Should We Use the FCC Against the Left?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I want to dig in a little bit to this
whole Jimmy Kimmel's story and the reaction to it, and
there's all kinds of sort of conservative arguing and hand
ringing and all that, and it gets to this sort
of fundamental question. If the left has abused power against us,

(00:24):
should we turn around and abuse power back at them?
That's the question. On a certain level. There's this sort
of noble old guard conservative answer, which is, no, we
should not. We should play by the rules, we should

(00:45):
uphold principle, we should do the right thing. We should
not engage in the enemy's tactics. We should not abuse
power at all. We should not abuse power the way
that Democrats routinely abuse power against us. Now, Republicans get
are really tired of that. Clearly, that's why they elected
Donald Trump. Okay, they are specifically tired of the one

(01:10):
sided nature of the rules of political engagement. That I mean.
One of the greatest examples of this was the whole
debate over filibustering judges all right forever when the Senate,
so when you nominate, when a president nominates federal judges,

(01:30):
the Senate has to confirm it. The Senate gives its
advice and consent. So you need a majority of the
Senate to confirm judicial appointments. Well, it used to be
back in the old days, before George W. Bush, it
was just a simple straight up, up or down majority vote.
The Senate would not filibuster, which means talk talk talk

(01:51):
talk talk nomination to death, and then you need sixty
votes to stop talking. The Senate would not filibustered judicial appointments. Well,
all of a sudden, during George W. Bush, the Democrats
start filibustering and the Republicans let it happen, thinking, oh, well,
then we can filibuster when Democrats appoint judges. So then

(02:17):
when Obama became president and Republicans were trying to filibuster
Democrat appointments, what happened? Then the Democrats just change the
rules in the Senate preventing you from philibustering judges. So
they had it both ways. The Democrats, you know, had
their cake, and they ate it too. Heads they win, tails,
you lose. They change the rules because they don't care

(02:43):
about principle. They don't care about order or procedure or anything.
They just want to get their goal accomplished. So when
it comes to the FCC and having the FCC commissioner
say threatening things about Jimmy Kimmel. Republicans are just not

(03:06):
going to cry any big crocodile tears given how many
government officials engaged in threats to get people off of
social media, off of television whom they didn't like. I mean,
you have everyone on the left throwing up their hands,
wailing and gnashing their teeth about how this is an

(03:28):
attack on the First Amendment. That Brendan Carr, the head
of the FCC, said, you know, hey, we have the
FCC as the authority to regulate the airwaves and the
public interest and to look at distortion by broadcasters, news
distortion by broadcasters. You know, maybe this is something we
should look into. ABC pulls Jimmy Kimmel's show, and the

(03:53):
less of this is an outrage. It's an offense against
the First Amendment for the FCC to do this, ignoring
the fact that the Democrats, when they they were in power,
threatened to use the FCC in the exact same way.
How Barack Obama himself called ABC up to get Roseanne
Barr fired from her show. How Democrats used the FBI

(04:18):
to basically threaten Twitter to remove content that they didn't like,
you know, pre elon Musk Twitter to remove content they
didn't like. How they removed Donald Trump from all social
media platforms after January sixth. I mean, the Democrats have
abused this process time and time and time again. Yet

(04:41):
when Republicans do the same thing back, oh my gosh,
it's the worst thing ever. And maybe it's a sign
of the rightness of the right that instead of just
blatantly stepping on this, it spurs this internal debate on
the right. Should we do this, should we use the
power of the FCC to threaten ABC? Now? The problem

(05:07):
is also that I'm taking as a baseline assumption in
this discussion, is it abusive what we are doing in
comparison to what Democrats have done. The FCC does have rules.
It does have regulations on the books about regulating the

(05:29):
chartering of network television, So the FCC has more oversight
over networks than it does over cable channels. It doesn't
really regulate cable channels, so this only applies to NBC, ABC, CVS,
Fox Network, Fox not Fox News. And the FCC does

(05:52):
have rules about distortion of news. Now, the problem is
that those FCC rules they are so hemmed in because
of very obvious First Amendment concerns how any statement can
range from truth or falsehood versus opinion, and if it's

(06:20):
actual political opinion one way or another, then okay, well
that's not really something. But the federal government can start
regulating that that can become a clear violation of the
First Amendment right to freedom of speech. So all right,
you know, if we look at exactly what Jimmy Kimmel said,

(06:41):
Jimmy Kimmel's exact quote was, quote, 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. Now, some people have
pointed out that the strict grammatical form of what Kimmel

(07:06):
said was that he was only implying that the guy
who killed Charlie Kirk was a MAGA person, which is
obviously false at this point and was obviously false at
the time Kimmel made the statement, or at the very least,
there was plenty of evidence out by the time Kimmel

(07:30):
made the statement. I mean, the district attorney had said
that the kid was motivated by left wing attitudes on
LGBT stuff. We all knew that he had put anti
Antifa slogans engraved on the bullet casings, that he was
dating a transgender, that he was sick of the text
messages between him and the transgender whatever boyfriend guy were

(07:54):
indicating that he was sick and tired of Charlie Kirk's
quote hate. It was very obvious that this was a
left wing guy, but the left had grasped on to
this ludicrous notion that the shooter was some kind of
ultra right wing guy on the basis of very flimsy evidence. Oh,
his dad's a Republican and he posted a meme that

(08:21):
that sort of seems like it could be a right
wing meme one time, or something like that. The evidence
was completely flimsy, and I think everyone knew it was flimsy.
It was the left just completely grasping at straw as
desperately not wanting the shooter to be a left winger
and not wanting to have this obvious act of left

(08:41):
wing inspired violence applied against them. Now, should we be
using the FCC to police this kind of stuff. All right,
you can't use the FCC per the First Amendment. You

(09:04):
can't use the FCC just to persecute left wing, to
to prosecute, to regulate, to censor left wing opinions. That's
not gonna fly. Can you use the FCC to censor,
regulate whatever false statements coming from a left wing point

(09:25):
of view? Well, maybe you can't. Maybe you can, But
I'll just tell you this as a practical matter. Looking
at this like a lawyer, that's gonna be a minefield.
It really is. It's a minefield. How is the FCC

(09:50):
gonna regulate that? All right? Are we gonna get to
the level of really down to the nitty gritty assessing like,
is Jimmy Kimmel saying this as a positive truth claim assertion?
I think he is. Did Jimmy Kimmel know he was lying?

(10:12):
Are we going to have to try to establish a
standard of, you know, someone being ignorantly wrong versus knowing lying?
I mean, those are two different things. And the standard
within FCC regulations is about knowing falsehoods, not about someone

(10:32):
just getting it wrong. Okay, that those are two different things.
Do we want the FCC to try to adjudicate that.
I just think as a practical matter that's going to
be extremely difficult to do. So I'm a little inclined
to agree with. But again I'm frustrated. So on one level,

(10:59):
I think, no, I don't think it's very wise for
a Republican administration to try to weaponize the FCC against
dumb Democrat statements. Do they make dumb statements? Do they
make false statements all the time? Sure? Is it wise
to do it? Though? Is it effective to do it?

(11:21):
Will this be weaponized against us? Now? The problem is
against whom are they going to weaponize it? The left
owns network television. There's no counter on network television. Republicans
don't even have any real estate within network television for

(11:44):
the left to threaten us. Whom are they going to
go after? Because again, the FCC regulates network television. They
don't regulate cable. They don't regulate Fox News, they don't
regulate Newsmax or you know whatever. So all they're regulating
is ABC, NBCCBS, and network Fox network. Fox doesn't have

(12:08):
a national news broadcast coming from Fox News. Okay, I
think they have like Fox News Sunday. I think that
Arizona network Fox, but I'm not even sure, so they
just don't have anything Fox doesn't have. There's no conservative network,
late night comedian, there's no conservative national news. So on

(12:33):
the one hand, it's like, well, from the purely prudential
standpoint of well, what if they do the same thing
against us, They're not gonna do the same thing against us.
We don't even have any real estate for them to
get us with via the FCC. But is it a

(12:56):
wise thing to do at all? I don't know. I
don't think it is. I would rather have a situation
where neither side can weaponize either the government against either
side's possession of the airwaves. But that's a bit of
a pie in the sky idea. I don't think you're

(13:18):
ever going to get a situation where a majority in
Congress and a president are all going to vote to
get rid of the FCC. So in the meantime, what
do we do? I guess, I mean, if those rules
are on the books, if the FCC does have the

(13:42):
power to look at knowing falsehoods and distortions of news,
why never use it if that can be weapon I
realize I'm kind of talking not allowed to myself here.
I've been bopping back and forth on this issue the

(14:03):
whole time. Is it wrong for us to use the
left's tools against them on a certain level? I guess
I'm If this is in fact a constitutional thing to do,
then I guess why not. We don't have much to lose.

(14:27):
If it's constitutional to use it, I guess, go for it.
But I think the problem is that it's so difficult
to do anyway that I guess I just don't know
how much of a thread it is. And that's maybe
where I land on this. This whole issue might just
be overblown. Look, if the FCC genuinely was trying to say,

(14:54):
we're gonna go after Jimmy Kimmel for distorting the news
about this topic, that lawsuit's not. That lawsuit's gonna have
a really hard time to succeed, because, first of all,
you have to prove, like a knowing act of deception.

(15:14):
How are you gonna prove exactly what? It's gonna be
nearly impossible to prove what exactly was in Jimmy Kimmel's head.
Kimmel might sincerely believe it, sincerely have deceived himself into
believing it, as George Costanza says, it's not a lie.
If you believe it the whole thing, it's gonna be

(15:42):
impossible to prove nearly. It's a First Amendment minefield. So
while I agree, I don't like the idea of one
side having way more power than the other. Here's what
I hope. I want to get to the Supreme Court
a better case, a better case of government pressuring some

(16:06):
kind of media platform to censor what they're doing, where
it's not the government censoring, it's the government pressuring a
private entity to censor. I want to get a Supreme
Court decision saying no, government can't do that, and have
really strong limits on all actors in the federal government,

(16:27):
looking at all modes of media communication, not just the FCC,
about the kinds of things that governmental authorities can and
cannot do in their interactions with various media entities. And

(16:53):
after that, after that happens, I'm willing to disarm if
we've got a Supreme Court decision and calling that that
mandates a kind of universal disarmament against the executive branch
of government exerting influence directly on media entities, whether it's

(17:14):
social media, traditional media, whatever, and saying all of it's unconstitutional.
Then I'm okay with disarming the FCC. Then I'm okay
with saying, nope, we're not going to use the FCC
against people. I think there might be a legitimate way
to use the FCC, but it's so difficult practically speaking,

(17:36):
and it's so fraught with First Amendment challenges that I
don't know how effective a tool it would even be.
I don't like the idea of fighting with one hand
behind my back against liberals who are glad to abuse
the levers of power to go against us. I think
what this whole thing needs is real disarmament. Annuine disarmament

(18:01):
by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court stepping in getting
a case and saying the executive branch of government, government
regulators cannot engage in threatening communications with media entities about
the kinds of about opinion pieces and things like that,

(18:21):
about the kinds of content they're platforming, et cetera, et cetera.
And I don't know. Maybe I'm a little pie in
the sky. Maybe that's not realistic, but that would be
My hope is for universal disarmament on this issue. I
guess at the end of the day, though when we
return at the end of the day, I don't know
how much this is about the First Amendment with Jimmy Kimball,

(18:44):
how much it's really more about a dying medium late
night TV shows and people voting with their feet. That's
next on the John Drarty Show. There's so much discussion
about the First MINT and whether the Trump administration, through
vague threats by Brendan Carr to examine ABC and whatever

(19:07):
distortion of news Jimmy Kimmel may have engaged in by saying,
by implying very strongly, at the very least, I think
saying is not too much of a stretch that the
shooter who killed Charlie Kirk was a maga person. There's
so much stirm and drawing over it, and I don't
know that it's ultimately all that significant. The reason Jimmy

(19:30):
Kimmel's off the air is fairly simple. I don't think
it primarily had to do with the FCC. I think
it had to do with the fact that the regional
ABC affiliates were furious over him saying that they sensed
that the national mood was not willing to put up

(19:50):
with that kind of crap because it was manifestly false
and insultingly false, insultingly false to half the country, and
at a certain level, these late night hosts on ABC,
NBCCBS that they have no Maybe Jimmy Kimmel has this acknowledgment, excuse,

(20:11):
maybe Jimmy Fallon on NBC has this acknowledgement. But Jimmy
Kimmel and Stephen Colbert seem to have no interest in
nor willingness to acknowledge that half the country voted for
Donald Trump, half the country is Republican, and they've seemingly
set up their shows to basically say, we have no

(20:31):
interest in attracting that half of the country. And the
regional affiliates clearly just got sick of it. They said, well,
forget it, No, we're not gonna We're ticked off at
you for saying that this is a really insulting thing
to say to half of our audience, and we're not
going to put you on the air. The regional affiliates revolted.

(20:53):
That's why ABC pulled him off the air. That's it.
And frankly, I wouldn't doubt that they're crying. You know,
I'm not sure that they're crying. Two big tears now,
I think Jimmy Kimmel meant a lot more to ABC
than Stephen Colbert meant to CBS. Kimmel did more for ABC,

(21:15):
he was more involved with other kinds of ABC programming.
He does better on YouTube and in digital formats than
Stephen Colbert does. But I'm not sure that his show
makes any money. Okay, Colbert's show was losing something like
forty million dollars a year, but that's sort of just

(21:36):
the reality of all late night talk shows. They're not
the cash cows they were even ten years ago, let
alone forty years ago when they were carrying their entire networks.
So at the end of the day, I think ABC
made the decision that the regional affiliates being happy was
more important to them than keeping Jimmy Kimmel on air.

(21:57):
And I don't think any of this FCC stuff necessarily
plays into it. So as much as I'm you know,
wringing my hands and twisting in the wind over like,
is it a good thing for the FCC to investigate it?
Should we even have the FCC? Should the FCC have
these kinds of powers? And I guess my general preference

(22:20):
would be for a kind of universal disarmament of executive
branch officials, you know, threateningly intervening with social media platforms,
with other media platforms to encourage them to take people

(22:43):
off the air, like I do think. I mean, one
of the most you know, pointed responses to Kimmel getting
kicked off the air came from Roseanne bar of all people,
Barack Obama tweeted out that it's shameful that ABC pulled
Jimmy Kimmel off the air for this to attack by
the Trump administration against the First Amendment, and Roseanne Barr

(23:04):
like retweeted it with the caption of, Hey, do you
remember when you and your wife called Bob Iger at
ABC and told them to fire me? Yeah, Like she's
totally right. Like, how is you know, Brendan Carr saying,
you know, maybe we should look into this. How is

(23:25):
that worse than the President of the United States calling
ABC to tell them to fire Roseanne Barr. So, in short,
I would like universal disarmament. I would like a Supreme
Court decision really limiting the ability of government officials to
exert any kind of pressure on broadcasters. And it seems

(23:49):
like we're kind of starting to get to the point
where networks are realizing, Hey, we can't just alienate half
the country with our programming. Maybe we move in a
different direction when we return. I want to talk again
a little bit about this story that's just fascinated me
about the Los Angeles Clippers and the phony baloney use

(24:12):
of environmental quote carbon credits that's next on the John
Jrbardy Show. I've been fascinated by this story about the
Los Angeles Clippers carbon credits and an effort to subvert
allegedly an effort to subvert the NBA's salary cap. I've
just been fascinated by it. So I want to talk

(24:32):
about it because I think it shows just how slimy
a lot of these environmental efforts are. And it all
centers around this company called Aspiration and their work with
the Los Angeles Clippers, the basketball team. All right, let's
talk about this. This is a huge story in the

(24:52):
sports world. It's like one of the biggest off the
field sports stories there is. In the National Basketball Association
the NBA, each team has a salary cap. There's a
salary cap for all the teams in the league. No
team can spend above a certain level. If you spend
over that level you have to pay to the league,

(25:13):
and that money gets distributed to all the owners something
called a luxury tax. And then even above that, there's
kind of a hard cap that you absolutely cannot exceed.
So basically that's to maintain competitive parity, and it's also
sort of to put a cap on. Hey, ownership is
going to get x percentage of revenue. Players are going

(25:35):
to get this percentage of revenue. If we cap the
players' salaries, we maintain a bigger percentage of revenue for us. Okay,
But it's also to maintain competitive parity, especially with basketball,
I think, because you know, if you get two really
good players, your team can all of a sudden go
from not good to the best team in the league.

(25:57):
If you don't have salary cap, well, then the richest owner,
who happens to be the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers,
Steve Balmer, who's one of the richest men in the world,
and I think he might be the wealthiest man in
all of sports, might be the wealthiest owner of any
sports team in the United States of America. If there

(26:19):
weren't a salary cap, Steve Balmer could just buy you know,
he could give every player on his team. He could
give all of the five best players in the NBA
billion dollar contracts and he could just win the NBA
Championship every year. So they're like, no, you have a
salary cap at this much. So if you try to
play your payer to pay your players under the table

(26:43):
with sweeteners, with under the table deals to evade the
NBA's notice, then to evade the NBA's salary cap, that's
a pretty big cardinal sin in the NBA. It will
tick off the other owners because well, first, you're not
paying the luxury tax, so that's revenue to all the
other owners that you're stealing from their pockets basically, but

(27:06):
also you're upsetting the competitive balance of the league. The
Los Angeles Clippers signed this player named Kawhi Leonard. This
was fresh off of Kawhi Leonard had just won the
twenty nineteen NBA Championship with the Toronto Raptors. He was
the finals MVP. Everyone was thinking, like, you know, Lebron

(27:29):
was kind of tailing off, and people is Kawhi Leonard
might be one of the best players in the NBA.
He's certainly in the top three. So the Clippers get him.
He's the big free agent that year. The Clippers get him,
which some people kind of questioned, like the Lakers had
been in the market for him, and you know, usually
you'd think between the Lakers and the Clippers, the Lakers
are far more glamorous, far cooler, far more popular. The

(27:51):
Clippers get him. Now, the Clippers have a major team sponsor,
a company in which which Steve Balmer had invested very heavily.
This entity called Aspiration. Aspiration marketed itself as a green bank.

(28:12):
Basically they would do wealth management investing, but one of
the other big parts of their business that they had
was carbon offset credits. With the emergence of these things
called ESG standards, which are these sort of this way
that liberals were able to try to control businesses in

(28:32):
corporate America. ESG stands for Environmental, Social and governance, and
basically your ESG standing improves based on whether you apply
various kinds of liberal ideals into your business. And there
were certain major investors who took ESG stuff very seriously.

(28:52):
This is the root of why a lot of companies
were putting in DEI policies all over the place. Companies
that you wouldn't think would have these deep seated commitment
to leftist social values. But oh ye, well they're putting
in DEI policies to bump up their ESG scores. And
there was this environmental aspect to it. Okay, are we

(29:14):
being responsible stewards of the environment. Well, what are you
going to do if you've got a big corporation with
a huge corporate office that you want to have air conditioned. Well, uh, well,
we're using a lot of carbon. You know, you can
talk a big game about how environmentally friendly you are,
but your CEO is flying around in a private jet,
which is like the most wasteful carbon thing you can do,

(29:36):
and your your CEO has a has a private yacht.
You know. So what some of these companies wanted to
do was that this this idea came to the forefront
of purchasing carbon offset credits. This is basically, you spend money,
you give them money to some entity. They turn around
and they use that money for some sort of project

(29:59):
to do something that off sets the environmental harm of
whatever it is your business does. And often this was
in the form of projects to plant trees. Steve Balmer
got really into this. Now Steve Bamer comes the owner
of the Clippers. He's tired of being the second tenant

(30:20):
at was the Staples Center and now it's the Crypto
dot Com Center, Arena whatever, and he wants to build
a new stadium, and that's what he did. It's now open.
It's called the Intuit Dome. But obviously building an arena
is not a carbon neutral exercise. So Balmber, you know,
big time lib makes this big show of partnering with Aspiration,

(30:45):
and Aspiration is a darling of the corporate left. It's
two co founders are these guys, Joe Sandberg and Andre Cherney.
Cherney got hired by Bill Clinton when he was only
twenty one years old, fresh out of Harvard to be
a speech writer. And Turney has been a big wig
in Democrat politics ever since. He was a speechwriter for

(31:06):
the John Kerry campaign. He wrote the two thousand Democrat Platform.
He has moved breezily through the world of Democrat nonprofits
and think tanks and opinion journals, et cetera. He teams
up with this guy, Joe Sandberg, and who's another Harvard guy.

(31:29):
Sandberg made a bunch of money on Wall Street. He
invested in a lot of startups, including Blue Apron, which
is this meal kit delivery service, made a bunch of money.
And Sandberg has been a player within California politics and
national Democrat politics. He endorsed a lot of the movements
in California to increase the minimum wage. And they start

(31:53):
Aspiration to be this sort of banking entity, but also
with this whole carbon credit business. Now, the problem is
that the carbon credit business seems to have been a
complete and utter scam. And what seems to have happened.
There's evidence that's come out that the Clippers were investing

(32:17):
money in Aspiration, and that Aspiration was paying Kawhi Leonard
under the table to do nothing. So Aspiration signs Kawhi
Leonard to an endorsement deal. For Kawhi Leonard, a basketball player,

(32:39):
to endorse Aspiration, a green bank that does carbon credits stuff.
Now you might think that's an odd arrangement. Most of
you have never heard of Kawhi Leonard. Probably I would
not say he's the most prominent player in the NBA
because he is notoriously averse to media. He's very shy,

(32:59):
he hates talking to the media. He's not a very
he's not a very marketable player. He's extremely boring that
it's kind of he's notorious for it. He's not kind of.
I mean, Lebron James, you might dislike him. He's a
pretty affable, outgoing, gregarious, you know, media savvy guy, Steph Curry.

(33:23):
He's outgoing, gregarious. You know, he's marketable. Kawhi Leonard is not.
That's why his shoe endorsement deal is with New Balance,
not Nike. They signed Kawhi Leonard to a twenty eight
million dollar endorsement deal, and it looks like it's a
no show job contract kind of thing Tony Soprano would do. Okay, Oh,

(33:46):
we got to pay off the union. You know, we're
going to sleasily pay off the mafia through the labor union.
And we do that by creating a contract for a
job that doesn't really exist, a phony job, a no
show job. So for the terms of the contract, here
you go. Will you give you this payment? No one
actually does any work, and the mafia pockets it. That
seems to be the setup for Kawhi Leonard. Hey, Kawhi Leonard,

(34:08):
you're gonna endorse Aspiration, but per the terms of this contract,
it seems like you can get paid the full amount
and not actually do any work. And that's precisely what happened.
Leonard got paid the full amount and didn't do any work.
And it seems as though Balmer's investments in Aspiration, his

(34:28):
purchase of carbon credits from Aspiration lined up pretty much perfectly,
or very suspiciously well with all the times that Aspiration
was giving Kawhi Leonard his various million dollar installments to
fulfill their twenty eight million dollar contract with him, plus
an additional twenty million dollars in equity in their company.
Now Aspiration completely collapsed in twenty twenty four. The Biden

(34:53):
DOJ announced an investigation into Aspiration last month. A month
Joe Sandberg, one of their co founders, pled guilty to
two hundred and forty eight million dollars of wire fraud,
defrauding lenders and investors out of two hundred forty eight
million dollars, and they admitted that the carbon credits thing

(35:20):
was a total was a large scam. That they said
they had planted something like thirty five million trees, they
had only planted something like twelve million, and had sort
of facilitated the planting of twelve million trees and had
gotten a huge markup for every tree they actually did
plant relative to what the credit cost. And so it

(35:48):
looks like if they were this sleazy with their whole
carbon credit scheme, it seems like they were allowing themselves
in order to get more and more investment in more
and more money from Steve Balmer, because as the company
was collapsing, as they were running out of money and
running out of investors, they were allowing Balmer to use
them to bypass the NBA salary cap, to play this,

(36:09):
to pay this basketball player twenty eight million dollars under
the table to evade the NBA's salary cap. And I
just think it's fascinating. I think it's fascinating how we
conservatives always would have guessed that this carbon credit thing
was a scam. The idea that you can draw a
one to one equivalence between you know, one John Kerry

(36:32):
private jet flight and planting I don't know, two hundred
trees or something. How can you equate that a John
carry jet ride that that's burning however many you know,
hundreds hundreds of gallons of jet fuel one extra tanker
trip to deliver you know, the CEO's ferrari is emitting

(36:56):
more carbon than How can you calculate how many trees
that is, what the lifespan of those trees, how much
you know oxygen are they emitting? You know, like, how
can you possibly calculate that the whole thing was a scam?
And I'm glad that this story has sort of broken
so that the whole world can kind of see what
a scam it is. All right, when we return, Are
we all Jimmy Kimmel right now? Should we all stand

(37:19):
in solidarity? That's next on the John Girardi Show. After
Stephen Colbert's show got pulled, excuse me, after Jimmy Kimmel's
show got pulled, Stephen Colbert goes on his show, which
his show sounds like it was a real riot. He
had Jake Tapper and David Remnick, the editor of The
New Yorker, on on his comedy show Boy That's just

(37:42):
to laugh a minute there, and he declared, we are
all Jimmy Kimmel right now, to which the obvious answer
is no, we're not. Jimmy Kimmel has made hundreds of
millions of dollars hosting a comedy show. No one's really
crying that big alligator tears for him. Also, I'm not
like Jimmy Kimble because my show is still on the air.

(38:03):
So no, I am not really sympathizing with Jimmy Kimmel.
That'll do it, John Girardi Show, See you next time
on Power Talk