You've done how many edits to explain why it was fine for Jordan to remove out of nowhere

No.

My original comment said, functionally, that at worst "YDI" because it's a violation of the rule, and that at best (assuming what they're saying about being worked on by a proper team, being incorporated, etc. is true) that the correct course of action was to contact the mod first to clarify those things.

My original comment established from the get-go that either at worst the post should've been removed and stayed removed or at best that it toed the line so heavily that it was reasonable for a mod to have removed it and that it's on them to reach out to the mod to argue for reconsideration. That is, my original comment is explaining it wasn't "out of nowhere".

My first edit was having actually looked into the claims that they were making – namely that EITM is coordinated by some sort of team working as a company – and argued that that's false or at least has zero evidence presented in the OP or that I could find in the wild. This edit only exists because the OP seemingly made shit up about EITM to make their case look more credible, where evidence indicates EITM is just functionally a blog written by two people.

And finally, my second edit points out that it's objectively violating another rule entirely. This was its own edit because I actually assumed good faith of the OP at first and thought they weren't outright lying about the whole title thing. Thus, I didn't bother to look at /c/politics' rules around titles. Turns out, yeah, they just lied, there is a rule, and their title violated it completely.

It's pretty clear at this point that you're engaging in bad faith. You're portraying an attempt to be thorough and actually examine the OP's claims in good faith as somehow bending over backwards to defend the mod, and you expressly don't give a shit about the factual claims made in the OP.

Like, dude, if my goal was just "how do I defend the mod in this situation", do you really think I'd choose to assume that ridiculous title was a-okay because the OP said so, not even try checking the other rules, and focus solely on the merits of whether they violated Rule 2? No, because I went into this asking "If I were a mod in this community, would I have removed this post for violating Rule 2?" And the two original answers I came up with were basically 1) "Yes" and 2) "Yes, but I could see myself reinstating it if they messaged me and provided evidence that I was wrong about the nature of the source."