Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 16, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

49:17

To Russia, With Love | Ep. 581

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	President Trump meets with Vladimir Putin.
	Anastasia Cortez Ortega says something really, really dumb.
	And Sacha Baron Cohen is back at it.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	I always screw up that lady's name and I don't know why.
	Maybe it's just really long.
	Well, we'll talk about her in a little bit.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Bull & Branch.
	So, if you are not sleeping as well as you ought, that is because your sheets are not as good as they ought to be.
	And that is where Bull & Branch comes in.
	Everything Bull & Branch makes, from their bedding to their blankets, is made from pure 100% organic cotton.
	It means they start out super soft, they get even softer over time.
	You can buy directly from them, so you are essentially Paying wholesale prices.
	Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store.
	Boll & Branch sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks.
	I sleep on Boll & Branch sheets.
	They are amazing, and I love them.
	That's why we've thrown out all of our other sheets, and we only have Boll & Branch in the house.
	Even three U.S.
	presidents sleep on Boll & Branch sheets.
	Shipping is free.
	You can try them for 30 nights.
	If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
	You're not going to want to send them back.
	There's no risk, no reason not to give them a try.
	To get you started right now, my listeners get $50 off your first set of sheets at bollandbranch.com.
	Promo code Ben.
	That's bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	Again, you get $50 off when you use that promo code Ben.
	It's B-O-L-L-N-B-R-A-N-C-H-D-O-T-C-O-M, promo code Ben.
	All of their bedding is ridiculously awesome.
	Their sheets are particularly great.
	And if you're looking for something that is breathable and yet soft, then Bull & Branch is for you.
	bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
	Get that $50 off your first set of sheets.
	Also, a reminder, our next episode of The Conversation is here tomorrow, 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, Alicia Krauss.
	Our live Q&A will be available on YouTube and Facebook for everyone to watch.
	Only subscribers can ask Drew questions over at dailywire.com.
	So check out the pinned comments on this video for all the information.
	Once again, subscribe, ask Drew live questions tomorrow, Tuesday, July 17th, 5.30 p.m. Eastern, 2.30 p.m. Pacific.
	Join the conversation and ask Drew about how he does his hair in the morning.
	Okay, so President Trump has met now with Vladimir Putin.
	They met for about two hours this morning and they spent a lot of the time talking about various issues, specifically about Russian election meddling.
	Now Putin came out afterward and he said, we talk about election meddling, but I tell him I don't do it.
	And then President Trump comes out and he says, we talked about it and we talked about it very lengthily.
	And that was pretty much the only thing we found out from this meeting.
	And they spent an enormous amount of time talking specifically about the election meddling.
	And Putin says, we did not do this.
	And President Trump said, well, I don't know whether they did or not, but we talked about it a lot.
	And everybody went crazy over it.
	If all of that sounds a little bit anticlimactic to you, it's because it is anticlimactic, and people are taking away from it what they want to take away from it.
	So on the left, what they're taking away from this Trump-Putin summit is that Trump got job, that Trump got played, that Trump basically made all sorts of concessions to the Russians that we won't find out about until later, but at least in terms of his language, he was very sycophantic.
	And in terms of his language, he was very sycophantic, because President Trump has been consistently sycophantic with regard to Vladimir Putin for at least three years.
	Now, It is not true that his policy has been sycophantic.
	And this is where the left seems to go wrong.
	They seem to immediately connect everything Trump says with everything Trump does.
	But there is a massive problem with doing that inside this administration.
	President Trump very often acts like a free agent inside his own administration.
	He goes out and he says stuff.
	And then the people who do his policy behind closed doors, they do a policy that looks nothing like what he said.
	We've seen this over and over and over.
	We've seen President Trump say while he was a candidate that he wanted health care for all.
	And then as soon as he got into place, then all of a sudden his people were pushing a repeal of Obamacare.
	When President Trump was saying, during the campaign, he wanted to raise taxes on the rich.
	And then he passed a bill that did not raise taxes on the rich.
	It lowered taxes on the rich, among others.
	Well, that was another example of the disconnect.
	Russia is the biggest disconnect.
	Because President Trump says very nice things about Vladimir Putin on a regular basis.
	And then, when it comes to policy, the U.S.
	will bomb Syrian air bases with Russian planes there.
	The U.S.
	will kill Russian mercenaries in Syria.
	The U.S.
	will arm the Ukrainians with deadly weaponry in a way that Obama never would have.
	So this massive disconnect is confusing a lot of people, but it does show that inside the United States, inside his own administration, inside his own administration, there are a lot of people who are not taking his verbiage seriously.
	And I don't think Vladimir Putin is taking his verbiage seriously either.
	There seems to be a concept out there that Vladimir Putin is going to look at Trump and think, wow, that guy's a softy.
	He's softy.
	I take over Lithuania now.
	That's not going to happen.
	Because Putin does not take his words all that seriously.
	It is also worth noting, in the first year and a half of their administrations, Bush and Obama were not much better when it came to signaling softness with the Russians.
	You remember George W. Bush got together with Vladimir Putin after 9-11, and he said he looked into Putin's soul, and he saw something magical there.
	Yeah, what he saw was Putin looking at taking over Georgia.
	And then Barack Obama in 2012 said he wanted to grant flexibility to the Russians, and then he proceeded to grant the Russians Crimea.
	So, All of this talk about Trump is universally and strangely and in weird fashion pro-Russian, that may apply to his rhetoric, but it certainly doesn't apply to his policy.
	Now, when it comes to his rhetoric, his rhetoric does kind of suck, right?
	So Trump has jumped into this meeting with Putin.
	And he suggests that the United States is responsible for the poor state of U.S.-Russia relations.
	He tweeted out this morning that U.S.-Russia relations have never been worse.
	He tweeted out, "Our relationship with Russia "has never been worse thanks to many years "of U.S. foolishness and stupidity, "and now the rigged witch hunt." Yeah, well, that's not great because none of that is true.
	The reason that our relationship with Russia sucks is because Vladimir Putin is a thug and a dictator who's attempted to expand his sphere of influence broadly across the region, everywhere from Iran to Kazakhstan.
	And you've seen President Putin, you've seen him Seize power and keep himself in power for nearly 20 years over in Russia.
	At this point, it's not because of U.S.
	foolishness and stupidity alone.
	It's because of Vladimir Putin being Vladimir Putin.
	And it's not because of the rigged witch hunt, OK?
	It's not because the Mueller investigation is going after Trump.
	Now, in a second, I'm going to talk about how this plays in and why this makes people think that Trump is in the Russians' pocket.
	I don't think that's what's happening here.
	I'm going to explain why the Mueller investigation plays into Trump's picture of Russia.
	In just a second.
	But suffice it to say that that comment is really dumb, and it leaves people believing that Trump is much more pro-Russia in his policy than he actually is.
	And then Reuters asked Trump about that tweet.
	And Trump said, we've all been foolish.
	We're all to blame.
	We have a chance to do some great things.
	And he stopped.
	He highlighted stopping nuclear proliferation.
	He said the probe is a disaster for our country.
	There was no collusion.
	He said, I think that we're all to blame on all of this.
	It's the.
	To show how bad this tweet was, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for Russia tweeted out agreeing with it.
	Russia tweeted out, we agree.
	We agree.
	So Trump says, it's our fault.
	And Russia says, we agree.
	Now, let's be clear.
	If Barack Obama had said this, I'd be all over him.
	I'd be all over him.
	And so it would behoove me not to be a hypocrite.
	President Trump should not say such things because this is gross.
	Hey, when the President of the United States blames the United States for our conflict with Russia, that is just silly in every available sense.
	But I think what's really going on here is something else.
	So what's really going on here is that the President of the United States really, really, really does not like this Russian collusion investigation.
	And he thinks that because the Russian collusion investigation is a witch hunt against him, it is also a witch hunt against Russia.
	These are not the same thing.
	These are not the same thing.
	And this is where we go back to late last week, late on Friday last week, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, he announced there would be 12 indictments coming down of Russian citizens who'd been responsible for working to hack into the DCCC and the DNC and to the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	So Rod Rosenstein announced last week that we're not Republicans, we're not Democrats.
	This is just about going after people who violate the law.
	When we confront foreign interference in American elections, it's important for us to avoid thinking politically, As Republicans or Democrats and instead to think patriotically as Americans.
	And this is exactly right.
	OK, Rod Rosenstein, for all the problems that you have with Rob Rosenstein, Rod Rosenstein, what he says here is exactly correct.
	I don't think that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign to skew the election away from Hillary Clinton.
	I do think that Russian sources attempted to hack into the election, the D.A., the D.C.C.C.
	and the DNC.
	They attempt to they attempted to screw with the election itself.
	And so when Rosenstein says we should worry about the law, the law breaking, we shouldn't worry so much about how it affects either of the parties, he's exactly right about this.
	And as we discussed last week, the indictment itself, the indictments are pretty telling.
	There are a few things to know about that, right?
	It is pretty clear from these indictments that GRU agents, that would be the newfangled KGB, 12 GRU officers knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other and with persons known and unknown to hack the emails of the Clinton campaign, the DCCC, and the DNC.
	Around April 2016, the conspirators began planning how to release Hillary Clinton's emails.
	Around June, they began releasing that material via DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, and they spearfished John Podesta, as well as other top Clinton campaign officials.
	They got a lot of material.
	They also released some Republican material from 2015.
	The hackers created Guccifer 2.0.
	Roger Stone, who was very close with the Trump campaign, he repeatedly defended Guccifer 2.0.
	He seemed to be working with Guccifer 2.0, but that doesn't mean he necessarily knew that Guccifer 2.0 was actually the Russians, or that he was talking specifically with President Trump about directly Interacting with Guccifer 2.0.
	Guccifer 2.0 was also working with WikiLeaks.
	According to the indictment, the conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen documents through a website maintained by an organization that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S.
	persons, entities and the U.S.
	government.
	Presumably, that would be WikiLeaks.
	They released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC network that began three days before the DNC.
	As you recall, President Trump has been saying all along he doesn't think that the hacking was actually the Russians.
	He thought that it was a 400-pound man living in his mother's basement or some such nonsense.
	And then there were a bunch of conspiracy theorists, including some pretty mainstream voices, who suggested that it was all Seth Rich, that it was some DNC staffer who had actually Leaked all of these emails to Guccifer 2.0, who had released all of them, and then they suggested that Seth Rich was murdered over that.
	There was no evidence for any of that.
	And it turned out to be false, right?
	All of this turned out to be false.
	Well, here is the problem.
	Here's what the left perceives, and then here's what the right perceives.
	And I think that there are some elements of truth to the perceptions of both, but the truth lies somewhere in between.
	So what the left perceives is that President Trump was very pro-Russian since the beginning of the campaign.
	This must have been because he was in Vladimir Putin's pocket.
	And then, when the Russians started hacking, it was pretty clear that it must have been that Trump was coordinating with Russia to make all that happen, because that's the only way Hillary Clinton possibly could have lost this election, is if Donald Trump and the Russians conspired to steal the election.
	And then they say, well, now Trump is being super pro-Russian and super anti-probe because he knows the probe is going to find something and because he believes that the Russians were the people who got him elected and he's best friends with them.
	Okay, so here's what they're right about and here's what they're wrong about.
	They are right that the Russians attempted to affect the election in 2016.
	They are correct about this.
	They are wrong about everything else, at least so far as the evidence says.
	Now, there is no actual hard evidence that the Trump administration, Trump campaign, coordinated with the Russians during the campaign or post-campaign in order to create soft Russian policy.
	There's no evidence of that at all, and there's no evidence that Trump is personally in Putin's pocket.
	Now here's what the right says.
	What the right says is Donald Trump is not in Putin's pocket.
	Donald Trump did not cheat during the election.
	Hillary Clinton just lost it.
	Donald Trump has not been too weak on Russia.
	He's actually been pretty harsh on Russia in terms of policy.
	And therefore, all of this hacking talk and all of the collusion talk is nonsense.
	All of the hacking and all of the collusion talk is nonsense.
	All of it is ginned up by people who just don't like Trump.
	Now that is also only half true.
	It's true that Trump is not in Putin's pocket.
	It is true, as far as we know, that Trump did not coordinate with the Russians during the campaign.
	But it is not true that the Russians did not attempt to... It is not true that the Russians didn't hack into the DCCC or the DNC or Hillary Clinton's campaign.
	So I'm going to tell you the real story in just a second, and then we'll see how these two narratives play into what the right and the left are saying about the Trump-Putin summit.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Betterment.
	So Betterment is the largest online financial advisor.
	They're designed to help customers build wealth, plan for retirement, achieve their financial goals.
	Here's the reality.
	You think about spending time playing the stock market or investing in real estate.
	How much time are you actually going to spend on that?
	The answer is probably not a lot.
	You're just going to stick that money in the bank and it's going to sit there earning an extraordinarily low rate of interest.
	Well, this is why you need to talk to the folks over at Betterment, because these are the financial advisors that you need at Betterment.
	Hidden costs are nowhere to be found.
	They charge these really low fees.
	No matter who you are, how much money you invest, you get everything for one low transparent management fee.
	And they are a fiduciary, which means they make recommendations in clients' best interest.
	They're not incentivized to recommend certain funds.
	They don't have our own investment products to sell, right?
	Betterment offers personalized advice, a suite of tools to help you know whether you're on track to hit your investing goals or get the retirement That you want, and when you need it, their tools and guidance can help you get on track.
	I have a financial advisor.
	You should, too.
	The folks over at Betterment really know what they're doing.
	Listen, investing always involves risk, but these are some of the people who can help mitigate that risk and manage that risk.
	Ben Shapiro Show listeners can get up to one year managed for free.
	For more information, go to Betterment.com slash Shapiro.
	That's B-E-T-T-E-R-M-E-N-T dot com slash Shapiro.
	That's Betterment.com slash Shapiro.
	There's an online financial advisor that will help you manage your money.
	Betterment.com slash Shapiro.
	Reach those retirement goals and Then you don't have to do it yourself.
	Betterment.com slash where you can get up to one year managed for free.
	It's a fantastic service.
	You really owe it to yourself to go check it out.
	Okay, so how do these two narratives play into what everybody is saying about the Trump-Russia, the Trump-Putin sort of meeting?
	Okay, so first of all, Let's talk about what Trump is saying about the collusion investigation.
	So here's what Trump tweeted.
	So Trump tweeted out, "These Russian individuals did their work during the Obama years.
	Why didn't Obama do something about this?
	Because he thought crooked Hillary would win.
	That's why.
	Had nothing to do with the Trump administration, but fake news doesn't want to report the truth, as usual." Okay, so he's not wrong that Obama didn't do enough about it, obviously, but Trump would go on to essentially claim that a lot of this was just false in general, that the hacking itself may have happened or didn't happen or has been exaggerated in some way.
	He's focusing in on that angle.
	And that's what he's been that's what he's been saying sort of all along.
	He didn't actually He hasn't yet said that the indictments themselves were BS, but there are allies of his who have said that the indictments themselves are BS.
	So Devin Nunes over at the House Intelligence Committee, he says that this is basically a witch hunt.
	The indictment itself is ridiculous.
	This is a clip three.
	The indictment plays like they're only going after the Democrats when Bob Mueller and all his investigators and his lawyers know for a fact that they also targeted Republicans.
	Why is that not in the indictment?
	It makes the indictment look ridiculous.
	OK, all of that is fine.
	But the fact is, the indictment says what the indictment says.
	And it's pretty clear the Russians were trying to meddle in the election.
	Again, because the right is trying to claim that Trump is not in the pocket of Putin, which he isn't, they're also trying to claim that the entire indictment is wrong.
	That somehow the Russians were not attempting to affect the election in a serious way.
	And it's because Republicans are reacting like this, it's because Trump has reacted like this, that the left therefore thinks that Trump is even more in the pocket of Putin.
	Right, so here's how it goes.
	The left says, Trump is in Putin's pocket, and he's in Putin's pocket because Putin hacked the election.
	And Trump says, wait a second, I'm not in Putin's pocket, and also Putin didn't hack the election.
	And the left says, see, he's lying about Putin hacking the election, which shows that he's in Putin's pocket.
	And Trump says, but wait, I'm not in Putin's pocket, and you're the ones who are claiming he hacked the election, so why am I supposed to believe you?
	And so you see how this goes around and around in a circle.
	Now, the real answer is Putin did attempt to affect the election, and Donald Trump is not in Putin's pocket.
	Right, both of these things can be true all at once.
	The problem is that nobody is going to play this honestly.
	Nobody is going to honestly look at these issues and look where the evidence takes them.
	Instead, they're going to jump to the assumption they think most meets with their preconception of the situation itself.
	Now, all of this was exacerbated by the run-up to the Russian meeting.
	So, in the run-up to the Russian meeting, President Trump started signaling that he was anti-EU.
	He'd spent The NATO meetings talking about the shortcomings in NATO and a lot of people were saying, well, this is signaling weakness to Vladimir Putin.
	First, I do have to note that if there's a group of people who can make President Trump look wonderful, it is his protesters.
	So this is a group of protesters apparently over the weekend who decided to take on President Trump.
	I guess this was in London or San Francisco.
	Yeah, there's a there's a dummy of President Trump.
	And it looks like a bunch of gay activists who are punching the dummy of President Trump and losing.
	Yeah, this is very inspiring stuff.
	Deeply inspiring.
	This guy's got the right hook of my grandmother, and she's 88 and in the hospital.
	So it's a really solid group of folks.
	Yes, this is clearly making the discourse just enormously, enormously better.
	Just really, really well done over there.
	Okay, so anyway, President Trump is over in Europe, and in the middle of his visit to Britain, he suggests that the EU is a foe on trade.
	Here's what he has to say.
	Well, I think we have a lot of foes.
	I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade.
	Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe.
	But that doesn't mean they're bad.
	It doesn't mean anything.
	It means that they're competitors.
	They want to do well, and we want to do well.
	So again, it's President Trump's language people are paying attention to, where he says that they're a foe.
	What people are saying is that, well, he's saying that Russia's a foe and the EU's a foe.
	The EU is an ally.
	Russia is not an ally.
	But the truth is that President Trump uses words like foe pretty loosely.
	He uses words like friend pretty loosely.
	The president is very loose with his language.
	None of this means that the policy that emerges is going to be dramatically anti-EU and dramatically pro-Russian.
	And, you know, President Trump, I think, had the most accurate take on this, this meeting in Helsinki.
	Frankly, he didn't expect much to happen at all.
	Here's what he had to say.
	I don't expect anything.
	I frankly don't expect.
	I go with very low expectations.
	I think that getting along with Russia is a good thing.
	Okay, so he goes in with low expectations and getting along with Russia is a good thing, and nothing came out of it, right?
	So all we know today is that nothing really came out of these meetings.
	President Trump said a lot of words.
	A lot of people are angered by those words.
	That is, you know, I think it is fine to be angry at the stuff that President Trump says in the same way that it was fine to be angry at what Obama said.
	The difference is that Trump says stuff and it doesn't mean a lot very often.
	When President Obama said things that were anti-American, it usually manifested as policy.
	When Obama went around the world and did his apology tour, that manifested in military cuts in an attempt to reduce America's influence around the world.
	When President Trump goes around and says, we're all to blame for 2016.
	When he goes around and he says, well, when it comes to Russia-American relations, we all carry a little bit of blame.
	When he says that kind of stuff, is it gross?
	Is it off-putting?
	Yes.
	Does it manifest as policy?
	Not really.
	Remember, this is the same guy who said twice in the last three years that the United States kills people in the same way that Russia kills people.
	Has that manifested in anything like a soft policy with regard to Russia?
	And the answer, of course, is no.
	And it's this massive disconnect people are having a real problem with.
	That Trump says things that are very egregious often, and when it comes to actual policy, the policy's pretty good.
	And this has been true pretty much across the board.
	In many, many, many ways, this has been true.
	The President of the United States says a lot of stuff, and nothing much comes out.
	So here's what President Trump tweeted out about the upcoming Russian meeting.
	So he tweeted a bunch of stuff.
	He tweeted, the stories you heard about the 12 Russians yesterday.
	Took place during the Obama administration, not the Trump administration.
	Why didn't they do something about it?
	Especially when it was reported President Obama was informed by the FBI in September before the election.
	Okay, then he continued along these lines and he said, Additionally, congratulations to President Putin and Russia for putting on a truly great World Cup tournament.
	Additionally, congratulations to President Putin and Russia for putting on a truly great World Cup tournament, one of the best ever.
	And people went nuts over this because, oh my God, he's complimenting Putin, as opposed to Obama, who also would have complimented Putin on the handling of the World Cup.
	Hillary Clinton, by the way, tweeted in response to this.
	Hillary tweeted in response, Great World Cup, question for President Trump as he meets Putin.
	Do you know which team you play for?
	Well, Hillary, he doesn't play soccer.
	Unlike you, he's the president, so there's that.
	But, he says, which team does he play for?
	This is the left's misperception, that Trump plays for Team Russia.
	No.
	Trump says a lot of stuff.
	So here is Trump's general approach to negotiations.
	Trump's general approach to negotiations is, he tries to win you over.
	He tries to be really nice to you.
	He tries to be really suave and debonair and charming.
	He tries to charm you into a position where you like him.
	And then he hopes to get something out of you.
	Okay, that doesn't actually manifest in terms of him giving something over very often.
	People are just going to have to deal with the fact that Trump says a lot of crap.
	He says a lot of stuff that I don't like and that I find morally off-putting.
	But when it comes to policy, it doesn't manifest all that often in policy.
	And you can tell that from the actual policy.
	But we do have to note when his tweets are bad.
	So here are the rest of his tweets.
	The president continued, he said, heading to Helsinki, Finland, looking forward to meeting with President Putin tomorrow.
	Unfortunately, no matter how well I do at summit, if I was given the great city of Moscow as retribution for all of the sins and evils committed by Russia.
	Over the years, I would return to criticism that it wasn't good enough that I should have gotten St. Petersburg in addition.
	Much of our news media is indeed the enemy of the people and all the Dems.
	Know how to do is resist and obstruct.
	This is why there is such hatred and dissension in our country, but at some point it will heal.
	So again, it's all about President Trump.
	It's one of the off-putting things about the president is that everything seems to be about President Trump, except for policy.
	Now, here's the reaction to all of this.
	So the reaction to all of this begins with some folks on the right who are very upset with President Trump, and it extends to some people on the left who are very upset with President Trump.
	Again, I think there's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing in the end.
	First, I want to say thanks to our sponsors over at Mint Mobile.
	So, You probably have a deal with some big wireless company, and you're probably spending a fortune on your wireless coverage every month.
	There is no reason for you to do that.
	The big in big wireless stands for a lot of things.
	Big contracts, big bills, big secrets.
	Companies like AT&T and Verizon, they don't want you to know that there's a way to cut your wireless bill down to just 15 bucks a month.
	This is Mint Mobile, the game-changing company.
	They've taken everything wrong with big wireless, they've made it right.
	Mint Mobile is proving to millions of Americans getting your wireless bill doesn't have to be the worst day of the month.
	Mint Mobile makes it supremely easy to cut your wireless bill down to just 15 bucks a month.
	You use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan, you can keep your old number along with all of your existing contacts, and then you can choose between two, five, or ten gigabyte 4G LTE plans.
	No more paying for unlimited data that you will never use.
	And because you're not paying for unlimited data that you're never going to use, you get a much, much cheaper price.
	By the way, the coverage is just the same as it would be with one of these major carriers, because my understanding is that they work with one of these major carriers to ensure the coverage.
	Every plan comes with unlimited talk and text, so you can safely annoy your friends and loved ones.
	And if you're not 100% satisfied, Mint Mobile has you covered with their seven-day money-back guarantee.
	So you can try it, see if it works out for you.
	Outfox that old wireless bill, start saving with Mint Mobile.
	Okay, so people don't actually understand that what President Trump says and what he does are two very, very different things.
	So mintmobile.com slash Ben.
	That's M-I-N-T-M-O-B-I-L-E dot com slash Ben.
	Mintmobile.com slash Ben.
	And cut that wireless bill to 15 bucks a month.
	Save yourself hundreds of bucks a year.
	Get free shipping on your Mint Mobile SIM card.
	Mintmobile.com slash Ben.
	Go check it out right now.
	It really is a fantastic way to save money.
	Okay, so people don't actually understand that what President Trump says and what he does are two very, very different things.
	And so people are responding in, I think, rightly outraged fashion over President Trump's language because no president of the United States should be saying the kind of things about America in relation to Russia that the President of the United States And I understand there are a lot of Trump fans who say, well, really what he means is that Barack Obama's policy with Russia was bad.
	Or really what he means was George W. Bush's policy with Russia was bad.
	The reality is no matter how bad American policy has been, and it usually has been bad in terms of weakness, not in terms of strength, The only way that you are going to be able to confront Vladimir Putin is by confronting Vladimir Putin.
	It's not going to be done with kissing his ass.
	It's certainly not going to be done by blaming America for Putin-America anger or dissension.
	Because the reality is that Putin's been doing this since he got into office.
	But apparently, President Trump said that we've had a bad relationship with Russia, but that all changed about four hours ago when he got in a room with him.
	I mean, this is the same thing that President Trump said about Kim Jong-un.
	You remember this.
	He went over and met with Kim Jong-un.
	Some of us were critical of that meeting, saying that meeting was counterproductive and useless, and that, in fact, it was elevating Kim Jong-un on the world stage.
	And then President Trump came back and he tweeted out that we no longer had to worry about a nuclear North Korea, which, of course, was very, very silly.
	Did America's policy on North Korea change in any massive way?
	Not really.
	And the same thing is happening with regard to Russia.
	This is why John Huntsman, who is the U.S.
	ambassador to Russia, he says, listen, it's highly unlikely that Trump is going to recognize annexation of Crimea or something.
	You can't rule out the possibility he might recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea?
	Highly unlikely.
	Crimea was a violation of international law.
	We all recognize that.
	That's U.S.
	policy.
	Okay, so none of this is going to manifest in terms of policy.
	Again, Trump keeps saying these things, and they're really, really dumb, and they're really, really ridiculous, but...
	I'm not sure.
	I'm really not sure that it has any real ramifications.
	Again, I don't think that's me grasping at straws here.
	I think that there is a massive disconnect between the stuff Trump says and the stuff that Trump does in his office.
	I think that the president of the United States says so many things.
	By the way, he just... President Putin presented President Trump with a soccer ball from the World Cup, so that's really exciting.
	I'm sure that... And then Putin said to Trump, the ball is in your court.
	Seriously, it's just yuck.
	Yuck.
	Apparently, Trump criticized the focus on his campaign and Putin apparently ripped on the indictments themselves.
	Again, none of this is good.
	All of this is really bad.
	All of this is really bad.
	Putin said, as for who to believe, who you can't believe, can you believe it all?
	You can't believe anyone.
	So that's really great.
	All of this is just spectacular.
	So again, You know, I keep saying it over and over because I don't think anything is changing here.
	Trump says a lot of crap.
	There are only two ways to read this.
	Either what Trump says matters or what he says does not matter.
	If what he says matters, he said a lot of bad stuff today.
	If what he says does not matter, then who cares what he says?
	And I think in reality, it doesn't matter a whole lot.
	I really don't think that John Bolton, I think the people who actually implement policy ignore President Trump a lot of the time.
	I'm not somebody who believes that, having been to the White House, I do not believe That President Trump is sitting there playing 40 chess upstairs, micromanaging the workings of the cybersecurity profile under the DHS.
	I really don't think that's what's happening here.
	But, you know, we'll have to see how it plays out in terms of policy.
	It's just the president should not be saying these types of things.
	OK, so meanwhile, meanwhile, the Democrats are gearing up for 2020 and they are very, very much in love.
	With a particular set of candidates, Joe Biden apparently wants to make a comeback at age 83.
	He's actually going to be 78, I guess, in 2020.
	And he says that President Trump's immigration policies make him ashamed.
	About these poor kids on the border.
	And can I just ask you then, how does that make you feel?
	If you and your administration... Ashamed.
	Ashamed.
	Makes me feel ashamed.
	I really mean it.
	And I'm proud of the response of the American people, Democrat and Republican.
	This is not America.
	This is not who we are.
	OK, so this is going to be Biden's routine.
	It's not who we are.
	Our routine is going to come back with a vengeance.
	And the reality, of course, is that a lot of these policies were implemented under President Obama in the first place.
	But the favorite of the left is not, in fact, Joe Biden.
	The favorite of the left is Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez.
	I'm going to get her name right this time.
	I always screw it up.
	And I'm not sure why that is.
	It's just a very long name.
	So she was on with Margaret Hoover of Stanford University.
	And Margaret Hoover was asking her on firing line about her beliefs about the Middle East.
	Now, let it be known, Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez, she's a 28-year-old former bartender.
	She has her degree in international relations.
	So watch it.
	She begs off the question because she doesn't know where Israel is, doesn't know where the Palestinians are, and thinks that screaming occupation into the air means something.
	Watch this.
	It's amazing.
	What people are starting to see, at least in the occupation of Palestine, is just an increasing crisis of humanitarian condition.
	You use the term the occupation of Palestine.
	What did you mean by that?
	I think what I meant is, like, the settlements that are increasing in some of these areas and places where Palestinians are experiencing difficulty in access to their housing and homes.
	Do you think you can expand on that?
	Yeah, I mean, I think I'd also just... I am not the expert on geopolitics on this issue.
	Literally has an international relations degree.
	So let's be clear about something.
	If Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez were a Republican, is there any doubt that she would be labeled crazy eyes, nuts, doesn't know what she's talking about, stupid, affirmative action candidate?
	This is exactly what they did with Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin.
	You remember it.
	They said it over and over and over about every Republican woman who was ever in a position of power.
	It was that she was stupid, she was affirmative action, she was only there because she was pretty.
	Again, they did this about every Republican woman who ever reached a position of power that I can remember, except for maybe Condoleezza Rice, and they couldn't say it about her because she was black, and they didn't want to say it about a black woman.
	But there is no question that this woman is a dunderhead.
	It does show where the base of the Democratic Party is, though.
	If she says occupation over and over and over and doesn't know what the occupation is, doesn't know what she's talking about, has no clue, and then begs off the question and gets away with it, it shows you that the base of the Democratic Party is anti-Israel.
	It also shows how radical the base of the Democratic Party is.
	Pretty astonishing stuff.
	So, Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez, who has been named by Tom Perez the future of the Democratic Party, demonstrating full-scale Okay, in just a second, I want to get to Sacha Baron Cohen, who's making headlines anew with his new series.
	But first, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	So for $9.99 a month, you can subscribe to dailywire.com.
	When you do, you get the rest of my show live, you get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, the rest of Michael Knowles' show live.
	Also, you've probably heard by now, I'm taking the Ben Shapiro show live this August to audiences in Dallas and Phoenix.
	You should know, we have now sold out of our general admission tickets for Dallas.
	We're opening up the very last 800 seats available.
	We are almost sold out of our events in Phoenix.
	If you haven't gotten your tickets yet, you should get them now or else you could miss out on the event entirely.
	So go over to dailywire.com slash events to ensure that you've got all of that.
	Also, Reminder, YouTube has manipulated the subscription feed to curate your choices.
	It means that users may not be notified if our channel goes live, even if you subscribe to the channel already.
	In order to make sure you receive notifications for our live videos, you should not only subscribe to Daily Wire on YouTube, but also ring that little bell so you know when we post new content.
	When you subscribe, by the way, get the annual subscription, not the $9.99 a month one.
	You want the better one.
	You want the $99 a year one, which brings you this.
	The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumbler, the very greatest in all beverage vessels.
	Go check it out right now and you will not be disappointed.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	Okay, so the future of the Democratic Party is Anastasia Ocasio-Cortez, who doesn't know what the hell she's talking about on virtually any topic.
	That's very exciting.
	Joe Biden wants to run.
	That dude's basically dead, so that's pretty exciting as well.
	The other candidates who are being talked about are people like Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, none of whom are deeply inspiring.
	I would say at this point, the frontrunner would probably have to be Biden if Obama endorses him.
	If Obama does not endorse him, then the frontrunner is likely somebody like Elizabeth Warren, who is deemed to be sort of the Bernie Sanders double, except she's female and empowered.
	Right, so that's very... Elshir has a Native American background, as we keep hearing.
	Meanwhile...
	Meanwhile, folks in the media are very, very excited because Sacha Baron Cohen is back.
	Now, Sacha Baron Cohen can be really, really funny.
	If you ever watched any of the Oli G show, it's extremely, extremely funny.
	Well, now he has a brand new show, and this show is basically punking Americans, right?
	The show is called Who is America on Showtime, and it's essentially him going to a series of Americans, mostly on the right wing, and trying to make them look foolish.
	It's sort of like he did in Borat, where he went down south and then You know, walked into churches where people were speaking in tongues and made them look stupid.
	And then did that routine where he went into a bar and started singing, throw the Jew down the well, because obviously everybody in the bar was an anti-Semite.
	And this is the stuff that Sacha Baron Cohen does.
	Well, this time he posed as an Israeli former Mossad agent who wanted to start a pro-gun program in the United States, arming four-year-olds.
	And he got a bunch of Republican congressmen to talk about how wonderful this idea would be.
	He couldn't get Matt Gaetz, right?
	Matt Gaetz was smart enough to avoid it, but there were a few other Republicans who got sucked into it.
	Typically, members of Congress don't just hear a story about a program and then indicate whether they support it or not.
	The intensive three-week kindergarten course introduces specially selected children from 12 to 4 years old to pistols, rifles, semi-automatics, and a rudimentary knowledge of mortars.
	In less than a month, less than a month, a first-grader can become a first-grenader.
	Okay, so all of this is a little bit inherently funny, getting all of these Republicans on record saying that they want to teach young children how to use grenades, right?
	All of that is inherently funny, but I will point out that it is actually extraordinarily easy to do this.
	It's very, very easy to get people to say stupid things when they believe they're saying something that they're not saying.
	So here was Joe Walsh's explanation.
	He's a former Illinois congressperson, and he was with Sarah Palin and Roy Moore stuck in this Who is America series.
	And here's what Walsh said.
	He said, Cohen is a funny guy because he gets people to say stupid things.
	He gets people to say stupid things because he lies to them.
	So here's what Walsh says.
	So Walsh explains that he was invited by Cohen to go on some Israeli TV station to get an award.
	He says, He said later we found out this whole thing was made up.
	He said he didn't realize until 3 a.m.
	the next day he'd been duped.
	He reiterated on Twitter Sunday that he didn't believe that we should train and arm kindergartners and then he urged people to boycott Showtime.
	And he says that they gave him a fake award, and he shows what the award says, and it says, So basically, it was, they got him in a mood to believe that he was with friends, and then they told him what to say off a teleprompter.
	And they did this with a series of people.
	Now, Before you think, well he's an idiot, he shouldn't have fallen for that.
	Understand that you would have fallen for the same thing in all likelihood.
	The chances that you would not fall for that sort of prank are extraordinarily low.
	And that doesn't mean that Sacha Baron Cohen did anything deeply wrong in pranking people like this.
	He did something deeply wrong if he posed as a wounded soldier with Sarah Palin.
	I'm not sure that he did something deeply wrong posing as an Israeli Mossad agent to trick Joe Walsh.
	But!
	It does demonstrate that you want to know why it is, really, you want to know why it is that so many folks on the right are deeply skeptical of the media and don't actually want to have open interviews with people in the media because they feel like this every time they sit down with them, it's a trap.
	Every time you sit down with somebody who's an unfriendly, it's a trap.
	There's a reason that President Trump announced that he would be giving his first interviews after all of this was over to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity.
	He wants to sit down with friendlies.
	And the reason for that is you really do have to vet the people you sit down with.
	And if you don't trust them, you don't sit down with them in the first place.
	Because otherwise, you may very well end up in a situation just like Sacha Baron Cohen's.
	Now, is it good for the country that Sacha Baron Cohen is doing all of this?
	I'm not sure that it is, just in the sense that do you really think that all of these Republicans are actually going to vote for that sort of a bill?
	What's the point of this?
	If the point of this is to say that you can trick Republican congresspeople into saying dumb things, I mean, I don't think you need a trick to make Republican Congress people say dumb things.
	They do it on a fairly regular basis.
	But if the idea here is that Republicans actually support this sort of stuff, that what they are actually going for here is arming four-year-olds, that that's really where their heart lies, then I think that all it contributes to is a cynicism about politics that is unwarranted.
	I do not think many politicians on the right are walking around actively promoting the idea of four-year-olds with guns any more than I really think that there are a lot of politicians on the left who are actively promoting the idea that we're going to take children away from their parents if you don't teach them about transgenderism.
	And I think we're a lot closer to the second than we are to the first.
	I think that there are a lot of people in the California state legislature who believe that you should be able to teach children what you want from the state schools, and if you don't teach those kids what you want from the state schools, then they are going to move toward somehow cracking down on parents.
	But they will say that without having to be prompted.
	The real question is, what do people say without having to be prompted?
	What do people say in public without having to be prompted?
	So I think most Democrats have in their mind, I want to seize children from their parents.
	I don't think that.
	And I don't think most Republicans have on their mind, they want to separate kids from parents at the borders.
	I don't think most Republicans have on their minds that they want to arm four-year-old children.
	I really don't think that the gap in the country is that wide.
	But again, if the goal is just to make people look stupid, then I guess that people can look stupid and we're all supposed to pretend that all of this is normal.
	The reality is, Our system was built for a lot of interplay.
	Our system was built to weed out stupid ideas.
	Our system was built by people who are proposing their own legislation, not being duped into proposing legislation by people like Sasha Baron Cohen.
	And so the left's glee about this, that really what gun owners want is to arm four-year-olds Is really, I think, overwrought in a pretty significant way.
	So when people say, this is America.
	No, this isn't America.
	This is a guy pranking America.
	Okay.
	And legitimately, you can do this with pretty much anyone.
	It's really not all that hard.
	Okay.
	In just a second, I want to explain one of the ways in which some false research has now become part of the American lexicon.
	So here there's a, I'm sure you've seen all these headlines.
	There are a bunch of headlines that have now come out.
	that have been coming out for years and years and years and years.
	They basically suggest that Republicans, conservatives are more authoritarian.
	Usually what these studies suggest is that if you have a tendency toward believing in rules, then you are going to be more authoritarian by nature.
	If you have a tendency toward believing in certain hard standards, that's because you're an authoritarian and therefore you're going to become a conservative.
	And there have been studies and headlines about this for the last several years as particularly exacerbated as President Trump became President Trump.
	A lot of people say, well, this is the authoritarian nature of the right.
	And finally, the authoritarians on the right are showing their true colors.
	Now, really, all of this goes back to...
	to the so-called Frankfurt School.
	The Frankfurt School were a group of German expatriates who came over prior to World War II, and they were Marxists.
	They came to the United States, and one of the things that they promoted was the idea that America was a right-wing capitalist country on the verge of authoritarianism.
	They were trying to suggest that Nazism was an outgrowth of a capitalist free system, because capitalism and freedom were an outgrowth of actually a hierarchical system that implanted in people a desire to believe in authority.
	Eric Fromm was one of the leaders here, a famous psychologist.
	He argued that fascism would rise in the United States thanks to its devotion to capitalism.
	He said capitalism sprang from social structures that had urged, quote, compulsive conformity in the process of which the isolated individual becomes an automaton.
	So the idea is that you are just a babbit.
	You're a loser who goes to work and you slavishly follow the rules because you are actually an authoritarian.
	And that's why capitalism works in the United States.
	He says that we all have authoritarian character.
	Well, there have been a lot of people on the left who have been trying to prove this ever since.
	And so what you will see very often is these online surveys where they ask you questions about, do you believe that flag burning should be banned?
	And they say, if you believe that flag burning should be banned, it's because you're an authoritarian.
	They say people on the right, they're authoritarians with rigid mentalities, rigid right wing mindsets.
	They're just more liberal and open and they just like things more.
	It turns out all of this is nonsense.
	Jesse Singel over at New York Magazine, who is on the left, but does some really good social science work.
	He says, these scales, in short, are all too often structured in a way in which respondents' tendencies toward dogmatism or closed-mindedness or intolerance are ascertained by asking them about issues that are politicized.
	And while social and political psychologists have sometimes asked about rigidity in ways designed to tap liberal ideas, the famed authoritarianism researcher Bob Altemeyer, for example, did publish a left-wing authoritarianism scale.
	This has been the exception rather than the norm.
	In other words, we've been told for years and years and years that right-wingers are authoritarians.
	And it turns out that that's not true.
	It depends on how you do the test.
	So, when you encounter an authoritarian quiz online, it usually is about banning flag-burning, but you'll never see an authoritarian quiz online talk about banning hate speech.
	Why?
	Because the people who are designing those quizzes want the results to come out that right-wingers are more authoritarian.
	Now, as it turns out, there are people who have come up with tests that are biased against the left, and here's what it found.
	These tweaks affected which group responded more dogmatically a great deal.
	Liberals scored as more dogmatic than conservatives when it came to their agreement with sentiments like, when it comes to stopping global warming, it is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.
	And a person who thinks primarily of his or her own happiness and in doing so disrespects the health of the environment is beneath contempt.
	While conservatives, by contrast, scored higher than liberals on items tuned in the opposite political direction.
	So again, speaking of the Sacha Baron Cohen technique with regard to the media, it also applies to science.
	Very often, some of the social science that you read is inherently biased in an attempt to generate a headline.
	It's one of the reasons why we always have to be very careful when we read social science headlines and determine whether or not they are true.
	This is why there are some of us who are very critical of a lot of the social science with regard to, for example, transgenderism, because it seems like a lot of this stuff is biased in its construction.
	It seems like the media is attempting to push an agenda, mainly because the media are attempting to push an agenda.
	There's a headline from the New York Times about a transgender competitor from Spain in the Miss Universe contest.
	And the headline was, basically, isn't it wonderful that this transgender competitor is teaching schoolchildren that girls can have a penis and boys can have a vagina?
	And the answer is no, that's not wonderful because that's anti-scientific.
	But when you bias the science, when you make up the science as you go, it turns out that it's very easy to generate a headline in any direction that you wish to generate a headline.
	And this is just the latest example, the most obvious example.
	So, next time before you believe a social science headline, check out the basis of the headline.
	It may very well be that the people who designed it were looking for a particular outcome before they even began.
	Okay, time for some things I like, things I hate, and then we'll do a Federalist paper.
	So, Today's thing, things I like.
	So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez getting it right for the first time today.
	Alexandria, not Anastasia, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	Our great heroine.
	She says she is a democratic socialist.
	Democratic socialists typically say they are not socialists.
	She is.
	She actually wants to nationalize stuff.
	But democratic socialists say we're not socialists.
	We like the free market system.
	We just want to redistribute all the gains, right?
	We want private ownership of things, but we want to redistribute.
	Well, you know, like Denmark or Norway or any of those other countries, like the Netherlands.
	There's only one problem with this.
	All of this worship of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands neglects what exactly made Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands economic powerhouses before they attempted socialist projects.
	It also neglects the fact that in the past several years they've had to cut social services specifically because of all of the massive growth of governments and the incentive systems that have been created that are allowing people not to work.
	A great book on this topic is a book called Debunking Utopia by Nima Sanandaji.
	Who was a Middle Eastern immigrant to Norway.
	And it's debunking Utopia, exposing the myth of Nordic socialism.
	It's about 250 pages, something like that.
	And it is a very clean debunking of the idea that this is Utopia and that you can just translate it over to the United States.
	It's got all the stats and figures that you'd want.
	And it makes some pretty good points about how it is that people bias the case in favor of Norway or Denmark and against the United States, when in reality, Denmark, particularly, is a capitalist system and they're redistributionist programs.
	have actually dampened the growth in a pretty significant way over there.
	Also, he explains why it is that you can't just take their system, apply it to the United States, and hope that it works the same way, because it obviously does not.
	The biggest point, I think, of the book is that when you look at a lot of these democratic socialist utopias, these places were basically great places to live before democratic socialism, because the culture in Norway and the culture in Denmark, it's a homogenous culture where people pretty much act alike and are part of a common family, or at least part of a common bond.
	And that common bond is not nearly as ethnically diverse and culturally diverse as the United States.
	You can't just take those programs, apply them to the United States and assume they're going to impact in the same way.
	Also makes a great point, which is that if you look at Danish expatriates to the United States, they should earn more than than Danes back at home.
	So it's pretty it's pretty good book.
	Debunking Utopia.
	Check it out.
	Nima Sanandaji exposing the myth of Nordic socialism.
	OK, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	So speaking of trying to import Nordic socialism to the United States, San Francisco has been trying this for years and it is a giant fail.
	They've been trying this with rent control, they've been trying this with all sorts of benefits for the homeless, they've been trying this with the idea that you have a right to sleep on the streets, and the result has been giant piles of poop in the streets.
	So here's the mayor of San Francisco explaining that what used to be one of the cleanest cities in America now has piles of feces on the corner.
	You're a native of San Francisco.
	Is this the worst you've seen it?
	I will say that there's more feces on the sidewalks than I've ever seen, you know, growing up here.
	That was something that did not, wasn't the norm.
	Than you've ever seen?
	Than I've ever seen for sure.
	And that is a huge problem.
	And we're not just talking about from dogs.
	We're talking about from humans.
	Okay, so that's just delightful.
	And then there's a picture of poo.
	So, glad we could all experience that NBC Bay Area.
	But you can experience that every day in San Francisco, thanks to leftist governance.
	So well done there over in San Francisco.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	Okay, so the New York Times says that homophobia is bad.
	Because homophobia is bad, right?
	You shouldn't just, like, assume that because someone's gay, they've done something terribly wrong in terms of their lifestyle, right?
	You shouldn't just assume that homosexual people are bad, and you shouldn't use gay as a slur, right?
	If you're a kid on a playground, you certainly shouldn't look at another kid and say, hey, you're gay, and what you mean is something bad by it.
	You should never do something like that.
	Unless you're the New York Times making fun of Trump and Putin.
	So they actually released this video over at the New York Times, and it is pretty astonishing they thought this was okay, but they did.
	Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin?
	It's a picture of Donald Trump opening the door.
	Muscular Vladimir Putin.
	Trump feeling his heart beat.
	Giving him his heart.
	And there is Vladimir Putin riding the car.
	Trump putting his hand on Vladimir Putin's hand.
	His tiny hand on Vladimir Putin's huge hand.
	And then them riding a unicorn.
	Both of them nearly naked.
	Riding through a field of rainbows.
	Seriously, the New York Times put this out.
	And then them looking into each other's eyes with love.
	And then Trump kissing Vladimir Putin.
	And fire blazing between their lips as they actually play tongue hockey with each other.
	It's really disgusting.
	Okay, and so that's the New York Times' take on this.
	So, homophobia, totally fine, as long as it's about Donald Trump.
	You remember when Stephen Colbert did the same thing, right?
	He said that Donald Trump was being used by Vladimir Putin as his bleep holster, meaning his genital holster, and that was totally fine.
	So you can make jokes about gays and about homosexuality so long as you're doing it about Republicans.
	That's the way this works.
	So, well done, left.
	You're not hypocritical in any way.
	Okay, finally, a Federalist paper.
	Our politics has become rather degraded and silly.
	You may have noticed this.
	Well, let's go back to the founders who are not quite as degraded and silly.
	James Madison, Federalist 37.
	He talks about why it is that we need a constitution.
	He says the purpose of the Constitution is to balance energy and stability.
	He says energy and government is essential to that security against external and internal danger and to that prompt and salutary execution of the laws which enter into the very democracy.
	So how do you create a government that both can respond energetically to foreign crises and domestic crises, but is also stable?
	And that's what the Constitution is for.
	pose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.
	So you need energy, but also stability.
	So how do you create a government that both can respond energetically to foreign crises and domestic crises, but is also stable?
	And that's what the Constitution is for.
	He says, listen, in trying to balance those things, it's kind of a miracle we've gotten this far.
	He says, And this is exactly right.
	that so many difficulties should have been surmounted and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected.
	It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment.
	And this is exactly right.
	When you have a group of people who are put together on earth by the Almighty at a certain point in time to create a system that was durable enough to withstand Barack Obama and Donald Trump, a system durable enough to withstand the Democrats and the Republicans of today, you have to admire that system in a pretty major way.
	And it was a system that was created by compromise, and a system that was created by gridlock, and a system that was designed to check the worst impulses of people.
	So I'll remind folks, Donald Trump said a lot of bad things today in that press conference with Vladimir Putin.
	The fact of the matter remains that this is a very durable form of government.
	And while everybody should be concerned about that sort of language, when it comes to actual foreign policy, the United States has done pretty well over the past couple of centuries.
	And I don't think one press conference is going to change that.
	OK, we'll be back here tomorrow with all 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.

▲