After Party with Emily Jashinsky - Trump Inks Iran Deal, Megyn’s Message to Shapiro & Levin, PLUS Kanye’s Redemption Fight

Episode Date: June 18, 2026

Emily Jashinsky is joined by Megyn Kelly, host of “The Megyn Kelly Show,” to discuss the Trump administration’s new Iran agreement, the backlash surrounding Vice President JD Vance, and divisions within the conservative movement. Megyn then reveals if she would ever reconcile with people like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin. They also react to Amanda Seyfried’s latest comments about Charlie Kirk, debate the dangers of political demonization, and examine new polling showing Americans’ trust in the media has reached historic lows. Then Emily responds to the controversy surrounding San Francisco Giants players who wrote Bible verses on Pride-themed team caps. Emily rounds out the show with Florida Senator Rick Scott’s effort to block Kanye West from performing in Tampa, arguing that while Kanye’s past antisemitic remarks were reprehensible, he has publicly apologized, and more…   Unplugged: Switching is simple, Visit https://Unplugged.com/EMILY and order your UP phone today!   Toups & Co: Ready to give Toups a try? Get 25% off your first order by going to https://toupsandco.com/afterparty , and use code AFTERPARTY for 25% off your first order.   USAFacts: Demand government accountability by signing the open letter for reliable public data at https://USAFacts.org/supportdata Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome back to After Party, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us this evening. I'm excited to give a new up-and-coming journalist a shot on tonight's show. Megan Kelly will be with us. I think she's really going places. So it's a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to just maybe help out the great Megan Kelly in all seriousness. We are on episode 99 of After Party. We're at basically the one year and 100 episode mark. And so it's going to be great to check back in with Megan, especially considering all of the breaking news.

Please do subscribe. If you haven't subscribed yet, please do subscribe. It's the best way to help the show. Subscribe on YouTube, comment, like, share the videos, subscribe on wherever you get your podcasts. We do a audio-only episode every Friday. So we really are Monday, Wednesday, Friday. But that you can only get if you're on the podcast feed, and it's where I answer questions that all of you send in to my email, Emily at devilmaicaremedia. always more than happy to take those questions and we get into whatever might be bothering you

or in the news or even about the show or what you like what you're interested in what you feel like you're not hearing enough about so there's always a lot going on on our Friday episodes now as I mentioned there is breaking news Donald Trump the sentence is insane Donald Trump at Versailles just signed the Iran deal he really did just signed the memorandum of understanding at Versailles. Just the fact that he stayed longer to go to Versailles, it reminded me of how many just absolute legendary things he did on this G7 trip. Like just the, the, is legendary even the right word? I mean, I'm at a loss, really. He said today, Versailles is not Goldleaf. Versailles is the real deal. And he's been talking about how they signed the deal at Versailles just right now,

Obviously, it's late in Europe, just as he is eagerly talking about the signing that happened in front of President Macron, Secretary of State Rubio was there. He also said over the course of this trip, this is about Egyptian President LCC. Quote, he was in a hotel room, and I'm sorry, he was in a hotel and I met him. We fell in love, deeply in love. We didn't know each other before that. We had great chemistry. And I stayed twice as long as I was supposed to. like just the plot of forgetting Sarah Marshall is his relationship with the Egyptian president.

He also said at one point he got kind of distracted by what seemed to be a hot reporter in the crowd. He said, what a nice looking person. Is he from your country? He has such a nice way about him. My people are so mean. Handsome guy could put him in a movie right now. This was a whirlwind romance trip, I suppose. I was going to say a whirlwind of a trip, but then romance just naturally rolled off the tongue after hearing these beautiful quotes from the president. And he's coming home with a very controversial M-O-U signed just hours ago. So we're going to talk about that. We are going to talk about the, I guess, push from Senator Rick Scott, Senator Ashley Moody in Florida and others in Florida to prevent Kanye West from performing in Tampa Bay.

and we're going to talk about the fallout from the Christian MLB players who wrote a Genesis verse on their pride caps that they had to wear. And Scott Weiner, of course, Scott Weiner called that a quote-unquote defacement of those caps. So there's a lot to get to on tonight's show. And of course, Megan is our guest. So I'll show up. So you can listen to Megan. You're going to hear us talk about the new GQ cover of Amanda Seafried, where she speaks out about her remarks. on Charlie Kirk, almost too ridiculous to be believed.

And then we are also going to talk about the reaction to Megan's interview with JD and the deal itself. We were talking as of 4.30 p.m. So obviously the deal wasn't signed at Versailles yet, but basically the text of the full MOU had just been released. So just that's how fast moving these news cycles are, but particularly today. So without further ado, the one and only Megan Kelly host of the Megan. Kelly Show, let's get to it. Well, we talk about this on the show all of the time for years. Legacy Media, government, and big data companies just coaxed us into surrendering our digital freedom.

They would give lip service and still do to privacy while also leaving those digital backdoors wide open for their own purposes, of course. And sometimes they're blatant in conveying the idea that encryption is only for criminals or if that you want privacy, you must have something to hide what's wrong with you. How did we get here from? From cheering our Fourth Amendment rights to giving them up so readily for convenience. Well, this was engineered. Powerful people discovered that with the right incentives, people willingly surrender their data. And who profits? It's the same government agencies, platforms, and media companies that want you exposed and compliant. Well, Unplugged set out to actually do something about it.

The Up Phone from Unplug, you can see at my hand here, is the smartphone design to restore your rights. When it comes to blocking third-party trackers from shadowing data brokers, the upphone by unplugged outshines every device on the market. There's even a battery disconnect switch, so off really means off. You can see it here on the phone. I'm going out of country. I've mentioned this just in the next couple of weeks, and I'm bringing this because I plan to use the switch if I need to use the switch.

Now, all of this is independently verified and tested, so you can be confident in knowing your upphone is the most private smartphone you can buy. So check out Upphone from Unplugged at Unplugged.com slash Emily. That's unplugged.com slash Emily. We're joined now by the one and only, Megan Kelly. Megan, thank you so much for taking time out of your new life as a radical jihadist to join the show. Yeah, I got to go work on my ballistic missiles. I'll be right back.

Yeah, you got to go down into the cave. Speaking of which, Donald Trump has been addressing the MOU that is now out because there was a call with reporters. Someone recorded it, put the transcript of the MOU as it was dictated by the Trump administration out, afternoon. Donald Trump was responding to some questions about it. Let's roll a little bit of this when I get your reaction, Megan. There's some element to this where you send the vice president. If it works out, great, you'll look like a genius for sending him. And if it doesn't work out, it's the vice president. I like that idea. Sure. This way, if it works out, I'm going to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming JD. You better be careful, JD. He's going to turn his

plane around and get the hell out of here. Yeah, I like that idea. I think it's a good idea. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. He's joking a bit there, Megan. But you interviewed J.D. yesterday. Vice President Vance was on the Megyn Kelly show yesterday. And he actually made a note of saying, isn't it interesting now that the deal's critics are referring to it as the Vance deal? And now Donald Trump is like, hey, I like that idea. Do you think that's serious? No, of course, Trump's joking. Trump knows that the buck stops with him. And everybody on earth knows that the buck stops with him. But it's fine. To me, it's actually been very amusing to watch the president's critics try to lay this at the feet of J.D. Vance. Because they're, I'm just going to say it. I don't normally use this word, but they're pussies. Sorry, that's the problem here. Like, if you have a problem with the deal, just say it outright, right? It's like they won't. They won't because they're afraid of looking inconsistent. You know what I mean? Because they were so.

Like, get him, Trump, get them, sick them, launch the war, do it, do it. And now they're like, oh, shit, we hate this. And so they don't want to say that because they've been spending the past four months attacking people like me and others who are President Trump supporters but disagreed with him on this war. And I said from the beginning, I am still a Trump supporter, but I disagree with him on this war. And they tried to turn me and many, many others into his enemy. She's turned. They've turned.

And so now they're so scared to be like, this sucks. We hate it because they don't want to look like hypocrites, but we can all see right through it. We totally understand what you're doing. You're not fooling anybody. Have the balls to say how you actually feel that you hate it. And good luck, like not blaming it on Trump if you hate it. Even when we launched this war, people like me said, Benjamin Nett.

talk Trump into it, but Trump had agency. Trump made the call. That's what I said. That's what many critics of the Iraq war, or Iran war said. And it's actually going to be really fun to watch them jump through these hoops because they're dying for this war to go on. They don't want it to end. They're desperate for him to blow Iran into the next century.

They won't be happy until it's in smithereens. They're thugs. They're killers. They're terrorists. You can't take their word. So there's no deal. There's no deal we could ever have, if that's true. There's only military victories and crushing them, which Trump doesn't want to do, to his credit. Which they loved when he was talking about unconditional surrender.

They were defending him when he was talking about wiping out the civilization and the like. Now, some reactions here. Eric Erickson has said this amounts to, quote, American surrender. Mark Dubowitz over at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, very prominent, hawkish think tank, very pro-Israel think tank, very much agitated for war against Iran. He said the MLU looks like a diplomatic win for the regime in Iran. Bacha Angar Sargon said, quote, the greatest superpower to ever exist brought to its knees by a few minds. Just a disaster.

Just a disaster for America. So on one hand, there's a logical consistency to this, which is that if you wanted unconditional surrender, of course, you can't be happy with this deal because it's short of unconditional surrender. It's not regime change, unless you mean a more radical regime that's the same regime. it has more radical people, according to the Wall Street Journal, is now in place. And on top of that, though, they created, as you were just saying, this litmus test for loyalty,

being that you don't criticize Donald Trump, that if you criticize, you are undermining the coalition, the Republican coalition. And so here we are. And like you said, Megan, they don't want to completely turn and say, no, no, no, no. So there's going to be, it's going to be pinned on Vance. There's going to be holes. Who's going to believe that this was J.D. Vance's. call. I mean, literally, who's going to believe that? It's Donald Trump. That's his vice president. By definition,

he's a subordinate. Trump said himself on camera, if I don't like the deal, I will blow up the deal. The memorandum of understanding is not legally binding on anybody. It's a deal. It's a handshake deal that reduced to writing. But it's not legally enforceable against anybody. He said, if I don't like it, I'll blow it up. And if they don't abide by what I think they should abide by, I'll blow them up. You know, like, that's actually how it works. He's right. And so it's not like J.D. Vans can hold Trump to an agreement that Trump doesn't like. What kind of fiction are they engaging in?

It's very clear that they just don't have the balls, I guess, to say, I was wrong. This was a bad war. We shouldn't have launched it. Trump didn't actually want to do the thing I thought he wanted to do. I thought he went full neocon. and in fact he didn't. Shit. That's really what they're wrestling with right now.

Like, oh my God, he wasn't one of us. He's not an Israel firster. He's not a Mark Leviner. He's like, and this same crew, I actually just spent the evening yesterday looking at this. Some of those same names, when this thing first broke, literally said, I trust the president.

I trust my president. When people like us were expressing skepticism I'm about like, this doesn't seem like a good idea. Like, this has got disaster written all over it. This is quite fraught. We were working toward getting an agreement with them, and we already blew up the nuclear facilities. Like, what are we going to get out of doing this,

the bombing campaign and all that? And they were like, you know, betrayers, disloyal. I trust my president. And now they're like, worst mistake ever. Yes, yes. Oh my gosh, actually those, I should go back and read some of those posts too because I think I'm going to take out of it. Shoot it into my veins. Yes, directly into it. Now, actually, some of the same folks that we're discussing a very kind of pro-Israel crowd, very supportive of a robust American Israel alliance, have been upset that J.D. Vans even sat down with you yesterday. He tossed a little criticism their way. He had some criticism kind of for everyone, but they're reading into his decision and saying that this proves he's some like secret groiper. Let's take a listen to your comment. conversation with him about the neocons. This is the thought we have.

Some of us push back and then we're told, and I quote, those who speak ill of Mark Levine are not MAGA. Well, the president, as he does, is pushing back at a criticism of yours that he thought was unfair. Not just me. I mean, a lot of the non-interventionals. But I talked to him last night, I said, Mr. President, I'm going to go on Megan Kelly's show and I'm going to defend the administration's policies. Absolutely, I love that. Because again, he and he and he and He engages. He engages and he's going to criticize you when he agrees or disagrees. I don't mind. He's going to say nice things about you when he agrees with you. But that's what I actually love about the president is the frustration that I've had with the non-interventionist side. You disagree with the president on this particular policy. That doesn't mean you can give up on the entire enterprise.

Yeah, no, I agree with that. The reason why neocons are so much more effective in politics than the people on the other side in our coalition is because, I agree with that. The reason why neocons are so much more effective in politics than the people on the other side in our coalition is because they play the game. I liked having Megan watch Megan on the screen. It's very meta for a moment. But, yeah, J.D. Vance came out, of course, as a secret groyper on your show. So it's not much of the secret anymore. He is all in. He's all Groyper all the time.

What do you make of those criticisms? I thought he was kind of onto something. because I do think that there's a fair amount of the Republican Party now that feels very blackpilled. I talk to them. I know them and I love a lot of them. Very blackpilled. You know, just like, F this system. They're really, really angry about the Iran war being launched. And they saw that as a, like the crux of the promises that Trump was making. And a lot of them voted for him based on that alone. you know, so it's not a peripheral issue. They're not really ready to just let bygones be bygones and move on. I personally am not there, but I know a lot of folks who are. They're just pissed.

So I don't know whether that sentiment that J.D. is kind of like, come on, stay in the fight. Like the neocons do a good job of this, like saying I'm mad, I disagree, but I'm still going to vote because I want my voice to matter. I want my opinion to matter. And I do think that, like, last piece of it is good advice. Like, I don't think it does even the blackpillers any good to stay blackpilled and on the couch. Like, you got to, you do have to vote. Someone's going to win. The presidency, the senatorial campaigns, the House campaigns, the governorships. Someone's going to win. And if you just completely remove your voice from the matter, I mean, I guess they'd say, well, Uniparty, I'm like, okay, yes, on certain issues, I see it.

But there's a lot that does distinguish the parties that's still worth getting off the couch for it. That's my view. And did you think that he was trying to make a statement by going on the show of somebody who's been critical of the war from the right? I mean, the view is one thing. But did you think there was something, are people right to read into that that he was trying to make a statement? Or do you think it was just you have a decent relationship with him and he did a stop on the book tour? No, we're friends. I mean, where were all these losers when I was interviewing J.D. Vance in 2017 after his book came out.

He was no longer the toast of the town. It had been out for a year. And I just thought he was interesting. And I did a long sit down with him at NBC that would wind up being a very important interview. That's come back in many forums on his bio and on where he was. And so on, like, where were those losers back then? He and I go way back. He's been on my show multiple times.

I was in there fighting hard for him to get the nod as VP. I made sure that people understood what was real about JD, even when he was under withering attack right after he got the nod. the childless cat lady stuff. Like, he's been misunderstood and unfairly attacked for years now. And I just am not having it. I don't, and honestly, back then, even the Israel first crowd would have said readily I was 100% on their side, you know, like, which I was. So it's like, I don't see J.D. Vance through that prism at all.

I've understood for a long time he's more of the, you know, isolationist or non-interventionist wing of the party. I don't care. That's not like my number one voting issue. It is for other people. But anyway, he came on the show because we're friends and he knew he could sell books through me and he knows my audience is a big fan for the most part of his stuff.

And it was a smart move. Yeah, and I heard you say something the last couple of weeks. It may have even just been last week. And I've heard you say it this way a couple of times now. And I'm paraphrasing. I don't know the verbatim phrase, but I think you've said something to the extent of yourself and Ben Shapiro

are going through something right now. So if the war is really over, would you be willing to reconcile? Is there a reconciliation with Ben Shapiro? If this kind of fades into the background of the daily conversation, if foreign policy fades into the background, and the coalition is focusing once again on defeating Democrats in the left, would you be open to a reconciliation? Emily, I would reconcile.

I don't know if that's the right word, but I would, you know, break bread with, let bygones be bygones with all of them. All of them. I feel like all the people who have been attacking me as an anti-Semi, which is just so untrue. I think in their hearts, they know that that's not true. But it's politics, you know, it ain't beanball. So you're going to have to be able to take a punch of the face.

And it's fine. I've taken some and I've thrown some. So I don't really take it personally, to be honest. And I actually, you know, I would put, like, Mark Levin, whatever, I don't really have anything against these people. But Ben and I had a real friendship. I just don't care enough about him to say I want to keep an ongoing feud or hatred. You know what I mean?

I just don't have that level of a moment. emotion in my heart for any of these people. But, you know, a lot of the folks who have been attacking me with these nasty terms and so on, I did consider dear friends. And a lot of them, I've really helped build their careers and, like, really thought we had genuine friendships. So I would say, like, I was hurt by them launching, like, attacks on me and drawing first blood, for sure. And I then retaliated against them because it's politics and it ain't being like I said. So you have to. Like nine times out of ten, if somebody's going to do that to you, you have to defend yourself. I don't in all circumstances. Some people are absolutely meaningless to me,

and I've never said anything in response to their attacks. And it actually makes me so gleeful because I know they're just dying for me to say something. And so many of the ones who have been attacking me, if you could see how they begged to come on my show for the past five years, begged. And we say, no, you're not interesting. There's a lot of people who just, they can't do TV. They're not compelling on camera. It's like you try to be polite. Some begged to come on my tour, begged. And we just didn't get back to them. We weren't rude about it, but it's like not everybody can do it. And now they're like the first to be like, oh, she's a griper. Like, oh, you're not really telling the whole story. But whatever. My point is simply, I'm more bemused by a lot of what's gone on than I am still, like, angry.

So, yeah, I would be fine to put this all behind us because my ultimate feeling is, we need to come back together. Like, I still see the left, and not everybody on the left. You know, my mom is still a registered Democrat, but like the left incorporated as the real enemy, the ones who are celebrating the Charlie assassination. That's the real enemy. And the right is going to need to come back together.

You know, I, we have to find our way back to each other. And there have been a lot of people who are very, very neocani and pro-Israel and pro this war. with whom I am in touch and with whom I text regularly. And we've kind of quietly agreed to like keep the porch light on for each other because the right is going to have to come back together after this is over and before the next elections or we're never going to win any more elections again. Well, a reminder of the stakes, actually, since you mentioned Charlie, Amanda Seafreed has a new

GQ spread out. It dropped this week. And I'm going to read a bit from it because Amanda Seafreed, some folks may remember, made absolutely incendiary comments after Charlie was assassinated. So GQ, and we could put it up on the screen, reports, quote, last year Seafreed had a taste of controversy herself, responding to an Instagram reel compiling some of the murdered right-wing activist Charlie Kirk's most appalling statements. This is GQ's copy, by the way. She commented, quote, he was hateful. Almost immediately that one sentence kicked off a brutal backlash from Kirk supporters,

accusing her of implying that his murder was justified. She later posted a separate statement saying, I can get angry about misogyny and racist rhetoric and also very much agree that Charlie Kirk's murder was absolutely disturbing and deplorable in every way imaginable. Later, she said in a who-what-ware interview, quote, I'm not fucking apologizing for that. What I said was pretty damn factual. And I'm free to have an opinion, of course. Now, she tells GQ this week, A, I'm allowed to fucking voice my feelings. And B, do it in a way that's not unkind necessarily.

But there's just an outsized fear and hatred and impulse to bash and tear down. Ma'am, that is exactly what you did after somebody died. Sorry to interject. She goes on to say, and I experienced a very small fraction of that. I want my kids to be able to feel safe to voice their opinions as long as they're not harmful. So I'm like, what do I do? What do I say? And then all of a sudden, I find myself with a fucking bodyguard at the airport. And I'm like, this is crazy.

That's her response to victimize herself after she is the one who bashed and tore down somebody who actually was harmed for practicing the speech. She says she wants her children to be able to practice. Amanda, shut the fuck up and act. You're actually not a bad actress. I saw you recently in something. You were quite good. But as a political pundit, you suck.

Can you believe how self- unaware can you be? Unself-aware, self-unaware. How clueless. You actually are worried that you're having to pay a price when it comes to your security for your opinions. And you don't acknowledge that it was exactly doing that thing that got Charlie killed. And the fact that right after he was killed,

your first instinct wasn't just to say, this is horrible. I'm so sad for his wife and family. Period. It's the same thing as saying after the Luigi execution of the United Healthcare CEO, it's the same thing as the Dex Day saying, he was terrible.

Period. Like, no, if you want to let six months go by and then say, all right, can we have a discussion about what insurance companies are doing to the American public and how they deny too many claims and too many people are hurting, and we should be more like a socialized medicine system

like they have in the UK or in Canada. Okay, I can get on board. But you say the day after Brian Thompson's executed, the insurance companies are awful, they're evil. You say the day after Charlie was executed, he was hateful. You are endorsing the act. You want to jump right to what was it that was so awful about him

that justified this terrible thing. And even if you managed to give lip service to, Oh, I mean, the thing was terrible, but he was evil. You are complicit. You are encouraging more of it. You are doing with a wink and a nod. The, I mean, I'm not going to say that, like, I'd be objection. I'd be objecting if, like, you did another one.

Like, it would be a shame if another one were to happen. But there are, like, a lot of hateful people out there. But, I mean, I'm against assassination culture. But there are a lot, a lot of very hateful people. Like, what are you doing? You're encouraging it. That's what she did. And she didn't have a care.

for Erica's grieving, for Erica's children, for Charlie's millions of fans and friends who are grieving, actively grieving and genuinely rattled about it. She just wanted to weigh in with her woke credentials to tell us how hateful he was. So I have no sympathy for her, none whatsoever. She's right as a matter of principle. Of course, you should not have to be under armed guard for your opinions. Of course. But she's missing the point. Like people like her who encourage assassination culture are making it harder for everyone, especially on the right, to walk around without their own bodyguards. And by the way, it is our side getting executed from people who listen to the messages from people like Amanda Seyfried. Yeah, and the alleged assassin in this case

actually said some hate can't be negotiated with or debated out. That's the allegation. Negotiated out. Yeah, negotiated out. And what's crazy is in the GQ article, they are referring in their copy again to Charlie's quote appalling statements. Seafrid is very comfortably regurgitating the fact that he is hateful in this entire interview where she's saying people are too eager to tear down and bash and they're making it dangerous for speech so much speech so much so that she, oh my goodness, celebrity needs a bodyguard because she called somebody hateful. And I don't know about, like Megan, you and I have friends on the left who probably disagree

with us. I know they disagree with us on abortion. They disagree with us on the trans issue. And I'm not walking around calling them hateful. I'm not walking around saying that they are the worst people in the world and that they necessarily have hate in their heart. They disagree with me and I'll talk to them about it and have really difficult conversations. I'm not going to mention this person's name in this context for obvious reasons, but there is

somebody who I absolutely cannot stand on the left. There's one person in particular who I truly can't stand and I think is a very pernicious force. If something, God forbid, were to happen to this person, I would never post or even think. They were hateful. They were awful. They were dangerous.

Never, never. I would say that is terrible. What are we becoming? Prayers and thoughts to his family or her family. I don't want to get specific. But I don't understand this instinct. And it's a leftist thing to want to, like, dance on people's graves. Even under the worst, they do it when somebody dies of natural causes who they can't stand on the right.

It's the same way that like CNN, you remember this story, we covered it on the show. There was an anchor who'd been at CNN for a very short time and a local news station as well. I want to say in like Michigan, I can't totally remember, but this happened in the past 12 months. And she died. And the headline that they went with

all over the place was racist anchor dies of whatever. And I was like, I smell a rat. Like, was she? And so I just did a little digging on this woman who I didn't know at all. And it turned out like 30 years ago, somebody had called a bunch of news media people, like a racist name. Like, you know, I don't remember if they use the N word in referring to all media people. Like you N words, stop calling me. I don't want to talk to any of you.

And then she made an attempt to call the person for an interview. And she was like, I'm one of those N words who you've been telling not to call you, right? she was a white lady. It ruined her life. He was like, she used the N word. He was like, she didn't really use it exactly. She was quoting you about herself and she was a white. 30 years later, all the media put this in the headline about her death.

It's like it's so gross and it's so unfair. But the left does that to us while we're alive. They do it while we're dead. Every conservative knows that God forbid anything were to happen to them. there'd be some section of the left that would be celebrating it. So it's sick. It's like a weird absence of values on the left or misplaced values. And she suffers from it.

And you can see it in real time, even when you've got babies who just lost their father before they even turned two. When Trump, I would argue, danced on the grave of Rob Reiner, you covered it on the Megan Kelly show. I do a wrap-up show. People, if they don't have serious XM, might miss it right after you. where callers who have stuff to say about what you talked about that day come on the air. And I have never, ever seen the phone lines light up as much as they did after Trump was critical

of Rob Reiner when he was murdered. People were furious at him. Honestly, like I've never seen before on the right. His own supporters were furious with him. It was crazy. Yeah, because we don't do that. And I think most people on the right are pretty quick to call out the president when he says stuff like that.

That's not the best version of Trump quite clearly. And we're not, I mean, there's always going to be like an exception here or there, but as a group, we're not celebrating people's murder, people's death. It's just such an inhumane thing to do. So she really needs some soul searching this woman. Most of what she says politically is really hateful. And to me, it does show that she doesn't have enough friends on the other side of the aisle. You know, it's like, honestly, like almost all.

I thought you're just going to say enough friends. I was like, yeah, me. Well, that too. But honestly, if you look at my friends, you know, like I would say 20% of my friends are Republican and 80% are Democrats with whom I disagree politically on virtually everything. But I love them. I don't care. I don't care how they vote. I don't care what their politics are. This is very weird to just like so demonize somebody from the other side that when he literally almost has his head blown off, your first reaction is hateful. There's something wrong with you.

Well, these CNN numbers actually from a new poll, I wanted to get your take on as long as we're talking about how GQ was just recycling this idea that these are quote-unquote appalling statements and a profile of Amanda Seafreed. 55% in this new CNN poll that was taken between May 7th through 31st of American adults, 55% responded when asked who they trust in media. 55% responded, no, there isn't anyone who I trust to tell me about what's happening in politics. Now, of the 45% of people who said, yes, there's a person or an outlet that they trust. Fox was leading the pack at 5% of people saying it was Fox, 1% of people saying ABC, NBC, New York Times. CBS News's support was actually too small to measure in the poll.

But 55% saying, no, there isn't anyone who I trust to tell me about what's happening in politics. How does it keep—I mean, Gallup does annual tracking in every October, since going back to the 1970s. We are 10 years into Donald Trump's run for president. Actually, into Donald Trump being the Republican nominee for president— president next month. Trusting media, after the host of Celebrity Apprentice beat the former Secretary of State in a presidential race and nobody thought it could happen, it continues to go down. It's remarkable. It's like the one thing you would expect is maybe the media would get better at doing their job, but it is tied once again for a record low as of last October. Now you have 55% of people saying,

nope, there's nobody at no outlet I trust. Amazing the lack of introspection that we still see in the corporate press. And the media did it to itself. You know, I've said before it, I'd stand by. I like the Trump introduction on the political scene and what he did in exposing media bias was a Kovorkian situation. He didn't actually like take out the press. They took themselves out, but he gave them the machine and said,

it's up to you if you want to pull the little lever to end it for you, you know, your career. And they said, yes, we'd love to. It happened with, you know, CNN when Jeff Zucker decided to turn what had been a relatively unbiased, also a boring news network, into a biased boring news network in a quest for ratings. He completely changed their mission and ruined their business model. It happened when various anchors at the beginning of the Trump emergence, not even his presidency,

it was till 16, said we have to abandon even any attempt to be non-biased. We have to lean it. We have to call him a racist. It's important to call him a racist and say he's all the things, and sexist and all the things, because that's what's real. Without acknowledging that's opinion, that's your opinion, and you are sacrificing your credibility, your objectivity in a way that is going to come back to hunt us all. And then they all surrendered. They all rush a gate, not just MSNBC, but NBC2. The public is now onto the bias. At the same time, the bias is out of control and worse than ever.

So, you know, there's really no saving that model. It's kind of done that the jig is up. People know what they are. And that's what I've been saying for a long time, even before I launched this show, I believe the future of the news business would be individual relationships between a news person and an audience

because you can't really trust an institution. You know, it's like you might have trusted CBS or not, I don't know, but then they get a new boss who clearly has her own agenda and the people are recoiling for various reasons, but they know and they're not wrong,

she has an agenda. And it's not just cover the news fair imbalance. That's not what the agenda is. Fox News, yes, that's the most fair imbalanced of the traditional news networks that's out there. But people also know their agenda driven too. Have you ever seen a network with more Pfizer ads?

You know, like, truly, like, look up and down the dial and you can figure out exactly what the agenda is. And people are onto it. There's been enough alternative media now that's been calling attention to it, that it's just much more front of mind, top of mind, as Karin-Jean-Pierr likes to say. And they've been exposed.

So I think it's a good thing because I think from the ashes will come a phoenix, and I think the phoenix is going to be digital media. And already, to some extent, is. It's the antidote to just this awful sickness that is the traditional mainstream media. I mean, this just made me think of Scott Pelley, asking Lulu Garcia-Novarro,

we're telling Lulu Garcia-Navaro very proudly that he asked Barry Weiss if she had numbers as to whether people trusted CBS or not. Because he was like, oh, we're still getting great ratings. Yes, sir, with the boomers and their armchairs, but the rest of the country is out. It's crazy. It's like somebody who lost their leg in the hospital

to gangrene and it's creeping up their midriff and thigh. And they're like, can I see a test? Are you sure? I don't, what data do you have that'll show me? I have gangrene. I was like, well, where's your leg? That's incredible. Megan Kelly, I got to get to my Pfizer ads to keep MK media float.

That's right, sure. Thank you so much, Megan. I appreciate it. I love you, EJ. You're the best. You're the best. Thanks for everything you do for us. Oh, thank you.

All right, let's talk about what's really in your makeup. It's kind of gross. Most of us spend so much time worrying about what we eat, what we drink, how we take care of our families, but then we take our faces with products full of chemicals. We can't even pronounce. Your skin is your body's largest organ, and whatever you put on it, of course, gets absorbed. We just don't always think of it that way. But that's why you should consider making the switch to Toops & Co.

Their liquid foundation and face primer are designed to do more than just cover your skin. They help support and nourish it throughout the day. This is luxurious stuff, trust me. Unlike traditional makeup that fades or requires, constant touch-up. This makeup is formulated with aloeira that stays put while keeping your skin feeling comfortable. No caking, no build-up, just smooth, natural-looking coverage that lasts. So if you're tired of choosing between looking good and poisoning your skin with mystery chemicals, you don't have to anymore. If you're ready to simplify your routine and actually feel good

about what you're putting on your skin, head to tubes and co.com slash afterparty. They're offering my listeners 25% off your first order with code after party. That's tupe's.com. and code.com slash afterparty and code afterparty for 25% off your first order. All right, everyone. Thank you so much for sticking around. I think Megan made a little bit of news there, interestingly enough. She said, quote, I would let bygones be bygones with all of them, in reference to the people who have called her anti-Semitic or have criticized her

for her coverage of the Iran War. So we'll see if that might be in the cards, just awful also to. even dwell much on how Amanda Seafreed sees herself somewhat as a victim in the entire Charlie's Kirk saga, somebody who cares about free speech. She says she cares about people being able to speak their mind. She's upset that there's so much tearing down and bashing of other folks. And yet, that's exactly what she did, but she has no self-awareness about it. So we have a couple of more stories to get to on this evening show. I want to go to the, let's take a trip over to Bay Area to San Francisco where they're actually arguing about pride.

You'd think that the arguments about pride had been settled in San Francisco, but apparently not. We can put this post from Scott Weiner up on the screen. You may know Scott Weiner from his vociferous defenses of children's access to gender ideology and pushing gender ideology on children. I mean, vociferous access for that. he is running for Nancy Pelosi's seat, because she has retired, obviously, a state senator in California who referred to the Bible verses that were written on a couple of the Christian players pride hats. This is a hat that had the Giants logo with the full pride flag, including the trans pride

parts of that flag. If you need someone to decode the pride flag, it changes every year, seemingly to add more and more colors. But this was on the cap. You can see the transpride colors on the cap. And so you see Landon Rope in that picture that you just saw. And Landon Rup wrote Genesis 912 through 16 on the hat. So I'm going to read a little bit of a roundup from the Guardian. But just bear in mind there. Scott Wiener called that a defacement of the cap. It was a, scribble in Silver Sharpie for the listening audience. So Major League Baseball, the Guardian reports, has issued a statement critical of players who wrote Bible verses on their Pride night hats after an incident at a San Francisco Giants game last week. MLB celebrates Pride Month during June, and

most teams choose a home game to acknowledge the LGBTQ community and its baseball fans. The Giants who are based in a city with a large LGBTQ population often make extra effort. However, those efforts often clash with the league's players, many of whom come from conservative religious backgrounds during Friday's game against the Chicago Cubs, Giants pitcher Lannon Roup and J.T. Brubacher wrote Bible verses on their pride caps. Another giant's pitcher, Sam Henthes chose not to wear the cap at all. On Monday, MLB issued a statement on the subject, quote, unquote, the writing on the cap violates our rules. And consistent with normal practice, we have warned the players about future violations. So let me go ahead and put Genesis 9 through 12 up on the

screen, Genesis 9 through 12. I'm reading from the NIV here is quote, and God said, this is the sign of the covenant that I am making between me and you and every living creature with you. By the way, this is to Noah, a covenant for all generations to come. I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind.

So, one of the reasons I thought it was important to actually read the verse is that it has been, there has been a push from some Christians to do kind of reclaim the rainbow efforts during Pride Month, saying that the rainbow should figure into our popular imagination as the enduring symbol of the covenant God made with Noah. And so that's probably where this was particularly coming from when it came to the people who wrote the message on the cap. And, you know, Andrew Sullivan had a very interesting column on Pride Month this year. I'll just scroll up to the top. He wrote, and if you know anything about Andrew Sullivan, you know, many people see Andrew Sullivan as perhaps the person who helped more than nearly any other single individual normalize

gay marriage politically. And this headline on the June 5th, with sub-sac poster manager Sullivan was the TQ plus threat to LGBT rights. And Sullivan went and looked at some of these new figures from Gallup. You can see this on your screen right now, but what it's showing is a Gallup poll with declines on the quote, perceived morality of gay or lesbian relations by party ID. This has actually even gone down among Democrats. It's a small dip among Democrats,

but a dip nonetheless. It has gone down among independents. and it has gone down significantly among Republicans. And it all starts to decline right as the trans movement was hitting its zenith. And I just want to read a little bit from Sullivan again, because Sullivan is somebody who, even in this piece, mentions being one of the foremost activists, journalists, activists behind normalizing the, like, maybe the one way to put it is the gay lifestyle.

The idea that there are gay people in your communities, that gay marriage is something that people who think marriage is a good institution should want to see extended to people who are gay. And so he now says, if you look at these numbers, it's quite interesting. scrolling down to the critical part of this, that support for marriage equality, quote from the center and center right is nosediving. Gallup shows a decline from 71% to 65% support for gay marriage among all Americans in just three years.

Among independents, support has dropped by six points in four years from 73 to 67%, and among Republicans by 18 points from 55% in 2022 to just 37% today. So let's just pause there. If you are Andrew Sullivan, if you are the LGBT movement, And you see, Republicans actually hit 55% support for gay marriage. Republicans in 2022, after which that dropped to 37% as Sullivan notes.

That's where it was 20 years ago. What do you think caused that? Now, Sullivan goes on to look at numbers on the morality of same-sex relations. He says the drops are more acute, down 10 points among Indies and 21 points among Republicans. As someone who played a part in bringing those Republicans and moderates around two-gay marriage, Sullivan writes, it's distressing to see what the overreach has done, especially in red states. Now, here's another important part from Sullivan's article. He says, we're told this is all about hate, really?

The same polls that show growing opposition to men and women's sports and against the transing slash sterilization of children with gender dysphoria also show huge support for civil rights protections for trans adults. So two things are true here. You're seeing polling where the American people are increasingly less supportive of the LGBT movement, but are actually even supportive of civil rights protections for trans adults. And you're seeing these declines come exactly as the LGBT movement was focusing most heavily on the T. And that brings us back to Scott Wiener, because Scott Wiener calling these players and making a huge deal of it, I mean, you saw that post that we had up on the screen earlier.

It was really long. He's leaning very hard into this, making a huge issue in the Bay Area of a couple of, what, 20-something-year-old Giants players who didn't even really say anything, who just wrote a quiet message on the hats or chose not to wear the hat in the case of one player. You look like the bully. You're the person in the position of much greater power because who is with you? Major League Baseball.

Most corporations in America. And that starts to look like punching down at the people who are really not going out of their way to even say anything. They wrote a quiet message on the hats or they chose not to wear the hat. That's it. And so the politics of this

makes Scott Weiner look like the bully. They make Scott Weiner look like he's the one punching down at the Christians who are just trying to exist in what Aaron Wren would refer to as the negative world. If you don't follow Aaron, I highly recommend you do it. Great Christian writer. The negative world being a world that has largely

shifted from Christian norms. And actually Tom Holland, who wrote Dominion, in a great book might disagree with this, but where the norms of the culture are no longer mainstream kind of lowercase orthodox Christianity. The norms of the culture have gone to a different place. And these guys are just trying to exist in that world. It's a different world. It changed pretty quickly. It was a big win for the Andrew Sullivan's of the world, the Scott Wieners of the world. And then the Scott Wieners of the world pushed really hard in a direction most of the country resisted. And it's starting to show up in polling that, again, the Andrew Sullivan's of the world

saw it as just an enormous accomplishment. And there's no question. They rapidly transformed public opinion in the United States on that really quickly. And I think some hubris after Obergafel inevitably got baked into the activism because it did change so quickly. And that gave people more, I guess, confidence in their ability to normalize very radical ideas about sex and gender. And again, for children, too, we're talking about. And so I just thought the story exemplified or illustrated really well how the dynamic, the power dynamic has shifted. And the people like Scott Wiener are still not fully prepared to deal with the fact that they now look like the bullies. They now look like the ones who are punching down,

at people who are just, that there's people of faith. It was a coalition of Muslim parents and Christian parents that took their concern about some of the pornographic books and school libraries to the Supreme Court successfully. They had to fight that all the way up to the Supreme Court against the school districts all along the way. Sullivan writes, so for the first time since 2015, I genuinely fear for the future of marriage equality,

our rights are vulnerable, he writes, without broad public support. And that support was based on a moderate approach in universal language with conservative as well as liberal variations, replace that moderation persuasion, and live and let live ethos with a hectoring radical gender queer revolution. We could lose everything. And we are beginning to. So to his point, this hectoring revolution gets to the power dynamic, right? Like it's one thing to Hector when you're not the top dog when you're not the one that is punching down, but when you are the one punching down, because again, Major League Baseball is putting pride flags, including the trans colors in the pride flag, pretty noticeably on the player's hats, and then saying it was wrong for the players

to quietly protest that, a couple players. Major League Baseball, Major League Baseball, is on the side of Scott Weiner. He's acting like it's 1975. But the power dynamic has shifted, and I think that's affecting the way the public sees the issue right now as well, that it's not live and let live. The live and let live, Sullivan is really implying, is what was so persuasive to the American people about gay marriage in the first place. And the live and let live is exactly, exactly the opposite. The live and live ethos is exactly the opposite of the approach now from the trans element, which is so obviously based on this radical conception that there's an inconsequential aspect of sex biologically because you can shift on the spectrum with hormone treatments and

it's not your biological sex is not as consequential as people always said that it was because we now can have the ability for people to shift along the spectrum and people are always along a spectrum to begin with. And then that gets applied to children. It gets applied to locker rooms. It gets applied to bathrooms. It gets applied to prisons. It gets applied to women's shelters. And people don't like that. They simply do not agree with it. And Sullivan is right that it's bleeding, certainly, into support for the broader movement. These numbers are genuinely stunning. And it's clearly not just about hate. It's clearly, I think, pretty obviously, about the T's. That's what the big difference is between when those numbers were high and when those numbers have now since

dipped. So Americans don't like to see the punching down. They don't like to see bullying. And this entire MLB saga put that in such, I mean, put the dynamics now in such a, in such stark contrast. So I wanted to go over the, the, uh, the, uh, the, the, uh, the, the story from that angle, because I do think it's pretty interesting. Now, we're going to talk a bit about Senator Rick Scott, Senator Ashley Moody, trying to stop a Kanye West concert from happening in Tampa over concerns about anti-Semitism. I'm going to take a quick break, but we'll be right back with more on that front. Stick around. This episode is sponsored by USAFacts, a nonpartisan organization making government data easier to access and understand, and that is so important. I can tell you that as a

journalist, I'm partnering with them on a campaign called the data we depend on. The idea is simple. If the government is going to spend all of our taxpayer money and make massive decisions, it should have to show its work. This starts with reliable public data. Government data helps track the economy, spending, and education. You've actually probably heard me citing sources like the BLS, the IRS, or the DHS. But when that data is slow, incomplete, or hard to access, which it often is. Lawmakers have less to work with, journalists have less to check, and the public has a harder time finding the truth. So if you care about accountability, you can't measure if programs are working or even call out failure if the basic facts are buried. USA Fax is asking Americans

to sign an open letter to lawmakers in Congress. The ask is straightforward. Use data to legislate and fix the data when it falls short. This is not a partisan issue. Whether you want more government, less government or just a government that has to show its math, you need reliable facts. Read and sign the letter at USAFacts.org slash support data. Well, Republican Senator Rick Scott is leading a charge to stop Kanye West from performing concerts in Tampa at the end of the month. Let's actually just take a little bit of a listen here to Senator Scott talking about this effort earlier in the week.

If we don't stand up and vocally reject the hate that Kanye West pushes, we don't stop this comfort, we're telling everyone that anti-Semitism is okay. No, it's not okay. As long as we make some money. And somebody said that to me, oh, if they cancel, they'll lose money. So what? You made the bad decision, fix your bad decision. This puts an even greater target in our Jewish community, more than anything Kanye West could say or do himself.

If they allow this, then what's the next event? And if they're not held accountable, if you're Jewish in this city, in this state, how do you feel? You feel like a second-class citizen that people don't give a damn. We have a clear moral duty to reject hate at every level. So Senator Scott is, again, leading this charge. He actually himself put up a change.org petition that I'm going to pop up on the screen here. This is a change dot.org. Dot dot org petition from Senator Rick Scott created June 16th, 2026. So yesterday, He writes, Kanye West concerts in Tampa scheduled for June 26th and 28th should not take place in Raymond James Stadium, a venue supported with public funds. There's no place for anti-Semitism in Florida, especially at the expense of the taxpayer.

Goes on to say Kanye West is an admitted and prolific anti-Semite who has slandered Jews, praised Adolf Hitler, called himself a Nazi, and sold swastika merchandise on his website, among his numerous other anti-Semitic remarks and actions. So that is all true. The things Kanye West has said about the Holocaust, about Hitler, about Jews are utterly disgusting, abhorrent, absolutely bigoted and anti-Semitic. Interestingly, note the tense. Kanye West is an admitted and prolific anti-Semite. That is actually factually not true at all, at all. And TMZ, TMZ asked Senator Scott about this. shout out to Jacob Wasserman, who approached Senator Scott, looks like here in the heart building on Capitol Hill.

And that was today, earlier today, he approached Senator Scott and said, Kanye West took out an ad in the Wall Street Journal to apologize for his anti-Semitism in January. A full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal. What do you want to see Kanye West do to prove that he is no longer anti-Semitism? Smithic. Rick Scott said he could have gone to a Holocaust museum. Then he said he needs to do something. It seemed like Rick Scott was entirely unfamiliar with the fact that Kanye West had completely apologized for all of this. Kanye West in November met with Rabbi Pinto, was embraced by Rabbi Pinto, asked for forgiveness for the way he talked about Jewish

people. This is the full-page advertisement that Kanye West took out in the Wall Street Journal on January 26th. He talked about, I think, very movingly, whether or not you believe it. I think that's actually a legitimate question, whether you not you believe it. But he talked very movingly and in great detail about how his mental health stemming from a car accident 25 years ago that created an injury in the right frontal lobe of his brain was not fully understood. He wasn't fully under, he didn't have a full understanding of how that it affected him. He says, quote, I lost touch with reality. Things got worse the longer. I ignored the problem. I said and did things I deeply regret. Some people I love the most. I treated the worst. You endured fear, confusion, humiliation,

and the exhaustion of trying to love someone who is at times unrecognizable. Looking back, I became detached from my true self. In that fractured state, I gravitated towards the most destructive symbol I could find, the swastika, and even sold t-shirts bearing it. One of the difficult aspects of having bipolar type one are the disconnected moments, many of which I still cannot recall that lead to poor judgment and reckless behavior that oftentimes feels like an out-of-body experience. I regret and am deeply mortified by my actions in that state and am committed to accountability, treatment, and meaningful change. It does not excuse what I did, though. I am not a Nazi or an anti-Semite. I love Jewish people. Rick Scott once again has a change.org

He is speaking out in front of podiums on this issue, asking for two concerts in the 26th and the 28th of this month that will likely, I'll say go on, probably, although this is really, the pressures are really ratcheting up on Raymond James Auditorium. He didn't actually seem to be aware of this. He said that Kanye should do something. He should go to a Holocaust museum, quote, do something. The man sat down and asked, asked for forgiveness from a rabbi, a prominent rabbi, and took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, apologizing and explaining and saying he loves Jewish people. Rick Scott genuinely did not seem to be aware of that. And so this brings us to the question of, is Kanye West serious? I have no idea. He's not still selling these T-shirts, obviously. Rick Scott mentions he is selling the T-shirts to know. I'm not sure whether Kanye West is sincere. It's really hard to know. when Kanye West is sincere. That's kind of a lesson of dealing with Kanye West over many, many years. But that then puts people in the government, senators, in this position where they are now being the

arbiters of whether an apology is real or not. Like, you have to, what more do they need to see that would make it okay, right? Like, honestly, what more does Rick Scott need to see that would make it okay. Because he didn't even seem to be aware of the full-page Wall Street Journal ad, the apology with a rabbi, recorded, published, which some American Jews accepted and felt like was a good explanation. And so now the government is stepping in and saying, Rick Scott is stepping in as a representative of the government, leading a charge, literally a change.org petition, to say, no, not enough. You can't do art anymore at Raymond James.

It just reminds me of how poorly equipped our public square today is for grace. To function as a true, useful court of public opinion, it's so polluted by a bad incentive structure. Of course, that's not a surprise to anybody. But, again, I don't think Rick Scott even knew this. It seemed like in that TMZ confrontation, you didn't even know this. But Kanye West can apologize, and it's still not enough for people who say he can never perform in the state of Florida again? Or does Rick Scott just say because it's a taxpayer-supported stadium?

Because of that. It's a venue, quote, supported with public funds, he wrote in the change.org petition. that Kanye West can never perform in one of those. I mean, if anything, there should be by people who are trying to stand up against anti-Semitism, which is a virtuous and worthy cause, there should be an embrace of Kanye West. When people apologize and you spurn them,

try to get their concerts canceled, sends this message of, well, you can't apologize. because it won't be accepted. I won't believe it. That's not a good message to send either. And it's certainly not a good message to send if you don't even know the apology happened. Now, it would perhaps be a bit different if Kanye had never apologized, let alone, met with a rabbi, took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal. It would perhaps be a bit different.

The public funds, I do think, are relevant. Rick Scott, I was just in a pen and pad with Rick Scott a couple of weeks ago, is a champion of free markets. And he's saying, well, people shouldn't be able to make money off of this and a venue supported with public funds. Fine. He might also, in another circumstance, argue that if people don't like it, they just won't go.

But that's not even the debate right now. The guy has said he loves Jewish people. He said that what he did was wrong. And he's trying to make amends, whether it's sincere or not, to Spurn that sends a message of total intolerant. for forgiveness and an anti-forgiveness culture, in my opinion. So I don't like to see this. Absolutely detested what Kanye West was devolving into, of course, as many people did.

Of course. But there also, of course, has to be room for forgiveness and for grace, especially with more and more people are suffering serious mental illness as Kanye West appeared to have been suffering from. So, no, most mentally ill people do not go full Kanye. Don't do it. Full yay, I guess I'm supposed to say. But we also do have to have room in the Court of Public Opinion for grace and forgiveness. Those are virtues, too. And it's good when somebody changes their mind.

It's good when somebody apologizes. Those are positive things. Those are good things. So I ended on that note for tonight. Thanks so much for tuning in to tonight's edition of After Party. We're here Mondays and Wednesdays and, of course, Fridays on your podcast app. Emily at Double Mycaremedia. Media.com is where you can email me.

I'll be recording this week's. Happy hour episode where I answer your questions on tomorrow afternoon. So if you'll want to be included, hit me up by, you know, like 4 p.m. tomorrow, somewhere around. But I see when I usually record. Otherwise, you'll go in next week's episode. Appreciate you all for being here. Our next episode is episode 100. Episode 100.

So we'll see you then. Thanks so much. Have a great weekend. God bless.