It wasn't one of them. The implication of the statement was pretty clear. I'm twitchy about this because my TL and all the spaces I talk about politics in were lit up with people trying to find some combination of tea leaves indicating Robinson was a Nick Fuentes follower. I was personally convinced the shooter would be ideologically illegible, like the Minnesota shooter --- another "O9A" case. I was wrong. So was Kimmel.

And there was just no reason for him to be! I was mouthing off on local politics boards and in Slack channels; there were no consequences. Kimmel went out on that limb on broadcast television. It's a dying medium, but it's still a bigger deal than saying it privately.

Again: none of this is to say that he deserved the outcome he got. Though, I've said this before and will repeat it: the administration probably did us a huge favor here, shifting the narrative from the Kirk shooting to Kimmel's censorship.

> he didn't speak on the motives of the shooter only on magas insistence he wasn't maga. He didn't say he was maga, merely focused on the performative finger pointing of Republicans

The only thing that could have validated such finger pointing is a belief that the shooter actually was "maga". In the absence of such a belief, to say that "maga" was disavowing the shooter is not an accusation of wrongdoing. But the claim was prefaced with an assertion that "we hit a new low" in the form of this disavowal; therefore Kimmel did see it as an accusation of wrongdoing.

I don't think he "is", present tense, and implying continuity, "pushing misinformation". I think he's an entertainer with basically my politics and a pretty good writing staff, and I think he made a mistake common at that moment to people with my politics. I don't find it disqualifying. But it was not, in and of itself, good.