> I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president

I didn't say you said that, I was referring to the site's accusations as they try to drum up a narrative.

> Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump

Well Google didn't, this person did in a private conversation, and as long as we're being precise, she didn't refer to Trump, she referred to companies being "charged with preventing the next Trump situation".

> it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved

I mean you're saying that devoid of context, a bad interpretation is just as likely as a good interpretation, which is at least "embarrassing and disgraceful" on her part. Which is the whole issue with project veritas and context, isn't it?

We don't actually know what she was referring to, but I'll refer you back to your own "Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy" comment for where we shouldn't be putting the benefit of the doubt.

And again, that ambiguous clause said by someone in casual conversation is all that's going on here. There's nothing else revealed in this "case".