All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show
48:59
A Scandal About Lying To The FBI About…A Nothingburger? | Ep. 429
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
Well, the media think Trump is on his way out.
But is he?
Trump takes to Twitter to fight back.
The Republicans finally pass a tax bill.
Plus, the President of the United States sounds off on Roy Moore.
And we'll go through all of the biblical allusions to taxes.
Yes, really.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
So much coming up and I'm going to give you an intellectually honest look at whether President Trump is really in trouble over this whole Mike Flynn indictment thing.
What the Mike Flynn indictment thing actually means.
I don't think it means nearly as much as the media are making it out to mean.
I think the media are way out in front of what the news is actually showing and in fact It seems to me that the Flynn indictment, in some ways, actually shows that the Mueller investigation is not going to end with anything except for a political prosecution of the President of the United States by Democrats.
I want to get to all of that.
I also want to get to a huge Supreme Court case that is going to be discussed tomorrow.
I want to talk about the tax bill.
We'll talk about all those things.
But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at My Patriot Supply.
So you look around and you see that there are natural disasters on a regular basis, right?
There are earthquakes in California.
Apparently, there's been a swarm of small earthquakes in California that are supposed to be leading up to the big one, perhaps.
We can all hope not.
But regardless of whether it happens or not, you should be prepared for any disaster that may arise, whether it is man-made or whether it is natural.
This is what the government suggests.
This is what prudent people do.
This is why you should go over to My Patriot Supply, and you should get their 102-serving emergency food kit for just $99.
The experts in food storage say it can last in your home up to 25 years.
102 servings of emergency food for $99.
You basically spend $100.
And now you're safe and your family is safe from the vagaries of natural disasters.
For the foreseeable future.
It seems like a great way to make sure that you're protected.
You stick it in your closet, you forget about it.
Folks in the office have tried it.
They say that it tastes exactly like home cooking.
Order several kits at this low $99 price.
Make sure that your family is safe.
Call 888-803-1413.
888-803-1413.
Or go online to preparewithben.com.
That's preparewithben.com.
The kits include breakfasts, lunches, and dinners.
They are ship-free.
Call My Patriot Supply right now.
America's most trusted food storage company.
888-803-1413, 888-803-1413, or preparewithben.com.
Again, that seems like a cheap price to ensure that your family is safe, so preparewithben.com.
Okay, so we start, of course, with the big news that broke on Friday, that Mike Flynn had pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
The indictment showed that that was really all that was there, and I had speculated two possibilities.
Possibility number one is that he pled to lesser charges in order so the FBI could get him to flip on Trump.
Possibility number two is that this is basically all the FBI had.
And now the FBI is just going to charge a bunch of people for lying to the FBI in the absence of any crime.
Remember, what Mike Flynn, the former National Security Advisor, was charged with was lying to the FBI about him making phone calls to the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on December 22nd.
What exactly did he say in those phone calls that was so all fired terrible?
Apparently, he called up and he said, President Obama, on his way out, is attempting to create these new sanctions.
He wants to demonstrate that Hillary Clinton lost because we cheated in the election.
Don't worry about it.
The sanctions are never really going to be taking effect.
They're not going to damage you.
Just hold your fire.
And Putin said, OK.
OK, so that's really nothing special, OK?
It's a transition team.
He is about to enter office as the national security advisor three weeks later.
The people who are saying, well, it's a Logan Act violation.
The Logan Act prevents you from basically making your own foreign policy.
But it's not clear that the Logan Act is even constitutional.
It was passed into law in 1799.
It has never convicted anyone in 200 and Eighteen years.
It has not convicted a person, not one.
So the idea that suddenly it's going to be applied for the Trump administration is absurd.
You've seen many Democrats who have applied their own foreign policy while Republicans were in office, while other Democrats were in office, for that matter.
Jimmy Carter basically ran North Korean foreign policy while Bill Clinton was in office.
Teddy Kennedy tried to go over to the USSR and then make a deal with the USSR so that they would help affect the 1984 election cycle so that he could get in.
But Barack Obama was conducting calls with Other members of foreign governments long before he took office in 2009.
All this stuff has been happening routinely, so the idea that Mike Flynn did anything deeply wrong by contacting the Russian ambassador is absurd.
Also, apparently, he asked the Russian ambassador to help stymie a UN resolution that Barack Obama was trying to push in his final days to slap Israel over so-called settlements.
And so Kislyak was called by Flynn, presumably at the behest of Jared Kushner, and Kushner said, if you could back off that, that would be nice.
Again, I don't see anything wrong with any of this.
I really don't see anything terrible about this, but he did lie to the FBI.
So now what it looks like is that Robert Mueller is putting together a bunch of charges based on lied to the FBI.
Well, if this turns out to be a bunch of people who lied to the FBI about non-criminal activity, as I said last week, this sounds a lot like Scooter Libby.
Scooter Libby, if you recall, was an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney during the W administration, and there was a story going around that someone in the White House had leaked The personal information of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, in order to get revenge on her husband, Joe Wilson, because Joe Wilson had written a long op-ed in the Washington Post about how the Bush administration had been wrong about WMD in Iraq.
It turned out that it was Richard Armitage over at the State Department who had leaked Valerie Plame's name, but Scooter Libby sort of either got a conversation wrong or lied about a conversation to the FBI.
He was prosecuted, he was put in jail, and Bush commuted his sentence.
That sounds a lot like that.
Scooter Libby didn't actually commit any crime other than lying to the FBI.
Lying to the FBI is a crime, but if there's no underlying crime, it's not Watergate.
Watergate was a bunch of lies about an actual crime.
A break-in at the Watergate Hotel that was designed to put bugs in the Democratic National Headquarters.
Okay, nothing like that has happened here.
There's no evidence of any actual crime by anyone in the Trump administration with regard to collusion, with regard to working with the Russian government, no charges of serious crime.
And all the rumors that Mike Flynn was going to be charged with corrupt ties to Turkey or to Russia, none of that materialized.
Andy McCarthy over at National Review, he has a really fascinating piece in which he discusses at length the idea that There'd be some sort of deal cut where Flynn only gets prosecuted with the smallest possible crimes and he's let go on the bigger ones in order to cut a deal with them.
He says that's not the way it works with prosecutors.
Andy McCarthy, former federal prosecutor, he says what you do is you actually prosecute the biggest crimes and then you say in the plea agreement that he's going to get off on lesser years for bigger crimes unless he works with us.
Because the problem is once you file charges, the charges are filed.
Right, so if all they're filing charges on are the lesser charges, that's not much of a threat to Mike Flynn.
So, all this talk about how, inevitably, it must be that Mueller has something really terrible on Flynn, and now Flynn is gonna say something really terrible about Trump, not a lot of evidence to suggest that in any case.
So, President Trump responds over the weekend.
It's not really bright.
You know, the President of the United States really should keep his mouth shut on this stuff, or he should send out his lawyers to say something, but the President always feels the need to sound off himself, and in doing so, he gets himself in a little bit of hot water.
Here is President Trump defending Mike Flynn.
Well, I feel badly for General Flynn.
I feel very badly.
He's led a very strong life, and I feel very badly, John.
I will say this.
Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI.
Nothing happened to her.
Flynn lied, and they destroyed his life.
I think it's a shame.
Hillary Clinton, on the 4th of July weekend, went to the FBI, not under oath.
It was the most incredible thing anyone's ever seen.
She lied many times.
Nothing happened to her.
Flynn lied, and it's like...
They ruined his life.
Very unfair.
The most incredible thing anyone has ever seen in history is what Hillary Clinton did.
Hillary Clinton will always be the go-to for President Trump.
But Trump is not wrong when he says that Hillary Clinton apparently lied to the FBI.
I think that that's probably true.
And she got away with it.
Mike Flynn lied to the FBI, and now it looks like they're pillorying him.
Is lying to the FBI okay?
Of course not.
He committed a crime.
And if he committed a crime, then he should pay the price for that crime.
But the idea that Michael Flynn was actually trying to cover up for something more nefarious is not true.
Now, here's where Trump really gets himself in trouble, or at least we don't have the evidence of that yet.
Here's where Trump really gets himself in trouble.
So, Trump tweets out this over the weekend.
He tweets, quote, Okay, so he's basically saying what I'm saying here is that Flynn lied to the FBI, but there was no underlying crime.
He has pled guilty to those lies.
It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful.
There was nothing to hide." Okay, so he's basically saying, what I'm saying here is that Flynn lied to the FBI, but there was no underlying crime.
The problem here is that what the president is actually saying is that he fired Flynn knowing that Flynn lied to the FBI.
So this led a lot of people to suggest that this was obstruction of justice.
The reason that it sounds like obstruction of justice is because James Comey, if you recall, had testified that President Trump told him to let Flynn go.
And then he apparently fired Flynn because he had lied to the FBI.
So the implication of this tweet is that Trump knew that Flynn had lied to the FBI when he fired him, not just lied to the vice president.
So if he knew that Flynn lied to the FBI and then he went to Comey and told Comey, then the head of the FBI, to let Flynn go, a lot of people on the left claiming that this is obstruction of justice.
It isn't.
I'll explain why legally.
But here is the here is the flashback of James Comey.
And the reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction.
As the President of the United States, with me alone saying, I hope this, I took it as, this is what he wants me to do.
I didn't obey that, but that's the way I took it.
You may have taken it as a direction, but that's not what he said.
Correct.
He said, I hope.
Those are exact words, correct.
You don't know of anyone that's ever been charged for hoping something.
Is that a fair statement?
I don't as I sit here.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Right, so a lot of people on the left saying, well, you know what that is?
That right there, that's obstruction of justice.
Well, Dianne Feinstein is saying this, right?
Dianne Feinstein, the senator from California, she says this looks like obstruction of justice.
As you know, I'm ranking on judiciary, and the Judiciary Committee has an investigation going as well.
And it involves obstruction of justice.
And I think what we're beginning to see is the putting together of a case of obstruction of justice.
I think we see this in the indictments, the four indictments and pleas that have just taken place and some of the comments that are being made.
I see it in the hyper-phonetic attitude of the White House, the comments every day, the continual tweets.
And I see it, most importantly, in what happened with the firing of Director Comey.
And it is my belief that that is directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of the Russia investigation.
Okay, the problem here is that there is no clear-cut obstruction of justice, even if he fired Comey.
Let's say worst-case scenario.
He fired Comey because he wanted Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
There's no clear-cut investigation, obstruction of justice, because the president does have the power to fire the FBI director for any reason he sees fit.
I've actually looked at the statutes, and I'm going to go through the statutes right now with you on obstruction of justice, as to whether obstruction of justice actually took place.
Not clear legally that obstruction of justice has taken place.
By the way, the idea that Trump shut down the investigation is obviously untrue.
I mean, the special counsel has gone forward.
Trump has the power to fire the special prosecutor, Robert Mueller.
He has not, in fact, done any of that.
So before I get to whether this is obstruction of justice, even if the Democrats' worst suspicions are confirmed, first I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Saucy.
You know, the news cycle moves so fast.
Life is full of stress.
At night, you want to unwind.
You want to relax.
You want some alcohol.
Well, that's why you need Saucy.
Saucy is the alcohol delivery app.
They deliver your favorite wine, beer, liquor right to your door, on demand.
It is Lyft or Uber for alcohol.
So if you're in LA, San Francisco, Chicago, San Diego, Sacramento...
Your Saucy order will arrive at your door in 30 minutes or less, ready to drink.
This happened to me the other night.
My wife and I were interested in drinking a little alcohol, but a rough day, and we didn't have any alcohol in the house.
So we immediately got on the Saucy app, and Saucy had somebody arrive at our door within, it was really, I think about 20 minutes, with the alcohol that we desired.
It's a pretty awesome thing.
For the rest of you, if you're not in one of these big cities, then you will have Saucy delivered to you In two days or less, nationwide.
So you can order in advance, and in two days or less, nationwide, it will arrive anywhere.
There are no order minimums, no delivery fees, no running to the store.
If you've got the Saucy app, you've got a fully stocked bar right there on your phone, you're in the middle of a party, you don't want a break from the party, and so now, you just get on your phone, and some schlub shows up with your alcohol, and you don't have to worry about running out to the local Dale's Jr.
to make sure that you're actually stocked up for the party.
For a limited time, you get $15 off when you download the Saucy app, and enter promo code Ben.
That's the Saucy app spelled S-A-U-C-E-Y, Saucy.
Enter promo code Ben for $15 off.
Get that Saucy app today and use promo code Ben.
It makes your life a lot more convenient.
And honestly, there's nothing that's better than you're sitting there watching, you're Netflix and chilling, but you don't have the chill.
That's what Saucy provides to you, Saucy app, and use that promo code Ben.
That's correct, folks.
I did just use the phrase Netflix and chill.
Okay, so as far as obstruction of justice, the Democrats are basically claiming now that Trump fired James Comey in order to obstruct justice.
This doesn't wash for a couple of reasons.
One, the special counsel has continued his investigation into Russian collusion and has found nothing.
Collusion is not a crime.
And now let's look at the actual statutes on obstruction of justice.
So, there are three separate federal laws that cover obstruction of justice.
There's 18 U.S.
Code 1503.
This is called the Omnibus Clause.
It covers, quote, But this clause requires a pending judicial proceeding.
And there is no pending judicial proceeding because Flynn had not been indicted yet.
Now, if Trump were to go to Mueller now and say to him, cut it out, let Flynn go, then that would actually be obstruction of justice.
But he doesn't have to do that.
He can just pardon Flynn.
Right, which is not obstruction of justice because he's the president and that's within his purview.
There's 18 U.S.C. 1512C.
This provision of law covers anyone who, quote, obstructs, influences, or impedes an official proceeding or attempts to do so.
It is not clear that an FBI investigation is actually an official proceeding, and it's hard to prove intent in any case.
And by the way, it's not enough to show intent to violate the subsection.
You have to take a substantial step toward the accomplishment of that goal.
So again, there's no substantial step taken toward obstruction.
And finally, there's 18 U.S.
Code 1519, and this provision covers destroying evidence.
There are no accusations that President Trump destroyed evidence in any of this.
So, is there obstruction of justice?
No, she's wrong.
Does Trump have the capacity to fire Comey for any reason?
The answer is yes, Comey works for him, so there's no obstruction.
He could fire Comey.
Does that mean that it's smart for the President of the United States to go out there and start saying that he knew that Flynn lied to the FBI and then he fired the FBI director?
No, that is not smart of the President of the United States.
It gets him in all sorts of hot water, and that's why the President's lawyer came forward and said, I wrote that tweet, it wasn't Trump.
The idea being that it doesn't establish Trump's knowledge that Flynn lied to the FBI if the lawyer wrote the tweet.
Now, what's interesting is when you watch the conflation of two separate narratives from the Democrats.
Dianne Feinstein, I believe, is a lawyer, so she knows enough to know that you can't make charges of collusion without evidence, or you shouldn't, and that the Mike Flynn charges don't show that there is actual cheating in the election between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Joy Behar, however, is a moron, and so she doesn't know that.
So Joy Behar over at The View, she completely misconstrues the report from Mike Flynn, and you'll hear the crowd cheer as they think they finally got Trump.
Oh, breaking news.
ABC News Brian Ross is reporting Michael Flynn promised full cooperation to the Mueller team and is prepared to testify that as a candidate, Donald Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians!
And the crowd goes wild for news that never happened.
Because it never happened.
So we reported on Friday that Brian Ross had said this on ABC.
Only one problem.
Brian Ross was wrong.
So, let's get to Trump fighting back against all of this.
So Trump is not a guy who sits down when he feels that there's a need to stand.
The President is a counter-puncher, as the Vice President says.
And the idea that the President of the United States is going to take a backseat to anyone on this stuff is not true.
So the president immediately goes out front and starts fighting this.
So he starts by slamming the FBI itself.
So he goes on Twitter and he says, report, anti-Trump FBI agent led Clinton email probe.
Now it all starts to make sense.
He's saying this is a witch hunt that the FBI, that the Clinton probe was led by a bunch of biased people and that the people who are now going after him from the FBI are biased as well.
Now, it is certainly, certainly the case that James Comey was biased in favor of Hillary There is no doubt whatsoever that she actually violated the law and he let her off the hook preemptively.
And it's not a surprise that an anti-Trump FBI agent was helping Hillary Clinton out.
The idea that the FBI is a non-political body is not true.
The FBI has always been somewhat of a political body.
That does not mean that local FBI agents aren't doing their jobs.
But Trump isn't wrong about this.
By the way, it is important to question, I asked this question on Fox.
It still has not been answered.
This FBI agent, the story here is that there was an FBI agent who had texted some nasty things about Trump and Robert Mueller fired him.
The question is how Robert Mueller found out about it.
So if Robert Mueller found out about it and fired him, then Robert Mueller is not biased, right?
That would be evidence that Robert Mueller is trying to do the right thing.
If he found out about it because the media reported on it and then he fired him, then it might be that the Mueller investigation is inherently biased.
I don't think Mueller is necessarily biased against Trump.
I think that this is what special prosecutors do.
They dig and they dig and they dig and they dig until they find a crime.
And if they can't find a crime, then they get a bunch of people in there to talk to the FBI, and then they use that to create crimes.
And I'm not saying that Mike Flynn was in trap.
Mike Flynn is an intelligent guy, should have been there with a lawyer.
You don't lie to the FBI.
But it is also true that the FBI likes to charge lying to the FBI, even when there's no underlying crime.
So Trump slams the FBI, and then he continues along these lines.
He also tweets this.
So here's Trump going after the FBI.
Now, there is something dangerous about going after the entire institution of the FBI, but to suggest that there was bias in the Hillary investigation, I think, is understating but to suggest that there was bias in the Hillary investigation, I As I said at the time, the idea that Mueller did not indict Hillary Clinton, or at least recommend her indictment, is pretty astonishing.
Okay, so there is that.
Then he went directly after James Comey.
So Comey, why Comey is still in the news is really beyond me.
I guess just because Comey, the suggestion is that he obstructed justice by firing Comey.
But Trump says, I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
Just more fake news covering another Comey lie.
So, Comey is the one who testified to that.
Trump is now saying that he never told Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
The evidence on Trump's side on this is that Comey didn't actually stop investigating Flynn, and even after Comey was fired, the investigation into Flynn obviously didn't stop.
So, it's possible that Trump said, I wish that you would see your way clear to letting Flynn go.
He's not a bad guy.
By the same token, that doesn't really count as telling Flynn to stop investigating, telling Comey to stop investigating Flynn.
I mean, Trump had the capacity to make that stop, and he didn't.
And then he continued along, smacking Comey.
He said, after years of Comey with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation and more, running the FBI, its reputation is in tatters.
Worst in history.
But fear not.
We will bring it back to greatness.
So he's attacking the FBI, so another institution under attack.
Now Comey's not helping his case.
So Comey goes out himself and decides that it is worthwhile to tweet.
So now Comey's on Twitter.
This is just what we need, everyone on Twitter.
And James Comey tweets a bunch of pictures of people in FBI coats saying, I want the people to know this truth.
The FBI is honest, the FBI is strong, and the FBI is and always will be independent.
Me, June 8th, 2017.
There is an account called Ben Shapiro Quotes.
I do retweet it, but I don't actually quote myself.
I'm not sure that I've ever actually quoted myself on Twitter like that.
James Comey is, Trump called him a grandstander and basically an attention whore.
James Comey is those things.
So Trump goes after Comey as well.
Then Trump goes after the media.
He's not wrong to go after bias in the FBI.
He's not wrong to go after Comey, by the way.
And he's not wrong to go after the media.
So he starts slamming the media too.
Particularly because of this retracted report from Brian Ross.
So let's start with the actual Brian Ross report.
So Brian Ross originally reported this about Mike Flynn and President Trump.
He's prepared to testify, we are told by a confidant, against President Trump, against members of the Trump family, and others in the White House.
He's prepared to testify that President Trump, as a candidate, Donald Trump, ordered him, directed him, to make contact with the Russians, which contradicts all that Donald Trump has said at this point.
As well, we're told that Flynn made the decision to cooperate only in the last 24 hours, that he is distraught about the decision, but feels he's doing the right thing for his country, that he was facing huge legal bills of more than a million dollars, And that he said that finally he had to go ahead and do this for that reason.
He expects to put his house on the market.
He is facing serious financial problems.
Okay, so Ross has been in trouble a few other times for getting the story completely wrong.
Here he got the story completely wrong.
It turns out that Flynn had not, was not going to testify that candidate Trump told him to contact the Russians, but that President-elect Trump had told him to contact the Russians.
That makes a huge difference.
President-elect Trump telling him to contact the Russians is not a big deal.
It doesn't go to the question of whether the Trump campaign was working with the Russians in the first place.
So Brian Ross is forced to retract this.
Here he is retracting this just over the weekend.
He was then suspended for a month for getting this report wrong.
And David, a clarification tonight on something one of Flynn's confidants told us and we reported earlier today.
He said the President had asked Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign.
He's now clarifying that, saying, according to Flynn, candidate Trump asked him during the campaign to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other hotspots.
And then after the election, the President-elect told him to contact Russia on issues including working together to fight ISIS.
David.
Before and after.
And in the meantime, Brian, we do have a statement from Michael Flynn tonight.
He said, I accept full responsibility for my actions.
That's right.
And Flynn's confidant says Flynn's extremely angry at the White House tonight that he was going broke with crippling legal fees.
OK, so we're going to let that go.
OK, finally, Trump goes after Brian Ross and the media.
And we'll get to that in just one second.
So Trump is lashing out at everyone.
In part, I think justifiably, in part he's making things worse for himself.
When he lashes out this way, it makes him look like he has something to hide, even though he doesn't.
I've said from the very beginning, from literally the outside of this, that when he fired Comey, it seems to me that the best possible explanation for what Trump does is incompetence, not malice.
That usually it's about President Trump being angry at something that's going on, firing somebody, not about him just deciding that he wants to cover up some sort of nefarious crime.
I'll get to all that in just a second.
First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at USCCA.
So, gun lovers, I have a huge announcement for you.
How does a free gun sound?
Well, you are in luck because right now the USCCA is kicking off December with a completely free gun giveaway for my listeners.
It's not just one gun.
You get four chances to win a Springfield Sate.
It's the AR that you really want for Christmas.
Ergonomic grips and enhanced stock designed to improve speed and accuracy.
This is a fun gun, and it'll help you defend yourself, too.
It's also an expensive gun, by the way.
You should see it if you want to check it out.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
That's DefendMyFamilyNow1.com, the digit one.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to check it out and be entered for free.
You have four free chances to win, but that ends soon.
Don't get left behind.
Again, they're throwing in all the ammo that you need to break it in as well, so pretty awesome deal.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to enter for free.
Again, that's DefendMyFamilyNow1.com to enter for free, and you get a shot at winning a Springfield Saint, which is an awesome firearm.
Again, help you defend yourself, help you defend your property, help you defend your freedom, and you get the chance to win when all you have to do is go over and register at DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
Make sure you use that digit one.
DefendMyFamilyNow1.com.
Okay, so Trump slams Brian Ross.
He goes after him here too.
He's not wrong to slam Brian Ross.
He's right.
Brian Ross was wrong here.
Again, I'm not sure it's worth the president getting his hands dirty because when the president does this, it gives off an air of desperation that I don't think is actually warranted here.
He says, people who lost money when stock market went down 350 points based on the false and dishonest reporting of Brian Ross of ABC News, he has been suspended, should consider hiring a lawyer and suing ABC for the damages this bad reporting has caused.
Many millions of dollars.
I don't really think he wants to go here.
The fact is the President of the United States has momentarily tanked various stocks over his presidency by naming companies and bashing them.
If they can sue over Trump doing that, then, you know, they can also sue over Brian Ross, I suppose.
Trump continues along these lines, and he says, Trump goes after the media, he goes after Brian Ross.
Not a shock there.
And then finally he hits the Justice Department.
He's still angry at his own Justice Department for not going after Hillary Clinton.
And really he's mad at Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department for not protecting him from what he feels is a witch hunt.
And here's what he tweeted.
Many people in our country are asking what the Justice Department, justice in scare quotes, is going to do about the fact that totally crooked Hillary, after receiving a subpoena from the United States Congress, deleted an acid wash 33,000 emails.
No justice.
And then he tweeted along these lines again.
He went after his own DOJ.
Again, I don't think he's wrong on all this.
I just think that the louder Trump gets, the more it looks as though he has something to hide.
And that's a problem for him.
FBI holiday interrogation with no swearing in and no recording lies many times and nothing happens to her rigged system or just a double standard.
Again, I don't think he's wrong on all this.
I just think that the louder Trump gets, the more it looks as though he has something to hide.
And that's a problem for him.
The best thing he could do right now is say, listen, the investigation should go forward.
I didn't lie.
Mike Flynn might have lied to the FBI, but it was about an underlying crime that doesn't exist.
And then maybe down the road, when all that comes out is that it's a bunch of lied-to-the-FBI charges with no underlying crime, he can always do the Scooter Libby, just commute everybody sentence.
To me, that seems like the best possible solution.
But what's happening here is I think Trump is getting so upset about this that now he's thinking about firing Robert Mueller, the special counsel.
Once you fire the special counsel, then all hell breaks loose because people are going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that you really do have something to hide.
So whoever is around President Trump should be encouraging him today not to fire Mueller, but to be encouraging Mike Flynn that he's probably never going to serve a day in jail for lying to the FBI about something for which there's no underlying crime.
Chris Ruddy, who's a friend to President Trump, says that Mueller is an existential threat to the Trump presidency at this point.
That's true in the sense that the more of this builds up, the more Democrats might try to impeach him.
But let me put it this way.
If the Democrats tried to impeach Trump over Mike Flynn lying to the FBI over no underlying crime, I would oppose the impeachment.
I think so would most Americans.
Here's Chris Ruddy, though, saying that Trump is feeling really threatened.
You know, at the end of the day, my view is that Robert Mueller poses an existential threat to the Trump presidency.
He's gotten four major, uh, two convictions, two plea agreements, lightning speed.
Okay, I don't think that he poses an existential threat to the Trump presidency, unless you think that Trump actually has something to hide.
If Trump does have something to hide, then it was Trump that posed an existential threat to the Trump presidency, not Mueller.
That said, this does not look like this is an apolitical investigation by any stretch of the imagination.
It looks like an investigation designed to elicit charges of lie to the FBI that is not designed to elicit actual underlying crimes.
We were told this investigation was all about collusion with the Russians.
Has there been any evidence of that?
Has Mueller indicted anyone for any of that?
Not that I can really see anywhere here.
I mean, George Papadopoulos would be the closest thing to it, and even that is unclear as far as actual collusion.
Okay, so, I have a lot more to talk about.
I want to talk about tax reform.
I want to talk about...
I want to talk about a big Supreme Court case that is coming up tomorrow.
We still have to do our Federalist paper because it is a Monday, so we have not done our assignment yet.
So lots to get to.
But for all of that, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to dailywire.com.
And when you do, you get the rest of our show live on video.
You get the rest of Michael Moulse's show live on video.
You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live on video.
Plus, you get to be part of my mailbag.
And our fourth episode of The Conversation is coming up on Tuesday, December 12th at 5 p.m.
Eastern, 2 p.m.
Pacific, featuring your favorite, Parentheses me.
Subscribe today to be a part of the conversation and ask me questions which I will either answer or mock or then answer in the order they are entered into the live feed.
My conversation will stream live on the Daily Wire Facebook page and the Daily Wire YouTube channel.
It'll be free for everybody to watch.
Only subscribers can ask the questions.
If you want to ask questions as a subscriber, Log into our website, dailywire.com, head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream.
After that, start typing into the Daily Wire chat box and I'll answer questions as they come in for an entire hour.
Once again, subscribe to get your questions answered by me, the incomparable Ben Shapiro.
On Tuesday, December 12th, 5pm Eastern, 2pm Pacific, join the conversation.
Subscribe now so that you can ask the questions.
Also, if you want the annual subscription, you get all those things, and you also get this, the finest in all vessels, that hold beverages, the leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler, you'll treasure it every moment for your remaining days on this earth.
It is just spectacular.
So you get all of those things.
Or if you just want to listen later, please subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Please go over to SoundCloud, iTunes, any place you listen to podcasts, subscribe, and leave us a review as well.
Well, we are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
All righty.
So a lot else to get to.
President Trump has endorsed Roy Moore.
I'm going to save that for things that I hate, but first I want to get to tax reform passing.
So all of this Flynn news has swamped what is the biggest accomplishment so far of the Trump presidency outside of the Gorsuch pick for the Supreme Court, and that is the passage of tax reform in the Senate.
I've discussed sort of the merits of the tax Bill before.
I think it is a meritorious bill.
I think there's a lot that is good to it.
The Democrats are suggesting that it is just the worst thing ever.
Patton Oswalt, the insufferable comedian who was also the voice of the rat, Remy, in Ratatouille, he tweeted out, Does it matter now if Trump is impeached?
There's no America now.
Not the one we knew.
Sorry.
Feeling real despair this morning.
Wait, like, we cut, I get to keep more of my own money, and that ends America?
That's like the end of it?
Like, we're done?
Donzo, turn out the lights?
Finished?
Finito?
Finito Mussolini?
Like, what, what in the, what in the world?
It's, okay, so, after the Obamacare decision came down from the Supreme Court, I said that America had been fundamentally changed.
The reason I said that is because a basic principle of Americanism had been ripped away.
That principle was the government cannot force you to buy things.
Right?
Until then, the idea that the government could force you to buy an entirely optional product with no externalities on anyone else, this is a brand new concept.
And that fundamentally changed things.
It violated my liberty.
It installed a new tentpole for tyranny in the United States.
I can force you to not buy anything I want, and I can force you to buy anything I want.
That's full-on control of my life.
Patton Oswalt, however, thinks that if I get to keep more of my own money, that this is the end of America.
There's no America now.
Now listen, you cannot like the process by how this bill was passed.
I'm not real fond of it.
It was crammed through.
It was done with handwritten notes in the margins.
By the way, that's not as rare as it seems.
There have been a bunch of Congress people who have done that before.
The Dodd-Frank bill had handwritten notes in the margins.
All of that said, it was rushed through without proper evaluation or debate.
That was done because senators didn't want blowback, but It's a pretty typical Republican bill.
It's not like there's anything groundbreaking here.
The biggest problem with the bill is that it doesn't cut expenditures, which is really what I wish Republicans would focus on.
Right now, Republicans inflate the deficit by cutting taxes.
Even though the tax revenues in the long run grow, it may not make up for the tax revenues that are lost in the short run, meaning the government takes in less money.
Democrats blow out the budget by increasing spending, even if they raise taxes.
I don't think Republicans shouldn't lower taxes, I just think they need to pair that with some actual cuts, which I highly doubt they will do, and so we continue to kick the can down the road on our debt.
But the idea that this is the end of America, it demonstrates that for the left, They truly believe, I mean they really do believe, that it is the government's job to control your life, and anything the government doesn't do to control your life is bad for America.
The more the government does to control your life, the better it is for America.
I'll show you the proof.
So, Larry Summers is the former president of Harvard, former Clinton treasury secretary, and he predicted 10,000 people would die per year because of tax reform today on CNBC.
There's pretty clear evidence looking across different states and looking when health insurance has been phased in and out.
When people lose health insurance, they're less likely to get preventive care, they're more likely to defer health care they need, and ultimately they're more likely to die.
And it's very hard to quantify precisely.
My piece explains why an estimate that thousands will die as a consequence of this bill is actually a very conservative estimate.
So the reason he says that is because the bill also gets rid of the individual mandate.
It doesn't force you to buy health insurance.
But the idea here is that if the government doesn't force you to buy health insurance, and you opt not to, that is the same as the government killing you.
That's insane.
Okay?
That means that the government didn't force me this morning to get up and wrap myself in bubble wrap.
The government didn't wake me this morning and say, you have to eat healthy today.
That means the government is killing me.
By not telling me what to do, the government is killing me.
This is precisely the reverse of the notions of American liberty enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.
But it goes further than this.
There are a bunch of commentators who are out there saying that it is irreligious.
All these religious Christians who back the tax reform bill.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
So, there's a guy named Jonathan Martin, or James Martin rather, who is a Jesuit priest, and he tweeted this out.
This is false.
The bill does not take money from the poor to give to the rich.
It allows rich people to keep their own money.
The bill does not take money from the poor to give to the rich.
It allows rich people to keep their own money.
It allows poor people to keep their own money.
It says those who voted for it will face consequences later when they are judged.
In hell!
Dun-dun-dun-dun!
He says, do you think Jesus' words about being judged on how we care for the poor don't apply?
Think.
Again.
And then he brings the hammer.
Boom!
Okay, and he's not the only person who's speaking religious sophistry.
There's a female rabbi named Dania Rutenberg, and she tweeted something out like, if the Bible is so against systemic solutions to poverty, why is a Jubilee year declared that releases people from debt to alleviate intergenerational poverty?
What is Lekit?
Shichachah?
In a second, I'm going to go through actually what the Bible says about taxes, but I first want to point something out.
The Bible never says that it's the government's job to provide for the poor.
It says that it is your job to provide for the poor.
This is why religious people give significantly more charity than irreligious people.
It's why conservatives give a lot more personal charity than non-conservative people.
So all the people who are generous with everybody else's money by using the government as a crammed down mechanism for welfare, all those people are happy to use my money in the ways they see fit, but they are not willing to actually dip into their own pocket and make it happen.
The reason that, whether you're talking about Jesus or you're talking about the Old Testament, all of the religious sources in Judeo-Christian history have been talking Not about what the state should do, but about what you should do.
How you have a religious obligation to help out the poor, and the needy, and the widow, and the orphan.
Okay, now I'm going to actually go through the Bible.
So there are a bunch of people who have complained before about, well, you know, you're a religious person, Ben, you wear a yarmulke, and yet there are a bunch of things in the Bible that talk about taking care of the poor.
Okay, now I'm going to go through them, and I'm going to show you what sort of taxes the Bible is talking about to take care of the poor.
Okay, number one, the Bible talks about taxes explicitly twice.
I'm talking here about the Tanakh, the Old Testament.
It uses the Hebrew word, which is mas.
Mas means tax in Hebrew.
It only uses it twice, in the entirety of the Torah, in the prophets, and in the writings.
It uses it with regard to the king, Rehoboam, who is Solomon's son.
Solomon raised taxes, and then his son raised taxes, and the actual effect of that is that the kingdom of Israel split in two because taxes were too high.
Talks about that a little bit later in the prophets.
And then Ahasuerus in the Purim story raised taxes at the end of the story, demonstrating his mastery over the far-flung domains.
In neither context are the taxes seen as something good.
The Talmud especially rips into the tax of Ahasuerus.
Okay, now, let's talk about other biblical forms of tax.
First, there's tithing.
Okay, when it talks about tithing, specifically it's talking about something in Hebrew that's called maser cheni.
Now, I know I don't want to get too abstruse here with the biblical teaching, but since I actually do read the Bible in the original Hebrew, I'm going to use some Hebrew terms here.
Maser cheni is tithing.
That's the tithing that we always talk about for the poor.
But here's what the Bible actually says about that in Deuteronomy.
There's actually two sets of tithing in the Torah.
There's maser and there's maser cheni.
Maser literally means one-tenth.
So, maser And Maser Sheyni.
Maser is for the Levites.
Maser Sheyni is for the poor and the orphans and the widows.
Okay?
It only applies in the third and sixth years of the sabbatical cycle, and it's 10% of produce.
Okay, so that's a 10% tax every third and sixth year for the widow and the orphan.
Okay, then there's something called Sheikhecha.
That's when you forget a sheaf in the field.
This is also in Deuteronomy.
You're supposed to leave it for the widow and orphan.
So you're walking around, and you leave one or two sheafs for the widow and orphan.
Okay, that's pretty de minimis.
Okay, then there is leket and peah.
These are referenced in Leviticus 19.
Leket is referring to ears of corn that you forget on the ground.
Same sort of thing.
You're gleaning your crop and you forget an ear of corn on the ground.
Leave it there for the poor.
And then there is peah, which refers to leaving a corner of your field for the poor and the widow.
Right?
The minimum amount for peah is 160th of your field.
So, at best, we are talking about a biblically mandated 11.7% of your produce every third and sixth year.
That's what the Bible says.
Talk about how the Bible is saying, well, you have to give 100% of everything to charity.
It's nonsense.
In fact, in Judaism, once you hit a certain, once you hit, I believe it's 20% of your money to charity, you're supposed to think seriously about whether to give more than that because you're actually undercutting your own ability to take care of your family.
Democrats are talking about maintaining tax rates of above 50%, okay?
So don't talk to me about what the Bible says about taxes.
Okay, then they talk about two further biblical provisions.
There is Shemitah, which is the sabbatical year.
Every seventh year, you leave the land fallow.
The idea there was that the land is going to recover.
And then there's Yovel.
Okay, Yovel is every 50th year, all of the land sales that have been made in the prior 50 years revert back to their original owner.
Both of these were supposed to get rid of loans.
One of the problems that happened is that it turns out people stopped giving loans at all.
So what did the rabbis do?
The Talmud says that they designed something called a pruzbul, which was a basic legal workaround so that you could continue to lend, because lending ground to a halt.
Also, the purpose of having all the land revert back to its original owners in the 50th year was not Okay, so there is your basic biblical breakdown.
I know that's more specific than most people would want, but the idea that the Bible mandates that you are supposed to give enormous amounts of charity via government compulsion is just not true.
It's not true in the slightest.
When all the tribes don't live in Israel and aren't separated by tribe.
Okay, so there is your basic biblical breakdown.
I know that's more specific than most people would want.
But the idea that the Bible mandates that you are supposed to give enormous amounts of charity via government compulsion is just not true.
It's not true in the slightest.
Okay, other big story today.
Final big story and then we'll get to some things I like, things I hate, and the Federalist Papers.
The other big story is that tomorrow there's a big case at the Supreme Court.
It's called the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.
So we've talked about this before.
The Masterpiece Cake Shop case is a seminal one for both religious liberty and freedom of association.
Basically, there's a guy named Jack Phillips.
Jack is a baker in Colorado.
He makes, he decorates cakes.
He will make a cake for anyone.
Gay couple, straight couple, green couple, Doesn't matter.
He'll make a cake even for your gay wedding.
What he won't do is decorate it in particular styles.
He's not going to use his artistic skill in order to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
So he's not going to decorate a cake that says, Happy Gay Wedding, John and Bob.
He's not going to actually take one of those cake toppers with two dudes and stick it on top of the cake.
That's something that Jack is not going to do.
So, the leftists at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission said that Jack has to be forced to violate his own religious beliefs as a result of their own ruling.
He lost 40% of his business, more than half of his employees, all for abiding by his biblical beliefs.
The left says the government should be able to force Jack to decorate the cake for the gay couple for their wedding.
Okay, this is viscerally anti-religion.
It's also anti-freedom of association.
And Sarah Jones is a leftist columnist in the New Republic.
Here's what she says, and I think this is right.
She says, what Phillips wants is for the law to weight his personal beliefs about a person's intrinsic identity above that person's right to access a business.
I guess that's fair.
What Phillips wants is for his personal beliefs to be able to be invoked in his business dealings.
As we all would like.
Right?
I don't think that if you're a leftist radio host, you should be forced to have me on your show.
I don't think that if you're a leftist speech writer, you should be forced to work for President Trump and use your artistry to that effect.
I don't think that if you're a gay business owner, you should be forced to Bake me a cake that says on it Leviticus 18.22.
I don't think you need to do any of those things because I'm for freedom.
Freedom only exists in the spaces where we acknowledge that we have no right to someone else's labor or approval.
Tyranny grows when we refuse to approve those spaces.
This is about tyranny.
It's not even about religion.
It's about do you have the freedom to act in ways you see fit even if others don't like it and even if it means that others can't take advantage of your services.
The answer is, was, and always will be constitutionally yes.
That is why I believe fully that you are able to turn away whomever you want from your business, and yes, that includes for bad people, right?
Racists can turn away people, anti-Semites can turn away Jews.
You know what'll happen?
They'll walk across the street.
Racists can turn away black people.
You know what'll happen?
They'll walk across the street, and those racists will go bankrupt.
As I've said in a thousand speeches at this point, the fact is that capitalism doesn't care about color, it doesn't care about creed, all it cares about is cash.
And if you're turning away a vast bevy of clientele, you're undermining your own business.
Okay.
Time for things I like, things I hate, and then we'll go through a Federalist paper really quickly.
So, things I like.
So over the weekend, I had a chance to read some Elmore Leonard.
Never actually read his stuff.
I'd watched a little bit of the series Justified.
If you watch that series, it's based on a short story called Fire in the Hole.
And Elmore Leonard is a crime writer.
He's really quite good.
I really enjoy his writing.
He's very straightforward.
He's not deliberately obscure.
So I've read a couple of really good crime writers in the past couple of weeks.
Don Winslow, whose early stuff, I read one of his books that I didn't like very much.
Uh, the legend, the life and death of Bobby Z wasn't very good, but his book on the cartel was great.
Uh, and Fire in the Hole is another very, very good book of short crime stories.
Uh, there's a reason that Elmore Leonard is a best-selling author, check it out.
Elmore Leonard, Fire in the Hole, it's kind of old, it's kind of westerns, it's basically westerns.
Uh, and they're pretty great.
Okay, time for some things that I hate.
Alright, so the thing that I hate today is that the President has endorsed Roy Moore.
The President came out and tweeted that he supported Roy Moore and that you should support Roy Moore too.
He then called up Roy Moore personally and lent his support.
Has anything changed from when these allegations were originally made about Roy Moore for child molestation?
The answer is no, nothing has changed.
It is certainly possible the President of the United States could go around saying, don't vote Doug Jones.
Right?
Don't vote Doug Jones.
You want to vote right in?
Whatever.
You want to vote for Roy Moore?
Alright.
But don't vote Doug Jones.
He could have said that.
Right?
And just made it into a lesser of two evils choice.
By overtly endorsing Roy Moore, it is very difficult to escape the public perception that you're poo-pooing The actual child molestation allegations.
Now the Democrats have no leg to stand on here since they're going to let Al Franken sit in the Senate after we have pictures of him trying to grow up a woman's breasts while she's sleeping.
Democrats don't have much of a leg to stand on so long as John Conyers is in Congress.
So long as Bill Clinton is still an honored member of their society.
That said, is this good for the country?
No, it's not good for the country when you're going to have an alleged child molester sitting in the Senate.
He's probably going to win.
And I think that he'll be seated.
I think that the idea that the Senate is going to not seat him is foolish.
I think now they'll seat him.
Now that Al Franken is staying, he'll be seated.
And you see that Mitch McConnell is making those moves too.
Here's Mitch McConnell in Alabama saying, we'll let the people of Alabama decide whether he ought to be seated.
Well, I think we're going to let the people of Alabama decide a week from Tuesday who they want to send to the Senate, and then we'll address the matter appropriately.
I've already said in the past that I thought this was a matter that would have to be considered by the committee.
Ultimately, it would be up to them to make that decision, and they'll make it, depending upon whether Judge Moore ends up coming to the Senate.
Do you believe that Judge Moore should be in the Senate?
I'm going to let the people of Alabama make the call.
It's a move by McConnell in the wrong direction.
So we've seen all these politicians basically futzing over these allegations.
First you had Nancy Pelosi defending John Conyers.
Now you have Mitch McConnell basically defending Roy Moore.
Everything is getting worse and worse on this score because no one is willing to take a moral stand and take a temporary loss.
You do wonder, you know, back in 1993, I think it was, David Duke ran for Senate in Louisiana.
And the Republicans said, we would rather you vote for the Democrat than David Duke.
You do wonder today if the Republican Party would do that, or if the Democratic Party would do that if the case were reversed.
We may be so partisan that we're beyond saving here.
Okay, so quick correction.
So last week, even during my corrections, I screwed up a correction.
So now I'm going to correct another thing.
As I try to make clear, folks, I'm trying to, when I make a mistake, at least I try to fix it.
Okay, so Theresa May, I said, was selected on the basis of her being pro-Brexit.
That is not true.
She didn't actually have a position on the referendum.
She had been, I guess, you know, Sort of anti-Brexit, but then when she came in she pledged that she was going to enforce Brexit.
I had a guy named Richard who wrote to me and he says, Okay, I hope I have corrected this to everyone's satisfaction now.
of the UK government and endorsed Remain, but what made her position sufficiently ambiguous to get herself selected by both sides of the Conservative Party was the fact she didn't take an active part in campaigning for Remain.
Okay, I hope I have corrected this to everyone's satisfaction now.
Okay, now I'm gonna go briefly through Federalist Papers.
So Federalist No.
6.
So we are gradually making our way through the Federalist Papers.
The Federalist Papers are very long.
There are 85 of them.
We are now through No.
6, so we are gradually making our way.
The first five Federalist Papers, or at least three of those five, were basically devoted to why America should be one country.
Now we're going to talk about the possible conflicts between the states and why you need a stronger centralized government than the Articles of Confederation could provide in order to prevent conflict between the states.
So what's really fascinating in this one is Alexander Hamilton writes it.
Hamilton is, of the three guys writing, the best writer.
Hamilton's a very lucid and powerful writer.
And Hamilton makes the case against the idea that the states will be at peace without a strong central government.
There are a bunch of people who said, why do we need a strong central government?
All the states will get along.
Well, in doing so, he actually debunks a couple of very popular 20th and 21st century notions.
The idea of democratic peace theory, that democratic countries don't fight each other, and the idea that countries that do commerce don't fight each other.
So he debunks both of these, which is really interesting because I agree with Hamilton.
He says, the genius of republics Say they, say his opponents, is pacific, meaning that they are peaceful.
The spirit of commerce has a tendency to soften the manners of men and to extinguish those inflammable humors which have so often kindled into wars.
Commercial republics like ours will never be disposed to waste themselves in ruinous contentions with each other.
Meaning, this is what they've often called the McDonald's arches theory of diplomacy, that countries that have McDonald's and free commerce are less likely to go to war with one another.
He says, they will be governed by mutual interest, will cultivate a spirit of mutual amity and concord.
But then he says, have republics in practice been less addicted to war than monarchies?
Are not the former administered by men as well as the latter?
The founders are constantly focusing in on human frailty, human weakness, and human flaw.
And that's why the Constitution is such a grand document.
He says, are there not aversions, predilections, rivalships, desires of unjust acquisitions that affect nations as well as kings?
In other words, democracy is not a cure-all for war, which is obviously true.
We've seen democracies go to war with one another.
Hitler was an elected official.
The Soviet Union originally was a popular movement.
It was a minority popular movement, but it was popular.
Most, as I've said before, virtually all fascist nations in the West started off under democratic auspices before power was either seized or democratic means were used to elevate a bad guy to power.
Sparta, Athens, Rome, Carthage were all republics, says Hamilton.
Two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind.
Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times?
Meaning being a commercial republic is not going to save you.
And then he says, from this summary of what has taken place in other countries, whose situations have borne the nearest resemblance to our own, what reason can we have to confide in those reveries which would seduce us into an expectation of peace and cordiality In other words, if we don't have a strong centralized government, the states are going to be fighting each other in five seconds.
Have we not already seen enough of the fallacy and extravagance of those idle theories which have amused us with promises of an exemption from the imperfections, weaknesses and evils incident to society in every shape?
He says, there's always going to be conflict.
That's why we need to band together against all outsiders instead of banding together against each other.
He says, it's time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age.
I love the realism.
And to adopt as a practical Marxism for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue.
This is so different from how the left thinks, that human beings are capable of something great.
This is why we have to have a world government.
This is why, if every man were left to imagine, in John Lennon's style, everything would be all better.
The founders were ultimate realists, and that's why their words are still important, because while we may have different notions of how government ought to work, they were more correct than we, because our notions of human nature are worse than theirs.
Okay, so, now we have reached the end of today's show.
There will be a lot more to discuss tomorrow.
As always, I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Mathis Glover.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection