All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 20, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
51:29
The Giuliani Problem | Ep. 606
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Rudy Giuliani provides a weak defense for the President of the United States, Asia Argento is implicated in a Me Too mess of her own making, and Al Sharpton makes an astonishingly great TV error.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Oh, man.
I cannot wait to play for you Al Sharpton's weekend because it was spectacular.
We'll get to that in just a minute.
First, let's talk about what you're eating for dinner with your family.
So, you're eating out a lot.
I know you are.
And you're spending so much money doing it.
Not only that, you're missing out time that you could be spending with your kids cooking because it's a lot of fun to cook with your kids.
Well, that is where Blue Apron comes in.
Everybody in LA is using Blue Apron.
People all around the office using Blue Apron because They give you quick and easy recipe options, perfectly portioned ingredients delivered directly to your door.
They make dinner quick, easy, and insanely tasty.
You skip meal planning, you get straight to cooking with Blue Apron.
Enjoy the joy of summer with their favorite grilling recipes.
They've seasonally inspired ingredients and mouthwatering grilling options for the summer.
They have chicken with barbecue sauce, juicy cheeseburgers with spicy slaw, which sounds not kosher, but fabulous.
Go check it out right now.
Blue Apron has great recipes, and it makes you basically into a gourmet chef without you actually having to be good at cooking.
So check out this week's menu.
Get your first three meals for free at blueapron.com slash Shapiro.
That's blueapron.com slash Shapiro to get your first three meals for free.
Blue Apron is indeed a better way to cook.
I mean, I'm looking at some of these meals right now in front of me.
They look spectacular.
I'm extraordinarily hungry already.
So this ad is bad for my health.
Go check it out right now.
Blueapron.com slash Shapiro.
Blueapron.com.
Okay, so there's a lot going on over the weekend.
The big story over the weekend is that the New York Times supposedly is about to break open the Mueller investigation.
Everyone very, very excited because this new report from Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt, both Pulitzer Prize winners over at the New York Times, suggest that Don McGahn, who is President Trump's attorney in the White House, he's the White House chief attorney, That this guy spoke to the Mueller investigation.
And according to the New York Times, this means that Trump is in for it now.
Finally, Robert Mueller is going to seize President Trump in his clutches, just as the Krasnerstein brothers would want.
The Krasnerstein brothers, for folks who don't know, are these people who have basically become famous on Twitter for tweeting incessantly about President Trump.
And then they tweeted over the weekend a cartoon of a buff, shirtless Chippendale, Robert Mueller.
Which was real weird.
Then when people commented on it, they tweeted out, buff shirtless pictures of himself, which is even doubly weird.
The left is sort of obsessed with the Mueller investigation.
You may get that impression.
The New York Times is no exception.
So here is what they write.
President Trump's lawyers do not know just how much the White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn, told the special counsel's investigators during months of interviews, a lapse that has contributed to a growing recognition that an early strategy of full cooperation with the inquiry was a potentially damaging mistake.
So at this point in the piece, we still don't know what McGahn told the investigators.
Don't worry, we never will.
Nothing in the piece actually says what McGahn talked to the investigators about or why it would be so potentially damaging to the president of the United States.
According to the New York Times, however, the president's lawyer said on Sunday that they were confident that Mr. McGahn had said nothing injurious to the president during the 30 hours of interviews.
But Mr. McGahn's lawyer has offered only a limited accounting of what Mr. McGahn told the investigators, according to two people close to the president.
That has prompted concern among Mr. Trump's advisors that Mr. McGahn's statements could help serve as a key component for a damning report by the special counsel Robert Mueller, which the Justice Department could send to Congress, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
What this suggests is that the Mueller investigation is going to come up with nothing, and then they're going to send a report to Congress suggesting that the president acted badly, that while he didn't formally obstruct justice, which is a charge that has a very specific meaning and involves destruction of evidence or attempts to intimidate witnesses or some sort of witness tampering or perjury, The president hasn't done any of those.
There's nothing to actually show the president has done any of those things.
Despite that, they'll send a damning report to Congress, and then a Democratic Congress will be forced to try to impeach.
Mr. Trump's lawyers realized on Saturday they had not been provided a full accounting after the New York Times published an article describing Mr. McGahn's extensive cooperation with Mr. Mueller's office.
After Mr. McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel's office in November, Mr. Trump's lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr. McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
All of which actually speaks to the idea that Trump didn't feel like he had a lot to fear from Mueller, right?
He let his lawyer over at the White House go and talk to Mueller.
He didn't have to do that.
He could have just claimed executive privilege.
He could have claimed that there was attorney-client privilege.
He could have claimed a lot of things that would have prevented McGahn from actually having to go talk with Mueller.
Into any of those things, which suggests that Trump doesn't feel like he really has all that much to hide.
And the New York Times continues in this vein for a very long time.
It's pages and pages of writing on this.
And there's really nothing that comes out from it.
Basically, the only thing that comes out from it is that McGahn's people are sort of leaking to the press, it appears, that Trump Set up McGahn for a possible obstruction charge, and so McGahn was talking to Mueller.
That's the suggestion in the actual article, is that the only thing of relevance here is that McGahn felt pressured by Trump and therefore he went and talked to the investigators.
So here's what the New York Times says.
In its article, the Times said Mr. McGahn had shared detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the investigation into whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice in the Russia inquiry.
Some of the episodes, like Mr. Trump's attempt to fire Mr. Mueller last summer, would not have been revealed to investigators without Mr. McGahn's help.
The article set off a scramble on Saturday among Mr. Trump's lawyers and advisers.
The president, sequestered at his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, solicited opinions from a small group of advisers on the possible repercussions from the article The president ordered Mr. Giuliani to tell reporters the article was wrong, but Mr. Giuliani did not go that far in his television appearances.
As we'll see, Rudy Giuliani went on national TV and said the president really has nothing to hide.
Apparently, Trump wanted him to go out and say that the articles were wrong in all of their major facts, which apparently was not true.
In the end, is there a lot here?
Not really.
Not really.
President Trump lashed out on Twitter.
Here is what President Trump had to say about the article.
He said, I didn't have to.
I have nothing to hide.
Okay, so people are picking on the fact that Trump himself is suggesting that John Dean was a rat.
For those who don't know, John Dean was a White House attorney under Nixon.
He went and he talked to the Watergate investigators, and it was very damaging to President Nixon.
But what Trump is actually saying here is, people are jumping all over him for this, he's not wrong, right?
He allowed Don McGahn to go and testify.
Now people are saying at the New York Times that Trump did this basically because he's ignorant, and so he allowed McGahn to talk to Mueller.
But again, so what?
That's the opposite of obstruction.
That's him actually allowing his own people to go and talk with the Mueller investigation.
By the way, half a dozen people inside the administration have already talked to the Mueller investigation.
Like a lot of people for hours at a time.
And you know what?
I'm not sure they're gonna come up with anything.
But Trump is frustrated, and I think that that's not completely...
Off the rails.
He continues along these lines.
He says, Okay, again, I understand why Trump is upset about this.
that the rigged and disgusting witch hunt can come to a close.
So many lives have been ruined over nothing.
McCarthyism at its worst.
Yet Mueller and his gang of Dems refuse to look at the real crimes on the other side.
Media is even worse.
Again, I understand why Trump is upset about this.
He said, my lawyer went and talked to Mueller and you guys are yelling at me for that and saying that I'm obstructing even though my guy went and talked.
Again, I don't think Trump is wrong.
I don't think Trump is wrong.
Again, the sort of implication that Trump is trying to hide something when he allows his counsel to go and talk with the Mueller investigation is a weird one.
Nonetheless, Rudy Giuliani was out there making the rounds and sort of demonstrating that Trump is upset about the media coverage.
And Giuliani is just not a good representative for the president.
This is one of the big problems with representing President Trump is that every attorney who has ever represented Trump You don't know 100% of what he testified to?
goes on Twitter and then blast out what he thinks anyway.
Rudy Giuliani, however, makes things worse.
Rudy Giuliani is sort of the straw that stirs the drink when it comes to media coverage.
He was talking about McGahn and he makes a good point about McGahn and then he gets to some much worse points.
Here's Rudy Giuliani over the weekend with Chuck Todd of NBC.
You don't know 100% of what he testified to, Mr. Mueller?
I think that through John Dowd, we have a pretty good sense of it.
And John Dowd yesterday said, I'll use his words rather than mine, that McGahn was a strong witness for the president.
So I don't need to know much more about that.
Okay, so if McGahn was a strong witness for the president, and McGahn went and talked to the special counsel, and in the end, the special counsel has to prove obstruction.
Not intent, not intent to obstruct, actual obstruction.
Andrew McCarthy makes this great point over at National Review today.
Obstruction is an actual statutory crime.
If you're going to prove obstruction, you have to prove that the president actually took acts designed to stop or meddle with the investigation.
There's nothing to suggest he actually took these acts.
He said stuff, but saying stuff does not constitute obstruction.
The president has the ability to say as much stuff as he wants.
He just can't commit perjury, and he can't actually engage in witness intimidation.
That's not the same thing.
Giuliani then goes on, he says, Robert Mueller is panicking, and this Don McGahn leak shows it.
Here's where Giuliani starts to shade over into a little bit of dicey territory.
It could be McGahn, and McGahn's not doing it.
And he would have done it a long time ago if he was going to do it.
They're down to desperation time.
They have to write a report, and they don't have a single bit of evidence.
Okay, so it is very possible that Mueller has no evidence.
That New York Times report, however, looks like a leak from McGahn's team.
It looks like McGahn is leaking to the press that the reason that he talked to Mueller is because he was afraid of being hung out to dry.
It would be weird if that leak was coming from Team Mueller.
They're just sentences in the report that appear that it makes it look like it's from McGahn.
And then Giuliani gets himself in the biggest trouble of all.
Now, what Giuliani says in this particular clip is going to be wildly misinterpreted.
I don't think Giuliani is completely wrong, but expressed in the worst possible way.
And in a second, I'm going to talk about why this sort of stuff matters.
And when you tell me that, you know, he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well, that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth, not the truth.
He didn't have a conversation about- Truth is truth.
I don't mean to go like- No, it isn't truth.
Truth isn't truth.
The President of the United States says, I didn't- Truth isn't truth.
Mr. Mayor, do you realize what- No!
I think this is going to become a bad meme.
Don't do this to me.
Okay, here is the problem with Rudy Giuliani.
What he's saying is not wrong.
When he says that there is such a thing as a perjury trap, that if I tell the truth in front of Robert Mueller, I still may be brought up on obstruction charges, I still may be brought up on perjury charges, because it's possible there are two people who are telling different sides of the same story, and one of them sees it a different way, and therefore a perjury charge emerges.
He's not wrong about that.
But when he says sentences like, truth isn't truth, That is not going to help in any way.
Rudy Giuliani is just not a good representative of the president when it comes to this sort of stuff.
What he should be saying is no lawyer worth his salt would put his client in front of a motivated prosecutor determined to rack that guy up on perjury charges or obstruction charges.
No one would do that, particularly not a president who is fond of speaking off the cuff.
So even if the president is in general telling the truth and he makes a slight slip up, Mueller's gonna grab him.
And not only that, questions can be asked that are specifically designed to elicit a particular response that makes you subject to perjury.
A good prosecutor can do this sort of stuff.
But saying truth isn't truth obviously lends itself to the idea that the Trump administration is being deeply dishonest about all this stuff.
Now, the irony is that because the Trump administration has been dishonest about so many things regarding the Russia investigation from the outset, it's obscuring the larger point, which is that Trump, I think, is probably telling the truth when he says there was no collusion.
But this stuff does have consequences.
I'm gonna explain in just a second.
First, Let's talk about whether you ought to go down to the post office today.
The answer is you shouldn't.
The post office is a great place, but you don't actually want to be standing in line at the post office.
What you want to do is save your company time and money by instead working from your office and printing out your postage directly onto envelopes, onto stickers, directly onto a piece of paper that you can tape.
On to your envelope.
It saves you all sorts of time.
It saves you all sorts of money.
You don't have to get in the car and go down to the post office.
That's where stamps.com comes in.
With stamps.com, you can access all the amazing services of the post office 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, and the mail carrier picks it up.
You just click print mail and you're done.
It could not be easier.
We use stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices.
I use it at my home as well.
It saves me all sorts of time.
Right now, Use Shapiro, promo code Shapiro, for this special offer.
It includes 55 bucks free of postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
Go to stamps.com before you do anything else.
Click on the radio microphone at the top of the homepage, and you type in promo code Shapiro.
That's stamps.com, promo code Shapiro.
When you click on that radio microphone at the top of the page, enter Shapiro.
And again, you get up to 55 bucks free postage, a digital scale, and a four-week trial.
Stamps.com.
All the great services of the post office directly from your desk.
It's fantastic.
Go check it out.
Stamps.com.
Use promo code Shapiro.
Okay, so.
And why does any of this matter?
In the end, in the end, it's all going to be dependent on what Mueller comes down with.
So for all the media fulmination, for two years of media fulmination, all that's going to matter is what's in the final report.
I have a feeling it's going to be a lot weaker than anybody thinks it's going to be on the left.
I think that it's still going to be damning of President Trump in terms of his own personal behavior.
And I don't think much is going to come out of it.
It's just going to be a sort of a restating of stuff.
People already knew.
The big problem, however, is that when Rudy Giuliani goes on TV and says things like truth isn't truth, all it's doing is underscoring the dishonesty of the Trump administration time and time again during the Russia collusion investigation.
The broader point that Trump is making, I did not collude with the Russians to change the effects of the election, I think is probably true because there has not been evidence presented yet to show that the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Russians in shifting the election.
There is attempt There is intent.
That's not the same thing as active collusion and coordination to violate the law in pursuit of changing the electoral result.
But because the Trump administration, because the Trump campaign was so dishonest about the Trump Tower meeting, for example, because Rudy Giuliani has shifted his story multiple times, it makes Trump look dishonest.
And it occurs to me what a problem this is.
Yesterday, I took my wife for her birthday glassblowing.
So we'd never done this before.
And my sister actually suggested this.
We like to do sort of arts and crafts sorts of things.
This is a new thing.
We like to do kind of experiences for birthdays and anniversaries instead of me just getting her a nice piece of jewelry or in addition to me getting her a nice piece of jewelry.
But in any case, we decided to go glassblowing.
And the woman who's teaching the class is, of course, as you would imagine in Los Angeles, somebody who's very much on the left.
And we start talking about politics, because she brings it up.
I was not all that interested, but she wanted to.
And so we started talking about politics.
And she started talking about what a bad guy Trump was.
And I said, but his policies really haven't hurt you in any way.
In fact, the economy has been pretty good.
His policies are stuff that you kind of like.
And she goes, you know who else I dislike?
That Mike Pence.
That Mike Pence is just terrible.
I said, well, you know, I know Vice President Pence.
He's actually kind of a nice guy.
And the idea that he is some sort of grave grand theocrat attempting to govern you from above, I just don't think that's true.
And then she starts launching into Mitch McConnell.
And after a little while of this, it occurred to me, the policy just doesn't matter.
When it comes to people voting, the vast majority of people vote and think based on their personal like or dislike of particular people and candidates.
People don't think in terms of policy.
People don't think in terms of truth or falsehood in the Russian collusion investigation.
All they think is, is Trump dishonest or is Trump not dishonest?
And so even if Rudy Giuliani is not wrong about perjury traps and Robert Mueller, when you represent the worst face to the public, that has serious electoral consequences.
That's stuff that doesn't get brushed under the rug when it comes time for people to vote.
The grand perception of President Trump as a dishonest guy is not going to be dissipated by the constant reiteration by his counsel, Rudy Giuliani, of that sort of dishonesty and that feeling of dishonesty.
It's this miasma of bad stuff surrounding the Trump administration that does more harm than the actual Criminality, because I don't think there's actual any criminality when it comes right down to it.
Meanwhile, the media, of course, have every interest in blowing up everything bad about President Trump to inordinate heights of outrage.
And that's not helping either.
So the media continue to take very seriously Omarosa Manigault, even though she has had nothing.
And that's what's really astonishing about the Omarosa Manigault story.
So Omarosa is going around talking incessantly about all of the tapes she has.
She has not released one seriously damning thing about the Trump administration.
She really hasn't.
Now, all she said is that she didn't get along with Trump, she didn't get along with John Kelly, and now she says Trump was a racist after spending years talking about how wonderful President Trump was, and everyone would literally bow before him.
Now she's going around, and she has earned strange new respect from the media.
So, she's gotten most of that strange new respect courtesy of the folks over at places like MSNBC.
In a grand meeting of the minds, Al Sharpton had on Omarosa on MSNBC over the weekend, and they were talking about race.
From Al Sharpton, a man who has legitimately participated in the inception of race riots in places like New York, Omarosa talking with Al Sharpton, race baiter par excellence, about why Donald Trump is going to start a race war.
We have a lot to lose.
And in fact, we're losing right now because Donald Trump is disingenuous about his engagement and his outreach.
And in fact, I believe he wants to start a race war in this country.
You know, for a lady who was fired from the administration, did not quit, it's pretty wild for her to suggest that Trump wants to start a race war in the country.
It's particularly rich for her to be saying this to a guy who legitimately has started race riots in the United States, or at least allegedly been involved with the inception of those race riots, particularly the 1991 race riot in Crown Heights that claimed the life of an Orthodox Jew.
But I guess that the media have to be treated with respect here.
Al Sharpton certainly has to be treated with respect.
The worst botchery of Al Sharpton's weekend was not actually his interview with Omarosa.
It was the lead-up to his interview with Omarosa.
This is real.
I'm not making this up.
This is a thing that actually happened on national television.
Is it fair to say Al Sharpton is a dummy?
I think that based on clips like this, the ongoing battle between Al Sharpton and his teleprompter is one of the great battles in human history.
I mean, it really is like the battle of Stalingrad, really.
Al Sharpton versus his teleprompter.
So here is the best clip of the weekend, bar none.
It's just fantastic.
You know what they say about payback?
It's a real... Well, you, I'm sure you know the word I'm thinking of.
So in the words of my late friend Aretha Franklin, show some R-E-S-P-I-C-T.
Oh, my goodness.
Well, you just hope that Al Sharpton is never in a position where he's on Wheel of Fortune and you have the R, the S, the P, the C and the T. And then he has to buy a vowel because, my goodness, it's literally our most famous song.
R-A-S-P-I-C-T.
Tell us what it means to Al Sharpton.
Oh, just fantastic stuff.
I can't imagine why folks don't take the media seriously.
But again, the media continue to portray the Trump administration as a place in flux and chaos.
They continue to give lots of respect to people like John Brennan, a guy who lied to Congress, a guy who was involved in basically smuggling classified information over to Harry Reid in the Senate so he could make trouble during the last campaign.
Here was John Brennan on national TV talking about how Trump is treasonous.
The media are all in on the idea that Trump is a treasonous fellow.
The reason, again, this is relevant is because the Trump team has to fight back on that perception and making botcheries with Rudy Giuliani is not the way to do this.
I called his behavior treasonous, which is to betray one's trust and to aid and abet the enemy.
And I stand very much by that claim.
You are the former CIA director accusing the sitting president of the United States.
That's a monumental accusation.
Well, I think these are abnormal times.
And I think a lot of people have spoken out against what Mr. Trump has done.
And maybe it's my warning training as an intelligence professional.
I have seen the lights blinking red in terms of what Mr. Trump has done and is doing.
Now, it's possible the left can go too far, even for the left.
So, James Clapper, who was a former head of the CIA, I believe?
Under Barack Obama?
But Clapper actually started talking, he's former Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, even he says that Brennan has gone too far here.
So even as the Trump campaign, the Trump team, Rudy Giuliani fail on their lines, folks on the left are failing on theirs, right?
So John Brennan starts ripping into James Clapper and he's exactly correct.
Or to the opposite, Clapper starts ripping on Brennan and he's exactly right here.
You know, John is sort of like a freight train, and he's going to say what's on his mind.
But John and his rhetoric have become, I think, an issue in and of itself.
So just great stuff there.
The fact is that the left are attacking themselves over how far they can go over President Trump.
Again, the focal point of politics has become the president of the United States.
It's the job of the president of the United States to make himself more popular.
It's the job of the left to make him more unpopular.
Every time the left goes too far, it makes Trump more popular.
Every time President Trump sends out Rudy Giuliani to botch the message on national television, it makes Trump less popular.
That is the battle that's going on.
It's a battle of incompetence, people beating each other with sticks.
It's really a clown show out there on the highest possible level.
The only way this is ever going to get sorted out is the next ballot box, and that is a problem for Republicans, because again, the president's popularity rating is not as high as it should be right now, given the geopolitical situation.
Okay, in just a second, I want to talk about the MeToo movement and whether it is foundering on the rocks of its own radicalism.
First, let's talk about your safety and your security.
So, Ring.com's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
Today, over a million people use the amazing Ring video doorbell to help protect their homes.
Ring knows home security begins at the front door.
It does not end there.
So now, they've extended that same level of security to the rest of your home with the Ring Floodlight Cam.
Just like that amazing doorbell, Floodlight Cam is a motion activated camera and floodlight.
It connects right to your phone with HD video and 2-way audio that lets you know the moment anyone steps on your property.
I love my ring doorbell.
I mean, it's just, it's fantastic, the video doorbell.
It means that when I'm out of town, somebody can ring the doorbell.
It pops up on my phone.
I know who's outside my house, which is a big thing for me.
I'm very safety oriented.
Ring.com can do that for you, except extend it all the way across your property with the Floodlight Cam as well.
With the Floodlight Cam, when things go bump in the night, you will immediately know what it is, whether you're home or away.
The Ring Floodlight Cam lets you keep an eye on your home from anywhere.
Ring Floodlight offers the ultimate in-home security, high visibility floodlights, a powerful HD camera that puts security in your hands.
With Ring, you are indeed always at home.
Save up to $150 off a Ring of Security Kit when you go to ring.com slash ben.
That's ring.com slash ben.
Again, ring.com slash ben.
Use that slash ben so we know what he sent you.
And so you get that special deal, 150 bucks off a Ring of Security Kit.
Love my ring.com products, and you will too.
Go check it out, ring.com slash ben for that special deal.
Okay, so the other big story of the weekend is that Asia Argento, who is one of the lead figures in the Me Too movement, It turns out that she was actually involved in paying off a 17-year-old for sexually assaulting him in a California hotel room.
room.
Here's the story from the New York Times.
The Italian actress and director Asia Argento was among the first women in the movie business to publicly accuse the producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault.
She became a leading figure in the hashtag MeToo movement.
Her boyfriend, the culinary television star Anthony Bourdain, eagerly joined the fight.
But in the months that followed her revelations about Mr. Weinstein last October, Ms.
Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser, Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier when he was only two months past his 17th birthday, which would be statutory rape.
She was 37.
The age of consent in California is 18.
That claim and the subsequent arrangement for payments are laid out in documents between lawyers for Ms.
Argento and Mr. Bennett, a former child actor who once played her son in a movie.
The documents, which were sent to the New York Times through encrypted email by an unidentified party, include a selfie dated May 9, 2013 of the two lying in bed.
As part of the agreement, Mr. Bennett, who is now 22, gave the photograph and its copyright to Ms.
Argento, now 42.
Three people familiar with the case said the documents were authentic.
Ms.
Argenta and her representatives have not responded to any of this.
Mr. Bennett, who lives in Los Angeles, would not agree to be interviewed.
As he said his lawyer, Gordon Satro, in the coming days, Satro wrote in an email, Jimmy will continue doing what he has been doing over the past months and years, focusing on his music.
Mr. Bennett is a child actor who charmed Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, earned the nickname Jimmy Two-Takes because he rarely flubbed his lines.
The 2013 hotel room encounter was a betrayal that precipitated a spiral of emotional problems, according to documents.
The fallout from a sexual battery was so traumatic it hindered Mr. Bennett's work and income, threatened his mental health.
Ms.
Argento subsequently turned to Ms.
Goldberg, who's a lawyer, to handle the case.
Mr. Bennett's notice of intent asked for $3.5 million in damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, lost wages, assault, and battery.
Mr. Bennett made more than $2.7 million in the five years before the 2013 meeting with Ms.
Argento.
His income has since dropped to an average of $60,000 a year, and he attributes that to the trauma.
With regard to this particular incident.
So that's really, really ugly stuff.
Now, a lot of people are using this to try and discredit the broader MeToo movement, suggesting that if Asia Argento has been responsible for the sort of sexual battery herself and covered it up, that the credibility of some of the leaders of the MeToo movement is compromised.
There's no question that her credibility is compromised, but the idea of the MeToo movement, which is that sexual assault is bad, is obviously true.
But again, radicalism tends to discredit the main ideas underlying some good movement.
And this is what we're seeing in politics.
It's what we're also seeing with cases like the Me Too movement.
Speaking of radicalism, there's an article in the New York Times.
Again, it's amazing.
The most motivated people, the most motivated people in life tend to be the people who are radical.
Those also tend to be the people We're most likely to undermine the mainstream credibility of their own message.
Most people, if they move on issues, want to be moved incrementally.
They don't want to have things shoved in their face.
They don't want radical shifts in the way they think about things.
But radicals, by nature, want to shift things radically, the way people think about things.
The problem is those radicals very often end up alienating the very people that they seek to draw in.
The latest example from the New York Times.
There's a full article in the New York Times.
I'm not kidding.
It is by a person named Sanam Yar.
Not sure if this is a man or a woman.
The article is titled, Witchcraft in the Me Too Era.
If you want to make the case for Me Too, if you want to make the case against sexual assault, you probably don't want to start with witchcraft.
Witchcraft in the Me Too era is actually basically the plot of The Crucible by Arthur Miller.
But the New York Times reports thusly, In a secluded nook of Central Park, 13 witches stood in a circle on a cloudless Saturday, eyes closed chanting.
A makeshift altar on the forest floor bore a lantern, a silver chalice, a bowl of water, a jar of salt, a sunflower, and a wand.
Denise Cruci, high priestess of the North Wilwood Coven and her coven mate, I do love the romance that the New York Times gives witchcraft and people who are crazy because they're part of a coven.
I do love that they don't talk this way about Jewish ritual.
They don't talk this way about Catholic ritual.
They don't talk this way about Protestant ritual.
But a bunch of nuts gathering in the middle of Central Park get this sort of treatment from the New York Times.
And then they wonder why maybe the Me Too movement is stalling out a little bit here.
When you undermine your own credibility by embracing radical silliness, this is sort of what happens.
The Temple of the Spiral Path, which includes the North Wildwood and Stranger Gates Covens, has performed rituals in this clearing, known among the witches as the Green Cathedral, for 20 years.
The worshippers sat cross-legged around a circle of flowers, dried kalunda, chamomile, lavender, and rose petals, carefully arranged in a spiral.
Miss Crucy led them through a meditation.
Then, they slowly joined hands and began singing.
And one by one, they entered the spiral.
Their dancing crew increasingly raucous as they intoned, We are a circle moving.
One with another we are.
Moving together, we are one.
In such a large and diverse city, says the New York Times, it is no surprise that the craft is fairly accessible, if you know where to look.
Nearly 80 covens and pagan organizations operate in the New York metropolitan area, according to the pagan networking site, The Witch's Voice.
Which sounds quite awesome.
Nationally, about 734,000 Americans identify as pagan or Wiccan, according to a 2014 Pew Research survey, which is fewer than the number of people who listen to this show daily.
So it's not exactly like a burgeoning mass movement all across the country.
Apparently 10,000 witches live in practice in New York.
I don't know what it means to practice witchcraft.
I guess that you, like, do you ride a broom?
In any case, this sort of thing is not, I think, good for association with the Me Too movement, but radicalism always tends to draw a bunch of people who are the most enthusiastic.
And we're seeing it in our politics as well.
So we're seeing with the MeToo movement, as some of its leaders are some of the most morally questionable and radical people, even though the MeToo movement has some underlying good points to make, we're seeing it also with regard to our politics, where the most radical people from both sides are tending to hijack movements that actually have some credibility to them.
So on the right, you have people like Kelly Ward.
Kelly Ward is running in a primary in Arizona right now against Martha McSally.
Martha McSally is a much better candidate.
She's a representative from Arizona, former Air Force Colonel, I believe, who is the first woman to fly in combat, if I'm not mistaken.
Her record is pretty sterling, Martha McSally.
She's running against Kelly Ward, who is kind of a nutcase.
And Kelly Ward is running around touring with Mike Cernovich, a guy who's most famous for promoting Pizzagate.
She was on MSNBC, and she's promoting her candidacy by saying that she doesn't know who Mike Cernovich's audience is, but she wants to appeal to them also.
It's very easy for radicals to get a lot of attention, and Kelly Ward is getting a lot of attention, specifically because folks on the left have an interest in elevating her, and also because radicals, again, are some of the most outspoken and loud and entertaining people in America.
I mean, Mike Cernovich has an audience that we want to reach, and that includes Republicans, conservatives, liberals, Democrats, people of all ilks.
And so if he's coming on the bus tour, I think that he'll have a voice and he'll have something that he wants to say.
Meanwhile, on the left, what you're seeing is the complete seduction of the Democratic Party into hardcore actual socialism, even though they won't actually define their terms.
There's an interesting column by Elizabeth Brudig, who is the in-house socialist over at the Washington Post.
The irony, of course, is that I couldn't access this column without actually Paying for the paywall, even though it's about the glories of socialism, so that's too bad.
But we'll get to that in just one second.
First, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you get a subscription to Daily Wire.
When you do, you get the rest of this show live, you get the rest of the Andrew Klavan show live, you get the rest of the Michael Knowles show live, if that's something you're interested in or into.
Also, for $99 a year, you get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels, leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
Go check it out right now.
You will live it.
You will love it.
And it replenishes daily.
So go check that out right now.
When you subscribe at YouTube or iTunes, you also get access to our Sunday special.
Last week, we had on Greg Gutfeld.
This week, we're having on someone similarly interesting.
I don't know who it is yet, but it will be someone great.
I promise.
So go check that out right now.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So as I say, every major movement in the United States right now is in danger of being taken over by radicals because radicals are the most motivated part of any base.
I've talked about the process of renormalization before on the show.
It's a term that was used by the guy who wrote Skin in the game, Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
The basic idea is this.
Big groups tend to surrender to small groups of very motivated people.
That's just the way life works.
If you are a family and one daughter is vegan, very soon you will all be eating vegan because mom or dad does not want to bother with actually making two separate dinners for everybody, one meat and one vegan.
Instead, everybody will just eat vegan and suddenly the whole family is vegan.
And then when that family goes to a party and the whole family is vegan, the entire party becomes vegan because it's a lot easier and cheaper, the transaction cost of having to Cook two meals is higher than the transaction cost of just going along with the most radical people in any part of the base.
You want to satisfy the base because the base is the loudest and the most polarized.
So you see this with regard to the Me Too movement, where every accusation has to be taken with equal seriousness, no matter how stupid, no matter how unjust, which is bad for the Me Too movement because it undermines the credibility of the Me Too movement.
You've seen it.
With regard to the right, where a lot of folks who should not be given credibility have been given credibility because they are the most motivated.
And you're now seeing it on the part of the left, where democratic socialists are taking over the mainstream Democratic Party because the Democratic Party wants to cater to its most motivated base, the people who go out and knock on doors.
So Elizabeth Bruning, who is the in-house socialist over at the Washington Post, her husband, Matt Bruning, they're both nice people I've talked to, at least Matt.
He seems like a nice guy.
Both of them are socialists.
Nat runs something called the Public Policy Institute, which is a 501c3 pushing socialism, but not really socialism, kind of pushing Nordic socialism, which is not quite the same thing.
Well, Elizabeth Bruning has a column today about why it's time to reclaim socialism from the dirty word category.
The problem for her is that she actually doesn't want to define what socialism is, because socialism is inherently radical.
You can define socialism however you want.
Some people define socialism as stuff I like from the Nordic countries, and some people define it as getting rid of the profit motive, which is how the democratic socialists of America do.
The goal of socialists is to pretend they are not what they are, which is radical.
So here's Elizabeth Bruning's column, and you'll see how she's sort of obfuscating the terminology she's using in order to cover for her own radical agenda.
So here's what she says.
A Gallup poll this month found that Democrats are warming up to the idea of socialism.
Or at least to the word.
Well, 57% of Democrats polled said they view socialism positively.
Only 47% said the same of capitalism, down from 56% in 2016.
Republicans, meanwhile, remain pretty enthusiastic about capitalism, with 71% rating it positively.
Still, 16% of GOP voters said they even view socialism through a friendly lens, which raises the question, when Americans say they view socialism one way or the other, what exactly do they have in mind?
The United States doesn't have a familiar established socialist history to look to for guidance on what socialism might mean in this country.
That's not actually true.
There was a socialist workers movement led by Eugene Debs in the early 20th century that actually became relatively popular.
And that's because it was full-scale nationalization of industry.
Socialism generally means that the government runs the economy.
It is centralized planning.
It is central planning from the top of the economy up to and including full-scale nationalization of resources without regard to profit motive.
That would be sort of the usual mechanism by which socialism runs.
What the left has tended to do is redefine socialism as capitalism with some socialist redistributionist policies on top.
What's weird about that is, take, for example, John Rockefeller.
So the Rockefeller family earned an enormous, enormous amount of money in capitalism.
Then they gave an enormous amount of money to charity.
Were they capitalists or socialists?
I would say they were capitalists who gave to charity.
Perhaps, if you are going to say that charitable giving forced by the government is socialism, What you would say is that the Rockefellers were actually socialists, because they used capitalism in order to create this enormous amount of wealth, and then they redistributed the wealth.
What that really is, is the growth engine is capitalism, and the redistributive mechanism is socialism.
And this is why breaking down each particular policy is sort of important, so we can determine whether a policy is good.
But calling entire countries socialist or capitalist, unless you're talking about Cuba, which is entirely socialist, Makes very little sense.
But that's not where Brooding goes.
What she does instead is she refuses to define the term.
She says the United States doesn't have a familiar established socialist history to look to for guidance on what socialism might mean in this country.
But that doesn't mean socialism is hopelessly nebulous or that Americans who are interested in the idea are wandering dabblers.
It just means that socialism, like any sophisticated term, warrants thoughtful consideration.
Socialism has meant different things to different people in different times and places, while maintaining a stable core of themes and objectives.
Social, as opposed to private control of the means of production.
Okay, now she's talking about nationalization, you would think.
And of all the societal, humanitarian, and political economic changes that entails, especially where freedom and autonomy of working people are concerned.
Again, this is extraordinarily vague, because if you say, does that mean nationalization?
She'll say, well, maybe.
And then if you said, well, does that mean that workers are supposed to take over the factory?
She'd say, well, maybe, but it's not specific enough for us to actually dig down.
So what she's doing is smart because she's attempting to guise her radicalism in this sort of vague incrementalism.
She says, the term itself, socialism, came into being in the early decades of the 19th century, and like any good word, inspired a great deal of imagination.
For the non-Marxian English socialists of the 1840s, socialism mainly meant opposition to the competitive, dehumanizing effect of liberal economies, local experiments with communitarianism and cooperatives, and demands for the privileges of freedom, autonomy, and participation in government to extend to the lower classes.
None of which you would actually define as socialism per se, because if you and your family decide to get together and do a co-op, that's not quite socialism if it's private.
It's just, meanwhile, Marxian socialism focused on the conditions of production.
Who owns what, the relationships between wage earners and owners, and how stuff gets made in a society, and the kind of politics these conditions produce.
Even when socialism was a relatively new term, in other words, its exact meaning was disputed.
And what Bruning is basically going to do here is obscure that there is such a thing as socialism.
Instead, what she's going to do is just claim that all the stuff she likes is socialism, and all the stuff she doesn't like is not socialism.
Which is a smart way of sort of ushering socialism into the mainstream, but it's also a dishonest way.
And I'll explain more in just one second.
So Bruning continues, she talks about, now, as in the 19th century, confusion about what socialism means is stoked by political interest in clouding the issue.
As Eric Levitz notes in New York Magazine, conservatives tend to oscillate between arguing that successful countries such as Finland, Norway, and Denmark, generally regarded as socialist, are actually as capitalist as the United States, and claiming, as Fox Business Network's Trish Regan recently did, that socialism has made these countries stagnant and stultifying.
Well, no, both are actually true.
All of those Scandinavian countries are based on a foundation of capitalism.
There is no question that what earns the profits in Finland, Norway and Denmark is not their socialist means of production.
It is profit-seeking incentives.
That is what has created all growth curve in Scandinavian countries for as long as human history, because socialism has never created serious growth in any country.
State-sponsored capitalism is merely the state using capitalistic profit-seeking methods in order to subsidize particular industries, which creates growth in those industries but sucks growth out of other industries.
But socialism is the idea that the profit motive doesn't matter and we ought to redistribute all resources.
Again, obscuring the terminology is an easy way of preventing people from understanding what socialism means.
I like that Elizabeth Bernie concludes this way.
This way, clarifying exactly what socialism means once and for all likely won't happen anytime soon.
But that doesn't mean voters who are attracted to Democratic Socialist politicians such as Senator Bernie Sanders and House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez don't know what they're getting into.
Proposals to wipe out the so-called right to work laws to make college tuition free or provide universal health care are resonating with those supporters.
At the heart of the Democratic Socialist vision, finally, she gets to her definition after all of that.
that.
Here is her definition of socialism.
At the heart of the democratic socialist vision, flowering on the American left is the recognition that more than policy tweaks will be needed to empower everyday people to participate meaningfully in society and democracy.
This is where she strips finally away.
And what we are left with is radicalism.
The radicalism at the heart of this program taking over the Democratic Party.
Now you have to hide it, but this is really what's going on.
She says, working Americans deserve a say in how the country's vast wealth will be used.
It's not the country's vast wealth.
It is wealth earned by individuals who are working hard and playing by the rules and employing other individuals.
By treating all wealth as a collective is the way that you actually get to gulags.
The direct line between the country owns all the wealth and the gulags is actually relatively short.
Because working Americans deserve a say in how the country's vast wealth will be used.
And that will be possible only when inequality is reduced, corporate and big money donors are banished from politics, and lawmakers are truly accountable to the people.
It's not so much to ask, but democratic socialists are the only one asking.
Which, of course, is not true when you talk about corporate and big money donors being banished from politics.
I assume she's not talking about the Washington Post, which is a giant corporation involved in politics.
All the time.
I assume she's not talking about her husband's Public Policy Institute, which is deeply involved in taking large donations, I assume, from donors who then wish to promulgate a political agenda.
And when she says lawmakers being truly accountable to the people, it seems to me that the Tea Party was asking for exactly the same thing.
So the socialists play this double game, just like radicals often do, of pretending that they are not radical, but then at the end stripping away all of this in favor of their radicalism.
This is why it's important to identify, I think, that there is a common center to the country still.
There's still a group of people in the country who wish to have intelligent conversation about actual terminology, but that can only happen when we get down to the actual root of the issue.
So, if we want to have a discussion about Me Too, then it can't all be about Harvey Weinstein and Asia Argento.
Instead, it's got to be about what social standards we wish to purvey when it comes to sex and sexuality.
We can have an honest conversation about what conservatism looks like, but that cannot be a conversation about whether Mike Cernovich and his crowd are worth catering to.
We can have an honest conversation, even about the lengths to which we should redistribute resources in the United States.
I think very little.
There are a lot of people who think a lot more.
But we can't do that so long as people are obfuscating and hiding all this under the rubric of democratic socialism, because what they mean is being deliberately obscured.
The radicals are taking over a lot of areas of American life because they are the loudest and because they shout the loudest and because they get the most media attention and because both sides have an interest in highlighting the most radical people on the other side in order to clarify the distinctions between the sides.
But the only way we're going to have a common conversation is if we get down to the roots of actual terminology and explain what we mean, because then we can actually discuss what works and what doesn't.
But people have a real interest in being as radical as they want to be while guising it in the language of broader movements.
Asia Argento and company have an interest in taking a radical agenda and guising it as Me Too broadly, witchcraft and Me Too.
It's all the same thing.
Conflation of good ideas with bad ideas or conflating ideas we can all agree about with radical ideas is the way that politics ends up becoming polarized and radicalized and then we have no common center for us to have a conversation anymore.
Okay, time for some things I like and then we'll get to some things that I hate.
So, things I like.
I'm recommending this book a little bit early.
It's a book by Oren Kass.
It doesn't come out, I believe, till November, but you can pre-order it right now.
It's called The Once and Future Worker.
Now, Oren Kass and I disagree on elements regarding free trade, for example.
He's a lot more trade restrictionist in certain ways.
He's still in favor of trade, but he's more trade restrictionist than I am in certain ways, although I think he might argue he's more free trade than I think he is.
He is a really good thinker over at the Manhattan Institute who talks about why it is that certain jobs in the United States, in the manufacturing base particularly, have been hollowed out.
His suggestion is that It has something to do with technology, but it has more to do with the fact that we have made our business environment uncompetitive through environmental regulation in certain areas and through union contracts as governed by the National Labor Relations Act.
He makes a case for actual adoption of certain European styles with regard to, for example, unions and education.
And this is the part that's really fascinating.
There are good conversations to be had about why there is less income inequality in certain areas of Europe.
Or why education is better in Sweden than it is in the United States.
No one wants to have those actual conversations.
Instead, we all want to do bumper sticker stuff about why Sweden is spending so much of its GDP on government redistributionism.
Why not instead look at what they're actually doing with regard to education?
So in Sweden, everybody is tracked.
So, for example, in the United States, there are no tracks, right?
We all go to the same classes, and then we get to decide whether to go to college, and everybody has the opportunity to go to college.
In Sweden, in Israel, in a lot of other countries, what they do is, by the time you're in eighth grade, you're basically deciding, is this a person who's ready for college, or is this person not ready to go to college?
If they're not ready for college, we get them an apprenticeship program, where they actually are learning practical skills for a job they're going to do.
Now, He can move between tracks.
You're not stuck there forever.
It's not like we just trap you in there.
But you actually have to achieve to move from one track to another.
And you also have to seriously think about whether everybody is fit for college.
In the United States, the model seems to be if you don't go to NYU for any reason, then you are going to be poor.
And that's foolish.
That's foolish.
It would be better off if a lot of the folks who are not going to college... The college attendance rates, by the way, have been pretty stable in the United States for a fair bit of time.
And that's because there are a lot of people who just aren't ready for college and instead ought to be prepped for a job.
Orrin Kass talks about a lot of these sort of policy solutions that nobody wants to talk about.
The book is well worth reading.
It's The Once and Future Worker.
Go check it out right now.
It's a sophisticated take on a lot of deep policy issues and worth checking out.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
So as I mentioned earlier, Alyssa, there are a lot of people on the left who are deep believers that character is the defining issue in politics, except when it comes to people on their own side.
And this means that they are going to be as radical as they want to be.
So Alyssa Milano tweeted this out over the weekend.
She tweeted out a picture of herself in what looks like a Little Red Riding Hood costume.
It's like she couldn't even afford to go get the full Handmaid's Tale costume, so she went out and she got like a little Red Riding Hood costume, and she put it on, and then she tweeted out, holding a sign that says, never Kavanaugh, never Gilead, because Justice Kavanaugh, a Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, would apparently usher in the era in which women were just essentially birth mothers who were raped at will, because that's what Justice Kavanaugh's all about.
I mean, if you hadn't noticed, that's clearly his deal.
And she tweeted out, hashtag riseupforRoe, hashtag wearenotproperty, hashtag stopKavanaugh.
The character assassination is pretty astonishing and somewhat hilarious, but demonstrative of how people on the left really want to see their political opponents.
People on the right do the same thing with regards to their political opponents, too.
Everybody is a demon, everybody is a devil.
But I think right now the level of demonization on the left of the right is a lot higher than the demonization of the right.
Of the right to the left.
So anyway, she's not the only one.
Bill Maher over the weekend, he says that President Trump, he's obviously a Russian asset.
It's not that President Trump is a doofus.
It's not that President Trump, I mean, I asked Bill Maher this on his program.
Is Trump a doofus or is he an evil genius?
And Maher's answer was he's Hitler, which was a weird answer.
But Bill Maher is now saying it is obvious that President Trump is a Russian asset.
This sort of character assassination is dishonest.
It's somewhat effective in making the radical base more pumped up.
If pumping up the radical base is all politics is going to become, all common conversation goes away.
Here's Maher pumping up the radical base.
I'm sorry, but it's super obvious already.
He is a Russian asset.
This has been going on since the 80s.
They were targeting for this.
And Bob Mueller's report is just going to be what this movie and this book is.
Yes.
Well, you hope so.
With even more it is.
It's going to be foolproof.
OK, so that's the great hope is that Trump will be ousted by the Mueller report and the left sees Mueller sweeping in.
And none of this is good for American politics.
This is why the president would be well served to sort of go silent on Mueller stuff until what happens actually happens.
But that's not the That's where politics is moving.
This is the deeply disturbing part about our politics.
The radicals are getting louder.
The people who want to have honest conversations and actually drill down into terminology are being obscured by folks who don't want to have conversation.
They just want to rile up their own base because every election is now about base politics.
The media are taking a part in this.
The worst story of the weekend from the media was this.
The media freaked out over a guy named Joel Aronallara, 36, who was detained at a gas station in San Bernardino.
Where he and his wife were on their way to the hospital for her C-section.
He reportedly had been living in the United States illegally for 12 years.
And the entire media went nuts.
How dare this happen?
Kyle Griffin.
There's a reporter, I believe, over at NBC.
He said, ICE detained a man while he was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.
He was taken when they stopped for gas.
And they quoted his wife saying, my husband needs to be here.
He had to wait for his son for so long.
And someone just took him away.
Daniel Dale, who is a writer for, I believe, the Toronto Star, he says the same thing, right?
Oh, it's so awful.
How dare ICE detain these people?
Representative Joe Kennedy said, there's heartless and then there's whatever the hell this is.
I mean, the Kennedy family should know about Heartless.
Leaving a woman to die in an air bubble at the top of a car is not exactly showing a lot of heart.
But the entire media go nuts over all of this.
There is only one problem with this story.
It turns out the guy who was arrested was arrested because he's suspected of murder.
There's an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Mexico on homicide charges.
So, this isn't, they just decided to pick up a guy who's an illegal immigrant at a gas station while he's driving his wife to the hospital for a c-section.
The guy is legitimately a suspected homicide perpetrator.
So, well done, media.
Again, driving politics to its best, I think, possible course.
Okay, time for a Federalist paper.
So, getting back to the foundations of the country and the philosophy that has supported it, We go through a Federalist paper every week.
This week's Federalist paper is Federalist 42.
This is the second most cited Federalist paper in all of court jurisprudence, I believe, after Federalist 78, which we will eventually get to.
James Madison wrote this one.
He talks about the powers of the federal government, including the power to control foreign policy and treaties, and why the federal government ought to have these powers.
There's one particular section that is worth reading, and that is the section in which James Madison talks about The Constitution and its designs towards slavery.
So one of the great lies that has been perpetrated by the political left in the United States for a long time is that the Constitution was designed to enshrine slavery.
The Constitution was designed to gradually kill slavery.
Here is James Madison describing it.
This isn't just me saying this, this is James Madison writing at the time.
It were doubtless to be wished that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather that had been suffered to have immediate operation.
And he's saying, I would rather if we had just gotten rid of the importation of slaves like now.
But it is not difficult to account either for this restriction on the general government or for the matter in which the whole clause is expressed.
It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of 20 years may terminate forever within these states a traffic which has so long and so loudly uprated the barbarism of modern policy.
That within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government and may be totally abolished by a concurrence of the few states which constitute the unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union.
Happy would it be for the unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren.
The idea that Madison is espousing here is he thought, and a lot of the founders did, that slavery would go away a lot earlier than it actually ended up going away.
Instead, the South clung to slavery for decades longer than, you know, was not only morally decent, but even politically necessary, and that led to the Civil War.
But if the idea was that the Constitution of the United States was intended to protect slavery, that is simply not true.
It is simply not true.
It was a compromise position adopted in order to pass the Constitution, but The reason we got to that compromise is because most people in the United States, because the North was more heavily populated, most of the people in the United States were already in favor of getting rid of slavery as early as the adoption of the Constitution, in all likelihood.
And that was certainly true in places like New York, which is where the Federalist Papers were originally published.
The paper also discusses the uniform power of preventing internal tariffs, the power to control citizenship, talks about why the government, the federal government, has to have the power over all of these.
But that section about slavery is telling and is a good rejoinder to all these folks who say that the Founding Fathers were simply attempting to enshrine slavery because they loved it so much, which is not true.
James Madison, by the way, was a Southerner, right?
He's from Virginia.
All right, so 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.
▲
Export Selection