Rogers ad ties El-Sayed to a "terrorist sympathizer who said America deserved 9/11"

The case records the competing argument as whether declining to disavow an ally warrants an adverse inference about a candidate's judgment or beliefs. The advertisement makes the association itself the charge, attributing the 9/11 remark to Piker and treating El-Sayed's proximity to him as disqualifying. It does not quote El-Sayed endorsing the attacks, which is precisely the inference the case asks about, and the ad asserts that inference. The closest competing label is condemns, previously carried here; it loses because the ad prosecutes the accusation rather than criticising it. 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.