I think the question becomes how critical and when. Russia wasn't likely to pick gung-ho, pro Ukraine conservatives for this task. They likely chose either those who were skeptical or had formed no real opinion yet or had soft opposition turned them to hard opposition. But we'll sort it out. These people have a *very* extensive public record of opinions on video (it's almost like that's how they make a living) that will be analyzed.
I'm only vaguely familiar with Pool. I'm aware of him, but the only time I've really heard him is on other peoples' podcasts.
Dave Rubin on the other hand, I'm a little more familiar with his content.
He's been something of a libertarian leaning conservative for going on 4-5 years now (he used to work for the Young Turks at one point, and ended up working for Glen Beck for a stint before doing his own thing in 2020. The divisive topics they mention, he's been critical of for a while.
With regards to the charges being levied against RT:
If there's evidence of election interference attempts, that's certainly a valid charge, by all means throw the book at them.
However, some of the things The Justice Departments lists is "create social divisions" and "will not tolerate attempts by an outside nation to exploit our country’s free exchange of ideas" are a little more vague.
I find those accusations to be a tad curious...
1) Promoting one viewpoint over the other on a politically divisive issue isn't "creating social divisions", it's simply the nature of discourse when an issue is already divisive.
2) If by "exploit our country's free exchange of ideas" they mean "try to get public opinion in one direction over the other", then that casts a pretty wide net that include a bunch of different things.
For instance, when they brought the Ukrainian president in to do high profile interviews on CNN, Meet the Press, and the very televised address to congress that he did (where he pleaded with the US for support), isn't that sort of the same thing? A foreign entity trying to shape the US public opinion for his own benefit with regards to the "Ukraine funding Debate"?
Even the approach the justice department is using with this could be considered a form of the very type of manipulation they're accusing RT of doing. Highly publicizing this as a means to shape public opinion on the series of issues they laid out by implying/conveying the idea that "if you've taken the conservative position on Ukrainian funding, Migrant policy, or the Trans debate, it's likely a result of Russian propaganda, they're just trying to whip you up into a frenzy because they want republicans to win" by branding it as a "sophisticated influence campaign".
I don't know how sophisticated one can really call it. Giving a conservative media company $10 million dollars to "keep doing what they're doing" isn't exactly the elite covert PsyOp as implied by the sensational sounding descriptions.
It'd be like a sensational headline saying "DEA uncovers elite, highly sophisticated drug dealing operation", and it turns out, it just ends up being "yeah, you give the money to Jim, and then one of Jim's buddies delivers the drugs later so that the money and drugs aren't in the same place"
In practical terms, where would the line get drawn in terms of which divisive issues a foreign power figure could try to influence US public opinion on without running afoul of the "creating social divisions and putting undue influence our country's exchange of ideas"?
For example
Justin Trudeau went on something of an "American Podcast Tour" in 2022, in which he definitely had no shortage of things to say about US gun control policy, promoted a Pro-choice position, as well as some thoughts about Jared Kuschner. Certainly all polarizing things. I don't think any of us would brand that as some nefarious influence campaign. So where does it cross the line from "here's some policies I'd really like to see people in the US get behind, so I'll go on a podcast and talk about it" to "illegal meddling and creating division"
