5 ms·
This article is not a hot news story. It is meant to get the word out to politically connected folks, possibly with emphasis on those on the West Coast, and pos
by killjoywashere 7y ago
This article is not a hot news story. It is meant to get the word out to politically connected folks, possibly with emphasis on those on the West Coast, and possibly low-key focused on the relatively large contingent of Democratic policy folks sitting in non-governmental jobs right now (it is the New York Times after all).
I suspect the government sources in the article would appreciate it if the politicos above keep themselves relatively clean of unnecessary foreign contacts for the next year as the remaining few folks still in government are probably giving at least 50% odds that the Democrats win again in 2020, and are thus anticipating the possibility of large backlog of background investigations checking in about 1 nano-second after the election.
- mc32 7y agoThere’s a difference between “contacts” and being a witting or unwitting spy. Having foreign contacts, despite current furore, is not a crime, or improper. Now if you’re doing bad things, that’s obviously a crime and will result in disqualification, but simply “contacts”? No, that’s no reason for DQ.
- PaulHoule 7y agoI was using LinkedIn to get leads for a sales campaign years ago and wound up talking to all sorts of people who told us things that they probably shouldn't have. At the time I thought it would be the bee's knees for espionage.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- killjoywashere 7y agoI live overseas, I have tons of foreign contacts. Of course it's not illegal (that would be terrible), but they definitely create more work when it comes to listing them on SF86 background checks.