All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2016 - The Ben Shapiro Show
57:32
Ep. 146 - The FBI Defended Hillary By Destroying The Law

James Comey makes a mockery of himself before Congress, Trump makes a mockery of himself before the world, and the vaunted Ben Shapiro Show mailbag! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced he would not recommend obvious felon Hillary Clinton for indictment.
His rationale?
She didn't have the requisite intent to move forward with the prosecution.
Here was Comey's conclusion, quote, Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges.
There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.
All of the cases prosecuted involved some combination of clearly, intentionally, and willful mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of materials 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." This logic relies on two ideas, neither of which is in evidence.
First, the law requires intent.
Second, that even if the law did require intent, that intent would have to rise to the level of treasonable activity.
First, and most obviously, the law simply does not require intent.
Here is 18 U.S.C.
which Comey explicitly referenced, quote, whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, codebook, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information relating to the national defense through gross negligence.
Gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.
Or two, having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust or lost or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to a superior officer, shall be fined under this title or in prison not more than 10 years or both.
As former federal prosecutor Annie McCarthy points out, Hillary was clearly responsible for gross negligence, even by Comey's own admission.
Here's what McCarthy said, quote, That's true.
But there's another problem.
Comey says Hillary did not intentionally and willfully mishandle classified information, that she didn't show vast quantities of material exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct.
He said there were no efforts to obstruct justice.
All of that was present.
Intent, for purposes of committing a crime, generally does not require intent to commit the final harm.
That's called specific intent.
It requires intent to commit a criminal act.
Basic intent.
For example, if you dropped a cinder block into a crowd and it killed somebody, you would likely be prosecuted for first-degree murder, even though you didn't have specific intent to kill somebody.
Right?
You'd be guilty because you dropped the cinder block and you knew it was probably going to hit somebody.
Hillary clearly had intent to mishandle classified information.
She did it.
She set up a private server to do it.
She had her lawyers destroy emails on that server.
Hillary also exposed vast quantities of material intentionally.
That was intentional misconduct.
She didn't have to purposefully expose the materials so a specific person would access them, which is what David Petraeus did.
She could just expose them purposely because she believed it was important to do so to protect her own privacy from government discovery.
As for obstruction of justice, Comey himself said, quote, It is also likely there are other work-related emails 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 return to state and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery, unquote.
That's obstruction of justice.
Comey clearly didn't obey the law here, but that was never going to happen.
After all, we no longer live in a nation of laws.
We live in a nation of Democrat rulers.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro show.
Tend to demonize people because they don't care about your feelings.
The Comey hearings are going on in Congress, and we're going to talk about that in just a second.
We're also going to be talking about Good Trump, Bad Trump.
For folks who haven't been subscribing, and you can't see it, or you're not picking up the rest of the podcast later, you're missing Good Trump, Bad Trump, and today we have an epic episode of Good Trump, Bad Trump, because there was a little bit of Good Trump and a lot of Bad Trump, and we'll talk about all of that stuff, plus the vaunted Ben Shapiro show, Mailbag, and we'll even talk about these two shootings that the left is calling racial, the one in Louisiana and the one in Minnesota.
So we have a chock-full show for you today.
Okay, let's start.
with James Comey.
So Comey's on the Hill today.
He's speaking in front of a House committee.
It's the House Government Oversight Committee.
And James Comey has asked, so you say that Hillary Clinton should not be indicted for a crime, but she did all the things that would require her to be indicted for a crime.
So what's the story?
What's the deal?
Here is James Comey talking about his interpretation of the law.
There are two things that matter in a criminal investigation of a subject.
What did the person do?
And when they did that thing, what were they thinking?
When you look at the hundred years plus of the Justice Department's investigation and prosecution of the mishandling of classified information, those two questions are obviously present.
What did the person do?
Did they mishandle classified information?
And when they did it, did they know they were doing something that was unlawful?
That has been the characteristic of every charged criminal case involving the mishandling of classified information.
I'm happy to go through the cases in particular.
In our system of law, there's a thing called mens rea.
It's important to know what you did, but when you did it, this Latin phrase mens rea means, what were you thinking?
And we don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do.
That is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information.
There is a statute that was passed in 1917 that on its face makes it a crime, a felony, for someone to engage in gross negligence.
So that would appear to say, well, maybe in that circumstance, you don't need to prove they knew they were doing something that was unlawful.
Maybe it's enough to prove that they were just really, really careless, beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the time Congress passed that statute in 1917, there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you're going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong.
And so there was a lot of concern about it.
The statute was passed.
As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern.
I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice, they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they've done it once that I know of in a case involving espionage.
We can stop it there.
This is a bunch of crap.
Okay?
Everything he's saying right now is crap.
And then I'll explain why this is crap.
Number one, as far as the level of intent, he says, did she know she was doing something wrong?
Right?
That's what he says.
Those are his words.
That's the second element.
Did she know she was doing something wrong?
Oh, let's see.
Let's see.
She set up a private server with all sorts of classified information in her basement, and in her bathroom, and she had multiple servers, and she lied about it repeatedly.
She was told by the State Department she shouldn't be doing it, and her people told the State Department to shut up.
Did she know she was doing something wrong?
Hell yes she knew she was doing something wrong!
Of course she knew she was doing something wrong!
As far as the idea that he can't prosecute under 793F because it's grossly negligent, grossly negligent, and then he says, we wouldn't want to prosecute people if they didn't know they were doing something wrong, Excuse me, but in every state in America, we have criminal negligence statutes.
In every state in America, we have criminal negligence.
For example, you leave a loaded handgun out on your coffee table, and you have a three-year-old in the house.
And the three-year-old takes the gun and shoots himself in the head.
You will be prosecuted for criminal negligence.
You will.
You'll be prosecuted for criminal negligence.
Is that something that James Comey is coming out against now?
He's saying, well, you didn't have intent for the kid to shoot himself in the head.
No, you idiot.
Of course criminal negligence exists.
Of course gross negligence exists.
The entire purpose of the statute was to say we need to take care of our national secrets to the extent that even if you make a mistake with national secrets, you're still going to get punished.
So he's just rewriting the law wholesale to avoid incriminating Hillary Clinton.
That's what this is.
There was a lot of talk yesterday.
Did Comey do the right thing?
And then, really, she wouldn't have been indicted anyway, so he was just kind of forestalling that and using it as an opportunity to dump all over Hillary so that she wouldn't get off scot-free?
Or, was this corrupt?
Okay, this speaks to corrupt, because what he's saying right now is legally nonsensical.
It's legally nonsensical.
And to prove it's legally nonsensical, a few minutes later, he's asked about, okay, let's say you're working for the FBI.
What happens to you if you treat material the same way that Hillary Clinton did?
Jason Chaffetz questioning him from Utah.
If Hillary Clinton, or if anybody, had worked at the FBI under this fact pattern, what would you do to that person?
There would be a security review and an adjudication of their suitability, and a range of discipline could be imposed from termination to reprimand, and in between suspensions, loss of clearance.
So you could be walked out, or you could, depending on the nature of the facts, you could be reprimanded.
But there is a robust process to handle that.
Okay, so there's a robust process inside the FBI.
There's only one problem.
Hillary Clinton no longer works for the government.
So what happens to you?
Is the idea is that when you stop working for government, if we found out you committed a crime while you were in the government, now you're off scot-free, now it's fine?
So in other words, only while you're working for the government are there consequences, but once you're out of government, it's fine.
So if you hide it long enough and then you quit, then they can't touch you anymore.
Or if you quit before they do anything to you, Or if you're just fired, there's no more consequences.
Yeah, except for there's a guy in the Navy who just, in 2015, ended up getting two years probation and a $7,500 fine for doing exactly what Hillary did, except with less purpose.
He just walked out of a Navy base with classified information, no intent to distribute, and they still gave him a fine and two years of probation.
This hearing got very weird very quickly.
I mean, James Comey, again, this was supposed to be an honest guy.
Clearly he's not.
Clearly something else is going on.
I think the thing that's going on is that James Comey knew how this was gonna go.
It could either be his brains or his signature on that piece of paper, and he preferred his signature on the piece of paper, Godfather style.
Basically, he knew that Obama was not going to prosecute.
He knew Loretta Lynch was not going to prosecute.
He knew that either he was going to have to quit his job and never get a job in another Democratic administration, or he was just going to have to rip Hillary and go along to get along.
And so he chose the latter.
Here's a really weird piece of testimony.
James Comey actually is... Remember earlier he said you have to know that you did something wrong.
Here's James Comey being asked, well, didn't she know she was doing something wrong?
Did Hillary Clinton do anything wrong?
What do you mean by wrong?
I think it's self-evident.
Well, I'm a lawyer, I'm an investigator, and I'm, I hope, a normal human being.
Do you really believe there should be no consequence for Hillary Clinton and how she dealt with this?
Well I didn't say, I hope folks remember what I said on Tuesday.
I didn't say there's no consequence for someone who violates the rules regarding the handling of classified information.
There are often very severe consequences in the FBI involving their employment, involving their pay, involving their clearances.
That's what I said on Tuesday and I hope folks walk away understanding that just because someone's not prosecuted for mishandling classified information that doesn't mean if you work in the FBI there aren't consequences for it.
But she didn't work for the FBI.
So what happens to her?
There are no consequences.
I love that.
Did she do something wrong?
Define wrong.
We're now fully in Clinton land, right?
Clinton land where is doesn't mean is, was doesn't mean was, and wrong doesn't mean wrong.
It's unbelievable.
I mean, this is so insulting to everybody's intelligence.
Trey Gowdy, who's an actual federal prosecutor, he used to be a federal prosecutor, Trey Gowdy, or maybe he was a state prosecutor, but Trey Gowdy, in any case, he goes after James Comey, he's a representative from South Carolina, and he gets Comey to admit that Hillary lied over and over and over and over, but still, apparently, we've got James Comey saying that none of this is worthy of prosecution.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private email.
Was that true?
Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
So it was not true?
Right.
That's what I said.
Okay.
Well, I'm looking for a little shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long.
Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received.
Was that true?
That's not true.
There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.
Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
Was that true?
There was classified material emailed.
Secretary Clinton said she used just one device.
Was that true?
She used multiple devices during the four years.
of her term as secretary of state.
And it goes on like this.
It goes on like this.
It goes on like this.
It goes on for five minutes.
Five minutes of Trey Gowdy just grilling James Comey and getting Comey to acknowledge lie after lie after lie.
But he says there wasn't gross negligence to the point where we have to prosecute and there wasn't intent.
There wasn't intent.
Okay, basically Comey's definition of intent is she must have meant to go over to the Kremlin and hand Vladimir Putin copies of her emails in order for him to prosecute.
That's not what the statute says.
That's not what any reasonable statute would say.
That's not what any reasonable statute would say.
Okay, but and now listen to his new excuses, right?
He has to come up with new excuses for Hillary now.
So get ready for this one.
This one was great.
James Comey was talking about Hillary's lawyers deleting emails.
Watch what he says here.
This is beyond the pale of insanity.
Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails that they kept from us?
I don't believe so.
Did Secretary Clinton approve those emails being deleted?
I don't think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the Secretary and her lawyers about that.
Did you ask that question?
Yes.
Did Secretary Clinton know that her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery?
I don't believe that she did.
Did you ask that question?
Yes.
Do you see how someone could view the context of what she did?
Set up a private system.
She alone controlled it.
She kept everything on it.
We now know from Ms.
Abedin's deposition that they did it for that very reason, so no one could see what was there, based on the deposition Ms.
Abedin gave.
And then when they got caught, they deleted what they had.
And they scrub their devices.
Is that part of the context in evaluating this decision?
Sure.
Sure.
I understand what inferences can be drawn from that collection of facts, of course.
He understands the inferences, but no, it wasn't intentional.
She slipped and her hip fell and it fell on her lawyers and her lawyers deleted all the emails.
Again, I'm a lawyer.
Okay, you don't do stuff that your clients don't tell you to do as a lawyer.
Okay, if somebody hands it over to me, their emails, and they said, okay, do what you will with the emails.
You think I'm going to delete all the emails?
You think I would do that if they were the Secretary of State?
There's clearly, clearly an instruction that comes down from the Clinton camp to her lawyers.
Comey knows that, and he's lying.
This is all a bunch of crap.
And then he gets to an even worse one, right?
This is the last one that we'll have to break, unfortunately.
Here's the, I love this one.
Comey says that Hillary was unsophisticated about classified information.
She's just ignorant.
Who knew?
She's just, she's crazy old grandma.
She just didn't know anything about how computers work, and she just wants her grandson to come over and teach her how to use the email.
So she makes a statement that says there was no markings.
You make a statement that there was, so her statement was not true.
Well that, that would actually have a little bit of insight into, into her statement, because we asked her about that, there were three documents that bore portion markings where you're obligated when something is classified to put a marking on that paragraph. - Right. - And there were three that bore C in parens, which means that's confidential classified information. - So a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary which means that's confidential classified information. - So a reasonable person who has been a senator, a secretary of state, a first lady, wouldn't a reasonable person know that that was
Yeah.
A reasonable person.
That's all I'm asking.
Yeah, before this investigation, I probably would have said yes.
I'm not so sure.
I don't find it incredible.
Director Comey, come on.
I mean, I've only been here a few years, and I understand the importance of those markings.
So you're suggesting that a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be?
That's your swarm testimony today?
No, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be.
Okay, so she's just stupid.
By the way, she's an originating source of classified information.
She creates classified information, but she doesn't know what classified is because she's an unsophisticated player.
- I'm saying this former Secretary of State. - Okay, so she's just stupid.
By the way, she's an originating source of classified information.
She creates classified information, but she doesn't know what classified is because she's an unsophisticated player.
She's an unsophisticated player.
Okay, unfortunately we've run out of time on the Facebook live stream, but if you want to watch the rest, go to dailywire.com and subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month, and just part from it, gang.
I mean, it ain't that much money.
Come on!
I mean, Obama's gonna take more money from you, like, in the next five minutes.
So just give us your eight dollars a month, and then you can watch, or you can go to iTunes and SoundCloud, and you can download the rest of the show.
But we have so much more to get to.
We've got the mailbag.
We're gonna talk about these police shootings.
We're gonna talk about Donald Trump's response to all of this.
It's just, it's a bonanza of joy, so join us.
Over at dailywire.com.
All right, so, the best excuse we saved for last.
The best excuse we saved for last.
I love this one.
Comey finally admits, yes, Hillary Clinton was negligent, but she was unintentionally negligent.
I love this phrase, unintentionally negligent.
Do you know what that means?
That's redundancy, gang.
That's from the redundancy department of redundancy.
No one is intentionally negligent.
Negligent means by accident.
This is like saying, I got into a car accident accidentally.
Yes, we know, because it was called a car accident.
Okay, so, here's James Comey explaining that she was unintentionally criminally negligent, but if she'd been intentionally criminally negligent, that would have been criminal, but it was all unintentional because she's a crazy old coot.
Is it your statement then, before this committee, that Secretary Clinton should have known not to send classified material, and yet she did?
Well certainly she should have known not to send classified information.
As I said, that's the definition of negligent.
I think she was extremely careless.
I think she was negligent.
That I could establish.
What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.
Okay, this is ridiculous.
This is ridiculous.
She's guilty and Comey's covering for her.
End of story.
And the reason this happened is because the DOJ gave the word.
End of story.
End of story.
So...
That's James Comey.
The Republicans are responding to this predictably.
They're saying this is insane.
So Marco Rubio, he says the State Department should bar Hillary Clinton's clearances because if you treat classified information this way, you can't be trusted with this sort of information.
Well, what a lot of people don't realize is beyond the criminality or non-criminality of this, there is the issue of State Department rules.
The State Department has rules on all of its employees, on all of its officials, about how to handle classified information, and it has very clearly detailed that there are sanctions and punishments for violating those rules.
I promise you this.
If what we know Hillary Clinton and her staff did had been anybody else in the State Department, they would have been punished and it would have gone from revoking their security clearance, to being fired, to everything in between including long-term non-paid suspension, etc.
So what I'm asking Secretary Kerry to do, this is under his jurisdiction, is to ensure that the appropriate measures are taken to now punish all of these people for their reckless behavior and that includes Hillary Clinton because whether or not the federal government the Justice Department finds us to be criminal there is no doubt that it was negligence and there is no doubt that it violated State Department policy and he needs to carry that out and not ignore it for partisan political reasons Okay, so, of course he's right.
Of course he's right.
But none of this makes any difference.
None of this makes any... Paul Ryan said the same thing.
Jason Chaffetz says that an average Joe wouldn't be in jail.
Here's Chaffetz explaining that this is insanity.
Do you suspect that?
Do you agree with that?
That's a legitimate question for the FBI director, because if you listen to the fact pattern laid out by the director, I'm mystified.
There seems to be a double standard.
If the average Joe had gone through that, they'd probably have handcuffs on them and probably be in jail.
But if your name is Clinton, if you happen to be part of the powerful and elite, there seems to be a different set of standards.
Certainly the Department of Justice has prosecuted people for far less, and here in Hillary Clinton, they're just letting her go.
And they are.
They're just gonna let her go.
Okay, so, this should be a great time for Donald Trump to attack, right?
Right.
This would be, you would think, I mean, just do what I did, right?
Just go out there and attack.
This would be a great time.
So now it's time for our daily game of Good Trump, Bad Trump.
Oh, yes.
And today is an epic game of Good Trump, Bad Trump.
So, as always, we begin with Good Trump.
So, Good Trump.
He attacks the Clintons last night.
He's in Ohio.
And he goes after the Clintons.
And here's what he has to say about the Clintons.
We're tired of incompetent leadership and incompetent people.
And Hillary Clinton, I said, bad judgment.
She's incompetent, OK?
She's incompetent.
The only good thing she's ever done Is get out of trouble when anybody else would have been in jail by now.
That's the only thing that I've ever seen her do.
That was a great job.
I gotta give her credit.
I gotta give her credit.
Okay, and he's right.
And if all he did last night was just this for an hour, just go out there for an hour and do nothing but read Hillary Clinton's emails and read Hillary Clinton's testimony and then read James Comey's testimony and then just go back and forth and say she's a liar, she's a liar, she's corrupt, she's a liar, she cares more about herself than the country.
If that's all he did last night, We would have been great, right?
We would have been gold.
That's all he has to do.
This is the worst news cycle for Hillary Clinton since she lost the nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, and it's the worst news cycle for her credibility ever in the history of her career.
Okay, it's a horrible, horrible news cycle.
The head of the FBI is basically saying she's a criminal, but I'm gonna let her get away with it because she's a criminal.
That's basically what the head of the FBI is now saying, because we have a criminal conspiracy at the top of government, I'm a part of it, and so therefore I'm going to let her go.
That's basically what he's saying right now, because there's no other excuse for him doing what he's doing.
Unfortunately, unfortunately, because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, Bad Trump.
Okay, so it's time for some bad Trump.
And listen, even for people like me, who are not fans of Donald Trump, and I'm not a fan of Donald Trump because bad Trump is more prevalent than good Trump.
I'm not a fan of Donald Trump because I think he thinks the wrong things.
I don't think that he's a conservative, but also because he's wildly incompetent and because he's destroying any possibility of defeating Hillary Clinton and all the rest of it.
Donald Trump has no capacity to hem himself in.
He just doesn't.
And it's pathetic.
It's pathetic.
The media, by the way, are looking for another headline.
They're looking to swivel.
Yesterday I mentioned they were looking to swivel from Hillary to Donald Trump's Jewish star tweet, right?
What Donald Trump should have done is just shut up.
Just shut up about it.
You already got rid of it.
Just shut up about it.
Just go out there and say Hillary a hundred times in a row.
How many times do I have to tell you people, you Trumpsters, if your boy just keeps saying Hillary from now to the election, he puts even people like me, who don't want to vote for Trump, in a bad position because Hillary is such a criminal, felon, lying piece of human garbage.
Okay, but Trump won't do that because he has this aspect of bad Trump.
Just as preface, he was on the Hill today, and on the Hill he was trying to recruit Republicans, so naturally he goes into a Republican meeting with members of Congress and proceeds to rip Ben Sasse, Mark Kirk, and Jeff Flake all in a row because they don't back him.
He says to Jeff Flake, you're not going to get re-elected, to which Jeff Flake says, I'm not up for re-election this year.
He says to Mark Kirk, you're not going to get re-elected either, but I'm going to win your state, Illinois.
And then he rips on Ben Sasse.
Yeah, that's a genius way To draw support to yourself, but that wasn't the worst bit.
So the media are looking desperately.
They're looking desperately for an excuse not to talk about Hillary Clinton and her criminality.
Normally the media just out squirrel, right?
And then they go chase a squirrel.
Donald Trump provides an army of squirrels.
That's what he does.
He has like a squirrel army and he just unleashes it.
He just unleashes the squirrel army.
So here is Donald Trump tweeting last night about this Jewish star tweet.
This ridiculous thing.
You remember he tweeted a picture of Hillary Clinton over a bed of money and a Jewish star in the corner.
And then he said it wasn't a Jewish star.
It wasn't a Jewish star.
It was a sheriff's star.
Which is ridiculous, right?
And because I know that all of Trump supporters who treat me... I just didn't know that all the alt-right people have been tweeting me sheriff stars.
If only I'd known that all this time, I would have been less offended.
When they put the little star of David on me that says Jude on it, that says Uden on it, then I should have known that.
That just meant I was just the sheriff of the Udes.
So that's just exciting.
So Donald Trump tweeted that out, and then he covered up the star with a circle, and then he justified it.
Okay, fine, whatever.
Just let it go, okay?
Let it go!
Okay, but he can't let it go because he has no capacity to let it go.
So last night, he tweets this out.
And it's a picture of a frozen product, like a sticker book, and it has a six-pointed star that says in it, with 50 stickers.
This is what he tweets out, and this is his excuse.
Now, a couple of things to point out about this.
First, the first place that I'm aware of this image having appeared is on an alt-right Twitter account.
Trying to make excuses for Trump.
So the alt-right that he says he doesn't monitor apparently provided him with this image that he then used to explain that he wasn't really taking his images from the alt-right.
So that's a little awkward.
Second of all, I don't see the bet of money next to Elsa right there.
Third of all, I wasn't aware that Disney stores were sort of the center of the alt-right online universe.
Wasn't aware of that one either.
This whole thing is so stupid.
That's exactly right, right?
I mean, he could have let it go.
For the first time in forever, he could have gotten on message.
Instead, he just demonstrated, as always, that he's a real fixer-upper.
In any case, in any case, Donald Trump does this routine, but he doesn't stop there, gang.
He doesn't stop there because Donald Trump is an utter turd tornado.
So instead, he goes out there at his rally in Ohio yesterday, and he mentions the Star of David 28 times.
Here is Donald Trump talking about the Star of David.
We have unbelievably dishonest media.
So think of that.
So you have the star, which is fine.
I shouldn't have taken it down.
You know, they took the star down.
I said, too bad.
You should have left it up.
I would have rather defended it.
Just leave it up and say, no, that's not a star, David.
That's just a star.
Okay.
He should've left it up.
We should've left it up.
You idiot!
Now we're back to discussing the Jewish star.
Even people like me, who actually find this nonsense offensive, Offensive because you flirt with an alt-right group of people who tweet images of gas chambers at me on the day my baby's born.
I find that mildly offensive.
You know, when you do this sort of stuff, even I'm saying, why aren't you talking about Hillary right now?
Why aren't you talking about Hillary?
Don't you think that's important?
Why wouldn't you do that?
Right?
But don't worry, he has other things to talk about.
Like, for example, at that same rally, he says that he wants to announce somebody he's trying to get to speak at the Republican National Convention.
Who, pray tell?
African-American youth who have a 59% unemployment rate and have no chance.
They have no chance in our society.
You know who I just spoke to?
Big Don King.
Big Don King.
I just spoke to him 10 minutes ago.
I said, Don, I'd love you to speak at the convention.
Because you know what?
You beat the system.
And he's a friend of mine.
Big Don.
Greatest boxing promoter of all time.
In fact, somebody said, and Mike Tyson endorsed me, as you know.
And Don King endorsed me.
You know what Don King did?
He owns a newspaper.
He endorsed Donald Trump for president, Bernie Sanders for vice president.
How do you like it?
He put up an ad in the paper.
In his paper.
Okay, shut up.
Just shut your face, you stupid idiot.
Just shut up.
Don King is a convicted second-degree murderer.
Okay, Don King, he mentioned Mike Tyson there.
Don King is so corrupt that Mike Tyson sued him for a hundred million dollars.
Okay, Mike Tyson thinks he's terrible.
Here's Mike Tyson talking about Don King.
I got rid of them, and then I got caught up with this other piece of shit, Don King, who's a wretched... He's just a wretched, slimy, reptilian motherfucker.
Right?
This is supposed to be my... This is supposed to be my brother, my black brother.
Right?
He's just... He's just a bad man.
He's a real bad man.
He abused you, and he would throw you... He would... He would kill his mother for a dollar.
He's ruthless.
He's deplorable.
He doesn't know how to love anybody.
That's just the way he is.
The deadest country in the world, man.
This is America, baby.
Okay, that's the guy that Donald Trump wants to speak at the convention.
And that generates a headline.
Because Trump is a dolt.
Okay?
Or, one of two things is true.
Either the conspiracists are right, and Donald Trump is in league with the Clintons to throw the election to Hillary, or he's the stupidest man in American politics.
He's just a dummy.
I mean, because this is bad, guys.
Okay?
I want him to attack Hillary.
I want Hillary to go to jail.
I want Hillary attacked.
I want Hillary taken down.
I don't even like Trump.
But one of the reasons I don't like Trump is because he can't control himself.
He has no capacity to control himself.
But that wasn't all.
Last night, Donald Trump decided it would also be worthwhile to quadruple down on his talk about Saddam Hussein, right?
So he goes out there and he says, Saddam Hussein, yeah, he kills terrorists.
That's what Saddam Hussein does.
I wake up, I turn on the television.
Donald Trump loves Saddam Hussein.
He loves Saddam Hussein.
And I was just asked a question by the Cincinnati Enquirer inside.
Mr. Trump, is it true that you love Saddam Hussein?
Essentially, like, sort of that, you know.
I said, that's not what I said.
That's not what I said.
So that's the narrative that goes around.
I actually put a press release out.
And now the people that saw it say that was great, but they are liars.
These are bad people.
These are bad people.
And what I did say, and what I did say is that he was good at one thing.
He was really good at killing terrorists.
He didn't wait around.
Do you think they gave the terrorist trials that lasted 18 years?
And then after 18 years, if they had the right lawyer, they erect a statue in honor of the terrorists, right?
Not with Trump.
So, I said, bad guy, really bad guy, but he was good at one thing.
He killed terrorists.
Next day, Donald Trump loves Saddam Hussein.
I don't love Saddam Hussein.
I hate Saddam Hussein.
But he was damn good at killing terrorists.
And now terrorists, the people that want to be terrorists, they go into Iraq.
And I said last night, it's the Harvard.
It's the Harvard University.
He's been saying this crap about Saddam Hussein since last year and the media ignored it.
So this is the media targeting him.
But you don't have to give them the squirrel army.
You don't have to.
You could just shut up and say Hillary over and over.
It ain't that tough.
All of this allows the New York Times to run with this lead today, right?
James Comey's on the Hill to testify about how he let Hillary Clinton off for committing crimes, putting classified information in a place where our enemies could hack them.
And here is the lead at the New York Times yesterday.
Quote, Donald J. Trump on Wednesdays this morning offered a defiance defense of his campaign's decision to publish an image widely viewed as anti-Semitic, saying he regretted deleting it and vigorously reaffirmed his praise of Saddam Hussein, the murderous Iraqi dictator.
Great job, Donald.
Well played, Donald.
That doesn't mean that the media is fair.
They're not.
I said this yesterday.
The media are gross.
The media are looking for an excuse not to talk Hillary.
Don't give it to them.
Why do you have to do this?
Why?
Why?
I mean, it's just, it's amazing.
I mean, the biggest gif that was going around the internet yesterday was this one of Donald Trump last night talking about a mosquito.
That is an unheard of number.
The Democrats... Ooh, there was a mosquito.
I don't want mosquitoes around me.
I don't like mosquitoes!
I don't like those mosquitoes.
I never did.
Okay, speaking of mosquitoes... Hello, Hillary.
How are you doing?
What?
Just what?
Okay, fine.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is staying on whatever message she's got left, because she's a corrupt, lying, Herodian witch.
So here is Hillary Clinton in Atlantic City.
I said yesterday, I think it occurred to me, that Hillary Clinton actually likes getting down in the mud with people, because it's what she's good at.
She's not really good at policy, but she is good at, I'm gonna try and knife people.
It's one of her favorite things to do.
So she goes to Atlantic City, stands in front of a defunct Trump casino, and then does this.
Now let's just look at this for a minute.
Donald Trump says he's qualified to be president because of his business record.
Now, three weeks ago he said, and I quote, "I'm going to do for the country what I did for my business." Now, you know, when he says things like that, He's probably hoping nobody will check up on what he has said.
Because what he did for his businesses and his workers is nothing to brag about.
In fact, it's shameful.
And every single voter in America needs to know about it, so we don't let him do to our country what he did to his businesses!
Here's the problem.
Right now, if Trump were a good candidate, what Trump would come back with is, well, we shouldn't let Hillary Clinton do to our country what she did to our country!
Right?
She shouldn't, like, that was her job, was not to screw us, and she did.
But Trump is busy talking about Jewish stars and Don King and whatever nonsense is going through his addled brain.
Okay.
Meanwhile, in other big news today, there have been two shootings, we talked about one of these yesterday, there have been two shootings in the United States that are getting all sorts of attention, and I want to go through them real quickly.
My first point here, my first point here is obvious.
We need more evidence in these shootings to determine what actually happened.
And people are going crazy over people even saying there should be more evidence before we make a determination as to guilt and innocence of the officers involved.
Because I like evidence.
I don't know about you, I like it.
The reason I like it is because back in 2014, during the Darren Wilson Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, more than 50%, 57% of the black community thought that Darren Wilson should get the death penalty for shooting Michael Brown.
Okay, it was in August of 2014, before all the evidence was out.
56% of white people said we need to wait to hear more evidence as to what exactly happened here.
Only one of those is the right answer.
Right?
Only one of those is the right answer.
Wait to hear more evidence.
When the evidence came out, it was clear.
Michael Brown, the entire narrative was a lie.
So all I suggest, folks, is just hold off.
Just hold off.
But, President Obama is incapable of holding off because he likes setting racial fires.
It's what he does for a living.
He sets racial fires, and then he tries to put them out, supposedly, by saying, give me more power at the federal government level.
I'll use the FBI and DOJ to cram down my vision of the universe on local communities.
So, There were two shootings.
One is this shooting of a guy named Elton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
We talked about him yesterday.
Long criminal record.
And there's a 911 phone call by a homeless guy saying that Elton Sterling was outside a convenience store waving around a gun and threatening people.
The police show up.
He resists arrest.
They tackle him to the ground.
There are two cops on top of him.
And then we can watch the video.
It's a little bit graphic, but here is the first Alton Sterling shooting video.
See them both on top of this guy now.
They've tackled him.
They're trying to secure him.
Okay, so what you're actually seeing there, they don't see anymore.
So from that angle, you can't see what actually is going on, but you hear the cop shouting, he's got a gun, if you make a move, basically I'll blow you away, and then both cops start shouting, gun, and then they shoot him.
Right, so this entire- so everybody goes insane.
Everybody goes insane.
Here's the second tape that came out, different angle.
And you can see it a little bit more clearly, but you still can't see what he's doing with his hand, which is really the only relevant consideration here.
Is he going for the gun in his pocket?
By the way, illegal for him to have a gun.
He was a felon on probation.
But even that's irrelevant, because if he doesn't go for the gun, then you shouldn't shoot him.
So the question here is, does he go for the gun or does he not go for the gun?
And this is the only other video.
These are the only two videos we've seen.
That's it.
These two videos.
Here's the other video of the shooting from a different angle.
Hey, bro, you effing move, I'll shoot you, bro, you effing move, I'll shoot you, basically.
Right?
And then they shoot him a bunch of times and they kill him.
Okay.
So, again, could you see in that video what he's doing with his hands?
I can't see what he's doing with his hands because the officers are obstructing.
You can't see what he's doing with his hands.
Now does it look to me like he's absolutely subdued?
No, it doesn't.
But, you know, we'll wait to see more evidence.
So, I'm not going to make a judgment.
Do they deserve to go to jail?
I don't know yet.
Let's wait for more evidence.
Now, shooting two.
So, well, first, here's what the New York Daily News cover feature, because the New York Daily News is a lefty newspaper, right?
It's that exact picture.
It says, his hands were empty.
Cops killed Alton Sterling despite his being pinned to the ground and never pulling a gun.
That wasn't the question, whether he pulled the gun.
The question is if he went for the gun.
Okay, so that doesn't mean it's justified.
We don't know yet, okay?
More information.
More- I know this is a tough concept for people.
More evidence.
Okay, here's the other shooting.
So here's another shooting.
This is a shooting that happens near St.
it's justified.
We don't know yet.
Okay.
More information, more.
I know this is a tough concept for people, more evidence.
Okay.
Here's the other shooting.
So here's another shooting.
This is a shooting that happens near St. Paul, Minnesota.
And, uh, and in this particular shooting, the victim's name is Philandro Castile.
Okay.
Okay, and Philandro Castile, we actually don't see this.
What happened here is that the cop shoots Philandro Castile.
We don't see any of that.
All we see is the aftermath.
So what you're about to see is the girlfriend is sitting in the passenger seat, and she starts live-streaming this.
I think it's on Facebook or YouTube or something.
She starts live-streaming this to the web, and she is live-streaming this as her boyfriend is bleeding out next to her.
So here's what this looks like.
Stay with me.
We got pulled over for a busted taillight in the back.
And the police, he's covered.
They killed my boyfriend.
He's licensed to carry.
He was trying to get out his ID and his wallet out his pocket.
And he let the officer know that he had a firearm and he was reaching for his wallet.
And the officer just shot him in his arm.
We're waiting for a backup.
I will, sir.
No worries.
He just shot his arm off.
We got pulled over on Larpiner.
I told him not to reach for it!
I told him to get his hand off it!
You told him to get his ID, sir, and his driver's license.
Oh my God, please don't tell me he's dead.
Please don't tell me my boyfriend just went like that.
Just keep your hands where they are, please.
Yes, I will, sir.
I'll keep my hands where they are.
Please don't tell me this, Lord.
Please, Jesus, don't tell me that he's gone.
Please don't tell me that he's gone.
Please, officer, don't tell me that you just did this to him.
You shot four bullets into him, sir.
He was just getting his license and registration, sir.
Okay, and it continues like this for another nine minutes.
So, two things.
One, this looks different to me than the other shoot.
The reason it looks different to me than the other shoot is because of the tone and tenor of the people involved afterward.
So she's sitting there, and she's all calm, which is kind of weird.
But what she's describing, and she chastises the officer.
She says, you asked him basically to get his ID, and then you shot him.
And the officer says, I can't believe, you know, I told him not to reach for it.
I told him not to reach for the gun, and he reached for it.
But he's very agitated, obviously.
The officer's yelling.
You can hear in his voice, and this is just a layperson's opinion, obviously, to me, it sounds like this is a guy who just realized he made a huge boo-boo that's going to not only kill this guy, but is going to destroy his own life.
That's what it sounds to me like from the tone of the officer.
Now, you can't tell much from the tone of an officer.
Again, there's no evidence here.
We don't know what actually happened inside the car.
I don't know if the cop has a body cam.
We may find out, but there's no evidence.
Number one, there's not enough evidence to convict based on what happens after the shoot.
What happens after the shooting, right?
We just don't know.
We don't know, okay?
There needs to be more evidence.
Number two, even if he shot the guy, is that evidence that it was racism, or is it possible that he's just wildly incompetent, this cop?
He's a really bad, incompetent cop.
Is that possible, too?
You need to actually show proof of racism.
Doesn't matter for the left.
Doesn't matter for the left.
So President Obama has already released this statement, quote, All Americans should be deeply troubled by the fatal shootings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota.
We've seen such tragedies far too many times.
Our hearts go out to the families and communities who suffered such a painful loss.
Although I am constrained in commenting on the particular facts of these cases, I am encouraged that the DOJ has opened a civil rights investigation in Baton Rouge.
I have full confidence in their professionalism and ability to conduct a thoughtful, thorough, and fair inquiry.
But regardless, and this is Typical Obama.
And it's really gross, actually.
"Regardless of the outcome of such investigations, "what's clear is that these fatal shootings "are not isolated incidents.
"They are symptomatic of the broader challenges "within our criminal justice system, "the racial disparities that appear across the system "year after year, the resulting lack of trust "that exists between law enforcement "and too many of the communities they serve.
"To admit we've got a serious problem "in no way contradicts our respect and appreciation "for the vast majority of police officers "who put their lives on the line "to protect us every single day.
It is to say that as a nation we can and must do better to institute the best practices that reduce the appearance or reality of racial bias in law enforcement.
Appearance, not just reality.
Appearance of racial bias in law enforcement.
This is President Obama setting a fire without any evidence.
That's what he's doing here.
Again, there's not enough evidence to convict these guys.
We don't know what happened here.
We have a tape in one case that starts after the shoot, and in the other case, we have two tapes, both of which obstruct the key moments of the shoot.
We don't know what happened.
It doesn't stop Obama, though.
From race-baiting, because this is what Democrats do.
This is what Barack Obama does.
Never mind the statistics.
Never mind that more white people than black people are shot by the cops, and that in circumstances in which people confront the cops, it is more likely a white guy will get shot than a black guy.
Never mind the fact that black cops are actually more likely to shoot black suspects in the NYPD than white cops are likely to shoot black suspects.
Never mind any of that.
Never mind that the number of people who are shot, black people who are shot unarmed in the United States by the cops, the number of those people is, I believe, in double digits every year.
Significantly in low double digits every year.
And that's an epidemic.
It's a serious problem in law enforcement.
This is what Obama does.
He doesn't worry about statistics.
He doesn't worry about statistical trends.
All he does is he sets fires.
Without evidence.
Again, without evidence.
Maybe these guys are guilty.
Maybe everybody's guilty.
Maybe they are.
That still doesn't demonstrate a systematic bias against black people.
It still doesn't demonstrate anything beyond incompetence of these individual police officers or maybe their department.
And even if they're both guilty, even if they're both guilty, you don't know that right now.
But Obama is jumping to conclusions in a single bound, and it really is quite gross.
By the way, I will point this out.
This is a tape.
I'm going to show you a tape from Fresno that's not getting any attention at all.
This happened like a week ago, a couple weeks ago.
You're about to watch a 19-year-old guy get shot by the cops.
Put your hands up!
- - Don't reach my hands out.
I'm gonna teach you what you got.
Keep your hands out. - Reach one more time.
Stop.
- Okay, so a guy lying prone on the ground, underneath a truck it appears, or next to a truck, and the cop's shooting him.
So the cops say that the guy went for a gun in his waistband, right, and then they shot him.
Now, you haven't seen this on the news at all, have you?
You've never heard of this thing in Fresno.
You haven't seen it.
Why?
Well, because the guy on the ground is white.
So you haven't seen any of this.
Maybe the cops are racist.
Maybe the cops are racist.
Amazing.
Amazing.
So, again, this sort of racial divisiveness is something the left loves, and it's really quite horrifying.
Again, it's just another way, and by the way, it does generate more deaths, because it means the cops are not going to go and police in communities where they feel they might have to shoot somebody, and it also means that people are going to be more abrasive with the cops, because they feel that no matter what they do, the cops are going to kill them anyway.
Alright, time for a couple of things I liked, and a thing I hate, and then some mailbag, even though we're way over time, but hey, whatever.
Okay, so, things I like when doing Westerns all week.
So here's a lesser-known Western, modern Western.
It's actually a very good picture.
It's actually tough to come up with great Westerns.
There aren't that many terrific Westerns.
Some good old ones, The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valens.
I'm partial to some old John Wayne movies, like the original True Grit or Big Jake, but...
Beautiful country.
Man can get lost out here.
is a good Western, although it's a modern Western.
Here is, it's not a classic Western, I mean, in terms of like the time period.
So here's, this one is called "Open Range" with Kevin Costner and Robert Dugall.
And if you haven't seen this movie, it's a good little flick. - Beautiful country.
Man can get lost out here.
Forget there's people and things that ain't so simple as this.
How long we been riding together, Charlie?
Now, ten years.
You know what they call that?
They call it a decade.
I always hoped somebody gentle and caring might come along.
I'm not who you think I am, Sue.
My name's Denton Baxter.
You know, folks around these parts don't take the free grazers.
Always been country plenty for man and beast.
Times change, Mr. Spearman.
Most of the time, a man will tell you his bad intentions if you listen, let yourself hear it.
You reckon them cows worth getting killed over?
Cows is one thing, but one man telling another man where he can go in this country is something else.
The lawman who sat in that jailhouse sort of sneering sticks in my craw.
The whole town knows there's a fight coming.
I just hope it don't spill over to them.
Max's men pushed back their friends, shot him dead, shot a 16-year-old boy, too, and clubbed him so hard, he might not live.
I got no problem with killing, boss.
Never have.
Okay, so it's actually like an old-school Western, and the last shootout is fantastic.
It's a really well-shot shootout.
There's one shot in particular that's fantastic.
So, open range with Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall.
I'm not even a Costner fan.
This is one of his better performances.
Which isn't saying much, but actually it's a good performance, so that's saying more.
Okay, so let's skip to things that I hate.
So, Marvel Comics has decided that they need to get involved in every political controversy they can.
This annoys me.
I read these comics, and I understand that now they want to diversify every character.
So the new Iron Man is a 15-year-old black girl.
Whatever.
They made Thor a woman.
Whatever.
Like, I think it's stupid to take iconic characters and then replace them with anybody, but the fact that they're now doing this so we can get the United Colors of Benetton is kind of silly to me.
But, here's something even dumber.
So Marvel has decided that they're doing a comic in which the villain is clearly Donald Trump.
Right, so this is the villain, Donald Trump.
And it's supposed to be, I think it's Modak, is what it's called.
Modak.
And it's something about making America great again, essentially.
And so he's the big villain in this new Marvel comic, and you've got the picture of the Mexican border, and the whole deal.
Okay, this is absolutely idiotic.
This is absolutely stupid.
And the reason that this is absolutely stupid is because if you're trying to draw an audience of young people, presumably, There's some young people who may disagree with you on politics.
It's really silly and ridiculous to create these comics where a major presidential candidate, someone I don't even like, right?
This is how the culture biases kids toward political figures.
I mean, they did another comic, I think Marvel did one last week, in which Justin Trudeau, the socialist idiot prime minister from Canada, he's the hero.
The comics should leave a lot of the politics out of it.
They can.
It's possible to do it.
You can tackle big issues without getting specifically insulting about major political personages in the United States, but the lefties can't help it and they brag to all their comic book buddies about it.
So, I find that ridiculous and insulting.
Okay, couple entries from the mailbag.
Alright, Nathan.
When assessing Trump, how much consideration do you believe we should give regarding the staff he brings in and the people he surrounds himself with?
Remember that he did fire evil Corey Lewandowski.
Okay, Nate, I don't pay any attention to the people he puts around him because in the end Trump rules Trump.
Right?
Manafort was supposed to get Trump under control?
That's not going well.
Matt writes, Hey Ben, would you consider doing a little bio or Q&A segment with different members of the crew?
It would be cool to get to know a little more about Lindsay Mathis and the rest of the crew.
It would also give you more reason to make jokes about them.
Only the last reason is convincing.
So yeah, we can do a little bit of a bio about Lindsay and Mathis with their permission.
We'll have to put together little video segments where they introduce themselves and we'll play them and I'll mock them and it'll be lots of fun.
So we'll definitely do that because you have a right to know the people who are behind the camera in this, the greatest of all shows in human history.
Tyler writes, hi Ben!
I appreciate your advice.
So, I carve...
I mean, basically, I have two kids now, which means that my reading time is constrained to after they go to bed and when I'm in the bathroom.
That's basically my reading time at this point.
My work sort of informs me constantly because I'm constantly reading throughout the day on the news, the background for the news.
Instead of keeping a reading list, I actually just have a giant pile of books next to my bed that I'm constantly refreshing and replenishing.
I have no less than probably 30 volumes next to my bed at any given time, and I sort of make my way through them and I build it up and I take it down.
I'm constantly... I mean, I have... I think I own...
Probably six or seven thousand books in my house.
We ran out of space in my old house.
We had to buy a bigger new house so I could do it.
My study doesn't contain all of them.
I have two rooms in my house that are specifically dedicated to books, and they're both big.
So it's, you know, reading is obviously where I get most of my information.
Joseph, what do you think of Viggo Mortensen as an actor, and also how he became a recluse after Lord of the Rings?
I really have no opinion on him becoming a recluse after Lord of the Rings.
I think Viggo Mortensen is a terrific actor, and I don't think that his best performance... You want to see some range, watch him in Eastern Promises and Lord of the Rings.
Eastern Promises, which I haven't done, is a thing I like.
Great movie.
Really, really good movie.
Very gritty, not for the kids, obviously, there's some nudity, but it's a terrific, terrific movie, and Viggo Mortensen is a really good actor, really has range.
Chase, I recently read your book Porn Generation, was both frightened and inspired by it.
In the book, you spoke of the left's defining deviancy down so as to allow much of their twisted moral conduct to be classified as normal.
Do you think the same concept can be applied to the left's political conduct?
Absolutely, this is what they're doing.
Now, the new normal is you get to have private servers, or the new normal is Barack Obama gets to run roughshod over the Constitution, or the new normal is every aspect of American government gets to be twisted for political benefit by the left.
Absolutely, that's true.
Ivar writes, If you had to choose a country outside the English-speaking world in Israel, where would you want to live and why?
I wouldn't really want to live outside of the English-speaking world.
I mean, I assume that there's some places in Europe that are not English-speaking that seem like they're relatively nice.
Italy...
Seems like a fun place to live.
When I visited there, it was nice.
I haven't been to enough countries to give you a great answer to that, but honestly, I would prefer to just stake out my own country and buy an island and then start it anew.
And I would have a couple of rules, right?
I mean, basically, it would be that no taxes, except for a very, very low voluntary tax for defense, no business taxes, and we would quickly become the most powerful country on planet Earth.
Michael writes, did you choose the thug life or did the thug life choose you?
The thug life chose me.
I was just walking down the street and it grabbed me.
Okay, Andrew.
My father, age 50, thinks that Reagan's prediction has come true and his generation was truly the last free generation and socialism is here.
No majority believes in small government anymore.
Do you agree with this?
Well, I think that the evidence tends to show that there's truth to that, but that doesn't mean that we can't re-educate people and fix this.
I think that most Americans don't know anything about economics.
I think most Americans don't know what socialism means.
They think that Denmark is a socialist country.
Denmark is a more business-friendly country than we are.
They rank 11th on the Heritage Foundation's list of business friendliness because they have virtually no tariffs and they have very low business tax rates.
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Democratic socialism is the idea that you're going to redistribute massive amounts of wealth from private producers, but both of those stink.
And if we just educate people about that, I do think there's a shot otherwise I wouldn't be in this business.
Hey Ben, what is your opinion of recycling?
Is it legitimately helpful or leftist garbage?
No pun intended.
So, I'm not an expert on recycling.
I will say the people in LA treat it like it's a part of the leftist catechism.
Like if you put a plastic bottle in the garbage, well hell will come for ye.
And it doesn't matter that most of this stuff ends up in the landfill anyway.
I mean, even a lot of the stuff that's supposed to be recycled isn't recycled.
It goes to the landfill.
It actually produces more, it actually produces other waste products to recycle.
It costs a lot of energy to recycle because you have to break down stuff that'd be cheaper to make new, so there are actual energy costs in all of that.
But it doesn't matter, it's become part of the leftist catechism.
Jessica says, what is your opinion on the Free the Delegate movement?
Good, bad, obsolete?
Is this something delegates should be pursuing?
So my opinion is, there's sort of the normative and the descriptive.
I don't think that the Free the Delegate movement is going to succeed.
I don't think there's anything illegitimate about the Free the Delegate movement because I don't think that the delegations in the first place are particularly democratic.
On any level.
I think Donald Trump won 33% in South Carolina and won 100% of the delegates.
I think Ted Cruz didn't even have a popular primary in Colorado and won 100% of the delegates.
The delegate system is not meant to reflect the popular will, really.
The delegate system is meant to allow the party bosses to basically pick who they think should run, and so long as that's the case, I mean, if you're gonna have a corrupt system, then you may as well corrupt it in favor of the good.
At least that's the case the Trumpsters keep making.
Okay, Vince says, if liberal states and cities can become sanctuaries for illegal immigrants, why can't a state like Texas declare itself a sanctuary for the unborn and refuse to follow the recent SCOTUS decision regarding the regulation of abortion clinics?
Well, okay, so legally, there's a legal question and a moral question.
Morally, they should do this.
Obviously.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says a state can't do this.
Legally speaking, the difference is the federal government saying to the state government that it is illegal for there to be legal immigrants in the country.
There's actual laws.
The state government cannot be made into an arm of the federal government.
They have to voluntarily acquiesce in that.
The same is not true with abortion.
In abortion, the idea is that the federal government will come in and enforce the woman's ability to have an abortion.
So, in a way, it's the sanctuary for the unborn, but the question is really what the federal government is going to do about it.
And the federal government is going to say it's not a matter of the federal government making the state into an agent of its will, it's the federal government trying to overcome the state in order to ensure what it sees as a constitutional right, falsely and wrongly.
Luis says, whenever rights are taken away from employees and whenever products are hazardous or dangerous to customers, to what extent should the government step in?
By the way, can Lindsey have her own podcast or make a cameo on the show?
Lindsey's made a cameo on the show before, gang, and I understand that you're addicted to Lindsey.
I understand that you just can't get over the fact that Lindsey's here.
I understand that she's the only female in a 50-mile radius, but Lindsey can't do a cameo every single time.
I mean, just watch the beginning when we do Facebook Live.
Just watch us on Facebook Live.
Lindsey's on screen doing my makeup and dancing around crazily, and you can watch Lindsey doing all of those things if you watch the Facebook Live, or if you subscribe.
We do this sometimes.
Um, and as far as when rights are taken away from employees, you don't get to violate anybody else's rights.
The government has a role in preventing people from violating the rights of others.
Okay, that's all the time that we have for The Mailbag, but we will be back next week with more crazy news.
Apparently Donald Trump is talking about making Ivanka his vice president, which I desperately hope happens, because, I mean, come on, we just have to...
We have to make this election cycle as crazy as humanly possible.
We have to.
We have to.
So we'll see how crazy it gets over the weekend and we will be back Monday.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
▲
Export Selection