>These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion's supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion's machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently

That's Dominion's statement. They're describing a pretty exceptional situation / distant from what I would think of as security research.

Obviously that's not a legally binding statement or anything but I think that at least illustrates what this situation is about.

This isn't a case of someone being mistaken or putting forth a good faith concern about security.

These accusations are based in nothing at all, disproven, and Giuliani and others just kept at it.

Researchers usually have actual evidence for concerns and so forth. And their motivations usually really is security.

This situation with Giuliani and actual security research seem completely disconnected.