The Ben Shapiro Show - The Spy Who Hated Me | Ep. 543

00:00:00.000 President Trump sicks the DOJ and the FBI.

00:00:02.000 Leftists cry foul.

00:00:04.000 And did the Pope just actually shift Catholic policy on homosexuality?

00:00:06.000 We'll talk about all of it.

00:00:07.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:08.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:14.000 Oh, yes, and I am so happy to be back.

00:00:16.000 I had a wonderful three-day weekend because it was the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, which meant that I was barred from electronics and couldn't travel and all that, which meant I got to spend time with my family and read, which are my two favorite things in the world.

00:00:27.000 So I'm in a very good mood.

00:00:28.000 And then I checked the news last night and I'm in less of a good mood.

00:00:32.000 So we'll talk about why I'm in less of a good mood.

00:00:34.000 After checking all of the news last night.

00:00:37.000 I do want to remind everybody, by the way, that we do have upcoming events happening in Dallas and Phoenix.

00:00:41.000 Those are coming up in August, and you can go to dailywire.com slash events if you want to get tickets for that.

00:00:46.000 We're nearly sold out, I believe, in both places.

00:00:48.000 We're approaching sellout proportions, certainly, in both places right now.

00:00:51.000 It's only been open to the general public for a couple of days here, so you got to rush to get those tickets in right now.

00:00:56.000 Dallas and Phoenix coming up in August.

00:00:58.000 Check it out at dailywire.com slash events.

00:01:00.000 Also,

00:01:00.000 I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Birch Gold.

00:01:03.000 So, right now the economy is doing really well.

00:01:05.000 The dollar is quite strong, but that means in some cases that the only place to go is down, which is one of the reasons that you at least want to hedge your bets with some precious metals.

00:01:13.000 I'm not saying take all your money out of the stock market and start buying gold and storing it in your attic.

00:01:17.000 What I am saying is that if you haven't hedged any of your bets with precious metals, you're making somewhat of a mistake.

00:01:22.000 And this is why you should talk to my friends

00:01:23.000 Over at Birchgold Group.

00:01:24.000 They have a long-standing track record of continued success with thousands of satisfied clients, countless five-star reviews, and an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.

00:01:31.000 Right now, you can contact Birchgold to request a free information kit on physical precious metals.

00:01:36.000 The comprehensive 16-page kit reveals how gold and silver can protect your savings, how you can legally move your IRA or 401k out of stocks and bonds and into a precious metals IRA if so you choose.

00:01:45.000 To get that no-cost, no-obligation kit, all you have to do is go to birchgold.com slash ben.

00:01:49.000 That is birchgold.com slash ben again.

00:01:52.000 You owe it to yourself to have at least a little bit of your money in precious metals to protect against inflation, to protect against all the sorts of volatility in the market, to protect against foreign policy shocks and all the rest.

00:02:02.000 Birchgold.com slash Ben gets you your information.

00:02:04.000 Once you've asked all your information and you've gotten all of your information, then you can think about investing.

00:02:08.000 Go to Birchgold.com slash Ben.

00:02:10.000 Those are the folks that I trust.

00:02:11.000 Alrighty, so.

00:02:13.000 The big news, of course, is this blow up between President Trump and the FBI.

00:02:17.000 So President Trump over the weekend tweeted out that the FBI had been surveilling his campaign during the campaign based on stories that broke late last week from the New York Times that there was an informant who'd been working within the Trump campaign to bring information about supposed collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.

00:02:35.000 And Trump pointed back to his tweet early in 2016 in which he said that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower.

00:02:40.000 Trump himself was not wiretapped to Trump Tower.

00:02:42.000 However, he did allege that he was surveilled during the campaign.

00:02:45.000 It's not clear that Trump personally was surveilled during the campaign, but there were members of his campaign who were surveilled during the campaign.

00:02:50.000 So the reason that I want to clarify all of this is because what you're hearing from both left and right, I think, are overbroad versions of the stories that are actually worth telling.

00:02:58.000 So from the right, what you're hearing is there was a deep

00:03:00.000 Okay, we'll go through the evidence for that and demonstrate what's true about that and what is not true about that.

00:03:05.000 What you're hearing from the left is Trump obviously colluded with Russia.

00:03:21.000 The members of the Trump team were in bed with Vladimir Putin and Putin was actually calling the shots from the Kremlin.

00:03:27.000 And he was deciding how exactly Trump should campaign.

00:03:30.000 He was deciding how the campaign would go.

00:03:32.000 So everything was totally above board by the FBI.

00:03:35.000 OK, so we're going to go through all of the evidence here and we're going to discuss what is real and what is not.

00:03:40.000 Here is what happened over the last 24 hours.

00:03:42.000 So according to The New York Times.

00:03:45.000 White House Chief of Staff John Kelly plans to convene a meeting between top law enforcement and intelligence officials and GOP congressional leaders to quote-unquote review highly classified and other information the lawmakers have requested about the FBI's use of a confidential source to aid an investigation of the Trump campaign, a White House spokeswoman said Monday.

00:04:04.000 President Trump met for an hour Monday with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.

00:04:12.000 The meeting came a day after the DOJ asked its Inspector General to investigate Trump's claim that his campaign may have been infiltrated by the FBI source for political purposes and amid continued demands from GOP lawmakers that the department produce materials on the person.

00:04:25.000 White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that at a meeting, it was agreed that White House Chief of Staff Kelly will immediately set up a meeting with other FBI, DOJ, and DNI together with congressional leaders to review highly classified and other information they have requested.

00:04:38.000 The significance of that was not immediately clear.

00:04:40.000 DOJ leaders have fought vigorously against revealing to Congress materials on the source.

00:04:43.000 They say that if they reveal who the informant was, that will leak to the press.

00:04:46.000 The press basically has already come up with who the informant was.

00:04:49.000 It has not been fully confirmed yet, so I'm not going to mention the name of the informant on the show.

00:04:54.000 It's pretty obvious who this informant was through basic Google searches.

00:04:57.000 You can get the person's name.

00:04:58.000 It was not clear whether they had backed down from their position and would now allow GOP leaders to look at the documents or whether there would simply be a follow-up meeting for more discussion.

00:05:06.000 So, according to Republicans, there have been two big boo-boos.

00:05:09.000 And these two big boo-boos demonstrate ill will toward the Trump campaign and demonstrate that the Obama-run FBI was actually attempting to get Trump all the way back during the Republican primaries.

00:05:19.000 So these two boo-boos supposedly were the use of an informant to go after George Papadopoulos and to go after Carter Page, two Trump foreign policy aides. 0.97

00:05:28.000 Papadopoulos had met in, I believe, April in London with a Russian cutout who was a professor in London who had close ties with the Russians and who had suggested that the Russian government could get information about Hillary Clinton's emails to the Trump campaign.

00:05:42.000 Papadopoulos had run that up the chain.

00:05:44.000 Nothing had happened because of it, but Papadopoulos

00:05:47.000 Obviously, he was apparently bragging about it in front of the Australian ambassador.

00:05:50.000 The Australian ambassador called the FBI.

00:05:52.000 The FBI decided to put an informant on Papadopoulos.

00:05:54.000 It's sort of how the timeline there goes.

00:05:56.000 The implication here by Republicans is that all of that was useless, not only useless, counterproductive, not only counterproductive, politically motivated.

00:06:03.000 That if Papadopoulos had been working for Hillary Clinton, nobody would have even attempted such a thing.

00:06:07.000 Okay, that is claim number one.

00:06:09.000 Claim number two is that the Carter Page FISA Warrant, which was gotten late in the years, like September 2016, the Carter Page FISA Warrant was ill-gotten.

00:06:17.000 That it was gotten on the basis of the Steele dossier.

00:06:19.000 Now, you recall the Steele dossier, I know this all gets complicated, but I'm trying to break it down.

00:06:22.000 The Steele dossier, as you recall, was originally a dossier funded by the Washington Free Beacon that was supposed to uncover OPPO research about President Trump.

00:06:32.000 The Washington Free Beacon was working through a firm called Fusion GPS.

00:06:35.000 Before Christopher Steele, a British spy, signed on, the Washington Free Beacon dropped all of this and they said, we're not interested in doing this anymore.

00:06:43.000 And so the Fusion GPS group went and got Hillary Clinton's campaign to fund it.

00:06:47.000 At that point, Christopher Steele, who's a British spy, signed on and provided all of this information about Trump.

00:06:52.000 Some of it surely false.

00:06:54.000 Some of it likely false.

00:06:55.000 Some of it may be true about Trump and Russia.

00:06:59.000 Okay, and Christopher Steele's dossier was supposedly used as the basis for the FISA warrants against Carter Page.

00:07:03.000 Now, Carter Page had been, again, a low-level foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign since 2013.

00:07:08.000 Carter Page had been in the eye of the intelligence community.

00:07:11.000 People in the intelligence community were afraid that maybe he was a Russian spy.

00:07:15.000 He'd been going around basically soliciting money from the Russians, apparently, allegedly, and so they looked at this and they said, okay, well, let's get

00:07:22.000 We're good.

00:07:41.000 That's right.

00:07:59.000 President Trump calls the DOJ on the carpet and he says, guys, I need you to investigate what is going on with the FBI.

00:08:05.000 You need to tell me what's going on.

00:08:06.000 Were they in fact targeting me?

00:08:08.000 Now, the New York Times, of course, has the New York Times has suggested that even by Trump going to his own DOJ and asking for an investigation, that this is obstruction.

00:08:17.000 Nonsense.

00:08:18.000 The President of the United States has plenary power over the executive branch.

00:08:21.000 The executive branch includes the FBI and the DOJ.

00:08:24.000 If the President of the United States wants to meet with his DOJ in order for them to investigate something, he certainly can do that.

00:08:30.000 What he can't do, maybe, is tell them what outcome to come up with in an investigation.

00:08:34.000 So he can actually tell the DOJ to drop an investigation, that is within his legal power.

00:08:38.000 He can also

00:08:39.000 Fire people from inside the DOJ.

00:08:40.000 He could fire James Comey at the FBI.

00:08:42.000 All of that is within his legal power.

00:08:44.000 What could look like obstruction of justice, criminal obstruction of justice, is if President Trump were to come forward and to say something like, I know that you're about to find me guilty of obstruction or you're about to indict me on obstruction.

00:08:55.000 I order you to clear me on obstruction instead.

00:08:57.000 That he cannot do, but anything else he can pretty much do.

00:09:00.000 So the New York Times is whining about this.

00:09:02.000 Charlie Savage of the New York Times says,

00:09:17.000 Okay, well, yeah, not so much.

00:09:20.000 It was pretty obvious from the outset of the Hillary investigation that Barack Obama was never going to allow the DOJ to actually prosecute Hillary Clinton.

00:09:27.000 He said that he wasn't going to interfere, Loretta Lynch said she wasn't going to interfere, and then she was meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton in the middle of the investigation.

00:09:34.000 Barack Obama was going on national television saying he didn't see any evidence that Hillary ought to be indicted.

00:09:38.000 None of this spoke to the independence of the DOJ.

00:09:41.000 Eric Holder was calling Barack Obama, he was saying that he was Barack Obama's wingman.

00:09:46.000 During his actual service as Attorney General on the DOJ.

00:09:49.000 So the idea that the DOJ is a completely independent agency has no basis in law or fact.

00:09:53.000 Nonetheless, the New York Times says that Trump is doing something unprecedented.

00:09:57.000 Rebecca Roife is a professor at New York Law School who helped write a coming scholarly article on the limits of presidential control over the Justice Department. 0.98

00:10:04.000 She says it's an incredible historical moment.

00:10:06.000 Mr. Trump's move is the culmination of a lot of moments in which he has chipped away at prosecutorial independence.

00:10:11.000 But this is a direct assault.

00:10:13.000 It is not a direct assault.

00:10:14.000 There's nothing new about the President calling the DOJ in and saying, I want you to investigate X, Y, or Z. He is allowed to do that.

00:10:20.000 It is an executive branch agency.

00:10:21.000 It is not an independent agency.

00:10:23.000 The U.S.

00:10:23.000 government does not have independent agencies.

00:10:25.000 There are agencies that are under the legislative auspices, there are agencies that are under the judicial auspices, and there are agencies that are under the executive auspices.

00:10:33.000 The DOJ is a constitutional position filled by the President of the United States.

00:10:37.000 He has complete power over the DOJ.

00:10:40.000 Nonetheless, the New York Times is very upset about this.

00:10:42.000 They say,

00:10:59.000 As part of that pattern, he has also denied the account by James Comey, an FBI director he abruptly fired, that the president privately urged him to drop an investigation into Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security advisor.

00:11:09.000 Now, here it is important to recognize a distinction.

00:11:12.000 Trump is not telling anybody to drop the Mueller investigation.

00:11:15.000 He is not telling Rod Rosenstein to actually fire James Comey.

00:11:18.000 I mean, to actually fire Robert Mueller.

00:11:20.000 He's not telling anybody to shut down the SDNY investigation into Michael Cohen.

00:11:24.000 He's saying, open an additional investigation into something I find corrupt.

00:11:28.000 This is utterly and completely within his power.

00:11:31.000 He is allowed to do this.

00:11:32.000 There's no question he is allowed to do this.

00:11:33.000 So it is not obstruction for Trump to meet with his own Department of Justice.

00:11:37.000 So that's number one.

00:11:38.000 Number two, it's not obstruction for Trump to actually order the DOJ to investigate the FBI's 2016 conduct.

00:11:44.000 This is not the same investigation, as I say, as the Mueller investigation.

00:11:47.000 He's not interfering in that.

00:11:48.000 He's not interfering into the SDNY investigation, into Michael Cohen, the Southern District of New York investigation, into his personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

00:11:55.000 Okay, so for all the talk about this is Trump muddying the waters, interfering, doing something.

00:12:01.000 No.

00:12:01.000 Okay, all of this is perfectly allowed.

00:12:03.000 Now, I will tell you where I think that

00:12:05.000 My feelings about the kind of conservative narrative here are different than you might hear from some other conservative commentators.

00:12:11.000 But first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at FilterBuy.

00:12:14.000 So, when's the last time you checked the filters in your central air system?

00:12:17.000 I know, sexy, right?

00:12:18.000 You go home, you kick off your shoes, and you're dreaming about those filters in your central air system.

00:12:23.000 Well, the reality is you haven't thought about the filters in your central air system for the last 15 years, which means you are now breathing gunk.

00:12:28.000 You have not thought about those filters.

00:12:29.000 And when you open up those filters, you will see that they are filled with dust and yuck.

00:12:34.000 And that is why you need to go over to FilterBuy.

00:12:36.000 You're not only aggravating your health, you might actually be destroying your HVAC system, leading to thousands of bucks in repairs.

00:12:41.000 So stop procrastinating and visit my friends over at FilterBuy.

00:12:44.000 America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.

00:12:47.000 They carry over 600 different filter sizes, even custom ones, all shipped for free within 24 hours plus.

00:12:52.000 They are manufactured right here in the United States.

00:12:55.000 FilterBuy offers a multitude of MERV options all the way up to hospital grade.

00:12:58.000 Check your system specifications so you can pick the right option, maximize efficiency, and elevate the quality of the air that you breathe.

00:13:04.000 You can set up auto delivery as well so you don't have to think about air filters ever again.

00:13:07.000 You never have to

00:13:08.000 So, again, it is within Trump's purview to talk to the DOJ about this.

00:13:10.000 It's within Trump's purview to launch an investigation.

00:13:12.000 And, in fact,

00:13:37.000 I'm not saying there's no grounds to launch the investigation.

00:13:40.000 It's possible there are grounds.

00:13:41.000 Another former Trump campaign aide named Michael Caputo, he came forward, he said that another informant approached me.

00:13:46.000 So he's saying that there was one, the reports are there was one informant that approached Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.

00:13:54.000 Now they're saying there's a second informant that approached Michael Caputo during the campaign.

00:14:00.000 Let me tell you something that I know for a fact.

00:14:02.000 This informant, this person that they tried to plant into the campaign and even into the administration, if you believe Axios, he's not the only person that came at the campaign.

00:14:12.000 And the FBI is not the only Obama agency that came at the campaign.

00:14:16.000 I know because they came at me.

00:14:18.000 And I'm looking for clearance from my attorney to reveal this to the public.

00:14:22.000 This is just the beginning.

00:14:24.000 Okay, so if it turns out that pretty much everyone in the Trump campaign, whether or not they were involved in suspicious contact, was being targeted by informants, then it starts to look a lot more like the conspiracy theory is true.

00:14:33.000 That the Obama FBI was targeting the Trump campaign in the very early stages.

00:14:37.000 Mike Pence is saying that Trump is very grateful the DOJ is looking into surveillance.

00:14:41.000 Makes sense.

00:14:43.000 The President, I think, is grateful that the Department of Justice is going to have the Inspector General look into it and determine and ensure that there was no surveillance done for political purposes against our campaign.

00:14:58.000 I think it would be very troubling to millions of Americans if that took place, but we're very confident.

00:15:04.000 Now if there was, in fact, a politically motivated attempt to take out the Trump campaign by the Obama FBI, that is, in fact, worse than Watergate.

00:15:11.000 Remember, the Watergate scandal involved members of the Nixon campaign

00:15:29.000 Not the government.

00:15:29.000 Members of the Nixon campaign who broke into the Watergate Hotel in an attempt to bug George McGovern's campaign in 1972.

00:15:38.000 And then there was a subsequent cover-up.

00:15:40.000 What we're talking about here is the use of American government officials

00:15:44.000 to go into the Trump campaign and destroy the Trump campaign.

00:15:47.000 So it's significantly worse than Watergate are the accusations that are being made right now.

00:15:51.000 And it's no wonder that so many top Republican officials who suspect that this is the case are very upset over it.

00:15:57.000 And there would be prosecutions over it and people would go to jail over it.

00:16:00.000 Hey, so, Devin Nunes, as I say, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, he comes forward, he says, listen, there's a red line here, okay?

00:16:07.000 If the DOJ or the FBI funded a spy inside the Trump campaign, then what we're talking about is certainly an area where people would have to go to jail.

00:16:15.000 We don't have any documents.

00:16:16.000 We can't confirm whether there's an informant or not an informant because we've never been told nor given documents.

00:16:21.000 And in fact, we've never even asked for the name of any informants or any sources whatsoever.

00:16:27.000 If any of that is true, if they ran a spy ring or an informant ring and they were paying people within the Trump campaign, if any of that is true, that is an absolute red line.

00:16:40.000 Okay, and these are like really serious accusations.

00:16:43.000 We're not talking about the full politicization of our law enforcement agencies in a serious way.

00:16:47.000 Jonathan Turley, who's a lawyer at George Washington University, he says, look, Trump was pretty right when he said that he was surveilled.

00:16:53.000 What I think is being a case of willful blindness here is that we have confirmation that Trump apparently was correct when he said over a year ago that he had people in his campaign that were under surveillance.

00:17:06.000 It turns out that it was much broader than we thought, even though people like Clapper and others in the Obama administration denied it.

00:17:13.000 It does appear to be a surveillance program.

00:17:15.000 It does appear to be an investigation.

00:17:17.000 So that means that the serious question here is, even if the FBI was putting informants into the Trump campaign, the question is, was the investigation legit from the beginning?

00:17:25.000 This is really the key question.

00:17:27.000 The key question is not whether the FBI put an informant against somebody in the Trump campaign.

00:17:31.000 The question is, was that justified?

00:17:33.000 Now here is the case that it was justified.

00:17:35.000 Okay, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

00:17:37.000 Here is the case that it was justified.

00:17:40.000 I think that this is not a terrible case.

00:17:42.000 The case that it was justified is that George Papadopoulos, again, met with a Russian cutout in London and then bragged about meeting with the Russian cutout in London to the Australian ambassador.

00:17:50.000 That would be suspicious.

00:17:51.000 If that had happened inside Hillary Clinton's campaign, Republicans would have wanted the FBI to investigate. 0.98

00:17:56.000 Donald Trump Jr.

00:17:57.000 had a meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian cutout who was promising information about Hillary Clinton.

00:18:01.000 If that had been Chelsea Clinton meeting at the Clinton Foundation with a Russian proxy saying they had information about Trump, you would want that investigated.

00:18:08.000 Carter Page had a long-standing relationship with the Russian government, apparently.

00:18:11.000 Paul Manafort had a long-standing relationship with the Russian government.

00:18:14.000 Michael Flynn, the incoming National Security Advisor, had been paid by Russia Today, which is a Russian propaganda outlet, and it sat next to Vladimir Putin.

00:18:22.000 If any of this had happened under Barack Obama or under Hillary Clinton, people on the right would have said that this deserved to be investigated.

00:18:28.000 So that becomes the question.

00:18:29.000 The question was, did the FBI have decent grounds for looking into this stuff?

00:18:33.000 Because the question is not whether they used an informant.

00:18:36.000 Police use informants all the time, and they use informants knowing that people are not guilty, or at least suspecting that they might not be guilty.

00:18:43.000 People use informants to gather information.

00:18:47.000 When the police launch an investigation into someone, they don't know the person's guilty yet, but they have to investigate.

00:18:50.000 That's what investigations are for.

00:18:52.000 That's why they investigate.

00:18:53.000 If you knew somebody was guilty, no investigation is necessary.

00:18:56.000 But the key question is the one Alan Dershowitz is asking.

00:18:58.000 Was the investigation legit from the beginning, or was this a politically motivated hit put out on the Trump campaign?

00:19:05.000 I want to know what the evidence was.

00:19:07.000 No judge has found probable cause.

00:19:09.000 I think the American public has to be assured that there was a basis.

00:19:12.000 It's not enough for Jeffrey Toobin to say there was collusion already at that time.

00:19:17.000 I want to know what the facts were that justify that.

00:19:20.000 And here is the bottom line in all of this.

00:19:22.000 And here's why I'm suspicious of the conservative narrative that this was a giant conspiracy.

00:19:26.000 There are two inconvenient facts that make me suspicious that this was not a giant collusion, a giant conspiracy between members of the FBI and the Obama DOJ to get Trump.

00:19:35.000 Okay, piece of evidence number one.

00:19:37.000 None of this stuff broke during the campaign.

00:19:39.000 If you are actually going to target President Trump's campaign, why not break this stuff during the campaign?

00:19:45.000 Why not break that there were meetings between Trump officials and low-level Russian officials?

00:19:49.000 Why not break the Donald Trump Jr.

00:19:51.000 meeting?

00:19:51.000 Why not let any of this stuff leak?

00:19:53.000 The FBI knew about it.

00:19:54.000 If this were all a conspiracy to take down Trump, why didn't break?

00:19:57.000 Piece of evidence number two I think is even more damning for the for the conservative case.

00:20:01.000 President Trump, as I say, has plenary power over the executive branch.

00:20:05.000 He has the ability to declassify any and all of this.

00:20:09.000 He can declassify the Carter Page warrant, the FISA warrant.

00:20:12.000 He can declassify it right now, today, and we can find out whether it was trumped up or whether there was additional material in that FISA warrant.

00:20:19.000 We can know that, like now.

00:20:21.000 President Trump can declassify all of the materials from the FBI concerning this so-called informant.

00:20:27.000 The spy inside the campaign.

00:20:28.000 He can do that now.

00:20:29.000 Why isn't he doing that now?

00:20:31.000 I assume somebody has briefed him on the material.

00:20:33.000 I assume somebody has told him what's in it.

00:20:35.000 So if that's the case, why doesn't he just release it?

00:20:37.000 Why doesn't he just release it?

00:20:38.000 So in just a second, I'm going to explain why President Trump might not release it.

00:20:42.000 Maybe there's a decent explanation.

00:20:44.000 But we'll talk about that in just a second.

00:20:45.000 First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Bull and Branch.

00:20:49.000 Bullenbrand sheets.

00:20:50.000 These are the best sheets on the market.

00:20:52.000 I use them for my children, by the way.

00:20:53.000 Like, Bullenbrand sheets are so good.

00:20:54.000 It's not just for me and my wife.

00:20:55.000 I bought them for my kids as well.

00:20:57.000 My daughter loves her Bullenbrand sheets.

00:20:59.000 The ones that she was sleeping in, she didn't even realize how uncomfortable they were.

00:21:01.000 Now, she complains when we're not using Bullenbrand sheets on her bed.

00:21:05.000 We use Bullenbrand sheets on our bed as well because they are amazing.

00:21:08.000 They're made from 100% organic cotton.

00:21:10.000 They start out super soft and they get even softer over time.

00:21:12.000 Also, they are breathable.

00:21:12.000 Sometimes you sleep under sheets and it feels like you're just kind of trapped under the sheet.

00:21:16.000 Bull & Brand sheets, they're really breathable.

00:21:18.000 They're really comfortable.

00:21:19.000 It feels like you are... I can't describe how good they are until you actually try it yourself.

00:21:24.000 Well, the good news is you can try it yourself right now.

00:21:26.000 Shipping is free.

00:21:27.000 You can try them for 30 nights.

00:21:28.000 Okay, a luxury set of sheets can cost up to a thousand bucks in the store.

00:21:31.000 Bull & Brand sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks, so it's not going to cost you an arm and a leg.

00:21:35.000 Again, shipping is free, and you can try them for 30 nights.

00:21:38.000 And if you don't love them, send them back for a refund.

00:21:39.000 You're not going to want to send them back for a refund.

00:21:41.000 They are that good.

00:21:41.000 To get you started right now, my listeners, get $50 off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.

00:21:47.000 That's bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.

00:21:49.000 Go to bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben, for $50 off your first set of sheets.

00:21:53.000 Also use that promo code Ben so that they know that we sent you.

00:21:55.000 So, why isn't President Trump actually releasing these

00:22:00.000 Supporting documents.

00:22:01.000 Why doesn't he release the FISA warrant?

00:22:03.000 Why doesn't he release all the information surrounding what the FBI is doing?

00:22:06.000 A couple possible explanations.

00:22:07.000 He hasn't been fully briefed.

00:22:08.000 He suspects stuff.

00:22:09.000 He throws off half-cocked tweets.

00:22:11.000 And then people have to come in and backfill what he's talking about.

00:22:14.000 Very possible, because the president is not a guy who sits around and makes considered decisions.

00:22:18.000 Quite possible.

00:22:19.000 Second possibility is more cynical.

00:22:20.000 He knows what's in the documents.

00:22:22.000 He doesn't actually want them released in full, because if they're released in full, it undercuts his case that he has been targeted by the FBI and the Obama DOJ.

00:22:30.000 Possibility number three, he doesn't want to look like he's interfering too much in the system, and so instead he's going to call for an investigation by an inspector general.

00:22:37.000 The inspector general is independent of the Trump

00:22:41.000 The Trump White House.

00:22:42.000 And so the Inspector General is sort of a non-political appointee, not somebody appointed by President Trump, and that person can go through and do the full investigation.

00:22:49.000 Whatever it is, I assume eventually this information will come out and then we'll know whether or not this was a corrupt investigation into Trump or whether there were grounds for the investigation into Trump.

00:22:59.000 One thing is certainly true.

00:23:01.000 When the left cries foul, when the left suggests that Trump using the DOJ to investigate these issues, that that's completely illegitimate,

00:23:08.000 They have no grounds to stand on here.

00:23:09.000 So Adam Schiff was making this case.

00:23:11.000 He was saying that the congressman from California who lives, literally lives, at the media center near the White House and he's actually set up a pup tent there and every morning he gets up and he takes his thermos and he fills it with coffee and then he goes and gets a bowl of cereal then he sits right back down in the pup tent until he's called into the CNN or NBC briefing room.

00:23:28.000 So Schiff, he says this is a Saturday night massacre in slow motion.

00:23:31.000 Well, it certainly looks like a Saturday night massacre in slow motion.

00:23:36.000 We have seen the erosion of the independence of the Justice Department, which alarms me.

00:23:41.000 We saw it in the lifting of the gag rule on the witness in Uranium One.

00:23:45.000 We saw it in the acceleration of the investigation against Andrew McCabe so that he could be fired before his pension vested.

00:23:52.000 And now we see it in the president ordering an investigation of his own investigators.

00:23:57.000 OK, so no, no, it's not a set.

00:24:00.000 No one's being fired.

00:24:01.000 So if it's a slow motion Saturday Night Massacre, you actually have to massacre people and people actually have to get capped.

00:24:06.000 That's not happening here.

00:24:07.000 The Saturday Night Massacre, by the way, was a Watergate massacre.

00:24:10.000 Basically, what happened is that President Nixon wanted the Watergate investigation to end.

00:24:14.000 He ordered the special.

00:24:15.000 There was a special investigator named Archibald Cox.

00:24:17.000 He ordered his Attorney General to fire Archibald Cox.

00:24:19.000 The Attorney General refused to fire Archibald Cox, so he fired his Attorney General, replaced him with Robert Bork, who then fired Archibald Cox.

00:24:25.000 That's what the Saturday Night Massacre was.

00:24:26.000 None of that has happened here.

00:24:27.000 He has not fired Jeff Sessions.

00:24:28.000 He has not fired Rosenstein.

00:24:30.000 He has not fired any of these people.

00:24:32.000 So, none of that is in evidence at all.

00:24:34.000 Nonetheless, Democrats are very excited.

00:24:36.000 Democrats are hoping that Trump makes a big mistake here.

00:24:38.000 They are hoping that President Trump doesn't use the law enforcement methods at his disposal, that he just precipitously goes and fires a bunch of people inside his own administration and then they can claim that it was obstruction.

00:24:48.000 So here is a congressman named Eric Swalwell who says, maybe this will lead to impeachment.

00:24:52.000 We can hope, we can hope.

00:24:53.000 He's governing the wrong country.

00:24:55.000 He's obstructing an investigation into his campaign where he is potentially a suspect.

00:25:00.000 The consequences, of course, are removal from office.

00:25:04.000 We're not helpless here.

00:25:05.000 Okay, so yes, you are not going to be impeaching him, okay?

00:25:07.000 Like, this is all crazy talk, but I hope the Democrats continue to pursue the crazy talk, because it is indeed crazy.

00:25:12.000 Sally Yates, you'll recall, was an associate attorney.

00:25:16.000 She was the deputy attorney general, I believe.

00:25:19.000 The acting attorney general.

00:25:21.000 Uh, in the Russia investigation after Jeff Sessions recused himself and she was fired when she refused to defend President Trump's travel ban in court, which is not her job.

00:25:30.000 She's supposed to do the bidding of the president of the United States. 1.00

00:25:32.000 She does work for the DOJ.

00:25:34.000 Well, now she's on Morning Joe and she's claiming that the the DOJ has been corrupted by President Trump and she claims that Trump has taken his assaults to a new low.

00:25:44.000 But you know, I think what we're seeing here is the president has just taken his all-out assault on the rule of law to a new level.

00:25:51.000 And this time, he is ordering up an investigation of the investigators who are examining his own campaign.

00:25:59.000 Here's the great irony of what she's saying there.

00:26:01.000 So here's the great irony.

00:26:02.000 It's shocking.

00:26:02.000 It's terrible.

00:26:03.000 So let's get this straight.

00:26:04.000 We're supposed to trust the investigators of President Trump's campaign, but we're not supposed to trust the investigators of the investigators of President Trump's campaign because those investigators were run by President Trump while the first investigators were run by President Obama.

00:26:16.000 None of this washes. 0.98

00:26:17.000 Here's the bottom line.

00:26:18.000 I know this is the most unpopular stance you can take in political talk, but I'm going to make it right now.

00:26:23.000 We don't know what's going on.

00:26:25.000 There isn't enough evidence on any of this.

00:26:27.000 We don't know whether the conspiracy from the right is true.

00:26:30.000 We don't know whether the conspiracy from the left is true.

00:26:32.000 We don't know if any of that is true.

00:26:34.000 Here's what we do know.

00:26:35.000 We do know that there have been devastating leaks about this investigation from members of the so-called Deep State after President Trump was elected.

00:26:41.000 That's the part where I agree with the Republican conspiracy theory.

00:26:44.000 There I do think that there are members of the FBI, who are Obama holdovers, who are attempting to leak out information.

00:26:49.000 Members of the DOJ, who are Obama holdovers, who are attempting to leak out information.

00:26:53.000 Now, is it possible that the conspiracy theories about Trump's campaign being targeted by Obama are true?

00:26:59.000 It's possible.

00:26:59.000 I'm not going to say it's impossible because it's not impossible.

00:27:02.000 Am I suspicious that it is not true?

00:27:04.000 I am suspicious.

00:27:05.000 I don't think the evidence lines up in that direction at this point in time.

00:27:09.000 Is it also true that there was no Russian collusion?

00:27:11.000 Yes, I have seen no evidence that there was active Russian collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

00:27:16.000 So lots of things can be true at one time.

00:27:19.000 Lots of things can be true at one time.

00:27:21.000 One more twist that we need to add on this particular story, and that is there have been a bunch of stories lately regarding the possibility that the so-called Steele dossier, that dossier that I discussed earlier,

00:27:31.000 That was funded by Fusion GPS, which in turn was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

00:27:35.000 This would be the P-Tape dossier.

00:27:36.000 The reason that that was leaked to the press is it was leaked by James Clapper and members of Team Obama to the press.

00:27:42.000 Very, very possible.

00:27:43.000 Very possible that it was leaked to the press.

00:27:45.000 However, the going theory now is that there are a series of text messages and emails between top members of the Obama DOJ and the Obama FBI talking about the possibility that this dossier was going to be leaked.

00:27:56.000 And that this was all a setup because, in reality, what was happening is that CNN was waiting to leak the Steele dossier, to reveal the Steele dossier, until they had a news hook.

00:28:04.000 So James Comey went to the White House, informed President Trump, this became the news hook, and then CNN released the dossier.

00:28:10.000 Okay, that's possible.

00:28:11.000 It is also quite possible that CNN called up all of these top officials about the dossier, and they knew CNN was going to break the dossier, and so then they went and informed Trump.

00:28:19.000 Because if they had broken the dossier and Trump didn't know about the dossier, then Trump would have gotten mad at them.

00:28:23.000 In other words, there are a lot of possibilities out there.

00:28:25.000 We don't have the evidence for any of them that is strong enough yet to be all outraged about anything that has happened.

00:28:30.000 I'm not outraged that Trump is investigating it.

00:28:32.000 I'm not outraged about the FBI's conduct during the campaign yet, except with regard to Hillary Clinton, whom they should have indicted.

00:28:38.000 I'm not outraged about anything except for the FBI's conduct with regard to Hillary Clinton in 2016, which is outrageous, and the FBI's conduct after the election, the leaks that have been coming from the DOJ and the FBI after the election.

00:28:49.000 Everything else, I think, it's still up in the air.

00:28:52.000 It's still up in the air.

00:28:53.000 Okay.

00:28:53.000 Meanwhile, the fallout from this awful shooting in Texas continues.

00:28:57.000 Ten dead in this terrible shooting in which a 17-year-old junior at the high school walked into the Santa Fe High School.

00:29:04.000 I don't know.

00:29:26.000 You can still get general admission tickets, but those are selling out really quickly as well.

00:29:29.000 So you're going to want to do that right now.

00:29:31.000 Go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.

00:29:32.000 You get all of those added benefits.

00:29:33.000 Plus, if you get the annual subscription, you get this.

00:29:36.000 The very greatest and leftist here is hot or cold beverage vessels.

00:29:39.000 It is just fantastic.

00:29:40.000 $99 a year, a lot cheaper than the $9.99 a month.

00:29:43.000 Become an annual subscriber and join the club.

00:29:45.000 People ask us all the time, how can you help?

00:29:46.000 The way you can help is by subscribing.

00:29:48.000 It is indeed that simple.

00:29:49.000 Also,

00:29:50.000 You want to just check out the show later for free, go over to iTunes, go over to SoundCloud, YouTube.

00:29:53.000 Please leave us a review.

00:29:54.000 Please subscribe.

00:29:55.000 We always appreciate it.

00:29:56.000 And go over to Apple News and check out our daily wire content over at Apple News.

00:30:01.000 You will, I think, enjoy it.

00:30:03.000 Check that out.

00:30:03.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.

00:30:11.000 So speaking of this Texas shooting, 10 dead, 17-year-old junior walked into the school wearing a trench coat in 88-degree weather and was carrying a .38 pistol as well as a shotgun, I believe is the latest.

00:30:23.000 He got those guns from his dad.

00:30:25.000 It was legal for his dad to own the guns.

00:30:27.000 There's been some discussion over whether the dad should be held legally liable for allowing the son to get into the gun safe.

00:30:33.000 I think that's a little bit tough.

00:30:35.000 It's a little bit tough when the kid is 17 because you've taught your kids to use the guns, you want your kids to be able to know how to defend the house when you're not there.

00:30:42.000 The reality is that, barring red flags, there are certain of these incidents that are going to be very difficult to prevent unless you actually harden the barriers around these schools.

00:30:48.000 I've been saying for literally years at this point that kids at schools should be guarded like we guard banks.

00:30:55.000 Or like we guard an airport.

00:30:56.000 Okay, the fact is that

00:30:58.000 There's no reason why, you know, I went to a private school.

00:31:01.000 We had hard barriers around our private school.

00:31:03.000 You had to check in, you had to be buzzed into the school.

00:31:05.000 And we had, for a school of maybe 300 kids, we had five or six different security guards who were armed on the school premises.

00:31:12.000 It seems to me this should be the very least that we can do for our public schools as well.

00:31:16.000 I promise, if you had 20 or 30 armed security for 1,500 students, it would be a lot better than if you had four or five just because there are too many gaps in the security.

00:31:23.000 Plus, you actually have to have a hard security barrier

00:31:26.000 Metal detectors would be useful.

00:31:27.000 Listen, if this sort of stuff is going to continue to happen, we do need to guard our schools better.

00:31:32.000 There's a very good piece by David French, who's good on these topics, over at National Review, in which he writes about Malcolm Gladwell's theory that the reason that it seems like we're seeing an uptick in school shootings right now is because the barrier to entry for school shootings has become so much lower.

00:31:46.000 The barrier to media coverage is lower now.

00:31:48.000 With each individual shooting, it looks like it's becoming more common.

00:31:51.000 And so people think that it's happening a lot.

00:31:53.000 Um, even though statistically speaking it's really not happening particularly much.

00:31:56.000 22, you know, the CNN was reporting there have been 22 school shootings this year.

00:32:00.000 That's a lie.

00:32:00.000 There have been something like 5 or 6.

00:32:02.000 Each one of those is an individual tragedy and an individual horror, an individual act of evil.

00:32:07.000 But, the point that Gladwell is making is the more common these things appear to be, the more common they will become.

00:32:12.000 And that means that we have to do what we can to deter these things from happening in the first place.

00:32:16.000 One thing that certainly does not help.

00:32:17.000 It does not help in any way is the language that you see thrown around in political circles with regard to these sorts of issues.

00:32:23.000 So Bernie Sanders, he's just awful.

00:32:26.000 The socialist senator from Vermont, he says that it is unspeakable for Congress to do nothing about gun violence.

00:32:33.000 Have you guys done enough?

00:32:34.000 Have you guys done enough in the Senate?

00:32:36.000 Of course not!

00:32:37.000 Of course not, but it's like every other issue.

00:32:39.000 The American people are united.

00:32:42.000 Overwhelmingly.

00:32:42.000 Gun owners, non-gun owners, on common sense gun safety legislation.

00:32:47.000 Okay, you know, everyone is united on all these things except for when you get down to the brass tacks, people are not united on these things.

00:32:52.000 When people hear gun show loophole, they say, we oppose the gun show loophole.

00:32:55.000 When they hear that means that every private transaction that happens in the United States is basically barred unless it goes through a gun store.

00:33:01.000 Then people suddenly say, well, hold on a second.

00:33:03.000 I want to give my gun to my kid.

00:33:04.000 Why can't I do that without going to a gun store?

00:33:06.000 So here's part of the problem.

00:33:08.000 I was on a radio show the other day in a major metropolitan area, and one of the hosts on that particular radio show

00:33:16.000 We're good.

00:33:33.000 There's this disconnect that happens when we label people and we don't actually make clear whom we are talking about.

00:33:39.000 The number of people in Congress who legitimately do not care about school shootings, I would put at zero.

00:33:44.000 Even people I disagree with politically.

00:33:46.000 I do not think there are a lot of people in Congress who legit don't care about school shootings, who sit around every day and they go, you know what?

00:33:51.000 If 100 kids have to get shot, then fine.

00:33:54.000 100 kids get shot.

00:33:55.000 I do not think that that's the case.

00:33:56.000 I think there are significant disagreements on policy, and these disagreements on policy are important and have ramifications, which is why we need to talk them through.

00:34:03.000 But what is not useful is creating this broad class of people, this group of faceless, nameless people, and then you say, well, you know, Congress just doesn't care. 0.99

00:34:11.000 Republicans just don't care.

00:34:12.000 The NRA, they just don't care.

00:34:14.000 How many people who say the NRA are terrorists have ever talked to an NRA member?

00:34:18.000 How many people who say that NRA members don't care about dead kids have ever spent time with NRA leadership?

00:34:24.000 And when my friend Dana Lash is talking about the measures she thinks are useful in preventing school violence and gun violence at schools, does anyone really think, anybody who's spent time with Dana really think that Dana doesn't care about kids who are getting shot on campuses?

00:34:37.000 And yet this is used as such a convenient club and it completely undermines and destroys our politics.

00:34:41.000 If you actually believe that the people you're talking to

00:34:44.000 Have no sympathy for you whatsoever.

00:34:47.000 It makes it incredibly difficult to come to a deal.

00:34:49.000 And it's also not true.

00:34:50.000 It's just not true.

00:34:51.000 Now, the reason that I mention this is not just because this is in the news, but because there's another story in the news today that I think is being completely miscovered.

00:34:58.000 So the pope, Pope Francis.

00:35:01.000 He apparently told a gay man that God loves him during a private meeting.

00:35:04.000 OK, so this is according to the UK Sun.

00:35:06.000 In a private dialogue, the pontiff is understood to have told Juan Carlos Cruz, a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests, that God loves gay people and it is fine to be homosexual.

00:35:14.000 The comments are the most striking public acceptance about homosexuality ever made by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

00:35:19.000 The remarks were made during a private meeting at the Vatican between the pair, in which the Pope offered a heartfelt apology.

00:35:24.000 So, Cruz was a victim of a pedophile priest named Fernando Caradima.

00:35:27.000 Caradima is aged 87.

00:35:28.000 He was found guilty of sexual abuse by the Vatican in 2011.

00:35:32.000 Cruz claims his suffering was ignored by a number of Latin American bishops who used his homosexuality to brand him a liar when he spoke out.

00:35:39.000 And then, speaking to the Spanish newspaper, Cruz said, the Pope told me, quote, Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter.

00:35:45.000 God made you like this and loves you like this, and I don't care.

00:35:47.000 The Pope loves you like this.

00:35:48.000 You have to be happy with who you are.

00:35:51.000 Okay, so.

00:35:52.000 Let's make clear a distinction.

00:35:54.000 Religious people of all stripes love gay people.

00:35:58.000 Okay?

00:35:59.000 Religious Jews, I know gay people.

00:36:02.000 They're people in my life who I'm close friends with who are gay.

00:36:04.000 Okay?

00:36:05.000 I love a lot of gay people.

00:36:06.000 And what they choose to do with their own lives, from a governmental perspective, is their business.

00:36:10.000 Does this mean that I think that homosexual activity is not a sin? 1.00

00:36:14.000 No, I'm a religious Jew.

00:36:14.000 Of course I believe it's a sin.

00:36:16.000 But a religious person, including the Pope, can believe that homosexual orientation could be implanted within you and also believe that homosexual acts could be a sin and still love you for who you are.

00:36:27.000 I love that the left has attempted to say that if you think homosexual sex is a sin, that therefore you hate gay people, these two things are not related.

00:36:35.000 These two things are not related.

00:36:36.000 And this goes right back to that original argument that was being made about guns, which is, just because you disagree with someone about activities that people ought to engage in or not engage in, does not mean that these people are engaged in hate.

00:36:46.000 It does not mean that these people hate you.

00:36:48.000 And labeling them as haters is just a way for you to disregard their opinion and avoid having a conversation in the first place.

00:36:54.000 Okay.

00:36:55.000 Meanwhile,

00:36:56.000 We have to discuss this new Starbucks policy.

00:36:58.000 So, the stupidity of leftism on full display in the Starbucks policy.

00:37:02.000 So, as you recall, there's this big blow-up over at Starbucks when it turns out that there are these two black guys who are sitting at a Starbucks in Philadelphia, and supposedly, the manager of the Starbucks would not give them permission to use the bathroom, and then when they would not buy anything, ask them to leave, and then when they would not leave, call the police on them.

00:37:19.000 And the implication was that she was a giant racist. 1.00

00:37:21.000 A story I have found hard to believe and hard to confirm.

00:37:23.000 This lady, according to members of my own audience who know her, is an SJW leftist.

00:37:30.000 Somebody who has chided people on the proper use of pronouns.

00:37:32.000 There are several cameras in the establishment.

00:37:34.000 We still have not seen full tape of what happened in that Philadelphia establishment.

00:37:36.000 Well, thanks to the outrage over that supposed racist event,

00:37:41.000 Again, this is weird, because there are actual racist events that have taken place in the United States.

00:37:46.000 You don't hear about those, because when everybody recognizes something is racist, the media has nothing to talk about.

00:37:50.000 The media purposefully pick instances where there's a plausible story that nothing racist happened, and then they use these as flashpoints.

00:37:57.000 If you don't immediately bend to the narrative they wish to purvey, then this means that you don't take racism seriously enough.

00:38:02.000 In any case, Starbucks reacted to the Philadelphia story by telling everybody that they had to get retrained on implicit bias, which is just sheer nonsense, and then they changed their policy.

00:38:11.000 Okay, they changed their policy, and their policy was that anyone who came into a Starbucks could now use the restroom. 0.99

00:38:17.000 The problem was that there are Starbucks on every corner, and lots of homeless people go into Starbucks, and they go into the bathrooms, and there they proceed to set up shop or do drugs.

00:38:27.000 So what did Starbucks have to do?

00:38:28.000 Well, now they have to clarify their policy toward non-paying guests.

00:38:31.000 The Seattle-based retailer on Saturday, this is according to the Wall Street Journal, had said it would allow all guests in its U.S.

00:38:36.000 company-owned stores to use its cafes, including its restrooms, whether or not they make a purchase.

00:38:40.000 Again, this would be idiotic policy if you just allow people to sit down in your chairs and sit there all day.

00:38:45.000 How in the world are you actually going to sell anything at Starbucks?

00:38:47.000 That announcement, which attracted some support, also drew complaints that cafes would not have enough seats for paying customers and would turn into homeless shelters and drug havens.

00:38:55.000 This is certainly true in Seattle, which has experienced a massive upsurge in the number of homeless people in the city.

00:39:00.000 Well, on Monday, Starbucks revealed more about the policy.

00:39:03.000 They told the Wall Street Journal that employees now have detailed instructions on what to do if someone is behaving in a disruptive manner, such as smoking, using drugs or alcohol, using restrooms improperly, or sleeping.

00:39:13.000 At issue, in essence, is whether Starbucks views itself as a business that caters to customers or a quasi-public place generally welcome to all.

00:39:19.000 It is idiotic.

00:39:20.000 Of course, they are a business catering to customers.

00:39:22.000 They could not make any money if they were a quasi-public business, public place generally welcome to all.

00:39:27.000 People would set up shop and they would continue to occupy all of the tables.

00:39:31.000 So other restrooms and retailers also must manage the issue of lingering customers and non-paying guests. 1.00

00:39:36.000 Starbucks has promoted itself as providing a third place between home and work where people can freely exchange ideas.

00:39:41.000 It essentially pioneered the idea that is now generating controversies.

00:39:44.000 McDonald's, Panera Bread, they now offer free Wi-Fi.

00:39:46.000 They encourage customers to linger.

00:39:48.000 Panera didn't respond to a request for comment.

00:39:50.000 This is all true.

00:39:50.000 But if you sit there for too long without buying something, I've known for years, like I've worked for many coffee shops over my years because I always work from a laptop.

00:39:58.000 Well,

00:39:59.000 I know going in that you are supposed to walk up to the counter and buy a thing, right?

00:40:03.000 Who doesn't know that?

00:40:04.000 Everybody knows you're supposed to do this.

00:40:05.000 But now Starbucks has changed its policy in response to the stupidity of political correctness.

00:40:10.000 And it is indeed highly stupid.

00:40:12.000 Businesses cannot operate so long as they make political correctness their first priority.

00:40:16.000 And it's amazing to watch all these social justice warrior-led companies that built themselves on the basis of free market capitalism and a willingness to do business with customers now try to shift their policy because they want to appear kinder and gentler to the public.

00:40:29.000 You saw the same thing over at Google with James Damore.

00:40:32.000 James Damore said,

00:40:44.000 There are fewer women who are applying in science, technology, engineering, and math because there are fewer women who have a predilection to go into those jobs. 1.00

00:40:51.000 And also because what the bell curve tends to show with regard to performance in sciences and math is that women tend to be closer to the center of the bell curve. 1.00

00:40:59.000 Men tend to be at the tail. 1.00

00:41:00.000 So men either are really bad at math or really good at math. 0.93

00:41:03.000 And that means that when you go up to the upper level, there are more men than women on a proportional basis.

00:41:06.000 James Damore, his memo prompted his firing, and then Google put out a memo suggesting to all of its managers that things like meritocracy were white constructs.

00:41:16.000 Well, if Google had operated off that premise, Google would not be a multi-billion dollar company, obviously.

00:41:23.000 All the things that made businesses successful, they're now willing to dump on the side of the road in order to make nice with the press and politically correct idiocy.

00:41:29.000 The good news there, I guess, is that new capitalist businesses that don't abide by the politically correct idiocy will now be able to make their way in the marketplace.

00:41:37.000 If Starbucks is gonna be dumb, there'll be other coffee shops that rise to the occasion.

00:41:40.000 Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.

00:41:43.000 So, things that I like.

00:41:45.000 Over Shavuot, which is the Jewish celebration of the giving of the Torah at Sinai, I was able to do a lot of reading.

00:41:51.000 I spoke at a school recently that was a Chabad school.

00:41:54.000 Chabad, for people who don't know Chabad, you've seen Chabad.

00:41:57.000 Chabad are the people who are lighting menorahs in public areas.

00:41:59.000 They're the people who are offering to, they ask you if you're Jewish, and then if you are Jewish, then they will wrap tefillin on you. 0.66

00:42:05.000 Tefillin are the phylacteries that you wear on your arm and on your head if you're an Orthodox Jew. 0.55

00:42:08.000 And that movement, the Lubavitch movement, was led by what is known as the Rebbe. 0.84

00:42:13.000 The Rebbe was Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and Schneerson died in 1994.

00:42:17.000 There's a very good biography of him by Joseph Tlushkin.

00:42:20.000 Tlushkin has co-written a bunch of books with Dennis Prager, my friend, and this book is really

00:42:24.000 Entertaining.

00:42:25.000 It's really good.

00:42:26.000 And it is a portrait of a person who is fully devoted to the care of other human beings.

00:42:32.000 He worked not only insane hours, but he met with an enormous number of people, ranging from politicians to just normal folks.

00:42:38.000 He used to meet with people every night, pretty much, from like 10 p.m.

00:42:42.000 to 2 a.m.

00:42:43.000 on like a 10-minute rotating basis and try and have talks with them about how to improve their lives.

00:42:48.000 Religion can be an awful force for good. 1.00

00:42:50.000 It can be an awful force or it can be a good force.

00:42:52.000 And the Rebbe made religion a very good force in a number of ways.

00:42:55.000 You should read his biography.

00:42:56.000 It's well worth reading.

00:42:57.000 It's just a leadership guide for anyone.

00:42:59.000 Joseph Telushkin's book.

00:43:01.000 I'm Menachem Mendel Schneerson.

00:43:02.000 Check it out.

00:43:02.000 Rebbe.

00:43:03.000 It's called Rebbe.

00:43:03.000 Okay, so, time for a thing that I hate.

00:43:10.000 Alrighty, so the thing that I hate today, this is another manufactured stupid controversy.

00:43:14.000 So Kendrick Lamar, who is apparently a rapper of some sort, demonstrating my full knowledge of the pop cultural range, I believe he's a rapper.

00:43:21.000 So Kendrick Lamar had, he was doing a concert, and he invited a fan on stage to sing.

00:43:27.000 And then he asked the fan, who's a white woman, to sing the lyrics of his song, Mad City, which is M-A-A-D City, which is not how you spell mad, but sure.

00:43:35.000 Okay.

00:43:35.000 And then she, one of the lyrics in here uses the N word.

00:43:39.000 Okay.

00:43:39.000 Here's the video of what it looked like.

00:43:41.000 Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

00:43:45.000 Am I not cool enough for you?

00:43:47.000 What's up, bro?

00:43:56.000 What's up?

00:43:57.000 My boy Rohan kinda knew the rules a little bit.

00:43:59.000 Will's just really cool, bro.

00:44:02.000 You have to work.

00:44:03.000 You gotta bleep one single word, though.

00:44:05.000 Oh, I'm sorry.

00:44:06.000 Did I do it?

00:44:07.000 Yeah, you did.

00:44:09.000 I'm so sorry.

00:44:10.000 Oh my God.

00:44:11.000 Should she stay up here, y'all?

00:44:16.000 OK, I mean, just what the hell's wrong with this guy?

00:44:18.000 Like, he knows what the lyrics to his own song are.

00:44:20.000 That is not her fault.

00:44:21.000 I'm sorry.

00:44:21.000 That is not the fault of the white lady who gets up there.

00:44:24.000 It's not like he said to her beforehand, you know, go easy on the lyrics of my song.

00:44:27.000 You wrote them there, dude.

00:44:28.000 You don't want somebody actually reading the lyrics of your song or doing the lyrics to your song.

00:44:32.000 Don't write the lyrics in there or ask the lady up. 1.00

00:44:34.000 If you've got a problem with a white lady rapping your song as you wrote it, then maybe you should have invited a black lady up there to rap your song as you wrote it. 1.00

00:44:41.000 You've got plenty of black fans there.

00:44:42.000 It's just, it's absurd.

00:44:43.000 And I think people caught on to it.

00:44:45.000 So a lot of folks on Twitter were like, this is just a setup.

00:44:48.000 They brought a fan up to sing and then flipped when she said the N-word. 0.97

00:44:51.000 And he knew what he was doing.

00:44:52.000 This woman's life is going to be ruined on social media now. 1.00

00:44:54.000 She's going to be claimed to be a racist when she just wanted to go to a concert and sing, presumably with someone she was a fan of. 1.00

00:45:00.000 It's just ridiculous.

00:45:02.000 Lamar was evidently under the impression that Delaney would censor herself and skip the racial epithet in the song, but she clearly did not get the memo.

00:45:11.000 And then, so Delaney, who is this woman who was called out of the crowd, said, man down, where are you from, N-word?

00:45:17.000 F who you know, where are you from, my N-word?

00:45:19.000 What your grandma say, huh, my N-word?

00:45:21.000 Okay, so, it's not like this appears one time in the song.

00:45:23.000 It appears 1,000 times in the song.

00:45:26.000 Like, what's she supposed to do?

00:45:27.000 Okay, get up here and sing the song. 1.00

00:45:28.000 And she goes, literally, this is what it would sound like.

00:45:31.000 Man down, where are you from?

00:45:32.000 F who you know, where are you from?

00:45:35.000 Where your grandma stay, huh, my?

00:45:38.000 Okay, like, you wrote the lyric, dude!

00:45:41.000 This is your own fault!

00:45:42.000 You don't want people using the N-word, then don't use the N-word.

00:45:46.000 Don't use the N-word in your song.

00:45:48.000 Okay, I understand that there are distinctions between black people using the N-word and white people using the N-word and that there's a whole attempt by certain members of the black community to co-opt the term N-word and then use it as a way of empowerment.

00:46:01.000 I think this is fully stupid.

00:46:02.000 Okay, I think it's stupid.

00:46:03.000 I'm just gonna be honest with this.

00:46:04.000 There are lots of slurs that are used against Jews all the time.

00:46:08.000 Okay, and you've heard me try to co-opt Jewish jokes. 0.67

00:46:10.000 Okay, but you've never heard me try to co-opt the K-word. 0.81

00:46:14.000 Right, there's a k-word that has been used against Jews for many, many, many, many decades.

00:46:18.000 Okay, Jews don't call each other, my bleep. 0.92

00:46:21.000 Okay, they don't call each other that because why would you want to promulgate the word?

00:46:24.000 If the word is bad, the word is bad.

00:46:26.000 Especially to avoid situations just like this, because it sets up this ridiculous double standard.

00:46:30.000 I don't think it is worthwhile to have that lyric in the song, but if you are going to have that lyric in the song, you can't be surprised when people sing your song.

00:46:36.000 The whole point of you singing the song is that others will sing your song.

00:46:39.000 Oh, Kendrick Lamar.

00:46:40.000 Ugh.

00:46:41.000 How I mourn for you.

00:46:43.000 Okay, well, we'll be back here tomorrow with all of the latest on everything under the sun.

00:46:49.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:46:49.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:46:54.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.

00:47:00.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.

00:47:04.000 Edited by Alex Zingaro.

00:47:06.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.

00:47:07.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.

00:47:09.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.

00:47:12.000 Copyright Ford Publishing 2018.

The Ben Shapiro Show - May 22, 2018

The Spy Who Hated Me | Ep. 543

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript