After Party with Emily Jashinsky - Media Ignores “Arctic Frost” Scandal, Influencers and Hollywood Shift Right, with Brittany Xavier and Mark Hemingway

Episode Date: November 4, 2025

Emily Jashinsky opens the show with a look at House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ struggle to respond to the rise of Zohran Mamdani.  Then Emily is joined by Mark Hemingway, Senior Writer at RealClearInvestigations, to discuss the media’s black out of the “Arctic Frost” scandal, calls for the impeachment of Federal Judge James Boasberg, and for the pardons of Trump electors, PLUS Ex-CIA chief John Brennan’s meltdown when he was confronted about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Then Emily is joined by digital creator Brittany Xavier.  The two discuss the changing influencer landscape, the MAHA movement, Brittany’s surprising conversation with Dr. Fauci that left her feeling misled, the importance of authenticity on social media, the role of influencers in politics, Sami Sheen’s powerful message to young girls, and more.  Emily wraps up the show with a look at how Hollywood has shifted to the right after seeing how it’s worked for Big Tech.  Emily uses the example of Jennifer Lawrence and Nicki Minaj, plus some interesting comments from Cheryl Hines on Tucker Carlson’s show.   Vandy Crisps: Get 25% off your first order | Use code AFTERPARTY at https://vandycrisps.com/AFTERPARTY Aware House: Visit https://awarehouseshop.com/discount/PARTY & use code PARTY for 15% off your first order. Masa Chips: Go to https://MASAChips.com/AFTERPARTY and use code AFTERPARTY for 25% off your first order.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Happy Monday, but more importantly, happy after party, everyone. Welcome to the show. We have two great guests tonight. We're going to start with Mark Hemingway and end with Brittany, Xavier. And along the way, cover all kinds of big, big, big topics. We're going to start with Arctic Frost developments while we have Mark with us. And, I mean, the impeachment of Judge Bowsberg potentially on the table, pardons potentially on the table.

There's so much to get to. and actually some people who maybe disagree with Mark and me on the Arctic Frost historic revelations that the media is completely ignoring. So just put a pin in that. We're about to get to it. Brittany is such an interesting person. We have stuff to talk about in the Maha universe. And I say stuff because it's all kinds of things. Influencer culture. We're on the cusp of election day tomorrow, where influencers are completely up in the air about Mom Doni versus Cuomo. So we're going to dive into all of that and kind of what it tells us about the fractured media ecosystem, period. And I'm going to finish with some reaction to new comments from both Cheryl Hines and Jennifer Lawrence.

Again, why not, as I always say? Okay, before we get into all of that, though, and believe me, I'm excited. I have to start with friend of the show, Hakeem Jefferies. I believe we have two recent clips of speaker, well, I should say minority leader, Jeffries, aspiring speaker Jeffries. If all goes right in the midterms, he will be Speaker of the House in all likelihood for them. So let's go ahead and see how Hakeem Jeffries is reacting to the possibility of the mayor of New York City being a 30-something Democratic socialist with all of the momentum in the party on his side.

rolled the first clip. For mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, do you see Mamdani is the future of the Democratic Party? No, I think the future of the Democratic Party is going to fall as far as we're concerned relative to the House Democratic caucus and members who are doing a great work all across the country as it relates to our need to both take back control of the House. But in doing so, make sure that we're communicating to the American people like we understand. You deserve better. I don't even know what he said. He sounds like Miss Carolina, Miss South Carolina, in that famous viral video where she's like,

in regards to the, with respect, that's what that was from, you know, aspirational speaker of the House, Hakeem Jeffries, House Minority Leader, Democratic House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries. Let's see if he recovered from that at all, if he's becoming more and more eloquent, clip two. You know, it's Hollywood.

Donald Trump should put on a costume and pretend to act like a president, at least on this day. Oh, man. That was Boris Sanchez from CNN. And on his face, you can see the look of complete and total shame for having that disgrace in the airwaves on his show, on his platform. Donald Trump should put on a Halloween costume and act like a president. This is how the Democratic establishment is reacting in this moment when their unfavorables among Democrats are as high as they've been in recent history. Remember, we always talk about how they're at Tea Party levels. This is the speaker.

This is the speaker. I'm sorry, not the speaker. This is the House Minority Leader, the aspiring speaker. That's him. That's him. And to his point in the first conversation with Jake Tapper, if he wants the Democratic Party's future to look like the House Democratic Party. caucus. Well, one of their top small dollar fundraisers is, of course, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, maybe the top small-dollar fundraiser in the House among rank-of-file Democrats. So if that's true,

then he shouldn't be saying no to Zoramam Dani representing the future of the party. How do you not have an answer prepared for that, which actually sounds plausible in any way whatsoever? If, again, you have the Ascendant squad, big fundraisers, Bernie Sanders, he's not even Democrat. He's an independent who runs as a Democrat in presidential elections. He's one of the top small dollar fundraiser, small dollar fundraisers in Congress. And this is how the House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, who is deftly navigating the shutdown, is handling all this. Yeah, as a reminder of the government, the government is still shut down. Big elections tomorrow.

Government's still shut down. We have a lot to get to when it comes to surveillance revelations, rocking the conservative movement, truly rocking the conservative movement. So I'll be right back in a second with Mark Hemingway. Before we get to that, though, of course, you know I love Vandy Chips. Did you know, I know, chips and fries were cooked in tallow until the 1990s when corporations swapped out that beautiful, rich, delicious tallow for cheap seed oils. disgusting. Those oils are not 20% of our daily calories and studies linked them to inflammation

and metabolic issues. We're going to talk a little bit about this later in the show. That is not okay. Vandy Crisps is fighting back with a chip made from three ingredients, air lead, airily potatoes, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow. No seed oils, none. And that tallow packs nutrients for your skin, brain, and hormones and makes these chips taste incredible. They really, really do I love them so much. Unlike regular chips, Vandy leaves you satisfied, energized with no blow or crash. They're 100% American-made. No compromises. The best chip. I have ever tasted, and I have tasted a lot of chips. The towel keeps you from mindless binging, and my go-to is the barbecue. They're pure perfection. So if you're ready to give Vandy a try, go to vandycrisps.com

slash after-party and use code after-party for 25% off your first order. That's Vandycrisps.com slash after-party and code after-party for 25% off your first order. Can't recommend them enough. All right, let's now bring in Mark Hemingway, senior writer at Real Clear Investigations, my former colleague at The Federalist. Mark, thanks for being here. How about you. So as of October 30th, NewsBusters had calculated, quote, there was nothing about any of this referring to the Arctic Frost revelations of last week on the national network newscasts, nothing on ABC, CVS, NBC. We checked and found nothing on Univision or Telemundo either. There was no Arctic frost reporting on Friday's morning shows on

ABC, CBS, and NBC. A quick review of last week's evening news finds that the consensus top story was the construction of the White House ballroom. Today's top news stories were a combination of the weather event hitting the East Coast, Prince Andrew getting stripped of his royal status, just essential information for every American to hear, and SNAP benefits potentially expiring due to the ongoing government shutdown. Now, Mark, it's a little early to have already calculated everything from tonight's evening newscasts. But I have done just scouring of the media today. And I know that you have too, Mark, because you're always monitoring this. It's basically cricket. I mean, some will cover the reaction. Some of these major legacy outlets will cover the reaction. But I looked at those

documents, scanned all of them, as again, I know you did last week. And just looking at the primary source came away with the conclusion it was utterly historic. And the gap between the substance here and the coverage is stunning. But Mark, no offense, you've been around longer than I have. Are you as surprised as I am? I know I probably shouldn't be, but this seems crazy to me. I mean, this is genuinely shocking. I mean, having, you know, witnessed what happened with Russia Gate and how particularly expansive that was and predicated on absolutely. nothing. This is even more expansive in terms of it being like an entire, you know, government-wide investigation with, you know, all the force and bearing of, you know, the Justice Department

and all its resources and being explicitly partisan. I mean, it's just absolutely insane. I mean, you're spying on what was, eight to ten Republican senators or something like that. I forget the exact number, but it was a significant number. You know, you're, you, you, you, you, um, it, about every concerned organization you could think of, including the Republican National Committee, turning point USA, you know, on and on and on, you know, they were, they were, you know, spying these people. And it wasn't just that they were, you know, going after them for criminal issues when they were going after donor data. They were coming after, you know, their interactions with the press. I mean, this is, this is really, really crazy stuff. And, you

you know, at the end of the day, you're like, what is the predicate for this, right? You know, there's got to be some sort of underlying crime behind this, and there just is nothing there. I mean, there's this thing about, you know, the quote-unquote fake electors, which aren't so fake. It's a complicated legal issue that is in no way, shape, or form a justifiable basis for any of this. And, you know, and again, you still don't get from at that point to why you're going after, you know, who the donors are for conservative organizations, or in some cases,

they were spying on, Jack Smith was spying on conservative organizations that did not exist on January 6th, 2021. Like, these things were created afterwards. So, like, the justification for, like, you know, rooting through these people's lives is just there's nothing there's nothing there. And that would be America First Legal is one of the examples that Stephen Miller's group did not exist at the time of the alleged crime,

the alleged conspiracy. And Mark, that's sort of what I wanted to ask you about next. Kleda Mitchell had a very provocative piece in The Federalist, where she argued today the criminal charges brought against Trump and his electors and others in five states were the focus and the pretext for the vast Biden administration conspiracy to destroy Trump and anyone close to him. Clita is, of course, in the documents. As someone who has surveilled, it is time to end the lawfare against them. Every person charged in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin must be permanently freed from their criminal charges nightmare. What we learned last week is that Arctic Frost was built around the Trump electors,

supposedly the gravamen of the state criminal charges. But these are not independent proceedings. Absent Arctic Frost, there would likely have been no state proceedings. Arctic Frost was initiated to criminalize the Trump 2020 presidential electors' actions in signing elector certificates for President Trump. I just want to stop there because that's about the best description. And Kleda is obviously ideologically biased in one direction. There's no if-ins or buts about that.

she's open about it. But that's just about the best description I've heard of the entire Jack Smith predicate. And Andy McCarthy disagrees. He's referred to the faux Arctic Frost outrage because he says there's always been some evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the elector case. There's always been some type of evidence. He said the evidence wasn't conclusive and he never supported the opening of the case for various reasons. But Mark, this to me, I went back and was going through the memos that were written at the time today by John Eastman, Chesaboro, and others going through the communications. People genuinely, you and I disagreed with them, if I'm remembering correctly, they genuinely believed they had substantive legal challenges in every single one of those states. And they believed that they were acting, and they reiterated this over and over again in their communications, that they were acting as within the confines of the Constitution.

and that was the point of this entire quote-unquote conspiracy was to devise a constitutional mechanism to challenge the election. It was overtly not criminal. Yeah. So this issue of alternate electors is a sort of complicated legal thing. But the reality is, you know, what happens when you have a situation where you have an election that's disputed or could possibly be overturned? Well, if you don't have a slate of electors that are ready to go or have voted in this ultimate situation, you know, Congress doesn't have any elector votes to count, right? So this was, you know, always, you know, the idea of an alternate elector system, you know,

is not without precedent. It came up in 1960 in Hawaii in the famously close election between John F. Kennedy and Richard, you know, M. Nixon, which a lot of its stories think that Nixon might have actually won. I like that you got the M in there, Mark, just to be respectful. Not Nixon, not Richard M. Nixon, motherfiel. I hope I'm correct about that. Millhouse, yes, or a motherfucker. Richard, motherfucker Nixon.

But the point is, is like, this has come up before. And in fact, if I'm recalling correct, I think it was the 1876 election where they had alternate electors in South Carolina in Vermont. And in that case,

there really was, I think, maybe some bad faith involved in like what was going on, you know, in a close election. But even in that case, there were no criminal charges that were brought

against the alternate electors. And this was not, you know, considered like, you know, this, this, you know, totally unacceptable thing. And the idea that this would suddenly be criminalized in the wake of, again, an election that was decided by less than 40,000 votes across three states is really, really controversial at a minimum, you know, if not completely outrageous. And in some of these cases, I would like to point out that, like, there are very legitimate challenges here. Like, if you strictly applied the law as it was written in Georgia, you know,

there were more than 10,000, there was more than the margin of Biden one of the 10,000 or 10,000 or so votes that he won Georgia by where you had a situation where you have people that were voting in the Georgia election in, in precincts that they weren't registered in, which if you strictly applied Georgia law, that made those votes invalid. Now, the wisdom of disenfranchising 10,000 people and swinging a state in the presidential election is something I might question. but the reality is if you legitimately apply the law, there's a very good case that Biden did not win Georgia. So, like, this was not some, like, crazy thing

that people were, like, coming up with out of nowhere. This was, you know, what they were working through, like, what would be the advisable constitutional process for us if, in fact, it turns out some of these challenges are legitimate. And to criminalize that is just absolutely insane. But, like, the thing here is, you know, if you look at the breadth of this investigation, The alternate electorate thing, it's not that I think they regarded that as a particularly serious thing.

They were looking for something, anything, to go on a fishing expedition that encompassed the entire conservative movement. You know, I mean, you know, how does the Justice Department go after the Republican National Committee? I mean, this is, you know, really, really loaded. And it is, you know, beyond, you know, anything anyone ever thought about in terms of Watergate or any of these other, you know, previous scandals. I cannot think of a scandal emanating from from inside the federal government in American history that possibly eclipses this. It's when you get right down to it. Well, yeah, and a couple of things based on what you just said. You obviously have the great fortune of being married to a woman who became obsessed with us for a short but probably

what felt like long period of time in your household. Rigged, go buy your copy, folks. Rigged. It's all out there and honestly nobody has really refuted the proof of that book of funny business, to say the very least. A lot of it was pushed through by Democratic lawyers, Mark Elias and others. And I think Mark genuinely, people in the media don't even know the full story of the 2020 election and all of the rigging that went on. And I just first will say, I thought some of the post-election stuff, a lot of the post-election stuff, I thought was grifty. I thought it was predatory and extremely dangerous. That said, what I think you just, the point you just made is the disparity between the predicate for a sweeping special counsel investigation that brought in

virtually the entire conservative movement apparatus under secret surveillance for a long time. And this flimsy, if not thin, to put it charitably, predicate for that election. And then the gap between the seriousness of that and the lack of media coverage is astounding. I mean, this was, maybe you could speak, Mark, just to the breadth of what Arctic Frost was as the pictures becoming clearer. Well, you know, I mean, you're at the Justice Department and, you know, think about this, someone comes up to you and says, you know, I need to start getting warrants to spy on, you know, eight Republican senators. I mean, at what point do you not see that and be like, whoa, you know, you better have like,

you know, these people on tape, you know, murdering people. Which AT&T said, no, AT&T's attorneys, according to the Senate. Senators said, no, Verizon's attorneys allowed it to happen. And then Judge Bozberg, sorry to interrupt Mark, but Judge Boseberg allowed them to to, so he granted the subpoena arrests, and then he ordered those telecon companies to conceal the subpoenas from the targeted senators, which is why there is now a charge to impeach Bosberg. So in all of this, to your point, like nobody at the Justice Department, because it was Bosberg, who is like, this obviously, like, has become such a partisan figure, no surprise ever since.

But that's what was happening behind the scenes. Not only were the subpoenas ridiculous, but then they were ordered to conceal them. Right. Well, it's worse than that because there's like a specific law. I mean, the idea here is there should be safeguards in place to keep from weaponizing the Justice Department to do things like go unpartisan witch hunts, which this clearly was. So there was some sort of law, I think, that required notification of the senators that, you know, there was some subpoena out for them. And Bozberg ordered a gag order on that subpoena or that delayed a year or two, whatever so that the investigation could be done. And, you know, the Republican senators are rightly outraged by this. Eric Schmidt, the senator from Missouri, it was a former AG of Missouri,

who's, you know, a very, very capable legal guy, a latent lawyer. It was a very aggressive A.G. Missouri. And then, like, very much knows what he's doing here has come out and called for the impeachment of Schmidt. I'm sorry, the impeachment of Bozberg. And then Schmidt is not, you know, some fly-by-night guy who's, you know, a partisan bomb thorough. If he's a very serious attorney, if he is calling for an impeachment of Bozberg, you know, knowing that this is crossing a Rubicon, he must think that this is extremely serious in terms of, you know, how over the top his conduct was. So, you know, this is something that we, you know, people should take very seriously.

And I would add just one thing. You've talked about how the media has basically blacked all coverage of Artic Cross. There's been one exception to this that I've seen, which I've seen multiple stories. stories where I, you know, I forget it was like Ted Cruz and then I think Josh Hawley maybe both said something about how the Justice Department had, quote, tap their phones. And there have been multiple stories I've seen correcting this saying, no, no, no, they didn't tap their phones. They just, you know, asked for, you know, records indicating who they were calling their locations and their metadata. They didn't actually tap their phones. It's like, thanks for the clarification,

guys, but literally the only coverage is to try and make Republican senators who were outraged about being spied upon with no basis look like they're lying. I mean, I just don't even know what to say to that. It reminds me of that, like, 2017 Trump tweet where he accused Obama of, quote, tapping his, quote, wires and the media rush to fact check it. And as the Russia collusion hoax became clearer and clearer, it was like, well, sort of vindicated. It may not have been literal tapping of literal wires, but the statute you're referring to is U.S. Code 6628. And if this was an official phone, according to an Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Mike Fregoso, then Bozberg may have violated the statute and it could predicate a bar investigation and an impeachment inquiry. And a bar

investigation potentially could lead to an impeachment inquiry, but it seems like something that could be in the cards for Bozberg. Mark, I remember in the Obama era when James Rosen and James Risen were both spied on, but particularly James Rosen by the Obama administration. The media, the White House press corps, kind of rallied to his side. It was sort of in vogue at the time to be like liberal but against surveillance and to be like pro-Obaba, but because everyone was so pro-Obama, they kind of scratched that contrarian itch by being like except for the surveillance.

And everyone rallied to Rosen's side. And now I'm looking at this. The subpoenas were for communications from Republican consulting firms. And CBS, Fox, Sinclair, news media. That's like source communications. And again, there's nothing. The journalists aren't curious about this. They aren't outraged by this.

They aren't upset about. Like, what is the difference between then when everybody rallied beside James Rosen and now when CBS's source communications are potentially being tapped. And today there's very little outcry. Well, the only difference is that this is worse in terms of the breadth and scope, if not the intent. And I don't know whether it's just there is sort of inured to this. But also, I really think that, like, you know,

so I was working at the Weekly Standard at the time that the story of Donald Trump tapping his phone, Donald Trump's famous tweet about my phones were, my wires were tapped or whatever. it was. And I remember at the time, the reaction from the people that I worked for who were, you know, fairly notoriously anti-Trump, you know, Bill Crystal at all, was this was just further evidence that Trump was crazy because this never happened because to do so would be such a, you know, crazy violation of norms that Trump is obviously making this out. I mean, that was the reaction at the time. But that was broadly the reaction in the news media to that Trump. tweet. And then, of course, it turned out Trump was right. And this kept happening. Like, remember when

Trump said that James Comey had told him three times, he was not under investigation? And then, you know, Jake Tapperty, one went to air and said, like, well, you know, I have sources that this is just absolutely crazy, you know, this would never happen. And it turned out Trump was absolutely right. The reality is they just kept underestimating the partisan depravity of the Justice Department and what it has become. And what's sort of fascinating to me is this Arctic Frost stuff all comes out against the backdrop of Trump filing the Trump DOJ filing charges against Letitia James and James Comey. And there's all this, you know, talk about, you know, Trump's going out for retribution. These cases are baseless

and how did Trump weaponize the Justice Department? It's like, fine, I get that argument. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. But like, if you really think that the cases against Trump and Comey are, you know, the Justice Department being weaponized, well, you know, I hope you're being with, you're feeling refreshed from that coma you've been in the last eight years, because, you know, what's been going on against Trump is infinitely worse than this, and nobody even wants to talk about it. I wanted to pull up this editorial that Aaron Ren highlighted. Aaron Run's great. People should follow him, by the way.

He's at AaronRun.com. So this is the Sunday opinion in the New York Times by the editorial board. Big, big, big, splashy page if you're not watching this. It says Donald Trump has persecuted opponents, bypass Congress, sent troops into cities, defied the courts, changed election rules, vilified minorities, enriched himself, where will it end? Now, with the exception of sending troops into cities, as Aaron points out, Democrats, quote, did all these things during the Biden administration. You could argue probably a lot of this in the Obama administration as well. And I think some of them scale is a legitimate question to be had. But, Mark, we are 10 years into this.

Democrats have a Democratic socialist about to beat the far and away. favorite establishment candidate of the party in the New York City mayoral election. They have a 33-year-old Democratic Socialist state senators about to be in charge of all of New York City because they couldn't get their shit together and all backed Andrew Cuomo. Their approval ratings are terrible among their own voters. They still don't get it. And that's, I mean, I don't, Mark, I don't understand it. Honestly, I really don't understand it.

I mean, if you do not like the direction that, you know, the quote unquote, authoritarianism, or whatever the Trump is doing. Like, you know, you really need to understand that what, you know, Trump is a symptom. Trump is not, you know, the overall disease here. I mean, you mentioned that in New York Times editorial. I mean, it was just straight to back. It was just front to back projection. I mean, everything about it.

And when it wasn't just patently absurd, my favorite part of that editorial was when the New York Times said that as proof that Trump is, you know, going after the media was when they defunded they defunded NPR and in public television. It's like not, the government not giving media money directly was proof that Trump is an authoritarian who's going after the media. It's really frustrating because part of the problem here

is that it's not that they're hypocritical so much as they are literally incapable of seeing that anything they do to rein in Trump doesn't matter whether it like blows past norms or in this case, you know, violates all kinds of laws, they're literally incapable of seeing how that might be wrong or that might, you know, set new norms that come back to haunt everybody or that just, you know, might generally erode what we consider, you know, you know, to be, you know, freedoms we take for granted in this country. Like, everything you do

regarding Trump is, you know, is answering an existential threat. And you cannot have a country when you have, you know, one entire political party, and that political party's interest in compass, basically, you know, about, you know, 95% of federal employees that thinks that they're justified in doing whatever they need to do to burn down democratic norms in order to, quote, unquote, save democracy without seeing the contribution. I have to get your take on these viral John Brennan clips. So a little bit of background for people who haven't seen these yet. I mean, just incredible. There's about three of them. One's at a metro station. One's at the reception after the first one,

which is of him on a panel at George Mason on, I think it was October 30th. It was last Thursday or last Friday. Matt Taibi tracked down this man in the audience, who is, again, going massively viral for asking John Brennan these questions. So Taibi reported he was a long-serving military and intelligence officer named Thomas Special, who served as a senior advisor to Tulsi Gabbard on counter-intelligence issues. So at first, he's confronting Brennan during a Q&A session about the predicate for opening investigations into Donald Trump, basically, and then he confronts him afterwards.

Brennan first is like, you don't know what you're talking about, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so Special, confronts him afterwards. Here's that clip. Why the memo on the 105? Lepa. And you misrepresented that. We never said it was disinformation. It was Russian influence operations, which is what they do. There's a big difference between influence operations and the big no, you don't know that. Yes, Colmy knew. The literature said it had all the hallmarks of all the hallmarks of. So John Brennan is clearly very sensitive about this mark despite the fact that

a lot of what he's being accused of is plain as day in writing and in the public record. But he just reminds me in the conversation we were having earlier about the sheer arrogance and impenetrability of the it's weird to call john brennan left but of the sort of center left's mind at this point well first of all john brennan did vote for a communist in a presidential election that was in 1970s and somehow we ended up headed the CIA i mean that's such a deep cut i thought all those polygraphs were designed to keep people like that out of the CIA let alone leading the damn thing okay So calling John Brennan left, especially after his conduct, you know, again, this is another guy who, by the way, spied on Congress. And there was no, you know, there was nothing done to stop that from happening in the future again.

It just got worse. But in this case, there's a lot of specific things that happen. And part of the reason why Russiagate was what it was, was because it involved a lot of complicated intelligence community bureaucracy. which, you know, one of the problems with our intelligence apparatus is that it's like insanely bureaucratic. And there's all these, you know, internecine esoteric rules that are only understood by, you know, the people intelligence community. And like, what happened was, you know, John Brennan very much manipulated that process.

The question he was asked that caused this whole blowup that we just, you just showed, was the, the guy unpacking how they changed the intelligence community assessment, because it's called the ICA, you know, from one version to another version to like slowly watering it down to including things like the fake Russia dossier into that as like, you know, a valid intelligence product that could be used as a predicate for investigations. And, you know, it took many years for people to like get the information out and then it's, you know, and still, you know, the media itself, I would say, hasn't bothered to learn what went on in that process because it's very damning for Brennan. But the point is, is that all the facts are out there. And the moment Brennan is confronted with somebody who actually knows what he's talking about, Brennan has no response. He has to like point a finger in the guy's chest and get angry and walk away because he's simply not going to win the argument because he's a bad man who did bad things.

And if there's any justice in this world, he probably should be behind bars. If you miss that, Mark thinks John Brennan is a bad man. That's subtle, but it was there if you were listening. Mark Hemingway, senior writer at Real Clear Investigations. Thank you so much for coming on the show to talk about all this and help us break it down. Anytime. Oh, man. All right.

I'll take you up on that, Mark. We'll be back in just one moment with Brittany Xavier. Before we do, though, I just want to say things feel really heavy right now. We were just talking about that. Politics is divisive, and the news can be depressing. The news is depressing. We'll just say that. It often feels like we as a society have more pulling us apart than bringing us together.

But here's something simple that unites us shopping. small. When you choose to buy from a small business, you are not just getting a product, you're helping someone's dream grow and you're investing in values. We all share honesty, craftsmanship, and community. That's what a warehouse is all about. They've teamed up with nearly a hundred small business makers across the U.S. to bring you handmade goods filled with heart and creativity, uniting people of all backgrounds. In this singular mission, check out the website. It really is cool. Head on over there. So let's choose connections over division and show small businesses the support they deserve, visit a warehouse shop.com,

and use code party for 15% off your first order. That's a warehouse shop.com code party. Okay. Let's go ahead and bring in our second guest, Brittany Xavier, who is a digital creator. Very interesting digital creator at that. Brittany, thank you so much for being here. Hello. Can you hear me okay? I can hear you great. It's great to have you here. And I was hoping actually you could just start off by telling people a little bit about your journey because one of the things I read on your substack today is actually sort of what I've been thinking about discussing with you. You're kind of reflecting on where it all started as a sort of influencer, blogger back in like 2013 when Instagram was becoming what TikTok became and then what seemingly the whole internet became. And I thought it would be pretty interesting just to get into your backstory a little bit, Brittany, if you could. could just start by telling us how you ended up where you did right now. Yes. So in 2013, my husband and I, during when we were engaged, we were really in, it was a completely DIY budget wedding. And so we were very into wedding blogs. I was reading them every single day. And so once we

got married in 2013, we were engaged for a year and a half. I felt like it was a little depressing that I can no longer read wedding blogs. We got a nice camera for our wedding. And, I was really into thrift stores and trying to find a deal. I would try to find cashmere and leather when I would go. So my original blog was called Thrift and Threads. And we started it out with the idea that we could make money on AdSense, but we didn't really understand what it could be. No one really knew at that time.

It was very just wild west on figuring out what worked, looking at the analytics and seeing, oh, my readership is growing. And just continuing, I was super, super consistent with it. Once I, I think once my friends found out I was doing it, and they're like, are you modeling? What is this? Like, no, no, no. I'm trying to show my outfits on here. I'm trying to show how I'm styling things.

But it was very much, it was, I'm just trying to figure it out as we went. But it was very much photos only. There was no real-time video. There was no vlogging. So it's very, I kept it very unpersonal for a while. Well, yeah, so let me read this part of, from your subject. Sack posts today. You say this was long before Instagram stories or TikTok. Back then, storytelling happened through still photos and blog posts. Rarely in real time, which I thought

was very, very interesting. You know, this was before Carousel's existed when Instagram met one photo and my blog posts usually had five to seven images. And then you add, again, I thought this was fascinating, quote, everything was thoughtful and organized. And I wanted to ask Brittany, as these delivery mechanisms on social media have changed, like even something that seemingly silly, like Instagram adding the carousel so you can have 10 pictures or whatever. 20 now. 20. That's too many. Or the live feature. That has changed. It seems like it's actually changed what's being said, not just the nature of the communication, but actually what people are

sharing and then monetizing as well. What's kind of the big difference that you've noticed? I think that people really want to see authenticity, which is such a, I guess, cliche word to in this industry now. It's like, what does that even mean anymore? But it's, I think it's evolved into and why I was thinking about sharing that post on substack was you can get so caught up into this hamster wheel of there's so much content. I could be filming every single moment of my life. And that could be a piece of content. And if you don't have boundaries around it, you not only go insane, but you have no personal life that you're not sharing outside of social media. and there's a lot that I don't share on social, and that's by design.

It doesn't mean that I'm less genuine or less authentic. It's just I had boundaries around what I share. And just like my blog post before were very curated, I got up really early on Saturday mornings, shot everything, was very organized, because I had a full-time job. So that didn't mean it was less genuine. I was still into those outfits. That's what I found at the thrift store. But it was just I had to think ahead. I had to be organized with it in order to be consistent.

So I think that people, I think it's really, really hard for creators sometimes to just feel like they constantly have to post and overshare and just give out so much information that it can feel like the lines are blurred of what you share and what's protected just for you. Yeah. And you know, you know this better than me, better than anyone. But as I think about kind of the influencer arc just over what, like the last 10 years, there was a time where influencers were the hottest things ever. then it was like, oh, influencers were kind of cringe for a second, and then influencers evolved into this totally different entity, not totally different, but just being much less, like the word you used, even though it's cliche, I think much more authentic is right. Like people, even if sometimes it's, if it's this kind of scripted unscriptedness, people who are really good at that are successful. And that reminds me of this post I wanted to ask you about from Sammy Sheen, who's obviously the daughter of Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen, if you recognize the name. She posted this just yesterday.

Let's go ahead and take a listen. Whenever I see a comment like this, I feel so guilty because I've gotten so much work done. I get lip filler. I've had a nose job. I have veneers. All of these are fake. I got a boob job. All of this hair is fake.

I have extensions. and not with the physical appearance, but like internally, I have so many issues. First of all, I have hernias, so I literally can barely walk right now. I need to get surgery to get them fixed. I struggle with mental health issues every day. I am not this perfect person, and social media is so fake. I really don't have that many friends. I'm a homebody.

I just hate the idea that there could be a young girl out there comparing herself to me, thinking this is all natural and I'm all perfect, and I live there. this perfect life because that's bullshit. And anyone that you think is living that life is bullshit. So Sammy Sheen is only 21 years old. And that reminds me of watching her when she was on Real Housewives of Beverly Hills with her mom, Denise Richards, maybe 10 years ago, roughly when Denise started on the show. So she was young, a preteen, if not just early teen years. And it felt really, I mean, I felt so badly for her because of all the kind of personal drama that was being brought into the show. It's no wonder that now someone who's,

been under this microscope like few others has that reaction to it. And Brittany, I just, I feel like that's actually kind of thing now. Maybe this was always the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the kind of thing now that gains people followers and sort of gains people respect and engagement and maybe even advertisers. Yeah, I think especially for me being in the luxury industry for so long and working with high fashion brands, it was the way I got into those relationships was doing very much editorial type photos. Like I wanted to figure out how I can shoot like a Vogue magazine. So there was a time where we started before like with all the blog photos that were very casual. When I decided I wanted to start to try to partner with some luxury

brands, we really had to make a shift in the content. Like you need to my told my husband like, we need to figure out the camera better. Like how can we go from taking iPhone photos to like really stepping this up. But I think that you still have to, and in her perspective, I don't know what is going on with her family also, like maybe just being in front of the camera all the time. But I do think that you can share a part of your life and it not be all fake. Like if you look at my page or you look at my videos, there are things we're actually doing. I'm not manufacturing things to create content. Now, I know there's been stories of people going on a private jet, but then you realize that it's actually just a set that you can rent in L.A.

Or there's, even when I was starting out with the fashion shows, I would go and I would be working so hard to get into a show. Like I was really trying everything to like, you know, really partner with these brands. And a girl would post right in front of the show. She didn't go in. She didn't actually make it into the, as an invite, but then said had an amazing time at the show. And so from my perspective, I'm thinking she's posting a,

assuming that all her followers are thinking that she got invited to this show. But really, for me, it was always the integrity of I didn't want to do that. And it ruins the relationship with the PR brands, too, because they're seeing and saying, no, you didn't. Those seats were designated for someone else. So I do think in a personal sense, maybe people are truly making up what they're doing. But I think you have to think about TikTok and social media and Instagram and particularly as a highlight reel. And I think that if you get so sucked into thinking that's actually what people are doing 24-7, I'm not showing my kids having a breakdown. I'm not showing myself in a bad mood. And those are just things I protect because I'm not going to be pulling out a camera on times

if my kids are fighting and saying, this is relatable. I never ever want to be relatable. That's like not my thing. So I'm like, I'm showing my life and if people can relate to it. But also, I can't really relate to myself when I was 12 years ago when I started this. My lifestyle is a lot different. I mean, I've gotten a lot smarter with money. You know, different things have happened. But it's not like I follow a lot of people that I cannot relate to their life. But I just like to see how certain people live.

And I like to get different perspectives of how different families are. And so I don't feel like I have to relate to every single person I follow. And I mean, I love following you because I love. I get such an insight to Washington, D.C., that I love it. But it's not like I can never relate to being a political correspondent. But it's just, like, you get those little snippets of how people are living, and that's what I really enjoy about it. But I do think there's things that people are manufacturing,

and they're making their life seem a lot better, that it's not the full story. I love that you push back on the concept of relatability, because I've always been skeptical. That's why people, it's like the, I think they, not to go back to Bravo, but the way that NBC University used to see the Bravo brand was as aspirational,

which is by definition, not relatable. And it's the same thing with Trump himself, that politicians believed they had to be relatable. Mitt Romney, this multimillionaire, had to go to the Iowa State Fair with his sleeves rolled up. Trump came in and gave literal helicopter rides to children. And instead of trying to act like he was the every man, to me, that's not even just a reflection of shrewd political instincts,

so much as it's a reflection of the era and knowing how to use these communication vehicles on social media in a way that resonates. It's not all about relatability because relatability is not always believable. Right. And I think that people have a really good sense of with someone's being true to themselves. For instance, when Gavin Newsom was recently on that podcast and he's trying to act like he, you know, was a working class family and he was really just like out there in the backyard. I don't forget what he was saying about like basketball. Wonderbread. Yeah, wonder bread and mech and cheese. That's how I grew up. And immediately people were posting his Burberry scarf in high school. And they said that is not how

he grew up. His family was ultra wealthy. So I think that people can immediately see through it. It's one thing if that is your story. But to try to be whoever is in the room and try to be what they think that you want to be. I think that that's really confusing for people. And also, I think it's the same thing when celebrities do that. It's like, it reminds me of COVID. Remember when they were singing the song and they were, everyone was singing that like kumbaya song? Yes, imagine. Yes. And that was supposed to be relatable at the time, but everyone's thinking, you guys are locked into these amazing mansions with great outdoor space and it's not relatable for everyone else. So I think if you try to be relatable, it's just, it's just not real.

Yeah, there's Gavin's Burberry scarf. The memes were incredible after that. Too funny. They were so good. Yeah, and actually, I was really curious. One of the things I don't think it's talked about enough, and you're the perfect person to ask this, too, because you're in the luxury sector, is the connection between TikTok and Sheehan and fast fashion that built on earlier eras of fast fashion, like just

Forever 21, H&M, then it becomes like Sheehan and whatever the hell else, Amazon, all of that, happens when the de minimis legislation is passing in Congress that allows, without getting into the weeds of it. Basically, like, you can avoid taxes, you can avoid tariffs by packaging all of this, like, really cheap stuff together in different ways. And I feel like on that question of authenticity, right now, people, whether they're concerned, or liberal or somewhere in between are also kind of slowing down and looking for quality. And I don't just mean that in terms of like whatever scarf they're buying as a dupe to Gavin

Massim's Barberie. But like I think there's an emphasis on that right now. And I was curious if you're sensing. I mean, it probably has something to do with honestly tariffs and prices and all of that. But also just in general, the mood of the country seems to be more towards slowing down quality. Are you sensing that, Brittany? Yes, I am. In particular, I love natural fibers for my kids to like cotton, linen. I used to be someone who shopped exclusively at Forever 21. And that was all I can afford at the time, especially I would do thrift stores too. But if I wanted a nice outfit out and I didn't want to feel like I got it from the thrift store, that was what I was shopping at. And I do think that I think the whole idea of shopping, you know, smaller and the quality, that works, I think,

for certain people. And I do think it's a class issue as far as the shopping goes, because there are some people who are like, I cannot afford a cashmere sweater. And I just want something to feel nice. So I think that some people are just like, I want a cute shirt. And I don't think that, you know, they should be like looked down on because I do think very much, though, that it is a class issue. But as far as quality in general, I think like when it goes back to content in the way, I think that people are looking for like the quality post. You don't have to post as much, but make sure they're meaningful and add value to your audience. I think people really do want to be following people who are offering them a little bit more than just an outfit.

That's so interesting. That could be my own take, but that's just what I've seen. Well, okay, so let's talk about what we advertise tallow products on the show. And you posted a really interesting video in all of the recipes that you post. I really liked this one. Let's roll it talking about cooking with tallow, which, again, is absolutely a trend right now. There's no denying people are going to get tallow products more than they were before. And part of it is because it's like yearning for a past that they never knew or a past that they remember and remember better in ways that are just simpler, like just less manufacturing, fewer artificial ingredients and all of that.

Is that, like, just in this question of tallow, I know we were just talking about clothes and fast fashion and she and, but is there, is this a crazy connection, Brittany? No, I think for my family in particular, my husband and I went through like a whole health journey. I hate the word journey sometimes, but it's just so overused. and I just used it. But about a year. Sometimes you have to.

Sometimes you really were on a journey. It really was. It was about, it's about it been a year and a half, almost two years now, since we did all of our blood work. I did preventative scanning and realized we were eating out so much. I have no idea how to cook. And my husband was on the pre-diabetes route. And I thought, we need to figure out what we're doing because we cannot be eating.

We weren't eating fast food, but we were eating out at places that, you know, weren't caring about the ingredients. And so I went on this whole. trying to take cooking classes, figuring out what do I need to do to feed my family more nourishing meals. And I wouldn't consider myself someone who knows how to cook, especially when I started out. I had someone come over and teach me how to make sourdough. And it really opened my eyes into, oh my gosh, I've been missing out on all these things I could be cooking that seems so overwhelming, but they're actually just simple. You have to time it, right?

And so that inspired me to read the back of food ingredients and see whatever. I couldn't read half of the ingredients of the things, the snacks I was buying for the kids, too. So we just really, I've been diving into it. And I really have been learning new recipes and beef towel is not inflammatory. So it's nice to cook with it instead of frying with seed oils. And it's a high smoke point. So it's nice, anything you want to fry and fried in beef towel. And a lot of companies are switching to using beef tallow fries.

I love the mossa chips. The ones you talk about, they're so good. They really are. The spicy ones are my favorite. Oh, yes, they are really good. Underrated mosa chips. Yes, everyone says their favorite is lime, but the spicy ones are fantastic. Oh, my gosh, they're so good.

And my kids love the churro one. So I think that beef towel is also going to be more on the rise next year, too. It's supposed to be like a top food trend because I think people are becoming more aware of their ingredients and more aware of the less institutional trust, too, of what the government saying is healthy for us, we're very skeptical of. And I think that's really growing. Okay, so you just connected another dot for me. We started here with fast fashion, and then we went to food, and now we're going to go to politics, because one of the things I caught in this big spread in the cut on, I think it was like the headline was the influencer girlies are

split over the New York City mayoral election. Yeah, NYC's mayoral race is dividing the fashion girlies. Okay, so the last graph of it says, as the world increasingly feels like it's on fire, creators' audiences are expecting more than just apolitical content from the people they're getting makeup recommendations from and supporting financially by shopping through their affiliate links. It's all very damned if they do, damned if they don't, but perhaps these influencers could ask themselves one guiding question before they speak out about politics. Can I back who I'm endorsing by name and with my full chest? If the answer is no, perhaps it's worth another thing. So I have two questions for you based on that, Brittany. One, are you sensing this damned if you do, damned if you don't environment where people do want to, see the values of people whose affiliate links they're clicking on. I have no idea whether that's true, but I want to know if you felt it. And then secondly, that last part, isn't that also just about authenticity? That's kind of what this long cut article about how the influencer girlies are split between Cuomo and Mom Donnie, some even Sliwa, because he's now the new, quote, baby girl, another magazine referred to him as. Isn't that essentially what it's about? So maybe start with

the first one. Have you sensed that? Yeah, I think that, I think that, I think that, people are really jumping on, especially with that article, talking about Daniel Bernstein, how she came out saying that she was telling people to vote for not Mondami. And that people, there was backlash with that saying, oh, you don't understand. You know, there's also people who live there and who are business owners are saying, that's correct. So I think that if whatever you say, whatever you do, you have to double down. You cannot apologize. for what you believe politically. And, you know, I was very outspoken in 2020.

I voted for Joe Biden. Huge regret. I post that on Substack. I was a lot more woke when I lived in L.A. And, I mean, I wasn't raised like that. So I feel like after college, I got more, I was a political science major. And I got, you know, a little infiltrated with NPR, New York Times.

That's the only way I got my news. And I watched only CNN during. the 2020 election and thought that was very unbiased, you know. So I had a great awakening during that time. So during COVID, like the COVID time period? During COVID, I actually had, it was during 2020, was it 2021? My daughter was born in 2021. I had Anthony Fauci on my, I just, it's so, so disappointing when I think that I led so many people wrong. I had him on my channel. It was a quick interview. He was meeting with different creators. It was about a three-minute interview. And I was pregnant at the time. And I asked him, what is the best way? I was super nervous about going to the hospital afterwards

and Poppy at the time. She's four now getting COVID. So I was so worried about it. And he said, the best thing you can do is get vaccinated while pregnant. And so, of course, after I listened to as Vice and I got vaccinated while pregnant, we'll come to find out there was all these other articles that I found afterwards that had instances of stillbirth. There was a lot of information that was censored to where I couldn't find it on just like me quickly checking CNN was not on there. But afterwards, I had done a big deep dive because in the forum that I was on, a pregnancy forum, people who had gotten the shot were complaining about certain things. Certain things had happened to their baby. So they're like, I don't know if it was the shot, but my doctor says

There's no way. And so, of course, I'm deep diving afterwards. Like, could there be anything happening afterwards? And I just felt really misled. And that really pissed me off, to be honest, afterwards. I felt like I had, I did not have all the information to make an informed decision. And my daughter also got the shot. And she was 14, 15 at the time.

And there was also reports of myocarditis with the teenagers, more in teenage boys. But I thought that what if that was randomly her for whatever reason, if she had a pre-existing heart condition. And so I just felt like very lied to. And I just felt that there has to be more to this story. If there was that that was coming from New York Times and CNN and NPR, all the things that I was reading felt like it was a very safe decision. And I felt during that time that, you know, I was very outspoken on my socials. But I didn't get any pushback from brands. I didn't get any pushback from the fashion industry because that was okay. But as long as I followed what the mainstream legacy media was talking about.

But it's like now I did get a lot of pushback for posting about just like my support, Charlie Kirk, just how terrible and disgusting that whole thing was. Really? Really. I mean, I got people celebrating his death in my DMs that I felt it was, I mean, a lot of people were celebrating, which is disgusting. But I was just shocked that these people, I mean, clicked on their profiles. They looked like regular girls or regular fashion girls. And I was just shocked with the response. I'm like, he was a dad overall of two little kids.

And I can't even imagine if I had tell her dad was not coming home. So it just hit me on like a mom level too. But it was interesting to see the different response when it's not the political party that people, the mainstream, is going for. And I do think that the mainstream is becoming more of a minority, but it is the loudest as far as like what they control still. So which is really interesting because if you think about it, like a lot of the fashion brands are based in New York and L.A. And they're in this little bubble of like what the coastal kind of like the coastal cities believe.

But it's not a fair representation of what the entire U.S. believes because look at the last election. That is an incredible story. Just the way that you actually talked to Fauci while preface. pregnant, that is genuinely so, so, I had a lot of friends who were pregnant at the time. We're going through the same thing and would have very similar thoughts to you, even one who has a little girl named Poppy as well. It's just like, speaking of things that actually are relatable, that's very much one of them. So did you feel like it just, after that, you started to see that what you had been looking

at was the tip of the iceberg and then under the water, there was this totally different story going on. And gradually from that point, you just started seeing the world a bit differently. Yeah, I think I, I think also too, like my faith started growing. I really recommitted myself over the last year and a half. I feel like the last two years, my husband and I, I think with health, also mental, with our faith. And I think it's just really been investigating like, what are my worldviews and why do I, why am I holding them based on what I think versus what aligns with the Bible and what is the truth? So I think. So I think that for me, it's been really important to do my own research to listen to a podcast.

Like, I love your podcast. I love it from a Christian conservative perspective, but that's also really positive and not so negative all the time. It's like I don't want to be listening to a podcast that's just constantly like digging on people all the time. You know, it's like, so I try to make sure I'm thoughtful about what I consume as well. but I do think it's really important to have access to all this information. And I think with the cut interview, I think people should be able to post whoever they want to post. And if followers don't agree with it, okay, cool. You can keep scrolling.

But it's like I think that people are so used to policing what people should think or what people should believe. And that's exactly what Charlie Kirk was against. He was saying, I want to have this open discourse. tell me why you don't agree. But just to say cancel that person for her wanting to not support Mondami. And I saw that someone else had posted saying I'm voting for Mondami just to undo Daniel Bernstein's post. And it's like that is so uninformed to be voting for someone only to be going against someone else. And I think that it's just that it goes back to what?

What does that mean? Like how are you informing your audience about what does this guy even stand for? Yeah, that's a weird way to go about it. Right. It's like such a strange way to vote. And one person voted this way, so I have to balance it out with the other vote. Right. So last question on that, Brittany, or in general, does it feel like, because talking about faith and food and politics and clothing and all of that, in my mind, the word authenticity, as cliched as it is, does tie that all together.

And it's downstream of everything being on a screen now. So everything, like you have, to the point that you're making in your substack post about how you weren't doing things live. And now everyone has live capabilities. So they're constantly live streaming. Everything is, you probably remember at the time, vertical video was a no-go. Like, never take vertical video. It was always like horizontal. And now it's the exact opposite because it feels more real to people when they're scrolling.

The thumb stoppers, the vertical video, not the horizontal video. So I guess do you? you think that people are looking for quality ingredients, real ingredients, so stuff that's not chemically created, chemical artifices and the food, you know, real fabrics that aren't diluted by all these other chemical artifices and real takes from influencers, people on the internet, whatever, and also having that concept of just like what is real and what is not, is there something about that, that's just part of, in your experience, and as you have been a part of this shift in our culture, everything around us is so hyper-virtual that it's touching grass, as people

say, that becomes extra, extra valuable, that, like, we're yearning for something that is solid and tangible and real. Is that kind of what the trend is? I think so. I think for me, I've never felt more free mentally and not feeling like I'm so, because, because, because, because, before I would be so silent on everything because I was so brand dependent to where I didn't want to offend anyone. So I was so walking on ink shells trying to please everyone to make sure that I didn't say the wrong thing that I didn't, you know, I was very just self-aware, so much so to where it would cripple me sometimes to even say a thoughtful thing because I was too worried about speaking my mind. And I had to apologize to my daughter recently. After the Charlie

like her assassination. I was just thinking back to like how, you know, I have been an example to her. And at the time she was 2015 or she was 15 when Roe v. Wade was overturned. And she had posted just like a very innocent repost story that was praying hands in a little baby. And at the time, I told her, Jaden, you need to take that down. I don't, this is not neutral enough. And we need to be really neutral for brands. And I just like that really hit me after. Charlie and how bold he was with his faith and he never felt like he had to back down because of what he believed. And I called her. I mean, she's a freshman in college and I'm like, I'm so sorry. I told you to take that down. She's like, mom, get a grip. I'm like, I'm just, I feel so bad because

I feel like I didn't, you know, that was a terrible example of making sure I was like money focused, right? Like making sure I was hitting all the right things and telling her, I should be telling her to support your beliefs no matter what, don't be afraid of what people think about you. And that was a terrible learning lesson for her. So I apologize to her and I'm like, please forgive me. She's like, mom, move on. It was a while ago. But I think that it's just made me hyper aware of how, you know, the example I want to be to my daughter too. If she wants to speak out on her beliefs, I want to be the one who's supporting her and not saying, you know, make sure you're, make sure you're neutral for brands that it's like for a paycheck. I don't know. I feel like I was

very convicted about that. That again is so fascinating. I could keep doing this for hours, but I'll let you get back to your night, Brittany. Everyone go follow Brittany on all social media, follow her substack. And Brittany, thank you for supporting after party. It blows me away. So I appreciate it. I never miss an episode. You're my favorite podcast right now. I love it. It's so good. It's so thoughtful. Well, thank you, Brittany. Thank you so much. And I hope you'll come back because this was fascinating. I would love to. Tell me any time. Okay, great. All right. Well, Brittany, thank you so much for being here and we'll see you back here soon.

Perfect. Okay, that was a, you can tell that I really had fun with that what I hope. Speaking of which, masa chips, we just did a totally impromptu masa chips add in the interview because everyone loves masa chips. But did you know that chips and fries were once cooked in beef tallow, as we were just talking about, until the 1990s when corporations swapped it for cheap seed oils. Now those oils make up 20% of the average Americans daily calories and are linked to inflammation and metabolic issues. Somehow, of course, that got sold as, quote, healthy, but mossa chips is flipping the script. They use just three ingredients, organic corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow. You can look at that on the back of the bag.

No seed oils, no fillers, just bold flavor and serious crunch, strong enough to scoop, guac without crumbling. Snacking on mossa is a whole different vibe. satisfied, light, and energized with zero crash bloat or that gross, sluggish fog. And beef tallow is very obviously the secret sauce here. As soon as you taste it, it's not even secret. You're like, oh, this is the tallow because you can taste how good it is. It keeps you full and focused, not mindlessly munching. And my favorite flavor, I go back and forth on this. As Brittany said, the spicy is great. The chero flavor is great. I also love the lime flavor. It's just right. So if you're ready to give Masa a try, go to masa chips.com slash afterparty and use code.

after party for 25% off your first order. That's masahchips.com slash afterparty and code afterparty for 25% off your first order. Don't feel like ordering online. That's fine. Masa is now available nationwide at your local sprouts supermarket, so stop by and pick up a bag before they're going. All right. Now on with the show because I promised Jennifer Lawrence and Cheryl Hines. And Jennifer Lawrence and Cheryl Hines, you shall have. There's a flurry of, I guess, maybe because election day is tomorrow, celebrity comments on politics coming out at the moment. Maybe we can put this one up on the screen. This one is interesting. This is Nikki Minaj. You see Nikki Minaj reacting to Donald Trump commenting that, actually threatening aid to Nigeria

over the slaughtering of Christians. Nikki Minaj seriously wait in and said, reading this made me feel a deep sense of gratitude. She posts this on X. We live in a country where we can freely worship God. Amen, Nikki. No group should ever be persecuted for practicing their religion. We don't have to share the same beliefs in order for us to respect each other. Numerous countries all around the world are being affected by this horror, and it's dangerous to pretend we didn't notice. Thank you to the president and his team for taking this seriously. God bless every persecuted Christian. Let's remember to lift them up in prayer. And let us all lift up Nikki Minajah prayer that she might use her platform for the glory of God, because she's got a big platform. And boy, just say controversial.

But her support, obviously, on her support for the Christians in Nigeria, I'm just genuinely appreciative of. I'm sure many people are genuinely appreciative. I doubt that that is political in any way whatsoever. I think everybody can be appreciative of that. So on the other hand, Cheryl Hines was on Tucker Carlson's show to talk about her new book. Obviously, she's been making the rounds. And she had this to say about what it was like in Hollywood, what it was like on the campaign trail, being the wife of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. We can roll this. I think I was expecting somebody who didn't listen to other people. This is Trump. This is her being surprised by Trump.

Wouldn't be interested in other people. And that's not who I met. I met somebody who was very interested in other people. Really wanted to hear what somebody else had to say. I think that was very surprising to me.

Did you call back to L.A. and say, hey, guys, he's actually cool. Good news, guys. Yeah, that's sort of the gap between, you know, the narrative and the reality that can be very radicalizing for people. And not radicalizing always in a bad direction, but just sort of radicalizing toward the correct direction of low institutional trust, which, again, you should have low institutional trust. It's not a sign of a healthy society that your institutions can't be trusted, but our institutions can't be trusted right now. And you can get sort of radicalized in that direction by having these expectations. versus reality moments, as Brittany Xavier was talking about earlier in the show. And I thought that moment from Cheryl was super interesting, especially because she also talked

about politics kind of getting in the way of her relationship with the great Larry David over the course of these series of interviews that she gave in the last week. But Jennifer Lawrence, I'm just tying these all together because I think they're all connected. I'll tell you why in a moment. Actually, you're probably going to figure out why as soon as I start reading from Jennifer Lawrence in Variety today. She says, quote, I don't really know if I should in regards to speaking out on Trump and U.S. politics to the press. She says, quote, the first Trump administration was so wild and just how can we let this stand?

I feel like I was running around with like a chicken with my head cut off. But as we've learned, election after election, celebrities do not make a difference whatsoever on who people vote for. So then what am I doing? I'm just sharing my opinion on something that's going to add fuel to a fire that's ripping the country apart. We are so divided. She told the New York Times, according to Variety. she said, quote, I think I'm in a complicated recalibration. Wow, recalibration. Because I'm also an artist. With this temperature and the way things can turn out, I don't want to start turning people off my films and to art that could change consciousness or change the world because they don't like my political opinions. I want to protect my craft so that you can still get lost in what I'm doing. If I can't say something that's going to speak to some kind of piece or lowering the temperature or some sort of solution, I don't want to be a part of the problem. I don't want to make the problem worse. I try to express my politics through my work. A lot of movies coming up from my production company are expressions of the political landscape,

and that's how I feel like I can be helpful. Okay, so I read that entire quote to The Times at length from that variety excerpt because I think it is being interpreted as Jennifer Lawrence embracing neutrality. Jennifer Lawrence saying, I am becoming a fence sitter. But actually what she said there was much, much more interesting. She said she is recalibrating because she is an artist. and she doesn't want to start turning people off films and art that could change consciousness

or change the world because they don't like her political opinion. She says she tries to express her politics through her work. But what that is actually saying, that is actually a rejection of the political mentality that an artist like Jennifer Lawrence embraced during Trump 1.0 in the interim period, although she was a bit more quiet recently. The neutral thing to do would just be

to say, eh, you know what I'm saying out of it. But what she did was actively reject that there is value in her weighing in on the basis of her art being much more valuable as a consciousness changer or a consciousness influencer, right? Meaning that art is deeper than good art is deeper than partisan politics. I think that's what she's saying here. She's rejecting the idea. that actors can shape electoral outcomes with political statements, but saying they could perhaps affect the climate more broadly, the culture more broadly, with art. And you are hurting your own art's ability to do that

by kind of interfering with the way the audience sees what you're up to. Now, if Jennifer Lawrence had said this in 2020, 2021, that would genuinely be brave. Now, I suspect, a statement like this will be greeted in Hollywood as wise and mature and a path forward. Again, this is the Hollywood, and I really mean this, the post-top gun to Hollywood, where they learned how to genuinely chase, they re-learned how to chase audiences and realized they'd made some mistakes. So this Jennifer Lawrence is reacting to the world that Cheryl Hines has shaped, right? The world where you have someone like Cheryl Hines who goes on the view and speaks to that level of institutional distress, pops the bubble in front of them in a way where the like film from the bubble is all that soap is getting on their heads.

You can just see it happening in real time because they're caught completely off guard and unprepared for a real conversation, not a talking points conversation. And this is the world that Jennifer Lawrence and Nikki Minaj and others are now stepping into where it's safe to be less partisan and more thoughtful. It's not super brave right now because it's obvious that the climate has changed. It's obvious that the money in Hollywood has, you know, Hollywood is still predominantly liberal, celebrities, liberal, the finance arms, liberal, but also understanding that the Trump administration needs to be wooed, can be wooed. If you work with the Trump administration, they will work

back with you as a lesson that Silicon Valley obviously learned and in some ways good and bad, but it's not exactly brave. It's obviously not brave for Jennifer Lawrence, after all these years to come out and say this. But I do think it's pretty obviously a reflection, a barometer, if you will, of the changing temperature in Hollywood from Trump. up 1.0 resistance and even the same kind of flavor of boomer resistance that we saw at the No Kings protests where they're out there with like the Cheetah Jesus posters and the inflatable Donald Trumps that are so unfunny and weird and they're doing this like folk routine acting like they're all Woody Guthrie in front of like the strip mall that is not or nobody's pretending

anymore or nobody's buying that that's hip and trendy and going to like absolutely take down Donald Trump anymore. And so this is where you're kind of entering the new chapter. Maybe it's slightly better. I don't know. I mean, there are some things right now in culture media that make me optimistic in ways I never expected to. The rise of substack is a good example. Changes at YouTube. Good example. Changes on X. Not all. all of which are great, but some of which are just some of these things. I mean, seeing what competition via substack and new media on podcast and YouTube has done to the old media is fascinating. Too early to call what's going to happen, but I've never

felt optimistic that there was a course correction happening. Our media is not going to get back to a perfect place. Again, it's at a record low level of trust, according to Gallup's trust and mass media polling that just came out this month. actually last month, October. So I'm not saying that it's all going to be great and wonderful again. But I think the competition is actually making us better, like slightly better, maybe pushing us to a better place where people can choose what to trust. They can choose what to believe. They can choose what to watch or tune out. All of those, like, I don't know. I don't know. We have to keep this conversation going because it's a very interesting. one and I appreciate everyone sticking with us as I ramble late into the evening.

You're probably already done with your drink or whatever it was. So thanks for, thanks for sticking around. And thanks for all the great questions. You send over to Emily at Double Make Care Media for Happy Hour every Friday. I am loving happy hour. Make sure you tune in the Megan show tomorrow, some cool stuff. Come in your way over there. and we will see back here Wednesday live at 10 p.m.

I gotta tell you the guests that are coming up, you're not gonna wanna miss them. So see back here Wednesday at 10 p.m.