After Party with Emily Jashinsky - Charlie Kirk's Legacy Soars, Kimmel's Whining, and Kamala Gets Roasted, with Michael Knowles & Charlie Spiering

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

Emily Jashinsky is joined by Michael Knowles, Host of “The Michael Knowles Show,” to discuss the recent political violence gripping America and Michael’s appearance at the first Turning Point event since Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Emily and Michael also discuss Jimmy Kimmel’s return to late night following his comments about Charlie Kirk’s accused killer, what the First Amendment truly is, and Hillary Clinton’s appearance on Morning Joe where she said the ‘perfect union’ is on pause and knocked white men and the religious.  Then Emily is joined by Charlie Spiering, Senior Political reporter for “The Daily Mail,” to discuss Kamala Harris’ book tour, how it already hit a snag, why the former VP’s book has some Democrats fed up, and the truth about the behind-the-scenes drama between Team Harris and Team Biden. Emily rounds out the show with a thought-provoking look at new comments from “Harry Potter” star Emma Watson about her rift with J.K. Rowling and why Watson’s remark gives Emily hope. Aware House: Visit https://awarehouseshop.com/discount/PARTY & use code PARTY for 15% off your first order. PreBorn: Help save a baby go to https://PreBorn.com/Emily or call 855-601-2229. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to AfterParty everyone. Thanks for joining us tonight. We actually have some breaking news on the Kamala Harris front. She is literally right now being disrupted by pro-Palestine protesters in New York. We have some video coming in that we're going to get to later in the show with Charlie Spearing, who literally wrote a book on Kaala Harris. So a great person to have way in on her media tour, her book tour. We will get to that towards the end of the show. First, of course, though, there are questions not just lingering, but pressing about the safety. of all Americans about the safety of law enforcement and the safety particularly of students on college campuses and speakers on college campuses, as it is now, I believe, two weeks today since the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University. We are going to have a report basically live from the front lines from Michael Knowles in just a moment. We're also going to ask Michael Knowles about some comments Hillary Clinton made on morning Joe today because why, Why not? I know he never misses an episode of Morning Joe. Also, the Kimmel blackout is not over. Neckstar and Sinclair are not backing down. Conservative consumers are not backing down. So the media welcomed Jimmy Kimmel back into the fold just over the last 24 hours, but he hasn't quite been welcomed back.

Absolutely everywhere there was anti-ice, ostensibly anti-ice violence in Dallas today. We're going to get to that as well. It was an absolutely wild. Newsday. The show just kept stacking up and stacking up. So it brings me great pleasure on this very busy News day to speak with Michael Knowles, who is, of course, host of the Michael Knowles show, because unlike me here at After Party, Michael couldn't come up with apparently a more creative name than the Michael Knowles show. Or it was the narcissism, Michael? You know, we batted around Michael Knowles' best, and I'm a sucker for a good pun. I thought it was too cute. I don't, this face can't pull it off. So we stuck with the plain Jane name. It's a,

you know, it's a great name, Michael. You know what you're getting when you go into the Michael Null show. On a more serious note, you have, I mean, you were basically the big turning point USA return to campus after what happened at Utah Valley University earlier this week. And I want to just play a little bit of this, S8, from your appearance in Minnesota. earlier in the week. So absolutely packed. Megan Kelly is at Virginia Tech right now seemingly to another packed audience. I saw videos of the line.

There were down the sidewalk seemingly for like half a mile at least. So Michael, just first, I want to ask you about the human side of this. Charlie Kirk was a good friend of yours. What's it been like to step into his shoes? Well, Charlie had a lot of friends. And so, you know, I've talked to a lot of them. I'm sure you have two. You know, the man was ubiquitous. And it's heavy, you know. If any of your friends die, it's a deeply unpleasant thing. And when a friend is killed in such a horrific and unjust way, that adds a layer to it. But I actually found myself thinking that 60% of my grief over it, actually had nothing to do with the fact that he and I were friends, because I would see grown men crying,

grown men who had never met Charlie Kirk. I think it goes somehow even deeper than that. The man represented something to people. He was who he seemed to be, first of all, which is sometimes rare in politics. And he represented something, and his murder represents something that's really just horrifying in the country.

So there's that level. Then on another political level, he was the central figure. Charlie kept this coalition together more so than any person other than Donald Trump made. And in some ways, by the way, I think he did so more than Donald Trump. Because Trump sometimes picks fights with people. And Charlie did a great job of establishing the limits of what can be a respectable conservative, but allowing for wide discourse within that supporting a lot of people all around the country. So the reason that I kickstarted the tour again one day after his memorial is because he and I were already scheduled to do an event together at the University of Minnesota.

By coincidence, by coincidence, that was on the docket. And I flew in. A number of Charlie's friends had been filling in for his radio show. And I flew in one day last week right after the vice president did it. And TPSA asked me, they said, what's happening with your event? I said, you tell me, it's your event. And I'll do whatever you want to do. If you want to go on with it, I would love to do it.

If you don't want to go on with it, it's entirely your call. And I agreed with their decision. They said, we have to go on with it. We have to show that we're not afraid. We have to show that the movement moves forward. So just on a personal level, it was so gratifying to see all of the students show up. There were 4,000 people who tried to get into this event. The capacity in the theater was only about 2,700 or so.

However, I felt I recovered quickly enough, but I did. get a little choked up at the beginning. And I've only ever really gotten choked up when I give one kind of a speech, and it's a eulogy. And this felt in many ways like a eulogy. And so people are grieving and mourning, and they should. It's good to mourn. It's good to grieve. I don't like this happy, clappy kind of modern religion that says that we have to just be all smiles. We know, Michael. We know you don't like it. As you may, you might have noticed my mackerel snapping, you know, traditional sorts of religious icons and relics in the back, you know, I think it's important that we grieve and we recognize this was a grave injustice and we can have confidence,

we can entrust him to God as he entrusted himself, but we can recognize what a terrible blow this was and the great challenge that lies ahead to move forward. Before we get to the news, I actually have one more question for you on that 60% of the grief because you're another one of those guys that pops up in Gen Z's, social media feed all of the time. You're a part of the TikTok diet because of all of the debates that you do. And those are really popular on TikTok. This is something that Charlie and the Great Ben Shapiro noticed early and capitalized on early that younger people were looking to see debates where people had a sense of like moral clarity and were able to defend their position,

especially from the right, because they weren't getting a lot of that elsewhere. So I'm just curious what you've learned about how Charlie, but also maybe yourself, people saw, you know, back in the 70s and 80s, these sitcom characters almost as extensions of family because they had this, it sounds so quaint now, but routine and ritual of sitting down and bringing them into the living rooms. But there's also something very intimate about being constantly on somebody's phone, talking about politics. And I think that's where Charlie's assassination, He was killed in the same screens to many people that they knew him from, whether they liked him or didn't like him. And I'm just wondering, Michael, if you have any thoughts or any lessons you've taken from the last couple of weeks about what you guys who were out there doing these debates mean to people around the country.

Yes, in many ways it's much more intimate because the TV, you know, traditionally is on the other side of the room and you're sitting there with other people. and there's more distance than there is between this little portal to hell that we all have in our pockets and the debates or the clips or whatever you're going to see. So it is an intimate connection. I mean, there are people I've talked to who are college students now who are in their 20s who grew up watching Charlie, even though in my mind Charlie is still 18 years old, that they would grow up for years watching him. And I say this with no false modesty, truly. There have been periods when Ben's clips were the only clips that were going around. And there have been periods even where my clips were really making the rounds all the time. Charlie was the best at it.

At least at this moment, and for recent history, he was just so good at it. And he wasn't always that good at it, actually. I noticed this myself when I'd be talking to Charlie is all of a sudden he'd be much better at arguing than he was six months prior or a year prior. He'd say, hold on, I wasn't prepared for that. Hold on. Wait a second. Where did that come from? And it's because Charlie, having started at age 18, just absorbed everything.

He never plateaued. He never rested on his laurels in so many facets of politics. So in the debates, he was fine debating when he was younger, but he got excellent at him. He was just superb at it. And then in the media appearances, he was always pretty good, but he got really, really good. And in radio and podcasting, he got really good. And in fundraising, he was always excellent at that. I think there was one story told at his memorial.

At age 18, he raised $50,000 in two days. Pretty impressive. But I've sat in rooms with Charlie. I've seen him shake donors down at just the right moment for millions of dollars. And obviously grew TPSA into the juggernaut that it has become everything. The most important thing he did, in my view, the most impressive thing, is coalition building. Coalition maintenance. As I mentioned, truly no one did it.

better than him. And so then looking at this, having a little experience in some of these areas, it's been really impressed upon me that it takes, I would say, at least five people to do what Charlie did, and probably significantly more than that. It takes five people to do what Charlie did at a lower level than Charlie did it. And so that's going to be the real challenge for the conservative movement moving forward. This is not just empty praise for, a pal who died. I would say this if I didn't know Charlie. I would say this if I didn't like Charlie. I think even Charlie's enemies would have to admit this. He was a generational figure. He was the most talented political figure of our generation. And it's not just to say those are big shoes to fill.

It's to say really the whole order of politics for our generation is going to have to change. That's how big a role he played in it. I mean, there's basically no one. And I think maybe other than Donald Trump. And I'm just, as you're saying this, being reminded of what Dennis Prager reflected on by saying, everybody thought they were Charlie's best friend and how beautiful that is and how he made everybody feel that special. But there's so few people. I mean, again, maybe it's literally only Donald Trump who are, you know, friends with, continue to be friends with people in Maha World, RFK Jr., Candice Owens, people in the Republican establishment. And Michael, I know, you know, you have a lot of these relationships too, but I don't know if anybody had them to the extent that Charlie Kirk did,

especially from a position as a top activist, not just sort of in the media, but also somebody who was behind the scenes organizing. I think that if I called together a conclave of top politicians, I could get a number of them to show up probably, but I'd have to pick the date. I'd have to make sure it worked for everyone. And Charlie, really, at the drop of a hat, could convene the upper echelon of the political world, as well as, and this is just as important, as well as the grassroots, as well as 20,000 young people, as well, high school students, college students, activists, think tankers, intellectuals, fundraisers, operatives, all of these people. He really commanded the stage. And this is what's so shocking about eulogizing him or mourning him,

is he didn't hold public office. He didn't pass laws. You know, when a president is assassinated, or if there's an attempt on a president's life, it's very terrible, but that does happen. You know, it's a dangerous job. But this guy, he just was himself. He would just go and have conversations with people

and help friends out and connect people and move the ball forward. And for that, he was killed. And in this way, I understand why the left, chose him as a target. They didn't kill him because he was ineffective and his loss is really incalculable. Michael, this is a story from Andrew Colvette, so obviously a close friend of Charlie of Charlie Aid over at Turning Point USA, executive producer of the Charlie Kirk Show who posted this picture of a flyer at Georgetown University, which I know you've seen. We can put up on the

screen now. This was posted by Andrew earlier today, and it said, hey, fascist, catch is a flyer for, I think, the John Brown Club at Georgetown. Now, I will caveat this by saying there have been attempts to frame groups in the past, especially conservative groups with fake flyers and all of that. But Michael, if this turns out to be real, I don't think this would surprise you one bit. I want to ask what your sense of the safety of conservative speakers and students is right now. on campuses, I know that you're in conversations about what that looks like, what security looks like, what the potential threats from people may be involved with John Brown clubs at different campuses and the like are appearing to be as of right now. So give us some insights. Is it safe for people

to be out there? It's safe, but we have to be prudent. The threat is absolutely real, flyer or not. We've seen this for years, a huge surge in left-wing violence, which is often not even listed as political violence. That's how the Democrat Congressman Seth Moulton got away with saying that three quarters of political violence comes from the right, only four percent comes from the left. Yes, but Michael, the Cato Institute tells us this, and they're on the right. So you see it must be true. Yes, of course. I'll try to be, I'll try to be circumspect in knocking our poor libertarian friends, but unfortunately they are, they're misunderstanding the situation. And the way that I realized that was, I said that those numbers seemed fake.

So let me just look to some incidents near to me, near and dear to me. For instance, a trans ideologue shot up the Covenant School here in Nashville, left a manifesto and it was quite clear that she had ideological motivations from the left. That was not considered to be political violence. The authorities declared that just a desire for fame or something. When I was on campus at the University of Pittsburgh debating transgenderism a couple of years ago, two Antifa operatives, hard-carrying Antifa members who had been stopped at TSA with explosive material on them, who were really part of a terror cell. They showed up. They threw an explosive at the building when we walked on stage and seriously injured a female police officer.

One of them is in federal prison right now. That was not listed as political violence. So the way that Seth Moulton arrived at that number that the left doesn't commit political violence is when you don't count any of the political violence that the left commits. But you don't even have to take my word for it now. Even the Atlantic is admitting that there is a left-wing terrorism problem that's ticked up in the last nine years and especially over the last few years. You can look at the U-Gov surveys that have been coming out over the people who identifies very liberal being eight times as likely as those who identifies very conservative to endorse political. violence. There was another survey put out today, also by UGov, I think with the Economist, which looked at approval of political violence by ideology, but then also by age group. And so

when you looked at 60-year-olds plus, you know, senior citizens, conservative, liberal, moderate, they all basically don't support political violence. Moderates were a little bit lower than conservatives. And liberals, liberals were a little higher, but it was all basically the same. When you go down to middle age, then the liberals tick up a little bit. The conservatives are lower than the liberals, moderates least of all. When you get to the younger demographic, 18 to 29, I think it was, all of a sudden the conservatives are the least likely to support political violence, followed by the moderates. The liberals shoot up through the roof. It's about 30% of young liberals. This is backed up by other surveys too. So all of the evidence that we have,

our own eyes, the statistics, the crime records, all of it show that political violence today is a left-wing phenomenon, and it's a left-wing phenomenon that is poised to get worse. So it's a long-winded answer to your question, or the student's safe. The answer is yes, because we are taking security very seriously. I rolled into Minnesota with a small army, and happily, Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Police Department was very good to work with. They took the security very seriously. The universities are undermining this right now. There's a report out that one university has tried to cancel a Yaff chapter, students are protesting saying that it's unsafe to bring, or so not a Yaf chapter, I'm sorry, TPSA chapter. And a group of students is protesting that it's unsafe to bring TPSA to campus because it

imperils the students. Right. In Perils the students because of your side, if you would, if you would stop threatening them, perhaps you wouldn't have this problem. And so I think the only way out of that is you have to have President Trump make good on his promise to treat Antifa as a terrorist organization, which is what it is by any definition of terrorism. And you have to vigorously enforce the law. You have to expel people when they threaten violence. You have to arrest people when they commit crimes, when they engage in direct threats.

That's the only way this is going to work. There's no kumbaya moment. There's no politics as downstream of culture. It will resolve all of this in the free marketplace of ideas. We had a free marketplace of ideas. The left shot it up and we have to re-fortify the marketplace if we're going to have conversations at all. The good old hecklers veto where people say it's too dangerous to have conservative speech on campus because we simply cannot restrain ourselves around conservatives.

Michael, let's actually go into this awful story out of Dallas that appears to be directly relevant to everything you were just talking about. What we know so far is that a shooter from a rooftop who ended up taking their own life shot three detainees. apparently it seems right now to have been detainees who were being transferred into a bus or in a bus this morning in Dallas. And the shooter's casings were discovered. Cash Patel posted a picture. One of them literally says anti-ice, which is very weird. Before we went to air, Ken Clippancy and the liberal journalist posted a story about how he had talked

to some friends of the shooter who said the guy hated both political parties. Didn't like Trump was an edge lord for Chan type of person. And so if these reports proved to be true, we might be looking at something a little bit similar to what happened at Utah Valley University. We don't know yet. But here's what J.D. Vance said after the news broke this morning. We got to stop it. We got to condemn it. And that starts, unfortunately, at the very top of the Democratic Party.

If you want to stop political violence, stop attacking our law enforcement as the Gestapo. If you want to stop political and violence, stop telling your support. that everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi. If you want to stop political violence, look in the mirror. That's the way that we stop political violence in this country, and we got to do it. Okay, so Michael, Vice President Vance took some heat today

for, you know, when we were learning of this, making the jump that it had been related to all of the threats against ICE. There have been very real threats against ICE, which has been thrust into this position by the Biden administration, by the way, that flooded the country with migrants that most Americans wanted to see some measure of deportation, maybe disagreement on what measure of deportation, but ICE now finds itself saddled with this monumental task. And people, there's an amazing supercut of MSNBC.

People were comparing ICE to the Gestapo. What do you think is going to happen? Do you see this immediately being connected, Michael? If I were a gambling man, all of the evidence certainly points in that direction. Unlike Jimmy Kimmel, I suppose I won't try to rush to conclusions or outright lie, as Jimmy Kimmel did. But it would appear that all of the evidence we have suggests this guy was anti-ice and took it into his hands to try to kill them, which is unsurprising when, as the vice president pointed out, you have top Democrat politicians calling ICE the Gestapo. What is the semantic value of calling ICE the Gestapo? What is the semantic? value of of calling someone a Nazi. It is to justify their murder. That's simply what it means.

The term Nazi is to say the worst type of person on earth against whom any kind of offense would be justified. And so they know what they're doing. They say that intentionally. I mean, you've seen this all the way up to the level of Joe Biden, who said with regard to Donald Trump that he posed an existential threat to the country. If Trump posed an existential threat to the country, that would justify his assassination. That would, in fact, put the assassin in the position of someone defending the country and defending himself. So you've seen this irresponsible rhetoric almost exclusively from the left for many years now. But even just turned to Gavin Newsom in California, Gavin Newsom is trying to pass a law that would try to murder ICE agents. He's trying to pass a law that would force ICE agents to take their masks off.

This is pretty rich because Gavin Newsom made two-year-old's mask to go on airplanes. Gavin Newsom made his entire state mask up over the Wuhan flu. But now all of a sudden he's anti-mask. Why are the ICE agents wearing masks in the first place? It's not because they're afraid of the woo flu. It's because they're being doxed. It's because they're being threatened. They're being identified by terrorists, both of the Trendyaragua variety and also the Antifa variety.

And Gavin Newsom, who's not a dumb man, is Governor American. psycho, Governor Patrick Bateman, but he's fairly intelligent. He knows what he's doing. He's saying, take your mask up. In fact, he even asked, what are you so afraid of? The answer is clear. We're afraid of being doxed by your terrorists. And Newsom's trying to push ahead with that ridiculous law anyway that can go to nowhere he has no right to pass it. But they're clear. And so I guess we have to take the Democrats at their word. They consider ICE agents and Donald Trump and Trump supporters and nice, generous debaters who are just trying to talk it out, they consider all of us Nazis worthy of murder. They, in large part, would excuse and attempt to justify our murders,

and in some cases they would even celebrate it. That's what we've learned over the past two weeks. And so we have to proceed accordingly. We have to reestablish some kind of order in this country, or the left is going to cause it to spin out of control. I was going to make an American psycho joke, but then you pivoted back to a very serious point. and I think you step in my punchline, Knowles. I would hate to step on a good, I would hate to say he needs to be identified in stories now, not as D California, but D. Dorcia. It sounds like that. He finally got his reservation, yes.

Yes, he finally got it. That man loves Huey Newton. All right, we have more with Knowles coming up in just one moment. But first, if you like me are looking to support more made in the USA manufacturing this year, whether it's home decor, clothing or furniture, we all know it's very, very difficult to find high quality products that are not made overseas. A recent Forbes report revealed that annual earnings for small businesses across the U.S. have dropped by over 75% since 2023. Small businesses in this country, we all know this, are struggling to stay afloat. And with the likes of Amazon and Target dominating the market, it is no wonder that's where a warehouse comes in, your one-stop shop for

artisanal home goods made exclusively by small businesses. With hundreds of products to choose from, they're deeply committed to supporting American manufacturers. They're easy to to navigate online marketplace lets you browse a wide range of independent makers and you can feel good at knowing that your purchase supports real people and small family family run businesses. A warehouse believes that true luxury is not about fancy labels or big brand names. It's about the dedication, creativity, and care that goes into every product. How great is that? Help a warehouse hit their goal of supporting over 100 small businesses this year. Head to a warehouse shop.com and use code party for 15% off your first order. That's a warehouse shop.com

Code Party. We're back now with Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles show. And we have to talk about the Kimmel debacle for Disney, which continues actually to roll on. Disney hoped to put this to rest by bringing Kimmel back after the two days suspension on Tuesday. The media largely greeted Kimmel back with open arms. His monologue, I think now is up to like 7 million views to the extent that we can even quantify that anymore. His return monologue is up to 7 million, 17 million to the extent we know. But Michael, whether it's enough is an open question. Obviously, I think it's probably true that Next Star and Sinclair, next star merger aside, they have, they're responsive to their own customers who do not live in Manhattan or Hollywood and have very different

opinions about the line that got Kimmel in trouble originally. Joe Rogan, on the other hand, is, I guess, sort of with your friend Ted Cruz on this, Michael, let's go ahead. I want to get your reaction to Joe Rogan this week on the Kimmel cancellation attempt, S2. But the point is, with this Jimmy Kimmel thing, if you let this happen, it's going to be able to happen with something that you agree with. Everything across the board. Yeah, if you're a person who's on the right who's happy that he's getting pulled, yeah, fuck him. Like, if his show goes away because of bad ratings, that's one thing. And you want to celebrate it, go ahead.

But you don't want it happen this way, kids. You don't want to give that kind of power away all the sudden. You know, and people could say, well, they've always had that power, and it's true. And look, the FCC fined Howard Stern a fucking preposterous amount of money. You know, Howard Stern was doing, he was doing shit on the ratings. that no one had ever even thought about doing. Michael, it occurs me you wrote a book about this. You were sort of the skunk at the garden party

during the explosion of free speech awareness on the right, saying, hold on, guys, what do we mean by free speech? So what's your reaction here to Joe Rogan? I want to put that in my Twitter bio. I was a skunk at the garden party when it comes to free speech. I was, and I feel somewhat vindicated because Joe agreed there. He said what a lot of people say, which is, well, if we give this power away, then by golly, they might use it against us someday. But then he immediately corrected himself because he's an intelligent person.

And he said, well, I guess you'd probably say they already have this power. And yes, of course they do. Of course. I mean, just this week, for goodness sakes, Google testified before Congress that they routinely censored conservatives on their giant platform at the behest of the government, no less. obviously this has been happening for a very long time. And even beyond that, the perfidy of the left, all societies have standards. All societies have norms. What Kimmel was canceled over and is continuing to be at least somewhat canceled over is not that he told an insensitive joke. I think this is one of the biggest lies that's come out of the Kimmel saga. That's not what people are upset about.

That's not what the audience is upset about. That's not what the affiliates in Sinclair and Next Star are upset about. He told an egregious lie of about the murder of a beloved public figure who was an emblem of civil discourse. He told an egregious lie. He went on broadcast television and said that it was a MAGA Republican who murdered Charlie Kirk. That simply wasn't true. That was contrary to all available evidence. He lied.

Then, according to a report from Politico, he was going to go on the next night and he was going to double down on it, which is the moment at which the affiliates decided to pull him, or rather ABC and Disney made the decision in reaction to the year. affiliates. One simply does not have a right to do that. And audiences certainly don't want to hear that. Furthermore, when he goes on and he's getting a lot of attention right now, because everyone's talking about what a terrible job he did, that I think will go away if he simply remains a YouTube comedian. But what did he do? He came on and he fake apologized. He lied again. He lied about the lie that he told. He said it was maybe an ill-timed or insensitive comment. That wasn't the issue. It said lied. He said he didn't mean to blame one group over another. That's not true. He blamed the

Republicans, which was false. Forget about blaming one group over the other. He blamed the wrong group. And then third, he said that it was just a deranged individual who had no connections to other groups. That's also a lie. He wrote Antifa slogans on the bullets. He confessed his left-wing ideological motivations, allegedly, in a text chain to his transferey boyfriend. I don't think the guy was a burkey and conservative. So it was a complete crocodile tears-filled. non-apology. And then more offensive even than that, he brings up Erica Kirk. And he says, you know, Erica Kirk's forgiveness of her husband's murderer was so beautiful. It was so gracious. It was a great moment of forgiveness. And if you're a Christian, you should really love these

forgiving, gracious moments, the not so subtle subtext being, Erica Kirk demonstrated Christian forgiveness, so give me my showbacker, you're a fake Christian. That was what he was telling to his audience. And he even had the temerity to say, you know, if you're a follower of Jesus as I am, are you, Jimmy, are you? Oh, okay. I'll leave that between you and the big guy. I'm a little skeptical. It was, it was so outrageous and offensive. And he should be canceled all over again just for that. But I guess he doesn't have to because 27% of the affiliates right now between those two, those two companies are not carrying him, nor should they. He needs to come on stage and during his audition to get his affiliates back.

He needs to come on stage. He needs to admit that he lied. Then he needs to admit that he lied about lying. And then he needs to bring those tears back one more time. Give me another Oscar performance to beg the forgiveness, not of the FCC, not of Donald Trump or anything like that. He needs to beg the forgiveness of his audience, that he offended by lying to them.

And then frankly, relieving himself on their legs and telling them that it was raining. It's so outrageous. I hope he enjoys the 7 million views he's getting well. He's in the news because I think the future of his show is looking pretty bleak. Yeah, and it's sort of Disney's audience, not even the hardened resistance core that watches Kimmel. It's people who are tuning into Good Morning America and don't want to see Kimmel promos and the like and are canceling Disney Plus, which the left briefly did as well.

But on that same note, let me just play Devil's Advocate literally here. why does it matter, Michael, so much that Kimmel as a comedian had this throwaway line based on a premise that turned out to be false? Why is that, I mean, people can see, why does that get you so fired up? Why is that among all of the tasteless jokes that have been made by comedians about what happened to Charlie and the shooter and all of that? Why is this one so sticky for the right? Well, call me old-fashioned, I think lies are bad. My issue is not with his weak jokes. He's made plenty of those. It's specifically with the lie. It's really with the setup to the joke rather than the punchline. Because I guess this gets down to a really basic philosophical observation, which is that speech is for something. Speech is for conveying the truth. Speech in a republic such as ours is for deliberating and, informing and, yes, entertaining, and coming to conclusions about the world and governing ourselves. That's the point of it. That's why we have a First Amendment. That is the single most misunderstood.

Your book touched on this very well. That is the single most misunderstood part of the First Amendment is where it was rooted in for the founders. Yes, yes, exactly. And so as a consequence of that, that means that there are exceptions to speech protection in the First Amendment, not because I don't know, the founders and framers didn't want to go far enough. But when the framers exclude things like fraud or direct threats or obscenity, even, from First Amendment protections, they are doing so not to restrict the scope of the public Square, but actually to support it. Because if you allow direct threats, for instance, into public square, if you say that that's protected, what you're doing is actually shrinking the discourse because you're telling half the people at least that they're not allowed to come

speaker, they're going to get shot. When you allow obscenity even into the public square, you are certainly undermining rational discourse, ask anyone who's ever seen a naked lady on the internet doesn't leave you in the most rational position. When you, when you, I'll, allow fraud, for instance, into the public square. You are totally undermining the purpose of free speech because you are undermining the truth. You're undermining the reliability of the marketplace of ideas. And so in this case, I'm not suggesting that Jimmy Kimmel should be prosecuted for his lies. I'm not suggesting he should be jailed or anything like that. But there needs to be a consequence to that. He's really undermining discourse. And he's failing to do one of the things that he has called

on to do as a communicator, which is to tell the truth. paint picture a vision of reality. And in his case, he's supposed to make them laugh while he's doing it. He often fails at that. That's why it cuts to the heart of it. I just, I don't see what his show is for. I don't see why we would compromise our public square to tolerate this hack, partisan comedian telling lies that are misinforming the public. And in this case, really potentially could have harmful effects by allowing people to misunderstand the real terror threat in this country right now, which is for the Atlantic, the left. Is it a fascinating part of the public interest component

that the FCC and Commissioner Brendan Carr is applying in this case, is that it's very much a derivative of the classical conception of what free speech should look like, and it's very foreign to us right now because we've lost that whole consensus. Yeah, that's right. I mean, I was recently speaking to a liberal outlet. I'll not name them, but they were really pushing back

on the FCC commentary on Jimmy Kimmel. You know, Brendan Carr goes on in this podcast and says, Jimmy Kimmel's, you know, outrageous here and, you know, he needs to be punished or whatever. And there was shocked that the FCC would weigh in on this at all. And I asked the host, I said, what do you think the FCC is for? You're aware this is a federal regulator that exists to regulate specifically these kinds of networks. Is that just, what are they, they're just twiddling their thumbs? What's the point? These are public airwaves, and Jimmy Kimmel has no right to them, especially when the audience and the affiliates don't want on there.

All right. So before you run, I know you watch Morning Joe every day, not necessarily for twice a day and not necessarily for Joe, but for Meika, because she tends to be even more incisive, at least from your perspective, as a controversial. And I love to pronounce her name. Jusinsky, it's like the worst chishas of broadcasters, yes. Well, well done, Michael. Hillary Clinton made an appearance to the delight of the country on Morning Joe, where she had some thoughts on white men. So as a white man, we'll have to get your perspective for the sake of representation. So let's roll Hillary Clinton. Are we still headed toward a more perfect union? I think right now we're on pause. I think the idea of we the people that all men and women are created equal. That seems to be in the crosshairs of those on the right who want to turn the clock back on the progress that has been made, writing out huge chunks of our history, slavery, suffrage, anything inconvenient, you know, take it out of museums, take it out of national parks. But why do that? I think the story, our story, is all the more glorious.

I agree, Joe. Look at where we came from, what we fought through. It's glorious, man. that you could turn the clock back and try to recreate a world that never was dominated by, you know, let's say it, white men of a certain persuasion, a certain religion, a certain controversial is, certain ideology, it's just doing such damage to what we should be aiming for. And we were on the path toward that. I mean, imperfectly, lots of, you know, bumps along the way. But I agree with you, we were on the right trajectory.

You see, Michael, democracy is on pause when Democrats lose. It's in the name democracy Democrats. So they lose. We go on pause. And you notice they were on the path. You understand, Emily. Hillary was going to be president. I mean, she tweeted it.

She said, happy birthday to this future president. And it was to herself. And so that was what was supposed to happen. What is supposed to happen is Democrats are supposed to win elections. And when Democrats lose elections, the only explanation can be that the election was illegitimate, which was Hillary's view in 2016, and which has been the Democrats view for most of my life, frankly. I remember the 2000 election pretty clearly, too. That's the only explanation because of the science of history, because they are aware of

how history progresses and if you just leave it to them, they'll work it out. Don't you worry? And then she goes on, she says, what, we're writing out slavery? Yeah. Is there any moment of the day that we're not talking about slavery? In fact, I think if you ask a schoolchild today, the only thing they would know about the United States is we had slavery for some period of time. She says we're going to get rid of women's suffrage.

Listen, don't threaten me with a good time, Hillary. I don't think that's true. I don't really see that. I actually have a suggestion that we take the votes away from the young single women who vote for Democrats and then give extra votes to the married women, especially in the Midwest who vote for Republicans. That's my compromise and be very bipartisan. Although even on that point, Trump won 40% of women under the age of 30 in 2024.

So I guess the question I would have for Hillary Clinton is, how do you explain the perfidy of those white Christian men, the men of a certain religion, to the historic number of black guys who voted for Trump, to the 46% of Hispanics have voted for Trump, to the large numbers of women who voted for Trump, including, as I mentioned, the most pro-democrat cohort, women under 30, still got 40% of them, to the young voters who swung almost 50% toward Trump, 10-point swing, and largely due to Charlie Kirk,

as a matter of fact, to take us all the way back to the top of the show. How do you explain that? And the way she would explain it, not to put words in her mouth, is that these people are operating under a false consciousness. This has been the line of feminists and liberals since at least the 1960s and 70s, that the only reason that they would vote for the bad party is because they've been hypnotized by them to vote against their own interests. And it's that same kind of condescending preening, historically and philosophically illiterate kind of babble that led voters to turn on Hillary

and then to turn on Kamala as well. So keep it up is what I would say. If anyone does watch Morning Joe, then I hope they listen to this. And I suspect it's going to strongly incline them to vote either for J.D. Vance or whoever the nominee is in 28 or for President Trump's third term. We just have to wait and see. I'm glad you brought it back to Charlie at the end because it's the same thing we're seeing in both instances, this flattening of somebody who disagrees with you necessarily into a racist because they, for example, have made this like intellectual argument against the Civil Rights Act in ways that were fleshed out in book form by Christopher Caldwell and many black conservatives

who have dealt with us for years. You're necessarily a bigot if you don't agree with the left. You have been swayed by bigotry, as you pointed out, Michael. And it's amazing that it's not surprising, but amazing that two weeks after this cold-blooded political assassination and 10 years now of Donald Trump, they're so addicted to this narrative that they are still patting themselves on the back in MSNBC studios. I strongly suspect this is why you're seeing the now universally accepted uptick in left-wing political violence is because they really believed they had to get their way. And they really believed that the only way that democracy could function and the only way that an election could be legitimate is if they were to win it.

And so barring that, they believe their own rhetoric about Trump posing an existential threat to the country. And it's a very small logical step for someone to go pick up a gun and shoot a civilian in the pursuit of political goals. That's terrorism. It's a nasty thing to observe. But it's nasty rhetoric they've engaged in and we shouldn't be surprised by it. Michael Knowles, thank you so much for stopping by. Thank you for what you're doing on campuses. Stay safe out there. Appreciate it. Excellent to see you, as always. To be next time.

Likewise. See you, Michael. All right. More after this. But first, over the years, I've been clear about this, I'm not just pro-birth. I am pro-life and proudly pro-life. And being pro-life means standing with mothers not only before their baby is born, but long after. And that's exactly why I am happy to partner with pre-born. is the best. They don't just save 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 to.

And that is so important. Here's where you can make a difference. Just $28 provides a free life-saving ultrasound. One chance for a mother to see her baby. And when she does, she's twice as likely to choose life. Preborn is trying to save 70,000 babies this year. So don't just say your pro-life. Live it. Help save babies and support mothers today. Go to preborn.com slash Emily or call 855601-229. That's preborn.com slash Emily. We're back now with Charlie Spearing of the Daily Mail. Also, one of the preeminent Kamala Harris beat reporters in the entire country, Charlie, thanks for joining us. Yeah, good to be back.

For another round of media on Kamala Harris, with the release of this new book, it's been very interesting comparing notes. Oh, yes. I can't wait to hear what you have to say because you've been reporting on this recently. And of course, you wrote the book, Amateur Hour. If you're watching this, you can see it behind Charlie. But this is all about, I mean, you can tell from the name. It's all about Conno Harris.

So we have breaking news, though. Actually, we have a clip from New York City where Kamala Harris just tonight was disrupted by Palestine, protesters. Let's go ahead and roll this. About how and why you are saying what you are saying now and how I felt about it, you're not letting me talk. You know, I respect your right to speak. You're not that temperature down. Unlike the current president of the United States. I suspect Kamala Harris is going to be very pleased with that moment. If you're listening to this and not watching it, she stood up from her chair, walked to the front of the stage and

started saying let's turn this temperature down. But Charlie, this will not satisfied than many, many people in Democratic Party who are very upset with the Harris policy on Gaza, the Biden-Harris policy on Gaza the way Harris handled it on the campaign trail. So just give us your quick reaction. As she's on this book tour, I suspect she's going to get more interruptions like this one. Has she handled it? Yeah, I think so. And what's interesting is the reason this is kind of happening.

And Harris has to step up and take care of herself is because Donald Trump took away her secret service protection. So that really makes it tough for her to secure. secure this 15 city book tour that's basically, you know, rolls out the welcome mat for any kind of protester, especially the Gaza protesters. Look, they want to make sure that anybody who wants to run the Democratic Party is very critical of Israel and also, you know, willing to call out, you know, to speak up against, you know, the violence in Gaza and to take it very seriously. And they're just laying the groundwork for the midterms and also for, you know, the 2020.

presidential election. I think everyone by now has caught wind of this Harris book tour. I'm not sure that everyone's flocking out to buy this book 107 days, but they've probably seen clips of her appearances on Maddo or The View. And we have some of that, actually. Charlie, I'm curious, we'll play this view clip, but I'm curious to get your perspective on what the most interesting conversation she's had so far has been. Let's roll S-10. This is the view yesterday. And by the way, another piece of what is unprecedented and a bit historical about that race, it is the closest presidential race in the 21st century in terms of the outcome. Wow.

You know, say that again. Because he likes to say over and over again, he's got a mandate. And that's part of why I wrote this book, because history will talk about this race. It is part of American history. And it was important to me that when history is written, that my voice be present about what that experience is. So that's, of course, not true. This is the closest to the 21st century by electoral vote margin or popular vote margin, Charlie. The view is where she got in trouble.

They addressed this a little bit. But actually, her approval rating started dipping in the election after that infamous view of parents where she really struggled to distance herself from Joe Biden. She's been getting a really friendly reception from Rachel Maddo, the view. Some softball, hard balls, you know, like it's a hard ball, but it's actually thrown as a soft ball. To the extent that makes sense, I'm rambling. But give us your reaction to what's happened in the last several days. Yeah, it's interesting because poor Sunny Hosten, you know, basically begged for forgiveness for asking her that question. If there was anything different between her and Joe Biden.

She's like, no, it wasn't your fault. Don't feel bad. Kind of cringed at the same time. truly hilarious. This claim that she's making and everybody just kind of like nods along and Anna Navarro is like, say it again. I was doing some research. I think I figured

out her math here. I think that when I it turns out the 21st century begins in January 2001. So that cuts out the Bush election. Technically, according to the way centuries are measured. So that cuts out the 2000, which

is the closest election in modern history, I believe. I think Florida was decided by like just 537 votes. And then, you know, so I think she's looking at, you know, it was so funny because it's so typical to hit when Hillary law, she was like, but at least I won the popular vote. And, but I think this time around, Kamala is actually using the popular vote to point to this margin. You know, Trump may have won the popular vote, but he didn't win it by that huge of a margin. Obviously. elections aren't decided by the popular vote. Trump won the electoral college over 312 over Kamala's 226.

So that's just a smashing victory. You can't deny that. And the, you know, winning the popular vote over Kamala was just icing on the cake. You know, Joe Biden won 306 to 2232. So Biden did better than Kamala, of course. And then Trump beat Hillary 304-22. 27, this is all electoral college votes. You know, Obama, of course, stomped McCain and Romney, and Bush took out carry pretty easily in 2004. So that's kind of the history of the 21st century

in electoral colleges. So I think that's what she's going for, but it really doesn't mean what she wants it to mean. Yeah, I think this is an important point. So Hillary's victory in the popular vote was a couple points. Kamala's loss was, as it all turned out, one and a half points. But if we are being super technical and not including the 2000 election, Charlie, I guess Kamala's popular vote point has some legs. I didn't realize that we were being so technical, but leave it to Charlie Spearing to be absolutely on top of this. That race was decided in January 2001, as we all remember infamously. What have you made as somebody who's followed her and covered her very closely for a long time of how she's handling this pitch for the campaign a year later as she writes about it in the

book and as she then has sold the book on the campaign trail. What stands out to you? Well, the biggest is obviously she's very focused on the 107 days, the title of the book, you know, arguing that if she had just had more time, she could have won and she dealt a bad hand and it's not her fault. We all know that she started off really strong. And then after about maybe 50 days, that's when she started to fade. Once voters learned more about her, once they learned more about her positions, once she started doing more interviews, she started sagging in the polls. They knew that.

She knew that. But at the same time, she really wants to focus on all her decisions she made was because she just didn't have enough time. And that's just that she's making an argument. If you just give me more time, I can step up and deliver a victory for you because the margin was so close. It's crazy that she's making this argument. I really think that she expects this book tour to kind of take off. And I think she kind of privately wants to be won again by the Democratic electorate.

You kind of see it in the way she's talking about employing some of her more uncensored rhetoric against Trump. We see Democrats really sort of cling to that as something that Democrats want. They want more swearing. and they want more, you know, criticizing a fascist. You know, this is something that Kamala Harris has always been very good at, you know, getting uncensored and getting real. But at the same time, she also struggles with word salads when she's caught off guard. Someone asks her a question that she's not ready for.

There's definitely a lot of that going on. You saw that with the Maddow interview. It was her first big one. And she found herself really struggling to answer some of the questions, kind of doing her like slow circles that continue to get. to be bigger circles, and then you tack on more independent clauses, and then raise your eyebrows and talk about the future of democracy. And still kind of leaning on that crutch. But I think overall, I think she's got a lot of scores to settle, and she's definitely, you know, released

a pretty newsmaking book, and it has definitely filled the conversation. You really just anatomized the Harris Dodge method. That's incredible. Charlie, so just to borrow the title of your book here, though, it's remarkable that after a year, and again, this is five years after she, six years technically, after she failed to make it to the Iowa caucus, despite having a really splashy campaign launch, lots of money, lots of media coverage, favorable media coverage. She didn't even make it to 2020. She literally dropped out, I think it was December of 2019. So after all of that time, after historic levels of unfavorability during her time as vice president, during this significant loss to Donald Trump, she still seems

to me to be clinging to this 107 days cope. And it still sounds like it looks like amateur hour. Again, after years to- You had four years to get it right. Exactly. Four years plus. Well, three years and change plus 107 days. Like you can't just say it was only 107 days because you knew this was coming. That was one of the interesting things that she revealed is that her brother-in-law was keeping this with this sort of book about planning out how do we do this? When Biden decides to step down, how do we step in and hit the ground running?

Her brother-in-law, Tony West, one of her closest political advisors kind of had this little playbook that he was building. And he's a corporate lobbyist, isn't he, Charlie? That's right. He is one of Kamala's, like, right-hand political people who, one of the only ones she trusts.

I think most campaigns are increasingly frustrated about how Kamala doesn't trust them. And for good reason, because, you know, as well as I do when losing campaigns hit, the first people to sort of start dishing out leaks or the campaign staff. So I suppose it makes sense that you would have

this trusted political advisor, even though his advice was not always the best as we see in the book. Yeah, that's an interesting part of all of this. I mean, are we ever going to see a new and improved Kamala Harris, a less amateur seeing Kamala Harris? Does she have it in her? Yeah, I don't think so.

I think she really I really think that this book reveals you know we always talked about how Connell Harris wasn't authentic and I think she's selling a good book and appearing slightly more authentic but the big glaring problems are still there she doesn't she's not a very good leader

she likes to spread around the blame anytime anything happens she freaks out at her staff she kind of read that in the book which is and we know the story she also you know blames everybody else for her problems and we also saw her

you know be very timid and very calculating the story that she shared about Pete Buttigieg Democrats were like what do you do what this doesn't even make any sense

Pete Buttigieg won Iowa in 2018 or 2019 2020 and you dropped out before Iowa even happened so and you know Buttigieg was right to say hey maybe it's about choosing the best person

instead of just going with your gut regarding... And then, you know, of course, Republicans are sailing in and pointing out, like, well, it proves that you still think the American electorate is too racist, sexist, and homophobic to elect that kind of ticket into office. And we sort of would like to maintain that if anyone was a truly great leader who could convince voters, somebody that, you know,

Pete Buttigieg has made strides. Kamala Harris has done her best. And I think that it's entirely possible if that's something you truly believe in. So, Charlie, you've also done some reporting on the, I mean, I don't even know the right word for this, the antipathy that's built between Biden world and Kamala world. And hopefully you can explain maybe the arc of that. I don't know. I imagine a lot of that started back in the White House because if I'm remembering correctly,

there were already allegations, incredible allegations of leaks from both camps back before even Biden dropped out of the race, that there was some dissatisfaction pretty obviously with Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris felt like maybe she had been put in a tough position, a la Veep, straight out of the TV show by the president. That seems to be ratcheting up a bit, and you have some reporting on this. Tell us what's going on. After you take a sip of what I presume is the Buffalo Trace, in front of your copy of Prince of Darkness, which, by the way, is so perfect, Charlie. That's the reporter's bookshelf. It is the reporter's bookshelf. It is the reporter's book, the first one you should read when you become a reporter in Washington. Yes. Yes.

As so, yeah, basically I think that she really needs to figure it out. I think that what I've been learning behind the scenes, and a lot of Biden sources are starting to start talking again. There's a lot of people who were kind of restrained from sharing their true feelings about Kamala Harris when I wrote the book because they were trying to be on the same team. But they are not happy about this sort of perceived grievances. And the idea that they were never around to defend her is just absurd. I mean, we covered the, I covered the White House. Most people who covered the White House were like, yeah, I distinctly remember Jen Saki standing up for Kamala Harris in this moment. And yes, Karin-Jean Pierre read something

out of a binder in defense of Kamala Harris. And, you know, they both said that, you know, Kamala Harris is focused on root causes here. So that idea the Biden team is very unhappy with. And so they're really starting to like push back against that idea. This time they don't have any restraint. And Kamala's team is likewise doesn't have any restraint. We see, you know, Jamie Harrison, a Kamala Harris ally who ran the DNC being much more aggressive on social media. So I think that everybody has, everybody wants to air this out.

And I think that they're fine doing it. You know, it's not quite time for the midterms. So I've even spoken to some Kamala Harris advisors that are like, you know, this is healthy to have these conversations that we held back for so long. Maybe this could be, you know, good for the party. I find that hard to believe, but I think that some people are putting the best face on it. Oh, that's so interesting. And the Biden question is just going to continue to dog absolutely everyone because it looms large in the minds of voters. I think Marie Glucon, Kent Perez, Democrat from Washington recently told real clear politics.

She might have said it somewhere else as well that she's still hearing from people in her district about what happened with Joe Biden, what's going on with so many seemingly incapacitated elderly members of Congress. So I don't think that's going anywhere for Democrats, Charlie. Charlie is a senior political reporter over at the Daily Mail. He is the author of Amateur Hour about Kamala Harris. So if you're watching all this go down and you're like, what is going on with Kamala Harris? Go ahead, pick up a copy of Amateur Hour. Thanks for being here, Charlie. You bet, Emily.

Thanks for having me. Appreciate it. All right. Before we run, I wanted to roll this clip. It came out today of Emma Watson, obviously Hermione from Harry Potter, talking a little bit about J.K. Rowling. The two have had their disagreements,

as has Daniel Radcliffe and other Harry Potter actors with J.K. Rowling over the years, because J.K. Rowling has been, adamantly and principally opposed to the takeover of women's rights by transgender identifying biological men. And along very familiar lines at this point, this feud first cropped up in 2020, and I think Emma Watson at the time put out a statement, disagreeing pretty, it was a pretty shrung rebuke of what J.K. Rowling was fairly bravely expressing about the problems raised when gender identity is conflated with biological sex legally, socially, culturally.

Let's go ahead and roll, though, this clip of Emma Watson reflecting on it now in 2025 with, I have to say, a sense of maturity that you rarely see among celebrities. I can love her. I can know she loved me. I can be grateful to her. I can know the things that she said. are true and that can be this whole other thing. And my job feels like to just hold, just to hold all of it. But the bigger thing is just what she's done will never be taken away from me. So obviously she's using very cringe, like therapeutic language in the clip about how she just has to hold. It brings us back to Ariana Grande and the wicked press were, of course, a holding space. But apart from that, this is maybe indicative, not just of Emma Watson's maturity, but of cultural maturity that we've, since all of the early social media upheaval, and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying social media upheaval is going anywhere.

But one of the trends that we cover here is whether people in the public eye, whether news outlets, whether media, Hollywood, are able to adapt to some of these changes. And as canceled culture was snowballing, really after algorithms started to dictate social media feeds, so from Twitter and Facebook at the time, that was changing everything in ways we were not prepared for. We went from the literal timelines, which still, of course, were intersecting with the far-left progressivism. That had festered on the fringes of academia and Hollywood for. a long time, but had never become as powerful across cultural institutions as it did when algorithms first started dictating social media feeds. And social media feeds took over the way that we communicated with each other as human beings. So those two things were happening at the same time.

And algorithms were pushing these fake controversies that were, for whatever reason, I mean, there are many reasons, but we're transmitting to people in C-Suite's, public relations, human resources, the notion that these controversies were representative of a wider swath of the public than they actually were. Don't get me wrong. I still think we've talked about this on the show many times. People particularly in my generation, millennials, Emma Watson, are very far left on social, cultural issues in a way that's going to cause strife for years to come. But Gen Z really isn't in the exact. same way. There are a lot of, there are a lot more disagreements with Gen Z than there are. There's a lot more, there's a lot more space for argument in, in Gen Z, at least right now, than there were, than there was when millennials were the age that Gen Z is now. And as I'm watching this clip of Emma Watson on a podcast that I saw on social media, by the way, it was an interesting glimmer of hope that maybe the incentives, which drove so, much of the strife during peak cancel culture where algorithms would pump up these fake

controversies, transmit them to, you know, center-left, sympathetic people in corporate boardrooms and newsrooms, and make them take these non-traversies much more seriously than they should have because it was just a organized group of people getting mad on social media that wasn't reflective of their broader customer base in every single case. And it drove people to react in ways that weren't entirely constructive. And what I just heard in Emma Watson's statement was a reflection. It's so obvious. It was made by the right for years and the kind of heterodox center, center left for years, that people are complicated. Our disagreements are complicated. It is quaint. It is obvious. And again, some of us were making this.

for a very long time. But I wonder if for some people, and not for everybody, but maybe for somebody like Emma Watson, who's had an experience like she had with J.K. Rowling becoming such a lightning rod, you're both on the left and the right, but such a bitter. What Harry Potter fans have done to J.K. Rowling

has been covered well elsewhere, but the hardcore Harry Potter fans who are still clinging on, healthfully to the Harry Potter world as adults and take so personally the words of J.K. Rowling on a political disagreement act as though she's fomenting violence. What that did, the pressures that apply to people like Emma Watson, I don't want to underestimate that because she was under a lot of pressure and she's a person of the left. But this is such a healthier way to react, which is that you disagree. with J.K. Rowling. I'd love to see Emma Watson go even further, of course, and say J.K. Rowling,

I know to be a good person. J.K. Rowling, by the way, is hit back at Emma Watson, so it's not as though this isn't going in both directions, but hit back at her in the past, not after this. I don't know if she said anything about this yet, but I'd love to see Emma Watson even more strongly come out and say, I know J.K. Rowling to be a great human being who produced this wonderful world, and we disagree on something I care about deeply, but it doesn't make her a bad person. brings us full circle to what we discussed with Michael when it comes to ICE immigration, when it comes to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which is fundamentally what powerful people on the left have been signaling for a long time is that it is okay to classify people who disagree

with you as bigots, bad people, hate mongers, potentially in some cases, violent via their words, via their beliefs and ideas, not even via their actions. And I get people are going to hit back and come up with all of the different insults that Donald Trump has called Democrats, that talk radio people have called Democrats. I hear that. I think that's also a problem. I think I talked to her the other night about overuse of the term groomer as just one example. If you're not literally a groomer, maybe the right way to say it is that somebody is fueling grooming, supporting groomers, or on the side of the group, whatever. But what I'm saying is when we classify individuals, literally specific individuals with this language, for example, an ICE agent being

compared to Gestapo, find a different comparison. Seriously, with Harry Potter, read another book, as everyone says, but find a different comparison that doesn't signify unless you think, and I actually believe some of them do, that ICE agents are literally on part. with the Gestapo, which is an argument you should flesh out in full and not just use the word as a throwaway pejorative. Go ahead and make that argument if you really believe it. But if you believe they're engaging in tactics that are dangerous, an American, say that. Say that. It's this impulse, and again, I think social media has a lot to do with us, to classify people as hateful,

bigoted when they disagree with you on politics, when actually there are perfectly good substitutes. If you disagree with someone, say that, you. you think they are, you know, causing people to see each other differently in ways that are unfortunate. You think that they're giving cover to people who actually are racist, whatever. But when you label an individual human being, as Michael said earlier, in ways that you wouldn't want to defend to their face if you're in a disagreement with them and you're arguing and having a serious debate and they tell you, look, no, I don't see this person as any less than, I'm a Christian, and all of sin and fall short of the glory of God.

There is no Jew or Greek. All of that, it falls apart when you're face-to-face with someone. So unless you think that person literally believes people are lesser than because of an unmutable characteristic, use a different word, read another book, find another comparison. Interesting, interesting stuff from Emma Watson. Now, I did promise I wanted to talk a little bit about the Lilith Fair documentary. I've decided actually to leave that for our new podcast Happy Hour. is part of the after-party show that pops up in your podcast feed on Fridays.

At least for now, we might actually do it more in the future. But you can send us questions over Instagram on the after-party Emily, Instagram. You can send us questions at Emily at devil-makearemedia.com. We are going to be answering them this week every week. And I'll talk about Lilithfer a little bit there as well. Maybe I'll also talk about the Dawson's Creek reunion, which James Vanderbeak sadly could not make.

By the way, he's a friend of breaking points. He's been on breaking points before and praying for him. That man was too sick. He's been battling cancer to make it to the reunion. So I'll talk about this week in the 1990s in 2025. Maybe that's what we'll name this segment. Tune in the happy hour later this week. Of course, we'll be back live Monday and Wednesday, 10 p.m.

Eastern next week, we have some great guests lined up in the future. So I'll see you then.