#seeb.s.

Let’s make this clip be the most popular Stephen Colbert clip ever.

Christina Lorey 

“You know you know who is not one of my guests tonight? That’s Texas State Representative James Talarico,” Colbert started off. “He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers who called us directly that we could not have him on the broadcast. Then I was told in some uncertain terms that, not only could I not have him on, I could not mention me not having him on. And because my network clearly doesn’t want us to talk about this, let’s talk about this.”

He continued: “So, you’ve you might have heard of this thing called the equal time rule. It’s an old FCC rule that applies only to radio and broadcast television, not cable or streaming, that says if a show has a candidate on during an election, they have to have all that candidates’ opponents on as well. It’s the FCC’s most time honored rule right after no nipples at the Super Bowl.”

As Colbert continued, he explained that there has “long been an exception for this rule,” especially for talk show interviews with politicians.

“But on January 21st of this year, a letter was released by FCC chairman and smug bowling pin Brendan Carr,” Colbert added. “In this letter, Carr said he was thinking about dropping the exception for talk shows because he said some of them were motivated by partisan purposes. Well, sir, you’re chairman of the FCC. So, FCCU, because I think you are motivated by partisan purposes yourself, sir. Hey, you smelt it cuz you dealt it.”

Colbert then pivoted to Trump and his censorship quest: “He’s like a toddler with too much screen time. He gets cranky and then drops a load in his diapers. So, it’s no surprise that two of the people most affected by this threat are me and my friend Jimmy Kimmel.”

Colbert then said that he still interviewed Talarico, and that the full conversation is on YouTube.

“The network says I can’t give you URL or a QR code, but I promise you if you go to our YouTube page, you’ll find it,” he said.

Don’t be like Anderson Cooper.

February 17, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell

I am en route to Los Angeles from Tennessee as I write, so please consider this a “travel edition” of the newsletter. The title of this newsletter relates to the discussion in Concluding Thoughts.

It might be my imagination, but the news cycle seemed slower on Monday. (Or perhaps members of the media were taking a break for the President’s Day holiday!) Still, the dominant narrative remains Trump’s weakening hold on his base, his party, and his senses. Trump’s ongoing slide is no accident. It is a direct result of the tireless work of millions of Americans who continue to resist his unlawful agenda at every turn.

A case in point is the mounting damage from the release of the “Epstein files.” The legislation that forced the release of the files was the result of tireless work by the victims, key legislators, and millions of Americans who would not let the issue recede from view because of political amnesia or Internet Distraction Disorder.

The second major resignation of a business leader in the US was announced on Monday. See Business Insider, Thomas Pritzker Steps Down As Hyatt Chair After Epstein Fallout. (Thomas Pritzker is the cousin of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.)

Why does Pritzker’s resignation matter? Because in his resignation statement, Pritzker wrote that he “exercised terrible judgment” in maintaining contact with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Hmm . . . Do you know who else exercised “terrible judgment” by “maintaining contact” with Epstein for more than a decade? Donald Trump! The more people who resign, are disciplined, or are fired because of their connections to Epstein, the more difficult it is for Trump to act as though “it’s not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.” (Per Todd Blanche.)

On Monday, Columbia University terminated the employment of one clinical faculty member and the administrative duties of a tenured faculty member in the university’s dental school. The two faculty members facilitated the admission of Jeffrey Epstein’s then-girlfriend to Columbia’s dental school by circumventing the usual admissions procedures. See ABC News, Columbia University removes personnel associated with admitting Epstein’s girlfriend.

Per ABC,

Columbia University says it has “taken action” against two individuals affiliated with its dental school, after recent disclosures by the Justice Department revealed that Jeffrey Epstein’s girlfriend was admitted to the program in 2012 through what Columbia described as an “irregular process.”

The fallout from the release of the files has started a “MAGA civil war” involving Steve Bannon. Texts between Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein in 2019 show that Bannon believed Trump should be removed from office under the provisions of the 25th Amendment (for incapacity). See Daily Beast, MAGA Civil War Erupts Over Secret Plot Against Trump in Epstein Files

Bannon and Epstein were discussing the GOP’s disastrous 2018 midterms when they engaged in the following exchange:

Epstein: He [Trump] really is borderline. Not sure what he may do. Bannon: I think it’s beyond borderline — 25 amendment.

Trump allies like former General Michael Flynn are treating Bannon like a traitor to the MAGA cause. Flynn said,

If Bannon AND Epstein were behind it [the 25th amendment talk], Bannon needs to be brought in for questioning. And he needs to address this and all the other sh!t he was doing on behalf of Epstein.

As expected, the fallout from Trump’s prominent placement in the Epstein files is eroding his support among the MAGA base. Political analyst Sarah Longwell has penned an important piece in The Atlantic, The Disappointment of Young Trump Voters | Americans under 30 swung to the right in 2024, but they’re not getting what they voted for.

I recommend Sarah Longwell’s article in its entirety, which documents a broad-based retrenchment among young Trump voters. She writes, in part,

The slippage [in support for Trump] is especially drastic with young voters. In the 2024 election, a majority of 18-to-29-year-olds voted for Kamala Harris, but compared with 2020, young voters swung hard toward Trump. According to the Cook Political Report, on March 1, 2025, Trump’s net approval rating with these voters was minus 7. Yet by February 1 of this year, it was an astonishing minus 31.8. Now young people are abandoning Trump faster than any other voting bloc.

To recap, between March 25, 2025, and February 1, 2026, Trump’s net approval rating among young people slumped from -7% to -31%.

Longwell’s interviews with young voters confirm that the erosion in Trump’s support is broad-based. But others have documented an “Epstein-specific” effect on support for Trump. See Christian Paz, Vox, Anti-system voters are turning on Trump over Epstein.

Paz writes,

In their latest report of how young men view Trump, they found that of the nine actions they polled, Trump’s opposition to the full release of the Epstein files was the second most unpopular — some 63 percent of young men found it “very concerning.” Some 41 percent of young Republican men found the issue off-putting — their highest area of disagreement with Trump’s position. “The Epstein files are breaking through the deluge of news…and this issue isn’t going anywhere,” Melissa Toufanian, Navigator’s managing director, told me. “For younger voters especially, this doesn’t feel like a typical partisan political fight.

Trump (and Bondi and Blanche) have badly miscalculated their ongoing recalcitrance in releasing the Epstein files. While Trump and his sycophants believe they are “owning the libs” and “playing to their base” by refusing to release the files in the manner mandated by Congress, they are driving away a cohort of voters—young men—who helped propel Trump to a narrow victory in 2024.

The Vox article concludes with a quote by a political analyst who says, “This doesn’t feel like a typical partisan fight.” You can say that again!

I want to share a personal anecdote, acknowledging that there is always a danger of overinterpreting events that happen to you.

Whenever Jill and I travel, we always make a point to attend a local Catholic church for Sunday mass. This week, we are in Tennessee. We located a nearby church and went to mass on Sunday morning. The church and the congregation had several obvious signs of being a pre-Vatican II enclave within a broader church that is inching toward the 21st Century. The details are not important for this anecdote until we get to the sermon.

As expected, the sermon focused on faith as a “rules-based” exercise, which has been out of fashion since the Baltimore Catechism in the 1960s. About 15 minutes into a rules-based sermon, the priest said, “And now we must address the elephant in the room: The Epstein Files.”

Whoa! That was a left turn we were not expecting. The priest went on to condemn the administration for “redacting the names of the powerful men who abused children.” He then urged the parishioners to “call your representatives and Senators, tell them to release the Epstein files in unredacted form.”

There were additional head-spinning comments relating to the Epstein files, but my point is this: In the middle of a conservative town in Tennessee, in a conservative Catholic congregation that is still worshipping in a form recognizable in the 1950s, the priest was visibly angry at the administration for failing to release the files in unredacted form.

If unhappiness about the Epstein files has reached into that small corner of the universe, it is everywhere. Keeping up the pressure is the right and moral course of action—to secure justice for the victims and help deter future perpetrators. But it is also politically toxic for Trump. His ongoing deception and concealment are destroying the coalition that helped Trump eke out a slim margin of victory.

Keep up the good work, everyone!

The ongoing failure of the press during a time of constitutional crisis

One reason that this moment feels so fraught is that major media outlets continue to soft-peddle conduct that threatens constitutional order and the rule of law. Case in point: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is attempting to exact political retribution on Senator Mark Kelly (and five others) for making a video that accurately summarizes a member of the military's duty to refuse illegal orders.

Trump has railed against Kelly and demanded retribution (even suggesting the death penalty). Hegseth has complied by abusing the military justice system to strip Kelly of his retirement rank and pay. That is a gross abuse of process that justifies Hegseth’s impeachment and removal from office, and possible prosecution (if appropriate; I haven’t researched the issue).

Kelly obtained a preliminary injunction against Hegseth’s administrative proceeding to reduce Kelly’s rank and pay. The ruling against Hegseth by US District Judge Leon was stinging. See NBC News, Judge says Pentagon ‘trampled’ on Sen. Mark Kelly’s rights, blocks effort to demote him over ‘illegal orders’ video .

But Hegseth immediately vowed to appeal and mocked Senator Kelly by referring to him as Captain in “air quotes.” See Talking Points Memo, Hegseth Vows to Keep up Kelly Retribution Crusade.

So, I was encouraged to see that the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial with the headline, Judge Leon Educates Pete Hegseth | The military version of lawfare loses in embarrassing fashion. Sounds promising, right? Wrong!

After reciting the facts of Hegseth’s abuse of military justice to further Trump’s campaign of vengeance, I expected a full-throated condemnation of Hegseth’s conduct. Instead, here is the WSJ Editorial Board’s concluding paragraph:

Mr. Trump seems to expect . . . fealty in his deputies, or at least his deputies behave as if they think he does. But as they lose in court, they are doing their reputations no favors.

“They are doing the reputations no favors”—you have got to be kidding me! That is the equivalent of Senator Susan Collins saying she is “concerned” that Brett Kavanaugh lied to her.

Where is the outrage? Where is the defense of the rule of law? Where is any semblance of propriety or shame or balance? If a Democratic Secretary of Defense sought to retroactively reduce the rank and pay of Senator John McCain, the WSJ Editorial Board would have called for summary execution! But for Hegseth, the most they can muster is, “He is doing his reputation no favors.”

Go ahead and yell at me for scanning the WSJ headlines; I deserve it. But it remains one of two national newspapers in the US. Still, the WSJ’s cowardice and stunning lack of concern over Hegseth’s assault on the rule of law is pandemic among the American media.

The collective collapse of the media in the face of an existential threat to democracy makes our efforts to resist Trump’s authoritarianism more difficult. We will win, but it would be nice if we had the backing of a free press that acted as though its existence was at stake. Because it is.

FBI refuses to share information with Minnesota investigators about ICE shootings

The FBI has confirmed that it will not share information with Minnesota investigators relating to the shooting of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents. See The Guardian, FBI won’t share Alex Pretti shooting evidence, Minnesota authorities say | Minnesota ICE shootings.

The refusal to share information is ominous. There is no innocent explanation for the refusal to cooperate. It suggests that federal authorities are involved in a cover-up to protect the agents who killed Alex Pretti.

The situation is even worse with the killing of Renee Good by ICE agents. There is no investigation of the ICE officer who killed Renee Good; instead, the US Attorney’s office in Minneapolis attempted to investigate Renee Good’s widow, at least until a half dozen prosecutors quit that office in protest.

And even worse is the shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis, who survived after being pursued into his home and shot in the leg by ICE agents. The US Attorney’s office charged Sosa Celis with assault, but then dropped the charges when it became clear that the ICE agents lied about the events leading up to the shooting of Sosa-Celis.

One of the demands by Democrats for funding DHS is that federal authorities cooperate with state prosecutors in investigating shootings / violence by ICE and Border Patrol. If the federal government refuses agree to that demand, then ICE and Border Patrol agents can use violence and commit murder with impunity. That is an intolerable situation that surely justifies the long-term defunding of DHS.

Concluding Thoughts

Anderson Cooper was forced out of CBS’s 60 Minutes because he was “uncomfortable” with the new Trump-friendly direction set by Bari Weiss. See Daily Beast, Real Reason Anderson Cooper Quit ‘Rightward’ CBS Exposed.

It is good that Anderson Cooper could no longer abide an environment where Trump’s surrogates control the news. Cooper issued a gracious statement about his departure from 60 Minutes:

Being a correspondent at 60 Minutes has been one of the highlights of my career. I got to tell amazing stories, and work with some of the best producers, editors and camera crews in the business. For nearly twenty years, I’ve been able to balance my jobs at CNN and CBS, but I have little kids now and I want to spend as much time with them as possible, while they want to spend time with me.

Here’s the problem: We are long past the point where we can issue gracious statements in lieu of telling the truth. Anderson Cooper quit CBS—I hope—because he would not bend to editors who demanded stories sympathetic to an aspiring dictator who threatens the democracy that allows Cooper to practice journalism.

Anderson Cooper expresses the desire to spend more time with his kids. One day, those kids will say, “Daddy, when Donald Trump was threatening democracy, what did you do to ensure that we could enjoy the same freedoms that you had?”

I sure hope Cooper’s answer is not limited to, “Well, I stayed with a network, CNN, that slowly transformed into a mouthpiece for his administration, and then I quietly quit another network that was being run by a surrogate of one of his biggest financial backers, claiming that I wanted to spend more time with my kids.”

In a moment of crisis, Anderson Cooper protected his current and future employment prospects above all else. So, he left unsaid this truth:

I am not renewing my contract because CBS’s editorial position is being controlled by Trump’s financial backers. Journalists at 60 Minutes are no longer permitted to speak the truth but must instead receive clearance from political partisans who seek to please Trump. That is an intolerable situation for any journalist, and for me in particular.

In fairness to Anderson Cooper, he may be waiting to make such a statement after a few days have passed. But I doubt it. When CNN hosted a softball town hall for Trump during the 2024 campaign, Cooper scolded viewers who criticized CNN for giving Trump a sympathetic platform. See WaPo, Anderson Cooper scolds viewers after Trump town hall. Cooper said, “You have every right to be outraged today and angry and never watch this network again. But do you think staying in your silo and only listening to people you agree with is going to make that person go away?”

Like Anderson Cooper, we are being called to choose where we stand in the defense of American democracy. Don’t be Anderson Cooper. Be proud to tell your children and grandchildren how you came to the defense of your country in its hour of need. That requires us to speak the truth, even when we are fearful.

Trump wants us to be afraid to speak out. Rather than timidly obey in advance, our response must be to speak out by the tens of millions. Together, there is nothing we cannot do—and there is nothing that can stop us.