Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 5, 2017 - The Ben Shapiro Show

50:22

The FBI Screw-Ups: Incompetence Or Malice? | Ep. 430

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	A fired anti-Trump FBI agent had his hands in every single pie.
	Nancy Pelosi loses what is left of her addled brain.
	Plus, Roy Moore is back in Republican good graces.
	We'll talk about all of it.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show.
	I was just joking to all of my producers before the show that we might have to have a second show today because the news is actually coming too fast to keep up with it.
	In the last 24 hours, we've gotten all sorts of fallout on the Mueller investigation.
	We'll discuss all of that.
	Nancy Pelosi says that Armageddon has arrived in the form of a basically normal Republican tax bill.
	Roy Moore is, again, back in Republican good graces.
	And President Trump is making some pretty astonishing moves with regard to Jerusalem.
	So we'll get to all of those things, I promise.
	First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors.
	Over at blinds.com.
	So, this is part of your house that you really don't think about very much, right?
	You just go home, you go to sleep, you don't think about the fact that you've got a bunch of blinds that look like somebody was beat to death inside the blinds, strangled with the blinds, hanging from your windows.
	It makes your apartment look terrible, it makes your house look terrible.
	That's why you need to get new blinds.
	You need new window coverings.
	It actually makes your house look much better.
	It upgrades your house, the look of your house for just the right price.
	That's what blinds.com does.
	They make it really easy for you.
	If you're not sure what you want or even where to start with, blinds.com, you get a free online design consultation.
	You send them pictures of your house.
	They send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, specific rooms.
	They'll even send you free samples to make sure that what you're looking at online looks exactly like what it looks like in the room itself.
	And this is the best part.
	If you accidentally mismeasure Or you picked the wrong color.
	If you screw up, Blinds.com makes it right, even though it's your fault, which is pretty amazing.
	For a limited time, you get 20% off everything at Blinds.com when you use promo code Ben.
	Again, you get 20% off everything at Blinds.com when you use promo code Ben.
	That's Blinds.com, promo code Ben, 20% off everything that's faux wood blinds and cellular shades and roller shades and everything else.
	Use that promo code Ben rules and restrictions you apply.
	Okay, so, yesterday there was a lot of fallout from all of the furor surrounding Mike Flynn, the former National Security Advisor, who pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
	And we talked about yesterday whether this entire thing, this entire Mueller investigation, is going to turn out to show nothing with regard to collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but could ensnare a bunch of Trump officials Who are too naive to know that they weren't actually committing a crime and so lied to the FBI.
	So you could have a series of situations in which people like Mike Flynn or Jared Kushner are caught up in lying to the FBI.
	No indication Kushner's done that yet, but Flynn already has pled guilty.
	And then you could have a bunch of talk about did President Trump encourage them to lie to the FBI?
	Is that obstruction of justice?
	And if so, does that mean that Trump has to be impeached?
	So we could get a scandal about a scandal about a non-scandal.
	No underlying bad act.
	People lie to the FBI because they're dumb or because they're incompetent.
	And then it turns out that they were told to lie to the FBI by people who are also dumb slash incompetent or just didn't know what they were doing.
	All of that is a possibility and a very significant possibility.
	And then we find out in actual bombshell, this is late yesterday evening East Coast time, in actual bombshell drops.
	And that is that there is an agent named Peter Stroke.
	I think that's how it's pronounced.
	S-T-R-Z-O-K. Peter Stroke.
	Okay, so I'll call him Peter Stroke for purposes of this show.
	In any case, Peter Stroke was demoted this summer.
	Why?
	Because it turns out that he'd sent an anti-Trump text to his mistress.
	Why does that matter that a random FBI agent working with Robert Mueller was sending anti-Trump text messages to his mistress?
	Well, it gives you a window into the mind of this particular FBI agent.
	Well, why does that matter?
	Why is this FBI agent very important?
	Let me explain to you who this FBI agent is.
	This FBI agent was in charge of the Hillary investigation.
	This FBI agent specifically changed the language in former FBI Director James Comey's statement about Hillary Clinton.
	Originally, they were supposed to say that she had actually involved herself in criminal negligence, essentially, and this guy was responsible, along with Comey, for changing the language to extremely careless.
	Which is a non-criminal standard, right?
	You remember, we talked about this at the time that James Comey had changed the actual legal standard.
	The legal standard does not require intent to mistreat classified information.
	James Comey changed it to pretend that it required intent, and then he changed the language to avoid the fact that Hillary Clinton probably should have been prosecuted.
	Well, the guy who actually changed that language was Peter Strzok.
	Okay, it was that guy.
	That guy actually changed the language, but not just that.
	Peter Strzok was also the fellow who interviewed two Hillary Clinton aides.
	Huma Abedin and Sheryl Mills.
	It turns out that both Huma Abedin and Sheryl Mills likely, wait for it, lied to the FBI.
	Were either of them ever prosecuted?
	No, of course not.
	Neither of them were prosecuted.
	So, Mike Flynn was prosecuted for lying to the FBI, but nothing from Sheryl Mills or Huma Abedin.
	And the guy who was in charge of those interviews was Peter Strzok, who was sending anti-Trump text messages to his mistress.
	But wait, there's more.
	It turns out that Peter Stroke was also the guy who, based on the Russian dossier, helped decide to launch the Russia collusion investigation in the first place on the FBI level.
	He signed off on the documents.
	This anti-Trump guy.
	But wait, there's more.
	He's also the FBI agent who interviewed Mike Flynn.
	So he was the guy in the room with Mike Flynn positioning himself so that Mike Flynn could lie to him.
	Now, does that excuse Mike Flynn for lying?
	No.
	But it is sort of suspicious.
	Like, I'm just wondering, does the FBI have one agent?
	Like, is he the only agent at the FBI?
	Now, listen.
	To be fair, It's possible.
	He's a top-ranking agent.
	He has his hands in a lot of pies.
	If he's near James Comey, James Comey's at the top of the food chain.
	But it is suspicious when career bureaucrats with actual extreme political biases are having this major an impact on presidential races, on transition teams, on presidential workings.
	The whole thing is, it does stink a little bit.
	It stinks to say the least.
	This is leading the Wall Street Journal to call for Mueller to step down from his investigation.
	And here's what the Wall Street Journal says.
	There is no justification for withholding all of this from Congress.
	So Congress had subpoenaed all this information from the Mueller team, and the Mueller team had basically stonewalled.
	The Wall Street Journal says there's no justification for withholding all of this from Congress.
	which is also investigating Russian influence and has constitutional oversight authority.
	Justice and the FBI have continued to defy legal subpoenas for documents pertaining to both surveillance warrants and the infamous Steele dossier that was financed by the Clinton campaign and relied on anonymous Russian sources.
	While there's no evidence so far of Trump-Russia collusion, House investigators have turned up enough material to suggest that anti-Trump motives may have driven Mr. Comey's FBI investigation.
	Remember, the Steele dossier was brought to the FBI, and then for some reason the FBI thought it was credible enough to actually pay Christopher Steele, the spy behind the Steele dossier, which had all of these allegations about Trump, some of which have already been debunked, the most wild of which have already been debunked.
	All of this reinforces our doubts, says the journal editorial page, about Mr. Mueller's ability to conduct a fair and credible probe of the FBI's considerable part in the Russia-Trump drama.
	Mr. Mueller ran the bureau for 12 years and is fast friends with Mr. Comey, whose firing by Mr. Trump triggered his appointment as special counsel.
	The reluctance to cooperate with a congressional inquiry compounds doubts related to this clear conflict of interest.
	Now, let's be real here.
	The Wall Street Journal has been calling for Mueller to step down for at least a couple of months based on his relationship to Comey.
	I still think it would be a mistake for President Trump to fire Mueller at this point, especially given the fact that he now has an ongoing excuse, like a constant and ongoing excuse to call into doubt any sort of conclusions reached by the Mueller team, right?
	Now he can say, well, it was all Peter Stroke, or it was James Comey, and these guys were very good friends with Robert Mueller, and they were all working for the same team together.
	He's gonna be able to say to his base, no matter what, that this is unfair.
	His base already believes this is unfair.
	The question is whether if he fires him, it looks like obstruction of justice.
	Now, as far as whether it is technical obstruction of justice, the answer is no.
	He's able to fire the special counsel whenever he wants.
	What he can't do is tell the special counsel how to conduct the investigation.
	He can't tell him, I want you to find this conclusion.
	He also can't destroy documents to prevent the special counsel from finding them.
	So obstruction of justice is possible, but...
	If he were to fire Mueller, that would not be obstruction of justice.
	His firing of James Comey, no matter what the reason, was not obstruction of justice because that is within his constitutional purview.
	This was the point that Alan Dershowitz, one of my professors over at Harvard Law School, was making.
	He got a lot of flack for it.
	But here's what Dershowitz was saying on national TV about the president's obstructing justice.
	Professor, is she right?
	Do you see a case for obstruction building?
	No, I don't, and I think if Congress ever were to charge him with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional authority under Article 2, we'd have a constitutional crisis.
	You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional power to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate.
	That's what Thomas Jefferson did, that's what Lincoln did, that's what Roosevelt Okay, all of this is right what Dershowitz is saying.
	Now, the left took this out of context to say that this means the president can never obstruct justice.
	In fact, Trump's own lawyer, John Dowd, who is not a competent lawyer from what I can see, he came out and said the president can never obstruct justice.
	That's not true.
	The president can obstruct justice.
	obstruction of justice charges were part of the impeachment proceedings that would have proceeded against Richard Nixon.
	They were part of the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton.
	You can obstruct justice.
	The way you obstruct justice is by destroying documents, as I said, or by instructing a special counsel that they need to reach a certain conclusion, telling them what conclusion to reach.
	But what is true is that nothing Trump has done thus far actually looks like obstruction of justice.
	Firing Mike Flynn is not obstruction of justice.
	Firing James Comey is not obstruction of justice.
	If you fired Mueller tomorrow, that would not actually be obstruction of justice.
	And again, all of this is starting to cut in Trump's favor, because the fact is that people now see the FBI as inherently biased.
	You know, when Trump first started this crusade against the FBI, I was skeptical.
	You can go back and listen to the shows.
	I was highly skeptical.
	I said, this looks a lot like the president covering his own ass because he's in some sort of trouble here, and I have no evidence that the FBI is out to get him, particularly because James Comey may have won him the election in the last week of the election with that letter that basically reopened the Hillary investigation, which, in an election that close, could have swung those 100,000 votes in the three states that Trump needed in order to win.
	With all of that said, it is now clear that bureaucrats inside the FBI and their political biases do make a difference.
	They do make a difference.
	And that's why full transparency is necessary.
	Now, in Mueller's defense, I want to be fair here.
	In Mueller's defense, Mueller did fire Peter Strzok.
	He did fire him.
	He did demote him when he found out about this.
	The problem is he didn't tell Congress about it.
	So it looks like he was trying to split the baby.
	He was trying to minimize the impact of bias on his investigation, but he also didn't want the public to know about the level of bias that was implicit in the FBI's conducting of the Hillary investigation, as well as the Trump-Russia investigation.
	So all of that is somewhat disturbing, but it doesn't say to me that Mueller is so biased that he needs to be fired, or that Mueller is running a bad investigation at this point.
	It does look, though, like he's fishing.
	That's what it looks like to me.
	It looks like Mueller is fishing and all the things he's bringing now are very far flung from the original charges.
	Remember, what Democrats were saying is that what originally happened here is that Donald Trump and the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
	So far, there is zero evidence of that actual collusion that has been brought.
	There's evidence that they wanted to collude.
	There's no evidence of actual collusion.
	None.
	Okay, so that means the Democrats are not getting what they want at this point, and they're getting frustrated, and so they're looking for obstruction to kind of get them out of this, and I'm not sure that's going to happen.
	Okay, well, in other news...
	Nancy Pelosi is going fully insane.
	The Democrats are going fully insane over this tax bill.
	This new tax bill is out and we are going to see a final version of it.
	They're now going to go to conference committee.
	The House passed a version.
	The Senate passed a version.
	There are pretty significant differences.
	The most significant difference is that the Senate version has repeal of the individual mandate, which is a very good thing.
	It says that you are no longer bound to buy health insurance.
	It's bad in the sense that what it's going to do is drive up insurance premiums in the individual market because the individual mandate was meant to force people like me, young, healthy people, to buy insurance for ourselves at very high prices in order to subsidize all the sick people who also want to buy individual insurance for themselves.
	If I don't buy, the prices rise on the sick people.
	The federal government is filling in that gap, so the federal government is actually subsidizing the healthcare for poor and ill people at a higher level than they were before the removal of the individual mandate.
	That said, it's a very big move to get rid of the individual mandate in the Senate bill.
	That does not exist, actually, in the House bill.
	That said, we're about to go to conference committee on it.
	They've picked the people for the conference committee.
	This thing is going to pass the House.
	It is going to pass the Senate.
	There will be a tax reform bill, which is a major accomplishment for the Trump administration, and the Democrats are going completely nuts over it.
	Before I tell you how Nancy Pelosi has utterly lost her mind, I mean completely and utterly lost what was left of her already addled brain, first I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at MVMT Watches.
	So MVMT Watches was founded on the belief that style should not break the bank.
	All of their styles Our minimalist.
	I own two MVMT watches.
	I bought one for my wife as well.
	Even though they're an advertiser, I actually spent my own money to get an MVMT watch for my wife.
	She loves it.
	That's because they're amazing looking watches.
	How good looking are they?
	Because they look like this, right?
	This looks like a $400 watch.
	This is not a $400 watch.
	All of their watches look great.
	And as I say, they're incredibly durable.
	Last time around, I said that my son bashes the watch about, and the watch is totally fine.
	Not only does he bash it about, he loves it so much that he stuffed it in his car seat.
	I couldn't find it for a week.
	I was heartbroken.
	We found it there.
	This is the second MVMT watch he has stolen and stuck in his car seat.
	So that gives you two pieces of information.
	Everyone loves MVMT watches, and my son is an incipient criminal.
	All of that said...
	MVMT watches make a fantastic Christmas gift, a great Hanukkah gift.
	You can skip the crowds, you don't have to stand in crazy lines at the mall, and you get an inexpensive watch that looks like an expensive watch.
	It is just fantastic.
	They start at $95 at a department store, $400 to $500.
	They've cut out the middleman, that's how they can do this.
	Over 1 million watches sold in over 160 countries.
	MVMT is making gift giving easy right now.
	So go to MVMT.com slash Shapiro, and you can get any watch, plus a free strap, all placed in an elegant gift box, ready to give, and shipping is free.
	And if you don't like it, returns are free too.
	But I promise you, once you see it, it looks even better in person than it does online.
	They all have really clean designs.
	MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	That's MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	And when you use that slash Shapiro, again, you buy any watch and you get a free strap, all placed in a really nice gift box.
	Makes a really easy gift and relieves you of the duty of having to actually think about it or spend tons of money doing it.
	They're great.
	MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	Go check it out.
	Let them know that we sent you.
	Okay, so here is Nancy Pelosi.
	The Botox, as I say, has seeped into her prefrontal cortex, and here she is explaining that we actually have reached Armageddon, like Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Liv Tyler, full Armageddon.
	Here we go.
	No, it is the end of the world.
	This healthcare, the debate on healthcare is life-death.
	This is Armageddon.
	This is a very big deal.
	Because you know why?
	There's really a very hard way to come back from this.
	They take us further, more deeply into debt.
	What can you do but raise taxes?
	They contend that their gift to corporate America of a trillion and a half dollars, could be up to a trillion and a half dollars, will be paid for by the growth it creates.
	And even their own people say, nonsense, not true.
	It's Armageddon.
	I love when Democrats talk about deficit spending.
	As though, oh, we'll have to raise taxes.
	Like Democrats care.
	Walter Mondale in 1984 openly campaigned on raising taxes.
	Barack Obama wanted to raise taxes.
	Democrats always want to raise taxes.
	They love taxes.
	They should be overjoyed that deficit is being blown out because now they can make an argument for raising taxes.
	They never want to cut spending.
	They love spending.
	Spending is their favorite thing in the entire world.
	By the way, I love when she says this time again, and then she actually tweeted out that this was the worst bill in history.
	I am not kidding.
	Here's what Nancy Pelosi, this crazy loon bat, actually tweeted, quote, Well, good news, you don't have much.
	scam is one of the worst bills to be brought to the floor in the history of the United States.
	We will fight with everything we have to stop this bill from becoming the law of the land.
	Well, good news, you don't have much.
	And second off, one of the worst bills to be brought to the floor in the history of the United States.
	I would love to hear Nancy Pelosi's thoughts on the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, requiring people in the North to take slaves that had escaped their plantations and moved them back to the South.
	I'm going to say, I'd like to hear her thoughts on Public Law 503, under FDR, that allowed him to intern the Japanese.
	One of the worst bills in the history of the United States?
	Talk about total lack of perspective.
	It is sort of fascinating.
	One of the things that I find interesting about Nancy Pelosi's take on this is it's the take of a lot of Democrats, which is that if the government gives up control over you, this is the end of everything.
	Now, back during Obamacare days, after the Supreme Court decision that said that it was okay for the federal government to force you to buy things, I said this is a fundamental change in how the government works.
	It was, because it was now the government telling you that they could force you to buy things.
	They could force you to not buy things.
	They could force you to buy things.
	They had full control over you.
	That was a major change.
	Nancy Pelosi thinks that it's a major change to the country when I get to keep my own money.
	If this doesn't provide a stark difference in how you think the country ought to run, what your vision for liberty is, I don't know what does.
	But suffice it to say that this sort of nutty polarization is driving some really, really bad politics.
	It's driving some really terrible politics.
	And it's this polarization, I think, that is leading people to hunker down in their particular political bunkers and just stay there and never escape.
	And here's what I mean.
	So over the—this is just devastating.
	In the last day, President Trump came out and he endorsed Roy Moore.
	We talked about that yesterday.
	He came out and he said, we need Roy Moore in order to defeat Doug Jones in the Senate.
	And people on the right and people on the left, people everywhere, have no capacity, none, for cognitive dissonance.
	Cognitive dissonance is the term that means that you want to think one thing, but the facts are the other.
	So how do you rectify that breach?
	Right, so the facts right now are that Roy Moore, in all likelihood, credible accusations, that he molested young girls.
	Then he molested a 14-year-old girl, then he molested a 16-year-old girl, then he had a habit of hanging out at the food court and dating younger women.
	When I say dating, you can't really date a 16-year-old when you're 33, which is what Roy Moore is accused of doing.
	There's one story where he legitimately called a girl out of her trigonometry class.
	He called the high school and said, is whatever her name was, Betsy here.
	They called her out of her class to get on the phone, because he was the DA, and he said, what are you up to right now?
	And she said, trig.
	Okay, like, the evidence is pretty solid against Roy Moore here, or at least as solid as it can be without there actually being a court case.
	So here's what Republicans could do.
	What Republicans could do is they could be honest.
	I would disagree with this argument, but it would be an honest argument.
	They could say, listen, I think Roy Moore probably did it, but we have to stop the Democrats.
	The agenda is just too important.
	We have to stop them, right?
	As President Trump said during the last election cycle, we have no choice, right?
	You just do that.
	He just said we have no choice.
	Roy Moore is the only guy on the ballot.
	We'll deal with him later.
	He's only gonna be in the Senate for four years or two years or however long the remainder of this term is.
	So, whatever.
	You know, you put him in.
	Maybe you expel him from the Senate.
	But we need that seat to remain Republican.
	What you don't do is build Roy Moore up as some wonderful halcyon of morality.
	But that is what the right has done because we cannot stand cognitive dissonance.
	We just cannot.
	Okay, there was even more evidence that came out yesterday.
	Here is some of the evidence.
	So I want to show you.
	There's a woman who came out, and she showed that she had a note in her graduation yearbook.
	He dated her when she was 17, and he was 34.
	And there's a note in her yearbook.
	It says, happy graduation, Debbie.
	I wanted to give you this card myself.
	I know that you'll be a success in anything you do.
	Why is this important?
	It's only important because the signature is precisely the same as the signature in the yearbook for the accuser who said that he tried to rape her when she was 16 years old.
	Now there are a bunch of people online who are saying this is a forgery too.
	It's all a forgery!
	Everything's a forgery!
	Okay, if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
	And I have a hard time believing that you think that Al Franken is guilty, or Harvey Weinstein is guilty, or Bill Clinton is guilty of Juanita Broderick.
	There's more evidence about Roy Moore here than there was about Juanita Broderick.
	And all the right believes Juanita Broderick, and most of the right does not believe the accusers in the Roy Moore case.
	That's because people cannot stand cognitive dissonance.
	Now the RNC has jumped in.
	So this was totally unnecessary.
	Roy Moore was probably gonna win anyway.
	Even if you wanted him to win.
	Roy Moore is probably going to win anyway.
	So they made the worst move possible.
	So the RNC withdrew its support last month, right, in light of the ongoing accusations.
	And now Breitbart, of course, gets the note from the RNC that they now, quote, stand with the president and that they are going to openly back Roy Moore in this election cycle.
	As you say, the president apparently called up Roy Moore's office and he said, go get him, Roy.
	I only hope that he specified who the um was in that sentence because otherwise that's super awkward.
	Go get him is not something you want to say to a prospective child molester.
	In any case, the RNC came out and now they are saying that they are backing Trump's decision to endorse Moore.
	They're not the only ones.
	Orrin Hatch came out.
	He said Trump had no choice but to support Moore.
	Now, if you want to make the case again that you have to support him to stop the Democrats because of the polarization, because Nancy Pelosi is a kook, because the Democrats have gone so far off the road, That we just have to oppose them no matter what?
	If that's the case you want to make, then make that case.
	Okay?
	Have the courage of your convictions and just say, yeah, the guy's guilty.
	I don't care.
	The Democrats are just as bad.
	Fine.
	Voila.
	Right?
	Just do that.
	Do that.
	Be honest.
	But that's not what people are doing.
	People are finding ways to Loop themselves in pretzels to pretend that Roy Moore is actually an indicator of how great evangelical Christians are.
	He's the new Jesus and the pilots out there are trying to crucify him.
	It's just insane.
	It's just insane.
	And if anybody says differently, then they're raked over the coals.
	So Mitt Romney blasts Moore.
	Right, Mitt Romney comes out with this tweet.
	He tweets, I agree.
	I agree, because I have a thing called long-term interests.
	I don't think it's good for the long-term interests of the Republican Party to have an accused, credibly accused child molester sitting in the United States Senate being used as a club to beat every Republican into submission.
	You think Trump was a club used to beat Republicans into submission in 2016?
	Okay, wait till they actually have a credibly accused child molester in the United States Senate, and you're a guy who's running for a contested seat in a contested purple state, like Virginia or Ohio or Florida, and suddenly they ask you, do you think Roy Moore should sit in the Senate?
	No matter how you answer, it's in a campaign ad.
	So here's what Romney tweeted.
	He said, Now that last sentence is the one that you might want to argue with, right?
	No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity.
	As I said before, I had a long conversation with my friend David Limbaugh the other day.
	He takes the opposite side of this argument from me on Roy Moore.
	And what he says is that's not true.
	There are majorities, there are votes that we have to lose our honor for.
	If it requires us to side with a bad guy in order to prevent a million abortions from occurring a year, then maybe you side with the bad guy.
	Now, I don't think that's the case with Roy Moore.
	I still have not heard the credible case that Roy Moore is going to be the vote that eliminates Roe v. Wade.
	I really have not heard a specific case.
	that Roy Moore is going to be the deciding vote on the Supreme Court, right?
	They still have 51 votes in the United States Senate, and it's likely they'll pick up a couple of more here.
	But if you want to make that case, make that case, right?
	That's the sentence to argue with.
	No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor or integrity.
	But people are getting upset about this.
	They're saying there's no loss of honor or integrity to backing a child molester.
	So Roy Moore responded I'll show you Roy Moore's response to this in just a second.
	But first, I want to say thank you to our advertisers over at RealtyShares.
	So, if you are looking to invest, right?
	If you're somebody who wants to build your portfolio, and you don't really know how, but you know that a lot of people make money in real estate, then RealtyShares may be for you.
	It's not an offering of securities.
	Private investments are highly illiquid and risky, are not suitable for all investors.
	Past performance is not indicative of future results.
	Securities offer to accredited investors through North Capital Private Securities member FINRA SIPC.
	So Realtyshares.com has demolished the walls between you and real estate investing.
	You don't need millions of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars or even tens of thousands of dollars.
	You can invest fractionally in vetted assets.
	So hundreds of people invest fractionally.
	You reduce the cost of an initial investment.
	You take $5,000 and you can invest along with a bunch of other people in particular projects that Realtyshares has vetted.
	If you make $200,000 a year, you may qualify.
	You can find out today at Realtyshares.com.
	It's free to sign up.
	Browse investments.
	You set up, takes just a few minutes, and then you can manage and invest straight from your phone or computer through their simple, secure online process.
	All it takes is five grand to make an investment.
	There are no hidden fees.
	Close to 100,000 investors are using RealtyShares, with over 60 million in principal returned to investors.
	Right now, RealtyShares has a special offer just for our listeners.
	If you go today to realtyshares.com slash ben, that's R-E-A-L-T-Y shares dot com slash ben, you get $100 for your first investment.
	So it's not...
	It's not 5,000 bucks, it's 4,900 bucks.
	Realtyshares.com slash Ben.
	Use the slash Ben to get the $100 discount and get involved in investing, folks, because the fact is that if you think Social Security is going to be there for you, it ain't.
	Particularly if you're near my age.
	Nah, all that money's gone.
	Okay, forget about it.
	If you actually want to be wealthy and independently oriented, then you need to actually invest your cash.
	So go to Realtyshares.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so here's how Roy Moore responded to Mitt Romney.
	I do get the feeling there are a number of Republicans who, whenever you say a thing like, you are compromising your morality to support a child molester, they can't stand the cognitive dissonance.
	They can't say, you know what, you're right.
	It is a compromise of my morality.
	But, you would also be making a compromise of your morality to sacrifice a Senate seat to a guy who supports abortion until birth.
	And then we can decide who's compromising the morality more and what the costs and benefits are.
	And that's an honest conversation.
	That's a conversation we could have when we both acknowledge that morality is being compromised.
	But people on the Judge Roy Moore side refuse to acknowledge this compromise in morality.
	So Moore writes back, either Mitt Romney has lost his courage or he doesn't care about truth anymore.
	Sad day.
	Has lost his courage?
	Doesn't care about truth?
	Judge Roy Moore changed his story again this morning.
	Again.
	He came out and he now says he doesn't know any of the accusers.
	He admitted before he knew some of the accusers.
	Then one of the accusers came forward and said, well, by the way, here's a note in my graduation book from Roy Moore.
	He says, well, I don't know her.
	I guess it's a forgery.
	And then he says, America's reawakening was led by real Donald Trump, not you, Mitt.
	Hashtag defeat the elite.
	Hashtag drain the swamp.
	Now, I love this appeal to Trump.
	The appeal to Trump is the idea that you have to embrace all that is bad about Donald Trump in order to embrace the policies of Donald Trump, or to embrace the fact that there are Republicans who are willing to fight back.
	I've always said that I like that Trump is willing to punch back.
	My problem is that sometimes he punches a baby.
	That's always been my problem with Trump.
	Sometimes he punches the bad guys, and sometimes he punches a puppy.
	You just don't know which it's going to be.
	But the idea that Mitt Romney stands up and says, let's not vote for a child molester, and Roy Moore goes, well you're irrelevant because Trump.
	If I were Trump, I'd be insulted by this.
	If I were Trump, really, I would be.
	I mean, I don't think Trump would be, because I think Trump likes praise, but the idea that America's reawakening was led by Trump, not you, Mitt, and that that reawakening means vote for the child molester, even if you make the case that Trump did something Mitt didn't, which I agree, okay?
	Trump, again, punched back.
	Mitt did not.
	I fully agree with that.
	But the idea that that means vote for the alleged child molester, that's dicey stuff at best.
	And again, the defenses that are being just trotted out here by the Moore campaign are, shall we say, garbage.
	Here is, to put it mildly, here's a Roy Moore spokesperson.
	She was on CNN this morning with Poppy Harlow.
	Her name is Jane Porter.
	This was one of the worst interviews I have ever seen on national television, and that's saying a lot.
	I've been here for the last year and a half.
	Okay, this was just... Wow!
	Okay, play it.
	Poppy, we need to make it clear that there's a group of non-accusers that have not accused the judge of any sexual misconduct or anything illegal.
	But when we're talking about Lee Korfman, even her own mother said that her report to the Washington Post that her life spiraled out of control after this alleged incident.
	Well, actually, the court records say differently.
	Okay, so she starts doubting all the accusers.
	She also said here that they're basically criminals.
	The accusers are criminals.
	Not the guy accused of molesting children.
	The accusers are criminals.
	The best part of this was she let off the interview and Poppy Harlow is pregnant.
	And so she said, congratulations on your pregnancy.
	If Doug Jones had his way, he'd abort your baby.
	She really led off the interview that way.
	Here it is.
	Thank you.
	And by the way, congratulations on your unborn child.
	That's the reason why I came down as a volunteer to speak for Judge Roy Moore, because he'll stand for the rights of babies like yours in the womb, where his opponent will support killing them up until the moment of birth.
	Janet, thank you for being with us, and I appreciate the congratulations.
	Well, boom, right out the gate there.
	I mean, that's a hell of a pro-life argument.
	Holy crap.
	So, I mean, but this is the argument that's being laid out, right?
	Again, notice the cognitive dissonance.
	You like Judge Moore's position on life.
	I also like Judge Moore's position on life.
	You don't like Judge Moore taking a sexual position on 14-year-old girls.
	But, you can't square those two things.
	So what you end up doing is you end up going into whatever this lady's name is, Jane Porterland, and you end up saying crazy things.
	So now, I'm watching this online in real time, and again, you know, I see it happen on a regular basis, and it drives me up a freaking wall, okay?
	Drives me crazy.
	I'll host other shows, and we're calling their possible, and the entire board of calls will be, you're getting more wrong, more is totally innocent.
	I want to see the evidence that more like, what's your evidence?
	Lay it out.
	And the evidence that she lays out is that she says that the yearbook was forged.
	Yeah, that's because that's the best plan ever.
	I hate these conspiracy theories.
	I swear to God, I hate these conspiracy theories so much.
	You know why?
	Because I remember back in the last election cycle when Corey Lewandowski grabbed Michelle Fields by the arm hard enough to bruise her.
	And then people suggested that there was some evil conspiracy hatched by Michelle Fields And me, in order to get President Trump.
	And what we had done is we had secretly planted Michelle Fields near President Trump so Corey Lewandowski would grab her arm and bruise it hard enough so then we could claim abuse.
	And then we could claim that Corey Lewandowski should step down from the campaign.
	We were just that nefarious.
	We tempted Corey Lewandowski in our evil Jew ways.
	This is such nonsense, okay?
	There are eight accusers.
	There are four accusers who have said that Roy Moore sexually treated them when they were underage.
	Four.
	They've been, every detail they say has basically been confirmed.
	And we're sitting around talking about this like this is a real thing.
	Again, you want to have an honest argument about whether to vote for more.
	Here's the honest argument.
	The costs of voting for more outweigh the benefits or the benefits of voting for more outweigh the cost.
	That's the only honest argument.
	But to pretend that you're not making any moral compromise whatsoever in voting for a credibly accused child molester that the RNC has to sink dollars in and pretend like nothing is wrong here is just gross.
	It's just gross.
	And it's being driven by the polarized politics.
	It really is.
	Because what you see from the Democrats is the same thing.
	You're seeing it in the same way from the Democrats.
	And what I mean by that is that when you look at the Democrats today, so John Conyers comes out, right?
	John Conyers came out today and he finally said that he is retiring.
	He didn't say he's stepping down.
	He didn't say he's quitting.
	He said he's retiring.
	And not only is he retiring, because we live in a feudal fiefdom, he's handing over his seat to his son.
	No, I'm not kidding.
	He said he endorses his son.
	So he's, apparently there's an accusation that he sexually groped a woman in church.
	These are the people who run our country, folks.
	These are the people.
	And he says to his constituents, by the way, you should vote for my son.
	Okay, that's not a punishment.
	So the Democrats are leaving Conyers to basically appoint his successor in the royal fiefdom of Detroit.
	And Al Franken is going to remain.
	And Keith Ellison, who is almost the head of the DNC, and who was a fan of Louis Farrakhan and is an anti-Semite.
	This guy is out there, on Democracy Now!
	of all places, defending both Conyers and Franken, saying they should evaluate themselves.
	And then you wonder why people are rallying to Roy Moore?
	Because no one can stand the cognitive dissonance.
	On the left, Franken and Conyers, they're fine because they're on the left.
	And on the right, Roy Moore is fine because he's on the right.
	And those other people are just so bad.
	This is how morality dies.
	Here's Keith Ellison.
	Here's the thing.
	I would ask every member of Congress, including those, to look inside their conscience and ask themselves just a few questions.
	Can you be effective?
	If you stood up your whole life to stand up for the rights of people, and both of them have, is it not a moment now where you apply some standards to yourself that you— Also, we'll just—we'll ask you to be a nice guy, right?
	Yeah, this worked well for McConnell, who said that he wanted more to step down and then turned around and said he'll back more.
	Yuck.
	Okay, so we'll put all of that nasty news aside and the fact that no one has any moral scruples and everybody's garbage.
	We'll put all of that aside for a moment and let's talk about some good news.
	So the Trump administration is doing a couple of things that are really, really quite good.
	So the first thing that they are doing that is quite good is that President Trump announced yesterday that he was going to change policy on public lands.
	So first I want to show you a map of what public lands look like in the United States.
	Okay, this is a map.
	The red marks areas that have been marked off by the federal government and are in control of the federal government.
	What you'll see is that in the east, the public lands are relatively limited, and then you move out west.
	And what you see is the entire state of Nevada is public land.
	The entire state of Nevada, the entire state of Utah is public land.
	Half of New Mexico is public land.
	Half of California is public land.
	Half of Oregon is public land.
	Basically, the federal government controls huge swaths of land.
	This was never meant to be for public monuments.
	The whole point of a public monument is that you were supposed to be able to go see it, not that they were going to fence it off and leave it.
	So they fenced off the entire state of Nevada.
	So President Trump came out yesterday, I think he was talking about the Bears Ears?
	Bears Ears?
	Bears Ears.
	Bears Ears Memorial in Utah, and he said that they are going to restrict the amount of land the federal government is gobbling up, which is exactly right.
	Okay, what Trump says here is exactly right, and it is good policy.
	I will sign two presidential proclamations.
	These actions will modify the National Monuments designations of both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante.
	As many of you know, past administrations have severely abused the purpose, spirit, and intent of a century-old law known as the Antiquities Act.
	Okay, and he's totally right about this.
	Okay, so what Trump is doing here is totally necessary.
	Now, the left will say, oh, he's opening all this up to exploration and drilling and mining.
	Again, look at that map again, and what you will see is that the federal government... If you think they need that much land in order to prevent mining, then you are out of your mind.
	The federal government, under President Obama particularly, did all of these land grabs.
	It's one of the reasons why you had all of these conflicts with local ranchers and farmers who want to graze their cattle, and there's some tortoise that the federal government wants to protect by restricting the entire state.
	This is a lot of the conflicts with the Bundy family in Nevada, for example.
	The fact is that all of this land, a huge portion of this land, should be privatized.
	It should not be left in public hands.
	This was not the purpose of the federal government, protecting antiquities.
	Okay, so that's good piece of news number one.
	Good piece of news number two is a really huge piece of news, and that is it appears that the Trump administration is going to move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
	Which is great, okay?
	This is obvious.
	Jerusalem has been and will be the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
	The idea that it was not, that it was Tel Aviv, which is a secular city that was founded in, like, the 1920s.
	The idea that that is the capital of Israel is asinine.
	It has never been the capital of Israel.
	Jerusalem has always been the capital of Israel.
	Trump is doing the right thing.
	Now, you have the terrorist regimes, the Palestinian terrorist regimes, who have been voted for.
	Literally the only people that Palestinians have ever voted for are all terrorists.
	I mean, there haven't been that many votes, but every group they've ever voted for is a terrorist group.
	Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, which is the military wing of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip, they're now saying, oh, well, if you do that, we'll commit terrorist attacks.
	Yeah, what else is new?
	It's a day ending, and why?
	Of course they're going to commit terrorist attacks.
	This is what you do.
	If the United States does not want those terrorist attacks to occur, they should do two things.
	One, they should move the embassy to Jerusalem, and they should say, listen, This is now the starting basis for negotiations.
	It's up to Israel how they want to negotiate with this, but this is their capital.
	So stop with these fantasies that we're going to push Israel to hand over its capital.
	Not gonna happen.
	Once that fantasy is off the table, a lot of the terrorism simply goes away.
	Really, because all of the... Terrorism is driven by hope, not by fear.
	Palestinians don't bomb things because they're fearful that they are going to lose.
	They bomb things because they're hopeful they're going to win.
	They're hopeful they're going to pressure the United States into doing things.
	The next step is for Congress, if terrorist attacks occur, to pass the Taylor Force Act and withdraw funding from the Palestinian Authority.
	We give them somewhere from $300-400 million American taxpayer dollars every year.
	A huge swath of that goes to either terrorism or the pockets of the evil, murderous dictators who run that place.
	We should just cut off the funding.
	There's no reason your taxpayer dollars or mine should go to terrorist entities.
	The Palestinian Authority is a terrorist entity.
	This is a great move from Trump.
	If this materializes, I'm sure we'll talk about this a lot more tomorrow because I want to lay out the full history of Jerusalem tomorrow in a little bit more fulsome way so that you understand that All of the claims to the contrary about Jerusalem are just nonsense.
	Serious changes are taking place across the Middle East.
	Like, real serious changes.
	In part, unintended consequences of bad Obama policy.
	The Saudis are now working openly with the Israelis.
	They're talking about how they might stop supporting the Palestinians.
	Major changes taking place, and the Trump administration taking a leadership role in that.
	So that is actually good stuff.
	Okay, so.
	Now, I want to move over to things I like and things I hate, so we have time for that.
	But first, you're gonna have to subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to The Daily Wire.
	Yes, you.
	I'm talking about you, my friend.
	You can have a subscription to The Daily Wire for $9.99 a month.
	That means you get the rest of this show live on video.
	It means that you get the rest of the Michael Knowles show live on video.
	It means you get the rest of the Andrew Klavan show live on video.
	It means that we have something called The Conversation.
	Our fourth episode of The Conversation is coming up Tuesday, December 12th, 5 p.m.
	Eastern, 2 p.m.
	Pacific, featuring your favorite, Me.
	Subscribe today to be a part of the conversation and ask me questions, which I will alternatively mock or answer, and I'll answer even if I mock you, maybe.
	But I'll answer those questions only if you are a subscriber.
	The conversation streams live on DailyWire Facebook page, DailyWire YouTube channel.
	It's free for everyone to watch, but again, only subscribers can ask the questions.
	So to do that, you just log into our website at dailywire.com, you head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream, After that, you type into the Daily Wire chat box, and I answer questions as they come in for an entire hour.
	So ask the questions that have been burning a hole in your pocket.
	Subscribe to get your questions answered by me.
	December 12th, 5 p.m.
	Eastern, 2 p.m.
	Pacific.
	Join the conversation.
	If you want all of those glories, plus this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears hot or cold tumbler, all you have to do is go over to dailywire.com and get an annual subscription, $99 a year, so it's less expensive than your monthly subscription.
	Plus, you got all the aforementioned wonders.
	If you just want to listen later, go to iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, subscribe, leave us a review, we always appreciate it.
	largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation are we.
	Alrighty, time for some things I like and some things that I despise.
	So, we shall begin with things I like.
	So, there's a book by Ursula Le Guin that I read recently called The Lathe of Heaven.
	I don't think I recommended this on the show, did I?
	So this is, it's quite good.
	It's a science fiction novel, which is an Ursula Le Guin, yeah, she's a science fiction writer.
	It does lean left in some important ways.
	But the book itself is very readable.
	I don't like a lot of science fiction that is heavy on the jargon, and this book really is not.
	The basic concept of the book is that there is a main character whose dreams are impacting reality.
	Every time he dreams, the reality shapes around him.
	I mean, the entire world shapes around him.
	And then he has a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist starts realizing that if he can control this guy's dreams, then he can shape the reality to Melt what the psychiatrist wants.
	It's all about minds and impact on the world.
	And a lot of it is really good and really interesting.
	The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula Le Guin.
	Worth checking out.
	Okay, other things I like.
	So I actually have to give props to Joy Behar today.
	Yes, Joy Behar.
	One of the people whom I despise most in the world.
	Joy Behar over on The View.
	So yesterday I mocked her because she went totally wild.
	She basically did the Oprah giving away cars routine.
	But with regard to the Mike Flynn announcement by Brian Ross that was false, that Mike Flynn had said that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Trump told him to go over to the Russians for help with the campaign.
	That turned out to be a complete lie by Brian Ross.
	Well, Joy Behar made a huge deal out of it on Friday's show.
	Well, yesterday, she apologized.
	And you have to give props to people when they apologize.
	If you do something wrong and you apologize, that is better than if you do something wrong and you do not apologize.
	So here is the execrable Joy Behar doing the right thing and actually walking back the stupidity.
	Anybody would notice?
	So on Friday's show, apparently I was guilty of premature evaluation.
	I hear they have a pill for that now.
	Here's what happened.
	ABC News reporter Brian Ross released a story claiming that when Trump was a candidate, he told Michael Flynn to contact the Russians.
	Ross later corrected himself, saying it was actually when Trump was president-elect.
	Now, Brian has been suspended for a month.
	Okay, so I may have to take that back.
	Anytime you hear Joy Behar make a sexual joke, then you immediately have to take back whatever praise you were going to aim at Joy Behar, because that's just horrifying.
	But at least she is correcting the record, so good for Joy Behar for doing that.
	I have to admit, there's part of me that hopes that because I have now given just the merest of de minimis Niceties to Joy Behar that now I'm invited on the show.
	This is one of my lifelong dreams is to appear on The View.
	I will admit it.
	This is one of the things I would love best in life, because it would be epic television.
	Let's be real, folks.
	If I were on The View, who would not watch that?
	Maybe no one would watch it, but I would be on The View, and it would be so much fun, and the clips would be incredible.
	Yes, I would ask Whoopi Goldberg about rape rape.
	I would ask so many great questions to all the members of The View.
	Okay, I'm not gonna make my pitch for being on The View anymore.
	Okay, time for some things that I hate.
	So as I mentioned yesterday, today in the Supreme Court, there was a big hearing over what they call the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.
	The Masterpiece Cake Shop case is basically a gay couple went into the cake shop of a religious Christian.
	The religious Christian said, sure, I'll give you a cake for your gay wedding, but I'm not going to put a cake top with two dudes on top of it, nor am I going to put any messaging about congratulations to Bob and Steve Aru on their wedding, because that's not in line with my religious feelings.
	He also refuses to do the same thing for divorce parties.
	He refuses to do the same thing For anti-gay messages, if you go in there and you want to put on your cake, I hate gay people, he won't do that either.
	So this guy has his own standards for where he will exercise his free speech rights.
	And how he will use his business skills.
	And the gay couple decided that they were going to target this guy because this was taking place in Colorado.
	The idea that there are no bakeries in Colorado that will cater to gay people is fully crazy.
	Of course, first of all, it's hard to find a cake shop across the United States that is not staffed by gay people.
	He found the only cake shop in the United States that is staffed by a religious Christian.
	And then they set this up.
	Now, this happens on a regular basis, and sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad, but it's never the narrative the media wants to tell.
	So, in the case of Rosa Parks, which is a good case, right?
	Rosa Parks had planned in advance to not sit at the back of the bus so that there could be a civil rights movement behind her, right?
	It's something she coordinated with the NAACP in advance.
	That's a good thing.
	This was also coordinated in advance.
	Here is the gay couple, the vindictive, vitriolic, nasty gay couple who decided that it was absolutely necessary to force this Christian baker to violate his own religious beliefs so they could have a cake topper that made them feel better about themselves.
	I mean, as opposed to, you know, being on national television holding hands because you're gay.
	I mean, clearly these people don't get enough attention and respect.
	What they really need is a random religious baker to bake them a cake.
	Go to hell.
	I mean, it's just gross.
	Here they are on MSNBC talking about what wonderful, kindly gentlemen they are, even as they destroy this guy's business.
	The guy lost 40% of his business, the state tried to force him to retrain family members in sensitivity, all because he just wanted to exercise his business as a religious person exercises his business.
	Just absurd.
	Anyway, here are these jackasses on national TV.
	When a business decides to open its doors to the public, they need to serve the public equally.
	And, you know, this whole time that's what we've been asking for, is just to be treated equally in the public.
	And the reason why we're here today is because we've heard so many stories of discrimination nationwide over the past five years.
	And, you know, we're standing up for ourselves in this, but we're also standing up for all these other people.
	Okay, so first of all, at the time that they did this, at the time that they did this, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.
	You understand what they're saying here?
	What they're saying here is that the state of Colorado, at the time that they did this, did not recognize same-sex marriage, but the baker is supposed to recognize their same-sex marriage by law.
	He's supposed to not only recognize it, but celebrate it by law at a time when the state of Colorado did not even recognize same-sex marriage.
	Do you understand how insipid and insane this is?
	First, I don't know what these guys do for a living.
	I don't know what they do for a living.
	But let's assume for a second that these douchebags, Charlie Craig and David Mellons, let's assume that they are speechwriters for a Democrat.
	Okay, let's assume that.
	I don't know if that's true or not.
	They probably aren't.
	But let's assume that they are for a second.
	Could I walk into their office today and say, listen, you guys, you're great speechwriters.
	This is your skill set.
	You are just amazing at this.
	I want you to write me a speech talking about how homosexual activity is a sin under Leviticus.
	Can you write that for me?
	Are they allowed to say no or are they not allowed to say no?
	So according to their own light, they would not be allowed to say no, right?
	Because they would then be rejecting services to me, even though they're services they don't want to provide.
	It doesn't matter.
	I want them to provide the services.
	They'll give their services to anyone else, but they won't give their services to me.
	That's a violation of my rights as a consumer.
	See, the thing is that everyone who looks at this case knows this isn't about consumer rights.
	This is about violation of free speech.
	This is about violation of freedom of association.
	This is about them wanting to force someone to greenlight their lifestyle.
	That is what they are looking for.
	And maybe you think their lifestyle should be greenlit.
	That's your problem.
	But it's not the religious baker's problem.
	And guess what?
	They don't have to greenlight his lifestyle either.
	They don't have to... He's not looking.
	The baker in this case, Jack Phillips.
	He's not looking for them to green light his lifestyle.
	He just wants to be left alone.
	My sympathy and the moral impetus always lies with the person who wants to be left alone.
	In the United States, when it comes to government action, the moral impetus always lies with the person who wants to be left alone so long as they are not harming anyone else or removing their rights.
	These people do not have a right to the services of a religious baker.
	They don't have the right to anyone's services.
	You do not have the right to my services.
	I don't have the right to your services.
	If we don't respect the fact that we cannot demand crap from each other just because we want it, then what are we, three?
	My son can demand things from me.
	He's one and a half years old.
	My daughter can demand things from me.
	She's three and a half years old.
	She's my kid, and she's a child.
	But adults don't get to demand things of one another.
	They don't have a right to.
	And these people do not have a right to the artistic skill of a religious baker.
	They do not.
	Okay, time for a brief deconstructing of the culture.
	I'm not sure that we actually grabbed the trailer for this, but there's a new movie coming out called The Post.
	This movie looks absolutely insufferable.
	It is with Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, so it's got the greatest of the great actors.
	By the way, I'm unpopular in my opinion here, just like most of my opinions, but Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, I believe, are both wildly overrated as actors.
	I think Meryl Streep is mechanical.
	The famous quote, I think it's from Katharine Hepburn about Meryl Streep, is the problem with Meryl Streep is you can always see the gears turning.
	And that's right.
	She's technically perfect, but you never feel it.
	It's like, oh, that's how a human should cry.
	But it's never like, oh, I feel so bad for that person.
	That person's crying.
	It's always like, oh, that's pretty good crying right there by Meryl Streep.
	Boom.
	And Tom Hanks has not been good since Big.
	Sorry to break it to you.
	Tom Hanks is a better comic actor than he is a dramatic actor.
	Tom Hanks in Cast Away is one of the best comic performances of all time.
	If you ever want to have fun, do Comic Bits on Cast Away, which is a hilarious movie.
	I don't know why everybody sees that as a dramatic sad movie.
	I think it's really funny.
	I mean, it's a guy living alone on an island talking to a volleyball.
	It's really frickin' funny.
	So that's it.
	So, in any case, this movie is really... It's gonna be insufferable.
	It's basically about how the Washington Post... The Washington Post is just... They're the most heroic people.
	Now...
	You know, we already had this movie about the Boston Globe with regard to taking on the Catholic Church's sexual abuse.
	I liked Spotlight.
	I recommended it on the show.
	I thought it was a good movie.
	But this idea that the Washington Post, they were in danger.
	They were going to be jailed.
	The founder of the Washington Post was going to be jailed.
	Here's the description.
	A cover-up that spanned four U.S.
	presidents pushed the country's first female newspaper publisher and a hard-driving editor to join an unprecedented battle between journalists and government.
	Okay, like, do we need any more self-congratulatory tomes from Hollywood?
	Do we need them, like, the journalists celebrate Hollywood, Hollywood celebrates the journalists, blah blah blah.
	I haven't seen the movie yet, so I'm not going to critique the historical veracity of it.
	All I will say is that there are two types of bias in Hollywood and the media.
	One is bias with regard to the material that they portray, right?
	Actual lies that they tell on screen.
	And the second is selection bias.
	And the second is the selection bias.
	What do they choose to cover?
	Where do they choose to put Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep?
	Do they choose to do a movie about Whitaker Chambers?
	No, they would never do a movie about Whitaker Chambers, right?
	That's one of the great stories, by the way, in American history that a movie has never been made about.
	An American newspaper editor, right, Time magazine editor, Whitaker Chambers, testifies That a member of the U.S.
	government, a high-ranking member of the U.S.
	government at the U.S.
	Department of State, who is partially responsible for the garbage Yalta agreement between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Stalin and Churchill, that that guy, Alger Hiss, was actually a Soviet spy.
	And it turns out not only was he a Soviet spy, but Whitaker Chambers actually got microfilm that was supposed to be passed to Alger Hiss.
	He had to hide it in a pumpkin patch.
	Like, that's an amazing story.
	Has that ever been on film?
	No.
	But we get yet another story about how democracy dies in darkness and yada yada and the media are so great.
	So this election bias is irritating.
	This is one of these movies that is definitely aimed at Oscar bait.
	I hate Oscar bait.
	So some of the other movies that are Oscar bait this year, there's the Army Hammer flick about homosexuality and some 26-year-old guy sleeping with a 17-year-old boy, which I guess is wonderful.
	That's winning the LA Film Choice Award.
	I always... I was going to last year.
	I'm not sure I did.
	I will do this year, the intersectional Oscars.
	And I'll predict Oscar outcome by intersectionality.
	By which film and which performance is the most intersectional?
	Pretty accurate most of the time.
	You could have called Moonlight last year.
	That one was a pretty easy call.
	I feel like The Post is going to lose out to something about victimized black people or victimized gay people.
	That's usually the way that it works in Hollywood.
	Unless they're on a rotating system, in which case it might be The Journalist again.
	Okay, well we'll be back here tomorrow and we'll talk about whether this big move on Jerusalem happens or whether it does not and what that means.
	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.

▲