Asked for his view, Shillue said Piker was “ridiculous” but a podcaster being provocative, and that the political responsibility lay with El-Sayed, who chose to campaign with him for his audience. He said he disliked “that denounce game,” comparing it to demands that Barack Obama denounce Jeremiah Wright, and argued that El-Sayed's own record was the better target.
Why we used this label
Relative to the case's fixed reference point — the claims Piker made in the Axios Show interview — Shillue minimizes. He grants the criticism in a single word — “ridiculous” — and then reframes the statements as a performer's stock in trade, “he's provocative, he does that, that's his game,” which treats them as predictable rather than serious, and he expressly rejects the demand made elsewhere on this dossier by Mike Rogers and the NRSC that El-Sayed denounce him. The closest competing label is condemns, which loses because “ridiculous” is the whole of his evaluation of the statements; the substance of his answer is that they do not warrant the response they are getting and that El-Sayed's own record is the proper target.