All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
48:08
Ep. 119 - How The Media Destroyed Hillary Clinton

Trump shows that the media have weakened Hillary's political immune system, Obama targets children for the transgender agenda, and Hillary looks to turn over the economy to Al Sharpton. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In the aftermath of Donald Trump's stunning presumptive Republican 2016 presidential nomination, a small group of never-Trump advocates have been pressing forward with an attempt to recruit somebody to run as a third-party candidate.
According to the Washington Post, Republicans including Bill Kristol, Eric Erickson, Mike Murphy, Stuart Stevens, and Rick Wilson have been throwing out names.
Some of those names?
Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska, Ohio Governor John Kasich, retired General James Mattis, and even, ridiculously, another reality TV billionaire, Mark Cuban.
A viable third-party candidate could achieve a couple of things for conservatives who don't like Trump.
One, it could consolidate support outside the Trump movement, providing the core for a rebuilding movement after Trump goes down.
Second, it could theoretically throw a few key states to the third party candidate, stopping both Hillary and Trump from winning the requisite number of electors to gain the White House.
You need 270.
If you don't get 270, it goes to the House of Representatives.
And if it goes to the House of Representatives, throws the process into the House of Representatives, then presumably somebody else becomes president.
So here's the case against doing any of this.
There are five reasons not to run a third party candidate.
One, Not gonna work.
In 1992, Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote.
He won zippo zero electoral votes.
In 1980, John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote, zero electoral votes.
In 1980, John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote, zero electoral votes.
In 1968, George Wallace, a racist, won 13.5% of the electoral vote, and he won 46 electoral votes, all in the Deep South.
The chances of a third-party candidate doing significant enough damage in key swing states to take away electoral votes?
Really slim, or none.
Second reason, it appears desperate.
It's unlikely to work, so it seems like a Hail Mary to find somebody who can stop Trump and Hillary.
If it fails, that minimizes the level of opposition to both the candidates.
Never Trump isn't desperate.
We know Trump is a disaster for the GOP and the country.
Hillary is a disaster for the country.
We don't need to prove it by attempting to consolidate in a way that fails.
Third reason, it's kind of tough to find a conservative who can unify Never Trump.
So here's the thing, Trump's utter incomprehensibility as a Republican candidate, it underscores the fact that finding a consensus politician is kind of hard.
All successful politicians have to build consensus.
Kasich and Ben Sasse, for example, they have very little in common politically other than their opposition to Trump.
Would that be enough to consolidate a real conservative opposition?
Or would it instead fragment the opposition by providing an alternative that many members of Never Trump don't like?
Fourth reason, just let them burn.
Let them burn.
The Trumpsters are really looking desperately for an excuse to blame anybody but themselves for the looming electoral disaster that may await Trump.
They're already saying openly, never Trump is going to bear responsibility if Trump fails.
Consolidating the third party grants unmerited credibility to this particular argument.
If Trump goes down, and all the betting markets say he will, the Trump advocates need to own it.
There's no need to give them an out.
Finally, we need to think about 2020.
It's better to sit this one out than be blamed for Trump's failures or cast out of the party altogether.
No matter what happens, this is going to be four years in the wilderness for conservatives.
But building an alternative party infrastructure is kind of unlikely and much more difficult than allowing Trump to demonstrate he's a historic black swan and then fighting for control of the GOP again.
Listen, I'd be happy to vote for Senator Sasse over Trump or Hillary, of course.
I'd love another choice.
But the strategic case against a third party is pretty strong.
HL Mencken said, So, let's let the Trumpsters get it.
Good and hard.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
So let's let the Trumpsters get it, good and hard.
I'm Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show. - I tend to demonize people because they don't care about your feelings. - Alrighty, so here we are, and it's been a busy day for Donald Trump.
Lots to talk about in Trump World, and we all live in Trump World now.
Some of it's good, some of it's bad, all of it is interesting and fascinating, and as we said yesterday, we are dedicated to the proposition that watching the apocalypse with a comedic grin is more fun than watching it with a downcast glare.
So we're going to try and Make light of the fact that we're all going to die and life is meaningless.
So let's start with Donald Trump, the chosen anti-social warrior Donald Trump.
He has now made a statement on transgender rights.
So as you may have noticed, we'll get back to the transgender issue in a little while.
President Obama is now speaking out on the transgender bathrooms that he's pushing and it's really terrible because that's what Barack Obama does.
Donald Trump was asked about it, and here's what he said to the Washington Post, quote, It is a very, very small portion of the population, transgenders.
But as I say, you have to protect everybody, including small portions of the population.
Presumably, this means you need to have state legislation or federal legislation of the kind that President Obama is pushing.
But then, of course, Trump takes both sides of the issue.
He says that states need to make the right decisions.
He doesn't really explain what that means.
He says he hasn't had any exposure to these issues, and he's learning more.
He's learning more.
So this is his way of copping out.
So, all you wonderful people who think that Trump is politically incorrect, no, he isn't.
No, he isn't.
The greatest referendum on political correctness today is this transgender issue.
It is the transgender issue.
It's the greatest referendum on political correctness today, because there's the politically correct position, Which is that women can become men and men can become women and we have to force children to embrace this idea by putting boys in girls bathrooms.
And then there's the politically incorrect position called science.
Men are men.
Women are women.
And you don't get to cross over by chopping off a few body parts or sewing a few of them on.
And President Obama is pushing this particular viewpoint and it really is important.
You know, I want to stop for a second and point this out.
It is important.
The transgender bathroom issue is important.
Not because of bathrooms, but because of transgenderism As a social construct, transgenderism as a concept, and the unmitigated attempts of the left to target your children in order to push their leftist agenda.
So President Obama, always for the left, always for the left, it has to be done through schools and through children.
They always have to push the left agenda through children.
It's always for the good of the kids.
Of course, all that means is screwing with kids' heads, but it's all for the good of the kiddies.
Now the truth is that they say it's to protect transgender kids from bullying.
First of all, there are two transgender kids in the United States.
Second of all, even if you want to protect transgender kids from bullying, there's a very simple way to do that.
Have teachers who don't tolerate bullying.
Wasn't that easy?
Look at that, that's amazing.
I was bullied mercilessly in high school.
It would have been good if we had a good anti-bully policy.
I wasn't bullied because I was gay or transgender.
I was bullied because I was small, and because I was young, and because I was smarter than everybody else.
But, you know what?
That was basically solved by two things.
One, me standing up for myself, and two, My parents, and I've told this story on the air before, my parents going to the school and mandating that there be a crackdown on bullying generally.
There shouldn't be bullying in schools, period, for any reason.
You don't need to teach kids that heterosexuality and homosexuality are on moral par in order to stop bullying, and you don't need to teach them the idiocy that men can become women and women men in order to stop bullying.
That's silly, but this is what the left says.
So President Obama said today, quote, "We're talking about kids, and anybody who's been in school, been in high school, who's been a parent, I think should realize that kids are Kids are vulnerable.
Here's President Obama talking about why he's pushing now every public school in America to embrace transgender bathrooms.
We're talking about kids.
And anybody who's been in school, been in high school, who's been a parent, parent, I think should realize that kids who are sometimes in the minority, kids who have a different sexual orientation or are transgender, are subject to a lot of bullying, potentially. are subject to a lot of bullying, potentially.
They are vulnerable.
And I think it is part of our obligation as a society to make sure that everybody is treated fairly, and our kids are all loved, and that they're protected, and that their dignity is affirmed.
Okay, this is a bunch of crap.
This is a bunch of crap for a few reasons.
First of all, when he says gay children are being bullied in bathrooms, no they're not.
No, they're not.
You don't- nobody knows you're gay unless you say you're gay.
Okay?
And this idea that there's tons of gay kids who are seven and eight years old is also nonsense, but beyond that, this is a straw man saying that transgenderism and homosexuality are the same issue.
They're not.
They're not the same issue by any stretch of the imagination.
In fact, homosexuality is sort of destroyed by transgenderism.
Transgenderism says gender and sex are completely arbitrary, which sort of defeats the idea that men should only be attracted to men if you're homosexual.
Right?
Why wouldn't you be attracted to everybody?
After all, sex is completely arbitrary.
Why should there be any distinction whatsoever?
But it's a straw man.
More importantly, this is really quite despicable stuff.
Schools are the bullies here, okay?
Barack Obama is the bully.
He's saying he has to stop bullying, he has to make everybody feel comfortable.
How about the 99.999% of the population in these school bathrooms who feels uncomfortable when somebody of the opposite sex walks in and they're unclad?
How about the little girls who don't feel comfortable with a boy peeing next to them in the bathroom?
Those people have to be made to feel like bigots and feel uncomfortable?
So the bullying thing really goes both ways, but there's a lot less- but let's put it this way.
The bullying of transgender kids is a lot less of an issue for our government and our society than the federal government bullying everyone in the United States into embracing the idea that an 18-year-old man walking into a 15-year-old girl's locker room is suddenly okay.
Which is what he's talking about.
There's also something else that's, I think, worthy of examination here.
And that is, that this isn't really about protection of kids in any real way.
What this really is about, what this really is about is indoctrination and perversion of children.
That's really what this is about.
The left always starts with kids.
Notice, Obama didn't mandate this transgender bathroom nonsense.
He didn't mandate this for the U.S.
military.
He didn't mandate it for federal government facilities.
He mandated it for public schools.
He mandated it for kids.
Why?
Well, supposedly it's because the left believes that sexual identity, sexual identity is unchanging and rigid.
And sex itself, gender itself, is malleable.
Therefore, if you teach kids that they get to choose your sex, since it's malleable, it's a social construct anyway, you're not doing them any harm.
You tell a five-year-old girl to choose whether she's a girl or a boy, you're not harming her in any way, because that's all just social construct nonsense.
Similarly, if you tell a five-year-old girl that lesbianism is fine, she's not gonna be more likely to try out lesbianism because she's already set in her ways.
It's all biological, right?
It's ingrained right there in the biology.
Of course, precisely the reverse is true.
You tell a five-year-old girl she can be a girl or a boy, you're gonna screw with her head.
You tell a five-year-old girl that anybody she chooses to have sex with, when she's not even pubescent yet, right?
That anybody who she will eventually choose to have sex with is perfectly morally hunky-dory and you think this isn't gonna change behavior, Nonsense.
Nonsense.
Particularly because science tends to show that sexuality is remarkably fluid.
Sexual identity certainly is remarkably fluid.
There's a reason that two generations ago, there's a poll in Britain recently, it showed for people who were born two generations ago, 95% say they're straight.
Of people who were born in our generation, millennials, something like only 43% say they are binary straight.
Okay, 43%.
Don't tell me that's genetics, gang.
That's society pushing a perception of what sexual identity should be.
Leftists aren't dumb.
They know all of this.
Their whole case is that parents should not be allowed to raise their children with traditional morality and traditional sex roles because that's bad.
And that's bad because the government can't control the kids then.
It's bad because traditional sex roles, the idea of man-woman marriage, creation of a family, it's an obstacle to government control of your child.
And so what they do is they use the bullying agenda in order to come in and take control of your children by saying that if we leave it to you to educate your own kid, then your kid will end up being a bully and targeting other kids, which of course is absolute nonsense.
So on that issue, where, you know, some real moral leadership would be good, No shock here.
Donald Trump runs for the hills.
He runs for the hills.
There's your politically incorrect warrior.
Now that's not to say he's politically correct across the board.
He does, at times, say good things.
But Trump is a mixed bag.
He's a grab bag.
He's a, we like to say, a crap sandwich.
He's salami and dog crap.
And so first the salami.
Here's Donald Trump talking about national security.
And here's why some people like him on national security.
Our country has enough difficulty right now Without letting the Syrians pour in.
And again, we don't know that they're Syrians.
We don't know where they come from.
We have no idea.
They could be ISIS.
They could be who knows.
But we're going to stop that immediately.
Do you think it's going to take another attack like 9-11 for people to wake up about border security and take it seriously?
I do.
I actually do.
Bad things will happen.
A lot of bad things will happen.
There will be attacks that you wouldn't believe.
There will be attacks by the people that are right now coming into our country because I have no doubt In my mind.
I mean, you look at it, they have cell phones, so they don't have money, they don't have anything, they have cell phones.
Who pays their monthly charges, right?
They have cell phones with the flags, the ISIS flags on them.
And then we're supposed to say, isn't this wonderful that we're taking a break now.
Okay, so everything he's saying here is right.
Right?
I mean, everything he's saying here is right.
Although, I do have to laugh when he uses, when he uses phrases like, bad things will happen.
I go, thanks Nostradamus.
Really, really, that's extremely helpful.
Here's the problem.
Right?
For every, for every piece of salami, there's also a dog turd.
So here's the dog turd.
Here's Donald Trump going after David Cameron, saying that, this is the Prime Minister of Britain, saying that, you know, we're not going to have a very good relationship.
For some reason, Piers Morgan is interviewing him.
Piers Morgan is a big Donald Trump fan.
They're both reality TV stars.
Piers Morgan is still on TV, although not on American TV since I helped drive him off American TV because he's a stupid, stupid fat man.
Here is Piers Morgan talking to Donald Trump.
David Cameron has refused to retract what he said about your comments about Muslims.
He says they were stupid, they were divisive, and they were wrong.
What's your response?
Honestly, I don't care.
It doesn't matter.
I mean, it's fine.
He's your president and he's the British Prime Minister.
It looks like we're not going to have a very good relationship.
Who knows?
I hope to have a good relationship with him.
But it sounds like he's not willing to address the problem either.
People can pretend like it's not existing.
But take a look.
Take a look at London.
Take a look at certain sections of some cities throughout Europe and throughout the world.
It is a disaster.
And the police are, you know, they want nothing to do with it.
It's as bad as it gets.
Now, we don't have to talk about it or we could.
And I will tell you this.
Would you like David Cameron... When it was brought up, no.
Would you like him to withdraw the particular comments that you're stupid, divisive and wrong with your view about Muslims?
Well, number one, I'm not stupid, OK?
I can tell you that right now.
Just the opposite.
Number two, in terms of divisive, I don't think I'm a divisive person.
I'm a unifier.
Unlike our president now, I'm a unifier.
I'll say this, when I made the statement six months ago and there was a clamor only by the politicians, millions of people were calling and saying Donald Trump is right.
You know that and so do I. People that live in Great Britain and people that live all over the world were saying Donald Trump is right.
Okay, so he says that we're going to have a bad relationship, that Cameron and he will have a bad relationship if he's president.
Good way to set off on his international tour.
And again, there again you hear him do the routine that we talked about last week, which is, I may have said something wrong, but it was really popular, so that makes it okay.
Yeah, there's something to be said even about this for Trump.
So Trump is brash, he's bold, he says things no one else will say, and then he refuses to back off of them.
All of that is true.
Now, Donald Trump is laying forth his new strategy against Hillary Clinton, and his new strategy against Hillary Clinton is basically to hit her with everything that is possible to hit her with.
In order for that to succeed, the media really has to be quite terrible.
The media has to be quite terrible.
Fortunately for Trump, the media are quite terrible.
So it feels like when the media are trying to cover for Hillary Clinton, they're trying to cover for Hillary Clinton.
Trump has perfected an art that was first coined, I think by Newt Gingrich in 2012, of attacking the media as the as the unfair arbiter, and he's exactly right.
So the media is playing both angles.
On the one hand, they're pushing Trump forward by saying that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and he's a He's a brand new thing on the American scene.
And on the other hand, the media is trying to tear him down, and they can't have it both ways.
And you're seeing the struggle internally for the media.
They can't handle it.
Here's Joe Scarborough on MSNBC saying that this is no longer Paul Ryan's party.
It's now Donald Trump's party, based on a new poll showing that 58% of GOP voters trust Trump to lead the Republican Party.
Just 39% trust Paul Ryan to lead the Republican Party.
More Republicans actually trust Trump than Ryan to lead the parties.
That's by a 58 to 39 percent margin.
Joe, that's a lot to get through right there.
What's jumping out at you?
Boy, I'll tell you what, a couple things are jumping out at me.
First of all, this is not Paul Ryan's party anymore.
It's Donald Trump's party.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
It has a lot to do with where this Republican party has gone over the past 20, 30 years.
Working class voters.
Feel disconnected from Washington, D.C., especially Washington, D.C.
Republicans.
They feel like they let them down.
Not only when they ran the deficit and the debt up during the Bush years, but also they elected the Tea Partiers in 2010 to get rid of Obamacare and do other great things that didn't happen.
2014, the same thing happened.
That's the first thing.
This is not Paul Ryan's party.
Paul Ryan's policies are not the policies that drive the Republican base anymore.
They are more of a populist base of policy.
Okay, so he's saying, and a lot of people in the press are saying, Trump is something new.
Trump is something magical.
So at the same time they're saying that, they're also trying to tear him down.
They're also trying to tear down Trump.
So Scarborough himself says he doesn't like, he doesn't back Trump for president because of his Muslim policies, which is, of all his policies, if you're gonna target one that's truly awful, awful, awful, that one, for me, stacks well behind, let's start a giant trade war that destroys the international economy, and also, let's make sure that we nuke There are certain policies that seem to rise above that one, in my estimation, as far as dangerous.
But the media that are building Trump up are also trying to tear him down.
So, for example, on Sunday, Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, he says to Bob Woodward, Bob Woodward is of the Washington Post, and there's a report that the Washington Post is going to put 20 reporters on Donald Trump.
And here's Chris Wallace asking Woodward about it.
The Washington Post has 20 people working on every phase of Donald Trump's life.
That's correct.
We've announced a month ago that we're doing a book and we're going to do stories as this evolves.
The equivalent effort will be made on Hillary Clinton.
I mean, it's traditional, and I think particularly in this campaign, which is one of those pivot points in the history of the country, we need to tell people everything we can find out.
That means a massive effort.
Are you making an equal effort?
Because that's something that we're hearing from folks.
An equal effort on Hillary Clinton?
You've got 20 people on her?
Well, it's not necessarily the number of people.
It's who's working on it.
So you've got smarter people on television.
No, no, no, no.
But, you know, believe me, you know, the goal here is the best obtainable version of the truth.
You can't find out.
So they're saying that they're going to try and tear down Donald Trump.
The same people who built him up are now going to try and tear him down.
This is a giant fail, and you're about to see how big a fail this is.
So the New York Times, we talked yesterday about this very silly New York Times piece, long piece, about how Donald Trump was basically a playboy back in the day, And that means that he's a terrible person because he was a playboy back in the day.
Now, listen, I'm not a fan of playboys, as you know.
I think that that does make you kind of gross.
But Bill Clinton, right?
I mean, you don't get to claim that the guy who allegedly raped people is less bad than the guy who brought a swimsuit model to a bathroom and asked her to put on a bikini and then said she looked nice in the bikini.
Not quite the same thing.
The New York Times reporters have now been ripped by even the women quoted in the story.
These New York Times reporters appeared on MSNBC to talk about it.
There's no single dimension to Donald Trump and women.
And I think our story makes that clear.
I think it makes it clear through the voices of the people we interviewed.
What's your response to the reaction from Donald Trump so far?
Well, you know, we spoke to Donald Trump for an hour and included his voice in our story and really valued the time that we got to spend with him on the phone.
And we believe that at every opportunity in the story, we gave him a chance to sort of give his side of the story.
And we'd be happy to continue talking to him about this.
If he wants to get back on the phone with us and chat more about his experiences with women, we'd welcome that.
I believe Roanne has asked for an apology.
What do you say?
We really stand by our story.
We believe we quoted her fairly and accurately and that the story really speaks for itself.
Okay, so the story speaks for itself.
They tried to tear down Trump.
Now here are the women who are actually in the story talking about Donald Trump with Megyn Kelly last night.
So at the time, when you're experienced with him, did he seem sexist to you?
Well, you have to understand, you've got to put it in the context of the time.
This was 1980, so everybody was sexist, and we were in the construction industry, so that was sexist.
But as far as Donald was concerned, no, he wanted the best person, and he thought I was the best person, and he picked me.
And so, the Times talks about a moment that you had with Donald Trump, where you started to think he was getting worse in that regard, that he was getting more sexist as the years went on.
Yes.
Is that true?
Absolutely.
I mean, I worked for him for a long time, but from '80 to '84, we were very, very close.
And we talked all the time.
And he never came across as anything but, you know, very, very respectful of women.
And when I returned back to the Trump Organization in '87, he was a little bit different the way he talked about women.
In his office, you know, he would refer to women.
And the women in the office, he would look at them a little bit like a leering kind of thing.
And it sort of changed, a definite change.
But the big change came in, I'd say, 1989, '90, when the whole Mahler thing happened.
And, you know, when he did Playboy magazine, that was just, it seemed unreasonable and unheard of for him at the time.
So I was surprised to see him change.
Slowly but surely, he started saying more things that surprised me up to this day.
And I'm going to get the specifics of that, but I want to bring in Sonata, who, you have nothing but glowing things to say about Mr. Trump.
You also experienced some language that may have been diminishing, but you say he was an equal opportunity offender.
Well, listen, he's a businessman, and I know that he doesn't have the greatest history in terms of what he says about many women, but in a professional setting, and I was running four different projects in terms of marketing between 2003 and 2007, he was extraordinarily professional.
He was very tough, but he was fair.
Did you two know each other, Sonata?
You and Barbara?
I did not.
Unfortunately, I didn't have the pleasure of meeting Barbara because I was there in 2003.
So did you Sonata ever experience, you know, what you what you perceived as sexism?
And on the other hand, did you experience Trump giving you and and or other women unusual or extraordinary opportunities?
Absolutely not.
It was equal opportunity in that.
Okay, so we can stop here.
Bottom line is that a lot of the women in the New York Times are quoting that they're not super on board with the New York Times attempt to tear down Trump.
Donald Trump is almost invulnerable on these scores.
Donald Trump, it's very difficult for them to take down Donald Trump on the he was mean to women routine.
After they've blown all their credibility on Hillary Clinton.
They really have blown a lot of credibility on Hillary Clinton.
And you can see how this plays out.
Over the weekend, Donald Trump was on with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News.
And George Stephanopoulos asked Trump about why he won't release his tax returns.
Now, do I think Trump is a sexist?
Yes.
Do I think that Donald Trump is somebody, and the reason I say he's a sexist is just from this campaign, attacking Heidi Cruz, talking about Carly Fiorina's face, talking about Megyn Kelly bleeding from her wherever, Donald Trump saying back in the 80s that women ought to be treated like pieces of crap, Donald Trump constantly talking about women as pieces of ass for decades.
I think that's sexist.
Do I think that's the end of the world?
No.
But do I think it's something that's great and appropriate?
No, I don't.
Okay.
All that said, the media are going to have a tough time tearing him down.
By the same token, Yeah, I would like to know how much money he's actually worth.
I'd like to know what kind of taxes he pays, given that he says that he should pay higher taxes as a very rich man.
I'd like to know how much charity he gave.
I'd like to know how many people he actually employs and hires.
He always says tens of thousands.
I'd like to know what that looks like.
Okay, that said...
Trump can't be caught out on this by the media because the media have no credibility.
They built Trump up, number one.
And number two, they cover for all of Trump's enemies.
So here is George Stephanopoulos going up against Trump, and Trump just knocking him into next week.
So I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.
What is your tax rate?
It's none of your business.
You'll see it when I release.
But I fight very hard to pay as little tax as possible.
Okay, and then he would go on to say to George Stephanopoulos that the tax returns are not only none of George Stephanopoulos' business, but that George Stephanopoulos worked for Hillary Clinton, and that therefore he doesn't get to ask him questions about it.
It's pretty funny, actually.
He'd go on and went right at George Stephanopoulos.
I'm trying to find the exact transcript.
He says specifically that Stephanopoulos used to be in the war room.
He says that he's a hypocrite.
I mean, it's really very funny stuff, and it's true.
And that's why the media can't go after Donald Trump on all of this.
Now, as always, Donald Trump takes all this too far.
So battling against the media, that's something that I adore.
I don't care who does it.
I hate the media.
And so I'm glad when Donald Trump hits the media.
That said, Donald Trump has a nasty tendency toward authoritarianism.
And so Donald Trump, his attorney, just had to retract a threat to sue the New York Times after that piece came out about women.
Trump fired back and his attorney said that they might sue the New York Times.
Right?
Donald Trump tweeted out, no wonder the New York Times is failing.
Who can believe what they write after the false, malicious, and libelous story they did on me.
Those are all legal terms, false and malicious, libelous.
And so Donald Trump says that he might go after the New York Times and his attorney has to walk it back.
That's not the only time that Trump has targeted the media legally, which is the part where I start to say, well, hold on a second.
Roger Stone, who is legitimately one of the worst people in all of American politics, he was on the radio, and he says that if Donald Trump is the president of the United States, he will take control of the FCC, which is an independent agency, and then force the FCC to reject CNN's license for broadcast.
So he'll take CNN off the air if Donald Trump is president.
This is scary authoritarian stuff.
What evidence?
There is no evidence.
I believe every one of these women are credible and telling the truth.
But you have organizations like CNN, which is not a news organization, but an advocacy group.
And if you attempt to discuss this on the air, and I've seen this done with Steve Malzberg and Kurt Schlichter and yours truly, they literally pull, they pull the cord on your microphone.
They turn you off.
Frankly, when Donald Trump is president, he should turn off their FCC license.
They're not a news organization.
They're about censorship.
Okay, so he thinks that Donald Trump, if he gets power, will actually take CNN off the air.
So this is the part where, again, Donald Trump, crap sandwich.
The salami is that he's great when he hits the media.
The crap is when he says that he's going to start, as President of the United States, taking control of the media itself.
Now, that's the media versus Donald Trump, and clearly the media has no capacity to take on Trump.
They've created him for 20 years.
The same boardrooms where they made the decision to have Donald Trump on The Apprentice and make him into a national media personality for the last 20 years, Those same boardrooms are the ones where they're now saying, what can we do to destroy Donald Trump?
And the answer is, once you've made the Frankenstein monster, you have no capacity to destroy the Frankenstein monster.
More than that, the media have actually done Trump a service by covering him over the top, over the top coverage of Donald Trump.
Every scandal, every foible, every peccadillo, everything that Donald Trump does has been in the public eye for a generation, really a full generation in American life.
Every time you schtup somebody, it's on the front page of the New York Post.
You do that enough, and basically what you're really doing is you're vaccinating Trump against dirt.
Because at a certain point, if you're entirely covered in dirt, another piece of dirt doesn't look like anything.
Right?
Trump is black socks.
Black socks.
They never get dirty.
The longer you wear them, the blacker they get.
Right?
That's Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is just black socks.
And so it's very difficult to throw mud on somebody who's completely made of mud.
At this point, he's a mud monster, and they made him a mud monster, so there's no way to take him down, especially since they told us that the mud monster was fun.
They told us the mud monster was good and entertaining, that he was a playboy, that he was a gallant, that Donald Trump was the kind of guy who was squiring the most beautiful women, that he was Bruce Wayne in the Batman flicks, that he was squiring around two models on each arm in a Lamborghini.
Right, that was Donald Trump, to Wayne Tower.
Right, Donald Trump was Bruce Wayne.
And now when they say, well, you know, he's a really, really bad guy, it doesn't wash and it doesn't work.
So, on the other hand, what they've been doing with Hillary is protecting her for years, and the Clintons, they've been protecting for years.
So instead of just exposing the public to all of the Clintons' dirt, they've been burying the Clintons' dirt.
And this juxtaposition is really good for Donald Trump, really good for Donald Trump, not bad, good.
Right?
On the one hand, the media have vaccinated him against dirt.
On the other hand, the media have basically done, for the Clintons, what overprotective parents used to do for their kids back during the polio days.
In the 1930s, before the polio vaccine, rich kids actually had an outsized chance of coming down with poliomyelitis.
The reason for this is because they weren't out in the streets playing in the dirt, so their immune system had not been built up to handle polio.
So if they got polio, then it was much more severe for them.
Okay, that's the Clintons with regard to the media.
The media have protected the Clintons in this magic bubble, like John Travolta in the Bubble Boy.
They've protected them with this media bubble for so long that if anyone pierces the bubble, it's really damaging.
The Hillary Clinton immune system is not built to handle this.
She only has one response, which is, Oh, I'm always being attacked by the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Nobody cares if the dirt is good and juicy.
Nobody cares if the stuff that's being thrown against the wall sticks.
So, take for example, here's the juxtaposition.
This is what the entire race is going to be like.
That's why it's going to be wildly entertaining to cover.
It should be funny.
It should be just a happy, happy day.
Here's what it looks like.
Hillary's got her campaign idea, and her campaign idea against Donald Trump is that she's going to attack him as somebody who's unstable.
She's going to attack him as somebody who's dangerous, not trustworthy, and somebody who doesn't know policy.
But she's gonna start with he's divisive, that he's a misogynist.
So here is Hillary Clinton's anti-Trump ad.
This was released by Priorities USA.
You know, you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes.
Blood coming out of her wherever.
Does she have a good body?
No.
Does she have a fat ass?
Absolutely.
You like girls that are 5'1", they come up to you to where?
If Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.
I view a person who is flat chested as very hard to be attacked.
And you can tell them to go f*** themselves.
Does Donald Trump really speak for you?
Priorities USA Action is responsible for the content of this advertising.
Okay, this is a crappy ad.
This is a crappy ad for a variety of reasons.
So folks, if you can't see it, this is why you need to subscribe to Daily Wire so you're up on the news.
Subscribe to this podcast so you're up on the news and you can actually see what we're looking at.
It's not just they're playing audio of Donald Trump there.
They're also having women mouth what Donald Trump is saying while wearing t-shirts of Donald Trump, which is visually confusing.
It's just visually, you're looking at this and going, why is this black lady mouthing Donald Trump's words with a picture of Donald Trump on her face, on her chest?
Like, it's weird.
You got this old woman wearing Donald Trump t-shirt and mouthing Donald Trump's words.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to gather from any of this, right?
That's problem number one.
Problem number two is that the music behind this, and this is just a basic semiotic thing, the music behind this, if you're going to do a Donald Trump is scary for women ad, you need to use scary music.
It needs to be Donald Trump is scary for women.
He's terrible to women.
He's cruel to women.
He's awful.
A couple of weeks ago, we played an ad in Arkansas that's playing along these lines.
Much better ad.
This one's garbage.
It's a terrible ad.
Finally, there's an actual outright lie in this ad.
So at the very end, they get to the part where he says, they need to be, they basically should be, you know, F them, essentially.
That quote was about China's trade policy.
It was not about women.
So they took it completely out of context.
So when this old lady says this, right?
When this old lady says this, they should go F themselves, right?
That old lady saying that, that's not even about women.
And Trump immediately hits back on that, right?
He says, that's not what I said, right?
That's not what I said in any way.
What he tweeted back was, wow, 30,000 emails were deleted by crooked Hillary Clinton.
She said they had to do with a wedding reception.
Liar, how can she run?
And then she says, the pathetic new hit ad against me misrepresents the final line.
You can tell them to go blank themselves.
It was about China, not women.
Crooked Hillary Clinton put out an ad where I am misquoted on women.
Can't believe she would misrepresent the facts.
My hit was on China.
Amazing that Crooked Hillary can do a hit ad on me concerning women when her husband was the worst abuser of women in US political history.
And this is the part where Donald Trump...
is going to defeat Hillary Clinton.
So Hillary will wheel out all the dirt on Trump, but again, he's black socks.
He never gets dirty.
The longer you wear him, the blacker he gets, right?
When he hits Hillary, Hillary is the bubble boy.
And when you hit the bubble boy, the bubble boy goes down.
So that last tweet there, about how her husband was the worst abuser of women in US political history?
That's true.
That's true.
By any stretch of the imagination, that's true.
It makes it very difficult to say, oh, it's terrible that Donald Trump said she's bleeding from her wherever, when your husband was literally raping people and you were threatening the rape victims.
Makes it real hard.
And Trump is not afraid to use anything, and this is the thing.
Again, the immune system for the Hillary campaign is gone.
They have no immune system, which is why Bernie Sanders is able to just walk in.
I mean, he's a weak virus, Bernie Sanders, right?
He's not even a solid case of the flu.
He's more like a cold.
And he's about to kill Hillary Clinton.
Her candidacy is going to die at the hands of a 73-year-old, almost inert virus.
What happens when there's an actual virus that attacks her in the name of character attacks?
So the best tweet that Trump tweeted today was actually none of these.
It was Trump's tweet on Hillary's claim that she was going to have Bill handle the economy.
So Hillary came out and she said, Bill won't be a member of my campaign or a member of my cabinet, but he will be a member of, he will be the guy who handles the economy, is what he says.
He'll be the guy who handles the economy.
So, Donald Trump rightly tweets, quote, Crooked Hillary said her husband is going to be in charge of the economy.
If so, he should run, not her.
Will he bring the Energizer to D.C.?
For people who don't know what the Energizer is, the Energizer is a reference.
In Ronald Kessler's book about the Secret Service, it's a reference to Bill Clinton's blonde mistress, who is squired in to Chappaqua every time Hillary Clinton goes out of town.
Right, so the implication here, right?
Donald Trump is not afraid to just throw the kitchen sink.
And by the way, this is great.
I love it so much, right?
You're talking to maybe the number one anti-Trump advocate on the right, and I love this.
This is great, okay?
The reason that it's great is twofold.
Number one, what he's saying here is exactly correct.
Okay?
If Hillary Clinton is trying to run on her husband's career, why isn't he running?
Why is she running?
What do they have to do with each other?
They don't even like each other.
And that's his final point there, which is, look, if we want Bill there, and we want a woman who Bill loves, don't bring Hillary.
He can't stand Hillary.
Let him bring the one he's nailing.
All right, let him bring the hot blonde one that they're squiring into Chappaqua.
So Donald, this sort of stuff, because here's the thing.
Now that he said Energizer, he runs the news cycle, folks.
He's big enough.
He has 8.7 million followers.
The news cycle will revolve around this kind of thing.
So now what do you get?
You're going to get days of commentary on what does he mean by the Energizer.
What is that?
And then you get these charges reviewed, right?
Because you need the background, right?
I had to explain to you what the Energizer was.
So will everyone else in the media.
What is the Energizer?
Why does that have to do with Hillary Clinton?
Why does that have to do with Bill?
And Hillary's only response is going to be, it's sexist to make me responsible for my husband's affairs.
Well, when you were running the bimbo eruption unit in the White House, it ain't that sexist.
So this is all, Hillary, look, here's how Hillary is responding to these sorts of things.
She was confronted by a protester, and Hillary looks two steps away from death here.
And here's Hillary Clinton wearing what appears to be a uniform stolen from Baskin Robbins.
And she's talking to a protester, I think he's in Kentucky.
And your governor did such a great job, and your current governor is trying to undo it all.
Undo it all!
Oh yes it is, ma'am.
Yes it is.
Yes it is.
Now, you are entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
And I'll be happy when I finish talking to everybody else for you to come over here and you can tell me what you're saying and we can talk and we can hear what's on your mind.
But I'll tell you what the truth is and you know it's time people stopped listening to Republican propaganda.
Okay, first of all, okay, so quick note.
I used to watch the Behind the Rings of Lord of the Rings, right?
And the Behind the Rings of Lord of the Rings, which is my favorite film trilogy.
And one of the things they talk about is how they created the voice of the Balrog.
Okay, how they created that voice, how that sound effect was made.
And what they did is they took legitimately the sound of a brick, Uh, like a gravel brick, like a, what do you call it, a cinder block.
Like, they took a cinder block, and they rubbed it against another piece of cinder block, really slowly, and then miked it up.
Right?
So that's how you get that rumbly, gravelly sound.
That's also how they created the voice of Hillary Clinton.
So when Hillary Clinton speaks, it's actually the voice of the balrog, except sped up and made incredibly shrill.
And yes, it is shrill, folks.
Shrill has a definition, and Hillary fits the definition.
There are men who are shrill also.
But, you know, that's a whole different category right there.
If this is her best shot, like when she gets hit with something, you're not entitled to your own facts.
Is there a cliche she won't spout?
Hillary Clinton is basically an athlete who's asked after the game if that game went well after they lost by 20 points.
They say, well, you know, we've got to take it one game at a time.
They didn't really enjoy it.
And Trump, Trump is the guy who Gives the great press conference quotes afterward.
It's gonna be very difficult for Hillary to fight all of that.
And Trump is using the fact that the media have protected Hillary for so long against her.
She's not immune to these sorts of charges.
In fact, she's precisely the opposite.
She's very vulnerable to them.
Okay, time for some things that I like and some things that I don't like.
Okay, so, things that I like.
Somebody emailed me and made me aware of this channel on YouTube called Ben Shapiro Thug Life.
And it's, I have to admit, I laughed really hard when I saw this.
This is a clip of me.
I'm trying to remember which school this was.
I think this is Virginia Tech, I think.
I was speaking at Virginia Tech, and I was confronted by someone who disagreed, and you'll see how it goes.
And I'll describe it to you if you don't subscribe.
But again, subscribe, folks, so that you'll get the joke.
It's very difficult for me to see how it's not a privilege to get a lower score on the SAT than the Asian guy who's living in exactly the same circumstance.
He gets penalized 50 points, you get 230 points on the SATs.
That is definitionally a privilege.
So there's one.
Do you disagree?
Yeah, but I don't want to take it after this time, so I'm just going to let it.
So here's my message to the bloviating jackasses outside. .
Toughen up, you spoiled brat snowflakes, if you actually want a better world.
*music* It's called fraternity texts.
But if they're not involved, should they walk out and leave their kids, and then you have this special sign?
Yes, absolutely.
I'm in favor of that.
It's called marriage, and the left undermine it.
It was awesome.
Okay, so, folks, you can't see these things.
Basically, the system of marriage has been raised to elude women of all time, and then feminism came along and said that women need men like fish need a bicycle, and it turns out that women need men like women need men.
So somebody took all of these clips of doing stuff.
The reason you're hearing this obnoxious kind of rap track underneath, folks, if you're listening, is because somebody took these clips of me, and then they did like a freeze frame of me, and they put a blunt in my mouth, and a- and like a gold chain around my neck, and then it says thug life.
So, I find this humorous.
That's all I can say.
Whoever's doing this, well done.
It's very funny, considering that I would not... I have never smoked pot, number one.
And number two, I wouldn't know a rap song if it came up and bit me on the ass.
So there's that.
Okay.
Second thing that I like today...
Movies, I'm trying to, I'm trying to do some more modern movies, because I've been doing a lot of old movies lately.
Um, so, modern movie that I really like, um, L.A.
Confidential.
It's from 1998.
Really, really good film.
Should have won Best Picture that year.
I think, was it the same year as Saving Private Ryan?
I think, maybe Shakespeare and Love Will Net Year.
In any case, it's a really, really good film.
Um, L.A.
Confidential with Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce.
Uh, and, uh, and you should check that out.
L.A.
Confidential is a, it's a really solid film.
Okay, couple of things that I hate.
So, Number one, Hillary has a brand new plan.
You think Hillary is just going to ruin foreign policy?
She'll ruin domestic policy too.
And one of the problems with the economic collapse, one of the reasons we had an economic collapse, was because of the politicization of our economic system via the federal government.
So the subprime meltdown, the subprime crisis, was caused in part because the federal government felt that minorities were being systemically discriminated against, systematically discriminated against.
In the banking industry.
So what they did is they gave tremendous incentives by the federal government to give subprime mortgages to minority buyers of homes who couldn't afford it.
And then it turned out they couldn't afford it because the reason banks weren't giving them loans is because they had bad credit or because they couldn't afford things.
So then everything went south and it all imploded.
The lesson Democrats learned from this is that we need more of that, not less.
So Hillary Clinton has a new plan for the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve, for people who aren't versed in economics very much, the Federal Reserve is a, there's something called the Federal Reserve Board, and it's seven governors who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
And then another 12 regional presidents of banks, Federal Reserve banks across the nation.
The Federal Reserve was instituted in 1913 to do a few things.
The first thing it was really instituted to do was insist that federally chartered banks, federally licensed banks, kept a certain amount of their money in reserve in case there was a panic and a run on the bank.
The reason that banks used to go bust is because everybody would show up at the same time and say, give me my money.
Right, like in It's a Wonderful Life.
Everybody shows up at the same time and they, or in Mary Poppins, everybody shows up at the same time And there's what they call a run on the bank, and a lot of the money isn't there, right?
Because all the money has been lent out to other people for their various projects.
So what they said is, your deposits are guaranteed.
So there was a guarantee by the Federal Reserve that up to a certain amount of money, I think right now it's $250,000, if you put that in a federally deposit, if it's part of the FDIC, then it's going to be insured that money is available to you, even if the bank were to, for some reason, go bust.
The other thing the Federal Reserve does, and it's much more powerful, is they lend out money to these banks at a prevailing interest rate.
This is why whenever you see Janet Yellen set the interest rate, what she's doing is she's setting the rate at which banks can borrow from the central bank to make loans to other people.
So if you have a high interest rate, what that means is less loans are being given to people, and that means there's less inflation in terms of real price.
Right now, if it's the opposite, if the interest rates don't exist, then banks can take out loans and they can invest it in the stock market, which is why the stock market has gone up, or invest it in real estate.
Now, there's an argument to be made that the Federal Reserve shouldn't do any of these things.
That basically, the monetary supply should be the monetary supply, the government should not mess around with it, it should always be what it is, you can't just print dollars to get out of government debt, you can't just print dollars to bail out banks, right?
That's a good case, I tend to agree with it.
However, If you are going to have a Federal Reserve, at the very least, you would imagine, well, it's a banking thing, right?
It's an economics thing.
You'd probably want the people on it to be economists, people who are familiar with banking, right?
You wouldn't want it to be a political agency.
Hillary Clinton has now come out, and she says, we need more black people, and we need more women on the Federal Reserve, and we need less bankers on the Federal Reserve.
So she presumably wants, like, DeRay McKesson on the Federal Reserve explaining to people why it is that we need to inflate the currency for the sake of black inner-city communities.
If you want to destroy the American economy and destroy the value of the dollar, put a bunch of political hacks in charge of the Federal Reserve.
Put them in charge of the Federal Reserve.
By the way, when that's happened before, when Richard Nixon, for example, used the Federal Reserve in order to manipulate currency, manipulate the inflation rate in the 70s, it led to a malaise that lasted most of the decade and included the Jimmy Carter administration.
Hillary wants to do that same thing, but she wants to fully politicize the Federal Reserve, which is just a genius idea on every level.
So that's genius.
And we will part on an even-handed note Roger Stone, who we quoted earlier, Trump's surrogate.
You got Hillary Clinton, who wants to take control of the Federal Reserve by putting in charge a bunch of people on diverse bases.
And then you have Roger Stone, who says that Donald Trump, you know, when Donald Trump was acting as his own PR man and using a fake name, as we played yesterday, Roger Stone is about to tell you why there's such a grand history in American tradition of doing this.
This is ridiculous.
James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, they all wrote under pseudonyms.
They all had things they wanted to say, and they wrote under pseudonyms.
Trump wanted to get his spin on a story, so he handled the press call himself.
Probably because he didn't want to pay a public relations expert.
What difference does it make?
By the way, he's actually pretty effective at dealing with the press, if we haven't seen that from the course of this campaign.
Well, and let's face it, there are just far more important questions before the American people about what, other than whether Donald Trump, you know, essentially acted as his own PR agent 20 years ago on a personal matter.
I just don't understand the relevance.
Okay, so we can cut it off there, but the best part of that was where Roger Stone suggests that Donald Trump acting as his own PR agent to talk about who he's schtupping this week is the same as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton using pen names to write about The Federalist Paper is about the Constitution.
Yes, it's exactly the same thing.
You have to be fully stupid to believe this.
But I guess, honest to God, you kind of have to be fully stupid to believe that either one of these people is going to be a great president in any way, shape, or form.
But we'll be back tomorrow to cover more of the unfolding circus as it unfolds before us with laughter in our hearts and tears in our eyes.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection