Trump just opened another front in his all-out war on U.S. media
Robert Reich
September 18, 2025
Donald Trump has sued the New York Times for, well, reporting on Donald Trump.
Rather than charging the Times with any specific libelous act, Trump’s lawsuit is just another of his angry bloviations.
The lawsuit says he’s moving against "one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.” And so on.
At least he sued the Wall Street Journal’s parent company for something specific — reporting Trump’s birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein (which Trump continues to deny even though it showed up in the Epstein files).
Last year, Trump sued ABC and its host George Stephanopoulos for having said that Trump was found liable for rape rather than "sexual abuse" in the civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. The network settled for $16 million.
Trump sued CBS for allegedly editing an interview with Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes to make her sound more coherent. CBS also agreed to pay $16 million.
Defamation lawsuits are a longstanding part of Trump’s repertoire, which he first learned at the feet of Roy Cohn, one of America’s most notorious legal bullies.
In the 1980s, Trump sued the Pulitzer-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Paul Gapp for $500 million, for criticizing Trump’s plan to build the world’s tallest building in Manhattan, a 150-story tower that Gapp called "one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city.”
Trump charged that Gapp had "virtually torpedoed" the project and subjected Trump to "public ridicule and contempt." A judge dismissed the suit as involving protected opinion.
But such lawsuits are far worse when a president sues. He’s no longer just an individual whose reputation can be harmed. He’s the head of the government of the United States. One of the cardinal responsibilities of the media in our democracy is to report on a president — and often criticize him.
The legal standard for defamation of a public figure, established in a 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requires that public officials who bring such suits prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
That case arose from a libel suit filed by L.B. Sullivan, the police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, against the New York Times for an advertisement in the paper that, despite being mostly true, contained factual errors concerning the mistreatment of civil rights demonstrators.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times, finding that the ad was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the higher standard of proof was necessary to protect robust debate on public affairs.
Under this standard, there’s no chance Trump will prevail in his latest lawsuits against the Times or Wall Street Journal. Nor would he have won his lawsuits against ABC and CBS, had they gone to trial.
But Trump hasn’t filed these lawsuits to win in court. He has sought wins in the court of public opinion. These lawsuits are aspects of his performative presidency.
ABC’s and CBS’s settlements are viewed by Trump as vindications of his gripes with the networks.
He’s likewise using his lawsuit against the New York Times to advertise his long standing grievances with the paper.
His lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is intended to send a message to the Journal’s publisher, Rupert Murdoch, that Trump doesn’t want Murdoch to muck around in the Jeffrey Epstein case.
These lawsuits also put the media on notice that Trump could mess up their businesses.
Not only is it costly to defend against them — requiring attorney’s fees, inordinate time of senior executives, and efforts to defend the media’s brand and reputation.
When a lawsuit comes from the president of the United States who also has the power to damage a business by imposing regulations and prosecuting the corporation for any alleged wrongdoings, the potential costs can be huge.
Which presumably is why CBS caved rather than litigated. Its parent company, Paramount, wanted to be able to sell it for some $8 billion to Skydance, whose CEO is David Ellison (scion of the second-richest person in America, Oracle’s Larry Ellison). But Paramount first needed the approval of Trump’s Federal Communications Commission — which held up the sale until the defamation lawsuit was settled.
Here we come to the central danger of Trump’s wanton use of personal defamation law. The mere possibility of its use — coupled with Trump’s other powers of retribution — have a potential chilling effect on media criticism of Trump.
We don’t know how much criticism has been stifled to date, but it’s suggestive that a CBS News president and the executive producer of 60 Minutes resigned over CBS’s handling of the lawsuit and settlement, presumably because they felt that management was limiting their ability to fairly and freely cover Trump.
It’s also indicative that CBS ended Stephen Colbert’s contract. Colbert’s show is the highest-rated late night comedy show on television. He’s also one of the most trenchant critics of Trump.
Among the capitulations CBS’s owners made to the Trump administration was to hire an “ombudsman” to police the network against so-called bias — and the person they hired was Kenneth R. Weinstein, the former president and chief executive of the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute think tank.
Note also that on Wednesday ABC pulled off the air another popular late-night critic of Trump — Jimmy Kimmel — because Kimmel in a monologue earlier this week charged that Trump’s “MAGA gang” was trying “to score political points” from Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
ABC announced the move after Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, appeared to threaten ABC, and its parent company Disney, for airing Kimmel’s monologue —ominously threatening: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”
Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and related businesses, has muzzled the editorial page of the Washington Post — prohibiting it from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and imposing a stringent set of criteria on all editorials and opinion columns, which has led to the resignations of its opinion page editor and a slew of its opinion writers.
Trump hasn’t sued the Washington Post for defamation, but Bezos presumably understands Trump’s potential for harming his range of businesses and wants to avoid Trump’s wrath.
Make no mistake. Trump’s efforts to silence media criticism of him and his administration constitute another of his attacks on democracy.
What can be done? Two important steps are warranted.
First, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard should be far stricter when a president of the United States seeks to use defamation law against a newspaper or media platform that criticizes him.
Instead of requiring that he prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, he should have to prove that the false statement materially impaired his ability to perform his official duties.
Better yet, a president should have no standing to bring defamation suits. He has no need to bring them. Through his office he already possesses sufficient — if not too much — power to suppress criticism.
Second, antitrust authorities should not allow large corporations or ultra-wealthy individuals with many other business interests to buy major newspapers or media platforms. They cannot be trusted to prioritize the public’s right to know over their financial interests in their range of businesses.
The richest person in the world was allowed to buy X, one of the most influential news platforms on earth, and has turned it into a cesspool of rightwing lies and conspiracy theories.
The family of the second-richest person in the world now owns CBS.
The third-richest person now owns the Washington Post.
The Disney corporation — with its wide range of business enterprises — owns ABC.
The problem isn’t concentrated wealth per se. It’s that these business empires are potentially more important to their owners than is the public’s right to know.
If Democrats win back control of Congress next year, they should encode these two initiatives in legislation.
Democracy depends on a fearless press. Trump and the media that have caved in to him are jeopardizing it and thereby undermining our democracy
Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org
Robert Reich
September 18, 2025
Donald Trump has sued the New York Times for, well, reporting on Donald Trump.
Rather than charging the Times with any specific libelous act, Trump’s lawsuit is just another of his angry bloviations.
The lawsuit says he’s moving against "one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.” And so on.
At least he sued the Wall Street Journal’s parent company for something specific — reporting Trump’s birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein (which Trump continues to deny even though it showed up in the Epstein files).
Last year, Trump sued ABC and its host George Stephanopoulos for having said that Trump was found liable for rape rather than "sexual abuse" in the civil suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. The network settled for $16 million.
Trump sued CBS for allegedly editing an interview with Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes to make her sound more coherent. CBS also agreed to pay $16 million.
Defamation lawsuits are a longstanding part of Trump’s repertoire, which he first learned at the feet of Roy Cohn, one of America’s most notorious legal bullies.
In the 1980s, Trump sued the Pulitzer-winning Chicago Tribune architecture critic Paul Gapp for $500 million, for criticizing Trump’s plan to build the world’s tallest building in Manhattan, a 150-story tower that Gapp called "one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York or any other city.”
Trump charged that Gapp had "virtually torpedoed" the project and subjected Trump to "public ridicule and contempt." A judge dismissed the suit as involving protected opinion.
But such lawsuits are far worse when a president sues. He’s no longer just an individual whose reputation can be harmed. He’s the head of the government of the United States. One of the cardinal responsibilities of the media in our democracy is to report on a president — and often criticize him.
The legal standard for defamation of a public figure, established in a 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requires that public officials who bring such suits prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
That case arose from a libel suit filed by L.B. Sullivan, the police commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, against the New York Times for an advertisement in the paper that, despite being mostly true, contained factual errors concerning the mistreatment of civil rights demonstrators.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times, finding that the ad was protected speech under the First Amendment and that the higher standard of proof was necessary to protect robust debate on public affairs.
Under this standard, there’s no chance Trump will prevail in his latest lawsuits against the Times or Wall Street Journal. Nor would he have won his lawsuits against ABC and CBS, had they gone to trial.
But Trump hasn’t filed these lawsuits to win in court. He has sought wins in the court of public opinion. These lawsuits are aspects of his performative presidency.
ABC’s and CBS’s settlements are viewed by Trump as vindications of his gripes with the networks.
He’s likewise using his lawsuit against the New York Times to advertise his long standing grievances with the paper.
His lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is intended to send a message to the Journal’s publisher, Rupert Murdoch, that Trump doesn’t want Murdoch to muck around in the Jeffrey Epstein case.
These lawsuits also put the media on notice that Trump could mess up their businesses.
Not only is it costly to defend against them — requiring attorney’s fees, inordinate time of senior executives, and efforts to defend the media’s brand and reputation.
When a lawsuit comes from the president of the United States who also has the power to damage a business by imposing regulations and prosecuting the corporation for any alleged wrongdoings, the potential costs can be huge.
Which presumably is why CBS caved rather than litigated. Its parent company, Paramount, wanted to be able to sell it for some $8 billion to Skydance, whose CEO is David Ellison (scion of the second-richest person in America, Oracle’s Larry Ellison). But Paramount first needed the approval of Trump’s Federal Communications Commission — which held up the sale until the defamation lawsuit was settled.
Here we come to the central danger of Trump’s wanton use of personal defamation law. The mere possibility of its use — coupled with Trump’s other powers of retribution — have a potential chilling effect on media criticism of Trump.
We don’t know how much criticism has been stifled to date, but it’s suggestive that a CBS News president and the executive producer of 60 Minutes resigned over CBS’s handling of the lawsuit and settlement, presumably because they felt that management was limiting their ability to fairly and freely cover Trump.
It’s also indicative that CBS ended Stephen Colbert’s contract. Colbert’s show is the highest-rated late night comedy show on television. He’s also one of the most trenchant critics of Trump.
Among the capitulations CBS’s owners made to the Trump administration was to hire an “ombudsman” to police the network against so-called bias — and the person they hired was Kenneth R. Weinstein, the former president and chief executive of the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute think tank.
Note also that on Wednesday ABC pulled off the air another popular late-night critic of Trump — Jimmy Kimmel — because Kimmel in a monologue earlier this week charged that Trump’s “MAGA gang” was trying “to score political points” from Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
ABC announced the move after Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, appeared to threaten ABC, and its parent company Disney, for airing Kimmel’s monologue —ominously threatening: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”
Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon and related businesses, has muzzled the editorial page of the Washington Post — prohibiting it from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and imposing a stringent set of criteria on all editorials and opinion columns, which has led to the resignations of its opinion page editor and a slew of its opinion writers.
Trump hasn’t sued the Washington Post for defamation, but Bezos presumably understands Trump’s potential for harming his range of businesses and wants to avoid Trump’s wrath.
Make no mistake. Trump’s efforts to silence media criticism of him and his administration constitute another of his attacks on democracy.
What can be done? Two important steps are warranted.
First, the New York Times v. Sullivan standard should be far stricter when a president of the United States seeks to use defamation law against a newspaper or media platform that criticizes him.
Instead of requiring that he prove that a false statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth, he should have to prove that the false statement materially impaired his ability to perform his official duties.
Better yet, a president should have no standing to bring defamation suits. He has no need to bring them. Through his office he already possesses sufficient — if not too much — power to suppress criticism.
Second, antitrust authorities should not allow large corporations or ultra-wealthy individuals with many other business interests to buy major newspapers or media platforms. They cannot be trusted to prioritize the public’s right to know over their financial interests in their range of businesses.
The richest person in the world was allowed to buy X, one of the most influential news platforms on earth, and has turned it into a cesspool of rightwing lies and conspiracy theories.
The family of the second-richest person in the world now owns CBS.
The third-richest person now owns the Washington Post.
The Disney corporation — with its wide range of business enterprises — owns ABC.
The problem isn’t concentrated wealth per se. It’s that these business empires are potentially more important to their owners than is the public’s right to know.
If Democrats win back control of Congress next year, they should encode these two initiatives in legislation.
Democracy depends on a fearless press. Trump and the media that have caved in to him are jeopardizing it and thereby undermining our democracy
Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/
Robert Reich's new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org
'Pathetic' Trump's silencing of Kimmel by the 'woke right' will 'backfire': analysis
ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel on May 29, 2025
ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel on May 29, 2025
(Image: Screengrab via Jimmy Kimmel Live! / YouTube)
September 19, 2025
ALTERNET
Joining the growing chorus of experts condemning the firing of late night host Jimmy Kimmel is New York Magazine political columnist Ross Barkan, who says the move by ABC was not only "disturbing," but a battle that President Donald Trump will lose.
Kimmel was abruptly terminated Wednesday after the FCC chairman threatened to pull ABC’s license because of a joke he made about President Donald Trump's tepid reaction to the death of slain conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk.
"Trump is not a popular president, Kirk was nowhere near as revered as conservatives seem to believe he was. They cannot force millions of people to suddenly pretend to think Kirk is a fallen martyr who should never be critiqued again," Barkan says.
And although, Barkan says, "The Trump administration longs to systematically silence dissent," their efforts, he says, are failing.
With experts calling Trump's latest defamation suit against The New York Times "a meritless publicity stunt" designed to intimidate the media, Barkan says that eventually, this will backfire.
"Trump himself is repeatedly suing news outlets that defy him, and he’s hoping a ludicrously specious $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times will force the newspaper to retract their tough reporting on his administration and career," Barkan says.
Those calling for Kimmel's—among other late night hosts who ruffle the president's feathers—head, are what Barkan has deemed "the woke right, a resurgent regime that is stifling free discourse and justifying it through the same logic that social justice activists and certain Democratic politicians employed in the 2010s and early 2020s."
The biggest difference between the "woke right" and their perceived enemies on the left, Barkan explains, is "the power of the state: if the Biden administration could pressure tech platforms over certain content about the pandemic, it never wielded the Federal Communications Commission to force a major news conglomerate to suspend a comedian who offended the president."
In fact, FCC Chair Brendan Carr doubled down on that move, telling Fox News, that Kimmel's ousting "is not the last shoe to drop." He also praised Trump for creating a “massive shift” in the media ecosystem.
"It’s remarkable to witness how fast conservatives have abandoned any pretense of caring about the First Amendment after years of decrying illiberalism on the left," Barkan says, adding, "Now it’s the right that is making speech taboo."
Barkan says Trump will lose this battle against free speech, pointing to open defiance as the war strategy.
"Artists, writers, intellectuals, politicians—anyone with a voice must use it now. Trump can bend America, damage America, but he cannot break it," Barkan says.
Joining the growing chorus of experts condemning the firing of late night host Jimmy Kimmel is New York Magazine political columnist Ross Barkan, who says the move by ABC was not only "disturbing," but a battle that President Donald Trump will lose.
Kimmel was abruptly terminated Wednesday after the FCC chairman threatened to pull ABC’s license because of a joke he made about President Donald Trump's tepid reaction to the death of slain conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk.
"Trump is not a popular president, Kirk was nowhere near as revered as conservatives seem to believe he was. They cannot force millions of people to suddenly pretend to think Kirk is a fallen martyr who should never be critiqued again," Barkan says.
And although, Barkan says, "The Trump administration longs to systematically silence dissent," their efforts, he says, are failing.
With experts calling Trump's latest defamation suit against The New York Times "a meritless publicity stunt" designed to intimidate the media, Barkan says that eventually, this will backfire.
"Trump himself is repeatedly suing news outlets that defy him, and he’s hoping a ludicrously specious $15 billion lawsuit against the New York Times will force the newspaper to retract their tough reporting on his administration and career," Barkan says.
Those calling for Kimmel's—among other late night hosts who ruffle the president's feathers—head, are what Barkan has deemed "the woke right, a resurgent regime that is stifling free discourse and justifying it through the same logic that social justice activists and certain Democratic politicians employed in the 2010s and early 2020s."
The biggest difference between the "woke right" and their perceived enemies on the left, Barkan explains, is "the power of the state: if the Biden administration could pressure tech platforms over certain content about the pandemic, it never wielded the Federal Communications Commission to force a major news conglomerate to suspend a comedian who offended the president."
In fact, FCC Chair Brendan Carr doubled down on that move, telling Fox News, that Kimmel's ousting "is not the last shoe to drop." He also praised Trump for creating a “massive shift” in the media ecosystem.
"It’s remarkable to witness how fast conservatives have abandoned any pretense of caring about the First Amendment after years of decrying illiberalism on the left," Barkan says, adding, "Now it’s the right that is making speech taboo."
Barkan says Trump will lose this battle against free speech, pointing to open defiance as the war strategy.
"Artists, writers, intellectuals, politicians—anyone with a voice must use it now. Trump can bend America, damage America, but he cannot break it," Barkan says.
Khanna Moves to Subpoena FCC Chair Carr Over Effort to ‘Shred the First Amendment’
“We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment,” said Rep. Robert Garcia.
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen in the US Capitol
(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Brad Reed
Sep 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
Democratic lawmakers are vowing to investigate the Trump administration’s pressure campaign that may have led to ABC deciding to indefinitely suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that he filed a motion to subpoena Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr one day after he publicly warned ABC of negative consequences if the network kept Kimmel on the air.
RECOMMENDED...
Hiding Behind Kirk, Team Trump Launches ‘Biggest Assault on the First Amendment’ in Modern US History
Vowing to Fight Back, Senate Dems Decry Trump Attack on Liberal-Left Groups
“Enough of Congress sleepwalking while [President Donald] Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance shred the First Amendment and Constitution,” Khanna declared. “It is time for Congress to stand up for Article I.”
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, also said on Thursday that he was opening an investigation into the potential financial aspects of Carr’s pressure campaign on ABC, including the involvement of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is the network’s largest affiliate and is currently involved in merger talks that will need FCC approval.
“The Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into ABC, Sinclair, and the FCC,” he said. “We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment.”
Progressive politicians weren’t the only ones launching an investigation into the Kimmel controversy, as legal organization Democracy Forward announced that it’s filed a a Freedom of Information Act request for records after January 20, 2025 related to any FCC efforts “to use the agency’s licensing and enforcement powers to police and limit speech and influence what the public can watch and hear.”
“We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment,” said Rep. Robert Garcia.
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is seen in the US Capitol
(Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
Brad Reed
Sep 18, 2025
COMMON DREAMS
Democratic lawmakers are vowing to investigate the Trump administration’s pressure campaign that may have led to ABC deciding to indefinitely suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that he filed a motion to subpoena Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr one day after he publicly warned ABC of negative consequences if the network kept Kimmel on the air.
RECOMMENDED...
Hiding Behind Kirk, Team Trump Launches ‘Biggest Assault on the First Amendment’ in Modern US History
Vowing to Fight Back, Senate Dems Decry Trump Attack on Liberal-Left Groups
“Enough of Congress sleepwalking while [President Donald] Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance shred the First Amendment and Constitution,” Khanna declared. “It is time for Congress to stand up for Article I.”
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, also said on Thursday that he was opening an investigation into the potential financial aspects of Carr’s pressure campaign on ABC, including the involvement of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is the network’s largest affiliate and is currently involved in merger talks that will need FCC approval.
“The Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into ABC, Sinclair, and the FCC,” he said. “We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment.”
Progressive politicians weren’t the only ones launching an investigation into the Kimmel controversy, as legal organization Democracy Forward announced that it’s filed a a Freedom of Information Act request for records after January 20, 2025 related to any FCC efforts “to use the agency’s licensing and enforcement powers to police and limit speech and influence what the public can watch and hear.”
CNN's Erin Burnett shreds right-wing hypocrisy with devastating superclip of their remarks
Daniel Hampton
September 18, 2025
RAW STORY
(Screengrab via CNN)
CNN anchor Erin Burnett tore into MAGA hypocrisy Thursday night in the aftermath of Jimmy Kimmel's suspension from ABC by throwing their own remarks back at them.
After showing new images of the late-night comedian less than 24 hours after his show was suddenly pulled, she noted President Donald Trump has made it "clear he is not done."
"The president is now threatening more networks," she said, playing a clip of Trump suggesting networks could lose their licenses for negative coverage.
Burnett then played a devastating series of clips to make the point that Republicans used to defend free speech, telling viewers, "If you are surprised at what has happened, maybe it is because you took the president, the vice president and the chairman of the FCC at their word when Trump came into office."
"If you don't have free speech, you don't have a country," Trump said in a 2022 clip played by Burnett.
"Thank God we have a president now who believes in free speech," Vice President JD Vance says in a subsequent clip.
"Free speech, diversity of opinion — and those are the bedrocks of democracy," said Brendan Carr, Trump's head of the Federal Communications Commission.
Carr, she noted, was the "very same man who made this threat this week after Kimmel's comments regarding Charlie Kirk."
"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr tells far-right podcaster Benny Johnson. He later adds: "But frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way."
Burnett slammed Carr over his abrupt 180, and hurled his own tweet back at him.
"Threats obviously don't get more clearer than that, and that threat is a real about-face from a man, Brendan Carr, who, in December of 2023, wrote — and I want to quote him — 'Free speech is the counterweight. It is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarians' dream.'"
After playing a clip of Kimmel's words that got him targeted, Burnett played a 2021 clip of Fox News host Jesse Watters making an inflammatory joke about Dr. Anthony Fauci.
"Now you go in for the kill shot. The kill shot with an ambush? Deadly. Because he doesn't see it coming. This is when you say, 'Dr. Fauci, you funded risky research at a sloppy Chinese lab, the same lab that sprung this pandemic on the world. You know why people don't trust you, don't you?' Boom, he is dead is done."
Watters was promoted a month after the comment.
Burnett also played remarks from other right-wing pundits making light of Paul Pelosi's hammer attack, in which he was hospitalized with a skull fracture.
"There was a lot of really ugly rhetoric and conspiracy theories coming from the right at the time," she noted.
"At 82 years old, and comes home to find out that her husband's playing hide the hammer with the Black Lives Matter guy!" exclaimed Jason Whitlock on Fox News in 2022.
"We can't confirm or deny your suggestion," a coy Tucker Carlson replies in a subsequent clip.
"It's MAGA extremists behind this, because they always attract illegal alien nudists who live in school buses, who think they're Jesus Christ," Greg Gutfeld yells at viewers.
Donald Trump Jr., Burnett noted, posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and underwear after Pelosi was attacked.
"Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready," he wrote.
Elon Musk chimed in, "There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye," linking to an article suggesting the attack stemmed from a drunken encounter with a male sex worker
(Screengrab via CNN)
CNN anchor Erin Burnett tore into MAGA hypocrisy Thursday night in the aftermath of Jimmy Kimmel's suspension from ABC by throwing their own remarks back at them.
After showing new images of the late-night comedian less than 24 hours after his show was suddenly pulled, she noted President Donald Trump has made it "clear he is not done."
"The president is now threatening more networks," she said, playing a clip of Trump suggesting networks could lose their licenses for negative coverage.
Burnett then played a devastating series of clips to make the point that Republicans used to defend free speech, telling viewers, "If you are surprised at what has happened, maybe it is because you took the president, the vice president and the chairman of the FCC at their word when Trump came into office."
"If you don't have free speech, you don't have a country," Trump said in a 2022 clip played by Burnett.
"Thank God we have a president now who believes in free speech," Vice President JD Vance says in a subsequent clip.
"Free speech, diversity of opinion — and those are the bedrocks of democracy," said Brendan Carr, Trump's head of the Federal Communications Commission.
Carr, she noted, was the "very same man who made this threat this week after Kimmel's comments regarding Charlie Kirk."
"They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest," Carr tells far-right podcaster Benny Johnson. He later adds: "But frankly, when you see stuff like this — I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way."
Burnett slammed Carr over his abrupt 180, and hurled his own tweet back at him.
"Threats obviously don't get more clearer than that, and that threat is a real about-face from a man, Brendan Carr, who, in December of 2023, wrote — and I want to quote him — 'Free speech is the counterweight. It is the check on government control. That is why censorship is the authoritarians' dream.'"
After playing a clip of Kimmel's words that got him targeted, Burnett played a 2021 clip of Fox News host Jesse Watters making an inflammatory joke about Dr. Anthony Fauci.
"Now you go in for the kill shot. The kill shot with an ambush? Deadly. Because he doesn't see it coming. This is when you say, 'Dr. Fauci, you funded risky research at a sloppy Chinese lab, the same lab that sprung this pandemic on the world. You know why people don't trust you, don't you?' Boom, he is dead is done."
Watters was promoted a month after the comment.
Burnett also played remarks from other right-wing pundits making light of Paul Pelosi's hammer attack, in which he was hospitalized with a skull fracture.
"There was a lot of really ugly rhetoric and conspiracy theories coming from the right at the time," she noted.
"At 82 years old, and comes home to find out that her husband's playing hide the hammer with the Black Lives Matter guy!" exclaimed Jason Whitlock on Fox News in 2022.
"We can't confirm or deny your suggestion," a coy Tucker Carlson replies in a subsequent clip.
"It's MAGA extremists behind this, because they always attract illegal alien nudists who live in school buses, who think they're Jesus Christ," Greg Gutfeld yells at viewers.
Donald Trump Jr., Burnett noted, posted a photo on Instagram of a hammer and underwear after Pelosi was attacked.
"Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready," he wrote.
Elon Musk chimed in, "There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye," linking to an article suggesting the attack stemmed from a drunken encounter with a male sex worker
MAGA podcaster calls for 'lawful violence' against the left: 'We are being hunted!'
Robert Davis
September 18, 2025
RAW STORY
Piers Morgan Uncensored screenshot
MAGA podcaster Steven Crowder defended the use of "defensive, lawful, ruthless" violence against the left during an interview about conservative activist Charlie Kirk's death last week.
Crowder appeared on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" on Thursday to discuss the impact of Kirk's death on the conservative movement. He claimed that Kirk's killing is an example of left-wing groups being more likely to commit political violence than right-wing groups.
"Every position that the right holds has been presented as violence," Crowder said, mentioning issues like abortion and gender expression. "And so people deal with the right with violence."
"We are being hunted, and I don't want to see any more dead friends," Crowder added. "Violence? Absolutely. Lawful, ruthless, defensive violence."
Crowder also argued that data showing right-wing groups are more likely to commit violence is flawed because some studies omitted acts of violence committed by the left.
"Nobody is saying there is no violence on the right," Crowder said. "All I am saying is that people on the right have to have armed security, flak jackets, and an entire strategy when they go out and those on the left don't!" Crowder said. "That is verifiably true."
"The left lies," Crowder said. "They label you a fascist. They label you a totalitarian. And how do you deal with those people? You don't do it at the ballot box. We all know that."
Piers Morgan Uncensored screenshot
MAGA podcaster Steven Crowder defended the use of "defensive, lawful, ruthless" violence against the left during an interview about conservative activist Charlie Kirk's death last week.
Crowder appeared on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" on Thursday to discuss the impact of Kirk's death on the conservative movement. He claimed that Kirk's killing is an example of left-wing groups being more likely to commit political violence than right-wing groups.
"Every position that the right holds has been presented as violence," Crowder said, mentioning issues like abortion and gender expression. "And so people deal with the right with violence."
"We are being hunted, and I don't want to see any more dead friends," Crowder added. "Violence? Absolutely. Lawful, ruthless, defensive violence."
Crowder also argued that data showing right-wing groups are more likely to commit violence is flawed because some studies omitted acts of violence committed by the left.
"Nobody is saying there is no violence on the right," Crowder said. "All I am saying is that people on the right have to have armed security, flak jackets, and an entire strategy when they go out and those on the left don't!" Crowder said. "That is verifiably true."
"The left lies," Crowder said. "They label you a fascist. They label you a totalitarian. And how do you deal with those people? You don't do it at the ballot box. We all know that."
MAGA'S HORST WESSEL
Trump's Pentagon mulls recruiting Charlie Kirk fans: 'Awakened a generation of warriors'
FILE PHOTO: Founder and president of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, U.S., February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo/File Photo
Department of Defense higher-ups are considering a recruitment campaign to explicitly target fans of assassinated right-wing youth activist Charlie Kirk.
According to NBC News, "The idea would be to frame the recruiting campaign as a national call to service, the officials said. Possible slogans that Pentagon leaders have discussed include 'Charlie has awakened a generation of warriors,' according to the officials."
Kirk was shot and killed while engaging with students at a political event at Utah Valley University in Orem last Wednesday. His death has sent shockwaves through the right-wing media ecosystem, with many mourning his loss and some seeking to blame it on Democrats.\
These proposals also come amid reports that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is working to purge the military of individuals who posted on social media about Kirk's death.
This recruitment drive would potentially focus on partnering with chapters of Kirk's student political organization, Turning Point USA, running enlistment centers out of these student groups, according to the report: "That could include inviting recruiters to be present at events or advertising for the military at the chapters, one of them explained."
Turning Point USA, which has faced numerous controversies in recent years for promoting racism and Christian nationalism, formed a key part of President Donald Trump's voter canvassing operation in the 2024 presidential election, as the campaign had a negligible such operation in-house.
Tech billionaire Elon Musk's America PAC also carried out much of this work.
The plan is still up in the air, according to the report.
"The idea is facing resistance from some Pentagon leaders who have privately warned those working on the effort that such a campaign could be perceived as the military trying to capitalize on Kirk’s death ... two officials said. Kirk did not serve in the armed forces."
Trump's Pentagon mulls recruiting Charlie Kirk fans: 'Awakened a generation of warriors'
Matthew Chapman
September 18, 2025
September 18, 2025
RAW STORY
FILE PHOTO: Founder and president of Turning Point USA Charlie Kirk speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, U.S., February 28, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo/File Photo
Department of Defense higher-ups are considering a recruitment campaign to explicitly target fans of assassinated right-wing youth activist Charlie Kirk.
According to NBC News, "The idea would be to frame the recruiting campaign as a national call to service, the officials said. Possible slogans that Pentagon leaders have discussed include 'Charlie has awakened a generation of warriors,' according to the officials."
Kirk was shot and killed while engaging with students at a political event at Utah Valley University in Orem last Wednesday. His death has sent shockwaves through the right-wing media ecosystem, with many mourning his loss and some seeking to blame it on Democrats.\
These proposals also come amid reports that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is working to purge the military of individuals who posted on social media about Kirk's death.
This recruitment drive would potentially focus on partnering with chapters of Kirk's student political organization, Turning Point USA, running enlistment centers out of these student groups, according to the report: "That could include inviting recruiters to be present at events or advertising for the military at the chapters, one of them explained."
Turning Point USA, which has faced numerous controversies in recent years for promoting racism and Christian nationalism, formed a key part of President Donald Trump's voter canvassing operation in the 2024 presidential election, as the campaign had a negligible such operation in-house.
Tech billionaire Elon Musk's America PAC also carried out much of this work.
The plan is still up in the air, according to the report.
"The idea is facing resistance from some Pentagon leaders who have privately warned those working on the effort that such a campaign could be perceived as the military trying to capitalize on Kirk’s death ... two officials said. Kirk did not serve in the armed forces."
No comments:
Post a Comment