Elon Musk’s scorned baby mama launches incredible defense of controversial Democrat favorite who said America ‘deserved’ 9/11
Ashley St Clair defended streamer Hasan Piker against criticism, describing the backlash as “hysteria” that distracts from the growth of progressive politics and democratic socialism. She said pressuring Democratic candidates to denounce an influencer with no institutional power is a waste of time.
Piker has campaigned for or interviewed at least a dozen Democratic figures, including Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. His past remarks, including saying the United States “deserved” the 9/11 attacks, have drawn criticism; he later apologised. The comments have featured in Republican attack ads against El-Sayed, while Vice-President JD Vance has accused Democrats of being influenced by the radical left.
- St Clair says criticism of Piker distracts from progressive politics.
- Piker has engaged with at least a dozen Democratic figures.
- His past 9/11 remarks have fuelled Republican attacks.
New here? Start with this
Hasan Piker is an online political commentator and streamer whose past remarks have generated significant controversy. In particular, he previously stated that the United States "deserved" the 9/11 terrorist attacks; he later apologised, but these comments have been featured in Republican attack advertisements against Democratic candidates who have worked with him.
Piker has campaigned for or appeared alongside numerous Democratic politicians, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed. The controversy over his associations with Democratic figures has prompted debate about whether politicians should distance themselves from him.
Ashley St Clair, a political commentator, has defended Piker against this criticism, calling the backlash "hysteria" that distracts from progressive politics. She contends that pressuring Democratic candidates to denounce someone with no formal political power is a waste of time and energy.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Democratic candidates have a responsibility to be selective about their associations, particularly with figures who have made inflammatory remarks such as Piker's statement that America deserved 9/11. Even if Piker subsequently apologised, such statements reflect serious ideological positions, and politicians who accept his support and appear in his content risk legitimising these views to voters who should expect their leaders to maintain standards about who influences the party's public messaging. The concern extends beyond one individual to the influence of increasingly radical voices within progressive spaces.
The case against
Expecting Democratic candidates to publicly denounce every controversial influencer they have been interviewed by or associated with is an unreasonable standard that wastes political energy and distracts from substantive policy debate. Piker is ultimately a content creator without institutional power, and judging progressive politics by the past statements of every media personality who covers it sets a corrosive precedent for democratic discourse. The selective focus on these associations, particularly when weaponised in attack ads, suggests this reflects partisan strategy rather than genuine concern, and such guilt-by-association politics undermines rather than strengthens reasoned political discussion.