"until it has been proven that the video was not edited to make it look like things happened differently than they actually did happen."

How does one prove a negative?

You are accusing someone who has possibly exposed ACORN corruption of editing videos to make it look like things happened differently than they actually did happen. It is up to you to prove your accusation, not for them to disprove it. Or does innocent until proven guilty only work one way in your world?

You keep repeating it over an over in a shrill, bigoted* attempt to smear someone with hearsay and gossip.

You don't even bother to say "allegedly" edited which indicates that the videos were unquestionably edited.

*Bigoted - utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.