El-Sayed condemned the attacks at a remembrance ceremony and kept Piker on the trail, and the charge against him still rests on Piker's words.
On September 9 the pro-Rogers super PAC Great Lakes HQ released an ad tying Abdul El-Sayed to Hasan Piker's 2019 remark that America deserved 9/11, saying El-Sayed 'gives comfort to that hatred'. On September 10 Republican Senate nominee Mike Rogers told the Republican midterm convention in Dallas that the pair 'excuse extremism' and demanded that El-Sayed 'Disavow Hasan Piker'. The Republican Jewish Coalition had called the tie 'Disqualifying' on September 8, and on September 11 Laura Loomer wrote 'The Democrat Party celebrates 9/11'. El-Sayed's campaign said he has always condemned the attacks, and he kept Piker. Their claim is that El-Sayed shares the hatred behind the attacks.
The narrow reading is that a nominee who won't cut loose an ally with Piker's remarks on the record shows a tolerance for extremism. That's a smaller claim than the one made: tolerating an ally who said a thing is a long way from sharing the hatred behind the attacks. On the smaller claim both camps agree. Rogers demanded a disavowal and El-Sayed declined, Mediaite quoted his reason, 'I want to reach out to his viewers... there are things that Hasan and I disagree with', and the Washington Examiner reported in August that progressive operatives had little appetite for cutting Piker loose. The tolerance is documented, and what it disqualifies is a judgment for voters. The claim as made, that El-Sayed shares the hatred, didn't hold, and the tolerance finding can't stand in for it.
The wide reading makes El-Sayed a man who holds the attackers' hatred and leads a party that takes pleasure in the attacks. His 11 September statement at Lansing's remembrance ceremony said 'Nothing can justify the murder of innocent civilians. Nothing.', CBS reporters watched him open a town hall with a moment of silence, and FactCheck.org found in August that no El-Sayed statement carries the belief, quoting his 'America didn't deserve 9/11' and his description of Piker's remark as a 'dumb statement'. The ad's footage of the hatred is Piker speaking, the RJC's 'Disqualifying' rests on Piker's remark and a framed newspaper in Piker's studio, and the Rogers campaign's August reply to the fact-checkers was that El-Sayed refused to disavow, which concedes where the charge comes from.
The other camp answered in the same register. Piker wrote that 'the right doesn't care abt 9/11 beyond using it for propaganda', OccupyDemocrats told supporters to 'Never back down from the fascists', and Robert Reich called the accusers 'right-wing Trump suckups'. Each side's main evidence is the other side's statements.
Three checks: on whether El-Sayed's own anniversary conduct and statements carried any justification of the attacks, on whether the accusing camp's evidence rests on El-Sayed's own statements, and on whether he kept Piker in his coalition and refused to disavow him through the anniversary.
Being right about what happened and wrong about what it proves are different failures, so these two lines never get averaged into one score. How this works
The logic check
If the claim is right, these things should be true. Here's what we found. Each check says which version of the claim it's testing, the plain one most people would hear or the widest one the same words could carry, and whether it carries the claim's own burden or establishes the background it sits on.
If El-Sayed justified or gave comfort to the hatred behind 9/11, the strongest reading, his own anniversary conduct and statements would carry it: no condemnation of the attacks, or a hedged one, and no participation in remembrance.
Reading failsEl-Sayed's Sep 11 statement, delivered at Lansing's remembrance ceremony, says 'Nothing can justify the murder of innocent civilians. Nothing.'; CBS reporters in the room saw him open a college town hall with a moment of silence; FactCheck.org on Aug 10 found no El-Sayed statement carrying the belief and quoted his Meet the Press line 'America didn't deserve 9/11' and his description of Piker's remark as a 'dumb statement'. source
If the transferred trait were El-Sayed's own, the accusing camp's evidence base would ground 'accepts money from it' and 'justifies it' in El-Sayed's own statements.
Reading failsThe Great Lakes HQ ad's footage of the hatred is Piker saying America 'deserved' 9/11 and 'I f*cking hate America so much', cut to El-Sayed campaigning; Rogers's convention line bundles the two as 'Together'; RJC's post grounds 'Disqualifying' in Piker's remark and a framed newspaper in Piker's studio; FactCheck.org's August rating of Rogers's 'someone who believes America deserved 9/11' as false rested on the campaign producing Piker's comments and no El-Sayed statement, and the campaign's Aug 11 reply was that El-Sayed refused to disavow, which concedes the premise. source
If a tolerance for Piker's rhetoric were the operative fact, the minimal reading, El-Sayed would keep Piker in his coalition and refuse to disavow him through the anniversary pressure.
Reading survivesBoth camps agree he did: Rogers demanded 'Disavow Hasan Piker' and El-Sayed did not; Mediaite quotes his defense, 'I want to reach out to his viewers... there are things that Hasan and I disagree with'; LauraLoomer's hostile Sep 11 post reports he 'said he won't be disavowing Hasan Piker'; the Washington Examiner reported on Aug 25 that progressive operatives show little appetite for cutting Piker loose. source
The full scoring
The raw numbers behind the verdict. What R/I/P/E/L and charge stages mean: how we score.
Research verdict: mixed evidence. The research found some of what the claim predicts and not the rest.
The claim is that Abdul El-Sayed's refusal to disavow Hasan Piker through the 9/11 anniversary shows he shares the hatred behind the attacks, attacks America himself, and leads a party that takes pleasure in them. Both camps agree that El-Sayed kept Piker and declined to disavow him when Mike Rogers demanded it, which supports the narrow version, that he tolerates an ally with Piker's remark on the record. The wider version failed. El-Sayed's statement at Lansing's remembrance ceremony on September 11 said 'Nothing can justify the murder of innocent civilians. Nothing.', and FactCheck.org found in August that no El-Sayed statement carries the belief; the ad's footage of the hatred is Piker speaking. The claim is partly supported.
Source record: hobocode.net Fault Line Report 2026-W37
Everything here is a plain-language cut of research published in full at hobocode.net, including the polarization methodology that defines every score on this page.