> The unnamed employees secretly conferred with a political advocacy group about a request to match Social Security data with state voter rolls to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States,"
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/23/nx-s1-5684185/doge-data-socia...
>[...] to "find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States,"
The actual election fraud allegations are probably spurious, but regardless we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself. The badness comes from inappropriate access to the data, not trying to find evidence of fraud.
But I'm not "apologizing" for them? I'm pushing back on OP's phrasing of "they did it with the intention of overturning elections". It's possible to push back on some person's criticism of [bad guy] without being accused of "apologizing" for [bad guy].
From my original comment:
>we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself
See also my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46734439
Sounds like you agree with me, because you're still not objecting to my original premise of "we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself". You might think "bad faith partisan investigation" is bad, but not the act of trying to overturn elections itself.
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion given what I wrote was:
>we shouldn't be trying imply that intending to overturn elections in cases of fraud is bad in and of itself
The only rational viewpoint is to assume everything this administration does is in bad faith, until proven otherwise.
Or we all so partisan now that we don't care about the evidence or the reality of the fraud?
But yes, yes we should have an impartial jury look for evidence of voter fraud.