After Party with Emily Jashinsky - Cornell BANS Frat Parties, Kara & Hillary Team Up & Shane Gillis Backlash, w/ Glenn Greenwald

Episode Date: October 14, 2026

Emily Jashinsky opens the show with a reaction to HBO's revival of Lena Dunham's “Girls,” the absence of Adam Driver from the announced cast, and what the series reveals about millennial feminism. Then Emily is joined by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald to discuss the upcoming midterms, President Trump's promise of $5,000 checks, rising gas prices amid the war with Iran, and growing voter disillusionment. They react to Hillary Clinton and Kara Swisher's new podcast and what it reveals about the Democratic establishment. Glenn also weighs in on the latest developments in the “Cornell 7” case, the backlash to Shane Gillis' controversial “SNL” joke, and concerns about due process. They also discuss newly released security footage of Kelly Clarkson's visit to a Brooklyn store as the $15,000 bird controversy sparks a discussion about celebrity entitlement. Emily wraps up the show by examining “Real Housewives” star Carole Radziwill's past relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell and the questions surrounding their friendship. Wildgrain: Get $40 off your first box of artisanal bake-from-frozen sourdough and Free Croissants for Life at https://Wildgrain.com/AFTERPARTY40 with code AFTERPARTY40! ZBiotics: Go to https://zbiotics.com/AFTERPARTY and use AFTERPARTY at checkout for 15% off any first time orders of ZBiotics probiotics. PreBorn: Dial #250 and say “BABY” or visit https://Preborn.com/EMILY Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to After Party, everyone. Today's guest is one of our favorites. Glenn Greenwald and so much to talk about. This new cycle is absolutely wild. Crazy entertainment news, but obviously we're now three weeks away from midterm, less than two weeks plus three weeks minus one day away for the midterm election. So it's great to have Glenn here because we have a lot to go over. Now, several of you have already emailed me asking what I think about the big news yesterday, which of course was that Girls is coming back. Coming back. Lena Dunham is resurrecting girls. Emily at double my caremedia.com. I got all kinds of requests. It was hilarious because, of course, I was going to talk about it on today's show. You can email me at Emily at doublemaycaremedia.com. By the way, subscribe to it helps us so much. I'm so bad at plugging.

Please do subscribe. It really is very helpful on YouTube wherever you get your podcast. We're three days a week on the podcast side. So I'm going to answer all those questions you sent in on the podcast side Friday, where I go through the emails you send to Emily at double my caremedia.com. I guess I'll address some of these early today, though, because I can't resist weighing in on Lena Dunham coming back, especially after she had her own baby. And not going to get into any spoilers for girls at all, because if you haven't watched it yet, I really do think you should. It is one of the sharpest criticisms of liberal millennials, millennials in general, but particularly the subset of urban, ambitious liberal millennials, that you will find.

It actually is, I'll just say, it is the single sharpest criticism that you will find. But what we know so far about the reboot is that Adam Driver doesn't appear to be in the picture. This was announced with a video on Instagram that HBO probably TikTok too, but HBO posted this yesterday. Let's take a look. Al. Hi, hi, Lines. Hi, sorry. Jobs scared.

No, like, what, 15, 16, 16-ish minutes. Hi, guys. Zaj. Hi, Josh. Hi, go another big stay. Oh, my job. Do you mean? I'm just going to find a lighter, okay?

She should be permanently muted. Yeah, what did you want to ask us, Lanes? Okay, so we used to spend, like, every summer together, you know, doing this thing that we do, making this show. And is it something that you would want to do again? Are you free next summer? I mean, as long as it's not too much of a commitment, I'm not doing, like, a year. Yeah, one summer's worth. I can't tell what I'm hearing right now.

So I'm just going to ask, are you in? I'm in. I'm in. I'm in. What's up, ladies? Hi. What are we doing next summer? Girls. Would you want to do girls again next summer? I'm in. But only because you trash cans need constant supervision.

I have a question, though, seriously. Can we still call it girls? Because we're like old as... All right, so that's where it's going to get interesting, right? What do you do with girls who are no longer girls? I'm going to read a little bit here from Deadlines announcement. HBO has ordered a limited run of five episodes, so it's not a whole full season, but a limited run. of five episodes with the original cast confirmed to return. Dunham will reprise her role as Hannah. Alison Williams returns as Barney. Jemima Kirk is set back, is back as Jessa, Zosha Mamick,

comes back to play Shoshana and Andrew Ronells, who recurred as Elijah in the first three seasons before joining the cast as a regular in season four. Also is back. There is, however, no sign of Adam Driver, who played Hannah's boyfriend. Adam Dunham wrote in her recent memoir, FAMMSAIC, that Driver was, quote, verbally aggressive during filming of the show. Production will begin next year, which will be 15 years after its premiere, 10 years after the season 6 finale. So have just a neat decade in between the finale and the reboot. And Adam Driver is absolutely no surprise that he's not part of this project. He refused to comment when he was peppered with questions earlier this year back in May about Lena Dunham's pretty

popular memoir that again did call him verbally abusive included allegations that he quote, hurled a chair at the wall next to her on the set of girls. He was an essential character to the show's first run, but will be absent. Now, again, there are easy ways for them to get around that plot-wise, but it's, it is interesting nonetheless to see them all inhabiting almost their characters because the brilliance of girls was that Lena Dunham built these archetypical millennial characters around archetypical millennials themselves. And Gen Zia's discovered the show as, and interpreted it in a way that a lot of critics didn't interpret it at the time. A lot of critics interpreted it as almost a defense of millennial liberal culture when if you paid close attention, it was always a criticism.

It was always very self-aware in ways that other shows weren't. And it was biting. And I think sometimes unintentionally so because Lena Dunham's a great rider in ways that people didn't expect it to be. And so Gen Z discovers it and it's like, man, millennials suck. Millennials are idiots. And that was kind of the point that Lena Dunham was making at the time. It wasn't always intentional. She wasn't always, I think, totally self-aware about the point that she was making.

But she ended up grappling with this very publicly. She was hounded for not having enough black characters in girls. And honestly gave in to a lot of what we would now call, like, quote-unquote, woke pressures because she personally is Hannah Horvath. She's personally someone who deals with these tensions in her own life as like a white woman of privilege. and sides with her critics constantly, her left critics constantly. And so I'm enormously curious to see how she's going to deal with that. I think very obviously the question is going to be how they deal with motherhood,

which has been central to the question of how feminism deals with motherhood. If you remember, I think this isn't second sex. Simone de Beauvoir, I pulled this quote, writes about how the woman is, quote, snared by nature. The pregnant woman is plant and animal, a collection of colloids, an incubator, an egg, a human being, consciousness and freedom, who has become passive instrument of life. And so there is a lot of almost transhumanism in some strains of feminism and important foundational strains of feminism where women are trying to escape what they see as the biological burden

of motherhood. But there's also this really important strain of feminism that I think Lena Donner very bravely approached in ways nobody was at the peak of millennial girl boss hustle culture, She went back to this kind of hippie naturalist feminism that was always there, but got overshadowed by corporate, I would say, transhumanist feminism. And yet she was one of the few people, again, at that peak, this is like resistance corporate girl boss hustle culture era. She poked at something in a different direction. And again, a lot of people didn't necessarily pick up on that. As a conservative, it was fairly obvious to pick up on. But I just wanted to read this from Victoria Smith, who wrote earlier this year about the tension.

between what she refers to as maternal feminism and what came to be the dominant strain of feminism, which sometimes became anti-maternal, was referring to the aspect of womanhood that involves motherhood as often a kind of prison, to quote, Betty Ferdin, but a kind of burden as opposed to a blessing. And Victoria Smith earlier this year was saying it wasn't always dominated by one strand. wrote maternal feminist texts are fascinating to read because they circle two areas which seem very disparate, namely the mendanity and repetition of care and the awe-inspiring creative power of female human beings. Crucially, many maternal feminist writers were quick to identify the relationship between the low status of female reproduction and flight from the female body,

and the difficulty of reconciling feminism's attachment to individual female subjectivity with a reconceptualization of personhood that takes full account of relationality. Adrian Rich wrote beautifully, Smith says, on the way in which young women reflecting on status of the maternal body might feel that it is easier to shrug it off and travel as in disembodied spirit. Isn't that interesting? Because that's really the strain that won in Girl Boss hustle culture. Half a century on, in the age of egg freezing and gender-affirming surgeries, I don't think it is reasonable, Smith writes, to claim feminists never thought this might happen. Some did, and their work helps us to understand the fears of those who did not.

I'm really fascinated by Lena Dunham saying as she announced this reboot, the characters were coming to her in the shower. She never wanted to do it until she had a burning desire. She didn't know what the show would look like later in life. And now that she is a mother herself, the burning desire to resurrect these characters has visited her. And the characters will be visiting us. And I expect it to be good. I expected to be annoying. Original girls was annoying in many ways.

Sometimes it was supposed to be annoying. Sometimes it was just annoying because that tension exists within Lena Dunham and exists within Jenny Connor, who I'm very curious if she will be a part of this, her right, Lena Dunham's longtime writing partner. There's been a lot of attention to that relationship. But I expect it to be good. And I am hoping that it keeps pulling at this thread because I think that's partially what a lot of younger women, especially Gen Z,

women who have rejected sex positivity. Not everyone, but many who have rejected sex positivity. I always referenced that BuzzFeed article about the Gen Z woman who talks about sex positivity via HBO. She mentioned sex in the city and girls and said they did a number on me. It's not just her. That's BuzzFeed was writing about it as a trend at the time and it was like 2019. So young women rejecting that, young women rejecting hustle culture to have these middle age millennials revisiting their characters in 2027, post-Trump, that's obviously going to be an aspect of it too. I really hope she can pull it off. With Lena Dom, you genuinely never know. I would always bet on her because she's smart and a good writer and she knows these characters

like the back of her hand because Hannah is her in many ways. So I'd expect it to be great. But TBD, TBD, of course. All right, let's not get to Glenn Greenwald and news of the day. So much to cover. Please stick around. This episode of After Party with Emily Dershinsky is brought to you by my new favorite company, Wildcrain. Cozy season is here bringing cooler temperatures and the perfect excuse to enjoy fresh baked sourdough breads. Seasonal pastries like apple cider donuts so good. And also French butter, you can put it on the sourdough bread. You can even put it on the donuts, but go wild.

Wild grain partners with small independent bakeries to deliver artisanal goods made from simple, recognizable ingredients straight to your door, frozen and ready to bake in under 25 minutes. This stuff seriously tastes so good. And when you look at the ingredients, you're not like, oh my gosh, this is terrible for me. It's so delicious too. And having bakery quality bread that's ready with no preparation at all makes hosting effortless. My favorite is warming up a sourdough loaf on a cool evening. I did this last night with Wild Grain.

It fills the house with that like amazing scent. You're in like a bakery. And it also just tastes so good. It tastes better than anything you're getting at the grocery store. Plus you can also customize your box from Wild Grain with classic gluten-free, vegan, or protein choices. It's so good. And if you're ready for warm bakery, quality food at home this cozy season, I definitely recommend giving Wildgrain a try. And for carbs giving Wildgrains biggest sale of the year, you can get $40 off your first box plus free croissants for life.

That's the best offer. You'll hear from me all year. Visit wildgrain.com slash afterparty 40 to get $40 off your first box and free croissons for life or use promo code after party 40 at checkout. Again, that's wildgrain.com slash after party 40 or use after party 40 at checkout. Literally made this stuff the other night. I made some tomato soup, had some wild green sourdough. It blew my mind. I love this stuff so much.

Check it out. Join now by the one and only a Pulitzer Prize winner to come on the show, but also the one and only Glenn Greenwald. He's the host of system update. We love Glenn. Glenn, thanks for being here. It's great to be here. Yeah, we do get memos from the Pulitzer committee about which shows to avoid, and yours is definitely high on the list. So that's probably why I'm the only one who comes on.

But, you know, I'm my own person. and I understand the instruction, but I also decide to ignore it. It's so brave and bold of you to do that, Glenn. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. We need that clout.

We need that clout, frankly. So also make sure everybody checks out system update. It's fantastic. And Glenn, we're going to get to his Cornell coverage in just a moment, but it's also been so good. I do want to start with something that made me very sad. We are now less, one day less than three weeks away from the midterm election. So just under three weeks from the midterm election. term elections and Donald Trump is barnstorming the country. He was in Alaska last night. He has

more rallies coming up tonight and in the days ahead. So let's start with this clip of Trump dangling the prospect of the $5,000 checks. And I just want to also mention we have new CPI numbers as of this morning. We can put this up on the screen as CNBC tear sheet reporting September brought little relief to the accelerating cost of living as consumer prices increased again and kept the inflation rate well above the Federal Reserve's goal. The consumer price index, a broad measure of goods and services across the U.S. economy, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.6% for the month, putting the 12-month rate at 3.7% that is occurring to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which added, surging energy costs were, again, the primary culprit in

the inflation picture of the energy index trump 5.2% as tensions continue between the U.S. and Iran. And the war launched in late February that shows no signs of ending any time soon. Trump himself in that rally in Alaska, as Ryan Grimm pointed out, noted that it was his, quote, little excursion in Iran that he decided to sacrifice gas prices over. He talked about being in Iowa before he had to do his little excursion in Iran and noticing gas was like $1.95 a gallon and then saying, we had to do it. We had to do it. But let's listen to him on the $5,000 here first.

If the Democrats win, you will have a 1929 style economic depression. And I don't like saying it, but they don't know what the hell they're doing. They don't know what they're doing. If the Republicans win, you will each receive $5,000 in your pocket and economic success for our country, the likes of which we have never seen before. And remember, just recently, I gave all members of our military $1,776. And everyone said, everybody said that can't be done. Finally, let's roll this clip of Trump talking about Iran last night. Disrespected us. They laughed at us. They don't laugh anymore. Now they said, sir, you're the hottest country anywhere in the world.

We're the hottest country in the world. Oh, wait till you see what we do to Iran. We're going to, we're going to do a number. Well, you see, they're just waiting. They're waiting. Wait do you see what we do to Iran? Because we sort of had it. You know, we've had it. But, you know, it doesn't matter. The big thing is, They were not going to have a nuclear weapon and they won't. That's buried under thousands of tons of rock. So Fox News yesterday shifted 18 races towards Democrats. And that's obviously where this $5,000 figure is going. But Glenn, I just wanted to say the reason that makes me sad is not because I had any particular expectations of Trump, but it's because a lot of people did. And a lot of people took him at his word because he correctly told them that everybody else was lying. And that gave him some built-in trust with a lot of voters.

this is not happening. He knows he's not giving people $5,000 checks because he knows they're not going to win the midterms. So he's using it in the most cynical way. And it's just, it's really genuinely sad to see. You know, I do think it is somewhat analogous to what happened with Barack Obama. People think 2007 is like a hundred lifetimes ago. A lot of people have forgotten that history. A lot of people actually didn't live through it. You know, each year there's kind of new people who, who's memory of him. history is more limited. But there was immense excitement behind Barack Obama, probably unlike anything I had seen in my lifetime up until that point in terms of a political candidate. And the primary reason was very similar to why there was so much excitement about Trump, which was he offered an indictment of our political system, of the status quo, of foreign and economic policy that really resonated with people and promised transformative change. And people believed it. And then he gets into office. And you know, the best you could say about Obama is that he delivered a couple of incremental

improvements, things like health care, you know, a couple other things. But by and large, the system continued, which is why the Democratic Party collapsed under him. And then when he was out of office, that was when Donald Trump swamp Hillary Clinton. So you see where it led. It led to this massive disillusionment, people who thought they were, you know, getting involved in politics for the first time for a good reason, ended up very kind of shaded and cynical. and I think you're seeing very much the same thing now with Trump. And just, you know, a word on this little schick that he's doing at the $5,000. Here in Brazil, there's actually a national election in about 10 days.

And the first round of voting already happened. And the current president, Louis de Silva, you know, has been promising that he's basically been in power in Brazil for two decades, him or his party, like 18 of the last 24 years. And he's been promising the same thing. He got elected on this kind of promise of transformative change. And now he's representative of the status quo. And they got crushed in the first round by the party of Bolsonaro. And they're highly likely that Jaya Bolsonaro's son, Flavia Bolsonaro, is going to get elected president.

He came in front of Lua in the first round. And so what Lula is doing is very similar to Trump. Over the past month, he's been kind of handing out government goodies. You know, we're going to increase, good news. We're increasing the minimum payment for our welfare. our main welfare program. And now we're going to forgive all this debt. And now we're going to, you know,

move the work week from six days to five days. And, you know, a reporter said, like, the only thing that's missing is him driving over Brazil in a helicopter and dropping out suitcases of cash, which is, like, basically the case. But it's not really affecting anybody because they're already jaded about Lula.

They understand. He's been in governing for the last four years. Why would you suddenly have a flurry of concern for the people? you know, as right when you need their votes and you're afraid of losing. And I think it's very similar to Trump. I mean, people can be con, people can be manipulated.

That is part of what a good politician is. But they're not stupid. And the more you, you know, kind of disappoint them and make it clear that you don't actually care about fulfilling your promises to them or realizing the expectations you led them to have, the more cynical they're going to be about things like, hey, if you vote for the Republicans,

we're going to give you $5,000. I just don't think people are going to buy into that. that especially given, you know, that he's been telling them for years that the U.S. is the hottest country. Under him, he's made the economy booming. And their experiences is radically different. Right. And that's an important point because actually he was bringing inflation down month to month before the Iran war started. And you'll still get people who say, well, it's the fault of Democrats like Andy Harris was just saying that the other day. It's like gas is so much higher in blue states. Well, it's actually higher everywhere, including places like Indiana, even places that have the lowest price. higher than it was before Iran, significantly higher. And it specifically started going up at that

period of the blame Ukraine. And all of that is baked into high gas prices. There's no question about it. But even Trump himself acknowledged at the rally last night that he had to swallow these higher gas prices because the war in Iran. And Glenn, what's so difficult about selling that to Trump voters, to Trump voters. And I'm not talking about hardcore MAGA. I'm talking about people who were Trump curious. Like think of a Joe Rogan type voter, is that they precisely saw him as an Obama. That's such a good comparison. As an Obama-style hope and change figure who will bring structural, drain the swamp type changes to DC. And that was like one of the biggest things they didn't want to see happen.

And so now he's out there trying to sell it in the midterms on top of having to sell the gas prices. Like it's a disaster for him trying to sway independence who swung towards him four years ago or two years ago. Yeah. I mean, if you look at the two central branding promises of Trump that really made him differentiate himself from the huge field of establishment back to Republican candidates back in 2016, but also through the next decade of dominance of the Republican Party in American politics in general, I would think it would be training the swamp in Washington, getting rid of the corruption, the lobbyist, all the special interest money. You know, he ran. He said, I'm a billionaire. I don't need people's money. you know, when he got booed at the GOP debate,

when he criticized Jeff Bush and the Iraq War, he said, oh, these are all the Republican lobbyists who, you know, are part of the swamp, that's what I'm going to drain. And then the second part of that was no more wars, no more regime change wars, no more prolonged wars in the Middle East. And it's hard to imagine how he could have violated

both of those promises more flagrantly and extremely than he has done. I really, you know, I've been a critic of pretty much every administration in the last 20 years in terms of their corruption as well. Nothing compares to the corruption of what the Trump family has been doing in terms of profiteering and monetizing

the office of the presidency, getting billions of dollars wealthier from the very countries with whom they're most involved. I mean, everybody sees it, everybody knows this. And so rather than draining the swamp, they became kings of a kind of swamp on steroids.

And then obviously the war in Iran, everything he promised about it was, was turned out not to be true. He said, you know, from the start, we've already won, we've already won. It's just going to be a few weeks. weeks, and no one really understands why we had to go. And if you just look at that clip, there's so many contradictions.

You know, he's basically saying, we can't go after Iran now because the midterms are approaching. I don't want to pay a political and economic price, but then he's campaigning on a promise to not only restart the war, but escalate it dramatically after the midterms because he no longer cares. Like, he's campaigning on a promise to escalate a war that most people are vehemently against and get more and more against as we go along. He also then says, yeah, Iran, the reason we have to do this war is because Iran can't have a nuke. And then he says their nuclear facilities are already thousands and thousands of feet buried beneath rubble.

That was because of the strike in 2025, Operation Epic Fury, which we were told through B-12 bombers and the like destroyed the Iranian nuclear facility. In fact, it's still on the White House website. So people are like, I heard you say that you destroyed the nuclear facilities last year. And now you're telling me this war not only has to be started, but has to continue. destroy a nuke program that you yourself insisted had already been destroyed. So these kind of contradictions when they're this glaring are just not sustainable. And I just have one final point, you know, like what I said about Lua, no matter how charismatic he is, no matter how clever a politician he is and he is all those things,

after a while you become the face and the representative of the establishment of status quo politics when you're in power and office long enough. And people just don't believe anymore that you're an agent of change when you will, are the agent of power that they understand has been running the government. Trump very much faces that. This whole kind of like clown show, this circus that he brings to every city

that used to be endearing and funny to a lot of people, you know, outside of the hardcore magabas. People are tired of it. They know Trump is the one in power. They know he's the one in control. And hey, we're going to give you suddenly $5,000 if the Republicans win.

The Republicans are already in power in the House and the Senate and the White House. Why aren't they getting that $5,000 now? So it's just, You can't insult people's intelligence this continuously, this glaringly for as long as he's been doing it and hope to get away with it. I just want to add a quick final point on that, which is I actually think that exact dynamic

is why we're seeing some blue state Democrats struggle a little bit more than they would be expected to in a great year for Democrats like Peggy Flanagan and Kathy Hochel, both of whom I would say are likely to win, but they're struggling a little bit. Republicans, this isn't just polls. They're moving money around to places like Kansas and Nebraska and tough races. It's not just, if you don't trust polls, Republicans are picking up on this themselves on the ground, whatever their internals are saying, too. But Democrats are a little nervous about Minnesota. They're not super nervous about New York.

But Hokal is losing upstate, 51 percent, according to recent poll, to 49 percent. Not a huge surprise, but Blakeman is over the 50 percent margin upstate entirely and is losing independence by a significant margin. And I think it's exactly that dynamic you laid out, Glenn, which is that if you are trying to sell yourself as an agent of change against the Trump established, against the Epstein class, you're going to have a hard time if your party has been in charge with the government in a place like Minnesota

or New York for a really long time for some of the same reasons that you laid out. Yeah, I mean, nobody sees the Democratic Party as a transformative party. You know, that's the problem is Trump's unpopularity has increased

to very dangerous levels from the perspective of the Republican Party, but it's not like people are suddenly enthusiastic about the Democratic Party in a two-party system the only way to punish the incumbents is by voting for the other party, it doesn't mean you like them. And if they win in November, which they're highly likely to do,

they're probably going to tell themselves, oh, look, what we're doing, people really respond to, we're really popular again. And that's just going to be, you know, that's the illusion that keeps causing Republicans, Democrats, to just hand power to one another every two to four years, is that neither of them really offer anything to the American people that get them excited.

And people hate both. parties and they should. This is like the least important thing happening in the news right now, but I can never resist an opportunity to get you talking about Hillary Clinton. And she's launching a new podcast with the most mockable character in all of corporate media, Kara Swisher, but the write-up about it, the announcement about it is so delicious. I just have to ask you because it's what we were talking about. The announcement, this was in New York Times.

Ben Mullen wrote this in New York Times, wrote, with the midterm elections looming, Mrs. Clinton is preparing to make her voice heard on a new podcast series called High Stakes alongside the well-known technology journalist Kara Swisher. Starting Wednesday, Clinton and Swisher will break down the race to control the House and the Senate and weekly episodes that run through mid-November. Clinton says, I don't think the stakes for the country in the world could be any higher. Beautifully said, I could not agree more, Mrs. Clinton, but this is my favorite part. The idea for the podcast, reports the New York Times, came this spring at the sprawling home

a former Atlantic owner, David Bradley, in Washington's upscale calorama neighborhood. Ms. Swisher turned up to the soiree, which was being held for Mrs. Clinton, wearing a t-shirt and jeans, because she's sort of one of us, Glenn, and began peppering the former Secretary of State with questions about a variety of topics from the upcoming midterm elections to the continuing war in Ukraine. Ms. Swisher said she thought Ms. Clinton's answers were concise and intelligible. What is she like a five-year-old trying to pass a test? And Ms. Swisher wondered why Mrs. Clinton had not taken another swing it podcasting after her solo interview show. There's a thing about the secretary. It's like, oh, if you knew her in the room, she's so funny. We're going to try to show you that room.

Hillary Clinton and Glenn also mentioned she is willing to sell ads. She's not willing to sell Trump cell phone ads. She got in a good jab at him on that one, but she is willing to sell ads. So I have high hopes for this podcast, but it just, what you were saying reminded me so much of the announcement of this podcast of how ridiculous the Democratic establishment. is even when they have been given a gift on a silver platter of the corrupt, unlikable, unfavorable Trump administration. I just, let's just take a moment. There's so much to say, obviously, about a new podcast with Hillary Clinton and Kira Swisher

designed to sway voters to the Democratic Party. But let's just take a moment to pause and think about the complete self-deception and lack of self-awareness needed for Karras Swisher, a very wealthy. white liberal woman who goes to the same parties and hangs out in the same social and economic circles as Hillary Clinton

to look at Hillary Clinton and be like, I like Hillary Clinton. I think she talks a lot of sense. Therefore, she probably appeals to the ordinary voter as well since she appeals to me, Kira Swisher.

These are, like, just, can you, any Democrat with like any kind of sense, can you imagine what they're thinking that these people think that the solution to the Democratic Party's woes is to find two

extremely sanctimonious hectoring, extremely affluent, powerful, influential in D.C., white women and put them together and try and convince people that they should vote for the Democratic Party and make the Democratic Party

and I can't, if I were Trump, I would have financed that podcast. You know, the GOP should be financed in that podcast. I mean, if anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton is some kind of big asset to the Democratic Party. And that asset is somehow enhanced when you sit her next to Kira Swisher.

And have her sell like wellness pills? Yeah, I mean, and they're just going to sit there and like, and like maybe there's a gendered, you know, component to why it's so alienating. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there just is. Because they're both so hectoring and self-righteous, but also they come from the exact kind of milieu, like the cultural and political mood that everybody hates.

Yes. Everybody is why, I mean, that's why Hillary Clinton got crushed in 2016. They think because she has experience or, and you know how long I've been hearing from so many people, including people who know firsthand, oh no, like Hillary Clinton's really, like, really funny. She's like wickedly hilarious. Okay, like maybe she is in private, but I've never seen one instance where that was visible publicly. like she's unfalingly repellent publicly.

So it doesn't really matter if she's at like David Bradley's party and telling like vulgar, raucous jokes that like wealthy white Washingtonians think are funny if it doesn't ever manifest. Yeah, she's actually a very interesting character for a lot of different reasons. Like everything she went through during Watergate to the Clinton administration and white water and all of the like shit.

And the 60s and like feminism. And yeah, she's had a very, she was a gold order girl. Yeah. Totally, totally. And then just all the transformations she had to go through her own political trajectory, you know, from kind of like 60s anti-war protester radical to ultimate foreign policy insider, just all these, you know, these these metamorphoses that she's had. Yeah, it makes her an interesting person, but not a likable one.

No, she's been trained like a robot to stick to a script that is, is the script is written to sound like it's sometimes off the, cuff. But that's exactly the type of thing that appeals to a Kara Swisher, who honestly is a very powerful journalist. I hate to say that, but she is actually very powerful, which is part of the I think reason we're covering the story. Like she really does have influence as ridiculous as it is. She has very high-level sources. She wields some influence. She's a ridiculous character, ridiculous figure who is an access journalist, who pretends that she's not an access journalist, and has built this clout off of rejecting the Silicon Valley figures that she helped build up.

So she would absolutely blanch at the characterization of her as an access journalist. But Glenn, there's really no other way to characterize somebody who's literally hosting a podcast with Hillary freaking Clinton. It's just all so ridiculous that she pretends to be standing up to power while bragging to the New York Times about how it was very relatable to show up to calorama in a t-shirt and jeans and ask Hillary Clinton some tough questions. So relatable, they might be able to turn it into a podcast. Like, it's possible they can make a bit of money off of this because there are some suburban housewives who will, listen to this and buy whatever wellness pills they sell them. But like it's not going to have significant influence. I feel like that much is clear because nobody gives a damn except for the Kare Swishers of the world. What Hillary Clinton thinks anymore, nobody cares. Or what Kerswisher thinks.

Like, yes. The thing is, you know, if you fancy yourself like a journalist or some kind of a dissident, like a kind of standing up the power sort of figure, bravely and courageously. You've known a couple of those along the way, yeah. Yeah, I have some familiarity, both with people who are are actually that and people who think they're that, but who are actually, in fact, not anything close to that. If you're at the same time that you're trying to maintain this self-perception and this branding, getting access to every inch of Washington and Silicon Valley and Wall Street power, as Kara Swisher does, that's a pretty good sign that you're diluting yourself about who you really are and the threat that you supposedly pose to people in power. I do think journalists,

you know, have to maintain some kind of proximity to people in power because that's where you get information from, that's where you get sources from. But if you're too welcome there, if you're too familiar there, if you're at every Georgetown party, if you're at every Silicon Valley Power Conference, that's a pretty good sign that you're not a threat to anybody in power because if you were, they wouldn't be welcoming you into their world as she is welcomed into their world in pretty much every power center in America. That's awesome. Let's take a quick break and then come back and dig into updates in the Cornell case. Well, you all know how incredibly in demand I am.

My social calendar is so full. People can't stop inviting me to things. I'm just the most popular person in the world. I'm kidding, of course. But listen, when you're a journalist, you got to go to source meetings. Lots of meetings. Lots of dinners. Lots of open bars, too, by the way.

I'm not complaining. I don't have that heart of a life. But living in a city, doing this kind of work, it just means you have real responsibilities too. You have all these things going on, but you're also a real adult. So at least I try to be intentional about how I show up. I try to be a real adult, whether it's Saturday night or Sunday morning. And Zbiotics pre-alcohol fits right into that mindset.

Zibiotics, pre-alcohol probiotic is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was engineered by PhD microbiologists to break down acetaldehyde, an unwanted byproduct of alcohol metabolism. So make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night, drink responsibly, and enjoy your next day activities. Zbiotics has sold more than 14 million bottles and earned the trust of thousands, including us, between my busy work week and my busy weekend social calendar, because again, I'm in such high demand. I've learned that being intentional matters. So I prioritize my routine, meaning that I can show up as my best self for whatever Sunday holds by drinking pre-alcohol. I'm making a smart choice to support my commitment to those goals. So try for yourself today. And if you're

unsatisfied. They will refund your entire order. No questions asked. Had to zbiotics.com slash afterparty code after party for 15% off your first order. Zbiotics is a partner of mine. We're joined once again by Glenn Greenwald. You got to check out his substack. I love your substack, Glenn. It is awesome. So thank you for for just gracing us with your presence. Thank you, Emily. Of course. Now let's talk about Cornell. Your coverage of Cornell has been, I think very helpful, especially given your legal background. We now know that Cornell is banning fraternities for the rest of the academic year. This is the update, latest update. As of yesterday from the New York Times, Cornell University has banned parties at fraternity houses for the rest of the

academic year and will add experience sexual assault investigators to work with its police force in response to a student's allegations of gang rape in October 24. The university announced the changes on Tuesday as it tried to reassure students, faculty, and alumni that is addressing the ongoing crisis set up several weeks ago by the lawsuit, followed by a former undergraduate known as Jane Doe, quote, we must meet this moment by acknowledging where we have fallen short and taking meaningful action, according to Michael I Kotlakov, the president of Cornell, who announced the letter in the letter to a campus on Tuesday, Cornell must be a place where safety is not an open question. And he might lose his job, actually, at this point.

I think he genuinely might lose his job. That seems like what people are agitating for. I do want to continue looking at some of the fallout, though, because Shane Gillis goes on Saturday night live. What does that have to do with Cornell University? You may be asking. Great question. The ladies of you think it has a lot to do with Cornell University. Several other people have also been connecting it like Rose O'Donnell to the Epstein case. Let's listen here to Sarah Haynes saying that Shane Gillis' joke about how women now dress like horrors at the gym is. Is the conservative on the view? The conservative co-hose of the view. I guess. I guess. I thought Alyssa was the conservative

host with scare quotes. Yes. Yes. Yeah, of course. So let's go ahead and roll this clip of her explaining why Shane Gillis' joke was inappropriate because of what's happening at Cornell. I typically defend comedy at all costs because I believe there has to be an area where comedians are able to walk right up to that line because some of the best stuff is when people are being super risky and risque.

But Dan Levy brought up such a good point. First of all, he is a god. I love him so much. But he's bringing up a great point of when the language, like horror is passed along, I might have not noticed it before in the past because it was under the guise of a joke. And what, as we're talking about this Cornell 7,

I'm not saying a joke makes an assault, but it makes it much easier to look at it as another human as an object. And so I think that it kind of just made me realize that I need to be more mindful even in comedy. Because, by the way, what we wear to the gym, like the idea of the term horror is the part that's the most offensive part because it's almost inviting in that the whore wants that attention. You know, so it's uncomfortable. Yes, I'm sorry, women wearing sports bras to the gym, absolutely. As a woman, I can tell

you, the women want that attention. Now Travis Kelsey's in trouble because he liked a video of the Shane Gillis monologue, Mr. Taylor Swift, who has some of his own hilarious past Twitter posts about women, liked the video and is getting headlines for having liked the video Shane Gillis' monologue, of which, by the way, this was a tiny part. This was like one bit towards the end of it. It was like an eight-minute monologue. So who knows if Travis Kelsey even watched all the way to the horror line, Glenn, but somehow right now, this is what we're saying causes. We're back to basically the rape culture, moral panic of the Obama years when this was built into a broader conversation about how the too frequent objectification of women in Hollywood and media was leading

to this panic like the number one in four, one in five sexual assaults or sexual or rapes, women who have experienced that on campuses, which has been debunked over and over again, but was built into this moral panic that it was our culture that was to blame for these alleged high levels of rape. By the way, Glenn, I do agree that we have some genuine problems culturally, that we have a broken culture that leads to so much of this happening. But first of all, to consider this definitively a rape or a sexual assault is already wrong. And then to say a comedian making a joke about women dressing like horses at the gym has anything to do with this? I mean, maybe you disagree. But I feel like we're going back to this moral panic of like

2012 to 2017 during the Obama administration. Yeah, or even the more excessive parts of the woke movement of, you know, starting with Me Too through George Floyd. I think we all like to tell ourselves, and maybe there's to some extent truth to this, that there's been a sufficient backlash to the really extreme manifestations and expressions of woke ideology so that it's kind of been uprooted from mainstream culture. And again, maybe there's an extent to where. which that is true,

which doesn't have quite as much currency, people feel more comfortable, objecting to it, renouncing and repudiating it. But when you kind of get a glimpse into these very kind of left liberal subcultures, like Ivy Campuses or left-wing activism and the like, you see that not only is it not been restrained

and it's certainly not dead. It's actually almost because of its isolation, you know, it's like if you cut off a tree branch because it has some kind of infestation of bugs, sometimes the infestation gets worse just because it's been cut off from the tree. There's no defenses.

I think that was that story about the lesbian bar in Massachusetts and how they had this whole war because they wanted to have one night where masks were optional. It was so engrossing because I think people forgot how out of control and deranged this kind of oocyteology can become. And it's a good reminder that in a lot of places,

including important and influential ones like Ivy League campuses, it still very much thrives. You know, there's so much about the Cornell case, but I just want to say, like, one thing, the reason this all got rejuvenated and thrust into our mainstream discourse was because a plaintiff's lawyer who is working on contingency,

which means he gets a percentage of whatever is recovered on behalf of his client, Jane Doe, so he's highly incentivized, to exaggerate the claims, to sue people with deep pockets, institutions like Cornell, the fraternity, the police department, the city, all have insurance companies for liability.

There's millions and millions and millions of dollars at stake. It was because of allegations in a civil monetary lawsuit that was brought on her behalf. And, you know, as somebody who worked in the world of civil litigation for more than a decade, watching people treat a complaint in a civil lawsuit as though it contains gospel truth, it's so wild to me. And I guess I have to remind myself that not everybody has experience with the justice system in that way.

But I can't think of a time that I've ever seen a lawsuit or been involved in a lawsuit where the complaint didn't contain wild exaggerations, if not outright fabrications. It's almost impossible to find a case where that's not true of the initial complaint because of all the motives that go into it. And same with, you know, the people who are then defendants. So the fact that people have just been willing to assume the truth of everything there, despite how much contradictory evidence there is, you know, the only rational posture is, I don't really know what happened here.

And I'm not going to sit in judgment one way or the other. I'm not going to call her a victim. I'm not going to insist that these students should be punished. Because we haven't had any kind of adjudicated process or even an investigative process that has produced comprehensive levels of. evidence that could enable you to assess that. The last thing I want to say, I think like this, this part of the cultural problem that you reference, which I do think is very real, kind of objectification of women, this kind of

sexual promiscuity that has become the cultural norm. Yeah. Yeah, like one of the things that I think is bothersome to me at least, and I had this a lot with, like, the trans ideology, which was there almost are. emerged this idea, you know, the feminist movement made great strides in my view in freeing people from these rigid gender roles. So like if your daughter is interested in sports and wants to wear jeans and doesn't want to play with dolls, it doesn't mean she's a man. And if a boy is interested in the arts and doesn't want to play football, it doesn't mean he's a girl. Like,

we kind of freed ourselves in these rigid gender constraints. And then it's like the trans movement went right back to these regressive ideas, but the minute you see your boy interested in a doll, he's probably a girl and should be treated as one. And, you know, same with. with your girls, if they're too interested in sports, you should assume they're a boy. So regressive. And I think there's a lot of this going on here, like this idea that if a woman gets drunk and or takes drugs willingly, which is clearly what happened here, that somehow she's incapable of consent and that if someone has sex with her, it means essentially that they've raped her because she was too intoxicated to consent. But it's not true of these guys who were clearly

as drunk and high as she was, also snorting ketamine drinking. I mean, there's a frat house on a college campus. They're 21 years old. They're drinking enormous amounts of alcohol. Anyone who went to college knows this. Why can't you apply the same theory and say, well, they also were too intoxicated to consent. So if she has sex with them, she should be assumed to have assaulted or raped them. And it's this extreme double standard that gets applied ostensibly for the benefit of women, but in fact is based on this theory that women are weak or that, that that women are more fragile, that women need coddling. And then, and I thought that's, like, in many contexts,

if you affirm that to be true, you get, you know, denounces as a sexist or a misogynist or whatever. And then they want to turn around when it's beneficial, these feminist activists, and insist that you affirm this model. And the last one I want to make, I saw your discussion with Megan Kelly about the Caller Daddy podcast and how they were like acting as though, you know, this is one of the worst things to happen. when if you embrace this idea that in general, like a libertine sex life for young women is empowering

and is what people should do, you, of course, have to take responsibility. This is clearly not a case, whatever you think of it, where some young woman was walking home and got jumped in an alley. She went to a fraternity house. She consented to sex with multiple men. She was drunk when she arrived. She got drunker when she was there. She willingly snorted drugs and had sex. consensually with at least three or four men. And the idea has always been that women who do that now, young women are not only acting in a tolerable way, but in a way that ought to be encouraged. And so if you're encouraging that, you can't then turn around and say every time a woman feels shameful, ashamed or uncomfortable with what she did, she can legitimately yell right because in a lot of

ways you are responsible for creating the climate in which a lot of women have decided this is what they got to be doing. Yes. I mean, hookup culture was foisted on young women by feminists and by men at places like Playboy who were actually packaging it in this language and ideology of empowerment. By the way, if Shane Gillis had said women are going to the gym dressed as sex workers, which, again, Alex Cooper, all of those people are fine with. And that's a shift in the culture. People can debate whether or not sex work should be called prostitution and should be something that's seen as perfectly normal or not. They still would have been offended. It's just a grievance expedition to make some broader point about what's obvious.

I feel like there's a reason people feel like what happened at that frat house is wrong, which is that women can't have sex like men. They really, really can't. And neither you or I knows if for sure something non-consensual did happen because even Jane Doe talked about her memory being cloudy from all of the weed, which people aren't talking about. There was weed. There was ketamine. There was alcohol.

All of it was involved. And so nobody knows for sure. But again, like, that is, if you put yourself out there, the law to a certain extent cannot protect you nor should it because that becomes then a situation where people can weaponize the law to make false accusations. And Megan's done a good job of explaining the law in New York State is about physically helpless. If you were physically helpless, that is a good law.

Meaning unconscious. That is a good law. Right. And other states who have closed what is now being referred to as the voluntary intoxication loophole, which is what people are calling for happening in New York, other states do have perfectly fine versions of that law that look a lot like what New York's law actually is, which is that if you become to the point where you can't open your eyes, you can't move your body. But there's so much testimony. She was texting. We now know there's so much testimony saying that she was not physically helpless by the New York standard. And Glenn, I was hoping you could explain to us a little bit why that's, it's actually a good thing that the law operates that way, because if you open up a crack in the law, you then create an unjust system for everybody, and needlessly so. I mean, again, anyone familiar with our culture, anybody who went to college understands that far more often than not, when there are sexual hookups, not between people who are dating for a long time and intend to marry or people who are married, but just kind of, you know, random, casual,

sexual encounters that very often it's enabled, if not caused by consumption of large amounts of alcohol or drugs or both. And if you transform every situation into one in which women who consume alcohol to the point of intoxication or alteration, which is why most people drink in the first place, same with drugs, then afterward, by definition, are rape victims if they choose to proclaim themselves to be such because the law basically said if you're so if you get yourself so drunk that you're really not capable of meaningful consent then somehow it means that you are a victim of rape and I guess I would ask again also applied it to men now the thing is I do think there's a really interesting way to look at this which is the point you're raising about the physiological

differences between men and women when it comes to sex and the reason why what might be good for men is not good for women. This is one of the things we're not supposed to talk about, right? Like the idea that there's meaningful biological differences between men and women is one of those things that have become taboo, part of the trans culture, part of the trans ideology that this new gender ideology, like you're supposed to deny the importance of the biological differences. But if you look at what happens in gay male culture when it's only men, there tends to be

very large amounts of and always has had very large amounts of promiscuity. just having sex. Doesn't matter if they know the person, doesn't matter if there's intimacy, because this is behavior that a lot of men feel biologically programmed to crave and to seek and then to feel pleasure from.

Whereas if you look at lesbian culture where there are no men, there are only women, it's basically the exact opposite. Lesbians are not known for being promiscuous. They're in fact known for coupling, for like moving in together and getting married. Yeah, for going.

Yeah, exactly, exactly. Yeah, exactly. And you can see the difference is it's not like it's been indoctrinated it just kind of goes off on its own but when you have which is obviously the more common culture which are men and women in the heterosexual context we're kind of confused as a society about whether we're supposed to affirm that no you treat men and women exactly the same you don't assume that women are different or weaker or somehow incapable of what men are doing but we're also supposed to on some instinctive level understand that if men

and women both get intoxicated, it's really not the same if they have sex with each other because there's something about sexuality and how it manifests in the different sexes that makes it so that the male is somehow more responsible, somehow more the active agent, and the woman is more the passive one. And the problem is that once you start allowing ideological preferences to trump the truth about science and biology and gender and everything that we know, this is when the conversation becomes utterly confusing, irrational, and unmanageable because people are required to affirm different propositions that are the exact opposite of one another, depending on what agenda it serves at any given moment. And nobody can maintain that

kind of intellectual inconsistency without going insane. Right. And again, to your point, if you're going to have that standard for women, then this entire conversation is complicated by the fact that as soon as the DA released the six-page statement, that is now very controversial because people are convinced it was a conspiracy theory to keep out her claim that she believed with 100% confidence she was raped. It's a ridiculous conspiracy theory because she signed off on the transition from the 120-page statement to the six-page statement. She marked up the document. She made all the changes. So unless there's more evidence that comes out to suggest between when she marked it up and when it went to the DA, they took that out. So far that hasn't been the case. This was her sworn statement.

there is evidence that one of the guys was in the freestim was dry heaving, another one left to fall asleep. They were all absolutely hammered. And one of them, actually a couple of them say she was the one who initiated sexual contact. One of them says that it was not consensual. And I don't take his claim that seriously, just like I don't take her claim that seriously, because we don't have a lot of evidence suggesting it. But in his case, there is more evidence, which is that she testified. He was so messed up.

He had to go fall asleep. So in that case, what we should be hearing from the volunteer. intoxication loophole people is that he didn't, he could not have given consent. Doesn't matter that he chose to consume the weed alcohol and ketamine. What matters is that he became too incapacitated. And in his case, he literally did go fall asleep. Right. And the problem is that the people who are advocating this want to have it apply only to women

and to turn only women into victims and this intoxicated contacts. But they also can't say that because there are too many. ideological implications that come from that that make them and people who are allied with them very uncomfortable. So it's also like a very dishonest conversation because again, they want to embrace certain assumptions but then deny that they're embracing them even though they so obviously are. And, you know, I think this has become, like I said, I mean, we think that the excesses of Me Too, the excesses of woke ideology have been vanquished. And from some places they have been, and I think we ought to be thankful for that.

But in a lot of influential and important context, it hasn't meant. The other thing I want to just quickly add is, the idea that like in 2026, in a very liberal, cosmopolitan, sophisticated, cultural locale, like an Ivy League college in Cornell,

that the police and the administrators are all conspiring as though it's 1950 to protect the male students when they sexually assault and rape women. First of all, the alleged victim is also a highly privileged student at Cornell. The idea that these places are just run by misogynist, people who don't really care about rape,

want to cover it up to protect. This is so inconsistent with the reality of what these places have become. And also, you know, that's the reason they were expelled. Yeah, exactly. And also it's the reason why we've seen, you know, that Duke of Cross. case from 20 years ago that probably

a lot of people don't remember. The alleged victim there was not a white student at Duke. She was a black stripper. And she invented these rape allegations that were a complete hoax against white Duke students on the

lacrosse team. And I remember the media circus where everyone believed her and demanded she be believed and she was believed to the point where the prosecutor the DA prosecuted them and basically lied to the point that he got to sparred. It was a whole hoax. She bid it was a hoax. Same thing at the University of Virginia where there was that Rolling Stone article that alleged that this woman had been

the victim of gang rape at the University of Virginia that they conspired to cover it up, destroyed the journalist's career who actually reported the story because the whole thing was a lie, fabricated that to retract the story, almost destroyed Rolling Stone. This is happening at least as much as this like 1950-style conspiracy that all these places are run by rape apologists and and misogynist who don't value women. It's just, it's, it's, it's not the reality of the power structure that prevails in these kind of communities. This was the last question I wanted to ask you about the Cornell case, which was I detected in the initial media coverage some genuine circumspection

where they had newsrooms coming out of the Me Too movement, post Aziz Ansari, bad date story that was treated as a genuine sexual assault by my favorite website that's ever existed. Babe.net, may it rest in peace. But truly, they seem to at first have some discipline. And I don't know if you agree with me. I'm curious. I just have detected in the last week that they're giving into the pressures from the like Sarah Haineses and the Rosie O'Donnells of the world. And the ideology has sort of coalesced for the kind of feminist ideologues that run places like the New York Times and write at places at the New York Times and they're male allies that have some of the same positions. and they sort of feel like the question has been decided,

like the culture has decided, because elite culture has decided that this was a genuine gang rape, and therefore they are now, they cannot do the both sides thing anymore. That's my take on where the media coverage has gone over the last couple weeks. I do think we're very overdue in this country for a debate about who's more sinister, white feminist, liberal women or their performative feminist male allies.

I think it's a very close competition. I actually think the male allies have pulled a little bit ahead in this Cornell case. But, you know, what's so interesting, by the way, was that one of the very first people to come forward and stand up and say, no, this is not a case of clear-cut rape. In fact, there's huge reasons for doubt was Sonny Hosten, the co-host of the aforementioned view. And I thought it was so interesting because she has added credibility to do that because she, voluntarily became a federal sex crimes prosecutor. For a decade, she was prosecuting men for sex crimes against women. And people who go into that line of work are generally pretty hard line about

what constitutes sexual assault and rape. They kind of are, you know, it's a cause. It's like a political cause. And she stood up and said, wait a minute, there's all this contradictory evidence. New York law does not say what everyone's assuming it says, that if you're intoxicated to the point where you can't consent, it's rape. In fact, it says the opposite. You have to be incapacitated to the point.

of basically being unconscious or physically unable to move. And so there was this kind of like, and she was very adamant about it too, very like firm and actually quite insightful because of think of her work as a lawyer, which is what I was telling you before too. It's like when you're a lawyer, you kind of have indoctrinated into your brain

that nothing is more important than due process. The police lie, parties lie, people lie constantly. Even when they're not lying, they're just wrong about what they remember, about their perception, about how they interpret events. And the idea of declaring people guilty of one of the most horrific crimes you can commit,

which is gang rape, based on just little snippets here and there, is to me quite horrifying. And even worse than that is when it becomes mob justice, when exactly as you suggested, if you are someone else who stands up and says, wait a minute, there's nowhere near to the point where we can declare her a victim or them rapists,

you will absolutely be widely denounced as a rape apologist, as somebody who probably doesn't care about rape, who might even rape yourself, you know, rape yourself, who you need these kind of like online mob denunciations that we've seen bully people into either remaining silent or even affirming things that they don't actually believe or fear of what the backlash will be. And I absolutely agree with you that we kind of reached a turning point

rather quickly here where all those activists as to have seemed dormant, got kind of very animated by this case and banded together. And as you say, it involves, you know, a lot of people in media, a lot of people in politics, you know, major political figures

proclaimed her the victim and them guilty. Tons of people at universities. There are a lot of feminist, very influential positions. And once that cultural unity or consensus emerges, there are only certain people who can withstand pushing back against it

or defying it or questioning it. And that's why I actually believe that if you're someone who can withstand that because you've created a position where you can, you kind of have the responsibility to step forward and question it because so many other people can't. And yeah, there's no question that this mob consensus is now aggressively influencing

what Cornell is doing, what the police are doing, the appointment of Letitia James by Kathy Hockel, I can't imagine Letitia James announcing that she did an investigation and isn't going to bring criminal charges. It's basically political suicide for her to do it. So when you have a culture forcing prosecutors to bring criminal charges that originally were not brought because of lack of evidence,

that is a very dangerous territory. Oh, that is a great point about Letitia James. And one final reminder based on everything Glenn just said, during the Obama administration kangaroo courts, which were objectively causing problems from the very beginning and needlessly so, It took years. But eventually the American Bar Association, the American Association of University Professors, the American Association of Trial Lawyers, and the Washington Post Editorial Board supported Betsy DeVos's reform to the Kangaroo Court regulations of the Obama administration's

dear colleague letter. It took years, though, and men's lives, women's lives were ruined in the process. And so I don't want us to enter another period where it takes years for us to readjust because you needlessly hurt people in that process after coming to a good place. Glenn Greenwald. Speaking of mob justice, major updates in the Kelly Clarkson, Molly the automotronic bird, animatronic bird art of play store in Brooklyn case. Pablo Tori got his hands on CCTV footage from inside Art of Play Brooklyn, where you can see Kelly Clarkson walking in, taking a look at the bird. She is now truly a victim of mob justice. We'll see where Glenn Greenwald lands on all of this. After we take a look at the bird, she is now truly a victim of mob justice. We'll see where Glenn

Greenwald lands on all of this after we take a look at the CCTV footage. Let's first look at Pablo Torre's reporting from inside art of play based on this found footage. She gets the attention of the aforementioned shopkeeper in question. This is the dude that she referenced, called an idiot, said that he was treating her like Julie Roberts' character and pretty woman. You see Kelly Clarkson pointing. Yeah. She's pointing at Molly as she looks at the shopkeeper. And the shopkeeper is kind of nodding.

And it's like he's telling her something. And she's looking at it and looking back at him. And I guess trying to confirm something it looks like. Maybe it's how Molly works. Maybe it's a sign that says, do not touch. Yeah, maybe it's a sign that says don't touch. The price tag $15,000. The whole interaction lasts seconds.

and she goes off into the corner. He's pointing, but her back is turned. He seems to be looking in her direction and pointing as though, if you're interested in getting a bird, there's this one here. She has to the exit. She turns around and seems to be saying something to the person behind the cash register.

There's a lot of gesticulating, and she's walked down. and he seems to be gesturing to the bird. Yeah. She doesn't seem to want to hear whatever he has to say. She was in the store for a grand total of four minutes and 50 seconds. There is, I mean, one more security camera angle that I want to show you.

Okay. Wow. And the phone comes out immediately. Wait, do we have a timestamp on the tweet? The tweet was sent at 309 p.m. Eastern. Okay. So. 15 minutes later? 15 minutes later, Zepruder level analysis there.

By the way, she was what I was thinking. She could have taken her phone out for various reasons. It could have been to call someone and be like, hey, this just happened to me or to start drafting that tweet. Either way, short time period from leaving to sending the tweet, does the CCTV footage change where you land on this, Glenn Greenwald? Here's a thing I think is the only real. Maybe there are a lot of other important points that I'm overlooking, but one important point. to me is that all of us interact at some point with like retail stores or companies that provide services like banks or airlines whatever restaurants a prize winning journalists even us and you know you feel

mistreated you feel like the person was angry and rude toward you like actually might even have been abusive to the point of like extreme unfairness then you call the manager and they like back it up and you're so angry. I obviously don't have a platform similar to Kelly Clarkson's in terms of size or reach, but anybody who has a public platform knows they can use it to punish companies or, you know, not huge companies, right? Like if Kelly Clarkson had rented against Delta Airlines, wouldn't have hurt Delta Airlines. It wouldn't have like, yeah, all the airlines suck. But you can definitely destroy like a worker's life, like a wage worker, some retail guy in a a store, probably can get them fired, just by publicly denouncing them and venting your personal

grievances that might even be valid, but I think most of us understand that when you have a platform, you have a requirement to use it, there's an obligation to use it reasonably. And reasonably means you should use your public platform to fight with and denounce and attack powerful people. People have influenced, people who are actually abusing political power, not for your own petty personal grievances because the imbalance is so extreme. So soon as I saw that tweet, I thought like, yeah, maybe she did have that experience, maybe the guy didn't recognize her, which I also think is part of the dynamic. There's kind of this like, how do you not know who I am? And you treated me like just some ordinary normie. But the thing that, yeah. That's the only thing that the CCTV footage changed

my mind about is that she did not look like Kelly Clarkson. She did look kind of like a normie. Like she had her hair up. She had a hat on, like she had glasses on. She was dressing with baby clothes. if they knew she was Kelly Clarkson, probably the treatment would have been different. But that's, to me, part of the problem, too, is you have now armies of hundreds of thousands of people who have taken up the cause of trying to destroy this store on behalf of this celebrity whom they revere and worship and have decided, like, there's no greater injustice in the world than the fact that Kelly Clarkson didn't receive the royal treatment that she deserves when she walked into this Brooklyn store. This is a really sick culture.

like this kind of celebrity worship, this filling of your people's lives and the emptiness in it, with these parissocial relationships with celebrities, this kind of celebrity reverence. That to me is a genuinely severe social pathology. And the fact that someone like Kelly Carpson who obviously knows she can tap into that

chose to do so against like this small store in Brooklyn, I just find the whole thing distasteful in the extreme, like an abuse of your power and authority. and then the worst are these people who just like, you know, Kelly Clarkson hasn't taken a public view about anything. Like the Iran War or what happened in Gaza or ice shooting. Nothing. Like she's totally apolitical.

The one time she decided to take a stand was in defense of her own, like, bourgeois sensibilities that she wasn't treated as she could. And also it's so funny that like the center of this controversy is this bird called Molly, which is like a fake bird that you can buy for $15,000. Maybe you can. you can't. Now 15 million. The owner now says it goes for 15 million because it's so famous.

So the power dynamic has shifted. Molly is very powerful. And I assume while the store is getting a lot of negative attention, probably a lot of threats, I'm sure they are getting people outside their store, calls, threats, emails from like genuinely insane fans of Kelly Clarkson. I don't know. I think probably it's ultimately in the long run a good thing.

Like people, everyone knows about the store. It actually looks really cool. Like if you see the footage from the. inside. You kind of want, I personally, I'm like, that they do look, it does look like they really. Yeah, I like looked at their Instagram page. I was like, oh, I could see myself buying this or that. So I don't know, probably it will help them in the long run, but it just reveals a kind of pathology that I do think is significant and

disturbing about these people who are willing to die, not for causes that matter, but for celebrities to the point where we are, like, at least the de Bruder, like, obsession was about the assassination of an American president and trying to to determine how it happened and who was responsible for it. Like that kind of does merit some very, you know, like detailed attentive focus. The fact that this is now what we are so intent on deciphering.

And there was some irony, I think, in Pablo Tori and what they were doing and the way we were talking about it, like almost embarrassed to be doing that. But the fact that this is now what gets so much attention, I think is a sign of a real social problem. I won't be shamed by you, Glenn Greenwald. but I will say I think it's also interesting that in America, upwardly mobile Americans do have a hair trigger about class consciousness. And I feel like because we tie success so much to worth,

we tie, you know, whether or not you were able to kind of climb a ladder or vault from middle class to enormous success. Like it really is. And to Kelly Clarkson's credit, like she did it in a way that was based on real talent. But it's, I think upwardly mobile people are very, very sensitive about it because they feel like it's an attack on their self-worth.

Maybe, maybe, but I think it should work the other way too, which is if you're born into wealth and affluence and, you know, maybe you're unaware of these dynamics because you never had to confront them because you were never on the other end of them. Right. I feel, you know, I grew up, you know, I don't want to exaggerate, but like, you know, very like working class. I was raised by a single mother, out of father around. But, you know, like, we didn't have money, didn't have anything. And part of that was like by hunger to become more successful to have things that I didn't have that I saw other people having. and now having gotten a lot of it, I tried to remain very conscious

about what it's like not to have it. And that's why I would think that someone who comes from Kelly Clarkson's origins, which are quite humble, she would understand just instinctively that being a huge celebrity, being a huge star with this massive following, this massive wealth,

like targeting workers in a retail store with your massive platform, even if you're angry about it, I just feel like there should be an instinctive, instinctive barrier that I know I felt before. And again, I don't have anywhere near the platform she has to not do that, to realize that, you know, yeah, maybe they had a bad day. Maybe they were a little annoyed in life and didn't treat her the way she should be treated.

But there seemed to be no awareness to the point. She didn't just post it once. She's like continuing warfare, public warfare with the store. Yeah. The ugliest I've ever seen, Glenn, was backstage the Megan Kelly Live tour as we were in the green room. And Glenn was just relentlessly demanding. the finest champagne. Abusing. Oh, okay. First of all, you had the bigger dressing room. As I recall, it was stocked with the Grand Pano and all kinds of champagne and high levels of

wine while I had some Diet Coke and a little bit of water in my much smaller one. And for that reason, I had to seek refuge in yours. And you seem very comfortable in that environment. In fact, you're like, welcome to my palace. That's my back. Slippers. That's right. I had slippers ready for you. Glenn Greenwald, what a pleasure. Thank you so much for stopping. Bye, please check out Glenn's substack. Really appreciate you, Glenn. Always happy to be here after party, Emily. Good to see you. For 20 years, preborn has stood in the gap between fear and hope. And this year alone, God has used preborn to save nearly 60,000 babies from abortion. 60,000. Think about that.

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, the abortion industry hasn't slowed down. It is adapted. Women now face this decision faster, more privately, and actually more alone than ever before. We've covered that a lot here on the show. But every day, in 17. At a pre-born network clinic, a woman sees her baby on an ultrasound, and here's a heartbeat for the first time. And everything changes. The chance for new life skyrockets. And this year, that moment has led to thousands of commitments to Christ.

Proof that pre-born isn't just saving babies, it's saving souls to 20 years in. We still believe we were made for this moment. Will you help us meet the next woman before it's too late? Right now, another mother needs that moment. You can give it to her. Just $28 helps provide one life-saving ultrasound. $140 dollars helps rescue five babies. All gifts are tax deductible.

Please give today. Dial pound 250 and say baby. That's pound 250 baby or visit preborn.com slash Emily. That's preborn.com slash Emily. Well, if you don't watch the Real Housewives of New York City, I have to tell you, at its best, it was Grey Gardens, which I also consider to be the greatest documentary of all time. But Real House House of New York City was this fascinating portrait of the decaying urban elite, again, at its best. And right now, Carol Radzwell has rejoined the show. The writer, Carol Radzwell obviously had best-selling memoir about the death of her husband, was also a journalist, I think she was at ABC for a really long time before marrying into royalty. Her late husband was truly best friends with John F. Kennedy Jr. We've covered some of this with Maureen Callahan in the

past, but because she was a socialite in the 1990s, New York City, Carol Radzwell is in the Epstein files. Now, that came up during this season in a, I think, fairly obviously coordinated way. This just aired last night. And Carol Radzaville has made herself into something of a liberal feminist activist. And I think that's partially why I mean, if you go back and watch the 2016 season of Real Housewives of New York City, you have Carol and Dorinda organizing, doing activism, campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton. I think there's an episode where they go out and like campaign towards the end of it. And then there's a watch party. And it comes up at the reunion that they think some of the other housewives voted for Trump is very, very messy.

I wrote about it at the time back at the Federalist, so I'm sure that's Googleable. But she has put herself in that position. And now it turns out she was close with Galane Maxwell. So last night's episode airs. And it features this very kind of, I think again, like staged coordinated grilling from one of the housewives, Si, towards Carol Radzaville. They're all having a conversation on a vacation. And Radzville knows this question is going to come up.

I'm sure this is part of production's preseason coordination. about how they were going to handle it. And she gets the question, and one of the housewives won't let it go. So now it's become a plot line in the season of the New York City Housewives. And Carol has a fairly popular substack, and she's writing about it. I'm going to get to that in just one moment. But I do want to watch a long chunk of this clip because she downplays, understandably, downplays her relationship with Galane Maxwell.

But we're going to get into actually how close that relationship really was. She cops to some of it, as she basically has to do. But let's take a look here at the episode of Real House of New York City that, again, just aired Tuesday night. We were just talking about, like, if you Google me right now, it's the Epstein list. You'd never been to that island. No.

So what was your relationship with Golan? Because weren't you two really good friends? If you read the press, we were. In the early 2000s, it would be strange if you didn't go out to a big event in New York and Gillen wasn't there. I didn't know Jeffrey Epstein. I never met him. She never talked about him.

Where'd you mean? I don't know. I believe that. I was in London and our mutual friend told her that, oh, you know, Carol's husbands just passed away. He's in London by herself. And so I get a call and she said, this is my Maxwell. You know, I'm so sorry to verify about your husband. Let me have my friends take you out to dinner.

And I was like, no, no, no, I don't really, I'm good. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, but she was kind of insistent. I would say a half an hour later, maybe even less. I get a call on my little Nokia phone from the Duke of York. Huh? Prince Andrew.

Royalty. Wait, this is getting better and better. No. He's like, let me take you to dinner. Did you like make out with him? No. We went to dinner and that was it. It was kind of unmemorable. How did you guys stop speaking? You know, it's like any friendship that sort of wasn't that deep.

We just kind of drifted apart. I thought she was. Like, for instance, I knew probably all along that she would not ever be interested in Carol DeFelco. But she was very interested in Carol Radzbo. She was like a social climber. So if you had money, access to money, power or say a very famous last name, she made her business to know you. But even your messages that came up, though,

between you in Galangery? There were emails, because again, it was... I thought you too were, like, in a very great relationship. I thought you were very close, and then... Yeah, messages were very jokey, jokey, and it was weird. Seeing your name in it, I need to know everything. Let her talk. Let her explain. I am letting her talk.

Are you okay? Yeah, I'm fine. Are you? I'm just trying to understand where she's coming from and I want to know her affiliation. This is not what we should be talking about. We should be talking about why under two administrations, the Department of Justice, the FBI, never investigated any of the men. Like there was something about girls in it. I can't wait to see the girls or something along those lines.

Do you think I'm part of an international sex trafficking ring? Are you worried about that? I don't know. That's what I'm asking you when your affiliation. You don't know? You know, like we're having a girls strip now? Sure, I texted with Aaron, so I can't wait to see the girls this weekend. This is normal stuff.

So the girls are not the girls that just friends. The girls are not the 14-year-old girls. This is the story as old as the time. People do not present themselves to everyone as they are, especially if they're involved in some criminal-up behavior. I kind of feel like she thinks I'm guilty of something. I don't buy it. I'm not supposed to say that.

I was supposed to keep that to myself. Now, so far it seems like a lot of the other housewives are irked by Sy. That could be the size of the one who was grilling Carol Radzowil. That could be for a number of different reasons that aren't entirely related to what was happening there. But minor inconsistency here. So Carol wrote a substack after the fact, and we can put this up on the screen. One of the things she writes on her substack, obviously she knew this episode was going to air and penned this essay to get ahead of it. she claims of Galeen Maxwell. I met her in the early odds at a social event in New York.

I don't recall where, but I think it was a film screening. I never met Jeffrey Epstein. I never knew him. And Galeen never spoke of him. So just to be clear, oh, well, then she says, by the way, my entire visibility into her world with a few mutual girlfriends we had and her boyfriend, who lived in California. In fact, the entire time I knew her, she was in a serious relationship. As I recall, she spent a lot of time out west, but if we were both in New York, we'd sometimes get together for dinner or meet at a social event. I'm going to show you one of the emails here in just a second. But first of all, she does say when she's asked how she's she met Galeigh Maxwell that she got a random call when she was in London after her husband,

her husband, Anthony Radzwell, had passed. But here on her subsection, she said she met Gleine Maxwell at a social event in New York. So listen, I don't think that means anything significant, but I do think if Carol Radzwell is trying to put all these questions behind her and is then going to condescend to other people for continuing to ask questions, it is incumbent upon her to have straight answers. Like, I'm sure she never, I think it's absurd to think Carol Radzwell as annoying as she has had anything to do with an international sex trafficking ring. Like she was part of it and she was like knowingly engaging in any of that. I do honestly think that that's absurd. I think that's true. That's true of a lot of people who appear in the Epstein files, which I have

poured over hours and hours of my life. Too many hours of my life as many of you remember. But her story is not quite straight. And she's absolutely downplaying the extent of their relationship. And I want to just put the email up on the screen that caught a lot of people's attention. So this is from Galea Maxwell to Carol Radswell. This is in the early aughts. So before Epstein is convicted, before some of the stuff starts becoming public, what we do know is that there were a lot of rumors swirling around Epstein. Galea Maxwell herself, her father, was kind of known to traffic in intelligence circles. And because of that, she was kind of wrapped into the family business. And so it would have been odd if Carol Roswell, who is extremely well connected,

we were talking about somebody who between herself and her husband was in a real, like, deep relationship couple to couple with John F. Kennedy Jr. and Caroline Beset, they were best, best, best, best friends. And with that being said, I just think it's impossible to imagine Carol Roswell was naive to Galeigh Maxwell's deep government connections. So in that email, Gley Maxwell writes, you are the most wonderful, the most beautiful, the smartest, the best, the brightest. Is that enough? And says your BF friend. And the friendly language is going back and forth in this early aught's email and it is not coming out of absolutely nowhere. Now, again, there are all kinds of explanations like, do some women talk to each other this way when they're not actually best friends?

Yes, yes, they do. But Carol has no, she's in no position to be frustrated with people asking questions like this because people do not believe you were that close to the Kennedys. They don't believe that you were that close to Galane Maxwell without noticing that something is off. And maybe it's true. You never noticed it. Maybe she was actually really hiding this stuff. But we know definitively that there are rumors swirling even at this time period. It was early, but even at this time period about Galane Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. I don't believe that that Galane Maxwell literally never mentioned Jeffrey Epstein to Carol Radzwell during this time period. I do think Carol Radzwell's story in the broad, from a broad view is plausible that she was really friendly with Galane.

Galane took the picture for her book. And she writes about this and says, you know, there were no usable photographs taken from the photographer. So Galane offered to take a picture. That must mean that you were pretty close, that you were venting to somebody about how there are no usable photographs available for your book. And then you entrust them with taking a picture. Give them a photo credit on the book. From my reading of the Epstein emails, it also looks like Jeffrey Epstein himself had a Google alert for Carol Radzwell. Make of that what you will. That could mean different things.

Again, it could mean different things. Reswell, on her substack, writes, The unlimited power and resources of the U.S. Department of Justice across two administrations proved either unwilling or incapable of investigating establishing reasonable cause against individuals whose names appeared hundreds of times in direct contact with Epstein. social media posts from internet's looser, easy enough to dismiss. I suppose that is the fun of the internet, chaotic, and serious, and often unmoored from fact, and no matter how many Instagram bots, Reddit threads, conspiracy theorists, and we can TikTok detectives parroting the same lines,

I must have known, or Maxwell was my bestie. It will never be true. Radswell writes, at this point, it's harassment from an army of haters, bots and trolls. You may not like me because we don't lie politically. Maybe I feuded with one of your favorite housewives. Perhaps you think I'm boring old or look like Stephen Diler. Fine, disliking someone as an opinion, smearing their reputation as something else. I don't need to defend my reputation. No serious person believes I was in any way involved in a criminal sex trafficking ring. Yet here I am on a private island, no less, answering the same questions all over again.

I get it. I'm on a reality show. I share a great deal of my life with viewers, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I'm willing to talk about almost anything. The Epstein files were no exception. Again, I think her story is plausible that Galane, Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein were doing their stuff as best they could underground at that time period. And it was not something they were, like, flaunting. On the other hand, she says she's open to questions and she's open to conversations,

but is then running out of patience with people asking reasonable questions, not people saying, oh, Carol, were you pumping yourself full of adrenicrome in the basement of the 71st Street, Epstein town home? That I would lose patience with. But I also feel like you're not in a position having an email from Galeen Maxwell referring to each other as referring to, referring to you as the most wonderful, the most beautiful, the smartest, the best, the brightest, your BF friend, you're not in a position to lose your patience with people who are asking reasonable questions, especially people who you're like traveling with on a reality show,

who have their own reputations to protect. I just don't think you're in a position to get frustrated with people asking those questions. You got to take all of it. And if you say you're going to take all of it, I agree. I think that's smart. But you really have to not just say you're going to open up about it and actually open up about it, and you're going to have to have some understanding when people remain skeptical, because the fact of the matter is that email exists, yes, it's going to get blown up in some really disgusting and unfair and conspiratorial ways. Like Carol says, that's the fun of the internet. But I think what's fundamentally hard to believe is that Caladsoil was truly naive to all of the

weirdness swirling around Galane Maxwell. And Marine Callahan has done, Marine Callahan has done some reporting. on Carol Rod's will and the Kennedys, I think it's generally a problem for some people. I mean, a lot of people revere the Kennedys for different reasons in the United States, but a lot of people are also disgusted by the Kennedys. And we'll also have problems with that association and say, were you naive to X, Y, and Z as well? Like, the Kennedys should be part of the Epstein conversation, as much as we like to look at the public service of the Kennedys as noble,

because in some cases, it genuinely was, what was happening with the Kennedys was often people of great privilege and power. And RFK Jr. Talked about this. Like his sex diary came out. I think it was in the New York Post. Abusing their name, abusing their power to, you know,

be wildly promiscuous. And I'm not accusing him of anything untoward. I've absolutely no evidence. I'm not accusing him of that at all. But of behaving grossly, using their privilege to project a public image of nobility and then behave grossly behind the scenes. And that's something she would have.

been privy to is somebody swirling that close to the Kennedy family itself. And again, I'm not saying that the Kennedy family has an Epstein-level trafficking apples-to-apples comparison here, although Chappaquiddick has not gotten nearly the attention, never got nearly the attention it deserved when the late Senator Ted Kennedy was on the scene. And I think a lot of people still look at that as disgusting. But again, all this is to say, powerful, people and families projecting an image like Epstein did as being a philanthropist and then using that power to be anything but noble behind the scenes is something that Carol Roswell would have had a front row view to, if not on the Kennedy side, like actually enabled herself.

And I don't know. But these are reasonable questions that people are going to have. And I just think that it's unreasonable to be frustrated by people's skepticism as somebody. who ran in such powerful circles. Galane Maxwell behind bars right now. And that email exists. And there's nothing Carol Roswell can do to make it not exist. So she's really never going to have a right to be, I think, frustrated by some people's skepticism and some people's questions. She should be frustrated by bananas conspiracy theories that go off in wild directions.

But it is just hard to believe that she was totally naive to everything. Who knows what she could have done about it? If she knew, who knows? But I think that's part of the same problem. She's identifying with the Biden administration and with the Trump administration. She wants to turn the finger around on these administrations. But it's actually why people are skeptical of her, which is that too often others were just not speaking up and speaking out when they had some reason to report something or ask deeper questions and that sort of thing. So that's a tough finger for her to point.

But we'll continue to follow it. I'm sure Marine will continue to follow it. It's super fascinating, super fascinating for it to become part of a plot of the Real House House of New York City, because again, at its best, the Real House House of New York City was Great Gardens. And Carol Radzville, the last name is Radzaville. She knows all about Great Gardens, knows all about that portrait of the kind of decaying socialite East Coast set. And that's really what New York City became. And I think you see that in the Epstein email. is how many people were willing for the sake of climbing the social ladder

or building their social clout, maintaining their social clout to overlook, obviously questionable behaviors and activities. So that said, we're going to wrap for the night. Please subscribe if you haven't yet. It's so, so helpful. It helps us keep you on our independent journalism here on the show. Subscribe on YouTube. We're three days a week on the podcast side.

So subscribe for the podcast too so you don't miss our Friday episodes. We'll be back with more soon. Thank you.