FBI agent Peter Strzok gets clocked by a bevy of Republicans, President Trump takes on Theresa May for no apparent reason, and we check the mailbag.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Man, oh man, when the news is this stupid, it's not hard to do a show.
And we have lots to get to today.
But we begin first with reminding you that your employees could be better.
Now, mine couldn't.
My employees are just spectacular.
I mean, they made a video yesterday that is so good, I can't stop talking about it.
But if they ever displease me, then we will go directly to ZipRecruiter and we will replace them forthwith.
The way we will do that is by going to ZipRecruiter and listing our job.
And then ZipRecruiter sends our job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
They don't stop there with their powerful matching technology.
ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and invite them to apply to your job.
As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that 80% of employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day.
So with results like that, it's no wonder that ZipRecruiter is the highest rated hiring site in America We use it here at DailyWire right now.
My listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this web address.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
Okay, try it for free.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
We use it here at the DailyWire, so that makes sense.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
We use it here at the office, and you should as well.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire, and you can try ZipRecruiter for free.
Also, wanted to remind you that our next episode of The Conversation is coming up quickly.
This Tuesday, July 17th, 5.30 p.m.
Eastern, 2.30 p.m.
Pacific, all of 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 at dailywire.com.
You can check out the pinned comments on this video for more information.
Once again, Subscribe, ask Drew live questions, Tuesday, July 17th at 5.30pm Eastern, 2.30pm Pacific.
Join the conversation, ask Drew where all of his hair went, and why he names his books so poorly.
Go check it out, the conversation happening next Tuesday, 5.30pm Eastern, 2.30pm Pacific.
Alright, so!
Yesterday, Peter Strzok, you remember this guy, this is the guy who is an FBI agent having an affair with another FBI agent and he was texting with her the whole time about how much he hated Donald Trump.
And this only matters because Peter Strzok was in charge of both the Hillary Clinton email investigation as well as the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.
And as you will also recall, the Inspector General of the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, found that Peter Strzok's bias against President Trump could not be counted out when it came to analyzing his activities with regard to these investigations.
So, for example, there was a point in late September when it became clear to the FBI that there were Hillary Clinton emails on Huma Abedin's computer.
Instead of prioritizing that and checking it out, Peter Strzok decided it was imperative to put all of his resources on the supposed Trump-Russia collusion that was happening.
And instead of checking out the Hillary thing, he checked out the Trump thing.
That delayed the Hillary thing until late in the election cycle.
Ironically, that ended up boosting Hillary Clinton out of the presidency.
It ended up creating a Donald Trump presidency, possibly, by allowing the FBI and James Comey to re-announce an opening of Hillary's email investigation like five, six days before the election actually happened.
So, Peter Strzok is, uh, He's the guy who wrote that he would stop Trump from becoming president.
He was the guy who wrote that all of these ignorant hillbillies were going to vote for Trump.
He's a real joy to behold.
So he shows up on the Hill yesterday and he's testifying in front of the House Government Oversight Committee.
Let me say at the outset, I don't think that this was a useful hearing.
The reason I don't think this was a useful hearing is because no new information was available.
We already knew what Peter Strzok was going to say about all of this because it said all of it in the Inspector General report.
The only thing that would have been useful is if the members of the House Committee on Oversight, if the Government Oversight Committee, if they'd actually asked Strzok about specific instances of decision making and whether those decisions were biased by his anti-Trump hatred.
Right, so if they'd actually had in front of them, like, a complete timeline of Peter Strzok's decision-making, from the initiation of the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Russia collusion investigation, all the way through today, and said, okay, here's all your decisions, here's why this one seems biased, explain yourself.
That would have been useful.
Instead, what it turned into was a lot of grandstanding and browbeating.
It did, however, make Peter Strzok look pretty terrible, because Peter Strzok is, it turns out, a garbage human.
When I say he's a garbage human, I say this advisedly.
There was a moment yesterday when Louie Gohmert got a lot of flack because Louie Gohmert went after Strzok.
And he went after Strzok for cheating on his wife.
And then texting with this lover about Donald Trump all the way through.
Here was Representative Gohmert from Texas going after Strzok yesterday.
There is the disgrace, and it won't be recaptured anytime soon because of the damage you've done to the justice system.
And I've talked to FBI agents around the country.
You've embarrassed them.
You've embarrassed yourself.
And I can't help but wonder, when I see you looking there with a little smirk, how many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eye and lie to her about Lisa?
Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous!
And Democrats go crazy over all of this, of course.
Now, is it ironic that Republican members are chastising Peter Strzok over having an affair when Louie Gohmert... I like Louie.
I'm friendly with Louie.
When Louie campaigned for Roy Moore in Alabama, when Louie was a big Trump supporter, is it a little ironic?
Yes, of course it's a little ironic, but I will point out that I would like for there to be a standard that adultery is bad in the country, so it doesn't really bother me that Peter Strzok is getting smacked around over the fact that he was cheating on his wife with another FBI agent and texting little nothings, sweet nothings about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to her.
That doesn't bother me in the slightest.
OK, so Strzok made himself look really bad yesterday.
He started off the hearing by saying that even this questioning is a win for Vladimir Putin.
And he's becoming a hero to the left because of all of this.
It's sort of an Oliver North moment from the 1980s during Iran-Contra.
Oliver North was the colonel who had been involved in smuggling weapons to the Contras in Nicaragua.
And he was questioned by Democrats.
A lot of Republicans came to his aid.
Peter Strzok is having the same thing happen to him, even though he's kind of a Yucky human.
He has a bunch of Democrats who are now rushing to defend him and talk about how wonderful he is because he suggests that even this line of questioning helps Vladimir Putin.
I have the utmost respect for Congress's oversight role, but I strongly believe today's hearing is just another victory notch in Putin's belt and another milestone in our enemy's campaign to tear America apart.
OK, well, there are serious questions to be asked about Peter Strzok.
Yeah, I don't think that having a hearing about whether the FBI was biased in its investigation is irrelevant.
This is the job of the Government Oversight Committee.
I don't think that this is a huge problem.
Daryl Issa, again, this is all grandstanding, it was all very entertaining, but I don't think anybody came out of this looking great.
Daryl Issa made Peter Strzok read his texts, and it was kind of hilarious.
And I'm gonna just go to a date and then ask you to read your own words.
March 4th, 2016.
You want me to read this?
Yes, please.
Yes, sir.
OMG, he's an idiot.
Now the pressure really starts to finish MYE.
Hi, how is Trump other than a douche?
Melania?
Ms.
Page said, not ever going to become president, right?
Right?
No, no, he's not.
We'll stop it.
Repeat that again.
No, no, he's not.
We'll stop it.
So they're struck reading back his own, his own texts.
And obviously this is the guy who's now proclaiming that he has no bias.
Everything was fine.
He explained his text messages, his anti-Trump text messages, by basically suggesting he did nothing wrong.
That when he said, we'll stop it, you know, as a high ranking member of the FBI, meaning Trump's campaign, we'll stop Trump from becoming president.
He didn't mean me.
He didn't mean the FBI.
He meant the American people in general.
We'll stop it.
You know, we'll stop all of this.
Is that really what Peter Strzok meant?
No, that's not really what Peter Strzok meant, but here he is lying about it.
It would be his candidacy for the presidency in my sense that the American population would not vote him into office.
Right, right.
I don't recall writing that text.
Are you denying writing the text?
What I can tell you is that text in no way suggested that I or the FBI would take any action to influence the candidacy of Agent Strauch.
That is a fantastic answer to a question nobody asked.
OK, so they're saying, I didn't, I didn't buy it.
But that's the point.
OK, so here is that actual little exchange where Gowdy says to him, that's a great answer to the question nobody asked.
But that's the only question that matters, honestly.
The only question that matters is not whether Peter Strzok hated Donald Trump.
We know Peter Strzok hated Donald Trump.
I'll bet there are a bunch of people in the FBI who weren't real fond of Hillary Clinton either.
The real question is, was the investigation biased?
And this is why I say that I think this hearing was kind of a waste of time, because it didn't get to the question of whether his actual actions impacted the actions of the FBI in the Russia investigation.
And for that, we're gonna have to wait for more information to come out.
Now, does it demonstrate that Peter Strzok is the worst?
Yeah, the guy's pretty much the worst.
I mean, there's a gif going around, a jif going around, of Peter Strzok making these weird faces, and it's like Kevin Spacey from Seven.
I mean, the guy's a weirdo.
But does that actually answer the question as to whether the Russia investigation was, from the very outset, poisoned by the FBI, directed at making sure that Trump was not president, corruptly investigated?
Now, I have my suspicions, but those suspicions were not actually provided with any evidentiary support during this hearing.
Now, we gotta be objective in how we view this.
Yes, Peter Strzok is terrible.
Yes, the Democrats who defend him for all of this are ridiculous.
But if you're going to imply that Peter Strzok was responsible for an investigation that was utterly corrupt beginning to end, you actually need to show some evidence that he's responsible for corrupt portions of the investigation.
I'm waiting to hear that because there's an actual Inspector General report that's going to come out about the Russia investigation.
And as I've suggested, I don't think it's anywhere out of the realm of possibility that the Russia investigation, the collusion investigation, was tainted from the outset by Strzok and his anti-Trump bias.
I don't think that's impossible at all.
What I do think is that if the Republicans were going to have this hearing, they should have hit him with all that stuff.
They should have had that information.
They should have made that information public.
Again, none of this is to suggest that Strzok is innocent.
I don't think Strzok is innocent.
For example, Strzok was asked how long did it take him to start talking about impeachment after James Comey was fired.
Trey Gowdy was asking him this question in clip 7.
Do you remember how long it took for you to start talking about impeachment after Bob Mueller was appointed?
I don't, sir.
One day.
One day.
And you were talking about impeachment.
OK, that's true.
And it shows again that Strzok was wildly biased against Trump, disliked President Trump.
We knew all of that already.
So the real question was, OK, so what impact did that have on the investigation?
The answer probably is some impact.
But we need to see the evidence of that impact before we can say the entire investigation needs to be thrown out top to bottom.
Now, I don't think the investigation is going to come up with anything anyway.
I think the investigation is likely to come up short on a variety of issues.
I don't think it's going to reach all the way to President Trump.
I don't think it's going to show that President Trump and the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russian government.
I don't think any of the evidence is there for any of that.
But what I do think is that Peter Strzok and the FBI need to do a much better job of cleaning up exactly how it is that they are pursuing these issues.
Because obviously it's dirty in the way they are pursuing it.
The question is how dirty and how impactful.
That's not stopping Democrats from defending Peter Strzok.
Democrats are out full force defending Strzok, saying that Strzok is just a wonderful, wonderful dude.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Policy Genius.
So, you need life insurance, okay?
It is a moral obligation for you to have life insurance.
If you die, and then you don't have life insurance, that is your fault.
Not your death, but your lack of life insurance.
That's something you can take care of right now by going over to PolicyGenius.com right now.
PolicyGenius is the easy way to compare life insurance online.
You can compare quotes in just five minutes.
When it's that easy, putting it off becomes a lot harder.
You can compare quotes while sitting on the couch.
You can do it while you're listening to this podcast.
PolicyGenius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance, placed over $20 billion in coverage, and they don't just make life insurance easy, they also do disability insurance.
And renter's insurance and health insurance.
If you care about it, they can cover it.
So go check it out right now at policygenius.com.
It's the easy way to compare all the top insurers, find the best value for you.
I have life insurance.
My wife has life insurance.
I urge you, seriously, go get life insurance right now.
You never have to think about it again once you got it.
Go check it out.
Policygenius.com.
No sales pressure, zero hassle, and it's free.
Once again, that's Policygenius.com.
There's a reason that 4 million people shop for insurance using Policygenius, and they've placed $20 billion in coverage.
Policygenius.com.
Don't put it off.
Alrighty, so...
With all of this said, with Peter Strzok being as corrupt as Peter Strzok is, with him being as smug as he is, and the smugness matters here.
Hey, listen, I have a certain amount of sympathy for people who are smug, considering that I am a charter member of the Smug Club, but if, in fact, Peter Strzok is really smug about what he believes, what that tends toward is a certain level of certainty in his activity with regards to his professionalism.
And he tends to believe that his opinion is fact, which is why he's so smug about it.
When you start to believe that your opinion is fact, well, that tends to creep into a mission.
If I could give you a purple heart, I would.
you to believe that the stuff you are doing is legitimate, even when it's slightly illegitimate.
And again, we're going to have to wait to see the facts come out as to how badly he botched the investigation.
But I'd be very surprised if there was no botchery whatsoever.
Democrats, however, are out defending Strzok because Strzok is a hero.
So Steve Cohen, who is a Democratic congressman from, I believe, Tennessee, he says that Peter Strzok should be given a purple heart.
If I could give you a purple heart, I would.
You deserve one.
This has been an attack on you in a way to attack Mr. Mueller and the investigation that is to get at Russia collusion involved in our election.
Okay, so Okay, so that's great.
The Democrats say that he deserves a Purple Heart.
Purple Heart is for wounded veterans, people who served in the military and been wounded in the line of duty.
Peter Strzok doesn't deserve a Purple Heart.
Peter Strzok deserves a pink slip.
Not a purple heart, a pink slip.
I mean, the guy should be fired.
And this is a guy who has disgraced the FBI, no matter how you slice it.
But according to the Democrats, because he sent a bunch of anti-Trump text messages, he deserves a purple heart.
Now, what's hilarious about this is that it's probably Peter Strzok's fault that Hillary Clinton is not president right now.
If Peter Strzok had simply investigated the Hillary Clinton email stuff on Huma Abedin's computer and released that in early October, as opposed to the very tail end of October, then Hillary Clinton wouldn't face that round of bad headlines at the end of October.
She may very well have won.
So they want to give a Purple Heart now to the same people who may be responsible for Donald Trump being president in the first place.
It's really hilarious.
They do the same thing with James Comey.
James Comey was the guy who released a letter right before the election saying Hillary Clinton was under investigation again by the FBI.
And now they love James Comey.
The left can really be bought for a song.
All you have to do is scream about how much you dislike Trump, and the left suddenly loves you.
The left suddenly is just your... It's become an entry key to the leftist kind of lounge, if you dislike President Trump.
It's funny, the other night, I went with my wife over to a place in Los Angeles called the Magic Castle.
The Magic Castle is just spectacular, it's a lot of fun, and we went there for our 10th anniversary, and one of the magicians there, who's this very famous magician, he's got a show on Netflix, I believe, he started off his little routine with a joke about Trump.
He said, I was in New York, and everybody cheers, and then he goes, and I walk past Trump Tower, and everybody starts booing.
And I thought to myself, really?
Like, this is how you're going to signal to your audience that you are one of them?
All these rich people sitting at the Magic Castle in Los Angeles on a Tuesday night, and you're talking about how you walked by Trump Tower?
Boo!
I mean, honestly, I'm not...
I've called balls and strikes with President Trump and made me want to cheer for President Trump when he said he walked past Trump Tower.
Just the amount of smug that the left has exuded here.
That's why they like Strzok.
The smug for them is not a bug.
It's a feature.
It's something that they really enjoy.
Now, meanwhile, President Trump has headed over to Britain.
And there he's gotten himself in a little bit of hot water.
So he did an interview with the UK Sun, which is just a huge mistake.
And in this interview with the UK Sun, he ripped into current Prime Minister Theresa May.
So for folks who haven't been following this, Theresa May is the Prime Minister of Britain.
And she is also in serious trouble electorally, because if there should be a no confidence vote and they call a new election, Theresa May probably loses her prime ministership.
I mean, Jeremy Corbyn is an actual former Soviet asset inside the UK.
Jeremy Corbyn is an actual terrorist sympathizer.
He's one of the worst people on planet Earth, Jeremy Corbyn.
He could be the next Prime Minister of Britain if the Conservatives blow it.
Well, the Conservatives have been fighting amongst themselves over how to handle Brexit.
So as you recall, a couple of years ago, Brexit was voted on by the British public and they voted that they wanted to exit the EU.
And it was unclear what exactly that meant.
How exactly were you going to carry out this exit from the EU?
So there have been two plans that have been forward.
One is sort of called for shorthand soft Brexit and the other is hard Brexit.
Hard Brexit is we are going to cut off all of the current treaties that we have with the EU and renegotiate all of them.
Soft Brexit is, we're going to exit in certain areas, but we're going to leave a lot of the rules in place in other areas.
So as The Sun describes it, the Tory manifesto vowed to withdraw Britain from the single market and the customs union so that we can end free immigration and quit the EU court.
But Labour has not signed up to that approach.
A soft Brexit would see the UK have a similar membership of the European Economic Area to that of Norway.
That would mean that the country would still have access to the single market while being able to make deals without the rest of the EU, so they could make outside deals.
It would also see the UK stay within the EU Customs Union, meaning exports would not be subject to border checks or tariffs.
And a softer Brexit could see the UK making payments into EU budgets and accepting the four freedoms, movement of goods, services, capital and people.
So it wouldn't be a complete Brexit.
So soft Brexit is unpopular with the hard base of support that supported Brexit.
Hard Brexit is not popular with the vast majority of the British public.
So Theresa May has been having to walk this very fine line.
Well, thankfully, she has the subtlety of Donald Trump to help her guide her through this.
Donald Trump is about as subtle as a brick through a window.
And so Donald Trump comes in and he starts preaching to Theresa May exactly how she should handle Brexit, obviously based on his vast experience with the British public.
The reason this is stupid is because you don't want to undermine your ally there.
If he undermines Theresa May, then Jeremy Corbyn could easily become prime minister.
And then he has to deal with an open socialist who hates Trump, hates the United States, hates all of America's other allies.
Does Trump really have that much of an interest in how Brexit is negotiated, that he wants to undermine Theresa May?
And yet there he was, praising Boris Johnson, another member of Theresa May's cabinet who just resigned over her soft Brexit stance.
Here is Trump praising Boris Johnson, saying he'd make a great prime minister, boosting an actual competitor to Theresa May within her own party, in an interview with the UK Sun.
I think he's a great representative for For your country.
I'm not pitting one against the other.
I'm just saying I think he'd be a great prime minister.
I think he's got what it takes and I think he's got the right attitude to be a great prime minister.
Okay, so he starts off by basically boosting her actual antagonist inside her own party.
Then he rips into soft Brexit saying that's not what the Brits voted for.
Now, again, maybe you agree with him.
That's not the point.
Is this politic at all?
Is this in any way smart or diplomatic?
If you don't like how Brexit is being handled, first of all, it's an internal issue for the British public.
Second of all...
Like, I presume that Donald Trump wouldn't want Theresa May traveling over to the United States and dictating to him how we ought to do our tax policy or our tariff policy.
I assume that he'd get mad about that.
But he's going over there and telling Theresa May that she ought to basically renegotiate all her trade deals with the EU.
Which makes no sense, by the way, because the amount of trade that Britain receives from the EU surpasses, I think, by a bundle, the amount of trade that they receive from the United States.
Here he is, in any case, ripping soft Brexit, saying that is not what the Brits voted for.
Well, I think the deal that she's striking is not what the people voted on.
It's a much different deal than the people voted on.
It was not the deal that was in the referendum.
Playing expert on stuff that you really don't know much about is really not smart.
I'm not an expert on Brexit.
I certainly know Donald Trump is not an expert on Brexit either.
And creating a binary choice between the US and the EU for the UK is just not smart policy.
It's not smart policy.
UK exports to the US were worth about £100 billion in 2016 compared to £234 billion to the EU in 2016.
In other words, if they have to choose between the EU and the United States with regard to their trade policy, I don't think it's going to be any question that they're going to pick the EU, because it would be foolish otherwise.
Okay, so that wasn't all that Trump had to say.
Trump then continued, he was talking with the UK Sun some more, and he ripped into Sadiq Khan.
Sadiq Khan is the mayor of London, and here's the president ripping into Sadiq Khan.
Now this is the part where Trump actually says some stuff that's true.
You have a mayor who's done a terrible job in London.
He's done a terrible job.
Why?
Take a look at the terrorism that's taking place.
Look at what's going on in London.
I think he's done a terrible job.
I agree with Trump here.
But at least if you're going to attack your opponents, attack your opponents when you are abroad.
Okay, with all that said, the President of the United States is making a lot of waves over there.
It's not stopping the, hilariously enough, it is not stopping the left from making even greater fools of themselves than they otherwise would.
We'll talk about that in just a second.
First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Wink.
So, do you need a drink?
Because, damn, I need a drink.
I mean, let's be straight about this.
And if you do need a drink, but you actually want a nice bottle of wine, like you don't know the difference between a bottle of Manischewitz, a bottle of turpentine, and a bottle of decent wine, then perhaps you ought to check out our friends over at Wink.
Wink makes it easy to discover great wine.
It's W-I-N-C.
It's a great resource.
It makes enjoying downtime that much easier.
Wink's wine experts select wines matched to your taste, personalized for you, shipped right to your door, starting at just 13 bucks a bottle.
There's nothing like coming home to a box of delicious Wink wine selected just for you.
It's the best day of your month.
Fill out Wink's palette profile quiz.
And then answer simple questions your average store clerk wouldn't ask or translate into a recommendation.
Questions like, how do you take your coffee?
Or how do you feel about blueberries?
And then Wink sends wines curated directly to your taste.
The more wines you rate, the more personalized your monthly selections each month.
There are new delicious wines like the insanely popular Summer Water Rosé.
No membership fees.
Skip any month.
Cancel any time.
And shipping is covered.
So if you don't like a bottle they send you, they'll replace it with a bottle you'll love.
No questions asked.
Discover a great wine today.
It really is great.
They customize it just to your palate.
Go to trywink.com slash ben.
You get 20 bucks off your first shipment.
That's t-r-y-w-i-n-c dot com slash ben for 20 bucks off.
trywink.com slash ben for $20 off.
Again, trywink.com slash ben to let them know that we sent you.
Okay, so.
None of this is stopping the leftists in the UK from making the same sort of fools of themselves that leftists in the United States have as well.
So they started off by flying a baby Trump balloon over the Westminster.
Okay, so there was a lot of talk about how big this thing was going to be.
And there were a bunch of pictures of it.
They basically suggested it was going to be a blimp-sized baby Trump balloon that was flying over Westminster Abbey, which is really close to Parliament.
And here is the actual size of the balloon that they flew.
That thing is not even the size of like a small bounce house.
That's what you order from Amazon versus what comes in the mail right there.
Right?
That's your profile on Tinder versus what you look like in real life.
That is not What they were going for.
And yet, and yet, there it is.
So the leftists, you know, doing wonderful work over all of this.
And then Jeremy Corbyn, he says that Trump is best friends with Theresa May and it's just terrible.
Why would Theresa May be friends with Trump?
This is why Trump should not have undermined Theresa May.
But Jeremy Corbyn, this old loon bag, I mean, he makes Bernie Sanders look like a model of propriety and sanity, Jeremy Corbyn.
Here's Jeremy Corbyn going off on Theresa May.
Theresa May has invited President Trump to this country at a time when his dangerous and inhumane policies are putting the lives and the well-being of millions of people at risk.
The Labour Party is committed to dialogue, including of course with those we strongly disagree with.
Okay, so Jeremy Corbyn using this as an opportunity to rip into Theresa May.
This is why, you know, I know that the Trump policy is basically going to, he's a bull in a China shop with everything.
And sometimes that's great.
Sometimes that's great.
Sometimes the China needs to be broken.
I'm not sure our relationship with Theresa May needs to be broken at this time with Jeremy Corbyn sitting there waiting to pick up all of the pieces.
Now, that doesn't mean that everything that Trump has said in Britain is wrong.
Some of the stuff he said in Britain is right.
Here's Trump, for example, talking about immigration into Europe.
And people are taking this as Trump's a racist.
No, what Trump is saying here is that lack of assimilation into Western civilization creates all sorts of cultural problems.
He's not the first person to say stuff like this.
David Cameron, former conservative Prime Minister of UK, has said the same thing.
Angela Merkel has said the same thing.
Here is Trump talking about mass immigration into the EU.
I just think it's changing the culture.
I think it's a very negative thing for Europe.
I think it's very negative.
I think having Germany, and I have a great relationship with Angela Merkel, great relationship with Germany, but I think that's very much hurt Germany.
I think it's very much hurt other parts of Europe.
And he's exactly right about this.
I mean, I was in France a few years ago, and there's no question that there are certain districts in France that are just not safe for Jews to travel in.
Everybody knows about them.
And that has been an effect of unvetted mass migration into the EU.
It's one of the reasons Brexit happened in the first place was people in Britain said, we don't want free travel of people all around the EU.
They come and they settle in Britain and then they just stay here and they create enclaves.
They're not assimilated in any way.
Trump was also asked about Vladimir Putin.
He's supposed to meet with Vladimir Putin next week.
And he was asked about whether he would talk about election meddling with Vladimir Putin.
I don't think Trump is wrong about this one either.
I know you'll ask, will we be talking about meddling?
And I will absolutely bring that up.
I don't think you'll have any, uh, gee, I did it, I did it, you got me.
There won't be a Perry Mason here, I don't think, but you never know what happens, right?
But I will absolutely, firmly ask the question.
Okay, and he's exactly right about this as well.
He should ask the question.
Nobody should expect that Vladimir Putin is going to come out and admit guilt in any of this.
But the president of the United States is going to have to at least be a bull in a China shop with Putin as well.
You can't just be a bull in a China shop with regard to your own allies.
That's a safe space to be a bull in a China shop.
You know that the UK and France are not going to spend their days attacking you because it would just be foolish.
But what you can do is attack in the same way Putin that you would your own allies.
I think that's the very least Trump should do.
Also, I just got to say, you know, President Trump can say all these things.
Some of them are true.
Some of them are not true.
What he shouldn't do is fib outright.
So President Trump was asked about the Sun interview and then he called it fake news.
And unfortunately, there was a story that was done, which was generally fine, but it didn't put in what I said about the Prime Minister, and I said tremendous things.
And fortunately, we tend to record stories now, so we have it for your enjoyment if you'd like it.
But we record when we deal with reporters.
It's called fake news, and we solve a lot of problems.
It's not fake news.
It was I just played you the tape.
It's not actually it's it's not fake news.
So this is this is something where I wish the president would stop doing it.
OK, so I want to get to the mailbag.
I have a lot of mailbag to get to today.
So let's you know, let's let's just jump right in.
Also, we are, in fact, As of right now, awaiting some breaking news with regard to the DOJ.
Rod Rosenstein is supposed to be having a press conference momentarily at which he announces some new indictments in the Mueller case.
So we'll report on that as it comes down in just one second.
But we'll start with the mailbag until then.
So we begin with Brandon.
Brandon says, Mr. Shapiro, Well, I do think that as people shift how they are going about their business of consuming news, there will be a decline in the ratings for a lot of cable news networks, just because younger people have cut the cord in a way that older people have not.
That said, I think that the cable news industry is obviously thriving and robust right now, If you had to invest your money in a 20-year plan for the future, everybody is moving online, and this is true for a lot of the cable news networks as well.
They're starting to expend more resources to move into that space.
I think at a certain point, everyone will own the tear-filled Tumblr or the equivalent on the left.
I think that the cable news model in 20 years is probably not going to be a thing.
Daniel says, hi, Ben.
Love the show.
My fiance just got her first speeding ticket and she's very upset.
I thought it might help her feel better if you could talk about your experiences with violating the law.
Have you ever been pulled over?
If not, please pretend like you have anyway.
Oh, have I been pulled over, Daniel?
Oh, have I been pulled over?
So, I used to own a Baby Blue GT Mustang Convertible.
And it was awesome.
Except for the fact that if you drive five miles over the speed limit in a GT Baby Blue Mustang Convertible, you will be pulled over.
Whereas if you drive precisely the same speed in a Honda Pilot, you will never be pulled over.
I know this because since I started driving a Honda Pilot, I have never been pulled over.
When I drove my Baby Blue Mustang Convertible, I was pulled over once every five seconds.
I had many, many parking tickets.
My worst speeding ticket came in a Honda Civic.
Was it a Honda Accord?
was not in that GT baby blue Mustang convertible my worst speeding ticket came in a Honda Civic and I was at Honda Accord a Honda Accord I was driving I was caught going a hundred and I was ticketed at 114 miles an hour on the i-5 coming south from Sacramento and And it was, I mean honestly, to say I was distracted would be an understatement.
There was a close family friend who just died, I was trying to get back for the funeral, but that said, I was going 114 miles an hour and I was lucky because they didn't catch me going 127, which was where I maxed out.
In any case, after that, it was not a great experience, shall we say?
They decided to charge me with a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
You can be charged with a felony if you're going that fast.
They can put you in jail.
They decided to charge...
Oh, no.
Sorry.
It would have been a misdemeanor, but they could have charged a misdemeanor or they could have charged me with an unsafe driving, kind of not quite a misdemeanor thing.
And so my license was suspended for 30 days.
I had to go up to, I think it was Victorville?
And go in front of a judge in the middle of nowhere and basically acknowledge my crime.
And it was a good thing that I had my dad drive me up there because if I had not, I would not have been able to drive back.
So that would have been really not great.
So yes, I have experience with speeding tickets.
That said, Here is my general opinion of speeding tickets.
Did I deserve it at 114?
You bet I deserved it at 114.
Did I deserve it at 70 in a 65 zone?
No, I didn't, because I think that speed limits are generally stupid.
Really, I think they're generally stupid.
I think we have reckless driving laws.
I think that if you get yourself into an accident, that's your own fault, but...
Speed limits are generally an idiotic thing.
There are certain countries, like Germany, I believe there are certain areas of Germany, like on the Autobahn, where the speed limit is basically non-existent.
And I have not seen a huge increase in the number of accidents because of that.
So, I think a lot of this is dumb.
I think most speeding tickets, frankly, and traffic tickets are a way for the government to raise money.
The government likes raising money by ticketing people.
And this is just one element of that.
Okay, so.
We'll do some more Mailbag in just a second.
First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com.
So go check it out right now.
dailywire.com.
$9.99 a month.
Get your subscription to this, The Ben Shapiro Show.
You get to ask live questions in the Mailbag right now if you're a subscriber.
Plus, you get the rest of The Clavin Show, the rest of The Knowles Show, and for your annual subscription, $99, you get this Leftist Tears hot or cold tumbler.
Look.
Behold the magnificence.
Check it out.
It's fantastic.
So check that out right now.
And when you do, then you get all of those aforementioned glories.
Plus, check us out.
Our Sunday special is coming up this Sunday.
Who's on our Sunday special?
The Sunday Prager, right?
So Dennis Prager is on our Sunday special this Sunday.
It was a really interesting conversation.
Check us out at YouTube and iTunes.
Make sure that you ding the bell when you actually subscribe at YouTube.
Just hit that little bell right there that makes sure that you're notified when we have a new video.
Check us out.
out we are the largest fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation okay so uh let's get back to the mailbag uh Quick update on the Rosenstein thing before we get back to the mailbag.
So I'm now hearing that Rosenstein is set to announce indictments for 12 Russian intelligence officials for hacking.
I'm not sure why exactly That is deeply, deeply newsworthy.
It's not an American who's actually involved in the hacking, and there's no charge that these people are involved specifically with the Trump administration.
These are the first charges by the Mueller office directly accusing the Russian government of meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
I think we all acknowledge already that the Russian government was meddling in the election, so watch as everybody goes nuts today, but I don't think that it's going to be that big a deal.
Okay, back to the mailbag.
Brandon says, Mr. Shapiro, with the rapid growth of social media and other internet news outlets, do you think mainstream media We got that one already, sorry.
Back to, let's see, Troy.
Okay, so Troy says, Chief Justice Shapiro, I hope we'll hear that by 2030.
No chance.
How is the chief justice chosen?
Are they appointed the position by the president or do the justices pick the chief justice based on who has control on the court?
So, it's an appointed position, the chief justice.
It is not like they elected among their friends and they hold the re-election among their friends.
Like when Roberts was elected, was selected to the court by Trump, Everybody knew that he was going to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because he was replacing William Rehnquist.
He actually had to replace the Chief Justice, I believe.
I don't think that it's like the friends get together and decide to change it.
Elise says, "If you could debate any person, "living or dead, in front of a large audience, "who would you choose to debate?" Bernie Sanders, hands down, anytime, anywhere, half my brain excised, not a problem.
Phillip says, "How do I get Veronica "from the DW chat to marry me?
"If we get divorced, what happens to our Tumblers?" Well, I don't know Veronica, Philip.
All I can say is that ladies love the tumblers.
So if you pledge that your tumbler will be hers forever, no matter what happens in the divorce, I will suggest that your shot with Veronica will be much better, because when you pool your assets, including tumblers, you're both richer for it.
Okay, Edward says, Ben, I recently read Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
While I agree with him regarding his philosophy of nonviolent protest, he also criticizes the notion that citizens should obey laws we feel are wrong until the law is changed, even going so far as to say we shouldn't pay taxes if we felt they were going to be used for immoral purposes.
My question is, where does this end?
There are plenty of laws currently on the books that I believe to be wrong, and a plethora of programs I don't want my tax dollars funding.
So should we disobey all the laws we don't like and not pay taxes?
Or are there just some laws like slavery that are so egregious that we have to take a stand against them?
If so, what determines those kinds of laws?
Thanks, love the show.
This is a serious question in the history of American law and jurisprudence, and it's one that requires a lot of thinking because The general answer is you should obey the laws that are the products of a system that you can change from within.
If, however, the laws are the products of a system you cannot change from within, and they are so evil as to require you not to obey them, then armed rebellion might be necessary.
So, for example, the American Revolution was founded on the idea that the founders were being taxed without representation.
They had no capacity to affect the change within the system, and therefore they had to rebel.
There's a good case to be made that disobedience to slave laws, like disobedience to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850...
That was morally justified because there was no real chance of changing that at the federal level.
That was something that should have been disobeyed in practice and that basically is what happened in large swaths of the North.
The idea that you can disobey tax law, I think that's a little bit different simply because tax law changes all the time and you actually can't have a pre-market impact on how the tax law is both created and interpreted.
John says, Ben, do you have any advice for aspiring authors, especially with regard to publishing and marketing your book?
Well, my advice for aspiring authors is do some reportage.
Go out and write something that people... Once you have a certain level of notoriety, you can write whatever you want, obviously.
It can be Bill Clinton and write a mystery novel with James Patterson.
But if you are somebody who's up and coming and you want to get into, say, the thought space, not necessarily the fiction space, but the non-fiction thought space, then I would recommend you go out and do some reporting.
My first book was a reported book, brainwashed all about I don't think there's any real rule with regards to what kind of fiction works and what kind of fiction doesn't, and what gets published and what doesn't.
It seems to me that you can be as marketable as you want to be, and it's completely subjective as to how these books are selected, which is why so many bad books get published.
Kurt says, Ben, I'm in a conservative echo chamber.
I ignore left sources because of their condescending, misleading, or unfactual, hateful, and poisonous speech.
However, Jordan Peterson is slowly convincing me I should listen to both conservative and liberal voices.
He states the West's success depends on both sides and we should be talking to each other.
Could you name a few podcasters and or journalists who present the news and information based on facts and their values and not their party ideology or some far-left nonsense?
I'm looking for the Ben Shapiro on the left.
Well, there are certain people on the left who I actually enjoy talking to, who I'm friendly with, and whose stuff I enjoy reading.
So, my favorite right now is there's a gal named Jane Koston who writes over at Vox.com.
Now, I'm not a Vox.com fan, but I think Jane actually tries to be thoughtful about how she approaches these issues.
What's hilarious about that is that I originally met Jane after she wrote a piece ripping the crap out of me in the New York Times, saying that I was an emissary of hollow bravery.
Uh, and then I, she, she got in touch with me, uh, and I wrote her back and she said, you know, I hope you're not mad.
And I was like, why would I be mad?
Like people criticize me all the time, but I think she actually tries.
Uh, I think that, I think that Jake Tapper for, uh, I think he tries.
I think Jake tries.
I'm not sure he always succeeds, but I'm not sure any of us always succeed.
Um, I think that there are, uh, some journalists who do a better job than others and, and at I think Jake when it came to for example that gun debate in Parkland It was not doing the job, but I think Jake when it comes to covering for example the When it came to covering the Hillary Clinton email stuff I think Jake was significantly better and asked some real tough questions of people so you sort of have to determine on a case-by-case basis unfortunately trying to think who else is is a good reporter and
On the left, Maggie Haberman from Time to Time.
There are some reporters at the Washington Post who do a fairly decent job, some at the New York Times.
I'll try to compile a list and put it out there, because I think there are some people who are at least doing their best, trying, on the left.
AJ says, Last year, a week before my 28th birthday, I purchased my first house.
I'd always lived with my parents, and once I graduated from college, started paying some of the monthly bills to help out as we agreed.
My parents were great, and let me stay until I was financially stable enough to live on my own.
I know some people think parents should make kids leave the nest upon reaching 18 or 21, and let them get by on their own.
I was just wondering your thoughts about what age one should move out, and if you think my parents were too easy on me.
Love the show, and thanks for the thought-provoking rhetoric you speak.
Okay, so, here is my perspective.
You have to tailor this to the kid.
So after law school, I came back and I lived at home.
That was really not a huge problem because I could afford to live outside the home.
My parents knew I was responsible.
It was not a question of me sponging off my parents.
I had a job.
It was just a question of I was more comfortable living at home because I like my parents.
They like me.
And there was no real rush for me to go out and get an apartment.
So, you know, that's one thing.
It's another thing if you're enabling.
And if a parent is enabling, or if you are becoming a sponge off your parents, if the idea is you don't want to pay the bills, so that's why you're staying home, or you're too lazy to get an apartment, or you don't want to do your own laundry, or that kind of stuff, then you really should move out and your parents are not doing you any sort of great benefit by not kicking you out of the house.
They're actually making your life worse in a lot of ways.
I do think that you reach a certain age, and no matter what your priority, you really should get out of the house.
I mean, if you're 25, 26 years old living at home, I think that you should really start thinking about getting an apartment, move out, live on your own.
Living on your own is something that's worthwhile as a general rule.
Thanks.
Tyler says, hey, Ben, what version of time travel in movies and TV shows do you think is the most realistic?
Examples include the fixed timeline where nothing can be changed, like Lost and The Terminator, and the dynamic timeline where changes cause alternative timelines, like in Back to the Future.
Thanks.
Well, I mean, I'm reading a book on time right now that I'm going to recommend next week.
There's a good case to be made that time is actually an illusion, that it's something that human brains use to organize the stuff that happens in their lives, but that essentially all time exists kind of simultaneously and that you are, as a creature traveling through this This mixture of material and time that you are just observing things in a weird way.
All these weird questions are raised by quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity.
There are all sorts of weird questions about how time actually works, but if you were to think in a timeline way, no, I don't think that there is like a fixed timeline.
No matter what you do, it can't change.
I think that, I'm not a determinist, I'm a free will believer, so I think that there are such things as alternative timelines if you could time travel.
Also, I just find movies and TV shows based on a fixed timeline utterly boring, because you know what's going to happen at the end anyway, so what the hell's the point?
Chris says, Hey Ben, I have a question about the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Declaration of Independence.
In the Declaration of Independence, the word God and Creator are used in the document.
In the Declaration of the Rights of Man, God or Creator is not mentioned at all.
I know for the Declaration of the Rights of Man, Marquis de Lafayette and Thomas Jefferson were two of the main writers.
With Thomas Jefferson being the main writer of the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, why is God excluded from the Declaration of the Rights of Man?
That is a thousand questions.
All of them are good.
Fortunately, I have a book coming out next year that is on exactly this topic and goes through all of these questions one by one.
Pierre was trying to force French society into believing in the cult of the supreme being or deist beliefs?
Also, was many of the ideas of Maximilian Robespierre carried on to people like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and many others?
That is a thousand questions.
All of them are good.
Fortunately, I have a book coming out next year that is on exactly this topic and goes through all of these questions one by one.
I will say in brief that the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is that the American Revolution still paid fealty to Judeo-Christian values, whereas the French Revolution, in the memorable phrase used at the time, was all about strangling the last king with the guts of the last priest.
So the idea was that religion was an eminent bad, and overthrowing religion in favor of a sort of deist worldview was the best way to achieve a reasonable society.
Obviously, that failed.
You have to more your values to something.
And in America, you more those values to the Judeo-Christian God.
Jefferson himself, people say that he was a deist, but His deism was not just the sort of clockwork God, God made stuff and then left it on its own.
There's a good case to be made that he believed in a slightly more involved God than that, although not a God who was constantly involved in human affairs on a constant level.
He believed that human beings, through reason, were more likely to shape the world around them.
He did believe in the natural law and the idea that the universe had been constructed according to certain laws that required certain human behaviors, right?
This was common to virtually all the founders.
Washington believed this, Adams believed this, Jefferson believed this.
I mean, listen, there's something called the Jefferson Bible, where Jefferson tried to go back and reorganize the Bible and tried to make it sound more reasonable, basically.
So this is not somebody who's trying to disconnect the people from the Bible as a general rule.
Aslan says, Hey Ben, I watch your show every day.
I'm a huge fan.
I'm a conservative-leaning libertarian in a relationship with a wonderful woman who shares my values.
We've been together almost a year.
My question is how long, in your opinion, should you be in the courting phase before you propose?
Follow up would be how long until you get married?
Many of my leftist friends view things as an immediate satisfaction rather than a long-lasting happiness, so I get conflicting info.
Thank you.
Love the show.
Okay, well if you know you love her and she loves you and you share values, the answer is propose to her today and get married tomorrow.
Like seriously, there's no reason to delay things.
I'm speaking as somebody who got engaged to my wife after three months of dating and got married to her after eight months of dating.
Okay, and that's just because it took that long to get the wedding together.
OK, so it's and we've been married for 10 years and we're quite happy when you share values.
This idea that the longer you live together with somebody, the more you are likely to live together well with somebody is belied by every statistic.
People who live together before marriage actually are less likely to stay married over the course of time because you already know each other's flaws.
So what exactly?
The whole purpose of marriage is that you're taking a leap of faith into a relationship with a person who's going to develop over time.
But if you share values, then you have something to hew to.
But if you are in a situation where you are attempting to You know, bust through all of the flaws you know about each other already because you've been dating for seven years.
It's a lot harder to get the enthusiasm up before I'm going to sign up for another 30.
It's a lot easier to do this at the very beginning.
This is why marriage is built around the idea of passionate love and marriage is built around the idea of companionate love.
So marriage at the outset, dating is built around passionate love, marriage is built around companionate love.
Companionate love over time, there are charts that show this basically.
Jonathan Haidt talks about this in In the Pursuit of Happiness, the Happiness Hypothesis, his book on happiness, basically he says the relationships start off like this.
Here is your passionate level of love, it is up here.
And then down here is your companionate level of love, meaning the amount of trust you have in the person, how well you know the person, how predictable that person is.
And over time, in the first year basically, the first couple of years, passionate love goes like this, and companionate love goes like this.
And the marriage that you have 10 years from now is not going to be the marriage that you have when you are first married.
And that's not a terrible thing.
But it does mean that if you are thinking that... Here's the mistake people make.
They start off dating.
There's a lot of passionate love, no companionate love.
Companionate love increases, passionate love decreases.
But then they look around, they go, this isn't as exciting as it was when we first were dating.
Which is true.
Being married 10 years is not as exciting because there's not as much uncertainty.
You know the person.
They're predictable.
You know all their habits.
All of this is true.
Living with someone is not as exciting because excitement generally comes from uncertainty.
There's a lot more certainty when you've lived with someone for a very long time.
Well, when that's the case, The question is, how do you get from passionate love to companionate love and stay in companionate love and be satisfied with companionate love?
And the answer is that marriage was designed, marriage was designed to hem in passionate love into companionate love.
It was not designed, there was supposed to be this gap, okay?
Passionate love was supposed to immediately move into marriage.
The beginning of your marriage was passionate, and then that would gradually move into companionate love.
If you do that while you are dating, then you're basically at low ebb with passionate love.
And then you think, well, what happened to the passion?
When you're married, you know what happened to the passion is you built a life together.
When you're not married, what happened to the passion is you just hung out together for too long a time and you're bored with the person.
Why don't I go search for the next passionate experience?
And this is the problem that people have, really.
They're looking for that next high.
They're looking for that next high.
And that's not what marriage is about.
Marriage is not about the highs.
Marriage is about the lows.
Hey, marriage is not about the best times you experience with each other.
It's about what do you do when the bleep hits the fan.
Okay, and that's the stuff where companionate love matters a lot and passionate love matters almost not at all.
Okay, so let's do a couple of things I like and then a thing that I hate.
So, thing I like today, so we were doing a lot of Civil War stuff this week, so I decided I would recommend a book on the Civil War.
This book is The Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson.
It's probably the single best volume on the Civil War.
It's been written.
It's about 600 pages, and it's really easy reading, starting from before the Civil War and going all the way up through the end of the Civil War by James McPherson, won the Pulitzer Prize.
It's really well written and very comprehensive.
It's got all the maps.
Ken Burns' Civil War series draws heavily on Battle Cry of Freedom.
Go check that out if there's a period of time you're interested in.
I have heavy interest in the Civil War.
I think it's fascinating.
I think all of the philosophical issues leading up to the Civil War are fascinating.
I think the characters, the people who fought in the Civil War are fascinating.
And if you don't know the Civil War, you don't know America.
So go check it out.
Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
Alrighty, so Sasha Baron Cohen, you know, we now know that he tried to prank Sarah Palin into doing a bit on a series with him.
And apparently what he did is he said that he was a wounded veteran who wanted to talk with her for a series on Showtime.
And according to Breitbart News, which has deep connections with Palin, so I'm sure this is true, Cohen pretended to be a disabled veteran from Kentucky who was a big fan of Governor Palin.
He was wearing a necklace made of bullets and had a laptop covered in InfoWars stickers.
The bullet necklace and stickers for Alex Jones' InfoWars website were part of the persona Cohen was playing, according to the source.
His disguise was basically a caricature of a conservative middle-class Trump voter who was asking her absurd, racist, homophobic, sexist questions that were all meant to mock Trump voters as a bunch of ignorant and offensive kooks.
Some of the questions focused on Palin's support of the Second Amendment.
He was asking her things like, why can't the mentally ill be armed with assault weapons?
He kept presenting her with ridiculous graphs that she told him were obviously inaccurate and fake.
And throughout it all, Palin patiently and politely explained why he was wrong.
He added that her entire interaction was over two hours long.
Palin has no doubt it will be heavily edited to embarrass her.
And then here is what Showtime had sent to Sarah Palin.
What she may talk about.
We'd love to discuss his background, why she got into politics, her personal story, her experience and career in Alaska and on a national level as well.
We'd love her insight on the past, present and future of America, information, and the It's a free forum to talk about issues that matter without being attacked.
Show her perspective without bias directly to our audience.
This is a great way to connect with a younger generation of voters.
So this was Showtime basically lying to Sarah Palin.
Now, as somebody who has done a book that was based on people thinking I was someone that I was not, you cannot lie when you do this.
So the reason that people thought I was someone I was not when I wrote, for example, Primetime Propaganda, Is because they assumed something that was not in evidence.
I said that I was writing a book about the history of Hollywood, and that I wanted to interview the most important people in Hollywood, and that I was a Harvard Law School graduate.
A simple Google search would have shown exactly who I was.
But all of these people in Hollywood were too lazy to do that.
They saw the last name Shapiro, they saw Harvard Law, they figured I was a leftist.
And so I asked them questions.
I asked them if I could tape.
They said yes.
I taped.
And then I released the tape.
That's not the same thing as what Barron Cohen did to Palin, because that's not his routine, right?
It's a comedy routine.
But the level of scorn that the left has for Trump voters, that they're all rednecks who wear bullet necklaces and watch Infowars, It's it's quite insane.
It's quite insane.
Keep doing this left.
Keep doing it.
You want Trump to be reelected?
You are well on the path.
I mean, you are you're going to make that happen in pretty short order.
OK, well, we will be back here next week with all of the latest.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.