After Party with Emily Jashinsky - Tucker Carlson Reacts to Trump Ceasefire Deal and Unloads on "Buffoons" Levin and Cruz, and Michelle Obama's Barack Insult

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

Emily Jashinsky is joined for the premiere episode of "After Party" by Tucker Carlson to react to the breaking news of Trump's ceasefire deal between Israel and Iran, what he thinks about Trump's Iran strikes secret mission, why he thinks Ted Cruz and Mark Levin have been exposed as "buffoons" over their comments during the past week, his refusal to be lectured about "America First" by former NeverTrump'ers, and more. Then Emily is joined by her friends Inez Stepman and Rachel Bovard to talk about the nuances of Trump's foreign policy, the value of listening and arguing to those he disagrees with, Michelle Obama's brutal insult of her husband Barack on her latest podcast, an absurd new New York Times article wondering what happened to men, the truth about how the left alienated men and why the Democrats can't woo them back, and more. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to After Party, everyone, our inaugural edition of the show. Thank you so very much for joining. I want to also thank, of course, Megan Kelly, the wonderful Megan Kelly, who is so supportive and so brilliant. And her entire team, Megan's team matches her brilliance, if you can believe it. So I'm very grateful to them to be joining all of you here on our new show with MK Media After Party. We are going to be here Mondays and Wednesdays at 10 p.m. Eastern. Make sure to subscribe, subscribe on YouTube, subscribe wherever you get your podcast. and you can head over to afterparty, emily.com, for more information.

Now, it's been an incredibly busy newsday. We are joined by Tucker Carlson. We will then be joined by Rachel Beauvard and Inez Stepman to react a little bit to the conversation that I have with Tucker. Before we get to Tucker, who I know everybody is eagerly waiting to hear from, I just want to say what we're doing a little bit with this show. So bear with me for a moment. I want to put the Gallup Trust and Media Numbers on the screen

and just say, if you haven't heard me, explain media this way before. I want to just tell you, I see it as the difference between Johnny Carson and Stephen Colbert. Now, Gallup tracks trust in media every year since about the mid-1970s, and you will be shocked to learn that it's at a record low. But what's really interesting about this is that it's tied for a record low right now, as of last fall, Gallup's numbers of trust in media is tied for the record low that it hit in 2017. What's interesting about that? Well, the entire media basically said, we are going to get better after 2017. They basically said, we are going to do it differently. We are finally committing

ourselves to figuring out why the trust is broken because guess what, the host of Celebrity Apprentice defeated the former Secretary of State in a presidential election and nobody said it could happen. Now, Johnny Carson was the top-rated host in Late Night, despite being the least political, or I should say the least partisan and the most funny. All right, that's just my perspective. maybe disagree. But Stephen Colbert, during the Trump administration, Trump 1.0, was the top-rated hosts in late night, despite being the most partisan and the least funny. It was like least dedicated to the actual craft of comedy. He was doing lectures on a show every night. Why is that? Well, it's because monoculture is dead. There used to be a few options. There used to be three.

So advertisers watching Johnny Carson wanted to show that could unify the country that could get the most number of Americans to tune in so that they weren't tuning in to the other two networks, the other three networks are reading a book, whatever it is. Now what you have to do, you can win late night if you're Stephen Colbert by cornering a niche of the American public. In his case, it was resistance wine moms who tuned in night after night for the wonderful stylings of quote-unquote comedy that Stephen Colbert offered them during Trump 1.0, which as it turns out was basically a big joke because he was telling everyone that Trump had colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the presidency. So that's the way that I look at these things. And after party is a combination

of politics and culture and news. And we want to do a little bit of politics and a little bit of late night. And we just want to have fun doing it. So on that note, thank you all for tuning in. And I am beyond excited right now on this very busy news day to bring in the one and only Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson is obviously the host of the Tucker Carlson show. He joins us now. So Tucker Carlson, thank you for being our very first guest on this new show. Oh, I'm grateful. And I loved what you said about Megan Kelly, there are very few people who don't need to go out of their way to help others. And Megan Kelly went out of her way to help me at Fox. I've never figured out why. I've never stopped being grateful for it. She's that kind of person. I don't know if that comes

through. I don't know if people know that. It's an absolute fact. So it was just nice to hear you say that. Well, people should know that because it does make a big difference when you start watching the output of journalists. When you know that they're good people, it does make a big difference. And she is one of them. There aren't many, Emily. Nope, nope. But we have one of them joining us now, and that is you, Tucker. So I'm going to start with a question that everyone, I'm sure, has on their mind right now. Now, Donald Trump posted on True Social at 6.02 p.m. that about two hours from actually right now, so around midnight, East Coast time, Israel and Iran will enter a, quote, complete and total ceasefire. Now, Tucker, you recently predicted, and people are, of course, recirculating this now, quote, the first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans. It could also collapse our economy as surging oil prices trigger unmanageable inflation. Consider the effects of $30 gasoline, but the second week of the war could be even worse. End quote.

Now, Ted Cruz is already taking a victory lap. He says, quote, it turns out that Tucker was wrong. I just want to get your thoughts on this, Tucker. Did Trump prove you and all of us who doubted the wisdom of this strike wrong tonight? Well, you could ask Trump. I mean, was this fraught with existential peril? Of course. I'm so grateful that he brought it in for a landing. I mean, I think we should be grateful to him.

I think you should be grateful to God. I think we should understand how close we came. But I also think we should step back and ponder what we've learned. And what we've learned is who cares about the fortunes of the United States and who doesn't. And Ted Cruz doesn't, obviously, the people who acknowledged no risk at all because they were so focused on helping another country like Ted Cruz or like the many people who revealed them. themselves in the last two weeks, Mark Levin, chief among them, like, those people should not have any access to power at all. Those people rolled the dice with your life and with the lives of your children. It's disgusting. And so, I mean, just ask yourself, is Mark Levine

concerned at all about the United States, like, at all? And the answer is no. Mark Levine is a repulsive ghoul whose entire sex life consists of watching other people get blown up. He was upset that there was a ceasefire and said so. How could you be upset with a ceasefire? How could you be upset that people are no longer dying? By the way, I think the ceasefire is real. We have no idea where anything goes in life. That's up to God. But as of right now, it's absolutely real and we should be thankful for it. And so if your first instinct is this is bad, then you've just told us who you are. And look, that's between Mark Levin and God. And I think it's going to be a tough conversation. But for our purpose is, you know, Mark Levin should not have access to power. I mean, he almost pushed the

president of the United States into a path that would have destroyed the presidency and the United States and a lot of other countries too. So like a victory lap, really? No, he was thwarted. John Pahars was thwarted. All the people who were thrilled by the direction this was going, Bill, you know, Bill Crystal, you know, people who are avowed enemies of Donald Trump and are not at all interested in the United States, like, they were stopped before getting what they wanted, which was regime changed military occupation of Iran. So, like, you know, they can spend, they're professional liars. So, of course, they're lying.

But the facts tell a very different story. They didn't get what they wanted. And thank God they didn't. So why do you think the Mark Levins of the world didn't get what they wanted in this case, at least as of right now, because the president just yesterday was... Because Trump doesn't want nuclear war. I mean, as he said a million times, like, he doesn't want. Iran to have the bomb because he doesn't want more bombs because he's afraid of nuclear war

because he understands what it is. I've talked to him about this on and off camera many times and he has unique among world leaders like an instinctive aversion to killing millions of people in seconds. And so he's worried about nuclear war. It's the reason Tulsi Gabbard supported him is the reason they hate Tulsi Gabbard now because she raises the actual, the very real specter of mass annihilation. And people like Mark Levin just don't care. They're nihilists, but they're hardly conservative. They're anything conservative about rolling the dice on your country, starting a voluntary war. It's like freaking insane. And so, you know, kudos, gratitude and more to Donald Trump for stopping that. But it's not because he was following the advice of Mark Levine or Ted Cruz.

I mean, these people are buffoons who, again, revealed their priorities. And those priorities have nothing to do with the United States. They were absolutely willing to destroy the United States, including Donald Trump, for an objective that had nothing to do with the United States. And I think every honest person knows that. I mean, that's what we just learned. Like, under stress, you reveal who you really are. You show your real priorities, and they did.

And, like, again, that's between them and God. but I think going forward, people like that cannot be allowed to steal the mantle of America first when America's interests are not first on their list of concerns. Like, not even close. So I think you're the first person to ever use the words Mark Levin and sex life in the same sentence. And I'm not being mean. I don't, look, it's clear that there are certain people for whatever reason.

It's connected to age. That's obvious. All the people who are most excited about killing seem to be old. I don't know. Any 35-year-olds were really excited when people, die when they're videos of dead people on the internet. They don't get off on that. They're like, you know, they, because they are living their lives. They are in the truest sense pro-life. But there is something about some older people. And I've always had great admiration and respect

for older people I was raised that way. I revered my father, for example, who lived to 84. But there is a category of older people that would include Rupert Murdoch. It would include Lindsay Graham, would turn 70 next month. It would definitely include Mark Levin, for whom, like killing obviously provide some sort of deep emotional charge. And I don't mean to be glib and say it's sexual. I'm not like the Freudian here. But I mean, clearly you watch Mark Levine talk about killing people. And it's really dark.

And it's certainly not something that any Christian can be comfortable with. Because Christians are not for killing people. Just period. Just remind you. And I know that there are a lot of evangelicals who are like very excited to kill people. You know, check yourself for a second. is Jesus' message we need to drop more bombs on people? Is that what you're arguing? I mean, I'm sorry to bring it to that, but I feel that I can say that as a deeply imperfect, flawed, ignorant Christian who's trying to understand the message of the religion, but I'm pretty certain it's not let's drop more bombs on people and to see pastors saying that. You know, the neocons, many of whom are Jewish, get all the attack, all the hate, but it's, boy, it's not just them. There are a lot of evangelical ministers who are worse than Mark Levin, in my opinion. So I just want to say that because it's true.

And I think they should measure what they're saying against the gospel. And it's like, is there alignment there? There's not. There's no alignment there. What Mark Levin is already talking about, Iran needing to be pushed to sign a document of unconditional surrender. And I wanted to ask you about our friend Dave Smith's reaction to today's news as it was unfolding. He said, quote, even if the strikes, quote, did destroy a lot of equipment, the Iranians can rebuild and the regime will remain in power, now more incentivized than ever to get nuclear weapons. So two-part question for you here, Tucker. First, do you agree with Dave? I think I agree with Dave. And second point is, if that is true, then is Mark Levin not pushing us into a much more dangerous

situation? And will that have sway with the president? That's been the goal from the beginning. And all this stuff about Iran can't have nukes. I mean, Donald Trump believe that for sure he's been saying it for a decade um but i don't think a lot of the people who were pushing don't trump to further engage in a war with iran were concerned about that all what they want is regime change they said it by the way they're saying it now i mean let's take them with their word they want regime change what does that mean you know you don't change your regime by bombing it there no track record of success there you change the regime by killing the people who run it and in the end it's only kind of possible to steer that country in the direction you want

by occupying it with people, which is to say troops. So they're arguing for a ground war with a country of 90 million people. And I know it's not interesting the population of Iran to Ted Cruz because the details don't matter because he doesn't care about the United States, obviously. But if you do care about the United States, you have to ask like, okay, regime change, what does that mean exactly? What does that mean for us? How do we do that? How do you affect that? And the answer is by destroying your own country. So, like, let's start with no, we're not doing that. Let's do everything we can short of that to get, you know, the result that we want.

But Levin, again, doesn't care about the United States. And they're all wearing the Trump skin suit right now because they think it suits their purposes. These are people who hated Trump. They're anti-Trump. They're never Trump. And that would include a lot of people on Fox News, who I worked with for 15 years. I know what their political views are. They're my colleagues.

They hate Trump. They hate him personally. they hate his agenda, they hate his economic views, and they really hate his foreign policy views, which in private they describe as insane and isolationist, he's a Nazi and all this stuff. I mean, they really have contempt for him. They kept them off the air at Fox News while I was there

against my protests. So that's all true, and it's very frustrating as a literal person who cares about what's true to see people jumping up Mark Levin or Laura Lumer, that's world's creepiest human. I don't even know where she came from or who she is exactly, but she's running around.

And I'm Donald Trump's, you know, defender. It's bizarre. Champion. And I'm the arbiter of what it means to be for America, someone who, again, has no interest in the United States, demonstrated no interest. So I think it's just important. It's not a matter of score settling.

And I don't care what Mark Levine does in his private life. I don't care what his opinions are. And Laura Lumer, I'm not even really sure who she is. However, if people like that are able to, to take over a political movement whose stated goal is to serve the United States first and foremost, America First, make America great again. If those people

can take control of that political movement, first of all, it's an offense against reality and truth, but second, it's really dangerous for the country. They washed out of the Democratic Party, the same people, and now they're trying to take over the Republican Party. How about

no? Unbroken track record of failure, unbroken track record of ideas that hurt the United States in measurable ways, impoverished the United States, put us in unpayable debt, killed a ton of people, destabilized the world, caused a refugee crisis in Europe, destroyed Europe. That's a lot of destruction for one group of people and one set of really bad ideas that John Bolton's, the Bill Crystals.

Can they be allowed to take over the Trump White House? No. How about no? Just as an American. I mean, I don't really care what people think of me at this point. I'm 56. You were wrong. Well, yeah, I've been wrong many, many times.

I'll be wrong many, many more times. But the one thing I am is sincere. I really mean it. I don't care about the effect on me. I just don't want to relive Iraq. And I know the people who did it. I've lived among them. I defended it. I repeated their talking point. Not doing that again. And we came really close to doing that again

because of Mark Levin and Laura Lumer and the rest of these morons who've never even left New Jersey. Like they don't know anything with the world. That's the other thing. They're dumb. They don't know. Not only the population of Iran, they don't know anything. They don't know the nations that border it. They just don't know anything.

And I'm not making an argument for expertise or having been there, but I am making an argument for being responsible when you demand that the U.S. military do certain things. Okay, then tell me what happens next. They can't. Because, again, they don't care. No, romance. Enough of them.

It's like we're playing Tucker's enemies bingo. Like, we're just, we're getting you off. Well, I'm sorry to be that way. And it's not, I mean, I've never attacked Mark Levine. I've never attacked that crazy. whose name I just used a couple of times, probably shouldn't have. But all I'm saying is this is really sinister. It's really bad.

And because we were just in a crisis for a week, we saw who people are. We saw what they cared about. And I've got nothing against Ted Cruz personally. I feel sorry for Ted Cruz, obviously, a totally hollow person taking instructions. But I do think we learned this is not someone who should be influencing wars because he just doesn't know. know anything he doesn't care and he's not putting America's interests anywhere near the top of his priorities. And that's, you know, that like we saw that. It's on tape. And it's kind of hard to unsee it. So this is the moment to just draw a line and say, we can have all kinds of disagreements,

and I'm sure that we will over all kinds of things, including wars. But if you've shown that you just don't care what happens to the United States, if you're one of the people who said, you know, the people in Gaza are so dangerous that they have to be expelled from Gaza. And by the way, maybe we should move them to the US. People said that, I think Ben Shapiro said that. If you are telling me that the people who live in Gaza are so evil that they can't live where they were born, they have to move somewhere else.

And oh, by the way, they should move to my country. What are you saying? You're saying that your country is a trash can into which we can throw a refuse. And that's their attitude. And as an American, I'm a genuine, I mean, I was born here, I'm gonna die here. I just wanna raise my voice and say, no,

you can't treat my country with that level of contempt. Have you spoken to the president since last week? Yeah, I have, actually. Okay, and on that note, is that, are you afraid going forward that there's still significant room for, we keep using Mark Levin, I'm really using it as a stand-in for a group of people that include Lindsey Graham, that include John Bolton, for that wing of the Republican Party, the broader conservative movement to still have significant. input over policy in the Middle East, but particularly Iran. Am I concerned that like normal people will have input or am I concerned? I mean, the normal people won. Right.

Again, it's not even ideological. I've got all kinds of theories about all kinds of things. Some of them are stupid, probably. But it's not even about like what your worldview is. It's just super simple. I live here. My four kids live here. I hope to have grandchildren here.

The country's got a ton of problems. I think the government should focus. on those problems first and foremost, not other people's problems. Doesn't mean I'm not an isolationist, I shouldn't ignore the world. I've been all around though. I've been to like every country in the world, practically. I've been everywhere. I'm really interested in the world. I don't hardly want to be isolated. Of course. Mark Levin never gets out of his studio. You're an isolationist. Okay. No, I'm not an isolationist. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that as a father treats his family, a president and a government should treat their country, which is put the country first.

That's it. Your first concern doesn't mean I don't care about my neighbor's kids. I do. I love my neighbor's kids, but I love my kids most because they're my kids. That's all I'm saying and show that you mean it by acting that way. And so you should be a lot more upset with the Mexican drug cartels which kill people I know in my town, including recently, than you are with the Mullas in Iran. That's not a defense of the molas in Iran. I'm not pro-Mola at all. But like from my perspective as an American, I'm a lot more afraid of the drug cartels than I am of the molas. And that doesn't make me a bigot. And by the way, if you say that it does, you've just disqualified yourself.

Like, that's, that's just, I'm just kind of sick of identity politics. I really am. I voted against it actually in November when I voted for Donald Trump. I'm just sick of it. I'm sick of laws that single out one group for protection or punishment. I think we should be treated as citizens regardless of what group we're from. I just don't like the whole group thing. They would always say you're a white supremacist.

No, I'm not. I'm mad at a lot of white people, actually, mostly if you want to know the truth. But I don't want to think of people in terms of the group they were born into. I just don't like that kind of thinking. I don't like the left because it is institutionalized that kind of thinking. And so when I see members of Congress passing laws that apply to like a small percentage of Americans, I'm like, wait a second, I voted against this. I'm not against those Americans at all.

I just think that all laws should apply to all Americans equally. Your concern should be for people on the base of their citizenship, not their racial, ethnic or religious group on their citizenship. The U.S. government should care about U.S. citizens. Not some, all, including the ones you disagree with, and don't like all, because we're all citizens. That's a unifying message. And that's being lost, and Republicans in the Congress don't seem to agree.

They're all totally into identity politics all of a sudden. I thought we hated that. I think my memory is too good to live in this country because things change. And people are like, oh, no, it's always been this way. No, it's not. Mark Levin was not a leading host on Fox. He was a joke.

Mark Levin's not a form. foreign policy expert. He's a guy with a weird personal life and like a love of killing. No, we're not for identity politics. We're against that. I remember this. Anyway, I think it's important to be the guy who remembers and I want to be that guy. So saying, because you just use the word unifying, and it turned out to be a perfect segue to a question I wanted to ask, saying that Mark Levin, Ted Cruz, don't care about America. Yeah. Is that? Because a lot of people might look at that and say, Tucker, they probably think they do care about America. Do you think that's an interesting distinction to me? Show me how. They just rolled the dice up to, right up to a global conflict.

I'm not speculating, okay? Yeah. And one of the reasons we're not, I mean, Donald Trump didn't want a global conflict. He said that. I think he handled this, you know, if what was announced today holds, I think we can say that was pretty amazing, pretty amazing brinksmanship there. Scared the crap out of me, I'll tell you that. Why wouldn't I be afraid? Anyone was like, oh, you were afraid. Really? Yeah, I care about America. You know, been here a long time. Plan to stay. Like, why wouldn't I be afraid? It's a threat to my country. It's not, so I'm a pussy for being afraid. Okay, I'm a pussy. But I was. Why wouldn't I be? I have children. I'm actually not that worried about dying at this stage. I'm pretty old, but I am worried about people I love

dying. So, yeah, I was afraid. And I think anyone, in the same way, you'd be afraid. If you had a home invasion, you'd be afraid for your wife and kids. You're the dad. Like, it's your job to defend them. And maybe you're a little bit paranoid about it or something. That's okay. Paranoia in the defense of your loved ones is no vice. And so people who are like, oh, some, I see these creepy foreigners online being like telling me what America First is. It's like, you're like, go away. I don't know what you're doing here, weighing it on my country's politics, but it's, one of the thing, Last thing I'll say is I'm not reading, you know, I'm getting offline for a while because I think part of the gig is to get in your head to like put someone like Mark Levin who's so reckless and stupid and crazy and vicious or that lunatic girl is running around who's equally or more so. And the point is to make you crazy kind of like you see that and you're like, are you kidding?

Mark Levin, the never Trumper's lecturing me about what it is to like Trump, who I campaigned for Trump. And I think it's kind of an op or something. It's like designed to make you into a babbling crazy person, which unfortunately I've become a little bit tonight because I'm such a mixture of emotion. So I'm sorry to inflict that on you. You're such a sweet person, Emily. I'm sorry. But I think it's good to step away from that a little bit and like have some silence in your life. And maybe the joke is on me that I'm all of a sudden paying attention to Mark Levine because I do feel like,

he was such a dangerous influence on the course of this country. But I'm going to really studiously just ignore that. For the same reason, I don't have a TV, I don't want that crap in my house. There's nothing you're telling me that I didn't know. There's nothing you're telling me that's true. I just don't want it. In the same way, I don't, like, stream porn into my kitchen. Like, I don't want that.

I'm going to, I think I'm going to pull back from the internet a little bit. And I think I'll be a wiser person for doing so. You know, on that note, people will wonder, if you believe that the last, I don't know, 48 hours, 24 hours, actually 12 hours since Trump made this announcement, proves that your worldview is in some way wrong, that, you know, your restraint in foreign entanglements based on... We just showed restraint.

Trump forced a ceasefire between people who hate each other. After striking. That is restraint. Right. But, I mean, the level of risk was really high for me. I'll just say that. I am like genuinely conservative because I care. I don't even know if Mark Levin has biological children.

I don't know that he does. I have no idea. I don't want to stop attacking Mark Levin. I'm just saying I see everything through the lens of my family. And why wouldn't I? I'm the head of my family. And that's my obligation. That's my duty to see everything through the lens of their well-being.

And is this good for them? Tell me how, exactly. So, yeah, I mean, I felt really threatened by that. And I think that, you know, all's well that ends well. It looks like we're, and I think it's, again, I'm not just speculating. You know, I think this is real for now. And I pray that it remains real. And I think it totally could.

I think interests are aligned, actually. I think it's a very clever arrangement they've come up with, and I'm grateful for it. But I can't unsee what I saw, which is the behavior of people who claim to be conservative, who are identity politics lunatics. who are totally reckless and who just don't care about our country at all. So I can't unsee it. And I'm pretty determined to say what I've been saying for the last 20 years, 22 years since I left Iraq,

which is the neocons are really destructive and they can't have power. Oh, shut up, you can't call us neocons. Okay, I'm over it. I'm over the mind games. That worldview, colonize the world, destroy your own country. I mean, the verdict is in. That did not work. It didn't improve the rest of the world.

I can tell you, having been, and it definitely didn't improve my country. This country's in way worse shape that it was in August of 2001, flat out. I mean, it's just a fact. And by every measure, every single measure, including life expectancy. So you can't tell me this worked. It didn't work. And so I just want to keep saying that. Well, would Iran have come to the table?

I mean, would an agreement like this have been possible without the strikes in your estimation? Because that's the argument we're going to hear going forward. Well, I mean, I don't know. You know, this happened on a Friday. And Steve Wittkoff, who I consider one of the really decent people in government, who's serving at his own expense with the sole purpose not to, you know, aggrandize in any way or get rich or anything, he's only doing it because he thinks it helps Trump and America. And those are good motives, in my opinion.

I really think a lot of Steve Wichoff. He's just a wonderful man. And he was set to go to Amman. Sunday when this broke out last Friday. And so there was a process in place that was thwarted by another country. It just sort of ignored our process and decided like, oh, we're in charge of your foreign policy. And, you know, that's a huge, that's a huge problem. That's not hate for Israel. I certainly don't hate Israel as a relatively frequent visitor to Israel and a great enjoyer of Israel. And as a Christian who loves Jerusalem and a friend of a number of Israelis, I'm not anti-Israel.

But that's ridiculous behavior. And we're also intimidated to say that. I don't know why. Why are we afraid to say that? That's not good. Trump had a plan. He said so. So Wikoff said so.

There's been a lot of lying about how that worked. He was going to say that the reporting is that Trump was watching Fox News. He was really impressed with the Israeli strike. He wanted to project strength. My understanding that is true. But the strike was, you know, not something that we called for at all. Like Trump was trying to solve. this diplomatically and the whole thing got derailed by another country deciding we don't care what

your diplomatic efforts are we don't care what trump thinks we're doing this that's a fact and you know that's okay i mean each country acts in its own interest but don't tell me our interests are identical they're not identical no two countries interests are identical our our interest in sweden's interests aren't identical like that's a lie and if you're telling me that then you're lying to me and i don't like lying actually and um at all especially about things that matter so So that's just a fact. That happened. Now, a lot happened since then, a lot.

And it's quite complicated. But the bottom line is that we are, I think, in a really good place. Trump forced restraint on the parties. Did the bombing campaign help the dropping bunker busters on two of the sites? Yeah, seems like it. no Americans were killed on the Iranian strike in Qatar. And let me just say one other thing

that I resent simply because it's an offense against the truth. The constant attacks on Qatar whose prime minister is one of Donald Trump's most trusted interlocutors one of the people he trusts. And one of the people who really helped bring this to a peaceful conclusion.

You know, and Qatar doesn't want a war because they share a gas field with Iran, and they're right across the Gulf from Iran. Of course, it's not in their interest. But, you know, Qatar spends a lot of time and a lot of money, I know this, kind of trying to broker peace between different countries. You know, they are sort of a new Switzerland. Switzerland was, for generations, was non-aligned, and now it's aligned.

It's effectively part of NATO, not officially, but effectively it is. And so Switzerland is not a good faith, you know, mediator between any two countries. countries at all. But you need one. You need a real UN, a place where warring countries can come together and try and come to terms. Like, it's really important to have that. And so there are a couple countries in the Gulf that serve that role now. One is UAE, Saudi to some extent, and Qatar. And that helps the United States. And by the way, Qatar has done a lot for Israel. Just a fact, a fact, Qatar has done a lot for Israel. In fact, it's airbase, which was just struck by Iran. The fact they have that air base is very provocative to Iran. Why do they have that airbase?

Why do we have so many bases in the Gulf? Well, a couple of reasons, but one of those reasons is to protect Israel. So for people who are like defenders of Israel to be attacking Qatar, like as a terror state, what liars? I guess they seem like they believe they get something out of that or making some compelling point or whatever. But it's just a lie. It just bugs me. I've never taken a dime from Qatar. I've been there one time. I'm hardly like a Qatar partisan.

You know, I live in Maine. Come on. I've got nothing to do with Qatar, but I just hate the lying. It really bugs me. And by the way, it's a little much to be called, you know, a tool of a foreign power, by people who actually, like, legit are tools of foreign powers.

Like, they are. I know them, I know that. They're reading talking points written by a foreign government on behalf of foreign government, and they're like, everyone else is a tool of Qatar. Qatar. Like, what? It's so nuts that I kind of ignored it at first

because why, Why would you be a tool of Qatar, a country of 300,000 people? You took money from Qatar. I don't need any money from guitar. I haven't taken any money. It actually makes me want to take money from Qatar. It just announced it. By the way, I'm going to take it.

But I'll just say, I know people, I happen to know people who live in that country and who make decisions in that country. And what a nice group of people. I don't agree with everything, every Qatari national objective, of course. I'm a non-Arabic speaker, you know, who doesn't, whatever, it's not my world. But my experience has been, these are generally kind of good faith people.

I know Donald Trump feels that way. And so I wish, of all the dumb talking points have been trotted out recently, the Qatari agent of influence and they're controlling our universities. They're not controlling our universities. Like, are you joking? It's such a mirror of Russiagate. It just kind of freaks me out that so many people on the right are kind of running exactly the same.

playbook as people on the left ran five years ago. It's like all of their, everyone they disagree with is a tool of a foreign power. Okay? Everything is about identity politics. Jinn up hysteria in fear to control people. It's like, I hate all of those things.

I voted for Trump because I hate those things. I hated them when they happened after George Floyd died when he OD'd on fentanyl. We all had to pretend he was murdered by a cop and some cop went to prison for it. It's like, the whole thing was like bewildering to me. I hated it. I said so.

And now I see the Mark, Levinza of the world doing exactly the same thing. It's identity politics. It's fear. It's irrational. It's hysteria. And it is immediately going to motive. No one can possibly have a good faith disagree with me. Everyone who disagrees with me is either a bigot or a tool of a foreign power. It's like, wow, man. If there's one thing I dislike about the left, it's behavior like that. And there are a lot of people on the so-called right who are behaving in exactly the same way. Exactly. It's almost like a costume party. It's like, are you kidding?

I can't believe you're doing that. If there's one lesser of the last five years, it's like, we believe in free speech, we believe in hearing people when they speak, assessing arguments on the basis of like reason, rather than emotion, rather than appeals to group interests. Are you joking? That's identity politics.

We hate that. Well, I hate that. I'll always hate that. And I don't care if somebody stands up and says, I speak for all 56-year-old, mildly overweight white Episcopalians from the Northeast. I'm not going to be like, yeah, that's right. I just don't, I believe in America.

I believe in citizenship. I don't believe in that. And now we know who does believe in that. And there are a lot of them on the right, unfortunately. I will never believe in that. I love you as a spokesman for the Episcopalian community. I mean, that's... There are not many.

By the way, I think they've kicked me out of the church, but whatever, I don't care. I'm just saying, even if it's my interest or my people's interest or whatever. I hate that style of politics. You will have a civil war if you keep talking like that. You have to appeal to citizenship and to universal principles that apply to everyone, everyone to, you know, left-wing black ladies in Gary, Indiana and right-wing white guys in Maine or whatever and everyone in between because we're all Americans. And if you don't start talking like that, you will break up. And it's not all of Vince's fault, but it's like half the people I know, I'm conservative. I hate the liberals. Well, then why are you talking like one? Why are you talking? Why are you taking their worst tics and making them your own? Why are you accusing other people on the base of no evidence of being disloyal Americans? Are you kidding? Fuck you, by the way. How dare you call me a disloyal American? I mean, like, it's unbelievable. I hated it when the left did it. I hated it even more when National Review does it, which is endlessly. And why are they still around, by the way? Do you have any idea?

someone has to keep the gates someone has to tend to the law but it's like such a it's such a sycphine task like it's impossible that rock cannot be pushed to the top of the mountain you cannot keep the gates with the internet so they're going to try and shut down the internet obviously that's what all this is about is curtailing free speech it's why desantis and a bunch of other governors signed hate speech laws republican governor signing hate speech laws Texas Florida are you joking oh they're not hate speech laws they certainly are They certainly are. You're against Sharia law, but you are against criminalizing indecent opinions. Tell me how this different from Sharia, exactly. I'm an American.

I am guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, guaranteed a right that God gave me, which is to express my opinions, whether you like them or not, in this country. That is America. And if you're passing hate speech laws, you know, who's the disloyal American? It's not me. Tucker Carlson, host of the Tucker Carlson show, so fortunate to get a slice of your time in this very, very busy day. Thank you. I'm so sput up, Emily. I'm sorry for inflicted to you, but I really do mean every word. Thank you. Appreciate it, Tucker. Thank you so much. All right, all right, everyone. Well, we have Annes Stetman and Rachel Bovard coming in after the break. But before they get here, I want to tell you a story about a guy named Leo Grillo. Well, on a road trip, Leo came across a Doberman, and the dog, was severely underweight and clearly in trouble, Leo rescued that Doberman and named him Delta.

So cute. Sadly, Delta was just one of many animals that needed help. And that inspired Leo to start Delta rescue, which is the largest no-kill care for life animal sanctuary in the world. They've rescued thousands of dogs, cats, and horses from the wilderness. And they provide their animals with shelter, love, safety, and a home.

This dedication and everlasting love to animals is Leo's mission and legacy. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions from people like us. And if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak with your estate planner because there are tax saving estate planning benefits too.

You can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. Check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and speak with an advisor. We call dog man's best friend for a reason so you can help those who need it most. Go ahead, please visit Delta Resckey to learn more. That's deltarescue.org.

I'm so happy to be joined now by two of my friends. That's something that I get to do on this show, and I'm so happy for it. Two people who absolutely hate animals, by the way. They hate dogs. I just opened a beer here. Innes Stepman of Ineventive Women's Forum and Rachel Bovart of the Conservative Partnership Institute. Inez and Rachel, thank you both for being here. I like how you're starting your new show by spreading disinformation about how we hate animals.

That's just... I don't know. We're going to have to check with the intelligence. That's what my intelligence is telling me. Yeah. Correct the truth. I'm staying up late for you. Oh, that's right. And probably not drinking either because you both have children now. But you guys both were here for the Tucker Carlson interview. And I imagine, because I think Rachel and I are probably more aligned on this, than Anez is.

So, and as I'm going to give you the floor first. Let me wind you up and just let you respond to what you heard. Some news in that he had talked to President Trump in the last several days. He does believe he was wrong that it wouldn't have, that he doesn't believe that Iran would have come to the table, like it appears to have done now without the strike, but not wrong about the probability of catastrophe.

So Anez, what's your reaction to what you just heard? Well, I think you asked a really good question. after he mentioned some of those things, which was, you know, does this impact your worldview, just to say something about your worldview that you were very wrong about this? Look, we're all wrong. That's not, you know, that's sort of, you know, that's a given here. But I think that's the really relevant question. And that's why I think Donald Trump's foreign policy is so interesting.

Because you know that actually the other half of this equation is probably going to be wrong. This fight is going to be wrong about Donald Trump again. And so I mean, so that's really, I think my response then is that, sorry, there's just so many things that he said that I'm like, I'm trying to think about what to say. So I think it was simplistic to define basically matters of war and peace in terms that are, and he says himself, he doesn't like to use the word isolationist and he complained about people complaining about him using the word neocons. Donald Trump's foreign policy is neither one of those. He has advisors on both sides of that that equation. And he's said in the past that he actually uses those advisors to communicate things to his adversaries. So I would sum up his foreign policy, both in the first term and in this term, as somewhere in between, but as like probably the most direct and honest foreign policy that we've seen in the sense that he telegraphs what he does.

So he said there's a 60-day window and it's day 61, right, bomb started dropping on to Iran. By the way that that happened as well in the Ukraine context, where a lot of media missed the fact that he tweeted or truth, right, that he that he had like a, that he was holding Ukraine back in exactly the sort of drone operation, similar drone operation, right? So I think this is happening on his timeline. And I think maybe the unprincipled exception of the sort of litany of insults, frankly, that Tucker was throwing at people.

The unprincipled exception was Donald Trump, because what I think is very, very clear is that Donald Trump is in charge of his policy. And to the extent that people think they're influencing him, I'm sure he listens to a lot of different people. But actually, I think more often he uses them to communicate to his adversaries, to his enemies, something that he wants them to believe. And he said that very explicitly about John Bolton, just, you know, as he was running for president, he said, John Bolton, I like having him next to me in the room. And not because I'm going to necessarily listen to his advice, because it can. communicate something to the person across the table. And now I think, frankly, the sort of dovish part of his administration and his advisors have been communicate in the same way. So Donald Trump is actually very predictable in foreign policy, which I think is the most unpredictable thing of all.

Rachel, you have historically had the most boring portfolio in all of politics in the various jobs that you've held. But you did work for Senator Rand Paul, who's been very opposed to the president on this. You also are, familiar with the types of circles, the types of people that Inez was just referencing, you know, the folks that are coming from both sides and talking to the president, advising the president from different directions. So what do you make of Inez's take on the push and pull that maybe got us to where we are right now? Well, I think there's definitely a push and poll. We know that Trump loves argument. Trump loves disagreement. That is, you know, it's a New Yorker thing about him. I think he thrives

in the chaos. It's the businessman about him. You can say that because you're a New Yorker. Yorker. And actually, I'm the only non-New Yorker here, which is really offensive to me. I mean, out of chaos rises, you know, opportunity for Donald Trump. But I will say this. I think what perplexes people the most about Donald Trump, you know, from wherever you sit, if you've been watching foreign policy and politics for any length of time, is that he is the first non-ideological president when it comes to foreign policy. Every other decision that we've made in this realm is influenced by a lens through which we view things. I mean, you think clearly back to the Iraq. war. That was a moral imperative almost, right? We had a moral veneer over everything that we did. We're

bringing democracy to Iraq. We're going to help all these beleaguered groups. It wasn't real, politic, really. It wasn't geopolitics or great power politics. It was this moral lens. And I think we've become so accustomed to that. So when Donald Trump enters the equation and is literally, the only lens through which he view things, I really do believe, is the national interest. We've never actually experienced this before as a country. And so it feels incoherent because of the history of how we do things. And, you know, I did work for Rand Paul. And one of the reasons I went to work for him right when he got elected was this question. Because, you know, this town, and this is what scared me so much about the strikes in Iran, is not so much what Trump would or wouldn't do.

It's that this town is so primed for war. And I have seen that up close. I've seen it in skiffs. I've seen it on the hill. This, everything. Everybody around Donald Trump, you know, from the military to the intelligence agencies, they want one thing, and that is kinetic action. And they push away, you know, any accountability that people try to put on them. And they create a series of choices that make that sort of military action look inevitable. So my fear was that this was lining up to that again. And you know what? If this ceasefire holds, if there's a peace deal reach, God bless Donald Trump, because he will be the first president in my lifetime.

that's been able to resist that pull of inevitability because the entire town is set up to do just that. Yeah, amen. I think that's exactly right. Just as I think about it, Tucker used the word paranoia. And I just think that's a really good word. I feel like the entire world has been utterly paranoid since Hiroshima. And I don't think that it's an irrational paranoia. That's kind of an oxymoron. But we all have to be irrationally. We all have to be paranoid when you have nuclear weapons that can just have dramatically changed the way he human beings relate to each other. And that sounds like woo-woo, but it's absolutely true. We forget about it sometimes because we've just been in a rush to, you know, get through the Cold War and then get through the post-Cold War period and build McDonald's everywhere so that we can

have a lasting peace. But I think that was just really well put. Actually, I feel like I agree with both of you, but maybe we should keep like a, at some point I should get a control where I can give you guys points as you talk and then I can take them away. I think that would be really fun for me. On a lighter note, this has been a really dark news cycle, obviously, for very clear reasons. So I thought, you know, just keeping on this theme of misery, we should bring in Michelle Obama, a miserable person, apparently a miserable person. And we have a clip ready to go of Michelle Obama on her podcast. I know you guys watch, I wouldn't say every episode, but most episodes of Michelle Obama's podcast,

try not to miss an episode of what she does. But she has a podcast. She was talking about her children. God asked a question. Let's roll this clip. And I want to get your guys' response. It's about what he needs as a grown man in the world. That would be.

You should have threw a boy in the mix. I would. I'm so glad I didn't have a boy. Yeah. Because he would have been a Barack Obama. Oh, my. We had a baby Barack. It would have been amazing.

No, I would have felt for him. I don't want to have a boy. He'd be like my husband. Wonderful. Now, I want to connect this, follow me along here, with the New York Times headline that what kind of viral over the weekend. It's just men, where have you gone? Please come back. Incredible headline. One that could have been predicted. Now, a part of a quote from this article is, quote, we have moved into an era where many men no longer seek women to impress other men

or to connect across difference. They perform elsewhere alone. They filtered us out. We're still here. Those of us who are willing to concrete something true, co-create something true, we are not impossible to please false as a woman, false. We're not asking for performances. We are asking for presence, for courage, for breath and eye contact and the ability to say, I'm here. I don't know how to do this perfectly, but I want to try. Andez, does your husband make eye contact with you, if not why? He makes eye contact with me every day, usually to tell me that I'm wrong about something and he's usually right. to stop shopping and shut up.

The number one, I feel like, rule in marriage. Maybe it's not the number one rule, but it ought to be up there, which is that you're only allowed lighthearted jokes in public, right? And that's what makes, I think, this interview is so uncomfortable with Michelle Obama. It is really uncomfortable and wrong, frankly, to see somebody insult their spouse publicly. What does that say about you, first of all, that you chose this person, right? And frankly, Michelle Obama has so little grounds on which to do this. Like Hillary Clinton, nobody would know who she was, if not for her husband, which is a very strange position to be lobbying, you know, insults at her husband and sort of, I mean, this is just, this is really insulting.

Like, nobody should say this about their spouse. It says a lot about them if they say that in public. But the New York Times article, the reason I was looking down a minute ago is because I wanted to pull out a line from this New York Times article. that you're referencing. And that is, maybe no one taught you how to say, maybe you tried once and it hurt. Maybe the world told you

that your role was to provide, to perform, to protect, and never to feel, which just to me stuck out in this article as exactly the wrong attitude. I feel like there's a deluge

of pieces that go viral every, I mean, the New York Times, modern love section is a great, you know, baste, you know, these kinds of pieces that go viral and spark conversation on line, but I would translate all of them as our husbands are bad because they're not women,

right? Because they don't process information or they don't bond in the same way or they don't communicate in the same way. It's the premising of a feminine style of communication. And I think this is a broader political issue. It's one that J.D. Vance touched on during the election with his child cat lady comments and about misdirected female energy. But I think it's, and it's something that that's my band name, by the way, misdirected female energy playing in at Bonarue. Yeah. Right. And I think that actually is a very important lens. It's not the only lens, but a very important lens that we should be looking at our politics through because so many of those institutions that have been losing trust have within them, whether that's in a private

sector in the corporate world or whether that's in government, have if in many cases just a female majority, but even in the cases that they don't, this kind of feminine cast to them. And that's, I don't know. It stuck out to me in this article that she was saying basically she's dismissing the role of men while complaining that they have disappeared. But in the very same piece that she wrote where she's complaining that they disappeared, she's basically saying the unique things that men bring to the table vis-a-vis women are useless and to be dismissed and are just something that they're quote-unquote taught. Richel, I have to know if you are properly directing your female energy, but also as a boy mom, you are a boy mom.

Tell us why, or if you agree with the premise that I think Annes and I are getting at here, which is that men particularly by cultural, people culturally on the left who have dominated a lot of these conversations, shaped and driven and influenced a lot of these conversations for multiple decades through academia, the media, Hollywood. If they've actually been, are they now regretting what they've done to men? it seems like maybe it's subconscious, not conscious. What do you make of that? Yeah, well, first I have to go back to this idea that I listen to Michelle Obama's podcast on the routinely. I do that only when I can stack it with episodes of the view.

And it's when I really feel like I need to like do penance for something, then I watch them together. Anyway, yes, my two sons are sleeping upstairs. And this is something I really never considered until I was blessed with. with raising boys in this kind of environment because that piece is just, she's missing men. All of the institutions that you mentioned are reaping what they have sown for decades. You have told men for years

it is unacceptable to be a man. That being a man is the worst thing that you could be. In the intersectional pyramid, men are like the concrete on which the pyramid stands. There is nothing defensible about them at all. And when you spend years telling people this, what do you expect? Right? What do you expect?

It's not just a political question at this point. It's the psyche of the men who are raised in this environment to hate themselves, essentially. And I think that it's a challenge, frankly, for parents to raise boys with the self-esteem, but also, you know, the respect that's, you know, you treat them or you teach them how to treat a woman to be respectful and how to talk to them. You know, I talk to other parents whose kids are older, and there's this just plague in high schools now where boys are even too scared to go up and ask girls out on dates. This is a product of the modern culture that we've created about what it means to be a man. And I think it's a huge problem for us going forward. And sadly, when I think about more than I ever wanted to, but here we are. Yeah, so, I mean, people like us have been having this conversation for at least 20 years.

I mean, more like 30 years. And, I mean, even before that, if you go back to like the Great Phil of Schlaff, but my college job was working for Christina Hoss Summers on the re-release of a book that she came out within, I think, 1999 or 2000 called The War Against Boys. And I think you were about to say that the left is kind of reaping what it's sowed. I agree with that. And I wonder if it feels like this is changing

because the whole like podcast bro slur that's been tossed around by the left, as they seek to reacquaint themselves with some of these men that they've lost and kind of forced themselves to talk. to some of the men that they've lost. That requires, like, crossing a bridge. I don't think a lot of them actually want to do. And I've read this piece as maybe flirting with what it would take. I don't know, Anes, what do you make, like, do you think that they'll be able to successfully reconnect with men,

to bring men back into these spaces so that they can have male eye contact? Is this in the future? No, I really don't think. I think. You're just like, no. Well, the pitch, it's pretty clear. Always such a beacon of light. The pitch they're going to end up giving, I think, is one that is really sad, but it's the only one that they can consistently give with their deeply held worldview and principles, right? Which is they're going to offer endless unrestricted porn, online gambling, right? And they're going to take that case to young men and say, well, you know, you don't want, you don't want Republicans to stop you from doing these things that are, you know, I think increasingly. people realize they're at least somewhat bad for you, right? Their vices. Don't forget the AI girlfriends. I feel like that's the same of the future too. In some way, that's worse because it's

the like emotional connection that you should find with another human being. And by the way, it's not just sexual relationships that are in collapse. We know that the younger generation is not having as much sex as past generations. They're also not dating as much, et cetera, et cetera. The sex wars are endless and ongoing all the time. But I think missing a lot of that, the collapse of friendship, of in real life, hanging out, you know, just it's hard to make a connection with the opposite sex if you have just, you don't even hang out with the opposite sex and feeding into that as fewer and fewer people have siblings, right? So the number of relationships that people have, even the non-sexual relationships with the opposite sex,

has really declined. So, I mean, yes, they're reaping what they sowed. I don't know that they really have a way to pivot. A lot of the outreach, quote, unquote, to men as cringy as it is, is it reminds me a lot of that brief moment. You talk about this all the time, Emily, after the 2016 election where the New York Times was like, we must send at least one reporter to fly over country to see what all these people are about, right? It reminds me of that, but I don't think they're fundamentally going to be able to change. And frankly, as a political party, I'm not sure it makes sense for them to because their

largest constituency are single, unmarried women. And just to back that up with one sentence of numbers, right? We don't need that. Yeah, like married men, married women, and single men all vote Republican by, you know, relatively small margins. Each one of those is like under 60 percent, like somewhere in the 50s, right? And then single women vote Democrat by something like 30 or 35 points. And that's a gap that's endured basically since the 80s.

It started opening up and endured until, now and is only widening. So I actually would flip that advice around. I don't really think it makes sense for the Democratic Party to appeal to men. I think there's no way to make that work with their central message and with their voting base. But I think the Republican Party should appeal to, we should appeal to men explicitly because we're always talking about what can we do to outreach to new voters, you know, what can the right do to talk to, for example, you know, women who are voting in that category that are voting 30 percent Democrat. That's the wrong way to, think about it. You have a new audience. Young men are voting for the Republican Party in the

first time. They're voting for the right for the first time in large numbers. Those are the people that you should be outreaching to. You should be thinking about what you can offer them, whether that's due process in universities and supporting due process and sexual assault claims in universities that are such an egregious violation of the Constitution, whether that's tied into a new economic message about being able to support a family on one income. And then all of the cultural issues, of course, that we talk about all. all the time, you know, about the dignity in these masculine and feminine rules that we have, I think that's the opportunity. You know, I don't think Democrats are going to be able to change

course. It reminds me I needed to wish you, Anna's a happy 40th birthday to Lana Del Rey. I know you celebrate on this birthday every year. Religiously, yeah. Thank you for giving us a slice of your time. Now, Rachel, before we go, I want to ask you, based on what Annes just said, that risks total irrelevance for Democrats, right? Like if they can just lose so much of the country by being toxic with men in general, yes, voting patterns are getting very polarized. Yes, women are about 50% of the voting population, but that pushes them into a state, potentially, of total electoral irrelevance. And this is what was happening, I think, to the Republican Party before Donald Trump came along and broadened the base again. Yes, you lose some suburban voters, but the

math gets a lot more interesting when you're adding some of those Obama voters in the Rust Belt and you're not like all of these, you're keeping the people in some of the suburbs, some of the Rust Belt suburbs, and it's additive. Now, for Democrats, that makes me think, are they able to at some point, does this make it so that the party gets a hostile takeover by someone who's actually able to communicate with those voters because you just cannot go on as a party? I mean, Republicans had, it took Donald. Trump screaming in their face at debates for them to, not even screaming, he was very calm. But doing this in their face of like 20 debates to realize that the party had changed forever

or needed to change forever. So is that where the Democrats are heading to like basically total irrelevance lest there's a hostile takeover? Well, I think we're about to see how far they can get with a university constituency, because that's essentially what they have. Is this highly educated, extremely progressive, you know, click that is running their party and thus far no mainstream Democrat has been able to stand up to them. And so, you know, I think there is movement. I think there are people that see what's happening, right? You have this old, old guard of the Democrat Party. I'm thinking of James Carville and even Rahm Emanuel to some extent who are standing up and saying, guys, guys, like the cliff,

it's coming. I see it. We're all going to go over. You know, is there anyone that's going to stand up and stop it. I don't know how much institutional power, something like that has anymore, although I'm sure there's a constituency for it, right? Because a lot of those people came over and voted for Trump. They held their nose and did it, but they voted for him. And it's almost like the Democrats need the irony of what I'm about to say is just shocking even to me, but they need a Bill Clinton. You know, like they need the predator that was Bill Clinton. They need a pervert. Yeah, they do. You're right. This is an Andrew Cuomo's moment. Well, but say, right, you know, it's true, right, in some respect.

But set that part of it aside, he was incredible at retail politics. He straddled, he was aggressively moderate on issues that drew somewhat. Yeah, I know, sorry. The later we get, the less thoughtful I am on my word choices. I thought it was great word choice. He came to the center on a lot of issues, and it's like you need someone in that vein. And I don't know that those Democrats don't exist at the 35. and below level, even the 40 and below level.

And so, you know, I really do think it's, I've never seen, you know, the Democrats in this state before in my political life. And so I do think it's going to, one of the olds is going to have to step up because I think that the university youths are about to drive the car into the wall. Well, we've run out of time for the most important question. I wanted to ask both of you, which is just name five things in order that I do. better than both of you. Just give me the list, but I won't have you do that today. So it's a little bit of homework for next time you're on, just five things that I do better than either of you.

I'm of course kidding. These two are very good friends of mine and I happen to be slightly younger and they like to give me Guff for being young and inexperienced. But I appreciate. I'm so happy that you guys were here on the first night. I was telling you I need a little moral support. So it's just very, very kind of you to stay up late. I know you have children. I know you're old. So thank both of you. Anything for you, Emily. Yeah, anything for you, Emily. And we think we're so excited to be here and we're so excited for your show.

We were talking actually just before you had us on up to her texting. We're like, don't tell her, but she's incredible. She's doing an incredible job. So we're very proud of you, like two old crones. Yeah, very proud. Thank you guys. I love you guys. I'll see you soon.

Annette Stetman and Rachel Beauvard of the Independent Women's Forum and the Conservative Partnership Institute. All right, before we get into the close of the show, I want to tell you about Tax Network, USA. They are proudly celebrating our nation's birthday honoring freedom, resilience, and financial independence. To mark the occasion, they're offering 10% off, that's a good deal, all services through July 4th. If you're dealing with back taxes or missed the April 15th deadline, don't wait. The IRS is stepping up enforcement and penalties can add up quickly. Those go up to 5% per month, maxing at it, 25% of your total.

tax bill and just for not filing. And that's on top of actually what you already owe. So there's good news. Tax Network USA can still help you turn things around whether you're self-employed, run a business or your books are a complete mess. Their team knows how to cut through the chaos and find solutions that work. Your consultation is always free and getting ahead of the problem now could help you avoid harsh penalties, wage garnishments, or surprise bank levies. Take the first step. Call That's 800958-1,000, or visit tnusa.com. And don't forget, you'll get 10% off all services through July 4th as part of their celebration of our nation's birthday. Regained control of your finances with expert help from tax USA. All right, everyone. First of all, I just want to thank you

for being here. I'm going to see if I can pull up some comments that you all, I know, have been kindly leaving on the YouTube. Probably some of them are not so kind, but I'll respond. to those two because I'm just that kind of person. Tucker's interview, I'm sure, has spurt a lot of reactions because a lot of people were waiting for Tucker to say something. And including me, by the way, I think he had posted just a couple of hours ago, basically thank God. And yeah, I mean, truly thank God. I see has posted, yes, Emily, great job. Thank you. I appreciate that. this is a funny one that someone just posted about Annes and Rachel, a young woman talking to two old grandmas. Thank you for noticing. I appreciate it as long as you're not saying the young woman was one of them.

A lot of kind comments. Thank you so much. Someone said they came from breaking points. Appreciate that. You know, one of the cool things about streaming live and I feel like it was an opening in the conservative podcast ecosystem. Because one of the cool things about streaming live is that it just has a totally different energy. And I mean, I love doing all kinds of shows. You know, I like going straight to tape. I like doing live to tape. I love doing, you know, edited stuff. It all has its place.

But I think for something in the late night market, it's just really, really different to be going live straight to the audience, to hear people as the news, hopefully, is being. Oh, someone says misdirected female energy is my new favorite band. Totally agree with that. So it's just nothing is getting edited. Nobody can stop down and say, hey, I misphrased that. Can you take that off? If someone coughs, you hear it. It sounds like a small thing.

But imagine that with different things like it said as you're talking. So I'm just really happy to be here. I'm really grateful to Megan. I really believe in that binary I set up at the beginning of the episode between Johnny Carson and Stephen Colbert. That's us talking about the business of media, but also the way the business is upstream of the ideology that you get to engage with. And for me, I always look back on, you know, I got great training when I was really young and was first doing TV. And the training, this has always stuck with me. When I was doing the training, I was in a simulation of an interview

on a cable news segment. And the simulated host asked me a question. And I responded, I don't know. That's a good question. Something like that. And the person who was doing this training stopped me and said, just don't ever say that you don't know something. And I think that's the biggest thing that's changed,

basically in media over the last decade, is that people always do want you to be honest when you don't know. And that's where this actually last 48, 72 hours has been, I think, a really important time because you have, I mean, important time, obviously for the world, but for the media, from the vantage point of the media, you just have so much uncertainty. And if you go back and you read some of the early reporting from Iraq after 9-11 in the lead-up to our invasion of Iraq. 2003, you just are reminded of the consequences of leaks and the fog of war and spinning that's coming from the intelligence community, our country, other countries. And you just have to have some humility and recognize that at every given moment, you don't have the answers. And it's one of the takeaways from my interview with Tucker, because I'd been thinking about this in my head as somebody

who was, I think, directionally aligned with him, very skeptical that a strike on Iran from Donald Trump, the cost-benefit analysis of that worked out in America's favor. And as I've been thinking about it over the course of the last, you know, 10-ish hours or however long it's been since Donald Trump made that announcement, we're an hour away, by the way, right now from when that supposed ceasefire is supposed to take place, as I've been thinking about this, I go back and I realize the probability of catastrophe was always significant. And the question is whether it was intolerably high or worth the risk. And I don't take back

that I believe it was not worth the risk. Again, I may be proven wrong. I will be proven wrong sometimes. And that's okay. I try really hard so that doesn't happen. And that's when you could kind of, that's how I gauge whether or not I trust somebody who's in the media space.

But I don't think it was wrong, to Tucker's point, to look at the probability of abject catastrophe, to look at the probability of many, many deaths of American service members. Thank goodness, we're not right now talking about 100 plus casualties of the American men and women, 40,000 of whom are in the region overseas. Thank goodness. But I think the probability was unacceptably high. I might be wrong about that.

I think Tucker was interesting when he said that, you know, he doesn't believe Iran would have come to the table like it did without the strikes. you know, that looks indisputably to be true at this point. And he said in the lead up that he hopes he's proven wrong. I hope that I am indeed proven wrong. I think the situation is still dangerous, but it appears very, very hopeful at this moment. So on that note, I just wanted to say that's what I've always tried to do with my career,

is be honest with the audience and be transparent with the audience and kind of work through these things in real time. It's another reason I really like the live format with all of things. you. So thank you for watching. It means the world to me. I hope you enjoyed it. You can email me, by the way, at Emily at devilmaycaremedia.com. Feel free to hit us up there. We can answer your questions. Like right now, I have the YouTube up. I'm reading them. Really appreciate everyone sticking around with us. We're going to be here indefinitely Mondays and Wednesdays every 10, every Monday and Wednesday at 10 p.m. Very, very exciting.

gratified that you all joined me so thankful to Megan and her team for making this happen. Stick around because we're going to be back with more on Wednesday night at 10 p.m. Hope to see you then.