All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
51:52
It’s A Trumpnato! | Ep. 579
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Stormy Daniels is arrested.
What happens when a political tornado hits President Trump at NATO?
Plus, the meltdown over Brett Kavanaugh continues.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
People, I gotta tell you, I wish you could see and hear the pre-show sometimes because it's just better than the show by an awful lot.
And it is a crime against humanity that you'll never see what I just saw, but wow.
I have so much to get to today in the news, but if you haven't heard already, this August I'm taking The Ben Shapiro Show live to audiences in Dallas and Phoenix.
You'll be able to see me in person and join in an audience Q&A as well.
Tickets are going fast.
Visit dailywire.com slash events to get your seats and additional info.
Our next episode of The Conversation is coming up fast as well.
This Tuesday, July 17th, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific.
All your questions will be answered by our own Andrew Klavan with our host Elisha Krauss.
Our live Q&A is available on YouTube and Facebook for everybody to watch.
Only subscribers can ask Drew questions over at dailywire.com.
Check out the pinned comments on this video for more information.
Once again, subscribe to ask Drew live questions on Tuesday, July 17th at 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific.
Join the conversation.
Please ask Drew why he titles his books the way he does, because that is the great mystery surrounding Drew.
Like, Werewolf Cop?
Good book.
Weird title.
The Great Good Thing?
Good book.
Weird title.
That, I think, we'll have to put that in Drew's mailbag.
I am a subscriber, so I guess we can do that.
We'll check.
Before we get to the news also, I want to say thank you to our sponsors over at Ring.
So Ring is helping make your neighborhood safer.
Today, over a million people use the amazing Ring video doorbell to help protect their homes.
Ring knows home security begins at the front door, but it doesn't end there.
So now they're extending that same level of security to the rest of your home with the Ring Floodlight Cam.
If you are security obsessed the way that I am, You need Ring.
We have Ring at the Shapiro household.
Shapiro's stand is covered in Ring paraphernalia.
We've got the Ring sign outside our house, just like Ring's amazing doorbell.
The Floodlight Cam is a motion-activated camera and floodlight that connects right to your phone with HD video, two-way audio that lets you know the moment anyone steps on your property, see and speak to visitors, even set off an alarm.
Right from your phone with Ring's Floodlight Cam.
When things go bump in the night, you'll immediately know what it is, whether you're home or away.
And the Ring Floodlight Cam lets you keep an eye on your home from anywhere.
Again, Ring is awesome.
It really is a fantastic product, and it offers the ultimate in-home security.
High visibility floodlights, a powerful HD camera.
It puts security in your hands.
Save up to $150 off a Ring of security kit when you go to ring.com slash Ben.
That's ring.com slash Ben.
Again, use that slash Ben to let them know we sent you.
It's great.
Keeps your house safe.
Ring.com slash Ben.
And also make sure that when somebody comes to your door and rings the doorbell, you don't want to actually deal with them.
You don't actually have to because you can see who it is at your door.
Ring.com slash Ben for that special deal save up to 150 bucks off a ring of security kit.
Okay, I'm gonna need to calm down from that pre-show because my goodness.
Okay guys, never do that again.
Never ever.
Okay, so let's get into the news.
So, in other bizarre and strange news, Stormy Daniels has now been arrested.
And it's hilarious.
OK, so Stormy Daniels was arrested last night.
Why?
Well, it's sad when, you know, the new Democratic leader is arrested.
You know, everybody during the rallies in 2016 was shouting, lock her up about Hillary Clinton.
And then Hillary Clinton became irrelevant.
And now it turns out we're going to lock up the new Democratic leader, their leading 2020 candidate, Stormy Daniels.
So here is the actual statement of fact in support of probable cause for the arrest of Stormy Daniels.
At approximately 11.30 p.m., a dancer using the stage name Stormy Daniels, later identified as Stephanie Clifford, made her way to the main stage and began performing.
The majority of the patrons got up from their tables and stood immediately adjacent to the stage, throwing dollar bills at Miss Clifford, which is a good metaphor for her entire career, as well as an actual non-metaphor for her entire career.
During her performance, after removing her top, exposing her breasts, she began forcing the faces of the patrons into her chest and using her bare breasts to smack the patrons, which is a thing to do, I guess.
The officers also observed Miss Clifford fondling the breasts of female patrons.
As soon as the officers observed the aforementioned criminal activity, detectives Lancaster, Keckley and Prather approached the stage.
Miss Clifford made her way over to Detective Keckley and began performing in front of her.
Miss Clifford leaned over, grabbed Detective Keckley's head, and began smacking her face with her bare breasts and holding her face between her breasts against her chest.
America is already great.
Miss Clifford then began making her way over to Detective Lancaster and performed the same acts on him, forcing his face into her chest between her breasts and began smacking his face with her bare breasts.
It's like it's a mason chain or something.
to the stage where Officer Prather was standing and began fondling Officer Prather's buttocks and breasts.
She then forced Officer Prather's head into her chest between her breasts and began smacking Officer Prather's fest with her bare breasts, as she had done with all the other patrons and aforementioned officers.
It's like it's a mason chain or something.
During this time, Detective Rosser was standing back near the bar area witnessing the criminal activity.
So Detective Rosser was the least lucky officer assigned that evening.
As soon as Ms. Clifford moved on, I'm not sure who the three suspects are.
Is that Clifford and her breasts?
Like, I'm confused.
This is the aforementioned three suspects.
This is poorly written.
I'm not sure who the other people who are arrested are.
All I can say here is that clearly the Democrats have chosen wisely in their decision to make Stephanie Clifford the leading edge of their attack on President Trump.
She is nothing but class.
Why would we ever suspect that she might, I don't know, do things for money?
When she spent her entire career doing things for money.
Why might we ever suspect that maybe this whole, I'm a victim of the president and I will stop the president, I'm on Saturday Night Live to stop the president, that maybe that's all just a way to raise her profile because she's pretty much willing to smack people in the face with her boobs for cash.
Like, just, and that is not an exaggeration, that is literally her arrest record now, is that she smacked people in the face with her boobs for cash.
And we are supposed to believe that she and her and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, are going to save America.
Well, you know, I know that there are a lot of people on the right who believe that Trump is King David, so I guess that this would make her, like, female King David, according to the left, that, like, God anointed her breasts so that she can save the country from President Trump.
Yes, everything is deeply stupid.
Indeed, all of the things are stupid.
And they're not just stupid with regard to Stormy Daniels' latest arrest For apparently bringing people face to face with the crevasse.
Apparently also, Peter Strzok was interviewed by the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee today, and he's now returned to a congressional hearing room just down the hall.
And he says that he was not biased against President Trump in any way.
He did not bias his case against President Trump in any way, which is only belied by every fact we know about Peter Strzok at this time.
He was the FBI agent, of course.
He suggested that he was going to stop Trump from becoming president.
He was texting with his lover, Lisa Page.
She's a delight.
So is Lisa Page.
Both of them married, having an affair with each other, and texting about how Trump was the worst thing in the world.
Clearly, President Trump didn't have the moral standards of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page while they were cheating on their spouses with one another and then using their professional positions in order to accelerate an investigation into a political enemy.
Clearly, Trump is the major problem here.
Here is what Peter Strzok said in his testimony, quote, Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took.
So all those texts about how you were going to stop President Trump using the best of your abilities, that was all just like weird nonsense, exactly?
He says, the fact is, after months of investigations, there is simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions.
That is not what the Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in his report.
He said there's actually pretty good evidence of Peter Strzok's bias in his professional actions.
According to that Investigator General report, if you, the Inspector General report, if you recall, He made the case that Peter Strzok, who was in charge of both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia investigation, had basically delayed the Hillary email investigation because he thought the Russia investigation was more important.
Horowitz himself suggested that he could not find that Strzok was free of bias.
A Thursday's hearing is poised to be one of the most contentious in Congress so far, tied to the Russia investigation, according to CNN.
Trey Gowdy says the moment special counsel Bob Mueller found out about Peter Strzok's text and emails, he kicked him off the investigation.
That was a year and a half too late.
The text and emails may have been discovered in May of 2017, but the bias existed.
And was manifest a year and a half before that, all the way back to late 2015 and early 2016.
So it wasn't the discovery of the text that got him fired, it was the bias manifest in those texts.
Strzok instead said, quote, "In the summer of 2016, I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign.
This information had the potential to derail and quite possibly defeat Mr. Trump, but the thought of expressing that or exposing that information never crossed my mind." Now, as I pointed out, I think this is a somewhat decent defense that if Strzok was really out to get Trump-wide and he just revealed to the world that Trump was under investigation in this collusion investigation, But the counter argument, which I think is not uncredible, is that Strzok didn't want to break the law.
He would have, by leaking, he would have been breaking the law.
He'd want to put his own career at risk.
He just figured if I accelerate the investigation, then eventually Trump is going to be found guilty before the election and we will be fine, right?
And then Trump will be stopped from being president.
Trump, of course, has tweeted consistently about Strzok.
There's a good shot that Strzok is going to be held in contempt of Congress because he isn't answering questions now, and that would not be any sort of giant shock at this point.
Okay, so while all of these scandals are a-brewin', while Stormy Daniels faces time behind bars where she will, I'm sure, film her latest lesbian pornography act, and where President Trump is fighting off Peter Strzok, meanwhile, And President Trump is over at NATO.
And controversy has broken out over at NATO because the president has been very harsh with our NATO allies.
So as I discussed yesterday, he made two specific claims, neither of which was completely unfounded.
Specific claim number one is that all of these countries in NATO pledged in 2014 that they were going to increase the percentage of GDP that they spent on their national defense all the way up to 2%.
And only four countries have done so as of 2017.
Out of the 26 NATO countries, only four have done so at this juncture.
Now, many more will do so in the coming years.
And it's not that we are picking up the bill for them.
It's not as though we have raised our own defense spending to make up for European lack of defense spending.
We have our defense spending.
They have their defense spending.
It's really their problem.
But Trump isn't wrong when he says, you guys made a promise.
You ought to spend more on your defense.
And if you're spending nothing on your defense and then you expect us to come to your rescue if you're attacked, You know, we are gonna come to your rescue if you're attacked, but you need to raise your defense spending.
You are inviting the Russians to basically walk across your borders if you're spending 1% of your GDP on defense instead of 2% of your GDP on defense.
So that I thought was well-founded by President Trump.
And then President Trump also suggested that the Germans had basically been selling out their foreign policy to the Russians because former Prime Minister, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who was the Chancellor of Germany up until Merkel took over, I believe, He has now become basically a Russian agent in Europe.
He's been going around signing pipeline deals on behalf of Russian Gazprom, which is their giant Rosneft, which is their giant Russian oil company.
And apparently, he has been going around taking money for this, and some 70% of all natural gas imported into Germany is now coming via Russia, thanks to these pipelines, the Novo Streams, that have been coming into Germany from Russia.
So Trump smacked them for that.
He says, listen, you guys are yelling at me about colluding with Russia.
You're the ones taking 70% of your natural gas from Russia, thanks to a former chancellor here, who's signing all sorts of contracts with the Russians to sit on the board of their state-owned gas companies.
Hey, that's founded, too.
So both of those criticisms, I think, were well-founded by President Trump.
What is not particularly well founded by President Trump is the idea that he is sort of anti-NATO.
So, there's an argument that's now going on over what President Trump said over at NATO.
So according to Politico, quote, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened on Thursday to break with NATO and conduct American security unilaterally if allies do not rapidly meet higher spending targets, NATO officials and diplomats said.
Officials inside the room for the formal session of the North Atlantic Council, the alliance's top political decision making body, said Trump arrived late and apparently furious and quickly hijacked a meeting that was already in progress with the presidents of Ukraine and Georgia.
Taking the floor, Trump unleashed what one official called a prolonged rant on spending.
He warned of grave consequences if allies do not quickly ramp up their spending, sending the gathering into chaos.
Trump also demanded that allies demonstrate how they would ramp up spending and warned that the U.S.
could go our own way if they do not meet his demands.
While some officials, including French President Emmanuel Macron, said Trump never overtly threatened to abandon NATO, others said they interpreted it as a clear threat.
So Trump went in there, he used some vague language about how if they didn't do what they were supposed to do, bad things were going to happen.
And people interpreted this as Trump saying that he was going to pull out of NATO entirely and leave the Europeans to their own devices, which would not be good, by the way.
Because you do want the EU acting as one as a defense unit against Russia.
One of the great developments has been NATO.
You do want NATO to continue to be a vital player in world affairs.
The last thing you want is a return to pre-NATO politics when Germany and France were going to war every 20 years or so.
When Britain, Germany, France, Poland, Spain, Czechoslovakia, all these various countries were going to war with one another on a regular basis.
You would not prefer that to be the case.
NATO helps prevent all of that because it aims the entire bloc basically against Russia.
You don't want that to collapse in on itself.
It's foolish for the president to be attempting to pull out of NATO if in fact that's something he did, although it's kind of unclear at this point that's what he did.
So I'm going to give you the rest of the story in just a second.
First, let's talk about your resume.
So you need to make your resume better.
The reality is, whatever job you hold right now, the chances are very slim that you're going to be holding it in 10 years.
And if you're ambitious, probably you shouldn't be holding it in 10 years.
Probably you should be looking to at least increase your job title in the company you're at, or moving jobs to get a better salary.
Well, the way to do that is to make your resume better, to increase your skill set.
And that's where Skillshare comes in.
Skillshare is an online learning platform with over 20,000 classes in business, design, technology, and more.
You can take classes in social media marketing, illustration, data science, mobile photography, creative writing, you name it, they've got it.
And whether you're trying to deepen that professional skill set, start a side hustle, or just explore a new passion, Skillshare is there to keep you learning and thriving.
We here at DailyWire use Skillshare for a variety of classes ranging from social media marketing to SEO.
Go check it out right now.
You get a special deal.
If you are one of my listeners, you get two months of Skillshare for just 99 cents when you go to Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
That's Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
You get two months of Skillshare for just 99 cents.
Again, pretty solid deal.
Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
Start your two months right now.
And I promise once you signed up, you're going to continue wanting to do it because why would you want to stop learning?
Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
Make your resume better.
Make your skill set deeper.
Start a side business.
All these things can happen through Skillshare.
Skillshare.com slash Shapiro.
Use that slash Shapiro so they know that we sent you.
So, President Trump also apparently demanded that allies demonstrate how they'd ramp up spending.
And Macron, Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, he said, sometimes tweets are more important than what is negotiated.
He added President Trump never at any moment, either in public or in private, threatened to withdraw from NATO.
Now, there was a lot of mixed signals being sent, obviously.
There were a lot of people at NATO who thought that Trump was threatening to withdraw from NATO, so I don't think this is entirely a rumor.
Trump later sidestepped a question about the threat at a press conference.
He said he believed he had the authority to withdraw from NATO without congressional approval, which is highly doubtful.
And he boasted that he had secured agreement for far larger spending commitment by allies, and all the other countries said, well, that's not true either.
Macron said there's a communiqué that was published yesterday.
It's very detailed.
It confirms the goal of 2% by 2024.
That's all.
One NATO official said Trump wants a plan from alliance members by January on how to reach the spending target.
Another senior NATO official said that Trump specifically demanded written spending plans from roughly 10 allies who have not yet submitted them.
Even the mere suggestion of the U.S.
pulling out of NATO raises the worst fears that some allies have harbored since Trump was elected after he declared during his presidential campaign that NATO is obsolete.
So as I said yesterday, I think Trump's critiques of NATO are not wrong, but I do think that Trump saying that he wants to pull out of NATO is real foolishness.
One of the things that has allowed the stability of the Western world to create this growth of the last 70-odd years in the West has been the guarantee that NATO members are basically allies, that we're all going to come to each other's defense, that we're not going to allow each other to be overrun.
And yet, NATO has basically allowed various countries that are not quite NATO members, but are on the borders of NATO, to be overrun.
This obviously happened in Crimea.
It happened in Georgia when the Russians made a move in Georgia.
And there's a real question as to whether Vladimir Putin thinks he can push his luck here.
There are a bunch of NATO countries like Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania that are right on the border of Russia.
Putin obviously has territorial ambitions in this place.
If NATO were not to respond to Russian aggression in these places, it'd be a serious problem.
And the question is whether Trump is using his desire for higher spending by these NATO countries as a sort of way to avoid responsibility for NATO at all.
Is it all a giant excuse?
If so, then we've got a real problem in our hands.
In a second, I'm going to show you the blowback that's been happening over all of this.
I will point out as well the irony in all the folks on the left who are critiquing Trump over his NATO Miss misinformation over his NATO belief system that is wrongful.
So leading the charge here is Chris Matthews.
So Chris Matthews, as you can see, says, Trump and a Putin gift in Brussels.
Get up in the morning, put on a shoe, run in here, looking all drunk and weird.
And I start talking about NATO and Brussels, like Brussels sprouts.
So Kathleen makes me at home sometimes.
I don't eat them, I feed them to the dog.
Ah!
Go, Chris Matthews, go!
On his first full day in Europe, President Trump handed Vladimir Putin a big gift.
The only beneficiary of Trump's havoc is Vladimir Putin, who's been rooting for the collapse of NATO since the days of the Cold War.
Okay, so we don't know that yet.
We do know that if NATO were to collapse, it would be a serious problem for the West.
It would also be a serious boon for Putin.
It is unclear, however, whether any of this means anything.
This is one of the problems with President Trump and how he speaks generally.
You don't know what means something and what doesn't.
As I've said before, On President Trump's epitaph, it's going to say, Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States, he said a lot of crap.
Because he does, he says a lot of stuff.
And some of that stuff is good, and some of that stuff is not good.
And so it's difficult to know what to pay attention to.
Do I really think the United States is going to pull out of NATO?
No, I don't.
Do I think that anything he says to Putin is going to lead to serious aggression by Putin?
Not really, because I don't think that Putin actually believes that Trump is not volatile.
Trump is very unpredictable.
The same Trump who was making overtures to Putin during the election cycle was the same guy who was Throwing missiles into Syria against the Assad regime.
The same guy who authorized U.S.
military action in Syria that ended with the death of 200 Russian mercenaries.
So he, I mean, he's armed the Ukrainian, the Ukrainian resistance to Russian rule with deadly weaponry.
So I don't think that Putin has tremendous faith that the United States is going to abandon NATO if you were to walk across the border.
But with that said, is it good that Trump is making these sorts of implications?
No, obviously it's not.
Although I don't think we should quite jump the gun.
And the level of panic that's being expressed here, I think, is overwrought given the fact that I think a lot of people in the world don't take Trump's pronouncements on these issues particularly seriously.
Shep Smith over on Fox News, he says that Trump could turn the clock back centuries.
I think this is a bit of an exaggeration.
President Trump upended world order in a way no American president has in modern history.
President Trump's utterances not only opened the door for a new system overseas, they could also turn back the global clock centuries.
Okay, well, I don't think we're going back to before the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
I really don't think that's a thing that's going to happen.
With that said, do I think that Trump should be more careful about his words?
Yes.
But do I think that anybody is taking him supremely seriously?
No, I will also say that for members of the prior administration, members of the Obama administration, who created this situation in the first place, right?
It was the Obama administration that allowed Vladimir Putin to run roughshod over Ukraine.
It was the Obama administration that did like nothing when Putin simply annexed Crimea.
It was the Obama administration that allowed Syria to become a proxy state for the Russians.
And now you got members of the Obama administration coming out and ripping Trump over NATO as though Obama was a wonderful NATO ally.
Obama was a garbage NATO ally.
It's just he wasn't loud about it.
And so here's John Brennan, former head of the CIA, saying that Trump's remarks on NATO are dangerously naive.
It says, in the interest of America's security, if NATO leaders push back against the reckless behavior of Donald Trump, who is dangerously naive and grossly ignorant of how the world works, history inevitably will regard Trump as one of the most disastrous figures of the 21st century.
Says John O'Brien, a guy who worked for Barack Obama, who presided over the collapse of the international order.
Ben Rhodes, who presided over the Iran deal and lied to the American people about it for years on end.
He says that this is the biggest danger, that Trump is the biggest danger.
He's blowing up all the international architecture.
The biggest danger to the national security of the United States is the President of the United States, who is single-handedly, before our eyes, blowing up the international architecture that the United States has relied upon for our own security for 70 years.
Okay, and then Ben Rhodes went back to his small apartment and wrote a bunch of short stories no one will ever read.
Now, Ben Rhodes, when he does this routine where Trump is blowing up the international architecture, the international architecture has not been blown up.
I actually believe Macron more than I believe a lot of members of the media.
He understands that when Trump says stuff about NATO, it's not going to come to fruition.
He does understand that.
There's something to say about international architecture.
There are a lot of people who believe in the sort of facade of international architecture.
And then there are people who believe that the international architecture actually has to work, that these groups actually have to be worth something.
So NATO is worth something only if it's capable of acting in the face of threats to NATO.
NATO is not worth anything if the United States makes all sorts of nice noises about backing NATO and then doesn't do anything.
I think that if Vladimir Putin had walked into Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, I wonder if the Obama administration actually would have done anything.
I do.
I think Trump is more likely to do something if Putin does something than Obama was.
Now, maybe I'm wrong on that.
We'll find out.
But I think that the sort of panic over the possibility of Trump pulling out of NATO at this point is a little exaggerated, even though I think Trump shouldn't be making those implications in the first place.
Okay, so in just a second, I want to get to the continuing fallout over Brett Kavanaugh, because the left continues to try and figure out how to sink him, and let's just say that their case is not particularly good.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at the USCCA.
So, you're a fan of the Second Amendment, you like the Second Amendment, and if you like the Second Amendment, you should own a gun.
Because the fact is, you want to protect your family, you're a law-abiding citizen, you want to protect your community, protect your church, protect your country.
Well, if you're in the market for a new gun, You could be one of them, only if you act fast.
Which gun is at the top of that bucket list?
Is it a Kimber 1911 or a Glock 19?
to miss the deadline for the Great American Giveaway.
It all ends soon.
Five people will each win $1,776 to spend on any gun they want, as much ammo as they need to break it in.
You could be one of them, only if you act fast.
Which gun is at the top of that bucket list?
Is it a Kimber 1911 or a Glock 19?
Maybe a hunting rifle?
Head over to defendyourfamilynow.com right now.
You'll instantly lock in your five big chances to win.
That's all there is to it.
You just go over to DefendYourFamilyNow.com and register, and you now have five chances to win.
$1,776 is a lot of money.
You're running out of time.
Don't miss your last opportunity to get in on the coolest gun giveaway of the season.
Remember, Your five chances to win vanish July 20th at midnight, so don't get left behind.
Go to DefendYourFamilyNow.com.
That's DefendYourFamilyNow.com.
USCCA does a lot of wonderful work.
You should sign up with them in any case.
They have educational materials and legal materials for you if you're a gun owner.
DefendYourFamilyNow.com to get your five chances to win $1,776 toward any gun you want and as much ammo as you need to break it in.
Go check it out.
DefendYourFamilyNow.com.
Okay, so.
The left continues to panic over the possibility of Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
It is not a possibility, it is a probability.
And the levels of stupid, it's like peeling an onion.
Beneath each level of stupid is a new level of stupid.
It's like Russian nesting dolls.
And when you finally get to the center of those Russian nesting dolls, all you find is just President Trump, a little statue of President Trump mooning you.
That's pretty much all that's happening here, because the left is in a state of sheer and utter panic over Brett Kavanaugh, who is, by all measures, a very well-stated, solid judge on the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals, who's worked across the aisle on a number of occasions.
The fact they're going nuts on Kavanaugh shows you how nuts they would have gone on Amy Coney Barrett.
I mean, I think they would have lit themselves on fire if it had been Amy Coney Barrett.
They would have gone out there, and they would have legitimately gone full anti-papist.
They would have said, oh, she's an evil Catholic, and they would have gotten mock-ups of Daniel Day-Lewis from Gangs of New York, and started trotting out the All-American Club to throw the Catholics out of the country if it had been Amy Coney Barrett.
In any case, Kavanaugh is still too Catholic for them.
And I have to say, the left's takes on Kavanaugh are really — talk about hot takes, they're incredible.
So, here's the best one.
So, Chris Chaliza tweeted out, Why should Brett Kavanaugh call his office?
Because there's an article in the Washington Post, and here's what it says.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh piled up credit card debt by purchasing national tickets.
White House says.
Woo.
Oh no!
He spent money on his credit cards on baseball games.
He's an American judge who likes baseball.
Ooh!
Okay, this is the best part of it.
So they say, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade, and at times reported liabilities that could have exceeded the value of his cash accounts and investment assets, according to review of Kavanaugh's financial disclosures.
In 2016, Kavanaugh reported having between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt accrued over three credit cards and a loan.
Each credit card held between $15,000 and $50,000 in debt, and a thrift savings plan loan was between $15,000 and $50,000.
Now, here's the important part.
This is buried in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 of the article.
The credit card debts and loan were either paid off or fell below the reporting requirements in 2017, according to the filings, which do not require details on the nature or source of such payments.
So in other words, he doesn't have massive debt.
He's not carrying massive debt.
He used his credit card to buy things and then paid off his credit card.
Like a normal human.
But this apparently is enough for Brett Kavanaugh to be forced to call his office.
I love this.
Raj Shah over at the White House, he told the Washington Post that Kavanaugh's friends reimbursed him for their share of the baseball tickets and that the judge has stopped purchasing the season tickets.
So why did he rack up all those baseball debts?
Because he bought season tickets for a bunch of people on his credit card and then they reimbursed him.
Really, that's it.
I do this with my father all the time.
Like, my dad and I are going to a ballgame pretty soon.
We're sitting there, and he's like, should I buy tickets?
I was like, yeah!
And I'll reimburse you later.
Because this is what you do with people who you're friends with.
But people at the Washington Post apparently have no friends, so... With reporting like this, I can't imagine why.
I love this.
this.
They say Kavanaugh's most recent financial disclosures reveal reportable assets between $15,000 and $65,000, which would put him at the bottom of the financial ranking of justices, most of whom list well over a million dollars in assets.
The value of residences is not subject to disclosure.
Shah adds that Kavanaugh has a government retirement account worth nearly half a million dollars that was also not required to be disclosed.
Shah says at this time, the Kavanaugh's have no debt beyond their home mortgage.
Ooh, he can't sit on the Supreme Court.
Dude went to Nationals games.
He cannot sit on the Supreme Court, clearly.
Okay, that was not the stupidest take of the day.
Legitimately, the stupidest take of the day, month, year, decade, century, millennia.
Chris, Andrew Cuomo, who is, I was always under the impression that Chris Cuomo was the stupider of the Cuomo brothers, but apparently, Andrew has now surpassed him.
I mean, when Chris Cuomo, when God made Chris Cuomo, he, he, when God made Andrew Cuomo, he just forgot to take the brains off the shelf.
I mean, he just, he just did not implant one, because this is incredible.
Andrew Cuomo comes out and he says, listen, if Brett Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, you know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna sue them.
I'm going to sue them.
You seriously said this.
Here's Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, who wants to run for president.
But frankly, I don't know how he can even have bipedal locomotion, given his lack of brainpower.
Here is Andrew Cuomo.
We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York.
God forbid they do what they intend to do, which is overturn Roe v. Wade.
I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that, because I don't want any gap in a woman's right to protection, and we have a better legal case when the Supreme Court acts, because I will sue when the Supreme Court acts.
I love all the idiots there.
I'll sue!
Yeah!
Woo!
Okay, so just just to make clear for those who don't know like basic law, okay?
Like basic law, like you're a complete moron who hit your head on a tree stump when you were three.
Alright, you can't sue the Supreme Court, you idiot.
Okay, so how would that work exactly?
The Supreme Court rules to overturn Roe v. Wade, and then Andrew Cuomo goes, hey guys, they overturned Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court.
I'm gonna sue them!
In court!
Then it goes to court, and then the court rules against him.
He says, I'm gonna appeal it!
To the higher court!
And then it goes to the appellate court.
And then he says, I'm gonna appeal it to the highest court in the land!
The Supreme Court!
Who I'm suing!
For the decision!
So the Supreme Court, according to Andrew Cuomo, is going to rule against the Supreme Court on the Supreme Court's ability to overrule Roe v. Wade because Andrew Cuomo sued the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court.
Yes.
Yes.
This is one of your frontrunners for 2020, Democrats.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Okay, that was the stupidest take of the day.
Running a very close second was MSNBC's Katie Turrer.
So Katie Turrer comes out, and she says that she doesn't understand why all of these people want to interpret the Constitution, you know, like a law.
Like, why don't they just interpret it like poetry?
Why don't they, like, just read it and see a Maya Angelou poem?
Or Emily Dickinson.
Like, why can't we just look and see what we want in the law?
And she proceeds to make a series of ridiculously stupid errors, which is why when people on the left talk about the courts and jurisprudence and judicial philosophy, it just makes you want to slam your head on a desk until you are bleeding profusely.
Here is Katie Tour from MSNBC.
Based on where Americans stand on the issues, and Americans have really moved in a much more progressive direction over the years, do you think it's appropriate to continue to take such a strict, originalist view of the Constitution, given it's 2018 and not 1776?
Okay, there are 83 problems with the thing she just said.
Number one, 1776 was a solid decade and a half before the Constitution was written.
So, actually, you wouldn't want to go back to 1776 to interpret the Constitution because it hadn't yet been written.
In fact, America was not yet, it had not yet defeated Great Britain in its war for independence yet, so there's that.
And then, there's the problem of, it's 2018, do you really want to interpret a document written in 1789, you know, like it was written in 1789 when it's 2018?
The answer to which is, yes, because it was written in 1789.
This is like saying that you're reading a piece of literature from 1830 and you're applying modern day standards to it.
So every time it says in a piece of 18th century literature the word gay, right?
It says that she was a gay young woman, right?
And it's an 1830s book.
And you go, that means she was a lesbian.
No!
The word gay in 1830 did not mean homosexual.
The word gay in 1830 meant lively and happy, right?
Okay, the case for reinterpreting the Constitution is basically that the words of the Constitution magically change over time because people have changed their views.
But you can't interpret text that way, and no one with half a brain would want to interpret text that way, because it makes zero sense whatsoever.
And then finally, there's this idea that, you know, people have changed.
We live in a much more progressive time, in a progressive country.
That means we should reinterpret the Constitution to match.
Well, if you think that the country has moved in a progressive way, if you think that the country is filled with progressives, you know what's a thing you could do?
You could get those progressives to vote for your policy, as opposed to trying to impose them from above by deliberately misinterpreting a piece of legislative text from 1789.
You could do that.
But no, but no.
We're all supposed to pretend that this is intelligent political discourse because everything is stupid.
All of the things.
Okay, so, speaking of all of the stupid things, I want to go into the story of another deeply stupid thing in just a second.
First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
$9.99 a month.
Get your subscription to dailywire.com.
You get the rest of this show, Andrew Klavan's show, Michael Moles' terrible show.
You get all of those things when you become a subscriber.
Plus, you can be part of our mailbag, which happens tomorrow.
You can ask me live mailbag questions.
Which will be astonishingly fruitful.
Also, YouTube has currently manipulated the subscription feed that you have to curate your choices.
So if you're a subscriber to our YouTube channel, please go over there.
And to make sure that you receive notifications for our live videos, you not only should subscribe to Daily Wire on YouTube, you also should ring the little bell.
There's like a little bell icon so you know when we post.
Behold!
This is true for current subscribers as well.
You should go back and you should ring the little bell, even if you're already subscribed over YouTube, because once you get a certain point, YouTube starts punishing you, basically.
So go check it out so that you know when we release new videos.
If you want to become an annual subscriber, you can do that for $99 a year, and you get this.
Behold, see the glory.
Feel it emerging from the speakers of your iPhone or from the screen of your computer.
You can feel blessed, as I do, to hold this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears hot or cold tumbler.
All you have to do is spend $99 and give me your cash.
So check that out, and you will not regret it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
In other stupid stories...
So I think I told you earlier this week the story of a woman named Daniela Greenbaum who wrote a piece for Business Insider.
Did I tell this story earlier this week?
I did not tell this story earlier this week.
Okay, so this one is an oldie but goodie, but it's not that old.
So in any case, there's a woman named Daniela Greenbaum.
Daniela Greenbaum, with whom I am friendly, used to write for Commentary magazine.
And it turns out that she wrote a piece for Business Insider, which is a left-wing Outlet.
And that piece said that Scarlett Johansson should be allowed to act as a transgender man in a new movie.
Now, I've talked about the Scarlett Johansson issue before.
OK, the basic Scarlett Johansson issue is that Scarlett Johansson is indeed a woman, in case you didn't know.
And she's playing a transgender man, which is to say a biological woman on screen in a movie called Rub and Tug.
It's gonna be awesome.
And everybody got very, very upset, because why should a woman, you know, like a real woman, play a transgender man?
The answer to which is because all transgender men are biological women.
But, and also she's an actress, because she acts things like that's what she does for a living.
And this is not the equivalent of a white person putting on blackface and acting like a black person, because a white person is not biologically a black person.
However, a transgender man is biologically a woman.
In fact, if Scarlett Johansson were to come out tomorrow and say, I am a man, according to the left, she's a man now.
So the only difference between Scarlett Johansson being a transgender man and acting as a transgender man is that we know she's acting.
That's literally the only difference.
If we didn't know she was acting, then we would assume she was an actual transgender man.
In any case, Daniella Greenbaum writes a piece for Business Insider.
And here's what the piece says.
She has been cast in a movie in which she will play someone different than herself.
For this great crime, which seems to essentially define the career path she has chosen, she is being castigated for being insufficiently sensitive to the transgender community.
Stealing narratives, or more charitably, playing parts, is precisely what actors are hired to do.
But that reality seems to have been forgotten.
Johansson's identity off the screen is irrelevant to the identity she plays on the screen.
That's what she's paid for.
And if she does her job, she'll make everyone forget about the controversy in the first place.
But this, that seems pretty commonsensical, right?
Well, it turns out that she is actually Daniela Greenbaum, history's greatest monster.
She's up there with Stalin, she's up there with Hitler, and so Business Insider pulled the piece.
They pulled that piece.
That extraordinarily mild piece.
Why?
Well, according to the Daily Beast, Business Insider removed a post about portrayals of trans individuals in Hollywood after staff complained internally about the column, saying the article did not meet the publication standards.
Several Business Insider staff told the Daily Beast that some employees were offended by the column.
The publication took down the piece on Friday and appended an editor's note to the page on Tuesday, saying that Business Insider removed the column because, upon further review, we decided it did not meet our editorial standards.
So the new standard over at Business Insider is that if employees were offended by a piece, the piece can't run.
Which is weird because I edit a website and it's my decision as to what goes up and what comes down.
And if a piece goes up that I didn't see and I didn't like, I can take it down.
But I don't take a poll of the newsroom.
I don't walk around the office going, guys, what do you think?
And if someone comes to me and says, I found that piece deeply offensive, I then have to make an independent judgment as to whether the piece was actually offensive.
I don't just go over to Colton and be like, yeah, Colton, let's take a poll of you and we'll take a poll of Senya and we'll take a poll of Jess and we'll just take a poll of everybody in the office.
And then we'll decide what comes down or what goes up because that's not their job.
That's my job.
I'm the editor.
OK, and the same thing is true when it comes to Business Insider.
But we've become so stupid that the person who screams the loudest immediately gets all of the all of the grease.
So, Danielle Greenbaum has now resigned from Business Insider, and she wrote this letter, which is exactly right.
She said, This is the question I wanted to weigh in on when I saw the brouhaha about Scarlett Johansson's role in the upcoming movie Rub & Tug.
Again, great movie.
By the way, I think there's a good case to make that a woman should not play a man and a man should not play a woman, but that a woman can play a trans man because that's a biological man, right?
Like a woman playing a man.
We've actually had movies like this.
Cate Blanchett played Bob Dylan in a movie recently, and nobody seemed to care.
In fact, it was a sign of female empowerment that this was the case.
It's pretty rare to have a man play a woman.
I don't know that that's happened anytime since, like, Shakespeare's day, basically.
But, it's... Yeah, I think there's a case to be made that biological likes should play biological likes, but trans men are biological women.
In any case, here's what Greenbaum... Greenbaum's not even as radical as I am.
Okay, so here's what she says.
She says, Apparently, that radical view, that actors should be free to act, is beyond the pale of acceptable opinion, as just a few hours after it went up, the piece was erased from the site following a campaign against me.
I have other views some might consider controversial.
I believe, for example, safe spaces are an inane concept that belong nowhere near our institutions of higher learning.
I believe that people should be admitted to universities on the basis of merit, not depending on the color of their skin.
I believe that Hamas, not Israel, is the worst enemy the Palestinian people have.
I believe that members of the gang MS-13 are animals, and there's nothing wrong with saying so.
I believe that accusations of cultural appropriation encourage divisions instead of bridging them.
I had hoped to be able to write about these and other issues as a columnist here, and for a while I did.
I have enjoyed the past few months.
I have worked here.
I am really disheartened about what has transpired in the past few days.
I wish I could say I am surprised." And she says that she is now resigning from her position as a columnist.
The level of insanity that has now taken over our editorial pages is obviously beyond the pale.
Good for her for standing up to it.
But it's just indicative of the level of intolerance to which the left will stoop based on really non-offensive stuff.
Really, really non-offensive stuff.
But I'll tell you what they are offended by.
So what the left are offended by, they are deeply offended, obviously, by Donald Trump.
So much so that George Lopez decided it was worthwhile to go over to Trump's Hollywood star and then fake pee on the Hollywood star.
Here is what it sounded like.
So this guy, who's been irrelevant for a while, right?
He's pretend peeing on Donald Trump's Hollywood star for TMZ.
With, like, a water bottle.
And everybody cheering, uh, what bravery, uh, good news!
But guys, Trump isn't president anymore, because George Lopez peed on his Hollywood star.
Now, Trump's Hollywood star has already been vandalized.
Remember that there was somebody who came with a hammer and started chiseling out the Hollywood star because they hate Donald Trump that much.
Yeah, that sort of insanity, if you really think that is going to drive anybody to vote for Democrats in the upcoming elections, you gotta be crazy to actually believe that.
It's pretty astonishing that Hollywood continues to act as though they have any sort of moral credibility on political issues, and they think that's going to win them elections.
Hillary Clinton tried this.
The entire election cycle, she tried this.
She trotted out Lena Dunham, who's an awful human being, and she trotted out a bunch of other celebrities, and she had them all perform at the DNC, and it was a giant fail.
But Hollywood is not going to stop this, because in the end, for Hollywood, it really is not In any way about winning the political battle, it's about virtue signaling to all their friends and showing what wonderful people they are because they hate Trump so much that they're going to pretend pee by pouring a water bottle on Trump's Hollywood star or some such.
Okay, speaking of overwrought nonsense, the continued attempt to get Jim Jordan, the representative from Ohio, Seems to me wildly misplaced.
So I spoke about this a couple of days ago, and I'm still waiting for additional evidence to come out that Jim Jordan was specifically informed that the team doctor at Ohio State University, when he was a young wrestling coach there, was actually molesting the players and that he refused to do anything about it.
I've seen none of that evidence.
So far, all I've heard is a bunch of testimony from people saying, well, Jim had to have known.
Had to have known and did know and was informed and was warned and then obstructed.
Those are not the same thing at all.
They're not the same thing at all.
In fact, it could create legal liability in any company.
If there are just rumors floating about that one of the people in the company was, say, sexually harassing somebody else at the company.
It was just rumors at the company.
It wasn't an actual complaint.
If you go to that person and you start talking about the rumors, that person could theoretically sue you.
It actually creates legal liability if you start believing rumors and you go around talking to people or you fire the guy based on that.
Let's say you take it to the extreme and you fire the guy.
The guy could sue you for wrongful termination if you fire him based on just rumors floating around that the guy's a sexual harasser or abuser.
You would actually have to see an actual complaint.
And while I think the same thing applies to Jim Jordan, from what I understand, because I've talked to some people who are on the Ohio State wrestling team at the time, from what I understand, everybody knew the doctor was a creep, but none of them were actually filing complaints, because they're all strapping 20-year-old men, and they figure if the guy goes too far, I'll just sock him in the head.
Which seems not completely wild to me, just as a theory of how this thing is working.
Nonetheless, people continue to go after Jim Jordan.
Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, came out and defended Jim Jordan.
He said that he believes Jim Jordan's side of the story.
So do I, until I see some other evidence, guys.
Jim Jordan is a friend of mine.
We haven't always agreed with each other over the years, but I've always known Jim Jordan to be a man of honesty and a man of integrity.
Okay, the fact that Paul Ryan is willing to stake himself on that demonstrates how weak this case is.
Because in Washington, D.C., the easiest thing to do is just to keep silent about it.
Or to say, I'm waiting until all the evidence comes in.
But to actually have Ryan out there defending Jim Jordan shows that this is a gotcha operation.
And the more we see these gotcha operations, the more we see these, we're gonna go back 30 years and try and drum up support for the idea that you covered up sex abuse when you didn't, against Jim Jordan.
Or the more we see Stormy Daniels as a hero of the resistance, until she starts slapping cops with her breasts.
Or the more that we see all of this talk about Brett Kavanaugh's credit card receipts and how this means he can no longer sit on the court, the more we realize that our politics is basically just a slap fight.
It's just a Stormy Daniels-style booby slap fight.
That's all it is.
And it's not accomplishing anything.
It's not bringing America forward in any real way.
It's just become this partisan bickering over essentially nothing from people on the left.
Because if you want to argue over Trump's policy, go for it.
But if you want to argue about Jim Jordan in 1987 based on no evidence, or you want to argue about Brett Kavanaugh buying Nationals tickets, You're going to have to do better than that if you want to be part of an actual political conversation.
I don't think the left does.
I think they're much more interested right now in signaling that they are very, very, very angry.
And the more very, very, very angry they can act, the more they hope they're going to win votes, which is, of course, why they like people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, because she acts very, very angry.
The angrier you are, the more we're supposed to respect you.
Well, you're not earning my respect with your anger.
In fact, you're just showing how dumb you are very frequently.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things I like.
So, I mentioned the movie Lincoln yesterday.
So, the great song of the Civil War was, of course, the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
It's really a terrific piece of music.
And this is what men marched into war singing.
It's a magnificent piece.
Here is a little bit of the battle hymn of the Republic.
My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.
He is trampling out the linkage where the grace of God must go.
He hath loose the faithful might, he of his terrible swift sword.
His truth is not denied.
Okay, I mean, it's great.
When people say that religion doesn't have a part in American life, you can't listen to that song and not hear the religion that's written all over it.
It was religion that drove the Civil War.
It really was.
The attempt to abolish slavery was driven in large measure by a Puritan ethos that said that slavery was wrong and that people needed to march into battle to stop it.
The attempt to separate religion out from the Civil War, and particularly the Union's cause, is really absurd.
The other things that I like, so this is pretty great.
There's a new study out, and what it shows is that universal IQ screening boosts the number of poor and minority students in gifted education.
So there's been a lot of talk from folks on the left for years that IQ tests should be out of bounds.
They should be ruled out of bounds.
The reason they should be ruled out of bounds is because not enough poor minority students will do well on them.
And then you will have basically this cased hierarchy of people of high IQ.
And those people will be disproportionately in members of non-minority communities.
First of all, that seems a little bit racist to me, right?
Isn't that an acknowledgement of the idea that certain races are inferior to others intellectually?
I thought that was the entire argument here.
The entire argument on the part of the left is that there is no such thing as group differences in IQ, or that if there are group differences in IQ, that those are only manifest because of social differentiation, not because of actual IQ.
But what the study shows is the opposite.
What it's showing is that if you actually want to get students in poor minority neighborhoods into gifted programs, what you really should do is not use affirmative action, which is subjective.
You should actually use IQ tests.
Here's what the study says.
The screening program led to large increases in the fractions of economically disadvantaged and minority students placed in gifted programs.
Comparisons of the newly gifted students with those who would have been placed in the absence of screening show that blacks and Hispanics, free reduced-price lunch participants, English language learners, and girls were all systematically under-referred in the traditional parent-teacher referral system.
In other words, objective tests are not showing that these group differentiations in IQ are reflected in only white students or only Jewish students or only Asian students in gifted programs.
Instead, it turns out that when you actually apply an equal standard to everybody, that there are a lot of blacks and a lot more Hispanics who are getting in than when it was just this kind of biased referral system.
That's good.
That's not bad.
And yet it'll be the left that tries to argue against these IQ tests.
Now, one of the reasons that I think it's foolish for the left to argue in favor of affirmative action and against objective standards, objective metrics, is because then what you're doing is you're putting a stigma on everybody who gets into the gifted program who's black.
So let's say that you have a gifted program that is barred IQ tests, specifically because you have said you don't think enough black students are going to get in.
Well, then the assumption of a lot of people when they see a black student in the gifted program is that the student wasn't normally gifted enough to get into the gifted program, but now through affirmative action is.
It creates this massive stigma for black students who are in gifted programs.
But that's stupid.
According to the study, there will be more black kids who get in if you use these tests.
So that's pretty, it's pretty great.
This is an actual statistic from the Atlantic.
And the statistic shows that there was a massive increase, a massive decrease in the number of whites in the program post-universal screening.
So 60, I guess there were 61 white students in this one school.
61 white students who got into the gifted program before the universal screening.
That was reduced to 43.
And what you saw among black students was an increase of five.
Among Hispanic students, an increase of 11.
Asian students, there were eight in both.
Objective metrics are helpful.
Non-objective metrics are counterproductive.
And we ought to be pursuing objective metrics as much as we can, so at least we have the data.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
Okay, Cory Booker is the worst.
Okay, the senator from New Jersey, you know, good friend to his imaginary gangster T-Bone.
Cory Booker, he says that it's time to stop the BS partisanship.
This from the guy who has claimed that every religious judge in the country ought to basically be disbarred.
This from the guy who suggested that Christian Nielsen was the great monster in American history.
This from a guy who has suggested that Kavanaugh is being placed on the bench specifically because he's gonna let Trump off the hook in an impeachment trial.
And here's Cory Booker saying, you know, bipartisanship needs to start.
We need to stop with the partisanship, guys.
We really do.
We need to stop the partisanship in this country.
We really do.
We have more common ground.
We have more common ground than we care to admit.
And we're letting political opportunists on both sides of the aisle try to undermine the truth of this nation, that the ties that bind us are so much stronger than the lines that divide us.
Okay, except for how he spends every day in Congress trying to run as far as he can to the left so he can win a primary.
That's right.
When Booker was in New Jersey, when he was mayor of Newark, he was known as the guy who crossed the aisle, right?
He was known as the guy who was trying to build consensus, at least publicly.
But now that he's a senator, he's much more interested in running for president.
That means being as partisan as humanly possible while still proclaiming that he is trying to bring the country together while wearing his Mr. Potato Head angry eyes.
So that is Cory Booker's spiel right now.
Okay, other things that I hate.
So, this is actually something I like.
I think it's actually kind of funny.
So, apparently, Who thought that that was a great idea?
That someone would want to buy a bottle of wine that said on it, Of Glenn.
partnered with the Handmaid's Tale producer MGM to make a series of wines inspired by characters in the show, all of whom are brutally oppressed and subjugated.
The wine was pulled after just one day on the market.
Who thought that that was a great idea, that someone would want to buy a bottle of wine that said on it, of Glenn, of Fred?
Who was into that?
It just shows how crazy people are that they think, oh, I guess people are such big fans of the Handmaid's Tale, they want to buy branded Handmaid's Tale wine.
Yeah, it's great.
By the way, Michael Avenatti, this is also hilarious, he's now accusing Ohio law enforcement of foul play after Stormy Daniels was arrested.
MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle spoke to Avenatti about his view that the arrest was a politically motivated setup against his client.
Daniels was charged with three misdemeanor sex offenses for touching undercover police officers during her routine.
Her attorney had some interesting insight into their investigation of his client.
He says she was there for her performance and unbeknownst to her, the police set up a sting operation within the strip club with multiple officers.
During her performance, they asked if they could place their face in between her breasts while she was performing on stage.
Avenatti continued to call the incident ridiculous and an absurd use of law enforcement resources.
He said if Daniels is briefly postponing her national tour and will plead not guilty to the charges, he says it seems absurd to me.
This is something that would require this amount of resources and would result in the arrest of my client.
I've been in touch with prosecutors this morning.
We've been up all night dealing with the situation.
I think they're going to be reasonable about this.
I think they're going to be diligent and appear to be incredibly professional and we thank them for that.
I like that Avenatti really is upset with law enforcement resources being expended on his client slapping people with her breasts and shoving their face into her cleavage, but he is not concerned with the millions and millions and millions of dollars that are being spent in resources all across the country to deal with the fact that one time his client had sex with a married man.
Which is the extent of Stormy Daniels' story.
That is literally her entire story.
Okay, so, there we are.
Everything's stupid.
We'll be back here tomorrow with more stupidity.
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