CIA 'may have assisted in obtaining signatories' for letter discrediting Hunter Biden laptop:...

It's not funny, ha ha funny sir. Strange yes. The media being complicit in rigging a free election in a Constitutional Republic is terrifying! In a democracy not so much, stuff like that happened in Democracy’s happen all the time.

I agree 100%. I am also of the opinion there needs to be a law that prevents former public officials from working for or accepting anything of monetary value from anyone/any organization for a minimum of 10 years after they leavy their office. If they can' accept that, don't accept the position in the first place. Either you want to be a civil servant or you don't. It's that simple.

SFC (Join to see) - I don't agree with that fully. There are already rules for Civil Service requiring 2 years for joining any company you had a direct association with / influence in choosing, while serving the government.

I left the Air Force Civil Service to become a DoD contractor in the same field. Civil Service jobs are not all meant to be lifelong commitments. I did my five years, retired again (deferred), and took a DoD contractor role suited to my skill sets and clearance (comparable to what I did in the Civil Service and the Military). If I had to wait 10 years, I'd still be out of a job today or working in a role I'm not as qualified for. There is nothing wrong with taking a job in your field(s) of expertise after you leave government as long as the company hiring you did not have an influence related professional relationship with you while you were serving. That's where the two years comes into play.

Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - I can understand your sentiment. The reason for having a time period before a person can work or receive any compensation from an organization is to prevent influence peddling and such. Two years is too short a time when a person will still have undue influence at the former agency he/she worked for. I threw out that 10-year mark, it is open for debate. Maybe 5 years would be better.

It’s been my experience officials are pretty lax at enforcing the 2 years rule. I could testify that a former executive direct supervisor of mine steered government contracts to a consulting firm that in itself was only questionable. When my supervisor retired, he almost directly went to work for the same consultant and had the guts to give a business card with his name on it to our director. Our director did nothing (that was very disappointing to me). That’s when I thought: OK, I will be squashed like a bug if I say anything, so I was successful just keeping myself away from any business working with that consulting firm so I would not have any direct knowledge of what was going on.

My point is, it’s been my experience companies hire people with connections to, let’s say, make their life easier. That’s not how it’s supposed to be. MHO

Well, here's the thing. As I prepared to retire from the Air Force (~two years prior), my boss asked if I could serve on a source selection team for the next contract to the Org for Cybersecurity. I respectfully informed her that I'd prefer not to as it would bar me from seeking employment with those companies for two years after my retirement. She agreed and found another person to serve on the team. However, my duties did require me to work with the incumbent and potentially the next contractor should the incumbent not get the award. By that I mean collaboratively, not as a manager of the contract. Have that connection did not preclude me from seeking employment with them after retirement at the time, which I think is fair. Connections, be it in the private or public sector, is how business is done. This isn't to say those who do not have the connections shouldn't be considered, as it is unwise to not explore your options. But there is nothing wrong with having that rapport and being able to demonstrate the ability to effectively and competently do the job.

I've personally seen it work against me and for me. Within Civil Service I was able to earn my employment after military retirement based on the fact people knew me, knew my experience, and knew I was a good fit. Additionally, a DoD contracting org I worked with also assured me they would hire me too, again based on rapport and my positive relationship with them. That left me choices. As I decided I wanted to move on within the Civil Service, I attempted to use connections to no avail. In fact, other people had better connections for the positions I sought. So, after a year of attempts to find better salary avenues, I decided to answer the many calls from recruiters for a contractor role, increasing my salary significantly. Again, in a role similar to what I was doing in Civil Service, but for a company I did not have any influence over while in the government. That has to be allowed. Later I decided even serving as a contractor was not enough and decided to go private sector. In one case I was heavily recruited, in another I had to use a connection to get my foot in the door for consideration.

You may not like the act of using connections to get an advantage, but I say they are necessary. It's not lazy either if you're doing your due diligence to consider other applicants. I just finished interview training specific to the new organization I work for today. While they have a referral process, that does not negate others from being able to navigate their way into an interview / position. In fact, those that conduct the interview cannot be associated with the applicants.

James Comey is a prime example of what you say.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/09/us/politics/james-comey-fired-fbi.html