Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 23, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:47

The Day After | Ep. 459

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Mueller investigation into Trump-Russia collusion is taking serious fire.
	The Democrats are on the ropes after their failed government shutdown, and the NFL makes a giant boo-boo leading up to the Super Bowl.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	It will be students only at University of Connecticut.
	This is the second school in a row they've done this, or Berkeley they did this, and now they're doing it at University of Connecticut.
	as well, even though we likely would have had thousands of people who wanted to show up.
	It's getting very irritating for me.
	We'll discuss that a little bit later.
	UConn, by the way, is actually acknowledging that I am not the one who promotes the violence.
	They are saying that they don't see me offending the audience.
	They don't see me coming there to tick off the audience.
	So at least they're acknowledging that, but it doesn't really change any of that.
	We'll get to all of that.
	We'll also get to these bombshell text messages inside the FBI regarding the Mueller investigation, what comes next on the government shutdown in DACA.
	But first, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at My Patriot Supply.
	So just a couple of weeks ago, you remember, there was a false alarm in Hawaii when everyone in the state of Hawaii thought that they were going to be nuked into the ground by North Korea.
	And if that got you thinking, hey, what would happen if, God forbid, there were actually a disaster of that magnitude?
	First of all, it's important to note, just because, I'm not going to get graphic here, but just because a nuclear weapon would fall on your city does not necessarily mean that you will die.
	The fact is that nuclear weapons actually do not look like Terminator 2.
	They don't wipe out entire cities.
	Instead, nuclear weapons affect a certain area.
	If you're living outside that area, however, you are going to still be living without food, without water.
	Unless you go to MyPatriotSupply.
	And this is not just true, obviously, in the unlikely event of a nuclear catastrophe.
	It's also true for natural disasters, which have been happening relatively frequently.
	And you see on the news all these people who don't have food and they don't have water.
	That's why you need to go to MyPatriotSupply.
	They are the experts in self-reliance.
	Get their 102-serving survival food kit.
	It lasts up to 25 years in storage.
	For just $99, this emergency food ship's free to your house.
	Call 888-803-1413, 888-803-1413, or go online to preparewithben.com.
	That's preparewithben.com to order a kit or two.
	888-803-1413 or go online to preparewithben.com.
	That's preparewithben.com to order a kit or two.
	The kits include healthy, flavorful food with a variety of breakfast, lunches, and dinners.
	People at the office have tried them.
	They say they taste like home cooking.
	It's 888-803-1413, 888-803-1413, or go online to preparewithben.com.
	Order a kit or two.
	Keeps you safe for the next quarter century, so it's a one-time order.
	These kits include healthy, flavorful food with a variety of breakfast, lunches, and dinners.
	People at the office have tried them.
	They say they taste like home cooking.
	Check it out.
	888-803-1413, preparewithben.com.
	Okay, so we begin with today's big news, and that is these bombshell text messages that are now coming out from the FBI.
	So, the FBI has turned over a bunch of text messages to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, and these text messages are not looking good for the FBI.
	So first off, Bob Goodlatte, who is a Republican from Virginia, and Devin Nunes, a Republican from California, as well as Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, issued a statement on text messages they received regarding top FBI officials.
	They requested all of the backlogged text messages.
	And here's what they say, quote, This weekend we met to discuss the text messages and possible next steps in our oversight of these agencies.
	The context of these text messages between top FBI officials are extremely troubling in terms of when key decisions were made by the Department of Justice and the FBI by whom these decisions were made and the evident bias exhibited by those in charge of the investigation.
	The omission of text messages between December 2016 and May 2017, a critical gap encompassing the FBI's Russia investigation, is equally concerning.
	Rather than clearing up prior FBI and DOJ actions, these recently produced documents cause us to further question the credibility and objectivity of certain officials at the FBI.
	So, as we mentioned yesterday on the show, there are a couple of big stories that have come out of the FBI.
	The first is that there are these text messages that were sent between members of the FBI regarding the way the Mueller investigation was run.
	The second is that Hundreds of text messages apparently have gone missing, among thousands of text messages that have gone missing, hundreds, between Lisa Page, who is working on the Mueller investigation, and her paramour, Peter Strzok, who is also working on the Mueller investigation, was a top counterintelligence guy yesterday on Facebook Live.
	You should check it out on our Facebook page.
	We had the opportunity to talk with Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio, who's overseeing a lot of this stuff.
	He's on the Oversight Committee.
	And Representative Jordan was talking about the fact that they need a second independent counsel to investigate the first independent counsel because this investigation is compromised already.
	I did ask him a couple of the questions I've asked on the show.
	Why doesn't the President of the United States simply declassify the FISA warrant that was taken out against Carter Page so that we can find out whether indeed the FBI was using bad intel to target President Obama's and Hillary Clinton's political enemies?
	He suggested that perhaps Trump didn't want to politicize the issue.
	I find that unconvincing.
	Nonetheless, The fact is that there is the release the memo crew.
	Remember, there was a memo last week that we were talking about that supposedly lays out all of the flaws in FISA, supposedly lays out all of the problems with the FBI.
	This memo will be released to the public in the next one to two weeks, we are now hearing.
	So we'll have more information at that point.
	Meanwhile, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, this is reported over at Gateway Pundit, which is sometimes inaccurate, but here it is apparently accurate.
	They have 50,000 text messages that were exchanged between Peter Strzok and his mistress, Lisa Page.
	I don't think that statistic is correct.
	I think 50,000 text messages were missing.
	Some of those were from Strzok to Page.
	But Fox, well, here's what Fox News says.
	Let me get this right.
	I don't want to say something's not true.
	That's not true.
	It says more than 50,000 texts were exchanged between two FBI officials who have come under fire for exchanging anti-Trump text messages during the 2016 election.
	Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed Monday.
	The figure surfaced as lawmakers have been pressing for answers about after revelations that the FBI failed to preserve five months of text between Peter Strzok and Trump.
	and Lisa Page.
	Jeff Sessions said, we'll leave no stone unturned to confirm with certainty why these text messages are not now available to be produced, and we will use every technology available to determine whether the missing messages are recoverable from another source.
	I have to say, the number of documents that have gone missing, whether it's Hillary Clinton's email servers, or whether it is the FBI suddenly losing tens of thousands of texts, pretty shocking stuff.
	The FBI servers included over 50,000 texts, and apparently the FBI system failed to retain text messages for approximately five months between December 14, 2017 and May 17, 2017.
	As I suggested, these dates are particularly suspicious because May 17th, 2017 is when, is literally the date that Robert Mueller took over the investigation.
	And then, apparently there's more.
	So, John Ratcliffe, who is a Republican from Texas, he said after reviewing the text messages that he thinks there is a, quote-unquote, secret society of folks within the DOJ and FBI working against Trump.
	Here's what the Federalist reports.
	Quote, Trey Gowdy said the explanation for the missing text may be fishier than the official explanation.
	He says he saw Strzok and Page discussing getting rid of text in a printout of the messages he and other members of Congress received last week.
	Quote, lay aside this glaring five-month gap in text that the world's premier agency somehow missed.
	Gowdy said, what Johnny and I saw today was a text about not keeping texts.
	We saw more manifest bias against President Trump all the way through the election into the transition.
	Ratcliffe said, it is a strange coincidence.
	It is possible that these messages that were missing, perhaps it is a strange coincidence.
	And then Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, he went even further.
	He said in a radio interview on Tuesday with Jay Weber at WISN in Milwaukee, he read aloud a May 19th, 2017, So this would be two days after they suddenly magically recovered texts.
	In this text, apparently he wrote, quote, this is to Lisa Page, his mistress.
	You and I both know the odds are nothing about whether this investigation is going to turn up something.
	If I thought it was likely, I'd be there, no question.
	I hesitate in part because of my gut-sensing concern there's no big there there.
	He said he didn't actually want to join the Mueller investigation because he didn't think there was anything actually going on.
	Johnson said, I think that's kind of jaw-dropping.
	He said, in other words, Peter Strzok, who is the FBI Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the man who had a plan to do something because he just couldn't abide Donald Trump being president, is saying that his gut sense is that there's no big there there when it comes to the Mueller special counsel investigation.
	I will say that it does seem like there's a conflict between this text and the implication that Strzok was basically ginning up a fake investigation in order to get Trump.
	It suggests there was something else going on inside the FBI, but not the Trump collusion investigation, not the Mueller investigation.
	Because if, indeed, Strzok was texting his paramour, Lisa Page, and suggesting, hey, Lisa, there's nothing here, and I don't want to join the investigation about Trump-Russia collusion because I don't think there's anything there, then that does pose a different Point of view than the suggestion that he was trying to craft out of whole cloth this narrative that Trump was colluding with Russia and then shove that down the throats of people over at the FBI.
	In other words, there's a lot of confusion going on here.
	They're certainly going to have to have Strzok testify.
	They're going to have to have Lisa Page testify.
	I do find it highly suspicious that the FBI is saying these messages just went missing.
	Again, if you are working for the government and messages just go missing, that is really suspicious.
	You're not allowed to delete government messages this way.
	I did get a note, by the way, from somebody who's an expert on cybersecurity who said that it's very unlikely these messages are gone forever.
	They said the FBI is required to conform to NIST SP 834 contingency planning guide for federal information systems, which requires multiple layers of redundancy and backup.
	These federal continuity and contingency guidelines are designed to assure that systems and data survive multiple natural disasters and 9-11 types of events.
	It is not possible for a singular glitch to cause the data to be lost.
	That means that if the data were lost, then there would have to be some sort of organized effort is the suggestion here.
	So if that is indeed the case, then there's a lot more than meets the eye here.
	In any case, all of this is disturbing.
	All of it requires investigation.
	I'm not going to buy into the complete review.
	Republican narrative that this was all set up from the very beginning and that it was based on bad intel and that it was created out of whole cloth by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in order to get Donald Trump.
	I don't know if the evidence is there for that.
	I will say, however, that something smells fishy here with the missing text and with the text about a secret society and all of the rest of this.
	It's all confusing and it requires a lot of explication.
	Okay, so in just a second, I want to talk about the fallout from the government shutdown that failed for Democrats.
	First, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Blue Apron.
	So everybody in the office is now using Blue Apron.
	The reason is, not only is it healthier, not only is it faster, you don't have to go to a restaurant, not only is it more expensive, but it's also more fun.
	You get to cook with your family in your home.
	It's short rib burgers with a hoppy cheddar sauce on a pretzel bun, seared steaks and thyme pan sauce with mashed potatoes.
	You're cooking like a gourmet, and you don't even have to know how to cook, really.
	Blue Apron is the number one fresh ingredient and recipe delivery service in the country.
	Their mission is to make incredible home cooking accessible to everyone.
	They offer three plans.
	The two-person meal plan, meals that serve two people, and you choose from eight new recipes per week with the choice to receive either two or three recipes any week.
	The family meal plan, these are meals that serve four people, and you can choose from four new recipes per week with the choice to receive either two, three, or four recipes in any given week.
	And then there's the wine plan as well, six bottles of wine from renowned winemakers delivered monthly.
	Blue Apron is treating my listeners right now to $30 off your first order if you visit blueapron.com slash Shapiro, blueapron.com slash Shapiro.
	Get $30 off your first order.
	And right now, for eight weeks, they're teaming up with Whole30 to bring you delicious recipes.
	Their menu features two Whole30-approved recipes every week like seared steaks and warm lemon salsa verde with roasted broccoli and sweet potato, chicken and kale orange salad with spicy tahini dressing.
	I mean, this stuff all sounds just magnificent.
	Again, they send the packs to your house, and if the ingredients are not good, then they will make it good for you.
	It's blueaprons.com slash Shapiro, a better way to cook, and when you use that slash Shapiro, again, you get $30 off your first order.
	$30 off your first order.
	It's a lot of variety, by the way.
	The menu changes every week based on what's in season.
	It's designed by their in-house culinary team.
	They offer 12 new recipes per week, and customers can pick two, three, or four based on what best fits their schedule.
	They're only sending non-GMO ingredients, meat with no added hormones.
	So, I mean, it's all great stuff.
	Again, blueapron.com slash Shapiro.
	Use that slash Shapiro and get $30 off with free shipping.
	I mean, I have pictures of the meals here, and they just look spectacular.
	So, check it out.
	Blueapron.com.
	Use that slash Shapiro so they know that we sent you.
	Okay.
	So, meanwhile, while there's all this fallout surrounding the Mueller investigation, there's also fallout surrounding the Democrats completely blowing it on the One of the things that is absolutely hilarious is Joy Reid over at MSNBC said that the government shutdown was actually not a loss for Democrats.
	She is incorrect.
	It is, in fact, a very large loss for Democrats.
	They got nothing in return and looked like cowards.
	They basically, they looked like brave Sir Robin ran away.
	They stood there and they said that they were going to fight to the end.
	The end lasted approximately 69 hours.
	And then out they were.
	They were done.
	So Chuck Schumer tried to pretend that he had won a big victory yesterday when he announced the end of the government shutdown.
	Needless to say, this was untrue.
	The Republican leader and I have come to an arrangement.
	We will vote today to reopen the government to continue negotiating a global agreement with the commitment that if an agreement isn't reached by February the 8th, the Senate will immediately proceed Okay, well, only one problem.
	The White House has immediately announced that they are not going to push for any of the proposals that the Democrats would want here.
	So, for example, White House spokesperson Hogan Gidley, he said that Graham Durbin, which is the bill that Schumer wants, this is the bill that would give about $2 billion for the border wall, but nothing else, in exchange for keeping 800,000 Dreamers and their parents here.
	The White House spokesperson said, that's not on the table.
	So, while Chuck Schumer is saying, we want a big victory here, the answer is, no, they really didn't.
	Senator Graham and Senator Durbin were completely dishonest when they brought the plan to the president.
	It did not do anything to address chain migration.
	In fact, it blew it up and made it bigger.
	It gave basically amnesty.
	Those two have been in lockstep on immigration for decades.
	They want open borders.
	They want amnesty.
	That's what Lindsey Graham is about.
	I'm from South Carolina.
	I've known the man for a long time.
	And it's fine.
	He can take that position.
	But to pretend he's anything other than someone who wants open borders and amnesty is just disingenuous.
	So the White House is taking a very strong stance, at least publicly, on immigration, which means the Democrats gain nothing.
	They didn't even gain anything here in the bargain.
	Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked about this, the former head of the DNC.
	She was asked by Breonna Keller on CNN, what exactly did you gain through all of this?
	And Debbie Wasserman Schultz had, I mean, nothing.
	There's literally nothing.
	What one thing did he get, you know, from Republicans to justify shutting down the government in the first place?
	So, so the one thing I would say that he did get is the potential for momentum.
	Because if, and I'm certainly hopeful that, then maybe he could be in a position to get the House and the President to come on board.
	I'm still hung up though, and I know Americans are listening, and they heard you say, and it's reverberating, potential for momentum.
	And they're thinking, potential for momentum.
	Was that really worth shutting the government down for?
	The potential for something.
	I will tell you that Republicans should be asking themselves that question because they shut the government down.
	Okay, so you can't have it both ways.
	Either you shut the government down, or they shut the government down.
	It's not that they shut the government down, and we gain momentum by them shutting the government down.
	You shut the government down, and then you admitted you shut the government down, and Chuck Schumer admitted you shut the government down.
	I do love that this is like emanations from Penumbra's.
	In terms of meaningless phrases, potential for momentum is pretty spectacular.
	You know what has potential for momentum?
	This cup, sitting right here.
	It has potential for momentum.
	But in order for it to have momentum, I actually have to generate some force into the cup.
	Right?
	This is the thing about momentum.
	It has to be generated by a certain amount of force.
	Okay?
	Initially.
	Momentum doesn't just happen.
	This is called inertia.
	Potential for momentum is literally any object.
	This microphone has potential for momentum if I would take it and throw it right now.
	Potential for momentum means nothing.
	OK, it's literally a meaningless phrase.
	Potential for momentum.
	So this is what they gained.
	Other Democrats are ripping Chuck Schumer up and down.
	There is a gap that is opening wide inside the Democratic Party.
	It's kind of fascinating.
	It's reflective of the same gap that opened inside the Republican Party in 2013 after the government shut down there.
	There were a lot of people on the Republican side who said, you're not fighting Barack Obama hard enough, you need to shut down the government.
	You need to stop the funding of Obamacare because once it's in place, it's going to be very difficult for us ever to remove it.
	And there was a gap that opened up.
	This is really where I think a lot of the anger at Mitch McConnell started was the feeling that he was not fighting hard enough on all of these particular matters.
	And what that led to was such discontent in the Republican Party that Donald Trump You're seeing the same thing in the Democratic Party.
	There's a fight now between the so-called establishment wing of the Democratic Party, led by Chuck Schumer, and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
	All the people who want to run in 2020 are now basically doing what Ted Cruz did in 2013.
	Cruz wanted to run for president in 2016, and so he shut down the government.
	Now, I like Senator Cruz.
	I don't think that it was completely a political ploy by Cruz.
	I think that he felt he was doing what he had to do.
	But there's no question that he had his eye on the presidential race in 2016.
	The Democrats are doing the same thing now.
	Now they're all posturing by saying, we're the ones who really stood tough.
	Chuck Schumer didn't stand tough.
	All the people in the Senate who want to run for president are being very clear about what they want to do here.
	Chris Coons from Delaware, he basically was trying to encourage all these 2020 contenders, guys, simmer down, shut up.
	Can we actually govern well here or are you guys just going to run for president?
	What appeals to our base for some primary several years from now is not what I'm worried about.
	What I'm worried about is how do we solve real problems.
	And my gut is that at the end of the day, that's what people are looking for in a next national leader as well.
	So for my colleagues who are hoping that they might be on the ticket in 2020, I don't think simply moving further and further to the left is the best way to accomplish that.
	I think showing we can solve big problems is the way to encourage people to believe that Democrats belong in control of the Congress and back in the White House.
	But this is what's so fascinating, is that the Democrats who want to win are now opposed to the Democrats who are radical, right?
	What we're seeing now is that the Democrats are moving farther and further to the left.
	This is what's amazing.
	There have actually been studies on this.
	Basically, since 2010, Republicans have been stagnant.
	The Democratic Party, however, continues to move further and further to the left, and Trump has prompted them to move even further to the left, because their hatred of Trump means knee-jerk opposition to anything he does, including funding things like the Children's Health Insurance Program.
	By the way, funny to note, remember when, like, two days ago, Jimmy Kimmel was complaining that the Republicans wouldn't fund CHIP?
	Oh, the Republicans are holding CHIP hostage.
	Oh, the Republicans won't fund the Children's Health Insurance Program.
	Oh, they're evil.
	Oh, they're terrible.
	The Republicans just funded CHIP for another six years.
	Did Jimmy Kimmel have anything to say about that last night on his show?
	No, no, there's a giant shock because he's taking all of his cues from Chuck Schumer.
	But again, the gap in the Democratic Party is open and widening.
	Nancy Pelosi was trying to prevent it from widening still further.
	She came out yesterday and she said, I think that it was a mistake for us not to continue the government shutdown.
	But then she tried to spin this all as Trump's fault.
	They're going to try and go back to the well and use Trump as their unifying force.
	What I think the main obstacle is, if I may, is this.
	There's a dark cloud hanging over the Capitol.
	And that dark cloud is the Trump tax scam.
	That took nearly two trillion dollars and added it to the deficit when you take the cost and the interest on the debt.
	Two trillion dollars.
	So therefore, the impact on members on the Republican side voting for more domestic investments is diminished.
	Oh, like Democrats care at all about deficits.
	Come on, when's the last time Democrats gave two dams about a deficit?
	That's ridiculous.
	But, you know, she's trying to shift blame off of Schumer, as well she should.
	The only person who's honest about this that I saw, completely honest, was Luis Gutierrez, the Democrat from Illinois who is very hardcore on immigration and who is perfectly willing to shut down the government over all of this because this is his lead issue.
	He says, listen, my Democratic colleagues, they blinked, they lost.
	I think they caved, they blinked.
	You know, most of my Democrats are really good at articulating their values and how enthusiastically they support their values.
	Sometimes they're not as strong and enthusiastic as defending them in the legislative process.
	So, there we are.
	The Democrats, I think, are going to be slugging this one out for at least a little while to come.
	If they win the House in 2018, then it is possible that all of this comes to an end.
	Victory tends to bring parties together.
	Loss tends to divide parties.
	This is obviously the case with the Democrats, who run literally zero branches of government at this point.
	One of the things that's been fascinating is that not only are Republicans gaining in the polls, but if you look at the way that the districts run, Democrats have a bit of an uphill run.
	A lot of the districts have become a lot more partisan and polarized, so Democrats would basically have to have a wave in order to take over the House.
	I've been suggesting for a while I think they probably will take over the House, but I don't think that it's going to be any surefire bet.
	Especially the way the Democrats are blowing it.
	This government shutdown does not help them.
	It gives the impression that they're not competent.
	And the truth is, they aren't.
	They decided to blackmail the Republicans.
	They put a gun to their own head and decided to blackmail the Republicans.
	It was the scene from Blazing Seattles.
	Where the black sheriff puts the gun to his own head and says, they're trying to hang him.
	And he says, don't hang me.
	He put the gun to his own head.
	He says, don't hang me.
	Or the bleep gets it.
	Right?
	And the town would go, no, no, don't do it.
	Don't do it.
	The Democrats thought that strategy was actually going to work here.
	That strategy obviously did not work here.
	They blinked.
	They looked bad.
	And now we're running up on February 8.
	There's going to be another government shutdown.
	But Democrats have no leverage here.
	And that brings up the question as to what comes next.
	Because the Republicans have basically said, we're going to try and handle DACA before February 8.
	That day is quickly approaching.
	It's already January 23rd, so that means that we're basically two weeks out.
	But we'll get to that in just a second.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at FilterBuy.
	So the holidays might be over, but the winter is in full swing, and that means that you're spending a lot more time indoors.
	Well, according to studies, the air indoors contains up to 100 times more pollution than the air outside, which can cause illness, allergies, unnecessary wear and tear on your HVAC system, or even the premature replacement of the entire system if you don't replace your filters.
	That's why you need FilterBuy.
	They carry over 600 different filter sizes, including custom options, all shipped free within 24 hours.
	They're manufactured right here in the United States.
	We've used it at our house.
	It's the easiest thing in the world.
	You just go on their site, and you choose which size you want.
	And not only that, they also offer an automatic program, so there's auto delivery.
	So every time, every few months, they send you the air filters that you need, and you never have to think about it again.
	You never have to, oh, well, when's the last time I changed the filter?
	I guess it must have been two years ago.
	That's not going to happen to you anymore.
	They offer a multitude of MERV options all the way up to hospital grade, so you'll be removing dangerous pollen, mold, dust, other allergy, aggravating pollution, while maximizing the efficiency of your system.
	And right now, you save 5% when you set up auto delivery, so you never need to think about those air filters again.
	It's FilterBuy.com.
	FilterBuy.com.
	Again, that's FilterBuy.com.
	And you save 5% when you set up auto delivery, so you never need to think about those air filters again.
	FilterBuy.com, FilterBuy.com.
	All right, so what comes next on Zaka?
	That, of course, is the next step.
	The Democrats suggest that they have the potential for momentum, that they are finally going to be moving forward.
	And the answer is not so much.
	Because, as I mentioned, the White House is making clear that they don't want to cave to Democrats, and they honestly have no interest in caving to Democrats.
	Let's play this out.
	Let's say no deal gets done.
	We'll get to February 8th.
	The Democrats are not going to shut down the government again.
	So we'll get another funding bill.
	It won't include DACA.
	And then we'll get to March.
	And the Democrats, by the way, have no interest in actually saving Trump from having to back down.
	But Trump could easily just say, listen, we're not going to fix DACA.
	We're not going to be issuing any new DACA permits.
	But we're also not going to start deporting people.
	We're just going to let people stay here.
	We'll go after the criminal, illegal aliens first.
	If he says that, then nothing really happens.
	The urgency here—this is the thing about all of this that makes no sense—the urgency here is a little bit overblown.
	The president of the United States can just continue to waive DACA the same way that the former president of the United States has.
	The fact that DACA is coming to an end on March 8 doesn't mean that mass deportations are about to happen.
	The deadline just means that they're not going to be issuing any more new papers for people who have been trying to get papers to stay in the country permanently.
	Sorry, March 5th is the date that they're looking at, actually.
	So, the idea that the world ends on March 5th unless they come to some sort of deal obviously is not true.
	Obviously, it's just not the case.
	So, that means that there's not a lot of pressure on Trump to come to a deal, and there's not a lot of pressure on Democrats to come to the deal.
	Here's what we know.
	The March 5th deadline ends protections for young undocumented immigrants if Congress fails to do anything, but the Homeland Security Secretary is already saying that they're not going to do anything about this.
	The White House is sort of making hints because they have to, right?
	They're trying to push Democrats into making a deal.
	But Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that, you know, maybe they'll start deporting dreamers, probably not.
	She said, we haven't determined that.
	We're hopeful we don't have to do that and we don't have to get there.
	We'd like Democrats to get serious about solving problems.
	The suggestion being that if we reach this deadline and nothing happens, then Trump could just say, you know what?
	A little more time for negotiation.
	I'm not going to deport people.
	That's the most likely outcome of all of this.
	Not that he starts mass deportations the way that Ann Coulter would like, but that he actually doesn't do any of that.
	So, both sides have an interest in reaching a deal, but both sides also have an interest in not reaching a deal, which means that this will probably drag on beyond the deadline.
	The idea of a quick deadline by February 8th is not going to happen.
	And the proof is in the pudding.
	Chuck Schumer is already taking off the table.
	All right, so Chuck Schumer is taking his big spending boost for the border wall off the table.
	According to Politico, this happened in the last few minutes.
	The Senate Minority Leader, through an aide, informed the White House on Monday he was retracting the offer he made last week to give Trump well north of $1.6 billion in wall funding Trump had asked for this year, according to two Democrats.
	Now they say Trump will simply not get a better deal than that on his signature campaign promise.
	So, Schumer offered a large increase in border wall spending as a condition for a broader deal to help DREAMers.
	After that offer was rebuffed, prompting the shutdown, the president has missed the opportunity to get the wall, said one Democratic aide.
	Senator Jeff Flake had already considered using the promise of border wall funding totaling more than $1.6 billion in order to lure more conservative votes.
	A dreamer plan written by a bipartisan group of six senators had included Trump's $1.6 billion request as part of a broader $2.7 billion border security package.
	But the White House had already rejected that deal.
	So basically, Schumer is withdrawing from a deal that the White House was never going to make.
	So the Democrats have no interest in coming to the table and offering anything.
	They would like to see mass deportations.
	Here's the dirty little secret.
	Democrats want Trump to do a mass deportation so they can get all the headlines about how mean and cruel Republicans are leading up into the midterms.
	And Republicans have no interest in surrendering on DACA because they want to get their base out for the midterms.
	So, my prediction, no deal happens here.
	So, all the talk about how, you know, we have to reach a deal, we have to reach a deal, it's not going to happen.
	Tim Kaine, senator from Virginia, former vice presidential candidate, he said, we all want a permanent fix, right?
	Everyone, Democrats, Republicans, we all want a permanent fix.
	They're lying.
	None of them do.
	All of us in the room felt the same way.
	So we're sitting around in Susan's office again and again and then we're dispatching and going talking to the leaders and then coming back and doing the same thing, shuttle diplomacy.
	So we do have a strong degree of trust in each other that we want this outcome of opening the government and finding a permanent protection for DREAMers.
	Everybody in that room said we've got to find permanent protection for DREAMers and that's really important.
	The idea that they're going to actually move forward with something again, I find highly unlikely.
	They don't have the votes for it in the Senate.
	Democrats are saying to Trump, you can't just yell about what you want.
	But the truth is that they basically can't.
	Ari Melber at MSNBC was trying to pressure Trump.
	Obviously, this is not going to work.
	Mr. President, here's the deal right now.
	You set a deadline for when you'd start deporting children unless Congress acted.
	Then you said you had a deal with Congress.
	Then you blew up that deal.
	If you make a deal and don't stick to it long enough to sign it, you will push people to find other ways to try to force your hand.
	And since this is a democracy, not a dictatorship or a scripted reality show, you won't always have the final say by yourself, even when you have the top job.
	You don't get to skip the hard part because you only run a co-equal branch of government, which of course was recently shut down.
	You can't just yell what you want or go home.
	Well, actually, that's exactly what he can do, and he just did it, and the Democrats caved.
	So, the fact is, that's exactly what he will do.
	And again, I think the chances of reaching a deal here, when Democrats are not bending at all, is extraordinarily low.
	Right here is Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii.
	She said, listen, the funding for the wall is off the table.
	We're not going to do that.
	So, he's saying, Melbourne is saying, Trump can't just shout what he wants and then go home.
	But that's exactly what Democrats are doing.
	Democrats are shouting what they want and then going home.
	You almost interrupted me when I was talking about Senator Schumer giving the money for the wall to the president.
	Has that changed?
	Oh, of course.
	The wall is no longer something that... Chuck Schumer was willing to put the wall on the tape if we got a full DACA and full DREAMers, and that's not happening, so that's off the table.
	What if there's an offer for DACA, but that has to go back on the table?
	Is the wall funding going to go back on the table at some point?
	I think we're going to have a full-throated debate on DACA and possibly on a lot of other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform.
	And I know where I'm coming from, that we need to keep our focus on the urgency of taking care of the DACA dreamers and also comprehensive immigration reform that maintains family unity.
	They're just going to muddle through this.
	They're just going to muddle through.
	Here's the reality.
	Republicans would like to make a deal on DACA.
	They would.
	They'd like to make a deal that also includes border security.
	Democrats don't want any deal that ends illegal immigration.
	They don't.
	They want another wave of illegal immigrants coming through.
	And that's because, for both humanitarian reasons and also because they believe that these are all future Democratic voters, they would like the border to remain open.
	Because this is a simple deal.
	When you ask the common American, just the normal American, There is a deal on the table.
	on immigration.
	The normal American, by the polls, it shows that the vast majority of Americans would like to see some sort of legal status for the Dreamers.
	It also shows the vast majority of Americans would like to see an increased border security presence, as well as an end to the diversity of visa lottery and chain migration.
	There is a deal on the table.
	Democrats don't want that deal, so there will be no deal.
	I think that there's a good shot that Republicans should actually try and cut that deal themselves and just invoke the nuclear option if they have to in order to do it, because otherwise Democrats are going to continue using this as a club to beat Republicans with over and over and over again.
	This issue is not going to get resolved, because no one has an interest in watching this issue get resolved, unfortunately, even though they're all lying about it to you.
	So, I want to talk a little bit about the school marming media, as well as the NFL blowing itself up right before the Super Bowl in just the most foolish possible fashion.
	But for that, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	For $99 a month, $9.99 a month, you get your subscription to Daily Wire.
	It means you get to be part of our show, watch the rest of it live, watch Michael Moulse's show live, watch Andrew Klaven's show live.
	You get to be part of our mailbag here on Fridays.
	It also means that when you get your annual subscription for $99 a year, you get this, the greatest in all beverage vessels, Leftist Tears hot or cold mug.
	This thing has been filled to overflowing lately and is renewed every single day apparently by Cory Booker specifically.
	So check out your Leftist Tears hot or cold tumbler when you get the annual subscription.
	If you want to listen later, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, Stitcher, Subscribe to our channel over at YouTube as well.
	We have plenty of new videos coming out on a daily basis.
	Check all of that out.
	out.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So with all of this happening, President Trump's approval ratings continue to be in the dumps, which just shows you that his personal toxicity does not work well for him, even though a lot of his base may which just shows you that his personal toxicity does not work well The reason I say this is because there's a poll out today that shows Trump matched up against various Democrats, and it does not look particularly good for President Trump.
	Do these polls mean anything?
	Not particularly, because in the end, you end up running against a candidate, you know, and when you run against that candidate, you drag them down in the mud.
	At this time in 2015, or 2013 rather, you were looking at Donald Trump wasn't even on the polls.
	Right now he's the President of the United States.
	But if you look at the polls right now, Joe Biden at 57%, Trump at 40.
	Yeesh!
	Sanders at 55, Trump at 42.
	And Oprah Winfrey at 51, Trump 42.
	That last one is the most fascinating of the three.
	What it suggests is that the Democratic upswell for Oprah Winfrey, that Oprah Winfrey is going to be the next candidate of the future.
	She's barely breaking 50%.
	Joe Biden, of course, is cleaning the floor with Trump.
	That makes sense.
	He's an established politician.
	He's also somebody with blue-collar appeal, apparently.
	And Bernie Sanders, of course, is highly popular until he actually has to face up with Trump.
	This doesn't mean, of course, that Trump would actually lose to these people, take all of those statistics with a grain of salt, but the fact is that Trump's personal toxicity is driving down numbers for President Trump and for Republicans.
	What is providing a lift for Trump and for Republicans is the continued media malfeasance.
	So the fact is, The economy right now is very good.
	On foreign policy, the situation is looking a lot better than anyone thought it would a year ago, with ISIS in full-scale retreat.
	Russia basically boxed in.
	And North Korea, for all of the talk about it, is still in a relatively contained position, even though they continue to fire missiles.
	They have no intention of going to war with anyone, as far as I can tell.
	The media, however, continue to lie to people.
	And the more the media do this, the media have basically become Hollywood.
	Hollywood and the media have basically—they've merged.
	Whatever the media say, whenever they offer their opinion, whenever they get involved in the kind of schoolmarming of President Trump, people react badly to that.
	Chris Cuomo was responsible for it yesterday.
	He had on Kellyanne Conway, and he was slapping Kellyanne Conway for defending President Trump's tweets during the Women's March.
	During the Women's March, Trump tweeted out that he was happy that these women were marching, and also, by the way, the economy is great, which seemed like a fine tweet to me, but here's Chris Cuomo going after Kellyanne Conway.
	What are you talking about?
	I think the people who were marching on Saturday would disagree.
	Oh, the women's march?
	The one where the president was tweeting that all the people are out there marching to say how great he's done?
	No, no, no.
	How great the economy is.
	We have the lowest unemployment rate for women in 17 years.
	You know that's not why they were marching.
	Isn't that insulting to all those women out there who are looking for leadership and looking for someone to get behind them?
	And instead he makes a joke out of their march?
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	It's no joke that the women's unemployment rate is the lowest in 17 years.
	It is no joke that over a half a million new women enter the workforce on his watch.
	And it's no joke that they don't get equal pay, and women like you have been forced to do it twice as hard as men to get to the same place.
	And it's not right.
	I certainly have, but not here, and not for this boss.
	And you know it, and I know it, and you guys are in a position.
	Why don't you mansplain?
	So Chris Cuomo now mansplaining to Kellyanne Conway about the fake gender gap, which is just entertaining as all hell.
	And then people wonder why Trump continues to win when he just says that the economy is good and Chris Cuomo loses his ever-loving mind.
	Speaking of media malfeasance, so the NFL has seen its ratings decline dramatically this year.
	I mean, they've had a serious hit in terms of their public image.
	People don't like the NFL nearly as much as they used to.
	I think there are a couple of things behind that.
	Every time somebody gets hit in the head, we immediately think this guy's going to suffer serious brain damage future—in the future, and that's a problem.
	But beyond that, it did not help the NFL that their entire image has now been plastered with the people kneeling for the national anthem.
	It got worse, OK?
	The American veterans group, this American veterans group, AMVETS, Tried to take out an ad for the Super Bowl.
	And that ad was an ad featuring service members saluting Old Glory, as well as their response to the take any message, right?
	So here is what the ad looks like.
	You can actually, is this a video or it's just a graphic?
	It's just a graphic.
	So what you can see is these soldiers standing with the flag, and then it just says, make a $20 tax-deductible donation and help us help veterans by texting veterans to 444-999.
	And then it just says, hashtag please stand, which is, It seems to be respectful to me.
	So, they wanted to take out that ad.
	Instead, the NFL said no.
	So the AMVET National Commander Marion Polk said, Freedom of speech works both ways.
	You respect the rights of those who choose to protest, as these rights are precisely what our members have fought and in many cases died for, but imposing corporate censorship to deny that same right to those veterans who have secured it for us all is reprehensible and totally beyond the pale.
	So this was supposed to be a $30,000 ad.
	Apparently, the NFL vice president of communications told the Army Times that the league asked them to change the message to please stand for our veterans, But the group was unable to make changes in time for the deadline.
	Instead, the NFL is running a similar ad, apparently, from the Veterans of Foreign Wars with the message, we stand for veterans.
	The NFL has spent two years allowing players to sit, kneel, raise a fist, perform other symbolic acts during the performance of the star-spangled banners.
	And it's not true, by the way, that the Super Bowl gets rid of politically charged ads.
	They had a couple of them just last year, of course.
	I mean, I remember that they did an Audi ad—we made fun of it on the show—titled, Daughter, all about how your daughter is going to be discriminated against, but at least she'll be able to drive an Audi.
	I remember that from last year.
	And then there were a couple of ads last year having to do with illegal immigration, also in the middle of the election cycle.
	So, rejecting an ad that says, please stand, because they want to say, stand for veterans?
	I don't understand why you can't have an ad that just says, stand for the flag, or stand for the anthem.
	Like, it's vague.
	It says, please stand.
	Obviously, it's referring to the anthem and the flag.
	The reason you stand for the vets is because the vets stand for the flag and for the anthem.
	These things are related.
	But this just demonstrates how the people in the media misunderstand the people they are catering to.
	The people who actually watch the NFL stand for the flag.
	And there's a reason that President Trump, when he attended the college football championship game, was actually cheered by the crowd.
	The fact is that people who watch football are more likely to be in favor of standing for the flag than the average member of the population.
	People watch football skew male.
	It skews rural instead of urban.
	And the fact is, and I'm not talking about black versus white, I'm just talking about population centers on the coast particularly versus the middle of the country.
	The ratings are higher in the middle of the country from what I understand.
	All of this being the case, It is absolute foolishness for the NFL to continue alienating its own viewing population, but this is what Hollywood tends to do.
	Remember, the NFL is part of the entertainment complex, and the entertainment complex is mostly interested in pleasing people who live inside the entertainment complex.
	They don't want to tick off their own players by running this ad, which I would suggest better to have the audience tick off the players than have the players tick off the audience.
	I mean, the NFL's got enough hits that it's taking right now that the last thing that it needs is to harm itself further by rejecting ads from veterans that are simply saying, stand for the flag.
	What absolute silliness.
	Okay, so I want to do a couple things I like, and then some things I hate, and then we will deconstruct the culture a little bit.
	So, let's just jump right into things I like.
	So, things I like.
	We'll begin with Dune.
	So we've been doing a little bit of sci-fi and fantasy this week.
	I had Brandon Sanderson yesterday.
	This is, of course, one of the great classics of the sci-fi genre, Dune by Frank Herbert.
	It is a very, very good book.
	It really reads—the movie is awful, the original movie of Dune.
	I believe they're making a new version, aren't they?
	I think they're doing a new version.
	The whole premise of Dune, if I recall—it's been years since I've read it—but the whole premise of Dune is that there's a planet that Basically has no water on it, and it's a desert planet, and it's the only source of a particular spice, and so the entire commerce of the planet runs off this particular spice.
	And it's all about the enslavement of particular populations and rebellions and declining empires.
	It's really interesting.
	It's a really fascinating book, and it is a world-building book.
	It is a book that is built on the building of an entire galaxy, essentially.
	So it's worth reading.
	I wish I remembered more about it so I could recommend it more highly, but it is worth checking out.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So Megyn Kelly did something that's just wonderful.
	So Megyn, I think, at NBC News, I like Megyn.
	I'm friendly with Megyn.
	I think that her best attribute as a journalist, as an interviewer, is that she is willing to take no guff from anyone— I wish she would do that more on NBC.
	Whenever she does it on NBC, it's really good.
	When she does the sort of soft talk, we're going to talk about what we're doing with our nails today stuff, I don't think that's Megan at her best.
	I think Megan at her best is this, right?
	Megan really is great at this.
	So she had Jane Fonda on the show, and she asked Jane Fonda about plastic surgery, which, again, in a normal interview, I don't see the problem with that.
	I think it's realistic to ask A woman of Jane Fonda's age, how she looks like that, and what she would do to recommend plastic surgery.
	Would she recommend it, would she not?
	Jane Fonda apparently got very offended by this, so Megyn Kelly just took her to the woodshed.
	It's brutal.
	Look, I gave her the chance to empower other women, young and old, on a subject which she purports to know well, and she rejected it.
	That's okay.
	But I have no regrets about that question.
	Nor am I in the market for a lesson from Jane Fonda on what is and is not appropriate.
	After all, This is a woman whose name is synonymous with outrage.
	Look at her treatment of our military during the Vietnam War.
	Many of our veterans still call her Hanoi Jane thanks to her radio broadcast which attempted to shame American troops.
	She posed on an anti-aircraft gun used to shoot down our American pilots.
	She called our POWs hypocrites and liars and referred to their torture as understandable.
	Even she had to apologize years later for that gun picture, but not for the rest of it.
	By the way, she still says she is not proud of America.
	Okay, boom!
	So, I think the message here is do not cross Megyn Kelly when it comes to plastic surgery questions, because, ow-wee!
	She basically just takes a brick out of her back pocket and clocks Jane Fonda across the head.
	It's been a long time coming.
	The fact that Jane Fonda has been a well-accepted part of Hollywood for decades after doing what she did during the Vietnam War is insane, and without apology, is even more insane.
	So, that's pretty amazing.
	Okay, one more thing that I like.
	This is an amazing video of a 20-week-old baby in utero.
	And again, one of the reasons that the pro-life movement is making so much hay right now is because we can actually see inside the womb, right?
	When you couldn't see inside the womb, then you could pretend that that wasn't a baby in there.
	Now that you can see inside the womb better and better these days, it is obvious that that is, of course, a child, that you're killing a child when you decide to quote-unquote abort.
	I mean, if you can't see this, that's a baby right there.
	There's no way to look at that and not say that's a baby.
	It's a baby in the womb, obviously.
	It's a fully formed baby in the womb at 20 weeks.
	And by the way, the idea that humanity is only based on what we can recognize physically is also silly, but...
	There's a reason that Planned Parenthood truly objects to 4D ultrasounds and 3D ultrasounds.
	The idea is that they hate the idea that people are actually going to be forced to look at the child that they're going to kill.
	I mean, it's an amazing image.
	Look at that imagery.
	Just incredible.
	So that's amazing stuff.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	Let's do that.
	We'll really do one thing I hate today, so that is Morning Joe decided to cut an anthem for the Women's March.
	So all of the virtue signaling about the Women's March is just ridiculous all the way through.
	Morning Joe used to be a quote-unquote fair and balanced show, right, where Joe Scarborough was the Republican and Mika Brzezinski was the Democrat, and now they're married to each other, which is a weird dynamic.
	But in any case, here was Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski talking about how they had cut an anthem for the Women's March, because we all have to pretend that the Women's March is some grand, special thing, when in reality women literally have no idea why they're marching.
	They're going out there because it's called the Women's March.
	There's a very funny video going around online where a lot of women were being asked, what are you marching for?
	And some of them have the platitudinous answers about equal pay, but some of them just say, we're marching for women, and they don't actually know what they're marching about.
	Anyway, here is the anthem being played by Joe Scarborough.
	We go to break with some of the powerful images from over the weekend as millions of Americans gathered in cities and streets across the nation for the 2018 Women's March.
	Once in your life Thank you.
	You may get the chance to stand against a column of tanks.
	What this president is doing is just so wrong.
	Holding up your hand.
	You're not standing against tanks, you're standing against Trump, guys.
	We all in this movement together.
	You may get the chance to say.
	We're not stopping.
	Words like deep within your heart.
	We cannot have somebody like this in the White House.
	I mean, just the propaganda, and the propaganda purely about Trump, right?
	The whole song is just, and they're just showing pictures of Trump and how terrible Trump is, right?
	I mean, the lyrics, for once in your life you may get a chance to stand against a column of tanks?
	Like, Trump is a column of tanks?
	What in the world?
	Yeah, now MSNBC, there may be just a little bit of bias there.
	Okay, time for a quick deconstruction of the culture.
	So one of the things that came up During the Women's March.
	Apparently, there are some lyrics to a song called Bodak Yellow, which I've never heard of these things, so that's why I analyzed them for you, because if I haven't heard of them, I assume that you haven't either.
	Maybe I'm just uninformed.
	In any case, there are a bunch of pictures from the Women's March that have people holding up Bodak Yellow lyrics.
	Little bleeps, you can't F with me.
	Right, so that's a picture of one, there's shoes stomping on Trump's head, and then there's another one of shoes stomping on Pence's head, bloody moves, and then it's a picture of, I don't know, is that supposed to be a period?
	I'm confused as to what this is supposed to be.
	In any case, these lyrics have apparently become a thing now.
	So, let's look a little bit at the video for Bodak Yellow and explain why this has become a phenomenon.
	You can fuck with me if you wanted to.
	These expensive.
	These is red bottoms.
	These is bloody shoes.
	Hit the school.
	I can get them both.
	I don't want to choose.
	And I'm quick.
	Cut and roll.
	So don't get comfortable.
	Look.
	I don't dance now.
	I make money move.
	Say, I don't got to dance.
	I make money move.
	If I see you now and speak, that means I don't fuck with you.
	I'm a boss.
	You a worker.
	Okay, one of the things that I do like about this video is that she's literally riding a camel in the middle of the Arabian desert, presumably.
	That is not a very empowered place, just noting.
	That's not a place where strippers make lots of money in Saudi Arabia.
	But in any case, Bodak Yellow's, I guess, Cardi B is the name of this human, and Cardi B began stripping at the age of 19.
	She still says the strip club is her favorite place for dates, and then she was on Love & Hip Hop in New York, and then she does all of the sort of shock tactics that you expect from your normal rapper.
	But here's what the lyrics actually say, and this is supposed to be empowering for women.
	If this is empowerment for women, let me suggest that women need to think more of themselves, because this seems rather degrading, actually.
	She says, let's find out and see.
	Cardi B, you know where I'm at, you know where I be.
	You in the club, just to party.
	I'm there, I get paid a fee.
	I be in and out them banks so much, I know they're tired of me.
	But honestly, I don't give a bleep about who ain't fond of me.
	Dropped two mixtapes in six months.
	What bleep working as hard as me?
	So she has a work ethic, so that's good.
	She says, I don't bother with these hoes.
	Don't let these hoes bother me.
	They say pictures, they say goals.
	B, I'm who they trying to be.
	Look, I might just chill in some bape.
	I might just chill with your boo.
	I might just...
	Feel on your babe.
	My bleep feel like a lake.
	He want to swim with his face.
	So now it seems like she's getting aggressive with other women.
	So I'm missing the part where this is all female solidarity when she's talking about how she's competing with other women to take their men.
	And also she works harder than you.
	But it's so empowered.
	It's just so all of this is so empowered.
	I mean, and by the way, she uses language that if a man used this language, it would be considered sexist, right?
	She says, if you are bleep, you get popped.
	Bleep being a word for the female anatomy.
	If men use the word that way, they are considered sexist.
	If a woman like Cardi B uses the word, then it's empowerment.
	My bleep is glitter as gold.
	I don't know why—again, I guess if you're obsessed with your own genitalia, then this is empowering to you, but I guess the—I'm not sure what else to expect from a Women's March that thinks it's empowerment to actually wear a hat on your head that is supposedly named after a vagina.
	So, just well done, women all over the United States who are really empowering themselves by glorifying stripping and glorifying cheating and glorifying We'll be back here tomorrow with much, much more.
	We'll be broadcasting from the great state of Connecticut.
	So we'll see you then.
	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 Carmina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Forward Publishing production.

▲