SectionC3

Still no rule. Probably because you don’t even know what it is. Black face is bad, for sure. But did it happen on air? That’s the issue here.

No, you didn't. You posted an advisory. Go in the CFR (assuming you know what that is) and find the rule(s). Have at it.

Let's not forget Barack the Magic *****. That's another one from the greatest hits. No FCC involvement there.

At this juncture, that's not provable. And define "radicalized." Maybe he was radicalized by listening to nonsense at his parents' house. The whole thing is absurd. I don't really care that ABC got rid of Kimmel. I care that the friggin FCC threatened the license over something like this. It's asinine. I'm glad you mentioned Rush. He said a lot of nasty stuff. "Feminazi" seems to ring a bell. But nobody went after the licenses of the affiliates like this.

Nothing that you highlighted is an insult. Keep looking for those FCC rules. This is really bad. That's my thought. Really, really bad.

About the various infirmities? The best friends you have are the ones who are honest with you.

Ha! "Pushing a narrative." Another MAGA trope. Find the rule and perform the analysis. Until then, you're just bloviating. You know why they suspended the guy? Because it's cheaper and easier than fighting the President of the United States leveraging the powers of government to interfere with this business. If you can't recognize how dangerous this is, then I'm sorry for you. Hoax. You like to insult people, and I just remind you of your various infirmities. Context is bit different. FCC = leveraged against ABC. $788 million verdict = problem for Tucker's employer.

How is this a truth nuke? This is, how shall I put this, obvious to anyone with any involvement in the biz. The question is whether the FCC is following its own rules in what I understand to be the threat of license revocation. Using the Charlie Kirk model, prove me wrong. It's not unique. Another instance in which you're wrong.

What's the premise behind lead in? People don't change the channel. Same concept applies to the night shows. Face it, you got schooled. At least this time you didn't rely on insults. That's a step in the right direction.

That's a consumer guide. Not a rule. Keep trying. And even if it represents the rule, good luck meeting those elements. Did Kimmel know the info to be false? Hardly. Nobody really knows right now. And what's the public harm? Beats me. So how could that harm be substantial? Good luck with that one counselor. Then let's take it a step further. Say, in this bizzaro world of 2025 that the elements are met, what's the remedy? Can you put a finger on that one? I'm gonna take a whack a this and say it is patently absurd to conclude that this violation would result in forfeiture of a license/licenses.

Wrong. All the way around. Nice insults, by the way. You can always tell who has lost the argument when the insults arrive on scene.

Tell me the rules if it's so easy. Put your finger on it. I'm all ears. And then get to the rule in which making an unkind political remark should threaten the license. Normally, and I realize you're versed in such matters, such as thing might result in a fine. If that. But stripping the license? Woof. Big leap. So let's see the rule. Typical hyperbole. Nobody said "entire." But it helps. It's a good lead in. Again, you got schooled, you're out of your depth, and you gotta resort to insults.

Cool. What about the rules? Or is that not something that you're capable of finding on your own? Yeah no. You got schooled so you started with the insults. On brand for you.

Nope. You're out of your depth. Channel left on ABC at night turns on to ABC in the morning. And they see the promos for ABC morning programming on ABC at night. Maybe cable providers can place it right next to Trump's show on the Epstein Network. Based on what you've put forth here, that's a hoax. Are you the guy who is supposed to be looking for those FCC rules that were violated by Kimmel? How's that coming?

GMA.