Ask A Genius 1539: Trump, Antifa, Fires, and Kimmel
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/09
Trump asks conservative allies for names of Antifa activists and backers. What are your thoughts on this request?
In this conversation, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect several pressing issues: former President Donald Trump’s request for conservative allies to expose Antifa supporters, the tragic California Palisades fire linked to an arsonist, and the controversy surrounding Jimmy Kimmel’s remarks about Charlie Kirk. Rosner underscores that Antifa is not an organized group but rather a political stance against autocracy, making Trump’s request absurd. The discussion then shifts to the troubling trend of disturbed young men committing violent acts, before exploring Kimmel’s defence of his comments and the solidarity among late-night hosts like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Trump asks conservative allies for names of Antifa activists and also Antifa backers. What are your thoughts on this request? U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday promised to take, quote, “very threatening” steps against Antifa. He asked right-wing media allies to help identify backers of the movement.
Rick Rosner: Identify what of the movement?
Jacobsen: Backers. Not just the people involved, but also those who would support it.
Rosner: How would right-wing media even know this? Antifa is not an organized movement. It is an adjective.
Jacobsen: And he has asked the federal government to treat it as a terrorist organization.
Rosner: It is not an organization, as we have discussed before. It is a political stance—it is being against Trump and autocracy. You could say that includes many people who are against Trump, such as those who protest, but it still does not constitute an organized movement. It is more nonsense from the bullshitter-in-chief. Rotten tomatoes. Everything Trump does is intended to distract from his other actions.
Jacobsen: We have a news item apart from Trump here. This was pointed out to me by another journalist. I wasn’t aware of it until about two hours ago. A man was arrested in Florida on charges of intentionally igniting what would become California’s devastating fire.
Rosner: This deranged man set a fire.
Jacobsen: Are you noticing a pattern on a larger point—the pattern of deranged adult men?
Rosner: Yes, it’s not solely white men, but it’s mostly men, or at least people born male, in the case of one or two trans individuals.
Jacobsen: And they’re generally in the first half of life.
Rosner: You mean under 50?
Jacobsen: Under 40 in America.
Rosner: Okay. They’re generally white, but the U.S. is still a majority white country. You’d have to do a more sophisticated statistical analysis to see if there’s racial overrepresentation. But probably so. It’s primarily likely white men, given that the U.S. is a majority white country. This guy set a fire on January 1st, called in the fire, and then acted suspiciously around it, offering to help put it out. They put it out, noted the suspicious behaviour, but six days later, it flared up again and became the Palisades fire, also known as the Malibu fire.
Jacobsen: Is he guilty of murder now?
Rosner: Twelve people died in that fire, so I assume they will charge him with murder. Among the evidence against him are an AI graphic he generated and a series of images showing the world on the left burning and the world on the right not burning. It was also noted that he was an Uber driver and lived close to where the fire started. I’m sure we’ll hear much more as he goes on trial. Does he deserve to be prosecuted for murder? I don’t know. It’s tricky. He set a fire, they put it out, but it smouldered for six days and erupted again.
It was that second eruption that killed twelve people. It seems at least like manslaughter. I would assume—well, I don’tknow. The fire also burned thousands of homes and caused billions of dollars in damage. I don’t know if they’ll offer him a plea deal. I was thinking this morning about how many years in prison he deserves, both as punishment and as a deterrent for others, though deterrence rarely works for disturbed people. I think if they offered a plea deal, it should be no less than twenty years and possibly as much as life in prison. He’s a sad individual, but that doesn’t excuse him.
The insanity defence hasn’t excused crimes of this magnitude for decades. That seems like something from a 1960s lawyer show plot.
Jacobsen: Next item. This is back to home base for you. Jimmy Kimmel has described the critics’ interpretation of his Charlie Kirk remarks as “maliciously mischaracterized.” Kimmel stated, “I didn’t think there was a big problem. I just saw it as a distortion on the part of some of the right-wing media networks, and I aimed to correct it.”
Rosner: I’ve thought about this quite a bit. His comment was something like: after the murder, MAGA and MAGA pundits spent the weekend— I think the murder happened on a Thursday or Friday—denying that the killer was part of MAGA. And that is accurate, because that’s what the right-wing did.
They spent the weekend denying it. There was some indication that the killer might have been MAGA, and in those early days, MAGA voices vehemently denied it. By denying it, though, you imply that he was MAGA. You don’t issue denials unless there’s an implication. And at that point, there were a lot of indicators he was MAGA. We haven’t heard much in the last couple of weeks. There’s been no new information. But soon after, it looked like he had a trans girlfriend and was angry at Charlie Kirk’s transphobic stance.
Kimmel, I think—and I can’t speak for him—believes there was nothing wrong with what he said. He thinks he accurately described the situation: MAGA was denying that the murderer was MAGA. He would have provided any further clarification in his Wednesday show, given that he made the initial comment on Monday. There was no uproar by Tuesday’s show, since most people heard it and thought it was fine. But late Tuesday into Wednesday, the New York Times ran a story on it.
A dozen right-wing influencer rabble-rousers pushed the idea that Kimmel had gone on TV and said the killer was MAGA, which he hadn’t. He implied it at a time when there was evidence suggesting the guy was. So the rabble-rousers got outraged, ginned up late Tuesday and into Wednesday. By Wednesday afternoon, just a couple of hours before the show was due to tape, Sinclair and Nextstar—two major affiliate groups—announced they wouldn’t air Kimmel. They pulled him from the air, forcing ABC to stop the taping of the Wednesday show. Kimmel was annoyed, based on what I’ve read and what you just mentioned, because MAGA figures kept insisting he had accused the killer of being MAGA, when the point of his sentence was about MAGA pundits’ behaviour, not the killer’s affiliations. They were willfully leaning on implication.
Kimmel was frustrated because there had been no uproar at first, and then 24 hours later, right-wing rabble-rousers created one. Most people didn’t know what he had actually said, only what the pundits told them. So, it’s clear why Kimmel would be annoyed by the nonsense, especially after there was no initial backlash. Does that make sense? I find it a reasonable stance, but ABC worried about what he was going to say next. I guess they read his prepared remarks for Wednesday’s show and thought he might double down: “I didn’t say the guy was MAGA, I said MAGA spent the weekend denying it.” He might have clarified that, but probably not too much—it’s hard to get humour out of it, and the whole thing gets tangled. ABC decided the comments weren’t apologetic, just explanatory. And ABC, pushed by its affiliates, backed off. Sinclair in particular is notorious for misrepresenting the news, and they’re heavily MAGA. So, there you go. Kimmel didn’t feel an apology was needed. He thought clarification was fine, but ABC wanted contrition. And I think Kimmel is a stickler for accuracy.
One thing that’s become clear from the Kimmel and Colbert situation is that the late-night hosts are genuinely friends. Many of them even share the same agent, James “Babydoll” Dixon—an eccentric and beloved character in the industry. Beyond the business ties, their camaraderie speaks to their decency as people.
There was a time when late-night television was brutally divided between Leno and Letterman. Eventually, things calmed down, but the rivalry was intense for years. Both Leno and Letterman are good people, but now you’ve got this friend group among the late-night hosts—Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Jimmy Fallon. They all know and like each other. Some even go on fishing trips together. I believe that says something about their decency.
Jon Stewart, for example, has done extraordinary work for veterans and for people who became ill from exposure to the wreckage of the Twin Towers after 9/11. He’s been their advocate for decades. That makes him almost a secular saint—he started as a stand-up comedian and became a fierce, knowledgeable advocate for people who were being mistreated.
Kimmel, for his part, brought the San Gennaro Festival from New York to Los Angeles. The San Gennaro Festival is an annual street fair in Little Italy in Manhattan, with food, carnival games, entertainment, parades, and Catholic processions. It raises a lot of money for the church. Kimmel thought, “Why not bring this to the West Coast?” So he established the festival in L.A. as both a charitable enterprise and a community celebration.
To me, that shows his goodness—not only as a Christian but as a person. He’s also used his platform to support children’s hospitals and health coverage for kids and families. These are good people, and yet the political right attacks them relentlessly, even though their work reflects generosity and integrity.
These good Christians should be welcomed, because MAGA is a Christian movement. MAGAs are Christians, and that they would try to cancel these people—just because they make fun of Trump, which is their job—is bullshit.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 