What Booker claimed (which may or may not be a lie) is that he doesn't know anything about Piker except for a couple of clips shown to him by some advisor, probably the 9/11 one and "it doesn't make a difference ifremoveds happened on 10/7" [to the question of genocide being "justified," but that context is left out], and was prompted to weigh in on if it would be reasonable to go on Piker's broadcast, and he was content to say "no" based on that information.

I'm not defending him, he's obviously a performative zionist scoundrel, I just assume you'd like to know what the precise story is and I'm pretty sure that's what it is.