El-Sayed: what to cut, what to record, where the clips go
Every time on this page is in your unlisted original, so you can cut in order without the numbers shifting. Tap any time to hear it (it starts 2 seconds early). Times are good to about half a second: snap to the nearest word in your editor.
The short version
12 must-cuts, about 5 minutes. Every one is about a private person: his mother, his father-in-law, or Mohamed Soltan. That is where the risk is. A Senate candidate has to prove you knew something was false to win a lawsuit. A private person only has to prove you were careless. His mother is a nurse practitioner in Missouri who was never charged with anything.
7 should-cuts, about 2 minutes. Factual errors a critic would clip to discredit everything else.
4 your-call cuts, about 3 and a half minutes. Not wrong, just worth a second look.
3 pickup lines to record. Record them as voiceover and lay them over the FEC page or the court papers, so nobody can see a camera jump.
Do all of it and the episode goes from 43:39 to about 34 minutes before clips. Tighter, and nothing in it can be used against you.
I am not a lawyer. This is the stuff that is factually wrong about real people, checked against court papers and filings. If you want certainty before posting, a media lawyer can read 12 cuts in an hour.
"...the correct answer would have been something along the lines of, while I have multiple family members who have been involved previously in terrorism..."
You put words in his mouth that say his family was involved in terrorism. Nobody in his family has been charged with terrorism.
ThenSplices clean: "That's a big one." straight into "So, so we'll see if that's true or not."
"Hassan Piker... about 11 million followers... if I had to vote for Hamas or Israel... friendly calls with actual terrorists on stream..."
The whole Piker glossary entry. It has three errors in 50 seconds (follower count, a misquote, and "calls with terrorists": the one call people point to was a 19-year-old Yemeni TikToker who said he was a civilian). You cover Piker properly at 29:00, so nothing is lost.
Mohamed Soltan is a US citizen. Egypt jailed him after the 2013 coup and the US got him out. Calling him a terrorist as a fact is the problem. You already said it the safe way at 18:29: "They considered him one of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists."
ThenLeaves: "And Mohammed Sultan is a donor to El-Sayed."
"...the relatives in Egypt were jailed for being terrorists. She also wrote that their mother was an active terrorist in the brotherhood in college in 1970... Oh my God, I can't do it."
She wrote "activism," not terrorist, and "jailed for being a part of it." The good news: two seconds later you say it right.
ThenLeaves: "...their family has long been Muslim brotherhood." then "She stated that her mother was a member of the Muslim brotherhood and that other relatives as well were active members... and went to jail." That second version is accurate. Want your view in there too? Use Pickup A.
"Why she was never charged, I have no idea, but she was clearly involved... She was literally involved in sending money to terrorists."
The most important cut on the page. Her name is on wire transfers to Iraq. The case was about breaking the Iraq sanctions. No court ever said she funded terrorists, and nothing shows she knew anything.
ThenKeep "Her actual name was recorded over a dozen times in connection with money transfers." Then play Pickup B.
"So his father-in-law leads multiple Muslim groups involved in sending money to terrorists... sits on the board of ISNA and CAIR Michigan..."
CAIR and ISNA were named in the Holy Land case and never charged. Saying they "send money to terrorists" is the claim a court never made. And he is on ISNA's Founders Committee, not its board. Your line just before this (22:31, "helps lead major Muslim groups that were named in a terror financing case") is accurate. Keep it.
ThenReplace with Pickup C, then pick back up at "And he's given himself $300,000 to the super PAC backing El-Sayed."
"He's also in prison right now for terrorism. The son will get there."
"The son will get there" says a US citizen will end up jailed for terrorism. Cut both lines. What you say about his father just before it holds up: Salah Soltan did call for killing Israel's ambassador (2011, on video).
ThenSplices into "It was a terror attack not too long ago..."
"His mother was directly involved in sending money to terrorists... So his mother and his stepfather are both involved in sending millions of dollars to terror organizations... his mother and his stepfather all have ties to terrorism."
Repeats #6 and #7, twice, plus the "stepfather" slip (you meant father-in-law).
ThenLeaves: "The organization she was a part of was labeled a terror financier." then "And this man has the nerve to answer that question as no." It reads like you meant it that way.
"55% of residents are Muslim... The ICJ... United States and Israel are not a part of the International Court of Justice... The United Nations is on its way as being a completely corrupt terrorist influenced and promoting organization."
Two errors in a row. The 55% is people of Middle Eastern or North African descent (2020 Census), not Muslims; the Census doesn't ask religion. And both countries are in the ICJ; you're thinking of the ICC. Neither matters to the El-Sayed story.
ThenKeep "one of the largest Arab and Muslim populations in the US," then splice into "The gang of eight."
"...his family members who are most likely Hezbollah terrorists... And El-Sayed justifies it... pretending that the Muslim who went to murder children was really the victim..."
Guessing that dead relatives were terrorists, then "the Muslim who went to murder children," which sounds like you mean Muslims in general. Your argument survives without it, and lands harder once people hear him say it.
ThenDrop his own video in at 26:41.5 (clip list below), then splice into "It is a tricky thing when you humanize your enemies..." Everything after that, including "This man tried to justify that," now sits on top of his words, and that is your opinion to give.
Israel's strikes started Oct 7 and 8. His post was Oct 21.
ThenLeaves: "He came out publicly and accused Israel of genocide." Put the post on screen with the date (see On-screen text). Two weeks in, before a single ground soldier went in, still lands.
"They have one of the lowest civilian to combatant death ratios in history."
Disputed, and you give no source. Easy target.
ThenSplices into "These are honorable people." If you want to keep it, credit it out loud: "John Spencer, who chairs urban warfare studies at West Point, argues..."
"Now, don't get me started on the right... JD Vance... I'm going to college right now where professors find a way to put anti-white stuff in their teachings..."
Three minutes off topic, and it pulls attention away from the El-Sayed case you just built. The one line I'd think hardest about is the professors one. You're six weeks into the MSW, and your classmates and professors can find this episode.
ThenSplices into "We're in a dangerous place, guys." and it sounds intentional.
"Does he become the greatest spy that we've ever seen in America..."
"Trojan horse" right before it is a fair opinion. "Greatest spy" points at an actual crime with nothing behind it. Cutting it keeps the Trojan horse line.
Say"Those transfers went to Iraq. She was never charged with anything. He says he wasn't raised by her. Fine. Then don't go on Meet the Press and say your family has no ties."
On screen while you say it: Snopes or the 2004 Treasury designation. Replaces cut #6.
Say"His father-in-law, Tayeb Jukaku, is on the board of CAIR Michigan, and was its president for five years. He's also on ISNA's Founders Committee. Both groups were named in the Holy Land Foundation case. Neither was ever charged. That charity's leaders were convicted of sending millions to Hamas."
On screen while you say it: Al Jazeera's 2008 verdict clip, muted, or a still of the HLF headline. Replaces cut #7.
Say"And here's the part nobody's talking about. July 20th, his father-in-law gives a hundred thousand dollars to CAIR's super PAC. July 21st, that super PAC sends a hundred and seventy-five thousand to the super PAC electing his son-in-law. That's not me. That's the federal filings."
CaptionEl-Sayed on X, Oct 21, 2023: "At the heart of the genocide being perpetrated against innocent Palestinians today..." (two weeks in, before the ground invasion)
Goes into the gap from cut #15. Includes his "I condemn" and "never a justification". Let it play; the explanation after it is what you're arguing against.
Paste the sources in so anyone checking can see them: Snopes and PolitiFact on his mother, the two FEC links above, the Free Beacon screenshots of the sister's posts, and his own Temple Israel video.