All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
50:27
The FBI's Big Booboo | Ep. 560
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump celebrates his birthday with historically good economy.
We talk over President Trump's comments about Kim Jong-un.
Plus, the Department of Justice Inspector General report on James Comey is breaking, and we'll talk about it.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Okay, really busy news day today.
I mean, a lot of news breaking, like, right now, and we'll go through all of it in just a second.
But first, I want to talk to you a little bit about the fact that you need some money, right?
Look, I know that you probably have something that you want to do, some work around the house, you gotta pay off some credit card bills, and you need some sort of short-term loan.
You need some sort of swing loan.
That is going to make you able to get through the next couple weeks or pay for that project that you've been putting off.
Well, that's what LendingClub is for.
With LendingClub, you can consolidate your debt, pay off your credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
Since 2007, LendingClub has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans.
You don't have to go to a bank and there's no high-interest credit cards.
You just go to LendingClub.com and you tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
Pick the terms that are right for you, and if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
They're the number one peer-to-peer lending platform, over $35 billion in loans issued.
All you have to do to check them out is go over to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
You can actually check your rate in minutes and borrow up to $40,000.
And again, these are going to be lower rates than getting a high-interest credit card for sure.
LendingClub.com slash Ben.
That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
Again, all loans made by WebBank member FDIC.
Equal housing lender.
Check it out.
Lendingclub.com slash Ben to see if you're qualified for a loan that is quick and easy and available to you.
Lendingclub.com slash Ben.
Go check it out for loans up to $40,000.
Alrighty.
So, let's talk a little bit about the fact that President— Okay, so it's President Trump's birthday.
Today's President Trump's birthday.
And President Trump is 72 years old today, which is pretty amazing.
I mean, the guy is the oldest president ever elected, and he is fit as a fiddle and ready for love.
I mean, President Trump is obviously an energetic dude, and he's celebrating a good birthday.
I mean, let's be real about this.
The President of the United States is having himself an upswing in the polls, and there are a lot of elements where the President looks really good.
So, this is a great story for him today.
The Federal Reserve just raised its outlook on U.S.
economic growth on Wednesday.
The median real GDP forecast rose to 2.8%, up from 2.7% for this year.
There are no changes for 2019 and 2020.
Economic activity has been rising at a solid rate, according to the Fed statement, marking an upgrade from moderate in the previous statement.
Also, there is a report out today, put out by Jim Pethokoukis, all about how there are banks that were now revising the growth estimates for the last quarter, up dramatically, all the way up to 4% from 2.8%.
So what we are seeing here is a booming economy.
This is the quote from JP Morgan, actually.
On the heels of this data, we now estimate real GDP is expanding at a 4.0 annual rate in Q2, up from our prior estimate of 2.75, almost twice the 2.2% growth rate experienced in Q1.
I'm old enough to remember when it was considered crazy when President Trump suggested that he was going to get the annual growth rate up to four or five percent of GDP.
And now it's happening, right?
Now it appears to be happening.
So that is great news for the President of the United States.
Obviously, the North Korean summit is also very good news for the President of the United States, at least in terms of public relations.
The public is very happy that President Trump did this.
They think that maybe, just maybe, this will open us up to a new world.
We'll talk a little bit about that in a bit.
What it is that is being opened up here, whether in fact President Trump has opened negotiations that will lead to Denuclearization of the North Korean peninsula, or whether what we are really talking about is another sort of plan that President Trump has in mind.
I want to talk about that in a little while.
Plus, in sort of hilarious news, you recall that President Obama spent an inordinate amount of time attempting to bring the World Cup to the United States.
He cut a video in 2009.
He talked with Sepp Blatter, who was the head at that point of FIFA, the World Cup, about bringing the World Cup to the United States in, I believe it was 2022.
Well, now it turns out that the administration that got it done is actually the Trump administration.
Now, the Trump administration was involved in sort of covert ways, right, in quiet ways, but they put together what's called the United Bid.
The United Bid was a bid for the World Cup between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
And that group is going to host some 80 World Cup games.
The vote passed, so they are going to host the World Cup.
60 of those games will be held in the United States, 60 of those matches.
Now, I am not a soccer fan, so I really don't care all that much, but It is a thumb in the eye to the Obama administration that spent years trying to woo the World Cup to the United States and then President Trump gets it done in the first year and a half.
So that's pretty hilarious and you have to enjoy that.
So President Trump is having himself a good birthday.
Adding to that good birthday is the fact that the Department of Justice Inspector General report just released a report blasting James Comey for violating FBI protocol during the Hillary Clinton investigation.
This is a report that's going to be interpreted a couple of different ways.
It's going to be interpreted in the worst possible light for the FBI by Republicans and the best possible light for the FBI by Democrats.
Here's what the report actually says.
So on Thursday, Bloomberg News got the early scoop on the DOJ Inspector General's report on the actions of the FBI During the 2016 election cycle with regard to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's misuse of her email server.
So according to Bloomberg, the report's conclusion from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, you remember this guy is the same one who recommended the prosecution of former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe for leaking information in an authorized fashion to the press.
So he has a pretty good track record of calling things out when he sees them.
He says that James Comey and the FBI violated protocol, but did not do so for reasons of political bias.
And this is where the Republicans are going to be spitting mad.
What they are going to say is that, of course, James Comey operated by breaking protocol in terms of political bias.
And the left is going to say the same thing, by the way.
They're going to say that the FBI violated protocol in order to make Hillary lose the election.
Everybody's going to attribute to James Comey and the FBI political bias.
I think there is political bias, but not quite in the way that people think the political bias works.
So people think political bias means that Comey liked Hillary or Comey liked Trump.
I don't think that's the political bias at work here.
I think the political bias at work is that James Comey wanted to exonerate Hillary Clinton knowing that that's what the DOJ wanted him to do.
And at the same time, he didn't want the FBI slandered with the idea that the FBI had been ordered by the DOJ to clear.
I don't think you have to make up another explanation for why it is that James Comey violated protocol.
didn't want the DOJ to look corrupt.
Instead, he took it on his own shoulders.
I think that Comey's own explanation of these events is damning enough.
I don't think you have to make up another explanation for why it is that James Comey violated protocol.
Here's what the DOJ report concludes, the IG report concludes, quote, while we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey's part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI, and the Department as fair administrators of justice.
So here is what Michael Horowitz claims.
He says that James Comey had troublingly failed to inform the Department of Justice in advance about his July 5th statement condemning Clinton for carelessness but absolving her of criminal activity.
So in other words, James Comey had been told by Loretta Lynch that she would basically accept his recommendation instead of him going to Loretta Lynch with his recommendation quietly and then Loretta Lynch announcing everything.
He went out there and he did his famous July 5th press conference where he basically announced that Hillary was guilty but he wasn't going to recommend prosecution for her anyway because she didn't have requisite intent even though the law itself does not need intent.
The law is written along lines of negligence, it is not written along lines of Hillary Clinton must have wanted to expose classified information to foreign sources.
But James Comey added that element of the law, and then he said later that we wouldn't prosecute anybody under these same circumstances, which is sort of a dicey proposition.
Michael Horowitz says that the big problem here is not the actual statement that Comey made, it's that James Comey did not coordinate with Loretta Lynch on all of this.
That's a little bit weak.
Then Horowitz said that Comey's failure to coordinate with the DOJ involved a, quote, troubling lack of any direct substantive communication with Lynch.
Horowitz added that Comey also should have coordinated with Loretta Lynch before sending his October 28, 2016 letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the Hillary email investigation based on the discoveries on Anthony Weiner's computer.
Here's what Horowitz writes, quote, We found it extraordinary that in advance of two such consequential decisions, the FBI director decided that the best course of conduct was to not speak directly and substantively with the attorney general about how best to navigate those decisions.
Now, Comey will say, the reason I didn't talk to Loretta Lynch is because I thought Loretta Lynch might be corrupt.
She'd met on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.
The right will say the reason that Comey didn't coordinate with Loretta Lynch on all this is because he didn't want to look corrupt, but he actually was corrupt.
He knew what Loretta Lynch wanted, and he gave it to her.
So both sides are going to read this report the way they want to read this report.
Horowitz also investigated anti-Trump text messages between the FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Remember, there were all these anti-Trump text messages during the campaign about how much they disliked Trump.
And Horowitz found there was, quote, no documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed.
Now, it's worth noting, that is pretty weak legal language there, right?
That's a little bit of lawyer fudging right there.
When he says that there's no evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, quote, directly affected the specific investigative actions, how about indirectly affected the specific investigative actions?
What if it's not that they decided they were going to get Trump overtly, but they decided they were going to be a little harder on President Trump, or a little bit easier on Hillary Clinton because they didn't like President Trump?
That's a little bit of wiggle room in the language.
Horwitz said the conduct by these employees did cast a doubt over the entire FBI investigation.
So as I say, it's easy to look at this report and see how Republicans come to the conclusion that Comey acted politically, how Democrats come to the conclusion that Comey acted politically, because after all, Comey did more damage to Hillary Clinton than he did to Donald Trump during the campaign itself.
Comey did tremendous damage to Donald Trump after the campaign, once Trump was president, but Comey's real damaging impact during the campaign itself was actually anti-Hillary.
It was the reopening of the investigation in late October that damaged Hillary Clinton, you know, right about the time that she needed to surge in the polls and instead she faded in the polls so dramatically that she ends up losing the election.
So Democrats are going to claim that the report is biased.
Republicans are already claiming that the report is biased.
There are a bunch of Republican Congress people who have put out a letter to the inspector general of the DOJ asking for drafts of the report.
They want to make sure that it was not watered down.
So here is what Andy Biggs, Ron DeSantis, and Matt Goetz write.
They say, we are concerned that during this time people may have changed the report in a way that obfuscates your findings.
Per Congress's oversight authority, we request you supply your original drafts along with the final published form.
Unfortunately, over the past year, the DOJ has repeatedly fought requests by Congress to produce documents related to this investigation, and when the DOJ actually provided documents, the materials have been heavily redacted.
Past and present DOJ officials have asserted security concerns, even though the documents we have seen do not legitimately contain these issues.
We have every confidence your investigation and report has been thorough and accurate.
We request the various drafts." So they want the draft of the report.
They think that Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein over at the DOJ had some sort of impact on Michael Horowitz's final report in this Inspector General report, and I don't blame them for being suspicious.
After all, Sessions and Rosenstein have not been forthcoming with documents that have been subpoenaed by Congress.
At the same time, I don't really blame the DOJ for being suspicious of Republican Congress people who've been leaking as much as they can to the press at the first available opportunity and sometimes taking things out of context.
This is why I've been saying for a long time, President Trump should just declassify everything he can possibly declassify.
The President of the United States does have the executive authority to declassify as many materials as he wishes.
They are in the executive branch.
I want to see all of them.
I want to get to the bottom of this.
I think everyone else does too, and I think that these second-hand reports are not nearly as useful as our ability to peruse the documentation ourselves.
Okay, so in just a second I want to talk about another piece of breaking news that is not as good for President Trump.
So this IG report is pretty decent for President Trump.
It says Comey mis-acted badly.
That's going to be enough for President Trump to go after him.
There's a piece of bad news for President Trump I want to talk about in just a second.
I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Dynatrap.
So summertime is officially upon us, and the only thing more annoying than Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the mainstream media are flies and mosquitoes and other insects invading your home.
As it gets hotter, these insects want to come inside where it is cooler, and that is why you need Dynatrap.
Dynatrap is the leading manufacturer of outdoor mosquito and insect traps, and now they've just created the indoor Dynatrap fly light.
The fly light looks like a subtle nightlight.
It plugs into any indoor outlet.
And the Dinotrap Flylight works day and night to attract and trap flies, mosquitoes, and other pesky insects, and it definitely, definitely works.
We were getting sort of all the bugs coming in during the summer, and I have a couple of Dinotraps.
I put them around my house, the palatial Shapiro estate, and it really took care of the bug problem right quick.
I've been using that Dinotrap Flylight for a couple of days now, and it is pretty insane how many flies are actually in your house that you have not really thought about, but you will find them now, now that you have the Dinotrap.
There's nothing more embarrassing and gross-looking than you have people over for dinner and there's a bunch of flies buzzing around, so instead, get Dynatrap.
Go to d-y-n-a-t-r-a-p.com, dynatrap.com, and enter promo code DAILYWIRE and receive 15% off any of their products.
Again, that's dynatrap.com, d-y-n-a-t-r-a-p.com, and enter that promo code DAILYWIRE and you receive 15% off any of their products.
Dynatrap is the safe, silent, simple solution to household insect control.
Go check it out today.
Okay, so.
Meanwhile, in a piece of not-so-great news for President Trump on his birthday, the New York Attorney General, who is wildly anti-Trump, wildly anti-Republican, right?
The New York Attorney General is so anti-Trump and anti-Republican that after Dinesh D'Souza was given a pardon, you recall the New York Attorney General's office stumped for an end to quote-unquote, double jeopardy rules.
That allowed Dinesh D'Souza to escape.
Okay, the whole point of a double jeopardy rule is that once you've been pardoned, you've been pardoned, or if you're acquitted, you're acquitted.
We don't get to try you twice for the same crime.
The New York Attorney General's office said, we should create state laws that allow us to try you twice for the same crime, which is idiotic.
So, it's a very, very biased New York Attorney General's office.
However, they did unveil a lawsuit against the Trump Foundation.
They are now calling for the Trump Foundation to be forcibly shut down.
The lawsuit was also launched against President Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump.
Their accusation is that the Trump campaign used the Trump Foundation itself as a goodie bag for various political purposes.
So according to the New York Attorney General, their investigation found that the Trump Foundation raised in excess of $2.8 million in a manner designed to influence the 2016 presidential election at the direction and under the control of senior leadership of the Trump presidential campaign.
They say that in violation of state and federal law, senior Trump campaign staff, including campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, dictated the timing, amounts, and recipients of grants by the foundation to non-profits.
And then they include, for example, an email from Corey Lewandowski to the head of the Trump Foundation saying, Alan, is there any way that we can make some disbursements this week while we are in Iowa, specifically on Saturday?
Meaning it's in the middle of the campaign.
Can we make some foundation charitable contributions in Iowa?
Because we're in the middle of the campaign, right?
That's pretty damning stuff, and that is not useful to the Trump Foundation's claims of objectivity and separation.
Now, do I think that these charges are being wildly over-publicized?
Yes.
Do I think that these charges are also somewhat selective?
In the way that charities run, yes.
And I'll explain that in just a couple of moments, but the New York Attorney General's office continues.
The Trump Foundation also entered into at least five self-dealing transactions that were unlawful because they benefited Mr. Trump or businesses that he controls.
They say these include a $100,000 payment to settle legal claims against Mr. Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, $158,000 to settle legal claims against Trump National Golf Club, and $10,000 to purchase a painting of Mr. Trump displayed at the Trump National Doral.
All these are taken a little out of context.
I'm going to explain them in a second.
Now, does this seem overly harsh?
It does.
Now, does this seem overly harsh?
It does.
I'm going to explain why right now.
So, the investigation into the Trump Foundation was launched in the middle of the campaign in June 2016.
What caused this investigation to be launched?
Well, in January, President Trump decided that he was going to skip a Fox News Channel presidential debate.
You remember this.
Megyn Kelly did a debate, and he didn't like the questions that he was being asked during that debate, and so President Trump decided to skip that debate.
Instead, he counter-programmed the debate with a charity fundraiser for veterans.
Right, and the AG's office claims that this event was not designed to raise money for charity, but to benefit Trump politically.
They say it was, quote, a Trump campaign event in which the foundation participated.
The event was planned by the campaign, allegedly with administrative assistance from the foundation.
The real problem began when the foundation ceded control over the charitable funds it raised to senior Trump campaign staff, who dictated the manner in which the foundation would disperse those proceeds, directed the timing, amounts, and recipients of the grants.
Trump used checks from photo ops with his presidential campaign slogan on the checks, for example.
You can actually see there.
pictures of President Trump holding these giant blow-up checks, $100,000 to a veterans group, and on the bottom it says, Trump, make America great again.
So it's a foundation being used for political purposes by the Trump campaign.
Now, a lot of people on the right are immediately going to flash back to the Clinton Foundation, and the idea of the Clinton Foundation was basically a pass-through for the Clintons, that if you gave Hillary Clinton's foundation a bunch of money, suddenly you got a meeting with the State Department.
Or if you were warm with the Clinton Foundation, suddenly the State Department, Hillary Clinton, they were pretty warm toward allowing the State Department to make deals with your particular company in a foreign country.
Or they started pushing particular policy.
And you'd be right to be concerned about this.
And you'd be right to wonder, did the New York Attorney General's Office ever do a similar investigation of the Clinton Foundation?
And the answer is probably not.
Now, this is not whataboutism, because if the Trump Foundation violated the law, which it appears they have in some ways, then they will be punished and they will be fined.
But it is also important to note that political bias in the New York AG's office has been rife for years.
Whether it's Eliot Spitzer, or there is Eric Schneiderman, or whether it is the current New York Attorney General, this is an office that has been used for vindictive political purposes by a bunch of Democrats for a very, very long time, and I find it highly suspicious that they say the Trump Foundation was Acting badly for 25 years, for 30 years, and yet only during the campaign did they see fit to launch an investigation into the Trump Foundation.
You want to talk about a ginned up investigation?
That looks like it.
Now, again, does that mean that the Trump Foundation didn't act illegally?
No, it looks like the Trump Foundation did act illegally.
So, for example, Donald Trump personally directed foundation funds to be used to settle a lawsuit related to Mar-a-Lago.
So, Mar-a-Lago was sued in 2006.
Uh, for some sort of zoning violation, and they were ordered to give $100,000 to charity, and Trump, instead of signing out of his pocket $100,000 to charity, told his foundation to give $100,000 to a different charity.
Now, you know, is that really all that corrupts, considering that Trump supposedly gives a fair bit of money to his own foundation?
Well, I mean, again, if he gives money to his foundation, and then he tells his foundation to give money to another foundation, In the end, a charity is receiving the money, right?
The same thing is true in Iowa, right?
In Iowa, there's a lot of complaints about he was doing this for political purposes, which is probably correct.
Did the veterans receive the money or did they not receive the money?
I mean, they apparently received the money.
There were complaints for a long time they were not going to receive the money.
Now, again, it is also worth noting here that prosecutions of charities tend to be very selective.
So I've worked with a number of 501c3s.
Violation of the law on 501c3s is rife.
Okay, it is rife.
501c3s are loosely handled.
They are generally handled with not the proper amount of care.
Major board organizations, you know, organizations that have $100 million in the bank, $200 million in the bank, these are run really in accordance with the law because they can't afford an audit.
But a lot of smaller organizations, like the Trump Foundation, run sort of haphazardly.
And conveniently, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the haphazard and convenience of it, and they just use it how they want to use it, and then there's a violation of the law.
Does this mean that Trump is deeply corrupt?
Something horrible happened here?
All of the payments that were made from the Trump Foundation were made to other charities on behalf of Donald Trump and the Trump Foundation.
So, do I think this is the end of the world for President Trump?
I don't.
Is it a prosecution that has some legs?
Yeah, it probably does.
I mean, it'll probably stand up in court.
It is just worthwhile noting that the New York AG's office They seem rather pumped up about this investigation as opposed to other investigations of charities that they have done before.
Again, if these same allegations were made about the Clinton Foundation, I assume people on the right would be fully up in arms, but I also think that, you know, it is worth looking at the extent of the violations here, and the extent of the violations here does not appear to me to be supremely grave.
You're talking about ten, a hundred thousand dollars here and there, and again, money given from one charity to another charity, yes, for Trump's personal benefit, but Unfortunately, I know too much about charities to be particularly perturbed about this set of charges.
Okay, meanwhile, President Trump continues to push forward on the North Korean summit and the after effects of that.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
But first, I want to talk about your target practice.
Okay, so the fact is you probably don't go to the range often enough.
Okay, 42% of American households have a firearm, with 3 in 5 receiving formal firearms training, but an even smaller percentage regularly practice with the weapon they would use in a self-defense situation.
Like, my wife and I, we don't go to the range all that much, right?
We own a 9mm and we own a shotgun, and we don't go to the range all that much because we have two kids who has time to go to the range.
Well, that means that if you're not practicing, you're probably getting to be a worse shot, right?
You're not keeping up with the times, and that is why iTarget exists.
Also, ammo's expensive.
I mean, when you go to a range, it gets really expensive.
Well, so there's something called the iTarget Pro.
The iTarget Pro is the coolest, most fun thing.
So here is what it is.
They use your actual gun, so you can become proficient with the firearm you are actually going to use in real life.
You use your smartphone, and the proprietary app uses a laser in place of the bullet, and will detect exactly where your shots are landing.
The way that it works is you have something that looks like a bullet, it actually has a laser inside.
You load it into the chamber of the gun, so that it is firing directly down the line of where you are firing.
And then you're essentially firing at a screen.
Your phone can pick it up and evaluate exactly how you're doing in terms of your shooting.
So you can practice home defense, you can test different angles, you can maximize your tactical advantage in your own home, and you can do it with your personal firearms.
So you get more and more familiar with a firearm that, God forbid, in an emergency situation you might have to use.
Right now, you can save 10% with the offer code SHAPIRO when you purchase the iTarget Pro System.
I'm using it, I'm gonna get my wife to use it as well.
Uh, and it is supremely easy to set up.
I mean, very easy to set up and very easy to use.
You can save money, time, take your skill to the next level safely and effectively.
There are folks in our office who are legitimate, like, target shooting champions, and they use iTargetPro at home.
That is the letter iTargetPro.com Use promo code SHAPIRO and save 10% with the offer code SHAPIRO when you purchase the iTarget Pro System.
It's a lot of fun, it's really cool, it'll make your shooting better, and it is safe.
I mean, you're not firing anything, so it's absolutely safe.
Alrighty.
So, meanwhile, President Trump continues to forge ahead with this North Korean summit fallout.
And I want to talk a little bit about what President Trump's goals are with regard to North Korea.
So there's been a lot of talk about denuclearization.
Is that really Trump's goal?
Is that really something that is going to happen here?
I do not think that this is Trump's goal.
I do not think that denuclearization is something that's actually going to happen because I think if you're Kim Jong-un you'd have to be a moron to give up your nukes.
Your nukes are what brought you to the table.
Your nukes are what made everybody pay attention to you.
Your nuclear program over the past 30 years has allowed you to be bribed by the West over and over and over.
What this really is, if we were really going to be honest about this, what this really is is Trump attempting to do what Nixon did when Nixon went to China.
Opening up China, liberalizing China, turning China from a one-party dictatorship that was repressive in extraordinary amounts against its people and militaristic as well, into a still militaristic, still repressive regime, but less than it was.
I think that's the idea here.
Turning North Korea into Vietnam, right?
Turning a threatening communist country into a slightly less threatening communist country.
If that were the actual goal here, the stated goal here, then you'd sort of understand what Trump is doing a little bit better than the claims that North Korea has become a non-threat or that they are going to denuclearize.
I don't think any of that is going to happen.
It is also worth stating that President Trump's tactics here are something new.
Now, we're not going to know whether the tactics are good or bad until we have the effect of the tactic.
We're not going to know whether or not this is effective until we find out what exactly Kim Jong-un is willing to give up.
But the president is taking a very high-risk tactic here and his high-risk tactic is that he's going to flatter Kim Jong-un into liking him.
He's going to flatter Kim Jong-un into believing he can be part of the family of nations.
I'm not a big believer in this tactic.
I wasn't a big believer in this tactic when President Trump did it with Iran.
I mean, when President Obama did it with Iran, when he said, these are the moderates.
The mullahs, we're going to put them aside.
The moderates in Iran will be elevated by involvement in the world economy, globalization.
The hilarity of this sort of position, actually, is that President Trump's position, he's very anti-globalist, but he's essentially saying globalization and integration into the world economy is going to make North Korea more moderate.
And hey, sure, I guess worth a shot.
We've been trying this for several decades and it's not actually working, so maybe something different is called for and new.
With that said, there is another question, and that is, how far does Trump have to go in order to try to integrate Kim Jong-un into the world economy?
Does he actually have to praise him to the skies the way that he has been doing?
Because some of the stuff that President Trump has been saying I mean, there's no other way to put it.
It's immoral.
So President Trump was asked by Bret Baier about the North Korean dictator, and here's what President Trump had to say about Kim Jong-un.
You were asked in the press conference a number of different times, in different ways, about human rights.
And, you know, that you called this relationship really good and that he was a very talented person.
You know, you call people sometimes killers.
He is a killer.
He's clearly executing people.
He's a tough guy.
Hey, when you take over a country, a tough country, with tough people, And you take it over from your father, I don't care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have, if you can do that at 27 years old, I mean that's 1 in 10,000 that could do that.
So he's a very smart guy, he's a great negotiator, but I think we understand each other.
Nobody.
I mean, he's still done some really bad things.
Yeah, but so have a lot of other people done some really bad things.
I mean, I could go through a lot of nations where a lot of bad things were done.
Now look, with all of that being said, the answer is yes.
Okay, so he says, yes, he's done some really bad things, but a lot of other nations are doing really bad things.
And then he says that, you know, only 1 in 10,000 people could have taken over a country at 27.
Not true.
There are plenty of dictators who have handed over to their sons.
But in any case, the question is, why would President Trump do this?
Because let's look at the reality of North Korea.
North Korea isn't just any other place.
Okay, North Korea is the worst place to live, maybe on planet Earth.
Okay, here is some testimony of a North Korean survivor who escaped.
Okay, here's what it's like to be in North Korea.
Every night someone tries to escape, or someone doesn't obey their orders, somebody who's in the gulags.
For that, they strip you naked and start the beating.
They beat you all night long.
Every night when the lights go out, it's time to sleep.
But from every room there are sounds.
But from every room there are sounds?
Sounds of beatings.
I mean, North Korea is an awful, awful, awful place.
And the president doesn't have to make light of that in order to get Kim Jong-un to the table.
It's not necessary.
Now, does that mean that President Trump doesn't actually recognize the evils of Kim Jong-un?
I don't think so.
I mean, I think that President Trump just has a sneaking—I think President Trump operates in one of two modes.
Either he hates you or he loves you.
I don't think there's a lot of in-between with President Trump as a human being.
I think that President Trump either hates you and then he gives you a nickname on Twitter, or he loves you, in which case, you are the greatest person who ever was.
So, he has the best relationships, right?
When he was at the G7, like, three days ago, when he evaluated his relationships with the other people at the G7, on a scale of 1 to 10, it was a 10.
But there is no 5 in President Trump's scale, right?
It is either a 1 or a 10.
So it went from a 10 to a 1 in the space of about 25 seconds.
As soon as Justin Trudeau said something that Trump didn't like, then it went to a one, right?
Then Justin Trudeau was a cheat and a liar.
Right now, Kim Jong-un is a wonderful dude.
But the minute Kim Jong-un screws President Trump, then presumably he becomes a cheat and liar little rocket man again.
There's something to the idea that President Trump does have the capacity to swivel on a dime, and so if Kim Jong-un does not...
Fulfill his oaths here than President Trump swivels on him, but still there's something deeply wrong about saying that a man who has 25 million people in abject slavery in a slave state and 200,000 people in gulags, there are lots of people who sin.
Now again, the reason that I'm not taking it a little bit more seriously in terms of, you know, President Trump specifically praising Kim is because he says this crap about everybody.
So in the same exact interview he was asked about Xi Jinping.
Xi Jinping is the leader of China.
He's the dictator of China.
And here's President Trump speaking warmly about the fact that Xi Jinping is now president for life.
I have a very good relationship with President Xi of China.
He's, you know, an incredible guy.
They just, you know, essentially president for life.
Yeah.
It's pretty good.
Well, it's not pretty good.
He's the head of the Communist Party.
There's no democracy in China.
It's not pretty good.
I mean, it's like saying Muammar Gaddafi.
He's been president there for like 30 years.
Pretty good.
Saddam Hussein.
Been there for a long time.
Pretty good.
No, of course it's not pretty good.
But the predicate to his answer about President Xi is that he thinks that President Xi is a good guy.
So if President Xi is a good guy, then everything that he does is good.
And President Trump did exactly the same sort of thing with regard to Vladimir Putin.
You'll remember during the election cycle, he was asked by Bill O'Reilly that Vladimir Putin's a killer.
And Trump said, well, we kill lots of people too.
Now, this is President Trump's version of realpolitik.
His version of realpolitik is that we're not allowed to call anybody out morally because everybody on the world stage is dirty, and there's basically just a set of competing interests.
Morality doesn't really take a leading role here.
It's instead us, in hard-hearted and gimlet-eyed fashion, determining what America's interests are.
Right now, our interests are in trying to woo North Korea, and that means that we have to be really, really nice to North Korea.
I have problems with this particular approach, which I'll explain in just a second.
First, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com to subscribe.
So for $9.99 a month, you get the rest of my show live, you get the rest of Clavin's show live, the rest of Knowles' show live, and you can ask me questions when you are a subscriber.
For $99 a year, you get the annual subscription that comes along with the Leftist Tears hot or cold tumbler, the very finest in all beverage vessels.
We are traveling today, so I brought my invisible beverage vessel.
It is incredible.
I mean, when you travel, it disappears.
Maybe it doesn't, but I won't tell you.
It's a secret.
In any case, the fact is that When you become a subscriber, you also get to send us questions, and we do have an episode of The Conversation coming up next week where I will answer your questions for the entire hour.
So you can send in your questions when you go over to The Conversation page and enter those questions there.
When you're a subscriber, everybody can watch, but only subscribers get to ask their questions and have those questions.
Answered.
Also, go over to iTunes.
Please go over to YouTube and subscribe.
We have a Sunday special that is coming up, starring Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic Magazine.
We talk about God and atheism.
He's a militant agnostic-slash-atheist, and I, of course, am a very religious human.
And so we will have a conversation all about religion and God and free will and politics.
It's really fascinating.
I think you'll really enjoy it.
So go check that out.
that out.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So the going perspective seems to be that when President Trump says stuff, it's just him saying So if President Trump says nice stuff about Putin yesterday, whatever, he says stuff.
Because, as I've said before, he's a dude who says a lot of stuff.
You know, President Trump says many a thing.
And, I mean, that could frankly go on his epitaph.
I mean, you know, after 120 years, when the president finally has a gravestone, then, you know, it could say on it, Donald Trump, the man said a lot of things, okay?
Because that's President Trump's shtick.
And I think everybody in the United States has learned to discount these things.
But on the international stage, people don't automatically discount what it is that you're saying.
They take what you're saying a lot more seriously.
And so when President Trump starts praising dictators, it gives dictators a feeling that they can get away with things.
And the way that you know this is that Barack Obama did exactly the same thing with Iran, and Iran proceeded to get away with things.
Barack Obama did the same thing with Vladimir Putin.
Putin proceeded to get away with things.
George W. Bush, by the way, did the same thing with Putin when he said that he looked into Putin's eyes and he saw his soul, and then Vladimir Putin promptly decided that he was going to invade Georgia, the neighboring country of Georgia.
Dictators, bad people, aggressive people, they tend to react to warmth.
As though that warmth is a sign of weakness.
I liked it much better when President Trump was being aggressive.
Now, here's something I'll point out.
If you were very fond of when President Trump was being aggressive, I'm not sure how you are very fond of when he is not being aggressive anymore.
I mean, to the extent that he's not being aggressive.
So, for example, President Trump, when he was meeting with Kim Jong-un, this video just came out.
It was revealed, actually, by the North Korean media, which is just wonderful.
And it is a picture of President Trump saluting a North Korean general, right?
Now, you recall when President Obama bowed before the Saudi kings and everybody went nuts, right?
I was one of the people who said, like, what the hell is this?
When President Obama bowed to, I think it was the Japanese president, Japanese premier, and everybody went nuts.
Like, why is he running around the world kowtowing to people?
Well, here's the president of the United States who, instead of shaking the hand of this North Korean general, is going up for the salute.
Like, you shouldn't be saluting generals of tin-pot dictatorships who keep their people in abject poverty and slavery.
That's not a good idea.
Now, again, the argument is that this is all pragmatism, that in the end, moral signaling doesn't matter.
I don't think that's true.
The reason I don't think that's true is because one of the things that helped bring down the Soviet Union was the fact that we had something called Voice of America in Europe, for folks not all that familiar with the history.
We had something called Voice of America in Europe.
In the Soviet Union, you were forbidden from listening to Western media.
You could not get Western media, you couldn't see Western papers, you couldn't listen to Western radio.
So we had basically bootlegged radios into the Eastern Bloc, into the Soviet Bloc, and then we would broadcast Voice of America, and we would talk about how great America was, and how terrible Soviet Russia was, and how Soviet Russia was repressing you, and if it weren't for Soviet Russia, your life would be so much better.
Part of that was designed to let people on the other side know that we were on their side, right?
To let people who were living under this dictatorship know that we were on their side.
If you're in North Korea, there are a lot of bootleg radios in there, and a lot of bootleg pieces of technology in North Korea.
Wouldn't it be good to know that the President of the United States is not fomenting your dictatorship?
That the President of the United States is trying to weaken that dictatorship?
Now, the president can't openly say that, but at the very least, the president shouldn't be praising the dictator.
It does have an impact on the people who are living inside the country.
It also has an impact on the other countries in the region, which are now being told, essentially, that they should not isolate North Korea any longer.
They should preemptively de-isolate North Korea, and this is somehow going to fix things.
Now, I guess the question is, what do you think is the most realistic possible outcome here?
If you think the most realistic possible outcome is the liberalization of North Korea into a quasi-China state, then maybe all of this works out.
Even so, I'm not sure why you need the fawning language from President Trump, even though I don't think President Trump means it.
I think President Trump, as I said, this is how he negotiates.
He flatters you, he flatters you, he flatters you until you say no, at which point he clubs you.
But if your goal here is sort of the liberalization of North Korea, I gotta admit, I'm not a huge fan of this grand strategy, typically.
I understand the strategy, maybe it's the best strategy that's available, but I'm not a huge fan.
The reason I'm not a huge fan is because I'm not sure that Nixon made the right decision in actually liberalizing China, because I'm not sure China was liberalized.
China is a more powerful threat on the world stage today than they were in 1970.
In 1970, they were a poor, rogue state run by Mao Zedong, who had murdered 40 million of his own people, and we proceeded to engage in a tremendous amount of commerce with them.
That may have liberalized their economy, it may have gotten some people out of poverty, all of which is good, but the Communist Party is still running the place as a repressive dictatorship.
Maybe the better strategy would have been to do to China exactly what we did to the Soviet Union, which is you cut them off at the knees, you are belligerent, you build up your arms, you suggest that you're not going to allow them to expand their sphere of influence, and then you wait for them to collapse from within.
Maybe it turns out that by giving money to dictatorships, you're actually strengthening the dictatorships.
I see the arguments both ways.
I'm not going to say that my argument is dispositive, or that my argument is the only one that's being made, and maybe President Trump is totally right, and I'm totally wrong on all of this.
Time will tell.
I will say, however, I do not think that it is appropriate or decent for the President of the United States to speak the way that President Trump does about dictators, even though I get it.
He's President Trump, and he says this kind of stuff about virtually everybody.
Okay.
So, meanwhile...
The media has been responding to President Trump's criticism.
President Trump has been going after the media.
He tweeted out the other day that the worst enemy of the United States were the mainstream media, a statement which I agree with that the media are a problem.
I think that we have worse enemies than Wolf Blitzer.
I just, I think that Kim Jong-un is a worse enemy to the United States than, like, Jake Tapper.
But Wolf Blitzer, the fact that the media feel the need to defend really demonstrates why the media are blowing it.
So here is Wolf Blitzer trying to explain that he is not your worst enemy.
A lot of his supporters believe that we are the enemy of the American people, and that is really, really an awful situation.
We are not the enemy of the American people.
We love the American people.
If you have to assure people that you love them, that means that you haven't done a good job.
If I have to constantly be reassuring my wife that I'm not her enemy, that I love her, our marriage will end very soon.
So it's good to say I love you to your wife unsolicited.
It's good to demonstrate your love to your wife unsolicited.
But if your wife says, you're a jerk, and you hate me, and you're garbage, and you say, no honey, I don't hate you, I love you.
Is that really an effective tactic?
It turns out that probably you've blown a lot of your credibility already.
The reality is that the media have blown their credibility in a pretty significant way over and over and over, and President Trump, when he picks on the media, all he is really doing is signifying to them once again.
That they do not have the trust of the American people.
The only way they're going to win back the trust of the American people is to cover things in an objective fashion, which apparently they refuse to do.
Okay, meanwhile, party infighting is breaking out on both sides of the aisle.
The Republican Party is having an ongoing gun battle between the so-called establishment and the so-called anti-establishment.
I find this battle sort of confusing in the sense that Trump is the establishment.
He's the president of the United States.
He's the most powerful man on planet Earth.
And the idea that if you don't like some of his policies that somehow you're now pro-establishment is bizarre to me.
You know, I always defined establishment, there's this fungibility about some of the political language that I find deeply stupid.
So, here, for example, when people say establishment, I always took establishment to mean Too willing to work with the other side, too conciliatory, too willing to promote leftist policies not in alignment with conservative values.
That was establishment to me.
That's how I always took establishment.
I didn't take establishment to mean, you know, anti-ex-politician, because that's just weird.
That's not what establishment means.
But it seems like Establishment has been turned into an all-purpose club to wield against virtually anybody.
So, for example, Corey Stewart, he says that his victory in the Republican primaries in Virginia shows that the establishment is going the way of the dodo bird.
Corey Stewart probably will lose to Tim Kaine in Virginia.
He has a long history of hobnobbing with sort of alt-right figures.
A lot of Republican Party politicians are not in love with Corey Stewart for, I think, a lot of very good reasons.
Here is Corey Stewart saying the establishment is going the way of the dodo bird.
If the Republican establishment wants to continue to oppose the president, myself and others who support him, on those things, they're going to go the way of the dodo.
They're going to disappear.
And the rising part of the Republican Party is the Trump support, the Trump base.
That's what's taking over and that's the new Republican Party.
The old guard, the establishment, can either get on board or they're going to have to get out.
The establishment is Trump.
Trump runs the party.
He runs it with a pretty iron hand.
The head of the GOP, the head of the RNC, is Romney McDaniel.
And she came out with a statement yesterday.
She actually tweeted out, in pretty incredible terms, I want to find her exact tweet so that I can read it to you, because it's pretty astonishing.
So, Ronna McDaniel, who you'll recall, actually used to call herself Ronna Romney McDaniel, and then Trump asked her not to use her maiden name, Romney, because he found it insulting, and so she just changed it on behalf of the President of the United States, which, if that doesn't show you the power of President Trump, I'm not sure what does.
She tweeted this out yesterday.
She tweeted out...
here it is.
Sorry, let me grab it.
She tweeted out that if you do not follow President Trump, complacency is our enemy.
Anyone that does not embrace the Donald Trump agenda of making America great again will be making a mistake.
Anyone who doesn't embrace the Trump agenda... Listen, I love a lot of the Trump agenda.
I think a lot of the Trump agenda is just great.
I've been very, very positive about President Trump's political agenda for the last year and a half.
I've said that I think that it's the most conservative year and a half of governance I've ever seen.
But I'm not a fan of this whole, you know, Donald Trump is the king and we must all bow before him because I'm not the fan of doing that with any politician.
I think we ought to praise him when he does something good, and we ought to criticize him when he does something bad.
But if the idea is that he is not the establishment, I'm not sure where you are getting that.
So we have all of these terms that have now been twisted to mean whatever people want them to mean.
So that's the fight inside the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to be as stupid as they possibly can.
A Democratic candidate has now run One of the most painful and yet hilarious campaign ads in history.
He's a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives in Colorado.
His name is Levi Tilleman.
He's running against Jason Crow.
He says that the best way to stop school shootings is to arm schools and teachers with pepper spray.
And in his campaign ad he sprays himself with pepper spray to show how effective this strategy would be.
I'm calling on Congress to stop talking past each other and try something new.
Empowers schools and teachers with non-lethal self-defense tools like this can of pepper spray.
Trust me, this will stop anyone in their tracks.
And then he sprays himself in the eyes with pepper spray.
And then he has to dunk his head in vats of chemicals to stop it.
And now I just can't see anything.
And then he describes how terrible it is, says there are more than 300 million guns in the United States.
As this guy is now soaked in soap.
And now he's running a hose over his eyes.
And now he's running a hose over his eyes.
Non-lethal school defense is part of the solution.
I hope the Democrats continue to run on these platforms forever and never stop doing it.
All Democrats, please spray pepper spray in your eyes to own the cons.
My goodness gracious.
So whatever problems we're having inside the Republican Party, at least we're not spraying ourselves in the face with pepper spray in order to demonstrate that our agenda is apparently superior.
Well done, rando Colorado Democrat.
My goodness.
I mean, that's almost literally cutting off your nose to spite your face.
It's literally blinding yourself in order to demonstrate that President Trump is wrong about guns.
Well, just pretty amazing stuff.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, the thing I like today, I was on a plane yesterday because I'm doing my show from Dallas today where I'm speaking at the TPUSA event, and I was able to watch a movie called The Death of Stalin.
Now, I will admit, when I saw the preview for Death of Stalin, I was not necessarily enthralled because I thought this was gonna make light of the Soviet Union.
I thought that what it was gonna do was it was going to make light of one of the most monstrous regimes in the history of the world.
And instead, instead, the movie is spectacular.
I think it is the best movie that's been made in maybe the last five years.
It really is that good.
Here's a little bit of the preview.
Stalin's dead.
He's dead.
Stalin is dead!
Our general secretary is lying in a puddle of indignity.
Yeah, he's feeling unwell, clearly.
I want to make a speech at my father's funeral.
Um, no problem.
Technically, yes, but practically.
When I said no problem, what I meant was no problem.
Ignore me.
Stalin would have wanted the committee as one.
All those in favor, tarry.
Okay, so the preview makes it look like just an outright comedy.
The opening scene of the film, like the first three minutes of the film, is taking place at a concert where Stalin calls the person who is the head of the radio broadcasting facility, and they're playing a Mozart piano concerto.
And he calls up the guy, and then he says, I want a recording of this.
And it turns out the guy has not been recording it.
And so he forces everybody back into the theater, essentially at gunpoint, and then makes them replay the entire concerto and applaud because he doesn't want to be shot by Stalin.
I mean, the opening scene of this is Stalin, with all of his cronies, handing out death lists and people being dragged out of their apartments and shot.
So, the comedy is a darker than dark comedy, and the whole point of this is that everybody who was there was just an evil, evil human being.
These were evil human beings, and that the cult of personality is really dangerous.
If you want to understand what North Korea really looks like, then this is actually a pretty good indicator, right?
Better than sort of the overt, silly comedy of Team America.
You want to know what North Korea really looks like?
Watch The Death of Stalin.
That's probably what North Korea is most like.
The movie is tremendous.
I can't recommend it highly enough.
All the performances are just terrific.
And, I mean, they do not pull their punches.
I mean, this movie does not pull its punches.
What a terrific film.
So go check that out, The Death of Stalin.
I believe it's available on Amazon right now.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
Okay, so Nature Magazine, right, which is one of the most prominent and prestigious journals in science, has now run an editorial calling for diversity in science.
Why, you might ask?
Do the skin colors and sexual orientations of scientists matter?
Aren't we mostly interested in the objective, verifiable, and replicable results of experiments?
No, shut up, you bigot!
What we're mostly interested in is whether your doctor's black or not.
That's what we're really interested in.
So the editorial says, Listen, I'm fine with more scientists.
Of all ilks.
We need more scientists.
Listen, I'm fine with more scientists of all ilks.
We need more scientists.
We need more people who know what they are doing and researching and making the world a better place.
But then they say this, okay?
Remember, this is in a science journal.
Quote, a more representative workforce is more likely to pursue questions and problems that go beyond the narrow slice of humanity that much of science is currently set up to serve.
So in other words, if you have a black set of researchers that are going to research different questions than white researchers, do they present any evidence for this whatsoever?
Of course not!
Here's their example.
Widening the focus is essential if publicly funded research is to protect and preserve its mandate to work to improve society.
For example, a high proportion of the research that comes out of the Western world uses tissue and blood from white individuals to screen drugs and therapies for a diverse population.
Yet it is well known that people from different ethnic groups have different susceptibility to some diseases.
Okay, that's idiotic.
What you're now suggesting, really, is that we should take into account more minority groups when we do the research into tissues and blood samples.
But that doesn't say you need a black doctor to do it.
I mean, that's like saying that we need more dogs used in experiments than rats used in experiments, and we need more dog doctors.
What?
Again, this is a scientific journal and it has nothing to do with anything, but science has gone by the wayside.
And the truth is that a lot of science is just not real.
Okay, so the best example of this that I can talk about today is there's this fascinating, fascinating story.
There's something called the Zimbardo, the Zimbardo experiment.
It's called the Stanford Prison Experiment.
You've probably heard of it.
If you took psychology 101 in college, you know about the Zimbardo experiment.
What it was is this guy, Philip Zimbardo, is in the early 60s, I believe.
He took a group of volunteers and he separated them into prisoners and guards.
And then supposedly what happened is that the guards, just by being labeled guards and the prisoners by virtue of being prisoners, the guards started basically torturing the prisoners and after six days they'd shut down the experiment because the guards had become vicious, brutal, horrible guards and the prisoners had been tortured, you know, beyond the pale.
Well, it turns out the entire experiment was a fraud.
According to an article at Medium from a guy named Ben Bloom, this was all nonsense.
Basically, the people who were acting as the prisoners say they faked their breakdowns for the cameras, that they were shouting and screaming and protesting because it was all not real, and the guards themselves were being told by the scientists in charge that they needed to act as brutal as humanly possible.
So, for example, one of the guards, a guy named Dave Eshelman, explained, quote, I took it as kind of an improv exercise.
I believed that I was doing what the researchers wanted me to do, and I thought I'd do it better than anybody else by creating this despicable guard persona.
I'd never been to the South, but I used a Southern accent which I got from Cool Hand Luke.
So Zimbardo lied about all of this.
He did before Congress, actually.
He testified before Congress at the request of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and he said the guards were, quote, simply told that they were going to go into a situation that could be serious and have some danger.
They made up their own rules for maintaining law, order, and respect.
This is untrue.
He told them exactly how to act.
His grad students told them exactly how to act.
Now, the reason this experiment was supposedly important is because what it supposedly taught you is that, just as a normal human being, you were a sadist.
Right?
You were put in the right situation, you would have become a Nazi camp guard and forced people into the chambers.
That is not true.
Okay, what this experiment actually suggests, and what similar experiments like the famous Milgram experiment suggest, is that human beings, in order to be brutal, have to buy into an idea of a higher good which they are serving.
We tend to treat each other as ends in normal individual life, right, when we meet each other on the street, but when we have a higher purpose, depending on what that higher purpose is, we start treating each other as means or obstacles to that end, which is really, really dangerous stuff.
And the Milgram experiment, which is sort of similar, As an experiment where, again, scientists brought in a group of volunteers, and then they separated them into two groups.
One was going to be the subjects of an experiment, and one was going to be the experimenter.
Now, what the people in the volunteer group didn't know is that everybody who was selected to be the volunteer group for the experiment, the subjects of the experiment, all of those were actors who had been hired by the experimenters, and the people who were supposed to be testing those actors, those were the volunteers.
So, the way that it worked is they would put the actors in a room, and then they would have the volunteers, who are now the experimenters, Turn a dial that was supposedly sending an electrical shock to the actors if they got questions wrong.
And the scientists would stand over the shoulders of the various people who are administering the shocks, and they would say to them, you know, for the sake of science, we have to find out whether, you know, if you torture people, they are going to give answers.
Like, if you torture people, they'll give better answers.
They'll learn faster.
And even when people are screaming and pleading for help, supposedly, according to the Milgram experiment, people continue to shock those people.
Now, the problem with the Milgram experiment is it was not replicable.
There were a bunch of different groups.
Some of them, like 70% of them, would shock people.
Some of them, 20% would shock people, or 10% or 5%.
It widely varied.
How did it vary?
It depended how many people in the group believed in the usefulness of the experiment itself, believed in the value of the scientific discovery being made.
In other words, it's going to be kind of difficult to get people to be Nazi prison guards unless they are Nazis.
It's kind of difficult to get people to be Joseph Mengele unless they believe that they are forwarding the cause of Nazi racial science.
So what this means is be very careful about the causes that you pick, be very careful about the tribe that you choose, because if you're not careful then you end up treating people not as individuals but as widgets that you can manipulate and harm for whatever purpose necessary.
Your own practical interests do not outweigh the rights of others and do not outweigh the necessity to be decent to individual human beings.
That's a warning to everybody on all sides of the aisle.
Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow with much, much more.
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 Caramina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.
▲
Export Selection