@AlgorithmWolf Basically, they are firmly on the military-contractor "national security of the US" side in any situation, so firmly that if there is no credible evidence to tie an adversary to something, they will 'find' some.

And so they end up sensationalizing mundane things, presenting vague hunches as established fact, and so on. Crucially, they never seem to ask "hmm, might there be other explanations for this outcome?" - they just keep making spurious connections until they find one that fits into their worldview and sounds credible enough.

That's why some connections are described in meticulous detail, and then there's suddenly a bunch of unsupported "has ties to" and the like.