Rogers tells the GOP convention that El-Sayed and Piker "treat our country like the villain"

The case records the competing argument as whether declining to disavow an ally warrants an adverse inference about a candidate's judgment or beliefs. Rogers advances the accusation at his party's convention, grounding it in the association rather than in any statement by El-Sayed: he attributes the 9/11 sentiment to Piker and holds El-Sayed answerable through their campaigning together. That is support for the adverse inference the case turns on. The closest competing label is condemns, previously carried here; it loses for the same reason it does on his other records. The shift from his earlier direct assertion about El-Sayed's belief to attribution via Piker is preserved and no retraction is inferred. Relabelled from condemns in a September 17 audit: condemns was being carried both by the speakers making this accusation and by those attacking it, so the label was doing opposite work on one conduct under scrutiny. Speakers who assert or support the accusation are now classified “Defended or excused”, matching Alyssa Brouillet (433) and John Fetterman (974); speakers who criticise it, including El-Sayed (434, 509, 512), Cole Wozniak (459) and Jon Favreau (437), keep condemns.