Morning Joe - Fallout from ABC pulling Jimmy Kimmel off the air

Episode Date: September 19, 2025

FCC Chairman Carr: "We're going to continue to see changes in the media ecosystem" Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From Comedy Central, it's the all-new government-approved Daily Show with your patriotically obedient host, John Stewart. We have another fun, hilarious administration-compliant show. If you felt a little off these past couple of days, it's probably because our great father has not been home. for father has been gracing England with his legendary warmth and radiance. Last night's daily show reacting to ABC's suspension of Jimmy Kimmel with over-the-top praise for the president. We're going to go through all the angles to this story one day out.

From the ongoing fallout to the pushback from conservative publications as well as the business. deals behind the scenes that may have influenced Disney's decision. Plus, we'll dig into the new guidance on a childhood vaccine from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s hand-picked advisory panel to the CDC. We'll preview what is expected to be another contentious day on Capitol Hill as the former U.S. attorney who agreed to Jeffrey Epstein's so-called sweetheart deal will testify. That should be interesting.

morning. And welcome to Morning, Joe. It is Friday. September 19th, along with Joe and me, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, Poet's surprise-winning columnist, and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson, staff writer at the Atlantic, Ann Applebaum is here, and senior writer for the dispatch, and a columnist for Bloomberg opinion, David Drucker. He's an MSNBC contributor. Good to have you all on board. And Joe, I think everybody's still parsing through all the different, the confluence of events that led to Jimmy Kimmel being pulled off the air. Yeah, and you saw John Stewart last night using satire to go after everything that's happened.

It's what I said before when Paramount caved to Donald Trump. And when they took Stephen Colbert announced that they were taking Stephen Colbert off the air. What happened? Immediately after that South Park came out, more brutal, a tougher satire than the White House has ever gotten. And what you have in that situation is now the top streaming show on Paramount. And this is always a whack-a-mole situation here. They're going after Jimmy Kimmel right now. There will be protests that come up elsewhere, but it's not just going to be coming from comedians. It's also the Wall Street Journal.

We're going to be talking about this. The Wall Street Journal editorial page today is filled with examples of MAGA hypocrisy. For years, they talked about cancel culture. They've now, in the name of Charlie Kirk, a guy who said all speech needs to be free. They've now canceled two of three late-night hosts, and they're celebrating it. It's a Wall Street Journal editorial page. says that's nothing more than cancel culture from the right. Another opinion piece on the Wall Street Journal editorial page talking about now it's the right that's musseling free speech.

And you even have an attorney general, even have an attorney general that was going around saying if somebody won't print flyers for Charlie Kirk, they could get in trouble, they could be in fire you you have you have people going around uh vowing they're going to go through workplaces in schools and everywhere in america and they will find anybody who ever said anything that that was not fawning about charlie kirk and they're going to get them fired right i wait these are the same people that for a decade were whining about cancel culture this These are the same people that we're talking forever about the importance of free speech. We played Charlie Kirk quotes that we clearly say, all of this stuff.

He'd be like, you guys, wait, wait, hold on a second. This is exactly the opposite of what he said. And yet they're doing it anyway. And they're doing it. and corporate media is just falling all over themselves and collapsing. And they're doing it for financial reasons. And of course, the impact of that cannot be lost on anybody anywhere. And so I'm glad there are people like John Stewart, South Park, others who are pushing back hard,

and we need to do the same thing here. Well, the fallout from ABC's decision to pull Jimmy Kim alive off the air indefinitely continues this morning with a wave of reaction from Hollywood to Washington. Protesters packed the streets outside of Disney and ABC headquarters in both New York and Los Angeles yesterday, carrying signs with slogans like defend free speech. Many comedians and celebrities also rallied around Jimmy Kimmel and against what they view as a threat to the First Amendment.

Podcaster Mark Moran said, this is what authoritarianism looked like. Director Ben Stiller posted, quote, this isn't right, and former late-night host David Letterman had this to say. I feel bad about this because we all see where this is going, correct? It's managed media. And it's no good. It's silly. It's ridiculous. And you can't go around firing somebody because you're fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration. in the Oval Office. That's just not how this works. Democratic leaders are also speaking out. Former President Barack Obama posted on social media quote. After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken

it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn't like. Top House Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for FCC, Chairman. Brendan Carr to resign, arguing he has, quote, engaged in the corrupt abuse of power. And the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee says he will launch an investigation into the Trump administration, ABC, and Sinclair, amid, quote, ongoing efforts to censor opposition to the president. And as Joe mentioned, the Wall Street Journal editorial board is reacting to Kimmel's suspension in a new piece entitled, The FCC, Dids?

Disney and Jimmy Kimmel. It reads in part, quote, regulatory power in the hands of a willful president can too easily become a weapon against political opponents, including the media. The squeeze on Disney looks to be a case of cancel culture on the right. For a decade or more, the voters who backed Mr. Trump watched and listened as coastal elites of media and entertainment showed their contempt for middle American values. Those coastal grandees shouldn't be surprised now if the public isn't as outraged as they are by the Carr FCC's abuse of its power against opponents. We want to be clear that none of this justifies the rights resort to regulatory censorship. As victims of cancel culture for so long, conservatives more than anyone should oppose it. The political cycle of using government to punish opponents is taking the country into dark corners that will result in less freedom and less free speech for all sides.

The best immediate remedy is getting the FCC out of the business of regulating media. Meanwhile, President Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr are celebrating ABC's decision and are signaling that. The crackdown may not stop there. Are you going to ask Brendan Carr to weigh in on other late-night hosts that you have? Well, when a late-night host is on network television, there is a licensing. I'll give you an example. I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me. I get 97% negative, and yet I won, and easily won all seven-swing,

States, popular, we've won everything. And if they're 97% against, they give me only bad publicity or press. I mean, they're getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It would be up to Brendan Carr. He had no talent. He's a whack job, but he had no talent. And more importantly, the talent he had no, because a lot of people have no talent, they get ratings.

but he had no ratings. His ratings were worse than Colbert, I think. They got Bernie Colbert, which was a good thing to do. Look, that's something that should be talked about for licensing, too. 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 on it in years or something,

somebody said, but when you go back and take a lot of it, All they do is in Trump. They're licensed. They're not allowed to do that. They're an arm of the Democrat Party. I asked earlier about Fallon and Seth Myers, but is the president's view that they should also be taken off the air shared by the FCC? I don't speak for the president, so obviously, you know, he speaks for himself on that.

Our goal and our obligation here is to make sure that broadcasters are serving the public interest. And if there's local TV stations that don't think that running that, programming does it, then they have every right under the law in their contracts to preempt it. And we'll see how this plays out. But I do think that, again, we're in the midst of a massive shift in dynamics in the media ecosystem for lots of reasons, again, including the permission structure that President Trump's election has provided. And I would simply say we're not done yet with seeing the consequences of that shift. What does that mean when you say you're not done yet, then. I mean, will you only be pleased when none of these comedians have a show on broadcast

television? No, again, it's not about any particular show or any particular person. It's just we're in the midst of a very disruptive moment right now. And I just frankly expect that we're going to continue to see changes in the media ecosystem. You know, Meek, we had talked about how obviously the Wall Street Journal editorial page had come out against this. I've got to say also Somebody who usually is in support of most of Donald Trump's policies on the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Kimberly Strassel writes a very tough op-ed. It's headline, Back Descensor Culture, and talks about how it wasn't too long ago. She said the right was criticizing the left for canceling people.

Now the right is doing the same thing. We've talked about it before, but think about the madness of all of this. Again, you've got now the Magarite, being champions of cancel culture, you've got the Magarite now trying to crush free speech after being supposed free speech absolutist. You have Pam Bondi talking about going after Home Depot if they won't print out flyers, certain political flyers, maybe arrest. them talking about firing me. And again, the idea that squads of people are going around and saying, don't worry, Charlie, we're going to find people who used free speech in a way you wouldn't have liked and get them fired from their jobs. Are you kidding me? Right. Are you kidding me? This is the very thing that he and the MAGAM movement and the free

press that we're complaining about for a decade. And now they're taking it in a more extreme way than the left ever did. I mean, again, they've canceled two of three late-night show hosts in a short period of time. And now they're threatening retribution for people who won't print out flyers, the threatening retribution for people that put out a mean tweet. I mean, we've made it very clear. We've made it very clear before that political violence is heinous. That against Charlie Kirk was absolutely just vile and heinous. And that's why we saw most sides strongly and roundly condemning that violence. But the fact that they're actually doing the opposite of what Charlie Kirk talked about in his campus tours says all you need to know about these people. Well, they're sort of stepping on themselves. On the right, I was watching some podcasts on this, and they were obviously very right-leaning.

And they, you know, it would have been, it would have made more sense in terms of what you think they said their values are to say, I really didn't like what Jimmy Kimball. said but he should not have been taken off the air because we believe in free speech but you can also express doubt or disgust in what was said but to then agree that he should have been pulled off the air totally turns everything they've ever been talking about canceled yeah canceled it doesn't and again it doesn't make sense they want to can't they want to cancel late night hosts okay and and it's really unbelievable let me bring i want to I'm bringing David Drucker here. David, this is wild.

Like you've been following this for the past decade. And there are these free speech absolutists? Elon Musk. I'm going to take over Twitter and be a free speech absolutist. The free press, the free speech absolutist. All of these people on the Magarite, free speech absolutist and against cancel culture. And it is playing out now in a way

that you have an attorney general threatening to arrest people that don't print flyers. You have two out of three late night. three late-night hosts canceled, completely canceled, and now they're going around and saying they're going to find people in their workplaces and get them fired if they put out an inappropriate tweet. Yeah, we're clearly, Joe, living through an illiberal moment. I mean, to your last point there, we have the vice president of the United States asking Americans to rat out their neighbors. If you hear anybody saying something wrong or something that is vile or that is rude,

rat them out, make sure they get fired. Let's get rid of them. And I think the issue here is not so, well, there are several issues here. I think we need to be clear that if a private company or private institution doesn't want to platform somebody, doesn't want to put them on the air, doesn't want to give them a microphone, they don't have to. The First Amendment protects us from the government monitoring and regulating speech. But the problem is that's exactly what's happening here. When you look at what ABC did with Jimmy Kimmel,

the issue isn't that maybe ABC looked at the finances, looked at the changing tastes of viewers when it comes to late-night television and decided, given all the money they're paying him, they were going to move in a different direction. The problem is that this appears to be a very clear case of government coercion. And when you look at how Brendan Carr and President Trump

are talking about this issue, Trump is actually more honest about it. I don't want these people on the air. I think the government has a right to get rid of them. I'm going to do it. And then Carr is reasonably about it in that he's like, hey, listen, it's not the FCC. You know, maybe companies just will decide this on their own with the clear message being, this is what we would like you to decide without us wielding the hammer,

and we'll reward you if you do it. I think that ultimately what is very ironic here is that President Trump campaigned specifically on, from his perspective, restoring free speech, and conservatives and people that flock to his coalition were very, that was a very attractive message because for people on the right, they feel as though they have not been allowed to say things they believe about controversial issues without fear of. of reprisal at work, in universities, even in government. And here somebody was saying, I'm going to put an end of that, and I'm going to even the playing field in terms of everybody's going to be able to speak their mind, not just people on the left. And here the administration is going in a completely different direction that's antithetical to American values, but also just runs headlong into the First Amendment.

A quick refresh on how this all played out. things were set in motion after the FCC chairman suggested the government could revoke ABC affiliate licenses as a punishment for Kimmel's remarks. The biggest owner of ABC affiliated stations, Next Star, which owns and operates 32 different ABC stations, then announced it would preempt Jimmy Kimmel live for the foreseeable future, citing Kimmel's comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Around the same time, Sinclair, which owns and operates roughly the same number of stations, also announced it would no longer carry Kimmel's show. And a short time after that, a spokesman for ABC said in a statement that the late-night program will be preempted indefinitely. So Jonathan Lemire, cross-conflience of business, politics, and free speech. And we've seen this a few times now.

I mean, the Colbert dismissal became because of the CBS Paramount was looking to get a merger done. We're seeing a similar dynamic here. But we also know that some of this, Project 2025, the idea of trying to crack down on left-wing media, those who are perceived as political foes, that predates the Kirk assassination. And this is now being used as a pretext in many ways to act upon it. Let's talk more about the business side of it. Let's bring in the anchor of CNBC's Worldwide Exchange, Frank Holland, as well as editor and chief as Semaphore Ben Smith. Our thanks to you both for being here. Ben, let's start

with you just in terms of this dynamic here. We have seen these corporations. You were on our air yesterday saying that a lot of these media companies, broadcast companies, have a lot of exposure with the government. That makes them in some ways vulnerable. But we are now seeing time and again corporate entities deciding, well, the dollar, shareholders, whatever it might be, a financial interest putting that ahead of free speech. Yeah, you know, the biggest picture here is that basically these companies, which see themselves as like trying to compete with Google, are just trying to get as big as they can, as fast as they can. That's for, you know, Paramount Skydance, about to swallow, trying to think about swallowing Warner Media. And, you know, in order to get scale, try to be big, try to be as big as big as they can.

Similarly, Tegna, the reason that they are, the next star, the reason they are so interested in getting. being on Brendan Carr's good side is that there's a rule that a broadcaster can only reach 39% of Americans. They'd like to get out of that rule. They'd like that rule suspended so they can buy another company called Tegna and reach something appropriate capital of all Americans. And what that means is you have relatively few media companies, relatively few people owning them, and those people are very, very subject to kind of centralized pressure from the White House, from the administration. That's actually the thing that conservative we're very upset about in the tech industry.

The rest of the media industry is in some ways competing with tech or just trying to get as big and centralized as they can. And that really gives the administration a very clear way to pressure them. Yeah, Frank Colin, talk about that, if you will, that you have Disney now looking at two of its largest affiliate, two companies that carry the most number of affiliates, saying even before they announce that they're going to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air, at least temporarily, that they're dropping the program altogether. What type of business pressure

does that put on them, especially when you have one of these two companies that's trying to get, that's going to be needing to get the federal government's approval for a merger? And you have the other one that has branded itself a right-wing local news outlet. Well, Joe, good morning. I just want to make it clear. We don't really know the impact on the affiliates or even the ABC owned and operated stations. As this story develops, I'm sure a lot of people will try to investigate and try to figure that out. What we do know is that, as your previous guest just mentioned, is that these companies have some pretty major deals on the table. We have Nexstar trying to buy Tegna. And again, there's a 39% cap rule that Nexstar is hoping to have some type of exemption

to an order to acquire Tegna. It's a $6.2 billion deal. At the same time, we have Disney hoping to acquire the media assets of the NFL and essentially bring the NFL network in-house. Now, there is a third part of this story. Right now it's just anecdotal. The New York Post is reporting that there are some Disney plus subscribers that are canceling their subscriptions in response to this decision from the co-chair of Disney Entertainment, Dana Walden and CEO Bob Iger. If you go on social media, you can see some of those posts. But again, that's only anecdotal. This is certainly a developing story. Certainly too soon to tell the full business impact. I think we'll just have to wait and see. So, Ann, we have, you are one of the experts on warning signs. If a democracy

slips away. And it seems like what we're seeing here, this playbook that Trump administration is putting forth, seems familiar with what we've seen in other countries. Yeah, so first of all, I would pick up on something somebody just said. You know, cancel culture to the, which had took different forms, was usually the organization of online mobs or sometimes workplace mobs to harass people or get them fired. What we're seeing here is something that is actually different. This is actually government repression. This is the use of state institutions to influence media companies in their decisions about content. And this is the same way that censorship now works elsewhere in the world. So we all have in our minds maybe an idea of censorship. You know,

there's like a guy in a room and he crosses out lines from the newspaper articles and that's the censor. Actually, nowadays, censorship, whether it's in Russia or whether it's in Turkey or whether it's in Hungary, usually takes the form of a government regulatory body, or sometimes it's the tax authority, coming to a media company and saying, if you do X or Y, you're in trouble. And actually, Donald Trump, speaking about how much he hates all these online, sorry, these late-night shows, and they're also mean to him, I mean, I think that's the key. You know, the reason why these shows are being canceled is not because, in the case of Jimmy Kimmel, It's really not much to do with Charlie Kirk.

It's because the president wants his critics off the air. And I think that's quite different from the phenomenon that we saw in some universities and cultural institutions a few years ago. And actually, and the, you know, the FCC boss talking about permission structure. The president's election gave us their permission structure to make these changes. I mean, that's an indication that they're thinking more of this as a structural change. isn't about getting rid of somebody who was offensive. Joe. Yeah, you know, it's fascinating.

The world that we live in right now, Ben, yes, there are 40, 41, 42, 43 percent of people who may be cheering what Donald Trump and Brendan Carr did together. I suspect it probably would be lower than that. We'll find out in the coming weeks. I'm sure people will poll that. But let's talk about the cross pressures on Bob Eiger, because we're, of course, only looking at it from one direction. There were some angry MAGA supporters who put pressure on ABC as they put pressure on ABC in the past to less effect. You've got Donald Trump, you've got Brendan Carr.

So Bob Eager and Disney is feeling that pressure. You then have the pressure of 60% of your viewers, 60% of America. Americans who were horrified that something like this would happen. You know, a good number of people, probably majority of Americans say, well, I didn't really love what he said there. He could have said it much better. And yeah, it's kind of offensive, but we don't censor in America. So talk about the cross pressures that Bob Eiger is facing.

When you lurch far to the MAGA right to check that box off, you leave about 60% of Americans behind. How does he deal with that in this? new political landscape? Well, I mean, I think he's in a difficult position in part because he's still managing, you know, this declining, but still very lucrative television business that is fighting for its life and doing whatever the White House, you know, whatever the White House says to stay alive. I think, you know, the Disney brand, which I think, you know, historically is particularly

bipartisan, beloved, has managed largely to stay out of politics in which they preserve very carefully. It's now absolutely getting dragged into the middle of this. And, you know, As your previous guest said, people are canceling Disney's app in protest. I think the other very important stakeholders for them are Hollywood's creative community. And, you know, I think a lot of those folks probably aren't sticking their heads above the paraprook right now. But, I mean, Disney is bidding against its competitors for the, you know, hottest actors, directors, writers, things like that. And I'm sure right now are fielding calls from all those people and their agents who are curious about this. All right.

Semaphores, Ben Smith. Thank you very much for coming in. We're going to have to get Gene's take on all of this after a break and more from Ann Applebaum. Also ahead on Morning Joe, we'll bring you the latest on the House Oversight Committee's investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case. As the prosecutor who negotiated the convicted sex offender's so-called sweetheart deal is set to testify today. Plus, we're just days away from a potential government shutdown. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries will join with reaction to the Republican Party's plan to pass a short-term funding measure. And a reminder that the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. sayers may argue that this administration's speech concerns are merely a cynical ploy, a thin gruel of a ruse, a smokescreen to obscure an unprecedented consolidation of power and unitary intimidation, principled and coldly antithetical to any experiment in a constitutional

republic governance. Some people would say that. Not me, though. I think it's great. Oh, my God, Gene, it's too much. It's too much. I know. You and me, we've been around. We're a bit older. You may have a different opinion than me, but it just seems to me, and I'm just curious, it just seems to me that this is whack-a-mole for the Trump administration.

They get rid of cold bear. They get something far worse. I can't even repeat what they get every week on South Park. They get something harsher and blutter and more popular. And now you have John Stewart doing this when, you know, and it's going to be nonstop. It's going to be from other parts of popular culture. This is not going to rest. Nobody wants to see the federal government, other than Donald Trump and the most intense mag of minions.

But nobody wants to see the FCC, as the Wall Street Journal said. Well, let me have them say it so people don't think it's my words. Talking about, we can do this the easy way or the hard way, Mr. Carr told a podcaster, who I believe got some money from Russia, in words that could have been uttered by a New Jersey mob boss. That's going to turn off most Americans. So it just seems to me this is at the end of the day, short side, because he's just going to get it from elsewhere. and it's going to, like South Park, it's going to be even more intense. Well, Joe, I certainly hope that's true.

I hope this is whack-a-mole, and I hope that, because this is what would have happened in the past, of course, and you would have seen a thousand flowers bloom, right, of that sort of rhetoric. What's different this time to me, at least, and is something that you just mentioned that And Applebaum highlighted, which is this is government coercion. This is the head of the FCC, Brendan Carr, saying we can do this the easy way or the hard way, a mobster-like threat against ABC's affiliates, more directly, but by extension against ABC itself. That is something I don't recall seeing it, and I think that's something beyond cancel culture. That's government or an attempt at government censorship.

And it is all because, as President Trump said, on Air Force One, they're all against me. And he doesn't like being criticized and made fun of every night by the late-night comedians. Now, he didn't mention one other late-night comedian, Greg Gutfeld, who goes on Fox every night and praises him. in an almost Kim Jong-un kind of manner. And so, you know, but leaving that aside, we know how Thinskin the president can be, using government power and coercion in that way, holding the mergers and other business deals,

essentially over the heads of these companies, extorting money from, you know, 18 million from ABC and $16 million from CBS in previous deals. This is new to me, and it's more than worrying. I think it's, you know, I think we should be alarmed. Oh, yeah. And this sounds so much like what you wrote about, I don't know, five, six, seven years ago in Twilight of Democracy when you're talking about what was happening in Poland. You would have, I don't remember, maybe it was a trucking company or somebody that was buying up all the newspapers and they're buying it up so they'd be all pro law and justice party. In this case, it seems to me the leverage point comes from

these massive multinational corporations that also happen to own media. And so if the president and his administration has power over their other businesses, right, that's the leverage point. You're not seeing this being done to the Atlantic. You're not really seeing this being done to the New York Times. They're suing the New York Times, but New York Times is not owned by a cheese multinational conglomerate. It's just the New York Times, so they're going to be fine. Is it when these massive media companies that Donald Trump and his administration can impact their overarching businesses? Is that when they're particularly vulnerable to this sort of intention?

intimidation. Yeah, no, it's a good article. I mean, it's a good case for antitrust. Any company that is that large has some kind of dealings with the federal government. It has some kind of regulatory relationship or trade relationship or something. And any of those companies immediately become vulnerable. And again, that's an American problem, but it's also, you can see it in other places. You can see it in Europe.

You can see it in Russia. And I think it's also important to remember why is this happening? So what's the end game? The end game is to win an election. So the end game is to change the national conversation, to change the media landscape, maybe to change the landscape in other ways. I mean, there's also, you know,

there may be pressure on states to turn over their voter rolls, so that's actually happening already. There's the gerrymandering attempts as well. So the game is to make sure that this particular group of coastal elites, as they like to call other people, stays in power. So it's not just about the media and it's not just about control. It's about holding power in the long term, and they know that controlling the conversation is a part of that.

Staff writer for the Atlantic and Applebaum. Thank you so much. Her book Autocracy Inc. is available now in paperback, and you're at the Atlantic Festival, very active there today. I'm looking forward to seeing that. And thank you for being on the show this morning. Thank you. Coming up, another look at the stories making headlines this morning, including the new guidance on a childhood vaccine from an RFK Jr.-backed CDC panel. We'll explain their decision next on morning, Joe. Look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s handpicked advisory panel to the CDC yesterday voted against vaccinating young children with a combination shot that protects against measles, mumps, rubella, and chicken pox.

The new guidance suggests it should not be recommended for children under the age of four because of a small risk of seizures. Doctors say those seizures can be prompted by fevers associated with viruses or sometimes vaccines. They usually last for a few minutes and are generally harmless. But yesterday's decision is unlikely to have widespread consequences because doctors have known about the risks in young children for years. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the president to immediately fire federal reserve board member Lisa Cook. In a court filing yesterday, the Solicitor General argued a lower court's ruling that blocked the firing constituted, quote, improper judicial interference. Trump is trying to use a provision that allows board members to be removed for cause,

pointing to mortgage fraud allegations made by federal housing finance agency director Bill Pulte. Cook has not been charged with any crime and has denied the allegations. And in just hours, the man behind Jeffrey Epstein's so-called sweetheart deal is set to testify before the House Oversight Committee. Former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta will take questions behind closed doors as part of House panel's investigation into the deceased sex offender. Back in 2008, Acosta served as the U.S. attorney in Florida and approved a secret non-prosecution agreement that shielded Epstein from any federal charges. As part of that deal, Epstein pleaded guilty to state charges. involving just one underage victim.

He served 13 months in jail with work, release privileges. Let's bring in MSNBC legal correspondent and former litigator, Lisa Rubin. What else happened beyond that? Epstein serving 13 months with Alex Acosta's career, and what questions are you hoping to hear answered in the hearing today? Well, Mika, as we all know, Alex Acosta was Trump's original choice in his first term to be Labor Secretary. He didn't survive for very long because of revived questions about his tenure as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. It was in November of

2018 that Julie K. Brown at the Miami Herald first published a three-part series about that sweetheart deal and about the questions that victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein still had, including the fact that they had been walled off from this non-prosecution agreement. But in terms of questions that members of House oversight might have, for Alex Acosta. Look, these were events that happened 18 years ago. Alex Acosta gave a transcribed interview to the Department of Justice five plus years ago when they were investigating him and four other members of his office to see whether they committed professional misconduct or ethical violations in bringing to bear this sweetheart deal. Theoretically, his memory today is going to be

worse than it was five years ago. So one of the things I would want to know if I were a member of the House Oversight Committee is what Alex Acosta says, says today and how it compares to what he said five years ago. And there's no evidence yet that the members of the House Oversight Committee have the transcript of that interview even in their possession. If that's the case, then today's interview might be as of much utility as Galane Maxwell's interview with Todd Blanche. That's not to compare Alex Acosta to Galane Maxwell. I want to be really clear that the Office of Professional Responsibility at the Department of Justice concluded Alex Acosta did not commit professional misconduct, that he was within his

rights exercising his authority as the U.S. attorney to come to this agreement. But what they did say is that he exercised terrible judgment. And I want to zoom out, if I can for a second. When Alex Acosta became the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, he was 36 years old. He had had a number of really impressive positions in the Department of Justice and in government, but one thing he had never been is a line prosecutor. He had never been involved in criminal prosecutions. He had served, for example, in the Civil Rights Division of justice. He had completed a clerkship at a federal appeals court. He had worked at Kirkland and Ellis for 18 months, but he had never before worked in a U.S. Attorney's Office, and he was

ill-equipped to be the person overseeing this. I would submit to you that we are living through a time right now where the consequences of having people at U.S. Attorney's offices who are more distinguishable for their loyalty than for their experience in criminal prosecutor's offices, We are seeing those consequences come to fruition every day, and that will be instructive, I think, in this interview. So that's such a great point, and it's such a great warning for us today when you look at all the inexperienced people that are being placed all over government based not on competence, based not on knowledge, based not on skills, but based solely on loyalty. I will say in this case, though, even an inexperienced young attorney had to know that he was doing something wrong. I'm not saying he did know, but it would be very, it would be shocking for Alex Acosta, even a 36-year-old prosecutor, to not know that you don't make deals with a sex offender without notifying those young girls. girls who he abused sexually, who he was making this plea deal for. Also, that there would be a deal

that would get rid of state charges, despite the fact he was on the federal side and would allow Epstein to walk in and out of his business day in and day out. And one other thing that I think we're still actually paying for today if we want to get to the bottom of this, giving Epstein the room to destroy any video evidence, any audio evidence, any pictures, any evidence, all of his crimes. And that's exactly what he did. So I don't understand how even a young, inexperienced prosecutor could have made all of these mistakes. Well, and I would submit to you, Joe, that there's one other fundamental mistake, which is seeing these crimes as crimes of prostitution as opposed to trafficking.

You know, we heard from a number of the survivors at a press conference on the Hill about a couple of weeks ago, and one of them was a woman named Haley Robson who said her life had been destroyed because in the past, she had been described as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, a person principally responsible for the person. of other. And Haley Robson really challenged us to think about her differently, that she was someone who herself had been trafficked, manipulated and controlled by Jeffrey Epstein, and induced and coerced to bring to him sort of a never-ending supply of other young girls. Alex Acosta bought into a narrative where someone like Haley Robson was seen as a teenage

prostitute, a willing participant, and really what was her own victimization, as opposed to seeing this for what it was, a sex trafficking ring in which, as Haley Robson. attorney has described it, Jeffrey Epstein was principally his own pimp and John at the same time. And so that framing of these issues, and I hope we've come a long way since 2007 and 2008, really led to the construct of that non-prosecution agreement that allowed Jeffrey Epstein not only to evade responsibility and participate in a work release program and destroy evidence, as you said, but also led to this narrowing of the investigation itself and a blaming of the victims. of the reasons Alex Acosta told the Department of Justice that he sought this non-prosecution

agreement was because he thought that the victims themselves had credibility issues. Why did he think that? Because he was seeing them as prostitutes and not as victims. MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin. Thank you very much. And you can check out Lisa's show. Can they do that on MSNBC's YouTube channel? Thanks very much, Lisa. It's picked off at about the 20-yard line. Terlin Bernard with the huge interception. A back-breaking interception thrown by the Dolphins quarterback, Tua in the fourth quarter. Stops a potential game-tying drive from Miami with three minutes to play last night.

And Albin secures a 31-21 victory for the undefeated Buffalo Bills. Bill's quarterback Josh Allen threw three touchdown passes in the game. Running back James Cook rushed for a score and Buffalo extended its long run of dominance over the AMC East rival Dolphins having now won 14 of their last 15 meetings and seven in a row including playoffs. With us now, the host of Pablo Tori finds out on Metal Arc Media, MSNBC contributor Pablo Tori and senior writer for ESPN, Sir Seth Wicasham. We'll be with you in a second, Seth. He is the author of the new book titled American King's A Biography of Quarterback. We're going to get that a moment. We're also going to ask why he picked two younger quarterbacks who I would have shorted in Caleb Williams and Arch Manning,

a man who had more commercials in the first quarter of the Ohio State game than he had completions. But we'll get to that in a second, Sir Seth. So what? What, Pablo? Pablo. What do the Miami Dolphins do? Let's just take it straight out of the sound of the music. What do you do with a problem like Tua? Yeah. What do you do? I love the guy. He was one of our own. He was, you know, I mean, none other than Nick Saban said he was one of his favorite players ever. But I'm just wondering, are we still feeling the effects of those

47 concussions. Will he never be the same again? Well, the bills are, of course, a protagonist in that story of trauma. The bills were a team that one of those concussions happened against. This game, though, to me, if I may return us to a new thing that you have debuted, which I am forced to participate in, despite not participating in it, the Morning Joe NFL power rankings. The bills are locked out in the room. You are locked out of the room until you come into that room dressed like Sinatra you got to be wearing you got to be wearing a tuxedo that looks like you've slept in at three days you need a top hat in there side kick like you know no no no we're going to get you into the

the the Marriott Marquis maybe next week but go ahead let's go back to the power rankings yeah yeah the bills the bills are I mean look the story of this game is oh yeah The Bills are a team that's won, I think, 13 straight home games dating back to last year. They are deserving of, I would even argue, more than the third spot in your power rankings. TWA, by contrast, Tua by contrast, the thing that he should worry about is whether his head coach is going to be around for that much longer. Mike McDaniel, who was also one of my favorite characters in the NFL for reasons that are probably too expansive to get into here, reads books to completion and seems to enjoy them. That is a funny characteristic that I really do enjoy about him.

He's smart, strategic and offensive whiz has been struggling. And that sort of system, that offense is currently on the brink in a really bad way. Yeah. You know, Seth, Harvard boys actually like football coaches that read books to completion. I just like coaches who win. And right now, that ain't happening in Miami. What's the problem down there? Well, I think that, like, when you look at, I mean, look, Mike McDaniel is definitely on the ropes.

There's no question about that. But I will say this, is that, like, that team last night did not look like a team that had given up on its coach, right? I mean, look, the Buffalo Bills might be the best team in the AFC. Let's see, the problem with the bills is, like, everything is prelude until January, right? I mean, nothing really matters until they face Patrick Mahomes in the playoffs and they see if they can get past him. But when you watch the Dolphins last night, I mean, look, there was a roughing the punter penalty. it really changed the game as much as to his interception. And I think that, like, when you look at that team,

they were playing hard for their coach. And it would surprise me unless they really go off the rails if they make a change in the season. All right, so Pablo, look at the power rankings. We can put them back up there. This is, as you can tell, we're trying to make this happen. The Packers, number one, they obviously looked very impressive in their first two weeks.

You know, the Eagles defending champs also, like they kind of ground out a couple of. the wins so far, including that sort of uninspiring, but still nice win in Kansas City. You can't demean that. So talk to us about those top two who right now seem like the class of the NFC, you know, especially in which news out of Washington that Jaden Daniels hampered with a bad name. Yeah, I mean, we will, I guess, naturally segue to the question of the quarterback with sitting here, but Jordan Love, right?

Every team focuses. They spend millions of dollars to figure out a single, entity who can be the turning point for a billion dollar asset. And is Jordan Love the guy? Jordan Love coming after Aaron Rogers. Jordan Love doing stuff like this. Yeah, it feels like optimism is a rational case to make for why you should feel amazing, as of course one of the top two teams

in the morning Joe power rankings as decided by various former secretaries of the Treasury and or economic advisors and or allied NATO commanders, but not the the sports guy you bring on in the morning. So, no, no, you're using a bowl. No, you have three members of the Trilateral Commission, some of the Bilgaberg, people that meet there. We have a couple of ex-members of the Fed.

I can't give their names, but yeah, there are a group of people that do come together. I want to say, though, Pablo, let's talk about, though, what wins Super Bowl's traditionally. What went Super Bowl's traditionally, you'll have a pretty good quarterback, pretty good offense, and a great defense. Seems to me right now, that's what the Packers have.

Jordan Love had good numbers the other night, missed quite a few opportunities. I know I was at Lambo because we always send one member to the site in case. But anyway, so I was at Lambo the other night. He missed some opportunities. He did not look like the greatest quarterback ever, but put up good, solid numbers. But that defense, man, that defense like that can win a super.

Yeah, look, the new cliche, which is also a truism, is you got to win in the trenches. And we saw that in the Super Bowl. We see that every time the Holmes gets bailed out by his supporting cast. That tends to be the defense lately. The Eagles, of course, were engineered from the trenches out and up. And so the Packers, in terms of them having this real sustainability, you need the quarterback. The quarterback is going to be the person, as we always say, on the fight poster, the heavyweight

fight poster versus who is it? It's Jordan Love. but really the defense, to your point, is going to be the thing that carries them. And that's less of a football nerd take and more something that's certainly noticeable when you watch the Super Bowl. But yet, quarterbacks have never been more important in the league.

We have charted how the rise of the NFL has become the dominant sports culture here in the United States, and quarterbacks have become that much more important. And we see it in the salary cap. They're getting astronomical percentage of a team's allotment goes to that one position. Seth, so you dove in. You trace this sort of why makes a quarterback

great. You look at a lot of the legends. Obviously, we know who number one is, Mr. Brady. But beyond that, some of the younger players as well. So talk to us about the journey of this book. Yeah, thanks. Look, what I was trying to do with the book was trying to understand, look, this job has become so celebrated, so mythologized, so idealized in our culture, and I wanted to understand the things that it builds in these guys who do it, what it strips away. I mean, there are 16,000 high school quarterbacks in any given year in America. about 1,000 play at the highest level in college, 32 start in the NFL, 10 are good, and three are great. And what does it take to survive that winnowing? So I tried to look at guys

from high school to college to the NFL, and then the guys who were in the Hall of Fame and have to retire and live with having done this for the rest of their life. I wanted to understand what that was like. Let's talk about the money, though. I mean, you have people like DAC, you have people like Daniel Jones even, Brock Purdy, just getting astronomical paydays. Do you think we've been had an overcompensation to that area and maybe it's going to start drawing back some? No, I actually think you could, I mean, look, if Patrick Mahomes, I forget what exactly his contract is, probably you might remember, but like you can make the argument that he's undervalued given, you know, what he means to that team. And I think that like

the salaries keep rising, but so does the salary cap in the NFL because the league is so popular and because of the broadcast rights keep going up. And so I think that like even though these numbers that quarterbacks get are stunning, and even quarterbacks who are good but not great are stunning, I don't see that stopping anytime soon. You know, I've, Seth, I've already mocked and ridiculed Pablo for picking Caleb Williams after hearing me say from the day, He said from the day he was drafted, saying from the day he was drafted that he was never going to rise to the level that the bears expected him to. But you picked him as a guy you wanted to follow. It seems like a wonderful guy from everything I've seen.

But do you think he's up to it? Do you think he can lead the bears to great new heights? We'll see. I think that he has a chance now. That's what I would say. And the reason why I followed him is because he was one of those guys that came around. had incredible accolades coming out of college and he and his dad like John and Jack Elway and like Archie and Eli Manning wanted to try to find a way to do a very

reasonable thing and that's have some agency over their future employer and the question for him was do I want to blow up the draft to have a chance to go to a better team and even though he decided not to you and I get into the details why he went to a tough situation last year and like every premonition was realized and I think that like look he's got a good head coach and Ben Johnson, whose success is rooted in his own success, and I think that he has a chance to be good. But this stuff is going to take time. But I will say, like, so far this year, not only are they not producing, but he just doesn't look comfortable. He doesn't look like a guy

who's out there with a lot of confidence. No, good job, Pablo. I mean, look, my fantasy team, if we want to get a graphic for that, I'm happy to provide data and analytics on that, you know, Fantasy League power rankings are also very important to me. Wow. Okay. To you. All right, senior writer for ESPN, Seth Wickersham, thank you very much. His new book entitled American Kings, The Biography of the Quarterback is available now. It's great to have you on. Thank you. Congratulations. And you, Pablo. Mika, the pleasure as always is mine, as much as it is in the position on you.

Why don't you, why don't you stick around? You know what? I don't know if I have a choice at this point.