After Party with Emily Jashinsky - Truth About MTG and Trump, Scott Jennings on Fighting CNN's Libs, PLUS Mamdani "Jihadist" Backstory

Episode Date: November 25, 2025

America’s Favorite Pundit takes a break from battling liberals on CNN to join Emily Jashinsky on After Party. Scott Jennings is author of the brand-new book “A Revolution of Common Sense: How Donald Trump Stormed Washington and Fought for Western Civilization, “ CNN Political Contributor, and host of “The Scott Jennings Show.” They kick of the conversation with a look at his new book, why he believes Western civilization is facing an existential crisis, and how President Trump is uniquely qualified to fight entrenched institutions. Then they discuss Jennings’ time on CNN, why he believes the left is ill-informed, and they break down some of his recent viral moments, including one tense exchange where a man he just met implied Jennings was a racist.  Jennings explains why that man acted in bad-faith and he also details his recent clash with Kara Swisher over Hunter Biden’s laptop. Jennings also reveals some behind the scenes information about Georgia Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene’s sudden resignation from Congress. Emily also does a deep dive on a stunning New York Times feature about an illegal immigrant who stole an American’s identity, and she closes out the show with an explanation of her viral question to President Trump during his recent meeting with NYC mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. PreBorn: Help save a baby go to https://PreBorn.com/Emily or call 855-601-2229.  Masa Chips:Ready to give MASA or Vandy a try? Get 25% off your first order by going to http://masachips.com/AFTERPARTY and using code AFTERPARTY Cowboy Colostrum: Get 25% Off Cowboy Colostrum with code AFTERPARTY at https://www.cowboycolostrum.com/AFTERPARTY  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to another edition of After Party. It's so great to see everyone out there at 10 p.m. live on this Monday night before Thanksgiving our guest today. So excited about this one. It's Scott Jennings, the one and only Scott Jennings. And I want to tell you, I read his book and I have some questions for Scott. This is going to be super fun. And also going to be talking about an outrageous New York Times article on, let me just read the headline to give you a teaser. Two men, one identity. They both paid the price. Incredible.

We're going to dive into the way they compare the plight of a man who suffered identity fraud, one of one of one million people currently experiencing this to at the hands of illegal immigrants, according to the government and according to New York Times report. We have to go through the details of this is going to be an old-fashioned art. article deep dive like we love to do on after party. So stay tuned for that as well. Also, I got a question in at Trump's little Oval Office media availability with incoming New York City mayor, Zaron Mamdani. And we have clips of that. I'm going to talk a little bit about why I asked the question that I did ask, but we have so much to get through with Scott Jennings. So he's coming up right after this. Remember, though, over the years, I always say this. I have been clear, I'm not just pro-birth, I'm pro-life. And being pro-life means standing with mothers not only

before their baby is born, but long after. And that's exactly why I partner with pre-born and partner very proudly with pre-born. Pre-born doesn't just save babies. They make motherhood abundantly possible. They provide free ultrasound and share the truth of the gospel with women in crisis, and then they stay with real practical help, including financial support for up to two years after the baby is born. This is what true Christ-centered compassion looks like, not just the baby, but for the mother, too. And here's where you can make a difference. Just $28 provides a free life-saving ultrasound, one chance for a mother to see her baby. And when she does, she's twice as likely to choose life. Preborn is trying to save 70,000 babies this year. So do not just

say your pro-life, live it. Help save babies and support mothers today. Go to preborn.com. dot com slash emily or call 855 601 2229 that's preborn.com slash emily appreciate you all so much for supporting preborn and for supporting our show make sure you subscribe when you have a chance whether it's on the podcast feed or on the youtube side subscriptions are coming in and because it's thanksgiving week i just want to say i am so grateful for all of you all right let's get to scott jennings who is host of the scott jennings show political contributor for cnn and author of the new book it's called A Revolution of Common Sense, how Donald Trump stormed Washington

and fought for Western civilization. Scott Jennings, I'm so excited to have you tonight. Thanks for being here. I'm really glad to be here on the after party. Emily, appreciate this invitation. You're normally at 10 o'clock at night, I'm fighting with the libs. But tonight, the night, we'll be partying with the conservatives.

It'll be different tonight. That's right. Should I try, I feel like I should try to fight you just for the sake of habit? Like, you're probably in that mode. If I don't have like six or seven people yelling at me at the same time, I don't know how I'm going to get through this. So maybe be smart off to me occasionally.

And it'll be. We've got that under control for sure. What I should have done in preparation for this, though, is bought some Kentucky bourbon to sip it because it's so late at night. What's your favorite, Scott? It's probably too many to list off. Yeah, I hesitate to pick a side because you can get yourself in trouble down here. You know, Woodford Reserve is always a great go-to.

truthfully, it comes out of the faucet down here. And so, you know, we're all used to brushing our teeth with it and so on and so forth. Yeah, I was going to say, being from Wisconsin, when people ask what your favorite beer is, it's beer. Beer. Or cheese. Like, I don't know what you mean. This isn't France. It's Milwaukee. All right. Scott, your new book is called A Revolution of Common Sense, once again, how Donald Trump stormed Washington and fought for Western civilization. And one question I wanted to start with just off the bat, and I'm sure you get this all of the time. But the case that you make is not just about Donald Trump. It's literally about the potential decline of Western civilization, sort of an existential crisis that you think is staring Western civilization in the face.

And I know a lot of people from kind of McConnell world, obviously you do too. And you know this as well as I do. Some of them, you'd sort of publicly talk, oh, I love Donald Trump, MAGA. And then privately, maybe you're having some Kentucky bourbon with them. And they're like, that guy is a freaking moron. But that's not you. That's not you. So I wanted to ask if you could tell us a little bit about how you came to really see Trump as, you use this word in the book, a bulwark for Western civilization.

Well, first of all, the title of the book, A Revolution of Common Sense, How He fought for Western Civilization. The common sense part came from his inaugural address. I was sitting at the CNN set. He said, we're going to have a revolution of common sense. I thought that is the perfect way to describe. what's going on here. And then as I was writing the book and I was exploring the issues and I was really thinking about what's at stake, I kind of realized we're just not fighting about day-to-day politics anymore. We're not just fighting about this bill or that regulation. There's something

larger going on. You have our fiscal situation. You have our cultural situation. You have this mass migration crisis that afflicted most Western countries. Europe has largely been overrun. And, you know, we had an invasion, I think, of 20 million people. And so, you know, all these things are kind of coming together. And I talked to Elon Musk about this for the book. And it really could lead to the downfall of the West. And then you look inside of our country and you look at what's going on on our college campuses. I mean, these are not people who were there to uphold Western civilization in some cases.

They're there to tear it down. You look at some of the candidates, the Democrats are running. I think Momdani is a good example of this. These people here do not believe in America. They don't believe in the American founding. They think the American founding and the roots of Western civilization are inherently rotten at the core and therefore must be ripped out, root and branch. So the case I make is that we have to stop thinking small and we have to stop thinking short term and we have to start thinking about whether our children and our grandchildren are going to inherit a world that is overrun by ideologies that are really the enemies of human liberty and human freedom. And Donald Trump, I don't know whether he knew he was signing up for this or not, but he's our leader.

And so, you know, is there a politician alive I agree with 100% of the time? No, but I'll tell you this, I have come to appreciate Donald Trump's willingness to fight, not just for the sake of it, but for the sake of winning and winning on things that are absolutely germane to the future of the West, whether that is political issues, cultural issues, foreign affairs issues, this man's fighting the fight on all fronts and he deserves a good solid defense of it in this book and on television every single night. And you've been around politics for a long time. When do you think the stakes started to feel like this was really about common sense versus what's the opposite of common nonsense? Uncommon nonsense. And I said that in the book. That's what that's what we're

up against. Uncommon nonsense. You look at the opposition, the liberal movement, the progressive radicals and they take frequently the position that's held by 5, 10, 15% of the country and they try to ram it down your throat as though you just have to accept it. And, you know, during the Biden years, Biden sort of ran as a moderate, but he outsourced his policies and his administration to the radicals. And he put a wet blanket over this country on cultural issues like the transgender ideology, on the DEI stuff. This is what they did to the country. And Trump shows up and says, we're not doing that anymore. I'm just going to say what everyone else is already thinking, that this is uncommon nonsense.

He takes the wet blanket off the government, but then tangentially, it gives a permission structure for, say, corporations, and even some universities to remove this ridiculous ideological crusades from their ecosystems as well. So he came along at the exact right time. I was talking to Scott Besant, the Treasury Secretary for this book, and he used the phrase on the brink to describe to me how they found the country when they took over. And honestly, I don't think he just meant financially. I think he meant culturally and in a lot of areas. We were on the brink of something very terrible. And Trump is kind of rescuing us from this right now, although it can all go away.

You know, you elect the wrong people in the next elections, and it can all the pendulum can swing back, and it would be terrible for us and terrible for the West. Well, can anyone be that bulwark against existential crisis, potentially other than Donald Trump? Because it strikes to be reading the book, one of the things that I think made you and many normal Americans and normal conservatives, normies, you know, people in the suburbs of Louisville or in rural areas of Wisconsin,

wherever it is. One of the reasons they like Donald Trump is that he is unlike a career politician and in ways that are very well suited to this era. I mean, one line that jumped out of me from the book was from your prologue, which people should read because in and of itself, it's super interesting. You write, quote, the influence of X on our public discourse is vast, more than people realize. And I want to get into that because it's about your career, but it's also, for the context of this question, about the president himself. So is there anybody who can step into those shoes and be the leader of the common sense revolution? Everyone thought it was kind of Glenn Yonkin and then maybe winsome Sears could do it. But we don't really have an air apparent, I think, to Trumpism on the right.

Maybe you disagree, Scott. What do you think? You know, I interviewed him from my radio show after I had finished the book and I said, who is the most likely person to carry on your coalition? Who could hold the coalition together because it's a broad coalition. There's a lot of different kind of people in it. And he answered me for about five minutes, but he never said a single name. I think he, like, you know, he was, you know, we had miles and miles of crowds. You know, he was, I can hear him staying in now. And by the way, he's exactly right. You cannot replicate this. However, it can be carried forward. And if it's

going to be J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, which I think would be a fine ticket for 2028. What they have to do is not try to replicate Trump because you can't and not try to imitate Trump because you can't. But what you have to do is you have to find the issues and you have to find the fighting spirit that attracted people to Trump in the first place. I'll tell you what I learned writing the book. I've worked for George W. Bush in the White House. I've spent time with Donald Trump in the White House. I've been around other presidential campaigns. When you're a Republican, running or being the president, you face an onslaught of institutions that are trying to overwhelm you and entrenched federal bureaucracy that's trying to stop all your policies, Democrats who want to,

you know, who hate you and want to destroy you, media that hate you and wants to destroy you. And in the case of Trump, a federal judiciary that is increasingly stridently trying to supplant the executive branch as the supreme authority in the country. All these things I actually think collude and work together to try to overwhelm any Republican who runs for president or gets elected president. And this time around, Donald Trump said, I am not going to let them overwhelm me. I am going to overwhelm them. That's the story of this book. How much Donald Trump did in the first hundred days to overwhelm the forces that would normally try to overwhelm any Republican president. And so carrying forward the coalition, he can't replicate Trump. He is unique.

It's the greatest comeback since Napoleon. But you can take these lessons from him, the fight, and not let the forces that are destined to overwhelm you get the better of you. And I think he's shown us how to do that. And so it'll be up to Vance and Rubio or whatever we do in 28 to follow through on that and to stay with it. Even if they have different ideas slightly on an issue, even if they come up with new platform things, it's really the spirit and the tactics of not allowing. yourself to be sucked under by what official Washington can do to a Republican. When did you, I mean, again, this is what's so interesting to me is, I know Andrew Sullivan, for example, wrote a blog post on last Friday on a substack about how he said, I get it,

but I don't have Trump derangement syndrome because I am totally aware of, I'm conscious of what people call Trump derangement syndrome. And I just think his temperament, you know, he was talking about calling a reporter, Piggy and all of that. He said, I just think there's something I personally, Andrew Sullivan was saying, take seriously the question of style and temperament and comportment in public office. And we could have a separate debate about that. But it seems to me like that's one of the, that is maybe the fault line of people who come from sort of Bush, Cheney, maybe McConnell World to like half and half. Half went and said, no, this is an existential battle. We can put that stuff on the side. Then the other half said, no, I can't get over that.

how did you kind of come to see Trump? Again, as you read, I keep using this quote from the book, but you say, quote, I had come to find a new respect for Trump in no small part because I began to see him as a necessary and strong bulwark against the political opposition that had lost its damn mind. What about was that for you? And how are you thinking about that?

As I'm sure many of your friends and people you've been close with over the years were coming down on a very different side. Yeah, look, during the 2024 campaign, I kept hearing these Republicans say things like, In order to save conservatism, we have to vote for Kamala Harris. Incredible. And, you know, as someone who had to sit out there and debate these issues every night, I could never sort of figure out why they were saying that, what they meant by that.

And then I started to think about the underlying arguments they were making, the other statements they were making. And I realized that they weren't trying to save conservatism. They were trying to liberalize it. I mean, a lot of these people no longer vote for any Republican. And a lot of these people no longer are pro-life. A lot of these people no longer really believe in any of the conservative stuff that we have all supposedly been fighting for for the last 25 years.

They let their personality conflicts or problems with Donald Trump completely and totally change what they claim to be fighting for. I mean, heck, look around. Nicole Wallace, one of the lead anchors over on MSNBC. We relied upon her for communications advice in the Bush White House. And this is somebody who built their career supposedly communicating with the American people about George W. Bush's conservative agenda. And now she is one of the most deranged looney tunes in American media. Scott, what was that like? Can I just ask, it's not every day you talk to somebody who actually was hearing conservative messaging advice from Nicole Wallace. What was that like? Well, I mean, you could see we had like a 30% approval rating during the second time that was there. So it wasn't very much fun. I mean, but my question now is this. Did you ever bowl?

believe any of it. You know, did you ever believe in it? Bush was a conservative guy. Did you ever believe in any of it? You know, Tim Miller, this other loony tunes. You know, he was supposedly a Republican operative. Now he is one of the most liberal people in our political affairs ecosystem. Did you ever believe any of it? And what is it about Donald Trump that made you change every single thing that you supposedly ever believed in? And I just, I don't understand how one could break so many supposedly smart and experienced people. But you look around all these people who are making this argument that in order to save Republicans or save conservatism,

you had to vote for Kamala Harris. I mean, that is the craziest bunch of crap I have ever heard in my life. And so that was going on. And then you had all the liberals making their arguments. And then you had Harris, who was objectively one of the worst candidates in my lifetime for any high political office. And I just, you know, I realize, look, we're, I'm not going to be sucked under by these silly people and their silly arguments.

I'm fighting a larger battle here. And a larger battle is which of these people actually loves America, which of these people is actually going to stand up for the West? And if Donald Trump does what I want him to do 95% of the time and he loves America and he stands up for America and Kamala Harris does what I want her to do, zero percent of the time, and we're going to spend our 250th anniversary apologizing. to the rest of the world for America. This is an easy vote for me every day of the week. And so I was more than happy to vote for him for a third time. I was more than happy to make the case for him. I was more than happy to knock down these stupid arguments. And to this day, I still do not understand people who claim to be Republicans running around, having voted for Democrats in each of the last three elections, having advocated for Democrats to win the Senate,

having advocated for Democrats to win the House, having advocated for pro-abortion policies, advocated for every liberal social crusade and then have to look me in the eye and say, you know, you're hurting conservatism by supporting Donald Trump, F all the way off. That's what I think. Tim, Tim Miller catching some strays here from Scott Jennings. I want to play this. I mean, honestly, just the worst. The most, I mean, I don't know if I've ever been around anybody who was less good at their job,

but more condescending. Like his talent to condescension ratio is so far off. It's ridiculous. It's too bad you guys are on different networks because I have a feeling that would be electric. Every night, night after night, that would be a good one. I want to play, speaking of these panels and Abby Phillip, who show that you're on all of the time

you deal with all of the time. And to have a very polite, friendly relationship with, we can get into that. But a clip caught my eye. that was going viral just the other day. And this is Brianna Lyman of the Federalist on a panel talking about Zoramamdani. And I want to, I'm just going to tee up this clip

saying, I want to use this as an illustration of something I think you probably deal with a lot. I'm curious if one of the things that happens in this conversation is one of the challenges you face most. So let's go ahead and roll this club. Zoran Mamdani's principles are fundamentally hostile to the founding principles.

His idea that we should confiscate property. John Locke, the founders, they were very clear that property rights. Has he ever talked about everything? He said he wants to take luxury condos. That have interviewed him half a dozen times. Then you would know that he said that there's no confiscation. Then you would know that he said that he said,

Can I just say? This is, of course, on as much to be taken if they're not in use? This is a perfect example. The MAGA media ecosystem has made Zoron seem like this extreme jihadist. And listen, some of his ideas outside the current government council will force. So that was literally on, I said his website, but that was on Zora Mom Donnie's ex account. put that policy out publicly in 2020 on his X account. And so, Scott, I wanted to ask one of the biggest challenges there. I mean, you had Abby jumping into fact check, a claim that Brianna made,

which is my former colleague at the Federalist. She made a correct claim. She got fact check on air by the anchor, by another panelist, shouted down, and they were incorrect. And so one of the things I have to imagine must be maddening for you is just the media silos that people who think they're in the right actually are in themselves, where they don't even. even come across this information that maybe challenges a narrative. Yeah, it's interesting. I saw that clip, and Brianna was good to hang in there. And I should just, I should just zoom out and say, I actually think it's good what CNN is doing. It's the only debating show on television. The 10 o'clock show is the only debating show.

I'm actually surprised more stations don't do it, because everywhere I go, I hear one or two things. I love you and I love the debates. I hate you, but I love the debates. Everybody loves the debates. Everybody loves the debates. Everybody wants the debates. And so I think CNN, we thought of doing this during the campaign last year. They put it on the air. It was supposed to be a short-term project. But everybody loved it so much, we've left it on the air. So it's good conservatives.

I think I sort of, you know, I feel like I've made CNN safe again for conservatives to come on and argue and to watch. And now Brianna, and we have others. We have Shermichael. We have, you know, we have a sort of a little rotating cast that comes on now. And I think they're all doing a really good job. This happens a lot. What I have found in, and this is a general comment in this debating ecosystem is that a lot of people on the left sort of marinate in this blue sky, blue anon ecosystem all day long. They marinate in it and they rarely hear the things that their own candidates say.

And they are often surprised that when you go on television and you say, well, here's a direct quote from the person that you're advocating for. it is surprising and it may actually be the first time they've ever heard it because the media algorithm or the digital ecosystem in which they marinate all day long hides this information from them or they're lying and i actually don't think most of them are lying i think i think in many cases what happens is they just have never seen it and oftentimes i find that conservatives are actually the best informed about what's going on like 360. I know everything Donald Trump has said, good, bad middle. I know everything the Democrat has said. Good, bad middle. I know everything the media has said about both of them. I tend to bring all that preparation to the table.

What I find on the left is that they marinate in this little blue anon ecosystem. And so they only know what that shows them and what that shows them is often, is often charitably an incomplete picture. In the case of Mamdani, of course he is advocated for seizing the means of production. Of course he has advocated for socialist policies. I mean, my gosh, the guy wins an election, and he starts quoting Eugene Debs, who ran, who was the most prominent Marxist of his day, who ran for president as a socialist five times. We're not really hiding the ball here. We're a socially. If you're Mondani, you're a socialist, and you're not really hiding that. And so to hear that little twerk mokler and the others, like try to shout down Breonna,

I mean, look, she was right. They were wrong. It happens all the time. And the best thing to do is, I often find the best thing to do is let the internet sort it out. They almost always sorted out correctly. Okay, that's hilarious. Because one of my questions was just how frustrating it must be to so often have. And I think you're right, conservatives tend to come to these tables better informed. Because if you're on the right, you have to. You cannot merely rely on an NBC News report or even a CNN report. or the New York Times, you have to kind of read everything and compare, and you're just more used to that. Yes. And so I feel like it has to be maddening to constantly get talked down to. That has to be, you're used to it. It sounds like you're very used to it, Scott, but that has to be enormously frustrating.

I'm used to it. I will tell you my experience tells me that conservatives almost always come to that table more prepared. We've read everything. We've seen everything. We've researched everything. and oftentimes a lot of people from the left show up and they're capable of doing their one to three bullets

or they're capable of making the, you know, sort of whatever the top. By the way, the other thing I've learned in this format is the left is very authoritarian. You know, we always use the phrase, the talking points have gone out. That is a real thing. The left, the talking points go out

and they are all capable of doing that and they're all living fear of getting off of that message because I assume or imagine what happens on the left is if you get out of line, they come after you. Like they never let you hear the end of it. They make your life miserable. Ask John Federman. You get out of line on one thing

and they're trying to run you out of office. And so at that table and in these debating formats, I find that the conservatives show up really well prepared. And oftentimes the liberals show up with only what they have been programmed to say or what the blue anon ecosystem tells them is happening. And look, again, the Internet usually sorts it out. And in her case, in the debate you showed, we know which person was right. Can you expound upon this point?

Again, this was from the prolog. You say the influence on X in our public discourse is vast more than people realize. And you are probably the perfect person to explain why, Scott, I heard a story from someone at a book party of yours recently who saw one of those guys who does the intrepid work on the right of clipping your CNN debates. and posting them. And the person who oversaw this interaction said, you were so eager to meet this young staffer,

who I think it was at the Daily Caller, or something like that. And so gracious to him, because you're really grateful for the work of people who get this stuff out there. Tell us a little bit more of what you mean about how powerful X is at shaping narratives, debates, and all of that.

So the 2024 campaign for me at CNN, you know, I was there during 2020, but we didn't really have a great campaign. coverage because it was during COVID and it wasn't a real campaign. You know, there were no crowds for anything. There wasn't, the conventions were virtual. It was weird. The 2024 campaign was the first campaign I really got to cover at CNN. And I learned almost immediately how powerful the X platform was because we were doing things on the air, whether it was at a debate or at the conventions or on this debating show or what have you. And almost immediately, people were clipping these moments and

circulating them. And so within minutes, these little exchanges we were having on the air were going viral. You know, hear what Van Jones and Scott Jennings just argued about, or here David Axelrod and Scott Jennings go at it or whatever. And these things were going viral almost instantly, and they were having a real impact on affecting how people were discussing the discourse and the direction of the campaign. And I started to notice there was like this little cadre of guys who were like really good at clipping the stuff in a hurry and they were really good at picking out the best 90 seconds or like a really good little exchange

and moving it in a hurry and it was just having a really outsized impact on how people were interpreting the events of the day and so this was growing and growing and growing over time the 10 o'clock debating show comes along and it just lends itself perfectly to these little vignettes, you know, these little chunks

really encapsulates kind of the best debating moment between someone from the right and someone from the left. I think it's terrific because I think these little chunks for many people, for millions of people who may not watch CNN, they're actually watching CNN through these little clips. They may never turn it on their television or they may never consume a long form political show, but they may see a little a couple of minutes of one of our debates. I think it's terrific. I think it's terrific for our brand that we're the ones producing these. moments. But I can tell you this, those little clips, those little things that circulate, they have a huge impact on how people are viewing what's going on right now in our politics.

It helps people inform their thinking. And I just, when I'm out and about in the world, people walk up to me all the time and say, you know, I really don't have time to watch the news, but I watch your clips. And it helps me understand what's happening. And so these guys, like the guys from the Daily Caller I met the other day, I wrote my name in his book. I wrote on there, go viral. Best wishes, Scott Jennings. That's hilarious. And that's what they need to do because I think what they're doing is actually reaching huge audiences that might not ever get other kinds of political analysis content. And so we over at CNN are the ones providing that. I think that's great for us and it's

great for them. Well, and I think you resonate in particular because when there is that kind of condescension, When people actually on the right feel like they're you, like Jay Suisse, Scott Jennings, they feel as though they're being talked down to by somebody in this kind of air-conditioned coastal, fancy Tony Studio, and they see themselves in your position and they see you as somebody who's basically like at the barbecue, just being like, what the hell are you talking about, dude? Like I just think that's why it works for you. It's not just that the clips are being put out there by the caller.

that the caller and those guys are picking up on these moments you have where you don't accept the framing, you don't accept the premise. And I feel like that's what was happening for so long is the right was accepting the premise. Yep, I'm America's favorite pundit for a reason. I'm the press secretary for the people, Emily. I'm just telling you, when I get at, when I go out there, I'm thinking about a couple of things. A, I need to be well prepared. I've got to be the best prepared person because I'm going to have five people coming at me. Number two, I need to think about what is the best possible argument that a conservative or a Republican could make on any particular topic on any given day? Sometimes that argument's already being made by, say, Donald Trump.

Sometimes it's not. But I need to be able to articulate that in a very efficient way. I'm going to get six or seven seconds before the screaming starts. So I have got to be like efficient and fast. Number three, what is the other side going to do? And what's the easiest way for me to knock down these bowling pins. So I spend a lot of time during the day thinking about the vectors that I'm expecting them to approach from and how I'm going to shoot it down. The whole thing, though, comes down to preparation and trying to get an understanding of what I need to do offensively, what I'm going to have to do defensively. And a lot of it, honestly, just comes from thinking about how does the average person from Middle America, how's this going to hit them? How are they

absorbing the news? And there's plenty of pundits on TV that, live in Washington and New York. There's plenty of pundits that, you know, live in the Acela Corridor. Not too many pundits on TV from Kentucky, North America, Wisconsin. There's just not too many of us. And I think the way news hits us is different. I think the way our social circles absorb things is different. And I think that there's just, you know, frankly, not enough of that kind of attitude on television. And, you know, as much as I am the conservative pundit on TV, I'm sort of the representative of middle America on TV. And I'm often the only person out there who can tell you how red America is absorbing something.

There's plenty of people from Blue America and there's plenty of Republicans who are liberals who can tell you all about it. But there's just not too many Middle America conservative people that get a seat. Again, I think this is where CNN is succeeding. We're one of the few networks that's putting actual Middle America conservatives on television. I think it's a good thing. Yeah, before we go to a break, actually, that was one of the questions I wanted to pose as, you know, there was this famous moment when John Stewart shut down Tucker Carlson, I think it was Paul the Gala on Crossfire in like 2000. And it's one of John Stewart's most beloved, iconic moments,

and people look at him as somebody who sort of swooped in like the media Superman to save the day from these theatrical debates that were killing the country, as he put it. But actually what we lost when Crossfire went away, and it wasn't recaptured when Crossfire really came back, was having the normalcy of just constant, two different sides, hashing it out in public, theatricality is totally fine, yelling is totally fine. It gets out of hand. You step in and maybe tame things, temper things.

But having those passions run high in a news studio, I mean, there's really nothing wrong with that, Scott. Am I wrong? Totally right. This country was founded on political debates. The country's political institutions run on debate. We debate, we argue, sometimes it gets heated, then we vote, whether that's in a legislative body or in an election. And then we do it all over again on the next issue or the next

election. But the foundation of it all is speech and debate. And I think what's happening is I think people on the right relish debate. I think people on the left are growing increasingly illiberal. They don't want debates. They don't even want conservatives to be allowed to speak. One of the top comments I get on social media, why does CNN allow Scott Jennings to talk like it's not hey I hate it when we lose debates of Scott Jennings it's why is he allowed to speak right that's not a good that's not a good frame of mind for the liberal movement to be in now CNN I think is smart to sort of ignore this point of view and the debates are good but I think you'll find on the left that if you're a

Republican so called or a conservative so called and you're willing to go on and crap on your own team and tell everybody why your own team and your own ideology is terrible, you know, that's, that's fine. They'll be fine with that. But if you're willing to go on television or you want to go on television and defend your points and defend being a true conservative and defend your Republican vote, there's just a lot of resistance to that out there. And you don't get that at CNN right now. We're platforming Republicans or we're platforming conservative debaters. And I think that's a good thing. But there's a lot of media that really doesn't. And I think it's reflective of the illiberalism that has unfortunately infected the left oh man do i have a clip for the audience so

they need to hang on uh on that point for this quick little break we'll be back with scott jennings in just one moment first you all know what i'm thankful for this thanksgiving you're gonna you're gonna know right away what i'm thankful for it's obviously mossa chips there's really only one option here but we all love thanksgiving the holidays because it kind of gives you a chance to go back to the basics and eat real food to get as a family. And today's sponsor, Masa is part of the real food movement. So important, Masa chips contain just three ingredients, organic corn, sea salts, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow, which is delicious. With Mesa, you'll feel satisfied, light, and energetic, with no crash,

bloat or gross, sluggish feeling afterwards. You definitely don't want that after holiday. Snacking. Personally, my favorite flavor of Mossa is lime. I love the spicy flavor. I love, so that's the Cabanero. I love the chero flavor for dessert. But if you love Masa, then you'll also love Vandy Crisps, because speaking for myself, I also really love Vandy Crisps. Vandy Masa's sister company makes the most delicious three ingredient potato chips I've ever tasted. My favorite flavor is Smokehouse Barbecue. I really love also the original flavor. I just, I'm like almost embarrassed by how much I love Masa and Vandy Crisps, as you can tell. So if you're looking for the best Black Friday deal on Masa, Masa always offers our audience a Black Friday

level offer of 25% off on their first purchase. So if you use code after party for 25% off your first order at masahchips.com or at vandychrps.com, you get that discount, or you can simply click the link in the video description or scan the QR code to claim this delicious offer. All right, we are back with Scott Jennings, host of the Scott Jennings show, political contributor for CNN, and author of A Revolution of Common Sense, how Donald Trump stormed Washington and fought for Western civilization. As I promised before the break, Scott was talking about how he thinks to the left is sloshing towards or maybe careening towards illiberalism and would rather shut a lot of conservatives up than actually debate them. And on that note, I wanted to play this

clip. This is from November 18th. This is Scott with Franklin Leonard and Joshua Doss talking about race relations. Let's go ahead and roll this one, S2. You keep saying, well, he didn't do anything. There's no indication of criminality. If that's true, he should be elated that we're putting these things out. It's not if that's true. It is true. Can you name any evidence?

I would like to see the evidence. What I'm saying is, you think of the- This is about Jeffrey Epstein, by the way, for that. No, I don't. That's exactly the point. Oh, my goodness. This is an IQ test. Don't fail it.

Come on, man. Ten years Donald Trump has been in public life. That's embarrassing. Just real quick, I just want to bring it back to something that just happened. I feel like I just heard Scott call into question this. intelligence with the IQ test. I feel like I heard that. And so I just want to say something.

This is what it sounded like. You want to make it Rachel. Go ahead, but it's ridiculous. Well, I mean, I think that there. By the way, we know each other and we're friends. I'm not, I know this man. He's a smart guy and we're having a debate. I would love to finish what I'm saying.

We don't even know each other, but we do. Scott, that was a, I found that to be a really powerful moment when you said we're friends and we know each other. Can you tell us a little bit about what happened, maybe, after the segment, if anything. Maybe it was all good. Well, look, Franklin, so I've known him since like 1996. We were Coca-Cola national scholars together. Oh my gosh. And he's been on the 10 o'clock show before. And one night we were like, wait a minute. I think we have some commonality. And so I like the guy. I think he's actually a smart guy. I don't agree with him about the Epstein

situation. And of course, we were debating that. And we were having a vigorous debate. character sitting next to me, Doss, I had literally met five minutes before the show started. So there's a situation where I'm having a debate with Franklin, who's a smart guy, and then this guy wants to jump in and do what people who have no idea what they're talking about or what they're doing do. They try to turn it into some issue of race. It's not an issue of race. It's an issue of, I have a point to make. Franklin has a point to make. And, you know, we, you know, we were having it out. And honestly, I just don't think this crap works anymore. I mean, I just, I think America is over this crap. I mean, this was part

of re-electing Donald Trump. We don't have to sort of put up with these nonsensical arguments where, you know, you get into a debate. I have a point of view. You have a point of view. And if you don't agree with me, you immediately start saying, well, you know, you must be a racist. And he was, but he was very sneakily implying it. He didn't say Scott Jennings. What a racist thing to say. He said, did I just hear the IQ? He tried to do this kind of workaround to avoid looking you in the eye and saying you're racist. I know, which was this kind of like a sissy way to do it anyway. Like if you want to call me, just look me in the eye and call me that. And so, you know, what I, what I find is that some people are not equipped for the debating format. They're not

equipped for that show. They're not equipped for that table. And, you know, that showed me something in that moment. But I have a lot of respect for Franklin, actually. I think is a great debater. I actually think he's a smart guy. And I, you know, he and I are not aligned politically. but I'm actually kind of a fan of his when it comes to his ability to articulate certain things on television that come from his point of view and by the way, I'm pro-debate.

I think people like Franklin ought to be able to come out and debate and he does and he does a great job. But this other character, I mean, it's not a debate if once you hear something you don't like, you know, it's like, racist, racist, racist, racist, you know, you're out, you're out, you're out, you're out.

And nobody, brother, nobody wants to talk to you. Okay. Nobody wants to debate with you. And you've destroyed all your credibility. And so, I don't know, my advice is this crap doesn't work anymore. Just engage in the debate. If you have something to say, say it. If you don't, you know, no reason to impugn the character of someone you met five minutes ago. Right. Yeah, that's a really good point. And I think actually you won the debate by making the obvious point, which is that you're not, you have never demonstrated racist behavior to this person that you know and that you're friendly with and to suggest other. otherwise is outrageous. And so good on you for doing that in the moment, Scott. Another clip, we're just doing this Scott Jennings hits. We're going to do all the hits. This one was you with Kara Swisher, who got into a, you got into debate with her over double standards and kind of Hunter Biden shutting down the laptop story tech, which Kara Swisher has covered closely for years. When you had these companies, you know, I remember, you remember, you couldn't even send the New York

posts original story on the Hunter Biden laptop in a direct message when Twitter was shutting it down after that story came out. So let's go ahead and roll this clip because it's another good one. The story was true. There wasn't really any dispute of that other than from these 50 people who come from government, who are in and out of government when Democrats are in power. That's politics to me, Scott. I mean, you're not naive. They were making their case, just like you would say Trump just did with whatever issue he has. Well, I don't agree that it is just a simple matter of making your case when you use your government title and you use your intelligence bona fides and you use all your credentials

to flat out lie to the American people. They don't, they didn't know that. That was a political argument, but they were saying, this is Russian disinformation. What you're reading is directly out of the Kremlin. It was one of the biggest lies that was told to try to get. Joe Biden over the finish line. Do you think that's just politics as usual? Yes, they do, actually.

Incredible, because Scott, she also then compared that to Brendan Carr and the Jimmy Kimmel dust up, which it's worth noting happened after all of this and is widely considered on the right to be a response to lawfare, illiberalism, and censorship to show the left. I'm not even defending it. I'm just explaining the argument to show the left what happens when you start going down that slippery slope. And she seems fundamentally to not even understand that those politics provoked these responses actually from Trump in the first place. Well, I mean, the Kimmel, the Kimmel comparison is ridiculous because the issue that was going on with Jimmy Kimmel was that he was also lying. I mean, what I have found with the left is that they get really mad when someone points out they're lying and tries to do something about it.

And in the case of Kimmel, he lied to his audience and essentially argued to them that the shooter of Charlie Kirk was from MAGA, was a Republican, completely false. And so, again, as with Kimmel, as with the 50 intelligence people in the case of the Hunter Biden laptop, what you had is people on the left trying to create a narrative to create a false reality. And here's the thing. They're really good at it. It is an article of faith on the left and among the Democratic Party that Russia stole the 2016 election. If you went to a Democrat dinner tonight and argued otherwise, you'd be thrown out on your rear end. And so in the wake of the Kirk killing, they tried to create the narrative to program their people that Kirk was killed by a Republican or a MAGA supporter. That's what Jimmy Kimmel was doing. He was participating in the perpetuation of the blue and on, you know, talking.

points that this guy was MAGA. In the case of the Hunter Biden laptop, they tried to create a narrative in October of 2020, that somehow Russia had created this laptop and it was all just a big Russian hoax. And by the way, my guess is a high percentage of people on the left still believe that. And so they're very good at creating these narratives. And they get very pissy when someone on the right points out

that this is nothing but lies, that this is nothing but narrative building. And so, look, and it's, to me, it's not politics as usual, but to people on the left, it is because that's the only thing they know to do is to lie their ass off and to create a narrative or an alternative reality. That's all they know how to do. And so to Kara, I'm sure it is politics as usual, because she thinks it's perfectly fine to create an alternate reality or to create a narrative when the facts are not convenient to electing a Democrat. I'm sure to her, that is politics as usual. But I'll tell you what, it's up to all of us conservatives in this. space to keep pointing it out because, you know, I just, you know, if we've learned anything from Donald Trump, we just can't take it lying down. Well, I mean, it's unfathomable that she said it wasn't coerced or colluded that she believes as somebody who covers tech. I mean, of course it was.

It's truly insane. I mean, Zuckerberg himself has said that it was basically coerced. It was coerced. And look, you know, you've got these 50 people from intelligence and law enforcement and people with all these titles and credentials. and they're like, hey, this is Russian disinformation. And then they've got the Biden campaign calling them up and saying, you need to do something about this disinformation.

It wasn't even that they were arguing that it wasn't a big deal, that the story wasn't worth coverage. They were arguing what's the left's favorite word, disinformation and misinformation. That's their favorite words. When they're losing a political argument, they immediately say everything you're saying is disinformation or misinformation. Or racist, of course.

Or racist. And so when they throw these things at these tech companies and they say, well, you can't be part of the spreading of misinformation or disinformation, particularly if it comes from Russia, you mean to tell me you don't think that's coercion? Of course it's coercion. Of course it's coercion. And so, look, what happened is very simple. Information was kept from the American people on the doorstep of an election to advantage one of the two major political parties. That party was the Democratic Party. Information was sent. information was kept from you. And what did we find out later? It was all true. The laptop was real. Everything on there was real. And by the way, it was worthy of public debate because we now know that Hunter Biden was engaged in foreign influence peddling. And that probably was information that the American people would have wanted to know before they put Joe Biden back in the White House. Scott, I want to play for you this clip of Marjorie Taylor Green announcing her resignation from Congress. This happened on Friday, Friday night, actually. And it was.

I think reasonably a stunning decision from somebody whose profile is rising, has been at the center of a lot of controversies over her short stint in Congress, relatively short stint in Congress, but has been on the outs with Donald Trump over disagreements in the last couple of months in particular. So let's go ahead here and roll S7, Marjor Taylor Green, announcing her resignation. Americans are used by the political industrial complex of both political parties, election cycle after election cycle in order to elect whichever side can convince Americans to hate the other side more. I have never valued power, titles, or attention in spite of all the wrong assumptions about me. I believe in term limits and do not think Congress should be a

lifelong career or an assisted living facility. My only goal and desire has ever been to hold the Republican Party accountable for the promises it makes to the American people and put America first. If I am cast aside by the president and the MAGA political machine and replaced by neo-cons, big pharma, big tech, military industrial war complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can never, ever relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well. Scott, there's also a nasty primary battle shaping up in your state, Kentucky, over Thomas Massey, an allied to Marjorie Taylor Green, somebody who's also been on the outside of the president and the Republican Party broadly. I mean, talk to people

in Maga World, they're pretty, pretty soured on Thomas Massey these days. But Massey himself once told myself and my colleagues at the Washington Examiner that he used to go out. He remembers barnstorming for Rand and Ron Paul back in the Tea Party days, thinking everybody was really fired up about limited government. But he said he found out when Trump came along, they're all just looking for the, quote, craziest son of a bitch in the race. And there are definitely Kentuckians. There's definitely Georgians who kind of fit into that category. So as somebody who's actually, and you can speak more to this, as I understand, mulling potentially going into politics as opposed to media, does Marjorie Taylor Green? What should her calculus be as

opposed to, as she thinks about being in politics versus potentially in media. She's been on your network lately. So maybe she wants to make a bid for a position on CNN. Well, I'll tell you, the easiest way to get on TV in Washington as a Republican is tell them that you're going to crap on Donald Trump. Right. And they'll put you on TV 24 hours a day. They will call you Republican strategist. If you haven't voted Republican in 20 years, they'll call you Republican or Republican strategist as long as you're willing to crap on Donald Trump. I'm just, that's the way it works. Yeah. It's definitely been working for her the last month. Yeah. I mean, look, she went on the view to attack Donald Trump.

Look, what I believe and know to be true about the green situation, and look, I don't know her. And so I'm not going to tell you this story to disparage her. I'm just going to tell you what I know to be true. She wanted to run for statewide office in Georgia. The White House knew this. She, I think, asked for their advice. The president heard about it. He had a poll that was somebody gave him about the situation. in Georgia. He discreetly and privately transmitted this information to her, and it showed her losing to John Alsoff by 20 points. It showed that if she were to run statewide, it would end in disaster and embarrassment. So he didn't exactly tell her not to run, but he gave her the kind of political

information that you would interpret as, hey, this is not a good idea for you, and it's not a good idea for the party. Since the transmission of that information, which, by the way, he was doing her a favor. He was saving her from humiliation. Since the transmission, of that information, she has opposed the president on his Middle East policy. She didn't like it when he bombed the Houthi rebel. She didn't like it when he took out Iran's nuclear facilities. She opposed him on deportations. She went on the view and attacked him. You know, over and over and over, she became a policy and political opponent of the president. And they believe it all goes back to that moment where they showed her a poll to try to do her a favor. Now, when he withdrew his

endorsement of Marjorie Taylor Green and basically said, okay, if you're going to to attack me, I'm going to withdraw my support of you. What happened? She dropped out of Congress just a few days later. And so to me, this is really a story about political power and who controls it, who has it, and who has influence. And look, a lot of folks have been arguing Donald Trump's a lame duck. All I know is he withdrew his endorsement of Marjorie Taylor Green. And like a week later, she's resigning from Congress. That sounds like a lame duck to me. And so I have You know, I don't know what to make of her statements about wanting to turn over a new leaf as it relates to bringing everyone together. But I don't know. I never understand why people

resign. Why are you resigning? Like, you got elected to a full term. Don't you feel some responsibility to your constituents to serve out the term? So I don't, I don't know. I mean, I mean, you got to be pretty mad to resign your job. And she doesn't work for Donald Trump. She doesn't work for anybody but the people who elected her. And so I guess I kind of would have liked to have seen her serve out her term because I think that's what you're supposed to do when you get elected, but she chose not to do that. I would have liked to see that for a lot of reasons. And Scott, just to a little bit of that point, she's making about the political establishment. I mean, she comes into Congress and gets sort of surrounded by the

same swamp that in your book you really criticize as come to terms with and talk about having comes to terms with, come to terms with over the course of your career. So how do you assess what that looks like in 2025 heading into year two of the second Trump administration or some of her frustrations here about the political establishment still justified still a sort of Sisyphian uphill battle or do you think you know with a republican presidency there's the glasses is roughly half full rather than half empty so here's what I think politics is a team sport and when you have the white house the president is the head coach and you're not always going to get your way I mean I think with Marjorie Taylor Green and some of the other isolationists in the party, I think some of their

problems with Donald Trump stem from his foreign policy views. I think the president has shown extreme moral clarity on his views on foreign policy. That's my personal view. And so I'm very happy with it. But it's obvious to me that they aren't. And some of this, I think, anger towards him from that wing of the party stems from what he has done to help Israel defeat the radical Islamic terrorists to help Israel, you know, basically bring Iran to its knees. They don't think we should be engaged in any of this. The president, of course, disagrees. And he thinks it's good to help our ally, and he thinks it's good to defeat these radical Islamic terrorists who constantly chant death to America. I did to think the president is right about that. He's been right about it his

whole life. He has never wavered on it. He has shown extreme moral clarity on it. And if you just now are realizing that the president is not a pure isolationist and you're choosing this moment to be mad about it. Why haven't you been paying attention? Donald Trump's been saying the same thing about Iran, you know, for 20 years, 30 years. So I think some of it stems from people who just, you know, when they don't get their way, they get emotional and they throw a fit and they take their ball and go home. Politics is a team sport and we have a president and he calls the shots right now. You don't have to agree with everything and you could certainly say, hey, maybe you should do it

this way or try to influence him that way. I mean, in my writing my book, I saw him taking in information. and watching debates and making decisions after taking an information. You know, he is somebody who listens. But at some juncture, when you have a head coach, you got to run the play that the head coach wants to run. Even if you have some reservations about it, even if you don't agree with it all the time, you just have to accept that when you're in a political party and you aren't the president,

you aren't necessarily the one who is setting the national agenda. He is. And so, you know, if you want to become a policy opponent or the president all the time, that's fine but there are political consequences to that and you shouldn't be surprised when they come for you well lastly scott one thing i learned from your book is that the president of the united states has texted you on at least one occasion tell us about that does he see your clips he sees you on cnn and he's like man scott let's talk that was great i can tell you he has seen the clips he has seen the shows and we have had some text about it and has had

have had some conversation about it. You know, I think in his heart, he's a television producer. Yes. And he might be the best one in America. And, you know, he has an eye for what's going on on TV. And look, my observation of him is that he is more in touch with the pop culture and news zeitgeist of America than 99% of everybody else involved in politics. Yeah. In a world that demands, you know, a high level of communications acumen, this is a good political skill to have.

This is a good trait to have. And so, yes, I can tell you that we had some back and forth and some communication about his views on some of the things he saw on TV and some of the people he sees on TV. And in his heart, in the heart of the president is a television producer. I can tell you that. And honestly, if he were producing a television show today, instead of being the president, it would be the highest rated show on TV. because I think his eyeball for it is still pretty good. His last season of Celebrity Apprentice was top of the Celebrity Apprentice game, Scott. So I think you're right about that.

Scott Jennings is, of course, host the Scott Jennings show. It's a political contributor for CNN and author of the new book with Little Pearls tucked throughout its pages like that last one. It's called A Revolution of Common Sense, how Donald Trump stormed Washington and fought for Western civilization. Scott, thank you for staying up late. I have a feeling a lot of people are going to be relying on your clip. Thanksgiving dinner tables this week. I hope that's true. And pass the mashed potatoes and pass

America's favorite pundit. Pass it around and buy the book. Here's what I would say. If you love Donald Trump, you'll love this book. It's full of great stuff like that. And if you know somebody who hates Donald Trump, buy the book, wrap it up, put it onto their Christmas tree, take a video of it on Christmas morning when they unwrap it and post it and tag me on X because I want to see it. Either way, good reason to buy the book. That's a great moment. marketing strategy. Scott, Scott Jennings, really appreciate it. Thanks for being here. Thanks, Emily. That was so much fun. All right, we have more in just one moment. But of course, first, recently I learned about colostrum, and you know where this is going. That is the very first

milk known as liquid gold. I always have to do that. Otherwise, people get mad. It is the milk that babies receive from their mothers first after birth. It is packed with proteins, natural growth factors, antimicrobial peptides that work to enhance your immune response, reduce inflammation, repair, and rebalance gut, gut lining, reduce bloating, and make your hair and skin look amazing. Today's sponsor Cowboy Colostrum offers the highest quality cow colostrum available in the U.S., 100% made in America from 100% American grass-fed cows, made with delicious natural ingredients and no artificial flavors. Simply add a 3 gram scoop of either their chocolate, Madagascar, vanilla, or strawberry into your coffee or smoothie.

I love strawberry and a glass of milk. For a limited time, our listeners get up to 25% off their entire order. Just head to cowboy colostrum.com slash afterparty and use code afterparty at checkout. That's 25% off when you use code after party at cowboy colostrum.com slash after party. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know that our show sent you.

Okay, let's do a deep dive on this New York Times article about an illegal immigrant and a man who lives in Minnesota, who has spent as the New York Times, puts it four decades in rural Minnesota without ever getting into trouble. Here's the article. It's up on the screen right now. And if you're watching this, I want you to pay attention to the framing. The headline here is two men, one identity. They both paid the price. That's what we're starting with off the top. Two men, one identity. they both paid the price that's what we're starting with off the top two men one identity they both paid the price this is a new york times article that was published on sunday a very long story a deep dive with some by the way i'll say it truly fascinating excellent deep reporting into the case of Dan Kluver. Again, he is a father in Minnesota. Quote, he prided himself on a life built around

dependability and routine, working at the same factory where his father once did, and spending his weekends coaching baseball and teaching Sunday school. He had never been, he had never fired a gun or smoked a cigarette, or missed a payment, or been arrested. Well, what happens to Dan Kluver? Of course, he pays the price. But it starts with a story. of him getting pulled over in downtown Olivia, in Minnesota, and having to explain to this officer that basically he has had this long saga of identity fraud. That, by the way, in the article we learned from the New York Times,

government estimates say at least one million, at least one million migrants right now, illegal migrants, illegal migrants are using fraudulent or stolen social security numbers. That's the government estimate. One million people are dealing with this. And the story goes on to outline the many logistical, administrative, and serious personal, professional challenges that have hit this hardworking American citizen from Minnesota over the years. And I'll say, it's pretty damn good reporting in the case.

case of Dan Klover from Minnesota. Here's a quote from him, though. It's like I've lost all control over who I am, and we're about to find out more and more. As the New York Times writes, he traced 15 years of records and found more tax documents listing unfamiliar jobs at a cement plant in Kansas, a paper mill in Tennessee, a construction company in Ohio, a cereal factory in Nebraska and a dog food plant in Missouri. Then we learn here about the other Dan Klover, who, quote, had earned more than his own salary at a local sugar beet factory, which pushed the total income under his social security number into a higher tax bracket as the debt started to mount. Twice he'd contacted law enforcement and filed an identity theft report.

I'm sorry, this is the same Dan Kluver, the way that the story shifted there was confusing. But again, this is still the guy from Minnesota who had twice contacted law enforcement, filed an identity theft report with the feds, waited for relief while the IRS was docking his annual tax returns, garnishing paychecks, and he's paying thousands of dollars to fight this. Then a few months before he got married back in 2012, his wife decided to pay off the balance, quote, emptying her savings and sending in a check for $6,000. The relief lasted until the next tax season when a new bill arrived. this one for $22,000. And again, we're still, we've still got some good reporting happening here

with the Minnesota Dan Klover. Now, let's go to the other Dan Kluver. Romeo Perez Bravo, who's 42 years old. He's a Guatemalan immigrant who, quote, had spent most of his adult life working under borrowed identities. So as the New York Times writes, By the start of 2025, he was preparing for another graveyard shift in St. Joseph, Missouri, lacing his work boots in the darkness of his drafty rental while his wife and five children slept. He packed their school lunches for the next day, drove to their dog food factory and gathered with his coworkers to say their nightly prayer. Then he swiped his badge to begin another 12-hour shift as Daniel Clover, sinking it deeper into an identity that wasn't really his own. You know what we go on to learn about this man, Romeo Perez, Bravo, known professionally as Daniel Clover.

We learn that this man had been deported since he first entered the country during, so this was 2005, 2008, and 2009. He has been deported three times. Three times. He is, and this is important, an economic migrant. The story says that right off the bat, he came to the United States from Guatemala to make money. here it is, to help earn money for his family, traveling alone to join his father in Marshall, Minnesota. He hiked out of the Guatemalan highlands, rode atop a freight train for three weeks across Mexico, nearly drowned in the Rio Grande,

and took a greyhound to Middle America, where life somehow felt harder. Three deportations. We learned the story this man had multiple DUIs. Multiple children who are now. U.S. citizens. He was listed, Dan Kluver himself was listed in a wrongful death lawsuit. Why? Because R. M. Perez Bravo, Romeo Perez Bravo, was in a car crash where his car malfunctioned, and a man was killed. An elderly man was killed. He was riding a trike with his nine-year-old granddaughter.

We then go to find out he was sheltered by a church. Dan Kluver, not Dan Klover, Romeo Perez Bravo, was sheltered by a church. That's what this article, that's what this article tells us. And this article is not a scathing indictment of Perez Bravo's predation on a hardworking American citizen, nor the system that enabled Perez Bravo to, for years, be deported three times and be one of apparently a million illegal migrants who are using fraudulent or stolen Social Security numbers

while American citizens have to have their paychecks garnage, spend thousands of dollars, thousands of dollars to fight something that they did nothing wrong, nothing wrong. Talk about the process being the punishment. They did nothing wrong to deserve this. And the New York Times has the audacity to phrase this as just a fair and balanced human interest story. There is no balance in this story.

Perez Bravo was not fleeing violence. He wasn't a legitimate asylum seeker. He was one of many people who broke the law, on multiple occasions, had DUIs, putting American citizens in danger, and then gets treatment from the New York Times, gets to stay in the country for years and years, until Trump comes along,

and gets treatment from the New York Times where the headline says, two men, one identity, they both paid the price, as though him getting potentially deported now, after 15 years of stealing this man's identity is just paying the price, paying the price. No, one person really paid the price in this situation, and it's the real Dan Kluver.

And this is what people have been begging the, quote, mainstream media to cover for years because people knew this was happening. When you have right now in 2025 some one million people dealing with these identity theft cases from illegal migrants, people knew because it was happening to them. And the corporate press was paying very little attention to it. And I went and pulled these numbers.

This is from ICE. Towards the end, this was the summer of 2024. There's all kinds of research about the criminal rate of people who are in the country illegally. I'm not even going to get into that. You can read the debate between the pro-immigrant Cato Institute, and the sort of strict immigration think tanks, you can go and read all of those

so the cows come home and enjoy. I'm not talking about that right now. Why? Because we know, according to these numbers, that in 2024, 62,231 non-citizens with criminal convictions for assault currently were not detained by ICE and were released.

This is on their non-detention docket, again, 2024. 62,000, about 43,000 have pending assault charges. They were on the non-detention docket, meaning they were not detained. The agency currently is holding, according to News Nation, this was in 2024, 2,300 non-citizens who have been convicted of assault, and about 1,500 who have pending charges. The agency has also released about 16,000 who have been convicted of sexual assault, about 57,000 non-citizens who were convicted of drug.

drug possession and 2,500 who have been convicted on kidnapping, according to the letter. I crunched some numbers on my own, and there are about seven convictions, criminal convictions of illegal migrants on DUIs a day, if we're using the numbers from last year. About seven a day. People who are not supposed to be here, who are putting American citizens in danger because of the Biden administration, particularly. the Obama administration before the Biden administration. This is not a victimless crime at all. And it was covered like one.

Continues basically to be covered like one. I don't think the New York Times piece, this New York Times piece, is guilty of covering it like it's totally a victimless crime because here they talk about how the real Dan Klover was indeed a victim. But even in doing that, Even in doing that, they fill out, you know, this genuinely interesting and dimensional story about Perez Bravo, I don't in any way whatsoever fault them for including the details of this man's life, which are interesting and reflective of how many people who are here illegally have built these lives where children could potentially go without a parent at a moment's notice because the parents knew they were always living in

precarity and decided to have children that would always be at risk of losing their parent because the politics of a country shift and people in the country decide, no, we're not going to let people with three freaking illegal entries, multiple DUI convictions stay in our country, sorry, we're not doing that anymore. We're not doing that anymore. So in that sense, even when they're trying to create the semblance of balance, It's still wildly imbalanced, wildly imbalanced. These are the circumstances that I would argue the article completely downplays. This story should have been done 30 times a year by every corporate media outlet.

There should have been one of these stories every single week in every news outlet for the last however many years. and it should have been a whole lot tougher on the system and on the people who have plenty of agency themselves and are economic migrants again, we're not talking about Cuban refugees in many of these cases who fled Castro or fled the current government and we got that sort of mythical romantic

one foot on Florida soil and were rescued from communism and became model American citizens. We're talking about a man who broke our law multiple times is now in a wrongful death lawsuit over the death of somebody, entered the country illegally three times, and has a string of DUIs. What is a church doing, sheltering someone?

This is described as a, quote, immigrant church. You're sheltering somebody who is, at the time you're sheltering him, making the life of an American citizen a living hell, forcing him to pay money that should be going to his children, maybe to his own church, to his own community, to the government, because someone is illegally praying on him. Laws are important. Laws are important. They mean something, and you certainly don't just get to break the law because you have a sob story. which in this case, I don't even know that you can describe this as a sob story because this is a man who entered the country illegally three times,

committed multiple driving infractions, serious driving infractions, and was praying on an American citizen via identity theft for years and years and years, not a sob story. I thought this New York Times piece, which was pinging around social media today, really deserves some attention because it's maddening. The circumstances it describes are maddening, and the fact that the Times wasn't even tougher on Perez. Bravo is maddening,

and the fact that this piece didn't happen 500 times a year from every corporate media outlet for the last 10 years is maddening. All right. Let's move on to Donald Trump's press conference was Zoroamamani last Friday in the Oval Office. It wasn't really a press conference. It was sort of a media availability during their meeting, right after their meeting, actually, where they answered questions from reporters about what they discussed. And Donald Trump was sort of hilariously friendly to Mom Dani. Mom Dani, in turn, was hilariously friendly to Donald Trump. I was in the Oval Office as the new media pooler for that meeting. And there was kind of a bee in my bonnet. And so I knew exactly what question I wanted to

ask. Shout out to the great Katie Pavellich, Jack Posobic, and actually White House press team for noticing that I was shorter than everyone else. And Pesopic actually stepped back after he asked a question and suggested I step into his place and get this question off because, again, I'm 5'4. I'm not that short, average height for an American woman. But they kindly were like, nobody's ever going to see you because there were some tall photographers

and other reporters in front of me. So they had a good spot. Pacific gave it up, and I appreciate that a lot. That's how I got this question in, just asking about Elise Stefanik, obviously a Republican congresswoman who is running for governor, likely against Kathy Hochel in New York State, who has been referring to Zaraamamadani as a jihadist in her campaigns over and over again. And I want to tell you why every time I do media, new media pool, I try to ask a question that the mainstream, the quote unquote mainstream media, is unlikely to ask because I think you're wasting your position, especially someone on the right, if you do not ask a question that other people won't ask.

They're there. The mainstream media is there to ask, the quote unquote mainstream media is there to ask whatever question they're going to ask. It's predictable. Sometimes the questions are good. Sometimes the topics are good, but the framing is bad. Sometimes the questions themselves are good and newsy.

But I always try really hard not to ask what everyone else is going to ask. And if I do, to ask it in a different way. which is tough. And, you know, it's fair game to criticize anyone in that situation. But I asked this question. Let's roll the clip here about Elise Thicphonic. And I'll explain a little bit why this was important to me.

Mr. President, Republican Alis DeFonik has campaigned multiple times by calling Zora Mamdani a jihadist. Do you think you're standing next to a jihadist right now in the Oval Office? No, I know. But she's out there campaigning. And, you know, you say things sometimes in a campaign. She's a very capable person, but you'd really have to ask her about that, but I don't particularly, I think I met with a very, I met with a man who's a very rational person. I met with a man who really wants to see New York be great again, and I can say again, because New York was great. And of course, Syrian leader Al-Shara was in the White House, speaking of jihadists, what, like last week.

So maybe that's a genuine jihadist in the Oval Office, according to. to our own government. But the reason that I wanted to ask that question is I'm very frustrated with the right after what happened to Charlie Kirk in particular, but this has been going on for a long time. Charlie Kirk put this into stark relief. That man was smeared and is continuously smeared as a racist on an inflated definition of the charge related to racism, which is that he believed in ideas that were, this is the allegation, it is of course not true, that were predicated on his belief, there was some type of racial hierarchy or that black Americans are genetically inferior, racially inferior to white Americans or Asian Americans and Hispanics

are genetically inferior. That's the argument about, to connect Charlie Kirk to racism. He said, you know, things were different for black families during Jim Crow on, I think it was Jubilee. And Megan did a video debunking all of the smears against Charlie Kirk that have popped up over and over again. And what you find over and over again is Charlie was actually making these broad arguments that you could hear from Thomas Sowell, Jason Riley, and other black conservatives that have nothing to do with a fundamental belief in racial hierarchies or white. white supremacy. It's not like that at all. And so the reason I want to ask that question is because Elise Siphonic, who I do not know, and I do not live in New York State, but has repeatedly been calling, so I'm Mamdani, a jihadist, a genuine jihadist. And this actually strikes me as a tactic, the right should be above. And I'll have, I'm sure, very good faith disagreements with

people on the right who disagree with me on this. And I already have, actually. But this definition inflation is one of the reasons. I do genuinely think it's one of the reasons that people are in danger right now. And I do not think the right should be participating in political fear mongering based on definition inflation. I'm telling you, we've watched what's happened over the last 10 plus years when definition inflation happens, this bigotry in America is stigmatized for a very good reason. Too many people have fought, shed blood, sacrificed reputation, sacrificed lives to mitigate bigotry in the United States of America. That has taken too much effort over too long to start messing around with these definitions for scoring cheap political points. It is not okay.

and I'm not okay with the right doing it for a couple of reasons. First of all, as I just explained, but I think really importantly, if it's not accurate, I don't care if you're a politician or a college professor or a journalist. If it's not accurate, it's not helpful. If it's not accurate, it's not helpful. If you are not describing the threat that Zoramam Dani poses accurately, you are misleading the people of New York City and that is of New York State, and that is no way to win an election.

It's not, period. That is no way to win an election. If you think someone mom, Momdani, is a jihadist, which most Americans, when they hear the word jihadist, just like when they hear the word racist, they think about somebody who believes in white supremacy or racial hierarchies, discrimination based on some type of racial hierarchy. When they hear jihadist, what they think you mean for the most part. and Elise DeFonik in her campaign, damn well knows this, is somebody who is interested in committing violent jihad. We all know that.

So, if you don't actually think Zaraamamdani is a violent threat himself, then don't call him a jihadist. If you believe that Zoroamam Dani might, for example, stop surveillance programs that you think keep the, the city safer, the state safer even. If you think he is too friendly with radical clerics in New York City, like the Imam, who was a character witness for the blind cheek, if that's what you think, say that you worry he could

foment a potential violent situation in New York City, say that you believe he's too friendly to jihadists. Say there are a million different ways to describe what you're trying to say, but do not take the cheap and lazy shortcut that the left relied on for a decade plus in order to reflexively smear people and mislead the public and, again, take this quick shortcut to winning arguments. We have learned that that is overly divisive and we have learned that that is dangerous. It is dangerous. There are ways to describe people who you think are radical and serious threats to the country, which is a perfectly fine, and in fact, the correct

conservative perspective on Sauron Mamdani. There are ways to describe it that do not defy logic, take cheap shortcuts, make people more, put people in increased danger, ramp up our tensions, and again, mislead people. There are ways to do that. You don't have to rely on these silly shortcuts. So that's actually one of the reasons that I wanted to get that question in. First of all, I think, you know, it was a newsy question, but it's been bothering me for a while. And I know I've talked about it before on different, probably everywhere, because it's just been really, really bugging me. And so in the Oval Office, it just occurred to me, seeing Donald Trump stand next to Zoroamem Dani say he appreciates that some of his voters voted for Zoroamadani, that

some of his own. That some of Zoroamam Dani's ideas are his own. All of these things that Donald Trump said in that very friendly Oval Office meeting, I just knew I had to ask that question because I think it was a legitimate contrast with what the leading Republican candidate in Trump's home state, by the way, in New York, how she has been describing the same man that was standing next to Donald Trump in the Oval Office being described to someone who shares some of his ideas. And so the way that I put it, do you believe you're standing next to a jaundice in the Oval Office was intended to kind of challenge the legitimacy of that claim, which is why I think journalism is holding powerful people to account for the things that they say. So if Trump is going

to lend his support to O'Lees Stefonic and if he's the Republican President of the United States, what does he think about that? I'll tell you what I think about it. That's why I thought it was newsy and a worthwhile question. So a little behind the scenes, information about why I asked that. You don't usually hear that from people. Maybe it's, maybe it's interesting or maybe it's just like internal media. There's nothing journalists love talking about more than journalism. So appreciate you hanging in there with me. What a fun episode today. We have a Nez and Rachel on Wednesday. Recipe recommendations, wine pairing recommendations. It's a fascinating conversation. We actually pre-taped it last week, but it's going to be airing normal time on

Wednesday. Can't wait for you all to see that. So make sure to subscribe on the YouTube channel. every get podcast. We do have a happy hour coming out on Friday. I already taped that too. So when you're cleaning up after Thanksgiving, when you're making leftovers, there will be a happy hour in your queue. As always, I'm Emily at devilmedcaremedia.com. I hope everybody has a wonderful, wonderful Thanksgiving. God bless all of you. We are grateful to you here at after party and we will see you on Wednesday.