After Party with Emily Jashinsky

Episode: Kimmel-Colbert Crossover Fail, Jeffries Can't Take a Joke, and the Elite Effort to Control Speech
Guests: Rachel Bovard & Inez Stepman
Date: October 2, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of "After Party" dives into the ongoing transformations within American media and politics, with a special focus on the state of late-night comedy, partisan battles in Congress, free speech controversies, and the cultural influence of media elites. Host Emily Jashinsky is joined by Rachel Bovard (Conservative Partnership Institute) and Inez Stepman (Independent Women's Forum) for a wide-ranging, lively and incisive discussion, dissecting the comedic tactics and ratings of Kimmel, Colbert, and Fallon; the political missteps of Hakeem Jeffries; the perilous incentive structures in media and academia; and the new "free speech" crusade led by Jane Fonda.

Main Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Late-Night Comedy Battle: Kimmel, Colbert, Fallon (00:58–16:26)

• Kimmel & Colbert’s Crossover & Partisanship:
  Emily unpacks a hyped joint appearance between Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, highlighting its overt political jabs, particularly Kimmel's denunciation of Trump celebrating job losses during a government shutdown.

  • “No, I never imagined that we’d ever have a President like this. … The absolute opposite of what a leader of this country is supposed to be.”
    —Jimmy Kimmel (04:49)

• Jimmy Fallon’s Strategy & Digital Pivot:
  Fallon, in a CNBC interview, positions his show as apolitical, following the Johnny Carson method. Emily notes that while Fallon's approach once garnered high ratings, Colbert’s explicit anti-Trump stance now leads among broadcast networks, but the real action has shifted to digital metrics.

  • "We hit both sides equally...our monologues are kind of the same that we've been doing since Johnny Carson..."
    —Jimmy Fallon (05:51)

• Collapse of the Broadcast Juggernaut:
  Emily dissects startling ratings declines (down 16-29% in key demos, [06:34]) and how CBS is ending Colbert’s show—not just replacing him—to cut losses.

  • “The type of people who are watching TV on the broadcast format is different than those consuming content online... most people are now going for these fractured segments.” (07:40)

• The Business Model Shift:
  It’s now more valuable to capture small, passionate online audiences than broad, broadcast ones—a shift soon to reshape all media. Political edge now dominates content, but can't provide the old cultural influence.

Key Takeaway

Late night TV embodies the “fracturing” of American media: legacy giants hemorrhage viewers, political partisanship trumps neutrality, and digital metrics now drive value and influence. “Appointment television” is dead.

2. Hakeem Jeffries & the Shutdown: Out-of-Touch Responses (17:13–23:37)

• Jeffries’ Faux Outrage & Culture War:
  Emily & Inez lampoon Jeffries for focusing on “racist, fake AI videos” and culture war attacks instead of bread-and-butter issues like healthcare during the government shutdown.

  • "We just don’t have serious negotiating partners…they’re engaging in this erratic behavior, posting racist, fake AI videos."
    —Emily (18:30)

• Meme Wars:
  Rachel points out that Trump’s AI meme of Jeffries was “objectively funnier than anything Jimmy Kimmel has done in 10 years”—but Jeffries responded with victimhood instead of humor, highlighting a lack of confidence and inability to shift messaging away from grievance.

• Democratic Leadership’s Missteps:
  Despite a political opportunity, Jeffries is “stepping all over his own narrative” by leaning into race accusations, while progressives like Bernie Sanders stick to healthcare and win points with the base.

  • “They don’t have a policy platform anymore—just finger-pointing. They’re the Spider-Man meme: ‘You’re a racist!’”
    —Rachel (23:30)

3. The Culture War: Moderates, Messaging & Millennial Democrats (23:37–29:45)

• Democrats’ Messaging Dilemma:
  The party is “trapped” between activist base and moderate voters, particularly on issues like gender in sports, policing, and immigration.

  • "They cannot answer a question about if boys should be able to participate in girls' sports… she fumbled it so badly."
    —Rachel on VA & NJ races (27:05–28:00)

• Polls Reveal Weakness on ‘Woke’ Issues:
  Inez shares findings from polling swing voters: candidates lose significant support if they dodge hot-button cultural questions. Attempts to “paper over” culture wars please nobody.

• Millennial Democrats’ Online Virtue Signaling:
  The posturing and social media history of millennial Dem politicians draws them further from majority voters and is hard to walk back.

4. Defunding Police, Public Safety & Ideological Backpedaling (29:45–35:36)

• Zoramundani on “The View”:
  (29:59) Inez and Emily discuss the evasive “evolution” of New York candidate Zoramundani on policing—refusing to truly walk back prior activist statements while the media covers for him.

  • “Nobody is actually fooled by this… New Yorkers say this is their top issue and that they’re worried about Mondami (Mandani?) on this issue.”
    —Inez (31:14)

• Crime as Achilles’ Heel:
  Even in deep-blue cities, candidates’ radical records on police and crime, especially ties to figures like Assata Shakur, are real electoral liabilities.

• Persistent Fictions:
  Rachel eviscerates the continued citing of police brutality stories (Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Sean Bell) long debunked even by DOJ, showing how narratives of systemic racist violence are weaponized despite the facts.

5. Political Violence, The Cato Study & Right-Left Narratives (35:54–45:52)

• Cato Institute Study Controversy:
  Rachel describes efforts to force Cato to retract a study claiming “right wing violence” dominates recent decades—a study she calls “a dumpster fire” for its methodology (starting at 1975, omitting 9/11, including Oklahoma City, ignoring Waukesha massacre, etc.).

  • “You are contributing to an overtly false narrative that is putting other Republicans at risk.”
    —Rachel (40:24)

• Fundamental Asymmetries:
  Inez argues the far left openly celebrates political violence, inviting ex-terrorists onto campuses, whereas the right is never institutionally permissive of violence (“No one’s inviting Uncle Ted!”).

• Data-Fetish in Policy Arguments:
  Inez mocks the “fetish” among partisans for draping arguments in data viz: “as though making it a bar chart makes it objective.” (41:24)

6. Harvard’s Federal Funding Crisis: Trade School Irony (47:48–52:47)

• Trump Administration’s Pressure Yields Results:
  Harvard, facing DOJ legal action, will settle for $500 million and agree to operate federally-funded trade schools to avoid being cut off.

  • “Universities can’t say no to federal money… Their entire business model is built around taxpayer benefits.”
    —Inez (49:06)

• Rachel: "Not Violent Enough?"
  Rachel jokes that making Harvard create trades programs is “not violent enough”—she wants elites more thoroughly humbled for past abuses of civil rights law in admissions.

• Broader Lesson:
  Inez and Rachel agree: the right’s failure to use levers of power kept higher ed hostile and unaccountable for decades.

7. Use Power or Lose It: Administrative State Battles (55:25–57:03)

• Rustopia & Future of Bureaucratic Reform:
  The trio amuses over Russ Vought’s promise to fire—not furlough—federal bureaucrats during the shutdown, dismissing GOP hand-wringing:

  • “You have run on this issue … and then when confronted with the ability to do it, they can’t find their fainting couch fast enough.”
    —Rachel (56:26)

• The Mitch McConnell Trophy Case:
  Inez: “Winning elections is not just putting a trophy on the shelf.” (49:08) Right-wing passivity has allowed institutional leftism to persist unchallenged.

8. Chelsea Clinton’s “Health” Podcast & Sinecures (58:22–61:47)

• Mockery of Elitist Projects:
  In a comedic segment, Emily mocks Chelsea Clinton’s new medical podcast (“doctorate in philosophy of international relations”), paralleling political memoirs as elite payoffs with no real audience.
  • “No one is asking for this. No one.”
    —Rachel (59:12)

9. Jane Fonda’s "Committee for the First Amendment" & Free Speech Irony (65:27–end)

• Hollywood's Late "Free Speech" Conversion:
  Emily criticizes Jane Fonda’s “Committee for the First Amendment” as a performative response to Jimmy Kimmel’s brief hiatus, contrasting the letter’s McCarthyism rhetoric with a decade of left-led cancel culture.

  • “It’s completely laughable that Jane Fonda is now organizing the Committee for the First Amendment, after the many violations… they were complicit and they were leaders against free speech.”
    —Emily (66:40)

• True Threats: Corporate Concentration, Not Censure:
  Emily expresses greater concern for media consolidation (Larry Ellison’s pending mega-mergers) than government censure of late night hosts.

• Advice for Listeners:
  Social media “dopamine casinos” incite performative speech and viral outrages, fueling cancel culture from all directions:

  • “Not everyone in this country is a partisan—artists should not be partisans on free speech, journalists should not be partisans on free speech.”
    —Emily (70:10)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Digital vs. TV Transformation:
  “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.” – Emily (07:24)

• On Democratic Leadership:
  “They don’t have a policy platform anymore. They just have finger-pointing like they're the Spider Man meme.” – Rachel (23:32)

• On Culture War Issues:
  “These are kitchen table issues. They're not just dollars and cents … It’s those issues as well.” – Inez (25:18)

• On the Cato Study:
  “It is, and I say this in all sincerity, a dumpster fire.” – Rachel (38:39)

• On Political Violence:
  “The reality is that the left has institutionally accepted political violence...there is no comparison to that on the right.” – Inez (45:14)

• On Universities Knuckling Under:
  “This kind of pressure on universities was always possible. It was always just a matter of political will.” – Inez (49:08)

• On Chelsea Clinton’s Podcast:
  “Her doctorate is in philosophy...in international relations. I would definitely rather listen to a medical podcast by somebody with a Harvard electrician degree.” – Emily & Inez (61:05–61:20)

• On Jane Fonda’s Letter:
  “Comparing what just happened to Jimmy Kimmel to decades of actual McCarthy-era callbacks…just makes my head hurt…these people have no credibility whatsoever.” – Emily (66:30)

Timeline of Key Segments

| Timestamp | Segment / Topic | |------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:58 | Show start & episode agenda | | 03:31 | Kimmel & Colbert’s crossover clips | | 05:51 | Jimmy Fallon interviewed on CNBC | | 06:34 | Late Night ratings decline & digital pivot | | 16:26 | Advertisement Break | | 17:13 | Hakeem Jeffries, AI memes, and the government shutdown | | 21:32 | Rachel on shutdown messaging & meme wars | | 23:37 | Democrats' culture war messaging dilemma | | 27:05 | VA & NJ races: Culture war issues hurt moderates | | 29:45 | Zoramundani, NYPD, public safety in New York | | 35:54 | Cato Institute study on political violence | | 47:48 | Harvard’s federal lawsuit/trade school settlement | | 55:25 | Administrative state & Rustopia | | 58:22 | Chelsea Clinton’s podcast satirized | | 65:27 | Jane Fonda’s “free speech” letter & legacy of cancel culture| | 70:10 | Final reflections & advice on navigating speech in digital era|

Episode Tone & Style

The conversation is spirited, irreverent, political but sardonic, and rich in both data and pop culture allusions. Emily’s hosting blends sharp critique with dry humor and regular banter. Both Rachel and Inez provide expertly sourced, often biting analysis, with Rachel’s acerbic wit and Inez’s philosophical perspective standing out.

Conclusion

Fans of current events, political strategy, and media analysis will find this episode essential for understanding the shifting sands of broadcasting, the pitfalls facing both major parties, and the contradictions of contemporary free speech discourse. The tone is unflinching, the jokes sharp, and the insight deep.