After Party with Emily Jashinsky - “Happy Hour”: Pope’s AI Panic, Candace Controversy, and Fractures on the Right: Emily Answers YOUR Questions

Episode Date: May 29, 2026

On this week’s edition of “Happy Hour,” Emily Jashinsky begins by addressing questions about AI, the dangers of fake content, and Pope Leo’s call for AI regulation. Emily fields a lengthy question about Tucker Carlson and allegations of racism, she explains her view on his interview-style and speaks about the importance of watching full clips and interviews for context and nuance. Emily then dives into the Candace Owens controversy, why she believes Candace has gotten more unhinged, and why Emily chooses not to get herself into the muck of reacting to Candace. Emily then takes up a question about whether there could be a female version of Charlie Kirk to help lead America’s young women. There are also questions and comments about “After Party” guests including former Ambassador Sam Brownback who just wrote a book about the plight of Christians in China. Emily takes up Congressman Massie’s loss, explains why she believes he was MAGA and MAHA, she discusses the role of money in politics, if a third party would be viable, foreign media covering The White House, and the decay of social trust. Emily rounds out the show with an interesting question about how she realized she was conservative and explains the influence Greg Gutfeld’s “Red Eye” show had on her. She also addresses the investigation into Hasan Piker’s trip to Cuba, and more… Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hello, everyone. Welcome to this week's edition of Happy Hour, which is itself, of course, a special edition of After Party. We do here every Friday. I tape around Thursday afternoon. It's Thursday at like 4.45 p.m. as I'm beginning to tape this episode. So if you send your emails in for the week by that time period, I'll get to them on that week's happy hour episode. And I go through just about everything you send in to Emily at double-madecaremedia.com. And I do this live. I record this live so that it's more entertaining, all that. Now, because, again, if you're going through it live, I mark it in my inbox if it looks like it's for happy hour. And I just think it's better to go through the emails that way. So you know that there's no pre-screening or, you know, lots of, like, I try to do this stuff. So it's not essay style, like, debate bro, that kind of thing. I just like having a good back and forth with all of you through these emails. So thank you. I appreciate you all so much for listening and subscribing.

If you haven't subscribed on YouTube, that really is like the most helpful thing for us. The podcast listening is fantastic to it. If you're listening to this, of course, you're already subscribed to the podcast feed. So welcome. Thank you for being here. Let's go ahead and dive into this week's emails. Matt and Shane's Secret Podcast. This is the subject line from Kiki, who says,

Loved Your Segment on the Kevin Hart roast. Given some of your recent commentary, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you listen to Matt and Shane's Secret podcast. is a true delight, and I think you would love it. It's Shane Gillis and Matt McCusker with an assortment of their goofy friends, roommates and fellow comedians, and they had Cheryl Underwood on the most recent episode, and it was hysterical. Kiki, yes, that is a great recommendation. I'm not a dedicated Matt and Shane's Secret Podcast listener.

I did see the Cheryl Underwood one. I have a couple friends who are diehard Matt and Shane's Secret Podcast listeners, and I should be more intentional about listening to the show. I honestly don't listen to a lot of straight comedy podcasts because I have this like toxic trait where because there's so much work podcast to listen to, they just get enormously backed up on my end. And I have a really hard time sort of unplugging from work stuff because I'm one of the people that's like lucky enough to work where it's kind of a hobby too, like politics, news, history. that sort of thing, media. So I should be better about forcing myself to just get into another subject, at least once a week, because, I mean, we all need that. We all need that.

So great recommendation. Thank you, Kiki, for the nice message. Hank sends a link to a Douglas Murray column. I did read this column. I think it's from last week. The headline is, I see dangers of AI firsthand as people make doppelgangers of me. Yet this is Douglas talking about people who. have sent him videos of AI versions of himself and said, liked your new video. And these are people

who should know better because they know him saying they liked his new video. And it's a statement on how advanced AI is becoming. Obviously, that's terrifying. If you work in journalism, please don't, you know, spare us your tears. We don't need it. Tiny violin. But it's really more a question of, you know, as audience members, as news consumers, it's a disservice to us. It's less about Douglas Murray and more about people consuming content that is not about, or it's not actually from Douglas Murray thinking it's from Douglas Murray or anyone. I mean, this is going to go a million different ways. I've seen some really shady political ads that use AI. It's just there need to be more guardrails around it.

Government's not moving quickly enough. I think that's because there's not a good consensus on what the right approach is. Yes, there are really powerful lobbying interests as well that are pushing back against heavy-handed oversight of this type of thing. I think some of it probably needs to be voluntary. You know, the papal encyclical came out this week. I read the whole thing, and I shared Ross Douth's take that it was,

and I actually then went back and read what Leo the 13th's encyclical on industrialization. which I think it was 1890, 1890, 1890s, a little later into the industrial period than this Pope Leo's encyclical is in the AI period. But I did think it missed an opportunity to go deep in a way. Like, it does talk about what it means to be human, yes. But there's some, like, theory about transhumanism and humanity itself, I suppose. that I really felt could have been or should have been addressed. And I'm not a Catholic, as you know, so I don't have, you know, I can't say that I'm, you know, stakeholder in the same way Catholic writers like Ross Douthan are.

But I was somewhat disappointed and just, it felt like it missed that opportunity to really, I think, offer a, like Leo the 13th did. I think it's correct when I say Leo the 13th. And that encyclical, I kind of read, I went back and read that one to compare it to this one. And that one just had a depth and richness to it. It's not just the pros, but it had a depth and a richness to it, that this one lacked. And it addressed some more philosophical questions that I think this one was in a lot of ways kind of lingering on the pragmatic questions. Not that that's unhelpful, but it would be helpful, I guess, to have a, It's such a high profile Christian address of AI or Christian response to AI be a bit more critical

about the soul and the human being and the like. So a little off topic from that Douglas Murray thing, but it is moving really quickly. I was thinking while I was reading the encyclical also that one possible response to this would maybe be something like the Hayes Code. So as I was thinking about it, I mean, there's some interesting stuff about just war theory that kind of caught people off guard in the papal encyclical. It doesn't necessarily catch me off guard because I think just war theory, I've been writing a piece about this. I need to get my, I'll avoid swearing. I need to get my button gear and finish it, but on just war theory and technology. And so I get why it actually fit in there. There's also a really interesting bit. And this is in the vein of pragmatism where Pope Leo wrote, we must not wait for others to compel us to confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves. And that's writing on, they usually quotes Pope Francis saying, I also thank you for what you tell us about what goes wrong in the church to journalists,

for helping us not sweep it under the carpet and for the voice you have given to victims of abuse. So that was Francis to journalists. And I went and thought immediately back to the Reformation in how the printing press, Luther and Gutenberg, spread criticisms of the church. And I think in some ways, caught the church off guard with the power of the printing press. And at that time, technologies that could include easier travel around on roads. It was actually also the story of the early Christian church in some ways, too. Tom Holland's written about it.

That allowed the message to really spread. So I read that and I was thinking, first of all, we don't have to answer more. anthropomorphize chatbots. That's a tough word to get out. You don't have to name them clawed, right? And you don't have to have them talking to you like fellow human beings. I think that's just part of the psychological dimension to this. Even to like, quote, beat China, you don't really need to have anthropomorphic chatbots.

It's a choice that we're making. We're making a choice to have algorithmic social media timelines. We just accept some of these things by default now. But one way to look at this outside of the regulatory framework would be like a haze code, which was in early Hollywood, totally voluntary in the industry. And I'm not defending the haze code necessarily, although Camille Pahlia has written some interesting stuff about how those restrictions on what you could show in movies and television created some of the best cinematic art that has ever been created because the guidelines force artists to be, much more artistic in a sense. It forces the artistry to be to have a depth and a complication on sexual issues is what polio would argue that makes it a lot more alluring

than stuff without guidelines. So anyway, the industry could come to some type of agreement on its own, but nobody honestly can agree on what they would agree on. So yes. Let's see. another one from Hank. I think you hit it on a key in the abortion issue. One does not have to be at all religious to be pro-life. The eugenics movement shows what comes from not viewing unborn children as a unique human being. And then Hank says, anyone who's read war against the weak, eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race by Edwin Black should be horrified. Or they are ghouls who wouldn't hesitate to kill us. Interesting, Hank. I haven't read that book, but thanks for the recommendation. And here's another one from Hank who says, oh, this is a

I should this is too nice. I shouldn't actually read this. Hank says, I listen and read a lot of journalists. I don't think anyone can do what you do in terms of historical perspective and command of the everyday issues. No one compares. Hank, thank you. I don't think that's quite true. I appreciate that. That's very flattering. You find time to respond to almost every viewer, reader email. There might be some other prominent national journalist that does that, but I doubt it. You might think God Hank's sucking up, which of course is true. I'm going to try my hand at starting my own substack. So expect me begging for advice in the next few weeks. Oh, this is really sweet, Hank. Well, Hank, let us know when you start your substack because I definitely have read a lot of your emails over time and they're always very thoughtful. So I'm trying myself to be better at substack.

I think it's a great platform. I really, really, really like. Substack, for example, I think has very minimal algorithmic timeline control, which I like about that a lot. I also, though, value editors. And so for me, it's always, I don't like putting stuff that's not, that hasn't gone through like a formal editing process out. So, but I should push myself to do it more because you can approach the format in a way where it's obvious that something is more of a blog than a formally edited piece. But, you know, everyone needs a good editor.

So that's, I think that's partially like a mental block. But Hank, that's maybe my advice, too, is have a friend. or someone you trust, edit your stuff. I see a lot of people put stuff out that's like longer and not bloggy. It's on substack and it just would have been so much better with a quick edit from someone else. So maybe that's a little tip. This is from Daniel, who says, oh, Daniel lives in Thomas Massey's district and says, I'll watch your afterparty show, as Tim Dylan, Tim Dillon would say, friend of the show.

Brevity is a soul wit, Oscar Wild, I will try to comply. I must say, adore your show. Longtime fan of Dave Smith, Jimmy Dorr, Tim Dillon, et cetera. Comedians who do commentary and politics, win-win, humor is necessary these days. I found slash discovered you through them. You as a true journalist, I find your work, thoughtful, cogent, rational, and brutally honest. It's truly refreshing if you want a good one. Scott Horton, Dave Smith, Daryl Cooper, just dropped some superb analysis think you'd appreciate. I'll tempt to link below. Emily, keep it good work, make us proud. All right, so I actually hadn't seen this. I'm clicking on this YouTube link right now with Scott Darrell and Dave. Wow, that is something else. I'm saving it to my

watch later playlist. Thanks for the recommendation. I had not seen this. It looks like it's an hour long, very manageable. All right. I will take a listen to that. I think I've mentioned before. I definitely don't always agree with Darrell's historical analysis. But his podcast, there was a summer, I think it was a couple summers ago where I was doing really long bike rides. and there, if you just, if you have a couple hours or a few hours and you put some of them on, he's very good at the craft of podcasting. And as a human being, you can kind of make up your own mind about what you think on certain things. And, you know, you can bring your critical lens to the history and look stuff up. You just remember to kind of look stuff up as you go through it.

And I find it to be very provocative, pun intended. with Provoked and Scott Horton's book Provoked. But yeah, this looks like an interesting conversation. So thank you, Daniel. It's funny that you live in the Massey district. And you're also sort of into these libertarian thinkers like Dave and Scott. Great district for you to be and Daniel. And Massey, I think, has probably cultivated locally.

I mean, he's still got like 45% of the vote. That's one of the under-told stories of the elections. Like, oh, it was a blowout. I mean, it was a really healthy win for Ed Gowryne. But when you still have 45% of voters, with that big of a spending differential going for Massey, there's something significant there, too. And I think locally he's cultivated an interesting community on the ground. I really wish I had gone out to the district for a story leading up to that election. I might still see if I could do a trip because it's so interesting.

Let's see. This is from, I think, Rob. Emily, I heard you on afterparty answering a question about Tucker and describing Megan's open-minded practice appearing from both sides of an issue. I wonder why folks like you and Megan appear to believe we think Tucker's anti-Semitic because Ben Shapiro said so or Mark Levin did. We believe Tucker's racist because he says racist things. We believe Candace is evil because she continues to do and say evil things regarding Erica and T.P.USA.

Tucker, this is kind of a long email, but I'll read the whole thing. it looks like it's interesting. Tucker questioned Ambassador Huckabee, whether DNA testing would be needed to determine the genetics of today's Israelis, who he alleged, are not actually Jewish. That's straight from racism 101 and was debunked 60 years ago. Okay, I'm going to pause right there. Tucker asked that question to hold Huckabee to his own standard, right? So Tucker is saying this is important for people who defend the policy, Israel's policy, of people being able to, you. immigrate to Israel. So that's why he asked the question.

He wasn't asking the question. And this got, I actually think if you watched that whole interview, and maybe you did, Rob, but I saw that those clips pinging around a lot of people saying, oh, my gosh, Tucker was pushing this almost eugenics line of questioning on Huckabee. But the way he set it up was actually to hold Huckabee to those standards, right? So he wasn't saying that it was important. And he was saying that if Israel believes it's important, Mike Huckabee, look at how, he was sort of exposing the ridiculousness of that. It's the opposite of how it was interpreted. But here, let's all go on here. The debunking has been confirmed repeatedly since the advent of genealogy.com and the use of DNA and medical testing to allege this nonsense in 226 is indefensibly racist.

The words were racist, and this is not the only example. No, again, I just don't agree with that, Rob. I think Tucker was saying that it was racist on the other end to have rules for people by genealogy. And he was trying to expose or reveal the foolishness of that standard as he sees it. It's a separate debate. Like that standard itself is kind of a separate debate, but that's what was really happening in that clip. Rob goes on to say, it used to be a daily listener of Megan's show. Sadly, when she defended Tucker, she never defended the actual words he speaks as not being racist.

Instead, we get a general he's not racist statement, including often, as your defense did, a summary of his background, leading to his non-interventionist ideology. Often in Megan's case, this is accompanied by a reference to a bad reaction to the Jewish lobby or Zionist lobby, which apparently have targeted Megan as well. Yet I don't need those lobbying groups to tell me what is clearly racist on its face. Racist in a way that cannot be a mistake. I believe it is time for the pundits who either defend the words in actions as Tucker as non-racist or to admit the truth we can plainly see for ourselves. The evidence has mounted at an even faster pace since Ben Shapiro started the food fight at TPSA by calling out Candace, Tucker, and Megan. Tucker is proved by his own words and actions. He's racist at some point to believe the album this will be too much for Tucker's defenders to ignore.

Rob, actually, I would just say if you mentioned there are other examples. I would say feel free to send along other examples, and I'll take a look at them if you think there are more examples because that one I just, this one here, I just don't agree with. I think he was trying to reveal other racism as he saw that. So yeah, I actually think that's a good example of there were people who, there's a vast social media campaign right now

is even more reporting about Brad Parscale and how he is, and it's not just him, but how people are being paid. And by the way, if I were Israel, I would absolutely do this too, but are being paid by the Israeli government to help promote the government's preferred narratives on social media and to debunk lies about the Israeli government on social media,

to debunk false narratives on social media. And actually a lot of, it's hard to know exactly who's part of the paid effort and who's not. But a lot of those misleading clips, you know, I think when people are answering poll questions and the like, like, they have agency. And I made a whole distinction in the Massey election to say, I don't think that, like, Israel's just bought the seat. I think we did a whole conversation on Citizens United on last week's happy hour, too, if I'm remembering correctly, because I think people have agency. But I do think that if you spend a lot of money on misleading ads and you're kind of taking advantage of people's genuine desire to know what's really happening and to be responsible citizens, that's where

clips come in. And the clips on social media that circulates sometimes about Megan, I mean, I get emails, every once in a while from some of you. And I'll correspond back and forth and just explain, listen, I think you got a clip in your timeline. And here's the full clip. Here's the full episode. Here's what was actually said. And I think a lot of people, a lot of us, I just made this mistake with something yesterday. And thankfully I didn't post about it. But I saw a clip yesterday. And I was like, why did this person say that? And I was about to post about it. I was like, no, I need to watch the full thing before I say anything about it because you don't know what you don't know. And Rob, I'm not saying this about you, but I did see that with this clip in particular.

So if there are other examples, I'm more than happy to take a look at them. I do listen to pretty much everything Tucker doesn't fool. So feel free to send them along. Happy to consider them. Candace, man, we've been covering Candace on, like, on this show since what she started to really go off the rails, probably... weeks after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. My theory on this has been, you know, it's, she's not well. She's not well. I think there's a, that's by the way, not an excuse. That's an explanation. And that's why I think, as Michael Knowles has said, it's not super helpful to get in the muck of some of this because it just brings attention, some of the muck on everything she

says because it just brings attention to her. But, and, and, to these like narratives that I think have gotten increasingly hysterical. Now, I have plenty of questions about what happened in September that haven't been answered yet. There's, I think, some requisite patience for the government to make its full case in court, which we're going to start seeing more of very soon. But yeah, no, I mean, like, I fully understand not messing with this Candace stuff because it does bring more attention.

and she fights really, I mean, she fights dirty, of course. And so if you then involve yourself in it too much, like too deeply, and you get really tangled up in personal things, it drags people down. I've seen it happen. It drags people down. They become obsessed with clearing their name from these attacks and everything like that. So I do think Erica is leader of Turning Point USA. So I hear people that like there are fair criticisms of the leadership of Turning Point USA. That's a public position.

But a lot of what's going around out there is just absolutely not fair whatsoever and is like increasingly unhinged. And that's been really unfortunate to see. But that's my explanation. And it's long been my explanation for. for what I think is happening with that. I just feel no desire to get into the muck. I totally understand why other people don't get into the muck. Just, yeah, not necessary.

I'm more interested in kind of following the facts and asking tough questions. There are just a lot of questions right now, too. That's the other thing. There are a lot of questions that don't necessarily mean you have to say one narrative is likely or one narrative is not likely. You can honestly just say,

well, why don't we know about this particular? thing. And then by the way, you can ask the government about it. It's like you can put in comment requests and you can do those sorts of things. So, yeah, I do have a lot of questions and I'm waiting to see what comes out in court, but that's my take on it. Some of it has been so disgusting. I also think there's a real element of mental unwellness at play that's not going to necessarily respond to rational criticism, right? If you are coming up with like rational, well-reasoned criticism, it might all be for not when someone is that deep down the rabbit hole and not super interested in challenging whatever

narrative has taken hold. So anyway, I obviously have lots of thoughts on that, but and just lots of thoughts on the ethics of waiting into it and whatnot, but that's where I've come down. Anyway, thank you for the email, Rob. And if you follow up, I will do my best to respond. as well. Kelsey says, thank you for all your great work in the show, have become an avid listener since last summer. Well, thank you. Kelsey says, I enjoyed your recent segment on Alex Cooper. Liberals real at conservatives for being regressive or sexist. While conservatives are quick to point

out the double standard for people like Cooper and many others, for a while now, all of this had me thinking about the late Charlie Kirk. Kirk was hugely influential among young men. He sold the benefits that conservatism could have, not just for society, but also for their own personal lives. I wonder if a commensurate movement could occur for women. A major vulnerability of contemporary liberalism today is that for whatever reason it does not seem to be successful in promoting fertility. Liberal women don't connect the dots between the two. For now, liberals can too easily paint conservatives as trying to take women back to the 50s, and liberal women refuse to go backwards. If there's a female Charlie Kirk out there, they would have to both acknowledge the

key rights and empowerment that women have today and persuade women that embracing conservatism is not just a religious or civic good, but that it is in their own personal best interest. In other words, conservatism is more likely than liberalism to help them have a family while also maintaining some level of agency over their career and living standards. What do you think? Are conservative women poised to exploit this advantage? Kelsey, as I was reading your question, thank you, first of all. It also kind of raised a question in my mind about whether there could be another Charlie Kirk male or female or if he was one of the last sort of monocultural figures we'll have in the cultural space. Because Charlie started going viral,

what, like, probably 10 years ago, but really in the last five years as TikTok became popular and as he leaned into a less, I think, political space. This is something that Andrew Colvette has talked about, that he was getting much less interested in politics. And because he had laid that sort of groundwork of doing the debate stuff, he just was a familiar face. He was exactly my age. And I think that the late millennials really got that last tail end of true monoculture, meaning we were maybe that the last Americans to experience a truly monocultural America. And again, I'm just thinking about this off the top of my head with that. I don't know if it's possible to be someone who has that, you know, if you talked to some, if you talk to a young person, they pretty much knew who Charlie Kirk was or they would have recognized Charlie Kirk because he's been on their feeds for so long.

I guess you could say that about Fuentes, like most young people can ID Fuentes and Candace and Hassan Piker. They have pretty high name recognition, so I might be undermining my own point here. But yeah, he was so familiar even and he had built that groundwork. before we had been much more kind of niche-fied, as I say often. So, yeah, it's a good question. I would think a female Charlie Kirk would not come from a political space, but would come more from a cultural space. So if somebody like Alex Cooper became increasingly conservative

and, like, you know, had a literal come to Jesus moment and started prescribing some of these conservative outlooks people on a lifestyle basis, that might be the way to get a female Charlie Kirk. I can just tell you that political audiences are much more male. Like if you're looking at the numbers of news websites and most of those types of shows, they tend to just be much more male, even female hosts. It's just politics for whatever reason draws more men. That genre draws more men of media content, whatever it draws more men. So I would think it would have to come from like a lifestyle space. And that would be super, super interesting. You know, shout out to the great Alibeth Stuckey, who is really doing

the Lord's work, in my opinion, on some of this stuff. So definitely go over to relatable. If you don't pay attention to Allie Beth, I'm sure you do, because she's been on Afterparty, and she has been popular long before Afterparty. But if you're listening to this, you probably know who she is. But, yeah, I think it would come from a sort of lifestyle genre more than it would come from a political, someone in the political genre. That's a very interesting question, Kelsey. I'll have to think more about it. Damien says, wanted to thank you for having to Sam Brown back on After Party to discuss the persecution of Christians in the People's Republic of China. This is a topic that is close to my heart.

As one of my Chinese friends who used to live in London is a secret Christian. Even when he lived in London, he received warnings from the Chinese authorities, as they now have outposts in most Western countries. I really appreciate you giving Sam the opportunity to highlight the issue. As I feel it is overlooked and even tolerated by many in the West out of deference or fear of the CCP. Please continue to have such interesting and varied guests in your show with the exception of Dave Smith. Speaking of guests, have you considered inviting the British commentator and writer Douglas Murray on After Party? I know that the two of you may disagree on several issues, but I think it would be an interesting discussion, best wishes. Thank you, Damien.

I honestly doubt Douglas would do the show, but it doesn't hurt to ask. I definitely, when I was at Unheard and we were doing Undercurrents, which was a show I absolutely loved doing, we tried to get Douglas on a couple of times. He's a really, really, really busy guy, like a really busy guy. So might not be in the cards, to be honest. And after the Dave Smith, Joe Rogan thing, I'll admit, I started to see Douglas a little bit differently. I was a bit disappointed. I mean, that debate was just, it was a lot. But, um, I'll admit, I had started to see Douglas on a little bit differently. I was a bit disappointed. I mean, that debate was just, it was a lot. But, um, there was a, I've seen this with some, like, intellectual dark web travelers, an unwillingness to really reconsider some priors or to hear out the arguments that challenge some priors. And that unfortunately kind of had me looking at Douglas differently. He still does some stuff that I obviously agree with, and I think is interesting. But anyway, interesting idea. I'll have to, I'll have to think about that a bit, just a bit.

he seems like he's been a bit more quiet lately too. And on the brownback point, I have a hard time knowing what to believe that comes out of China because I really don't want to get sucked into war propaganda. I really, really, really don't want to get sucked into war propaganda because I don't, you know, I certainly don't want an unnecessary war with China. And I do know that there are some people, especially people in the defense world who make money from war, frankly, who are agitating, in my opinion, for conflict in a way that I'm uncomfortable with. And I don't want to buy into propaganda that might make it, might condition the public unnecessarily for a conflict. And so I took a look at Ambassador Brown back to the person.

book and found it compelling and thought it was worth certainly hearing about the plight of Christians in China because there's some just awful, awful stories. And your point, Damien, about this coming to the West is a really good one too. I have heard this anecdotally as well about Chinese expats and the like. So interesting email. Thank you so much, Damien. This is from Sue, who says your podcast has become a part of my Sunday morning walk routine when hearing the Stephen Colbert clip. I initially thought you were honestly praising him. I wonder what had come over you. I wanted to hug you. And I heard you say how lazy the fit was. Stephen Colbert was much than that. Even clever and funny before he succumbed to TDS. I always enjoy your shows. I mostly enjoy your guests. Thank you so much for keeping things real, presenting both sides. Sue, that was a very nice email. And Sue's from Wisconsin. Much appreciated. Yeah. Colbert, man. One of the things that they teach you in media training, like back when, you know, there would, if you, it was, you Back when you would go on cable, most people who would do that went through like a round of media training at some point, which just means you spend two hours with somebody whose job it is to

prep people for cable news interviews. Just so, you know, to do some basic things like keep your answers to about 20 seconds long, where do you look when the camera's on, what's the best stuff to wear, those sorts of things. And one of the things they tell you is really to avoid sarcasm because it's just what you think is obvious sarcasm is honestly not obvious to the person who's kind of listening to things in the background and isn't like focusing on every word intently like you are because you're saying them. So yeah, sometimes the sarcasm, you got to be a little bit careful with that. Thanks for the emails, too. It's an email from Hank who says, yeah, also agreed with the points about the plight of Christians in China. And Hank says,

She didn't ping like all tyrants, fears religion as a rival power center. Yes, Hank, totally, totally true. Bob says, this is about Iran, because there were a lot, I mean, just last weekend, there was a lot of talk about an imminent deal coming out. And I think that's the context in which these emails were coming in, just checking the dates. Yep. So Bob is saying there's not a single constituency that will do anything other than attack this deal, said there's virtually no one out there. that looks it in a way that analyzes where we are and what is the best option that we have. Every soul out there and looks at it from the narrow partisan point of view or how their point of view can be advanced by this deal. One might hope that Trump understands just what a mess he has created and how he needs to jam through the best deal he can negotiate and ignore the foregoing.

The deal looks like it fell apart as of right now. I'm still really hopeful that there's a good exit ramp in our near and immediate future. We will see, this is from Sam. who says a very interesting analysis of Congressman Massey's loss, Emily, but I think it's incomplete. And I don't think there's any kind of parallel between Massey's loss in Kentucky and Cassidy's loss in Louisiana. contrary to the neocom propaganda and falsehoods, Massey is in no way a rhino. Yes, I agree with that. Massey's America First, which is the very foundation of MAGA.

The continuing insane budget deficits incurred by Congress's drinking spending sprees as furthering the erosion and coming collapse of the dollar. Massey was trying to put the brakes on that. Cassidy, on the other hand, is a complete rhino in the mold of Thune and Graham as an absolute puppet of big farmer. Yeah, no, Sam, no disagreement there. I posted on X once that Massey was like MAGA or MAHA before MAHA and the torrent of anger that unleashed exposed this, I guess, strain in MAGA world who just because Massey was not always pro-Trump, doesn't believe he can be MAGA. And that really turned out to be true in practice, right? I still think theoretically, as somebody who first interviewed Massey very early in the Trump era, and I know people have known him longer than that, they'll tell you in some ways he presaged what was coming with MAGA. Because a lot of the key, I guess, campaign points that Trump, especially with Elon promoted, were real planks of the.

Massey agenda for a long time. So anyway, Maha in particular. He's so fascinating on Maha. And if you go back and look at things he said over the years, so fascinating. Sam goes on to say, apparently there's some reporting that Emerald Robinson raised a number of points that together wreak a fraud because Gowdine refused to debate policy issues. Very few people showed up for Gowarind's campaign events. Small dollar donations to Massey were three times as much as Gowrin, only about 20 sporters show up at Gowarin's victory party. And Massey's reported vote count in 47,000 was more than he received in 2024. The last point argues against the claim that Kentucky voters were tired of him.

You know, Sam, I'll say I haven't seen fraud evidence, credible fraud evidence. I saw Massey step in and say he doesn't think there was that. Yeah, my look at this doesn't go in that direction. So I'll say that. I just, you know, I think when you have a lot of money, you can, when a lot of money pours into a local race like that, you gin up turnout and that sort of thing in a powerful way. So it was nationalized and it doesn't necessarily surprise me that his vote count was more than what he received in 2024 in kind of a relative snooze. He had, you know, faced some primary challenges over the years. I went and read through those results.

But anyway, Sam, thanks for the email. Haven't seen good evidence of that on my end. And then, oh, this is Sue again. He says, this weekend, I realize that sometimes the order podcast is important. I listen to your podcast Friday, Wednesday, Monday, because in that order, they just roll through and don't need attention to my phone. If I'd listen to Monday's podcast first, my sarcasm razor would, radar would not have failed when listening to Wednesday's podcast.

Oh, that's about Colbert. I have to admit, I'm very embarrassed by my labs. The hug for common sense still says. Oh, don't worry about it at all, Sue. actually, this is an interesting point about the challenge of podcasting is that you have to approach everything as though you are talking to somebody who's just listening for the first time. And I have a great relationship with this audience, and I feel like we have a great relationship to a street. And so at the same time, I have to be cognizant that there are some people who are

tuning into the first time and for the first time and don't want to feel like they're a bunch of, you know, inside jokes. And I know that even our, our listening, sometimes, you know, I'm like a diehard fan of some podcasts, but I sometimes miss an episode just because it's schedule and all that kind of stuff. So you really have to, you really have to be conscious of that. And the other thing that's so tough, this is like a hard side of podcasting, is with the clip economy, you have to be really conscious of what's going to get clipped and make sure that what you are saying, this has a really dark side, by the way, because it's hard to just express yourself and make arguments without constantly, I worry about this more

than other people do, but without constantly qualifying X, Y, and Z in case people aren't going to watch the clip that you did before where you also talked about the same thing, or in case people are just going to clip 10 seconds and not hear the broader picture. I'm really, really, really in my head about that. And it's probably not helpful, to be honest, I could probably do less of it. So that's a little bit of like inside baseball, but you really do have to be conscious about it because it's it can, I mean, those, those clips can be so powerful when people take them out of con, you people take them out of context and they're generally opposed to the type of work that you're doing and really just want to land a blow. I'm just, I think it's just because I came up

in the kind of clip era. I'm just so conscious of that. And anyway, so Sue, this actually raises a really interesting point. Appreciate it. Um, Bob says, sorry to keep sending pessimistic stuff, but it was an Atlantic article about, from a very hawkish person, Tom Nichols, the headline is Trump's war is staggering to an incoherent defeat, and even the president's supporters are alarmed. I'll have to give that or read. Sort of make a habit of not reading Tom Nichols, but I'll check that one now, Bob. All right. Evan says, this is a long one. All right, let me try to scan it here. Oh, cool. Evan says fellow Wisconsinite here. I'm hoping you can hypothesize with me on something I've been dreaming about since 2011 when I became more politically involved.

Back then, I joined the Republican Party because of Dr. Ron Paul's platform of ideas. After I had become disenchanted with President Obama's first term, as an active member in Walkershire County's Republican Party, I was able to see firsthand about the American people having more options than just the two main political parties. goes on here. The money controls our politics in this country, and right now big money donors can hedge their investments by backing both candidates very evident in Obama versus Romney in the 2012 presidential election. That's a great point, Evan.

That is a great point. And it's also a little bit of inside baseball in Washington is that you realize so many of these people, and actually some of these companies will have a top executives who's giving this much money to Obama this much money. Then another guy gives this much money to Robbins. or their special interest groups do something similar. They're, yeah, they're taking bets. So Evan says, my question for you, in your opinion, how likely is it that Americans will

finally dump the Republicans and Democrats and start seeking candidates outside of the major parties? What would be the first step in making a change like this? Independent media is great, but legacy media usually dictates the narratives. How can we get the mass media to break away from the two-party stranglehold and start covering other parties as well? What's your opinion of this idea? And do you think it is possible?

Thank you so much, Evan. And that's a very, very interesting question. And, you know, I'm always pessimistic about the possibility of any third or even fourth party emerging. I'd love to reform our money and politics system. We were talking a bit about this in our Citizens United discussion last week. And, you know, I'm so pessimistic about that just because I felt like conditions have been ripe for it. and it hasn't taken off, but the new media atmosphere and the nicheification of everyone, it might inevitably be leading to the impossibility of maintaining the two-party system

because people are fitting less and less into boxes. AOC has this famous quote where I think she said, you know, in Europe, Nancy Pelosi and I wouldn't even be in the same party. And she's totally right about that. And the same thing is true of like Bill Cassidy. and Thomas Massey, right? They would not be in the same party. And I think the two-party system has some advantages over the European system, but I also think strong third parties in a two-party system can provide necessary competition that makes parties better. There's an argument that's

what was happening in the lead-up to the Civil War, different parts in American history. Yeah, I mean, I was reading about like Robert Taft and Wendell Wilkie and that area of politics this week. And it's actually a fairly recent era of politics and just the talk of how seriously there was consideration of creating new third parties and stuff then when they were actually kind of close to the last time that it happened. I'm closer, I should say, there was a level of possibility that I think feels different from our moment right now. But in this media climate, who knows? You know, I don't want to say one way or the other. I think the competition would be really, really good. I think that if, I actually maintained this, that if Robert F. Kennedy,

Jr. had continued, he was one of the only people I thought who would have been able to have a successful third-party run because of his name recognition, and because that name recognition comes with it for so many Americans, a warmth and nostalgia, and especially older Americans, and whether or not you agree that it should, it does. And I think that would have really given him power if he had continued with a third party run all the way up to Election Day. I really think that he could have not necessarily been president,

but have been like maybe a Ross Perrault type figure. And that could have, you know, started in motion a process of building a third party. But, you know, it didn't happen, obviously that way. We'll see, but I think it has to be someone like that who has this enormous cultural power. And he also had a very particular brand of political appeal at a very particular time. And so that to me felt right for, or felt ripe, I should say, that moment felt very ripe for a successful third party to rise up. But it didn't work out that way.

I would have been really curious to see that push, just hypothetically. I would have been curious to see that push. to its logical endpoint. But I don't know. This is a very interesting question, Evan. Mike says, thank you for speaking out. You are a bridge for all of us to see anything at different angles or perspective. Oh, this is nice. You reach out and explain so us old folk can open our eyes and realize there are other sources of info, then have to take all of that info and sort through it, find truth, homework. Media has led us so much that we have to put our lives on cruise control. and I believe history repeats itself.

You have a voice that is knowledgeable, understanding, and true. Thank you. PSU talk fast, or I'm too slow. Not men is critical. No, I get emails. Thank you so much for the nice note, Mike, who also says, you seem to see things at many different angles.

That is what everyone should do. That's very kind, Mike. I appreciate it. And again, that, for me, there's, it's like paranoia almost to a fault of trying to really take in, all of the different sources and all of the different possible angles. Actually, this is one thing that LLMs can be good for. You can ask chat GPT or whatever to generate links to a bunch of different angles.

And that's never complete. And I always supplement. It's too much work. But again, you see the paranoia here. I always supplement AI's responses with Google searches. And it's amazing how much one or the other misses. this. But right now, I still think you have to do both as a journalist, at least, so that you're not missing things. But yeah, that's, it's, I think it's more interesting anyway, but appreciate that.

I do get emails about talking too fast. So I try to be conscious about that. Mike, I think it's me, not you. So I do try to be conscious about that. But, you know, sometimes you have a little bit of lucy gum or you're over-caffeinated and you talk fast. And when I say you, I mean me. All right. This is from Lewis, who says, Hi, Emily. I heard Westmore's thoughts about, quote, what if your son told you who was trans? And it got me thinking about how we could talk about trans rights differently. His answer definitely should have included consulting with professional help, like a psychologist, and making sure that person isn't pushing toward their own agenda.

More broadly, I think we can think differently about trans rights topics. The bathroom locker room issue seems especially badly framed. Would it be appropriate to, instead of saying biological females or males only, say no exposed penises or no exposed vulvas. Even in a locker room full of straight guys, one runs the risk of being sexually harassed, and that behavior should be met with consequences, no matter the gender or sexual orientation. Regarding sports, what if our official policies were in line with international guidelines? As an American, I want to see representatives of my country excel in the world stage, and that's harder to do when athletes face inconsistent participation criteria.

Finally, what about having good manners? Intentionally deadnaming someone or deliberately using the wrong pronouns is just plain rude. I'm an artist in the San Francisco Bay area, and I have many trans people in my life who feel like they are under attack, a little more compassion would go a long way toward negotiating these issues with more civility and clarity. Appreciate your voice, and I think you do a good job modeling a respectable conservative. Thank you, Lewis. Thank you for the email, Lewis. Some interesting stuff here. Let me think. I don't, from first glance here, I don't think it's helpful to talk more about penises and vulvas, to be honest. And I don't know if you meant this sort of politically, like in terms of what's persuasive or morally in terms of what's a good

policy. But basically, so if I'm reading this correctly, maybe just say no more nude locker rooms, that sort of thing, because there's sexual harassment that comes even in male locker rooms. I don't spend a lot of time in locker rooms these days. So I don't have a, I don't have a lot of personal experience on that front. I believe it. And I think it's probably another interesting sign of social trust decaying that we just have. have less social cohesion, less social trust. And so that some of these situations that feel like necessary moments of vulnerability in society, people have less trust for each other. I think a lot of that comes from living in a more interconnected, globalized world.

It's done the opposite. It hasn't brought us coaster together. It's brought us further apart because it exacerbates differences and forces us to, well, yeah, it forces the exacerbation of those differences. And so I don't know that that's the right approach. I see what you're saying. I think politically, the less people talk about the kind of vulgar gross aspects of locker rooms and bathrooms. I think that's why trans sports was like really the tip of the spear, like trans athletes and sports, high school sports particularly. The physical representation of that with the Leah Thomas story, That's why that was especially persuasive. Because honestly, as somebody who covered this a while before it really became a big, before even the Republican Party cared about it as much as they should have.

I mean, we all remember what happened with Mike Pence and North Carolina. It was hard to get people to even think about the bathroom and locker room stuff because it's kind of gross and vulgar and people don't want to dwell on it too much. So I also think there's a political component that's hard to be persuasive when you're talking. talking about that aspect. You know, with the international guidelines, I'm not super sure totally what Lewis means by this. I know that there are like the Olympic Committee and the like. I know that there might be some stuff that they're out of step with us on. And that may create challenges for American athletes.

That sounds like a nuanced debate for an expert on the topic. I should ask Jen say of XXXY, athletic. She's great. maybe we should get her back on. I love Jen. And good manners on intentional dead naming or deliberately using the wrong pronouns. Yeah, I mean, I think it's, you see people who go out of their way to be hurtful. And my position on people who are identifying as trans is that they're almost categorically suffering.

suffering from some kind of mental illness like many people are. Many people are. I'm not saying it's just the trans community. I'm saying that is generally a problem for people who are identifying as transgender. It's gender dysphoria in many cases. And that's a close topic for me. I know a lot about that. And I don't think it's, you know, it's even constructive to go out of your way to do it. Now, on the other hand, as Roger would say, live not by lies. I think that's what a Siltz-Netson quote that Rod made the title of his book. So I'm also not going to go out of my way to lie to anyone. So I think you see people who lean so hard into using it also by the way, when people have legally changed their names, they legally changed their names, right?

Like that's their legal name. So if the name has been changed legally, yeah. That's a different, that's a different question. But yeah, I think there are some people who lean really hard into intentionally agitating people who I see as, you know, suffering from some really deep problems. And I don't think that's better for anybody to agitate. But also at the same time, you have to, you know, be true to your values and what you believe. And it's not easy to do those two things at the same time, but it's definitely worth the challenge. It's one of those things that is absolutely worth the effort because we want a fairer or more just place, especially for young women who have been disenfranchised by a lot of these policies and by, I think, a sort of

entitlement that was born of this ideology. And I don't think that was fair and just. And so, yeah, You have to be thoughtful and kind and always come from a place of love for your fellow man or woman. And some of the intentional baiting I do find to be rather unhelpful and just wrong, too. Chelsea says, what is one of your earliest memories of realizing you were a young conservative? I'll share mine. First, it was 2005. I was in fifth grade in our textbook we were told America used to be described as a melting pot, but now we need to see it as a beautiful mixed salad that does.

doesn't get blended together. What? A textbook said that? Chelsea says even at 11, I realized assimilation was a net positive for a country, not negative, and this Massachusetts public school system was gaslighting me. Well, Massachusetts, that makes more sense, but that's still crazy. Wow. Wow. Chelsea says, at 18, I took an online quiz for the 2012 election, and my test results came back as big R, Republican. As you can imagine, it was a shock coming out to one of my, as one to my New England friends, lost a few, gained better ones. I believe that. I don't think I ever, like, realized that was a young conservative.

Maybe. I don't know. I really liked, and I've told this to Greg Gutfeld before. You probably doesn't remember. I did his show a few times when it first started, but I loved Red Eye. And I would DVR episodes of Red Eye because I was super into comedy when I was teenager. And I was kind of interested in history and because of that, politics. and Red Eye was just, you go back and watch those episodes that were literally airing at three in the morning. They were subversive on another level. I mean, I still don't know how that show happened. I genuinely don't know how that show happened.

But I basically never missed an episode from like, what, 2007, probably until 2011 around that time period. And I think the show. was so, I mean, it was people from the left, people, a lot of libertarian voices, and honestly, just like way more interesting conversations when you're coming at the Daily News from a comedic vantage point and not a self-serious vantage point, which they skewered all the time. They would have the Fox News anchors come and read like rap lyrics, like the Patty Ann Brown rap lyric videos. Go check those out. You will not be able to believe that they were airing at 3 in the morning on Fox News in 2008. It was just the craziest thing that's ever happened.

And some really great comedians. People who went on to be really great comedians who were already great comedians at the time would do the show. And for me, honestly, watching Red Eye exposed me to, I don't know if I've talked about this a lot before, but it exposed me to the like cacophony of debate and of, I think, refusing to conform to the left's conformities, if that makes sense. The left's conformity, probably a better way to put that to make sense, or to make that make sense. Basically, it was a time when the monocultural, pop cultural establishment

had really coalesced around Obama and around climate change. And you sensed that the sort of corporate press was, it was some ways that it's zenith, but also that they were about to lose power. It was kind of like they were clinging to this power as hard and fast as they could in the Obama era. And to have a, I think a show that was leaning libertarian, and I'm not really a libertarian.

I am on some particular policy issues. But to have a show that was leaning that way, but also bringing in all of these different voices who sat at the same desk and just laughed at each other and with each other and yelled at each other. but ultimately got along. I think they were like drunk most of the time. It for me was that for me was a kind of exposure to free-thinking conservatism

that was, it sort of modeled a very helpful path because they just weren't doing, you know, the usual schick that you saw on cable news. It was something that was like, much more subversive, much edgier, and I think just much more helpful because it was so cacophonous. And that's a good thing in politics and culture. So, yeah, I wasn't like a little Alex P. Keaton, to be honest, you know, I had all kinds of different interests and phases. I was really sensitive about sweatshop labor. And for a long time, you just was very, very, very conscious of clothes I wore and stuff I bought. And I still try to be pretty conscious about

that stuff. And now I'm more like that with food too. But that's just one example. I'm trying to think of other things. But yeah, that was, I did mention that to Greg and one of his guys has been with him since those days. And that was a really cool experience for me to be able to tell them that. So let's see. This is, oh boy, this is a long one. This is, this is a long one. This is from Z. Oh, this is from Chris. Chris Z. Um, oh, this is nice. Says, um, I've not written too a while, but I've noted how at the end of your podcast, you always mention your email address that you really enjoy reading what listeners have to say. You mentioned me once a while ago. You don't really have to do that. I don't live for

that, but I wanted to say that I really do enjoy listening to your podcast, which I dial up on YouTube on Tuesday and Thursday mornings while I am fixing my wife's coffee and breakfast. I love that. All right, let's see. Oh, yeah. Chris says he listens to Mark Halperin a lot. Yeah, you know, Mark is really, really well-sourced. Yeah, he's really, really well-sourced. And I think he mentioned listening to, it looks like Chris is mentioning listening to Buck and Clay on Mark Halpern recently. Chris says, you had a good show with Maureen Call. I've slowly warmed to the Hollywood Gossip Call and stuff, although it was slow-going it for. but she is interesting in the episodes where she's guided through her content led by either you or Megan are interesting. I listen to other podcasts where there seems to be a lot going on in England with Camilla and her children.

Man, Maureen. Oh, yeah, and then says, I think this is Rob Schueter. It says he likes Rob Schueter. Maybe they'll get along to talking about that. It looks like Chris also lives in the D.C. Burbs and some D.C. stuff. let's see Hunter Biden. Yeah, man, there was a lot going on on the show this week, Wednesday. A comment that Mark Halpern has two new permanent partners made a few shows back leads me to a thought about ideas for shows.

I know he's very sensitive about smack in the chat, and I've offered a few comments, which after the show, someone does go through them and I hear back with a thumbs up icon. But they were reviewing the daily press briefing assignments, and he was reading down the list of who was being assigned to the White House press team for a day. and the subject was that a rep from Newtang Dynasty Media was being included in the daily press briefing, and he and Lara Conner, and the other guy whose name escapes me, Walling, oh, so Kevin Walling, were conversing on whether NTD was the sympathetic media

out of the Chinese Communist Party, and I was like, wow, every once in a while, someone like that makes an off-hand comment that savagely betrays their knowledge or lack of it about a certain subject. Okay, and then this goes on to say that I think this is about NTD and their affiliation with the Epic Times

and Falun Gong. Yeah, this is a real can of worms that's opened up here. It's quite, it's quite interesting. The Epic Times is pretty open about its connection with Falun Gong. And I'm not a real, like, dedicated reader or listener, but I know a lot of people are. And I would say if you want the kind of story on that, just Google it and you'll probably be able to find out. But this is a thing in the briefing room that doesn't get talked about enough. And people do need to. start talking about it because I think on the one hand it makes America great but there are some actual foreign outlets that I mean they have full access

to the press briefings which again is great and I'm sure the White House is very very sensitive to potential surveillance and them being used as intel assets I'm sure of that I'm sure of that but it's annoying

when you're in there which I haven't gone back for a while because this has just been so busy. But when you're in there, they sometimes get a lot of questions. And you're like, well, I'm a representative of the American people. And I have questions. And I feel like there could be a better process for who gets questions asked. And I don't know what it is. But it is kind of persistently frustrating sometimes because another dirty little secret is that if you're in there and you're in a scrum, meaning the president is kind of taking questions on the fly before getting on the helicopter or something like that. It's physical. People have like physical strategies to get their questions answered. And some of that

is like there's not always a lot of grace. And I feel like some of the foreign correspondents are very, very aggressive. And it feels a little bit wrong sometimes that American outlets have to kind of fight to get their questions asked. Hopefully not physically, but sometimes there's a little bit of a struggle. So touch on to the interesting there. And again, if people are curious about that stuff, go ahead and look it up. Probably find stuff on the internet and can make a decision for yourself. This is from Richard, who says, I'm not blowing smoke.

I'm consistently impressed at your ability to speak with insight on such a variety of political, social, and pop cultural issues. Any tips on how you schedule and coordinate your research? what's the method to your madness? Can you speak to your actual process? Also, just a fan request. Can you occasionally suggest any books that you find compelling or beneficial to you as a journalist or a writer? Richard, that is a very nice email. Thank you. Sometimes embarrassing to read the nice emails, but I do appreciate it. And I want you to know that I'm grateful for it. But honestly, it's what I said earlier in this episode, which is I just live and breathe it. And it's probably not healthy, but just constantly I'm consuming everything because I love media. It's kind of my hobby. And history is a hobby. And so I'm just sort of constantly, even when, you know, it's 9 p.m., you know, I'm often thinking about or watching or reading something that is tangentially at least related to work sometimes directly.

So that's my advice is just to live and breathe it. You know, there are people. I'm also a little bit competitive. So I try to come to these things with, you know, to be. be well-rounded on any topic that we're discussing as best as I possibly can. And I don't want to be in a position where I'm trying to make an argument and somebody else has a lot deeper knowledge on a subject. And so I try to really be well-rounded ahead of time, like preemptive to come into these conversations. And so it's just kind of, for me, it's like a lot of reading, different news outlets,

random news outlets. I always say my hack is to read the populist left, the populist right, and then stuff that's allegedly right down the middle that pretends to be right down the middle, but is generally bringing new information on the table. You probably have to take it with a massive grain of salt if it's like the Associated Press or the wires, New York Times, or something like that. But yeah, I think if you're reading Jacobin from the populist left or Lever or American prospect and then reading the Federalist or American conservative stuff on the populist right

and comparing it, that's a really good way to get the most interesting and least fettered perspectives. And then you can kind of compare it with the quote unquote down the middle stuff. So that's my hack. Books that are helpful, I feel like I actually mentioned this book because Hunter Biden mentioned it to Candace Owens. Devil's Chess Board. I can't recommend that book enough.

It's a, I alluded to this on the show. My perspective on it is that it downplays the very real threat that came from internationalism and the Leninist internationalist movement in the early 20th century and then into the Cold War period. And you can see where it gives short shrift to that in many of the stories. But David Talbot is a wonderful writer and reporter. And the book is just a fantastic tour. of Cold War history. So I highly recommend that. You know, you can't take it all as gospel. But again, you can do your own reading and try to get to the bottom of why we were so paranoid

about Iran, for example, in the early 1950s, even like Indonesia or Guatemala, why we, and how we went into those conflicts. And for me, having that, that basis. There are other books like The Brothers is a good book of Cold War history. Howard Hunt's memoir is a really good book on Cold War history. Also covers Guatemala, Bay of Pigs, Watergate, of course. But it gives a little bit of the other side. Stan Evans did, I think it's called blacklisted by history. There's a kind of arch-conservative perspective on some of the same time period that fills in some gaps, raises some questions from Talbot's reporting. They would certainly disagree, but those are two helpful things to read on Cold War foreign policy and how it affected

domestic politics a bit too. I'm trying to think of other ones that are helpful. I'm going to look at my bookshelf behind me. There's too much. Primal Screams by Mary Eberset. That's a really good one. Coming Apart by Charles Murray. Those are some of like the essential books that I think explains so much. Alienated America by Tim Carney. Those are some essential reads from a conservative perspective about the culture and the politics that we find ourselves in, the moment that we find ourselves in right now. And I think we have one more question here. Let me get to it. All right. Rachel says, what is the Sun Piker being investigated for? Can you give us the

cliff notes? I don't know if, let me find out exactly, I want to read an article about exactly what is going on with this. If you're breaking points, listener, viewer, you know I also almost went on this Cuba trip, and that's what the investigation reportedly stems from. So let me, I want to read exactly what the story is here. Republican lawmakers are cheering on the Treasury Department's investigation

into whether Marxist political influencer, Hassan Piker, broke any laws on his recent trip to Cuba, while a Jewish advocacy group asked the Justice Department to probe the Twitch streamer for allegedly serving as an unregistered agent for the communist nation, according to Fox News. Piker faces a federal administrative subpoena from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, a probe that Piker says stems from a broader investigation into American-born Shanghai-based tech tycoon Neville, Roy at Singham, and the pro-communist nonprofit network, he bankrolls.

Over the weekend, Fox News Digital reported that the Treasury Department subpoenaed Piker and Code Pink founder co-founder, Susan Medea Benjamin, you may know Medea Benjamin, as part of a wider investigation into whether U.S. organizations and leaders violated U.S. laws and sanctions in supporting Cuba's communist regime. Code Pink, an organization co-founded by Singham's wife and funded by Singham himself, co-sponsored her trip to Cuba for far-left influencers in March. And Minnesota Democratic rep, Ilhan Omar's daughter, Isra Hersey, also went on the trip, though officials from Omar's office told Fox News Digital that her daughter paid for the trip herself and didn't stay at a five-star hotel with other political activists. Okay. So that's sort of the basics of it. It is related to

this Cuba trip. And yeah, I was thinking about going on this Cuba trip because I really, really did want to see Cuba. I wanted to report from Cuba. There were questions in my mind about whether I would be able to report from Cuba, to be honest. And so it all just, you know, didn't do it for a variety. of reasons. And I doubt that there was anything legitimately wrong with the trip. My understanding is that there were visas and there were visas that were visas that were obtained totally properly inside the law. I do think, I am curious about the broader Neville Roy Shingham investigation. Obviously, he's in China. It's always tough to separate especially powerful

Chinese businessman from the government and these Farah questions for Code Pink, that investigation could have some legs just because of that connection. I don't know that they're going to find anything that draws that connection into the Cuba trip. Like if people were acting as unregistered foreign agents in their capacity as influencers, it could raise an interesting question for influencers about foreign influence and lobbying and how influencers are expected to handle that. Does it make you a lobbyist or an agent in the kind of typical beltway sense, DC sense of what that looks like?

So maybe there are some interesting questions to be raised, but, you know, it just, you don't want to prejudge some of these situations. I doubt that there's connective tissue between the foreign agent question and, like, Piker in particular, because Code Pink sponsored the trip. So we'll see. Ryan Grimm did a segment on breaking points about this earlier in the week. Again, though, I want to say, I think the Neville-Roy-Singham question is a pretty, that they're, I see, at least from an outsider perspective, what they're investigating,

and there may be a there. people can read about Neville Roisingham just openly what that or like Asr and Omane did the report for Fox News about that. You could go look at Oster's reporting and Google what he's up to. He does bankroll a lot of like very pro-communist causes. And maybe there's a fair question there. So we will see that is the detail of what's happening. And this is a very interesting case to follow. So thank you very much for all these emails.

Thank you for listening. I hope you all have a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful weekend. Appreciate it so much. It's always a highlight of my week to do happy hour and talk back and fork with all of you. I keep saying we have fun stuff coming, great stuff coming as we approach our one-year anniversary of Afterparties. So stay tuned.

Subscribe if you haven't on YouTube yet. It's so helpful. And I just thank you. I hope you all have a good weekend. God bless.