After Party with Emily Jashinsky - SICK Murder Reaction, Kmele SCHOOLS Jemele, Mamdani’s Influencer Scheme, & Tyler Robinson’s Defense

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

Emily Jashinsky reacts to the murder of 32-year-old Bank of America vice president and new mother Erin Piacenti, who police say was randomly stabbed in Times Square shortly after returning from maternity leave. Emily examines the disturbing online reaction from people celebrating or mocking Piacenti’s death simply because she worked for Bank of America and what it reveals about Americans becoming increasingly numb to violence. She then reacts to a heated CNN debate between Kmele Foster and Jemele Hill over claims that capitalism is bound up with white supremacy and explains why injecting identity politics into the conversation makes it harder to seriously confront capitalism’s flaws. Emily also breaks down new reporting about New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s network of social media influencers, including taxpayer-funded contracts for some messaging campaigns, and raises questions about transparency when influencers are paid to promote government messaging. The show then turns to the preliminary hearing for accused Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson, where his defense attorney repeatedly characterized Kirk as having spoken “hatefully” about certain groups. Finally, Emily takes a closer look at the women rallying around Lindsay Clancy and argues that many appear to be projecting their own experiences with postpartum depression and failures of the medical system onto Clancy’s case while losing sight of the three children who were killed. Emily rounds out the show by answering viewer questions from the live chat.   Ghostbed: Discover how GhostBed’s cooling, pressure-relieving design can help you sleep more comfortably and wake up feeling refreshed, plus get an extra 10% off their lowest prices of the season at GhostBed.com/EMILY with code EMILY.   Cozy Earth: Visit https://www.CozyEarth.com & Use code EMILY for up to 20% off   PreBorn: Help save a baby go to https://PreBorn.com/Emily or dial #250 keyword BABY Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to After Party, everyone. No guest tonight. Lucky you. It's just me. Your lucky day. Thanks so much for tuning in. Seriously. Appreciate it so much. Thanks for subscribing. If you don't mind subscribing. It is really helpful on the YouTube page. Turn the notifications on. All of that helps us so much here on the show. You can also email me at Emily at devilmaycaremedia.com. I answer all of your questions. Pretty much every single one of them on Fridays when we do our Friday edition of the show. It's audio only. So you got to subscribe to the podcast. podcast feed to get that. But Emily at double-makecaremedia.com, get them in before Thursday afternoon. That's when I record the Friday episode. And I love going back and forth with everyone. If you've missed those shows, they actually are some of my favorites. So I highly recommend checking out the podcast side because we get some kind of oxygen to just go really deep. It's not live. It's live to tape. But we go really deep on some stuff. I'm like Googling things as I'm in conversation with your emails to double check. And it gets sort of exciting. So thanks much everyone appreciate it. We have a lot to get to tonight. We're going to start with

Times Square, the awful stabbing incident in Times Square yesterday that left a young mother dead. We're going to talk about this vast new influencer army, that City Journal of us, the Columbia Journalism Review. City Journal, also good publication, check it out. But the Columbia Journalism Review blew the whistle on not really intentionally. I don't think they were trying to say that this was an act of media whistleblowing, but they uncovered this influencer army that has been supporting Zoran Mamdani, and it's an interesting new trend. I'm going to go back to Tom Steyer and some others who have done this, but also we'll have some thoughts on what we heard at the closing of the preliminary hearing in the Charlie Kirk case today from the Tyler Robinson

defense attorney. If you haven't heard this clip, you absolutely have to hear what Tyler Robinson's defense attorney said about Charlie Kirk. If it's a preview, of the trial to come. Certainly not looking good for Tyler Robinson. I already wasn't looking good for Tyler Robinson, but this will not help. And I'm going to do a little bit of a dive into some of the reactions among Lindsay Clancy supporters, trying to dig into why they're supporting Lindsay Clancy, trying to kind of piece together similarities between their reactions and come together with a fuller picture of a case that's absolutely captivating the country and not without reason. So, Big Show, as I said, we're about to get into all of it, but first, a quick break.

Well, you may not remember every time you toss, turn, or wake up hot during the night, but your body does. Your body never forgets. And I've noticed a real difference when I sleep on a mattress that actually supports me. That's why I'm so excited to sleep on a ghost bed. Ghost bed is engineered to help reduce the things that can interrupt your sleep with a design that helps relieve pressure, regulate temperature, and support your body throughout the night. And it's literally cool. cooling technology is built into every ghost bed mattress so important for me so you're not waking up feeling overheated and uncomfortable the result you wake up feeling more refreshed less stiff and like you actually got the rest your body needed ghost bed mattresses are also made in the USA and with their

101 night sleep trial you can try one at home and see how you feel when you wake up because that's really the test if you're waking up sore or tired before your day even starts check out ghost bed for limited time during Ghostbed's Labor Day sale, they're offering my audience an extra 10% off their lowest prices of the season. Go to ghostbed.com slash Emily and use promo code Emily. That's ghostbed.com slash Emily, promo code Emily. All right, everyone, welcome back to After Party. Let's start in Times Square where tragedy befell a new mom, 32-year-old vice president at Bank of America yesterday. You may have heard about this incident, but it is shocking. You may have even seen footage of the perpetrator's life ending. Well, it really ended at the hospital later,

but police ended up shooting the woman who stabbed Aaron Piacenti. And she was lunging at them with two kitchen knives, said, I'll kill you, according to Jessica Tisch, NYPD. And you can see in the video, she starts lunging towards a cop saying, I'll kill you. The tasers don't seem to work. And that's when the police opened fire, she's hit in the stomach. and later dies at the hospital. There are some people, including the perpetrator's mother, who now say, you know, why couldn't they have stopped this another way? That's not what I'm going to get into.

I want to get into some of the reactions to what happened yesterday and also just take some time to understand what happened. So this is from the New York Times. And they wrote a lead that was, I think, pretty gripping and worth just reading in full here. they said Aaron Piacente was walking through Times Square in Manhattan on Monday afternoon, heading home from work when she passed in front of a vendor selling sunglasses and baseball hats on the street. A 32-year-old Vice President Bank of America, Ms. Piacenti had just started her first week back on the job.

Four days earlier, she had posted a photo of herself on social media, holding her newborn daughter and standing beaming next to her husband. She wrote about how grateful she was to have spent the past five months on maternity leave, but how her daughter had recently been baptized. The young family had traveled to Long Beach Island, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Maine. Monday afternoon, Ms. Piacente was still walking on West 42nd Street near the vendor when she was approached by a 49-year-old woman who stabbed her in the abdomen. She was taken to Bellevue Hospital, where she was pronounced dead. Ms. Piazente, the New York Times reports, was one of two people attacked by the woman whom the police identified as Pamela Cisneros in quick succession on Monday before police officer shot and fatally wounded the attacker.

the other victim, a 60-year-old, 8-year-old Rhode Island man named Tocom, who was in the city visiting his son, was expected to recover. So I do hope that's still the case. This is the latest reporting for the Times. Now, let's talk a bit about Cisneros, because the New York Post and local media had some reporting on what we know about Cisneros, the 49-year-old woman who, for no discernible reason, as of right now, was in Times Square on a Tuesday afternoon. she took two kitchen knives out of a target bag and stabbed two people, one fatally. Again, a 32-year-old woman who had just returned from maternity leave with her firstborn had just celebrated her second anniversary. Vice President at Bank of America, the Post writes, Cisneros suffers from what her brother described to the Post Tuesday as bipolar disorder, but said she'd been receiving treatment in recent years and, quote, never showed any aggressiveness. quote, I don't know what happened. Patrick Peralta, 59, said, adding his sister had found some stability through medication in recent years and reported feeling, quote, unquote, fine as recently as Saturday.

Sinaros of Queens had a documented mental health history with police, including a suicide attempt. Her brother, again, says, I think bipolar, but I don't know what else was going on. He said that she received monthly injections for treatment. So more to learn on this front for sure. He said, I think maybe she stopped the injection when she was getting. and that caused her to act the way she was. The post reports, the medication gave a stability to Cisneros that often alluded her, a belligerent intoxicated and screaming Cisneros drew NYPD cops along Lexington Avenue during December 2018, sources said, but that was not the only time. Fast forward to 2019,

according to the post, she tried to commit suicide during March 2019 by jumping in front of an E-Train in Queens. Now, they say, often rambling social media posts hint Cisneros increasingly turned toward religion during the past year. In one of those 2025 posts, listen to this, quote, she chillingly wrote that the quote, diminished love of people to the point of stabbing others for no reason, showed the arrival of the biblical end times. That's what we know as of now. We're about 24 hours removed from this horrible tragedy. And it doesn't make a lot of sense. This woman, again, her family says they talked to her in the last several days and everything seems fine. She's bipolar. She has prior incidents. But on a random Tuesday afternoon, September 1st,

she's out in Times Square with two knives, stabbing people, again, apparently indiscriminately. Two people seemingly with nothing to do with one another, seemingly no motive in the moment that had anything to do with who these people were, no indication that there was any relationship that Cisneros would have had any idea who was being stabbed. We have no indication as of this right now, just that a woman takes two knives out of a target bag and stabs people in Times Square, one of the most densely crowded places, frankly, in the world, and ends the life of a 32-year-old woman just back from maternity leave. So responses to this, because a lot of the media mentioned that Piacente was a vice president bank of America. By the way, that doesn't put her on like the CEO level,

Obviously, people who work in finance and in corporate America more generally understand that vice president titles are not uncommon. They're, you know, obviously she's 32 years old. I think that signal she probably was on her way up quickly, was on her way up the corporate ladder very quickly and it was successful for her age, but that doesn't put you in the C-suite because you have a vice president title. So this isn't like a Brian Thompson. situation where you have this enormous amount of power at the helm of United Health or anything

like that. This is a 32-year-old successful, but fairly middle management type person based on what we know about her career at Bank of America had just gotten back, just gotten back from maternity leave. But because she was identified with the Bank of America affiliation in media reports, seemingly just because of that, there was an outpouring of time. Brian Thompson like reactions, meaning similar to the reactions people had when Luigi Mangione, who's apparently now pleading guilty to that crime, ended the life of Brian Thompson. So I collected a couple of them. I want to start.

We can put this one from Ken Clippinstein up on the screen. He went to Blue Sky. God bless you, Ken, and said, Blue Sky is so good. Someone posted on Blue Sky a picture of Piocente and said, I actually don't think this person was evil and deserved to be stabbed to death. Another person quoted it and said, then you are a shitty person who hates the poor and does not value life. Someone asks, can you explain to me why you believe an employee at Bank of America deserve to be murdered? Another person responds, it's already been explained to you. You are a dishonest and violent piece of shit who sees women as objects.

So that's just checking in on blue sky. No real surprise to see comments like that in blue sky, given what we've seen over the course of the last year, whether it's the last couple of years, whether it's Brian Thompson or Charlie Kirk. But I also pulled a couple screenshots. These are from these are from X. This is someone posting, good riddance. Keep the spirit of Luigi Mangione in the air. And you see that one gets ratioed, as they say on X dramatically.

64 replies to four retweets and 11 likes. Another person says, I would feel bad, but then I will be charged over draft fees. So that one gets less ratioed. 2000 likes on that one. Another person says, you said Bank of America, question mark, question mark, being too cute by half. Another says, we really need a CEO version of this. And it's a graphic that says, officer down. Again, too cute by half. And this person went on in the mentions to defend mocking the death of someone because they worked at Bank of America. Now, since Charlie Kirk's killing, which we're coming up on the year anniversary. I'm going to talk about that later in the show.

We've discussed violence. We've discussed the rise in support for political violence, especially among younger people. And it's worth going back to what some of the polling says on this. Gallup, a recent Gallup poll found age is the strongest predictor of attitudes toward political violence with young adults aged 18 to 29 more likely than any other age groups to say that it's sometimes okay to use violence to achieve a political goal. And I'll just pause right there and say, we have no evidence that Cisneros had a political goal. We do have evidence of is that people with political goals are expressing their sympathy for Cisneros and downplaying the tragedy that befell the Piacente family and this young woman and now these two motherless kids who, by the way, these children have

nothing to do with Bank of America for all these people know that kids could grow up and be Democratic Socialists or Marxists. They have absolutely no idea, but I bet you those kids will have wanted their mom in their life, no matter what. Gallup finds that there's about a 10-year jump in support for this since 1970 and in the last 10 years even. They find actually the relationship between loneliness and political violence very significantly based on age and gender. So in 45% of men aged 1829, who always or often feel lonely, say political violence is sometimes acceptable. So that's about half of young men who say that they're often or always lonely then supporting political violence. I don't think there's any real surprise. And among women, it's about a quarter.

So women who often are always feel lonely about a quarter of them say political violence is sometimes acceptable. And we have numbers from you gov. They report younger and more liberal Americans are more likely than older or more conservative Americans to say political violence can sometimes be justified. They note this remains a minority opinion among these groups. They say among the very liberal, 25% say political violence can sometimes be justified, and 55% say it can't. Among adults, under 3019% say it can't. Now, Harvard has other numbers. They say political identities, Democrat, Republican, Independent, don't explain political violence among young Americans and ideological labels account for far less than underlying structural conditions.

Those are, that's their finding. I think it is contradicted by the UGov finding. Nevertheless, they find also like Gallup did, higher acceptance clusters among young people, this is of political violence, higher acceptance clusters among young people facing greater economic precarity, lower trust in institutions, higher social alienation, and stronger beliefs that others hold harmful intentions. So that can create a vicious cycle, by the way. If you have younger, lonely, economically precarious people who are angry at institutions like Bank of America and United Health and say, and already say that violence for a political goal can can sometimes be justified and are then, as we have these conversations, we're talking about, we just put some accounts up on the screen who made these points.

Higher among people who are on social media, that's already really interesting. It's not a causation thing. It's a correlation thing. It's not a causation thing. There may be findings in the future that point to causation itself. But it is obviously interesting. You can get into this vicious cycle where. people who are already inclined to say political violence is acceptable or then being like lectured to

about it by people defending Bank of America and United Health. But that's not what I'm doing here. What I'm doing here is saying, as we have said many times, that nonviolence as a political solution is more moral and practical. It will actually achieve your goals, perhaps not as quickly. it will, it's just gross to even have to say that, but it's also better for your soul. If you understand that people like Piacenti, if you're upset about Pesenti, find a way to put PSNTI on trial. And yes, that sounds like working. And by the way, I think that's somewhat ridiculous to talk about middle management at the Bank

of America going on trial, but find a way to put the institution itself on trial. Find a way to hold the institution itself accountable through the system. And I get that sounds naive to say, work through the system, work through the system. But it's an alternative to taking an innocent life that has not been tried for a crime. Whether you love or hate our system, trying people for their crimes, putting them on trial is obviously, obviously the best way, the most moral and just way, to go about settling these questions. And I don't buy into the, obviously into the formula that Piacenti is somehow guilty of something because she's middle management at Bank of America. I do believe that institutions like Bank of America and J.P. Morgan and United Health have real

structural flaws and they are powerful parts of a corrupted system. Being in Washington, D.C., you see all around you how good people are often parts of corrupt systems. And they frankly don't agree with me sometimes when I say that they are parts of or that they are a part of a corrupt system. They're sort of willingly a cog in a bigger machine because they believe that they're influencing those institutions to be better from the inside. Or frankly, they have political disagreements with me about the role these institutions play in our system. But that's a question for the court of law. If you believe that laws have been broken, if you believe that there need to be. new laws that people can transgress, I promise it will work out better for all of us than vigilante

street justice, which, again, that's not even what this appears to be. This appears to be a mentally ill woman who, according to her brother, may have stopped taking injections for bipolar disorder and clearly didn't have enough of a network of support around her. And we'll find out more. Maybe he had bad medical interventions. We'll see this appears to be a completely random crime that happened to visit, tragically, a Bank of America, middle management, vice president, new mother who just baptized her kid, celebrated her second anniversary, and gotten back from maternity leave. So the, I think, instinct, the impulse to celebrate some of this is downstream of social media when you're, you know, if you are older than probably 40,

Your childhood wasn't spent on social media where you are being exposed constantly to violence. And that totally is conditioning us to be numb to political violence when it happens distantly. Right. It's different when it happens in your community, in your life. But it looks like just more pixels on the screen. And you've been sort of numbed. You've been conditioned to have to have. have some numbness to this because it's been indistinguishable, visually and distinguishable from a

video game on apps for so long that I think that actually explains why some people come across us so callous about all of this. You're always going to have crazy people. You're always going to have people who have these awful instincts about violence and say stupid things. That's always going to happen. But when I look at these polls and when I look at what happens on social media after Thompson or Piacenti, I don't think it's everyone even just buying into, right, the Hassan Piker idea that Brian Thompson was guilty of social murder, the Engels concept of social murder that Hassan Piker was talking about with the New York Times when it came to Mangione. I don't think everybody's necessarily intellectually buying into that.

I think there's just deep hatred of the system and a numbness to violence, period. that is creating a really perfect storm, an awful perfect storm, but a perfect storm, nonetheless. So prayers with Piacenti family and everybody who was touched by this terrible, terrible tragedy, I hope that we can start to wake up. I mean, we covered the meta-settlement last week where it's too small of a settlement, of course, and they're continuing basically to do business as usual with some minor tweaks. I do hope that people are starting to wake up to what it means that we are all connected to every horrible act of violence that happens around the globe now that it can be filmed

with a smartphone uploaded and seen by everybody within mere seconds and then snowball virally. And we are just exposed to so much horrible violence that it numbs us. I really think it numbs us. And I hope there's more social science research in that space. I do think some of that explains the reactions here because social media feels low stakes. It especially feels low stakes. If you feel lonely and you're alienated and you're an economically precarious situation, you feel powerless. It can feel like a low stakes way to kind of reclaim some power, I think, for people.

But it heads in a direction that will not just touch the powerful at some point. It will come for you because maybe you'll be this guy who was just very. visiting his son in New York City and got stabbed and is in the hospital right now, expected to survive, hopefully we'll survive. But it doesn't stop at elites. And it will turn and take innocent lives. I mean, obviously, it is. But I hope we can find a way to start coping with what these technologies have done to us. On that note, since I just was talking about some of our biggest capitalist institutions. Take a listen here to a debate that happened on CNN last night on Abby Phillips show between Camille Foster and Jamel Hill, one of the better below deck guests in history,

but worst sports analysts in history. Here's what happened between Camille and Jamel in a conversation about capitalism itself. It's one thing to not think capitalism isn't working ideally. It's another thing entirely to insist that it is oppressive, that it is bound up with white supremacy. I've always preferred Adam Smith's description of capitalism as the natural system of liberty, the idea that people can own property, that they can exchange it freely with one another for profit, that they can find ways to put their resources to good use, those private property, and profit in a way that is actually beneficial to everyone else, that there can be gains from trade that are mutually beneficial.

These are foundational ideas that have created more wealth than any other system in human history. That is what capitalism is. That is not white supremacy. I've just described the actual... I've actually just described the basic facts of the economics. That ain't how it's always worked.

Slavery is an institution that is older than writing. It predates capitalism. The notion that white supremacy and all these other things are bound up with capitalism in an intrinsic and fundamental way is so absurd and laughable. How is it absurd? But it barely needs to be defended. What do you mean it barely needs to be defended?

You actually have to articulate what the connection is. How are these two things the same? I'm talking about private property, the right to exchange and sell it with whomever you like. What does that have to do with white supremacy? It was intended to work versus how it was actually working. I'm talking about how it's working right now today. What is the white supremacist dynamic of private property? It's not working on it.

I think that's the problem. Okay, so CNN is obviously a horrible platform to hash out the deep questions about what is capitalism and whether it works. Like, that was abundantly clear about all of this. And I think partially that's why new media is taking a lot more viewers away from CNN, like by the day. Not that that wasn't great from Camille because I think he actually was prepared, whether or not you agree with him. He was prepared in a way Jamel Hill was not. And she just started asking questions, basically. Like, do you think it's always worked that way?

Which was almost a non sequitur because he was saying, it says, he was talking about a definition of capitalism that isn't shared by her. I think that's part of the problem here is that we don't share that definition of what actually is capitalism. Because there's this industrial definition of capitalism and definition of capitalism that describes the system as it is now. And there's kind of a pre-industrial description of capitalism, which I think Camille was saying Adam Smith's description captures, that the Smith definition, captures, and though Smith was writing in industrializing times, it's a bit different than when you're talking about when we were all kind of living in small communities and tribal communities and exchanging goods with one another for value, which is what Camille was talking about. You heard him cite that Smith definition, which is, of course, different than what global industrial

capitalism has become. And those two things are different. He is completely correct that the system that he's describing does predate slavery and has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, race, or anything else. It's just how humans have allocated resources or have found ways to allocate their resources. But at the same time, there's the global capitalist definition and the definition of socialism as it came to be. I mean, socialism exists in contrast to capital. Marxism is a reaction to capitalism. If you read Marxism, he is explicitly reacting to the capitalist system, and that is an ideology that grows up in reaction to industrial capitalism, which itself was very different because the globe was becoming intertwined. We had these massive, powerful institutions, concentrations of power, whether it's Dutch East India Company, or at this point, something like Bank of America, as we discussed earlier in the show. And I think Camille was talking about something just completely different than what she wanted to talk about. She wanted to talk about a system that a lot of libertarians, for example, wouldn't defend, which is these concentrated monopolies, crony capitalism and the like.

But then to invoke race and to say that the capitalism that Camille Foster is talking about, which is just the free exchange of goods. essentially, because he cited the Adamsmith definition, basically making that point, to say that that is inextricably intertwined with capitalism itself. Maybe she can make that argument about global industrial capitalism. I think you would have a really, really hard time doing that. A lot of people aren't familiar with the history of the Muslim slave trade. If you're familiar with the history of the Muslim slave trade, you would certainly not be saying that white supremacy, as Jamal Hill means it, was inextricably intertwined with capitalism, that you can't have one without the other. That's, I think, a pretty difficult argument to make. I think that's the

argument she was trying to make, but wasn't even actually like really addressing the point. Instead, was, as is her want, racializing something in that conversation with Camille that is not categorically a racial issue at all, which is the system of exchange. Like, I am a strong critic of the capitalist system as it exists right now. Michael Lynn just wrote an excellent piece and unheard where I also write talking about how brain dead the discussion between capitalism and socialism is in America right now, because everybody's just talking about mixed economies on a scale that maybe is closer to raw capitalism or closer to socialism, but they're still in the socialist economies a lot of Democratic socialists will point to a capitalist system within

what is referred to as a socialist system, but what is just a different place on the spectrum of state control of the economy versus private control, public control of the economy versus private control of the economy. So don't get me wrong, this isn't like a defense of Ein Rand or anything so much as it is to say that Jamel Hill injecting race into the conversation and not being able to respond to Camille making the point about how the system he's talking about is not the system she's talking about. It's a frustrating element of the debate because injecting the identitarian politics into the conversation about capitalism itself is not even a good way to talk about the flaws in capitalism.

It's not even helpful to her own cause of trying to debunk. capitalism, but she seemed not equipped to have that discussion. And I think what happens with people like Jamel Hill is they're in coastal bubbles where there aren't a lot of Camille Fosters. There aren't a lot of people who are challenging these assertions. And certainly, you kind of know your own social network in person, wherever city you live in, whatever it is. doesn't have a lot of disagreement, and this is the important part, has isolated the people who disagree with you or has purged the people who disagree with you as bigots. Like, CNN wouldn't have been doing that panel in Trump One or even in the interim, like the Biden era. They tried to reform, obviously, with Chris Lich.

Did not go well for them. But this just would not have been a panel that they were happy. They would have had Jamel Hill, but they certainly wouldn't have wouldn't have allowed. it to be as much of a conversation as it was. Abby Philip, of course, interjected and was basically taking Jamel Hill's side in the debate. Really not a surprise to anybody. But these were conversations that were basically shut out of corporate press for, I don't know, like almost 10 years.

And because of that, the Jamel Hills of the world have lost the muscle reflex, to put it in sports journalist terms. They've lost the muscle memory. They've lost the strength to be able to defend some of these arguments because they've purged people who disagree as bad, bigoted, Trump, like, MAGA knuckle-draggers, which, of course, Camille Foster isn't. And when you do that, you end up looking silly on TV because you haven't thought through, you haven't thought through the challenges, the serious challenges to your own argument.

And that's what you end up getting in prime time. unfortunately for Jamel Hill. All right, let's talk about this Columbia Journalism Review story on Zoran Mamdani. The story is absolutely wild. So Columbia Journalism Review said there is a newly created signal group just for influencers,

which was formed out of the creators for Zoron group that supported the mayor's election campaign. So get this. Now taxpayer money is being used in an influencer campaign. Mamdani rose to pay. power on a genuinely innovative new media strategy, less money, name recognition than Andrew Cuomo was really clever on social media. And even Donald Trump sort of did game-recognized

game in the Oval Office. Kamala Harris has been hitting up Zonaramam Dani and other top Democrats have as well, clearly trying to understand what made him successful with a fairly radical plan, Democratic socialism, at least for a long time, I should say, until really Zerun Mom Dony came in and changed things. That was seen as outside of the mainstream. And that conversation has completely shifted because the political success that he's found, not just in his own campaign, but then also kind of blessing other campaigns in New York City and even around the country. And so people are wondering, how did he do it? Well, more and more, we're seeing odd paid influencer content that isn't identified as such that is being forged in private and then not

identified as being part of a organized private campaign in public. So actually, let's even just put the semifor story up before we dive further into the Mamdani story. This is a Max Tanny piece. I think he's coming back on the show soon. This is crazy. He reports over the last several months a new generation of YouTube growth hackers have flooded American politics with sensationalized low-quality content, reaching millions of viewers with nearly identical videos taking aim at progressive politicians, including Zeromomom-Pritzger, notably while the videos are presented as laypeople giving straight-to-camera ideological news recaps, they feature actors and spokespeople paid small amounts of money to read nearly identical scripts, laced with misleading claims and outright falsehoods.

If you look at what Max is reporting on, literally he is talking about people who are actors reading scripts that are then used to play the SEO game on YouTube. And that actually takes a lot of skill, by the way, for whomever is doing this to make money. What they're trying to do is really just get clicks. And it's the type of thing that makes this independent journalism a whole lot harder, so please do subscribe. But in all seriousness, they're gaming the system.

They're saying this is SEO, so search engine optimization. This word is popping right now. So they'll put up a video, and the content of the video won't even match the headline, But they put that headline on it just to get people to click because they're just trying to get revenue from people clicking through and watching the videos. It's absolutely wild. But it's part of it's clearly, clearly organized. And it's that Max calls it ghost creators, ghost creators.

But I think you can actually apply that label to people in the Zoran campaign as well. So the New York Post summarized the CJR article pretty well. They said, Momdani assembled an army of nearly 200 influencers giving the social media stars VIP access to push the lefty administration's talking points. The web of online personalities are being fed talking points by City Hall through an encrypted signal group text, potentially running a foul of local record keeping laws, according to the study by CJR. Some influencers are even pocketing taxpayer funds, quote, for work on particular messaging campaigns. So here's more from the Columbia journalism review. They're in the signal group, which, by the way, does here in D.C., we had a scandal where city official, were on a signal group. It's encrypted. And so it doesn't always comply with local record preservation.

Everyone remembers the Hegseth signal group, but it's happened in a municipal level as well where it doesn't comply with local record keeping statutes. And it's not even a security issue so much as it is. You're supposed to keep these records. It was a problem here in D.C. I don't know if it'll be a problem for Mom Donnie because I don't know what New York laws are. But apparently, people on this list are quote, invited to events and offered interviews with city officials, influencers who are selected to join the group, fill out an intake forum that describes where they live and what topics they are interested in. They will then receive invitations targeted to their interests, such as being invited to join a neighborhood canvas or film the preparation of a canvas. And the CGR reports in many

ways, the signal group is similar to a traditional press list created and used by communication teams, and that the influencers receive updates and can decide what they choose to cover. That's accurate. What was just described by CJR does describe a press list, was called a press list. It's press list in the biz where, for example, you'll get on a random congressman's press list, or you're on the Treasury Department's press list. And they have targeted lists. So they'll say, for example, I know Emily covers, what do I cover? They'll say, I know Emily covers women's issues. So Treasury will send me their press releases related to women's pay or anything like that. And so they have a targeted list because they kind of know where you're coming from and all that and they'll direct things to you.

This is done by all kinds of institutions. I have even seen it on messaging apps. The EU has one. It's just a way to blast things that aren't all over email. DMs. People have DM groups too just so that they can blast out newsworthy things. If you're in it, you're on a press list or whatever. you're under absolutely no obligation to do anything with that information. It's just the

equivalent of when you would get literal mail in your inbox. They're just sending you the information. It's not used for colluding or anything like that. But C.J.R. goes on and says, there are, of course, clear differences between the work of journalists and social media influencers. These influencers have been criticized for not asking adversarial questions or doing tough investigative reporting. Influencers in the signal group are not paid by the city for their coverage, although some are paid by city agencies for work on particular messaging campaigns. CJR reports New York City agency employees told us that the going pay rate is $5,000 to $20,000 per influencer campaign. The fees are paid to influencers who are given contracts by marketing and advertising agencies that

have contracts with the city. The campaigns may involve co-creating content that includes messages the city agency wishes to promote. The influencers are hired as independent contractors under New York state law. This gives them autonomy and city officials said contributes to their free them from editorial interference. For example, they may refuse to put a city announcement early on in their video. They may refuse to put a city announcement early on in their video. Well, you're paying them. You're paying them to do a service. So I don't really care if you have editorial influence over where they plug you, but you're paying them to complete the service, which is to promote, presumably they don't get paid if they don't promote the city's messaging and to the city's

liking. And so the signal group is one thing, but it seems to also include people who are being paid and are not disclosing that they are being paid by the city. Like having this broad signal group where you're throwing everything at the wall of journalists to see what sticks, to see who picks up on a story. And again, it's not really journalists. It's influencers. If it's influencers on a press list or influencers on a messaging list, again, that's not different from when people used to blast out talking points. That's still a thing that happens. A group will blast out talking points to people that they know we're going to go on media.

And they want to just sort of have those in their heads. And some of the people that take the talking points want the talking points because they want to repeat them. They want to do what this, whether it's the RNC or whatever group wants them to say, the White House, they want to sound as the White House wants them to sound because maybe they want a job. Maybe they want to impress the White House or maybe they just really believe in the cause. And so they want to be amplifying that messaging and helping out their preferred politician or political administration. And in the past, that hasn't been disclosed because if you're not saying you're a journalist and you're not pretending to be like an independent analyst, if you're going on CNN as like a Republican consultant, I don't think you necessarily need to disclose that. You know, I think I probably still would if I were in that position.

But if you are acting in a capacity as a journalist, you have an obligation to be honest with your audience about where your money is coming from. I keep a disclosure list on my substack of all of the freelance of money that I've gotten in the last couple of years, how my income streams work. I think that's really important. I'm organized freelance. And so I lay it out how that works over on the substack just so that people can see it all there. It's linked in my Twitter bio, too. And I think that's important. And this is a problem because influencers have blurred the line between what's a journalist and what's a pundit.

And yes, that line was already a bit blurry before because there's wiggle room between being kind of an opinion journalist like I am and being a straight news, just the facts type journalist. So that has very much been with us. But that's why disclosure is always important. And when there are coordinated campaigns, the public should know if taxpayer money is behind spreading the tentacles, spreading political tentacles across social media using taxpayer money in a way that is benefiting the mayor's messaging scheme. This happened during, and part of the reason I want to talk about this, I was reading from a New York Times report earlier in the year. This was in the summer. They mentioned during California's hard-fought primary the spring, Tom Steyer's campaign paid 17 influencers at least five grand apiece,

including one Carlos Eduardo Espina, who has over 14 million followers on TikTok, and received a total of $400,000 campaign finance filing show. Former Representative Katie Porter, who also ran unsuccessfully for California Governor, paid 12 influencers. God bless you guys. Wow, 12 of you took money, a total of $139,500,000. 139, 500. Katie Porter,

I mean, I can't even think of 12 people who would take money from Katie Porter. Somehow amounted to $139,500. One of them, the Times reports a lifestyle creator named Avery Cyrus with 9.5 million followers on TikTok received $25,000 for what appeared to be a single post, claiming, quote, Katie Porter's thing works. Sure does, girl. Now, if you are being paid by the city, you should disclose that you are being paid by the city. If you are part of a formal organized network of influencers for a

partisan purpose, then you should disclose that you're part of that. Even if it's honestly, I think even if it's not paid, if it's coordinated, you should disclose that you're part of this. If it's a formal coordinated effort on behalf of the mayor's campaign or Tom Sires campaign or on behalf of the city itself, you should disclose that. But if you are getting paid, you should absolutely disclose that. It was really took way less time for us to do this with products. Like, if people are getting paid to promote some stupid nail polish, they have to disclose it on the social media apps.

Almost all of them have rules about that. Now, it's like actually baffling. It's taken us this long. Maybe it's because politicians are slow to catch on to these things and not particularly clever and strategic and didn't realize they could weaponize influencers in this way until right now 2026. But either way, it's actually insane

that there aren't rules for this. I don't Anna Paulina Luna has a whole bill for foreign. You're being paid by a foreign government. It's a bill that would compel you to disclose that on social media. But I think it should just be the apps themselves should say, I'm kicking you off. If you're putting stuff on here that's misleading people into thinking it's just your organic thought of the day. But in fact, it's you're being paid just like you would be paid to promote a nail polish. So Columbia Journalism Review is a generally very, very left-leaning, it's a journalism review associated with Columbia.

So that tells you where it's coming from. It's generally a left-leaning publication, and it's somewhat interesting to see them picking up on what Mom Donnie's office did here. Clever, listen, pure raw politics, clever on behalf of the Mom-Dani administration. But to not disclose it is unethical. It's exactly the type of thing that so's distrust

and institutions because people feel like they don't know who's being paid for what. And so it seems like very obvious that ethical politicians and heads of apps like these should just have policies in place that make this really simple. I have no idea why we're so far behind on this, but we are. All right. One more story before we go to break and then dive into Lindsay Clancy. wanted to roll this audio from the closing in the Charlie Kirk preliminary hearing. This trial is so, the preliminary part of this trial has been so hard to follow.

I'm reading from a Fox News report here, they say a lawyer for the accused Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson drew rebukes inside and outside the courtroom Tuesday over remarks that painted the victim as the one behaving, quote unquote, hatefully, before he was shot and killed in front of thousands of people during a public speaking event at Utah Valley University. So this is the attorney. Let me pull up his name, so we have it in front of us. His name is Richard Novak, and he is Tyler Robinson's defense attorney. He was making his argument against binding over the case for trial and claimed there was a, quote, significant gap between what Charlie Kirk stood for and what Robinson felt about him. That's how Fox News described his

argument. But let's actually just take a listen to Richard Novak himself from inside the courtroom Tuesday. It is true that Mr. Kirk spoke hatefully of certain groups of people. He spoke hatefully of people who don't have traditional norm-conforming gender identities. He spoke hatefully of people who are not strictly heterosexual. He spoke hatefully of people who have sexual relationships out of marriage. And yes, it is true that the evidence from Mr. Twiggs is that he identified in a non-gender-conformity. way to his friends and that he was in a romantic relationship with Mr. Robinson. But that doesn't mean that those personal choices by Mr. Twigs and by Mr. Robinson

equate with the hate that at least Mr. Robinson says he had toward Mr. Curbs. So I think that the state has utterly failed to prove that there is a particular political expression that Mr. Robinson took issue with. We all know, because we live in the real world, the kinds of things that Mr. Kirk said, which some people find hateful, but that's not the same as the state-producing evidence about what Mr. Robinson thought. Okay, but, sir, first of all, are you an idiot? And secondly, that's not what you've said.

you said, it is true that Charlie Kirk spoke hatefully about X, Y, and Z. You didn't say it's true that some people believe he spoke hatefully about X, Y, and Z. You said it is true that Charlie Kirk spoke hatefully about people in this situation, that situation, the other situation. Now, Kirk's, the Deputy Attorney General, Chad Grunander, tore into Novak. He said the state takes great exception with Mr. Novak. attributing all of this, quote, hate to Mr. Kirk during his argument today, none of what was presented during the preliminary hearing shows that he is hateful towards this

group or hateful towards that group. He had an opinion that he would express on politics and religion that doesn't make it hate, but the fact that Mr. Novak even considered as hate makes the case for state in his client's own words, he hated what Mr. Kirk stood for, right? That's what the evidence is presented, as Tyler Robinson said, some hate basically can't be negotiated with. And that's what part of the motivation was, this is all going to be hashed out in the trial, which frankly, I think, can't come soon enough because seeing this hash out in a court of law,

seeing the evidence that's presented in a court of law, testimonies under oath, that is all going to be, again, it simply cannot come soon enough. But this is a preview of the defense of Tyler Robinson. He is in enormous trouble. This guy is an absolute moron to think any of this would help his case. You can try to kind of follow the logic that's happening there, but you are just making yourself sound dumb by blurring this distinction between hate and disagreement. And listen, Charlie, over the course of his career, totally changed his tone. If you're talking about something from like the last year of his life in particular, you'd be hard pressed to find an example of anything that could be by his worst enemy.

brought in front of, you know, a group of people who would say, yes, that is definitively categorically hate. There are some people who will say, yeah, if you don't support same-sex marriage or you don't support abortion rights, et cetera, then you are necessarily hateful. That's not most of the country. I think it's too much of the country. But Megan on her show today played some clips just pushing back on this. Ridiculous it was. You should go take a listen to that of the way that Charlie addressed people who actually were calling him names for accepting gay Republicans who supported Donald Trump or people who asked him from the perspective of a trans person to respond to what he believed. And he did not speak hatefully.

He spoke from a place of deep, firm conviction. But to say for this attorney, just to be like, well, it is true. It is true that he spoke hatefully about these people and these people. He sounded lost. He sounded like he was flailing, like treading water, trying to get himself out of this hole that he had dug himself into. And so, again, the trial cannot come soon enough so that we can see all of this played out in a controlled court of law environment where people are under oath.

exactly what the evidence looks like, exactly what the cases for Tyler Robinson to actually claim not guilty here. I want to know what the Robinson case is. If this isn't any indication of how competently it's going to be made or how convincingly or persuasively it's going to be made, that sign is horrific for Tyler Robinson. Again, to be clear, already a very difficult case for Tyler Robinson. No question about it. But his attorney is a very difficult case. but his attorney appears to be a complete moron. All right, I am going to, on the other side of this break, dive into, I think, something that connects

all of the different reactions to Lindsay Clancy we've seen in recent days, and I hope you'll stick around for it right after this quick break. I've been sleeping in cozy earth, bamboo, stretched knit pajamas, and changing into them is officially the best part of my night. I will say, sometimes I might not change out of them. I don't know, maybe till the next night. go through my Saturday, fully in the cozy earth pajamas. I love how silky smooth and buttery soft they feel. The second you put them on, I wear mine every single night because they're naturally

temperature regulating and breathable, so you stay completely cool without ever waking up hot or clammy. They're crafted from viscos from bamboo with just the right amount of easy stretch. The fit is relaxed and drapey, so you look completely put together, even sipping morning coffee or answering the front door or ending your day, you're going to look good and feel good the entire time. Plus, there's no real risk in trying them out. They offer an easy return and exchange window if the fit isn't right, and everything is backed by a warranty. Head to cozy earth.com and use my code Emily for up to 20% off home and sleepwear. That's code Emily for up to 20% off on home and sleepwear.

And if you see a post-purchase survey, please be sure to mention that you heard about Cozy Earth right here. All right, everyone. Welcome back to After Party. I wanted to dive into the reactions to Lindsay Clancy in recent days, because there's one similarity, I think, with a lot of the Clancy supporters that's important to notice and worthwhile. And I think helpful insight into why we have seen,

particularly women, mobilizing on behalf of Lindsay Clancy, not just on TikTok, but also in person outside of the courthouse. So I have a couple of clips, And then I also have collected reactions from the GoFundMe page that was set up in support of the Clancy family or Lindsay Clancy's parents. There are women on TikTok and in person outside of the courtroom who have mobilized on behalf of Lindsay Clancy who are in a couple of different categories. The first category, I think, is people who believe for whatever reason, and they have their reasons. I think a lot of them have been debunked, frankly, but they have their reasons for believing Patrick Clancy has something to do with this, that Lindsay Clancy may have been coerced or may have been pushed by Patrick Clancy

who's actually in this and they are just Lindsay Clancy truthers. They're Patrick Clancy truthers. It's probably a good way to say it. There's another group of people. It's what appears to be a lot of the people outside of the courtroom who, by Lindsay Clancy's own story, that she is the one who did this. They aren't digging into different conspiracy theories, but they believe that she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity because, as I think is obviously true. She was failed by the medical system and the treatment options around her. That's not a great argument for not guilty, right, by reason of insanity. There are good arguments for not guilty by reason of insanity. Reasonable people can disagree on them, but just saying that

Clancy was failed isn't in itself by the medical system. It isn't of itself the best argument because she still did it. She still said she was hearing voices. And so then you have to deal with the legal question of Massachusetts law, which Jed Rubin felt over at the free press, wrote a really good piece explaining the intricacies of Massachusetts law and actually the quirks of Massachusetts law and voluntary manslaughter versus involuntary manslaughter

and actually what it takes to get to not guilty. But let's roll this reaction as women swarmed Kevin Reddington outside of the courthouse recently. Here, let me play it. We came from Houston to want you. Thank you. I wish someone would have my daughter's need. Really?

Yes, sir. Where should we go eat a steak? We want to take you out first. Thank you, Mr. Reddy. Since my daughter, he had a little bit through help. I had my mental health weaponized against me in family court. I had an issue with it. when I was postpartum, or whenever I was postpartum, my second son was eight months ago.

You hear the voice of so many moms. I know what Kelly went for. Sorry, Lindsay went through. I know what she went through. I feel like I've watched you every day and I've just been like, I wish I had a where she's so, we came from you. You see what both of those women who swarmed Kevin Reddington did there?

You probably noticed this without me having to point it out. They immediately turned it back to, themselves. I had the mental health system weaponized against me. I went through this. Here's another clip. This one I'm not even going to play. I'm just going to show it up on the screen because you've already probably seen some of this. So these are women who are showing in their own lives how this one on the screen says postpartum anxiety be like dot dot dropping her baby over a railing. And it's a genre of videos that was going viral in the last couple of weeks. Postpartum anxiety got me like dot, dot, dot, again, dropping a baby over railing their baby dolls, of course.

But again, this was in reaction to the Clancy trial. This was happening across social media in reaction to the Clancy trial. And what are they doing? They are taking this case about the death of three kids and turning it towards themselves. And I actually think that's really interesting. I think it's shameful and bad behavior. but I think it's interesting. Let me show you a couple of the responses that I collected.

I went through the GoFundMe page that was set up for Lindsay Clancy's family. And the reactions that I saw from many people, I scrolled through like the last several weeks of people who donated to it, it's up over a million dollars of people who have donated to support the Clancy family. Let's just read some of the reactions that I pulled because This one says, for example, dear Lindsay, my heart is broken for you. I understand your pain. I understand your pain. My heart is broken for you.

I understand your pain. And then goes through this person's experiences in bullet points, their personal experiences, in their own life. Let's go to another one. You are loved, and I really hope you will eventually feel everyone trying to keep you upright and feel our arms wrapped tightly around you. The system failed you and your babies. Honestly, I've worked in postpartum and I've dealt with PPD. myself and I've known many others that have as well and your story has touched so many hearts because we know just how hard you tried. Let's go to another one. I'm a single parent from Scotland on a very

modest income, but giving what I can to allow this remarkable family to continue to support Lindsay. As someone who went through postpartum depression with limited support, I wanted to ensure there's a path forward for you all at the end of the legal proceedings. Stay strong. Another one. Thank you for loving your daughter and believing we as women all deserve better. I lost my daughter at four hours old. This is a horrible story. I had a C-section. And because she passed out. required to return to work three weeks later. Some of these stories are heart-wrenching. Awful. But I think what we're learning a bit, if we narrow down how so many are, so many women are kind of explaining their solidarity with Lindsay Clancy, their support for Lindsay Clancy,

it comes down to them feeling as though they were not heard when they struggled with postpartum depression, which is very real and very common and much more common than postpartum psychosis. This is apples and oranges, right? They're both fruit. These are both postpartum conditions. So they're fruit in that same category, but they are both totally, totally different conditions. Postpartum depression is not postpartum psychosis. It is not in the same league often. It is a very, very different condition. But I think what you see in a lot of these reactions, here's another one. God bless you all, I haven't been lucky enough to have children, but I have been unlucky enough to suffer from deep, dark depression from my struggles with infertility. It goes on with another

horrible heartbreaking story. Here's another one. Lindsay, there are no words big enough for this kind of grief. I just want you to know you're all seen. Goes on to say, having known postpartum depression, anxiety myself, your story has reached deeply into my heart. What does your, respectfully, postpartum depression have to do with a case where a woman had postpartum psychosis and murdered three children? And she is claiming, right? There are different questions that are raised about when she confessed, whether it was to Patrick, whatever. She filed a civil complaint that everyone should go ahead and read. Patrick and Lindsay both piled a civil complaint against medical providers where they lay out on behalf of Lindsay Clancy, how the doctors

around her, including Jennifer Tufts, the telehealth only doctor, prescribed her this cocktail of different drugs being taken at different dosages in different times. We don't know if there was overlap, what it might have looked like, but we do know that she was seesawing back and forth between all these different medications that she didn't appear to be taking in full and the like over the course of a very short period of time from about October until when this happened in January. Obviously, there was, I think, a grave medical failure around her. There's a detailed record of both her and Patrick Clancy trying to get help because they knew something was wrong. I think that's partially was so heartbreaking about this story or so difficult about the story because obviously at its core,

it's heartbreaking and we don't need an explanation for why because three kids were killed and you don't need to explain why that's heartbreaking. But what does touch people about the story is just looking at how much they tried to control the situation and how many steps they took to try to mitigate the fallout and Lindsay Clancy wanted to get better, was seeking out inpatient treatments, was confiding in others. Clearly she had a serious problem and was aware that she had a serious problem. And I think part of that is why this is so difficult for us to wrap our heads around because we don't want to think, of somebody doing a lot of things right and it's still turning out so very wrong. But what I'm seeing in these reactions, again, respectfully, these are heartbreaking stories.

But your story has nothing to do with a guilty verdict here. And to see those women swarming Kevin Reddington and saying, me, I, what I look at that and see is people who did not feel heard, when they suffered with perhaps very real conditions. Some may be more than others. There's a spectrum of how seriously some of the people who are supporting Clancy appear to have suffered. But what I see is people feeling like they were not heard.

Like they were failed by the medical system and people didn't care enough and the system itself is not set up to be helpful. And what they're doing then is because they feel not heard, projecting that onto Lindsay Clancy, who is on trial for taking the lives of three kids. So legally, the question of guilt is different from necessarily whether the medical system failed Lindsay Clancy. That can be a factor, and it can be awful.

And you can agree with that and still think Lindsay Clancy is guilty and should be in prison. But what I see from these women is just me, I, me, I, and it is not about you, no matter how much you suffer. It's not about you. If you suffer from postpartum psychosis, you can talk here. That makes sense. I'm curious to hear your story. We've had some people call into the wrap-up show, sharing some of their experiences with postpartum psychosis.

If you had postpartum depression and you find that to be why you're sympathizing with Lindsay Clancy, your sympathy can be separate from her guilt and from what her punishment should be for acting on. acting on the psychosis. Now, we've seen testimony that if you say you have psychosis and the one time you heard this voice instructing you to take these drastic steps was when you committed the crime, well, that should be called into question. Certainly, the seriousness of the alleged psychosis should be called into question. At the same time, I have no trouble believing that somebody who had seesawed back and forth between all of these medications, who was confiding all of these serious problems, and who was left alone for a full hour, would snap in this awful way. On one hand, it's hard to believe

because it's a difficult tragedy to wrap your hand around. But on the other hand, it's pretty easy to believe that given the situation leading up to this, this is how it ended. But it's not about you. It's about the three kids who were killed. And what should happen? What consequence should be visited upon the person

who confessed to it and says she did it? Again, there are two groups here. they're the Patrick Clancy Truthers, and they're in a different category. I'm talking about the women who say, I'm going to donate money to the Clancy family because I know what postpartum depression is like. Lindsay Clancy had postpartum psychosis, according to her own defense team. She did not have postpartum depression. It was psychosis.

So perhaps you should find a healthier outlet for these resentments and sorrows. that have built up in you, and maybe you did deserve a fairer hearing. Maybe the medical system did fail you. I actually believe that. I think that's definitely a takeaway from the Clancy case. Maybe your husband didn't hear you. Maybe your parents didn't. Maybe you didn't get the support that you needed.

We are a more alienated, isolated, and lonely country, according to social science research. So that's not surprising to me at all. But if your impulse is to jump on this case and start talking about it, to talk about yourself, you're doing this so wrong. That's not what this is about. It's not what this is about. All right.

We're going to take one more quick break, and we'll be back on the other side. Well, I want to pass along a heartfelt thank you from my friends at Preborn, and regular listeners know how special I think Preborn is. Their president, Dan Steiner, asked me to share just how grateful they are for faithful supporters like you. So far this year, because of generous partners, more than 50,000 babies have been saved. from abortion. Think about that. Pause. 50,000 lives changed and generations impacted. Every tax deductible gift is used to rescue babies and share the hope of Jesus Christ with their moms. In fact, this year alone, more than 8,000 women have made decisions to follow Christ all because

someone like you helped provide a free ultrasound. It costs just $28 to provide one life-saving ultrasound, and $15,000 can place an ultrasound machine in a pregnancy clinic where it can save countless lives for years to come. Dan's message is simple. Thank you. Your generosity is saving lives both for earth and eternity. And today, there are still mothers waiting for that same life-changing moment. Would you help? Your gift of $28 can provide one life-saving ultrasound. To give, dial pound 250 and say the keyword, baby, that's pound 250, baby, or visit preborn.com slash Emily. That's preborn.com slash Emily. All right, everyone. Wrap it up tonight's show, actually, by taking some questions from the chat. So if you're in the chat, you've seen me, I'm in the chat. And I've got some questions

here that we'll get to. We have a good show coming up, by the way, on Monday. I know it's Labor Day. We pre-taped the episode with Kathy Lee Gifford. And listen, I watched a lot of Kathy Lee Gifford in my time. My friend and I encouraged my roommate and I in college used to watch every single day because it was hard to turn off Kathy Lee and Hoda. When you were watching Kathy Lee in Hoda, circa like 2013, 2014, I mean, that was television gold, so had the opportunity to actually show Kathy Lee, old Kathy Lee clips, or a clip at least. It was fun. And I do a deep dive on that show on Hassan Piker.

And when I say deep dive, I mean, I go through just about every single controversial quote of his and try to contextualize it, help us come together with a bigger picture, kind of how conservatives can understand Hassan Piker who he is, what things he said that maybe are being over sensationalized, some things he said that deserve serious scrutiny and criticism. So that's coming up on Monday. One question here from the chat, is Jashinsky Polish? It's not Polish. It's actually Russian. I have very little, this is distant, distant ancestry. Like we're talking mid-19th century ancestry. I did the like ancestry.com tracing stuff during COVID and because one else. And actually, my family came from part of what was then Russia that is now Ukraine. But we don't have,

you know, that was a long time ago. We don't have any like serious family ties to the area or anything like that. John asks thoughts on Kalshi. Kalshi is no better in my book from which is no better from draftings, which is no better from any major gambling app. I think they are really bad. I know Kalshi has this different argument about how they're, it's, the house doesn't always win in Kalshi because of the way that it's organized or you're sort of, it's a betting pool, but they have all of these, who just, the American prospect actually just wrote a great story about this.

They have all of these, you're betting against institutional investors. Like you're betting against hedge funds. You're betting against big guys who have all of these. You should look up some of the videos. You can see all of the like monitors that professional investors are doing. And also I think it's not being as a Christian, I don't think it's, it's being a good steward of the money that God has entrusted to you to bet on it. That's not using it for the good because it is a bet. And if you go on Calhysbets, they're similar to the polymarket bets, they're similar to draft king bets. It's basically random. It's like, what is Justin Bieber going to say in his next song?

Like, will he say this word? So, you know, I think that's a deeper question. I just don't think that there's, I don't think most industrialized gambling is moral. I think it's a shameful way to take other people's money. I think it's preying on people. But I also even think the way that Calci is organized, pitting ordinary people and trying to convince ordinary people that this is giving them a fair shake in the market when they're betting it against institutional investors.

is really, really bad. This, by the way, is kind of a preview of what we do on the Friday episodes of the show on the podcast app. So if you're used to watching this on YouTube, you should check out the podcast. I really do just go through everyone's questions. Wait, this one says thoughts on GTA 6. No, I don't have thoughts on GTA 6. I have dabbled in GTA when I was like people would have them on.

like at house parties and stuff and that game is so fun it's so bad for your brain it is so fun i had no idea that there was a gta six um does emily like texas barbecue yeah i love all barbecue god barbecue is great um and then let's see what else do we have here uh oh lots of good questions man i just put out a thing for questions and like suddenly we're getting so many good ones here um Someone says, Emily, you are saying, I listen to the wrap-up show. You always show respect to the most un-anged lunatics when they call in. You know, yeah, we've gotten some calls on the Clancy case. It's really only been the Clancy case where I felt like this, where we've had a couple

callers in the last couple days on Series 6M where I've had to ask, well, where did you hear this? And someone would say, I don't know, I saw it on TikTok. And that's like actually the first time that I've encountered that in the wild where somebody takes the effort of calling into a show and then when you kind of press on, well, where did you hear that? Where did you hear that? And then I've been able to pull up the kind of viral memes and say, well, this is not true for this reason or that reason. And like one person called in and said, you know, there was no fingerprints found on the exercise bands. And I said, yes, that's true. But did you know that there were, there was DNA found on the exercise bands? And they had not heard that. And I think it's part of being siloed

on social media that I just like, it's nothing special about, certainly, but it's a matter of understanding that we're all like having some humility about how we all get our information now, which I think is important because, yeah. Finally, last question. Emily, what's the thing that Ryan Graham says that inferior say the most on breaking points or counterpoints? I don't know. That's a good question.

I think some of our deepest disagreements are probably about the morality of redistribution. Like just not even the technocratic questions about how to do it, but maybe even the like the morality of the morality of confiscating or taking like the wealth tax, for example. So that's that's probably the thing. But he doesn't ever make me angry. Like it's impossible to be angry at him. He's such a kind and decent person. Finally, someone says spotted cow and cheese curds or eating his pizza.

Spotted cow and cheese curds, man, 100%. All right, that's going to do it for us on tonight's edition of After Party. Pleasure to be with you all here on this lovely Wednesday evening. We are back on Monday. It's Labor Day, but I hope you'll be back to see you then, everyone.