Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 26, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:54

Resign, Sheriff Israel | Ep. 483

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Broward County Sheriff makes a complete ass of himself, high school classmates of shooting victims take it way too far, and Democrats try to defend the FBI over the Steele dossier.
	Lots to get to.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	So here we are in beautiful, scenic Minnesota.
	I'm speaking at the University of Minnesota tonight.
	I've been shuttled off campus to what they call the Cal College, I guess, which is the agriculture school, which is at least a mile away, I believe, from the main campus, where I will be doing my speech tonight.
	I look forward to seeing everybody there.
	We'll talk a little bit more about that.
	Plus, I have some good news for my producer, Mathis, in the stuff that I like a little bit later in the show.
	But before we get to any of this stuff, first, I want to say thank you to our new sponsors over at Lending Club.
	Everybody needs a helping hand sometimes.
	A lot of folks who need a little bit of extra money for a wedding, or you have medical expenses, or you have credit card debt.
	Well, sometimes a little money can make a pretty big difference, and you can make it happen over at LendingClub.com.
	So here's what Lending Club does.
	They give you access to low rates on loans up to $40,000 for almost any purpose.
	You take control of your debt, finance a major purpose, purchase, or make those home improvements.
	It's particularly good if you already have credit card debt and you want to take out a loan to get that APR down, for example.
	It's easier than going to a bank and offers lower rates than high interest credit cards.
	Go to LendingClub.com, enter how much money you need, and you can see if you're approved in just minutes.
	Then you pick the offer that is right for you, and the money can be in your account in just a matter of days.
	It is that simple.
	For more than 10 years, Lending Club has helped millions of people with over $31 billion in loans.
	So here's how it works.
	Go to LendingClub.com slash Ben and there you can check your rate for free.
	This will not impact your credit score.
	So that's good news number one.
	Then LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	Then it gives you a bunch of different options and Lending Club lets you know whether you're approved for a loan via Lending Club.
	So go to LendingClub.com, check your rate for free.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	And when you do, you can check your rate for free.
	Again, this is the best way that you can get one of these Loans for less than $40,000.
	Again, I have friends who've tried this for weddings.
	I know family members who are looking at it for various house expenses.
	You don't want to take all that out on a credit card that can jump to 1 million percent APR after three months of not paying it.
	That's why you go to LendingClub.com slash Ben and you get loans through LendingClub.
	All loans made by WebBank, member of FDIC, equal housing lender, Glendon.
	Go check it out right now.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	Again, there's not a better way to get a loan than LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	That also lets them know that we sent you.
	All right.
	So, we begin today with the news update on what we now know about what happened in Parkland.
	So, we now know from the UK Daily Mail that not only was everybody around the shooter in Parkland actually calling the police over all of this, we now know That the shooter himself called the police on himself.
	According to the Daily Mail, it has been revealed that the Florida school shooter who killed 17 people after he opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School called the police distressed after his mother passed away just a few months ago.
	He called authorities just after Thanksgiving, saying he had been in a fight and was struggling with the death of his mother.
	He said, On January 5th, A woman who knew the shooter called the FBI tip line and said, quote, I know he's going to explode.
	She said her biggest fear was that he might resort to entering a school and just start shooting the place up.
	40 days later, of course, he did exactly that.
	So warning after warning after warning after warning.
	Scott Israel is the is the Sheriff of Broward County who's made a complete fool of himself.
	He came out earlier, late last week, and he suggested that there weren't quite as many calls to the house as he had once been accused of.
	Apparently there were people saying there were 39 different calls to the house by the police because of all the warnings about the shooter.
	He said, no, no, no, it was only 23.
	Only one problem, according to BuzzFeed, that is not true.
	They say Broward County Sheriff's officials said in a statement late Saturday they responded only to 23 calls involving suspected Florida shooter or his family over the years.
	But records obtained by BuzzFeed News show at least 45 responses since 2008.
	The number of calls made over the years involving the shooter or his family, according to the call records, are nearly twice the number publicly disclosed by the department.
	On Saturday night, they had released a statement pushing back on reports they had been called to more than 23 incidents released by the department.
	They also put out a statement suggesting that it was not true, as CNN reported on Friday, that there were four different deputies standing outside the shooting with their guns drawn, refusing to go in.
	But then they admitted that they actually did not know whether that was the case or not.
	So just absolute malfeasance.
	Ridiculous malfeasance.
	The idea that anybody's going to give up their gun because the authorities are going to take care of them when the authorities clearly are not taking care of them.
	Yeah, good luck with that.
	Good luck with that.
	Not a lot of Second Amendment advocates going to sit around waiting for you to show up when you prove that you can't even show up to a school shooting when you have an armed school officer there.
	So, just to show how ridiculous this is, Scott Israel finally appears with Jake Tapper on Sunday morning.
	Now, I was very critical of Jake and his role in what I thought was just an absolute debacle.
	Last week on CNN, they had a two-hour CNN town hall with Dana Lash from the NRA and Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Bill Nelson, the Democrat, who was a hero to the crowd for suggesting that they ought to ban all semi-automatic weapons.
	And I thought Jake did not do a good job of handling that situation.
	I thought the thing was a setup from the beginning.
	I thought it was an emotional manipulation move.
	I thought it had nothing to do With disseminating important information to the public, it was just a way for people to vent their spleen and ire at Dana and at Rubio, two people who had nothing to do with the shooting, while completely ignoring Scott Israel.
	Scott Israel, the Broward County Sheriff, was there too.
	And as you recall, he ripped into Dana Lash.
	He ripped into Rubio.
	He suggested that these were the people at fault, not him.
	He had done a wonderful job.
	Well, then it came out, literally within 48 hours, that there was a deputy on the grounds who did nothing, that the police department had gotten warning after warning after warning after warning nearly 40 times, or more than 40 times, according to BuzzFeed, and did nothing.
	And he went on stage with Dana Lash, and he ripped her up and down, knowing that the culpability was, for the most part, his.
	So on Sunday, he comes back, and he does his sit-down with Jake Tapper.
	And Jake, this time, does a really good job.
	Jake grills him.
	And Jake makes him look pretty bad.
	This exchange is just astonishing.
	Scott Israel, the sheriff of Broward County, explaining that actually, in reality, his leadership was just amazing.
	His leadership was actually incredible.
	Jake, I can only take responsibility for what I knew about.
	I exercise my due diligence.
	I've given amazing leadership to this agency.
	Amazing leadership?
	Yes, Jake.
	There's a lot of things we've done throughout.
	You don't measure a person's leadership by a deputy not going into a... These deputies received the training they needed.
	Maybe you measure somebody's leadership by whether or not they protect the community.
	In this case, you've listed 23 incidents before the shooting involving the shooter.
	And still, nothing was done to keep guns out of his hands, to make sure that the school was protected, to make sure you were keeping an eye on him.
	Your deputy at the school failed.
	I don't understand how you can sit there and claim amazing leadership.
	Okay, but Scott Israel did anyway.
	Good for Tapper for calling him on it.
	Too bad that they didn't have this information before that town hall, when Israel was allowed to rant and rave around the stage like a maniac, blaming everybody but himself.
	Tapper went further than this.
	He said, are you really not taking any responsibility here?
	He grilled Israel for suggesting that everything was hunky-dory.
	Here is Tapper going off on Scott Israel again.
	Deputies make mistakes, police officers make mistakes, we all make mistakes.
	But it's not the responsibility of the general or the president if you have a deserter.
	You look into this, we're looking into this aggressively, and we'll take care of it and justice will be served.
	Are you really not taking any responsibility for the multiple red flags that were brought to the attention of the Broward Sheriff's Office about this shooter before the incident, whether it was people near him, close to him, calling the police on him?
	I mean, really, what the hell is he talking about?
	When Israel says that this is like the president being responsible for a deserter, no, this is not like the president being responsible for a deserter.
	There you have an entire chain of command and the deserter is punished in some cases with jail time and in rare cases with actual death penalty.
	In this case, not only was there one deputy there, there may have been four deputies there who did nothing, and again, there were dozens and dozens and dozens of warnings.
	If there were dozens of warnings that there was an attack about to happen, a specific warning, not just a general warning, specific warnings that there was an attack about to happen on 9-11, and the President of the United States ignored warning after warning after warning after warning that was brought to him, and all of his people did that, and then an attack took place, and 3,000 Americans died, do you think that impeachment might be on the table?
	The answer is yes.
	People were talking about how Bush was neglectful of 9-11 based on one vague warning that airplanes might be used for a terror attack at some point in the future.
	One warning that I'm not even sure Bush saw at any point.
	He was ripped up and down for that.
	Israel's department was told dozens and dozens of times, 45 separate times, that this shooter, the shooter himself called the police department and basically said, stop me.
	And the police department didn't do anything.
	And there's Israel claiming that there was nothing there.
	What's even worse is that Israel goes ahead and he says that he's heard reports before the town hall.
	that his deputy did not charge into the fray.
	Here's Israel admitting that he went on national television and by omission lied to the American public repeatedly during that special and tried to misdirect attention away from himself.
	This is, I mean, this guy is just a despicable human being.
	Here he is.
	Did you know it then?
	Did you know it Wednesday night?
	It was spoken about during that, earlier during that day.
	I'm not on a timeline for TV or any news show.
	We need to get it right.
	We need to get it accurate.
	We're talking about people's lives.
	We're talking about a community.
	So he'd heard before, but he's trying to now talk about, we're about people's lives and about the community.
	How about this?
	How about you go in front of the community and you go on bended knee and you ask their forgiveness for all of the crappy job that you did here?
	It is just an amazing thing that he says, and it gets even worse.
	It gets even worse, because in just a second, I'm going to play you what Israel said when he was asked about what the department could have done differently, because it truly is an amazing thing.
	First, okay, so Israel is asked about when he knew that the deputies had not entered.
	He's asked again by Tapper, and again, he misdirects the question.
	When did you find out that Deputy Peterson had not gone into the building?
	How soon after the shooting did you know that?
	Not for days.
	How many days?
	I'm not sure.
	He's not sure.
	He just didn't know.
	It was just a mystery to him.
	He can't remember.
	That answer means that he knew before the town hall.
	Here's the one that was really making the rounds.
	This particular response from Scott Israel.
	If this guy has a job by the end of the week, that is a blight on the state of government in Florida.
	He can be fired by Rick Scott.
	Rick Scott, the Florida governor, who's a Republican, who's come in for a lot of criticism from Israel, has said that he wants a full investigation before he fires Israel.
	That's probably not the worst move in the world, considering that he doesn't want the partisan blowback.
	He wants to be able to show, case in point, exactly how Israel screwed this thing up, so that Israel can't claim it's a partisan hit, but If Israel had any sort of moral fortitude at all, he would step down.
	Obviously he does not.
	And this quote shows that he does not.
	Look at this.
	This is just astonishing.
	So Israel is asked what he could have done differently, and his answer is just... It's mind-boggling.
	It's mind-boggling.
	Do you think that if the Broward Sheriff's Office had done things differently, this shooting might not have happened?
	Listen, if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, uh, you know, uh, O.J.
	Simpson would still be in the record books.
	I don't know what that means.
	There's 17 dead people, and there's a whole long list of things your department could have done differently.
	How could... Listen, uh, that's what, that's what, uh, after-action reports are.
	That's what Lessons Learned reports are for.
	If ifs and nuts were candies and buts?
	What is he even talking about?
	What kind of, what?
	And Tapper says, there's 17 people dead.
	I don't even know what you're talking about here.
	What are you even saying?
	And the answer is he doesn't know what he's saying because this is complete nonsense.
	He's just saying random crap because this is what he's doing to avoid responsibility.
	So finally he's asked if he's going to resign, and of course he answers no, he's not going to resign.
	The people responsible are the ones who took the calls and didn't follow up on them, as it was with the FBI, as it was with any person.
	Leaders are responsible for the agency, but leaders are not responsible for a person.
	I gave him a gun.
	I gave him a badge.
	I gave him the training.
	If he didn't have the heart to go in, that's not my responsibility.
	So I gave him the gun, I gave him the training, I gave him the badge, but it's not my fault if he didn't go in?
	How about it's your fault if you were told nearly 50 times what the shooter was doing?
	Again, all of this is an attempt to misdirect.
	Now what's truly astonishing is you would expect the survivors, you would expect some of the victims to speak out against Scott Israel, and some of them are.
	There are some of the shooting victims who are actually coming out and saying that this sheriff is a coward and he did something wrong.
	These are not the ones, however, that you're seeing on CNN.
	You're seeing them on Fox News.
	You're not seeing them on MSNBC.
	You're not seeing them in the mainstream media nearly as much as you're seeing, for example, David Hogg or Gonzales, the 17-year-old girl who's been on TV a lot.
	You're seeing those people.
	You're seeing people who are pro-gun control on CNN and MSNBC a lot.
	But some of the other survivors you're not seeing nearly at all.
	So, for example, there's a father of a shooting victim.
	He came out, he said, listen, the sheriff is a coward, which is pretty obvious that the sheriff is a coward.
	Here, his name is Pollack.
	He was a Trump voter.
	He's one of the ones who's at the White House, but he's not been covered extensively on CNN.
	One deputy that worked there, Peterson, he worked there, and he's a coward.
	He was, uh, he stood by the door.
	I know as a fact he could have made it to the third floor and saved all six victims if he wasn't some little, I can't even, words can't even describe what, the way I think about him.
	But I'm not trying to think about that stuff because that's just negative and I'm just gonna make me toxic.
	It's the father of a shooting victim saying the sheriff's deputy was a coward, which is obvious.
	The sheriff himself has said that, but the real question is, is it the sheriff's fault?
	A survivor, a young student named Kyle Kashuv, he came out, he says, yeah, of course it's the sheriff's fault.
	Why are we even talking about random law-abiding gun owners across the country instead of talking about the sheriff?
	It absolutely outrages me that on the CNN town hall, we had the sheriff who was virtue signaling against the NRA and against guns, when he didn't even act properly.
	The armed officer at our school waited outside, and then the sheriff and his men, for four minutes, let my classmates die while he sat outside and waited.
	He didn't even do his job properly.
	And then he comes around and turns around saying guns are the issue, when he failed to act properly.
	And this, of course, is exactly right.
	But you're not going to see all Kyle Kashuv getting the sorts of following on Twitter that you're seeing the other students get.
	So there are a lot of people on the left who are promoting the, as I say, I can't remember her first name, Emma Gonzalez, I believe it is, promoting her, saying, look how many Twitter followers she has.
	Kyle Kashuv currently has, let's see, how many Twitter followers he has?
	He has like 13.6 thousand Twitter followers.
	He is from the school, he was there.
	But, no shock of course, no shock that he is not getting nearly the same coverage that Emma Gonzalez is getting.
	She has As of today, 968,000 followers on Twitter helped along by her celebrity friends who all want to push gun control.
	So you can see the differential in attention being paid to particular victims.
	Certain victims get lots of attention.
	Certain victims don't get any attention.
	Because certain victims say the right things that the cameras want to hear.
	Well, one of those victims, one of the witnesses to the shooting, a guy named David Hogg.
	You've seen him all over TV.
	He's been very loud.
	He's been saying some pretty absurd things.
	And over the weekend, he was on CNN with Brian Stelter and Dan Rather.
	For some reason, he's a journalism student, I guess, and Dan Rather was there to advise him on journalism, which Is sort of like being advised on journalism by Stephen Glass.
	Like, why you're being advised on journalism by a guy who was run out of the industry in 2004 for putting forward a fake letter about George W. Bush is beyond me.
	But I guess that's what the media do now.
	We have to rehabilitate Dan Rather.
	In any case, David Hogg, who's one of these students, he actually gets on national TV.
	And because he understands that his agenda here, his goal here, is to push the notion that guns are responsible and not the police department, suddenly he's defending the cops for not doing their job.
	Here's David Hogg defending the police officers.
	By the way, no one should be doing this, okay?
	If a police officer does something that is wrong, then everybody should be condemning that police officer.
	With a sheriff's deputy, Does not run into the line of fire when he has a gun and try and save students.
	He did something wrong.
	And David Hogg, nobody else, nobody is allowed to go out there and exonerate this person for the sin of letting children die when you had the capacity to stop it and it was your legal duty to do so, which is what happens here.
	Now I'm not talking about whether it's suable, I'm talking about you were hired to do a job and you purposefully did not do that job, even according to your own sheriff, who himself is a garbage provocateur.
	Here is David Hogg on CNN defending the police officers and saying, well, I don't really want to say anything about Scott Israel.
	No shock, he doesn't want to say anything about Scott Israel.
	Scott Israel is on the same side as he is when it comes to guns.
	And if he goes after Scott Israel, then it may allow the press to swivel their attention away from their maniacal approach to gun control and toward what actually happened here.
	So here's David Hogg.
	He, just like every other police officer out there, At heart, he's a good person.
	He didn't take action in this event, and I can't explain why, or I just can't explain, there are no words to explain why he wouldn't take action to take out this individual, but I think it's a good example of how if he didn't take action, and supposedly four others didn't, I mean, who does?
	Who wants to go down the barrel of an AR-15, even with a Glock?
	And I know that's what these police officers are supposed to do, but they're people too.
	They need to worry about themselves as well as all the other students, and I don't think teachers need to have that responsibility either.
	So no one should have the responsibility of facing down a bad shooter.
	So who's going to stop that bad shooter?
	I love this assumption that the guns are magically going to disappear from society, but they're not.
	So who's going to stop the bad shooter?
	Was it that long ago that we forget that there was a security officer with a Glock who stopped a congressional baseball shooting?
	Is it that long ago that we forget that it was an NRA member who shot a mass shooter in Texas?
	Is it that long ago that we forget that the vast majority of these mass shooters are stopped eventually by a cop?
	Most of them don't end up shooting themselves?
	Usually it's the police officers who have to do something to stop these guys?
	But I guess that we're going to pretend that David Hogg gets to be the Pope now.
	He's going to provide indulgences.
	He's going to provide old-school, corrupt indulgences.
	All he has to do is sit around and pass out indulgences.
	All you have to do to get an indulgence is say that you are for gun control.
	That's all you have to do.
	David Hogg really keeping the blame where it belongs.
	He keeps attacking Dana Lashley.
	He's on CNN's reliable sources.
	With Brian Stelter.
	And there, he defended the sheriff again, said that the sheriff, Scott Israel, hadn't done anything wrong, but attacked Dana Lash again.
	Because, of course, Dana is more responsible, and the sheriff whose job it is to actually protect these kids, and who failed dramatically over and over and over and over, 45 times, and then had a sheriff's deputy there who didn't do anything, and maybe three more who didn't do anything, and then went on national television and yelled about it.
	Here's David Hogg, though, attacking Dana Lash, because it's really Dana's fault.
	Here's what Dana's been saying as a spokesperson for the NRA.
	She says that she wants to continue to pass laws.
	She wants people in Congress to pass laws that help out with mental health and things like that, and she says that she can't do that.
	Are you kidding me?
	You own these politicians.
	You've passed legislation that enables these bump stocks, which by the way, aren't allowed at NRA shooting ranges because they're too dangerous.
	That's how bad they are.
	But, continuing on with my point, she wants Congress to take action and she says that they won't?
	Are you kidding me?
	She owns these congressmen.
	She can get them to do things, it's just she doesn't care about these children's lives.
	I asked Dana, if she owns congressmen, can she get them to do entitlement reform?
	I mean, so long as she's got them completely in her pocket.
	Can she push them for maybe some better regulations?
	There are about a thousand things that I could ask Dana to do as long as she has Congress directly in her pocket.
	But that last statement is really egregious, and we're going to discuss that at length in just a second.
	That last statement where he says that Dana doesn't care if children get killed, this is sick stuff.
	And I understand you went through a tragedy.
	I understand something bad happened to you.
	That does not make that statement any less immoral.
	It is immoral to sit around suggesting that Dana Lash does not care about dead kids because she disagrees with David Hogg, of all people, on gun control.
	Again, I've been saying this for a week and a half.
	I don't understand what about tragedy somehow confers expertise on policy on people.
	I don't think it does.
	I think it confers expertise on suffering because that's what you've done.
	You have experience in suffering.
	But you don't magically have knowledge about gun control or how it works.
	You don't magically have knowledge about gun policy after studying the issue for half a second, half a hot second, and then going on TV and spouting slogans that you got from Chuck Schumer's webpage.
	And you certainly don't have the moral credibility under any circumstances to impugn the intent of people who clearly do care about the death of children.
	You know who doesn't care about the death of those kids?
	The shooter.
	You know who doesn't care about the death of those kids?
	Presumably ISIS.
	But I promise you, Dana Lash does care about the death of those kids.
	I even believe that Scott Israel, who I think is a schmuck, cares about the death of those kids.
	I think he's a bad guy.
	I think he cares more deeply about his own political career than he does about the truth.
	But I'm sure that he was pained by the death of those children.
	But attributing those motives to Dana, it really is immoral.
	And this brings up a serious problem with the entire debate that we are currently having.
	It is self-contradictory.
	We have all these statements that are being put out there, one after another, and they all contradict each other, and we are supposed to pretend like they don't.
	So, for example, we keep hearing that the Parkland shooting witnesses are taking moral leadership of the gun control debate.
	These high school students.
	They've filled the gap left by the adults.
	They're our new leaders.
	They're the people we should take super seriously.
	And then, simultaneously, we are told that you must never criticize their perspective because they're victimized children.
	So which is it?
	Are these the most brilliant, wise, and wonderful among us?
	Or is it possible that they could be criticized?
	Like, which is it?
	Are they innocent children?
	And if they are innocent children, then wouldn't that suggest we have to protect their innocence rather than using them as political shields?
	It's so disingenuous to go around saying, these kids are the new experts on gun control, and then the minute you say what they just said is wrong or immoral or not true, then it's you who are the problem.
	I'm not the one who stepped in front of the camera after a shooting and decided to spout off about gun control.
	And that was not me.
	And my job is to comment on current events.
	But these kids put themselves in the public eye.
	That's fine.
	That's their choice.
	But being in the public eye comes with criticism.
	It does.
	Have been doing it since I was their age.
	I understand that.
	I got hit a lot when I was a kid for all of the things that I said politically.
	And you know what?
	Some of those were deserved.
	Sometimes I was wrong.
	There's this weird notion going around that they can simultaneously claim that they are the great moral arbiters of society, and at the same time receive no blowback whatsoever.
	That's not how the First Amendment works, that's not how public debate works, and that's certainly not how politics should work.
	We cannot have a society if the way we make policy is someone experienced a tragedy, therefore they are the new king and potentate, and they get to determine what the policy is.
	So pick one, okay?
	If all of these witnesses are the moral leaders, then they also have to take the slings and arrows that come with speaking publicly.
	Hey, how about this?
	People who are saying the Parkland shooting witnesses demonstrate that 16-year-olds have important things to say about public policy and they should vote.
	Okay, that's fine.
	Let's say that's true.
	Let's pretend that's true for just a second.
	I'm going to need to hear you make the case why it is, then, that we should raise the age of being able to obtain a weapon to 21 years old, that children should stay on their parents' health insurance until they're 26 years old, and that teenage criminals should be treated as juveniles.
	You have to pick one.
	Are kids adults, or are they not adults?
	How about this one?
	People on the left suggesting that the police response to the Parkland shooting shows that a good guy with a gun can't stop a bad guy with a gun.
	Alright?
	Then how do you also argue that I should hand over my guns to the authorities who are going to protect me?
	So if the good guys with the guns can't stop the bad guys with the guns, why should I give my guns to a bunch of the good guys who can't stop the bad guys?
	That makes no sense to me.
	I'm not handing my gun over to the same police department that stood by while 17 people were slaughtered.
	You gotta pick one.
	Either you can trust the police to protect you, or you can't trust the police to protect you.
	Here's another one.
	Members of the NRA don't care about the deaths of children in mass shootings because they disagree with particular policies the left wants.
	And then we hear from the same people that the media do care deeply about the deaths of children in mass shootings, even if they continue to show the names and the faces of shooters regularly and engage in the same sort of coverage issues that apparently make those shootings more common by studies.
	So which is it?
	If we are going to impute motives to people based on their activity, if we're going to say the NRA doesn't care about school shootings because their policies lead to more school shootings, not true but okay if that's your argument, then how can you say that the media obviously do care about mass shootings even when they continue to show names and faces of mass shooters on TV for ratings?
	Which is it?
	My understanding is the folks in the media do care about shootings and maybe they disagree with me on how to treat those.
	And people in the NRA care about shootings too, and maybe they disagree with you on how to treat those.
	But you gotta pick one.
	You can't have it both ways.
	Here's another one.
	David Hogg was completely right to shellack Dana Lash over her culpability in the Parkland shootings, but he was also completely right to ignore the culpability of Sheriff Israel in the Parkland shootings because the facts aren't out yet.
	Can't have it both ways.
	If you're gonna blame Dana, you certainly have to blame the sheriff who was in charge of all this crap when it went down.
	How about this?
	The shooting survivors claiming that Dana and Senator Rubio are morally inferior human beings who don't care about the mass slaughter of innocent kids, but Americans are doing something deeply wrong if we question whether it's appropriate for survivors to impute nasty motives to those with whom they disagree.
	So in other words, if you're a survivor, you get to impute whatever motive you want to anybody else, but if I say, I'm going to impute a motive to you, which is a political motive, to how you are assessing blame, then I'm the bad guy for having politicized.
	Doesn't work that way.
	The same people.
	I mean, again, there's so many contradictions that are being offered by the gun control proponents here.
	None of these make sense.
	People who are saying semi-automatic rifles must be banned because they're so commonly used in mass shootings, but then say that if I say the Second Amendment is under assault, I'm paranoid and crazy.
	Why would I possibly think the government wants to take away my rights?
	Why would I think I need a gun to protect the government from taking away my rights?
	And then at the same time, they say the government should remove my guns from my house.
	Explain that one.
	By the way, side note here.
	I saw an argument online today from some dolt that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to give everyone a musket, as opposed to the rifle that they currently have, right?
	That is equivalent to saying, it is the pure equivalent of saying that we should get rid of the internet, we should get rid of text messaging, we should get rid of the telegraph, we should get rid of the telephone.
	None of those are protected by the First Amendment.
	Your ability to speak on none of those is protected by the First Amendment because none of those things existed in 1791.
	It's a dumb, dumb argument.
	Another internal contradiction from the gun control side.
	More armed security at schools, they say, will not make our children safer.
	But then the folks in the media who say this have armed security at every one of their media outlets.
	I know.
	I've been to all of them.
	CNN has great security.
	MSNBC, ABC, CBS, they all have terrific security.
	They're not giving up those armed security guards anytime soon, nor should they.
	Hey, how about this one?
	Holding mass town hall events with mass shooting victims and witnesses before a stacked crowd of community gun control enthusiasts is journalism.
	It's not activism, it's journalism.
	This is what the media maintain.
	Folks at CNN said, what we did last week with that Orwellian two-minute hate, that wasn't activism, that was journalism.
	But these same people will suggest that it is not journalism if you actually question any of these victims or witnesses.
	If you actually ask them questions about their views, then somehow you are violating journalistic ethics.
	Again, none of these contradictions can hold.
	We have to be at least, in some minor way, intellectually consistent.
	If we can't be intellectually consistent, we can't have a discussion.
	If we can't have a discussion, this is completely useless.
	If we can't have a discussion, this is just a waste of time.
	But that's really what it is anyway.
	It's a politicized waste of time.
	People are attempting to avoid responsibility for the decisions that they've made.
	The cop, Sheriff Israel, doesn't want any of the responsibility.
	The media don't want any responsibility.
	Again, in the end, responsibility with the shooting lies with the shooter and the people who could have prevented it.
	The NRA are not the people who could have prevented this.
	I, as a responsible gun owner, I'm not one of the people who could have prevented this.
	You know when I bought a gun for the first time, by the way?
	You wanna know when I actually bought a gun?
	I actually bought a shotgun for the first time after I had my gun debate with Piers Morgan.
	I did not own a gun up till that point.
	Really.
	Didn't have a gun.
	Because I grew up in L.A.
	Most people in L.A.
	don't have guns.
	And I just didn't grow up in the gun culture.
	It wasn't until I was threatened with death after I said to Piers Morgan that there was a Second Amendment right to own a gun that I actually went and bought a gun.
	And that's why people are buying guns now, because they feel like they are being assaulted for exercising their rights.
	They feel like they are being told what to do by a government and by a media who are intent on infringing their rights and getting no safety in return.
	It's not even like they're trading their gun away for safety.
	That's not what's happening.
	They're trading their gun away and in return they're getting the media's smug moral satisfaction in preening.
	That's all we're getting here.
	I mean, I hesitate to bring up Jimmy Kimmel again because Jimmy Kimmel says the dumbest possible thing about this kind of stuff, but yesterday he retweeted an account suggesting that Republicans would take money from ISIS because that's the same as taking money from the NRA.
	And then you wonder why people are joining the NRA at record numbers?
	You wonder why people like me are going out and looking to purchase a rifle?
	Because when you say you're going to infringe our rights and then you show that you can't defend me, of course I'm going to go out and get another gun.
	Okay, now, meanwhile, There is some breaking news in MemoGate 2018.
	Yeah, it's been a little while since MemoGate.
	And I know that you were excited that we didn't ask you to do MemoGate, but sadly we now have to do MemoGate.
	And the reason we have to do MemoGate is because there's a new memo out.
	Yay, another memo!
	How exciting.
	Now, I'm going to recapitulate what happened with the memos in just a second, but first you're going to have to go over to Daily Wire and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to dailywire.com.
	When you do, you get the rest of my show live.
	You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live.
	You get the rest of Michael Knowles' ex-Scribble show live.
	You get to be part of our mailbag.
	All of those wonders you get.
	Plus, you get to ask us questions when we have our conversations.
	All of these wonderful things.
	And, if you get the annual subscription for $99 a year, you get all of those things, plus the magical Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr, which is just phenomenal.
	You will enjoy it in every possible way.
	If you just want to listen later for free, go over to iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube, download, subscribe, leave a review.
	We always appreciate it.
	We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	All righty.
	So let's recapitulate what was happening in Memogate when last we left our fascinating story.
	So, I'm annoyed by MemoGate.
	I know there are lots of people who are very into MemoGate.
	MemoFight 2018.
	I know.
	Everybody's very into it.
	The reason I was never enthused about this is because I always thought that the allegations were a little exaggerated.
	Recall, the allegation was that the FBI targeted then-candidate Trump, or president-elect Trump, in order to discredit him over Trump-Russia collusion ties.
	And they did so in improper fashion.
	They weren't actually performing an honest investigation of facts surrounding members of the Trump campaign.
	Instead, they were out to get Trump.
	Now, I've always had a few problems with this.
	Number one, if this was the case, Trump could have declassified all the materials proving it.
	Number two, if they were actually trying to get Trump, why didn't any of this material leak into the public in the middle of the election cycle?
	That'd make a ton of sense to me.
	But that's the argument.
	And so the argument was forwarded by Devin Nunes.
	Devin Nunes is the House Intelligence Committee chair, and he wrote this four-page memo, six-page memo, in which he discussed supposed FBI malfeasance.
	What did he accuse the FBI of doing?
	What he suggested is that there was a Trump former foreign policy advisor named Carter Page.
	Carter Page was apparently connected with Russia, or very friendly with the Russians, going all the way back to 2013, when there was a FISA warrant on him at that point, supposedly.
	Okay, so Carter Page was investigated by the FBI, and they took out a FISA warrant on him.
	No harm, no foul, right?
	Well, Devin Newton said there was harm and there was foul.
	He says that basically the FBI took what is known as the Steele dossier, and they used it in order to get the FISA warrant against Carter Page.
	His argument was that the Steele dossier was a compendium of bad intel by Christopher Steele, who didn't like President Trump, and it was a piece of OPPO research put together by Fusion GPS through Christopher Steele at the behest of the Clinton campaign.
	So basically, Hillary Clinton paid for information that went from the Russian government to Christopher Steele.
	That information was used by the FBI to go get a warrant against Carter Page in an attempt to tie together the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
	That's the accusation.
	Okay, so he put out a memo a few weeks ago.
	I thought that the memo was relatively weak.
	I didn't think that it completely proved the point.
	I thought that it made some serious allegations about how FISA courts actually do the warrants.
	It seems to me that they're very loose about how they actually approve warrants.
	Most courts are, unfortunately.
	Our Fourth Amendment rights are not in particularly good hands, but that said, it didn't look to me like there was anything that suggested the FBI was specifically targeting Page in order to get to Trump.
	It looked to me more like they suspected Page, they got a flimsy warrant based on material they suspected was true, and it hasn't panned out yet.
	Which happens.
	Is that scandalous?
	Is that the end of the world?
	Didn't seem to be so.
	Okay, so the real accusation, the most damning accusation in the Nunes memo, was that the FISA warrant that was gotten on behalf of the Steele dossier, when they got the warrant, the FBI lied to the FISA court.
	They lied to the FISA court by telling the FISA court that the actual Steele dossier was not OPPO research, or at least they didn't show that it was OPPO research.
	So they didn't say it was OPPO research.
	If they had said that, then the court would have taken it less seriously, and then they wouldn't have granted the FISA warrant.
	Okay, so now Adam Schiff, who is in fact a leaker, he's a radical Democrat from California.
	He's from my district, I believe, or the district over.
	No, he has come out with a new memo, and his memo is an attempt to rebut Devin Newton's memo.
	So here is what Schiff claims.
	He claims, number one, and this is true, that the Page Warrant did not start the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
	This, of course, was acknowledged by By Nunes in the original memo.
	That originally the investigation started in July 2016 thanks to investigation into Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos having nothing to do with Carter Page.
	So the idea that the entire Trump-Russia collusion investigation is fruit of the poisonous tree based on a bad FISA warrant, that's not the case.
	Okay, claim number two is that the Steele memo was not the sole basis for the FISA application.
	Now this is a little more unclear.
	So Schiff, a lot of the information in his memo has been redacted.
	So he claims that the FISA warrant wasn't gathered solely on the basis of the Steele memo, even though the Steele memo was used.
	According to Schiff, quote, DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page, but made only narrow use of information from Steele's sources about Page's specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials.
	Schiff says the FBI interviewed Page a lot earlier in March 2016 about contact with Russian intelligence.
	Now, that's a little dicey.
	It looks a lot like the Steele memo was actually very important to getting the FISA warrant.
	That doesn't make it illegitimate.
	It's possible that the FBI believed the Steele memo was filled with real information because Steele had a history of working with the FBI and passing them real information.
	That was good enough for them.
	They applied.
	But then again, there's the Nunes allegation that the application did not include the fact that the Steele memo, the Steele dossier, was actually paid for by the Clintons.
	Okay, so Schiff goes on, he says, He also says there was no wiretap on the Trump campaign because Page was not working for Trump at the time of the surveillance.
	He also says there was no wiretap on the Trump campaign because Page was not working for Trump at the time of the surveillance.
	That claim by Schiff is probably the most dicey of all because the warrants against Page allows for retroactive searches of his messages, including the time that he was on the Trump campaign.
	So, Page obviously was being investigated for Trump campaign connections.
	Also, but the biggest claim that is made by Schiff in this memo is that he actually lets the application speak for itself.
	And this is pretty damning to Nunes.
	So Nunes' memo claims that the FBI did not tell the FISA court exactly how biased the dossier process was, the information gathering process was.
	He did not quote the application.
	Schiff quotes the application.
	Here's what the application said.
	Quote.
	It says that Steele was, quote, approached by an identified U.S.
	person.
	This would be Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson, who indicated to Source One, that'd be Steele, that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S.
	person to conduct research regarding Candidate One's ties to Russia.
	That's Trump.
	The identified U.S.
	person and Source Number One have a longstanding business relationship.
	The identified U.S.
	person hired Source Number One to conduct this research.
	The identified U.S.
	person never advised Source Number One as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate One's ties to Russia.
	The FBI speculates, now this is the key, the FBI speculates that the identified U.S.
	person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate One's campaign.
	So it says right there in the application, let me read that again slowly.
	It says, in the application, the FBI speculates that the identified U.S.
	person, that'd be Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson, was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit candidate number one's campaign, that could be used to discredit Trump's campaign.
	When I read that, that says to me that the FBI did in fact tell the courts that this was oppo research.
	That sounds to me like them telling the courts oppo research.
	It doesn't sound to me like they were hiding the ball.
	It sounds to me like legal language.
	It was in a footnote, but no matter.
	It's in the document.
	Again, would that have prevented the court, if the court knew that it was Apple Research, would that have prevented the court from actually granting the FISA warrant?
	No.
	They would have said, okay, we trust that your source, Steele, has worked with you guys before, and he's provided you good information, and we assume that you did some checking into the veracity of the information.
	Now, here's where it gets a little bit problematic for the FBI, because they didn't apparently do a lot of checking into the information regarding the allegations made in the Steele dossier.
	They just went straight to The FISA Court.
	Now, could that be a problem?
	Andy McCarthy says yes over at National Review.
	Andy McCarthy is defending the Nunes memo.
	He says that the FBI should have told the FISA Court that the Russians considered Page an idiot, which they had said in some intercepted conversations.
	They should have known the Steele dossier was nonsense because FBI agent Bruce Ohr worked for Fusion GPS and knew Steele did not want Trump to become president.
	So the FBI should have revealed that Steele was biased against Trump.
	And that the FBI's language was misleading, since they knew Steele was doing opera research for Hillary.
	And also, that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok's bias — remember, these are the FBI agents who were texting each other about how much they hated Trump — that matters, because they worked on the investigative team together.
	Well, a lot of that is speculation.
	Okay, we just don't know the answer to some of this.
	We're going to have to call some of these people in front of committees and have them testify.
	There's a perfectly plausible case to be made that the FBI overstepped its boundaries and that they probably do so a lot with FISA courts.
	But the strong case that was being made here was that the FBI was out to target Trump.
	Again, I don't think the information is there to support that allegation.
	That allegation seems to me still to be a little bit too weak.
	So I'm going to wait for more information to arise.
	I'm going to wait for more information to come out.
	And then we will see where we are.
	Because I think that it is unclear to me whether all of these allegations are enough to discredit even the page warrant Forget about the entire Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
	Now, by the way, do I think the Trump-Russia collusion investigation is going anywhere?
	I don't with regard to actual collusion.
	Again, I've seen no evidence of actual collusion.
	I'm not sure Mueller has either.
	All of the allegations that are currently being made by the Democrats have so far been unsupported by evidence.
	All of the indictments that have been brought down by Mueller have nothing to do with collusion.
	The indictments against Manafort are for him working with the Russian government before he knew Trump.
	All of the activity with Rick Gates involves Manafort and the Ukrainian government, but nothing to do with Trump.
	The George Papadopoulos thing involves him lying to the FBI, but it's not clear at all that he was funneling information up the chain to Trump.
	Mike Flynn was indicted not for corrupt carryings on during the campaign, but for making a phone call to the Russian government while he was still in the transition period, and then lying about it to the FBI.
	So he was charged with obstruction, not even with collusion or any crime that could plausibly be called conspiracy.
	So a lot of the talk about how the Trump-Russia investigation is proceeding apace, I think this ends with maybe some obstruction charges against some folks, but I don't see this being the blockbuster that the left really wants.
	So there is your update on MemoGate 2018.
	Yeah, I know.
	Fascinating, right?
	But it's important to debunk this stuff because you're seeing partisans on both sides jump to conclusions.
	People on the left saying, obviously everything was fine, and people on the right saying, obviously... and people on the right saying, obviously...
	Nothing was fine.
	Everything was garbage.
	The FBI is a bad organization, all the rest.
	I don't think either of those things are true.
	I think the FBI cuts corners on a pretty routine basis on FISA warrants, and I think this is another case of that.
	I don't know that it was an attempt to quote-unquote get Trump by the deep state, which is the accusation that's currently being made over and over and over.
	By the way, worth noting, That the President of the United States is talking about various policies on gun control right now.
	He's talking about arming what he calls adept teachers.
	The President of the United States is also talking about using the gun violence restraining orders.
	This is a topic that I have talked about a little bit before, recommended by David French over at National Review.
	This was the policy that would allow family members, close friends, to apply to courts to temporarily withhold your capacity to have a gun or buy a gun based on your mental health.
	This seems to me perfectly reasonable.
	The president also made a comment today that was not quite so reasonable, where he suggested that he would run into—that he was ripping into the deputy again in Parkland, and he said, I would have run in there unarmed.
	Um, sure.
	Sure you would, Mr. President.
	Yeah.
	No.
	No.
	Okay.
	I don't want to mention things like bone spurs.
	I don't want to mention things like your personal Vietnam being avoiding STDs in the 70s.
	But I have my doubts that you would have run in unarmed.
	But armed, maybe.
	I mean, again, this is why I think that we have to have professionals with arms who actually do what they are supposed to do.
	Okay.
	Time for a couple of things that I like, and then a couple of things that I hate, and we'll do a Federalist Paper.
	Thing I like number one.
	There's a movie that I watched.
	It's by Danny Boyle.
	And it is with Chris Evans, Captain America, who apparently hates me for some reason that I can't quite nail down.
	And Cillian Murphy.
	The movie is called Sunshine.
	It's a sci-fi movie.
	The first two-thirds of this movie is quite good.
	The last third of it is kind of dumb.
	But the first two-thirds of it are really stylish and interesting and well-made.
	The basic premise is that the sun is burning out, and we here on Earth have decided that we are going to nuke the sun.
	Which is pretty awesome.
	We're going to send a giant nuclear weapon into the sun to reinvigorate the sun, and it will all be fantastic.
	So here it is.
	Here's a little bit of the preview.
	Our sun is dying.
	Mankind faces extinction.
	Sixteen months ago, I, Robert Kappa, and a crew of seven left Earth frozen in a solar winter.
	Our mission?
	Reignite the sun before it's too late.
	Okay, so the movie's cool looking.
	Again, it's Danny Boyle who would go on to direct Slumdog Millionaire and a bunch of other kind of interesting looking movies.
	The movie's look is really interesting.
	It turns into a kind of rote monster picture for no reason in the last third of the film.
	But there's some cool stuff in it and it is, I think the first two thirds of it is worth watching.
	I will not say that the entire movie is worth watching because I wouldn't want you to waste half an hour on some pretty bad sci-fi horror.
	Okay.
	Other things that I like.
	It's Mathis's birthday today.
	So congratulations to my son, Mathis, for finally reaching his 21st birthday.
	Now you can drink.
	Mathis, how old are you actually?
	Mathis.
	Okay, so Mathis is 25.
	So in honor of Mathis's 25th birthday, he gets to work tomorrow.
	So congratulations to Mathis.
	I did not get him a present other than this, but this should suffice because, I mean, this is the most famous he's ever gonna be, is me talking about him right now.
	So Mathis, congratulations on your birthday.
	And yes, that's right, you get ripped even on your birthday.
	Because you knew that, though, coming in here today, dude.
	Everybody knew that.
	Okay, so, happy birthday to the best producer at the company, except for all the other guys.
	Math is clever.
	Well done.
	Other things that I like.
	California Democrats are refusing to endorse Dianne Feinstein, which I find hilarious.
	So she's been in the Senate since 1833.
	Actually, since 1992.
	She's one of the most left-leaning members of the U.S.
	Senate.
	She was the sponsor, of course, of the 1994 assault weapons ban.
	She has a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America, so she's a pro-abortion fanatic.
	She has a 7% rating from the Chamber of Commerce.
	Suffice it to say, she's very left.
	And the California Democratic Party refused to endorse her because she's not far left enough.
	Because that's how insane Democrats are.
	If they want to lose elections, they should continue to do this.
	If Dianne Feinstein ain't enough for you, I don't know what is.
	Time for a couple of things that I hate, and then we'll do a Federalist Paper.
	So.
	Alrighty, things that I hate.
	So, today's things that I hate.
	Ivanka Trump went to South Korea for the Olympics, the very end of the Olympics, and an Olympic skier named Gus Kenworthy, who apparently is also, he also stars as Robb Stark, apparently.
	I guess in Game of Thrones, you'll see what I mean when we show a picture of him.
	He came out and said, what is Ivanka Trump doing here?
	Well, what Ivanka Trump is doing there is that she's the daughter of the president of the United States, and she's going there for goodwill.
	I mean, like, duh.
	But here he is whining about it.
	He says, so proud of all these people.
	Everyone here has worked hard to make it to the Olympics and have the opportunity to be at the closing ceremony.
	Well, everyone except Ivanka, honestly.
	TF she doing here?
	What a kind and generous human being.
	What a nice fellow.
	What is she doing at the Olympics?
	You know, a celebration of the American spirit.
	Just terrible.
	How dare Ivanka go to South Korea?
	There was another Olympian who came out and said that they were very happy to see Ivanka.
	That seems a lot nicer to me.
	When you're so polarized that Ivanka showing up in South Korea is a disaster for you, I'd say your priorities are slightly misplaced.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	For the second straight year, a trans male on testosterone just won a girls' state wrestling championship.
	So there is a girl who believes she is a boy, and she's taking testosterone in order to develop in more masculine ways.
	And she is not allowed to wrestle with the boys because they actually have biological— they actually have restrictions on biological boys wrestling biological boys.
	And so she wrestles with the girls and of course she won because she's on testosterone.
	Now this is absurd.
	I mean it is absurd to have women who are taking heavy doses of what would be banned drugs if they were taking them for athletic purposes suddenly being allowed to wrestle girls who are not allowed to take those drugs for competitive purposes.
	But this is how it works now.
	So this woman, this girl who has muscles that are You know, man-looking muscles, let's put it that way.
	She just won the Texas class 6A championship in the girls division for the second year in a row.
	She is on a dosage of testosterone pursuant to her transition.
	And of course, she had a perfect 32-0 record against steroid-free girls she took on this season.
	And of course, some people booed and some people cheered.
	The wrestler's mother has argued the steroids are not really an advantage to her daughter, and that wrestling has more to do with skill and discipline.
	Okay, if that's the case, then why do we have to have separate divisions at all?
	Maybe men should just wrestle women, since testosterone doesn't matter and it's all technique.
	Okay, men have different body types than women, and testosterone gives you an advantage.
	This is why, if you're at the Olympics and you take testosterone, you will be banned from competition, as many Russians were.
	Okay, quick Federalist paper time.
	So Federalist number 17.
	We've been going through a Federalist paper every week.
	We are already up to Federalist 17.
	In Federalist 17, Alexander Hamilton makes the case that it does not threaten the Union to have a strong central government, that people should not feel threatened by a strong central government.
	That may seem like a laughable case to you now because the central government is so strong and so overpowering.
	He claims that the federal government would not want to interfere in every part of our life and usurp authority from the states.
	He says, quote, The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same state, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction.
	He's saying that state business is going to remain state business.
	And he also says that because people are going to be more loyal to states than they are to the federal government, They will not take kindly to federal usurpations of state power.
	He says, That obviously is not true.
	human nature that its affections are commonly weak in proportion to the distance or diffusiveness of the object.
	Upon the same principle that a man is more attached to his family than to his neighborhood, to his neighborhood than to the community at large, the people of each state would be apt to feel a stronger bias toward their local governments than toward the government of the union.
	Okay, that obviously is not true.
	And the question now is why that isn't true.
	Some of it is the Civil War and the change in the balance of power between the states and the federal government, some of which had to happen in order to assure the rights of former slaves, black Americans.
	But there's something else that's happened too, and that is that Americans' belief in their local community has completely fallen by the wayside.
	As we become more atomized, as we engage less socially, as we work less with our neighbors, Our adherence to community loyalty is dumped in favor of adherence to broader national ideals, I would say.
	And that's why you see local communities being ignored so often in favor of women's marches and million-man marches or March for Life marches.
	These widespread public events draw more people in more enthusiasm than a lot of local events do now because a lot of neighborhoods have basically gone downhill and our kinship to our neighbors has gone downhill as well.
	So issues that were solved at the local level are now being solved at the national level.
	Part of that is because the government in the 20th century has grown so much that people have foregone the possibility of doing stuff at the local level.
	Part of that is because we have stopped worrying about inculcating virtue through local community.
	And instead, we have abdicated that duty to a vast, powerful federal bureaucracy.
	Okay, so we will be back here tomorrow.
	I will give you the update on University of Minnesota, how it went.
	And if you're there tonight, I'll see you there.
	Look forward to it.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.

▲