The Ben Shapiro Show - August 20, 2018


The Giuliani Problem | Ep. 606


Episode Stats

Length

51 minutes

Words per Minute

211.30096

Word Count

10,882

Sentence Count

719

Misogynist Sentences

10

Hate Speech Sentences

8


Summary

Rudy Giuliani provides a weak defense for the President of the United States, and Asia Argento is implicated in a mea culpa mess of her own making, and Al Sharpton makes an astonishingly great TV error. Plus, a new report from the New York Times suggests that Trump's White House counsel, Don McGahn, may have lied to Robert Mueller's investigators about what he told them during 30 hours of interviews with the special counsel's investigators, and why it could be damaging to the president. Plus, the Krasnerstein Brothers tweet a picture of a buff, shirtless Chippendale, and then tweet it to the world, which is even more weird than normal, because they don t have a clue what they were talking about. And, of course, there's still time to get your first three meals delivered to your door with Blue Apron! Subscribe to Shapiro's new show, The Ben Shapiro Show, wherever you get your news and gossip, and don't miss out on the latest episodes of The Weekly Standard, The Five, FiveThirtyEight, and Rachel Maddow's new podcast All Things Consuming. Subscribe and comment to stay up to date with the latest news and discuss all things going on in the world of politics, culture, entertainment, and social media! Subscribe, and let us know what you thought of the latest episode of the Ben Shapiro show! on Apple Podcasts and wherever else you re listening to your favorite podcast! and sharing it on your social media platforms! If you like it, share it with a friend, and tell a friend about it! or share it on Insta- and we'll be sure to spread it around the wide and wide spread it everywhere else! Thank you for listening to Ben Shapiro's thoughts and spreading it everywhere! - Ben Shapiro, the truth, Ben Shapiro is a real Ben Shapiro. . Thanks for listening and love Ben Shapiro - The Reverend? - Rachel Gooden and Ben Kaspbrak - Thank you, Ben Karshaw, the R&B, the Reverend Jimmie, AKA & much more. - Yours Truly Amazingly Awesome, Cheers, Rachel Gooding, Sarah Gooden, Sarah Baden, Sr., Thank You, Mr. Ben, Sarah Gooding Love, Kristy, Sr. & Gorms, MJK, Jr.


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Rudy Giuliani provides a weak defense for the President of the United States, Asia Argento is implicated in a Me Too mess of her own making, and Al Sharpton makes an astonishingly great TV error.
00:00:10.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:00:10.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:17.000 Oh man, I hope you had a great weekend.
00:00:18.000 I cannot wait to play for you Al Sharpton's weekend because it was spectacular.
00:00:22.000 We'll get to that in just a minute.
00:00:24.000 First, let's talk about what you're eating for dinner with your family.
00:00:27.000 So, you're eating out a lot.
00:00:28.000 I know you are.
00:00:28.000 And you're spending so much money doing it.
00:00:30.000 Not only that, you're missing out time that you could be spending with your kids cooking because it's a lot of fun to cook with your kids.
00:00:34.000 Well, that is where Blue Apron comes in.
00:00:36.000 Everybody in LA is using Blue Apron.
00:00:38.000 People all around the office using Blue Apron because
00:00:41.000 They give you quick and easy recipe options, perfectly portioned ingredients delivered directly to your door.
00:00:45.000 They make dinner quick, easy, and insanely tasty.
00:00:47.000 You skip meal planning, you get straight to cooking with Blue Apron.
00:00:51.000 Enjoy the joy of summer with their favorite grilling recipes.
00:00:54.000 They've seasonally inspired ingredients and mouthwatering grilling options for the summer.
00:00:58.000 They have chicken with barbecue sauce, juicy cheeseburgers with spicy slaw, which sounds not kosher, but fabulous.
00:01:02.000 Go check it out right now.
00:01:03.000 Blue Apron has great recipes, and it makes you basically into a gourmet chef without you actually having to be good at cooking.
00:01:09.000 So check out this week's menu.
00:01:10.000 Get your first three meals for free at blueapron.com slash Shapiro.
00:01:14.000 That's blueapron.com slash Shapiro to get your first three meals for free.
00:01:17.000 Blue Apron is indeed a better way to cook.
00:01:19.000 I mean, I'm looking at some of these meals right now in front of me.
00:01:21.000 They look spectacular.
00:01:22.000 I'm extraordinarily hungry already.
00:01:24.000 So this ad is bad for my health.
00:01:25.000 Go check it out right now.
00:01:26.000 Blueapron.com slash Shapiro.
00:01:28.000 Blueapron.com.
00:01:29.000 Okay, so there's a lot going on over the weekend.
00:01:35.000 The big story over the weekend is that the New York Times supposedly is about to break open the Mueller investigation.
00:01:42.000 Everyone very, very excited because this new report from Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt, both Pulitzer Prize winners over at the New York Times, suggest that Don McGahn, who is President Trump's attorney in the White House, he's the White House chief attorney,
00:01:55.000 That this guy spoke to the Mueller investigation.
00:01:58.000 And according to the New York Times, this means that Trump is in for it now.
00:02:02.000 Finally, Robert Mueller is going to seize President Trump in his clutches, just as the Krasnerstein brothers would want.
00:02:08.000 The Krasnerstein brothers, for folks who don't know, are these people who have basically become famous on Twitter for tweeting incessantly about President Trump.
00:02:14.000 And then they tweeted over the weekend a cartoon of a buff, shirtless Chippendale, Robert Mueller.
00:02:19.000 Which was real weird.
00:02:21.000 Then when people commented on it, they tweeted out, buff shirtless pictures of himself, which is even doubly weird.
00:02:25.000 The left is sort of obsessed with the Mueller investigation.
00:02:27.000 You may get that impression.
00:02:28.000 The New York Times is no exception.
00:02:30.000 So here is what they write.
00:02:31.000 President Trump's lawyers do not know just how much the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn, told the special counsel's investigators during months of interviews, a lapse that has contributed to a growing recognition that an early strategy of full cooperation with the inquiry was a potentially damaging mistake.
00:02:45.000 So at this point in the piece, we still don't know what McGahn told the investigators.
00:02:48.000 Don't worry, we never will.
00:02:50.000 Nothing in the piece actually says what McGahn talked to the investigators about or why it would be so potentially damaging to the president of the United States.
00:02:58.000 According to the New York Times, however, the president's lawyer said on Sunday that they were confident that Mr. McGahn had said nothing injurious to the president during the 30 hours of interviews.
00:03:06.000 But Mr. McGahn's lawyer has offered only a limited accounting of what Mr. McGahn told the investigators, according to two people close to the president.
00:03:13.000 That has prompted concern among Mr. Trump's advisors that Mr. McGahn's statements could help serve as a key component for a damning report by the special counsel Robert Mueller, which the Justice Department could send to Congress, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
00:03:25.000 What this suggests is that the Mueller investigation is going to come up with nothing, and then they're going to send a report to Congress suggesting that the president acted badly, that while he didn't formally obstruct justice, which is a charge that has a very specific meaning and involves destruction of evidence or attempts to intimidate witnesses or some sort of witness tampering or perjury,
00:03:41.000 The president hasn't done any of those.
00:03:43.000 There's nothing to actually show the president has done any of those things.
00:03:46.000 Despite that, they'll send a damning report to Congress, and then a Democratic Congress will be forced to try to impeach.
00:03:51.000 Mr. Trump's lawyers realized on Saturday they had not been provided a full accounting after the New York Times published an article describing Mr. McGahn's extensive cooperation with Mr. Mueller's office.
00:04:00.000 After Mr. McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel's office in November, Mr. Trump's lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr. McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
00:04:10.000 All of which actually speaks to the idea that Trump didn't feel like he had a lot to fear from Mueller, right?
00:04:14.000 He let his lawyer over at the White House go and talk to Mueller.
00:04:18.000 He didn't have to do that.
00:04:19.000 He could have just claimed executive privilege.
00:04:21.000 He could have claimed that there was attorney-client privilege.
00:04:23.000 He could have claimed a lot of things that would have prevented McGahn from actually having to go talk with Mueller.
00:04:28.000 Into any of those things, which suggests that Trump doesn't feel like he really has all that much to hide.
00:04:33.000 And the New York Times continues in this vein for a very long time.
00:04:36.000 It's pages and pages of writing on this.
00:04:39.000 And there's really nothing that comes out from it.
00:04:43.000 Basically, the only thing that comes out from it is that McGahn's people are sort of leaking to the press, it appears, that Trump
00:04:49.000 Set up McGahn for a possible obstruction charge, and so McGahn was talking to Mueller.
00:04:52.000 That's the suggestion in the actual article, is that the only thing of relevance here is that McGahn felt pressured by Trump and therefore he went and talked to the investigators.
00:05:04.000 So here's what the New York Times says.
00:05:05.000 In its article, the Times said Mr. McGahn had shared detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the investigation into whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice in the Russia inquiry.
00:05:14.000 Some of the episodes, like Mr. Trump's attempt to fire Mr. Mueller last summer, would not have been revealed to investigators without Mr. McGahn's help.
00:05:20.000 The article set off a scramble on Saturday among Mr. Trump's lawyers and advisers.
00:05:24.000 The president, sequestered at his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, solicited opinions from a small group of advisers on the possible repercussions from the article
00:05:32.000 The president ordered Mr. Giuliani to tell reporters the article was wrong, but Mr. Giuliani did not go that far in his television appearances.
00:05:38.000 As we'll see, Rudy Giuliani went on national TV and said the president really has nothing to hide.
00:05:42.000 Apparently, Trump wanted him to go out and say that the articles were wrong in all of their major facts, which apparently was not true.
00:05:50.000 In the end, is there a lot here?
00:05:52.000 Not really.
00:05:53.000 Not really.
00:05:53.000 President Trump lashed out on Twitter.
00:05:55.000 Here is what President Trump had to say about the article.
00:05:57.000 He said,
00:06:09.000 But I allowed him and all others to testify.
00:06:11.000 I didn't have to.
00:06:11.000 I have nothing to hide.
00:06:12.000 Okay, so people are picking on the fact that Trump himself is suggesting that John Dean was a rat.
00:06:17.000 For those who don't know, John Dean was a White House attorney under Nixon.
00:06:20.000 He went and he talked to the Watergate investigators, and it was very damaging to President Nixon.
00:06:25.000 But what Trump is actually saying here is, people are jumping all over him for this, he's not wrong, right?
00:06:29.000 He allowed Don McGahn to go and testify.
00:06:31.000 Now people are saying at the New York Times that Trump did this basically because he's ignorant, and so he allowed McGahn to talk to Mueller.
00:06:37.000 But again, so what?
00:06:39.000 That's the opposite of obstruction.
00:06:40.000 That's him actually allowing his own people to go and talk with the Mueller investigation.
00:06:44.000 By the way, half a dozen people inside the administration have already talked to the Mueller investigation.
00:06:49.000 Like a lot of people for hours at a time.
00:06:51.000 And you know what?
00:06:52.000 I'm not sure they're gonna come up with anything.
00:06:53.000 But Trump is frustrated, and I think that that's not completely...
00:06:57.000 Off the rails.
00:06:58.000 He continues along these lines.
00:06:59.000 He says, Okay, again, I understand why Trump is upset about this.
00:07:02.000 He said, My lawyer went and talked to Mueller and you guys are yelling at me for that and saying that I'm obstructing even though my guy went and talked.
00:07:24.000 Again, I don't think Trump is wrong.
00:07:26.000 I don't think Trump is wrong.
00:07:27.000 Again, the sort of implication that Trump is trying to hide something when he allows his counsel to go and talk with the Mueller investigation is a weird one.
00:07:36.000 Nonetheless, Rudy Giuliani was out there making the rounds and sort of demonstrating that Trump is upset about the media coverage.
00:07:44.000 And Giuliani is just not a good representative for the president.
00:07:47.000 This is one of the big problems with representing President Trump is that every attorney who has ever represented Trump
00:07:52.000 You don't know 100% of what he testified to?
00:07:53.000 To Mr. Mueller?
00:08:16.000 I think that through John Dowd, we have a pretty good sense of it, and John Dowd yesterday said, I'll use his words rather than mine, that McGahn was a strong witness for the president.
00:08:27.000 So I don't need to know much more about that.
00:08:29.000 Okay, so if McGahn was a strong witness for the president, and McGahn went and talked to the special counsel, and in the end, the special counsel has to prove obstruction.
00:08:39.000 Not intent, not intent to obstruct, actual obstruction.
00:08:42.000 Andrew McCarthy makes this great point over at National Review today.
00:08:45.000 Obstruction is an actual statutory crime.
00:08:48.000 If you're going to prove obstruction, you have to prove that the president actually took acts designed to stop or meddle with the investigation.
00:08:54.000 There's nothing to suggest he actually took these acts.
00:08:56.000 He said stuff, but saying stuff does not constitute obstruction.
00:08:59.000 The president has the ability to say as much stuff as he wants.
00:09:02.000 He just can't commit perjury, and he can't actually engage in witness intimidation.
00:09:06.000 That's not the same thing.
00:09:07.000 Giuliani then goes on, he says, Robert Mueller is panicking, and this Don McGahn leak shows it.
00:09:12.000 Here's where Giuliani starts to shade over into a little bit of dicey territory.
00:09:15.000 It could be McGahn, and McGahn's not doing it.
00:09:18.000 And he would have done it a long time ago if he was going to do it.
00:09:20.000 They're down to desperation time.
00:09:22.000 They have to write a report, and they don't have a single bit of evidence.
00:09:26.000 Okay, so it is very possible that Mueller has no evidence.
00:09:28.000 That New York Times report, however, looks like a leak from McGahn's team.
00:09:31.000 It looks like McGahn is leaking to the press that the reason that he talked to Mueller is because he was afraid of being hung out to dry.
00:09:36.000 It would be weird if that leak was coming from Team Mueller.
00:09:38.000 They're just sentences in the report that appear that it makes it look like it's from McGahn.
00:09:42.000 And then Giuliani gets himself in the biggest trouble of all.
00:09:44.000 Now, what Giuliani says in this particular clip is going to be wildly misinterpreted.
00:09:48.000 I don't think Giuliani is completely wrong, but expressed in the worst possible way.
00:09:52.000 And in a second, I'm going to talk about why this sort of stuff matters.
00:09:56.000 And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well, that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth, not the truth.
00:10:04.000 He didn't have a conversation about- Truth is truth.
00:10:08.000 I don't mean to go like- No, it isn't truth.
00:10:10.000 Truth isn't truth.
00:10:11.000 The President of the United States says, I didn't- Truth isn't truth.
00:10:15.000 Mr. Mayor, do you realize what-
00:10:17.000 No!
00:10:18.000 I think this is going to become a bad meme.
00:10:20.000 Don't do this to me.
00:10:22.000 Okay, here is the problem with Rudy Giuliani.
00:10:24.000 What he's saying is not wrong.
00:10:26.000 When he says that there is such a thing as a perjury trap, that if I tell the truth in front of Robert Mueller, I still may be brought up on obstruction charges, I still may be brought up on perjury charges, because it's possible there are two people who are telling different sides of the same story, and one of them sees it a different way, and therefore a perjury charge emerges.
00:10:42.000 He's not wrong about that.
00:10:43.000 But when he says sentences like, truth isn't truth,
00:10:46.000 That is not going to help in any way.
00:10:47.000 Rudy Giuliani is just not a good representative of the president when it comes to this sort of stuff.
00:10:51.000 What he should be saying is no lawyer worth his salt would put his client in front of a motivated prosecutor determined to rack that guy up on perjury charges or obstruction charges.
00:11:03.000 No one would do that, particularly not a president who is fond of speaking off the cuff.
00:11:06.000 So even if the president is in general telling the truth and he makes a slight slip up,
00:11:10.000 Mueller's gonna grab him.
00:11:11.000 And not only that, questions can be asked that are specifically designed to elicit a particular response that makes you subject to perjury.
00:11:17.000 A good prosecutor can do this sort of stuff.
00:11:19.000 But saying truth isn't truth obviously lends itself to the idea that the Trump administration is being deeply dishonest about all this stuff.
00:11:24.000 Now, the irony is that because the Trump administration has been dishonest about so many things regarding the Russia investigation from the outset, it's obscuring the larger point, which is that Trump, I think, is probably telling the truth when he says there was no collusion.
00:11:37.000 But this stuff does have consequences.
00:11:38.000 I'm gonna explain in just a second.
00:11:40.000 First,
00:11:41.000 Let's talk about whether you ought to go down to the post office today.
00:11:43.000 The answer is you shouldn't.
00:11:44.000 The post office is a great place, but you don't actually want to be standing in line at the post office.
00:11:48.000 What you want to do is save your company time and money by instead working from your office and printing out your postage directly onto envelopes, onto stickers, directly onto a piece of paper that you can tape.
00:11:58.000 On to your envelope.
00:11:59.000 It saves you all sorts of time.
00:12:00.000 It saves you all sorts of money.
00:12:01.000 You don't have to get in the car and go down to the post office.
00:12:03.000 That's where stamps.com comes in.
00:12:05.000 With stamps.com, you can access all the amazing services of the post office right from your desk, 24-7, when it is convenient for you.
00:12:11.000 You buy and print official U.S.
00:12:12.000 postage for any letter, any package, using your own computer and printer, and the mail carrier picks it up.
00:12:17.000 You just click print mail and you're done.
00:12:18.000 It could not be easier.
00:12:19.000 We use stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices.
00:12:21.000 I use it at my home as well.
00:12:23.000 It saves me all sorts of time.
00:12:24.000 Right now,
00:12:25.000 Use Shapiro, promo code Shapiro, for this special offer.
00:12:27.000 It includes 55 bucks free of postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
00:12:32.000 Go to stamps.com before you do anything else.
00:12:34.000 Click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage, and you type in promo code Shapiro.
00:12:38.000 That's stamps.com, promo code Shapiro.
00:12:40.000 When you click on that radio microphone at the top of the page, enter Shapiro.
00:12:42.000 And again, you get up to 55 bucks free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
00:12:46.000 Stamps.com.
00:12:47.000 All the great services of the post office directly from your desk.
00:12:50.000 It's fantastic.
00:12:50.000 Go check it out.
00:12:51.000 Stamps.com.
00:12:52.000 Use promo code Shapiro.
00:12:53.000 Okay, so.
00:12:55.000 And why does any of this matter?
00:12:56.000 In the end, in the end, it's all going to be dependent on what Mueller comes down with.
00:13:01.000 So for all the media fulmination, for two years of media fulmination, all that's going to matter is what's in the final report.
00:13:06.000 I have a feeling it's going to be a lot weaker than anybody thinks it's going to be on the left.
00:13:10.000 I think that it's still going to be damning of President Trump in terms of his own personal behavior.
00:13:15.000 And I don't think much is going to come out of it.
00:13:16.000 It's just going to be a sort of a restating of stuff.
00:13:21.000 People already knew.
00:13:22.000 The big problem, however, is that when Rudy Giuliani goes on TV and says things like truth isn't truth, all it's doing is underscoring the dishonesty of the Trump administration time and time again during the Russia collusion investigation.
00:13:33.000 The broader point that Trump is making, I did not collude with the Russians to change the effects of the election, I think is probably true because there has not been evidence presented yet to show that the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians in shifting the election.
00:13:45.000 There is attempt
00:13:46.000 There is intent.
00:13:47.000 That's not the same thing as active collusion and coordination to violate the law in pursuit of changing the electoral result.
00:13:55.000 But because the Trump administration, because the Trump campaign was so dishonest about the Trump Tower meeting, for example, because Rudy Giuliani has shifted his story multiple times, it makes Trump look dishonest.
00:14:04.000 And it occurs to me what a problem this is.
00:14:06.000 Yesterday,
00:14:07.000 I took my wife for her birthday glassblowing.
00:14:10.000 So we'd never done this before.
00:14:12.000 And my sister actually suggested this.
00:14:14.000 We like to do sort of arts and crafts sorts of things.
00:14:16.000 This is a new thing.
00:14:17.000 We like to do kind of experiences for birthdays and anniversaries instead of me just getting her a nice piece of jewelry or in addition to me getting her a nice piece of jewelry.
00:14:24.000 But in any case, we decided to go glassblowing.
00:14:27.000 And the woman who's teaching the class is, of course, as you would imagine in Los Angeles, somebody who's very much on the left.
00:14:32.000 And we start talking about politics, because she brings it up.
00:14:35.000 I was not all that interested, but she wanted to.
00:14:37.000 And so we started talking about politics.
00:14:39.000 And she started talking about what a bad guy Trump was.
00:14:42.000 And I said, but his policies really haven't hurt you in any way.
00:14:45.000 In fact, the economy has been pretty good.
00:14:47.000 His policies are stuff that you kind of like.
00:14:50.000 And she goes, you know who else I dislike?
00:14:51.000 That Mike Pence.
00:14:52.000 That Mike Pence is just terrible.
00:14:53.000 I said, well, you know, I know Vice President Pence.
00:14:55.000 He's actually kind of a nice guy.
00:14:56.000 And the idea that he is some sort of grave grand theocrat attempting to govern you from above, I just don't think that's true.
00:15:03.000 And then she starts launching into Mitch McConnell.
00:15:05.000 And after a little while of this, it occurred to me, the policy just doesn't matter.
00:15:09.000 When it comes to people voting, the vast majority of people vote and think based on their personal like or dislike of particular people and candidates.
00:15:16.000 People don't think in terms of policy.
00:15:18.000 People don't think in terms of truth or falsehood in the Russian collusion investigation.
00:15:23.000 All they think is, is Trump dishonest or is Trump not dishonest?
00:15:26.000 And so even if Rudy Giuliani is not wrong about perjury traps and Robert Mueller, when you represent the worst face to the public, that has serious electoral consequences.
00:15:36.000 That's stuff that doesn't get brushed under the rug when it comes time for people to vote.
00:15:39.000 The grand perception of President Trump as a dishonest guy is not going to be dissipated by the constant reiteration by his counsel, Rudy Giuliani, of that sort of dishonesty and that feeling of dishonesty.
00:15:52.000 It's this miasma of bad stuff surrounding the Trump administration that does more harm than the actual
00:15:57.000 Criminality, because I don't think there's actual any criminality when it comes right down to it.
00:16:01.000 Meanwhile, the media, of course, have every interest in blowing up everything bad about President Trump to inordinate heights of outrage.
00:16:08.000 And that's not helping either.
00:16:10.000 So the media continue to take very seriously Omarosa Manigault, even though she has had nothing.
00:16:14.000 And that's what's really astonishing about the Omarosa Manigault story.
00:16:17.000 So Omarosa is going around talking incessantly about all of the tapes she has.
00:16:21.000 She has not released one seriously damning thing about the Trump administration.
00:16:25.000 She really hasn't.
00:16:26.000 Now, all she said is that she didn't get along with Trump, she didn't get along with John Kelly, and now she says Trump was a racist after spending years talking about how wonderful President Trump was, and everyone would literally bow before him.
00:16:35.000 Now she's going around, and she has earned strange new respect from the media.
00:16:39.000 So, she's gotten most of that strange new respect courtesy of the folks over at places like MSNBC.
00:16:44.000 In a grand meeting of the minds, Al Sharpton had on Omarosa on MSNBC over the weekend, and they were talking about race.
00:16:52.000 From Al Sharpton, a man who has legitimately participated in the inception of race riots in places like New York, Omarosa talking with Al Sharpton, race baiter par excellence, about why Donald Trump is going to start a race war.
00:17:05.000 We have a lot to lose.
00:17:07.000 And in fact, we're losing right now because Donald Trump is disingenuous about his engagement and his outreach.
00:17:12.000 And in fact, I believe he wants to start a race war in this country.
00:17:16.000 You know, for a lady who was fired from the administration, did not quit, it's pretty wild for her to suggest that Trump wants to start a race war in the country.
00:17:23.000 It's particularly rich for her to be saying this to a guy who legitimately has started race riots in the United States, or at least allegedly been involved with the inception of those race riots, particularly the 1991 race riot in Crown Heights that claimed the life of an Orthodox Jew.
00:17:35.000 But I guess that the media have to be treated with respect here.
00:17:38.000 Al Sharpton certainly has to be treated with respect.
00:17:41.000 The worst botchery of Al Sharpton's weekend was not actually his interview with Omarosa.
00:17:44.000 It was the lead-up to his interview with Omarosa.
00:17:46.000 This is real.
00:17:47.000 I'm not making this up.
00:17:48.000 This is a thing that actually happened on national television.
00:17:51.000 Is it fair to say Al Sharpton is a dummy?
00:17:53.000 I think that based on clips like this, the ongoing battle between Al Sharpton and his teleprompter is one of the great battles in human history.
00:18:00.000 I mean, it really is like the battle of Stalingrad, really.
00:18:04.000 Al Sharpton versus his teleprompter.
00:18:06.000 So here is the best clip of the weekend, bar none.
00:18:09.000 It's just fantastic.
00:18:11.000 You know what they say about payback?
00:18:13.000 It's a real... Well, you, I'm sure you know the word I'm thinking of.
00:18:19.000 So in the words of my late friend Aretha Franklin, show some R-E-S-P-I-C-T.
00:18:33.000 Oh, my goodness.
00:18:34.000 Well, you just hope that Al Sharpton is never in a position where he's on Wheel of Fortune and you have the R, the S, the P, the C and the T. And then he has to buy a vowel because, my goodness, it's literally our most famous song.
00:18:47.000 R-A-S-P-I-C-T.
00:18:49.000 Tell us what it means to Al Sharpton.
00:18:51.000 Oh, just fantastic stuff.
00:18:52.000 I can't imagine why folks don't take the media seriously.
00:18:55.000 But again, the media continue to portray the Trump administration as a place in flux and chaos.
00:18:59.000 They continue to give lots of respect to people like John Brennan, a guy who lied to Congress, a guy who was involved in basically smuggling classified information over to Harry Reid in the Senate so he could make trouble during the last campaign.
00:19:12.000 Here was John Brennan on national TV talking about how Trump is treasonous.
00:19:16.000 The media are all in on the idea that Trump is a treasonous fellow.
00:19:20.000 The reason, again, this is relevant is because the Trump team has to fight back on that perception and making botcheries with Rudy Giuliani is not the way to do this.
00:19:28.000 I called his behavior treasonous, which is to betray one's trust and to aid and abet the enemy.
00:19:32.000 And I stand very much by that claim.
00:19:35.000 You are the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States.
00:19:40.000 That's a monumental accusation.
00:19:43.000 Well, I think these are abnormal times.
00:19:45.000 And I think a lot of people have spoken out against what Mr. Trump has done.
00:19:49.000 And maybe it's my warning training as an intelligence professional.
00:19:53.000 I have seen the lights blinking red in terms of what Mr. Trump has done and is doing.
00:19:57.000 Now, it's possible the left can go too far, even for the left.
00:20:00.000 So, James Clapper, who was a former head of the CIA, I believe?
00:20:04.000 Under Barack Obama?
00:20:06.000 But Clapper actually started talking, he's former Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, even he says that Brennan has gone too far here.
00:20:14.000 So even as the Trump campaign, the Trump team, Rudy Giuliani fail on their lines, folks on the left are failing on theirs, right?
00:20:21.000 So John Brennan starts ripping into James Clapper and he's exactly correct.
00:20:25.000 Or to the opposite, Clapper starts ripping on Brennan and he's exactly right here.
00:20:28.000 You know, John is sort of like a freight train, and he's going to say what's on his mind.
00:20:34.000 But John and his rhetoric have become, I think, an issue in and of itself.
00:20:40.000 So just great stuff there.
00:20:42.000 The fact is that the left are attacking themselves over how far they can go over President Trump.
00:20:46.000 Again, the focal point of politics has become the president of the United States.
00:20:50.000 It's the job of the president of the United States to make himself more popular.
00:20:53.000 It's the job of the left to make him more unpopular.
00:20:55.000 Every time the left goes too far, it makes Trump more popular.
00:20:57.000 Every time President Trump sends out Rudy Giuliani to botch the message on national television, it makes Trump less popular.
00:21:04.000 That is the battle that's going on.
00:21:05.000 It's a battle of incompetence, people beating each other with sticks.
00:21:09.000 It's really a clown show out there on the highest possible level.
00:21:13.000 The only way this is ever going to get sorted out is the next ballot box, and that is a problem for Republicans, because again, the president's popularity rating is not as high as it should be right now, given the geopolitical situation.
00:21:24.000 Okay, in just a second,
00:21:25.000 I want to talk about the MeToo movement and whether it is foundering on the rocks of its own radicalism.
00:21:29.000 First, let's talk about your safety and your security.
00:21:32.000 So, Ring.com's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
00:21:35.000 Today, over a million people use the amazing Ring video doorbell to help protect their homes.
00:21:39.000 Ring knows home security begins at the front door.
00:21:40.000 It does not end there.
00:21:41.000 So now, they've extended that same level of security to the rest of your home with the Ring Floodlight Cam.
00:21:45.000 Just like that amazing doorbell, Floodlight Cam is a motion activated camera and floodlight.
00:21:49.000 It connects right to your phone with HD video and 2-way audio that lets you know the moment anyone steps on your property.
00:21:55.000 I love my ring doorbell.
00:21:57.000 I mean, it's just, it's fantastic, the video doorbell.
00:21:59.000 It means that when I'm out of town, somebody can ring the doorbell.
00:22:01.000 It pops up on my phone.
00:22:02.000 I know who's outside my house, which is a big thing for me.
00:22:04.000 I'm very safety oriented.
00:22:05.000 Ring.com can do that for you, except extend it all the way across your property with the Floodlight Cam as well.
00:22:10.000 With the Floodlight Cam, when things go bump in the night, you will immediately know what it is, whether you're home or away.
00:22:15.000 The Ring Floodlight Cam lets you keep an eye on your home from anywhere.
00:22:18.000 Ring Floodlight offers the ultimate in-home security, high visibility floodlights, a powerful HD camera that puts security in your hands.
00:22:24.000 With Ring, you are indeed always at home.
00:22:26.000 Save up to $150
00:22:28.000 Okay, so the other big story of the weekend is that Asia Argento
00:22:48.000 Who is one of the lead figures in the Me Too movement.
00:22:50.000 It turns out that she was actually involved in paying off a 17-year-old for sexually assaulting him in a California hotel room.
00:22:58.000 Here is the story from the New York Times.
00:23:07.000 She became a leading figure in the hashtag MeToo movement.
00:23:09.000 Her boyfriend, the culinary television star Anthony Bourdain, eagerly joined the fight.
00:23:13.000 But in the months that followed her revelations about Mr. Weinstein last October, Ms.
00:23:17.000 Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser, Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier when he was only two months past his 17th birthday, which would be statutory rape.
00:23:31.000 She was 37.
00:23:31.000 The age of consent in California is 18.
00:23:34.000 That claim and the subsequent arrangement for payments are laid out in documents between lawyers for Ms.
00:23:39.000 Argento and Mr. Bennett, a former child actor who once played her son in a movie.
00:23:43.000 The documents, which were sent to the New York Times through encrypted email by an unidentified party, include a selfie dated May 9, 2013 of the two lying in bed.
00:23:51.000 As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett, who is now 22, gave the photograph and its copyright to Ms.
00:23:55.000 Argento, now 42.
00:23:57.000 Three people familiar with the case said the documents were authentic.
00:24:00.000 Ms.
00:24:00.000 Argenta and her representatives have not responded to any of this.
00:24:04.000 Mr. Bennett, who lives in Los Angeles, would not agree to be interviewed.
00:24:07.000 As he said his lawyer, Gordon Satro, in the coming days, Satro wrote in an email, Jimmy will continue doing what he has been doing over the past months and years, focusing on his music.
00:24:15.000 Mr. Bennett is a child actor who charmed Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, earned the nickname Jimmy Two-Takes because he rarely flubbed his lines.
00:24:21.000 The 2013 hotel room encounter was a betrayal that precipitated a spiral of emotional problems, according to documents.
00:24:28.000 The fallout from a sexual battery was so traumatic it hindered Mr. Bennett's work and income, threatened his mental health.
00:24:33.000 Ms.
00:24:33.000 Argento subsequently turned to Ms.
00:24:35.000 Goldberg, who's a lawyer, to handle the case.
00:24:38.000 Mr. Bennett's notice of intent asked for $3.5 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, lost wages, assault, and battery.
00:24:46.000 Mr. Bennett made more than $2.7 million in the five years before the 2013 meeting with Ms.
00:24:50.000 Argento.
00:24:51.000 His income has since dropped to an average of $60,000 a year, and he attributes that to the trauma.
00:24:56.000 With regard to this particular incident.
00:24:59.000 So that's really, really ugly stuff.
00:25:01.000 Now, a lot of people are using this to try and discredit the broader MeToo movement, suggesting that if Asia Argento has been responsible for the sort of sexual battery herself and covered it up, that the credibility of some of the leaders of the MeToo movement is compromised.
00:25:14.000 There's no question that her credibility is compromised, but the idea of the MeToo movement, which is that sexual assault is bad, is obviously true.
00:25:21.000 But again, radicalism tends to discredit the main ideas underlying some good movement.
00:25:27.000 And this is what we're seeing in politics.
00:25:28.000 It's what we're also seeing with cases like the Me Too movement.
00:25:30.000 Speaking of radicalism, there's an article in the New York Times.
00:25:33.000 Again, it's amazing.
00:25:35.000 The most motivated people, the most motivated people in life tend to be the people who are radical.
00:25:39.000 Those also tend to be the people
00:25:41.000 We're most likely to undermine the mainstream credibility of their own message.
00:25:45.000 Most people, if they move on issues, want to be moved incrementally.
00:25:49.000 They don't want to have things shoved in their face.
00:25:51.000 They don't want radical shifts in the way they think about things.
00:25:54.000 But radicals, by nature, want to shift things radically, the way people think about things.
00:25:58.000 The problem is those radicals very often end up alienating the very people that they seek to draw in.
00:26:03.000 The latest example from the New York Times.
00:26:05.000 There's a full article in the New York Times.
00:26:07.000 I'm not kidding.
00:26:08.000 It is by a person named Sanam Yar.
00:26:10.000 Not sure if this is a man or a woman.
00:26:12.000 The article is titled, Witchcraft in the Me Too Era.
00:26:16.000 If you want to make the case for Me Too, if you want to make the case against sexual assault, you probably don't want to start with witchcraft.
00:26:23.000 Witchcraft in the MeToo era is actually basically the plot of The Crucible by Arthur Miller, but The New York Times reports thusly,
00:26:42.000 I do love the romance that the New York Times gives witchcraft and people who are crazy because they're part of a coven.
00:26:47.000 I do love that they don't talk this way about
00:27:05.000 Jewish ritual.
00:27:07.000 They don't talk this way about Catholic ritual.
00:27:08.000 They don't talk this way about Protestant ritual.
00:27:10.000 But a bunch of nuts gathering in the middle of Central Park get this sort of treatment from the New York Times.
00:27:15.000 And then they wonder why maybe the Me Too movement is stalling out a little bit here.
00:27:18.000 When you undermine your own credibility by embracing radical silliness, this is sort of what happens.
00:27:25.000 The Temple of the Spiral Path, which includes the North Wildwood and Stranger Gates Covens, has performed rituals in this clearing, known among the witches as the Green Cathedral, for 20 years.
00:27:34.000 The worshippers sat cross-legged around a circle of flowers, dried kalunda, chamomile, lavender, and rose petals, carefully arranged in a spiral.
00:27:42.000 Miss Crucy led them through a meditation.
00:27:44.000 Then, they slowly joined hands and began singing.
00:27:46.000 And one by one, they entered the spiral.
00:27:48.000 Their dancing crew increasingly raucous as they intoned, We are a circle moving.
00:27:52.000 One with another we are.
00:27:54.000 Moving together, we are one.
00:27:56.000 In such a large and diverse city, says the New York Times, it is no surprise that the craft is fairly accessible, if you know where to look.
00:28:02.000 Nearly 80 covens and pagan organizations operate in the New York metropolitan area, according to the pagan networking site, The Witch's Voice.
00:28:10.000 Which sounds quite awesome.
00:28:12.000 Nationally, about 734,000 Americans identify as pagan or Wiccan, according to a 2014 Pew Research survey, which is fewer than the number of people who listen to this show daily.
00:28:22.000 So it's not exactly like a burgeoning mass movement all across the country.
00:28:27.000 Apparently 10,000 witches live in practice in New York.
00:28:30.000 I don't know what it means to practice witchcraft.
00:28:33.000 I guess that you, like, do you ride a broom?
00:28:35.000 In any case, this sort of thing is not, I think, good for association with the Me Too movement, but radicalism always tends to draw a bunch of people who are the most enthusiastic.
00:28:47.000 And we're seeing it in our politics as well.
00:28:50.000 So we're seeing with the MeToo movement, as some of its leaders are some of the most morally questionable and radical people, even though the MeToo movement has some underlying good points to make, we're seeing it also with regard to our politics, where the most radical people from both sides are tending to hijack movements that actually have some credibility to them.
00:29:04.000 So on the right, you have people like Kelly Ward.
00:29:06.000 Kelly Ward is running in a primary in Arizona right now against Martha McSally.
00:29:09.000 Martha McSally is a much better candidate.
00:29:12.000 She's a representative from Arizona, former Air Force
00:29:16.000 Colonel, I believe, who is the first woman to fly in combat, if I'm not mistaken.
00:29:20.000 Her record is pretty sterling, Martha McSally.
00:29:23.000 She's running against Kelly Ward, who is kind of a nutcase.
00:29:26.000 And Kelly Ward is running around touring with Mike Cernovich, a guy who's most famous for promoting Pizzagate.
00:29:31.000 She was on MSNBC, and she's promoting her candidacy by saying that she doesn't know who Mike Cernovich's audience is, but she wants to appeal to them also.
00:29:38.000 It's very easy for radicals to get a lot of attention, and Kelly Ward is getting a lot of attention, specifically because folks on the left have an interest in elevating her, and also because radicals, again, are some of the most outspoken and loud and entertaining people in America.
00:29:50.000 I mean, Mike Cernovich has an audience that we want to reach, and that includes Republicans, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, people of all ilks.
00:30:01.000 And so if he's coming on the bus tour, I think that he'll have a voice and he'll have something that he wants to say.
00:30:06.000 Meanwhile, on the left, what you're seeing is the complete seduction of the Democratic Party into hardcore actual socialism, even though they won't actually define their terms.
00:30:13.000 There's an interesting column by Elizabeth Brudig, who is the in-house socialist over at the Washington Post.
00:30:19.000 The irony, of course, is that I couldn't access this column without actually
00:30:22.000 Paying for the paywall, even though it's about the glories of socialism, so that's too bad.
00:30:26.000 But we'll get to that in just one second.
00:30:28.000 First, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
00:30:30.000 For $9.99 a month, you get a subscription to Daily Wire.
00:30:32.000 When you do, you get the rest of this show live, you get the rest of the Andrew Klavan show live, you get the rest of the Michael Knowles show live, if that's something you're interested in or into.
00:30:39.000 Also, for $99 a year, you get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
00:30:45.000 Go check it out right now.
00:30:46.000 You will live it.
00:30:47.000 You will love it.
00:30:48.000 And it replenishes daily.
00:30:49.000 So go check that out right now.
00:30:51.000 When you subscribe at YouTube or iTunes, you also get access to our Sunday special.
00:30:54.000 Last week, we had on Greg Gutfeld.
00:30:55.000 This week, we're having on someone similarly interesting.
00:30:58.000 I don't know who it is yet, but it will be someone great.
00:30:59.000 I promise.
00:31:00.000 So go check that out right now.
00:31:01.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
00:31:09.000 So as I say, every major movement in the United States right now is in danger of being taken over by radicals because radicals are the most motivated part of any base.
00:31:17.000 I've talked about the process of renormalization before on the show.
00:31:21.000 It's a term that was used by the guy who wrote Skin in the game, Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
00:31:27.000 The basic idea is this.
00:31:29.000 Big groups tend to surrender to small groups of very motivated people.
00:31:33.000 That's just the way life works.
00:31:34.000 If you are a family and one daughter is vegan, very soon you will all be eating vegan because mom or dad does not want to bother with actually making two separate dinners for everybody, one meat and one vegan.
00:31:43.000 Instead, everybody will just eat vegan and suddenly the whole family is vegan.
00:31:46.000 And then when that family goes to a party and the whole family is vegan, the entire party becomes vegan because it's a lot easier and cheaper, the transaction cost of having to
00:31:54.000 Cook two meals is higher than the transaction cost of just going along with the most radical people in any part of the base.
00:32:01.000 You want to satisfy the base because the base is the loudest and the most polarized.
00:32:05.000 So you see this with regard to the Me Too movement, where every accusation has to be taken with equal seriousness, no matter how stupid, no matter how unjust, which is bad for the Me Too movement because it undermines the credibility of the Me Too movement.
00:32:16.000 You've seen it.
00:32:17.000 With regard to the right, where a lot of folks who should not be given credibility have been given credibility because they are the most motivated.
00:32:23.000 And you're now seeing it on the part of the left, where democratic socialists are taking over the mainstream Democratic Party because the Democratic Party wants to cater to its most motivated base, the people who go out and knock on doors.
00:32:33.000 So Elizabeth Bruning, who is the in-house socialist over at the Washington Post, her husband, Matt Bruning, they're both nice people I've talked to, at least Matt.
00:32:39.000 He seems like a nice guy.
00:32:40.000 Both of them are socialists.
00:32:41.000 Nat runs something called the Public Policy Institute, which is a 501c3 pushing socialism, but not really socialism, kind of pushing Nordic socialism, which is not quite the same thing.
00:32:50.000 Well, Elizabeth Bruning has a column today about why it's time to reclaim socialism from the dirty word category.
00:32:56.000 The problem for her is that she actually doesn't
00:33:00.000 want to define what socialism is, because socialism is inherently radical.
00:33:04.000 You can define socialism however you want.
00:33:07.000 Some people define socialism as stuff I like from the Nordic countries, and some people define it as getting rid of the profit motive, which is how the democratic socialists of America do.
00:33:15.000 The goal of socialists is to pretend they are not what they are, which is radical.
00:33:18.000 So here's Elizabeth Bruning's column, and you'll see how she's sort of obfuscating the terminology she's using in order to cover for her own radical agenda.
00:33:25.000 So here's what she says.
00:33:26.000 A Gallup poll this month found that Democrats are warming up to the idea of socialism.
00:33:29.000 Or at least to the word.
00:33:31.000 Well, 57% of Democrats polled said they view socialism positively.
00:33:35.000 Only 47% said the same of capitalism, down from 56% in 2016.
00:33:39.000 Republicans, meanwhile, remain pretty enthusiastic about capitalism, with 71% rating it positively.
00:33:44.000 Still, 16% of GOP voters said they even view socialism through a friendly lens, which raises the question, when Americans say they view socialism one way or the other, what exactly do they have in mind?
00:33:54.000 The United States doesn't have a familiar established socialist history to look to for guidance on what socialism might mean in this country.
00:34:00.000 That's not actually true.
00:34:00.000 There was a socialist workers movement led by Eugene Debs in the early 20th century that actually became relatively popular.
00:34:06.000 And that's because it was full-scale nationalization of industry.
00:34:09.000 Socialism generally means that the government runs the economy.
00:34:11.000 It is centralized planning.
00:34:12.000 It is central planning from the top of the economy up to and including full-scale nationalization of resources without regard to profit motive.
00:34:19.000 That would be sort of the usual mechanism by which socialism runs.
00:34:22.000 What the left has tended to do is redefine socialism as capitalism with some socialist redistributionist policies on top.
00:34:30.000 What's weird about that is, take, for example, John Rockefeller.
00:34:33.000 So the Rockefeller family earned an enormous, enormous amount of money in capitalism.
00:34:37.000 Then they gave an enormous amount of money to charity.
00:34:39.000 Were they capitalists or socialists?
00:34:41.000 I would say they were capitalists who gave to charity.
00:34:43.000 Perhaps, if you are going to say that charitable giving forced by the government is socialism,
00:34:48.000 What you would say is that the Rockefellers were actually socialists, because they used capitalism in order to create this enormous amount of wealth, and then they redistributed the wealth.
00:34:55.000 What that really is, is the growth engine is capitalism, and the redistributive mechanism is socialism.
00:35:00.000 And this is why breaking down each particular policy is sort of important, so we can determine whether a policy is good.
00:35:05.000 But calling entire countries socialist or capitalist, unless you're talking about Cuba, which is entirely socialist,
00:35:11.000 Makes very little sense.
00:35:12.000 But that's not where Brooding goes.
00:35:13.000 What she does instead is she refuses to define the term.
00:35:15.000 She says the United States doesn't have a familiar established socialist history to look to for guidance on what socialism might mean in this country.
00:35:22.000 But that doesn't mean socialism is hopelessly nebulous or that Americans who are interested in the idea are wandering dabblers.
00:35:27.000 It just means that socialism, like any sophisticated term, warrants thoughtful consideration.
00:35:32.000 Socialism has meant different things to different people in different times and places, while maintaining a stable core of themes and objectives.
00:35:37.000 Social, as opposed to private control of the means of production.
00:35:40.000 Okay, now she's talking about nationalization, you would think.
00:35:42.000 And of all the societal, humanitarian, and political economic changes that entails, especially where freedom and autonomy of working people are concerned.
00:35:49.000 Again, this is extraordinarily vague, because if you say, does that mean nationalization?
00:35:52.000 She'll say, well, maybe.
00:35:54.000 And then if you said, well, does that mean that workers are supposed to take over the factory?
00:35:57.000 She'd say, well, maybe, but it's not specific enough for us to actually dig down.
00:36:02.000 So what she's doing is smart because she's attempting to guise her radicalism in this sort of vague incrementalism.
00:36:08.000 She says, the term itself, socialism, came into being in the early decades of the 19th century, and like any good word, inspired a great deal of imagination.
00:36:15.000 For the non-Marxian English socialists of the 1840s, socialism mainly meant opposition to the competitive, dehumanizing effect of liberal economies, local experiments with communitarianism and cooperatives, and demands for the privileges of freedom, autonomy, and participation in government to extend to the lower classes.
00:36:30.000 None of which you would actually define as socialism per se, because if you and your family decide to get together and do a co-op, that's not quite socialism if it's private.
00:36:38.000 It's just, meanwhile, Marxian socialism focused on the conditions of production.
00:36:42.000 Who owns what, the relationships between wage earners and owners, and how stuff gets made in a society, and the kind of politics these conditions produce.
00:36:49.000 Even when socialism was a relatively new term, in other words, its exact meaning was disputed.
00:36:54.000 And what Bruning is basically going to do here is obscure that there is such a thing as socialism.
00:36:59.000 Instead, what she's going to do is just claim that all the stuff she likes is socialism, and all the stuff she doesn't like is not socialism.
00:37:05.000 Which is a smart way of sort of ushering socialism into the mainstream, but it's also a dishonest way.
00:37:10.000 And I'll explain more in just one second.
00:37:13.000 So Bruning continues, she talks about, now, as in the 19th century, confusion about what socialism means is stoked by political interest in clouding the issue.
00:37:21.000 As Eric Levitz notes in New York Magazine, conservatives tend to oscillate between arguing that successful countries such as Finland, Norway, and Denmark, generally regarded as socialist, are actually as capitalist as the United States, and claiming, as Fox Business Network's Trish Regan recently did, that socialism has made these countries stagnant and stultifying.
00:37:37.000 Well, no, both are actually true.
00:37:39.000 All of those Scandinavian countries are based on a foundation of capitalism.
00:37:42.000 There is no question that what earns the profits in Finland, Norway and Denmark is not their socialist means of production.
00:37:47.000 It is profit-seeking incentives.
00:37:49.000 That is what has created all growth curve in Scandinavian countries for as long as human history, because socialism has never created serious growth in any country.
00:37:58.000 State-sponsored capitalism is merely the state using capitalistic profit-seeking methods in order to subsidize particular industries, which creates growth in those industries but sucks growth out of other industries.
00:38:08.000 But socialism is the idea that the profit motive doesn't matter and we ought to redistribute all resources.
00:38:13.000 Again, obscuring the terminology is an easy way of preventing people from understanding what socialism means.
00:38:19.000 I like that Elizabeth Bernie concludes this way.
00:38:21.000 At the heart of the Democratic Socialist vision, finally she gets to her definition.
00:38:44.000 All of that.
00:38:44.000 Here is her definition of socialism.
00:39:04.000 Now you have to hide it, but this is really what's going on, which is working Americans deserve a say in how the country's vast wealth will be used.
00:39:11.000 It's not the country's vast wealth.
00:39:12.000 It is wealth earned by individuals who are working hard and playing by the rules and employing other individuals.
00:39:18.000 By treating all wealth as a collective is the way that you actually get to gulags.
00:39:22.000 The direct line between the country owns all the wealth and the gulags is actually relatively short.
00:39:28.000 Because working Americans deserve a say in how the country's vast wealth will be used.
00:39:31.000 And that will be possible only when inequality is reduced, corporate and big money donors are banished from politics, and lawmakers are truly accountable to the people.
00:39:38.000 It's not so much to ask, but democratic socialists are the only one asking.
00:39:42.000 Which, of course, is not true when you talk about corporate and big money donors being banished from politics.
00:39:47.000 I assume she's not talking about the Washington Post, which is a giant corporation involved in politics.
00:39:52.000 All the time.
00:39:52.000 I assume she's not talking about her husband's Public Policy Institute, which is deeply involved in taking large donations, I assume, from donors who then wish to promulgate a political agenda.
00:40:01.000 And when she says lawmakers being truly accountable to the people, it seems to me that the Tea Party was asking for exactly the same thing.
00:40:07.000 So the socialists play this double game, just like radicals often do, of pretending that they are not radical, but then at the end stripping away all of this in favor of their radicalism.
00:40:16.000 This is why it's important to identify, I think, that there is a common center to the country still.
00:40:21.000 There's still a group of people in the country who wish to have intelligent conversation about actual terminology, but that can only happen when we get down to the actual root of the issue.
00:40:29.000 So, if we want to have a discussion about Me Too, then it can't all be about Harvey Weinstein and Asia Argento.
00:40:36.000 Instead, it's got to be about what social standards we wish to purvey when it comes to sex and sexuality.
00:40:41.000 We can have an honest conversation about what conservatism looks like, but that cannot be a conversation about whether Mike Cernovich and his crowd are worth catering to.
00:40:50.000 We can have an honest conversation, even about the lengths to which we should redistribute resources in the United States.
00:40:57.000 I think very little.
00:40:57.000 There are a lot of people who think a lot more.
00:40:59.000 But we can't do that so long as people are obfuscating and hiding all this under the rubric of democratic socialism, because what they mean is being deliberately obscured.
00:41:08.000 The radicals are taking over a lot of areas of American life because they are the loudest and because they shout the loudest and because they get the most media attention and because both sides have an interest in highlighting the most radical people on the other side in order to clarify the distinctions between the sides.
00:41:22.000 But the only way we're going to have a common conversation is if we get down to the roots of actual terminology.
00:41:27.000 We're good to go.
00:41:43.000 That's foolish.
00:41:44.000 Conflation of good ideas with bad ideas or conflating ideas we can all agree about with radical ideas is the way that politics ends up becoming polarized and radicalized and then we have no common center for us to have a conversation anymore.
00:41:57.000 Okay, time for some things I like and then we'll get to some things that I hate.
00:42:00.000 So, things I like.
00:42:02.000 I'm recommending this book a little bit early.
00:42:03.000 It's a book by Oren Kass.
00:42:05.000 It doesn't come out, I believe, till November, but you can pre-order it right now.
00:42:07.000 It's called The Once and Future Worker.
00:42:09.000 Now, Oren Kass and I disagree on elements regarding free trade, for example.
00:42:13.000 He's a lot more trade restrictionist in certain ways.
00:42:15.000 He's still in favor of trade, but he's more trade restrictionist than I am in certain ways, although I think he might argue he's more free trade than I think he is.
00:42:22.000 He is a really good thinker over at the Manhattan Institute who talks about why it is that certain jobs in the United States, in the manufacturing base particularly, have been hollowed out.
00:42:31.000 His suggestion is that
00:42:32.000 It has something to do with technology, but it has more to do with the fact that we have made our business environment uncompetitive through environmental regulation in certain areas and through union contracts as governed by the National Labor Relations Act.
00:42:45.000 He makes a case for actual adoption of certain European styles with regard to, for example, unions and education.
00:42:50.000 And this is the part that's really fascinating.
00:42:52.000 There are good conversations to be had about why there is less income inequality in certain areas of Europe.
00:42:58.000 Or why education is better in Sweden than it is in the United States.
00:43:01.000 No one wants to have those actual conversations.
00:43:03.000 Instead, we all want to do bumper sticker stuff about why Sweden is spending so much of its GDP on government redistributionism.
00:43:09.000 Why not instead look at what they're actually doing with regard to education?
00:43:13.000 So in Sweden, everybody is tracked.
00:43:15.000 So, for example, in the United States, there are no tracks, right?
00:43:17.000 We all go to the same classes, and then we get to decide whether to go to college, and everybody has the opportunity to go to college.
00:43:22.000 In Sweden, in Israel, in a lot of other countries, what they do is, by the time you're in eighth grade, you're basically deciding, is this a person who's ready for college, or is this person not ready to go to college?
00:43:32.000 If they're not ready for college, we get them an apprenticeship program, where they actually are learning practical skills for a job they're going to do.
00:43:37.000 Now,
00:43:38.000 He can move between tracks.
00:43:39.000 You're not stuck there forever.
00:43:40.000 It's not like we just trap you in there.
00:43:42.000 But you actually have to achieve to move from one track to another.
00:43:44.000 And you also have to seriously think about whether everybody is fit for college.
00:43:48.000 In the United States, the model seems to be if you don't go to NYU for any reason, then you are going to be poor.
00:43:54.000 And that's foolish.
00:43:55.000 That's foolish.
00:43:55.000 It would be better off if a lot of the folks who are not going to college... The college attendance rates, by the way, have been pretty stable in the United States for a fair bit of time.
00:44:03.000 And that's because there are a lot of people who just aren't ready for college and instead ought to be prepped for a job.
00:44:07.000 Orrin Kass talks about a lot of these sort of policy solutions that nobody wants to talk about.
00:44:10.000 The book is well worth reading.
00:44:11.000 It's The Once and Future Worker.
00:44:13.000 Go check it out right now.
00:44:14.000 It's a sophisticated take on a lot of deep policy issues and worth checking out.
00:44:18.000 Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
00:44:24.000 So as I mentioned earlier, Alyssa, there are a lot of people on the left who are deep believers that character is the defining issue in politics, except when it comes to people on their own side.
00:44:36.000 And this means that they are going to be as radical as they want to be.
00:44:39.000 So Alyssa Milano tweeted this out over the weekend.
00:44:42.000 She tweeted out a picture of herself in what looks like a Little Red Riding Hood costume.
00:44:46.000 It's like she couldn't even afford to go get the full Handmaid's Tale costume, so she went out and she got like a little Red Riding Hood costume, and she put it on, and then she tweeted out, holding a sign that says, never Kavanaugh, never Gilead, because Justice Kavanaugh, a Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, would apparently usher in the era in which women were just essentially birth mothers who were raped at will, because that's what Justice Kavanaugh's all about.
00:45:09.000 I mean, if you hadn't noticed, that's clearly his deal.
00:45:11.000 And she tweeted out, hashtag riseupforRoe, hashtag wearenotproperty, hashtag stopKavanaugh.
00:45:17.000 The character assassination is pretty astonishing and somewhat hilarious, but demonstrative of how people on the left really want to see their political opponents.
00:45:27.000 People on the right do the same thing with regards to their political opponents, too.
00:45:30.000 Everybody is a demon, everybody is a devil.
00:45:32.000 But I think right now the level of demonization on the left of the right is a lot higher than the demonization of the right.
00:45:39.000 Of the right to the left.
00:45:40.000 So anyway, she's not the only one.
00:45:42.000 Bill Maher over the weekend, he says that President Trump, he's obviously a Russian asset.
00:45:46.000 It's not that President Trump is a doofus.
00:45:48.000 It's not that President Trump, I mean, I asked Bill Maher this on his program.
00:45:51.000 Is Trump a doofus or is he an evil genius?
00:45:54.000 And Maher's answer was he's Hitler, which was a weird answer.
00:45:56.000 But Bill Maher is now saying it is obvious that President Trump is a Russian asset.
00:45:59.000 This sort of character assassination is dishonest.
00:46:02.000 It's somewhat effective in making the radical base more pumped up.
00:46:06.000 If pumping up the radical base is all politics is going to become, all common conversation goes away.
00:46:10.000 Here's Maher pumping up the radical base.
00:46:13.000 I'm sorry, but it's super obvious already.
00:46:15.000 He is a Russian asset.
00:46:17.000 This has been going on since the 80s.
00:46:19.000 They were targeting for this.
00:46:21.000 And Bob Mueller's report is just going to be what this movie and this book is.
00:46:25.000 Yes.
00:46:25.000 Well, you hope so.
00:46:26.000 With even more it is.
00:46:27.000 It's going to be foolproof.
00:46:30.000 OK, so that's the great hope is that Trump will be ousted by the Mueller report and the left sees Mueller sweeping in.
00:46:36.000 And none of this is good for American politics.
00:46:38.000 This is why the president would be well served to sort of go silent on Mueller stuff until what happens actually happens.
00:46:44.000 But that's not the
00:46:45.000 That's where politics is moving.
00:46:46.000 This is the deeply disturbing part about our politics.
00:46:48.000 The radicals are getting louder.
00:46:49.000 The people who want to have honest conversations and actually drill down into terminology are being obscured by folks who don't want to have conversation.
00:46:56.000 They just want to rile up their own base because every election is now about base politics.
00:47:00.000 The media are taking a part in this.
00:47:02.000 The worst story of the weekend from the media was this.
00:47:04.000 The media freaked out over a guy named Joel Aronallara, 36, who was detained at a gas station in San Bernardino.
00:47:10.000 Where he and his wife were on their way to the hospital for her C-section.
00:47:13.000 He reportedly had been living in the United States illegally for 12 years.
00:47:17.000 And the entire media went nuts.
00:47:18.000 How dare this happen?
00:47:20.000 Kyle Griffin.
00:47:21.000 There's a reporter, I believe, over at NBC.
00:47:23.000 He said, ICE detained a man while he was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.
00:47:26.000 He was taken when they stopped for gas.
00:47:28.000 And they quoted his wife saying, my husband needs to be here.
00:47:30.000 He had to wait for his son for so long.
00:47:32.000 And someone just took him away.
00:47:34.000 Daniel Dale, who is a writer for, I believe, the Toronto Star, he says the same thing, right?
00:47:41.000 Oh, it's so awful.
00:47:42.000 How dare ICE detain these people?
00:47:43.000 Representative Joe Kennedy said, there's heartless and then there's whatever the hell this is.
00:47:47.000 I mean, the Kennedy family should know about Heartless.
00:47:49.000 Leaving a woman to die in an air bubble at the top of a car is not exactly showing a lot of heart.
00:47:53.000 But the entire media go nuts over all of this.
00:47:55.000 There is only one problem with this story.
00:47:58.000 It turns out the guy who was arrested was arrested because he's suspected of murder.
00:48:02.000 There's an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Mexico on homicide charges.
00:48:06.000 So, this isn't, they just decided to pick up a guy who's an illegal immigrant at a gas station while he's driving his wife to the hospital for a c-section.
00:48:13.000 The guy is legitimately a suspected homicide perpetrator.
00:48:19.000 So, well done, media.
00:48:20.000 Again, driving politics to its best, I think, possible course.
00:48:25.000 Okay, time for a Federalist paper.
00:48:26.000 So, getting back to the foundations of the country and the philosophy that has supported it,
00:48:30.000 We go through a Federalist paper every week.
00:48:32.000 This week's Federalist paper is Federalist 42.
00:48:34.000 This is the second most cited Federalist paper in all of court jurisprudence, I believe, after Federalist 78, which we will eventually get to.
00:48:40.000 James Madison wrote this one.
00:48:42.000 He talks about the powers of the federal government, including the power to control foreign policy and treaties, and why the federal government ought to have these powers.
00:48:49.000 There's one particular section that is worth reading, and that is the section in which James Madison talks about
00:48:54.000 The Constitution and its designs towards slavery.
00:48:57.000 So one of the great lies that has been perpetrated by the political left in the United States for a long time is that the Constitution was designed to enshrine slavery.
00:49:04.000 The Constitution was designed to gradually kill slavery.
00:49:07.000 Here is James Madison describing it.
00:49:09.000 This isn't just me saying this, this is James Madison writing at the time.
00:49:12.000 It were doubtless to be wished that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that had been suffered to have immediate operation.
00:49:21.000 And he's saying, I would rather if we had just gotten rid of the importation of slaves like now.
00:49:25.000 But it is not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general government or for the matter in which the whole clause is expressed.
00:49:31.000 It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of 20 years may terminate forever within these states a traffic which has so long and so loudly uprated the barbarism of modern policy.
00:49:42.000 That within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government and may be totally abolished by a concurrence of the few states which constitute the unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union.
00:49:54.000 Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren.
00:50:01.000 The idea that Madison is espousing here is he thought, and a lot of the founders did, that slavery would go away a lot earlier than it actually ended up going away.
00:50:08.000 Instead, the South clung to slavery for decades longer than, you know, was not only morally decent, but even politically necessary, and that led to the Civil War.
00:50:17.000 But if the idea was that the Constitution of the United States was intended to protect slavery, that is simply not true.
00:50:21.000 It is simply not true.
00:50:22.000 It was a compromise position adopted in order to pass the Constitution, but
00:50:26.000 The reason we got to that compromise is because most people in the United States, because the North was more heavily populated, most of the people in the United States were already in favor of getting rid of slavery as early as the adoption of the Constitution, in all likelihood.
00:50:39.000 And that was certainly true in places like New York, which is where the Federalist Papers were originally published.
00:50:44.000 The paper also discusses the uniform power of preventing internal tariffs, the power to control citizenship, talks about why the government, the federal government, has to have the power over all of these.
00:50:51.000 But that section about slavery is telling and is a good rejoinder to all these folks who say that the Founding Fathers were simply attempting to enshrine slavery because they loved it so much, which is not true.
00:51:01.000 James Madison, by the way, was a Southerner, right?
00:51:02.000 He's from Virginia.
00:51:03.000 All right, so we'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
00:51:05.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:51:06.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:51:11.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
00:51:17.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
00:51:21.000 Edited by Alex Zingaro.
00:51:23.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
00:51:24.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
00:51:26.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.
00:51:29.000 Copyright Ford Publishing 2018.