Didn't you get a pretty good answer - from a Federal court - last time you asked the same question? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43557456

It’s a common mistake to think that folks like the parent commenter are trying to engage in an intellectually honest discussion.

I'm under no illusions they're commenting in good faith, but at times I find it valuable to highlight that fact.

It is valuable! Thank you for doing it.

"Hark" goes the sealion, "sources?"

Well that is kind of the point though, I asked for sources because it is clear that the comment, containing a false and baseless claim (as evidenced by the inability to provide one single supporting source), was not intellectually honest. If we don't challenge these things, then others will start believing them.

I looked through the filing cited in this comment and every instance of the word "background" just says that backgrounds for a given employee are either complete or in progress, plus the quote. Nothing indicates anyone failed any background check (to the contrary just by count it seems like about half of them have been completed), and certainly nothing indicates that "most of them could never pass" one. Which again just by virtue of about half of them having been completed already seems to be false on its face.

It's not unusual to give an otherwise-qualified person limited access to certain data while their background checks are completed.

what part specifically about this access seems “limited” to you?

That in no way supports the claim: "Most of them could never pass a basic background check".

If there is no support for it, and if it is baseless, that is entirely fine.

Providing support for known criminal groups would immediately raise flags on any background check.

Do you need a source on that claim as well?

Dude, background checks are brutal. You can be denied because your parents (not you) struggled to pay taxes. You could have acedemic dishonesty that disqualifies you (that one small area where "permanent record" in school may actually cost you something). There are so many little things that no other kind of high paying job cares about in background checks that are suddenly red flags for clearance.

There's a reason Musk especially kept dodging trying to get proper clearance. He isn't even fully cleared to see all aspects of SpaceX. Some of his employees he brought in probably aren't better off.

Is the article unclear? Would people who collaborate with known criminal groups pass basic background checks?

Granted, the sample size is low, but it doesn't look likely the rest of the gang would be any different.

One staffer is not "most of them". The article in no way supportes the claim.

a basic background check would invalidate someone with the described background.

Source: water is wet.

Go gaslight somewhere else.