On Wednesday night, MSNBC host Stephanie Ruhle and her 11th Hour guests cobbled the recent prosecution against former FBI Director James Comey into a larger conspiracy President Trump supposedly has against the First Amendment.
The discussion was based on an NBC News article covering a letter signed by over 40 retired state and federal judges condemning Trump for targeting his political enemies. The letter failed to mention that Comey was indicted over lying to and obstructing the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Ruhle threw an easy lay-up, but political commentator Hagar Chemali did not take the bait:
RUHLE: Hagar, a lot of people might not care about the Jim Comey prosecution, but does this explain why they should?
CHEMALI: It is, I think — listen. When I read this article, to me, at first I really had to figure out, why? What was the connection being made on free speech? Because given if you look at the indictment … when I was reading that, I was looking through, the thing that struck out at me was how much he and his deputy kept trying to place things in the news, and didn't try to place things in the news. And this is not, in my experience in government, that's not something the law enforcement guys really do.
The free speech triple-entendre is oft overlooked to comedic effect. Not only should Comey not have leaked to the press (allegedly), he also should not have lied to Congress (allegedly). And MSNBC thinks the prosecution is about Comey’s freedom to disagree with Trump.
Chemali placated her fellow panelists by disparaging political targeting, yet refused to give in to the distortion:
But I also, when I was reading it, I was like, “What are you doing?” And that's what I think the American people have to care about. Why are they trying to play in the press at all? Why — and that's to me, the freedom of speech piece, I didn't totally see the connection.
Because there is no connection. MSNBC wanted its audience to believe that Trump’s hatred of Comey is somehow a part of a broader effort to crack down on all political dissent, which is ridiculous.
Since Ruhle didn’t get the answer she wanted out of Chemali, she turned to WIRED senior writer Jake Luhat, who connected Jimmy Kimmel’s short-lived suspension to the judges’ letter:
RUHLE: Okay, well, freedom of speech has obviously become a flashpoint for the Trump administration, especially in the last few weeks. Do you think they think they're winning the public debate?
LUHAT: Oof. I mean, I think the — the Kimmel thing was an instructive episode in just how much an attention magnet he is, and they thought that was an advantageous fight for them, and turned out it wasn't. I mean, to your point, I think the — in the letter, they're trying to say each sort of little extortion racket by act-by-act is a chilling effect in the whole. All these things matter, not just the big flashy ones.
CNBC commentator Ron Insana chimed in, “Well, even in the Comey case the real question is not just about Jim Comey, but who's next, right? Is there going to be a cascading effect […] There are a whole host of people that some feel the President will attempt to, you know, seek retribution of.”
The political enemies Trump has targeted are being charged for breaking the law. Those who have not committed crimes shouldn’t feel threatened. It’s based on legitimate legal grounds.
MSNBC Daily senior editor Anthony Fisher took the argument to its logical extreme:
FISHER: In the Executive Order against Antifa, they — the language included stuff like anti-capitalism and anti-Christianity as akin to terrorism. So this is — there is a huge free speech assault right now that is —
RUHLE: Okay, but even if you have the right to call the President a fascist, what we're dealing with right now is the government might come for you and make your life really hard.
In the actual memoranda Fisher referred to, Trump directed those under his authority to investigate and prosecute organizations and individuals responsible for “political violence,” and claimed that anti-Christianity and anti-capitalism were “common threads” amongst those actors. So, no, Fisher, not being a part of the American political majority doesn’t suddenly make you a terrorist in the eyes of the government. It’s those who physically attack those politically-identifiable communities who are now designated terrorists.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" read:
MSNBC’s The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle
October 1, 2025
11:46:55 p.m. EST
(...)
STEPHANIE RUHLE: One group that you might not expect is sounding the alarm about your freedom of speech, and they are people who certainly know the — excuse me, the law. 42 retired judges at both the state and federal level, 10 of whom were appointed by Republicans, these judges say that the prosecution of Jim Comey jeopardizes your right to speak your mind without fear of gruff – government persecution. The nightcap is still here.
Hagar, a lot of people might not care about the Jim Comey prosecution, but does this explain why they should?
HAGAR CHEMALI: It is, I think — listen. When I read this article, to me, at first I really had to figure out, why? What was the connection being made on free speech? Because given if you look at the indictment and — again, I'm not trying to I'm not trying to make — pass legal judgment here on the on the indictment. I certainly don't know what – whether he lied or didn't or whatever.
I did — when I was reading that, I was looking through, the thing that struck out at me was how much he and his deputy kept trying to place things in the news, and didn't try to place things in the news. And this is not, in my experience in government, that's not something the law enforcement guys really do. And they do it at Treasury, you do it at State. You certainly do it at the White House. It's not something I saw the FBI do very often. And I'm not saying he deserves this at all. I think this is, at the end of the day, this is political targeting.
But I also, when I was reading it, I was like, “What are you doing?” And that's what I think the American people have to care about. Why are they trying to play in the press at all? Why — and that's to me, the freedom of speech piece, I didn't totally see the connection.
RUHLE: Okay, well, freedom of speech has obviously become a flashpoint for the Trump administration, especially in the last few weeks. Do you think they think they're winning the public debate?
JAKE LUHAT: Oof. I mean, I think the — the Kimmel thing was an instructive episode in just how much an attention magnet he is, and they thought that was an advantageous fight for them, and turned out it wasn't. I mean, to your point, I think the — in the letter, they're trying to say each sort of little extortion racket by act-by-act is a chilling effect in the whole. All these things matter, not just the big flashy ones.
CHEMALI: I see that, like for the late night shows, I really understand that argument. That will have a chilling effect.
RON INSANA: Well, even in the Comey case the real question is not just about Jim Comey, but who's next, right? Is there going to be a cascading effect to an Andy McCabe, or somebody else that the President didn't like? Stripped him of his retirement funds, he had to sue him to get them back. Happen to know Andy personally. You know, but it's beyond that. There are a whole host of people that some feel the President will attempt to, you know, seek retribution of.
ANTHONY FISHER: So, I published a piece at MSNBC Daily today that has the working headline of, “You have the right to call the president a fascist.” Because that's what's happening right now, is the administration is literally trying to chip away at the words you can use, even though the words that they have used themselves to describe their political opponents, they're trying to call them incitement. In the Executive Order against Antifa, they — the language included stuff like anti-capitalism and anti-Christianity as akin to terrorism. So this is — there is a huge free speech assault right now that is —
RUHLE: Okay, but even if you have the right to call the President a fascist, what we're dealing with right now is the government might come for you and make your life really hard.
FISHER: Sure. But that's that — again, we all have to stick together on this one and insist that it goes to court, insist that they point to the Constitution and make them say in court, “No, you don't have that right anymore.” Because till then we do.
INSANA: Well, the one that blows my mind is the anti-Christian thing. And it's, what if you're an atheist, right? I mean —
FISHER: Right. Well, I’m a lapsed Catholic turned atheist. You know —
[Crosstalk]
FISHER: — am I a terrorist? That's — the broad strokes are the point. To make it so broad that anyone can fall under the rubric of, “The bad guy.” And that’s, you know, I think that’s part of what the judges are talking about.
