Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 18, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

46:48

Is It Mueller Time? | Ep. 542

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The Trump camp decides to attack the Mueller investigation in a new way, the media continue to play into Trump's hands on MS-13, and we check the mailbag.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Man, this has been a busy news week, and there's a lot to get to today.
	I do want to remind you that we will be talking, doing this show, in August, in Dallas and Phoenix.
	And if you've been hearing me talk to premium subscribers all week about these two live podcasts that we're doing well today, at 10 a.m.
	local time, tickets finally go on sale for the general public.
	So you don't have to be a subscriber, now you can buy the tickets.
	We've sold almost half of each event just in the pre-sale, so general admission tickets and VIP packages are gonna go really, really fast.
	Be sure to check out dailywire.com slash events Okay, before I get into the news of the day, and there is plenty of news today, first I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Dollar Shave Club.
	So you're going to want to buy now.
	And at 10 a.m. they go on sale.
	So it's a beautiful time to get ready.
	And if you still want to get those pre-sale tickets, you have like an hour and a half left to do it right here.
	So you can do that as well.
	Okay, before I get into the news of the day, and there is plenty of news of the day, first I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Dollar Shave Club.
	So Dollar Shave Club delivers everything you need to look, feel, and smell your best.
	They have a product for everything you need to get ready in the bathroom.
	You know, they have the Dr. Carver shave butter, which goes on clear so that when you actually shave, you're not cutting yourself.
	They have the body wash.
	They have the shampoo.
	They have the whole deal.
	Everything you need.
	Dollar Shave Club can provide it.
	Again, shampoo, conditioner, body wash, toothpaste, hair gel, even a butt wipe that will leave you feeling absolutely tingly clean.
	I'm a fan of their calming body cleanser.
	It actually smells really good.
	And all of your Dollar Shave Club products are made with top shelf ingredients that won't break your budget, and you will feel the difference.
	Here's a great way to try a bunch of these products.
	Just try them.
	For five bucks, you can get their Daily Essentials Starter Set.
	It comes with body cleanser, One Wipe Charlies, their amazing butt wipes, their world-famous shave butter, and their best razor, the Six Blade Executive.
	And then you keep the blades coming for a few bucks more every month, so you don't have to worry about running out to the store because you have only a bunch of dull blades.
	Add in shampoo, toothpaste, anything else you need for the bathroom.
	This also allows you to avoid going to the drugstore at all so that your significant other cannot pile you up with other things you need to buy at the drugstore.
	Just avoid it.
	Instead, go to dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben, dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben.
	When you do that, you get that special deal for five bucks.
	You get their daily essential starter kit, dollarshaveclub.com slash Ben.
	Use that slash Ben so they know that we sent you.
	Okay, so we begin today with the latest on the Mueller investigations.
	So, there's this theory that is going around on the right, and it's very hard to tease out exactly what people are accusing various agencies of.
	The story's gotten so convoluted and so confused by this point, it's kind of hard to follow the timeline as to what happened when the Mueller investigation began, when the Trump-Russia investigation began, when George Papadopoulos was meeting with whom, and when Trump Jr.
	was meeting with what.
	And what the hell is going on?
	So we're going to try and tease out some of that today.
	And I have to say, I think that there are a lot of people who are on the right who are falling for the line that the FBI was deeply corrupt before the election.
	And I'm not seeing the evidence that the FBI was acting in deeply corrupt fashion with regard to the Trump campaign before the election happened.
	I think a bunch of things can be true at once.
	And I think here are all the things that can be true at once.
	One, I don't think there was collusion between Trump and Russia.
	I do not think that the Trump campaign was actively working with the Russians in order to shape the election or in order to release emails from Hillary Clinton via WikiLeaks or any of that sort of thing.
	I don't think there's any evidence of that whatsoever, too.
	It is true that there is willingness to collude on the part of some members of the Trump team.
	That's pretty obvious at this point.
	Donald Trump Jr.
	had a meeting at Trump Tower with Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was a Russian cutout, who was apparently going to give him, according to Rob Goldstone, a former Trump publicist, was going to give the Trump campaign a bunch of material on Hillary Clinton.
	That material never materialized, but Veselnitskaya did meet at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., and then Trump Jr.
	released, as you recall, on Twitter, a bunch of emails saying that between him and Goldstone, talking about how he was excited that the Russians wanted to back his dad in the presidential campaign.
	Now, willingness to collude is not actually a crime.
	Being willing to do something isn't a crime.
	If I'm willing to rob a bank, that is not the same thing as me taking an active step toward the robbing of the bank, which is what conspiracy would actually involve.
	And even then, conspiracy is a little bit difficult to prove.
	It's a notoriously difficult crime to prove in court.
	Hey, that's not what was happening here.
	What happened here was willingness, not quite the same thing.
	So point number one, there's no evidence of collusion.
	Point number two, there's pretty good evidence of willingness to collude by Donald Trump Jr.
	and also by George Papadopoulos, who is this low-level foreign policy aide to the Trump campaign, who all the way back in, I believe it was April of 2016, Had a meeting with a professor in London who's actually from Malta, I guess, and was associated with the Russian government and had said to George Papadopoulos that the Russians had access to Hillary Clinton's emails.
	So, that doesn't mean the email's past tense, but Papadopoulos was willing to hear about it, and then he apparently bragged about it within the hearing of the Australian ambassador, who passed that information along to the FBI, which initiated part of the investigation against George Papadopoulos and attempts to get into the Trump campaign's business.
	Okay, so.
	Those two things, again, no collusion, willingness to collude.
	Point number three, if there was willingness to collude and there was good evidence that there are a bunch of people in the Trump campaign who are at the very least kind of dirty.
	Paul Manafort, who is the Trump campaign chair, is a dirty dude who was involved with the Ukrainian government when it was basically a Vladimir Putin Front group.
	You know, Paul Manafort was involved.
	Carter Page had been suspected of being a Russian spy for a long time.
	George Papadopoulos, as I just mentioned.
	Trump Jr., as I just mentioned.
	It would have been remiss for the FBI not to actually check this stuff out because, again, reverse the names.
	If it weren't Donald Trump we were talking about here, but Hillary Clinton, everybody on the right would have said, how could the FBI not have gone further in their investigation into Hillary Clinton?
	If it had been Chelsea Clinton meeting with Natalia Veselnitskaya to find dirt on Trump, we'd all be like, whoa, whoa, hold up, hold up now.
	Well, you're saying what?
	And the FBI didn't investigate?
	So, the FBI's investigation could have been totally proper.
	Point number four.
	Okay, all of these can be true at the same time.
	Point number four.
	It is also true that all of the leaks of this information post-election are scurrilous and those are corrupt.
	Leaking out information that does not have confirmation, leaking out information in an attempt to implicate the Trump campaign for stuff it didn't do, all of that is corrupt stuff from Obama holdovers.
	A lot of that started happening immediately after the election.
	It passed all the way through up until February and March of 2017 when Trump was forced to fire Michael Flynn.
	All of that stuff, I think, is corrupt.
	So, if there's corruption inside the FBI and the CIA, that corruption manifested itself not in the investigation itself, it manifested itself in the leaks of the investigation.
	Okay, so today, the big story that is being pushed by folks on the right is that it was the investigation itself, the stuff before the election, that was a real problem on the part of the FBI.
	So, Andy McCarthy, a friend of mine and a very good lawyer, He makes the case over at National Review, and here's what he writes.
	He says, So Congress has asked for all the material as to what sort of spying activities were going on with regard to the Trump campaign, and the Justice Department has said, no, we're not going to turn all of that over because it would implicate an informant.
	leaked to reporters the same classified information about which days ago the Justice Department shrieked extortion when Congress asked for it.
	So Congress has asked for all the material as to what sort of spying activities were going on with regard to the Trump campaign.
	And the Justice Department has said, no, we're not going to turn all of that over because it would implicate an informant.
	It would put his life at risk, for example.
	And so McCarthy's saying, well, then why are you leaking all that stuff to the press about what the informant knew and who kind of information about who he was sort of?
	That's a fair point by McCarthy.
	Then he gets to the point that I don't think is quite as good.
	He says, that's not even the most important of the buried leads.
	What the Times story makes explicit with studious understatement is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party's presidential campaign.
	There is no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump campaign official.
	So the FBI did not open a criminal investigation.
	Instead, the Bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge.
	But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.
	Okay, well, first of all, it depends how they were using these counterintelligence measures.
	You'd have to make the case that what the FBI was doing was actually illegal unless they had, for example, a criminal warrant.
	And I'm not seeing any evidence of that.
	So, one of the accusations that the New York Times makes is that the FBI had an informant inside the Trump campaign.
	Well, that informant could have been somebody who was working for the Trump campaign and went to the FBI.
	It could have been somebody the FBI approached to go and talk to the Trump campaign.
	It is not illegal for the FBI to do this.
	This sort of stuff happens regularly in all sorts of investigations.
	Brad Heath, who is an investigative reporter for USA Today who covers law and justice, he says, I'm puzzled by the argument that the use of an informant taints an investigation.
	Informants are a ridiculously common part of law enforcement investigations, often at a very early stage.
	The FBI's domestic operations guide authorizes agents to use informants even when they're conducting assessments, which don't require the factual predicate of a formal investigation.
	There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of how the government uses informants.
	One ATF informant testified that to get targets for a sting, he basically went up to people on the street and asked if they wanted to do drug robberies.
	There were guys in Atlanta who were paying other people for information so they could proffer it to the feds to get a sentence reduction.
	Courts have more or less said that none of this is a valid basis to get a case thrown out.
	So even when informants are super sketchy, you can't get a case thrown out.
	There's also not a clear line, at least not in law, according to Brad Heath, that separates what techniques are okay in investigations of politicians compared to, say, drug dealers.
	And you see informants in those cases, too.
	The Uranium One case had an informant.
	The Senator Menendez case had an informant.
	But if using an informant does taint an investigation, argues Brad Heath, to the point, as Giuliani suggested, that it might have to be shut down, that would implicate a lot of federal cases.
	And again, even with counterintelligence, it's not clear to me that a counterintelligence investigation can't use an informant in order to garner more information.
	So in other words, if this was not initiated for stupid reasons, if this was initiated because there's a piece of intelligence that went to the FBI, that George Papadopoulos had been meeting with a guy who was offering him all sorts of information from Russia, And then they initiated an investigation and there was an informant.
	I still am not sure why this is suddenly such a terrible thing.
	Now, a lot of this is being used to to say that Trump was right when he said that Trump Tower was wiretapped.
	Trump Tower was not wiretapped.
	That was wrong.
	But if what Trump was saying is my campaign was surveilled by the FBI, that obviously was true.
	But that doesn't answer the question as to whether his campaign should have been surveilled by the FBI or whether people in his campaign should have been under FBI investigation.
	None of that speaks to what actually happened.
	So I think that what we have to recognize is that there are two ways of viewing this investigation.
	One is as though you were in the shoes of the FBI as this evidence was coming to you.
	And one is now in retrospect.
	If you were viewing the evidence as it came in, it would have been perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, to say, OK, we need to get an informant on what's going on here because there's a lot of suspicious stuff going on here and we need to check it out.
	That wouldn't have been unreasonable.
	In retrospect, because they haven't been able to dig up anything really of substance, it looks much more unreasonable.
	It looks like, wow, you spent all these resources.
	But if we used that same logic with law enforcement investigations all the time, then law enforcement would not be able to do investigations.
	Because you can only assess whether to do an investigation based on the evidence that is in front of you at a given time.
	Listen, this is not me trying to rip on the Trump campaign.
	Again, I don't think any collusion happened.
	But I want to be as intellectually honest as possible about what's going on in this investigation so we can actually target the bad guys.
	I don't think that the people Who were concerned about what they were hearing in June 2016 were the bad guys.
	I think the people who are leaking out this information knowing there was nothing there afterward, those are the bad guys.
	The people inside the FBI who decided to leak to the New York Times all this information, those are the bad guys.
	Because now they're obviously attempting to throw President Trump under the bus, to sully his administration.
	They are attempting to do that now.
	And we obviously should look into the Carter Page FISA warrant and make sure that that was legit.
	We obviously should make sure that what the FBI did was legit, but I'm not seeing the evidence that the FBI was attempting to get Trump during the campaign.
	They didn't release any of this information during the campaign.
	They kept it on the down low all the way through the campaign.
	It was only after the campaign that they started leaking that stuff out, and I would imagine that was a lot of frustrated pro-Hillary people who were leaking that sort of material out in the first place.
	Now, I want to explain a little bit more about that in just a second.
	But first, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at the USCCA.
	So, it's nearly the end of the line for this particular deal over at the USCCA.
	Look, the world is a really scary, unsafe place in many ways.
	There are a lot of times when there are rogue shooters.
	Today, there's an awful, awful story about a mass shooting happening at a Texas high school, which we'll bring to you a little bit later in the show.
	But that just means that as a law-abiding citizen, you should own a gun.
	You should own a gun to defend yourself and to defend the lives of others.
	I've been talking about this for weeks now.
	You have a few days left to get your dream gun for free.
	Right now, the USCCA is giving five of you, my lucky listeners, $1,000 to buy your dream Kimber with extra ammo.
	Again, you're a law-abiding citizen.
	You know how to use a gun.
	You should own one.
	That's right.
	Five of you will take home $1,000 to buy one of the finest handguns in the world.
	It is completely free.
	Your chance is to win next Friday.
	There will be no guns after that.
	Simply go to DefendMyFamilyNow.com and instantly lock in your five free chances to win right now.
	It's that simple.
	You can enter in seconds.
	It's 100% free.
	You're almost out of time before the USCCA draws the winners.
	So get your name on the winners list now.
	Go to DefendMyFamilyNow.com to enter before it's too late.
	As a matter of principle, I believe that all law-abiding people who know how to use a weapon should own one, because there are bad people out there, and the U.S.C.C.A.
	helps make sure that that can happen for you, not only through this special deal, where you go to defendmyfamilynow.com, and you have five chances to win a thousand bucks for a gun, but also, they bring you all the legal help that you need, all the education on gun training that you need.
	U.S.C.C.A.' 's a great organization.
	Go to defendmyfamilynow.com.
	That's defendmyfamilynow.com.
	Okay, so.
	Back to Andrew McCarthy's rip on this crossfire hurricane investigation.
	He says the Clinton case was a criminal investigation that was predicated on a mountain of incriminating evidence.
	In the scheme of things, the the Clinton, the scandal here is that Mrs. Clinton was not charged.
	By contrast, the Trump case is a counterintelligence investigation.
	Unlike criminal cases, counterintelligence matters are classified.
	If agents had made public disclosures about them, they would have been committing crimes and violating solemn agreements with foreign intelligence services, agreements without which those services would not share information that the U.S.
	national security officials need in order to protect the country.
	In the scheme of things, the problem is not that the FBI honored its confidentiality obligations in the Trump case while violating them in the Clinton case.
	The scandal is that the FBI, lacking the incriminating evidence needed to justify opening a criminal investigation of the Trump campaign, decided to open a counterintelligence investigation.
	Again, I think this misses the point.
	The question is really whether you're allowed to have an informant on a case, whether or not there's a formal investigation that has been filed.
	And I'm not seeing the evidence that that's the case.
	Again, informants come in all shapes and sizes, and I think that this is a bit of an overreach by a lot of folks who are hoping to sully the original origins of the investigations, that then they can make the excuse that the investigation has to be shut down.
	Right now, Kimberly Strassel is doing some of the same stuff over at the Wall Street Journal.
	She has a piece today where she talks about House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, who appeared on Fox & Friends, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.
	He said if the campaign was somehow set up, I think there would be a problem.
	So now I guess the going theory here is that Carter Page and George Papadopoulos We're not, in fact, in the thrall of Russians.
	Instead, it was that the FBI and the CIA set up a sting operation in order to entice them to look as though they wanted to work with the Russians.
	So that changes the theory of the case.
	Now the argument is no longer there shouldn't have been an informant after we found out that Papadopoulos and Page were doing stuff.
	Now the argument is that the informant himself was the person who sort of entrapped Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.
	I'm going to need to see the evidence of that.
	I'm going to need to see the evidence as to what it was.
	Is the implication here that the London professor that George Propagopoulos met with back in 2016, that that guy was actually a FBI stooge, that he was somebody the FBI had deployed?
	I don't see all the evidence of this in any real way.
	I'm gonna wait for all the evidence to come out.
	Maybe that happens.
	Maybe that's the case.
	Maybe that's what happened.
	But I'm gonna need to see a little bit more than has been provided to me thus far if I'm to buy that the FBI was setting Trump up in some way.
	And again, if they were setting Trump up in some way, wouldn't you imagine they would have leaked all this information a little bit earlier?
	It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
	Okay, meanwhile...
	This is an insane story.
	So there's a guy named Meek Mill.
	I've never heard of Meek Mill.
	I'm sure people in this room who are not me have heard of Meek Mill.
	Meek Mill is apparently a rapper of some sort.
	And Meek Mill was supposed to visit the White House on Friday.
	He was supposed to visit the White House because the White House is doing criminal justice reform.
	So they have a big meeting today, criminal justice reform.
	They're going to talk about changing prison sentences and rehabilitation plans.
	This is something that a lot of libertarians are in favor of.
	And there are also a lot of members of sort of the Black Lives Matter community who are in favor of it.
	I'm torn on criminal justice reform.
	I think that marijuana, for example, should be decriminalized.
	But I'm not in favor of lowering sentences and releasing prisoners back into society more easily.
	I'm very much of the opinion.
	That it was stronger prison sentences in the first place that led to the massive decline in crime that happened between 1994 and 2015.
	I think that releasing people back onto the streets is a bad idea.
	We've done it here in California, and it's been a giant fail.
	In California, what you've seen instead is a massive uptick in crime based on the release of criminals back into the general society.
	So, it depends what criminal justice reform looks like.
	In any case, there are a lot of people who think that the criminal justice system ought to be reformed, and the White House is among those people.
	So, this guy Meek Mill was supposed to visit the White House to take part in a panel that was to include, I guess, Vice President Mike Pence, and Jared Kushner, and Van Jones, who is obviously very much to the left.
	They're bringing people who are right and left, black and white, to talk about these issues, which is what they should do if they're going to discuss these issues.
	Well, Meek Mill was supposed to go, and then he bailed.
	He bailed because, according to TMZ, Jay-Z called him up and convinced him otherwise.
	So according to Bossip.com, I never heard of them, they said that reports were released that Meek agreed to travel to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to discuss prison reform because Trump is currently hosting a prison reform summit.
	Participants in attendance are said to include members of Congress, various activists, and people who have become victims of the system.
	But it looks like Meek isn't going to make it to the event, and that's all due to words of wisdom from Hove.
	I guess Hob is Jay-Z?
	Is that?
	Is that?
	Okay.
	Hmm.
	Okay, TMZ reports that Jay-Z called the Philadelphia native on Thursday night and made his stance clear.
	Meeting with Trump would be nothing but problematic for both his image and the cause he's fighting for.
	Apparently, other high-profile celebs and friends also called Meek and voiced serious concerns about his attendance.
	Meek listened to the advice from his peers and decided not to attend after all.
	Okay, so here's the problem.
	For eight years, everybody in the Black Lives Matter movement was suggesting the law enforcement system is biased and that criminal justice reform had to be pursued.
	And now, Donald Trump's going to do that.
	And you're not going to go meet with him?
	Because to meet with him would undermine the cause?
	How is it undermining the cause?
	No Democratic House of Representatives.
	Let's say the Democrats win the election in 2018.
	Let's say that they win back the House.
	They probably won't win back the Senate.
	You think criminal justice reform is going to get done when Nancy Pelosi is the head?
	Not a shot.
	Because she's going to put a bunch of deal killers in that bill.
	It's not going to happen.
	The only way criminal justice reform gets done with Trump as president is right now with a bunch of Republicans in the House and a bunch of Republicans in the Senate and President Trump in the White House.
	If you want a deal, you need to talk to the guy who's capable of making the deal.
	It is that simple.
	But Jay-Z doesn't want the image of a bunch of black people meeting with Trump because it might make Trump seem not as racist to the press.
	That's really what this is about.
	So Meek gave a statement to TMZ.
	He said, Well, no, the whole point here was that President Trump wanted to meet with leaders in the black community, left and right, so they could have a broad ranging discussion and hopefully come to some sort of consensus on the issue.
	president and myself, which concerned me that it might take away from creating a positive result from today's discussions.
	Well, no, the whole point here was that president Trump wanted to meet with leaders in the black community left and right so they could have a broad ranging discussion and hopefully come to some sort of consensus on the issue.
	There's no way to come to consensus on the issue.
	If you won't attend the meeting, what do you expect Trump to do at that point?
	I mean, I'm Frankly, I'm confused by this, but this is why the entire Kanye West saga of the last few weeks actually matters.
	Because when Kanye West said, listen, I'm not going to listen to you guys.
	If I feel like meeting with Trump, I'll meet with Trump.
	If I feel like wearing a MAGA hat, I'll wear a MAGA hat.
	And everybody on the left went nuts.
	And people inside the rap community went crazy.
	And Kanye was tweeting out all of the various tweets he was receiving and texts he was receiving from people like John Legend.
	And Kanye, to his credit, said, listen, I'll say what I want.
	That's exactly what Milmeek should have said here.
	What he should have said is, listen, this is too important an issue for me to let partisanship get in the way.
	It's too important an issue for me to solve.
	I don't like stuff that Trump has said.
	So I'm not going to pretend that I think that Trump has been great on racial issues.
	But if I can get a win here, why wouldn't I go and help my fellow black folks who apparently are very much ensconced in this fight for criminal justice reform?
	Instead, Meek said, I decided not to attend so that the focus would be solely on fixing our prison system.
	Most importantly, I remain fully committed to improving our criminal justice system.
	But I'm going to insult the president of the United States by pulling out of the deal because Jay-Z told me to.
	Now, when partisanship trumps even the best interest that you are apparently trying to pursue, I would suggest that you have allowed your partisanship to blind you to the actual facts on the ground.
	And that really is too bad.
	Okay.
	In just a second, I want to talk a little bit about the magic power that President Trump has.
	He actually does have a magic power.
	And I want to talk about his magic power in just a second.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Lending Club.
	So Lending Club gives you access to low rates on loans up to $40,000 for almost any purpose.
	Right?
	You have a debt problem with your credit cards, and you need a loan to help carry you through that debt problem.
	Well, that's what Lending Club is for.
	You need to finance a major purchase.
	You need to finally make some home improvement.
	Lending Club is there for you.
	It's easier than going to a bank.
	They offer lower rates than high-interest credit cards.
	So go to LendingClub.com, enter how much money you need, and see if you are improved in minutes.
	And then you can pick the offer that's right for you.
	The money can actually be in your account in just a matter of days.
	It is indeed that simple.
	For more than 10 years, Lending Club has helped millions of people with over $31 billion in loans.
	So take charge of your finances with Lending Club.
	All you have to do is go to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	I've checked it out.
	It's really easy.
	It's really user friendly.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben to check your rate for free.
	And this will not impact your credit score, which is pretty awesome.
	Go to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	And this is going to allow you to check out All the loans.
	See what you want.
	See whether you qualify.
	All loans are made by WebBank.
	Member FDIC.
	Equal Housing Lender.
	So, check it out again.
	LendingClub.com.
	You can check your rate for free.
	It really is a first-rate company.
	And they're folks that you can trust to get you a loan that you need at a rate that is not exorbitant.
	Check it out.
	Lendingclub.com slash Ben.
	Use that slash Ben so they know that we sent you.
	Okay, so.
	Meanwhile, President Trump has a magic power.
	His magic power is that he can get Democrats to defend anything.
	To defend anyone.
	This is his magic power.
	All President Trump has to do is say, I like puppies.
	And everyone on the left is like, puppies are horrible!
	And if he says, I hate MS-13.
	People on the left are like, MS-13?
	Yeah, let's give them a second shot, MS-13.
	Sure, their slogan's actually rape-steal-control, but let's give them a second shot.
	I mean, Trump doesn't like them.
	That means that they must be, like, kind of okay?
	Kind of?
	Right, so Trump, as you recall, said that members of MS-13 were animals.
	Now, the truth is that I'm not a big fan of calling Terrorists, animals, or monsters?
	But not because I don't think they're animals or monsters, simply because human beings can be animals and monsters, but monsters aren't real, and treating people as animals neglects the fact that all human beings have a capacity for evil, but that's more of a deep gloss.
	When Trump calls them animals, I don't have any moral objection to it.
	It's not like I'm, oh, well, you know, that's really insulting to the MS-13 members who chopped that guy's head off.
	I just feel terrible about that.
	But people on the left apparently felt the necessity to go after President Trump for going after MS-13.
	So Trump, as you recall, a couple of days ago, he said that MS-13 were animals.
	Then he was asked about it again, and he doubled down on it.
	But I'm referring, and you know I'm referring to the MS-13 gangs that are coming in.
	And I was talking about the MS-13, and also, if you look a little bit further on in the tape, you'll see that.
	So I'm actually surprised you're asking this question, because most people got it right.
	So when the MS-13 comes in, when the other gang members come into our country, I refer to them as animals.
	And guess what?
	I always will.
	But we're getting them out by the thousands.
	Okay, so here's the magic of Donald Trump.
	The left immediately starts to defend MS-13.
	So here's Nancy Pelosi, dentures are moving, talking all about how MS-13, they're really, they're people.
	MS-13 are people too.
	Nancy Pelosi, whatever man.
	And so when the president of the United States says about undocumented immigrants, these aren't people, these are animals.
	You have to wonder, does he not believe?
	And the spark of divinity, the dignity and worth of every person.
	Oh my God.
	These are not people.
	These are animals.
	The President of the United States.
	They literally cut the hearts out of living human beings.
	And she's like, do they, the spark of divinity, do they not believe in the spark of divinity?
	John Legend, by the way, did exactly the same thing.
	I mean, it's, it's, it's incredible.
	It's incredible.
	So John Legend started tweeting out about all this.
	And I want to find you the John Legend tweets because they are astonishing.
	It's just amazing.
	So here, so actually before I show you the John Legend tweet, I have to show you the Anna Navarro tweets.
	So Anna Navarro, right on CNN, she tweets out that, well first she says that this was Nazi rhetoric.
	It was Nazi rhetoric for the President of the United States to call MS-13 animals because Hitler also hated MS-13 or something.
	So here's Anna Navarro saying this.
	And it is a very slippery slope when you start dehumanizing people this way.
	It's what the Nazis did.
	It's what slave owners did.
	It's not what Americans do.
	What now?
	OK, and then she tweeted out, I love this, she tweeted out that anyone who uses the word animals to describe another human being is just a terrible human being.
	There is only one problem.
	Ana Navarro tweeted out that Trump and his family were basically animals.
	So there was that as well.
	Do we have that tweet?
	I think it might be 12.
	I'm not sure which one it is.
	In any case, John Legend did the same routine.
	He tweeted this out.
	He said, Even human beings who commit heinous acts are the same species as us, not animals.
	Sorry, here's one from Anna Navarro.
	She tweeted out, this is a direct quote, Trump is in very bad company.
	Nazis referred to Jews as rats.
	Slave owners viewed slaves as subhuman animals.
	Okay, that was from yesterday.
	In October of 2016, here's what she tweeted out.
	Should Donald Trump drop out of the race?
	Yes, he should drop out of the human race.
	He is an animal.
	Apologies to animals.
	Slow clap Anna Navarro.
	I mean, just my goodness.
	Donald Trump's magic powers.
	It's magic.
	It's like the Shia LaBeouf gif.
	It's magic.
	Incredible.
	So John Legend tweeted this out.
	Even human beings who commit heinous acts are the same species as us, not animals.
	I'm in the hospital with our new son.
	Any of these babies here could end up committing terrible crimes in the future.
	It's easy, once they've done so, to distance ourselves from their humanity.
	But it's much more honest and challenging to realize that they were all babies once, and to think about what in society their home life, etc., took for them from baby to violent gang member, and then to think about collective action we could take to mitigate those conditions.
	And we should particularly interrogate the role of American policy in helping to make MS-13 the organization it is now.
	Dehumanizing large groups of people is the demagogue's precursor to visiting violence and pain upon them.
	It makes it easier to destroy their families, and much worse.
	Hey, first of all, I'm happy to deliver violence and pain on MS-13.
	I think most law-abiding people are very happy to deliver violence and pain on the members of MS-13, one of the worst gangs in modern, on planet Earth today.
	Okay, so there's that.
	I also love the idea that he goes from, they're not animals in MS-13.
	Okay, not animals.
	These were all babies once.
	They're not animals.
	They're your fault.
	What now?
	What'd I do?
	It's our fault.
	We created MSN.
	What'd I do to create Mara Salvatrucha?
	What did I do?
	Was that my fault?
	John Legend does not explain, but John Legend's last name is Legend, and this means he knows what he is talking about.
	I do love the fact that, this is my favorite thing, is that he says, you know, when he looks at babies in the incubators over at the hospital, when he looks at the babies who are sleeping, right after, he says, some of those kids could turn out to be gang members, and that's why we should treat gang members with respect.
	How about this?
	How about you rewind all those babies, like, Four hours.
	Like four hours.
	Where were they then?
	When those babies, before those babies were in the nice little plastic things at the hospital and they were all sitting there in cute little rows.
	Where were they before that?
	Like four hours ago?
	Five hours ago?
	That's right, they were in the womb.
	The party that you support thought that those babies were not worth living five hours ago.
	So let me get this right.
	Five minutes before the baby's born, not a baby, and not worth preserving, and not a human, an animal, a ball of cells, a fetus, whatever, that's the Democratic Party platform.
	Five minutes before they are born, completely worthless, now human babies.
	Beautiful, wonderful.
	Fast forward 30 years, MS-13 members, but those MS-13 members were once babies, and so we have to protect the MS-13 members.
	So here's what we have learned from the Democrats this week.
	Hamas, innocent, MS-13, used to be babies, NRA members are terrorists, as Debbie Wasserman Schultz said this week, and babies in the womb?
	Not worth protecting.
	So the separation between the baby in the womb and the baby five hours later is apparently a greater separation than the separation between the baby now and the MS-13 member 30 years later.
	Okay, like, Trump's magic power is very powerful.
	It is very, very powerful.
	Like, to get people to say things this stupid, you have to—that's what it has to be.
	He must have some—he must be like King Saul.
	He must go visit, like, the witches of Endor, and he just goes out there and visits with the witches, and then they tell him what to do.
	I don't know what power Trump has.
	I don't know whether he goes out back and sacrifices goats.
	Whatever it is, he has somehow trolled the left into being completely insane.
	Completely insane, because I don't know how in the world you can get a rational person to say these kinds of things.
	It is absolutely beyond me.
	The ability of Donald Trump to troll, by the way, is so incredibly strong that he even was able to get Democrats to be very, very angry over this little joke video that he put up over Laurel and Yanni.
	I'm sure you saw this whole Laurel and Yanni thing where there's this piece of audio So clearly Laurel.
	It's Laurel.
	Definitely Laurel.
	hear it as Yanni.
	Some people hear it as Laurel.
	Some people hear it as Yanni.
	And it has to do with the pitches that you hear.
	If you hear higher frequencies, then you tend to hear Yanni.
	You hear lower frequencies.
	You tend to hear Laurel.
	I've heard it both ways.
	Okay, so the White House cut this little cute video of various members of the administration who are talking about whether it was Laurel or Yanni.
	So clearly Laurel.
	It's Laurel.
	Definitely Laurel.
	It's Laurel.
	But I could deflect and divert to Yanny if you need me to.
	Sarah, it's been reported that you hear Laurel.
	How do you respond?
	Clearly you're getting your information from CNN because that's fake news.
	All I hear is Yanny.
	Oh man, that's Laurel.
	Laurel.
	It's Laurel, America.
	Definitely hashtag Laurel.
	Yanny.
	Who's Yanny?
	I hear Covfefe.
	Okay, so that's funny stuff.
	Look at the comments underneath this video from President Trump on Twitter, and it's all like, why aren't you going out there and saving babies, President Trump?
	Why do you hate children, President Trump?
	How could you possibly be spending the seven minutes it took to put together this video, President Trump, not focusing on the real issues in the world, like global war?
	Guys, He's made you guys crazy.
	I'm sorry.
	He's made you utterly insane, because you're now defending MS- What are you doing?
	Continue doing it, by all means.
	By all means, if you're a Democrat and you're listening to the sound of my voice, continue being this.
	Continue being these people, because all it's doing is helping Republicans get elected.
	There's a reason Republicans are going to retain the Senate and gain seats in the Senate.
	It's right now about a 50-50 shot Republicans retain the House.
	If you had told me this five months ago, I would have thought you were nuts, given the generic ballot.
	But I guess that If Trump's magic power is put to good use, then this is where you end up.
	Okay, we're gonna do the mailbag in just a second, but for that, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com.
	So subscribe at dailywire.com for $9.99 a month.
	You get the rest of this show live.
	You also get to be part of the mailbag.
	Also, you get to do a... You also get early tickets when we have our events, right?
	We actually got that this week.
	Now the tickets are open to general admission.
	I guess they do in like half an hour for our events in Dallas and Phoenix.
	But if you've been a subscriber, you've been able to get early tickets, which would have been better for you because now it may be sold out.
	So check out our events, by the way.
	Also, if you want an annual subscription, you get all of those wonderful things.
	Plus you get this.
	The leftist here is hot or called Tumblr epic.
	Masterful.
	I mean just engraved with the with the paint of the gods.
	It's it's just it's not even it's not even paint.
	I mean they actually just scratch out etched by blind nuns.
	It's just it's incredible.
	He's left his tears out of her cold mugs.
	Check them out for the annual subscriber fee of 99 bucks cheaper than the monthly subscription.
	Also check out Apple News where we have all of our daily wire material.
	Our traffic has been through the roof and really appreciate everybody checking out our news on Apple News.
	Also, you just want to watch later, listen later, go over to YouTube, go over to iTunes.
	You can check it out for free, leave us a review.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	Okay, so meanwhile, let's go to the mailbag.
	Let's just jump right into the mailbag because there are a lot of good questions.
	All right, so, Carl says, Hey Ben, can you recommend a good book or two, not too lengthy, that serves as a good primer for the history of Israel up until at least the 2006 election in Gaza?
	I feel like my historical knowledge here is lacking.
	Thanks, Carl.
	So the one that I always recommend is there's a great book by a guy named Mitchell Bard called Myths and Facts About Israel, and it's about 400 pages, but it's really user-friendly because it's not, you know, you trying to swallow enormous sums of information at a time.
	Instead, it's broken down by topic.
	So it gives you a myth, and then it gives you a fact about Israel, and it's really, really useful.
	So, sure.
	So, sure.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And I think when I was younger, it certainly clouded my objectivity on issues with regard to this particular issue especially.
	And that's why there are things that I've said about this issue that I regret, obviously.
	I mean, there's a column I wrote in 2002, I believe, when I was 19, 18 years old, about transferring people from From Judea and Samaria on the Gaza Strip and Israel internally, outside of Israel, and then later I came out and I said I thought that column was immoral and wrong and I shouldn't have written it.
	I think that objectivity, look, there's no question that confirmation bias and feelings can cloud your objectivity.
	That said, this works both ways.
	And this week was not evidence of my objectivity being clouded, it was evidence of the media's objectivity being clouded because it is pretty obvious what was going on.
	Hamas was announcing it.
	I was just thinking of Hamas at their word.
	Folks in the media had decided that they were not going to take Hamas at their word.
	As I said yesterday, it was like watching that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the Black Knight is standing there and King Arthur is swiping off his limbs.
	And he's going, merely a flesh wound.
	Well, that was the narrative.
	The media had this narrative.
	There were innocent people on the Gaza-Hamas border.
	It was a bunch of people who had nothing to do with Hamas.
	It was Israel indiscriminately shooting.
	And then Hamas comes out.
	And like King Arthur, they're swiping off parts of the narrative.
	No, it was a bunch of terrorists.
	And we decided to do that on purpose.
	And we hide them behind children.
	And 50 of the 62 people who died were Hamas members, and another three were Islamic Jihad members.
	And the media's like, nope, don't believe you.
	Sorry, don't believe you.
	So, who's more biased here?
	Me for believing Hamas, or the media for ignoring both the Israelis and Hamas, and coming up with their own narrative that makes no sense and has nothing to do with the facts on the ground?
	Okay, Carl says, uh, let's see, I did Carl.
	Stephen says, hey Ben, huge fan, when do you think the Mueller investigation will end?
	Also, it was great seeing your speech at Clemson back in 2016.
	Well, thank you for coming to the speech at Clemson.
	That was really fun.
	As far as when the Mueller investigation is going to end, who the hell knows?
	I mean, these investigations go on for years at a time.
	The Whitewater investigation, which eventually ended with the Lewinsky stuff, believe it or not.
	The Whitewater investigation was six years long.
	It started in 1994, went all the way to 2000, I believe.
	The Watergate investigation was two and a half years long.
	So this thing could go on for quite a while.
	My guess is they're going to try and wrap it up by the end of this year.
	But again, I don't have any specialized information to give you there.
	Andrew says, I'm a student at SUNY Purchase, which is rated...
	I appreciate it.
	one liberal school in New York state.
	Last semester, I started up a young Republicans club, which hasn't been very popular on campus.
	Shocker.
	The school is very opposed to having conservative speakers.
	The dean of education even called conservatives heartless, which means that he is brainless.
	So how should I go about trying to get speakers at my school?
	Love you.
	I think you're inspirational.
	Well, thanks, Sandra.
	I appreciate it.
	The way you should get speakers at your school is to ignore what the administration says, to put in an application the same way as everybody else.
	And then if they reject it on the grounds of ideological bias, then you come to, yeah, Young Americans, It depends on your audience.
	who I work with for our campus lectures, you go to the Alliance Defending Freedom and you have them sue the school.
	I mean, really, if they are rejecting people on the basis of the perspective they're purporting to offer, that is a violation of First Amendment freedoms.
	You go to a public school, that's illegal.
	Adam says, hey, Ben, I appreciate what you do for America.
	I love to debate.
	It's one of my favorite pastimes.
	Do you see any value in debating politics and social issues on social media or is it just a waste of time?
	It depends.
	Here's my view on debating.
	It depends on your audience.
	So there are people who you're talking with and you're having a normal discussion, Normal conversation.
	And it's not really a debate.
	It's more of just a conversation.
	Sometimes that's useful.
	Sometimes you learn something from them, they learn something from you, you have a good interchange of ideas.
	Sometimes you're doing it in front of an audience.
	And in that case it depends on what you want the audience to learn.
	So Sam Harris and I had a really nice kind of discussion slash debate on religion and free will and all this sort of stuff on his show.
	He was kind enough to have me on his show.
	We're going to have him on the Sunday special as well.
	We did it up in San Francisco.
	It was really cordial.
	It was really nice because that's how Sam is when he's dealing with people who disagree.
	He's cordial and he's nice.
	Now, you'll see in the Thug Life videos, there are times when people are not quite so cordial and not quite so nice.
	And then my obligation in debate is to destroy them in front of as many people as possible, really to destroy their arguments in front of as many human beings as possible, and to do so in as brutal a fashion as is necessary.
	So you have to kind of gauge what the purpose of a given conversation is in debate.
	Crystal says, Ben, do you ever wear yarmulkes in other colors besides black?
	Are there holidays that call for specific colors?
	So there's nothing religiously.
	that says you have to wear a yarmulke that is black or not black.
	There are gradations, actually.
	It's really interesting.
	Just like in every aspect of human life, once you get into the nitty-gritty of any particular custom, it turns out there are all sorts of gradations to the custom.
	So at my wedding, I wore a white kippah, actually.
	It may have been the last time I wore a white kippah.
	There's been discussion in the office as to whether I should wear a yarmulke of a different color.
	It would be like a horse of a different color from Wizard of Oz.
	We just change randomly.
	But there are gradations in the type of kippah you wear.
	So I wear a knit kippah.
	I wear one that is knitted out of, I assume that it's wool or something.
	And there are also velvet kippahs.
	Believe it or not, in the Orthodox community, you can tell somebody's philosophy by the kind of kippah they wear.
	So if you're a velvet kippah, this tends to mean that you are more black hat.
	And being black hat, wearing a black hat, another physical indicator, is an indicator that you are less ensconced with sort of the modern world and more ensconced with a more strict interpretation of Torah.
	I think that would be fair to say.
	Black hat is considered sort of more Orthodox.
	I'm modern Orthodox.
	I go to a black hat minion, which means I interact with people who are black hat all the time.
	People divide themselves in a bunch of ways depending on the kind of kippah that they wear.
	In Israel, if you're kippah sruga, right, which is a knitted kippah, that means that you probably served in the military and you're in favor of people serving in the military.
	If you are a velvet kippah, then the chances are that you're probably less in favor of people serving in the military, although even there, there are some soft boundaries.
	So I know you didn't want that level of specificity.
	You got it anyway.
	Jordan says, Well, Jordan, I'm glad that you bought a ticket.
	I look forward to seeing you there, too, as well.
	And everybody should buy a ticket.
	It's going to be a blast.
	My opinion on the Supreme Court decision is that states, of course, should be able to decide whatever they want on sports betting.
	I don't know what the hell the federal government has to do with sports betting.
	I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with sports betting.
	I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with sports.
	I don't think the federal government should have anything to do with nearly anything.
	So I'm wondering where in the Constitution it says that, where in Article 1 of the Constitution it says the legislature gets to determine the levels of betting federally within states.
	It makes no sense at all.
	So that is the correct decision, indeed.
	And as far as the argument that is then made, well then, did Pete Rose do something wrong?
	Yes, he did.
	He was a coach at the time.
	It's not the same thing.
	OK, if I bet on sports, it's not the same thing as if I'm playing in the game and betting on myself or betting on somebody else.
	Well, the big pro, the big con right now is that Puerto Rico has significant levels of debt that would have to be apparently assumed by the federal government if Puerto Rico were to be made into a state.
	I'm not averse to making Puerto Rico a state.
	I think there's been a lot of discussion and Marco Rubio, I think, is in favor of making Puerto Rico a state.
	It's always sort of a political football because there are a lot of people who think that if you make Puerto Rico a state and people can suddenly, their votes count in presidential elections, that this changes the nature of politics in the United States.
	I don't see a huge obstacle to making Puerto Rico A state other than the problem of they've been running not as a state for a very long time, which means they've run up a significant amount of debt and they've been pretty poorly governed.
	Joseph says, Hey Ben, our son just made the cutoff to enter kindergarten next year.
	My wife is dead set on holding him back.
	She's fearful we'll be putting him at a disadvantage down the line due to this being the trend in New Jersey.
	Assuming he's ready, do you think it could be more damaging to send him as the youngest kid in the grade or to hold him back, which could lead him not having to work as hard down the line?
	Thanks and love the show, Joe.
	So Joe, you know, I have a sort of weird story on this.
	So when I was a kid, I was the oldest kid in my class.
	My parents sort of held me back.
	I was born in January.
	My birthday is January 15th.
	Send me flowers.
	So my birthday was January.
	That meant that I was the oldest kid in my class when I started.
	I skipped third.
	I skipped ninth.
	So I skipped a couple of grades.
	So by the time I was done, I was definitely the youngest kid in my class by a fair bit.
	I think that people seek their own level.
	I don't think that whether you enter fifth grade as a very old five-year-old or enter fifth grade as a very young five-year-old is going to make any significant difference in the realm of life.
	And if your son's a high achiever, his aging can make the difference.
	So I don't think it makes a huge difference.
	I would tend toward the idea of putting your kid in school early if it means they're more challenged.
	I think challenging kids is good.
	And I think that a lot of the fears about, oh, they're gonna be the youngest kid in the class and be bullied.
	At five, that's not really a concern.
	At ten, that's a concern.
	Ten-year-old kids are just...
	I have no answer to this.
	Listen to the show.
	That's literally my answer.
	seven, eight, nine, basically between the time they are seven and the time they are 17, kids are just very, very difficult human beings.
	But when they're five, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference.
	Nicholas says, what do you think are the most important issues that the United States faces in both foreign and domestic policy?
	I have no answer to this.
	Listen to the show.
	I mean, that's like, that's literally my answer.
	Like that is the broadest question I have ever heard in my entire life.
	So no answer.
	I could Gerald says, Hey, Ben, why didn't previous presidents keep their promise and move the U.S.
	embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?
	So the reason they didn't move the U.S.
	embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is they were ensconced in a foreign policy establishment that lied to them and that told them that if they did so, it would create a conflict, ration in the Middle East.
	Massive wars would break out.
	Everyone was going to die.
	OK, that wasn't true.
	The basis for that was that there was an intifada, meaning an uprising, a violent terrorist uprising in 2001, when Ariel Sharon, who was almost prime minister of Israel, who was elected very shortly thereafter, went up on the Temple Mount, essentially 2000, went up on the Temple Mount, and there was a riot that turned into a quasi-war in the Middle East.
	And so the idea was if we moved the embassy, then we'd be creating all sorts of chaos.
	To be fair to those other presidents, the situation on the ground is not quite the same as the situation is now.
	Thanks to President Obama making nice with Iran, that has pushed all of these other countries into a position where they have to ally with Israel in order to counter Iran.
	So is it possible that if the embassy had been moved 20 years ago, there would have been actual activity on the Arab street?
	Sure.
	Is it also possible that nothing would have happened?
	Sure.
	But bottom line is, I think it should have been done for moral reasons regardless, because failing to recognize truth, I think, is generally a large mistake.
	Noah says, Hey Ben, I'm a huge fan of yours.
	I may disagree with you on some things, but I appreciate how intellectually honest your approach is.
	I also take your opinion on family values to heart.
	With that being said, that has been troubling me.
	Being troubling me, I'd love to hear your thoughts on.
	I used to be an atheist.
	Now I'm more of an agnostic deist, but my values fall strongly in line with Jewish Christian teachings.
	This makes dating difficult since most people who are non-Christian tend to have liberal values.
	So naturally I am interested in dating a Christian, but few Christians want to be unevenly yoked with a non-Christian.
	Well, first of all, I think there are a lot of people who are like you, Noah.
	in reference to why interfaith relationships don't typically work, but how would you work that for someone like me?
	I really do wanna have a family one day, but don't realistically ever see myself becoming a Christian.
	Do you have any advice?
	Well, first of all, I think there are a lot of people who are like you.
	I think there are a fair number of people who, listen to me, listen to Jordan Peterson, listen to people who believe in the value of the Judeo-Christian heritage, but aren't necessarily totally on board with the miraculous events surrounding Jesus or the miraculous events surrounding Sinai, for example.
	That said, I think the big question when it comes to your religious beliefs is how are you going to raise your kids?
	How are you going to raise your kids?
	It is very difficult to raise your kids outside of a religious system.
	Religious systems work.
	They allow your kid to believe in something that is more important and something higher, and allow your child to identify a narrative that makes that story true.
	This is why, if you were dating a Christian and you said, I have my personal struggles with believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, for example.
	But, when it comes to our children, I want our kids to learn about the divinity of Jesus Christ because I believe that that divinity is important to understanding the development of the Western world and a set of Judeo-Christian values.
	And then, when they become an adult, they can make a decision about what they actually want to believe.
	I think there are a lot of Christians who might be interested in talking about that.
	You never know.
	You may start going to church and you may start to believe in the miraculous.
	You may start to believe that it is possible that God actually, whether it's Sinai or whether through Jesus, brought a certain system of morality to the world through interaction with the world.
	You never know how your beliefs are going to change.
	But being honest and open about the person you're dating, about where you stand, I think is key number one.
	Key number two is recognizing how you're going to raise your kids.
	Because when I say the values matter, it doesn't just matter between you and your wife.
	It matters between how you and your wife are going to deal with your child.
	And bottom line is, If you're trying to date people who are not comfortable with you, it's not going to be a comfortable dating or marriage experience anyway.
	But I do think that there are people out there who believe what you believe and are going to respect that perspective.
	OK, so should we do things I like and things I hate?
	I think that we don't even have any things I like or things I hate today.
	You know what?
	Everything's fine.
	Everything's OK.
	We're just going to go into the weekend, enjoy ourselves.
	We will be back here on Monday.
	We'll have all the latest for you then.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and 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 Ford Publishing production.

▲