After Party with Emily Jashinsky - Colbert's "Equal Time" Lie, Stephen A. Smith’s Winning Message, and Corporate Media's Fail, with Ana Kasparian

Episode Date: February 19, 2026

Emily Jashinsky is joined by Ana Kasparian, Executive Producer & Host of "The Young Turks." The ladies open up with a conversation about the controversy surrounding Stephen Colbert’s interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico and evidence the pair is misleading people about why the interview didn’t air on CBS. Then the conversation turns to the overall media landscape, the importance of authenticity, YouTube’s growth, and why incentive structures—not individual journalists—are the core problem in corporate news. Emily and Ana also react to comments by Stephen A. Smith on race and juxtapose it with identity messaging from political figures like AOC. They also dive into the homeless crisis in America, NYC Mayor Mamdani’s about-face on it, and former President Obama’s criticism of California leadership. Ana also reveals some interesting thoughts on “Breaking Points” and her own political evolution. Emily wraps up the show with a deep dive into what she’s discovered from the Epstein files about his disturbing communications with women and the grave lapses in judgement by those who were connected to him. VanMan: Discover VanMan’s Pearl Eye Cream—real, nutrient-rich ingredients for skin and eye health; visit https://vanman.shop/afterparty and use code AFTERPARTY for 15% off your first order. PDS Debt: You’re 30 seconds away from being debt free with PDS Debt. Get your free assessment and find the best option for you at https://PDSDebt.com/EMILY Lean: Discover why LEAN is becoming the choice for real weight loss results—shop now at https://TAKELEAN.com use code EMILY. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to tonight's edition of After Party. Thank you so much for being here. I'll be joined in just one moment by Anna Kasparian, of course, of the Young Turks. So stick around for that. We have so much to discuss. There is a major free speech controversy that is percolating still, actually. If you've heard about what's going on with Stephen Colbert, James Taylorico, Jasmine Crockett, and Brandon Carr, FCC chairman. We have more updates on that front. We have sound from many of the people involved. We're going to try to get to the bottom of what's actually going on. There has been some misreporting or misspeaking one direction or the other, but what does that mean at the end of the day? We are going to talk about it. And I'm really excited to have Annie here to go through the results of a New York Times focus group. That honestly, it's not,

it's one of those things that's not surprising, but stunning of Democratic Party voters. And so we have some results to break down on that front, some audio from Stephen A. Smith. That's pretty interesting Zara Mandani tackling homelessness in New York City in ways that don't entirely comport with what he said he would do during his campaign. And I'll probably get into a little Alexandria Casio-Cortez. Stick around for the end. I'm going to go through some new Epstein emails that I found in the Epstein Library just last night. So without further ado, we're going to bring Anna in just one moment. But first, hello listeners. The skincare industry has been gaslighting women for decades. We all know that they are pushing these $200 or $300, maybe even $400 jars of chemical

sludge that barely even penetrate your skin. You can be done with that because Van Man's Pearl Eye Cream is skincare that harnesses the best of nature at an affordable price. They ditched the garbage and went straight to grass-fed tallow combined with wild caught pearl powder. One of nature's most nutrient-dense anti-aging ingredients. It's not just about vanity. Either pearl powder has been used for centuries to support eye health and vision. Amazing how that works, right? And it's this deeply penetrating emu and castor oils, royal jelly, organic green tea, frankincense, and rose, add all that together. And you've got some serious skin tightening and collagen support from ingredients that you can actually pronounce. So nice. No mystery fillers and no lies. It works. So give your

eyes the care they actually deserve. Go to vanman.shop slash afterparty and use code after party for 15% off your first order. That's van man.shop slash after party and use code after party for 15% off your first order. Van Man, real ingredients, no exceptions. All right, happy to be joined once again by Anna Kasparian, whose host and executive producer over at the Young Turks. Anna, thanks for coming back. I'm happy to be here. It's great to have you. Now, I wanted to start with the CBS controversy because there is actually a serious question of what? what's going on over at CBS, what's going on at Paramount. I don't know how much this story speaks to that, but we're going to get into it because CBS people may have been following this story a little bit.

Allegedly, according to Stephen Colbert, who's, of course, still at CBS, said that he couldn't. This is what the statement was. They said he couldn't air this interview he did with Democratic Senate candidate, James Tolariko, because of the equal time rule. Again, allegedly, Stephen Colbert goes out his show heavily suggests that's what happened. CBS comes out the next day says, actually, CBS comes out shortly thereafter. And all day today, we hear this repeated, that they actually just legally flagged. It wasn't that he couldn't air it. It was that he could air it if he had Crockett and another candidate who's actually in the race on for equal time reasons. They still let him put up on YouTube where it's gotten way more views than it ever would have just airing on linear

broadcast television at this point. But as it turns out, this is interesting because it seems like what really happened is that CBS flagged it and the FCC had nothing to do with it, that CBS's internal legal team flagged it. And the FCC, because the FCC in a macro sense has been kind of cracking down on networks saying that they have their duty with the public airwaves to use them in the public interest. And Brendan Carrie came on this show and made that argument. said that, actually, it was just CBS reacting to that macro pressure. So we're going to get into it a little bit because I want to roll this cup of Jasmine Crockett, kind of discovering what the Trump administration was saying and using it

against her primary candidate, James Tolariko. Here she is. We did receive information suggesting that the federal government did not shut down this segment. number one. That is my understanding that the federal government didn't shut this down and we will do an official statement once we get another official statement that we anticipate is going to be coming from paramount. And that there may have been advice to just have me on and then they could clear the issue. It was my understanding that someone somewhere decided we just don't want to do that.

We're going to just do it this way. Okay, two more clips. Let's first roll Colbert and then Brendan Carr. So everyone has it all out on the table. And let's start here with Colbert responding. This is the second night of the controversy. So last night, here he is. Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to tell them how to do their jobs.

But since they seem intent on telling me how to do mine, here we go. I am well aware that we can book. other guests. For the record, I'm not even mad. I really don't want an adversary relationship with the network. I'm just so surprised that this giant global

corporation would not stand up to these bullies. Come on. You're paramount. And for the lawyers to release this, without even talking to me, is really surprising. I don't even know what to do with this crap. Oh, hold on.

That's hilarious. Yeah. And now here's FCC Chairman Brendan Carr today, who again, he has been pressuring or he has been saying that these networks have to use the airwaves in the public interest because they legally do technically have to. It's usually there are exceptions for talk shows. So Brendan Carr goes for press conference today and lays into the media for taking the Tala Rico line that he had been banned by the government from appearing on Colbert. Here it is. I think yesterday was a perfect encapsulation of why the American people have more trust in gas. station sushi than they do in the national news media. And this was very plainly an effort ginned up to get clicks and to raise money.

And you guys ate it up like slop. And when it was pointed out that the facts were completely different than what the fake news media was running with, nobody did like an about face and did a fact correction. They just pivoted and moved away. Hmm. So that's a media criticism. It may be better as a Talariko criticism, F2. This is how the Tala Rico campaign promoted it. He said, our campaign raised $2.5 million in 24 hours at the FCC banned our Colbert interview.

It looks, Anna, to me, I'm curious what you make of this tornado and what I think is the most interesting primary race in the entire country right now, Dem or Republican. It looks to me like CBS Legal was reacting to the broader environment Brendan Carr created, not to any directive from the government. What do you think? Yeah, I think you're right. And I think that the way that this guideline in regard to fairness in media, the way it's been implemented, I think is it's obvious that it's being used as a weaponized policy that will be utilized against certain types of shows that tow a certain kind of political line. The reason why I think that is because I thought it was fascinating that Brendan Carr decided that talk radio. is exempt from this rule entirely. Gee, I wonder why. Is there a characteristic that's noticeable with talk radio that might appeal more to someone like Brendan Carr? You know, maybe the fact that

it's all very, very conservative content, which by the way, I would feel as irritated by the FCC if they were weaponizing this guidance in the other direction as well. You know what I'm saying? So like, I'm a huge proponent of something that was effectively repealed by. the Reagan administration, and that was something known as the Fairness Doctrine. Now, the Fairness Doctrine wasn't weaponized, and it ensured that certain broadcast licensing had to abide by this rule of fairness, allowing all sides to make their case. I think that's actually a good thing, especially if you're masquerading as a new show, and there are a lot of new shows that like to, or shows that like to masquerade as, you know, news organizations, when in reality they're not

giving people the full story. I think it would be helpful for a new show. Americans to get the full story. But what's being pursued here, I think, is not really about fairness. It's about, you know, retaliation against political messaging that the Trump administration doesn't like. At least that's my read of it. See, this is so interesting because the fairness doctrine from a left perspective, I think as you were just explaining, this idea that you have a public airwave. It's something that Brandon Carr literally came on the show and talked about, that this, there was, especially back when this was a thing, there was scarcity. And that meant that the government was a steward of a scarce resource, and that was democratically organized. And so they said to the broadcast

networks, you have to use this in the public interest that manifested in the fairness doctrine, but they do still have for broadcast. Again, this is just, this is not cable, but just for the broadcast networks, they do have this public interest doctrine. It seems like if they really wanted to solve the problem, they could mobilize an effort to actually get rid of what might be an outdated doctrine in the era of YouTube where this interview is doing gangbusters for CBS. I know. Like, I don't know. What do you make of that? This is what I make of the whole incident. Best ad for Tala Rico imaginable. I think that Jasmine Crockett regurgitating the Trump administration's messaging because she sees it as beneficial for her own campaign.

campaign is so peak Jasmine Crockett. Look, I've never really liked Jasmine Crockett. I'm going to keep it real. I think that all she ever engaged in was K-Fape political theater. And I'm just not interested in that. I'm not interested in you acting like that

on the House floor. Like, I want results. I want you to think strategically about how you're going to accomplish policies that benefit people's lives. But I saw a lot of excitement around her and I didn't want to reign on Democrats' parade. so I just kind of kept it to myself.

But once I saw what her views are on A-PAC and Israel and all of that, I'm like, I'm lending it out, can't stand her. So I'm not really looking forward to her potentially winning this race. I don't know how she's doing in the polling. I haven't really paid close attention to this particular Senate race. But nonetheless, I'm happy to see that what could have been, you know, a cancellation of Tala Rico's interview, ended up being an interview that was posted on a much better platform, and that's YouTube. And it did do gangbusters. It's awesome. This is why I think that it's the most interesting primary in the country is that you have

Crockett who has, who's fashioned herself as a stylistic populist, who has no populist substance. So people look at her like, whoa, this is this is so populace. This is so new and interesting. She's brash. She's almost Trumpian. She must be a substantive populist. On the other hand, you have Talariko who puts himself out there as a Biden-type candidate who's going to bring civility and normalcy back to America, he does have slightly more populist packaging, though he did take money from Miriam Adelson. And I think it's genuinely a big question of what his substance of populism actually looks like. But that's a very interesting thing, where you have this populist packaging without any populous substance and then an almost centrist

packaging with populist substance. It's a very, very interesting race. I don't know. I don't know who's winning, but to me it seems like a big test. I mean, it's not a unique race. It's yet another political race where I don't have any interest in either candidate, I guess. Why would you take money from the devil? Like, what are you doing? Like, Miriam Edelson is one of the worst people in this country. And I'm gambling, by the way. He took it to promote her gambling interests. Oh, and now he's putting himself as an evangelical Christian or a Protestant Christian. I'm trying to do better around my family. Like they're getting a little sick of my doomerism and you're not helping my cause, Emily. Okay. It's bad. It's bad. Yeah. Okay, but this is like, did you think, so I was at

this thing with your co-host Jenk last week and he was just sort of reflecting on the history of TYT. And to see this interview just doing monster numbers on YouTube more than it could do on broadcast. This is remarkable. I guess I feel like you guys were way out ahead of that. And you are from a perspective. Like you don't hide where you're coming from these issues. And so that means you've had conversations with candidates over the years. Like, do you think they're still caught off guard by this? Are you surprised to see that, you know, in only 20 years to me?

Maybe it feels like a long time. It's really not that long of a time. And only 20 years you go from, you know, YouTube being this like curiosity to kind of dominating. YouTube, you know, when it was first rolled out, was known as the place. you go if you want to watch cat videos. That's where we got our start. That was the era that TYT got its start.

We were probably the first political new show on YouTube. We were the first YouTube partner ever. And every time I would tell someone, oh yeah, I do a political new show on YouTube, they'd ask me, like, isn't that where you watch cat videos? Like what? But I stuck to it because I actually got my start at CBS radio. and it was the most miserable experience of my life.

And I realized, oh, wow, if I work really hard, the best I could do at this place of work is be one of the anchors. And I just saw how they operated. You know, they'd come in 15 minutes before the broadcast. There's newswriters who wrote their script for them. And they would just read a script and go home. And that seemed so uninspiring to me. So at that point, I decided, okay,

I guess journalism is not what I thought it was, and I need to reconsider my career path. And I applied to grad school. I had a plan to go to Europe. I travel out of the country for the first time in my life that summer. And suddenly I get approached by one of my colleagues at CBS Radio, and she was like, hey, if you want to make a little extra money, there's this new show that needs a temp for two weeks because their producer is going to be out of town. And I was like, okay, tell me more. I could definitely use some more money, especially with the new show.

this Europe trip coming up. And so she tells me about the young Turks, you know, tells this young Armenian woman, like, about the show with all the young Turks. And I was like, like, ew, what is that? Like, why would they name their show the young Turks? Once I found out what the name of the show meant and everything, and I did watch some of the content,

I was definitely intrigued. And after my first day, I didn't want to leave. And I was willing to, like, take at that point a major risk, quit my CBS job. and work at like this startup on YouTube. And luckily it worked out. I'm really, really happy I took that risk. Well, so you said something very interesting just now,

which is that you went to CBS and saw that these anchors were rolling in 15 minutes before reading other people's scripts. And that wasn't very inspiring. But I think there are so many people who just heard what you said are like young people in journalism, especially 20 years ago. It would be like, what are you talking about? That's the dream, you know, to be there and just be able to read the scripts that other people wrote for you.

That's interesting. I guess I'm wondering if, like, why did you, why did you want more? Like, what did you want out of journalism? Well, let me just kind of set the stage for people who aren't in our industry. It's awful. It's awful in so many different ways. It's awful because of the subject matter, right? Like, day and day up. Like, there's no escaping the news cycle. Like, you stew in it. It's literally your job. You have to care. You have to want to do this to survive in this industry. And for me, the despite all my complaints, I really, really love and have deep, deep love and appreciation for journalists and journalism. And so a recurring thing that happens on TYT, and in fact, a lot of

times behind the scenes as well, Jank and I fight about journalism all the time, because I think that he, he tends to just make these sweeping generalizations about media and journalists and it really gets under my skin because, yeah, there are a lot of journalists out there, journalists or corporate media out there. They do a poor job. I get it. But I would also say that within those corporate media organizations are some pretty significant stars that break news that make it possible for the young Turks to exist.

Okay. And besides which, you know, I have my job at the Young Turks, but I'm also an investigative reporter for real clear investigations. I cover their California beat. And I write these lengthy 2,500 to 3,000 word pieces. And it's the hardest work that I do, like bar none. Like actual journalism is incredibly difficult to do. So I want to give journalists their flowers.

A lot of them do deserve it. But we do have a problem with certain incentive structures that are baked into corporate media that I think, you know, Jank is actually. speaking to. That's his real issue. But I love, I love what I do. I really do. I love, I love prepping the show. I love researching. I love learning new things. When I'm done doing the show, my husband is usually on my ass about the fact that I have headphones in because I'm listening to your podcast or breaking points. Like I'm obsessed with it. I really love it. You know what I'm saying?

But yeah, and you also said that it's because you have to care. And that's another interesting thing about TYT and the broader new media space is that it's weird because that sort of post-war mass media culture that we think of as Walter Cronkite with the voice of God delivering just the facts right down the middle. It was such an aberration in the history of publishing and printing and media and all of that. And it was because of the advertising structure. I feel like you guys were very out ahead of realizing actually that trust could be built even better by just saying, I'm going to give you facts, but you're smart. You can say that I'm on the left, and when I'm delivering the facts, maybe this is a left-skewed version of the facts, even though you try not to do that, but you also give commentary.

That I also think was very prescient, and it's been proven to be right now what people are looking for more than anything. Yes, and when I was in journalism school, I remember my favorite professor would tell all of us, like, you are not to ever share your. opinion. Okay, you got to earn your dues and maybe one day you'll be lucky enough to be an op-ed writer, but you are not supposed to share your opinion. And when I graduated and then promptly started sharing my opinion, there was like that feeling internally of like, am I destroying my future by doing this? But I think the culture in journalism had already begun changing. And I got to be honest with you, there is a part of me, In recent years, I've realized that I'm less interested in activism and a lot more passionate about

journalism. And so I'm kind of sick of people being obsessed with like, oh, what's your label? What's your political view? And it's like, honestly, I'm not important. Like, the story is important. Sure, I have my views and I'll share my views. But people are now very conditioned and kind of obsessed with like pigeonholing you into a political group. And I personally, find myself in a position of not really fitting in any political group right now. Like if you really free yourself and you discard all the labels and you just think for yourself, you're not going to be fully on the left or fully on the right or fully in the middle. And I want to like kind of get people to think about opening their minds up and thinking for

themselves as opposed to having news shows tell them how to think or what to think. Oh, I love that. So I'm going to pick up on this point right after a quick break with the New York Times focus group that I teased earlier. We'll be right back with Anna Kasparian first. Remember, a fresh start is possible. Debt can feel like it's getting worse every month, but that only continues if nothing changes. PDS debt has already helped hundreds of thousands of people rewrite their financial story and take back control, and your turn can start right now. If you're struggling with credit cards, personal loans or medical bills, PDS debt creates personalized options to help you get out of debt.

They look beyond the numbers to understand your situation and build a plan that's designed specifically for you. There's no minimum credit score, and their entire mission is to help you save more, pay off debt faster, and finally put money back where it belongs in your pocket. They're A plus rated by the Better Business Bureau that have thousands of five-star Google reviews and hold a five-star rating on Trust Pilot because their approach works, and the longer you wait, the more interest and fees pile up. The best time to start was yesterday. The next best time is right now. If I had needed this product, this is what I would use. So don't wait another month.

Change your story in 30 seconds. Get your free personalized assessment and the best option for you at PDSdebt.com slash Emily. That's pDSdet.com slash Emily. PDSdette.com slash Emily. We're back now with Anna Kasparian, who is a host and executive producer over at the Young Turks. And actually, before we get to the New York Times Focus Group, I want to roll this clip because we were talking about the almost superfluousness of labels now. of Stephen A. Smith, who even Jamel Hill is acknowledging might be a serious political force. I'm curious to get your point on your perspective on that. We'll see there are differing perspectives.

But here's Stephen A. Smith in an interview being asked about race. And he gave a very interesting response. Does you worry about racism if he ran for president? No. I know it exists. I know that you can't escape it. But I do not believe it is as prevalent as some on the left would like us to believe. I do believe a vast majority of Americans judge you on the content of your individual character rather than the color of your skin. I think a lot of people in America, especially in this day and age, now more so than ever before, it's not about race. It's about the fact that they don't give a damn about it because they got their own problems. That's entirely different than believing they are superior to you and they want to hold you back from ascending. That's not what's going on to the degree that it was decades ago.

What's going on now is that we have more white America. and others suffering and worried about the state of our nation. And because they're concerned about that, that's where their worries lie. And I'm, and. Yes. Yes. Yes. Wow.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Yes. I got to be honest. When I saw that this was going to be a topic of discussion, it was like, oh, God.

I roll. Like I know. Especially on the heels of AOC's Munich Security Conference visit and all the gaps and stuff, I'm just like, we need. We need seriousness. I think this moment calls for it. And Stephen A. Smith is a sports broadcaster, not a knock on sports broadcasters. It just doesn't necessarily mean you're qualified to run for president. I got it to say, though, I really love that answer. I really did. You know what's interesting to me is that I wonder if he's picking up because he's,

and this is Trumpian in respect. This man was on primetime television for years, picking up on an audience reaction that he's noticed throughout the kind of cancel culture era and he had a better window into it as somebody who was doing sports coverage than people in, you know, newsrooms or dem consultant groups just because of the nature of his audience. And it gave him the wisdom. I don't know, to give that answer. What do you make of that? I think you might be right. One thing that I know for sure is that the cancel culture stuff and I hate using the word woke. I think it's overused.

But all of the stuff that was happening culturally on the left in the lead up to the 24 election was toxic, off-putting, people didn't like it. They obviously wanted Democrats to focus on bread and butter issues. Trump won because he kept messaging on affordability. Now, of course, he's done nothing to make the economic situation here in the U.S. any better. But nonetheless, that messaging was very effective. And what I especially loved about Stephen A. Smith's comments there is that he recognizes the struggle of Americans in general and doesn't feel the need to racialize it because there are a lot of Americans, black, white, Asian, doesn't matter. They are struggling. They can't afford a place to live. You know, they can't afford groceries. Like, these are real issues that I don't think we've had a serious candidate legitimately address. And yes, that includes Biden. And it's amazing to me, that what we heard from the Biden administration

about how the economy was so great when it wasn't, all the lies that we heard about inflation, fast forward to the Trump administration, he's doing the exact same thing. And, you know, just to juxtapose what we heard from Stephen A. Smith from what AOC was saying at the Munich Security Conference,

you know, I think part of the reason why she had so many flubs and gaps is that her whole worldview is based on identity politics. And so she tried to kind of use that analysis on foreign policy issues, and it doesn't quite work. And, you know, that whole jab about like, did you see Marco Rubio say that the Spaniards brought cowboy culture to the Americas? And it's like, I know you don't like white people, but like, except for your husband. Oh, yeah, that too. Yeah.

I mean, I just like stop beating up on people based on their race, period. Period, period, period. We're Americans. We need to have a bond as Americans. And that's really hard to do when everything is communicated through this lens of race. So this is another thing about the Stephen A. Smith response. It was positive about the average American. And the opposite of that, because there's always going to be glass half full, glass half empty. As he started the answer to Robert Costa of CBS there is by saying, actually, yes, racism will be with us. There is racism in this world. I believe the average American is decent and good. And flipping it around, it's so obvious and simple if you spend time with regular people, but no politician on the left has really done that. I think a perfect example to kind of bolster the argument that he's making is public opinion on ice or border patrol. So, for instance, after the Alex Preddy shooting happened, a poll came out showing,

I can't even believe this, Emily. the poll indicated that prior to Alex Preddy getting shot and killed, around I think 10% of Republicans wanted to abolish ICE. Already the fact that 10% of Republicans want to abolish ICE is crazy. Like I didn't even know that existed, but they do. They exist. The number doubled after the Alex Preddy shooting. Now, that doesn't necessarily have to do with race. I think Alex Preddy was white. But the point that I'm trying to make is the whole theory that the mainstream Democratic Party has, in regard to Republican policy on immigration centers on they're racist. They're just racist. That's all it is. They're racist, racist, racist, racist. The Republican voters are racist. Everyone's racist.

That's not true. That's not true. Biden lost control of the immigration issue. He lost control of the border. And that's why you saw an uptick of Democrats wanting more border patrol enforcement. Okay. But most Americans do not want to see other people get hurt. including undocumented immigrants, including people of color.

Like, we are, for the most part. No, Anna, illegal. How dare you? Oh, my God. Did you see that moment? I did. Now I'm going to get in trouble with some making fun of it. Well, I mean, yeah, look, I just, and that's the other thing.

I'm not big on language policing. So if someone uses the word illegal, it's not my preference, but I'm not going to get on their ass about it. But I'd like the same respect. We know what you mean. Yes. 100%. And actually, like, a lot of people are literally undocumented.

Is the same thing with the word migrant. I get a lot of flak sometimes from the right for using the word migrants. Like, they're literally migrants. Like, yes, some of them are illegally in the country, but a huge problem with the Biden policy is that he legalized asylum without detention all over the country. And they're here legally. It's in some cases, they're not even undocumented. They're just legal asylum seekers.

Exactly. Yeah. Frustrating. That point, though, is I'm glad you brought AOC into it, because, is this brings us to the New York Times focus group. And I think we have this graphic we can put up on the screen. This was going really viral because the New York Times assembled the focus group of Democratic voters, asked them if they would want a moderate candidate and a progressive candidate.

And everyone said progressive. Zero people in this focus group, which was a total cross-section of the country, said that they wanted a moderate candidate. And to the point about labels that you were making, Anna, I don't know what the progressive label means other than, I think it means they want aggressive Democrats because moderate, like what I don't know what it means to be a moderate Democrat right now. When, for example, we have this we can put up on the screen, Zeranamomani, reverses policy and is doing sweeps of homeless encampments. He's a Democratic socialist.

This news broke, the New York Post broke at first, but the New York Times, we have that tariff street we can put up on the screen. This just happened in the last 24 hours. So that's a quote unquote moderate policy, I guess. it's from a Democratic Socialist. So what are you reading into people saying they want a progressive candidate, not a moderate one? I think they just want the antithesis of what we've been seeing with the dinosaur Democrats in Congress right now. I think that they look at those Democrats and they just label them moderate because they're not fighters. And, you know, it just feel like they kind of rolled over and showed their belly like during Trump's first year. And people are

furious about it for good reason. That being said, though, in regard to Mom Doni, now that's a real leader. He really is. And I know that he's getting some backlash from like the homeless people should die out on the streets

during winter storms, you know, group of people. Usually they work for nonprofits and make money off the homeless issue and they make me sick. I hate those people. But Mom Doni noticed, oh, 20 people died outdoors during this insanely cold weather, maybe homeless encampments are not a good idea. Maybe they're actually

counterproductive and people get hurt and could die under those conditions. So to me, the fact that he was willing to recalibrate so quickly is a sign of a leader. Whether he's moderate, whether he's a leftist, I don't care. What I care about is results and whether or not he's willing to admit, hey, I tried something out, and it turned out to not work out so well. So I'm going to recalibrate. And the way that he's, you know, carrying out his version of this policy is to not involve the police. I think having cops do homeless sweeps is cruel and can be very scary for people. So instead, you know, there are like these, like a group of people who handle issues involving homeless people in New York City. So they're kind of like social workers.

and they're going to help these people and just kind of handle it in a much kinder way and try to get them into shelter, which is the right thing to do or housing. Yeah. And I agree, actually I hadn't thought about in that respect that it actually is really a sign of leadership to take an L because it wasn't working

and pivot on something that he was getting patted on the back for doing, which was ending the sweeps of the encampment. So that's significant. He did the right thing, and he might not know it yet, Hopefully he does at some point. You know, L.A. did this experiment and continues to some extent doing this experiment of like, homeless encampments for everyone.

Every community, every neighborhood. It's great. Aren't we so kind? And what it does is it builds disorder, resentment, anger. This is not a kind policy. This is essentially elected leaders telling us that this is a hard problem to solve. So we're just going to let them live in homeless encampments instead. No, that's not leadership.

And on the AOC culture war point, just to go back to that, you mentioned her worldview is built up on identity politics. I actually, obviously, this is J.D. Vance coming from a partisan perspective, but he said something that I think a lot of leftists would say about AOC. And I wonder if he was doing that intentionally. If he was rather clever to needle her in that way. But here's J.D. Vance responding to the AOC. Honestly, I would say meltdown over in Munich. That was disappointing. I know a lot of people in the left, but just pathetic either way.

Here's the vice president. I think that this is such a... It's the Taiwan answer. I hope to never see this again. This is a... So bad. So bad. This is, of course, a very longstanding policy of the United States.

Martha, you bring me on your show. You show me the most uncomfortable 20 seconds of 10. television I've ever seen might take away from that. What happened there? What do you think? Well, I think it's a person who doesn't know what she actually thinks. And I've seen this way too much in Washington with politicians where they are given lines. And when you ask them to go outside, the lines they were given, they completely fall apart. Because look, does AOC, does anybody really believe that AOC has very thoughtful ideas about the global world order

or about what the United States should do with our policy in Asia? or our policy in Europe. No, this is a person who is mouting the slogans that somebody else gave her. See, and Anna, you pointed out how when she was trying to criticize Marco Rubio, she went to this identity politics point of, that was not even correct, by the way, about cowboy culture. And it's just a weird thing to do. But it's also just, I don't know if Dems, AOC, and others are reading into results like this New York Times focus group. where everyone says they want a progressive as now licensed to lean back into some of those same identity politic points. Please don't know.

What do you think? Is that going to happen? I don't know. I don't even want to predict. I'm just going to hope against all odds that the Democrats will not revert back to that because it was unpopular. And honestly, they'll never take ownership of this. It divided the country.

It just did. It divided the country based on your racial identity, your sexual identity, or orientation, your gender identity. And it's like, okay, the only thing that will help make this whole project work, this experiment work, is if we all see each other as fellow Americans. Like, there has to be something that bonds us together. And when the entire national conversation revolves around all the divisions among us and how we're all different from each other, not good. I think that a lot of the policies that occurred during COVID were super toxic, especially when they were race-based. Remember when they were first thinking about rolling out the vaccines only to the black community or something? And they did it in New England. I think it was

Vermont. They actually did it on a rolling racial basis. So are they communicating that the black community is somehow biologically different from us? Like I just, I don't understand the reasoning. I think that it's a racist policy, okay, by definition. Yep. I just stop, Democrats, stop doing this. Stop doing it. Find ways to bring people together. Be inspiring and more importantly, focus on the bread and butter issues.

And yes, foreign policy. Because I think Americans are waking up to the fact that foreign policy actually does have a big impact on our day-to-day lives. I think these soldiers that are being deployed right now in the Middle East know that foreign policy has a huge impact on our lives. And we are drowning in federal debt that we're now spending a trillion dollars a year on servicing, just on interest alone. We are in a really bad place. And so for me, a candidate who doesn't know foreign policy is a candidate that I have no interest in whatsoever.

So if AOC is serious about running in the next presidential election, you got to do more than a crash course. And you have to care. You have to actually care about these global issues. And care in a way where you're doing the work and not just thinking that, you know, the answer to the question. Although I don't know what she was doing. I mean, Greenwald did an amazing thing on this. But, like, how do you go to the Munich Security Conference? You're prepped by people.

It's your decision to go. It's sort of a global debut. And you didn't have a canned answer already at Taiwan. That's unfathomable to me. You followed her for a long time. And I just, even for her, I can't. I mean, her occupied Palestine gaffe with Margaret Hoover was understandable. She had just been elected to Congress.

That I actually kind of understood. But this is years into her political career. Well, yeah, not only is it years into her political career, she is a sitting member of Congress who votes on legislation that funds certain foreign countries. And not too long ago, she actually got a lot of heat from left-wing voters because she, you know, voted in favor of sending more military aid to Israel. Her big argument was, oh, well, it's defensive weaponry, not offensive weaponry. but the damage was done.

And for the most part, Democratic voters wanted to stop sending money to Israel, but she voted for it anyway. Her political instincts when it comes to foreign policy have been pretty bad. And it goes beyond the appearance at the Munich Security Conference. I remember there was this one moment,

and I was just, so there was an effort to, this is many years ago, an effort to send another billion to Israel on top of the 3.8 billion that were already, already sending them each year. And the idea, I don't even know what it was for. They were passing some other bill and then they like slip in that extra billion dollars to Israel. Well, Democrats and the

left were against it. And initially, AOC was against it. And then I don't know. I guess Nancy Pelosi like wagged her finger at AOC. And she ended up voting present, which made both sides unhappy. And then she cried on the House floor, literally. I forgot about that. I forgot about that. And I know I'm being harsh. I know I'm being harsh. But guys, like for anyone on the left who's watching this and you're really angry at me for being too critical of AOC, I just want you to take stock of the moment that we're in as a country right now. We need to stop playing games and we need to have higher standards for our candidates, both on the left and the right. So the right is not going to give a damn about what I have to say about their candidates.

The left should, right? The left should care. And when I say left wing candidates should care about what their voters have to say about them. And they should want to improve. And if they don't want to improve, then we shouldn't vote for them. That's how I see it. This is where I was going to test out a very depressing theory that I have on you, which is our listeners know, I've been thinking a lot about Neil Postman amusing ourselves to death, where he's looking at

Ronald Reagan in the mid-80s. And he was like, wow, it's so depressing that we have Ronald Reagan as president because he's good on TV. We have an actor as president. He saw that as symbolic of the television-based epistemology, overtaking the print-based epistemology, which he thought was much more serious. And I'm wondering if in the social media-based epistemology,

the future of presidential candidates in these big media battles that you now have to win in order to be president of the United States, and even in the primary battle, it's going to involve people who have mastered short form, which is not substantive. And then the best that we're going to be able to hope for is this is the type of person, that staffs themselves up really well, but it's going to be Stephen A. Smith's or Spencer Pratt's

or AOCs or Donald Trumps. I don't know. No, the future looks bleak, okay? It looks fleak, Emily. Are you happy now? Okay. I'm not. I don't want to be right about this. I just feel like I'm looking into my future like kaleidoscope or whatever the hell it is. And I'm seeing idiocry. I'm seeing a lot of that too. But look, I, as harsh as I've been on AOC, I, do think that she is fully capable of improving, of actually knowing where she herself stands on foreign policy, I don't really think she's given herself the opportunity to think about what her views are. Like, what are your views on foreign policy? Like, get the identity politics stuff out of your head for a second. Like, learn about these conflicts, read history

about them, and formulate your own genuine, sincere opinion. Because I think out of any characteristic a candidate could have, what tends to speak most to voters is authenticity. And if you're just regurgitating what you think you're supposed to say, people will catch on to that real quick. And I think that's what J.D. Vance was probably picking up on. And it's funny because Janky Yuga actually made the same comment, worded it differently, but he made the same comment on our show yesterday.

Oh, that is interesting. Maybe J.D. saw it. Maybe. Who knows? Who knows? I'm going to take the Jank line. That'll cut her deep. Well, if one thing I do know about J.D. Vans is he's a huge fan of the young Turks and Jank Yugar especially. So I wouldn't be surprised. Yes, everyone knows that about him. It's, yeah, one of the most common pieces of knowledge.

I want to talk California because there's an interesting Obama clip. He was on with Brian Tyler Cohen. We were just talking about Mayor Mamadani doing a little transition to a more humane, as I think both of us would agree, policy on homelessness and. the encampments in very, very cold weather. But Barack Obama actually needleed Governor Gavin Newsom over his stewardship. And maybe it was a little Karen Bass in there, too. Their stewardship of Los Angeles. Let's take a look at this clip.

Let's say here in Los Angeles around the homeless issue. I think morally, ethically speaking, it is an atrocity that in a country this wealthy, we have people just on the streets. And we should have a, we should insist on policies that recognize their full humanity, people who are houseless, and be able to provide them the help and resources that they need. But we should also recognize that the average person, you know, doesn't want to have to navigate around a tent city in the middle of, downtown.

He didn't want to say homelessness and he didn't want to say unhoused. So he went with houselessness. Yeah. Just speak like a normal person. It's going to be okay. A few people are going to badger you about it on social media. Ignore them. Like, homeless is fine.

Homeless is fine. I don't think it's a degrading term. Anyway. So you've seen this up close. And actually for you, you've taken so much flack from the left for being a voice of sanity on it. if you could just walk us through the big picture here of whether this is the fault of democratic politicians in California. Yes.

Full stop. Yes. It is their fault. Now, look, as much as I hate giving Gavin News some credit because I loathe him, he actually realized how much of a problem this is. And the reason why the homeless encampments kind of started popping up and no one was doing anything about it in California specifically is because, because there was a federal court ruling indicating that it is unconstitutional to do encampment bans if you're not providing shelter or housing for the individuals living in the encampments. I look, I understand the reasoning behind it. The problem is there's nothing politicians love more

than an excuse to do nothing. And so they took that decision and they, and they used it as an excuse to do nothing. They're like, okay, I guess homeless encampments are constitutional now, so we got to leave them alone. No, no, the idea here was you need to build housing. You need to build the housing. All of those like zoning regulations and Siquan, Mi-Qua, whatever BS you guys have implemented that makes it impossible

to build housing in this state. You need to repeal it or rework it, and you need to build housing. You need to help these people get off the streets. By the way, let me also be clear about one other thing. There are two types of homeless people, right, for lack of a better way of describing it. There are tons of homeless people in California who are not living on the streets. These are people who are couch surfing. They're living with relatives, living with a family member, friend, whatever it is.

But they just can't afford a place to live. So they're technically homeless and they're crashing at someone's place. street homelessness is entirely different. These are folks who actually need additional services. They need more than an apartment or, you know, a shelter. In fact, Karen Bass rolled out this program where she basically bought apartment buildings, rehabilitated them, and then had homeless people live in the units. But here's the thing, the people who are out on the streets, not all of them, but most,

of them either have a severe drug addiction issue and they need help with that or they have a severe mental illness. And so if you just take a person who, for instance, is addicted to fentanyl and you put them in a unit on their own, the likelihood of them overdosing and dying alone increases significantly. And there have been a lot of deaths, overdose deaths, people dying alone in one of these housing units because the city or the state is not a drug. addressing this issue appropriately. It's actually a much more complex issue than housing first because it totally ignores and neglects the other acute issues here, namely drug addiction and mental illness.

But look, I still also think we need to build more housing. And I do think that some of the regulations we have in our state has made that incredibly difficult, even after Newsom claim that he repealed some of those laws. I'm not buying it. I mean, look at the Pacific Palisades. Look at Altadena. They still haven't recovered from those devastating fires at the start of 2025. Here's a story I'm obsessed with that just broke in the last couple of hours,

and I was thinking about it as you were talking. Mayor Barbara Lee's vehicle was stolen in Oakland after someone broke into her office. What a ridiculous sequence of a... It's a state vehicle that was parked in the office parking. complex or whatever. Oakland has obviously struggled with this a lot. But it seems, I don't know, I'm curious, you're there in California. After you and others started speaking up about this, even when it was very uncomfortable in times where that was still like cancel culture era, you know, you say one wrong thing, people are done with you. They organize mobs to go after

with you. You know this better than anybody. Is it getting better? Like, is it, because for a while, it seemed like the consensus on the left was, we need a new approach. And then I still see stories like this. And I'm like, holy smokes, California is burning to the ground. That continues to happen. So there are two things happening simultaneously. On one hand, what's working against California is that politics, all politics has become nationalized. So everyone's attention is focused on the Trump administration. And that really happens to the detriment of people, in California especially, right? Because, and my friend warned me about this before the election, he's like, look, if Trump wins, the added devastation is the fact that these Democrats on a state

and local level can pivot everyone's attention away from their failures onto Trump. And that's exactly what's happening. It's like driving me crazy. So there's that. However, I would be lying if I said that things didn't improve a little in California. I do think that things have improved a little. I don't think it's because our leadership is actually concerned about the well-being of Californians. The Olympics are coming. The World Cup is coming. And I don't think California wants to embarrass itself. But it's like when Xi Jinping came and all of a sudden, what was it, San Francisco was pristine? Yes. And I'm worried that once the Olympics are over, actually, I have no idea what it's going to look like. I have no idea. I'm hoping that things

continue to get better, but I'm not going to hold my breath. See, Barbara Lee, and I'm not blaming her for any particular Oakland policies because I don't know. You may know, but I honestly have no idea what Barbara Lee's stewardship of the city of Oakland has been like, but she's a genuine leftist, very brave on foreign policy, Iraq war, vindicated. And what's interesting to me is that you have the Mamdani approach where he comes in and like when Xi Jinping is coming, says, we are going to deep clean the subway, like day one of my administration. He just shows that you can't do stuff. You can actually do things.

You can. Yes. That improve the life of average everyday people. You can do it. On the other hand, you then still see some people who seem to not be able to get out of this 2020 loop because a lot of the groups are still addicted to the 2020 politics because that's where their funding comes from. That's who their staff is.

to the point about AOC's entire worldview being potentially identity politics, there's a generation of especially millennial and Gen Z leftists whose entire worldview was built on that house of identity politics as opposed to class politics. And they may have some delusions that these are always the same things, but they aren't. And that makes me wonder what the future looks like. Yeah, look, if anyone looking forward to a career in politics is watching this, and you find yourself surrounded by the types of people that were just described, purge them out of your life because they're not going to serve you.

I'm not even kidding. I've done it. And I'm so happy. Really? Yeah, I'm the happiest I've ever been. I didn't realize how much these were the types of people that were dragging me down and giving me a worldview that not only was inaccurate, but led to a level of dumerism and fear of, like, half the country being Nazis who want to kill me. Like, I just, these are not helpful people.

and they have an inaccurate worldview. And more importantly, they're authoritarian in their approach. Let's keep it real. Where you're not allowed to think for yourself, you're not allowed to deviate even a little bit from what they deem acceptable. Nah, I got a mind of my own, and I'm going to speak my mind,

and I'm going to investigate these issues for myself and determine what I think the right policies are. And I'm all engaged in a debate about it. I'm open-minded enough to hear different perspectives, but the idea that someone is like some, I mean, they literally call anyone a Nazi, everyone. I mean, some of them go around talking about, oh, Anna, voted for Trump. I never voted for Trump.

I never advocated for Trump. What are you guys even talking about? But it's the audacity to think a little bit differently than they do, to focus more on class politics as opposed to identity politics. They think you're a bad person. And you know what? It's okay. I'll allow it.

You can think whatever you want about me. I'm going to think for myself, though. You know, we didn't have as much identity politics on the right for some obvious reasons. But what I saw in people's personal lives, my friends on the left, it looked like anguish. It looked like agonizing. It looked horrible. And I know for some people it probably still is. It probably will be into the future.

But starting around like 2017, maybe some people put it around 2014. Obviously, a lot of stuff was building the 90s and goes back decades. But that, I don't know, people would say like peak woke, capital P, capital W era. I don't think that's a perfect way to describe it, but that's what it was. And that must have been, I mean, I don't know, are we, we're kind of on the other side of it now or maybe a little bit on the other side of it now. But I didn't have to deal with that, but I saw a lot of you guys dealing with it. And I'm curious, like in the middle of this ice stuff right now, like we were talking earlier about the debate over language policing that you got into that went kind of viral like a week or two ago. And what we saw in that is you extending grace to somebody on the right who was language police.

releasing you. And I wonder if you look back on it. You're like, that's something that I learned. That's something that I taught myself that like, yes, these guys are armed agents of the state in the streets. And there are a lot of people on the right who support that. But you're extending some grace to people who support that. What goes through your mind as you're thinking about these things? Well, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say I'm extending grace. I'm going to be honest with you. Anyone in media that, and this has really tested what I've been trying to do, which is have conversations with people I vehemently disagree with. But after especially the Alex Preti shooting, you know,

anyone in right-wing media that was like celebrating it, defending it, like almost like out for blood, I just, I don't feel grace toward those folks. That's fair. Because for me, look, it's whatever your views are on immigrants, I can respect that. I can't respect devaluing human life like that. If you're willing to say, and you genuinely believe what happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretti was absolutely tragic and there should be an investigation.

However, I still believe that it's important to enforce our immigration laws and this is how you do it. Okay, we can have a debate. We can have a conversation. I just can't stomach dehumanizing people. it's wrong. And I don't think either one of those individuals deserve to lose their lives the day that they lost their lives, you know. But you're still willing to talk, which is, again, what people say, no, don't do it. No, you've got to talk. You got to talk. If you don't talk, you don't have a country. And we have been barreling toward a really scary place for a long time. And even though I'm getting a lot of heat for it, I want to find, I basically want to model the behavior that I'm hoping.

other people will engage in, right? Which is understanding that we live in a pluralistic society, people from all over the world coming together, they're going to have different perspectives. But what does it mean to be an American? It means being able to coexist and respect each other despite our different perspectives or different cultures. Like, that's what makes America great, but we've moved away from that entirely over the last, I don't know, 15, 20 years especially.

Have you noticed? I mean, it's like being on you. YouTube early. Did you, do you feel like because of social media and YouTube and kind of the way they interact with one another? Do you feel like you saw this building before others? I feel like I did. Yeah. And once I realized I was afraid to speak in a room full of people who theoretically were on my political side, I'm like, this is not good. We're in a bad place. And I really like to speak. So we need to do something about this. This is going to be a problem. Yeah. And look, I'll say this.

I remember, I'm going to make an admission here that I'm embarrassed by, but it also shows growth, I guess. I remember there was a period of time when Crystal Ball and Saga and Jetty were doing their show for the Hill. And I never fully bought into this idea that like, oh, Crystal Ball, because she hosts with a conservative, oh, Crystal Ball is a secret Republican, secret conservative. I never fully bought into that. but people started like luring me in with that argument. I'm like, I don't know, maybe is she?

I don't know. I'm so glad I didn't fall for it, right? Because she's obviously not. And by the way, if she were, I still wouldn't care. She gives great analysis. I love their show. I love their show. It's even better now on breaking points.

And even now I see people on the left like referring to Saeger as a fascist and and how crystal ball should drop him. And it's like, no, she shouldn't drop him. It's a fantastic show. And I disagree with Saga on a bunch of things. Who cares? He's not a fascist. Okay?

He's just not. And he's actually incredibly reasonable for someone, you know, on the right. And so we have to have these conversations. He's just wrong, guys. You know, he's way more strict on immigration than I am. That's okay. That's okay. Like he represents a huge part of this country.

that tends to agree with him. But we got to find a way to compromise with all these different sides and find the right policies that work for us. Right now, everything that our government pursues seems to be at the detriment of the American people. And that's a huge issue. Yeah. Yeah, the system is so broken. And almost everybody agrees on that. And I have to leave it there because that was so well said. Thank you so much for coming back. I love having you on the show. Thank you, Emily. I love coming on, and I'll be happy to do it anytime. Oh, perfect. All right. We'll do it again soon. Thanks so much, Anna. Have a good night. You too. All right. I have some Epstein reporting to get to in just a moment.

But first, everybody's talking about weight loss injections. You're hearing about it all the time, and it's because the results look so dramatic. We've all seen it. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. So what if you are looking to lose weight but not interested in painful weekly injections? especially about when you hear about some of those intense side effects. Well, that's why doctors created a weight loss supplement called lean, and the results are remarkable. The studied ingredients in lean have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy,

and curb your appetite and cravings, so you're not as hungry. But listen, lean is not just for the casual dieter with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at Brickhouse Nutrition created lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. So let's get you started with 20% off, and free rush shipping so you can add lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan, visit takeleen.com and enter Emily for your discount. That's promo code Emily at takelein.com. All right, well, you may have seen today that on the Megan Kelly show,

Megan hosted an Epstein deep dive with my Breaking Points co-host, Ryan Grimm, and with the great Michael Schellenberger. And this is a pretty, I think, wide array of views. It's the type of programming that Megan is so perfect for because she's so precise with her language and she is so good at parsing fact from fiction or truth from rumor. So if you haven't seen it, I encourage you to see it. But knowing that we were doing this, I last night spent hours immersed in the Epstein Library because it's overwhelming, it's daunting. And to me, as a journalist, it's sitting there every time. I mean, it's addicting because the possibility of learning more and more and putting the pieces together of this major story, it's always right there because there's so many documents in it, although it's estimated to actually by Channel 4 only be 2% of the overall documents. That may be a low estimate.

Honestly, the DOJ has said 6 million documents and 3 million are released. So maybe it's around 50%. And I think some of us would agree that probably are reasonable redactions that need to be made for genuine. victims, those sorts of situations. So I am most comfortable saying we honestly don't know how much of this we've seen. The DOJ saying there are six million files, we don't even know what the definition of a file is, to be honest. So that could mean so many different things. And with the national security part of that bill, you weren't going to pass the Transparency Act without that in it. So it has that in it. That means we're never going to get in all

likelihood of smoking gun. But what we are doing, doing is getting all of these pieces of the puzzle. We're never going to know how big the puzzle is. The same thing with the Kennedy assassination, Bartley the King assassination, RFK assassination, MK Ultra, other things. You're never going to know that this is a thousand piece puzzle, but you can try to get as many pieces as possible

and put them together and look at, you know, when you step back, even if you have a 900 pieces of a thousand piece puzzle, you can make out the picture. So that's the best that we can do. And so last night, I was going through and looking because I've seen so much lately of people, I think, raising some helpful skepticism about imprecise language that's been used in the Epstein case. I have many thoughts on whether this is a true me-to moral panic. I do think there have been some people who have received undue repercussions for being part of the files for emailing with Epstein. I don't think that is true of the majority of cases.

I think we are seeing just grave mistakes of judgment. Mistakes isn't the right word, lapses in judgment. People have revealed themselves to be of questionable character to the point where an employer, shareholders would say, is this someone we actually want in our workspace? And cancel culture has never been about cases like those. It's been about the unreasonable cases. And in these instances, we see a lot

of examples of people just exhibiting horrific judgment after Jeffrey Epstein went to prison, in some cases after there was reporting in the Miami Herald and other places. So all that is to say, what I was looking for was more of like what's he going on, what was going on with women? Because that I'm trying to put a complete picture together on, a more complete picture together on again. I don't think we'll ever have a complete picture. So I want to put some of what I found last night up on the screen here.

Just it's depressing and disturbing. But let's go ahead. This is a couple of emails where you see from 2010-2012 people who seem to be procuring women to introduce them to Epstein. It's not completely clear that's what's happening. But here you get someone saying, finally, a new P word for my Monser. If she screws up, I'm going to marry a fat pig. Epstein replies, tried to call met new P word yesterday from Russia. She will send me pictures, 22, no agency.

Jeffrey Epstein was not a modeling scout. He represented himself from some reporting as a modeling scout, but he was not actually a modeling scout. So what's a businessman doing saying things like that? Here is an email from Jean-Luc Brunel, who was actually in the modeling industry, a very good friend of Epstein's. A girl called Lana from Russia is in Paris with her rich boyfriend. She speaks with Ruth, who asks if she went out with a friend of mine in New York. Answer, no, you are crazy.

He is too old for me. Number two, a client called today to book Anastasia, only her. Why is Epstein interested in this client booking someone named Anastasia, who's ostensibly a model of she's working with John Luke Brunel at MC2, the modeling agency. I don't know. Here's an email. This is a woman saying to Epstein in 2010, got the check, yippe, tack, tack, off now much love, B, B, B, B, B. B. B. Epstein says, anyone you want me to see tomorrow. I think for starters, you should meet with Blank, who is staying here and can be reached at my number or her email. Redacted has two Swedish

girlfriends, Natalie and Maria, both beautiful, both going to the same school. Perhaps meet those three later with our redacted or Russian scarfs. Your next wife is not back yet. Josephine, the one who looks a bit like Sophia, you know the princess girlfriend. I will introduce her to you in two weeks. We will also have BBB NYC meet when I am back. Again, always thankful for your support. A lot of people owe you big. Thank you fondly. B. Okay. So again, Jeffrey I've seen not a modeling scout. He doesn't work in the modeling industry. He's friends with people in the modeling industry. But let's go more. I recommend if you want to search some of this on yourself, pop the word visa into the Epstein Library. Someone asks Epstein in 2013, is she too old for you?

LOL, well, I will hunt my other Czech friends. Epstein says, too old. This is Jeffrey Epstein's assistant telling someone in 2013. The answer from Jeffrey on redacted is, quote, too old and no working papers. Huh. Is he hiring somebody? and he's concerned about their age because they may not have the strength to do housekeeping work, landscaping on the island. There are all kinds of possibilities, but there are a lot of emails like this that are sensibly about girls. Epstein and one says, who is this? Redact his friend in Ukraine now, 28 or 29 speaks French and English.

I told her she was too old and haven't Skyped her yet, said she was very nice. Epstein says, oh, Skype her. This is Jean-Luc Brunel attaching a picture and saying, is she too old for you in 2012? Is that Jean-Luc Brunel just playing wingman, just trying to hook his friend up with a woman? Here is one that's particularly disturbing. He's talking to Lawrence Krause in 2013, who says in one part of an email on December 16, 2013, Also, since I can't get extra Disney tickets sent here for your guest, too late for that, we can get it when we are there.

I won't be able to link her ticket to ours, as I will do for yours. So I can reserve one or two rides, but that is the only negative. Jeffrey Epstein responds, I have special access. Don't worry. Lawrence Krauss replies, why am I not surprised? Smiley face. That is Jeffrey Epstein suggesting in 2013 that he had, quote unquote, special access to Disney. Does not appear to be a joke in that context at all.

Here's another really disturbing message. Someone whose first language is clearly not English, says in 2015, I'm sorry, I was a little bit lost when you asked me about sex and what I want to try with you. As you know, I am a virgin, so I know nothing about sexual life and I cannot answer you. What I know, I want to try sex because I maybe will feel more confidence. Sometimes I think I am too shy for modeling. You are attracted for me, that's why I told you, why not? Epstein responds, take a selfie of your P-word and send. This is another important one. This is 2015. He's going back and forth with a woman who's frustrated. I think he wished her a happy birthday, which is a thing he would do. You see that more than once in the files.

And she's frustrated with him. She's being kind of passive-aggressive. And he says, basically, why, I always wish you well and giving you my best advice. I thought I provided you opportunity to see things, me, people do things, learn things, and grow. Maybe I was wrong. She replies, don't get me wrong. I appreciate things good happened. Thank you. Unfortunately, my impression is that becoming a mistress was the only one job proposition you were really serious about. I refused, so it meant all is over. Goes on to say, meeting Gates or Woody was great. Thank you. We'll never forget it. Although nobody hire me just because I have a nice pictures with them. All right. So right there, you have this woman referring to being a

mistress as a job proposition. Goes on. These are some of the most disturbing emails I've seen in the library. It's Epstein repeatedly arranging gynecology appointments for women to get, as he refers to them, P-word swabs, going to the P-word doctor. He is actively arranging these appointments for women. In one case, after this woman says, Jeffrey, you need to be more careful with girls you sleep with. Someone had infections. And Epstein right before that had said, sorry for your issue of P-word. You looked great. Sorry for your issue of P-word. She had said before it was a nice evening. So everything you can see from this looks like a professional prostitution operation. Now, prostitution, that is a legal standard. I am using it in the sense that there's a transactional sexual relationship. What

it looks like Epstein was doing, and this is a theory. I think it is a theory that is robustly supported by the facts of these emails. But what looks like he was doing is he gets out of prison. And instead of doing the quote unquote sexual pyramid scheme that Palm Beach police still say he was doing with high school girls before he went to prison, they talk about how they had evidence of him sending girls flowers. This is in the Miami Herald. Flowers after a school performance. to the high school and they found the evidence of this in the trash outside of his Palm Beach mansion. There was a lot of evidence. That's what was happening. Girls like Courtney Wilde. You don't even

have to look at the Virginia Jafray case. You can look at somebody like Courtney Wilde. There are a couple of others who say that this is what was happening, that they were a part of it. A lot of evidence for that. So he gets out of prison and what appears is happening is he's using his contacts in the modeling world to scout women who can come over, work for Jean-League Brunel, work for modeling agencies, spend time at the Epstein townhouse with rich and famous people who Epstein is introducing to them. He's coaching these girls on how to be with older men, on how to act. It's almost like he's my fair ladying them in a really disgusting, sick and twisted way,

and then sleeping with some of them, letting them use, letting them use his apartment and the like. So the question then, does this meet the standard of like international sex trafficking ring? Well, you have a woman saying that she had a job proposition to be his mistress. She doesn't seem to be speaking English as a first language. If there are 12 cases of that where he's, you know, having his modeling friend, Jean-Luc Bernal sent him pictures and saying, oh, yes, hire her. We will arrange the visas. It's another thing that Epstein is doing.

we will arrange the STD tests when she sleeps with our friends, we'll give her an apartment, we'll help them get into dental school, as is the case at Columbia University with one ostensible girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein. Does it meet that standard? I think it's an open question because it depends on, you know, I'm not an attorney, obviously, but it depends on what was on the table. But what we can see, like what was formally on the table, but we can see this was a professional operation.

And it was a professional operation. Other people were seemingly well aware of. So that stuff, we are getting a more complete picture of thanks to the DOJ's Epstein Library. Here's another one. This is someone emailing Epstein in 2019. Let's go to the first one here. They say, Epstein's asking, did you tell her I was annoyed or did she get it on her own? This almost sounds like they're talking about a madam. This other person, unnamed, redacted person says, I asked her about girls in Moscow and Tokyo for me.

Also, does she have any good girls in LA? But I didn't mention you, just told that it would be nice of her and very helpful for me. Epstein says, one friend of mine is there, sends an Instagram profile link, apparently, to a woman. This person says, oh, thank you, just added her. I'll tell that I'm from redacted, right? Then Epstein says, now I'm finding P-word for you. Something wrong with that. This guy responds, apparently a guy.

Smiley face, no one can beat your P-word network. Thank you. I understand. I'm focusing on it. Again, the emergent picture here is of a fairly professional operation. That was, no, I'm not saying that it was a global prostitution ring. I'm just saying you can't rule out that there were actual formal trafficking prostitution operations happening, whatever it was, even if it was just, you know, as Megan was explaining, some of these women may just fall into gold digger category. Everything was completely consensual. They just wanted kind of a leg up in the world. Whether some of them fall into that category or some of them ended up feeling coerced, we're not going to really know much about that from the emails if there was ever any threats or violence.

You know, you do hear Epstein getting frustrated with them and some of them saying, well, you're staying at my apartment, it's a lease that you could do. to answer my calls and paraphrasing, but things like that. So the bottom line is he appeared to be operating a strategy to bring women from Eastern Europe, mostly to model in the United States. And the hiring opportunity was really as mistresses, as one woman puts it directly in an email to Jeffrey Epstein. There's plenty of evidence that's how the girls were operating because Jeffrey Epstein was organizing their STD tests as a matter of business. And that's what's so disturbing about all of this.

Now, as for the intelligence stuff, Ryan Grimm, again, my co-host has mentioned, he likely knew that these inboxes were monitored. In fact, he knew that one of his Manhattan apartments was monitored, because as Ryan wrote at DropSight Today, he gave Israeli intelligence while Ehud Barak was living there for like a two-year period, permission to drill holes and set up surveillance equipment. So he at least knew that apartment when Ehud Barak was there was under surveillance. He likely knew his inbox was under surveillance given the people that he was communicating with him and he's talking to Obama's former White House counsel by some foreign intelligence, whether it's the US, whether it's Israel, whether it's Britain, Australia, China.

He likely knew Iran. Someone was looking at this inbox. So these are just the things in writing. Some of the things like in his draft folder, did he want those to be discovered? I don't know. But if you want to go look at the intelligence stuff, head on over to DropSite and read their meticulous reporting on the ways that Epstein was collaborating with. So the girl stuff is happening parallel to Epstein collaborating with Ehud Barak on all of these other cyber weapon sales to different foreign countries. So there's some overlap between that world.

Boris Nikolich, who was working as basically Bill Gates's number two, was joking constantly about girls to Epstein and also connecting him with people at the NSA. We don't have a complete picture yet. But those two things are happening in parallel. Some overlap. Some of these things are totally different. And I think it behooves everyone to just be sort of precise with the language and to put the primary source documents forward as best we can. All right, I'm going to leave it there.

But as a reminder, if you do have questions, hit me up, Emily at devilmaicaremedia.com. That's my early email address. We do happy hour on the podcast feed every single Friday. That's where just audio, I answer your questions. Make sure to subscribe. I'm so bad at plugging this, but please do subscribe on the YouTube channel that helps us enormously subscribe wherever you get your podcast.

We'll be back here with the live show next Monday. Again, at our new time, 9 p.m. on YouTube. Have a great one, everyone.