

That could be but I feel like good propaganda does use other stories and narratives to boost its persuasive power. IF it was due to risk assessments then they should put that in the article. I feel like if they had solid proof, they would be willing to actually share that proof with the public rather than just hearsay that these stories have been.
If there was evidence of it being China, I would think they would be a lot less subtle about it then running articles about sus components without mentioning the connection Iberian incident. Something more direct like ‘Iberian outage caused by kill switches in Chinese solar equipment’ rather than running separate stories and leaving it to the reader to connect the stories on their own.
That’s what makes it suspicious too me, too much fearmongering and too little substance and facts in the articles.
I would appreciate a source for that. I don’t really need it but it at least helps amplify it for the lurkers.
ETA: Here’s one- https://campaignlegal.org/update/these-hidden-provisions-budget-bill-undermine-our-democracy
Basically it seems like it is adding a paywall paid by the suer before the judge can use their contempt power against the executive branch. Such a blatant power grab for Trump’s executive. Very unfair and bad.