The People vs. Jimmy Kimmel: When It Comes to Censorship, Sky's the Limit

Jimmy Kimmel, and the First-Amendment-violating censorship thereof, was the big story yesterday, extending into a second news cycle.

Using the government's power to silence those who express disfavored views is hardly new for this administration. Sometimes, the censorship is just an excuse. For example, the claim that the administration cares about anti-Israel/antisemitic stuff said on campus cannot be taken seriously; that's just an excuse to justify crackdowns on the universities, which are perceived as pro-education, pro-science, and anti-fascist (aka, three strikes and you're out, from the vantage point of this administration).

In other cases—and those cases almost always seem to involve situations where Trump's personal feefees were hurt—the censorship really is the point, and isn't just cover for some other agenda. The lawsuits against The New York Times (cause of action unclear, as yet) and The Wall Street Journal (Epstein letter) come to mind. The money that came from Trump's extortion of settlements with CBS ($16 million over the Kamala Harris interview) and ABC ($15 million because George Stephanopoulos pointed out that Trump is a rapist). Trump and his underlings certainly appear to have shut down Stephen Colbert's show, and they definitely shut down Jimmy Kimmel's show, at least for the time being, and maybe forever.

And it's not going to end there. We could say that with 100% confidence, without any additional evidence, because we know how Trump rolls. But we don't need to operate without evidence, because Trump and his houseboy FCC chair Brendan Carr both provided it in a nice, gift-wrapped package yesterday. Trump, for his part, told reporters:

I have read someplace that the networks were 97% against me, again, 97% negative, and yet I won and easily, all seven swing states. They give me only bad publicity, press. I mean, they're getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.

Trump added that the final decision would be up to Carr, a claim that we believe about as much as we believe that Trump actually reads. Nonetheless, Carr appeared on CNBC after Trump spoke and made the threats he was expected to make, accusing Kimmel of "mislead[ing] his viewers," and promising that "we're not done yet" with the changes in "the media ecosystem."

Now, we recognize that we don't answer to a board of directors, and that our careers and our stock options are not on the line, but we do not understand why one of these CEOs or executive vice presidents or heads of programming, particularly if they are employed by an outlet that does NOT have a pending merger, does not tell the White House: "fu** off, do your worst, and we'll see you in court (after PLENTY of discovery)."

The pattern with Trump could not be clearer. If you give him an inch or two (kind of like his maker did), he will take a mile. Keeping in mind the Stephanopoulos settlement, this is the second shakedown of Disney (corporate parent of ABC) in the last 6 months or so. Can they possibly believe that Trump, having already learned he can bully them, won't be back for more at some point, probably sooner rather than later? Maybe it will be something that happens on one of ABC's news programs, or maybe something on Good Morning America (Stephanopoulos' other gig, in addition to his weekend news show). The View seems a particularly likely target, since it's a gabfest involving mostly liberal women, including a couple of women of color, who talk about politics a lot.

At the same time, when Trump the bully is confronted, he almost always backs down. And the TV networks, in particular, have a LOT of leverage here. To start, the threat made against ABC because of Kimmel is plainly unconstitutional. Just last year, the Supreme Court ruled in NRA v. Vullo that governments (in that case, the state government of New York) cannot coerce private companies into censoring viewpoints the government doesn't like. That decision was unanimous, and it was the same nine justices who are sitting right now. Trump would not win a case centered on Kimmel, even with this oft-friendly Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, as a thought exercise, it's worth gaming out what would happen if Trump and Carr tried to yank, say, ABC's broadcast license. There's one nuance here that we're not expert enough to answer, but we don't think it matters too much. So, to start, note that the broadcast license is for over-the-air broadcasts; the government is allowed to regulate that because it owns the (limited quantity) broadcast spectrum. This is why, for example, it is not possible to regulate Fox "News" or MS NOW, or any other cable channel.

That means, ostensibly, that yanking ABC's license would only affect over-the-air viewers—people who get their TV broadcasts via antenna. That's less than 20% of the viewing public; most people now get their "broadcast" networks via cable. The nuance we don't know is what would happen to the cable broadcasts of ABC or CBS or NBC or any other network that had its license yanked. It is likely they would continue along as normal, as if nothing had happened. It is also possible that the networks use the broadcast spectrum to deliver content to the cable providers (say, via satellite link), and that there would be a pause for a few days while a workaround was developed.

The worst-case scenario for Trump, we think, would be if pulling the license did indeed shut down the cable relays of the "broadcast" stations, either for a few days, or for longer. We suspect that many viewers would be none-too-happy if they tuned into the football games on Sunday (CBS, Fox and NBC), only to discover they've been killed because some news anchor or late-night host said something that gave Trump the sads. On top of that, the cable providers and streaming services don't want a million phone calls from people saying "How come ABC isn't working?" So, they would do what they do when there's a carriage dispute, and would replace the network feed with a title card explaining exactly why the channel is offline. That probably wouldn't help sell Trump's position, either.

And, of course, the moment the FCC tried to yank the license, lawyers for ABC/Disney, or whichever outlet is targeted, would be in court asking for an injunction. And they would surely get it; the finding in NRA v. Vullo couldn't be clearer, and any judge would have to presume that ABC/Disney (or other plaintiff) was likely to prevail on the merits.

We recognize there are a few other ways the Trump administration could make life miserable for broadcast networks, newspapers, etc., especially if the parent company is in the midst of merger talks. But there actually aren't THAT many other ways, which is presumably why Carr jumped right to threatening ABC's broadcast license. And again, it remains the case that Trump and his acolytes will do this over and over, because it silences criticism of the Dear Leader AND it provides red meat for the base. So, if some outlet is likely going to have to throw down and hold the line at some point anyhow, why not just do it now?

Indeed, if the networks really want to play hardball, they could do something that (Z) discussed yesterday with reader J.G. in San Diego, CA, not entirely dissimilar to what some of the universities have done. Each of the major broadcasters could pledge, say, $100 million to something with a name that is both broad, and yet obvious, like the "Censorship Defense Fund." Then they could let it be known that any network targeted by any government agency would be free to tap into that fund.

If they REALLY wanted to turn the screws, they could further make clear the money is available not only for the broadcasters to use in their own defense, but also to help with "other" legal cases. This would have to be communicated through carefully chosen language, or through backchannels, but what if Trump knew that if he tries to yank ABC's license, the very next day every person who has accused him of sexual misconduct would have two shiny, new, white-collar-firm lawyers of their very own, with an unlimited budget to pursue... anything that might be worth pursuing? Do you think that might make the bully think twice? And that, again, is our point. Kowtowing to a bully doesn't work, standing up does, and surely some entity is eventually going to draw the line, right?

Meanwhile, there is already one effort underway to get the networks to do the right thing. Here are three messages from readers, among several such messages we got yesterday:

• T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT: Cancel culture is a game everyone can play. For example, when CBS canceled Colbert, I canceled my Paramount+ subscription and when ABC canceled Kimmel, I canceled my Disney+ subscription. Perhaps I'll use some of my savings to boost my monthly PBS/NPR contribution.
  
  
• J.R. in College Station, TX: If you want to do something concrete to protest MAGA cancel culture, one way is to refuse to support the corporate entities that are complicit. Robert Iger, the CEO of Disney (which owns ABC) made the decision to cancel Kimmel because of totally inappropriate pressure from FCC chairman Brendan Carr. Those complicit in the cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel include Disney and, by extension ABC, and Hulu. I have just canceled my Hulu subscription. When you cancel Hulu, the final screen wants to know your reason for canceling. You can click "Other" and then send a message. The corporate entities complicit in the cancellation of Stephen Colbert include Paramount, ViaCom, and CBS. If you subscribe to Paramount+, cancel that and indicate why. From now on I will avoid patronizing businesses that support, promote or cave to MAGA cancel culture.
  
  
• D.E. in Lancaster, PA: You guys know how much I loved the MCU and Disney. Well, I just canceled my Disney+ Premium membership. No more MCU films going forward (to be honest I think Robert Downey Jr. as Doom is the worst idea ever, so I might be doing myself a favor). I'll keep what I have already bought (because they already have my money) but no more. You can probably guess why—Disney's cowardly cancellation of Jimmy Kimmel. If what Kimmel said was hate speech then they'll be kicking in my door any second now!
  
  Even before Kimmel's cancellation, this was already a dark day, probably the darkest since the election. The news that an Electoral-Vote.com reader had been doxxed started it out, and sent chills through my spine. Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) saying that it should be illegal to call Trump a Nazi and Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) calling for all transgendered people to be rounded up and put into mental institutions was just sickening. Now the news of Kimmel... My God, the Orange A**hole has won. If a gigantic billion-dollar corporation is scared of Trump, then what can we do?

In answer to the question, people can do what these three readers (and others) have done, and withhold their money. It may not be much, but if millions of people do it (and there's a big social media campaign underway right now), it will hit the networks hard in the pocketbooks, which is the primary concern in the C-suite. (Z)

Today in Competence, Part I: So Much for Combating Sex Trafficking

When he was running for president the third time, Donald Trump certainly pretended to care about sex trafficking. There's even verbiage in the 2024 Republican Platform wherein the party and its candidate pledge to "end the child trafficking crisis by returning all trafficked children."

Obviously, party platforms contain a lot of fluff. On top of that, even if a promise was offered in earnest, the realities on the ground sometimes make it difficult or impossible to deliver. However, one would think that combating child sex trafficking would not fall victim to that dynamic. That particular crime is universally despised, by partisans on both sides of the aisle. And the past half-dozen presidential administrations have all invested serious resources in fighting back against child trafficking.

But not anymore, it would appear. A new report from The Guardian reveals that the administration has "aggressively rolled back efforts across the federal government to combat human trafficking." This particular crime is not getting much investigative attention, it's not getting much prosecutorial attention, and efforts are not even being properly documented.

There are two easily verifiable reasons for the rollback of sex trafficking efforts. The first is the work of Elon Musk and his DOGEys, which pared back the financial and human resources needed for this work. The second is that a lot of the people remaining, the ones who are supposed to be working on sex trafficking, have been reassigned to border control and deportations.

We suspect there is a third reason, albeit not one that would be easy to prove. Some of Donald Trump's closest associates, past and present, are accused (or convicted) sex traffickers (e.g., Matt Gaetz, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell). It is within reason to think that anytime a sex trafficker is busted, it serves as a reminder of the President's own adjacency to that crime. Certainly, the more coverage of sex traffickers' crimes, the worse it will look when whatever sweetheart deal has been given to Maxwell is publicly announced.

The notion that the administration is not only uninterested in pursuing sex traffickers, but also doesn't even want people talking about the subject, is somewhat borne out by the fact that federal law requires the Department of Justice to submit a report on sex trafficking, domestic and international, by June 30 of each year. This year's report has not been submitted yet, and don't expect the GOP majority to hold Trump accountable for that. The Guardian tried to ask the White House about the subject, and the terse response observed that Joe Biden was guilty of "coddling and apologizing for criminals and sexual predators." Somehow, the White House spokesperson forgot to mention Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

As with any sort of complex criminal operation, it takes a great deal of time to develop effective countermeasures, and to be able to bring perpetrators to justice. Anytime the pressure on the bad guys is turned down, it can take years to undo the damage, and restore things to what they were. In other words, Trump is not just sacrificing trafficked children for the next 3 years, but very likely for the next 5 or 10 or 15 years.

But, at least his administration is keeping saucy late night comedians under control, so there is that. (Z)

Today in Competence, Part II: Pirro Is Making It Up on the Fly

And now, an item about a different kind of failure from the Trump administration. In this case, Team Trump is actually interested in doing something (as opposed to looking the other way, as with the child trafficking). The current (and probably ongoing) failure to deliver results is a product of the administration's iron-fist, bull-in-a-china-shop approach to EVERY problem.

At particular issue here is allegedly lawless Washington, DC, which certainly does have a crime problem. To solve that, the President and his underlings would very much like to throw a lot of residents of the District into prison, and throw away the key. Further, since D.C. is also the seat of government, Trump wants the staff there to go after his enemies, and to pursue his pet causes.

The first person who was put in charge of implementing Trump's agenda, as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, was the utterly incompetent Ed Martin. He had zero experience as a prosecutor before being tapped, and it showed. Not only did he go on crusades that made a mockery of the law, and were sure to get tossed out of court, but he also foolishly pursued numerous idiotic causes of action BEFORE he had been confirmed by the Senate. As any Supreme Court justice (among many others) will tell you, you NEVER show your true colors until AFTER you are confirmed. Anyhow, Martin became so radioactive that even Senate Republicans said he was a bridge too far.

The problem is that during his 114-day (10.4 Scaramucci) tenure, Martin did plenty of damage. A lot of attorneys and staffers did not want to work on the specific cases he put them on, or they generally did not want to work for a department mostly interested in witch hunts. So, there were huge numbers of resignations, particularly from senior members of the office, leaving a rather sizable labor shortage.

Former (and probably future) Fox entertainer Jeanine Pirro took over on May 14, and was formally confirmed by the Senate on August 2. Unlike Martin, she does have prosecutorial experience. And she's doing better than Martin (admittedly, a low bar to clear). That's what everyone that CNN talked to said, for a piece that ran yesterday under the headline "'My job is to prosecute': Jeanine Pirro carries out Trump's crime crackdown with gusto. But her DC office is in turmoil."

If you read that headline the first time as "My job is to prostitute," don't feel bad, so did we. Certainly that's what Martin's job was. In any event, although Pirro has tried to replenish the ranks of the D.C. Attorney's office, after all the resignations triggered by Martin, it's been an uphill battle. The office is supposed to have 414 lawyers and, even after a hiring push, only has 344 right now. It's also supposed to have 367 support staffers, including paralegals, legal secretaries, researchers, etc. It's down to just 227 right now. And, of course, even once a new person is hired, it takes time for them to get up to speed, and to really learn the ropes. So those 344 lawyers and 227 staffers are surely not getting as much done as a random selection of 344 lawyers and 227 staffers from the same office, a couple of years ago.

Meanwhile, Pirro is not as incompetent as Martin, and she does not appear to be using her post to wage nationwide culture-wars battles, the way Martin was. However, as the headline (specifically, "My job is to prosecute") hints, she has her own blind spots. As we have written a couple of times already, her office (aided by ICE and the FBI) is casting a wide net. Needless to say, the more cases that have to be dealt with, the thinner everyone is spread.

But it gets worse. Because Pirro is "zealous" (read: kind of nuts), she is in the habit of overcharging defendants (i.e., charging them with a more serious crime than their actions would seem to warrant). That means that the staff has to work considerably harder to cross their t's and dot their i's in filings, particularly as regards finding relevant precedents for, say, charging a sandwich-thrower with aggravated assault.

Grand juries are now on to Pirro, and have rejected at least eight indictments in the last month or so. Judges have caught on, too, and are dismissing cases they find wanting. This adds to the staff's workload even more, because if they are going to try for a new indictment, then it's another round of research and brief-writing. It's to the point that the National Review, not exactly a bastion of Godless pinko communism, published a piece earlier this week wondering "If You Want Indictments in D.C., Is Jeanine Pirro the Right U.S. Attorney?"

This item, and the previous one, thus form an interesting dichotomy. In one circumstance, the administration is failing because it's not trying hard enough. In the other, it's failing because it's trying too hard. Governing is hard, even under the best of circumstances. It gets harder if an administration relies substantially on people who are: (1) not very competent, or (2) have personal axes to grind, or (3) both of the above. But again, at least Team Trump is doing a very good job of reining in late-night snark. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Cry Baby

For last week's headline theme, the first hint we gave was: "we'll say that we would imagine scientists (especially chemists) and finance professionals will be at an advantage." We knew that wouldn't help much, but expected the second hint—"shaken, not stirred"—to break the bank, and indeed it did. Here is the solution, courtesy of reader J.H. in Flint, MI:

All the (eligible) headlines refer to types of bonds:

• On the Hill: Senate Republicans Go Nuclear
• Boston Mayoralty: Michelle Wu's Victory Is Secure
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Gold Smith
• This Week in Schadenfreude: About That LeBron James Op-Ed...
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Sorry Gents, There's No Roberts Court to Bail You Out

As for the hints: chemists often talk about molecular (or nuclear) bonds, financial professionals use various tools called bonds, and, of course, one of James Bond's catch phrases was "shaken, not stirred."

Exactly. And from the headline for this item, a baby bond is a security with a face value of less than $1,000.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

J.N. in Zionsville, IN T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts S.K. in Ardmore, PA S.M. in Portland, CT J.F. in Fayetteville, NC M.W. in Frederick, MD J.B. in Waukee, IA T.T. in Conway, AR S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland D.F. in Corcoran, MN D.E. in High Springs, FL D.O'N. in Tucson, AZ D.M. in Oakland, CA B.G. in Houston, TX C.R. in St Louis, MO F.D. in Dunedin, FL P.E.F. in Baltimore, MD D.L. in Springfield, IL C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT N.H. in London, England, UK A.P. in Kitchener, ON, Canada M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO M.S. in Canton, NY A.G. in Concord, NH

B.L. in Ferndale, MI J.H. in Flint R.S. in Landing, NJ A.D. in Vass, NC H.B. in Toronto, ON, Canada R.L.D. in Sundance, WY G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN T.P. in Kings Park, NY P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale J.T. in Sydney, NSW, Australia M.W. in Altea, Spain R.K. in Indianapolis, IN B.A. in Edmond, OK J.E. in San Jose, CA P.A. in Redwood City, CA D.D. in Carverville, PA R.K. in Bel Air, MD F.D. in Dunedin, FL D.F. in Norcross, GA S.W. in Winter Garden, FL O.B. in Santa Monica, CA R.E. in Chicago, IL M.A. in San Francisco, CA J.J. in Miami, FL J.C. in Trenton, NJ

The 50th correct response was received at 8:15 a.m. PT on Tuesday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Language. The human trafficking headline is NOT part of the game, for obvious reasons.

For a hint, we'll tell you that we tried to use the word "myrrh" in the last headline, because it fits the theme and it kinda pairs with gold from the previous headline. However, it was too hard to make that work, and besides, people would be e-mailing in and asking "What happened to the frankincense?"

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line September 19 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: This Gold Decor Brought to You By Home Depot

We've had this item in the queue for a few weeks, and this seems like a good week to run with it. Recall when Donald Trump had the Oval Office redecorated by the person who was, apparently, the personal interior designer for Louis XIV? With all the golden frames, and vases, and wall hangings, and accents? Then, the White House made sure to circulate lots of photos of the new decor, so everyone could see how classy the current president is, as compared to ol' Scranton Joe.

The problem is that if you put photos out there, and dare people to take a long look, some people take you up on the offer. And so, Internet sleuths have reported that those golden onlays appear to be $58 specials from Home Depot that have merely been spray-painted to LOOK like they are made of gold.

Readers can examine the evidence for themselves:

It's possible that they're slightly different, but it's also possible they are not. Buzzfeed contacted the company that makes those ornaments for Home Depot, and a spokesperson diplomatically responded: "We work with several design firms in DC that have worked on the White House and believe these could be our onlays."

For Trump to amp up the gold in the Oval Office was certainly on-point for him. But amping up the gold in the Oval Office with fake gold would be even more on-point, right? As one eX-Twitter user observed:

Imagine running the free world and still decorating like a broke mobster's wife in Jersey. $58 Home Depot appliques in the Oval Office, spray-painted gold. Very on brand for Trump: cheap, fake and f***ing ugly.

Actually, now that we think about it, the most on-point thing of all would be for Trump to bling out the Oval Office with a bunch of fake-gold ornaments that cost 58 bucks plus a couple dollars' worth of spray paint, and then to turn around and charge the federal government $1,000 per ornament. If he did that, then the Oval Office really would feel homey and familiar to him.

In the end, Trump is either decorating with cheap onlays that are covered with a thin-layer of gold coloring, and we really are in a new Gilded Age (in every way), or else he's decorating with actual gold onlays that only LOOK like cheap, spray-painted Home Depot specials. Either way, not a great look. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Hit the Gym, Drink Your Solein

And now an item that's pretty wild. There is a Finnish startup called Solar Foods that has developed a new protein powder made (primarily) from air. They start with a single microbe, and hit it with lots of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, potassium and (renewable) energy. This eventually produces a slurry that is dried out and turned into a highly nutritious protein powder.

How nutritious? Well, it has all nine essential amino acids, along with unsaturated fats, dietary fiber, and vitamin B12. Food & Wine tested it in a lab, and found that it has 75g of protein for every 100g of powder, which is the same basic ratio as with the protein powders currently on the market (which are usually made from whey, egg whites, or soy). And it's very eco-friendly; in addition to being produced with renewable energy, it takes 600 times less water and 200 times less land to produce one pound of Solein protein as compared to one pound of beef protein.

Of course, this is considerably less useful if it tastes like bull cookies. The bar here is not THAT hard to clear, since existing protein powders taste pretty poor and chalky, and are usually hidden within other ingredients. The Solein, apparently, has a slight umami flavor, and that is it. Various folks have put it to the test in various applications, and they say it tastes just fine.

Food scientists, at least the ones not trying to figure out how to get you to drink more Coke, or exactly how much red dye #5 they can get away with, are doing some pretty remarkable work these days, and this is one example. If this catches on, it could not only offer health-conscious people a more eco-friendly (and better-tasting?) option for after their workouts, but it could also help to combat global hunger, and maybe could inspire innovation in the production of other foodstuffs. Indeed, this process is obviously slower, but besides the time lapse, is there all that much difference between what Solein is doing and what the replicators on Star Trek ships do?

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger