Emily Jashinski (3:31)

My executive producer comes over and he goes, hey, I just got this text from Carrie. She thinks she. I think I'm right to show it to you. And so. And that's how I found in front of the audience with my mic up. So we. I brought. I brought a clip. Okay. And I've just set it up. There's something we need to know. Did we land on the moon? It's crazy. Jerry told me this. Okay. Jimmy Kimmel's show has been pulled indefinitely by abc. Wow. Wow. Wait, hold on one second. I'll be right back. I want to find out what this is about. I'll be right back. So there's no signal in the Ed Sullivan Theater. So it didn't tell me why. There was no rationale given, just that you had been yanked. So I went back, figured I did something stupid. Right. I generally assume that it's your fault. Yeah.

Emily Jashinski (4:37)

All right, we have one more clip of those two. This is gonna be S2.

Emily Jashinski (4:42)

I mean, that son of a bitch, you know, is really unbelievable. Mr.

Emily Jashinski (4:47)

Son of a bitch.

Emily Jashinski (4:48)

I mean, mister.

Emily Jashinski (4:48)

Mr.

Emily Jashinski (4:49)

Son of a bitch. His royal. Yes. No, I never imagined that we'd ever have a president like this. And I hope we don't ever have another president like this again. I mean, I never imagined. I never even imagined there would ever be a situation in which the president of our country was celebrating hundreds of Americans losing their jobs. As somebody who took pleasure in that, that, to me, is the absolute opposite of what a leader of this country is supposed to be.

Emily Jashinski (5:22)

Okay, now I want to compare that with this clip of Jimmy Fallon on CNBC to tee up a bigger conversation about what Light Night tells us about the future of media, the past of media and our relationship with the media. So let's go ahead and roll this clip of Jimmy Fallon on cnbc. I think this was actually Tiffany. So all of this is happening within the span of just a few days of each other. Kimmel Colbert joined forces in different venues that you have Fallon coming out on CNBC and making this very interesting point.

Emily Jashinski (5:51)

S3 I am wondering how you're thinking about what you can put in a monologue. What it's like being on an FCC licensed avenue of broadcasting right now. You know, our show's never really been that political. You know, we, we hit both sides equally and we try to make everybody laugh and that's really the way our show really works. I mean our monologues are kind of, you know, the same that we've been doing since Johnny Carson was doing the Tonight Show. So really I just keep my head down and making sure the jokes are funny. I have great writers, clever, smart writers and we just, yeah, we're just trying to make the best show we possibly can and entertain everybody.

Emily Jashinski (6:34)

Well, it sounds like Fallon has been listening to After Party of course, where since our first show we have been making the point that his entire strategy in terms of content in business and the marriage of those two things is following a Carson model and it actually leaves him behind in the late night ratings over the course of the last decade. And I actually have a graphic graphic I'm going to put up that's super helpful to this extent. This is from the New York Times back in looking at these numbers back around like 2017, I'm going to zoom in here and notice something very interesting which is that Fallon had the highest ratings and is then overtaken by Colbert after the 2016 election and inauguration when Colbert sort of became the go to anti Trump late night comedy show. And other than Greg Gutfeld, which is a huge story in and of itself, how he was able to overtake the broadcast networks on a cable network, something that nobody ever would have thought possible. Like 20 years ago, Colbert on the broadcast networks really was dominant. Even so, it's worth noting, I'm put another thing up on the screen here. This is from Deseret News that wrote this week, quote, overnight overall late night viewership fell 9% year over year among total viewers and 18 to 49 numbers. So that's the critical demo dropped 21% the demo for advertisers. Fallon show has taken the biggest hit, down 16% among total viewers and 2019, 2029% among 18 to 49 year olds compared to Q2, 2024. That's according to Nielsen. Now it says while traditional Nielsen ratings show a decline, this is really crucial and it gets left out of a lot of the coverage. Quote, late night hosts are still finding audiences online. Kimmel has 20 million YouTube subscribers and his three most recent videos earned more than 3 million views. Fallon has over 32 million subscribers, Colbert just over 10 million, and Seth Meyers around 5 million. So why is, why is Jimmy Fallon dou on the method that has him behind the other hosts over the last decade or so? Well, because it's much more important to focus on digital right now, obviously. Much more important to focus on digital right now. And if he's able to get a bigger slice of the digital pie, which is just a bigger slice of the media consumption pie, period, then he's actually probably going to help NBC take this old dinosaur and move it to a different car. That's. This is just like terribly mixed metaphors, but you get what I'm saying, which is that the juggernaut that once was the Tonight show, the sort of traditional broadcast television, those FCC licensed airwaves are no longer the best vehicle for his content to get out. And so actually NBC is the one that's kind of adapting in this case where CBS obviously got rid of Colbert at the end of this year, his show will end. And actually it's not just Colbert. They're ending the show all together. The historic franchise, they're ending it all together, not just canceling Colbert as some of the coverage indicated. And that's because they haven't been able to translate this hulking juggernaut in a way that gets enough of the digital pie to keep going forward. So take a look at this. It's from Morning consult and it found Jimmy versus Jimmy for America's favorite late night host. But even so, this is favorability among all adults, Democrats and Republicans, broken down into different categories. For Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, it goes to Conan o', Brien, Stephen Colbert, James Corden, do you remember that guy? Carpool, karaoke, Edgy, edgy, edgy stuff. This is in 2021. So Fallon has the highest overall. So he's at 53% overall. Stephen Colbert is at 40%. So that's favorability. Their favorite late night Host, Jimmy Fallon, 53, Colbert 40. So there you have Fallon with a double digit lead in favorability on that question just. He was slightly edging out Jimmy Kimmel at this point. But Colbert had a 60% approval with Democrats. Fallon was actually even higher than him with Democrats, and Kimmel was even higher than both of them with Democrats. So what does that mean? Basically, the type of people who are watching TV on the broadcast format is different than people who are consuming the content of these late night hosts overall. And what you're seeing on broadcast television night after night is no longer really reflective of. You can't analyze it in the same way that, for example, you would analyze. Johnny Carson, who has the Deseret article I just read from points out at his Height was averaging 9 million viewers a night. 9 million viewers a night. That's appointment television for a much bigger swath of the country. And it gives you a cultural influence that is much more significant than any anyone has now. Most people are now going for these sort of fractured segments of the audience. And that explains why the content for somebody like Stephen Colbert is more political. And that explains also why CBS is just getting rid of the entire franchise, because that show was losing money according to Puck News, tons of money, according to Puck's news report back when Colbert was pulled off the air originally. If you can't translate to digital because your content is appealing to this demographic of like the resistance wine moms that you can get in tuning into your show night after night because they're super loyal, they're used to late night comedy because they tend to be older from a generation that had appointment TV late night comedy shows. But that's such a niche, you can no longer support that on broadcast television. This model is coming to the news overall, it's coming to media overall. It's going to come. I mean, if you look at what, what is happening in streaming versus the few big blockbuster movies that are coming out, yes, there's still going to be some people who have ambitions, some content that has ambitions of appealing to a wide swath of the American public. But increasingly, a lot of money is going to be dispersed and a lot of resources are going to be dispersed into content that appeals more strongly, more intensely to a smaller group of the public. So that you can be sure you get that group of the public in the seats, subscribe to your website, whatever it is, and that's gonna change the content significantly. And the question for us is whether we adjust to it. So what you heard from Jimmy Kimmel in that last clip we played was him being like, well, I just don't think any American president should be taking delight in people losing their jobs, referring to the government shutdown. But again, that remark is political. It may be shared by people in the country who say, yeah, I guess that's true, but. But it's the equivalent of saying, I look at the Democratic Party and I just wonder who would shut down the government and do it because they in some part don't want to cut subsidies for people who are either here on asylum or visas, or they want the federal government to continue subsidizing hospitals that are using emergency Medicaid funds on illegal migrants. Now, that is not a great punchline. I'll be the first to admit it. But the point is what Kimmel said. He tried to package it in the sort of neutral framing, but he's not a neutral guy. He's a partisan actor. And that just doesn't work in the business model anymore. So everything, unless you go like all in, it doesn't work in the business model. And unless you're curating it, not just for the next five years of whatever will happen on broadcast television before the total takeover, you're useless to these giant corporations. I'm going to talk more about the bigger free speech fight at the end of the episode, so stay tuned for that because I do have maybe a little criticism for the Trump administration on that point, even though I'm going to be talking about Jane Fonda and will likely be much more fixated on what the hell is going on with Jane Fonda. So we'll get to that at the end of the show. Before I bring in Inez and Rachel, let me tell you about Masa chips. You know that I love masa Chips. If you listen to the show, you also probably know that chips and fries were once cooked in beef tallow until the 1990s when corporations swapped it for cheap seed oils. And now those oils make up 20% of the average American's daily calories and are linked to inflammation and metabolic issues. But somehow, of course, that got sold as healthy. But Masa Chips is flipping that script. They use just three ingredients. Organic corn, sea salt and 100% grass fed beef tallow. It's so mind blowing when you look at the back of the bag of Masa chips and you just see those three ingredients there. No seed oils, no fillers, just bold flavor and serious crunch. Strong enough to scoop up guacamole without crumbling. And snacking on Masa is a whole different vibe. You feel satisfied, light and energized with zero crash bloat or that gross sluggish feeling. The kind of fog that comes with it. So beef tallow is the secret sauce. It keeps you full and focused, not mindlessly munching. It tastes really good, too. Favorite flavor? Mine. I love the spicy flavor. I love the lime flavor. Basically just love Masa chips. It all hits just right. So if you're ready to give Masa a try, go to masachips.comafterparty and use code AFTERPARTY for 25% off your first order. That's masachips.comafterparty, and code AFTERPARTY for 25% OFF your first order. Don't feel like ordering online? That's fine. Masa is now available nationwide at your local sprouts supermarket. Stop by and pick up a bag before they're gone.

Advertisement Voice (16:26)

Do you have $10,000 or more in credit card debt? Maybe you're even barely getting by making minimum payments? With credit card debt hitting record highs, National Debt Relief offers real debt relief solutions for people struggling to keep up. These options may reduce a large portion of credit card debt for those who qualify. You don't need to declare bankruptcy, and you may be able to pay back less than you owe, regardless of your credit. National Debt Relief has already reduced the credit card debt for more than 550,000 consumers. So don't wait. If you owe 10, 20, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, you can now take advantage of this financial debt relief as the cost of living increases. To find out how much you could save, visit nationaldebtrelief.com that's nationaldebtrelief.com all right.

Emily Jashinski (17:13)

On that note, let's go ahead and bring in Rachel Bovard, vice president at the Conservative Partnership Institute, and Inez Stepman, legal analyst for the Independent Women's Forum, where in full disclosure, I am also a senior fellow. So welcome back to both of job titles are so serious. It's not like host of afterparty. You have a, you have a good.

Inez Stepman (17:32)

Business card, you know, it's all aspirational.

Emily Jashinski (17:35)

In the end, that's one way to look at it. Okay, I want to start with Hakeem Jeffries, because he's first of all a friend of the show, of course, and a champion of the American spirit of the American public, and has been absolutely torching his own party, meaning he's not criticizing his own party, but he is bringing significant criticism upon his own party by just being a total clown. This is S4.

Advertisement Voice (18:08)

He posted another video.

Emily Jashinski (18:12)

I'm sorry, I can't not watch that. At last, sombrero.

Inez Stepman (18:15)

Once again, this time, he's in the background. You see the audience so funny with.

Rachel Bovard (18:19)

Abby Phillips speaking about Mariachi. I love that they showed him.

Inez Stepman (18:22)

It sounds like this meeting that you.

Advertisement Voice (18:23)

Had this week has only resulted in.

Inez Stepman (18:25)

Trolling and not in any serious conversations.

Emily Jashinski (18:30)

Well, that's exactly the point. We just don't have serious negotiating partners right now on the other side of the aisle because they're engaging in this erratic behavior, posting racist, fake AI videos. And it speaks for itself in terms of the American people concluding who's serious and who's deadly unserious.

Emily Jashinski (18:50)

When.

Inez Stepman (18:50)

When he had. When he tried to hand you that Trump 2028 hat, what was your reaction?

Emily Jashinski (18:56)

She's acting like it's a matter of war.

Emily Jashinski (18:59)

Lita Schumer and I, the Trump 2028 hat, they just randomly appeared in the middle of the meeting on the desk. It was the strangest thing ever. And I just looked at the hat, looked at JD Vance, who was seated to my left, and said, don't you got a problem with this? And he said, no comment. And that was the end of it.

Emily Jashinski (19:20)

I paused for, like, 10 seconds after he said, don't you got a problem with this? After, like, acting like this was some serious point that he'd made some really profound observation that he had said to J.D. vance, Jump in.

Inez Stepman (19:32)

I love how they pointed out that this is AI as though it was plausible that he actually had twirled mustachios and a sombrero on.

Emily Jashinski (19:41)

Well, let's put this up. This is F3. This was a great Peter Hasson post. He's like, I like how ABC News put up, quote, AI generated image and giant letters just in case any of their viewers thought Hakeem Jeffries was actually sporting a mustache.

Rachel Bovard (19:52)

Well, to be clear, Hakeem Jeffries looks like that now to me forever. Like, in my inner eye, he will always look that way with a mustache and a sombrero. I actually have the photo saved on my phone.

Emily Jashinski (20:04)

Good. Oh, it's your background, Rachel. You love shutting down the government, so I'm going to go to you first with this question. But in all seriousness, I think the way I look at this is this shutdown. It's never great when the government shuts down. Nobody loves it. Nobody says this is the ideal state of the republic. At the same time, right now, Democrats definitely need to show the base that they are, like, fighting for them. Republicans have this great talking point about migrants, people who are here on asylum, which is millions of people having access to the ACA exchanges and then federal reimbursements of hospitals and emergency Medicaid payments for people who are here illegally. So Republicans have no incentive to come to the table, because why would they? So long as Democrats are insisting on those provisions? All this is to say, I think we're in for a fairly long shutdown. But Hakeem Jeffries has actually, like, this opportunity politically on a silver platter handed to him. I can't believe that he is wasting any breath on racism. Like, Bernie Sanders and AOC just put out a video that smoked Hakeem Jeffries. They didn't mention him, but it was all focused on health care. Health care, healthcare. They didn't talk about anything else. They didn't talk about AI memes, because most people watch that and they're like, I'd rather it not be coming from the president, United States. But it's pretty funny. So they have learned Nothing despite, like, 10 years of Republicans energizing their own base with these shutdowns, which, by the way, Rachel, you saw up close and personal. Yeah.

Rachel Bovard (21:32)

Lived through a few government shutdowns and through.

Inez Stepman (21:34)

Yeah.

Emily Jashinski (21:35)

Caused third agitator almost.

Inez Stepman (21:39)

Yeah. Amongst the torchbearers. Yeah.

Rachel Bovard (21:42)

But I will say that when you have a successful shutdown, the only way to really have a successful shutdown, I think if you're the party responsible for it, is if you have intense party unity around one or two messages that everybody in the party can get behind that you can clearly communicate, and that resonate. And to your point, you could be making. If you're a Democrat. Right. You could be making an argument about healthcare. I don't think it is that compelling because the system they're trying to salvage is, like, pretty crappy. And you are also dealing with this issue of all of this healthcare going to illegal immigrants, which, you know, is a hot button issue, I think, for a lot of people in the base. But all of that being said, Hakeem Jeffries just can't help himself. Right. The entire party has been trained to just lean into. Everything is racism, everything is an attack. And. And it's kind of funny because. Well, let's just get it out there that what Trump just did with that meme is objectively funnier than anything Jimmy Kimmel has done in 10 years, and everybody knows it. But the thing is, contrast Hakeem.

Emily Jashinski (22:41)

He doesn't even have writers. I know it's just him and Dan Scavino finding shit in their mentions, but.

Rachel Bovard (22:47)

It'S like, contrast Hakeem Jeffrey's response to the other most memeable person in America, which is JD Van Vance.

Inez Stepman (22:55)

Right?

Rachel Bovard (22:56)

Memes abound. And you see JD Vance like leaning into it, right? Like he posted the blueberry head. J.D.

Emily Jashinski (23:03)

Vance.

Rachel Bovard (23:04)

I can't remember what tweet he was responding to, but he just was like, haha. And like leaned into it. And everyone was like kind of humored and charmed by it because that is the way that you respond when you are a self confident person. But you have Hakeem Jeffries just out there with a victim complex, totally stepping all over his own narrative because that's the only thing they've been trained to do. And it just goes to show. And the last thing I'll say about it is, is this is the Democratic Party. They don't have a policy platform anymore. They just have finger pointing like they're the Spider man meme. You know, you're a racist, you're a racist, you're a racist. And you're seeing it right now on full display.

Emily Jashinski (23:37)

Well, and as we're going to talk about your millennial kings or on Mumdani in just a moment, but he's somebody who stunned Democratic Party insiders, Andrew Cuomo supporters, for overtaking Cuomo in the Democratic primary on a platform where he very conspicuously tried to never talk about the culture war. Now, of course he still did, and he had a lot in the past, but he was conspicuously making an effort not to do that. Why is it not trickling to Dem leadership? And why are they still so clumsy at just talking to their own voters?

Inez Stepman (24:09)

Look, I really think that the culture war is one. Famously, I said it was the big tent for a lot of people. It is what went into politics. The second thing is that that the culture actually matters to people. It's not an invention of whatever I've seen on the left. They say is, you know, the billionaire fat cats making the MAGA and woke people fight in the cage, right, while they're collecting the dollars. But. And on the other side, there's a similar meme, right? It's essentially saying you shouldn't care about the culture, but people do care about the culture, right? They do care what their children are learning in school. They do care about that, at least equally as they care about their health care bills being too high. Those are both really legitimate concerns. Always comes back to variations on the what's the matter with Kansas Theme, right? Which is that essentially, especially in particular, working class people and middle class people don't know they're not allowed to care about what they care about. If it's not, you know, a direct materialist issue, then it's the watch being spun in front of their eyes. Right. They don't know what they really care about. All the way back in the Bush era, it was, oh, they don't really care about gay marriage. Really what you have to care about is only dollars and cents issues. And that's just not how people operate. It's not how the people do politics. And frankly, it's not how elites do politics. They only pretend that they do politics that way. Right. And we'll get to libertarianism and Cato and all of that at the end, but they pretend that they care first and foremost about fiscal issues. And then, you know, a lot of people who sell themselves as caring only about fiscal issues always end up on the side that, where their knee jerk cultural reactions are. So I feel like people who are engaged in the culture war are just being, being honest about what they care about in politics and not pretending that they have only materialist concerns or that anything but materialist concerns is just not real politics. It's not worth, you know, thinking about what the culture of the country you live in is, whether, you know, it's a patriotic country, whether you can trust your, your children's teachers at school. Like, these are really, these are kitchen table issues. They're not just dollars and cents around the kitchen table. It's those issues as well.

Emily Jashinski (26:14)

Well, right, Ben, this is the rock and hard place that the dens find themselves between right now is that they have, they have conditioned some of their voters. And I don't, that actually is not the right word because it implies a lack of agency. There is a hardened core of the Democratic Party's grassroots that actually will continue to pressure Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders to talk about the culture war in ways that hurt them because people do care about the culture war. And the more Bernie Sanders talks about the culture war, the worse off it is for him generally. That's not always been true, didn't used to be true when he talked about immigration, for example. But now, now Democrats find themselves having to maneuver this hardened grassroots that wants the culture war and those voters that they've lost to Trump and Republicans who, the more Democrats talk about the culture war because of where they're pinned into on those questions. We're also going to talk about Harvard, which we'll get to that. But yeah, go ahead, Rachel.

Rachel Bovard (27:05)

Well, you're, you're seeing this right now in the Virginia governor's race. I don't, I mean, people have a lot more things to pay attention to than that. But I think this issue is like playing out very clearly because Abigail Spanberger, who's running as the Democrat candidate, is supposed to be the next vanguard of Republican Democrat moderates. She is talked about as presidential material and she cannot, and this has been very clear this week, cannot answer a question about if boys should be able to participate in girls sports. I mean, this is a baseline issue in Virginia, especially in Northern Virginia, where there's.

Emily Jashinski (27:36)

And this happened in Maine too. Yeah.

Rachel Bovard (27:38)

And there's like three or four court cases pending about this issue in Northern Virginia of men wandering into locker rooms with little girls, you know, in public settings, not just in schools, in, you know, YMCAs and public locker rooms. She fumbled it so badly. And again, this isn't the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. This is supposed to be the moderate, the CIA wing.

Inez Stepman (28:00)

Can I follow up on that? New Jersey turning out the exact same way. Cheryl there in the governor's race is supposed to be a moderate and yet she is unable to talk about this issue in a clear way because she's stuck between her base on the one side that will not accept any retreat from a man who dresses as a woman, is a woman. And, and the fact that New Jersey moderate voters, even leaning Dem voters, really don't like it. We did at iw, we did a poll on this in New Jersey explicitly on moderate voters and like real moderate voters. Right. Because a lot of times I feel when we talk about moderate voters or swing voters, people assume that people are in the middle when in fact they may be criticizing their own party from the left or from the right. But we had a batch of voters, likely voters in our poll that, that had voted, you know, basically had voted for Republicans and Democrats in the last five years. And so they were like legitimate swing voters who were choosing between Republicans and Democrats. And this issue swung like the majority of those people, a substantial majority, like close to 60% who said they would vote for Cheryl and then said they wouldn't vote for Cheryl if she couldn't answer this question. And unfortunately she, like the rest of the Democratic Party is on record voting multiple times her, in her case in Congress against a bill that merely defines and merely makes the very baseline kind of common sense a demand that only girls participate in girls sports. So there is no retreat from the woke culture war. It's just a messaging, you know, kind of papering over to say, well, let's not talk about that. And then when they're asked questions about it, they dissatisfy both their base and moderate voters because they can't give a straight answer.

Emily Jashinski (29:45)

It's why you don't want to talk about it. Yeah. So this is a perfect segue into Zoramdani's appearance on the View, where someone we know, Alyssa Farah, asked a decent question of Inez's millennial king. This is S9.

Inez Stepman (29:59)

So, Zorin, back in 2020, you called for defunding the police, something you've since walked back. You also called the NYPD racist, anti queer, and a threat to public safety in 2020, but now agree they deserve an apology. You initially refused to denounce highly charged rhetoric related to Israel, then later said you would discourage its use.

Emily Jashinski (30:17)

Use.

Inez Stepman (30:17)

How can New Yorkers trust you and not not be concerned that consultants are getting in your ear to get you elected, but you still hold all of those positions?

Emily Jashinski (30:27)

Well, they can rest assured that it.

Emily Jashinski (30:28)

Isn'T consultants in my ear.

Inez Stepman (30:29)

And can I ask, have you formally apologized to the nypd?

Emily Jashinski (30:32)

These are conversations that I'm having individually with officers, and I've appreciated that because it's through those conversations with rank and file officers that I've learned more about the difficulties of this job. Okay. I mean, I don't need him to apologize to the nypd because somebody who tweets that queer liberation is defunding the police is not probably undergoing a sincere evolution on the question of nypd. But, Inez, you are after parties. New York correspondent. I guess we haven't announced that yet, but here it is. Add that to your fancy business card.

Inez Stepman (31:03)

I'm a New York correspondent.

Emily Jashinski (31:05)

Yes, yes. So, but no, tell us, you know, know, is, is this going to. Is he going to pull it off basically, while walking this tightrope?

Inez Stepman (31:14)

Well, I think he's going to get elected. I don't think that he's pulling off his tightrope very well. It's very obvious that even in this, he can't bring himself to actually walk back any of his comments. That's what the headlines are. Because the media wants that to be true, because they know that it's additionally good for his campaign, just like moderate Democrats know that that is good for his campaign. To the extent that we just discussed in the last segment, those moderate Democrats actually exist at all. They. That this is bad to say in public. But no, he hasn't walked back anything. Just, you know, two or three days ago, he refused to disavow a DSA tweet about Assata Shakur, who was a famous killer. Right. So he's, he's continuing by the way she didn't just kill one cop. She also threw grenades into a cop car, successfully set it on fire. She was involved in another officer shooting. Like it was a long history of trying to kill cops, which was a liberation. Yeah, this was a. The Black Liberation Army. They had as one of their goals was kill the cops. So this is, this was not like a one off incident. The way that all of the glowing New York Times profiles and, and ever we can talk about political violence, which will be an interesting topic in that you know, sort of context. But specifically with regard to law enforcement, nobody is actually fooled by this. The reason he has to even try to sort of assemble around his views is because there is basically one ratio route to beating him. And that's the fact that over and over again in polls, New Yorkers say this is their top issue and that they're worried about Mondami on this issue. They like everything else, all the socialism, all the, you know, I'm not, I'm not a rosy eyed about my fellow New York voters or imagine that they're, you know, even common sense, let alone actually right of center.

Rachel Bovard (32:54)

Right.

Inez Stepman (32:54)

This is a deep blue city. But they are concerned about crime. And that, that's why he keeps getting asked these questions. That's why he's trying to avoid these questions. Because I'm pretty sure those consultants, he says, say. He says, are not whispering in his ear. They're saying this is the one thing that can bring you down, actually. This is the one issue where you're weak. This is the one issue where New York voters are not sure about you. And it's because of all the crazy stuff that you've been saying for years and years and have now just not even really disavowed so much as just pretend don't exist. It's very much the Kamala, I've already forgotten how to pronounce her name model. Right. You don't actually disavow. You just pretend you never said anything and the media goes along with, with it.

Emily Jashinski (33:35)

Well, Rachel, pick up on that point because Assata Shakur was also celebrated by Chicago's Teachers Union in the last several days upon the news of Assad Shakur's passing. So it's not just like we were talking in the last segment about trans issues, but it's actually not just trans issues. It's also going to continue to be a problem for Dems on race and policing, and I would argue especially millennial Dems who for five to 10 years got sucked into a lot of virtue signal ideological posturing on social media that's going to be hard to run away from and that they may actually not even want to run away from because it's part of their worldview.

Rachel Bovard (34:09)

No, it is. And I watched that whole exchange between Mandani and Alyssa. And what really set my teeth on edge and I think makes this point in particular is the fact that when he, he opens his answer on the NYPD by referencing Michael Brown, Sean Bell and Eric Garner, three, three people who were part of very high profile alleged police brutality cases which were all proven to be false. All three of those cases were investigated by DOJ civil rights offices across Democratic and Republican administrations. And the officers were found not to be liable. They did not violate civil rights. Famously, in the case of Michael Brown, it was Obama's DOJ who said not only was the officer behaving appropriately, but Michael Brown was the aggressor in that case case. And then in the Sean Bell case, you had the officers charged and then acquitted in state court with Eric Garner. A grand jury failed to indict because again, they found that he was resisting arrest and the officer did what he was trained to do. This. But, but by continuing and perpetuating the myth that this was somehow these cases were the fault of, of the NYPD and that there is, you know, building this empirical case somehow that there is an epidemic still of race based violence and policing at the nypd, he is continuing to again, stoke this race war in this race narrative. This is not moderation. This is perpetuating a lie.

Emily Jashinski (35:36)

Just to that last point that you made, Rachel, the narratives were that these were killings based on racism. Correct. And that is particularly like, I think you can have a decent argument about the training of the police and whether that was. We could go into all of that and have like, conversations about what happened in the league.

Rachel Bovard (35:54)

And they did, they did do that after Eric Garner died. Like, they, they changed the. How the police were trained as a result of that, which may have been the appropriate thing to do.

Emily Jashinski (36:02)

Right, but this idea that there were racist police officers involved in every single one of those cases is that has, I think, pretty thoroughly been debunked. And in the case of Michael Brown, which is arguably up there with Trayvon Martin and George Floyd, but that was one of the, I mean, that, that led to years of discord in many, many cities. So on that note, since we're political violence, unfortunately. Rachel, I want to just go back to you for a moment about a letter you threw together on that Cato Institute study. Almost everyone who was online after what happened to Charlie Kirk, saw this Cato Institute study that claimed right wing political violence was more prolific over the last 50 years. It started in 1975 than left wing political violence. And obviously just that starting point of 1975. Choosing to use the last 50 years and to start in 1975 is probably already setting off alarm bells for a lot of people who saw the study. But, Rachel, you are actually rallying other conservative groups to push back to ask Cato to retract this study that was put up by one of their vice presidents. We should add, tell us a little bit, give us a little bit of background, because as you dove into it in this letter, it was a pretty thorough fisking of the data.

Rachel Bovard (37:19)

Yeah, I mean, people may be familiar with this study because of course, you know, as soon as the Charlie Kirk assassination happened, you know, all of these groups were quick to put out. Well, this is, you know, this might be an instance of left wing violence where they acknowledged it at all, but right wing violence is the one that's really on the rise. And joining this chorus was the Cato Institute, who put together a study under the direct. Well, the person who did it was Alex Naroste, who is a vice president president at the Cato Institute. And he put out this study with the lead claim that right wing violence is on the rise. And normally it's like, okay, a tree falling in the forest. But this study was picked up on by Time magazine. It was tweeted out by Ian Bremmer because it fit the narrative that the mainstream media was trying to perpetuate, which is that, oh, no, it's the right wing that are the baddies. But if you start to peel back and look at this study, it is, is, and I say this in all sincerity, a dumpster fire. It is as a work of research and just as an empirical fact. It is all over the place. It pulls from some insane sourcing, including the Southern Poverty Law center, which had put Charlie Kirk on its list of hate groups shortly before he was murdered, the Anti Defamation League and a host of other sources, which also included Charlie.

Emily Jashinski (38:39)

And which also includes. Wrote about him being hateful.

Rachel Bovard (38:42)

Yeah, but it also just made. He made bizarre choices. For example, he decided to, you know, as you mentioned, he started the study in 1975 after all the Weather Underground violence of the left. But he chose to leave out the 3,000 deaths from 911 and the world Trade center attack because that might, you know, dominate the data. But he did include the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and classified it as right wing violence. Violence. He made a lot of other bizarre choices. He left out the Waukesha Christmas massacre in Wisconsin where again, that was, we know, was motivated by, by left wing reasoning. And he all. But he also includes things like, you know, the, the killer who went on this misogynist shooting spree of sex workers and had no obvious or documented political reason to do this. He was at a mental health issue issue. But Alex just throws that in the right wing category because why not? So it's a lot of choices like that. And you know, people with other backgrounds sort of went through it and showed that he left out so many other instances of violence. Just didn't include them at all. Like.

Emily Jashinski (39:49)

Or miscounted some of them. Or miscounted some crazy.

Rachel Bovard (39:52)

Yeah, some of them. He miscounted the number of victims. And so, you know, ordinarily, again, this wouldn't necessarily rise to the of level level of the conservative movement saying like, hey buddy, stop doing this. But the Cato Institute is at least affiliated with the right in many cases, not on every issue.

Emily Jashinski (40:09)

But Alex, a lot of conservative thinking donors, right. You would know this. People who probably give to all kinds of different conservative groups, they get swayed by development. People who say this is going to get your taxes lower, it's going to deregulate, it's going to push deregulation, all that stuff.

Rachel Bovard (40:24)

Yeah. And their analysts are frequently called by Republican members of Congress to be witnesses on committee hearings. And this is something where it's one, an incredibly poor research product just as a matter of scholarship. But two, again, in addition to being a poor product, you are contributing to an overtly false narrative that is putting other Republicans at risk. I'm sorry, like one of the signers of this letter calling for the studies retraction is Tony Perkins, who is the head of the Family Research Council.

Emily Jashinski (40:54)

Who.

Rachel Bovard (40:55)

That there, that group, you know, 10, over 10 years ago at this point, because they were put on the SPLC hate list. A man with a gun walked into their lobby with the intent to shoot up the entire building. And thanks to the heroic actions of their security guard. He only shot the guard.

Inez Stepman (41:10)

Right.

Rachel Bovard (41:10)

And the guard managed to take him down. But you cannot perpetuate this lie. This is what is getting people killed. And so we've asked Cato to pull the study back. No response yet.

Emily Jashinski (41:19)

Obviously no response. That's super interesting thing.

Inez Stepman (41:24)

Can I add something to please. Rachel's excellent layout of the facts of this like atrocious study. Honestly, they should be embarrassed about this study just on the basis of scholarship quality. It's, it's. I mean, it's, it's a shonda. It's a shame. Like, they should not have put out this study with so many errors and relying on sources that they themselves in the past have criticized. Right. It's just like a blatantly partisan product. And it does show to. I mean, I guess libertarians are also a little bit infected with this leftist, this idea. I would call it a fetish, really, for putting their partisan sort of suppositions into bar graphs or pipes or quote unquote, objective. That is a fetish, though, as though that, like, actually changes the fact that you're making a partisan argument. If you, if you make it a.

Emily Jashinski (42:11)

Bar, like, it's definitely sexual or a.

Inez Stepman (42:14)

Bar chart, that's somehow different. You see that with the, the graphs about fascism is directly increasing on the Republican Party, right? And there's like, line that goes up. It's like when people walk into a meeting, right?

Rachel Bovard (42:26)

When people in a meeting walk in and they're like, see, I've made this Venn diagram. And everyone's like, oh, a Venn diagram.

Inez Stepman (42:32)

Yes, this must be objective. It's serious.

Emily Jashinski (42:35)

I love Venn diagrams.

Inez Stepman (42:37)

But the other part of this, of course, and the more important part, honestly, to me, than the tallying up of how many, often, like, it's. It's often hard to categorize motives. Sometimes it's not, but it is often difficult to categorize motives because you are dealing with people, people who are a population, to say the least. Not always. By the way, I don't, I don't think, for example, the shooter, Charlie Kirk shooter, falls in this category. I think he's very, very clear about the ideological motivations. And we shouldn't say that ideological hatred, right, is in itself a mental illness. I think that's the wrong way to go down the road. But there, obviously there are people involved in these shootings frequently have other issues going on or they have garbled politics. Right. So actually, more than the tit for tat, who has more violence? I think the, the, the more important metric is are institutions or elected officials, right? Are they endorsing this in some way? Are they excusing it? Or to use Molly Hemingway's great phrase, are they creating the sort of permission architecture for this? And this is where the point about Assada Shakur, we were talking about Kimmel earlier on, right? He had Public Enemy on. In his comeback show, right? What's the, what's the shirt the guy is wearing. Right, it's, it's, you know, RIP Assad. It's the other guy, Mumia Al Jabmar, I think. But he, he was responsible for killing police in police officers in Philadelphia, you know, in the 80s. Right. So another cop killer. So.

Emily Jashinski (43:59)

But of course he's going to come a late night television studio with security.

Inez Stepman (44:03)

Yeah, well, it's, it's. This is direct endorsement of political violence. So is the fact that Angela Davis continues to, you know, tour college campuses in 2020.

Emily Jashinski (44:14)

What did you, wasn't it like the Vladimir Lenin Prize for Peace that she won? I, I have to remember the formal name of it, but she like went to the Soviet Union to accept it in the 80s, do you remember? And as you would remember this.

Inez Stepman (44:24)

Yes, yes, she did, she did accept. I don't remember the name of the award, but that sounds about right, right? Like, this is like, you know, the award for big, for best barbecue kind of situation, the Lenin Award for Peace. But, but yeah, like, you know, Bill Ayers obviously, famously was Obama's mentor. There has been in the Susan Rosenberg.

Rachel Bovard (44:46)

Right, who bombed the Senate, right now.

Inez Stepman (44:49)

Raises money for Black Lives Matter violence in the 70s, by the way, something that Rachel points out in the letter she's circulating. This study conveniently leaves out all of that 70s leftist violence as well and chooses a start date that exempts 9, 11, somewhere in the middle, but right after the waves of violence from the left in the 60s and 70s. But again, the point is not even the tit for tat. I think we have a good argument on the tit for tat. Don't get me wrong.

Emily Jashinski (45:14)

Wrong.

Inez Stepman (45:14)

But the point is, how is this being treated by mainstream organs, either of the party or of media or people who are actually supposed to be responsible with their public presence. And the reality is that the left has institutionally accepted political violence. They praise political violence on university campuses. They invite politically motivated terrorists who have conducted bombings into, you know, lauded positions with nice sinecures and allowed them a position of teaching young people. Right there, There is no comparison to that on the right. Nobody is inviting, Nobody is inviting Uncle Ted. Okay?

Emily Jashinski (45:52)

Right. Nobody who's not even really on the right or not even really on the right.

Inez Stepman (45:57)

No.

Emily Jashinski (45:57)

It would be like taking a militiaman from the like 90s, like somebody who was running around with Timothy McVeigh and, and putting them in a position at Hillsdale, like it doesn't happen.

Inez Stepman (46:07)

It doesn't exist. Exist. There is no right wing media prize for Oklahoma City bombing, you know, political violence Right. And that's what the left does every day. And Jimmy Kimmel just did it after saying, no, no, I disavow political violence, but I should be able to make a joke, which was not the problem. The problem is not the joke. The problem is that you could repeated false information about the. The assassin. Right.

Emily Jashinski (46:29)

That does make me like. Actually, this is a suggestion that I have that Inez, get the David Koresh Chair for Political Studies at Bob Jones University. That's my idea.

Rachel Bovard (46:40)

Bob Jones is not ready for it.

Inez Stepman (46:41)

As that's all I'm saying.

Emily Jashinski (46:42)

They're not. Well, actually.

Inez Stepman (46:43)

So speaking recently and I found out that I'm one of the more right wing people at Regent University.

Emily Jashinski (46:50)

It's time for you to join a megachurch. The water is warm. Okay, calm down.

Inez Stepman (46:56)

Crab cats are calling.

Emily Jashinski (46:58)

I know she likes the fog machines. Okay, Inez, this is a great segue to talk about Harvard because Donald Trump said in the Oval Office on Tuesday, quote, they will be paying about 500 hundred million dollars and they'll be operating trade schools. They're going to be teaching people how to do AI and lots of other things. He also said, quote, their sins are forgiven. That came a day after the White House, according to the Harvard Crimson, quote, launched federal. Federal suspension and debarment proceedings against Harvard, A highly unusual move that would cut off the school from access to federal grants and contracts. The. The trade school for $500 million seems to look like the Brown deal. Deal for $50 million that happened earlier this deal earlier this year. What's. What's going on with this? And as education is your specialty area, is this good or bad?

Inez Stepman (47:48)

I. I say raising universities is my specialty area. Which would be more accurate these days.

Emily Jashinski (47:54)

The. The General Sherman of academia.

Inez Stepman (47:56)

Yeah, that. I like that. You know what? You could, you can, instead of the, whatever the, the Uncle Ted Prize or whatever. You're talking.

Emily Jashinski (48:02)

David Koresh.

Inez Stepman (48:04)

No Astronomy. So obviously top line, this pressure on universities works. We saw initially this attempt to carve out the narrative, especially among those hopeful on the left, that Columbia had knuckled under, but Harvard was going to be the resistance to this. Right. And they're both coming to the conclusion that I've been writing about for a decade now, which is that universities can't say no to federal money. Their entire business model is built around federal subsidies, federal money, taxpayer benefits. Okay. And that is how they've amassed so much money. It's how they have huge endowments. It is literally their business model. And the only thing stopping the right for all these Years from having influence over universities when we're in power has been essentially the refusal to use power. And I always love Rachel's analogy here where there's so many Republicans and I think she was talking about Mitch McConnell. But it applies to a lot of people. People believe that winning elections is just putting a trophy on your shelf. Like, hooray, we've won an election. Like, we don't have to do anything with this political power.

Emily Jashinski (49:06)

Consulting contracts go up. Yep.

Inez Stepman (49:08)

They polish the trophies. That's it. This kind of pressure on universities was always possible. It was always just a matter of political will. And the reason that they're having to settle is because they're guilty as hell of all counts. They have been breaking federal law and civil rights law law for decades. And they've expected to get away with it because one, you know, ideology said they should and two, Republicans were allowing them to get away with it.

Emily Jashinski (49:33)

Right.

Inez Stepman (49:33)

Republicans never use the levers they will knuckle under. They will eventually go through enough presidents where some one of them is going to sit all of the faculty around the table and say, look, we have a choice. Either we can do 80% reduction among you guys, or we have to listen to these demands. In terms of the substance of the settlement, look, I'm happy about, I'm happy about any pain that's being caused to Harvard by $500 million settlement. Settlement. It's poetic to make them, you know, run trade schools. I think it's a good little class touch on this, especially since the value of a Harvard degree, since they don't actually teach much of value to most of their students, some majors accepted, but for the most part, they don't actually teach anything. The value of a Harvard degree is for elites to network with each other so that they can get fancier jobs from each other after. So there is a nice touch there, a poetic touch by the Trump administration of forcing them to fund and run these kinds of schools. Schools because their entire business model, aside from the taxpayer paying for it, is the taxpayer funds elite networking. Right? That's what Harvard, Harvard degree is now. So I like that. To me, I'm more interested in what ends up being in a specific deal and whether or not they go under consent degree like Columbia. I want to see them reporting data on their admissions, right? Them reporting back to the federal government about whether or not they continue to violate the Civil Rights act and discriminate against white people, against Asians and their admissions, whether or not they continue to hire on the basis of race and call it Something else. I want to see that data reported back to the federal government. That's a really important piece of all of these, you know, sort of settlements, to me, is not just the dollar amount and the. The nice little touch of making them fund, you know, the. The working class pores that they've been keeping out of Harvard at. At the expense of the taxpayer. But I. I do. I want to see. See that consent decree actually reflect the fact that they're not going to continue to flagrantly violate civil rights law going forward, because that's what ended up the. That's. What's.

Emily Jashinski (51:27)

What's.

Inez Stepman (51:27)

That's. The reason they're on the hot seat is because they're just guilty of everything that the Trump administration has accused them of.

Emily Jashinski (51:33)

Rachel, I realize you're very much the wrong person to ask this question to, but has it gone too far?

Inez Stepman (51:41)

I am the worst person to ask that to you because I am an accelerationist.

Emily Jashinski (51:46)

You get the Lennon prize. You're ready to heighten the contradictions.

Rachel Bovard (51:50)

It isn't too far until we're over the cliff and we're looking at each other asking where the parachute is. Then we know we've done something cool. But, no, I mean, look, I am. I was just gonna say to Inez, like, are we happy about trade schools? Because I feel like it's not violent enough. Right. I feel like they need to be made to pay in some way. Like, you know, Inez may be correct that running these trade schools will sort of have the effect of balancing some of the ideology and the backgrounds that are, like, brought into the school.

Inez Stepman (52:23)

Really. I just think it's going to make them embarrassed and. Because all they have is prestige. Right. I just think it's a nice little humiliating touch for them.

Rachel Bovard (52:30)

I actually do love the idea of, like, someone graduating with, like, a. As a master electrician from Harvard.

Inez Stepman (52:38)

I.

Rachel Bovard (52:39)

Would hire that person.

Emily Jashinski (52:42)

Literally all of my grandfathers were electricians.

Rachel Bovard (52:44)

Yeah, if you're on thumbtack with that.

Inez Stepman (52:45)

Degree, I'll hire you.

Emily Jashinski (52:47)

Okay, that sounds good. Well, Inez, you. You predicted some of this. Actually, you've been rather pressured. Tell us how you manifested this higher education takedown.

Inez Stepman (52:58)

I didn't manifest anything. It's just that the Trump administration is like Santa Claus to people on the right. And on this issue in particular, I just. The only thing I did was scream for 10 years that this was possible, that we didn't have to actually continue to fund people who hate us. That is a completely political choice, and it's a totally legitimate choice to Say, you know what, they're giving us ample grounds to defund them because they're flagrantly in violation of civil rights law and other federal laws literally constantly, everywhere on the books. Right. And the only thing that was missing was the political will to actually enforce the it. And you know, that that's what Trump has done, I think, for the right in, in a lot of different contexts. Right. And to answer the question about, have we gone too far? No, we haven't. The danger is not going far enough for the right. I think, to me, the, the big lesson here is, is the Spanish Civil War and, oh, boy. Yeah, well, General Franco, you don't stop. He's a great general stop institutional leftists from like, for example, example, just creating permission structures for violence that is then carried out by their fellow travelers over and over again. Right. Actually, every solution we have under the law, and I would argue that all of these solutions fall even within the confines of small ill liberalism. This is merely about choosing where the taxpayers are going to spend their money. Where you spend the mechanic from Ohio's money. Are we going to spend it on Harvard University? Are we going to spend it somewhere else? Right. For the American people. And that's a solution that's firmly democratic, it's firmly liberal. But if we don't apply it consistently and we don't actually end up dismantling these institutional networks of the left under the Trump administration, the next iteration will be something more like Franco because people just won't tolerate forever, you know, being shot at in the end of the day, just like the right in Spain would not ultimately decide it. Wait, we can't actually tolerate the fact that there are roving bands of leftists, you know, burning Catholic churches and raping nuns. And you give me a choice between that and Franco. Right. A lot of people in Spain were like, well, I'll go with Franco then, because, you know, the, the moderate right did not stop that. They didn't stop it. And because they had this, this false notion of, of kind of a fair play when the left was essentially totally disregarding that and moving to political violence. Politics is a substitute for war at the end of the day. Right.

Rachel Bovard (55:25)

A great example of this right now. And the danger and as I was talking about is, you know, you have, we're in the middle of this shutdown. You've seen Russ votes say, and the president say in, you know, okay, Democrats, Democrats are going to shut down the government. I will use my authority at the Office of Management Budget, not just to furlough federal employees, but to fire them.

Inez Stepman (55:43)

Right.

Rachel Bovard (55:44)

And everybody was cheering. And the three of us were talking about it earlier today, like, if Russ Vote is able to do this, he will have done more in a week than 50 years of the conservative movement who have been talking about dismantling the administrative state for decades. Literally decades. What do.

Inez Stepman (55:59)

So many symposia. Yes. So many op eds, but to create.

Emily Jashinski (56:04)

The permission architecture for Rustopia, what do.

Inez Stepman (56:07)

You think dismantling the administrative state would look like? Papers, essays, thoughts.

Rachel Bovard (56:11)

This is the question for a long time, like, within hours, this question was put to Senate Republicans. Are you pumped about. Do you support Russ Vote doing this? And Senate Republicans Kevin Kramer.

Emily Jashinski (56:24)

Kevin Kramer, yes.

Rachel Bovard (56:26)

Literally, were like, I don't know, we might lose the moral high ground. It's like you people like you have run on this issue. You campaigned, I guarantee you, on their websites under the issues section. Section. The lead issue is dismantling the administrative state, cutting regulations, shrinking the bureaucracy, and then when confronted with the ability to do it, the. Well, I'm assuming, well thought out, you know, legally architected plan from Russ VO and Mark Paola, omb, they. They can't find their fainting couch fast enough. This is what Inez is talking. This is what she's talking about.

Emily Jashinski (57:03)

Right?

Inez Stepman (57:03)

I mean, in agreement with Rachel, as.

Rachel Bovard (57:06)

Almost always, the hive mind is Kevin.

Emily Jashinski (57:10)

Kramer of North Dakota and Thom Tillis of, what, North Carolina.

Rachel Bovard (57:14)

Yeah.

Emily Jashinski (57:15)

Red states. Yes, red states. Just keep that in mind. Just keep that in mind. Yeah. There is a lot of hysteria going on about what Russ is doing, and a lot of it misrepresents to average people what's actually happening. I think if it was presented fairly, which is obviously not going to be in the establishment press, there would be. Be a different. I mean, I think people would see it as much more like lowercase D, Democratic. But Rachel, like, and Inez, both of you have done a lot of talking and writing about that over the last few years. So I wanted to get your take on a more important thing before I let you go. I'm going to read a quote from a new podcast description. And this podcast comes out tomorrow and want you to tell me who you think is going to be the host of this podcast. Quote. Is it just us or are things actually terrifying right now in the world of public health, Every day brings another scary and confusing headliner. Farfetched claim childhood vaccines are suddenly up for debate. Fluoride is being described as industrial waste, and it feels like everyone is talking about raw milk. Who is it?

Rachel Bovard (58:22)

Inez, do you have Any idea?

Inez Stepman (58:24)

I just assume that it's some, some like crunchy left wing podcast, but I, I honestly do not consume that market. Crunchy podcast is not crunchy left wing.

Emily Jashinski (58:37)

Yeah, okay, let's go with that. I'm gonna continue reading the description quote. Join Dr. Chelsea Clinton and a group of doctors, dietitians and parenting experts as they shine light on what's true, what's misleading, and why it all matters. They'll give you the tools to debunk misinformation wherever it comes up. From Lemonada Media and the Clinton Foundation. New episodes out every Thursday. Lemonada Media.

Inez Stepman (59:01)

Question, is Chelsea Clinton in the medical field? I feel like I wouldn't know if she were, but if this was a doctorate in something else, it would be especially funny.

Emily Jashinski (59:10)

I'm gonna look it up right now. As you guys count.

Rachel Bovard (59:12)

No one is asking for this. No one. No one.

Emily Jashinski (59:17)

The good people of Lemonada Media, who also have brought you the podcast of Meghan Markle and Samantha would disagree, Rachel. They seem to have their finger firmly on the Poe.

Rachel Bovard (59:26)

No one asked for the Meghan Markle thing either. This is like, I'm convinced that this is how God makes me do penance for things is when I'm forced to.

Inez Stepman (59:34)

Like, cynical for a moment. But isn't this the same thing as is constantly going on in D.C. with really boring politicians writing memoirs, ghost writing them? Yeah. And shoving them out the door. It's just a way to pay off people, right? Isn't it just a direct payoff to. In the same way, the book advance, they never, they never have any hope of making back the. Whatever it is, $2 million book advance for the latest, you know, gripping memoir by Chuck Schumer. Nobody reads it but a bunch of institutions buy a bunch of copies and, but even so, they don't make the money that, that they expect to on. On the book. The publishers don't, but it's, it's, It's a way of paying off people. And this is the exact same thing the left is paying off off, you know, all of their sinecure. Look, all I can say is at least Chelsea Clinton is not actually. Has not actually bombed Congress. So in that sense, it's a step up from all the other people that the have offered sier to.

Emily Jashinski (60:30)

Well, on that note, I'll give you guys an opportunity before you run to guess what Chelsea Clinton's doctorate is in.

Rachel Bovard (60:37)

Women's studies.

Emily Jashinski (60:40)

Global.

Rachel Bovard (60:41)

Global economies and I don't know, foreign development.

Emily Jashinski (60:46)

Now remember, she's hosting a medical podcast, so.

Rachel Bovard (60:48)

Oh, right.

Emily Jashinski (60:49)

Public health oh, gosh, Inez, go ahead. I know you don't want to guess.

Inez Stepman (60:56)

Communications.

Emily Jashinski (60:58)

That's the closest. Her doctorate is in philosophy. It's the. It reminds me of the great Joe.

Inez Stepman (61:05)

Philosophy would be to go to a Harvard trade school.

Emily Jashinski (61:08)

Come on. A doctor of philosophy degree in international relations.

Inez Stepman (61:12)

I would definitely rather read or listen to a medical podcast by somebody with a Harvard electrician degree.

Emily Jashinski (61:20)

It's from Oxford. Yeah.

Rachel Bovard (61:24)

I mean, I think that makes it worse.

Emily Jashinski (61:26)

It's all bad. There's no There. There's. There's no glass half full to this. But listen, she's going to tell us what's true, what's misleading, and why it all matters. So I expect it to be an absolute spirit. Smash hit. Any. I mean, any final thoughts here on. On Chelsea Clinton? No. No.

Rachel Bovard (61:47)

I was thinking nobody was asking for this, but maybe. Maybe the libs on Blue sky, this might be for them.

Inez Stepman (61:52)

I think it's people. I'm telling you, it's people who want to bribe the Clinton Foundation. That's who's asking for this.

Emily Jashinski (61:58)

Yeah, Advertisers, probably. Yeah, that's a good point, Chelsea. Oh, Chelsea. No.

Inez Stepman (62:03)

Godspeed, Chelsea. We will not be with listening.

Emily Jashinski (62:06)

Right. Yeah. So that's. Yeah. The. Congrats, aluminum media, on landing this. This big fish. We look forward to hearing her thoughts on why childhood vaccines are suddenly up for debate. Rachel Bovard and Inez Stepman, thank you for coming back on the show. It's always so much fun to have you here. I saw you were both drinking red wine, so. Cheers.

Inez Stepman (62:30)

Cheers.

Emily Jashinski (62:31)

All right, have a good night. Go tuck your kids in. They're probably already asleep. They're young. All right, on that note, let's get to. Well, I. I want to talk about Jane Fonda, obviously. What else would we be talking about? But before that. I've mentioned this before. It's really hard to go to sleep after the show. Maybe Rachel and us are going to experience that right now after you have all of the adrenaline of a live broadcast. Falling asleep is difficult when you wrap at 11. And I really mean this, though. Those cozy earth bamboo sheets, I look forward to sleeping. It makes it much easier for me to jump into bed after the show. Cozy earth bamboo sheets and bubble cuddle blanket are fantastic. You get excited to jump into bed even after the high of partying with Rachel and Inez, at least virtually. These bamboo sheets are next level. Buttery, soft, breathable, and they keep you cool all night. You'll sleep a few degrees cooler and wake up genuinely refreshed. And the Bubble Cuddle blanket is like a warm, luxurious, luxurious hug. Midweight plush faux fur equal parts nap worthy and stylish. There's a reason Cozy earth offers a 100 night sleep trial and a 10 year warranty that says it all. They know you'll fall in love so visit cozyearth.com use my code EMILY for 20 off. That's cozyearth.com code EMILY and if you get a post purchase survey, let me know you heard about Cozy Earth from Afterparty with Emily Jashinski. Because home is not just where you live, it's how you feel. Let's go home with Cozy Earth.

Advertisement Voice (63:56)

Do you have $10,000 or more in credit card debt? Maybe you're even barely getting by making minimum payments. With credit card debt hitting record highs, National Debt Relief offers real debt relief solutions for people struggling to keep up. These options may reduce a large portion of credit card debt for those who qualify. You don't need to declare bankruptcy and you may be able to pay back less than you owe regardless of your credit. National Debt Relief has already reduced the credit card debt for more than 550,000 consumers, so don't wait if you owe 10, 20 or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in credit card debt, you can now take advantage of this financial debt relief as the cost of living increases. To find out how much you could save, visit nationaldebtrelief.com that's nationaldebtrelief.com Want to.

Rachel Bovard (64:42)

Look and feel your best this summer? Don't just think skin deep, think cell deep with Prolon. Prolon is a plant based nutrition program featuring soups, sn snacks and beverages that nourish the body while keeping it in a fasting state, triggering cellular rejuvenation and renewal. With proper diet and exercise, Prolon can help target fat loss, support lean muscle and reset your metabolism so you look and feel your best all summer long. Prolon is science backed nutrition that can help change your relationship with food in just 5 days. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe@prolonlife.com PandoraPromo these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. See site for details.

Emily Jashinski (65:27)

I promise thoughts on Jane Fonda and thoughts on Jane Fonda you shall have. So it was announced today that Jane Fonda and let me just read from this Variety report if I can find this Variety report. Quote Jane Fonda has relaunched the Committee for the First Amendment, a McCarthy era initiative founded in the century 19th, the 1940s by her father, of course, Henry Fonda. To protect against attacks on free speech, the committee has already received the support of more than 550 A list names. Just to be clear, they're not 550 A list names in the world. They say it includes Gracie Abrams, Quintana Brunson, Kerry Washington, Natalie Portman, Aaron Sorkin. Aaron Sorkin, of course, Aaron Sorkin, Spike Lee, Viola Davis. I'm not going to read this full list because again, it is very long. Oh, Rosie o'. Donnell. I just noticed Rosie o', Donnell, our friend is on on the list. I hope she asked her therapist if it was a good idea to sign per the conversation we had the other night. But variety goes on to add the McCarthy era ended when Americans from across the political spectrum finally came together and stood up for the principles in the Constitution against the forces of repression, Fonda said in a statement. Those forces have returned and it is our turn to stand together in defense of our constitutional rights. Rights. This just makes my head hurt because comparing what just happened to Jimmy Kimmel to the decade of actual McCarthy era callbacks and we can have a separate debate about the the merits of Joe McCarthy's crusade. The read Stan Evans book, I think it's called Blacklisted by History on that we can have another conversation about it. I'm sure Inez would actually love to have that conversation, but any. Anyway, Jane Fonda is comparing what just happened to Jimmy Kimmel. That's what the gist of this letter really is. Comes after what happened to Kimmel, who's back on the air, by the way. He's back on the air. Colbert is on the air until the end of the year. They didn't just cancel him and replace him with a right wing host, they canceled the whole show. Okay, so the idea that that creeping McCarthyism is represented by what happened to Kimmel and Colbert at an emergency level when that same concern was not extended to the many, many people. In fact, it's not just that those concerns weren't extended. It's not just that a lot of the same people who signed this letter weren't, were just quiet. They were active participants in cancel culture for about 10 years. And it started before woke was really even a word. Quote, woke was really even a word, but obviously picked up and hit a crescendo after 2020. This letter I would have taken seriously then. I would have taken it seriously then. Just like by the way, we had Brendan Carr on this show and asked him about whether maybe the entire law just needs to be changed so that the government doesn't have the power to yank potentially broadcast licenses. In the question of, quote, public interest, Carr's argument is what we talked about on this, on today's show that Inez and Rachel made, which is Republicans, while the levers are there, should use the levers of their power. But again, I just will remind everyone, Jimmy Kimmel is back on the air and in all likelihood the reason he was polled indefinitely for what was it like two to three business days, days is that there were boycotts from smaller companies who had smaller local markets to worry about. So personally, I don't enjoy the government jawboning late night comedians. It's not something that I think is like a great use of anyone's time. I think it would be probably better to build out a full case of how ABC violates the public interest or to just say, hey, I prefer to get rid of these standards, but they're here now and we have to talk about that and come up with a plan for these technological changes. Of course, like, that's, that's where I am on this. But the idea that you would extend this level of concern and this hyperbolic comparison to the McCarthy era right now, after what happened to Jimmy Kimmel, when you said virtually nothing for the last decade, in fact, in many cases you've said way too much in the other direction, encouraging these insane. When you go back and look at some of these stories, which were just tornadic forces on social media, a lot of the same people were cowardly staying silent or actually encouraging this because some artist had a thought that fell out of light. Think about Winston Marshall. Winston Marshall and the Mumford and Sons. Mumford and Sons. He said something nice about Andy Ngo and he got kicked out of his band. Artists should have been at the forefront of shutting that shit down before it even escalated to the point that it escalated to. And even now, you're starting to see a couple of people starting to larp like they're once again marching for free speech in Sproul Plaza at Berkeley. Probably one of the only people who deserves credit right now, now, honestly, is Joan Baez, who I think was at like 1964, one of those Sprawl Plaza demonstrations. And when Berkeley was trying to cancel Ann Coulter for speaking, this must have been like 2017 somewhere around there. Joan Baez stood up and said, let her speak. She said something like, ann Coulter's awful or whatever, but she said, let her speak. That was not repeated by anybody. She was alone and it actually, because of that, took some courage to say the baseline sentiment that artists who should be uncomfortable with pushing those kinds of boundaries and should certainly be, should certainly be comfortable with making others uncomfortable by defending free speech. That pushes the boundaries. They were nowhere to be found. They weren't leaders at all. They were followers and they were complicit and they were leaders against free speech. So it's completely laughable that Jane Fonda is now organizing the Committee for the First Amendment. The First Amendment, after the many violations. I mean, this isn't even getting into the Biden administration. The Quiet skies revelations that came out this week, have you seen those? Go check out Matt Taibbi's reporting at Racket for that. Check out the new revelations that Aaron Saberium reported on CISA under the Biden administration this week. Where were, where were these guys during that time period? Period? Absolutely nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. Telling us, actually that I think Joe Biden was okay. He was the healthiest president that we have ever had in some cases. Now, to be totally clear, if Jane Fonda is truly concerned about some of these mergers that look like they're in the works and are under the thumb of one particular man slash family, it would be Larry Ellison, the co founder of Oracle, who, for what it's worth, as the Quincy Institute posted this week, is the single biggest donor of the Israeli Defense Force. A very powerful technological figure, geopolitical figure, and domestic political figure. He is, looks like going to be one of the big investors in Donald Trump's TikTok deal. His son just was behind the merger of Paramount and Skydance. That merger was done with Larry Ellison's backing. And they are right now apparently prepping a Warner Brothers bid. So that would put what, CBS, CNN, HBO and TikTok all under the control in some not insignificant part of, or in some cases a very significant part. But, you know, in serious significant, in a serious significant way under the control of Larry Ellison and his son. That is too much power for one human being. And I'm hearing a lot of the conversation focused just on the news media. But if Gene Fonda is concerned about the movie studios that are getting wrapped up into this, she should be. She should be. If this happens with Warner Brothers, Paramount, all of those different companies coming under one roof, I'm, I'm here to hear it. I doubt that we'll see many artists go in that direction, though, because they know where their bread is buttered. So I'm with them if they want to stand up on that. I think that is a, an Absurd amount of power for one human being to have. Larry Allison is right of center, so he'll probably get more criticism, slightly more criticism than some enormously powerful left of center folks have gotten. I mean, just think about when a lot of these billionaires were anti Trump, the way that the media treated them when they were anti Trump versus when they kind of flipped on Trump. That's a fun case study in media coverage if you want to go back and look at it. But, but if that's what, if that's what Jane Fonda wants to talk about, I'm all here for it. But what we're actually lurching towards is a social media fueled, dopamine machine driven virtue signaling cycle where people are seduced by the promises of the algorithm into posting things that don't need to be posted. Emotional thoughts that maybe change 10 hours later. But then you have to dig your heels in because you've already posted it publicly. There's just a horrible vicious cycle happening when it comes to free speech and there's a lack of consistency. That's to be expected because that's what partisans do. It's the word partisan. It's in the word partisan. It's part of the concept. But not everybody in this country is a partisan. And, and artists should not be partisans on free speech. Journalists should not be partisans on free speech. And so I think some of these issues are way more complicated than the legacy media makes them out to be. And I'm here to explain that as best I can. But yeah, I think it's a crazy amount of power to be concentrated in the hands of one person. I don't think the government should be complaining about late night lines. You know, we've talked about the nuance in that case, but no, it's not like an ideal situation. But these people have no credibility whatsoever. And I think all of us should think about how to preserve our own credibility on these questions. In an age where every thought we have we are seduced to think of as a product that gets us dopamine feedback in the digital casino. That is social media. That is what creates a lot of pylons. It's what creates this awful incentive system to virtue signal through things publicly question like, are you posting this because you want someone to know that you know something? Because you want someone else to see that you think something, that you are something, maybe that you are good or maybe that you are part of this team or that team? Does it need to be posted? What is the purpose of posting it? Is it something that too few people are saying, are you raising a new point? Like all of these things, I'm not perfect and I'm certainly not claiming to be. But the systems are designed to keep us that way and to keep us imperfect. And that's where cancel culture comes from. And that's where we're going to continue to see it. It is not going to die down. It is going to happen indefinitely because we are all being, we're all being manipulated to be a part of it for the sake of profits in Palo Alto. Okay, that was a lot. That was a lot. I'll probably hang it up for tonight at this point. Maybe I'll have another one of these offshoot beer company VI loggers that they sent. These are great. Appreciate it. But remember, happy hour comes out Fridays, so emily.com hit us up on the afterparty. Emily, Instagram send us questions. I'm going to answer as many as I possibly can for this Friday show. Make sure you're subscribed on Apple or Spotify, wherever you get your podcast to get those episodes. I'll see you back here live next Monday at 10pm Eastern. Have a great weekend, everyone.