Transcript: Trump’s Crazed Rants Reveal Dark Truth about Kimmel Ouster
The following is a lightly edited transcript of the September 19 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.
Editor’s note: After we recorded this episode, Trump unleashed yet another rant confirming the corrupt aim lying behind his ouster of Jimmy Kimmel.
Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.
As you’ve probably heard, ABC suspended comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show under pressure from the Trump administration. The ostensible reason for this is that Kimmel supposedly spread disinformation about Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin. But then President Trump offered his own comments on what happened, and somehow Trump made the whole thing look even more corrupt and even more like a flagrant abuse of power.
Trump confirmed openly that this whole thing is really all about how the networks cover him. There’s lots to discuss here. How Trump is increasingly emboldened to consolidate authoritarian power right out in the open, why his willing accomplices are essential to his whole project, and what Democrats can do to fight back. So we’re talking about all of it with Jennifer Rubin, editor-in-chief of The Contrarian, who has a new piece taking stock of Trump’s effort to move us toward a police state. Jen, good to have you on.
Jennifer Rubin: It’s great to be here, Greg.
Sargent: So ABC suspended Kimmel’s show after Brendan Carr, the chair of the Federal Communications Commission, went on a right-wing podcast and essentially threatened retribution. He threatened to revoke the licenses of affiliates of ABC and urged ABC and Disney to take action on Kimmel. This was supposedly because Kimmel had suggested Kirk’s assassin was MAGA, which may not be right. Jen, even if Kimmel was wrong on that narrow fact, this is still speech. Your reaction to what we just saw?
Rubin: Exactly. Fox News lies every day, deliberately, continually, and no one takes them off the air. Unless they defame someone, which Kimmel clearly didn’t do, they are legally protected. Apparently, Pam Bondi, as we heard the other day, doesn’t understand that, quote, “hate speech is constitutionally protected.” We have a deputy attorney general, Todd Blache, who thinks that
demonstrations and other First Amendment activity can be the subject of a RICO suit. These people resist being labeled as fascists, but what else do you call this? This is what fascists do. They oppress and repress opponents’ speech, and in particular, the reflective desire to silence comedians is really a bit too on the nose.
Dictators, of course, hate comedians who mock them and who show them to be fools. And so Trump striking out because of what a comedian said in a very innocuous way is just par for the course. But you know what? He says it out loud. They’re not hiding it. People should and must sue. We have not only seen this with ABC, but of course we’ve seen this in a
prior ABC episode, when in essence they coughed up $15 million to Donald Trump because he had filed a bogus lawsuit against them. The same with CBS with an even more bogus lawsuit. So unfortunately, these big media empires have brought some of this on themselves by appeasing Trump. When you appease a dictator, you get more extortion. And they didn’t draw the line then.
And you wonder when they’re gonna draw the line now.
Sargent: Well, Trump really is very explicit about all this now. On Air Force One, he was asked about the situation and here’s what he said:
“When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do. If you go back, I guess they haven’t had a conservative one in years or something. When you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
Jen, note that last line, they’re not allowed to do that. Actually, yes, they are allowed to do that because of the first amendment. Anyway, they don’t even hit Trump all the time. If anything, they’re way too kind to him, but Trump says it straight out, criticize Trump and your broadcast licenses are at risk.
Rubin: And that is sort of a lawyer’s dream if you’re gonna sue the FCC or you’re gonna sue Trump or you’re gonna sue ABC, because they’re just saying, you can’t criticize me.
That is what the First Amendment is all about. And if they criticized him one hundred percent of the time, or in Trump’s verbiage, one thousand percent of the time, isn’t that what he says? Then it would still be protected speech. So these people, I don’t know whether he is so ignorant he actually believes this, or whether he knows what the First Amendment does and he is showing that he is above it, that he is beyond restriction by the Constitution.
But I have to think at some point, even Americans who consider themselves conservative, who voted for him? No, the president of the United States is not allowed to take a comedian off the air because he’s ridiculing him. That’s common sense. And you wonder if this would finally rouse the average person when they can’t hear the comic they like because Donald Trump has a thin skin.
Sargent: Yeah. Well, listen, I want to underscore what you said there, which is the explicit nature of it.
I think there’s a very decent chance that Trump actually does know that they absolutely are allowed to quote unquote “hit Trump,” as he put it, which is another way of saying criticize the president, criticize the most powerful person in the world, you know, hold the powerful to account. They are allowed to do that. But I do think to your point that Trump is essentially declaring the power to flout the first amendment. And to flout the law and to flout the Constitution. It’s a feature of what he’s doing, not a bug.
Rubin: And I think you have to, if you’re a Democrat, take this head on. You have to force Republicans, bring a resolution to the floor of the House or the Senate, force Republicans to vote on this. Are you an enabler of fascism? Of authoritarian repression? Do you believe in the First Amendment or don’t you? And let him take a vote. I think this is a game that they have played for far too long saying, he doesn’t mean it. He just talks. I didn’t hear it. No, not only does he mean it, he did it. And these people, if their oath of office means anything, it’s to denounce this and prevent this from happening.
Sargent: I really like the idea of forcing votes. I do think Chuck Schumer should really attempt to do this. He should try to force votes on the Senate floor on the question of whether it’s okay for the FCC chair to pressure media companies in response to criticism of Trump because Trump himself said that’s what it’s actually about. So they should force votes on this.
Rubin: Absolutely. And the Senate allows more flexibility for the minority. It’s very hard to do it on the House unless you have a discharge petition to get anything to the floor if you’re in the minority. But the Senate doesn’t operate that way. And at the very time, by the way, that Republicans need Democratic votes to keep the government open, add that to the list. They must affirm that the First Amendment applies, that the President and the FCC Chairman
are violating the First Amendment when they force critics to shut up. Let them put that on the list of to-do’s that Republicans either have to accept or not. And let them say, no we don’t believe in the First Amendment. That’s fine. Let the voters know. At least we’re clear.
Sargent: Democrats need to engage this much more forcefully. We have a piece on this up at TNR.com. Check that out. I think Democrats should, when they’re on ABC News, they should call out ABC, right there on ABC and say, viewers of this network should know that this network just caved to pressure from an autocrat.
Rubin: And what are the ABC news people going to do? Is George Stephanopoulos, who was front and center in that bogus lawsuit, going to say anything about this? What about Jonathan Karl, who was told that he was uttering hate speech and he could be shut up? What are these people going to do? Do they have any
dignity? Do they have any spine? Come on, people.
Sargent: Yes, I think in fact, Democrats could challenge some of these personalities and reporters and journalists really directly. They could say, you know, George, your network just kowtowed to a wannabe dictator. You can’t possibly be okay with that, can you?
Rubin: Exactly. And I think it has to come from all corners of our democracy.
You know, the Democrats, capital D, have had a hard time breaking out of the realm of people who are heavily engaged in the news because democracy and some of these fights seem esoteric. And if you’re trying to pay the bills and get your kids to school and work two shifts, it does not break through. But when you hear through a friend or through Facebook, Donald Trump forced Jimmy Kimmel off the air. Everyone understands that, everyone gets that that’s not right and that’s totalitarian conduct.
Sargent: Well, yes, and and by the way, we we’re sort of mired in these huge debates about why can’t Democrats get penetration into the culture in the way that Donald Trump can and that’s a real legitimate problem one of Trump’s secrets is the penetration he gets in the culture because of his background and all that. But here’s an opportunity for Democrats to get penetration in the culture. A lot of people who know who Jimmy Kimmel is and watch, you know, comedy on TV maybe aren’t all that engaged in politics. But if they heard that the president of the United States and the Republican Party, with the complicity of the GOP, is knocking these people off the air in order to punish them for criticizing him, I think they might wake up a little bit.
Rubin: Absolutely.
And if CBS wants to recover its spine and if NBC wants to retain its spine, they should have Jimmy Kimmel on their evening shows so long as he is off the air. And I think the American people have a right to listen to whoever they want to listen to and comedians have a right to say whatever they want to say. And you know what? There should be a price to be paid by ABC and others who keep capitulating.
Our former colleague Karen Attia was fired by the Washington Post for really some innocuous Bluesky postings that described the racism that she sees. She is an opinion writer. She writes opinions about race. And for saying this and for quoting or rather paraphrasing Kirk’s words right back to them, she was fired. That is disgraceful behavior. That is why you and I, and a whole slew of other people left the Washington Post. They are a sorry excuse for a newspaper so long as they are capitulating to this. Really, you can only describe it as this McCarthyist atmosphere.
Sargent: The firing of Karen was absolutely ridiculous. She even lamented the assassination.
Rubin: Yes. And even if she hadn’t, even if she had just quoted Charlie Kirk’s own words. Is that now the standard that newspaper people really cannot speak the truth? And if they speak the truth, they are fired? Well, at least we know. And I for one, Greg, sadly, yes, I canceled my subscription to the Washington Post this week. And it pained me. I had held out, but I cannot support that.
Sargent: Well, Jen, to your point, I’m afraid it actually is true that
you can get fired for speaking the truth. That is the standard that Trump is setting for big news organizations right now, right before our eyes.
Rubin: Absolutely. And if other organizations don’t think it applies to them, they are whistling past the graveyard of the First Amendment. I will give the New York Times credit. They were sued this week for $15 billion or some made up number. Why not make it $15 trillion? And you know what? Their coverage markedly got tougher on Trump and that’s the response that has to follow. You hit us, we are going to be even more aggressive even more dedicated to the truth. We are going to pull no punches and that has to be the responsibility and the response of every media outlet
Sargent: Absolutely. So clearly we’re seeing Trump get much more emboldened in his open consolidation of authoritarian power. He’s been threatening this vast crackdown on the liberal left, including their organizations in response to Kirk’s assassination. He’s explicitly threatening to use the state for this crackdown. He says it right out in the open. Now listen to this exchange between Trump and Fox’s Martha McCallum.
Martha McCallum (voiceover): Do you believe that there is a vast terrorist movement in the United States that people need to be aware of? And is it responsible for Charlie Kirk’s killing, for the attempts on your life, for these CEOs that we saw in New York City? Is there something people need to understand?
President Trump (voiceover) You never know and we’ll find out maybe. But in the meantime, we’re going to do a big thing with respect to Antifa. It’s a sick group. mean, very, very sick group.
Sargent: Well, there it is again, right out in the open. He doesn’t want to agree that the broad left is behind the assassination of Kirk and quite the way McCallum said it. And that’s because it’s absurd, there’s no organized, violent, left in this country that is remotely like what Trump, JD Vance and others have been describing. Yet he says, we’re going to find out. Translation, we’re going to use the state to unleash domestic persecution that rivals some of the worst episodes in US history. Where do you think this is going, Jen?
Rubin: This is classic Trump. I’m just asking questions. I’m just looking. Well, why doesn’t he look at
right-wing organizations because we know statistically that more political killings have occurred from right-wing figures than left-wing figures. And you know how we know it? Until this week, it was up on the website of the Department of Justice. They took it down because the only way they can pursue this nonsensical crusade against their opponents is to pretend facts aren’t facts. So, the notion that you can simply go after your political enemies, root around, subpoena them, punish them, sick the IRS, this is totalitarianism writ large. This is what the Constitution is about. And no president, I would include Richard Nixon in this, has ever gone this far. He makes Richard Nixon really look like a boy scout.
And the notion that the
branches of government can remain silent or can continue to enable him is really breathtaking. And Congress has been comatose, Republicans have no spine. And I have to say, I also hold the Supreme Court responsible. Once they told him that there is no criminal liability for essentially anything he does, in the Trump brain, that confirmed his view of the presidency, which is
I can do whatever I want. Now, it doesn’t mean that, it just means you can’t be criminally prosecuted, but he’s not gonna be hung up on little details like that. The Supreme Court told him he was above the law and now he believes it and he is showing us what he believes. And every time the Supreme Court with its little shadow docket reverses a lower court decision that is holding him to account, that is enforcing the constitution, they contribute to his overreach and to his aspirations of dictatorship. So these two branches I hold responsible as much as Trump himself.
Sargent: It all does go back to what the Supreme Court did in the run-up to 2024, which was extraordinarily enabling. Jen, where do you think this is all going? I think maybe while it’s really true that a bunch of these news organizations are handing big tribute payments and extortion payments over to Trump,
and doing things like delivering the scalp of a comedian or whatever and, you know, capitulating to him here and there. The American media is a vast and varied institution, which really does have a lot of power. I think in the end, he can only get so far in controlling it. And I take some solace from that. And at the same time, though, I think the crackdowns on NGOs that’s coming now, the
the use of DOJ to go after various activist groups and advocacy groups that are part of the whole kind of constellation in DC of the liberal left. That strikes me as potentially having a serious chilling effect and maybe producing some really lawless shit. What’s your general sense of those two strands? How bad are they going to get?
Rubin: My fear is that we are already seeing the chilling of speech.
ABC pulled Jimmy Kimmel off the air because they were afraid of taking the hit. And you know that other organizations, not all of them, are looking over their shoulder. And even subconsciously, they begin to pull their punches. They begin to obey in advance, as Tim Snyder says. Look at the Washington Post. First, it was killing a endorsement. Then it was putting the kibosh on a Ann Pelley’s cartoon, and now it’s firing an opinion columnist for saying something that is essentially true. Once you habituate media organizations to cowardness, that’s what you get. Now, you said something really important, which was, we have a vast media organization, and this is why you and I have fled to the so-called independent media. We aren’t beholden to giant corporations. They can’t hold the license of our company above us. We don’t have licenses. They cannot shut us all up. So I think what this means is that the absolute responsibility, the obligation that we all feel, that you feel, that I feel, that other outlets that operate outside these big corporations feel has never been more important.
We have to put their feet to the fire. And that’s Trump as well as these big media organizations as well. And you know, the American people do too. They can use their dollars. They can not only get out and protest and have their voices heard. They don’t have to go on Disney cruises. They don’t have to subscribe to Disney Plus. They have choices and Americans have to show that they care enough about a free society to protect it. Now you raised the
other issue of the NGOs. And I think this is extraordinarily dangerous. And I think you are going to see a slew of IRS investigations, of oppressive subpoenas, of hearings. People are going to be dragooned. And then when they refuse to answer, they’re going to be cited for contempt.
If this sounds familiar, it should, because this was McCarthyism. This was criminalizing speech and association.
None of these groups that he is planning to investigate have anything to do with any sort of violence. These are advocacy groups that advocate everything from saving the planet, to feeding poor children, to maintaining our First Amendment. And even going after them is a flashing red sign that we are in deep trouble. So this is where the NATO approach has to come into
play. And that means all organizations have to band together, all universities have to band together, all political figures who are worth their salt have to band together. Because if they stick together, they can fend this off. And they have to go to the courts again and again and again to expose this for what it is.
Sargent: Just to wrap this up, you had a very good piece just today that said, pointed out that autocrats for all their outward expressions of strength and power and domination are often weak and brittle. And that’s the paradox of this moment. Trump is extraordinarily weak politically. He’s a failing president on every front. And he is at the same time consolidating all this autocratic power. How do you see that tension ultimately resolving itself?
Rubin: You see it in every authoritarian state.
Because authoritarians suppress dissent, they want no transparency, they want no debate, they deplore facts. Bad stuff happens all the time. They don’t catch errors, they don’t catch mistakes. They do dumb things because no one stops them from doing it. So they are constantly at odds with reality, with public opinion. They make mistakes. Look at DOGE. We’re gonna hire the bird flu people know we’re going to fire the bird flu people know we’re going to hire the bird flu people back. Over and over again, we saw this, whether it’s in making stupid policy decisions, whether it’s in his frenetic tariff policy, they are often very flighty, very capricious, very indiscriminate. And that on one hand makes them very weak. It also
makes the destructive power very great. When you have a tyrant who can’t even predict which way he’s going, that can be really terrifying. When you can, as Bill Poulty is doing, go after people for quote, ‘mortgage fraud,’ when they haven’t done what he said they did, then every American can be gotten by this guy. The facts will not support and will not defend you. So I think these are perilous, perilous times. And I hope and I pray and I deeply believe that the American people are ahead of the politicians, that they get this. We see it in the polls. We see it in the enormous turnout for protests events. We’re seeing it in special elections this year. I think we’re going to see it in November in Virginia and in New Jersey, which have both gubernatorial and other statewide races, as well as state legislative races. I think they will have their voices heard. And as we know, Greg, politicians are followers. And once they get a sense that they are going down the tubes if they keep this up, I think you’re going to see some fracturing on the Republicans’ side.
Sargent: Jennifer Rubin, I think the people are gonna rise up and put a stop to this as well. It just might take years. That’s the problem. Jen, it’s so good to talk to you. I’m so glad to see the contrarians doing so well.
Rubin: Thank you, Greg. I miss working with you every day, but I feel like out here in independent media land, we all work together. We’re all on Team Democracy and you guys at TNR are just killing it every day. So love you guys.
Sargent: Absolutely. It’s the NATO approach, as you said. Thanks, Jen.
Rubin: My pleasure.
