A string of news stories informs us that Democrats have “distanced themselves” from America-hating Mao-loving antisemitic terrorist-cheerleader Hasan Piker. But have they? As of this writing, I count six Democrats who have explicitly…
Page A2From§Eachthe early bird edition — 31 August 2026
Washington Examiner demands Democrats denounce Piker; The Hill runs the same demand again.
As it ran on the front
Look, the story here is simple, it's accountability journalism, it's just asking a fair question: have Democrats actually distanced themselves from Hasan Piker or not? The Washington Examiner ran it, straightforward headline, 'No, Democrats haven't distanced themselves' — that's just reporting, that's just — okay, it's an opinion framed as reporting, fine, but the question stands.
Then The Hill runs basically the identical piece: 'Abdul El-Sayed still fails to denounce Hasan Piker.' Still. That word is doing a lot of work. It implies there was a deadline, a clock running, an obligation El-Sayed signed onto and then dodged. Except nobody can point to where that obligation came from. He's a private citizen who ran for office once. He doesn't owe a press release on another private citizen's podcast opinions. But sure, 'still' — like it's overdue rent.…
…(cont) I'll grant you it looks a little — did I say a little? It looks exactly like two outlets keeping the same nine-word demand alive across two news cycles because the demand is more useful unmet than met. If El-Sayed denounces Piker, the story's over, there's nothing left to cover. If he doesn't, you get 'still fails to' forever, a renewable resource, denunciation as a subscription service.
That's not a conspiracy, that's just — okay, it's a little bit a conspiracy, it's a manufactured obligation with an infinite shelf life, my mistake, strike that.
The actual news value here is zero. Nobody's policy changed. No vote was cast. No dollar moved. Two publications ran the equivalent of 'area man still hasn't apologized for a thing he never agreed to apologize for,' a week apart, and called it coverage. That's the whole product. It's not a scandal, it's a content calendar, and I probably shouldn't have said that part out loud either.
“Two papers, running the same nine words: hasn't denounced Hasan Piker. Nobody made anybody sign a pledge, there's no contract — it's just a script that pays out every time it goes unanswered. That's not journalism, that's a bill collector calling about a debt that was never owed.”
“It's a fair accountability question, the public deserves clarity on where people stand — actually there's no candidacy attached to this one, El-Sayed's a private citizen at this point, so 'deserves clarity' might be doing some work there. Still, the question's fair. Probably.”
The receipts
Now that El-Sayed is competing in a general election for the votes of normies, including many Jewish Michiganders who don’t at all appreciate what Piker has said about Israel, El-Sayed is not sure what to do.
This page is a back-issue: the story as it ran, receipts as they were. The current edition is at the front.