Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 6, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

50:01

An Epic Trump Tweetstorm | Ep. 596

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Social media companies target Alex Jones, Trump goes off on the Trump Tower meeting, tariffs Anne LeBron, and the left continues to defend racism so long as it's directed against white people.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Oh man, we have so much to get to today.
	It was a very full weekend of Trump tweets and more Trump tweets and then even more Trump tweets after that.
	I want to remind you, I think we're only about a week away from our big live events.
	So if you're going to go check out those last minute tickets now is the time at dailywire.com slash events.
	Go check those out.
	Also, It is imperative that you think about the quality of the air that you are breathing.
	There's this article that I saw last week about how air pollution in national parks is as bad as the top 20 major cities in the United States.
	Probably that's Trump's fault, but the reason apparently is because these parks are downwind of air pollution sources like agriculture, industry, major highways, and urban areas.
	So basically, there's now nowhere to run except inside.
	We know the indoor air quality is actually worse very often than the air quality outside, which is one of the reasons why you need to go to Filterbuy.com and keep a fresh set of filters in your home's central air system and at the office.
	We use Filterbuy.com here at the Daily Wire offices.
	I use it at my house as well.
	Filterbuy is America's leading provider of HVAC filters for homes and small businesses.
	They have over 600 sizes that ship for free within 24 hours.
	Plus, they're manufactured right here in the United States.
	I recommend you set up auto delivery also.
	So you don't forget to regularly switch up your filters like I normally do, but now I no longer have to worry about it because the filters just arrive regularly.
	Plus, they knock 5% off the order when you sign up.
	Save time, save money, breathe better.
	It's filterbuy.com.
	That's filter, B-U-Y dot com, filterbuy.com.
	And tell them I sent you, again, filterbuy.com.
	Go check them out.
	Make your air quality cleaner.
	OK, so big story over the weekend is that Apple and Facebook have now targeted Alex Jones over at InfoWars.
	For those who don't know who Alex Jones is, he's a crazy human.
	So Alex Jones' craze extends to believing that there was a pizza shop in Washington, D.C.
	that was associated with Hillary Clinton that was running pedophiles from it or some such.
	He also has suggested that the Sandy Hook massacre was actually a false flag, that it was a bunch of child actors.
	He has suggested that Seth Rich was murdered by Hillary Clinton, I believe.
	I think he was involved in the Seth Rich stuff as well.
	There are very few conspiracy theories in which Alex Jones does not engage.
	Most famously, he has said in the past that he believes that the government is turning the frogs gay by somehow changing the chemical composition in the water.
	He's most famous for His emotional outbursts on his show.
	So I will say that Alex Jones is wildly entertaining in the same way that WWE Raw is wildly entertaining.
	And for many of the same reasons.
	He screams and he yells and he sounds somewhat like Hulk Hogan.
	And he does not have Hulk Hogan's physique but takes off his shirt anyway.
	And he's really just a giant bag of lunacy.
	Well, he has a very large following because conspiracy theories are, in fact, extraordinarily popular.
	When people are seeking to place order on chaos, they look to conspiracy theories.
	There are a lot of people who are big names, who are followers of Alex Jones.
	Most famously, the President of the United States used to call in regularly to Alex Jones and saw Alex Jones as a quasi-ally.
	Alex Jones claimed that after the election, President Trump was calling him fairly regularly.
	Jones, as I say, is a toxic personality of the highest order.
	He and I have gotten into it in the past.
	That actually ended with him doing a weird imitation of me, which I will play for you in a few minutes here.
	But here's what Facebook and Apple are saying.
	So Facebook and Apple have now banned him.
	They're clamping down on him.
	Suffice it to say that while I think that Alex Jones is basically a giant dumpster fire of human, that he smells like the burning garbage that aerates the scent of New York City, I think that Alex Jones should not be banned from Apple and Facebook simply because The standards that are being used by a lot of these social media companies are extraordinarily vague.
	Apple and Facebook, according to CNBC, have now clamped down on content by Alex Jones Monday.
	The former pulled five of his podcasts.
	The latter removed four pages controlled by him.
	Apple confirmed on Monday it removed five of the six podcasts, which included Jones' infamous The Alex Jones Show, as well as a number of other InfoWars audio streams.
	The news was originally reported by BuzzFeed News.
	Jones, of course, is a controversial conspiracy theorist who has claimed that the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax, and he has been hit with other content bans from YouTube as well as Spotify.
	Apple's move is pretty dramatic.
	They've taken down the entire library of InfoWars podcasts rather than a select few episodes.
	An Apple spokesperson said, quote, So they say that he has persistently uploaded content in breach of various content guidelines Facebook says the same.
	In July, Facebook removed four of Jones' videos and hid his own personal profile with a 30-day ban over what the firm deemed as a violation of its policies on bullying and hate speech.
	The company explained that when it deletes content, the removal counts as a strike, essentially a warning against the person that uploaded it in the first place.
	In the case of pages, Facebook says it holds both a page and an administrator who posts content in violation of its rules accountable.
	They said that this was not about fake news.
	They said this was not because of Jones's tendencies toward conspiracism.
	Instead, it was about hate speech and bullying.
	They said, while much of the discussion around InfoWars has been related to false news, which is a serious issue we are working to address by demoting links marked wrong by fact checkers and suggesting additional content, none of the violations that spurred today's removals were related to this.
	So it is again unclear what exactly it was that triggered all of this.
	They say that it was it was his threatening language.
	But again, I would need to see the specific threatening language that he was using.
	And I'm somebody who's been threatened by Alex Jones.
	I mean, Alex Jones has legitimately gone on his show and threatened that he would send His buddies down to the people who help fund Daily Wire, that he would send those people down to their ranch in Texas and have them harassed.
	I mean, Alex Jones is a bad guy.
	But the problem is this.
	Once you start saying that hate speech is a rationale for banning people from social media, you get into some very, very vague territory.
	Because as we know, the left does not have a consistent standard that they uphold when they are looking at hate speech.
	They don't say that anything that is hateful is banned and then define hateful in extraordinarily specific terms.
	They don't say anything that is offensive is banned because a lot of things are offensive.
	Instead, they use this term hate speech to simply label stuff they don't like hate speech.
	I know this because I've been targeted, not by social media per se, but by a lot of folks on the left who suggest that I am some sort of provocateur involved in hate speech.
	What exactly have I said that is hate speech?
	Well, their favorite is that I don't use preferred pronouns.
	So if somebody like Caitlyn Jenner says that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, I will still say that Caitlyn Jenner is a man, and I will say Caitlyn Jenner is a he.
	This is hate speech, according to a lot of folks on the left.
	Well, what's to prevent Apple or Facebook, from removing my content online simply because I don't abide by their standards.
	There are rumors today that a lot of these social media giants are going to start banning or restricting content from people who they deem climate change deniers.
	Not even people who acknowledge that climate change is happening, but worry that it may not be happening to the same extent that some on the left say and don't look like the left's solutions.
	Those people may not be safe from the predations of social media also.
	So, again, what exactly is so terrible?
	The company said it removed Alex Jones' pages for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslim, and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.
	Again, this is where we get into some serious, serious issues.
	What exactly violates that hate speech policy?
	So if I say that transgender people have mental disorders, which they do, okay?
	Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder is, as you may have noticed from the term gender identity disorder, a disorder.
	If you say that, is that now hate speech?
	What if I say that while not all Muslims are terrorists, a disproportionate number of terrorists are Muslim?
	Is that hate speech?
	Because that is also a fact.
	What if I say that immigrants coming to the United States, you know, ought to be vetted because we don't know who's violent and who is not?
	Is that hate speech?
	I don't think it is.
	I don't even think it comes close to hate speech.
	But one of the big problems is that you have too many folks on the left who decide that anything they don't like now is hate speech.
	And I'm not... Again, one of the things that's very weird about this is that I really dislike Alex Jones's brand.
	I think that Alex Jones is a liar.
	I think he's a conspiracist.
	I think he does say horrible things and hateful things on a regular basis.
	But there is no consistent standard that you can set.
	There is no limiting principle to Facebook or Apple I think I'll get in your business.
	You know what happens when I get in people's businesses, boy?
	you guys.
	I don't trust you guys.
	And just to demonstrate again, that I'm not saying this out of some perverse love for Alex Jones.
	Alex Jones hates my guts.
	And I think that he is, if I've not made clear, a flaming pile of human feces.
	And here's Alex Jones mocking me on his show like two weeks ago.
	I think I'll get in your business.
	You know what happens when I get in people's businesses, boy?
	They ain't in business long, son.
	You like what I did to your daddy, Beck?
	He really did it to himself, didn't he?
	But we told everybody what he was.
	Okay, so that weirdo, right, was threatening me on his show, and I'm now defending his show.
	Clearly, I'm a bad guy.
	It's just dangerous stuff.
	I think it's deeply dangerous stuff to have so many folks on the left trying to determine what content constitutes hate speech.
	The reason that I think that it's deeply dangerous, and the reason I don't trust them, is because there is a massive double standard when it comes to the left, and for example, racism.
	So, when I suggest that hatred of a particular race is the definition of racism, people on the left will say, well, it depends on the race.
	So, for example, there's an article in the New York Times this week all about why calling white people racist may not actually be the most, the best possible way of curbing racism.
	And this article drew all sorts of hatred from folks on the political left.
	The article It was an opinion piece by a woman named Margaret Rankel.
	And what it said was, "There are still white Southerners who honestly believe that American culture worked better for everyone, white and black alike, under segregation.
	There are still white Southerners who question how bad slavery really was.
	When enslaved black person's health and strength are needed to guarantee the slaveholders' livelihood, this argument goes, it just wouldn't make sense to whip them or starve them or rape them or work them to the point of collapse.
	Southerners aren't alone in believing such mendacity, but the South is where slavery and segregation metastasize, so it may be more concentrated here.
	Whatever this insidious delusion takes hold, however, it requires a gargantuan ignorance of history to maintain.
	And there's a lot of ignorance afoot in the land right now.
	More people in Tennessee today drive cars bearing a license plate, it's emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag than ever before, a strong majority of Southerners, 61%, Okay, they're definitely all racist.
	So this is a very leftist article, but it's coming under fire from the left.
	exhausted my ability to understand why deep into the 21st century, I'm still hearing otherwise good-hearted people use the same arguments white Southerners used to discredit Uncle Tom's cabin more than 150 years ago.
	Why?
	It couldn't possibly have been that bad.
	Maybe this is what happens when a person's only news source is the alternative universe of Fox and Friends, or maybe they're all just racist.
	Okay, they're definitely all racist.
	So this isn't a very leftist article, but it's coming under fire from the left.
	Why?
	Because here is the point.
	They don't believe they are.
	And the problem with writing off people who don't recognize this country's pervasive and enduring culture of white supremacy, much less the ways in which they themselves benefit from it, is simple.
	Being called a racist almost never causes a racist to wake up.
	Being called a racist almost never causes a racist to say, oh wow, you're right.
	I get that it's hard not to scream racist at a racist.
	If you're a white person who wants to be an advocate, it's both infuriating and demoralizing to know that the people causing all the suffering are people who look just like you.
	Here's what is also true.
	Prejudice is endemic to humanity itself.
	Human beings are tribal creatures.
	We trust the familiar and are drawn to it.
	We distrust the unfamiliar and keep our distance.
	White people, liberal and conservative, often claim not to notice another person's race, but it's just not true.
	We are hardwired to recognize difference and to view it as an aberration.
	Noticing difference is not the same thing as hating difference, of course, but I'm not just talking about vicious white supremacists here.
	I'm talking about garden variety prejudice, and the answer that this lady says is, maybe yelling racist at people is not actually a good idea.
	Because when you yell racist to people, all you are doing is alienating people.
	This author says, Take a breath.
	When you encounter a person who believes he's merely honoring his ancestors by driving a car with an image of the Confederate battle flag on the tag, when a Facebook friend announces it's disrespectful to take a knee during the national anthem, when you sit down next to someone at a church picnic who genuinely loves and respects the black people they know, but who consistently votes for politicians with overtly racist policies, stop for a moment and take a breath.
	Before you say a single word, think of all the times you made an assumption about a stranger that proved to be untrue.
	Think of the times you found yourself feeling uneasy in the company of strangers of another race.
	This is not only a reasonable article, it's a far-left article, right?
	It suggests that all of these are elements of racism, but the best way to fight all of that is not to yell racist to people.
	The left says that this is a huge mistake.
	The left says that if you yell racist at a bunch of non-racist white people, that's totally fine, but if you say anything racist about a member of another race, then it's racism.
	I want to explain why the left believes this and what the ramifications are of that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about stamps.
	Okay, so how much time have you spent driving down to the post office lately?
	Probably you've spent some.
	Well, if the answer is some, the answer could be none, because no matter the great services of the post office, It's even easier at Stamps.com, where you can access all of those great services right from your desk, 24-7, when it is convenient for you.
	You buy and print official U.S.
	postage for any letter, any package, using your own computer and printer.
	The mail carrier picks it up.
	You just click, print, mail, you're done.
	It couldn't be easier.
	We use Stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices.
	We use it at my house as well.
	And right now, when you use promo code SHAPIRO, you get a special offer.
	55 bucks of free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
	Go to stamps.com.
	Before you do anything else, you go and you click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage, and you type in Shapiro.
	That's stamps.com, and you enter promo code Shapiro.
	Again, stamps.com, promo code Shapiro, and you get that special offer.
	It includes up to 55 bucks of free postage, a digital scale, plus that four-week trial.
	The service is the post office right there at your desk.
	It makes it really, really simple.
	Again, stamps.com, promo code Shapiro, stamps.com.
	Click on that radio microphone at the top of the page.
	And use promo code Shapiro.
	Okay, so.
	There's this article in the New York Times in which it says, maybe you don't want to call all white people racist.
	And the left goes mad.
	Why shouldn't we call all white people racist?
	Instead, we should point out that when people are racist, they're racist.
	Okay, so here's an article from Linda Tirado over at the Daily Beast.
	And this is fascinating.
	She says, poverty doesn't make you racist.
	It's more that the exhaustion strips you of the ability to dissemble for long.
	So if you're inclined toward racism already, it shows.
	A life lived close to tears of sheer fatigue and stress is not one in which you can expend the energy to stop yourself spouting your resentments or wielding your fears as a weapon.
	So in other words, some people choose racism, poverty doesn't cause racism, but individuals are responsible for their own racism, so why would you go easy on white racists?
	That's an opinion with which I have some sympathy.
	The problem is that the left has then claimed that Sarah Zhang, who is this new member of the New York Times editorial board, who has literally dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of anti-white hate tweets on her feed, right, she's been left alone by the left.
	The left says that her brand of racism is just fine.
	Now, how do you know the left has a double standard on this?
	Because this is hilarious.
	Candace Owens, who is black, right, a black woman, she took all of Sarah Zhang's tweets, or some of them, and she replaced the word white with black, tweeted them out, and Twitter banned her for a day.
	Sarah Zhang is still on Twitter.
	Candace Owens was tossed from Twitter for a day.
	Twitter called it a mistake, but it's pretty obvious that there's a double standard in how exactly the left approaches these issues.
	So when we talk about Alex Jones and whether Alex Jones ought to be banned by Facebook or Apple, no matter how much you dislike Alex Jones, the reality is the left is never going to consistently apply their standards, which suggests that if we have to choose between an inconsistently applied standard and no standard, no standard might actually be the better move, which is a scary place to be because the left is so Damn dishonest about their social standards on this sort of stuff.
	Okay.
	Meanwhile, over the weekend, it was a busy weekend for the President of the United States particularly.
	He decided to tweet a lot, a lot, a lot.
	Many of the tweets.
	So many tweets.
	So the president of the United States decided for some reason that he was going to tweet out about the Trump Tower meeting.
	Now, as you recall, the Trump Tower meeting happened in June of 2016.
	This is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and some other members of the Trump campaign and a woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya.
	She's a Russian lawyer.
	And that meeting had basically been prepped by a Russian source writing to Donald Trump Jr., saying, we have information or the Russian government may have information on Hillary Clinton.
	Would you like to get together with an emissary of the Russian government to hear this dirt?
	And Donald Trump Jr.
	was like, yeah, let's do it.
	Yeah.
	So then they had the meeting.
	And just to recall the timeline, after they had the meeting, The president of the United States dictated a statement to Donald Trump Jr.
	in which Donald Trump Jr.
	said that the meeting was originally about adoptions, that it was really about adoption policy and Russia wanting to change adoption policy.
	And so they had the meeting.
	And then it turned out that the meeting was not about adoption policy.
	It was, in fact, about dirt, getting dirt on Hillary Clinton.
	And the president's lawyer said that Trump didn't know any of this, that Trump was not involved with the drafting of the statement at all.
	Then it turned out that Trump was indeed involved with the drafting of the statement.
	He, in fact, dictated the statement essentially word for word.
	And then, yesterday, the President of the United States tweeted this out.
	So he tweeted out, quote, fake news reporting, a complete fabrication that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son Donald had in Trump Tower.
	This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics.
	And it went nowhere.
	I did not know about it.
	So the entire world goes nuts because now President Trump, who once claimed that this meeting was about adoptions and that he had nothing to do with writing the statements, has now announced that he wrote the statement and also that the meeting was not about adoptions.
	The meeting was actually about getting information on Hillary Clinton.
	Now, people are pointing out that the media is overwrought on this, considering that Trump tweeted the same thing like a year ago.
	Here's a flashback tweet.
	This is from July 2017.
	That's politics.
	So there he was a year ago, essentially implicitly acknowledging that the meeting was, in fact, about gathering info on Hillary Clinton.
	Go back to the other tweet.
	This tweet from yesterday, however, I think does say a little bit more Right?
	It's a full admission that the meeting was to get information on an opponent.
	And it does raise the question as to whether Trump knew about it in advance.
	He says he did not know about it, but he's speaking like he knows exactly what happened at the meeting.
	So this raises a second question.
	Did he know exactly what happened at the meeting when he wrote this statement that was false to the press?
	Now, you do run into a couple of questions.
	The big question here is, so what exactly is illegal here?
	What exactly is illegal?
	And it's not truly clear what is illegal about any of this.
	Glenn Beck asked me a question on Twitter yesterday.
	That was a very good question.
	What he asked was, if it's illegal for Donald Trump Jr.
	to get information on an opponent from a source that is not a U.S.
	citizen, how can the Clinton campaign and Fusion GPS gather information using a former British spy without violation?
	Seems like a reasonable question, right?
	How is it that you're saying it's criminal for Donald Trump Jr.
	to go get information from the Russians about Hillary Clinton, but it's not illegal for Hillary Clinton to pay Fusion GPS to go to a British spy named Christopher Steele, who will then go to Russia and then obtain OPPO information on Donald Trump?
	How is one illegal, but the other is not illegal?
	And the answer is, I'm not sure any of it is actually illegal.
	Eugene Volokh, who is a brilliant, brilliant lawyer, I think he teaches at UCLA School of Law still, He has a piece over at the Washington Post talking about whether it is a crime to do opposition research using foreign nationals.
	And he essentially concludes that it probably is not.
	That there is nothing in law that prevents you from going and talking to a Chinese citizen about the sins of your political opponents.
	Or he gives this example.
	He says, what happens if a Turkish dissenter Knows that there's a corrupt relationship between President Obama and the Turkish government and decides to tell the opposition in the presidential election about it.
	Are you just supposed to ignore that information?
	Are you supposed to pretend that the person didn't say it?
	Is it collusion to work with that person?
	And Volokh comes down on the side of no, that none of this is illegal, that Donald Trump Jr.
	meeting with the Russians was not, in fact, illegal, that getting information from the Russians probably was not illegal.
	I think that that is plausible, and I think it's probably right.
	I think it's difficult to imagine how exactly it's illegal for Donald Trump Jr.
	or even Donald Trump Sr., right, even Trump himself, to actually go and talk with Vladimir Putin and get information directly.
	Now, is it good?
	Is it smart?
	Is it right?
	Is it politically viable?
	No, I don't think that it is.
	There are a couple of other areas in which illegality could, in fact, be implicated.
	I'm going to talk about those in just a second.
	First, I got to tell you about Peter Millar.
	OK, so the clothes from Peter Millar are just first rate.
	As you know, I've been working on upping my style game and giving my closet a makeover.
	And Peter Millar is making All of that happened.
	It's easily the most comfortable clothing I've ever worn.
	I mean, this stuff is just supremely comfortable.
	The Peter Millar Polo Shirts, which I love.
	They offer comfort and style.
	They're easy to take care of.
	They're right out of the dryer.
	You don't have to put an iron to them.
	They're great for the golf course.
	They even have sun protection built into the shirt.
	Peter Millar Five Pocket Pants are lightweight.
	They are highly breathable.
	It's really hot this summer, so you want Peter Millar stuff.
	It's made from the highest quality Pima cotton.
	They have comfort stretch for ease of movement.
	They fit like your favorite jeans with a style to be worn anywhere.
	They have Peter Millar's exclusive wash and finish to enhance that softness as well.
	And their performance shorts are moisture-wicking, breathable, quick-drying.
	Their shorts are really comfortable.
	All their clothes, they're stylish, they look great, and they really feel good.
	Peter Malar is my go-to clothing for vacation, work events, the golf course, even working out.
	I put Peter Malar on in the morning, and then you never look out of place.
	You can check him out on social media at Peter Millar and at Peter Millar Golf.
	Most comfortable clothing you're ever going to wear, go over to PeterMillar.com slash Ben and you can check out some of my Peter Millar favorites.
	Be sure to use my link.
	You'll receive complimentary shipping and a free hat.
	That's PeterMillar.com.
	That's Peter Millar.
	M-I-L-L-A-R dot com slash Ben.
	PeterMillar.com slash Ben.
	Use that slash Ben so they know we sent you and you can get that complimentary shipping and the free hat.
	PeterMillar.com slash Ben.
	Awesome clothes.
	Just go check it out right now.
	OK, so is there any illegality to Donald Trump Jr.
	having met with this Russian lawyer now that President Trump has admitted that that is what exactly the meeting was about?
	Well, not unless there was coordination regarding an underlying crime.
	So let's say that Donald Trump Jr.
	or Donald Trump Sr.
	met with Russian lawyers and then they decided that they were going to Hack the DNC and coordinate about that.
	Well, hacking the DNC is illegal.
	So if you are in the midst of a conspiracy to hack the DNC, that's illegal activity.
	There's no evidence that this is exactly what happened.
	Other possible areas of illegality.
	Unreported campaign expenditures.
	So let's say that the Trump administration, or the Trump campaign rather, paid the Russians for the information, then didn't report it to the FEC.
	Well, that would be a violation of campaign finance.
	The theory that they are using most often here, though, is illegal in-kind contributions unreported from foreign sources.
	So, in other words, you've got the Russian government that is donating information to the Trump campaign, and that acts as an illegal in-kind contribution.
	Again, though, I'm unsure that's the way that the law ought to be applied.
	And the reason I say that is, again, you have a situation where You find out that the president of the United States is in bed with the Turkish government and a Turkish dissenter goes to the opposition in the United States and gives that information.
	Is that an illegal in-kind contribution?
	Hard to imagine that counts as an illegal in-kind contribution.
	People do stuff for campaigns on a daily basis.
	That's not necessarily an illegal in-kind contribution.
	And the bar is a little bit higher than that.
	And it should be higher than that because the fact is that free flow of information during a campaign is actually a good thing.
	We want to know more about the candidates for whom we are voting.
	So what is the distinction, theoretically, between Hillary Clinton hiring Fusion GPS to hire a foreign citizen to go get oppo on Trump and Trump Jr.
	working with the Russians?
	There could theoretically be two distinctions.
	First distinction could be that Hillary may not have known that Fusion would use a foreign source where Trump Jr.
	directly met with one.
	And second, Hillary paid Fusion GPS and apparently reported it to the FEC, so at least the FEC knew what was going on, whereas Trump Jr.
	didn't pay for anything or report.
	But that leads to this bizarre situation where if you pay a foreign source for oppo on your opponent, that's better than just getting it on a volunteer basis from a foreign source.
	So in other words, it's not clear that Trump Jr.
	actually committed a crime in any of this.
	So all of the talk about Trump Jr.
	and Trump admitting that this whole thing was designed to get OPPO research on Hillary Clinton, not clear that any of that is criminal, even if it is true.
	Now, is it politically good?
	No.
	Impeachment is a political crime.
	It is not a crime crime.
	The President of the United States may not even be able to be tried in a criminal court.
	That's actually very unclear under the Constitution of the United States.
	What is pretty clear, however, Is that if the president of the United States knew that the Russian government was attempting to work with him to take down Hillary Clinton and he decided to operate in those fears, that Democrats would attempt impeachment.
	They would claim that this was enough to go after President Trump.
	This is why you are seeing the Trump team say collusion is not a crime.
	Saying, okay, you actually need a crime in order to impeach.
	The Democrats are just going to impeach for whatever reason they can get behind.
	Now, where is the actual criminal activity?
	Well, Donald Trump Jr.
	did testify, I believe, under oath, that Donald Trump Sr.
	did not know about the Trump Tower meeting.
	If it turns out that is false, that's what we call a perjury trap.
	And now Donald Trump Jr.
	is in danger of perjury and they could try to flip him against his dad, theoretically.
	That could be a serious problem.
	But Trump has never testified.
	So none of this actually affects Trump personally.
	Unless Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians to actually commit a crime, and not just they were giving him information about Hillary Clinton, that they were hacking Hillary, and they were doing it with Trump's express coordination, that would be a crime.
	Anything else here is probably not a crime.
	Now, this does raise another issue, and that is obstruction.
	So, the Mueller investigation is now focusing in on obstruction of justice.
	They're trying to suggest that President Trump is trying to obstruct the investigation, and therefore, He has committed a crime in that sphere.
	Well, obstruction of justice would actually require him to shut down the investigation or stop the investigation in some way.
	There's no evidence that he has done any of that whatsoever yet.
	And it is not, in fact, obstruction of justice if the president doesn't decide to speak with Robert Mueller.
	It's a serious legal question right now as to whether President Trump, if subpoenaed by Robert Mueller, actually has to obey the subpoena.
	There's a case against Richard Nixon in which Richard Nixon was forced to give up evidence against himself.
	He was forced by a court to give up the Watergate tapes.
	But it's not clear, per se, the Supreme Court ruled, but it's not clear exactly whether Nixon would have had to testify in front of Congress if they had called him, or if a special investigator had called the president, whether the president would be compelled to testify.
	Not clear at all.
	Jay Sekulow, who's still on the president's legal team, he says that President Trump is not going to obey subpoenas.
	If Robert Mueller decides to go after him, he may just ignore it.
	In a subpoena, you file what's called a motion to quash.
	That will be argued at the district court, then it would go to the Court of Appeals, then it would go to the Supreme Court of the United States.
	From the Supreme Court of the United States, it goes back down to the lower courts again.
	A subpoena for live testimony has never Okay, so this is going to be the argument that Trump makes.
	Now, is the strongest argument that he has politically that none of this is a crime?
	No.
	The strongest argument he has politically is that he didn't know about any of it, he didn't involve himself in any of it, there was no actual collusion in any legal or real sense.
	If however it turns out that there was in fact collusion, it's possible the collusion is not a crime.
	Then we have to determine whether the President of the United States gets tried in an actual criminal court or whether the proper approach is impeachment.
	It seems to me that constitutionally the proper approach is indeed impeachment.
	That was the system the founders set up.
	If you could just Remove a president by having a criminal case brought against him.
	This would happen to virtually every president because it's not too hard to come up with a situation in which the president committed a crime.
	I wrote an entire book about why theoretically you should be able to prosecute a president.
	It was called The Case Against Barack Obama.
	It was about Barack Obama's various crimes, his violations of statutory law, and the suggestion that I made is that law might have to be changed to allow for the prosecution of presidents, but I think that the Constitution itself is not really designed for that.
	You may actually need a constitutional amendment, although all of this is a really murky area of the law because It hasn't really happened very often.
	Only two presidents ever have been impeached in the House.
	Andrew Johnson was impeached in the House, and Bill Clinton was impeached in the House.
	Neither of them were actually convicted in the Senate, so both of them ended up retaining their office, obviously.
	Okay, so, with all of this said, Is the president of the United States in bad shape?
	Because I don't think so until the Mueller report comes out.
	Again, this is all political, but it doesn't behoove the president to be tweeting about all of this.
	The fact that he is tweeting out that this meeting between Trump Jr.
	and the Russians was actually about gathering oppo on Hillary Clinton.
	It's just not smart.
	I don't know what's possessing him to do this.
	I think he was just bored over the weekend, and he decided he's going to tweet out a bunch of stuff.
	And as we will see, these sort of stream-of-consciousness Twitter threads from the president, if you want him to be successful, folks, you got to root for him to stop, because it's not helping him in any way.
	I'll give you a couple of other examples in just a second.
	First, let's talk about Legacy Box.
	So, when's the last time you watched those home movies, right?
	You taped those years ago, and then you stuck them in your closet, and then you forgot about them, and you haven't taken them out forever.
	And then you've got a bunch in the garage and those are all moldering and they're falling apart.
	Well, if you feel like there's all this stuff in your closet you're not using, instead what you should be doing is taking all of that and sending it to Legacybox.
	It's a simple, affordable way to get your recorded moments digitally preserved on DVD or thumb drive so you never have to worry about it again.
	There's a fire in your house and you're not rushing to your closet to get boxes of old tapes.
	You just grab the thumb drive and go.
	Here's how it works.
	You load Legacy Box with your old tapes, film pictures, audio recordings, you send it back, and then you get them back in a couple of weeks on DVD or a convenient thumb drive, ready to watch, share, and relive.
	It's just awesome.
	Legacy Box takes care of everything, and they provide updates at every step of the process.
	So, several years ago, my parents decided they wanted to preserve all of their family memories on DVD.
	It cost a fortune.
	We looked at Legacy Box, my family did, and it is significantly cheaper, and it's a lot easier because you just send it off and they've got it labeled so you know where every piece is at every step of the process.
	Go check it out right now.
	Over 350,000 families have used Legacy Box, and for a limited time, when you go to LegacyBox.com slash Ben and enter my code Ben, you get a 40% discount on your order.
	That's LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
	Again, LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
	You get a 40% discount on your order.
	It's totally worth it.
	It makes a fantastic gift for your parents, particularly.
	Go check it out.
	LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
	Again, LegacyBox.com slash Ben.
	Okay, so speaking of the President's tweets, we're gonna get to the President tweeting about LeBron and tweeting about tariffs and tweeting about the press.
	It's a busy weekend on Twitter for the president.
	But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to Daily Wire.
	Go over there.
	We have all sorts of awesome stuff happening behind the paywall at dailywire.com.
	And you help us bring you the show.
	Also, for $99 a year, you get this.
	The very greatest in all beverage vessels.
	The leftist here is hot or cold tumbler.
	Go.
	Behold it.
	Enjoy it.
	Hold it in your hands.
	And you shall experience the glory that is.
	So $99 a year gets you that.
	Plus, Go over, subscribe to YouTube or iTunes and you can be part of our Sunday special.
	We just had David Mamet on our Sunday special last week and we have a bunch of awesome guests coming up in the next few weeks as well.
	So go check that out.
	out.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	All righty.
	So let's talk about the rest of President Trump's Twitters.
	So he didn't just tweet about how the Trump Tower meeting, which is now two years old, how that Trump Tower meeting was actually about colluding with the Russians, right?
	He didn't just tweet about that.
	He also decided to tweet about LeBron James.
	He was very angry because last week LeBron James said that President Trump had polarized sports.
	As I said last week, I felt that this was a foolish statement.
	I don't think that it's true.
	Sports has been polarized for a long time in this country.
	It was polarized under Barack Obama.
	I'm old enough to remember when players were coming out on the field in the NFL and doing hands up, don't shoot.
	And when Colin Kaepernick was kneeling for the anthem before Trump was president.
	So Trump is not wrong that LeBron is wrong, but Trump then tweeted this.
	"LeBron James was just interviewed "by dumbest man on television, Don Lemon.
	"He made LeBron look smart, which isn't easy to do.
	"I like Mike." All right, so he is basically calling Don Lemon dumb, Which, you know, frankly, he calls everybody in media dumb.
	Like, all the time.
	It happens all the time.
	And then he says that LeBron is actually dumb as well.
	And then he said he likes Michael Jordan.
	Which is...
	Pretty hysterical.
	So now we're going to get into a full-on, greatest-of-all-time conversation between LeBron James and Michael Jordan, led by Donald Trump, which is going to be awesome.
	By the way, I will take Jordan narrowly.
	LeBron has definitely climbed in the rankings.
	In any case, is this smart?
	Is this good?
	Well, probably not.
	However, is it racist?
	No, it's not racist.
	It's not racist.
	Okay, for the president to call Don Lemon dumb or LeBron James dumb or Maxine Waters dumb, no, that's not racist because a complete listing of all the people that President Trump has called dumb numbers into the millions.
	Seriously, there are fewer people that President Trump has not called dumb than has called dumb on planet Earth right now.
	And yet the media decides that all of this is just evidence of President Trump's racism.
	Now, is this a fight that Trump needed to pick?
	Do we really need to have a Donald Trump versus LeBron James fight?
	He's the president of the United States.
	Is this really worthwhile?
	Plus, LeBron James is not the worst guy, right?
	LeBron James is a pretty clean-living dude.
	He's married to the mother of his couple of kids.
	He married her late, but he married her.
	He's building a charter school in Cleveland that, by all accounts, is pretty awesome.
	Is this really the best move?
	Probably not.
	But is it racist?
	No, it's not racist.
	And this just demonstrates how the media, by overreach, make Trump's case for him that they are biased against him.
	Here is Anna Navarro, titular Republican on CNN.
	She has made a newfound career out of bashing President Trump, which is really just silly.
	I'm not sure what makes her a Republican anymore, since she's embraced virtually every lefty policy proposal.
	In any case, she tweeted out, Trump called Don Lemon, LeBron James, and Maxine Waters dumb.
	One is from the South, one is from Cleveland, one is from LA, one is in the NBA, one is on TV, one is in Congress.
	Hmm.
	I wonder what they could possibly have in common.
	Oh wait.
	And then a black hand.
	And then she said this on CNN.
	If you don't see this as racist, I would ask you to please go get your vision checked.
	When it comes to African Americans, when it comes to black people, he seems to go to the low IQ, dumbest person in the world attack quite often.
	It is his go-to when it comes to African Americans, that they are dumb.
	Okay, or alternatively, he calls everyone dumb because the President of the United States has insulted everyone from Chuck Todd to Jeb Bush.
	I mean, legitimately, he calls every single person dumb, right?
	He asked if he could have an IQ comparison with his own Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.
	He calls everybody dumb.
	Like, there's a huge list of insults.
	There are 487 people the president has insulted on Twitter, and I don't think that that's been updated.
	It was published in January 2016.
	President does this all the time.
	He's called Mika Brzezinski low IQ.
	Is Mika Brzezinski black?
	Of course not.
	But the media always have to jump to their favorite insults, and that means that the President of the United States is racist.
	Now again, is it worthwhile for the President of the United States to be attacking LeBron James and talking about Michael Jordan?
	No, but we know that the President is puerile on his Twitter account.
	And the fact the media feel the necessity to overreach on all of these issues is particularly stupid.
	Speaking of media overreach on all of these particular issues, President Trump tweeted versus the press.
	He knows that the way to get his base out is to attack the press consistently and openly.
	Here was President Trump tweeting out against the press.
	He tweeted, The fake news hates me because they are the enemy of the people only because they know it's true.
	I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American people.
	They purposely cause great division and distrust.
	They can also cause war.
	They're very dangerous and sick.
	OK, so number one, I'm not sure which war he's saying that the American media caused.
	The last time the American media caused a war was probably the Cuban War, probably Spanish-American War, in which Teddy Roosevelt was a rough rider.
	So it's been probably 120 years since the media legitimately caused a war in the United States.
	However, And the fact that Trump is attacking the media as the enemy of the people.
	The reason he does this is because he's a troll.
	He's a Twitter troll.
	Okay?
	He's a guy who trolls the comments.
	And the left falls for it every time.
	So here's Chuck Todd saying this rationalizes violence.
	When you call a group of people, you otherize them the way he's trying to do with the press, calling them sick and sort of dehumanizing them.
	It makes violence against the press easier to rationalize for some.
	Oh really?
	That's the big deal?
	The violence against the press is going to be rationalized?
	Where are all the cases of violence against the press by Trump supporters?
	I'm just wondering.
	Really, I'm wondering, because, like, this morning, Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk, over at TPUSA, they were sitting in a restaurant over in Philadelphia, and a bunch of Antifa members saw them, decided to run inside, and then harassed them out of a restaurant, where they started dumping water on them.
	Here's what that looked like and sounded like.
	What?
	Supremacy!
	What?
	Supremacy!
	What?
	Supremacy!
	Get that out of my face.
	Don't let that touch me.
	I'm not Canadian.
	And then they're trying to scream, just geniuses over here.
	I do have to, and then they're pouring water on Charlie, which is, yes, I'm sure that the media have much to fear, but those on the right, understand, it's only Trump that has made this climate.
	It's only Trump that has made this climate.
	Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, by the way, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find any two bigger Trump supporters in America, and they're the ones who are having water poured on them for the sin of sitting at a restaurant in Philadelphia.
	So, look, Trump knows how to troll the press, and the press fall for it every time.
	Still, should the president be calling the press the enemy of the people?
	No.
	Is it something that, Like, Abraham Lincoln, sitting around, 1861.
	Calling the press the enemy of the people?
	Not really.
	Also fair to say, Abraham Lincoln suspended the rights of habeas corpus in jail, journalists.
	Worth noting that, as well.
	Although he was in the middle of a civil war at the time.
	So, is this appropriate?
	Not particularly.
	Okay, so.
	Meanwhile, the President of the United States' Twitter rage didn't end there.
	He also decided to go off on tariffs.
	Now, there's been this great debate That has broken out amongst folks on the right as to whether Trump is legitimately a fan of tariffs or whether he is not.
	The answer is he is legitimately a fan of tariffs.
	The president likes to signal on the one hand that he wants to lower all tariffs to zero and on the other hand that he likes tariffs.
	The lower tariffs to zero argument is actually not the one coming from President Trump's heart.
	The reason I know this is because if you look at President Trump's rhetoric over the last legitimately 35 years, he has always been in favor of high trade barriers and protectionism.
	He's a fan of high trade barriers and protectionism.
	And he tweeted out his fanhood for tariffs over the weekend.
	and he tweeted out, tariffs are working big time.
	Every country on earth wants to take wealth out of the US, always to our detriment.
	I say, as they come, tax them.
	If they don't want to be taxed, let them make or build the product in the US.
	In either event, it means jobs and great wealth.
	And they continued along these lines, because of the tariffs, we'll be able to start paying down large amounts of the $21 trillion in debt that has been accumulated, much by the Obama administration, while at the same time reducing taxes for our paper.
	At minimum, we'll make much better trade deals for our country.
	Okay, there are so many things wrong with these tweets, just on an economic level, that it's hard to describe all of them.
	Let's begin with the idea that the quote-unquote tariffs are working big time.
	There's no evidence that the tariffs are working big time.
	The only thing they are doing is actually directing American business out of the country.
	He says that every country on earth wants to take wealth out of the United States, always to our detriment.
	Me buying a product from a foreign company at a cheaper price is not me being victimized by that company.
	That is silly towns.
	And that company has to reinvest in the United States, which is why some of the biggest automakers in the United States are Toyota and Honda, as well as BMW, by the way.
	And then he says, he says, as they come, tax them.
	If they don't want to be taxed, let them make or build the product in the U.S.
	In either event, it means jobs and great wealth.
	No, it does not.
	It does not mean jobs and great wealth to tax the American people by charging them higher prices for the goods that they wish to buy.
	And then he continues with the falsehoods here.
	I mean, this is not even economically literate.
	He says, because of tariffs, we will be able to start paying down large amounts of the $21 trillion in debt that has been accumulated.
	In order for that to be true, What he basically has to be saying is the amount of taxes that we take off of foreign products, right, by raising the price and then we tax a product as it comes in, we're going to take all that money and we're going to pay it back to pay down the debt.
	The problem is, of course, that when you lower the economic growth in a society, which is what tariffs also do, you take in less income tax and less sales tax.
	So, there's no evidence that tariffs are going to outweigh the economic impact of the tariffs in terms of paying down the debt.
	Also worth noting, President Trump has blown out the deficit.
	I know that we're all supposed to pretend that this has been a fiscally responsible administration.
	This has not been a fiscally responsible administration.
	I like a lot of their monetary policy.
	I like the tax cuts.
	I like the regulatory policy.
	They are blowing out the spending.
	The deficit is actually increasing at a higher rate than it did in the last years of Obama.
	So this talk about Donald Trump being some sort of deficit hawk is just ridiculous.
	And when he finally says that this reduces taxes for our people, tariffs are literally a tax.
	It does not reduce taxes on Americans to make them pay more for products.
	Tariffs are literally a tax on the American people.
	So none of this makes any sense at all.
	And again, it betrays what the president actually thinks.
	Now, there are people who say, well, this is going to come out in Trump's favor because the fact that he speaks so warmly of tariffs means that other countries are going to be afraid that he will use them and then they will lower their own tariffs.
	OK, well, if they come out that way, then great.
	But I don't think that that's part of Trump's strategy.
	I also don't think that that's necessary in order to get other countries to lower their tariffs.
	In fact, one of the best ways to get other countries to lower their tariffs is to lower your own tariffs.
	Because when you lower your own tariffs, what you're actually doing is you are making it easier for your own companies to produce advanced products with the importation of cheaper products from abroad.
	So let's say we lower our tariffs against foreign steel.
	Yes, it hurts the domestic steel industry, but it sure as hell helps the American car industry.
	The American car industry becomes a global leader because suddenly it's a lot cheaper to produce that car.
	When you import cheap products into the United States, I now save money that I can use to invest in workers here at The Daily Wire.
	Right?
	That sort of thing is how economics works.
	The fact that President Trump is tweeting about all of this, it's just not particularly, it's not good stuff.
	Again, Mr. President, If you would just go to a basement for two years and turn off your phone and watch just replays of Shark Week all the time, you would be at 55% of the approval ratings.
	You would win re-election easily.
	What I don't like is the fact that all of this is happening and it's obvious it's having an impact on down-ballot races.
	If Congress goes the wrong way in 2018 and we hear the revisionist history about how it's the fault of the media, or about how it had nothing to do with Trump, or about how it was Democrat lies, or all the rest of the stuff.
	Listen, there are a few factors that are always consistent in American politics.
	The media are the left and Democrats lie.
	All of this is true.
	But, the one factor that has changed, and that is undermining a lot of popularity for Republicans in swing districts, is the fact that the president creates this feeling of chaos, and then he tweets out silly things at a ridiculous rate.
	That needs to stop.
	If you really want the president to do well, you should be rooting for him to stop all of this.
	Okay, time for some things I like, and some things I hate, and then we'll do a Federalist Paper.
	So, things that I like.
	So, I've been very critical of President Trump today, but one of the things that makes President Trump very popular, obviously, Is the fact that he has an innate sense of nationalistic patriotism.
	And that was on full display yesterday.
	The motorcade was passing a bunch of firefighters and he decided to get out of the motorcade and just go say thank you to the firefighters, which is pretty awesome.
	Mr. President, thank you.
	When do you want us to stand?
	Just like you are, you're good, you're good.
	Trump is a terrific retail politician, and he does have a gut-level loyalty to cops and firefighters and soldiers, and that is a far cry from the former president of the United States, Barack Obama, who is constantly ripping on police officers particularly.
	He was okay with fighters.
	He wasn't great with soldiers either.
	Trump has an innate level of love for these guys, and it comes across.
	That's why he stopped the car, and that is really good for him, obviously.
	Good for him!
	I mean, that's, I think, how all of our politicians should behave when it comes to cops, firefighters, and soldiers.
	Okay, time for some things that I hate.
	So over the weekend on Water's World on Fox News, a show in which I've appeared, there's a guy named Terrence Williams, black guy, and he was talking about Sarah Jean.
	Sarah Jean, who we discussed last week and a little bit earlier on the show, is of course this newest member of the New York Times editorial board.
	And she is egregious, right?
	She talks incessantly about how white people are ruining the world.
	She is a racist against white folks.
	It's very difficult to read her tweets and not come away with that impression.
	It's not one isolated tweet.
	It is legitimately dozens and dozens and dozens of them.
	And Terrence Williams goes on Jesse Waters' show and he launches into what can only be described as a racist attack on Asians, which is just great.
	I'm glad that we've decided to do this now.
	So they're saying, oh yeah, some people said some racist stuff to her.
	So then she said racist stuff back to imitate them.
	Does that even make any sense?
	Oh my, that don't make no sense.
	I don't know.
	No, no, no, no.
	There's something wrong with them fortune cookies that Ling Ling is eating.
	That she's eating.
	It's not wrong with her.
	Terrence, I think you now got yourself in trouble.
	Okay, so what's funny about this, the only thing that's funny about this at all, because the joke is not funny, the joke's terrible.
	The only thing that is funny about this at all is that the left got really offended at this after spending all of last week explaining that racism by people of color is not a thing.
	That black people cannot be racist.
	But I guess black people can be racist against Asians, but only under certain circumstances.
	This is the problem with the intersectional hierarchy.
	When you suggest that we can judge by the color of your skin whether you are capable of bad behavior or not, first of all, it's unbelievably paternalistic.
	Second of all, it's incredibly insulting to black folks and Asian folks and people of every race to suggest that bad behavior cannot be attributed to individual choices.
	It can instead be attributed To whether you are a member of a victimized minority group.
	I will say that there is something ironic about the left getting very, very upset about Terrence Williams saying this sort of stuff, where they would be fully fine with Sarah Zhang saying the same thing about white folks.
	She's sitting on the New York Times editorial board.
	I don't think Terrence Williams' invitation is in the mail anytime soon.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	So Jeremy Corbyn, who's legitimately just an awful human being, he has now apologized for the hurt caused by the Labor Party's anti-Semitism in Britain, the Labor Party.
	is a far-left anti-semitic party that has basically embraced Hamas and Hezbollah.
	Jeremy Corbyn has explicitly done so.
	He was caught on video in 2010 showing him at a pro-Palestinian rally and referring to Hamas terrorists as his friends and comparing the destruction in Gaza to that of Stalingrad and Leningrad during World War II.
	And here he is pretending that the Labour Party is not anti-semitic.
	I'm sorry for the hurt that's been caused to many Jewish people.
	We have been too slow in processing disciplinary cases of mostly online anti-Semitic abuse by party members.
	We're acting to speed this process up.
	People who hold anti-Semitic views have no place in the Labour Party.
	People who hold anti-Semitic views have no place in the Labour Party except in their top leadership because Jeremy Corbyn is in fact a brutal anti-Semite and the fact that he is considered not so is just a demonstration that if you're a leftist you can get away with legitimately anything on planet Earth.
	It truly is an incredible, incredible thing.
	Okay, time for a quick Federalist paper.
	Every week, we go through a Federalist paper.
	We are all the way up to Federalist number 40.
	So, in this Federalist paper, James Madison is still attempting to defend the fact that the Constitutional Convention went beyond its original mandate to alter the Articles of Confederation.
	So, if you remember your history, there was something called the Articles of Confederation.
	That was the first attempt to form an American government.
	It was too weak because the centralized government didn't actually have the power to tax, relieve, or gather an army, or protect the country.
	And so, there was an Articles of Convention meeting, an Articles of Confederation convention, rather, In which people were supposed to get together and change the Articles of Confederation.
	Instead, they went beyond that and just scrapped the entire thing.
	And here's Madison suggesting why that was okay.
	Okay, he says, let them declare whether it was of most importance to the happiness of the people of America, that the Articles of Confederation should be disregarded and an adequate government be provided and the Union preserved, or that an adequate government should be omitted and the Articles of Confederation preserved.
	So this sounds a lot like the ends justify the means, the argument that Madison is making here, which is, you sent us here to do one thing, we decided to do another thing, the product's good, so deal with it.
	I don't know.
	I don't like this logic very much from James Madison.
	I think that when you are sent for a particular purpose, that you ought to fulfill that particular purpose.
	They are delegates, they are not there to completely surpass that.
	However, this is the difference between a republic and a democracy.
	In a democracy, the people get to vote on every specific policy.
	In a republic, You appoint people to do what they see fit, essentially, and then there's a referendum on what they get to do.
	So, what is the final level of approval for the Constitution?
	It's not that they didn't usurp and move beyond their mandate.
	They did usurp and move beyond their mandate.
	But the final judgment is the American people deciding whether something is good or not.
	And this is why You have to have everybody, when it comes to the Constitution itself, after the establishment of the Constitution, every branch has to feel an independent need to justify its own behavior along constitutional lines, and the American people have to hold our representatives accountable along those same lines, rather than just suggesting that whatever they decide to do is totally fine.
	You have to constantly be holding yourself to a higher standard.
	I don't think they did, actually, when they formed the Constitution of the United States.
	In this case, maybe the ends did justify the means, but as a general rule of thumb, I think that the anti-federalists who argued this were probably on better footing than James Madison was.
	Okay, 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.

▲