-debian-usds-white-house-mob-ringleader/
>>>       
>> I do not know where you are located, so perhaps you are unaware that that is
>> a fairly tenuous link in the USA -- the "military-industrial complex" that
>> President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech has grown very
>> large and the "revolving door" between government and private industry has
>> been long-lamented and long-pilloried.
>>     
>
> After more careful review of the hyperlink, if that email is genuine,
> it is in my opinion against the mentioned law 5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use
> of public office for private gain.
>   

I believe the question would be what did he gain or intend to gain?

The context suggests a discussion about possible attempts by the 
government to infiltrate Debian, so revealing his status as a government 
employee would seem to be harmful to him in that context.

>> Tagliamonte, whose actions are legitimate to discuss because he has
>> publicly promoted a position on the issue, would have been hired in
>> 2015, based on the email you quote in that article.
>>     
>
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.702
>
> IMHO, when Tagliamonte during his employment mentioned his position in
> government, he is in violation of the above law. Thus his work at
> Debian IS INFLUENCED by person who worked in government, and it
> represents conflict of interest.
>   

The catch to a blanket statement here is that government employees do 
still have personal capacities in which they act outside of work, so he 
would almost certainly claim that that statement was made in his 
personal capacity.  It was (presumably) a true statement (he was a 
government employee at the time) but he would almost certainly have been 
"off-the-clock" in that discussion.

>> As such, Tagliamonte would have been considered a civil service
>> employee, and was supposed to have been hired on an apolitical
>> basis.
>>     
>
> The Federal Regulation does not mention differences on that page. It
> speaks of employees regardless of the basis of employment.
>   

The difference in this case is whether Tagliamonte may be more likely 
than average to hold certain political positions.  The fact of his 
employment should *not* indicate anything about his views, but 
accusations of politicizing civil service employment are routinely 
thrown about in the USA.  I get the sense that neither of you are 
Americans, so I am trying to explain how these things are seen here.

>> In conclusion, while asking his employer if they are being paid to
>> help instigate a mob against RMS seems to be an amusing example of
>> "sauce for the gander"
>>     
>
> First time I have read your comment, and because did not find facts
> (and still don't see enough) on the page, I was in agreement. Now I
> see it right that Pockock points out to that violation, at least if
> the email there is genuine, as that is clearly abuse of power.
>   

If he is no longer a government employee, what power does he have to abuse?

>> Tagliamonte's previous government employment and trip through the
>> "revolving door" to the private sector does not stand out as reason
>> to suspect that the government is somehow behind the attacks on RMS.
>> The "revolving door" is simply too widespread to support a claim of
>> that type of corruption.
>>     
>
> >From visits to many countries, even if one person employed in
> government does some action, it is act of government, that is why
> there is the regulation (law) to prevent the abuse of power. I just do
> not see what would be the sanction for that.
>
> Prohibitions may apply after the employment:
>
> 5 CFR § 2641.202 - Two-year restriction on any former employee's representations to United States concerning particular matter for which the employee had official responsibility. 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2641.202

That sounds suspiciously like Trump's executive branch lobbying ban.  I 
am unsure how it would apply here.  Is Tagliamonte suspected of lobbying 
the USA government for some purpose?


-- Jacob