Kash Patel Parties with Olympic Winners, Newsom Plays Dumb, and Peter Attia's Epstein Fallout, with Rachel Bovard and Inez Stepman

>> My name is welcome to Afterparty, everyone.

Thanks for joining us here in the second week of our new time slot live at 9 p.m.

Although I know many of you are joining us via podcast and YouTube after the fact. As a reminder, please do subscribe, subscribe. It helps us so much if you subscribe on YouTube if you have not done that yet. Subscribe on your favorite podcast feed, that's where we drop our Friday episodes. Just for listeners only appreciate everyone so much for sending in your emails to Emily

at www.media.com and for supporting the show. My group chat is here tonight, that means it's in this statement and Rachel Bovard. We are going to bring them in just one moment to get Rachel really angry about parliamentary procedure. You may be wondering why we're covering parliamentary procedure.

Well, if you are concerned about the integrity of American elections, you may be concerned about whether or not Republicans will use something called the talking filibuster to pass

this very popular piece of legislation that the Republican basis basically demanding called

the SAVE Act. So Rachel and as are going to maybe they'll fight, maybe they'll both support it. I don't know, we'll find out alive, also going to talk about what happened with Gavin Newsom

“down in Georgia a couple of nights ago, actually I think it was just last night, he is being”

accused of racism not even just by the right, some interesting takes on what happened at a book event with the mayor of Atlanta that we're going to go through, Katie Porter pulled out of whiteboard for some reason and her California campaign, the basic nobody is paying attention to, Caspatel chugged a beer in the locker room after the USman's hockey team, one the gold medal, wild stuff going on at the BAFTA ceremony, BAFTA Broadcast where you

may have heard about this new movie, Chronicleing, the struggles of the panel Threatston's room called I swear, well the man that movie was based on swore during the BAFTA broadcast and it's now become a very sad racial controversy, also if we have time for it, Bonnie Blue says she's pregnant and Porter Vialz, Vyarda is literally in flames, so the weirdest slate of topics ever, but we're going to do it, let's start now with Peter Attia.

News just broke this afternoon that Peter Attia is resigning, resigning from his new contributor syrup over at CBS News where he was brought on by Barry Weiss to be a sort of fresh voice from outside the typical media establishment although I mean, is he his more sort of like a obviously if you know Peter Attia, if you've bought his book Outlive,

“which I think is literally on the shelf behind me, that is a book focused on longevity”

and so he's actually kind of a smart person to slate in as a CBS News contributor to bring on air to follow for example what's happening with the Maham movement that has been installed in very high levels of the American government, but Attia as it turns out was mentioned about 1,700 times in the 3,000,000,000 Epstein file documents. So the Hollywood Reporter is saying that on Monday, a note from the CBS booking department said that Attia told the network he would be

resigning amidst all of this. What's interesting is that reports from inside CBS News, we covered this just a couple of weeks or maybe even been last week, suggested Barry Weiss was pushing for Peter Attia to stay on as a contributor to push back against an example of quote unquote cancel culture as Barry Weiss and actually probably many others in the situation feel is descending on Peter Attia. Who, by the way, that book is a monster bestseller. He is

very popular. He's not really politically polarized. Obviously he's been in conversation with people in kind of Maham world, but he's not a super polarized political figure. So

the question as we covered when it first came to light that he had been sending Jeffrey Epstein

“some emails. I think I'll put some of them up on the screen here just so you can see what we're talking”

about. Here's one. Peter Attia says to Epstein in 2016, "Thank you so much." See, next time, hopefully Jeffrey Epstein is in town when I'm back into weeks. I go into J. E. withdrawal when I don't see him. He then says at one point to Epstein in 2016, "Pussy is indeed low-carb, still awaiting results on gluten content, though." He also said, again, this was 2015 and so mid-2010s,

"You know, the biggest problems with becoming friends with you." The life you lead is so

outrageous and yet I can't tell a soul. Attia has explained this by saying, you know, he wrote about this from his perspective. He said, "I wrote about this in my book. I was a bad person back then.

“Yes, people have matched the dates up. I should have been with my one-year-old son who I think”

was in the NICU or one-month-old son. He was in the NICU at the time, but instead, he wrote in the book that he was in New York City for a quote-unquote work. And the dates line up, of course, with him, apparently meeting with Jeffrey Epstein. He said that he was a young scientist trying to make it, didn't really know any better. Now, if you're emailing someone who was convicted of what was sexual sexual sexual solicitation of at least one underage girl from the Florida case with Epstein,

about pussy. After he gets out of prison, that certainly reflects poor judgment. And then, even if, let's say, CBS News exists outside, it exists in a vacuum outside of the normal cancel

culture debate. Let's say, cancel culture never touched on this hypothetical world that CBS News

exists in the year is 1998. You then also have to ask some questions that have nothing to do with these traditional kind of cancel culture mods and say, all right, does this impede on the work

“place? As I talked about last week, I think that's a question. Are there women in the workplace,”

or men? I don't know who are going to be weirdered out, having to bring Peter Tia into the green room, knowing that he was emailing Jeffrey Epstein about pussy? Probably. Yeah. Is that unreasonable? Personally, I'd think it was weird, but I would also say it was, you know, a long time ago, and before the worst of the worst about Epstein was widely known to the public, so I don't know Peter

Tia. And if I knew Peter Tia, I would have a better ability to make up my mind about that, but

inside CBS News right now, a Tia himself stepped down. I don't know if that was because CBS made it untenable because Barry's support wasn't enough, or because he just didn't want to be distraction and he genuinely felt like he should pull out. I don't know. Was he qualified to have that position? Was it helpful to the network to have that position based on his expertise? Absolutely. There's no question that he was a good addition to the CBS lineup, and does this undermine

that? Does it undermine his credibility as a doctor, as a longevity expert? No. It doesn't. So, for me, the question really is, does it harm the public trust that the network has? Because Tia was emailing class things back and forth with Jeffrey Epstein. Well, given the public level of skepticism about Epstein, you can probably make that argument, whether it's reasonable to blame a Tia for that or not. You can probably make the argument that the network has to maintain

its trust with its viewers, and if you have a guy piling around with Jeffrey Epstein, is that helpful? Probably not. Not helpful to that, and if you're trying to restore credibility in media, which of course, Barry says the broader project is. Now, we don't agree on everything these days, but that is the goal to get more viewers because people trust you more. So, you can see where that would come into the picture. You can see where we're coming into the picture that some people

have deep suspicions about what Epstein, about the severity of what Epstein was getting into,

“and now there's an entire question about if this is a me to which hunt. I think there have been”

a couple of instances that do resemble me to which hunt, but I also think we're still putting the puzzle pieces together on this, and we should be rational, we should try to be calm and stick to the facts. No question about that. I don't know. I think this at Tia cases, maybe the most challenging cancel culture set of circumstances that in recent memory, because you have Barry Weiss involved, you've generally have seen involved, and you have the media, the medical world, I mean,

it's just like this this confluence of all of these different things makes it a genuinely tough one. I'd say they probably could have stood by Peter Tia. This is not significant wrong doing, though members of the public are not unreasonably suspicious that there was more going on. I don't see that there's any evidence of more going on. Peter Tia writes about how in the book he was totally misguided around that exact time period, and those emails include a whole lot of

people sucking up to Jeffrey Epstein, who wanted money for their research, and was it wrong? Was, I mean, if he was a convicted offender, they were probably rationalizing it in their own mind,

this freaky dude, assuming all they know is that, you know, what happened in Florida? I won't

“want anything to do with it. There's no way. I would want to have any personal connection with him.”

whatsoever. You know, it's a dirty business when people are trying to fundraise, and that explains a lot of this. But if I knew Peter Tia personally, I would be happy to testify to his character. I don't, so I can't. This is tough one, though. All right. Enough babbling from me in just one moment,

going to bring in our guests. But first, over the years, I've been clear about this. As you know,

I'm not just pro-birth, I'm pro-life. And being pro-life means standing with mothers not only before their babies born but long after, and that is exactly why I partner proudly with pre-born. Pre-born doesn't just say babies, they make motherhood abundantly possible. They provide free ultrasounds and share the truth of the gospel with women in crisis, and then they stay. With real practical help, including financial support for up to two years after the baby is born,

this is what true Christ-centered compassion looks like, not just for the baby, but for the mother too. So here's where you can make a difference. Just $28 provides a free life-saving ultrasound that is one chance for a mother to see her baby. And when she does, she is twice as likely twice as likely to choose life. Pre-born is trying to save $70,000 babies

this year, and you can be a part of that amazing number. So don't just say your pro-life,

live it. Help save babies and support mothers today. Go to pre-born.com/analy or call 8556012229 that's pre-born.com/analy. So happy to be joined once again by the people in my favorite group chat. That's Rachel Bovard who is Vice President over at the Conservative Partnership Institute and Nes Stepan Legal Analyst with Independent Women. Welcome back, guys. Glad to be back. Glad to be back in our earlier. That's easier for us old people with children.

I know, I know it is. And Nes is in the middle of a giant logistical moving process, and she still made time kindly to come on after party. And you know what, and there's nothing

“like a post-move party. That's the real party. Well, that's why I look like I'm in a hostage video right”

now. My audio is bouncing off the empty walls. And as I would take you, if you literally were a hostage as a guest on the show, and we would do whatever we could to rescue you. That's, I mean, that's who we are. Well, what phrase do you guys think I could say to convince people that I'm actually cannot? Oh, good question. The Education Department should remain intact. Fund of the Education Department. No, I think it would be something like, I mean, I don't like being

kidnapped, but they do have taste. I can't argue if they have taste that is to say. Let's talk about the say back, because I think it's going to make Rachel really mad before bed, and that's a goal that we have with the show. So Gavin Newsom recently, we're talking about him later, too, but this is what he said about the say back. If people haven't been following, that's obviously it's been pinging its way through Congress for a while. But if you follow politics, if you are

you know, close to the average Republican voter, if you're close to people who are diehard, GOP, you know, types of folks that are making calls at the party headquarters, you probably heard about the say back, because the base is absolutely demanding the say fact. And

basically, it is a voter ID, federalizes voter ID across states for people to vote. That does

require some extra steps to prove citizenship, but we're going to get into all of that in a moment after taking a listen here to Gavin Newsom, Jim Clyburn, talking about how the say fact is as Chuck Schumer said, Jim Crow, 2.0, here he is. And of course, we're not talking about the other aspects of the say back to go well beyond ID, and it goes to the, I mean, which is also part of Jim Crow, the history, and that is when it comes to registration, you got to find your

“birth certificate. If you know where yours is, I have no clue where mine is, or you have to pass”

port and 2/3 Africaners don't even have pass ports. Oh, that's nice. Soft bigotry of low expectations on full display there. Finally, before I get your two takes on this, let's bring in Jim Mel Bowie, the one and only New York Times opinion columnist, did a little vote who did a little video for the times on just how evil the say back does, let's say a listen. Many millions of Americans do not have easy and immediate access to their birth certificates. More old. He's wearing a metro

hat. Get a passport. You have to pay for the metrics. Staying for the metrics. I was confused. And I did a birth certificate, most states require you to pay a fee, $10, $20, $30, $40,

And it's a full tax fee. Potentially an unconstitutional pull tax is something that

“degrades the notion that voting is a right. And that's what the states are. There's no suffragist,”

this sort of suffragist. You've got some screen. And that I think explains why the administration is preoccupied with passing this. Because the president is worried that his party will lose control of Congress. And what this attempt to enshrine, a set of election restrictions, demonstrate it's that one Trump does not see the rest of the American people as his equals. He sees them as his subjects. Okay. Well, this is probably going to be passed. I mean, has been passed by a

democratically elected House of Representatives. Most members of the Senate will support it. Republican members of the Senate will support it. We'll probably be enough to get it over the edge. Rachel's going to have many thoughts on that. And as I turn over to Rachel, let's put F2 up on the screen. This is a report from David Syvac at the Washington Examiner, who is highlighting some real and tough internal dynamics here. He said today, just hours ago, John Thunis facing rare

Maga backlash over the Syvac, including threats of a primary challenge in 2021. If he does not skirt the 60 vote filibuster to pass it. Mike Lee has been all over this Rachel's former boss. I'm sure there's been some collusion between units over there, huddling on parliamentary procedure. So, Rachel, the Wall Street Journal or the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel, things that you are wrong about this. You wrote about it in the federal list.

You are obsessed with the talking filibuster. You're obsessed with the Syvac. Why? Well, so there's the Syvac, right? The legislation that is the voter ID bill. And then there's the talking filibuster, which is how a lot of us have said the Senate should pass it, right? Two, a little bit different issues. Although I would take issue with Gavin Newsom's characterization that people are too stupid, women in particular to get their birth certificate. Do you take issue with that?

I do. And in fact, I'm so stupid. And two stupid to get a birth certificate. So, I asked

“Chatchy P.T. to make me a list of things that you need to do with your birth certificate. And I came”

up with all sorts of things like enrolling a child in school and full tax and getting Medicare and Medicaid benefits. And, you know, basic and applying for a marriage license, which I also had to get a new copy of my birth certificate to do because thanks, Mom, when I called her, I'm like, do you have my birth certificate? She was like, we have four kids and we are brothers of the ones. I managed paper for not use. I figured out. I managed it. But, yes. So, to get to the talking

filibuster, the way the Washington Post characterized it is wrong. There's so much gaslighting around this issue. We are not circumventing the 60 vote requirement in the Senate. There are actually two ways to break a filibuster in the United States Senate. Everybody knows about the mechanical

way, which is "closure", which is ending debate. No, first of all, no. Everybody does not know about

"closure". Yes, your friends all know about "closure". Well, everybody knows at least about this idea of 60 votes, right? Everybody says, I don't even need 60. I don't know about "closure" because I'm listening to her. I'm sorry. If any of your listeners disgrace themselves and follow me on Twitter, you've seen my intense autism at work on this question. That's bad. How the Senate can operate? But, okay, so you have the 60 vote requirement, or what we call the quote unquote requirement,

which is how you end debate the mechanical way. You vote on it, right? This was instituted in the Senate in 1917. But the second way that you can break a filibuster in the Senate is by physical exhaustion. And this is the way the Senate has broken filibusters since its inception. Up until

“1917, it was the only way available. And it is kind of what people are familiar with in the”

lore of the Senate, which is, you know, Mr. Smith goes to Washington, you stand and speak until you can speak no more. That's basically what it is. It's a talking filibuster. It doesn't get utilized in the Senate very often, although they could bring it up at any, they could go this route any time. But the reason that people don't use it very often is there's two reasons. One, it's hard and two senators don't like working. Those are the two reasons that they don't utilize a strategy

because it's physically exhausting. You have to force Senate, Democratic senators to speak. And that

requires participation of the full Senate. But this is and has always been available to the senators.

And there's a couple of reasons to do it. But the primary ones are, once you've broken the filibuster, you know, you can pass the bill. You put the question in simple majority. Every bill passes the Senate a simple majority. You either break the filibuster by invoking closure at 60 or you break the filibuster by exhausting the minority. But second, it forces a public political process on a question that 83% of the country supports. I would love Democrats to tell me for two straight

weeks why they oppose voter ID. When again, 83, 87, you know, per cent of the country says they

I mean Trump would be happy with the save act. Voters would be happy with the save act. So why won't

Jonathan force the talking filibuster? You know, he has-- And why are people so mad at you for suggesting it by the way? I have found over the years that you can disagree with sort of the establishment here in Washington on policy any time you want. They're not going to give a crap about that. But the minute you sort of pull back the curtain on procedure and you show what's possible or you show how things aren't-- things are what we call failure theater, right? You're just doing this,

“but it's fake. They get I rate. And I think that's the dynamic that's playing out right here is,”

you know, they're upset about the fact that people know they could be doing this and they don't want to do it. And, you know, Jonathan's public comments have just been well, you know, we'll take a lot of time. You know, his public-- his initial public comment on it was actually to his credit extremely honest. He said, "Yes, we could do a talking filibuster, but we probably aren't going to do it because we have a lot of other things we want to do instead, like past-retion sanctions and permitting reform."

And a crypto bill. Things the country are clamoring for. But since then, he's basically said,

"Well, there could be ramifications that we don't know about." And we don't want to get into those. There's been a lot of accusations that this is nukeing the Senate or upending the filibuster. This is just simply our true. Democrats did try to use the talking filibuster to nuke the Senate. This is not what Republicans are suggesting. Republicans are saying this is just the Senate and it's full measure. You don't have to change any rules to do this.

You know, the 60 vote requirement will still be there for other bills. You can still file closure. You just have this opportunity. Lean into it." And as do you see this as something that tells us a story about Washington or that gives us insight into the way Washington works? Do you see this as Rachel getting really upset about

“something because she's mentally ill? What's the story? Can't really let out?”

No, I actually think Rachel is completely right on this one, believe it or not. Every single one of the objections, Kimberly's Jossal, who I generally think is a good columnist and a great reporting that she's done in the past. But every single one of the objections even in her framing, if you strip back the sort of language around it, it was just the Senate doesn't want to do it's a job. It doesn't want to work. And the senators have other things to do that are more important

than sitting in the Senate. And those are just just not convincing to me. And I think Rachel's exactly right when she talks about the failure theater being the thing that cannot be exposed. Because, I don't know, for me, when I wasn't Washington to see, that was the biggest lack of being actually in the city. Is it not that you, I mean, everybody knows it. You know, sometimes you win elections, and sometimes you lose elections. Sometimes you convince the American

people of your perspective on the right, sometimes you don't. And the left convince the American people and the average people in the middle, right, to go with their perspective. Like everybody understands that you can lose this game called politics. What was really black-pilling about being in DC was realizing that people often, the people that are, quote, quote, fighting the hardest for you are actually just fighting this like fake Kabuki theater kind of fight, where they

get to say, well, I voted against this, but in secret, they know that X number of people, but one person voting against it, a bill, is standing in for 10 other people, who am because they do it wouldn't pass. And that is failure theater. And so I completely agree also with Rachel's point that it helps to focus the country on a particular debate about a particular policy issue. People at the last talking filibuster that I can remember in my political observation

was in 2010 or 2009 with Obamacare, where Ted Cruz did a talking filibuster. He read Green Exhibition Ham on the Senate floor. He just he did a talking filibuster. And people usually point with that as a failure. I did not see it as a failure because he rallied the entire half of the country behind opposing Obamacare. And then we saw this populist outpouring against Obamacare that turned into the Tea Party, et cetera, et cetera. So like it focused the country on a policy

question. It forced all of the media to cover the policy question. And yeah, ultimately he didn't succeed because he wasn't in the, but that's, I didn't, I didn't see that as a failure

“on his part. And I think it was how this then it was supposed to cooperate. So on this,”

this question, I'm completely with Rachel, on the substance of the say back. Yeah, can I ask you about that in us? Because you are, you are legal analyst. You did go to law school.

And this does federalize more election policy, which some people on the kind of never Trump side are

saying, that's anti-conservative. There's the Jim Crow 2.0 nonsense. And then there's just stuff about real ID and how some states haven't mandated real ID or some states, whatever it is. It's this idea that like real ID isn't everywhere. Not everybody has it yet. So there are

points. By the way, it's the first time I've seen him on a video as opposed to his terrible

columns. You know, there are always people who write in all caps. But then I got that soft voice.

“What he is putting it out on the video. That's what he is doing. I'm not going to get it.”

I'm going to get it. I'm going to have his hair on fire and just like screeching and running around. Because that's how his column sound always. Anyway, I would like people just wants to go and actually read the kind of poll questions that were used in the Jim Crow South, the kind of test that we're used to keep Black people from voting. And I want you to honestly tell me with a straight face that those kinds of questions are comparable to a request

to prove who you are. That is not what those were. If you read them, they're intentionally confusing. They're meant to and they were only applied to certain classes of voters, right? People who didn't

have, for example, grandparents who were registered to vote, right? And then you read these these

questions. And they are difficult to answer for me. They are intentionally tricky. It was an obvious ruse. It was an obvious ruse that was covering for preventing people to vote. That's not what voter ideas. That's not what 80% of the country supports. And I would like just once, all of these comparisons, where there's Gavin Newsom or Jim L. Booey, I would like them to put pull up a side by side. Between some of the pull tests that were required in Jim Crow and the requirements to get an ID

because I think it would be instantly ridiculous. It would make the comparison instantly ridiculous

“because that's what it is. What about taking this question away from the states? And this is”

up all the way around? I do think it's important that the states maintain control over the elections. I did not like some of the comments that President Trump made on this score that we need to take over the elections. That being said, there is a lot of regulation on state elections already. We have the BRA. We have interference with the way people draw districts. I mean, like there are court, there are federal courts interfere with that all the time. So this is not a pristine

libertarian like so many of these questions, right? There is a part of the right that wants to pretend that we live in a free market utopia or in this case a better list utopia. The fact is this is not something that is newer shocking in terms of regulation that's coming from the federal governments. But yes, I would like to see states maintain their position in the driver seat over their own elections. You want to know something funny. I just realized that my door

is open the tiniest bit and it's going to drive me crazy, but that's okay. My position on save is before we move on similar to Rokana's position on a billionaire tax in California. He calls it

“anti-revolutionary tax. We don't have to debate the wisdom of that policy, but I think people”

underestimate the degree to which Republicans and actually some independence, too. I mean, voter ideas. It wins in a landslide in polling. I think people underestimate the degree to which Republicans have lost trust in federal elections because of the citizen's question. I agree with a lot of people that's not something that's happened in huge numbers, that it's not swaying our elections in one direction or the other all of the time. But the point that Republicans are making

is that it could hear in Washington, D.C., non-citizens can vote in elections. That's a messy process that can obviously confuse the way people are showing up and voting. And so, I see it in that sense for John Thune to think about whether or not he should be doing the Beauvard strategy of a talking fellow buster. Let's go back now to Gavin Newsom, who was at a book event moderated by the mayor of Atlanta yesterday. Newsom's got to get out there and sell books called, what is it called,

young man in a hurry? Cool, but here he was talking about how they're debating reports. So he's in Atlanta. He's talking the black mayor of Atlanta. He was talking about race relations during this event. And then he comes out and does the thing about how he got a low score on the SAT, can't really read very well. He's just like you. And so, some people took this, we'll get into that, as him doing a soft bigotry of low expectations thing. Again, in addition to what we just covered

with him and the save act and birth certificates and the like, but him doing that with low SAT scores, other people said, including Chris Rufo, we'll get to this in just one moment, that it was a pretty white audience. So it was just, you know, some trying to level with people and be relatable. This is the clip. I'm not, you know, I'm not trying to impress you. I'm just trying to impress upon you. I'm like you. I'm no better than you. You know, I'm a 960 SAT guy. And you know,

and I'm not trying to offend anyone, you know, trying to act all there if you got 940.

But literally a 960 SAT guy, I cannot, you, you've never seen me read a speech

I was incredible stuff. Nicki Minaj reacted by say his way of bonding, reacted by saying,

his way of bonding with black people is to tell them how stupid he is and that he can't read. Let's move on now to Chris Rufo, who made a contrarian point. He said, the accusation against Newsom is that he was condescending to black voters. But from the video, the crowd appears to be heavily, if not mostly white. Does the accusation still apply? Or does it depend on race? And if the latter, why? He goes on to say,

I know we're supposed to laugh at Newsom, but he's an impressive talent. His political instincts are vastly superior to the perfect test score nerds who like to think they can outsmart him. You can put up as many IQ charts as you want, but it's a mistake to underestimate Newsom, and now let's bring in a reaction from the left. This is Nina Turner, Birney aligned, person on the left who said, Governor Gazem, Gavin Newsom went to Atlanta and told the crowd that

he is quite just like them. He had a 960 SAT that he can't read speeches, how insulting, working class people believe politicians are out of touch because they don't worry about the cost or rent or medical bills. Rachel, it seems to me whether or not this is specifically racial, it is Gavin Newsom attempting with his slick back hair, multi-thousand dollar wardrobe to relate

to the average American, whether it's racial or not. So first to you is this racial and be even

if it's not racial, is it still sort of a weird political strategy? I mean, it's Gavin Newsom in his essence, which is chameleon like, right? What he means is, oh, I'm just like you, if he means I'm a deeply insecure tri-hard, then yes, he is just like me, right? Because that is,

“I feel like that's what a land of all. Yeah, like he just sort of takes on the skin suit of the”

audience that he's with. You saw this in the Charlie Kirk podcast, he saw it in the podcast with Steve Bannon. He's like, oh, yeah, I can totally see. I kind of agree, right? He just sort of, it's almost like deeply sociopathic in some way. He just takes on like the again, the skin of whoever he's with, and he tries to reflect it back. It creeps me out every time, but that seems to me like that's exactly what he was doing here. He's saying, oh, look, I don't know that skin color necessarily plays

into it. It seems to me like, you know, he's trying to reflect the socionomic status of the audience and making a lot of assumptions about them, and then trying to kind of be that person to them. So I think Rufo is correct in the sense that that is a very sort of, you know, do not underestimate that political quality. Well, and as let me turn this over to you, one of the things Trump did very well was not try faux relatability and actually just say, hey, I'm going to give kids helicopter rides

that the Iowa State Fair not roll up my sleeves and stuff a corn dog into my mouth like

“Mitt Romney and many others. That was, I think in this new media environment, obviously much more”

successful, is new some doing that or is he not doing that? So on the one hand, I can see how he shows up looking slick like he's Patrick Bateman talking about how he's also kind of dumb and it's comes across as more honest, but it could also come across as like, bro, you're the governor of California group with a getty family. Even you trying to say you had this dual existence is bizarre. You're not like us. Well, the one thing that Gavin Newsom does not is honest, and I share

right local assessment of Gavin Newsom, which is that we should not underestimate his ability to sociopathically lie and just say within 30 minutes completely diametrically opposite things with a totally straight face. I know a lot of people thought on the right that, for example, Ron DeSantis won the policy debate, the California versus Florida policy debate, and it's hard to imagine how he could lose, not because Ron DeSantis had a bad job presenting the much better

objectively state of Florida versus California, which is literally on fire. But because Newsom was able to just straight lie, anybody who hadn't looked into it in detail,

“I think will be convinced by his ability to lie. So I would not underestimate him at all.”

That being said, this, I think you're right to draw the contrast, Emily, with Trump. I mean, what kept going through my head was I love the poorly educated line, which was just so much more honest, and so working in McDonald's in a suit and tie. People know that these politicians

are quote unquote not like us. We already know that we don't need them. I find it always extremely

knows the politics of the Democratic Party, and would never make it. I don't think he's morally

above it in any way, but I don't think he would make a racial comment like that or that kind of

“projections simply because I think he's smart enough to know that despite his 960s, H.E. score,”

I think he's smart enough to know that that would not go well for him within the dynamics of the party. I think this is what Rachel said. It's his socioeconomic tendency to try to reflect what he thinks of the audience, and in this case it's just unintentionally tipped his hand as to how lowly he thinks or how bad that he thinks of the audience. I just want to say I think Rufo is overestimating Newsom's talents a bit. He's right that he is more talented than a lot of the other

Democrats, but I think what Newsom has on the others is he understands the media environment, and he's just go back to this point about his sociopathy, willing to debase himself, enough time. I think it'll actually work really well in the current media environment. You would say you would think that, hey, in the age of the 24/7 news cycle where everything is on camera, how can you expect to get away with this kind of line, which was very popular in the 19th century,

by the way, a politician would do a train stop tour, and in the north they would be for tariffs, and in the south they'd be for free trade, right? So they would just say totally opposite things, and the local newspapers would write about it, and everybody would be happy, so this is not new when it comes to politicians, but I do think we kind of weirdly looped back in the media environment, where everyone has so little trust in anything. And it's because video, it could be AI,

and people just don't even look at material that contradicts their priors on the first glance,

“so I think in that media environment, being a really good liar is essential and important”

quality for a politician. That's super interesting, it's because I think there's information overload compared with the 19th century, meaning you could not, the reason saying the same result. Right, you couldn't pull what they were saying in the north and the south and compare, and unless you were swimming in information for whatever reason you were a publisher, something like that, you would have no idea for the most part, so what were you going to say,

Rachel? I was just kind of point out, you know, I do think the media loves this the character narrative that some of these politicians build for themselves, but the voters can

always sniff out, right? What's actually going on, but what's interesting is that we always had this

sort of artificial authenticity problem on the right for at least most of my life a little bit, we had, you know, these domestic political families, right? We had the bushes who like, you know, didn't know what the milk costs of the grocery store, you know, and then you had Mitt Romney. Oh, no, the scanner. Yeah, so it was like, you know, and then you had Mitt Romney, who was like, what is the sorcery? Mitt Romney, what is a poor, I've never seen one, right?

Like, you know, I've ever made his hot dog. Yeah, like, so we've always had a little bit of that, but I think it's interesting now because Trump, it by far, right? It's just the most authentic president we've ever had, just so comfortable in his own skin, but I would also argue that, you know, JD Vance has a similar quality. You know, people can think what they want about it, but the man is comfortable with who he is, and he just is secure, and it kind of comes across,

and I would say the same for Marco Rubio, I would not have said the same for Marco Rubio early in his career, but I do think he's evolved into this person who's just very comfortable with who he is, and that's a nice position to be, and finally, I think on the right a little bit, was just like, all right, our people are who they are, they don't try to do this like skin suit the thing. But we're going to agree with Rachel on both accounts on Marco Rubio and JD Vance, both,

“I think they're both insecure millennials. Well, I mean, no, it kind of comes with the territory, right?”

Right, that's it. Yeah, I think Rubio's an excellent quality, and I think it's going to be a problem for us. I mean, Trump, Trump has unique. Yeah. I don't think either one of those guys can pull off what Trump does in this. It's Marco and XR, I think he might be. He's doing the next, I think, because he can pull off. He's got a young Jacks, right? He's the only I think. To Rachel's point, I think they can both hit this minimum baseline, though,

now, which I think is actually a good let me assess this, could they sit with Joe Rogan or Lex Raidman for two hours and come across better than if they hadn't done it? I feel like that's where Harris failed. That's where others would have failed. I don't know if Gavin knows about it. Well, if count comma Harris is the standard for authenticity, then yeah, for it's lesser of two evil politics now. I mean, that's the thing like this. And I just, I don't see either

one of those guys having exactly that thing. Rachel, I disagree on very precise on what you're saying. I don't think either one of them is self assured enough. One of the most remarkable things about Trump, at least from an observ, and I hate doing this kind of pop psychology,

the guy has a meta narrative in his head. I don't think he has that little voice in the back of his head that is concerned about how he is being perceived at any moment. He is just like embodied all the time and that is something that are entire generation. Your id. Yeah, I don't, I don't know that we'll ever have a politician, again, who has not simply because the type of people who are like that, I just, I think they have been snuffed out by the internet. Well, let's, let's check in on a

couple of very online people. First, the California Democratic Convention featured one Katie Porter, because of course, who seems to be stuck in Amber, frozen in Amber in the pussy

hat moment of 2017. She's never left this era and she's at the Democratic Convention of California

doing the most. I mean, even Dems have turned against Katie Porter, who for a while was a kind of cause-saleb as someone who could come across as authentically working class, just the single mom trying to make it, then all kinds of stories came out, including one allegation that she's like whipped potatoes at her husband, ex-husband, mashed potatoes, hot mashed potatoes. I hot mashed potatoes? Yeah, that's not hot. Yeah, so we've, I mean, we've all been there. Jared just can

“duck really well. But, and that's what never throw potatoes. And that's what never waste potatoes,”

and as is an emigrant. It was a nice food. Yeah, it was a nice food.

The slomic table. Yes. Anyway, Katie Porter comes out with a whiteboard that just says,

"Buck Trump on it, at the Democratic Convention, let's take a look." That's right. We're about to watch the Murphy Brown reboot, and, you know, Twitter, I have no ideas. I just have swears, but, like, it's worse than that, Rachel. It's, I'm telling you, this is all generational. This is like that, fringy, you know, elder millennial gen-ech thing, and it's all the self-help books that say, you know, I was asked up, and I fixed myself here,

and it was like, it's, it's the, you pray love. Well, even though it's, it's the same thing with all the sex stuff, like, pancake, shaped like jigs. And this is the height of humor, like, it's incredibly cringy.

I don't know, but it's Buzzfeed politics. Yes. Yeah, no, but this is the thing. It's like,

this is one of my biggest pet peeves, actually. Like, you want to make me mad before, you go to bed, this is it. It's like these politicians who literally can't do anything. They don't do anything, but then they tweet, like, swears. And they're like, look how much I care. I'm authentic. I'm you. I can swear in my tweets. And it's like, you know, somehow, we're supposed to be, that's relatable. And somehow we're supposed to think they're fighting for us,

because they said the effort in their tweet. They called Donald Trump a shithead. I bet that's also like, soft, bigotry of low expectations, not in a racial sense, but in a kind of class sense, where they're trying to perform as relatable, working class people by peppering their speech with contrived, cost words. And listen, Katie Porter actually, I think, essentially, before she got into her political career, I think she's a pretty normal, before politics, pretty normal person.

“Now, normal people don't really go into politics. And once you're into politics and you have to”

fundraise and go everywhere, it's almost impossible not to be corrupted by that culture. You're in a bubble. She's in a bubble. She's not relatable anymore. She frozen in Amber in 2018. And as this is your home state, California's got the new sums. They've got the Katie Porter's. It's also depressing. There is nothing we're depressing in California politics. And I say that as someone who moved into New York, so I think I have some perspective on the matter, California politics are still

way more depressing. So that's just, you know, to give you just the absolute floor. So, yeah, I mean, California is totally screwed. It has as new, no prospect of digging itself out in my opinion. And it's just going to continue to be an example of failed leftist policies. We should just be thankful that they cannot build a Berlin wall around California because they are absolutely there in terms of trying to block people in to make sure that they continue to pay

outrageous taxes and so forth. But, you know, aside from the substance on the swearing issue,

“I do think it's just like cringe millennial culture. And I think it's everywhere. It's in that”

free to baby sex jokes. I don't know if you've followed that. There was a little bit of an online flap over this baby company and it had just been just sex jokes and the advertising, which people obviously found inappropriate for a baby company. But I think that's just the way it is.

really interesting insight on to, you know, how we curse. And the reality is that words like the

“effort and we're not going to, to bomb your, I think on this channel we could say it, but I'm not”

going to bomb it for you, believe it. Like basically that they have become blue rather than truly have seen the same way that hell and damn moved into the past. And John McMordor, as a linguist, I find it much more interesting in the language than, as a, as somebody who's takes on politics, but like, is that we, we had three basically eras of swearing in English. The first were, the worst words, you could, you could say all kinds of things related to sex and other matters

of the body, but what was really obscene was things that contradicted religion, right? So, damn and hell were wounds that and saying the effort. Then we moved into this era where everything that was obscene had to do with the body and apparently this coincided with people actually being able to have enough space to put up walls. Because before you just saw everything all the time, bodily functions sex, you know, within the household, there was no wealth to separate yourself from.

“And that's really where we, I think we grew up at the end of that era. Now, the things that are”

actually obscene are definitely having to do with identity, right? Because you cannot imagine any

of these people dropping the N word or the F word, the other F word, right? And they would never

in a million years use those actually obscene terms because those actually create the same reaction in people that the F word did 20, 30, 40 years ago. So, this is like a faux, you know, it's not really rebellious, it's not really shocking. Even though we're saying the F word, we all use this word in our daily lives, maybe that's not a good thing, but it has, it's no longer me during Lent. Yeah, no. If I could say one more truly obscene, in particular point is actually just like

it is a very surface level kind of faux transgression that isn't actually transgression. Because again, you cannot imagine a single one of these people they would never ever use any of the slurs related to identity because those are actually the obscenities in our culture. And I think it does say a lot about what we worship, right? We're worshiped God that we worship the body,

“and then we worshiped identity. And that's how it should happen. That is a really good point.”

Um, before we take a break, I want to keep playing cringe or no cringe or decided to keep orders cringe. What about cash, Patel, swilling beers after USA, hockey wins in Milan, men's hockey, I should specify it's very great that the women won as well. Cash is, let's just play this. And then we'll react to a bit cash, who there's a whole controversy over what he was doing there. He said he was monitoring interagency cooperation. Obviously, you can see others a legitimate

reason for the FBI, which is coordinating with other law enforcement internationally to provide security at the Olympics. That makes sense for my vantage point. But that's what he said he was doing there all kinds of debate about why this was an expensive necessary trip, cash is having the time of his life with the men's hockey team. They're singing Toby Keith, they're pounding brews. Let's take a look. It's wasting growth, pounding this chest. All right, we get really

got this amazing clip. Like watching those guys go, it's an amazing clip. But the cash of it all,

there was a guy who went on to Mara Logo with the gun and a fuel canister, like almost as this was happening. It's been a gut through his mom. It's still missing. Is this am I being, I mean, to me, just like the video, I loved the hockey team having fun. That was amazing, amazing win. Cash was like he was trying really hard to fit in with a bunch of bros. I know he loves hockey and I know he plays hockey. But to me, I thought it came across a little cringe. I now open up the

floor to Rachel and then to an as. Yeah, you know, I'm inclined to give him a little bit of grace because they clearly wanted him there, right? If he had inserted himself in this and it was he says they invited him in. You know, they're putting their medals around his neck, like he's hanging out with them. He didn't post that video, right? He's not trying to like flex on people and be like, you know, insert himself as is the main character. So I have a little bit of grace for that. I also just

think it's like pure Americana, like he got Trump on the phone later and like Trump talking to the gold metal hockey team is kind of, you know, what I sign up for in the Olympics. So like I take the point, you know, it's not a super, a super look, but, you know, for a moment of Olympic grace, I let out all that it passed. Would say you and us? I loved it. I felt down a rabbit hole by the way with

cash in India that's allowed to drink alcohol and eat meat. Oh, I didn't need to think about that.

Oh, much sense because he's just he's just seems like a bro. This is actually not an authentic

“for him. I don't think. I think this is actually, I mean, I don't know the guy personally,”

but it would not surprise me if this were not like, can you imagine, I mean, to pick another Indian guy in the fake in there, like trying to like, you know, like, it would just be so it would be in a suit, like full suit. Right. And not in front of my right. Try to become for boy in the suit. But like I actually think this is probably how cash Patel actually is. And I don't know. I thought it was a nice moment, a nice moment of American glory, a simulation, and joy. I, I, two few,

two few moments these days for me to criticize this. Well, well, there's also a point someone was making to me earlier because they were like, oh, I just really want my FBI director to be like in a fedora being very serious. And I'm like, okay, for tomorrow. You know, but like, we, we had that. And they worked out and it didn't work out. Like, so whatever, this is what if this is the FBI director that's not going to violate all my rights, that's fine. I'll take it. All right. So rich

me Guinness, my friend Richie says, he's played on a local hockey team here, like a rac hockey team with cash Patel for a while. And Richie says, the dudes on his team, like, I'm a lot, like, I'm a lot referring to cash. This is a fact. I'm torn here. I'm a hockey bro and also a media guy, but are we paying for the strip? Didn't cash criticize the same stuff under the previous admin, either way that I can tweak such criticism to proves America is epic. All right. Well, I think that's, it gets to this,

this question of whether it was authentic, if Richie says, people on the hockey team, like him. So we'll, we'll table that discussion for now and be right back in just one moment. Have to take

a quick break. If you finally want to fix your gut, make your hair healthier and stronger and add

“some glow to your skin in 2026, you need to add colostrum to your daily routine. Today's sponsor”

cowboy colostrum offers the highest quality bovine. As of course, cow colostrum available in the US, cowboy colostrum is 100% made in America from 100% American grass fed cows and don't worry, cowboy colostrum only collects the surplus colostrum after baby calves have had their fill. Cowboys easy to drink and is made with delicious natural ingredients and no artificial flavors. You simply add a scoop of their chocolate, madagascar vanilla matcha strawberry into your coffee or

smoothie and feel great the entire day. Not only will cowboy colostrum bring stability to your gut,

the peptides and growth factors will make your skin and hair look amazing for limited time. Our

listeners get a great deal up to 25% off their entire order. Just head to cowboy colostrum.com/afterparty and use code afterparty at checkout that's 25% off when you use code afterparty at cowboy colostrum.com/afterparty. All right, we're back now with Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute and as a statement of independent women and I want to talk about what happened at the BAFTAs. This is a wild story that has become racialized for, you know, I mean it's not surprising at all,

given what actually happened but basically I'm not going to play the videox. There's a here the N word being shouted but it was a presentation of a word at the BAFTAs in the UK and there's a movie out right now actually winning a word called I swear based on the true story of a man who struggles with threat syndrome so they brought that man into the audience warned the audience ahead of time that he may have ticks and outbursts because of course he has threats during the

broadcast and he did shout the N word when Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo were presenting in a word this though let's put Jamal Hill up on the screen has turned into a major racial controversy. Jamal Hill says asking for more grace for the person who shouted a racist slur instead of for Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo who had to push through being embarrassed in front of their peers but that's often the expectation that black people are just supposed to be okay

“with being disrespected and dehumanized so that other people don't feel bad that was I think in”

response to news that Alan coming of traders fame I mean also of other fame but for the purposes of this week traders fame was he got up and said something like this is what we expected it's part of the disease etc. Jamie Fox joins in and says the man who shouted the N word at the BAFTAs quote met that shit and again this has turned into a big thing the man John Davidson not the

based on was saying that he left the ceremony after that happened that he is mortified and of of course if you watch the trailer for the movie or if you've spent five minutes learning about rats you know that what does this make people say things they don't want to say and so this idea that there's was intentional racial slight that it was I mean I just think it's the whole thing is so sad this poor man left the events who's mortified the entire point of the movie is about people

“who struggle with this disease and you're honoring it at the ceremony Rachel what do you think?”

Well I think it's just this like layer of detachment and commitment to again the sort of like race politics identity politics like you've just made a movie about this like you've just celebrated this story you are now you you were you made a movie about what is a very messy reality but then when confronted with that reality and it's full messiness in your face and being actually like impacted by it and getting it on you in some respect it's like oh like you know

I how I cannot right like this is it outrage and it's just it goes to the point of like why do we listen to celebrities about literally anything like they are not normal people like more I just read a Nicki Minaj tweet on the show Rachel about Gavin Newscom okay separate category for Nicki Minaj

at this moment but setting that was always sort of publicans do when we will regret it for us I know we

well that we're like the only reason I was special we ended up with Schwarzenegger as governor of California and he was worse than most of the Democratic governor of California but I'm never going to get over the picture of Trump and Nicki holding hands with Nicki's like nice inch nails Trump's face like I have rock turned into a Renaissance painting anyway I should go on no I mean it's just the point like how can you say you are celebrating this film again about a very

messy reality but then we confronted with it condemn the person at its center like you are just heartless and graceless at this point what do you think it is? I mean I kind of just got to go with

“what John McOrder said I think we worship raising identity that's the only explanation for”

not even being able to give grace to people in a situation where it's obviously like a neurological disease that hearing that word isn't to be clear like it's an ugly word I understand it's

an ugly word I never used it myself I don't like hearing people use it but it also isn't magic

right yeah there is there is no magic and again actually I'm going to say John McOrder and saying like we had to help you out of two tours this in the 90s where for example you could read the N word in in Huffin or and you would read it out loud as part of like reading this this literature or you could have a panel in which you would quote somebody saying this right and nobody had a fit over it the fact that we've turned it into it it literally reminds me of

of a presidulizational tribes that like have some taboo around some you know the word the name of god or something and um well the word people I know it's an ugly word but nobody is actually injured by this word in such an astonishing way that we need to have hysterical fit over somebody saying it as a matter of a neurological disease okay this is not like or do you

“remember that um there was the college professor who was saying the Chinese word which is apparently”

a filler word negat n e g a over and over again and like people in the class were so offended they had to leave the class even though this is an entirely different language it doesn't have anything to do with the English and word right it just this level of uh worship around a word is indicative of something sick in the way that we think about race let's I mean yeah may not be like the most popular opinion out there these days but like I I I truly think that this is this has gone way

overboard has gone um from a understandable reaction to an ugly word than ugly history uh and an understandable uh sort of taboo in polite society using that word to like it literally being in a a curse an incantation that by mere listening to it like you're gonna burst into flames okay nobody is gonna burst into flames it's fine the guy hasn't disease okay but we'll awkward move on that's the thing about Jamie Foxx's comment that just gets under my skin and I think Rachel made

such a good point about how everything is out the window when you can have an identity politics blow up um Jamie Foxx is extremely intelligent he is a wonderful rich deep actor he's very very good

you have to be very smart to do that and I don't know if he paused a second before posting that

presenters who have to hear that in front of the world and react in time it is embarrassing and I

actually but the same way that you know have you ever been around somebody with down syndrome who or like absolutely I like like really you know clinically low IQ and for example they grab your butt 100% that happens people tolerating and by the way some of the worst reactions were not what you just read about Jamie Foxx it was oh we need to put guys like this in a separate room

“yeah we need to segregate them in the club that's what he did he left and he is this film was”

being honored and the whole point of what he suffers from is that he says things he doesn't want to say and that was the art that they all wax poetic about so often that was the point of this work of art

well that's that yeah and that's but that's the whole point like it's in aesthetic right everything

about this is a good point it's it's them you know the movie wasn't aesthetic it wasn't meaningful the things they purport to believe are not meaningful this you know race trophy thing is a is aesthetic you know you have now ostracized this person that you made a movie about claiming to celebrate like it nothing me they they mean nothing at the end of the day it's a completely superficial take on everything into like an as a point people who have actually encountered this

messiness in the real world like I have a brother with Down syndrome this stuff that I have it got into

“with him right and and this is people like this exist in their beautiful and their wonderful”

and their creative image of God like why do they not everybody understands us who's lived around

these people except for the people purporting to celebrate them in Hollywood and he apologized and left the room instead he was mortified so to blow it up into an international race in since in since is so sad um before we run guys let's talk about Bonnie blue listen the entire world is enraptured by punch who is the sweetest little Japanese monkey you'll ever see in your life and has been lugging around a little stuffed animal from IKEA that's now sold out around

the zoo as he or she unclear to me I've seen both try to make friends and be nurtured and it's it's horrible here we have this is a Trump level weave here though we have a porn star in in I was gonna say Lily Phillips what Lily Phillips too but also Bonnie blue who were kind of engaged in like a sexual arms race to bang as many people as possible in the shortest time period possible and you have Bonnie blue with what 400 people in one day for people one day she takes a pregnancy

test does a whole video this is F17 we can put it up on the screen the TMZ headline Bonnie blue so she's pregnant after having unprotected sex with 400 men pregnancy tests comes back positive and I don't know guys I mean she is such a I don't know if you've ever watched interviews with her but it's just like a psychopath more than even a Gavin Newsom like she's just unfeeling and stoic in a sense that's robotic about having sex with so many people it's bizarre

but here she is I guess trying to figure out whether or not she should have this baby you should took DNA samples of all of the 400 people that she slept with that day I also even know what my head is blowing up she like did it for I would argue like TikTok and only fans because that was being rewarded I don't know what's someone just stopped me from rambling I'm so sad about this whole situation mostly about punch but I'm sad about Bonnie blue too and as don't make me take this you

“have to yes now you have to take it because you ask not to now I have I mean honestly congratulations”

right like there's a new there's a new baby we love babies so congratulations her but like also this is like how the human body works this is how babies get made what did you think you were getting what's happening here well I mean 400 people it's it just shows the extreme like and as we had your colleague hadly on last week on one of the the shows that we did about the new report that you all put on at independent women and hadly was talking about how the friction

between sex and procreation has just been so removed to the point where we have a totally different approach to sex and motherhood and and little punch shows what happens when mothers don't take their job seriously enough but enough about punch by balloons like at least maternal person that I can imagine but I don't like maybe show maybe she'll surprise us I don't know look like having to have a child changes you that being said I mean I don't even know what to say about

this kind of discourse because we're all participating in what is driving even this entire pregnancy

who then convert to Christianity and then like film their baptism and it's not that I don't think people can come back from you know a be forgiven for their sins or whatever under their root rick of Christianity that's not my point is to argue theologically with it but it's obviously part of a coordinated game that then is like you just get off a whole new set of followers right and a whole new set of people who are giving you their clicks and money for like a new

purpose right and it's just it is always chasing attention and clicks and like it just the whole

thing really repulsive me I have a hard time commenting on it I don't really want to think about it sorry so I look I it's not good for the child right it's right children children either mothers and their fathers and ideally they neither mother and father to be married under the same roof those are those are the most important things actually after life that children need we are constantly engaged in the mommy wars and like ridiculous things about

edge case you know like minor oh should I put the baby for 20 tummy time 20 minutes or 40 minutes a day like do I have to show them the black and white flashcards is Montessori better or Waldorf

method like all of the stupid you know stupid mommy wars that go on constantly that are on a

“sleep training whatever like let's be honest none of those things matter what matters the most”

for these children is that they have their mother and father biological mother and father under the same roof every other arrangement of quote of hope family is inferior by every study and by common sense to that arrangement and that's what that child needs and mother didn't act in in a way that was conducive to that and that's that's sad for the child but things things difficult life is still life so we wish the best now it's gonna say you knocked out of the

park and I really hope that punch is mom was listening I don't know if if the mom if she's a listener but punch a punch is mom if you're out there I think and I just nailed it so something to think about all right and that's that bit of independent women and a Rachel Beauvard of the conservative partnership institute I love having you guys here thanks for staying up late not as late this time but thank you guys I know you're busy we like to come check it on the youth

“that's important it's important we need it we need it thank you guys we need to make sure that”

you're okay I really am like punch in so many ways in so many ways still attached to stuffed animals feel like I'm living in a zoo all right oh my you guys go oh man that was fun I love it when they're here and also the audience loves it when they're here so we have to keep bringing them back even if I hated it they would still have to be here quick break small businesses are the backbone of the American economy we all know this but getting funding from traditional

banks is an uphill battle of the 36 million small businesses in the U.S. over 70%

report needing additional capital every year Cardiff is the largest privately held small business lender in the U.S. having funded over 12 billion dollars since 2004 their application takes less than five minutes has no impact on personal credit and approvals happen in minutes with same day funding banks try to lock out small businesses Cardiff has the key big banks may not want to approve your business loans but Cardiff does if you've been in business for at least a year

and are pulling in twenty thousand dollars a month in revenue apply now for up to five hundred thousand dollars in same day business funding at Cardiff dot CO slash Emily again that's Cardiff dot CO slash Emily real growth fast funding Cardiff borrow better I want to finish tonight on port of area some thoughts on what's happening across Mexico it's actually not even just in Highlysco it's also in Tamalippus and around the country the last estimate I saw a courtesy of

“yo and Grillo is great great reporter on this beat crash out is his sub sack you should follow it”

he said 60 reported deaths of both cartel members and soldiers combined pray that doesn't tick up even higher than it already it is but if you haven't seen the scenes out of part of I art we can roll V3 here this is credit to Justin Carpenter many many videos rolling in from part of I art obviously a very popular winter tourist destination for people in the United States in Canada and really around the world I mean part of art is a beautiful place like most of Mexico

and is flocked this time of year crazy stories about people trying to get out scenes from the airport it obviously looks like a war zone and in a tourist town that's especially jarring

law enforcement apparently with quite an assist from US intelligence that's what the US side

“is claiming is that the Trump administration is claiming it looks like they used his girlfriend”

to lure him and then to kill him so a lot obviously on the line the reward as you just saw

on the screen was $15 million from the state department for elementary major major cartel leader

and as most people understand cartels run significant swaths of Mexico of land of the territory and what happens again in a tourist town which is a huge section of the Mexican economy you can bet that the government is incredibly rattle people stuck in airports having nightmares at the hotel where they're at these again it's very jarring juxtaposition of these lush all-inclusive resorts and people looking out at the scenes of a war zone you know cars on fire

bodies in the streets bullets being shot in multiple directions absolutely crazy scenes and I just think it's at least a good reminder as Bill Malugian pointed out I mean he'd literally tweeted quote a reminder that a vast majority of the millions across the border illegally during the Biden administration were lining the pockets of cartels like CJ and Jay so that's at least going to generation cartel paying thousands sometimes tens of thousands of money per head to be smuggled

“into the US so I mean that is by the way I think I said elementary was golf cartel those”

in excellent accent CJ so as Malugian said helis gunne generation cartel CJ and G that is why this

happened in the heart of helis go and Malugian's point is so critical because the reason I mean

there were headlines that went ignored about this so there were reports that went totally ignored about this during the Biden administration the cartels because such a big chunk of their business became human smuggling every single as people told me in northern Mexico when I was down there in 2021 or 2022 I said every single person who crosses has paid the cartels multiple sources told me that on the ground every single person who crosses has paid the cartel

well how many individual people crossed during the Biden administration some people made multiple

“attempts meaning they paid multiple times and what percentage of that was profit”

weren't actually estimated it was like 80% of the revenue was profit stunning stunning stunning number and there's crazy so here let me put this up on the screen this is a Washington Times headline from 2024 cartels make $32 million a week of migrants in one stretch one stretch of the Texas border just one stretch of the border in that week these estimates from back during the Biden administration I'm reading here from another Washington Times report

one of the only outlets that was trying to put numbers on this along with groups like the Center for Immigration Studies which of course anti-immigrant can't really accuse Wharton of being anti-immigrant

than here times did some research in this space a lot the estimates vary but the bottom line

is that human human smuggling became a massive chunk of cartel business during the Biden surge the Washington Times quote estimated in 2022 that the border smuggling economy topped $20 billion annually with at least 2.6 billion of that going specifically to cartel crossing fees this is why Mexico was in some cases displaced with the Biden administration because this was taking over not there's Mexico has cartel corruption so it's it's a mixed bag and obviously

Trump administration has it includes accused Claudia Shinebaum of being a part of cartel corruption or at least being afraid of cartels who afraid of cartels to push back they are cooperating with CIA flights obviously with intelligence in this case I hope that this you know scenes are all over Mexico not just how least go not just part of a art you're seeing some of this in like Baja or going up towards Baja like Tijuana so coming closer closer to the border

and obviously it's very close to home when you see American tourists in part of a art are probably for the average person who follows the news that is an enormous amount of money an enormous amount of money that cartels pocketed it helped them become even more

cases more powerful than the government in different parts of Mexico and that was the

“direct result of Biden era policies which were enriching the cartels with every single person”

who crossed it's part of why it was a disastrous policy in the first place to create so many poll factors making it easier and easier because the Biden administration was afraid of being criticized by the far left because they were being accused of racism if they had continued the well they had accused the Trump policies of being racist so if they had continued some of those Trump policies they kind of painted themselves into a corner and of course ideologically

many of them wanted to open up the borders because they want borders to be much much thinner and less stringent and that created an enormous amount of poll factors where he had people from all over the world not just South and Central America pouring up to the U.S. border when has there I met people from Russia they've been people from many people from China and the Mexican government wasn't exactly pleased many people in Mexican government weren't exactly pleased about this

either because every single person with more money in the pockets of cartels who were professional

organizations at this point they are multi-billion dollar operations probably bigger than some

governments around the world and they're enormously powerful and a lot of that a lot of that came right from the money they netted the profits they netted during the Biden administration's poll factor induced surge where every single migrant who came over and again the New York Times estimates like at least 8 million probably 10 million is another like even conservative estimate other people say it's higher the Washington Times also did a they kept a database

of how many how much people said that they were paying to come over and it was I mean you I talked to people who had difference between you know 10,000, 6000 but all that money then is going to the cartels they are sometimes then asked to smuggle drugs or to pay ransom once they get into the United States it was a disaster chaotic every almost everyone is rejected the the Biden

“border policy so the question you should be asking yourselves now if you don't like the Trump”

policy which is also many people is underwater on immigration ahead of tomorrow's state of the union question you should be asking yourself now is what policy or Democrats offering that would be a better alternative and more humane alternative that is not a subsidy to cartels that does not wreak havoc on the lives of average Americans or average Mexicans for that matter people in Guatemala and other countries that people were going through to come up smuggling routes that

were became cartel control territory the story of this was not being told by the media as it was happening and it was so much bigger than what anyone was saying it was so much bigger than this question about you know whether people even had legitimate asylum claims or what a just immigration policy is was this massive foreign policy question too it was a humanitarian question it was obviously wreaking havoc all over these countries and all people had to do was go down there

or talk to people who were down there and reject the framing the media's framing that this was just about you know the buying administration trying to restore America to the statue of liberty poem glory it wasn't about that I mean this was the the downstream consequences of those

pull-factor policies are continuing to wreak havoc throughout the region cartels were powerful before

but they're more powerful now they have even more professional operations more weapons more power

“more land more money because of it so you have to connect the two of them you have to connect the”

two of them so that's the question is what what does a good policy alternative look like from from people who may be in a position of power to swing the pendulum back from trumpism in just a couple of years alright that doesn't for us on tonight's edition of afterparty thanks so much for joining us as a reminder please do subscribe on YouTube wherever you get your podcast you mail me an Emily at doublemetermedia.com we'll see you right back here on Wednesday at nine p.m.