Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

July 5, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:07

Ep. 144 - Hillary's Not Going To Jail, Because America Is Toast

The FBI says Hillary's guilty but clears her, Trump can't stop tweeting stupid crap, and leftists celebrate Independence Day in their own way. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yesterday was Independence Day, so naturally, the left has America was never great trending on Twitter.
	It's an argument that's found some pretty serious support on the left in response to Donald Trump's campaign slogan, Make America Great Again.
	Sean King, who's the white guy who pretends he's a black guy for the New York Daily News, he explicitly made the case for America was never great back in May.
	He said, quote, What sustained period in the history of this nation, what decade, what era, what generation was truly great for everybody?
	While this country might have been great for George Washington, it wasn't great for the Africans who were forced to live and work on his plantation, unquote.
	This is a rather narrow definition of great.
	It ignores all of world history, including modern history, and sets utopia as the objective bar for greatness.
	Let's instead look at America's record in context.
	When America was founded, no other nation on earth had the great and good philosophy America would embody.
	The notion of a kingless constitutional republic, a land of liberty based on limited government, given legitimacy by the consent of a moral and religious people.
	As Andrew Klavan, who's usually unintelligent but here was smart, pointed out, quote, Now because of what America showed the world, even the darkest tyrannies have to call themselves republics simply to maintain a pretense of legitimacy, unquote.
	American notions of free speech, freedom of religion, these became the hallmarks of human rights all over the globe.
	American beliefs in freedom against governmental intrusion became the basic definition of liberty.
	For most of human history, virtually every society on earth held slaves.
	America fought a bloody civil war, ending in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-black Americans in order to end slavery.
	In the 20th century, while the world decayed into fascism, the United States tried to destroy it, ending Japanese totalitarianism and German Nazism and Italian fascism.
	Then, while half the globe descended into communist madness, the United States rebuilt the other half of the globe, contained and finally forced the collapse of the monstrous communist system.
	America's free economic policies came to dominate the globe, liberating literally billions of people from the chains of abject poverty.
	Yes, America was great.
	America is great.
	That's why everybody wants in, and why nobody, even on the left, wants out.
	But for the left, that thinks America was never great, the solution is the destruction of all those foundational principles that made us great in the first place.
	Destruction of the nuclear family.
	In the name of sexual license, attacks on traditional religion, racial division in the name of multiculturalism, unfettered immigration without regard to cultural differences, a growing welfare state that creates dependency.
	None of that makes America great, or even good.
	To keep America great requires understanding the values that made us great in the first place.
	Our educational system has totally failed to teach Americans those values, so it's no wonder America's children now spit in her face.
	But that merely means it's our job to educate.
	After all, as Ronald Reagan said, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
	It's our responsibility to ensure that generation never arrives.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	...tend to demonize people who don't care about your feelings. Alrighty, so even as I say that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction, it basically died like 30 minutes ago, 45 minutes ago.
	It turns out that if your last name is Clinton, you can break the law as much as you could possibly hope to or want to.
	So to set the stage for this, you have to remember that last week, President Clinton, Hillary's husband, the one that she's famous for, right?
	She's only famous because she once had sex with Bill Clinton, the only proof being Chelsea.
	Right?
	That's the only reason she's famous.
	She, her husband, met with Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General, on this plane, and then Hillary said it was purely social, there's nothing to see here, everything is just fine.
	Here's Hillary explaining that over the weekend.
	They talked about grandkids, which is very much on our minds these days.
	Golf, their mutual friend, former Attorney General Janet Reno.
	It was purely social.
	They did not veer off of speaking about those kinds of, you know, very common exchanges.
	They didn't veer off of it.
	That's all they talked about.
	Yeah, that is a bunch of crap.
	And then she says, by the way, that she only learned about the meeting on the news, just like President Obama only learns about stuff on the news.
	Here's Hillary explaining that she only learned about this on the news.
	Well, I learned about it in the news, and it was a short chance meeting at an airport tarmac.
	Both of their planes, as I understand it, were landing on the same tarmac at about the same time, and the Attorney General's husband was there.
	They said hello.
	Okay, and then the music started playing.
	Okay, so Hillary Clinton says, So they chat last week, and everybody goes, wait a second, something seems fishy about this.
	And the Clintons say, no, nothing fishy about this at all.
	it on the news, except for the New York Observer, which reported that Bill stuck around on the tarmac, hoping Loretta Lynch would show up so they could have a chat.
	So they chat last week, and everybody goes, wait a second, something seems fishy about this.
	And the Clintons say, no, nothing fishy about this at all.
	Over the weekend, report from the New York Times, Hillary says that maybe she would consider keeping Loretta Lynch as her attorney general in her new administration.
	Nothing corrupt about any of this, folks.
	Then, President Obama announces that he is going to fly down to North Carolina with Hillary Clinton on Air Force One, which, by the way, she should not be doing because that's our taxpayer dollars to pay for Air Force One.
	We shouldn't be paying for her campaigning.
	And apparently she says now she's going to cover part of the cost.
	Part of it.
	We cover the rest.
	She flies down to North Carolina, but still there's this looming issue of FBI indictment over her head.
	What's going to happen if the FBI comes out and says that Hillary Clinton is actually guilty of setting up a private server to store classified information?
	Top secret information?
	Transmitting that information to people who it shouldn't be transmitted to?
	Making it vulnerable to foreign hack?
	What happens if the FBI announces that?
	Well, this morning, They announced, the FBI announces, we're gonna have a press conference.
	James Comey.
	We're not gonna tell you why, it's a big secret.
	We're gonna have a press conference this morning, about 8 o'clock Pacific time, 11 o'clock Eastern.
	President Obama is scheduled to speak with Hillary Clinton.
	Like right now, as we're taping this, as we're broadcasting this, Hillary is about to join President Obama.
	It's like 2.25 this afternoon, Eastern time.
	They're supposed to campaign together.
	And the FBI, just on that day, happens to announce what it's gonna do with Hillary.
	If this is all just a little bit too cinematic, To you.
	You're not the only one.
	As my business partner, managing editor Jeremy Boring says, this is like The Godfather, right?
	This is the end of The Godfather, with Michael Corleone taking confession as Clemenza shoots people in an elevator.
	Right?
	That's what this is.
	So, as Hillary and Obama are descending onto the tarmac in North Carolina, as all that's happening, FBI Director James Comey comes out, and he announces that, yeah, it turns out Hillary violated every law in the book.
	Boop!
	Eee!
	Well, what can you do?
	What can you do?
	I mean, it's not like she's guilty of any- I mean, she's guilty of everything, but it's not like she's guilty of anything.
	I mean, she's Hillary Clinton!
	Come on!
	Here's FBI Director's Clip 19, James Comey.
	First, he leads off by making- this is the weirdest press conference ever, because he starts off by saying, no one knows what I'm going to say.
	Bull.
	Bull.
	You think Obama's descending onto a tarmac with Hillary Clinton in tow on a plane, getting ready for him to campaign with her, not knowing what James Comey's gonna do?
	Does Obama seem that risk-seeking to you, that he was gonna get up there, and that he was just gonna start talking with Hillary next to him, and then all of a sudden, the FBI shows up and just drags Hillary off, and he's just standing there going, What?
	Joe Biden?
	Joe Biden, come on out!
	Like, did he really think that's what was going on?
	Of course he knew what Comey was going to say.
	So Comey starts this thing off by saying, no one knows what I'm going to say.
	It's a big surprise.
	I have a hat here.
	Is there a rabbit in there?
	Or is there a piece of turd?
	Who knows?
	It could be anything.
	OK, so then he proceeds for 10 minutes.
	10 minutes.
	to lay out a series of hardcore charges against Hillary Clinton.
	I'm watching this, and I know where this is going.
	I mean, I know where this is going, but while I'm watching this, I'm going, wait, wait, wait.
	Maybe it's not going here, right?
	Because he lays out, the charges he lays out are so clearly felonious, so clearly felonious, so clearly violative of law, that you're thinking he's going to get to the end of this iteration, and he's going to say, and now I'm referring to Loretta Lynch, that they prosecute this case and take it to a grand jury.
	Remember, His recommendation and Loretta Lynch's decision, that's not even about prosecuting.
	That's about taking it to a grand jury to decide whether to prosecute.
	So you think that's where he's going.
	That's not where he ends up going.
	Here is James Comey laying out why Hillary basically should be prosecuted.
	And then at the very end, it's like he remembers.
	It's like the switch clicks and he remembers, wait a second.
	My boss is President Obama, and Hillary Clinton is campaigning with President Obama, so we're just not gonna do that.
	So he starts off by saying that Hillary was lying about her server, which she was.
	Here we go.
	Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department.
	And she also used numerous mobile devices to send and to read email on that personal domain.
	Okay, so that's lie number one.
	Remember when she said she set up the private server because she only wanted one BlackBerry?
	You remember that?
	Not true, right?
	She had multiple, multiple devices on which she was viewing things.
	And, by the way, she had more than one server.
	It wasn't just one in her bathroom.
	She had one in many bathrooms.
	Basically, any place that Bill had sex in the house with someone not her, she had a server.
	Okay, then she contin- then Comey continues by saying, oh yeah, here's another lie, right?
	It turns out that Hillary did, in fact, transmit classified information.
	From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
	Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent.
	Thirty-six of those chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information at the time.
	That's the lowest level of classification.
	Stop it there.
	We can stop it there.
	So he's saying here, yes, classified information was on her server.
	Also, you remember she kept saying it was not marked classified when it was sent or received?
	Okay, well, here's the thing, and he points this out later, he says that, he says later in this press conference, it doesn't matter whether it was Marx classified, it either is classified material or it's not classified material, it's Marx classified later, but you're not supposed to be sending this stuff, and when she said it wasn't...
	Classified when it was sent or received?
	He keeps saying sent or received here because he's ripping her apart, right?
	He's saying she was lying.
	This was all classified.
	110 emails in 52 email chains.
	I'm shocked it's that low.
	My guess is it's not that low.
	My guess is that some of the documents that were destroyed by Hillary's lawyers contained classified information.
	Later here, he'll say that Hillary's lawyers absolutely destroyed a bunch of material, as he says.
	So, he continues by saying that He continues by saying that Hillary did not hand over all her emails.
	Remember she said she handed over all her emails?
	Yeah, that's not true either.
	Agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received.
	One at the secret level and two at the confidential level.
	There were no additional top-secret emails found.
	And finally, none of those we found have since been up-classified.
	I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way.
	Okay, so I'm not sure why we're getting cop music in the background like someone's gonna come and arrest Hillary Clinton, but in any case, what he's saying there is that she didn't turn over a bunch of emails, including emails that were classified, one at a secret level, a couple at the confidential level, and then he says Hillary's lawyers didn't read the emails they deleted.
	They just went through her email chain, looked at the title of the email, and then just deleted everything.
	And he says, we can't get those back.
	They're gone.
	There's no way to get them back.
	They're finished.
	Here's what he said.
	The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails, as we did for those available to us.
	Instead, they relied on header information, and they used search terms to try to find all work-related emails, among the reportedly more than 60,000 that were remaining on her system at the end of 2014.
	It's highly likely that their search missed some work-related emails and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the Slack space of a server.
	It's also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to state and that we did not find elsewhere and that are now gone.
	Because they deleted all emails they did not produce to state, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
	What?
	Okay, so there's no crime there?
	So her lawyers went in, found emails, didn't read them, just deleted them, and then deleted them off their servers, wiped them so that the FBI couldn't get a hold of them.
	There's no crime there, though.
	There's no crime, says James Comey.
	And then he finally admits.
	I love that he says there's no intent.
	There's no intent.
	But it turns out that Hillary's team was, quote, extremely careless.
	We'll point out this language here, because the language of the statute under which she should be prosecuted says that you only require, not intent, gross negligence.
	If you are grossly negligent with classified material, you go to jail.
	What's the difference between extremely careless and grossly negligent?
	There is no difference!
	It's the same damn thing!
	If you say, if I say, you were extremely careless driving and you sideswiped a kid, that's me saying you were grossly negligent driving and you sideswiped a kid!
	Extreme negligence, extreme carelessness, gross negligence, same exact thing.
	Same exact thing.
	But Comey says, well, you know, she was extremely careless, but that doesn't mean she's gonna go to jail.
	Here's him explaining, she was extremely careless.
	Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless.
	Okay, pause it there for one second.
	He says there's no evidence that there was intent, right?
	There's no evidence that there was intent.
	You don't need evidence of intent.
	Okay, let me explain something about law, folks.
	As a lawyer, when it says intent, What it means, under law, is intent to commit the act.
	So, for example, if I get into a car drunk, I don't have to intend to sideswipe a child in order to be held responsible for first-degree murder.
	The intent lies in me having intent to drink and having intent to get in the car.
	Okay, if I violate prescriptions on classified information, if I violate those prescriptions on classified information, then it's not that I intend to turn those over to the Russians.
	It's I intended to put those in a place where it's vulnerable, and then the Russians came and took them.
	That's what intent means.
	No one intends for bad things to happen.
	People intend to do things that result in bad things.
	That's the standard of intent.
	So he's not even right on this.
	If you're extremely careless in how you treat your emails, that's extreme carelessness with regard to what happens to the emails after you put them there.
	But you intended to put them there by law.
	Under the standard of law, you intended to take those emails and put them in a place where you knew they weren't safe.
	That's intent.
	That's intent under the law.
	But he's trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist so he can make an excuse for not doing his job.
	Here's James Comey again.
	They're handling a very sensitive, highly classified information.
	For example, Seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received.
	Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters.
	There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
	In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as secret by the U.S.
	intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email.
	That is, excluding any later up-classified emails.
	None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.
	But their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers, not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government, or even with a commercial email service like Gmail.
	Okay, this is unbelievable.
	So you're saying she put it on a place that's not even, not even, As secure as Gmail.
	Not even as secure as Gmail.
	But don't worry, she didn't commit a crime.
	Folks, unfortunately, we're out of time on the Facebook live feed.
	You need to go to dailywire.com to subscribe for the rest of the show.
	There's a lot more here.
	We're going to unpack all of it.
	Tell you just how much of a criminal she is.
	What are the ramifications for the election?
	Can Trump take advantage?
	We're going to talk about all of those things.
	And more.
	DailyWire.com.
	Also, you can listen to it a little bit later from SoundCloud or from iTunes.
	But we'll see you tomorrow, if not.
	But go to DailyWire.com and subscribe so you can see the rest of this, because it really is important stuff.
	All right.
	So, Hillary Clinton, apparently, she says that this classified material was not passing across her server.
	Comey says, yeah, we know that it was passing across her server.
	I love that he says nobody, no one reasonable, no reasonable person should have been Putting these emails on an unclassified system.
	This is all the lead up to an indictment.
	You get this.
	Everything he's saying, everything he's saying supports an indictment.
	All of it.
	Every single piece here supports an indictment.
	Right?
	And then Comey hits with the final, the final note here.
	And his final note is, Hillary's server could have been hacked.
	Right?
	That's why this matters.
	Because our enemies probably knew what Hillary was saying to all of the other governmental agents and to people outside the government.
	This would be clip 25.
	Here's Comey.
	With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was hacked successfully.
	But given the nature of the system, and of the actors potentially involved, we assess we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.
	We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
	We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
	Unbelievable!
	UNBELIEVABLE!
	So, foreign powers had access to Hillary Clinton's emails, but still no crime!
	United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.
	Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.
	Unbelievable.
	Unbelievable.
	So foreign powers had access to Hillary Clinton's emails, but still no crime.
	And here's where Comey gets to the punchline.
	Because all this is a big joke.
	All this is a big, big joke.
	If you're a YouTube filmmaker Hillary Clinton doesn't like, you go to jail.
	You go to jail.
	If you take the tag off your mattress at home, gang, you could go to jail.
	But if you take classified information, top-secret classified information, store it on a private server, because you don't want anybody else having access to your private emails, if you then convey it to people who are hacked by the Russian government, and you do all of this because you just don't care, don't worry, you won't go to jail, so long as your last name is Clinton and you want to have sex with Bill.
	That's the rule.
	Here's James Comey basically acknowledging the law just doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.
	To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.
	To the contrary.
	Those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions, but that's not what we're deciding now.
	Okay, so in other words, if you're not Hillary Clinton, you're going to jail.
	Right?
	I mean, that's what he just said.
	He said it right out.
	Right out there.
	He just says it.
	Spits it out.
	I mean, that's an amazing, amazing admission.
	He just comes out there and he says that anybody, right, anybody else, under similar circumstances, would face consequences but not Hillary Clinton?
	But not Hillary Clinton?
	You go to hell.
	You and your government go to hell.
	I mean, this is corruption at the highest level.
	It's corruption at the highest level.
	And then Comey explains why he says charges aren't appropriate.
	And I'm going to tear this legal reasoning apart because it's absolute nonsense.
	Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
	Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges.
	There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.
	Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person's actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
	In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.
	All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information Exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or indications of disloyalty to the United States, or efforts to obstruct justice.
	We do not see those things here.
	Okay, that's an amazing statement.
	We can stop it there.
	And then he says he's not going to recommend indictment.
	Okay, so here are the things that he just pointed out.
	He says that all the prior cases involved the combination of clearly intentionally and willful mishandling of classified information, She did that!
	She did that!
	She clearly intentionally mishandled classified information.
	It's the only reason to set up a server.
	My God!
	Okay, that's not what intent means.
	Intent doesn't mean she sent an error mail to Vladimir Putin with all her documents.
	It means she had intent to put them in a place that was not safe.
	If my wife, if my wife stuck documents in her purse and took them out to her car that violated HIPAA, she would be looking at jail time right now.
	She'd be looking at jail time right now.
	That's number one.
	Then he says, vast quantities of material exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct.
	Okay, now he's talking about a different type of intent.
	You see what he's doing there?
	Now the intentional misconduct is, she wanted the Russians to have it.
	But clearly she exposed vast quantities of material in a way that made it possible for the Russians to have it.
	And then she says disloyalty to the United States.
	Okay, no one's accusing her of being a traitor, but people are accusing her, rightly so, of putting her own interests ahead of those of the United States.
	And finally, efforts to obstruct justice.
	The only reason, folks, the only reason to set up a private server is to obstruct justice.
	That's the only reason.
	She didn't put it on Gmail where it's discoverable.
	She then had her lawyers wipe it down.
	What does that sound like to you?
	You know how far you have to stretch to come to this ridiculous conclusion?
	You know how far you have to go to get here?
	I mean, this is insanity.
	This is true insanity.
	And it's just another piece of evidence that the law does not matter to the Obama administration or the Clintons, that rule of law in the United States is utterly dead.
	It's dead all the way through.
	It's just, it's amazing.
	It's an amazing thing.
	And again, it's not amazing because I didn't expect it, but there's a difference between expecting to be clocked in the face and actually being clocked in the face.
	And America just got clocked in the face.
	Let me go through the statutes of which Hillary Clinton's actually guilty.
	And let me show you.
	It's not, did she mean to hand over the documents to the Russians?
	As liar James Comey is putting, he's lying here.
	He's lying here.
	Okay?
	18 U.S.
	Code 793.
	This one she is clearly guilty under.
	Okay?
	This is Statute F. Quote.
	The statute explicitly states whoever entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.
	You understand?
	Gross negligence permitting documents to be removed from its proper place of custody.
	The server he acknowledges was an improper place of custody and he says she was, quote, extremely careless.
	Does that sound like gross negligence to you?
	Every element of this law was violated.
	This is a felony.
	It carries 10 years in prison.
	Hillary Clinton gets off scot-free because she's Hillary Clinton.
	Unbelievable.
	How about 18 U.S.C.
	1924?
	Section 1924.
	This statute says any employee of the United States who quote knowingly removes classified documents without authority and with the intent to retain such documents at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both.
	This is why she set up a server.
	That's the whole reason to set up a server.
	18 U.S.C.
	798 U.S.C.
	is U.S.
	Code.
	The statute says anyone who quote uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States any classified information shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.
	She clearly used the information in a way prejudicial to the safety of the United States by putting it on her own server for her own personal purposes.
	Finally, 18 U.S.C.
	2071, this statute says anyone who has custody of classified material and, quote, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years.
	We know, Comey said, Hillary destroyed documents, they found it elsewhere, including classified material.
	Including classified material.
	Yes, she is guilty.
	Yes, she should be going to jail.
	No, the law does not require the sort of intent James Comey is talking about.
	He is a liar.
	He is a liar.
	He is a politically motivated liar.
	Okay, all that said, all that says, what is the media doing today?
	Oh, sigh of relief, sigh of relief.
	Everything's fine now.
	You see, now everything's cool.
	They've got their fig leaf.
	This is what's so sick about the way our modern politics works.
	This is too big to jail, right?
	People have been saying too big to fail.
	She is too big to jail.
	They weren't gonna put her in prison, and so they pretend that everything is hunky-dory.
	They pretend everything is hunky-dory.
	And I love the politicians out there today saying, you know, Donald Trump is ripping on her.
	And of course, he's right.
	Everything he says about her is exactly correct, right?
	Everything that he says about her being crooked and the system being rigged, all of that is 100% true.
	But I'll tell you how this narrative goes for the next week.
	The way the narrative goes is people like me, people like People on the right, we point out Hillary is corrupt.
	She's a liar.
	She may have committed perjury in front of Congress.
	She has routinely said things that are not true.
	She exposed America's classified secrets to foreign nations.
	And the left just goes like this.
	Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh, nyeh.
	She wasn't indicted.
	Nyeh, nyeh.
	Yes, that's all they care about.
	It's their fig leaf.
	It's their fig leaf now.
	Sally Cohn tweeted out, well, now that she hasn't been indicted, can people on the right stop whining about it?
	To which I tweeted back, you haven't stopped whining about Trayvon Martin.
	Right, and Trayvon Martin's case wasn't even wrong.
	That case was right.
	I'm still looking for an explanation as to how Comey's decision here was even decent.
	It wasn't.
	Here's my theory of what happened here.
	My theory is that James Comey originally was gonna turn over the facts to Loretta Lynch, and Loretta Lynch was going to reject the indictment.
	After the Clinton-Lynch meeting, it became politically unpalatable for that to happen, so instead they made Comey fall on his sword.
	Instead they made Comey fall on his sword.
	Now, in the hands of any other candidate, in the hands of any other candidate, this could be a devastating rebuttal to Hillary's argument that she's gonna keep America safe, right?
	This could be a really devastating rebuttal.
	And it should be.
	And Jonathan Capehart, who's a big fan, a big fan of Hillary Clinton's, and he wants Hillary to win, he hates Trump and all this.
	Capehart says that the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch was a disaster of epic proportions over the weekend.
	Here's Jonathan Capehart saying this.
	And it's clear she's trying to do two things.
	One, she's trying to explain how this process works because she knows that this was and remains a disaster of effort proportions when it comes to the independence and the integrity of the Justice Department.
	She wants everyone to understand How this process is working, too.
	In the clip you showed, she talks a great deal about career prosecutors and career investigators.
	She's trying to make it clear to everyone, if they're willing to hear it, that she's not making the decision.
	Political people are not making the decision.
	It's career prosecutors and investigators who have been there before she got there and will be there after.
	So that way she's trying to make it clear that there isn't going to be any political influence.
	Okay, so he's saying it's a disaster for her, but it isn't really a disaster for her, because the media won't let it be a disaster for her.
	So, the media are looking for another headline, right?
	They don't want to print that Hillary was extremely careless with documents.
	They don't want to print that Hillary exposed classified material to the Russians.
	They don't want to talk about any of this stuff, because this stuff is awkward for them.
	So instead, they look for another headline.
	Now, What you would hope is that your candidate would not be someone who provides fodder routinely for the other side.
	Make it hard for them, in other words.
	Make it hard for them.
	If you're gonna generate headlines, generate attack headlines on Hillary Clinton.
	As I've said for the past couple of weeks now, if Donald Trump just stopped doing anything but attacking Hillary Clinton, Then, it would put a lot of pressure on people like me, the Never Trump folks, it would put a lot of pressure on people like me to vote for him.
	Because, then the case would be pro-Hillary versus anti-Hillary, as opposed to, on one side we've got this horrible crap show of Donald Trump, and on the other we have this horrible crap show of Hillary Clinton.
	By the way, you know, I've seen this argument today.
	Hillary Clinton is so deeply corrupt, you can never vote for, you know, you should certainly vote for him, because otherwise you're voting for her.
	As you know, I don't buy that argument.
	Me not voting is me not voting, but, Even if you assume the premise of that argument, if you think that Donald Trump is going to save you from executive branch corruption and abuse, let me remind you that a week ago he was saying that he was going to use the FBI and the IRS to investigate Amazon.com and the Washington Post so he could target Jeff Bezos because he doesn't like Jeff Bezos, the owner of the place, right?
	So, let's stop pretending.
	Honestly, I think the beginning of wisdom is honesty.
	The beginning of wisdom is honesty, and let's be honest about something.
	There are no good choices in this election.
	Maybe there's a better choice, maybe there's not.
	There are no good choices in this election.
	And for people to pretend that there are any easy choices in this election, that's to ignore the reality, which is that we have two Democrats, one running against each other, one may be better, one may be worse, but one also represents my philosophy, supposedly, and one doesn't.
	I mean, this is a very real, balancing decision.
	Anybody who's having an easy time with this one isn't thinking it through.
	Or they're refusing to acknowledge the problems inherent in either decision.
	Obviously there's a problem not voting for Trump because it's effectively not helping him stop Hillary.
	And obviously there's a problem voting for Trump because it's turning over conservatism to a guy who's really a bad guy.
	So Donald Trump, you know, over the weekend, he could have spent the entire weekend talking about Loretta Lynch and Clinton, and then he could have gone into this week targeting Hillary Clinton.
	Instead, Donald Trump tweeted this over the weekend.
	So here's the tweet.
	He tweets, Crooked Hillary makes history, right?
	And it's a meme.
	And the meme is the history made Hillary looking in the air photo from her website, and it's pasted over a bed of dollars.
	And then the controversial part, it's inside a Jewish star, it's his most corrupt candidate ever.
	Inside a red Jewish star, it's his most corrupt candidate ever.
	So, this creates a firestorm because obviously this looks like something that he grabbed from an alt-right white supremacist website that's linking money and Judaism, right?
	That's what it looks like.
	And that's old-school anti-semitism.
	And it turns out that's exactly what it is.
	It turns out that he likely grabbed it from 4chan or from a white supremacist supporter who was pushing this out via Twitter, and they just grabbed it and put it up.
	Right?
	Unattributed, they just grabbed it and they put it up.
	So the media goes nuts over this.
	And Trump then releases a revised version of this, which has a circle on it, right?
	And the circle covers the Jewish star.
	Except that they're incompetent, so you still see the points of the Jewish star in the background, because that's how incompetent this team is.
	So the media goes nuts over this.
	The media say, well look, this just demonstrates once and again that Donald Trump is in with his white power alt-right supporters.
	And here's the problem.
	I can't really argue with that since I've been arguing for months that he is in with those alt-right white supremacist supporters.
	Now, do I think that this is the biggest deal ever?
	No, I don't think it's the biggest deal ever because I've already been saying this stuff is a big deal for months.
	This doesn't change anything that I felt about Donald Trump.
	It doesn't change anything I believed about his crap show of a candidacy or his crap show of a campaign.
	None of this changes anything for me.
	But the media decided now, now of course they're going to make this into the biggest story ever.
	So it wasn't the biggest story ever when Donald Trump explicitly refused to condemn the alt-right on Hugh Hewitt's show and on national TV when asked about it.
	That is something the media will ignore, but now they have to distract from Hillary, so they bring this up.
	So two things can be true at once.
	One, Trump can be trafficking in white supremacist anti-Jewish stereotypes because he's ignorant.
	I don't think he's an anti-Semite, I just think he's stupid.
	And I think that he's happy to take support from whoever shows him support.
	And if that's the alt-right, then he'll just keep chugging along, taking their memes and acknowledging them as some sort of legitimate force in American politics.
	I think that can be true.
	And it can also be true that the media is exploiting a stupid, ignorant move by Donald Trump in order to avoid talking about the deep-seated, nasty corruption endemic to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.
	The entire weekend was basically covered, before this news broke today, the entire weekend was covered with just Trump supporters making bad defenses of this particular tweet.
	Here's Corey Lewandowski, who is the former campaign manager for Donald Trump, and a fellow who is just a delight.
	I mean, he has a nondisclosure agreement, he has a nondisparagement agreement with Trump, presumably.
	CNN hired him anyway to give commentary, and things went wildly wrong on CNN.
	You're saying that people are reading too much into this?
	It's the same star that sheriff's departments across the country use all over the place to represent law enforcement.
	To read into something that isn't there is, you know what?
	I think, again, that's the mainstream media trying to attack Donald Trump for something that really isn't there.
	So they put a new tweet up with a circle.
	The message is the same.
	Let's look at the message.
	The message is that Hillary Clinton is corrupt and that the FBI is investigating the leading Democrat frontrunner.
	If there's nothing there, Corey, then why did they pull it?
	And why did they pull it and then send out the new tweet with, instead of that star, and it wasn't a five-point star, it was a circle the next time they did it?
	He did it the next time he did it.
	The bottom line is, again, the bottom line, this is political correctness run amok.
	If this would have been a star next to Hillary Clinton and didn't have the cash behind it, no one would be questioning this.
	This is the mainstream media trying to read into something.
	And here's the thing, you have to remember where the sources are coming from.
	Eric Erickson is a person who's part of the Never Trump movement.
	He has been against Trump from day one.
	He's entitled to do that.
	But at the end of the day, the message is very clear.
	Hillary Clinton is under investigation from the FBI.
	She went in this weekend for a three and a half hour interview because she didn't want to be subpoenaed.
	And her husband is trying to intervene in this case by meeting with the Attorney General, not to talk about golf and talk about grandchildren.
	That conversation doesn't take 30 minutes.
	The real question is, is the FBI going to make the right recommendation?
	Because if it were you or I or anyone else in the American public, we'd be indicted by now.
	And that's what should happen if that's what the facts of the case bear.
	And if that is the case, then Loretta Lynch should clearly either recuse herself or agree right now to accept the recommendation of the FBI, not saying that she will take those into account.
	Okay, so the last part of what Lewandowski's saying is true, and this is the problem.
	What Lewandowski's saying at the end is true, but that's not what the media's gonna run with.
	The media's gonna run with the fact that Donald Trump can't disavow his own bad guy supporters, right?
	Because the media's looking for an excuse to cover Trump.
	Now, this doesn't mean that the media wouldn't go after Trump were he innocent.
	If he were innocent, they'd still go after Trump.
	But at least then he wouldn't be guilty.
	I mean, there's something to that idea.
	He shouldn't be guilty of bad stuff.
	He should avoid bad stuff.
	Right.
	You have Jeffrey Lord doing the same thing on CNN.
	And again, it's just spin, spin, spin.
	They're making it so easy for Hillary's team.
	Right now, there's a poll that came out today.
	It shows Trump beating Hillary by five.
	Every other Republican they survey.
	Every single other Republican they survey.
	They surveyed Romney.
	They surveyed Kasich.
	I believe they surveyed Cruz.
	Shows them either tied with Hillary or up at this point.
	Trump is five points down in this latest poll today.
	And there's a reason for that, and it's because he can't keep himself under control.
	For God's sake, is there no one there at Trump headquarters to even be smart enough to just shut down his Twitter account?
	To just take control of his Twitter account?
	Is there no one there who's bright enough to do that?
	I'm not a Trump supporter, as you know.
	I think that Trump's Twitter account reflects who Trump is as a man.
	But just from a purely political standpoint, wouldn't you think that you could shut him down to the extent that you could focus on the things that actually matter?
	Instead, you end up with this nonsense with Jeffrey Lord.
	John, number one, the sheriff's image is out there everywhere.
	I mean, this has been around in America for well over a century.
	When I saw this tweet, that is exactly what I first thought of, was that it was the sheriff's badge over money, which meant she was corrupt, which is the crooked Hillary, which is one of the themes of the campaign.
	You know, all of this, frankly, I think some of this is a matter of culture.
	Now, they took it down.
	I don't think they should have taken it down, frankly.
	If we're going to talk about anti-Semitism, then we need to be talking about why we had people on the Democratic Platform Committee right now pushing anti-Israel point of views who were put there by Bernie Sanders.
	But Jeffrey, hold on one second.
	Why is there a division over anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party?
	That's serious stuff.
	Just with all due respect, if we're going to talk about division, I mean, I'm I am always gobsmacked that Democrats like to play this game when they have been the party of racial division.
	Fine.
	And at the moment, they're.
	But Jeffrey, Jeffrey, you know, they've got an anticepidism.
	Jeffrey, Jeffrey, hang on.
	This is Eric Erickson.
	OK, so, you know, he's so so Jeffrey Lord, again, half of what he's saying is true.
	Okay, as I'm going to say in a second.
	And the fact is the media are looking to target Trump, no question.
	But Trump doesn't have to provide them fodder.
	You want the evidence the media are trying to target Trump.
	So over the weekend, Elie Wiesel dies.
	Elie Wiesel is of course, the Holocaust survivor who won the Nobel Peace Prize in I think 1986.
	And he was a he was the author of the book Knight.
	Which is this very bleak look at the Holocaust from inside Auschwitz death camp.
	I happen to have worked with and helped write the autobiography of his cousin who was in Auschwitz with Elie Wiesel.
	Elie Wiesel was a great man who stood up for human rights.
	After he died, Sidney Blumenthal, who is just a very close Hillary advisor, big anti-Semite, his son, who Sidney Blumenthal sends, his son Max, his son's name is Max, he sends Max's work to Hillary Clinton on a routine basis, right?
	That always happens and it's been happening for years.
	Max Blumenthal tweeted out after Wiesel died, quote, Ellie Wiesel went from a victim of war crimes to a supporter of those who commit them.
	He did more harm than good and should not be honored.
	After Elie Wiesel dies, this Nobel Prize winning Holocaust survivor.
	Blumenthal has also likened Israel to Nazi Germany.
	Hillary Clinton has connected with Max Blumenthal in the past.
	Here's the New York Observer pointing this out a few months ago.
	Quote, A number of columns have been written exposing how Mr. Blumenthal sent articles to Ms.
	Clinton from his son Max, one of America's most notorious Israel haters.
	Ms.
	Clinton responded very favorably to them.
	Some of these writings would later be the basis for Max's anti-Semitic book, Goliath, whose launch was thrown by Sid at his own home.
	The disgraceful writings compare Israel to the Nazis, call for the expulsion of Jews from Israel, and whitewash Palestinian terrorism.
	For good measure, Max also compares the Israel Defense Force to the SS.
	The emails released show Mr. Blumenthal sent 19 articles written by Max, most of which contain deep anti-Israel sentiment.
	What is truly unsettling is Ms.
	Clinton's glowing praise for Max's work.
	On numerous occasions, she forwarded the articles to her staff with the words, please print, and a number of times she asked for multiple copies so that she could hand them out to her staff and discuss them.
	So in other words, there's antisemitism on the Hillary side.
	Lots of it.
	And deeply embedded.
	And the media are ignoring it.
	And they're ignoring it because they would prefer to focus on Trump.
	And again, that doesn't mean the media aren't corrupt.
	They are.
	They're deeply corrupt.
	The media is awful.
	The media is evil.
	The media is corrupt.
	The media desperately, desperately want to make sure that Donald Trump loses to Hillary Clinton.
	All of that is true.
	Donald Trump makes it easy.
	Donald Trump makes it easy for them.
	And that's one of the things that's so troubling about the Trump campaign.
	It's why this entire campaign is a series of bad choices.
	This is not, this is not an easy choice for anybody.
	For anybody to claim that it is on either side is making a big mistake.
	I'm talking about either side of the never-Trump, pro-Trump divide.
	I made a speech at Western Conservative Summit over the weekend.
	I gave the keynote address on Saturday night.
	Trump had spoken the day before.
	Sarah Palin had spoken the day before.
	And Sarah Palin And what I said was, look, I get your decision.
	I've said it many times on this program, folks.
	I get your decision to vote Trump to stop Hillary.
	I do.
	But do not pretend he's a conservative and do not pervert your principles in order to support Trump.
	And what I mean by that is don't pretend that Trump's tweeting out sheriff's badges because you want Trump to win.
	It's not true.
	It's not true.
	And when you do that routine, all you do is lend credence to the other side Claiming that we are all soft on anti-semitism, for example.
	That's stupid.
	We can attack Hillary with alacrity because she's the most corrupt politician of my lifetime.
	Barack Obama being a close second, but the two of them working together far beyond anything we've seen in the history of American politics.
	I mean, it's amazing stuff.
	But that doesn't mean that Donald Trump isn't a crap show of his own.
	And it's really...
	A devastating election for that reason.
	Conservatives lost long ago.
	Now it's a series of bad decisions.
	So we better start building a movement, or this is just going to continue.
	Because the executive branch is not going to be non-corrupt under Trump.
	It may be more corrupt under Hillary, but I don't think it'll be much less corrupt under Donald Trump.
	And he'll be doing it under the auspices of the conservative party.
	That's why it's a hard decision.
	I get either way people come down.
	I get either way people come down on that decision.
	Okay.
	Time for them things I like, then something that I hate.
	Okay, things I like.
	So this week we're gonna do westerns.
	So, one of my favorite westerns, I don't think I've done this one before, one of my favorite westerns is from 1993, the movie Tombstone, with Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer.
	Kilmer giving a really good performance as Doc Holliday.
	It's a really fun movie, we can play a little bit of the trailer.
	It was a place where a man could start over.
	Where a fortune could be made.
	They say every town has a story.
	Tombstone has a legend.
	Who is he?
	That's Wyatt Earp.
	Made a name for himself as a peace officer.
	I heard of you.
	I'm retired.
	You must be Doc Holliday.
	Are you retired, too?
	Not me.
	I'm in my prime.
	Hollywood Pictures presents... The only real law around here is the Cowboys.
	The story of Wyatt Earp.
	The first time in our lives we got a chance to stop wandering and finally be a family.
	Now, this is trouble we don't need.
	If we're gonna have a future in this town, it's gotta have some law and order.
	What do you want, Ringo?
	I want your blood.
	I want your soul.
	I want them both right now.
	Okay, so... Okay, we can stop there.
	It's a really good movie.
	It doesn't let up at any point.
	It's terrific all the way through.
	So pick up Tombstone tonight.
	It's an intense, fun film.
	Okay.
	Other things that I like.
	So Kevin Durant, who's on the Oklahoma City Thunder, he just moved over to the Golden State Warriors, and everybody is going nuts over this.
	Like, totally nuts over this.
	So first things first.
	I think about athletes the same way I think about anybody in a career.
	You have the right to move wherever you want to move.
	You do.
	You have the right to take your career and take your skills to South Beach, or you take your skills to Golden State.
	I've sort of evolved on this question a little bit.
	I sort of see the athlete side a little bit more.
	That doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect on your legacy if you leave one team in order to join a better team in order to win championships.
	There's an NBA fan who absolutely lost his mind after learning that Kevin Durant had signed with the Warriors, and it's pretty funny.
	Look at the Players' Tribune, and what was the title?
	It was like a new start.
	New home.
	New home?
	New home?
	What about when we made new home?
	Hope you have a new home in the dumpster with your career, because that's where it's at.
	Forget about it, bro.
	Forget about it.
	You've literally gone from my favorite player to the most hated player I've ever seen in a second, in a tweet, in a single headline.
	This is the only NBA jersey I have.
	It's the only one I care about.
	It's the only one I used to care about, now I care about.
	What is this?
	What is this?
	This isn't even real!
	This isn't even real!
	You're not even a part of this team!
	You're not even a part of this trash!
	No, not trash team.
	Your trash is not part of this great team, great organization, great city, great everything.
	The only trash part about it is the person that just left right now.
	Oh, and how dare you, even in your little article, say thank you to Oklahoma.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	That's like Draymond Green saying, thank you Steven Adams nuts for being there.
	Now I'm gonna kick your nuts.
	That's what you just said Oklahoma.
	Thank you.
	Oh, thank goodness Kevin Durant said thank you.
	Now I can go sleep at night and win no championships.
	Oh look at what the sports center just created.
	It goes on like this forever gang.
	So, you know, listen, I appreciate fans who are real fans of sport.
	All I can say is I feel bad because I used to be more of a sport... I still am a sports fan, but I used to follow this stuff a lot more closely.
	And then as you get older and you have kids, you sort of fall a little bit out of touch with it.
	But I appreciate the passion of this guy, even though I think that he might need a job and a girlfriend.
	Alright, final thing I don't like.
	Time for a thing I don't like.
	So, over the weekend, There was an ad that came out celebrating Independence Day, and it comes out from the Ad Council, which is your tax dollars.
	And it's John Cena, the wrestler, right?
	He's famous for being a wrestler.
	And he cuts this ad about love.
	Patriotism.
	There's a word thrown around a lot.
	It inspires passionate debate and is worn like a badge of honor and with good reason.
	Because it means love and devotion for one's country.
	Love.
	For a word designed to unite, it can also be pretty divisive.
	You see, there's more to patriotism than flag-sequel onesies and rodeos and quadruple cheeseburgers.
	Patriotism is love for a country, not just pride in it.
	But what really makes up this country of ours?
	What is it we love?
	It's more than just a huge rock full of animals like cougars and eagles, right?
	It's the people.
	Do me a favor.
	Close your eyes for a second.
	I want to try something out.
	Picture the average U.S.
	citizen.
	Think about it.
	How old are they?
	What's their hair like?
	How much can they bench?
	You got one?
	Okay.
	So chances are, the person you're picturing right now looks a little different to the real average American.
	There are 319 million U.S.
	citizens.
	51% are female.
	So first off, the average American is a woman.
	Cool, huh?
	Is that what you pictured?
	54 million are Latino.
	40 million senior citizens.
	27 million are disabled.
	18 million are Asian.
	That's more people in the U.S.
	than play football and baseball combined.
	9 million are lesbian, gay, bi, transgender.
	More than the entire amount of people that live in the state of Virginia.
	Around 10 million are redhead, 5.1 million play Ultimate Frisbee, and 3.5 million are Muslim.
	Okay, so he just continues along these lines, just reading off statistics like this.
	Okay, who cares?
	What does that have to do with anything?
	Like, the world is also a very diverse place, it turns out.
	Lots of people, lots of different religions, lots of races, lots of genders, lots of sexual organs, lots of orientations.
	Lots of stuff going on in the world.
	What does that have to do with American patriotism at all?
	What does that have to do with American patriotism at all?
	Maybe American patriotism is about the principles upon which the country was founded.
	You know, the things that we're busy dumping over.
	Like, we care about the diversity and all this shtick.
	But do we care at all about rule of law?
	Do we care at all about the fact that our top politicians are able to get away with it?
	Do we care about that?
	Do we care about the fact that the President of the United States is currently campaigning with a woman who's clearly a felon?
	Does that matter at all?
	Does it matter to us that limited government no longer exists?
	That the government is supposed to get involved in every part of our lives?
	That's what patriotism is about to me.
	It's about the foundational principles that made the country great.
	Not just the people who live here, because the people who live here, they're people who live everywhere.
	Lots of good people live outside the United States.
	The question is, what are the principles that a country is based on that allow in the people who are better?
	And that allow the people who are better to rise?
	This is the kind of stuff that I hate from the left, is that all America is is basically a random agglomeration of marbles in a sack.
	It isn't.
	It isn't.
	Okay, what we are, it's about the principles that unite us, and when those principles fall away, we end up with a country that's falling apart, and unfortunately, that's what it looks like right now.
	Well, hopefully I'll be a little bit less pessimistic tomorrow about the state of things, knowing me, that's... Forget it, it's not gonna happen, but you may as well stop by and find out.

▲