All Episodes
Previous Next
July 31, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
49:03
Hath Not A Giuliani Eyes? | Ep. 592
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Rudy Giuliani flubs his landing, we examine the midterm races, and the President of the United States goes after 3D gun printing and the Koch brothers.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
One of the beautiful things about living in the Donald Trump news cycle is that every morning, the president begins the news cycle anew.
So, I do show prep a lot the night before, and then I wake up in the morning and it's an entirely new show prep, which is really exciting because that means there's a lot to talk about and a lot to do.
We'll get to all of that in just a second.
First, let's talk about your Second Amendment rights.
This ends tonight.
My friends at the USCCA are giving you five free chances to win $1,776 in their Great American Giveaway.
You can spend it on whatever you want.
New gun, extra ammo, whatever.
But it all ends at midnight tonight, so here's what I want you to do right now.
Take out your smartphone, get on your computer, type in DefendYourFamilyNow.com.
That's DefendYourFamilyNow.com.
You can do it in seconds.
The official rules are on the page.
And you will instantly get five chances to win $1,776.
That is $1,776.
Just for clicking a few buttons.
It's free money, folks.
Don't just leave it on the table.
It's part of a great cause.
Defending your Second Amendment rights.
That's what the USCCA does.
They protect responsible gun owners like us.
This is indeed your last chance.
So go check it out.
Five free chances to win.
Just waiting for you.
DefendYourFamilyNow.com.
Go win right now.
It's that easy.
DefendYourFamilyNow.com.
And again, the USCCA provides all sorts of wonderful educational services, legal services in case, God forbid, you actually have to shoot at somebody because somebody's in your house or something.
The USCCA makes sure that you have all the legal resources necessary.
Go check them out right now at DefendYourFamilyNow.com and get those five opportunities to win $1,776 towards guns and ammo.
Go check it out right now.
Also, I just want to remind you, you've heard, I know, that we're taking the Ben Shapiro Show live this August to audiences in Dallas and Phoenix, but you should know we are now two weeks away from those events and we are almost entirely sold out.
So if you haven't gotten your tickets yet, you pretty much have to do it now or you're going to miss it entirely.
And then you're just going to be sad, right?
You're going to be sitting around weeping to yourself thinking, why, God, why?
Well, it's your own fault.
It's your own fault.
If you didn't go to dailywire.com slash events and buy a ticket right now, we're going to party it up in Dallas and Phoenix.
And if you're not there, well, you snooze, you lose, gang.
That's the way that it works.
OK, so on to today's news.
The president of the United States, you're speaking about gun rights.
The president of the United States.
Has now come out with a bizarre tweet in which he attacks 3D gun printing.
Now, listen, the president does a lot of very good things on policy.
And then he says a lot of stuff on Twitter.
As I've said before, the president is fond of the saying of the things.
Well, the president decided to go on Twitter and sounds off about 3D gun printing this morning based on essentially no knowledge of 3D gun printing.
And so here's what he tweeted out.
I am looking into 3D plastic guns being sold to the public.
Already spoke to the NRA.
Doesn't seem to make much sense.
That's not what 3D gun printing is, okay?
Seriously, if you think that 3D gun printing is John Malkovich in In the Line of Fire, making plastic guns in his basement, that's not what 3D gun printing actually is.
Steven Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon points out that it is easy and legal to find gun blueprints online, and it should be, because otherwise, you have to crack down on the internet.
You have to crack down on people's use of the internet to put out blueprints for guns.
That's silly, it's ineffective, it doesn't work.
And Gutowsky also points out the vast majority of 3D printed gun designs are not undetectable to metal detectors because that's actually illegal.
It's actually illegal.
The ban on the creation of such weapons was extended to 2023 under the Undetectable Firearms Act, so you're not allowed to actually manufacture a plastic gun that can move through a metal detector.
That is illegal under federal law.
Also, 3D printed guns are made of metal.
Okay, they're actually made of metal, the vast majority of them.
It's just a 3D printer that uses metal in order to carve out the parts, and the vast majority of people who are using gun blueprints online to build their guns are buying the constituent parts from gun manufacturers in the first place.
It's not like they're sitting around and spending $100,000 on a 3D printer, which is what a good 3D printer costs.
Why in the world would you go and get all the materials for a 3D printer to make an AR-15 in your basement It'll cost you $150,000.
Or you could just go on down to your local gun dealer and buy one for $1,500.
Why exactly would you do any of that?
The media put out all this misinformation on the threat of 3D guns.
People sitting in their basements putting together these guns by getting their HP laser jet printer from 1997 and then printing out a bunch of guns they put together and go assassinate people.
That's not the way any of this works.
Also, 3D guns are notoriously unreliable to this point.
They break down easily.
They're very expensive to produce.
They're not nearly as accurate as manufactured weapons.
You can't fire them all that many times before they start to fall apart.
Laws attempting to crack down on this stuff are foolhardy.
But this is why the president shouldn't be tweeting about these issues, because all it does is create blood in the water for gun control Democrats.
Speaking of which, talking of blood in the water for Democrats, the president has attacked now the Koch brothers.
The reason he's attacking the Koch brothers is because the Koch brothers do not like his tariffs.
So the Koch brothers, for those who don't know, are these brothers who run Koch Industries, which is essentially, I believe, a natural gas and oil industry.
And the Koch brothers are worth something on the order of $80 billion.
They're worth some enormous amount of money.
And they've used a lot of this money to promote various causes, political and non-political.
They've given money to a variety of charities.
They're libertarian in orientations.
They're not social conservatives.
They are very pro-free trade, and they are very pro-immigration.
And this is just how they've been for 30 years.
Well, they came out the other day and they sort of said that President Trump's tariff policy is bad, which is correct.
His tariff policy generally is bad, unless he is using it to ratchet down tariffs with the rest of the world.
So far, it seems like some of that has happened, but the president has this bizarre love for tariffs that don't make a lot of sense.
So the Koch brothers said they're not going to support a particular candidate Trump wants them to support.
So he tweeted this out.
"The globalist Koch brothers, "who have become a total joke in real Republican circles, "are against strong borders and powerful trade." Number one, I don't know what powerful trade is.
That's not a term that means anything.
Free trade is a thing.
Fair trade doesn't mean anything.
Powerful trade certainly doesn't mean anything.
But he continues, I never sought their support because I don't need their money or bad ideas.
They love my tax and regulation cuts, judicial picks, and more.
Okay, so then why are you ripping on them?
And then he continues by saying, I made them richer.
Their network is highly overrated.
I've beaten them at every turn.
They want to protect their companies outside the US from being taxed.
I'm from America first and the American worker, a puppet for no one.
Two nice guys with bad ideas.
Make America great again.
So he's attacking the Koch brothers.
Listen, the president can attack whomever he wants.
And this is a good populist line.
Bernie Sanders has spent the better part of several years attacking the Koch brothers.
The Democrats have turned the Koch brothers into this evil, nefarious, shadow enterprise.
The truth is the Koch brothers have supported Republicans by and large, and they've supported free market Republicans by and large.
The Koch brothers are not the enemies here, and it's not the Koch brothers that are inhibiting Trump's trade agenda.
It's the market itself.
The reality is Trump's trade agenda is not particularly good.
Now, it is interesting.
I was on Laura Ingraham's show last night, And Laura is much more of a trade restrictionist than I am.
She brought this up, and she was suggesting that it's Trump's trade policy that makes him so popular in places like Michigan and Ohio and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
I don't actually think that's the case.
I think that President Trump sounding off about tariffs sounds like he's pro-manufacturing, and so a lot of people resonate to that.
On a sort of emotional level, but the truth is that Trump's tariff policy has actually hurt a lot of these manufacturing centers a lot more than it's helped these manufacturing centers because a lot of the companies that manufacture things have to use imports as inputs.
They're importing steel from the EU or from Canada, and then they're using that in their production of trucks.
Or they have parts that are coming in from China and they're using that in the production of their final product and tariffs hurt those companies.
What the president is very good at is expressing sympathy for these folks who are losing their jobs.
I do think there's a cultural battle that the president has engaged in, in which He's very good.
I think he has an innate sympathy for people who do blue-collar work in the Rust Belt in a way that Democrats do not.
The Democrats, as I talked about on the show a few weeks ago, have a lot of innate sympathy for the New York Daily News reporters who are being laid off.
They think those jobs are deeply, deeply important.
But the factory worker in Ohio, they don't really care too much about that guy.
The truth is that we should care An equivalent amount about all of these jobs.
I don't think the manufacturing job in Ohio is necessarily worth more than a reporting job in New York.
But the other way around is true also.
I don't think a New York reporting job is any more important than a manufacturing job out there in Ohio.
A job is worth what the job is worth.
That said, we ought to be easing the pain of people who live in those areas and are seeing their industries left behind.
That's why job retraining is good.
That's why folks like Mike Rowe have Millions of dollars that they've placed into job retraining programs in order to create skill sets for people who are moving out of industries that are falling apart and being out-competed.
I don't think tariff policy is the best solution for that.
The president's attacking the Koch brothers.
I'm not sure how that is politically effective.
And this is why the sort of circular firing squad that the president sometimes engages in is not particularly a bright move.
I just don't think that's particularly smart.
Speaking of not particularly smart, the president on Twitter, like really, if the president just didn't tweet, you know how popular he'd be right now?
I know there are a lot of people in Trump's support base who believe that what makes Trump popular is his Twitter.
And I think with some folks in the base, that's true.
They feel like Trump is fighting.
He's out there fighting for them.
And you can sense what he wants and how he feels because he's constantly tweeting things.
So for those 35% of people, 30% of Americans, great.
But what about the other 70% of Americans?
Here's the thing.
I think if Trump stopped tweeting, all those people who are already sympathetic to Trump are still going to be sympathetic to Trump.
And I think that his Tendency to run on at the tweet is not going to hurt him with people in the middle if he stops doing it so much, right?
The diarrhea of the Twitter is not helpful to him with people who are in the middle of the country or in the middle of the political spectrum.
It's just not useful.
An example of this.
So the president this morning, not only does he go off on 3D guns, again, wrong, or go off on the Koch brothers, again, I think overstated and wrong, even if I disagree with the Koch brothers on some of their immigration policy, Not only that, the president sounds it off on collusion.
Now, as we mentioned yesterday on the show, Rudy Giuliani Have not a Giuliani eyes.
But Rudy Giuliani, yesterday, he was speaking on CNN, and he talked about how collusion was not a crime.
And I said yesterday, this is not a smart legal strategy.
It is just not smart to go out there talking about how collusion is not a crime in the middle of you making the case that the president didn't engage in collusion in the first place.
And then Giuliani botched it even worse yesterday.
He went on Fox News to try and explain himself, and he made things significantly worse by hinting at the possibility of a second meeting Within the Trump campaign, about the meeting between Donald Trump Jr.
and Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian-connected lawyer who is supposedly going to present Clinton-Oppo research to the Trump campaign, Giuliani called in to Fox News, and then he proceeded to just bosh things dramatically.
Here was Giuliani talking to the ladies of Outnumbered.
It did not go well.
One of which has leaked out, the other of which has been given to three reporters, and Jay Sekul and I have been successful, I think, in beating it back.
There wasn't another meeting that has been leaked that hasn't been public yet.
That was a meeting, an alleged meeting, three days before.
According to Cohen, or according to the leak, maybe Cohen will withdraw this.
I don't know.
They haven't pursued it.
And the two publications are not going to publish it.
I think they've found independent contradiction.
OK, so here's what Giuliani, I think, is trying to say, is that there is the meeting in Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr.
and Jared Kushner and a bunch of members of the Trump campaign and this Russian-connected lawyer.
And now, that was meeting number one, and now Giuliani is sort of letting it slip on Fox News that there's an accusation that there was a second meeting three days before about this primary meeting.
Well, we didn't know about that until Giuliani went on national TV and talked about it.
And then he said, well, that meeting didn't happen.
So then why are you talking about that meeting?
Like, we didn't know about it until you just said it one second ago.
So I don't know why Rudy Giuliani is doing this.
I don't know whether he's just confused about the issues.
I don't know whether he has coined his own version of law.
This is not good defense strategy.
It's not good legal defense strategy.
The problem is the president sort of bought into it and mirrored that on Twitter today.
I will explain in just a second.
First, Let's talk about your sleep.
The fact is that your sleep quality is not as good as it could be.
And the reason is because it's something you never think about.
Your sheets.
You never think about your sheets.
You think about the quality of your mattress, maybe.
You think about your pillow.
You think about the temperature in the room.
But you never think about your sheets.
You just bought those things for like $35 at the local retail outlet.
Well, they're not good.
Okay, you're sleeping on a tarp.
You need to stop sleeping on a tarp.
You need to go get yourself a nice set of sheets that you're really going to enjoy, and that's what Bowlin Branch does.
Okay, they make bedding and blankets.
It's made from pure 100% organic cotton, which means it starts out super soft and then gets even softer over time.
You can buy directly from them, so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
Luxury sheets cost up to a thousand bucks in the store.
Bowlin Branch sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks.
That may sound expensive.
It really isn't, considering you're sleeping on them every single night.
Bull and branch sheets are so good that when my wife and I got some, we actually took out all of our other sheets and we threw them away.
Because the other ones just, you can't sleep on them after you've slept on the quality of bull and branch.
Everybody who tries bull and branch loves them, which is why shipping is free and you can try them for 30 nights.
If you don't love them, send them back for a refund, but you're not going to want to because they are that good.
Check them out right now.
My listeners get 50 bucks off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
That's bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
Use that promo code Ben, you get $50 off.
That's B-O-L-L-N-B-R-A-N-C-H.com, promo code Ben.
The best set of sheets that you can buy on the market today.
bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben for 50 bucks off.
Okay, so.
Giuliani doing yeoman's work to confuse everyone about the situation regarding the Trump Tower meeting.
And then Giuliani follows that one up by saying, listen, we don't have to cooperate with Robert Mueller.
We're going to, you know, not obstruct, but we're not going to cooperate with Robert Mueller.
He says this yesterday on Fox News.
I thank John for all the cooperation he gave them because he puts us in a position where we don't have to cooperate.
Given some of the revelations in the last three or four weeks, we've been driven further away from the idea of answering any questions from them.
We don't think they have a legitimate investigation.
OK, so we're not going to answer any questions now.
If you want to look innocent, this is probably not the smartest way to do it.
And then Trump decides to double down on Giuliani's strategy.
So Trump tweets this out today.
He tweets out, collusion is not a crime.
But that doesn't matter because there was no collusion, except by crooked Hillary and the Democrats.
That tweet is slightly confusing for a couple of reasons.
First of all, he is correct that collusion is not a crime.
However, collusion is not an illegal term.
Conspiracy is a crime.
If it turns out that the Trump campaign was coordinating with the Russians to affect the election, that's probably a campaign finance violation.
It's a violation of federal law.
Obstruction is a crime.
If you decided to lie to the FBI, that's a crime, if Donald Trump Jr.
did that.
And then Trump says, that doesn't matter, there was no collusion.
Okay, you could have just said there was no collusion in the first place, which is your strongest case, right?
If somebody says, Shapiro, you committed tax evasion, I said, tax evasion isn't a crime, and also I didn't do it.
You'd be kind of confused, right?
And I think that this is just not good PR.
Listen, I actually sort of believe Trump, at least so far, because I don't see the evidence that he was involved in any sort of campaign collusion, that he knew about coordination with the Russians, or that he himself was coordinating with the Russians, or even that the campaign actively coordinated with the Russians, other than, you know, wanting to.
I don't see the actual evidence that they did so.
But for Trump to say this sort of stuff is not great.
And then for him to finish up that tweet with, Hillary colluded, but you just said collusion isn't a crime.
So which is it?
Earlier this week, he suggested that Hillary Clinton, by the way, should be prosecuted for collusion.
So you're going to need to get your story straight here.
Except for the fact that I think people have made up their mind on the Mueller investigation.
If you're a Trump fan, you think that it's a bunch of crap.
If you're not a Trump fan, you think that Mueller's going to nail Trump to the wall.
In the end, does any of this really damage Trump?
Probably not.
That's why we're going to have to wait to see what exactly comes out from all of this.
I don't think anything is going to come out, but that's why Trump would be better off just kind of lowering the chaos level a little bit.
That said, you can see the Democrats getting out over their skis.
They are very eager for Trump to go down here.
Jonathan Turley over on MSNBC, he says that essentially we are one witness away from catastrophe here.
I think the Cohen development is very serious.
I mean, he's one witness away from a potential catastrophe.
If any of those five witnesses breaks and supports Michael Cohen, this is going to get real bad, real fast.
Okay, so there is this hope on the left that Michael Cohen is going to take down President Trump.
I don't think that's the case, but I do think it would behoove President Trump to simply go silent.
Again, I am a lawyer, okay?
As a lawyer, the first rule of lawyering is tell your client to shut up.
Seriously, that's like the very first rule of lawyering.
Even if you watch movies, what you see is the idiot client who tells their lawyer, I'm going to talk to the police.
I'm going to say what I want to say.
And the lawyer's like, no.
Well, if Rudy Giuliani were doing his job right now, he would be saying to the president, Mr. President, stop, just stop.
Like, I'm going to make sure that you're OK here, but you really need to stop with the tweeting because that's what any lawyer worth his salt would be doing.
I'm sort of surprised that Giuliani hasn't done more of that, frankly.
Okay, so how is this having any impact on the midterm elections?
Let's talk about where we stand just a few weeks away from the midterm elections.
We're now entering August.
We're about to enter August.
So that leaves us August, September, October, and then we are at the elections.
We're three months away from the midterm elections, and they do not look particularly good for Republicans right now.
That's why I'm not in favor of this sort of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil strategy that so many commentators are on the right.
We need to look at the data.
I understand that polls were not accurate with regard to President Trump.
That does not mean you shouldn't look at the warning signs and think maybe the Republicans need to do something a little bit better leading up to the elections.
According to the New York Times, they have this comprehensive look at the battleground seats.
And here is what Nate Cohn reports.
He says, the battleground in the fight for control of the House is starting to come into focus with 99 days to go until the November election.
It's not exactly the battleground that analysts expected.
It's not dominated by well-educated suburban districts that voted for Hillary Clinton.
Instead, the battleground is broad, and it includes a long list of working class and rural districts that voted for President Trump in 2016.
The broader battleground is a positive development for Democrats.
It's a reflection of how much the Republicans' structural advantage in the House has eroded over the last year, while remains of it isn't helping the Republicans as much as analysts assumed it would be, at least not yet.
So they looked at the various districts that are assumed to be competitive by Cook Political Report, and what they are finding is that white districts are heavily Republican, obviously.
Black districts are very heavily Democrat.
Hispanic districts are very heavily Democrat.
Districts with college graduates are very heavily Democrat.
Rural districts are very heavily Democrat.
Suburban districts are heavily Republican.
So there is this really interesting divide.
The broader battleground has also opened up a gap between two common ways of thinking about the midterms, says Nate Cohn.
National polls and historical voting patterns suggest that Democrats are only slight favorites to take the House.
Well, early polls of individual districts, special election results, and the ratings of expert prognosticators suggest that the Democrats are in a stronger position.
To this point, we've mainly seen polls of the generic congressional ballot, which asks voters whether they intend to vote Democrat or Republican.
Democrats have generally led on this ballot by six to eight percentage points over the last few months, which is around what analysts believe Democrats need to have an even shot of retaking the chamber.
The Republicans still have structural advantages, but there have been a flurry of Republican retirements, which has led to 42 open seats.
Many of them the sort of well-trenched and entrenched incumbents in competitive districts whose retirements are most valuable for Democrats.
On paper, the Republicans still have a big geographic advantage.
There are only nine Republican-held districts that voted more favorably for Democrats in the last two presidential elections than the rest of the country did.
But that advantage doesn't seem to be helping the Republicans as much as it has been in past presidential cycles.
Democrats are putting conservative districts into play because the overall national political environment is more favorable to Democrats than the generic ballot polls imply.
It's also possible that the district's presidential vote choice will play a smaller-than-expected role in determining how a district will vote for the House, which makes sense.
There's been a very broad gap in 2010 and 2014 between the presidential year ballots and the off-year election ballots.
A lot of that has to do with enthusiasm.
Trump voters aren't going to show up when Trump isn't on the ballot.
There's a lot of enthusiasm among Republicans for Trump himself.
Is there as much enthusiasm for their local congresspeople?
Not necessarily.
And the same thing is obviously true for Democrats.
All the places where people were really enthusiastic to get out there for Hillary Clinton, they're not showing up either.
What that means is that the vote totals are reverting to a sort of norm that you see in off-year elections.
Now, when Democrats are in charge, that means that Republicans are more fired up to go out and vote.
When Republicans are in charge, Democrats, presumably, are more fired up to vote.
So, the most vulnerable Republican-held districts are only somewhat better educated and somewhat more suburban than the country as a whole.
They are broadly representative of non-urban America.
They backed Mr. Trump for president.
About 31% of residents have a college degree, slightly more than the national average.
But the sheer number of competitive districts is important in its own right.
On paper, it would be enough to make Democrats fairly clear favorites if one assumes Democrats do well in each category, as the party out of power has done in recent wave elections.
This is what I've been suggesting is that the president's, you know, kind of hot button approach to issues, it could actually fire up the Democrats.
It could be that the Democrats are so upset with President Trump that they go out and they vote in large numbers in these congressional elections.
And that could be a serious problem for Republicans in these election races.
Now, again, maybe all the polls are wrong.
Maybe Republicans somehow recover.
Maybe it doesn't end up being as bad as it looks like it's going to be right now.
But to sort of ignore the data, I think would be a fairly large mistake at this point in time.
Okay, meanwhile, we're going to talk about the President of the United States and what he has to say about the government shutdown, because this is part of his election strategy in just a second.
First, I want to tell you about this really, really awesome service that I have found.
It really is amazing.
When you shop online, do you turn into a tab hoarder, like you open a bunch of tabs, and what you're trying to do is find the best possible deal on a particular product?
Well, instead, what you need to actually do is try a service called Honey.
It's a free browser add-on that over 9 million people are using every single day to save money while they shop online.
So with a couple of clicks, you can add Honey to any browser for free and then shop like you normally do.
So how does it work?
Well, Honey scans and tests millions of coupons in the background.
Instead of you looking for a coupon code and trying to find a coupon code for various products, Honey scans and tests millions of coupons in the background.
And at checkout, Honey automatically applies the best coupon.
So you're automatically saving money just by using Honey to save money.
Time Magazine has called Honey basically free money.
Over 9 million people using it every single day.
I use Amazon a lot.
Honey allows me to find the best deals on Amazon simply with the click of a button.
It runs in the background.
It really is amazing.
And the way they do this, the way Honey works this, is they basically have deals with the folks who are selling that they get a percentage of sales, kind of, right?
I mean, that's essentially the way that they save their money.
That's the way they make their money.
So you save money, they save money, and they get the same sort of benefits that any coupon provider would.
Go check them out.
Right now, there's no reason not to add Honey to your browser right now.
It is free, it takes two clicks to install, and it'll save you a lot of money.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Again, that's joinhoney.com slash Ben.
To start saving with Honey right now, that's joinhoney.com slash Ben.
There's no reason not to save money.
I mean, this is a no-brainer, frankly.
Okay, so.
Meanwhile, the president is trying to gin up the base with a lot of the immigration talk.
The problem is that it's not clear the president is supremely credible when it comes to the idea that he is going to hold fast on the immigration issue.
So the president yesterday said that he is willing to do a government shutdown over the immigration issue, over wall funding, but he has no red line, which means that he really isn't willing to shut down the government, but he's sort of signaling that he is.
So what exactly is this supposed to mean?
No one really knows.
I would be certainly willing to consider a shutdown if we don't get proper border security.
Thank you.
Please.
Sir, just to follow up on that quickly, is the $25 billion a red line for you?
I have no red line, unlike President Obama.
I just want great border security.
Okay, so that means nothing, right?
If you don't have a red line, if there's no point at which you're willing to say no, then you don't mean that you're going to veto a bill that comes down that doesn't have the border wall funding.
There are folks like Ann Coulter who have been stumping for the wall.
This has been her chief goal in life, is to get President Trump to build this wall.
This wall has not been built, and the President does have to hold Congress's feet to the fire.
The President does actually have to say to Congress, listen, you send me a bill I don't like, I will veto it.
So when Trump says, listen, I want that border wall funding.
They say, do you have a red line on signing a bill?
And then he says, no.
What he really means is that he's not going to veto anything.
And that's a sign of weakness.
The Hill is reporting right now that President Trump has privately agreed with congressional Republicans to delay the fight over funding for his border wall until after the November midterm elections, despite his public statements expressing a willingness to shut down the government over the issue, an administration official is telling the Wall Street Journal.
So in other words, Trump is saying that he's willing to do a government shutdown, but he's not really willing to do a government shutdown.
Now, this is where Trump is at odds with some congressional Republicans like Mitch McConnell.
McConnell thinks government shutdowns are always bad for Republicans.
I don't agree.
I don't think Mitch McConnell is right about this.
I think that bad policy is bad for Republicans.
I don't think that many Americans care about government shutdowns.
And I do have an ideological problem with Republicans who are so frightened of government shutdowns on a routine basis.
Oh no!
They're gonna shut down the government.
We're all going to die.
I thought you were the party of limited government.
I thought you were the party that said that the government was not the be-all end-all.
And yet, here we are, suggesting that it is the be-all end-all, and if the government shuts down, everyone is going to die, and it's going to be the worst thing that ever happened.
This is how you end up with Republicans spending insane, insane amounts of money.
Right now, the Republicans have essentially racked up more debt than the Democrats did at the same time.
It's really crazy.
The Republicans just racked up, I think it was another $1.33 trillion of debt.
This is the party that is supposed to be standing for fiscal responsibility.
It just makes no sense to me.
If you're going to shut down the government, now's the time to do it because you're not going to have the Republican votes later.
If things keep going the way they are going, the Republicans lose the House and they may lose the Senate, then you think you're going to have the ability to get Democrats to play ball on this?
You think you're going to get wall funding from the Democrats?
You think the Democrats are actually going to come forward with wall funding?
They have a solid interest in preventing anything from happening so that they can defeat President Trump in 2020.
This is a limited window.
Once we hit the election of 2018, that wall funding is basically gone.
If the Republicans lose the House, there will be no wall.
End of story.
It is that simple.
Which means that you better make hay while the sun shines.
This is the reason why Mitch McConnell is saying, let's confirm as many judges as humanly possible right now, because if we lose the Senate, we're basically toast.
Anyone who's watching this stuff knows the Democrats are not going to work with Trump on any of this stuff, but McConnell is deeply afraid of the blowback.
Anytime there's any sort of government shutdown, he thinks that the American people simply can't stomach it.
I think the American people are a little tougher than this.
Mitch McConnell is wrong here.
Here's the Senate Majority Leader saying that the wall funding has to wait until after the midterms.
Is the funding of the border wall going to wait until after the midterm elections?
Probably.
That's something we do have a disagreement on.
So Homeland Security won't get funded before the midterms?
Probably not.
But most of the government will be covered.
So you're not worried about a government shutdown before the midterms?
No, that's not going to happen.
Okay, so McConnell just assuring that it'll never happen, and Trump obviously doesn't have the willingness to actually go all the way to the wall for his own preferred border policy.
If you're a Trump voter who voted based on his immigration policy, you've got to be disappointed with the president not pushing Republicans hard enough.
Is it McConnell's fault?
Sure.
Is it the fault of people like Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins and the various sort of moderate caucus of the Republicans in the Senate?
Absolutely.
But in the end, it's the President of the United States who gets to decide what he signs and what he doesn't.
Remember, it was President Obama who shut down the government in 2013, not the Republicans.
It was Obama who said, I will not sign a bill that does not include funding for Obamacare.
Ted Cruz said, here's a bill.
No funding for Obamacare.
And Obama simply said, I'm not going to sign it.
And that was that.
And then the Republicans caved and they made some sort of a deal with the Democrats.
Why exactly Trump can't do the same thing or is unwilling to do the same thing is beyond me.
Why are Republicans more afraid of government shutdowns than Democrats?
Why?
It grants the Democrats their premise.
Democrats are happy with government shutdowns because they think that the government is absolutely necessary and vital.
Republicans should say, listen, we're not going to pass a budget unless the budget is good.
And then if we pass a bad budget, then we are wasting other people's money.
We are racking up debt that we're never going to repay.
If we shut down the government and there is no funding for these sort of various and sundry items, guess what?
The country still continues to function.
We are always warned that there will be zombie apocalypses in the streets if a budget doesn't pass.
And guess what?
It's happened like four times in the last five years, four times in the last six years.
You know how many times there's been a zombie apocalypse?
Zero.
Barack Obama had to manufacture crises during a government shutdown in order for people to even care.
Nobody would have even noticed, except that Barack Obama decided he was going to ban people from open park memorials.
He was going to somehow shut down the World War II monuments in Washington, D.C.
so that veterans couldn't visit it, just so that people would feel the pain.
He was going to shut down national parks, for example.
There's no reason that... I think it would be a good example to the American public, once in a while, for there to be a government shutdown which doesn't result in the end of the world.
And the fact that Republicans are running away from this is just beyond me.
I don't understand why they would do this.
I don't understand why they think it's going to energize the base to continue passing trillion-dollar budget packages that suck and are filled with pork.
The Republican Party, when they do this sort of stuff, they look like Democrats lite.
They look like Democrats lite, except more gutless.
Just not good stuff any way around.
Meanwhile, In breaking news, the first trial of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe got underway on Tuesday with Paul Manafort, a former chairman of U.S.
President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, facing charges that he had tens of millions of dollars earned in Ukraine in offshore accounts and defrauded banks for loans, this is according to Reuters.
The tax and bank fraud trial in a Virginia federal court represents the first test of Mueller's ability to win a conviction of a former Trump aide.
Now, recognize the Manafort indictment has nothing to do with campaign 2016.
It is just Manafort being Prosecuted for his various and sundry illegalities, alleged illegalities, with regard to Ukraine years ago.
Three other aides, including Manafort's longtime business partner Rick Gates, have already pled guilty and are cooperating with Mueller's probe.
Prosecutors are seeking to provide details of Manafort's work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, raising the possibility that new information about his Russian connections could, in fact, emerge.
Manafort has filed a motion to have the details of that work excluded from the trial.
Again, not clear that anything has to do with President Trump.
Protesters are showing up trying to suggest that Manafort is going down and that will bring Trump down with him.
But there's no evidence that that is actually the case.
Manafort worked for Trump for something like four months.
Honestly, I don't think that Trump really knew Manafort.
I think that what happened here is that no one who had a great reputation was working for Team Trump.
And so they simply went and they got The one guy who the RNC recommended.
Manafort was very tied into the RNC.
And so they went to the RNC, they said, who should we get as a campaign manager?
They said Paul Manafort.
He hired Paul Manafort.
Manafort ends up being corruptifierism.
I don't know why Manafort has to be tied to Trump per se, but the Democrats are fully on board with the idea that Manafort is going to bring down Trump again.
I think that that is a lot of wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats.
OK, I want to talk about President Trump and Iran.
I also want to talk about sports for a little while.
But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
So go ahead over there, subscribe, dailywire.com.
$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to our podcast, Michael Knowles' Excalibur podcast, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Go check all of that out.
Plus, you get to be part of our mailbag on Fridays.
And when you get the annual subscription, this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, the leftist year is hot or cold tumbler.
It is indeed fantastic.
Go check it out right now.
It's 99 bucks a year.
Also, subscribe to YouTube.
Please subscribe to iTunes.
Go check us out over there so that you can be part of our Sunday special.
In fact, I think, do we have a clip from the upcoming Sunday special with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Do we have that clip?
We're going to try and have on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I think we have a bit of a preview of that, actually.
I think my strength is that I am honest and I am authentic.
And I think that even Republicans write letters to our campaign saying, thank you.
If corporations paid, if we reversed the tax bill but raised our corporate tax rate to 28%, which is not even as high as it was before, that's $2 trillion right there.
And then the last key, which is extremely, extremely important, is reprioritization.
Just last year, we came to the...
Okay, just a quick note to all of the folks on the left who didn't understand that Ali Stuckey's parody of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was in fact a satire.
That's satire, okay?
I didn't actually interview Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just so you idiots don't think that I'm making it up and that I actually interviewed her and I'm taking her out of context.
That's what we call humor right there, a little bit of humor to spice up your day.
Okay, so go check us out, iTunes, SoundCloud, YouTube.
Subscribe, leave us a review, we always appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
Yeah, everything is stupid.
That should be my slogan.
We need to have a t-shirt that says, everything is stupid, Ben Shapiro.
That's really, we need that t-shirt in the Shapiro store ASAP over at Amazon.
Okay, so meanwhile, speaking of everything is stupid, yesterday the president, again, speaking out of turn on a topic of which he knows very little, he was asked about meeting with Iran with no preconditions.
I recall literally a week ago, one week ago, the President of the United States went on Twitter and he threatened Iran with all-out nuclear war, in all caps, which was basically DEFCON 2.
Yesterday, he was asked whether he would meet with the Iranian leadership, and here's what he had to say.
I'm ready to meet anytime they want to, and I don't do that from strength or from weakness.
I think it's an appropriate thing to do.
No preconditions.
If they want to meet, I'll meet.
No, no.
OK, in 2007, Barack Obama said he would meet with the Iranians without preconditions.
And we all went nuts on the right because that's a stupid idea.
You don't meet with America's enemies without preconditions.
Now, I know there are a lot of you out there right now.
You're saying, but didn't President Trump meet with Kim Jong-un without preconditions?
Yes, I thought that was stupid as well.
And guess what?
It turns out not to have actually accomplished anything.
According to the Washington Post, multiple intelligence officers have been monitoring ongoing activity recently from North Korea's nuclear and missile testing facilities.
And what they find is that North Korea is building new possible intercontinental ballistic missiles despite Kim Jong-un's denuclearization agreement from his summit with President Trump.
Now, I know that it's the Amazon Washington Post.
Don't believe them.
Here's the thing.
I don't actually believe that North Korea is going to disarm because Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump are best friends who are gonna go golfing now.
I don't think that's how diplomacy works.
I think Trump is wrong when he thinks that you just get into a room with a bad guy, and then you become friends, and you have cigars together, and you go to a strip club, and then everybody's friends, and then they give up their nuclear weapons.
That's not what happens here.
Iran doesn't become friendly just because you meet with them.
This idea that interpersonal relationships are the basis of foreign policy, they never have been.
And this is not just a myth that is promulgated by, you know, President Trump or Obama.
It's a myth that was promulgated... Honestly, it's been promulgated for a long time.
If you go over to the Reagan Library, for example, I love the Reagan Library.
It's just fantastic.
And Ronald Reagan, great president.
But one of the exhibits over at the Reagan Library has this exhibit showing Ronald Reagan with Mikhail Gorbachev.
And the idea is that Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev really got along, and that's why the Soviet Union collapsed.
That is not why the Soviet Union collapsed.
The Soviet Union collapsed because Mikhail Gorbachev miscalculated.
He thought That the Soviets could not continue their defense buildup, and so they had to loosen the reins on the various satellite states that made up the USSR.
Those satellite states then quickly broke off as fast as possible, and it was too late to stop the momentum.
There's nothing that he could do about it.
If you read the Russian internal documents, it is very clear that's exactly what happened.
It was not that Ronald Reagan got into a room and he and Mikhail Gorbachev had a cup of coffee together and suddenly they're best friends and Mikhail Gorbachev was like, you know what?
Get rid of communism!
Great idea!
That's not what happened.
So this idea that Trump is going to sit down with Hassan Rouhani, who is a terrorist-supporting piece of crap, and that Rouhani is suddenly going to decide that he's going to give up his terroristic program, that's not what's going to happen.
I don't like ideological inconsistency.
And the fact that there are so many people who are willing to bend over backwards to make excuses for this sort of stuff, I find completely ridiculous.
It's just, it's ridiculous to me.
It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Now, I've been very critical of the Trump administration today because President Trump was very busy in saying things, but then there's what they actually do.
And this is the part that's really hard for folks to wrap their brains around.
They'll say, Shapiro, you say so many things about the president saying things that you don't like, but you're very supportive of the administration.
Right, because what they do and what they say are two completely different things.
So, for example, they have now launched a religious liberty task force over at the Department of Justice.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that they would provide religious liberty guidance central to the new task force rooted in President Trump's executive order from last year directing agencies to respect and protect religious liberty and political speech.
The task force is going to be co-chaired by Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, according to Sessions.
So he said that there have been a lot of examples recently of religious Americans being targeted.
Nuns being ordered by contraceptives.
U.S.
Senators asking judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma.
And so we need a task force to protect religious Americans.
Yes, we do.
OK, we have a civil rights task force inside the DOJ.
It was used by the Obama administration for various and sundry political activities that were actually not good.
Protecting religious Americans from the predations of local government is a worthwhile thing.
Protecting religious Americans from discrimination is a good thing.
So the Trump administration continues to do a lot of good things at the same time that President Trump continues to say a lot of chaotic things.
And this is why, if the president could just become a spokesperson for his own policies, I don't think I'm asking too much here.
If he could just become a spokesperson for his administration's own policy, for the freedoms that are being promoted by this administration, for the economic record of this administration, Republicans would actually have a better shot in 2018.
This Religious Liberty Task Force is a very good thing and it's an area where Democrats are extraordinarily extreme.
It's an area where Democrats have been proclaiming that you have to force religious bakers to bake that cake.
It's an area where they have been suggesting that religious people are bigots and terrible folks.
President Trump has fought back against that, tooth and nail.
That's a wonderful, wonderful thing.
Why don't we know about it?
Why isn't the president tweeting about that?
He should be.
The answer is he should be.
He's now in a position to tweet about his great record, not just tweet about things that don't really matter, like the Mueller investigation, which I don't know is actually going to end up being a thing anyway.
You know, the president has a good story to tell if he is just willing to tell it.
Now, speaking of people who don't have a good story to tell, I have to comment on a guy named Cenk Aygar.
You may not know about Cenk Aygar.
Cenk is a guy who runs something called the Young Turks.
And I've debated Cenk Aygar on everything from health care policy to mostly health care policy.
But Cenk is a very hardcore leftist.
And he's very upset.
Why is he upset?
Well, he's upset with Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson said the other day that adult film stars are indecent.
Which seems to me definitional.
Like, that's literally their job is to be indecent.
Their literal job is to take off their clothes and have sex with people for money on camera.
So I'm not seeing the decent part of that.
Tucker Carlson said it was indecent for Democrats to portray Stormy Daniels as a heroine when she had a one-night stand with a married man and got paid 130 grand to shut up about it and then decided to become a political figure.
I don't think Tucker Carlson's wrong about that.
Does that make Trump's behavior with Stormy Daniels decent?
No.
But let's not pretend that Stormy Daniels is the great hero of feminism.
In any case, Chang is very upset.
So Chang tweeted out, I'm not done yet.
Tucker Carlson says that adult film stars are indecent.
Really?
How many adult films do you think Tucker has watched in his life?
In the thousands at least.
Is he claiming he has never watched any?
Same with Ben Shapiro who writes an anti-porn book.
Please!
Okay, I have a few comments on this.
First of all, real weird that Chang is sitting around thinking about how much porn I watch.
Very, very weird.
I don't know what he fantasized about in his spare time, but I'm a little creeped out.
I was just sitting here doing nothing, and suddenly I'm being attacked by Chan Kyger with the suggestion that I watch porn.
I did write a book about why pornography is bad, because pornography is bad.
Like, it's not decent.
It's immoral.
Now, I'm also confused by this idea that Tucker Carlson is not allowed to say that porn is indecent if he has ever seen any porn at all.
This is like saying that you think drug use is indecent, but if you've ever used drugs, you can't say that.
I'm super confused by this argument, but it's an argument frequently used on the left.
I will also say that the only pornography I need is the film of Cenk Aiger, Mourning the election loss like that's the only pornography I need is actually just Cenk sitting there Weeping over the election loss the night of the election because it's so it's so good.
It's still hilarious So well done Cenk really doing credit to to the agenda of the left by talking about Republicans watching pornography.
Okay, speaking of other weird topics.
So LeBron James Who's now in Los Angeles because he just moves teams with a certain amount of regularity.
He's actually done some good stuff, LeBron James.
One of the things he's done is he's opened a charter school, basically.
And this charter school is doing good work.
They're actually bringing kids in, creating mentorship programs for them, preventing them from living in bad situations.
All of that is wonderful.
LeBron sees himself as a sort of quasi-political figure, which means sometimes he says smart stuff and sometimes he says dumb stuff.
Because everybody in politics does.
LeBron yesterday was interviewed about all of this, and he said that President Trump is using sports to divide us.
This is one of the dumb things that LeBron James is saying.
And I'm not somebody who thinks that LeBron James has to shut up and dribble.
You know, LeBron James can say whatever LeBron James wants to say.
I don't know that he's a political expert.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that he's not.
But here's the thing he said that I think is inherently silly.
What I noticed over the last few months, that he's kind of used sport to kind of divide us.
And that's something that I can't relate to because I know that sports has never been something that divide people.
It's always been something that brings someone together.
Okay, here's the part that's stupid.
I remember sports dividing people long before President Trump was actually in the Oval Office.
I remember canceling my subscription to Sports Illustrated when they put Caitlyn Jenner on the cover.
Because I said, this is not an athletically relevant person, has not been for 30 years, but now I'm going to get transgender propaganda in my sports magazine?
In fact, I remember sports being so politicized that I was threatened on national television and grabbed by the back of the neck on national television talking about sports on national television before President Trump was ever a candidate.
Talking about the Caitlyn Jenner issue, where I suggested that Caitlyn Jenner was in fact a biological man because Caitlyn Jenner happens to be a biological man.
I'm old enough to remember when, during Ferguson, a bunch of football players were running out on the field in the hands-up-don't-shoot pose, which was completely fictitious.
Michael Brown had never said hands-up-don't-shoot.
The idea that politics and sports have been politicized by President Trump is just ignorant, okay?
Colin Kaepernick was kneeling on the field before Trump was even running for president, so none of this makes any sense.
But I guess we're now in the space where we can blame President Trump for anything and for everything and anything.
It doesn't, it doesn't wash, but I guess it's a convenient, it's a convenient scapegoat for all this stuff.
Okay, time for some stuff I like and then a thing that I hate.
So, let's thing I like it.
Okay, thing I like.
Over the weekend, I saw Ant-Man and the Wasp.
So, the original Ant-Man is a better movie.
The sequel is also fun.
It focuses a lot less on Paul Rudd, which is kind of unfortunate, because Paul Rudd is hysterically funny.
And they kind of make him out to be even more of a doofus in this one than he is in the first one.
This one features a lot of Evangeline Lilly.
It's a lot more of The Wasp than it is Ant-Man.
But that said, the film is still fun.
The highlight of the film, honestly, is Michael Peña, who is just an underrated actor in every sense.
He did the best thing in the original Ant-Man.
If you didn't see the original Ant-Man, it is actually one of my favorite Marvel movies, specifically because it is what it purports to be, which is a cotton candy It's a candy apple of a movie.
There's nothing of real weight or substance to it, but it has one of the best sight gags ever, and it also has this little riff that Michael Peña does where he is explaining how he got to where he is.
It's really good.
In any case, Ant-Man and the Wasp is definitely worth seeing.
It's a lot of fun.
You'll enjoy it.
It's not memorable, but it is a kick.
So here's a little bit of the preview.
I do some dumb things, and the people I love the most, they pay the price.
Maybe you just need someone watching your back.
Like a partner.
Okay, so it's fun.
And if you're just looking for something to kind of entertain you over the weekend, this is the first time in a while there have been actually like three or four movies in the theater that I actually want to see.
So I haven't seen the Mission Impossible movie yet.
I've heard that it's fun, and I've heard that the action sequences are amazing.
And I will let you know after I see it.
Also, I've heard Incredibles 2 is really good.
Over the weekend, I showed my daughter Incredibles 1, because she's never actually been to the theater.
So I want to take her to see her first movie.
And I've heard that Incredibles 2 is a good start.
My sister saw it with her kid.
She said it was good.
So we'll go check that out, and then I will let you know.
OK, time for a thing that I hate.
And we'll mix it with the deconstruction of the culture, actually, since it's a Tuesday.
So Anne Hathaway is now sounding out about things that Anne Hathaway knows, like being black in America, which is Not a thing she knows about, really.
Here's what happened.
She railed against white privilege and she questioned how decent white people really are after this 18-year-old woman named Naya Wilson died when she and her sister Latifah, 26, were attacked by a white male on a subway train in Oakland on Sunday night, July 22nd.
Naya died from her injuries after she was stabbed in the neck by a guy named John Lee Cowell, and Anne Hathaway put this out on Instagram.
She said, the murder of Naya Wilson, may she rest in the power and peace she was denied here, is unspeakable and must not be met with silence.
She is not a hashtag, she was a black woman, Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an awful, awful, terrible thing.
And I hope that this guy is given the death penalty.
Okay, I agree.
That's an So, I'm confused what exactly this murder has to do with white privilege.
Really, I am.
I mean, the guy was arrested.
He's going to go to death row if he is convicted.
What exactly is the problem?
Anne Hathaway, can't name it.
Also, the idea that black people in America are fearing for their lives every single day is such an overgeneralization, I can't even speak to it.
I mean, maybe there are some black people in America who are fearful for their lives every single day, but we'd have to ask whether that fear is justified based on circumstance.
I'm sure that there are some black people for whom that is, I'm sure there are some white people for whom that is true as well, depending on where they are living, the levels of violence.
Okay, but You know, there are a lot of black people in the United States who are living kind of middle class lives and who are not threatened with violence on a daily basis.
I don't think they're walking around thinking that they're in Fallujah.
This idea that simply because of skin color in the United States, you're walking around in daily fear for your life is such a misnomer.
And it really is her talking down for virtue signaling points.
Like Anne Hathaway knows that she is going to be met with all sorts of kudos from people on the left for simply saying this stuff.
Okay, so what is Anne Hathaway going to do about any of this stuff?
Really, if Anne Hathaway wants to make all these problems better, what is she gonna do other than sound off on Instagram about it?
She says, don't just hashtag.
Okay, well, you just went on Instagram and posted something.
Now, practically, what are you gonna do, Anne Hathaway, about any of this stuff?
At least LeBron James is trying to do something.
At least LeBron is actually creating schools to increase education levels in the black community.
At least LeBron James is trying to do something publicly minded about this sort of stuff.
These actors and actresses who go out and sound off on hashtags, and then they say, we need to do more than hashtags.
Okay, anytime you're ready.
We're waiting.
And again, that broad overgeneralization about black people in America fearing for their lives, it's hilarious to me that if I say that there's a free country where effort is rewarded, that that is considered racist.
And if Anne Hathaway says all black people are living in fear, then that is not considered a racial judgment.
So I say something completely nonracial and it's considered racial, and she says something completely racial and it is considered nonracial because the left approves of it.
Pretty insane.
Okay, other things that I hate today.
So, Twitter has now hired academics to monitor hate speech, which is very exciting.
That's just what we need, a bunch of leftist academics determining what exactly is hate speech.
According to the UK Telegraph, Twitter has hired academics from institutions including Oxford University to help it combat intolerant discourse and monitor the health Of the social network.
The firm is working with social psychology professor Miles Houston and John Gallagher along with Dr. Mark Herding from the University of Amsterdam to study the spread of hate speech.
The move is part of Twitter's aim to create algorithms that better distinguish between hate speech and conversations that break the norms of politeness.
I don't know why any of this is necessary, frankly.
If you don't want to see hate speech on Twitter, don't subscribe to somebody's Twitter feed or just mute somebody.
The nice thing about Twitter is they have all of these features you can use to not listen to folks, but I guess that we are not allowed to point that out at any point.
We just have to assume that we're too stupid to actually gauge the level of conversations that we wish to participate in.
And so we have to have these overlords, these academic overlords, who tell us what's good and what's not.
All of this is highly foolish, and it undercuts, I think, the claims of Twitter to a sort of neutrality that they have not actually put into practice.
OK, we'll be back here tomorrow 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.
▲
Export Selection