The Ben Shapiro Show


Ep. 281 - Susan Rice Is Under Serious Fire -- And She Should Be


Summary

ESPN has a new policy that encourages more political talk from commentators, and it s a good thing, because without it, their ratings are going to continue to tank. Plus, we talk about the Susan Rice scandal, and why it s important. And we have an exciting show lined up for you today featuring F.H. Buckley, who says that Donald Trump should pursue nationalized health care. Plus we have to get to all the latest on the latest in the Syria situation, including the news that Steve Bannon is no longer on the National Security Council. All that and much more on this episode of The Ben Shapiro Show with Ben Shapiro! Subscribe to Ben Shapiro's new show, "The Ben Shapiro File," wherever you get your shows, wherever you re listening to your favorite podcast. Subscribe and comment to stay up to date with the latest Ben Shapiro news and discuss all things Ben Shapiro and his other projects. Thanks to our sponsor, VaynerMedia! Subscribe, comment, and share the show with your friends and family! Learn more about your ad choices. Become a supporter of the show: bit.ly/support-and-subscribe to our new sponsor, to get 10% off your first month with discount code: PODCASTLEPRODUCER! to receive 20% off for the entire month, plus free shipping and free shipping throughout the rest of the year, plus a FREE 7-month VIP membership offer, plus an ad-free version of the entire year, including VIP & VIP membership, and a free of the podcast, plus 2-membership offer! and VIP membership and VIP memberships to the VIP membership plan! in-locals get 20% OFF for two months, plus VIP access to VIP access, plus full-service worldwide, plus the choice of VIP pricing, and full-choice of VIP membership worldwide, and an additional 2 VIP membership only to VIP pricing and VIP discount, and VIP pricing throughout the U.S. Watch this offer, and get exclusive VIP membership starting at $50/locals worldwide. to watch the show? and access to the entire world gets $40/month, plus they get $4/locations worldwide, plus a 2-place nationwide, and 2-choice options, and 7-country pro-choice, and they get VIP access and VIP access gets $16/choice gets $19/choice, plus all other places offer


Transcript

00:00:00.000 On Tuesday morning, ESPN, which has been in a losing battle to keep its subscribers, issued a new set of guidelines, recognizing the connection between sports and politics.
00:00:08.000 ESPN public editor Jim Brady acknowledged the oddity of releasing those guidelines after a presidential election, but he said, quote, we are living in unique political times, which explains the revised guidelines for discussion of political and social issues.
00:00:20.000 According to ESPN Vice President Craig Benston, he said that Trump's election was the essential factor behind the new guidelines.
00:00:26.000 The first part of the guideline is a recommitment to objective journalism.
00:00:33.000 Of course, that's not going to help much.
00:00:39.000 CNN believes the same thing, and their reporting is slanted heavily to the left.
00:00:43.000 The left's version of objectivity says that a story, once decided upon, must not be overtly political.
00:00:49.000 But this ignores selection bias, which decides which stories are important to cover in the first place.
00:00:53.000 ESPN's heavy focus on Caitlyn Jenner, for example, pushes a political agenda through selection bias as well as political bias.
00:00:59.000 ESPN does make two more important changes to their policy.
00:01:02.000 First, they say that hard news reporters and editors at the company should not make any public statements in any forum that would reveal their political biases.
00:01:09.000 That's absurd.
00:01:10.000 It doesn't solve the problem of political bias in reporting itself.
00:01:13.000 But the most important change is the encouragement of
00:01:16.000 More political talk from commentators.
00:01:18.000 Quote,
00:01:36.000 In other words, talk politics, so long as it's leftist.
00:01:39.000 Mike Ditka lost his job for speaking in favor of Donald Trump and against Barack Obama on NFL Countdown.
00:01:43.000 Curt Schilling was ousted for the great sin of comparing radical Islam to Nazism.
00:01:47.000 Chris Broussard was slammed by management for expressing his religious view of homosexuality.
00:01:51.000 Brady himself has stated in the past, quote,
00:02:07.000 ESPN's far leftism has certainly alienated me.
00:02:10.000 I used to watch ESPN religiously.
00:02:12.000 Now I can't even bear to watch it for more than 15 minutes at a stretch since it's impossible to escape the leftist propagandizing.
00:02:18.000 That's not going to change under the new rules.
00:02:19.000 Let's see ESPN hire some conservatives and let them talk, rather than ousting them the moment they disagree with the prevailing leftist orthodoxy.
00:02:26.000 Then we can talk about a freer discourse.
00:02:27.000 Until then, ESPN should shut up about politics altogether or risk watching its ratings continue to tank and subscribers continue to cut the cord.
00:02:34.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:02:35.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:02:40.000 We have an exciting show lined up for you today.
00:02:42.000 In just a few minutes, we're going to be having on F.H.
00:02:44.000 Buckley.
00:02:44.000 F.H.
00:02:45.000 Buckley is a professor over at George Mason University School of Law, and he has a new column out in which he says that Donald Trump should pursue nationalized health care.
00:02:53.000 So we'll be talking to him about that.
00:02:55.000 Plus, we have to get to all of the developments in Syria.
00:02:58.000 We have to get to the fact that Steve Bannon is no longer on the National Security Council.
00:03:01.000 He has been
00:03:02.000 All right.
00:03:20.000 We're good.
00:03:37.000 We're good to go.
00:04:04.000 We're good.
00:04:18.000 I think so.
00:04:35.000 The media continued to insist that there's nothing going on with the Susan Rice scandal.
00:04:39.000 So yesterday, because I was stuck at the airport all day, we couldn't actually do the show yesterday, but I do want to talk about the Susan Rice scandal and why it's important.
00:04:48.000 So here is the reason that the Susan Rice scandal is important.
00:04:52.000 It's important for three reasons.
00:04:54.000 So to back up, what we found out over the weekend and a little bit on Monday was that basically
00:05:01.000 Susan Rice, who is the National Security Advisor under President Obama, had been requesting what they call unmasked intelligence reports, unmasked raw intelligence from the intelligence community.
00:05:10.000 In other words, there was a paragraph that would come in and it would say, Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak was talking to U.S.
00:05:16.000 Person 1 and said blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
00:05:19.000 And so she would say, okay, who is U.S.
00:05:20.000 Person 1?
00:05:21.000 I want to know the name of that person.
00:05:22.000 Well, if there is no illegal nefarious activity at play, then it really shouldn't matter who US Person 1 was, but she was specifically asking for any time there was a Trump administration official, a Trump campaign official rather, and then after his election, a Trump transition official, she was asking that all those people be unmasked.
00:05:38.000 Apparently she had a database, an Excel spreadsheet, in which she was keeping all the information about the various members of the Trump transition team and Trump campaign who had talked to foreign actors, even though there was no accusation, no evidence of wrongdoing, which is targeting.
00:05:51.000 It is targeting.
00:05:52.000 Now,
00:05:52.000 It's not wiretapping because, again, this is all the stuff that the intelligence community was picking up in incidental collections, so I want to be very careful about how we discuss this so that we are factual.
00:06:01.000 It is Susan Rice sort of spying on the Trump administration in the sense that she is using a Trump filter to go through all of the information that's being gathered by the intel community, but that's not the same thing as like in the lives of others where the government says, I want you to go spy on this person.
00:06:15.000 Yeah, it's not what's going on here.
00:06:17.000 At no point did Susan Rice say, I want the intelligence community to go and tap Trump's phone, for example.
00:06:22.000 She said, if Trump's name comes up in the communications, unmask him.
00:06:24.000 Now, the reason that's a problem, it's legal to do that.
00:06:27.000 The reason it's a problem, it's an abuse of power.
00:06:28.000 If you're just keeping tabs on your political opponents so you know their next move, or you're just keeping tabs on your political opponent so that you can presumably leak it out to the press, which is what happened with Mike Flynn, the national security advisor who followed Susan Rice,
00:06:42.000 If that's your purpose, then that is nefarious.
00:06:44.000 It may not be illegal.
00:06:45.000 The leaks are illegal.
00:06:46.000 The unmasking may not be illegal.
00:06:47.000 But if you unmask, and then tons of people have access to all this information, and then it leaks, that's at least partially your fault.
00:06:53.000 So it is clear at this point that the Obama administration did target the Trump team.
00:06:57.000 They didn't target them with specific wiretaps, but they did target them in reviewing the information.
00:07:02.000 They were looking at it through the lens of, what are the Trump people saying, and can we use that in any way?
00:07:08.000 As the Wall Street Journal editorial board said, Ms.
00:07:10.000 Rice would have no need, no obvious need to unmask Trump campaign officials other than political curiosity.
00:07:17.000 Also worth noting, Rice lied.
00:07:18.000 So Rice was specifically asked about whether she knew about any intelligence gathered on Trump, and she said she didn't know anything about any of the intelligence.
00:07:28.000 We're good to go.
00:07:52.000 But she's got nothing and the Obama team has nothing and so they've got a problem on their hands because basically they were monitoring Trump and they came up with nothing.
00:08:00.000 So Susan Rice was on television yesterday and she came out and she denied that she unmasked the Trump team.
00:08:07.000 Did you seek the names of people involved in, to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the Trump campaign, people surrounding the President-elect, in order to spy on them, in order to expose them?
00:08:22.000 Absolutely not for any political purposes to spy, expose anything.
00:08:26.000 Did you leak the name of Mike Flynn?
00:08:28.000 I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have and never would.
00:08:31.000 But let me explain this.
00:08:35.000 First of all,
00:08:36.000 Andrea, to talk about the contents of a classified report, to talk about the individuals on the foreign side who were the targets of the report itself, or any Americans who may have been collected upon incidentally, is to disclose classified information.
00:08:53.000 I'm not going to do that.
00:08:54.000 The allegation... Will you stop it right there?
00:08:55.000 The idea that Susan Rice would never disclose classified information.
00:08:58.000 This administration was the leakiest administration until now.
00:09:01.000 I mean, it was a super leaky administration, the Obama administration, that continuously leaked American and Israeli national security information.
00:09:08.000 They leaked national security information at an increasingly high rate as the years went on in order to push a political agenda.
00:09:14.000 The idea that nobody in the Obama administration would leak is silly.
00:09:18.000 Also, I like how Susan Rice may be telling the truth here, but
00:09:21.000 I like when she says, I didn't look at any of this for political purposes.
00:09:25.000 OK, how do you define a political purpose?
00:09:27.000 So maybe she didn't leak it.
00:09:28.000 Maybe she's telling the truth.
00:09:29.000 But there's no way that it wasn't for a political purpose.
00:09:32.000 I mean, obviously, if you come up with no evidence and you're just keeping tabs on people who are coming up in the incidental surveillance and you're just asking for every update on Trump, why would you do that if it didn't have a political purpose?
00:09:44.000 Really unclear.
00:09:45.000 Rand Paul is right.
00:09:46.000 He says that we need to call Susan Rice and she needs to testify under oath.
00:09:50.000 The facts will come out with Susan Rice, but I think she ought to be under subpoena.
00:09:53.000 She should be asked, did you talk to the president about it?
00:09:57.000 Did President Obama know about this?
00:09:59.000 And he is exactly right.
00:10:00.000 Meanwhile, the media are downplaying this.
00:10:02.000 So here's the question.
00:10:03.000 Why are the media downplaying this?
00:10:04.000 You can see a selection bias on TV, right?
00:10:06.000 Selection bias exists on every network.
00:10:08.000 So CNN is now being sued on diversity grounds, I guess, and they're not covering it.
00:10:13.000 Fox News is in trouble with Bill O'Reilly because there are all these new allegations about sexual harassment by Bill O'Reilly.
00:10:19.000 They're not covering that.
00:10:20.000 Basically, a lot of the networks don't cover stuff that they don't want to cover if it doesn't help them.
00:10:24.000 So, Fox News, of course, is all up on this Susan Rice stuff, but they have not been particularly up on any of the Paul Manafort stuff.
00:10:32.000 Meanwhile, the folks on CNN are over the moon about the Paul Manafort stuff, former Trump campaign manager.
00:10:36.000 They're all over the moon about that, but they have nothing to say whatsoever when it comes to the Susan Rice stuff.
00:10:41.000 Now, two things can be true simultaneously.
00:10:43.000 It can be true that there were a bunch of people related to the Trump campaign who were suspiciously close to Russia.
00:10:49.000 It can also be true, by the way, that
00:10:50.000 There's no proof of collusion.
00:10:51.000 And it can also be true that Susan Rice was inappropriately using the power of government in order to keep tabs on her political opponents.
00:10:58.000 But look how the media treat this.
00:10:59.000 They treat this, they immediately dismiss the scandal.
00:11:01.000 Then they wonder why people think there's media bias.
00:11:03.000 Don Lemon, here's Don Lemon basically dismissing this out of hand.
00:11:08.000 Uh, clip four.
00:11:11.000 The Washington Post today calls the latest claims about Susan Rice, anatomy of a fake scandal ginned up by right-wing media and Trump.
00:11:18.000 So let us be very clear about this.
00:11:20.000 There is no evidence whatsoever that the Trump team surveilled or spied on illegally.
00:11:27.000 There is no evidence that backs up the president's original claim.
00:11:30.000 And on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the American people, by creating
00:11:41.000 A diversion.
00:11:42.000 Not gonna do it.
00:11:43.000 Diversion from what?
00:11:45.000 It's a news story!
00:11:46.000 Diversion from what?
00:11:47.000 From Trump-Russia?
00:11:48.000 I mean, I understand that CNN has to devote 27 hours out of every 24 to Trump and Russia, at least when they're not covering Malaysian airliner 360 or whatever that Malaysian airliner was that Donald Trump thought was eaten by a black hole.
00:11:59.000 But this is ridiculous.
00:12:00.000 Chris Cuomo on CNN, the block of wood masquerading as a human anchor.
00:12:04.000 Here's what he had to say.
00:12:05.000 He wants you to believe he is the victim of a crooked scheme.
00:12:09.000 Those are his words.
00:12:10.000 And here are our words.
00:12:12.000 There is no evidence of any wrongdoing.
00:12:16.000 And in fact, if anything, the NSA asking for identities was a reflection of exactly how much traffic there was involving Trump people and foreign players.
00:12:26.000 The White House blasting the press for not reporting on another fake scandal.
00:12:31.000 Okay, just insane.
00:12:38.000 Okay, so he says that the reason that Susan Rice is keeping tabs is because there was so much traffic, so he turns it back against Trump that it's nefarious, but again, no proof that anything nefarious went on.
00:12:47.000 Again, demonstrating
00:12:49.000 That the media have a particular agenda on all of this, and that agenda is to get Trump.
00:12:53.000 It is not to tell the truth.
00:12:55.000 We want to stop here for a second before we bring on F.H.
00:12:57.000 Buckley, Professor Buckley from the George Mason School of Law, the Scalia School of Law.
00:13:04.000 I want to thank our new endorsers over at ProFlowers.
00:13:08.000 So I've used ProFlowers for years.
00:13:09.000 Whenever I'm out of town, I send my wife flowers from wherever I am, and the way that I do that is I go to proflowers.com.
00:13:16.000 They are always fresh.
00:13:17.000 They are always great.
00:13:18.000 They always last for seven days.
00:13:20.000 It's a guaranteed fresh for seven days of your money back.
00:13:22.000 They have a seven-step quality check.
00:13:23.000 The flowers are always beautiful.
00:13:25.000 If something breaks, they replace it.
00:13:26.000 I've actually had that issue, and Proflowers has done that for me.
00:13:29.000 Right now, ProFlowers has a special offer just for our listeners.
00:13:31.000 You get $10 off your purchase of $29 or more, so a $29 purchase becomes a $19 purchase, thanks to ProFlowers.
00:13:38.000 It is a great service.
00:13:40.000 If you want to make your significant other happy, you want to make your wife happy, you want to make your mom happy, this is the way to do it.
00:13:46.000 There's nothing that people appreciate more than Flowers.
00:13:49.000 As I say, I travel a lot, and when I'm out of town, I always make sure to send my wife Flowers so she knows that I'm thinking about her, and I've been using for years.
00:13:55.000 Long before they were a sponsor, I was using ProFlowers.com because they are the best.
00:13:59.000 We're good to go.
00:14:21.000 You're a month and a half late for Valentine's Day because you're a crappy boyfriend.
00:14:24.000 Whatever it is, proflowers.com is the place to get it.
00:14:27.000 As I've said, there's a reason that I've used them for years.
00:14:29.000 They have the 100 blooms bouquet and a dozen red roses.
00:14:31.000 They also have totally unique, specialized plant gifts.
00:14:34.000 It's just a great service and you should definitely use it.
00:14:36.000 Again, use the promo code BENSHOW at checkout to let them know that we sent you and also so that you get that terrific discount.
00:14:45.000 Okay, so, do we have Professor Buckley on the line?
00:14:47.000 Okay, terrific.
00:14:49.000 Joining us now on The Ben Shapiro Show is Professor F.H.
00:14:51.000 Buckley.
00:14:52.000 He teaches at the Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
00:14:55.000 His most recent book is The Way Back, Restoring the Promise of America, and we're having Professor Buckley on because he has a new column in which he suggests that President Trump should actually pursue single-payer health care.
00:15:05.000 Professor Buckley, thanks so much for joining The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:15:09.000 Well, thanks for having me.
00:15:10.000 So let's jump right in.
00:15:11.000 So you wrote in this column that President Trump should basically ignore repealing Obamacare.
00:15:18.000 He should instead focus on the imposition of single-payer health care.
00:15:22.000 And you try to justify that on conservative grounds, which is odd because single-payer isn't really conservative.
00:15:27.000 You write that Trump said that he wanted a plan that would leave no one uninsured.
00:15:30.000 The simplest way to do this is universal health care on the Canadian model.
00:15:34.000 I actually agree that that's what Trump was promising when he said that he wanted to make sure that no one was uninsured, but he also promised hundreds of times on the campaign trail to repeal Obamacare.
00:15:45.000 Do you think that those two were in conflict?
00:15:47.000 Was he fibbing to his base or what?
00:15:50.000 I don't know if they're in conflict or not, but whether, that's a matter of verbiage, but let's just talk about whether or not something like the Canadian single-payer plan makes sense, and I think it does.
00:16:00.000 And I think it does because it, I think, would appeal to most American voters as well.
00:16:06.000 All those countries ahead of us on measures of economic freedom have something like single-payer.
00:16:11.000 So if one's worried about economic liberty in America, as one should be, it's not about single-payer.
00:16:17.000 It's about a whole bunch of other things that tend to get ignored.
00:16:19.000 Okay, so I agree with you that there are a lot of other things that tend to get ignored, but to say that single-payer healthcare is not an imposition on American freedom is just not true.
00:16:26.000 It creates massive bureaucracies.
00:16:28.000 It creates rationing, as it does in Canada.
00:16:31.000 I think that the best framework for thinking about this is that, as Dan McLaughlin in National Review said, you can have affordability, universality, and quality.
00:16:39.000 You can have two out of those three.
00:16:40.000 You can't have all three.
00:16:41.000 And universal healthcare, unless it's inordinately expensive, is not going to be particularly great quality.
00:16:46.000 But, you know, instead of arguing over the merits of universal healthcare,
00:16:49.000 Well, one way of measuring quality is to ask whether or not people are satisfied with what they get.
00:16:52.000 Americans are quite dissatisfied with what they get.
00:16:53.000 The country whose citizens are most satisfied with what they get is, in fact, Canada.
00:17:12.000 I don't know.
00:17:29.000 I don't want to hit him while he's off the air here, but the fact is that measures of satisfaction are not a particularly good measure of whether a system is good or not.
00:17:37.000 Americans are highly satisfied with Medicaid, and there are no improved health outcomes from Medicaid.
00:17:41.000 But, Professor Buckley, I didn't want to hit you while you were off the air there, but I would just argue that the measure of satisfaction is not, in my view, a good one, because virtually everyone is satisfied with welfare systems.
00:17:52.000 It's very rare that people are dissatisfied with stuff that they think they're getting for free.
00:17:56.000 Yeah.
00:17:56.000 Well, another question to ask is, is there any movement in any of these countries to get rid of what they have?
00:18:03.000 You turn to some of the most conservative politicians around, the people in Stephen Harper's cabinet, for example, in Canada.
00:18:08.000 They wouldn't want to touch it at all.
00:18:10.000 What they would want to do is tweak it with respect to things like wait times.
00:18:14.000 You can make that better.
00:18:15.000 There are a lot of things you can do to make it better.
00:18:16.000 It's a very different kind of playing field now than it was when these things were introduced.
00:18:21.000 But in general, I think what I'm arguing against is a certain libertarian view that entitlements are the problem, and entitlements, you know what that is?
00:18:29.000 That's ordinary Americans, that's regular Americans.
00:18:32.000 It's services provided by the government, and in fact, Americans would not be satisfied with anything less than all people are covered.
00:18:41.000 I think that, you know, you cast kind of a libertarian streak as something that is out of line here.
00:18:48.000 But again, you know, I think that that's a more traditionally American view, traditionally conservative view.
00:18:53.000 So do you think it's conservative?
00:18:54.000 Let me ask you this.
00:18:54.000 Do you care about the term conservative at all when it comes to President Trump?
00:18:57.000 Because you wrote in August 2016 that President Trump was more conservative
00:19:00.000 We're good to go.
00:19:16.000 I totally agree with all of that.
00:19:18.000 But if you're talking about wasteful laws that seem impossible to repeal, adding new entitlements are the definition of that.
00:19:22.000 And if you're talking about a regulatory state on steroids, then a massive new entitlement that regulates how people obtain their health care is the definition of a regulatory state on steroids.
00:19:31.000 Well, in fact, you've got all of that with respect to the present system.
00:19:35.000 You have that with respect to
00:19:38.000 Medicaid, Medicare, and so on.
00:19:41.000 You also have a really perverse incentive with respect to employers who are obliged to carry insurance.
00:19:48.000 That makes them non-competitive with respect to companies in, say, Canada, which don't have that kind of burden.
00:19:53.000 So not only is it good for Americans to have something like this, but it's also a jobs creation plan.
00:19:58.000 It's really win-win.
00:19:59.000 So I have a question.
00:20:01.000 Don't get hung up on what us would have to do to shrink the state.
00:20:06.000 Well, I mean, considering that that is the vast majority of the budget, is these massive entitlement programs, it's very difficult to say that should be cut.
00:20:15.000 Unfortunately, I think we lost Professor Buckley there.
00:20:18.000 Not much we could do, bad connection.
00:20:20.000 But my big question to Professor Buckley is basically,
00:20:24.000 I understand that people want Trump to remain in power, but if they think the Democrats are going to work with Trump, and they think that socialized healthcare is conservative, then why not just become a Democrat?
00:20:31.000 I mean, if the point is just we're going to create a new economic nationalism that involves adopting every socialist position, then why not just do it outright?
00:20:39.000 And that is the big question, I think, that remains.
00:20:42.000 Okay, so, in other news, we'll get to—I have a bunch of other news that I want to discuss here.
00:20:47.000 For that, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com.
00:20:49.000 We're going to be talking about this amazing Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad.
00:20:53.000 We're going to be talking about what's going on in Syria.
00:20:55.000 We're going to be talking about Bannon's ouster.
00:20:56.000 So Bannon has just been basically ousted from the National Security Council.
00:21:00.000 I'll explain why that happened, what that means, and why that's a good thing.
00:21:03.000 We're good to go.
00:21:22.000 Thing.
00:21:23.000 Reasons to Vote Democrat.
00:21:24.000 A comprehensive guide.
00:21:26.000 It is a massive bestseller and it is a great gag gift that you can give to your friends.
00:21:30.000 So go and check that out over at dailywire.com or listen later to iTunes or SoundCloud for the rest of the show.
00:21:36.000 We are the largest conservative podcast in the nation.