← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
Jimmy Kimmel Is Out. AG Bondi Says DOJ Will Target "Hate Speech." How Do These Square Up With the First Amendment? PLUS Did the DOJ Delete Its Own Study on Right Wing Violence? And More.
00:54:19
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart choice. Make another smart choice with Auto Quote Explorer to compare rates from multiple car insurance companies all at once. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, September 18th. Let's talk about some news. First things first, we'll do a Tyler Robinson update. Tyler Robinson is, of course, Charlie Kirk's suspected killer. In Monday's episode, I did kind of a what we know about Tyler Robinson discussion, which was focused on just like what we knew at that point point, not only from investigators, but also things that family members had said in interviews. Since then, though, the Utah County D A has filed a charging document which shed a bit more light into who Tyler Robinson is, how the investigation went down, and really just how all of the. I guess it's more of like the probable cause that the Utah County D A has. So there are a couple of things I want to make clear because I know not everyone is familiar with a D A. A DA is a district attorney, so it's a community's lead prosecutor. They're the ones that decide whether to charge someone with a crime. You know, what the charges should be, whether to offer a plea deal or take the case to trial. So they're the lead prosecutor. To be clear, they represent the government, not the federal government, but the state government. A U.S. attorney is the. Is the one that represents the federal government in criminal cases, whereas a DA represents. Represents the state government when it comes to criminal cases. So the DA is the one that works with police to review evidence. They appear in court. They argue the case in front of a judge or a jury. The DA's goal is to get a conviction against the defendant in state criminal cases. Right now, a charging document is the paperwork that the DA files to officially accuse someone of a crime. It's basically the DA saying, we believe this person committed this crime. Here's what we're charging them with. So it lists the name of the defendant. It spells out the specific charges. It gives a brief summary of what happened, enough to explain why the D A thinks these charges are justified. There are three different types of charging documents. So you have a complaint, an information, and an indictment. A complaint is usually the first document that gets filed. It really gets the process started. It's. It's the first Official accusation that lands in front of a judge, but it's really not super detailed. It just really lets the court set bail, issue warrants, and like I said, get the legal process started. From there, the DA Will file an information which is what we have now. And again, that's the official filing of charges. An indictment is, is different because it comes from a grand jury, which is not really relevant to this discussion. So those are the differences between a complaint and information and an. And an indictment. What we have is an information. So now that we're all on the same page, let's go through the information and talk about what we know. Robinson is facing seven charges. Aggravated murder, felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, two counts of obstruction of justice, two two counts of tampering with a witness, and one count of committing a violent offense in the presence of a child. Aggravated murder is the only charge eligible for the death penalty which the D A does intend to seek in this case. And we will talk more about the death penalty specifically in Utah towards the end of this story. So after the information lays out the charges, it then lays out the probable cause. The probable cause statement is essentially a brief summary of the facts and evidence that explains. Explain why the D A believes the defendant committed the crimes. It's not a full trial level presentation of evidence, so we're bound to find out more eventually. But this is really just a snapshot of the. Of the evidence, I guess you could say so. The probable cause statement reads in part, quote, on September 10th, 2025 at 12:23pm Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while speaking to a large crowd on the campus of Utah Valley University in orem, Utah. Counts one and two. Police found the suspected murder weapon, a bolt action.30 06 rifle, nearby. Over the next approximately 33 hours, police conducted a manhunt for the shooter until the evening of September 11, 2025, when Tyler James Robinson surrendered to police at the Washington. Washington County Sheriff's office, end quote. The statement goes on to say that DNA evidence was found on the suspected murder weapon, which we knew previously. Previously, but specifically it says, quote, DNA consistent with Robinson's was found on the trigger, Other parts of the rifle, the fired cartridge casing, two of the three unfired cartridges, and the towel, because there was a towel wrapped around the rifle when they found it. After the shooting, Robinson allegedly hid the gun, discarded the clothing he wore when he fired the rifle, and told his lover slash roommate to delete incriminating text messages and not talk to police. So the hiding of the Gun is one of the obstruction. Obstruction of justice counts. Discarding of clothing is the other obstruction of justice count. Telling his roommate slash lover to delete texts is one of the witness tampering counts. And telling his roommate slash lover not to talk to police is the other witness tampering count. The statement then goes on to explain what Turning Point USA is, why Kirk was on the campus, and the fact that Kirk was sitting sitting under a canopy behind a table, talking to the crowd, taking questions when the shooting happened about 15 minutes into the event. The statement clarifies that Kirk was answering a question about mass shootings by transgender individuals when he was shot and that once he was shot, he slumped to the ground almost immediately and was rushed to a nearby hospital where he was declared dead. The statement then talks about the UVU surveillance investigation. It says that at the moment of the shot and a UVU police officer was watching the crowd from an elevated vantage point and began to scan the area. Apparently that officer knew from this, from the sound of the shot that it likely came from a rifle and therefore started to scan for potential sniper positions. He noted an area, a roof area approximately 160 yards away from Kirk and a potential position and that a sniper would potentially, you know, lay at and rushed to that location for evidence. Once there, the officer noticed markings on the gravel rooftop consistent with a sniper having laid on the roof, specifically impressions potentially left by the elbows, knees and feet. After reviewing surveillance footage, police confirmed that a person dressed in dark clothing gained access to that rooftop at approximately 12:15pm and after a short time which matches the known time of the shot, the person got up, ran across the roof carrying an item whose shape is consistent with a rifle, and then climbed down from the roof and ran off. Once law enforcement officers followed that escape path, that is when they found the bolt action rifle wrapped in a towel in a wooded area. The rifle had one spent round and three unspent rounds, which is apparently consistent with the fact that the there was no shell casing found on the roof, which suggests a bolt action rather than an auto loading weapon and the fact that only a single round was fired. Each round in the rifle contained an etched inscription. The fired cartridge reads, quote, notices bulge O wo what's this? End quote. The second, the second cartridge reads quote, hey fascist catch with various arrow symbols. The third cartridge reads, oh bella chow bella chow bella chow chow chow. And the fourth cartridge reads if you, if you read this, you are gay. Lmao. Now, the information document does not specify what these inscriptions mean, but I did do A bit of research and here is what I found. The phrase notices bulge o w o. What's this? Is a reference to furry and online roleplay culture in it's typically used in a demeaning or condescending way. The phrase hey, fascist catch followed by the arrow symbols is apparently a reference to the Eagle 500 kilogram bomb from a video game called Helldivers 2. And the line, oh, bella chow, bella chow, bella chow chow chow comes from an Italian song dedicated to the Italian resistance fighting against the occupying troops of Germany. The only phrase I don't really have an explanation for is the phrase on the fourth cartridge which reads, if you read this, you are gay. Lmao. Perhaps that was him just attempting to be funny. Who really knows at this point? The statement then gets into the Washington county investigation. It says that Robinson's mother actually saw a picture of the shooter the day after the shooting. You know, those surveillance images that they released and thought it looked like her son. She then called her son to ask him where he was and he said he was homesick and that he had been homesick the day before as well. The day before, obviously being the day of the shooting. The document then says, quote, robinson's mother expressed concern to her husband that the suspected shooter looked like Robinson. Robinson's father agreed. Robinson's mother also told law enforcement that over the last year or so he had become, quote, more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro gay and trans rights oriented, end quote. She said that Robinson had begun to date his roommate, who was a biological male, transitioning genders. Apparently the family had multiple discussions about that, but there were discussions especially between him and his father, who have very different political views. And in one of those conversations before the shooting, Robinson told his father that Charlie Kirk was coming to campus, which Robinson said was a stupid venue, and accused Kirk of spreading hate. That was all in the same conversation. Robinson's father said that the rifle that the police had suspected the shooter used matched a rifle that he had given his son as a gift. Because of that, he called Robinson and asked him to send him a picture of his rifle and. But Robinson didn't respond. Robinson's father then called Robinson and that's when Robinson implied to his father that he would take his own life. As they discussed the situation, Robinson implied he was the shooter and said he couldn't go to jail and he just wanted to end it. When asked why he did it, Robinson explained that there is too much evil and Kirk spreads too much hate. The statement then says, quote, they talked about Robinson turning himself in and convinced Robinson to speak with a family friend was a retired deputy sheriff. At Robinson's father's request, the family friend met with Robinson and his parents and convinced Robinson to turn himself in. The family friend spoke to police and reported telling Robinson that it would be best if he brought all evidence with him to the sheriff's office to avoid police having to search his parents home. The family friend also asked Robinson if he had any clothes that were related to what he did. Robinson replied that he had disposed of the clothes in different areas, end quote. The second to last portion of the the probable cause statement discusses the the roommate slash partner and for clarity's sake, I am going to refer to to the roommate slash partner as Robinson's roommate while I'm discussing this portion of the document because that is the language that the document uses itself. Per that probable cause statement, law enforcement interviewed Robinson's roommate who was involved in a romantic relationship with Robinson. The roommate told police that on September 10th he got a text from Robinson that said, quote, drop what you're doing. Look under my keyboard. End quote. The roommate then looks under the keyboard and finds a note that said, quote, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I'm going to take it. End quote. Police apparently have a picture of that note that is also the note I was referencing in Monday's episode that Kash Patel was talking about. Kash Patel's comments were a little bit confusing, so but apparently there is a picture of that note. After the roommate found that note, the following text exchange took place and I'm going to read it to you, Robinson. I'm still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in ORYM for a little while longer. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle. Still, to be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I'm sorry to involve you roommate. You weren't the one who did it, right? ? question? ? Robinson I am. I'm sorry? The roommate asks. I thought they caught the person. Robinson says, no, they grabbed some crazy old dude, then interrogated someone in similar clothing. I had planned to grab my rifle from my drop point shortly after, but most of that side of town got locked down. It's quiet, almost enough to get out, but there's one vehicle lingering. The roommate asks why? Robinson says, why did I do it? Question mark. The roommate says, yeah, Robinson said, I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I'm able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence going to attempt to retrieve it again. Hopefully they have moved on. I haven't seen anything about them finding it. The roommate asks how long Robinson had been planning this. Robinson responds, a bit over a week, I believe I can get close to it. Well he says a bit over a week I believe. And then he changes topics and says I can get close to it but there's a squad car parked right by it. I think they already swept that spot but I don't want to chance it. Then another text from Robinson says I'm wishing I had circled back and grabbed it as soon as I got to my vehicle. I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back Grandpa's rifle. I don't even know if it had a serial number but it wouldn't trace to me. I worry about prints. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. Didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find prints. And how the will I explain losing it to my old man? Only thing I left was the rifle wrapped in a towel. Then he says remember how I was engraving bullets? The fucking messages are mostly a big meme. If I see notices bulges UWU on Fox News I might have a stroke. Alright, I'm going to leave it. That really sucks. Judging from today I'd say Grandpa's gun does just fine. I don't know, I think it was a two thousand dollar scope. Robinson then says delete this exchange. He says my dad wants photos of the rifle. He says Grandpa wants to know who has what. The Feds released a photo of the rifle and it is very unique. He's calling me right now not answering. He later says since Trump got into office my dad has been pretty die hard maga. He also says a little bit later I'm going to turn myself in willingly. One of my neighbors here is a deputy for the sheriff and then says you are all I worry about love. The roommate says I'm much more worried about you. To which Robinson says don't talk to the media. Please don't take any interviews or make any comments. If police ask you questions, ask for a lawyer and stay silent. Now I do want to note that that text thread you can tell by there every so often there's that means that these texts were not sent consecutively, right? So they're basically cherry picked portions of the conversation. So the entirety of the conversation did not flow just like that. But. But those are the excerpts of the conversation that we have. Now, some people are calling into question the authenticity of those messages, which I will discuss in a minute. But first, I. I kind of just want to close out the charging document discussion. The final portion of the charging document, which is. Which is short, it just says, quote, police executed a search warrant on Robinson's residence. During that search, police discovered a shell casing with etchings, like the etchings found on the shells in the rifle near uvu. And police also found several targets with bullet holes in Robinson's home. End quote. So that's everything we know at this point. But let's quickly talk about the text messages. Like I said, some people are saying that these texts sound totally fake and scripted. I obviously don't know whether that's true or not, but here is what I will say. Releasing a fake transcript would be a big risk for the state to take. It's a risk that I doubt the state is willing to take because that risk is so big. So it's. If this was a fake transcript, and let's just say the state just made it up, the defense could easily prove that through receipts of text messages, not only from Robinson himself, but also the roommate. And unless the state had some really good reason for believing that transcript was real when it, you know, put it out there, the entire case would be in jeopardy. Meaning it's possible the entire case against Robinson could get dropped. Not to mention, the DA didn't have to include that transcript. They had enough probable cause in the charging document without it. So that's even more of a risk that doesn't really seem worth taking from the state's perspective. But again, I. I don't know anything for sure. This is something that we'll just have to see, you know, as this case develops, as more evidence comes to light. Let's take a quick break here. When we come back, we do have a couple more things to touch on related to this case, like the death penalty in Utah. And then we move on to some other big stories from the last couple of days. Monday Sidekick. The AI agent that knows you and your business thinks ahead and takes action. Ask it anything Seriously. Monday Sidekick. AI you'll love to use. Start a free trial today on Monday.com. the kids are back in school. Summer vacations have come to an end. It's officially the start of cozy season, which means it's time to slide into some bombas. You've heard me Talk about Bombas before. They make incredibly cozy socks, but also slippers, T shirts and underwear. However, the socks are really special to me because my husband goes through socks like no one I've ever seen. I've talked about this before. His Bomba socks are the only ones that stand the test of time. Now for the fall season, Bombas has. I don't want to say special socks, but they kind of are special socks because they're made with special materials that make them extra cozy for fall. So. So for instance, they have a merino wool blend sock which keeps you warm when it's chilly but cool when it's hot. That's what merino wool does, so they're ideal for the fall season. They also have rag socks which are made with rag wool. Rag wool is what makes their socks extra thick and cozy. Now the best part about Bombas is for every item you buy, Bombas donates one to someone experiencing homelessness. So head over to bombus.comunbiased and use code UNBIASED for tweet 20 off your first purchase. That's b o m B-A-S.comunbiased code UNBIASED at checkout. Have you ever had the pleasure of sleeping on a cloud? A pillowy, soft, silky cloud? I think it's safe to say none of us have, but we all wish it were possible. So I've actually made it my mission to make my bed feel as close to a cloud as possible. I'm truly proud of the bed I've created. Those who have been around for a long time on this podcast know that I absolutely love my bed. I love I couldn't have done it without Cozy Earth though. Cozy Earth bedding is like nothing else. Let me tell you, it is exactly what you would imagine a cloud would feel like. The sheets are soft, a little bit silky, but not too silky. Light and cool like temperature cool. And that's because Cozy Earth sheets are temperature regulating. They naturally wick away heat and moisture from your body. And here's the thing. Cozy Earth is so confident that you are going to love their sheets that they offer a 100 night sleep trial. If you if you don't love them after 100 nights, you can return them hassle free. You won't, that I can assure you. But you can head to cozyearth.com and use my code UNBIASED for 40% off. And if you get a post purchase survey, make sure to let them know you heard about Cozy Earth right here. That's cozyearth.com code unbiased at checkout for 40% off. Because your bed should be more than a place to sleep. It should be your happy place. Cozy earth makes that possible. Welcome back. At the beginning of this episode, I mentioned that the DA is is pursuing the death penalty in this case. And he can do that because Utah still has the death penalty. There are 27 states that still have the death penalty, though two of those states currently have no inmates on death row. And most of those states actually haven't carried out an execution in years due to drug shortages, legal challenges, et cetera, et cetera. The states that are most active with the death penalty are really only Missouri, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, sometimes Florida, sometimes Indiana. And if you're wondering why I know so much about the death penalty, by the way, it's because I took a class in law school called Death Penalty and the Law. And it was my favorite class in all of law school by far. It was incredibly fascinating, but it was also taught by my favorite professor, so that definitely helped. Anyway, Utah's last execution was last year, but that execution was the first execution in 14 years. So executions are not carried out frequently in Utah. I believe there's only three people maybe on death row currently in Utah. But one interesting thing about Utah is that they still have the firing squad as a method of execution. So basically how it works is this. The lethal injection is the default method of execution. But if the drugs aren't available, and that's a whole other story, there's a whole history of drugs not being available because the US Has a hard time supplying them anyway. The if the lethal injection is not available, the firing squad is the secondary method. In Robinson's case, there's a long way to go before the death penalty is even an option. First, this case has to go to trial. That could even take years. Then, once it goes to trial, the jury has to find him guilty, which, once he's found guilty, if he's found guilty, the trial moves to the sentencing phase, where the jury then has to decide whether to sentence him to life or death. To sentence him to death, all 12 jury members have to agree. If it's not unanimous, then the sentence is life. So that's a little bit about how it works in Utah. Okay, let's move on to another criminal defendant. This story won't be nearly as long as the last, but a lot of you wanted to know why Luigi Mangione had his terrorism charges dropped. So we're going to go through it. Just as a refresher. Luigi Mangione is the man accused of murdering UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December of 2024 in New York City. So Mangioni was originally facing 11 state charges and additional federal charges, but now he's only facing nine state charges after having two terrorism related charges dismissed by a New York judge this week. Those dismissed charges included first degree murder in furtherance of an act of terrorism and second degree murder as a crime of terrorism. Now, under New York law, a conviction for murder in furtherance of terrorism requires proof that not only you know, not only do you have to meet the requirements of first degree murder, but you also have to prove that the defendant intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy by intimidation, or affect the conduct of government through murder, assassination, or kidnapping. This is actually a law that was written post 9 11. It was, it was written and passed within weeks of 9 11. The other charge that was dismissed, second degree murder as a crime of terrorism, requires prosecutors to prove that the murder, while also meeting the definition of second degree murder, was intended to intimidate or coerce the public or government. So both of these charges relate to intimidating or coercing the public or government and having the intention to do so. So in assessing the legal sufficiency of these charges, the judge concluded that Mangione's actions, while they were violent and they were deliberate, did not satisfy these crimes criteria. When we talk about a charge being legally sufficient, what we're saying is that even if all of the prosecutor's evidence were accepted as true, it still wouldn't be enough to meet the specific requirements of the law. In this case, the court found that while Mangione's killing was deliberate and violent, it didn't meet the legal definition of terrorism, which requires that broader intent to threaten or coerce the public or government. The judge wrote, quote, there was no evidence presented of a desire to terrorize the public, to inspire widespread fear, to engage in a broader campaign of violence, or to conspire with organized terrorist groups. Here, the crime, the heinous but targeted and discreet killing of one person, is very different from the examples of terrorism set forth in this statute. End quote. Keep in mind that he is still facing those nine state charges, including second degree murder, which carries a sentence of 25 years to life, as well as multiple counts of weapons possession and possession of a forged instrument. On the federal side, he also faces multiple charges like using a firearm to commit murder, interstate stalking resulting in death, and discharging a firearm with a silencer in furtherance of a violent crime. And those federal charges carry maximum penalties ranging from 30 years to life. And in the case of the firearm murder count, that carries the death penalty. So while these two terrorism charges were dismissed, he's still facing some pretty hefty punishments. Next story. Attorney General Bondi is facing bipartisan criticism over comments about how the DOJ plans to respond to hate speech following the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In an interview on the Katie Miller podcast, Bondi said the DOJ quote, will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, and that's across cross the aisle. She added, there's free speech and then there's hate speech and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society, end quote. Those comments quickly sparked bipartisan concern and criticism because many people were noting that U. S. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have decades of precedent holding that hate speech on its own is protected under the First Amendment. So let's talk a little bit about what the Supreme Court has said. The Supreme Court has consistently held that hate speech is protected so long as it doesn't incite imminent lawless action, constitute a true threat, constitute defamation, contain obscenity, or result in child exploitation. This might surprise some people, but you are allowed to hate on a person or a group based on race, religion, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, any other characteristic or trait that is protected speech. The kind of that kind of speech is only not protected if again, it incites imminent lawless action, constitutes a true threat, constitutes defamation, contains obscenity, or results in child exploitation. But hate speech is protected. So we can look at a few cases. Let's take Snyder vs. Phelps, for instance. In 2011, the Supreme Court held that even deeply offensive hateful speech in this case, it was picketing at a military funeral. The court held that that's protected under the First Amendment so long as it doesn't constitute a true threat. In 2017, in a case called Matal vs Tam, the justices made clear that the government cannot refuse to register trademarks containing disparaging language simply because the language is offensive, controversial, or hateful. Again, current precedent is that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment so long as it doesn't do one of those things that we talked about earlier, incite immediate lawless action, constitute a true threat, constitute defamation, et cetera. So after the backlash, Bondi attempted to clarify her remarks in a post on X, stating that what she meant was that, you know, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence. That's what the DOJ was going to target now, now, she never mentioned threats of violence in her original remarks, but she wrote on X, quote, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It is a crime. For far too long, we've watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over. You cannot call for someone's murder. You cannot swat a member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as free speech. And these acts are punishable crimes. And every single threat will be met with the full force of the law. Free speech protects ideas, debates, and even dissent, but it does not and will never protect violence. End quote. So let's talk about violence specifically. It is true that federal law makes it illegal to issue threats of violence. You cannot do that. For example, it's illegal to threat. You know, you can't say you're. You're going to kidnap someone. You can't say you're going to injure someone. Those are considered to be true threats. However, the Supreme Court has held that the government cannot prohibit or make unlawful speech that merely advocates for the use of violence. Okay? So the government can only interfere if that advocacy for violence is meant to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to produce imminent lawless action. So to be clear, general advocacy of violence is protected unless it meets that Brandenburg test. That Brandenburg test is what we just talked about. It was set forth in a Supreme Court case called Brandenburg, and basically it says that general advocacy of violence is okay unless, and this is the test, the speech is meant to incite imminent lawless action and is likely to produce imminent lawless action. That is the test. If those two things are met, then the government can. Can intervene. So we'll go through some examples. You are totally fine to say one day we might have to overthrow the government if things don't change. You can also say, it looks like violence might be the only way to achieve change in this country. What you can't say is, let's storm that courthouse right now while attending a rally with some people outside the courthouse. You also can't say, let's go set that building on fire tonight. The difference is that the first two statements, yes, they advocate for violence, but they don't necessarily incite immediate lawless action, and they're not likely to produce immediate lawless action. The last two statements, though, are meant to produce imminent lawless action and will likely result in that. So hopefully that's clear. But while we're on the topic of free speech, we have to talk about what's going on with Jimmy Kimmel. A lot of you have questions. It's interesting because on Monday we talked about how employers have the right to fire employees for speech. But then this happened and it kind of opened up a whole other conversation. So last night, ABC announced that it pulled the Jimmy Kimmel Live late night show off the air indefinitely due to his controversial on air comments. Specifically, on Monday, when opening his show, Kimmel said, quote, unquote, we hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anyone other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it, end quote. He then goes on to sarcastically say, quote, in between all of the finger pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew flags at half staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the President is taking this. And then Kimmel plays a clip of a reporter and asking Trump how he's holding up in light of Charlie Kirk's murder. And Trump responds, I think very good. And by the way, right over there, you see all the trucks, they just started construction on the new ballroom for the White House. So those were Kimmel's remarks on Monday, this past Monday. Just for added context here, this was not his first episode since Charlie Kirk's assassination, when Charlie and I actually have this written down. So when Charlie Kirk was originally, or short, very shortly after he was assassinated, Jimmy Kimmel's original remarks, it went like this. So he opens the show, he says, I'm Jimmy, I'm the host of the show. Thank you for joining us here in Los Angeles, the second largest city in our bitterly divided nation, where the we're like the rest of the country, we're still trying to wrap our heads around the senseless murder of the popular podcast host and conservative activist Charlie Kirk yesterday, whose death has amplified our anger and our differences. And I've seen a lot of extraordinarily vile responses to this from both sides of the political spectrum. Some people are cheering this, which is something I won't ever understand. We had another school shooting yesterday in Colorado, which it was the hundredth one of the year. And with all these terrible things happening, you would think that our President would at least make an attempt to bring us together, but he didn't. And then he goes on to talk about President Trump's remarks from the Oval Office after Charlie Kirk's assassination. So that, that, that's what his original remarks were. And then this past Monday, he made those controversial remarks about the suspected shooter being part of the MAGA movement and, and everything else that he said. So then on Tuesday, Kimmel said, quote, many in Magaland are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk, end quote. One day later on Wednesday, FCC chair Brendan Carr was on Benny Johnson's podcast and he said that Kimmel's comments were, quote, unquote, sick. And he went on to say, quote, I have been very clear from the moment that I have become chairman of the fcc, I want to reinvigorate the public interest. What people don't understand is that the broadcasters are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication. They, meaning the broadcasters have, have a license granted by us at the FCC that comes with it in obligation to operate in the public interest, end quote. He then goes on to say, quote, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead, end quote. When Johnson asked Carr what kind of remedies he'd like to see here, Carr said that he'd like to see an on air apology from Kimmel and that there are other minimal steps that can be taken. But then Carr eventually says, quote, I think it's really sort of a pastime that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say, listen, we're going to preempt. We're not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out. Because we as a licensed broadcaster are running the possibility of fines or license revocations from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion and end quote. So to quickly touch on when the FCC can revoke a broadcaster's license, per the Communications act, broadcasters are required to operate in the public interest. Okay? That's set forth in the Communications Act. Accordingly, the FCC can revoke licenses or deny license renewals for serious violations. So indecency fraud, obscenity, unlawful conduct, things like that. There is a narrow rule about news distortion, which is, and that's what Carl was referencing when he was talking on the podcast. News distortion is fabricating news or staging events without disclosing. That said, things are fabricated or staged. But the FCC has historically been very reluctant to enforce these news distortion violations because of First Amendment concerns. In fact, the last time news distortion enforcement was meaningfully, you know, raised or made an issue was, was decades ago. News distortion is an FCC term that refers to deliberately falsifying or staging the news. It's not just getting facts wrong. It's not just having a biased spin on something. It's more intentional than that, staging events and presenting them to the audience as if they really happened. It can also be knowingly broadcasting fake footage as if it were real. It can be telling reporters to twist or suppress stories in a way that misleads, misleads the public. These are just a few examples. The FCC has stated, quote, rigging, slanting or distorting the news, end quote, is not in the public interest and could be grounds for license action. But like I said, in practice, the FCC almost never enforces this because one, it's hard to prove intent and, and two, you have these First Amendment concerns. So following Carr's interview with Benny Johnson, within hours nextar announced its decision to stop airing Kimmel show on its stations. And just to be clear about the business structure here, nexstar is one of the companies that owns a bunch of ABC affiliate stations across the country. So Disney owns ABC and ABC runs on more than 200 stations across the country. But ABC is actually only owns like eight of those stations itself. The other stations, the majority of the stations are owned by other companies like nexstar. Sinclair is also another company that owns some ABC stations, which we'll talk about too. So I, I think it's. Nextar owns 32 ABC affiliate stations and Sinclair has a similar number, maybe 30 or something. So Nexar was the first to make the decision to stop broadcasting the show. Then it was Sinclair. These decisions by Next, nextar and Sinclair ultimately influenced Disney's decision to pull the show entirely because nextar and Sinclair owns so many of the ABC affiliate stations that, you know, the show broadcasts on. For Disney, it's. It's more of a financial business decision than anything else, considering Disney would only make a fraction of what it usually makes off the show. If the show isn't being broadcasted on all of the usual stations, it would likely cost more to run the show than, you know, Disney would make off the show. But there's also some other important context we need to add. Nextar is planning on seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion acquisition. So Nextar needs to stay in the FCC's good graces. This is just how these things work. We saw something similar with Paramount. Paramount needed the FCC's approval for an acquisition not too long ago. I think it was a couple months ago. So it settled a lawsuit with the administration and it agreed to do away with its DEI programs. So these things happen, right? These companies want to stay in the FCC's good graces so that the FCC approves their acquisitions. FCC Chair Brendan Carr thanked Nexstar for, quote, doing the right thing once Disney pulled the show entirely. Carr wrote on X, quote, broadcast TV stations have always been required by their license to to operate in the public interest. That includes serving the needs of their local communities. And broadcasters have long retained the right to not air national programs they believe are inconsistent with the public interest, including their local community's values. I am glad to see that many broadcasters are responding to their viewers as intended, end quote. So that is the series of events that led to Kimmel getting pulled. But let's quickly take our second break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the First Amendment of it all. I know you have a lot of questions, so we will cover all of it. Taking on a DIY job around the house is the ultimate summer project. But if your DIY home security system is a beware of dog sign when your real pet is Princess the cat, that's safe ish. To be actually safe, help protect your home with a DIY system from adt. It's easy to install and gives you virtual assistance from ADT's technical support team. Best of all, you can tell everyone in the neighborhood you set it up yourself. Don't settle for safe ish this summer DIY with ADT. Instead, visit ADT.com to learn more. Welcome back. Before we took a break, we recapped the series of events that led to Kimmel getting pulled from the air. But I know a lot of you have a lot of questions surrounding the First Amendment and government coercion. So let's run through it. As I said in Monday's episode, this is something that a lot of people actually don't know. So the First Amendment prohibits government action, okay? Government action. Specifically, the Constitution was written so that the government remember when the Constitution was written, our founding fathers, they came from England and the king had a lot of control and there wasn't free speech over there. So when they came over here, they said the government cannot punish us for certain things. So the First Amendment prohibits government action. Private companies can do what they want when it comes to speech. So a private broadcaster like Nextar or Sinclair, or even a private company like ABC and Disney, they can choose to pull a show for any reason. And that decision by itself does not violate the First Amendment. However, when government officials pressure or threaten private companies to take down speech or remove certain content. That can be a First Amendment violation. But a violation or a finding of a violation requires that the private company go after the government. Right? It requires that the private company sue the government. And we will not see that here. Nextar, Sinclair, Disney, none of them are going to sue the government. Alleging that the government pressured them to take Kimmel off the air. One, because they don't want to get on the administration's bad side. But also two, they said it was their decision. Now, if Jimmy Kimmel wanted to sue, he could, he could sue himself personally. But he'd have to prove a direct injury by the government. Right? And that would be a little hard to do. He would have to show the government's action to violated his First Amendment right and caused his show to get pulled. Now he has a concrete injury given that his show was pulled. That's his injury. But the problem is that the government did not directly silence him. Nextar, Sinclair, ABC and Disney did not. The government. Courts will often see that. As you see what happened here, I should say as, as too indirect. Unless Kimmel is able to prove, prove that these companies in pulling his show or these broadcasters acted only because of government coercion. And Even if the FCC's pressure was in the background of all of this, Kimmel would have to prove that it was the, I mean, it was the, it was the decisive factor in his show being canceled. And that's a harder chain of causation to establish for him personally. So here's what we have to remember. We'll wrap this up in a bowl. The First Amendment prohibits action by the government, not private companies. Nexar, Sinclair and Disney and abc, they're all private companies. Private broadcasters, they can drop Jimmy Kimmel if they want to. That alone is not unconstitutional. A First Amendment issue arises when government officials use threats or pressure to make private companies do the censoring for them. But unless one of those companies actually sues the government, which is highly unlikely given their business with the fcc, this won't get tested in court. Could Kim will sue? Maybe. It'd be a tough win for him, though. He'd have to prove again the government, not just the broadcasters, was the direct cause of his show being pulled. And that's, that's a high bar given what we know. This would have been a different story if the FCC went beyond threats and actually took action, you know, against these broadcasters and companies and directly caused them to pull Kimmel's show. But that didn't happen. Here. The decision was made by nexstar, Sinclair, ABC and Disney themselves, not the government. All right, let's do some quick hitters, starting with the hanging deaths in Mississippi. Over the course of 24 hours, two dead bodies were found hanging from trees in Mississippi. On Monday, police found a reportedly homeless white male named Corey Zucatis hanging from a tree in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The next morning, roughly 100 miles away, a black college student named Demar Travion Reed was found hanging from a tree on campus near the university's pickleball courts. Authorities say that the hangings are completely unrelated to one another, that the two did not know each other, that there is no foul play suspected in either case, but that the investigation is ongoing in both cases and that preliminary autopsy results should be available in the next couple of days. However, it's worth noting the county coroner did say that based on the preliminary investigation, Reid, which is the college student, did not suffer any lacerations, contusions, compound fractures, broken bones or injuries consistent with an assault. As for Zucatus, police say he was on drugs at the time of his death, and that was confirmed by the coroner's office. And just to be clear, the reason I'm mentioning race here is because there were rumors going around that both people found hanging were black and and that was not the case. One was white, one was black. Three police officers. Three police officers were killed yesterday and two were left in critical yet stable condition after a gunman opened fire while the officers were serving a warrant. This incident happened in York County, Pennsylvania. The suspect has since been identified as 24 year old Matthew James Ruth, who was being sought on stalking charges, trespassing, loitering and prowling at night. The two injured officers remain in stable condition in the hospital. President Trump, with the Tennessee governor's permission, sent National Guard troops and other agencies into Memphis to assist with combating crime. Trump said the effort will include the National Guard, FBI, atf, dea, ice, Homeland Security Investigations, the US Marshals, and more importantly, because the Tennessee governor gave permission, this deployment is lawful under Title Title 32 of the U.S. code. Speaking of the president, he says he will sign an order designating ANTIFA as a terrorist organization. Antifa is short for anti fascist, and the people involved in ANTIFA typically identify as far left, though there is no single ideology that everyone agrees on. Instead, what unites them is opposition to groups that they view as fascist or authoritarian. Trump also said he would strongly recommend that whoever funds the actions of ANTIFA groups be be investigated. Notably, it's not clear how said designation would be made. The State Department does have a list of designated foreign terrorist organizations, but not domestic, so it's not clear what that would look like. The Fed announced the first interest rate cut of the year, lowering its its benchmark interest rate by 0.25 points. The Fed funds rate will now sit at a new range of 4 to 4.25%. This is the Fed's first rate cut since December 2024. And Erica Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, has been named CEO of Turning Point usa, the organization that her husband helped found and led until his assassination. In a statement on X, the organization wrote, quote, it was the honor of our lives to serve as board members at Charlie's side. Charlie prepared us all for a moment like this one. He worked tirelessly to ensure Turning Point USA was built to survive even the greatest tests. And now it is our great pride to announce Erica Kirk as the new CEO and chair of the board for Turning Point usa. End quote. Now for Rumor has it, my weekly segment where I either confirm, dispel, or add context to rumors, recent rumors submitted by all of you. First one. Rumor has it that there's a new bill that allows Secretary of State Marco Rubio to revoke passports from US Citizens based on their views and speech, including individuals who have criticized Israel. This is false, but let's add some context. Republican lawmaker Brian Mast recently introduced the Department of State Policy Provisions act, which is meant to set guidelines covering how the State Department operates in certain areas. And one specific provision in that bill read in part, the Secretary of State shall refuse to issue a passport to any individual who the Secretary determines has knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to an organization the Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization, end quote. Material support is defined in the bill as currency or money, instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities or weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, and transportation. It excludes medicine or religious materials. Now, if you noticed that provision in the definition that I just read you says nothing about speech or views. In fact, the provision actually said under that, under the definition of material support, that nothing within the provision can be applied so as to restrict the exercise of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. So this one's definitely false. However, just to make it even more false, in recent days, that provision has since been removed entirely from that proposed bill. So it actually doesn't even exist anymore. Next one and final one. Rumor has it that the DOJ deleted its own study showing Far right wing extremists are more likely to carry out domestic terrorism. This is true. Here's what we know. A June 2024 study from the National Institute of Justice, which is an agency within the doj, showed that, quote, the number of far right attacks continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990, far right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In the same period, far left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks and that took 72 lives, end quote. This study, which was titled quote, what NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism, was originally published to the DOJ's National Institute of Justice website on January 4, 2024 during the Biden administration. That study remained available on the DOJ's website until last week. The Internet Archives archive history for the study's webpage showed the study was still available on the DOJ's website on September 11, 2025. However, by the time it was next saved on the archive around 2pm on September 12, the study had been removed from the website and its link directed to the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs homepage. And still, when you try to visit the old study URL, you're directed to the DOJ's Office of Justice program. When you try to access the study link via the PDF link, the website says that the page can't be found. Notably the ojp, the office within the DOJ still has an older study on right wing extremism from 1987 available on its website, but not this study titled what NIJ Research Tells Us About Domestic Terrorism. As far as why the DOJ deleted the study, we don't really have a solid answer. There's been speculation as to why, but I don't have an affirmative answer to give you. For today's Critical Thinking segment, I want to go back to the Kimmel story. I'm sure many of you have formed opinions as to whether you agree or disagree with Kimmel show getting pulled. Maybe not, maybe you're undecided, but I have, I have some questions for those of you that agree with Kimmel show getting pulled, those that disagree, and then those that are undecided. So for those who agree with Kimmel show being pulled. If you think ABC and its affiliates made the right call, ask yourself, would you feel the same if if it was a late night host on Fox or Newsmax that was getting pulled after criticizing Democrats. In fact, imagine the roles were mirrored, right? So a Democratic public figure gets assassinated and a Fox News host or a right wing comedian says the left is trying to characterize the suspected killer as anyone other than one of them. And the left is doing everything they can to score political points from it. Even if evidence points to the fact that you know, the, the suspected killer was on the right and not the left, that comedian or host has their show pulled. Would you feel and, and keep in mind the, the context of what the let's say, you know, it's a, it's a Democratic administration in office and the FCC chair says something similar to what Brendan Carr said. Would you feel the same way you do now? Why or why not? For those that disagree with Kimmel show being pulled. How do you balance Kimmel's speech, Kimmel's free speech against a company's right to control what errors on its own platform or, you know, its right to control its company's rep, its own reputation? So imagine you're a business owner. One of your employees says something that makes your company look bad. Maybe you lose a lot of money because of it. What do you do? What do you, what do you do in that situation? How do you balance your employees right to speak freely and your business, your reputation, all of that. For those of you who are undecided, picture this like a sliding scale. Okay? So on one end you have private companies making their own business decisions. On the other end of the scale you have government coercion. Where do you place the tipping point? In other words, at what point do government comments or threats stop being mere influence and start becoming unconstitutional coercion? Think about that. That is what I have for you today. Thank you so much for being here as always. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you on Monday. Sa.