> “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who m**dered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

I think “as anything other than one of them” could be interpreted that way…maybe.

Two points:

1. There are a lot of times that Trump says things that people take for granted that what he meant was... but that isn't strictly what he said. It seems to me that maybe 60% of the time, what people are up in arms about are things they're sure he meant, but strictly speaking he didn't actually say.

Look, I'm not a Trump apologist. But if you're going to condemn Trump for what it sure looks like he's saying (but he technically didn't quite say), then don't be surprised when other people get condemned by the same standard.

2. If I understand correctly, the shooter's family was fairly conservative. So the right's reaction of "no, he was left" was, at the time, a baseless deflection of baseless accusations.

At this point his political views are still not clear. You can be pro-trans and pro-Trump at the same time. See: Caitlyn Jenner, who supported Trump in the 2024 election.

Even more so given that all of this pinning on extreme-left groups started before they even found Tyler Robinson and that they did the same in Minnesota a few months ago. I think it's basically accurate: they are desperately trying to characterise it on anyone but their own, and have no regards for any facts. Even if Robinson really is far-left in every way (certainly a realistic possibility), they will be "correct" merely by accident in hindsight.

> Evidence of his actual political affiliation has come out?

Yes, assuming Spencer Cox, Utah law enforcement etc. are not lying.

He is said to have been in a relationship with an MtF partner, and to have communicated repeatedly with that partner, showing sympathy for LGBTQ issues in general, alluding to being part of a left-wing support community, and describing Kirk as a "fascist" and "hateful". His mother has stated that he has shifted towards left-wing politics recently, specifically as regards LGBTQ issues. Much was made initially of his "MAGA" father — who turned him in, and there is much evidence of political disagreement between the two (including in the above-mentioned communications). Cox asserted the suspect to be a leftist in an interview with Meet the Press on the 14th (https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/utah-gov-spence...).

He is a comedian, he can make fun of whomever he wants, on TV.

"Bias" is biased here. There's no reason that jokes should be 50-50% in favor of however political parties are configured. It's entirely possible (and currently the case) that one side of the political aisle is worse and more deserving of ridicule.

And? He is comedian that runs a late night show.

Why do we hold women and comedians to some sort of high standard but there is a whole montage of right wing grifters actively calling for liberal lives?

And it wasn't even a joke, it was a statement about what was going on. It isn't even about what he said, or even Kimmel. Unless he wasn't slathering all over the fake mythos of white washing this Kimmels racist, bigoted hateful grift, the right was going to go after him for literally anything.

Kimmel's crime is laughing at Trump and pointing out his brain dead hypocrisy.

This is it, the whole thing. https://youtu.be/U6NJJ0FcvYY?t=252

[flagged]

For further context, he said that the right was doing everything in their power to portray him as anything but one of them. I.e. in the absence of evidence they were attempting to pin the blame on the left.

You are correct, and it's important that we don't continue the game of telephone that seems to be destroying this country.

"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 with everything they can to score political points from it."

This was his exact quote and he's 100% right. The entire admin had called out the "Radical left" as the perpetrators before we even had a photo of the shooter. Can we please go back towards the reality where we actually read and understand the words being said instead of having them all parroted to us by media headlines?

True, but I guess I could see how people hearing it might read it that way. The general debate was between the shooter being a left winger or a right winger. He said they were wrong about him not being a right winger.

The US constitution generally protects the right to make false statements, intentionally or not, in all but a few situations.

You can say basically whatever you want in the United States, with few exceptions.

‘Inciting imminent lawlessness’ aka starting a riot is not protected speech, making threats against the US President is also illegal. There might be other items of speech that are forbidden that I am not remembering.

You can be sued for defamation, but it’s very hard to prove as you must prove the speaker knew what they were saying was false, which is hard to prove.

But lies? You can lie all you want as a private citizen and the government cannot stop you.

That's not how law works in most places. Even in most European countries with more expansive defamation laws merely saying false things as such is not against the law. And it wasn't really defaming anyone, so none of that applies in the first place.