Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Jimmy Kimmel Pulled Off the Air Over Charlie Kirk Remarks; Kimmel Yanked After FCC Threat, Easy Way or Hard Way; Trump Celebrates Canceled Kimmel, Threatens Others. "NewsNight" Discusses Jimmy Kimmel Pulled Off The Air Due To Kirk Remarks. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 17, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Jimmy Kimmel canceled for now. ABC yanking his show indefinitely after comments in the wake of Charlie Kirk's murder and a threat from Donald Trump's administration.
BRENDAN CARR, FCC CHAIRMAN: We can do this the easy way or the hard way.
PHILLIP: Plus the feds demand the left to stop demonizing the president and his supporters, as MAGA accuses the administration of leveraging a legacy.
TUCKER CARLSON, PODCAST HOST: They can tell you what to say. They're telling you what to think. There is nothing they can't do to you.
PHILLIP: Also, a tale of two reactions.
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: As president of the United States, my response was not who may have influenced this troubled young man.
PHILLIP: The predecessor criticizes his successor over the assassination aftermath.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Xochitl Hinojosa, Scott Walker, and Montel Williams.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, cancel culture, free speech, and censorship. In a stunning development tonight, ABC has dropped Jimmy Kimmel's late night show indefinitely after comments he made after Charlie Kirk's assassination. Now, before we get into this, listen to the comment in question that ABC and the administration think crossed the line.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, THE JIMMY KIMMEL SHOW: We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
In between the finger pointing, there was grieving. On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half staff, which got some criticism, but on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.
REPORTER: My condolences on the loss of your friend, Charlie Kirk. May I ask sir personally, how are you holding up over the last day and a half, sir?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I think very good. And, by the way, right there you see all the trucks, they've just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years and it's going to be a beauty.
KIMMEL: Yes, he's at the fourth stage of grief, construction, demolition, construction. This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish, okay?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, this happened on Monday night before prosecutors released the charging documents and the evidence, which included text messages about the shooter's motive. But it was today that the Trump administration threatened ABC over Kimmel's remark.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARR: They have a license granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. And we can get into some ways that we've been trying to reinvigorate the public interest and some changes that we've seen. But, frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, the irony in all of this is that the news comes just 24 hours after MAGA blasted the Trump administration for threatening to crack down on free speech.
Journalism Professor Jeff Jarvis is here with us at the table. He's the author of the Gutenberg Parenthesis. You know, Scott Jennings, you were at this table last night and you defended free speech. Tonight, we are seeing the FCC chairman explicitly threatening a company over speech that they don't like. You're good with it or not?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, Jimmy Kimmel's still free to speak. He just isn't necessarily free to do it on ABC, which obviously made a business decision. I see everybody rushing to blame the administration for this tonight, but you had Nexstar, which owns a bunch of ABC affiliates, and Sinclair Group, which owns a bunch of ABC affiliates, saying they were mad about what he did.
[22:05:11]
I'm sure it generated massive numbers of viewer complaints. And to the affiliates, a smart T.V. person said, the only thing you can't do in T.V. is piss off the affiliates. So, I think that's what they did.
PHILLIP: So, then why did Brendan Carr have to say, we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way? Then he went on to say that they can either censor Jimmy Kimmel or the FCC will have more work to do. And as you may know, Nexstar has business before the FCC. They have a deal to purchase another TV group, Tegna for $6.2 billion. In order to do that, they need Brendan Carr to say, yes, you may own more T.V. stations than is legally allowed right now. So, there's clear influence happening from the FCC over this. It could have been a business decision if he had just left it alone, but he didn't leave it alone.
SCOTT WALKER, PRESIDENT, YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION: Well, but that's a part of the factor. But I go back to what Scott just said. If you got your affiliates saying this, I mean, for all this talk about cancel culture, Jimmy Kimmel can say this. This is unlike, you know, I think of all of us who work with students, whether it's Young America's Foundation, Turning Point College Republicans, when we go to a college campus, particularly a government run institution, where they say, no, conservatives can't come, or they put unreasonable bearers, that's cancel culture. That's saying, we're picking one over the other. Here, if it's a business decision, people can still say this, same thing with employers. People can say what they want, but there has to be consequences for those actions.
PHILLIP: But you kind of glossed over what I asked you, which is, do you acknowledge that the FCC threatened explicitly? I didn't -- I'm not paraphrasing. He said it. We played the clip that the FCC would get involved if they did not do something about Jimmy Kimmel. Did he not say that?
WALKER: He pointed out what their options were. And, again, they have to make --
PHILLIP: So, the options were, get rid of Jimmy Kimmel or the government will come after you.
WALKER: That's a threat. But in this case, I look back to what you're saying about the affiliates. This hasn't just happened overnight. This is an ongoing process, same with Stephen Colbert, where you've got people who are failing and losing audience and losing money. And for them, they use this as a business opportunity to say, no, this is what we want to do.
PHILLIP: The situation on the table right now, what is the government's role in this? And do you acknowledge that Brendan Carr went on that program with the explicit purpose of sending a clear message to an entity that has business before him on his desk and saying, if you don't do this, I will do that? Did he not do that?
WALKER: I can't speak for what his intentions are. I can tell you that no business out there would make a decision based on one interview. This is part of a larger deal where they're looking at to --
PHILLIP: They would make a decision based on $6.2 billion --
WALKER: There's no business out there that would do that solely tonight off of one decision.
PHILLIP: They would make a decision based on --
WALKER: That's when you're narrowing an issue on here to say this fits your narrative, but not what the facts are.
PHILLIP: If you can defend it, defend it, but you're not defending it. You're ignoring it as if it's not happening.
WALKER: You're ignoring the larger context of, say, why are all these affiliates, why did they jump this? Because they've seen consistently problems with this. Let's look at the larger context here.
JEFF JARVIS, JOURNALISM PROFESSOR: So, let's look at the larger context here. We have the history of what happened with Paramount and the $16 million blackmail to the administration to do its merger. We have ABC and the $15 million blackmail to the administration in that case. So, it's already happened before.
Now, let's put the elephant right there, square on the table and collapse it because we have the Ellisons who now control Viacom and Paramount together talking about trying to buy this company and trying to buy and control CNN, on top of what they're doing with CBS, with this kind of backup from the Federal Communications Commission, at the same time that President Trump has just done a sweetheart deal here with the Ellisons and Mark Andreessen to take over TikTok. That is an incredible control of media left in this country.
And the only good news I see, I hate to say this to my friends here at CNN, is that mass media are dying. So, they're taking the last of these vestiges of institutions that matter, of the Tiffany Network, of CNN, and they're trying to turn them into propaganda organs under threat from the head of the FCC, who does have some measure here.
So, this is not just a business decision. This --
(CROSSTALKS)
WALKER: This would be funny on late night television. I mean, it's not anymore. It's become a political --
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm sorry, but --
JARVIS: Well, that's a whole different question ahead, you as a critic.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
HINOJOSA: From the beginning, this administration has tried to control what the media is saying and doing, and we just saw that this week with The New York Times. The New York Times -- there is a lawsuit against The New York Times that essentially they don't like the way that they're covering Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not like that. He has done it with ABC. He has done it every step of the way. And this is just another way that he is doing it. And I will say it is impacting the media.
Trump is successful. There are reporters in newsrooms who are terrified to report anything that could criticize the president because they could get a lawsuit slapped on them. And this isn't about any specific network or any specific --
[22:10:02]
JARVIS: Or the black column fired by The Washington Post.
HINOJOSA: That's correct. And so what you're seeing is that it is sending a chilling effect -- hold on. It is sending a chilling effect across the media, which is intended to do by this administration in order to silence them.
JENNINGS: You used the phrase, propaganda, Professor, and I just have to ask you, what do you consider what Jimmy Kimmel was doing every night or what Stephen Colbert was doing by having on only Democratic guests? Jimmy Kimmel, Monday night, flat lied about the shooter back in the spring. He egged his audience on in cheering on the violence against and wanting the kind of wishing, I think, the downfall of a publicly traded company, Tesla. Do you consider that to be propaganda? Is it good for a business?
JARVIS: Do you consider that free speech, Scott?
JENNINGS: You used the phrase, propaganda.
JARVIS: I'm asking you, you used the words free speech before, do you consider that free speech?
JENNINGS: I consider it to be speech. And he's obviously free to say it.
JARVIS: Will you defend that speech in this country, that defend to the death the speech of others? Will you defend Jimmy Kimmel's speech?
JENNINGS: Do I defend Jimmy Kimmel going on television and saying that a shooter from the left --
JARVIS: You defend his right to do so?
JENNINGS: He has a right to do so, but he does not have a right to have a television show where he lied his ass off to the American people and a tax hack this country on a nightly basis.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Whoa. Hold on. Listen, there are plenty of people over on another network that I will not name who lied about the last election, who denigrate half the country every single night. And guess what? They are allowed to do it. Now, the question is, Scott, is the government --
JENNINGS: By their company. It's their business decision.
PHILLIP: Wait, hold on. But is the government supposed to be punishing people for the speech that they don't like? Is that the role of the government, in your mind?
JENNINGS: The government is not punishing them. This was not a government decision. Ultimately, Disney made a decision. Ultimately, CBS made a decision earlier this year. You are blaming the government.
That's your opinion. That's your opinion about --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: All right. While we're having this conversation, if the control room could just prepare again Brendan Carr's comments today, we'll play it again, but go ahead, Montel.
MONTEL WILLIAMS, ACTIVIST AND FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: I just want to make a point. It's very ironic. Today is the 238th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Today is when the First Amendment came into being and one of the first tenets is freedom of speech. And on this day, we decide to silence someone because of his speech.
JENNINGS: He's not silenced.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: All right. Let's -- everybody just -- everybody, put your listening ears on this just a moment.
(CROSSTALKS)
WILLIAMS: I'm sorry. How about this last week? There was a person on another network who's talked about euthanizing some of our veterans because they're homeless? Does that person deserve to have their job?
WALKER: If I'm an employer and I don't like it, I have a right to fire him.
WILLIAMS: There are a lot of people around this room --
WALKER: You have a right to work for whoever you want to. You have a right to say what you want, but not to be employed by anyone.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: The question -- here's the reason I want to play this, okay? Because I think we're willfully ignoring the threat, which was explicit. It wasn't implicit, it was explicit. Listen to what he actually said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARR: They have a license granted by us at the FCC and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. And we can get into some ways that we've been trying to reinvigorate the public interest and some changes that we've seen. But, frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JARVIS: It'd be a shame what happens to your nice network. It'd be a shame what happens to your nice show. That's a threat.
HINOJOSA: Well, and not only that, but then Donald Trump took to Truth Social and then said further, you know, that leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers on fake news NBC. Their ratings are also terrible. Do it, NBC. I mean, this --
PHILLIP: It will never end. But, you know, just worth noting, just a couple years ago, back in 2019, Brendan Carr, he tweeted this on a different topic, should the government censor speech it doesn't like? Of course not. The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the public interest, and yet he is doing exactly that today.
Where does this end? Where does this end in your mind? You are fully comfortable with the government saying, if you don't do this, if you don't get this person off the air who said something that was wrong or that you did not like, we are going to drop the hammer on you?
WALKER: No.
PHILLIP: You're good with that?
WALKER: No. I didn't like it when the Biden administration worked with big tech during COVID and said --
PHILLIP: So, why are you defending it?
WALKER: I'm not defending this. I'm saying right now, if ABC comes on and says, this is -- we were forced to do this. We don't want to do this. I think this is part of a larger business decision on their part. That goes back to what Scott said before about your feelings (ph).
PHILLIP: Listen, ABC is --
[22:15:01]
WALKER: This is a failing industry on in terms of a late night television.
PHILLIP: I get it. Listen --
WALKER: This is their excuse. This is their reason --
PHILLIP: Linear television, failing industry. The whole world understands that. But Nexstar has a very clear financial interest in not getting on the wrong side of that guy whose clip we just played, right? You don't see the problem with that?
WALKER: And I think right now they're looking at the larger business circumstance and they're hoping that people like you and others would point that direction instead of focusing on --
JARVIS: Do you see an ethical consideration for Carr, a conflict of interest for Carr, some sense of his position as a government official to make that kind of threat.
PHILLIP: Also, when is the FCC an attack dog for any political party?
JARVIS: Well, it has been against Howard Stern. It has been against others in the past, which I also object to. There is a slice out of our First Amendment for broadcast, which I think is wrong, and it's based on wrong decisions years and years ago about precious airwaves and about going into the home and so on and so forth. If we believe in the First Amendment, we believe in the First Amendment. And now we have this fascinating thing happening on the right where you have Ted Cruz defending hate speech because he doesn't want his speech taken off.
And so where does free speech is your question, Abby. Where is free speech here then? Where is that line? How do we know where that line is now?
WALKER: Well, I think it's similar to debate we've had this week beyond just this topic to people who said horrific, awful things after the assassination of Charlie Kirk last week. Now, I think it's awful, but they have a right to say that. But I also think employers have a right to say, not just in this instance, but in so many others we documented. If you say something that's inconsistent with the principles of our organization, be it a college, a business, a nonprofit, we don't want you --
JARVIS: Do you think Fox should take Brian Kilmeade off the air for what he said about homeless people?
WALKER: I think in all those cases, they have a right to do that.
JARVIS: Do you think they should? I'm asking for your judgment. You talked about being a critic before. You're a critic. Do you think Fox should fire Brian Kilmeade? (CROSSTALKS)
WALKER: I said they have a right to. In each of these cases --
JARVIS: Do you think they should at Fox?
WALKER: I'm telling you, they have a right to. That's what I'm talking.
HINOJOSA: But you're also -- you continue to talk about how it's a business decision. But the reality is that whether it is a threat, whether it is Donald Trump also threatening to go after organizations just because they have different views than him, he's threatening to go after the far left. These aren't business decisions. This is the federal government that is using their power in order to silence the media and people that disagree with them. And that is what is alarming.
PHILLIP: So, there was some reporting tonight that Kimmel was going to address this on his show tonight. But rather than allow this company to handle this the way that maybe they saw fit, maybe he might have apologized, they decided to go this route. And I have to believe, I guess, in part, because Trump you read one of the tweets, but here's what he said on August 6th after Colbert was taken off the air or his show was canceled. Here's what he said in terms of his order of operations here.
Let's play the sound bite from Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They're next. They're going to be going. I hear they're going to be going. I don't know, but I would imagine because they'd get -- you know, Colbert has better ratings than Kimmel or Fallon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Okay. Let's just take a moment and let's pretend that Donald Trump is not the president. Let's pretend that it's somebody else and that person says. I don't like this person, I don't like that person, they're going to be gone next because I want them gone. I think the question that we have to ask ourselves in this moment is, if you took the partisanship out of it right now, would you be comfortable with a president of the United States saying to any private corporation, television network, cable broadcast, that this is how they have to program their T.V. in terms of who is on and who is not?
JENNINGS: I don't have a problem with a president expressing an opinion about people who express opinions about him. And regarding Kimmel, whether he was going to address it or not, I read that he was going to address it, but that he wasn't going to apologize, which I'm sure was going to make Sinclair abd Nexstar go crazy.
PHILLIP: But what about Trump using the government to enforce it? Because it's not just his words, he's also using the government to enforce his words.
JENNINGS: Well, it is your opinion that they were threatening them. It is my opinion --
PHILLIP: It's not my opinion --
JENNINGS: -- that they had a larger decision to make regarding their business interest.
PHILLIP: PHILLIP: Hold on a second, Scott. I did that twice now. It is not my opinion that Brendan Carr said, you can either do this or I will do that. That's what he said. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.
JENNINGS: Look, my view is all these companies have business decisions to make that are based on more than just what a singular person said in an interview. They've got affiliates to deal with. They've got advertisers to deal with. I promise you --
PHILLIP: So, why not let them deal with it? Why do you have to bring the FCC into it?
JENNINGS: Well, look, he gave an interview.
[22:20:00]
I can't tell you that if I were the head of the FCC, I would've given that interview. It sounded a little over the top to me, but I still believe that what's going on here has more to do with their business than it does with the government.
HINOJOSA: Then why won't you guys denounce it? That's the thing. Why or why won't you say what the FCC, what they did is wrong? I mean, I think that's the problem, is it was a threat from the administration, and I understand the business dealing 100 percent. Just like the first A, B, C settlement, I truly believe that they were looking at it, it was a business deal. It was a business decision there, and that's why they moved forward with that. But when it comes to an actual threat from the federal government, that's wrong. It is wrong for our government to threaten these organizations when they have the power to approve mergers.
JENNINGS: They didn't have to do this. They looked at all of the factors and said, okay, it's time for us to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air. I think there's more going on than just Brendan Carr's interview. All the time, the president criticizes media outlets who then go out and continue to do what he hates.
(CROSSTALKS)
JARVIS: (INAUDIBLE) $15 billion.
JENNINGS: What's going to happen? What's going to happen?
JARVIS: This is an attempt to intimidate The New York Times and --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I mean, listen --
JARVIS: But they're trying to intimidate them, the same thing with ABC, the same thing with CBS. This is the power of the government brought down on speech, on the press.
JENNINGS: Maybe it's just the power of someone in the government forcing a little self-reflection in these media companies for what they've been doing in the way they've been operating.
PHILLIP: Scott, do you believe in free speech or not?
JENNINGS: Of course, I do.
WALKER: But it means you're saying we've got to tie our hands and never fight back. All of us have been attacked --
PHILLIP: Wait, so now it's about fighting back? Do you believe --
WALKER: Yes. I think when he speaks out, when he says these people are bad and disgusting and --
PHILLIP: Do you believe in free speech or not?
WALKER: I totally agree with that. But I don't believe that these election officials, like myself or others can say, just go ahead, talk, I'm not going to push back on you. That's outrageous.
PHILLIP: Do you understand that the threat of the president suing you for saying things that they don't like and the threat of the government preventing you from conducting businesses is a threat on free speech? Do you understand that that's a threat --
WALKER: Well, the reason the president won in the past when he a candidate speech was because of actions they took that's contradictory from they actually reported.
PHILLIP: So, when Elon Musk was spreading lies about, well, all kinds of things, but let's just put on the table the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband, and he was spreading falsehoods about claiming that there was some kind of illicit relationship, completely false stuff, if the government had dropped the hammer on Elon Musk, you would've been fine with that?
WALKER: No. I'd say --
PHILLIP: So, can we be intellectually honest and apply the same principles across the board? Why do we have to create a carve-out --
WALKER: Because you're saying if the government did something, I'm saying they did. They made a decision today that they announced that --
JARVIS: It's amazing how you're acting how Trump is powerless. He's just out there saying a few things -- (CROSSTALKS)
JARVIS: He's using his power as a threat.
WALKER: (INAUDIBLE) shoving it down their face when they actually want something --
JENNINGS: ABC could put somebody on the air tonight, anybody who could criticize Donald Trump. They're not prohibited from doing that. If you're worrying about a --
(CROSSTALKS)
HINOJOSA: I actually disagree with that. I disagree with that for the reason --
JENNINGS: Again, they could put anything on the air tonight if they want it.
HINOJOSA: I do. But the problem is that they have a merger that has to be approved by the FCC. And if they're just like we have seen with other outlets, Donald Trump is happy to dangle that in front of other outlets in order to get what he wants, and that is the problem.
PHILLIP: All right, let's press pause on this conversation. I want to continue it when we come back. It'll include what's happening as the feds warn that the left should stop demonizing Trump specifically, despite the President's rhetoric against the left.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: This basic idea of young people gathering to discuss and debate, that is the thing that we cannot let pass away just because the leader of Turning Point USA was gunned down by an assassin. And I want to let you know that whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, whatever your belief is, I will fight for your right to speak your mind. We reject political violence and we reject the crazy left wing radicals that gunned down our friend, Charlie Kirk. Let's talk to one another and not try to shoot each other down for disagreeing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right. Let's jump back into our conversation. I mean, that sounds great, but it's not what his administration is actually saying and doing.
WILLIAMS: Do what I say, not what I do. I mean, again, 238 years we've had the Constitution in the First Amendment. Today I think is the slippery slope getting ready to remove that tenet. It's going to be, you have the right to say what you want to say, piss me off and I'll make sure your company does what they better do or I'm going to stick something to them. That's where we're at.
JARVIS: I'm going to use my power and politics to tell people out there to write to your company and cause the threats and cause you to be taken off, and it's a mob mentality.
HINOJOSA: But this is what we're also seeing around tariffs. This is what we're also seeing with corporations. This isn't just the media. This is at every part of civil society and organizations and corporations. We saw it with law firms. They tried to silence them by doing executive orders against the law firms that he did not like. We've seen in corporations with tariffs where he dangles a tariff, you know, something in front of them, and then does a carve-out based on which corporation comes to the table and provides him what he wants. And so this is the way that Donald Trump gets what he wants. And now we're seeing it with the media.
JENNINGS: And you brought up -- obviously, we've been discussing the First Amendment. There are also statutory issues here. I mean, you have the public interest standard from the Communications Act of 1934. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the idea that Congress and the FCC have to enforce the public interest standard.
[22:30:07]
And what does it say? Promoting civic discourse, educating the public, ensuring a diversity of voices. I think you could make a strong argument that Jimmy Kimmel wasn't doing any of that, nor was Colbert.
(CROSSTALK)
JEFF JARVIS, JOURNALISM PROFESSOR: Scott, Scott, I'm not going tell you anything you don't know here. You sometimes offend people. I hear about it on the socials. Do you think that you should then be held to the same standard that you're asking for, that if someone says that you're offensive, that you're not doing civic discourse, that CNN should kick you off? I'm not worried about you and that happening to you in the present regime, but I am worried about other people in this building.
JENNINGS: Well, two things. We're not -- we don't fall under the same statutory regime, A. B, I expect to get fired every day. This is a tough business. And if I were Jimmy Kimmel, I mean, I'm surprised that a guy who once wore blackface and caused large breasted women to jump on trampolines lasted this long in the media business to begin with. He was long past his sell date. And the fact that he couldn't realize that and was going down this road of partisan hackery, being unfunny and demonizing --
(CROSSTALK)
SCOTT WALKER (R) FORMER WISCONSIN GOVERNOR: -- exactly the same thing.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: I ask again, why not allow -- why not allow the actual market to handle that? I think that's -- listen. WALKER: I think they are. I think the Sinclair, I think the Channel 12
and Rhineland Wisconsin, people up there said enough of this I don't want this.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: Those are the kind of affiliates that said, we don't want this guy on air anymore. Bury that private market --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. Why not let the actual market handle it?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: You would have a stronger argument if a government official wasn't on -- I don't even want to call it television.
WALKER: Yeah.
PHILLIP: Some kind of broadcast saying that he was going to get involved. That would be a stronger argument if they had not over -- if they had not done that. But it's a very weak argument --
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: But if this letter came out days later from Sinclair, they said it -- they said it right now.
PHILLIP: It's a weak argument when you've got the FCC chairman saying, I was going to get involved if they didn't do this.
WALKER: But I point back to that -- the affiliates out there made a clear-- they've been saying this for quite some time. This was their opportunity to make their compellingly.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There's also --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: But you admit that the FCC chairman does have a role in this public interest.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, FORMER DNC SPOKESPERSON: You know what?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. No.
(CROSSTALK)
MONTEL WILLIAMS, ACTIVIST AND FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: But make that role -- make that role equal. I'm sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I'm just reading you the language.
WILLIAMS: I know but make the role equal. Scott, come on, man. You know I work with veterans all over the country. I work and stand up for veterans. A large percentage of our homeless are veterans. We let a person on another network say it's time to involuntarily inject and murder homeless people just because they may be sick. Look, I'm working with veterans who have PTSD issues that are sick. So we should inject them and kill them?
UNKNOWN: And we should accept that?
WILLIAMS: It's terribly wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: That same FCC person should have said -- should have said if, you don't get this guy off, I got something for you.
HINOJOSA: Well, and also, I just, for the media expert, I just want to ask you, if this were solely a business decision, wouldn't he have been canceled and not suspended? Isn't there -- there's just a clear difference between him being canceled and -- but they didn't do that. They suspended him indefinitely. And to me, that signals that it was more because they were worried about the pressure and they're trying to figure out how to move forward.
JARVIS: It's a great question because when it came to Colbert, if it was such an awful business and he's number one at late night, why didn't you cancel it a year ago? Why now and why let it go on if it's such an awful business? The truth is, you already said it, Abby. The broadcaster is an awful business right now.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: There's never the wrong date to stop losing money. I mean, they were taking a bath on that show. They probably waited too long.
WALKER: There's a difference between ratings and making money. But the larger issue, I think the intensity of this is all around the pushback that employers had over the last week from people that said outrageous things. And this drew more attention to it than anything else.
PHILLIP: So, at the same time that all this is happening, we have the Department of Homeland Security. Let me say that again. The Department of Homeland Security sending out a memo warning the media and members of the public to stop demonizing Trump and DHS. Saying, "This demonization is inspiring violence across the country. Our ICE officers are facing a more than 1000 percent increase in assaults against them. We have to turn down the temperature before someone is killed. This violence must end."
Okay, first of all, why is DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, putting out something like that? And second of all, why are they warning people about saying things? Again, this is about speech, right? Like, are we talking about speech or are we talking about violence?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Are we or we talking about violence?
WALKER: No, no, no, let's talk about this. So, I flew out here today to be on your show and I went through TSA. There are warnings all over TSA not to threaten people there, not to push back, not to say things about them. They don't say you can't back at home, but they say when they're doing their job, it is very clear. So, that's not -- that's not freedom of speech. And that's what I'm talking about here. These are people doing their jobs. Even you don't work their jobs, threatening ICE officials --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah. A threat is -- that's a totally different -- hold on a second. Threat is a totally different -- a threat is -- hold on. No, no. Hold on, Scott Walker. A threat is not what I'm talking about here. Obviously, a threat is a threat.
[22:35:01]
What they're saying is, demonization is inspiring violence. So, is demonization violence? Is demonization a threat? Or is it speech?
WALKER: I think people -- I think people can say what they want, unfortunately, but I do believe they're drawing attention.
UNKNOWN: Unfortunately.
WALKER: Well, unfortunately in this case, because you can say what you want, but if you're encouraging people to smash their cars through an ICE patrol, that is outrageous,
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: You can -- hold on.
WALKER: Whether it's a local law enforcement, a sheriff's deputy, or ICE.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
WALKER: Just because you hate ICE doesn't mean you have the right to say you should be doing this. You have the right constitution but you shouldn't be doing that. I can call that out without cancelling the speech.
PHILLIP: Demonization -- here's, okay. Let me ask you a very simple question. Is demonizing -- is demonizing ICE -- is demonizing ICE violence?
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: No, but it the same way you can say the same thing about your local police office, that's not doing it, but it is something you should speak out against. That's what they're doing.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, so then why on earth -- yeah. Listen, hold on. I just want to keep it super simple for people to understand. Is demonizing ICE is saying -- abolish ICE, is that violence?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Well, it goes beyond --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, I don't want to -- let's do it step by step, okay? Let's do it step by step here. Is it violence or not?
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: They're not saying -- they're not saying we're going to lock you up. They're saying. we are asking people not to demonize these officers.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, so my free speech friends, do you believe that people should be chilled for their speech because it might encourage violence?
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: Nobody is saying they're arresting them. I'm just saying, in the same way that when there's police out in the street, I'm saying do not attack police. If you're saying it's okay to say -- we should attack police, then that's not a free speech debate. That's a crazy debate.
PHILLIP: Why do you keep conflating speech and actions? Why?
WALKER: Why what?
PHILLIP: Why do you keep conflating speech and actions? If somebody attacked police, that is an attack. That is not speech. That is violence.
WALKER: If I go out and don't attack them, but I tell people I want people to go across the street and attack the officers over there --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. Insight --
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: -- I'm not making them do that, but I'm -- that's free speech. But that's poor speech.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't know how many times I need to say this. Threats are threats. Violence is violence. Speech -- is it speech or is it not speech?
WALKER: Of course it is.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And you demonize the --
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: But free speech doesn't mean free the consequences.
PHILLIP: Can you demonize a police officer? Can you demonize the President? Can you do any of those things in the United States of America, Scott?
JENNINGS: Well, you can. I think on the case of DHS, and certainly people do, I don't know why we're so surprised. An institution is defending its employees. We have people who go on television every single day and call them Nazis, the Gestapo, terrorists. I've heard these words used at this table. Concentration camps.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Are they allowed to do it or not?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: They're allowed to do it. There is a thousand percent increase in violence against ICE.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Do you not see the connection?
PHILLIP: I'm glad that you've acknowledged a simple fact that if we -- if you say that you care about free speech --
JENNINGS: Well, of course they're allowed to do it. The question is should they or is it good?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- they are either allowed to do it -- they are either allowed to do it or not? And I have questions about what is the Department of Homeland Security expecting to happen here? What is -- what are -- what are they involved in that for? If it's a law enforcement issue --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: That sounds offending.
PHILLIP: -- if s a law enforcement issue, shouldn't that come from the DOJ?
HINOJOSA: Well, it's also not -- it's not defending your people. I will say Donald Trump spent --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Do you agree with it?
HINOJOSA: Donald Trump -- hold on. Donald Trump spent the last four years going after FBI agents and prosecutors for the search of Mar-a- Lago. What happened? There was actually -- they tried to hurt FBI agents. We had to put security details on FBI agents that went -- and searched Mar-a-Lago on the prosecutors that worked on that case. What was the response?
The response was, these are career prosecutors making decisions based on the facts in the law. They are dedicated their lives on this, to this cause. We did not ask for people to stop talking about them. If there are threats, I agree they should be prosecuted. And you know what? On January 6th, we did prosecute those threats and not only threats but actions. And the President pardoned them.
And there's something called deterrence when it comes to law enforcement. If you want people to stop going after officers, ICE agents, any federal official, then you put the people who caused the crime in jail and leave them in jail. And you don't actually pardon them. So, if Donald Trump and DHS actually cared about protecting our federal law enforcement, then they would have never pardoned those people in the first place.
PHILLIP: I mean -- I also have expected that Donald Trump would not have, as Xochi said, if this were really an issue about attacking law enforcement, Donald Trump has certainly attacked law enforcement.
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: We keep doing this, defer and deflect. The bottom line is --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: How is it a deflection?
WALKER: Well, I'm saying -- you're saying, he did this, this doesn't matter.
PHILLIP: I mean, I'm just asking --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Hold him to the same standard that he holds others?
WALKER: I'm saying the standard is right now. We should be defending everyone, law enforcement, and that includes ICE officers.
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: I'm just asking, do we -- do we believe the thing or do we not, is really what I'm asking, right? Like, on some things, and this is why the speech issue is at the heart of all of the conversations that we're having. Do we actually believe it or do we not? And I asked yesterday, our liberal friends, when back in the day, everything was about cancel culture and about safe spaces and about words being violence.
[22:40:00]
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: This is probably a moment for lot of liberals to think, okay, actually, maybe that didn't make lot of sense because words are not violence. Violence is violence, okay? But we have to be consistent. It's not just when it's directed at Charlie Kirk. The President directs all kinds of negative words at people every single day. And he has a right to do it, not just because he's the President, but because he's a citizen of this country. So, where do you draw the line? Are you going to draw it anywhere?
WALKER: I think free speech should be as free and wide as possible. But I also think you don't do it without consequences. If people do things and say things that they're legally under the Constitution, able to do, doesn't mean I can't say you're wrong. Doesn't mean I can't point attention to that.
PHILLIP: So, cancel culture is all good and well.
WALKER: That cancel culture, just a couple weeks ago was happening against conservatives on campus over and over again.
PHILLIP: Listen, I guess, I guess now, cancel culture is fine.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Do you agree with people who are demonizing the ICE agents?
PHILLIP: Listen.
JENNINGS: Do you think it's good to do it?
PHILLIP: I don't -- I don't agree with that at all.
JENNINGS: Okay.
PHILLIP: I don't have to agree with it. And as --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: So, you can understand why they would have an opinion about it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: As Supreme Court Justice Alito said, you know, our First Amendment is such that I don't have to agree with it. I don't have to like it to protect your right to say it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And at the end of the day --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And at the end of the day --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. When the government -- when the government puts the force of the United States of America on its citizens, it should be, for very good reason, that it should not be in violation of the document, the Constitution, who -- which is literally on this very day, you know?
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: But the DHS secretary is also contributing to some of the attacks on ICE agents. She is posting videos of these ICE agents arrest people on social media all of the time. Can I tell you, I have never seen a head of an agency do that and put their own officers at risk the way that Kristi Noem has done. And I think that that is irresponsible.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: I'm saying in this threat environment, you should not be putting the faces of ICE agents --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And listen.
JENNINGS: Why is there a threat environment?
PHILLIP: Listen. Okay. All right.
HINOJOSA: It's been like that for the last decade, Scott.
PHILLIP: Listen.
JENNINGS: They've had thousand percent increase in attacks on ICE agents this year.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: You brought up "Cops", but look. First of all, "Cops" is a TV show so there's consent involved. But secondly, those officers -- and we've talked about this before, on cops we're not hiding their faces. They're carrying out the law just like police officers all over the country, responsible to their communities, showing their faces. And because --
(CROSSTALK) WALKER: And if there was a surge in attacks against law enforcement in that department, I'd go on air and say, please don't attack them.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. Listen. The Department of Homeland Security has made -- the Department of Homeland Security has made it their policy that they want to make ICE enforcement almost like a TV show except with no accountability. That's their choice to do, but I think Xochi makes a fair point, which is if they are so worried about the attacks and the threats against these ICE agents, why are they fighting so hard to publicize it, to make it seem like a video game, to make it seem like some kind of action movie when it's actually real life?
JARVIS: And define attacks. Sometimes it is nearly protest. Sometimes it is walking behind armed army officers in Washington D.C., playing the "Star Wars" bad guy theme. And that is seen as an attack. I'm going to call the police --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: That is not an attack.
JARVIS: That's free speech. Well, I don't know -- I don't -- I don't see the transparency --
JENNINGS: I interviewed the head of ICE just a few days ago, and he was detailing for me the violent attacks that ICE agents are facing. They're being doxxed, their families are being doxxed. You cannot trivialize the threat that people --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Okay, the ICE agents were for the last four years.
JARVIS: Let's go to doxxing here. You can have their names and their badge numbers out. Doxxing is a different matter. They should be accountable for who they are and what they do by their names.
JENNINGS: Should children's schools be put on the internet? Should their home addresses be put on the internet?
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: That's what has happened to every ICE agent over the last four years because Donald Trump was attacking them, because he was indicted twice for crimes that he committed. And he believes that he is above the law.
JENNINGS: So, you're okay with it?
HINOJOSA: So, instead -- so instead -- I am not okay with it. I was not okay with it whenever they were attacking FBI agents. I'm not okay with attacking ICE agents. What I am okay with is making sure that people understand that ICE agents are not only ripping apart families, but they are going to schools and they are showing up at schools. JENNINGS: So, you are okay with it?
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: What I'm telling you, I've never --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, Scott.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: She literally said --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: She literally said she's not okay with it.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: But then she immediately pivoted to saying that she thinks she's --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: But what I will talk about and what I will continue to bring to light is the fact that ICE agents are separating families. They detained two Americans in Chicago just yesterday. So, I mean, these are -- what ICE is doing, I think, putting -- shining a light on their work and the terrible things that they have been doing.
JENNINGS: Shining a light on their work.
HINOJOSA: Yes. Yes. That is accountability. I never said that.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I.E., putting their home addresses on the internet? Putting your children in school on the internet? Shining a light.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: I never believe in that. I never believe in that. As someone who worked in the federal government and has seen the way --
PHILLIP: Maybe the theme for tonight is -- okay. Let's talk about intellectual honesty. So Scott, you are not okay with people's families being doxxed, them being named and harassed online, correct?
JENNINGS: ICE agents? Of course not.
PHILLIP: No, no, no, but anybody. You're -- it only applies to ICE agents in your mind.
JENNINGS: Well, we were discussing the DHS statement.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
JENNINGS: You put it on the screen. That's the debate we're having.
PHILLIP: You're saying this is a particular concern for ICE agents. I understand that. But do you have a concern about it just generally?
JENNINGS: Yeah, I think if people are out enforcing the law, doing their job, if they're government agents, their family should not be drugged into this. That's my --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So when judges are ruling on issues that pertain to this President, and the President and his supporters not only attacked those judges but their spouses, their children, putting their names and faces out there for the express purpose of getting their supporters to attack them, are you okay with that or not?
JENNINGS: I don't agree with doxxing anyone, and I don't know what judges you're talking about. I do think the president has a right to --
PHILLIP: You don't know what judges I'm talking about? The judge in New York that dealt with the hush money case? You don't remember that?
JENNINGS: Look, the President's going to express his opinions on the legal cases he's involved in, but I don't agree with doxxing families. No, I don't agree with it at all.
PHILLIP: Well, it happens. It happens when it's ICE agents and it happens when it's judges that Trump doesn't like.
JENNINGS: Are you using that to justify what's happening to ICE?
PHILLIP: I'm not justifying anything except to say that sometimes this stuff seems so selective. You only care when it's your side of your team, okay? And I get it. That's like an instinct that we have --
JENNINGS: I just said I don't agree with doxxing anybody.
PHILLIP: -- to care about red shirt, blue shirt. But this is a society that we're living in where these things are happening. And it's not just happening against ICE agents. It's happening against judges. Judges have been killed.
JENNINGS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: Okay?
JENNINGS: And somebody went to Brett Kavanaugh's house. Absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Yeah, you're right.
PHILLIP: Conservative judges and other judges that are non-partisan. JENNINGS: Now, why did that happen?
PHILLIP: So, I --
HINOJOSA: It's happened to multiple justices.
PHILLIP: Can we keep the same energy or not?
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, I don't know what you want me to do. You put up a thing about DHS. We're having a debate about DHS. Now, you want to talk about judges. I just told you, I don't agree with doxxing anybody.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean I guess I just want to -- I think what I --
(CROSSTALK)
WALKER: I think people can criticize policies. I think they can criticize decisions. I don't think they should be targeting people in their homes. I don't think they should be doing the law enforcement, the judicial system.
JARVIS: Should they reveal their badges and their names when they're doing the government's work? Should they be accountable as public servants when they are doing this job? Or should they be masked and anonymous?
WALKER: Well, I think they should ultimately be accountable no matter --
JARVIS: Oh, so how are they held accountable if we don't know who they are? I don't want their families, but I want them. I'm paying for them with my tax dollars. They're doing things in my name as a citizen. They're doing it with a mask, never saying their name, never showing a warrant, never giving a badge number, never giving me any sense of who they are. They are masked mobs going after people and threatening them. Are you okay with that? Are you okay with that?
(CROSSTALK)
JARVIS: What about ICE people? Should they be the same?
JENNINGS: I'll tell you what I asked the ICE director about. I said what is with the mask? He told me point blank. He does not like it. He does not really want them to have to do it but he did acknowledge me.
JARVIS: He's the boss.
JENNINGS: He acknowledged me.
PHILLIP: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Threat levels against them are huge -- are huge and you're minimizing it.
WILLIAMS: This show is all about coming to a table and trying to have a discussion, putting out our viewpoints, and coming to some sort of common ground. I'm sorry. I don't believe there's really an attempt at common ground anymore. I think what we have an attempt at going right now is starting today, we're going see this First Amendment get eroded more and more and more and more. Period. That's what's about to happen.
JARVIS: Amen.
WILLIAMS: And what we've got to do is try to figure out a way that we can come to tables and actually have a real conversation about how do we bring this country back. I mean, I am so sick of the fact that for 22 years I wore uniform to defend this thing called the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And right now, we're getting ready to pull that out. We're going to say, no, you know what? The First Amendment really only works for people who agree with me this way. If you don't agree with me, then I'm going to send in the ICE agent, or I'm going to send in somebody to cross your next deal. You know, we're on not just a slippery slope, but I'm telling you, we're a 90-degree slope.
WALKER: Well, that's the way our college campus is for decades. That's how we're trying to reverse that. So we to fly it across the border.
PHILLIP: We do have to leave it there. Everyone, thank you very much for that robust conversation. We'll be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:54:23]
PHILLIP: Tonight, from Ben and Jerry's to just Ben's, one half of the famous ice cream duo has quit the company saying that he is being politically stifled by his corporate parent for sharing his progressive values. And now, Cohen is speaking out to CNN, insisting that he'll stay to push back from the inside. And that's politics that's maybe good for business.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Has the company taken a hit because of some of you and Jerry's stances on social or controversial issues?
BEN COHEN, BEN AND JERRY'S CO-FOUNDER: I know that that has always been kind of an assumption from people.
[22:55:03]
But the data that we now have is that as the company acts on its social values, as it takes stands in favor of justice and peace, we end up selling more ice cream.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Next, more on our breaking news, ABC pulling Jimmy Kimmel's show after pressure from the government.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:08]
PHILLIP: Before we go, a quick programming note. Join CNN for one of the biggest concert events of the year as iconic musicians raise awareness for American family farms. "Farm Aid" airs Saturday at 7 P.M. right here on CNN. And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
