All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:02
Where The Shameless Win The Day | Ep. 752
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Joe Biden apologizes for his tactile politics.
Democrats pay homage to Al Sharpton.
And the Mueller report?
It could be worse for Trump than we thought.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Busy, busy news day, and we'll get to all of it.
But before we do, first let's talk about something super awkward.
Okay?
Something really awkward.
In marriage.
Sex.
Important.
And some people have health problems with this.
Well, you should get those health problems solved.
It's nothing to be ashamed about.
Health problems are health problems, and there's no reason to live with those when you can do something about it.
That's where our friends at Roman come in.
Study shows 70% of dudes who experience erectile dysfunction don't actually get treated for it.
Thankfully, Roman created an easy way to get checked out by a doctor and get treated for ED online.
Roman is a one-stop shop where licensed U.S.
physicians can diagnose ED and ship medication direct to your door.
With Roman, there are no waiting rooms, awkward face-to-face conversations, or uncomfortable trips to the pharmacy.
You can handle everything discreetly online.
All you have to do is visit GetRoman.com slash Ben.
Complete a dynamic online visit, chat with a doctor, and get genuine medication delivered to your door in discreet, unmarked packaging.
So dudes, go online, get checked by the doctor.
Erectile dysfunction is a problem that guys tend not to tackle, but with Roman it is really simple.
So go take care of it right now.
For a free online visit, go to GetRoman.com slash Ben.
That is GetRoman.com slash Ben.
For a free online visit, no reason to live with ED, go get it fixed.
GetRoman.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so we begin today with a couple of supposed bombshell reports.
One from the New York Times, one from the Washington Post.
Both about the Mueller Report.
So as we know, the Democrats have been pushing the narrative that Attorney General William Barr engaged in a cover-up when he released a four-page letter, which we read word-for-word on the air, in which he talked about the bottom-line findings of the Mueller Report.
And what he said in that letter, effectively, is that the Mueller Report found that there was no collusion.
There was no collusion between either Trump or the Trump campaign and the Russian government to affect the 2016 election.
And also that Mueller had not actually made a determination on obstruction of justice.
He had presented evidence on both sides and Barr had decided not to prosecute.
That was the only thing, right?
That was basically the entirety of the letter.
And then he said, you know, in the next couple of weeks, I'm going to release as much as I legally can.
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6E, I'm not allowed to release information that wrongly implicates people or that creates the perception of implication without any sort of evidentiary support.
I'm not allowed to release that sort of stuff, for example, unverified witness testimony, because all that does is slanders people without us having any intent to prosecute.
Well, the Democrats have seized upon that to say that this is a big cover-up.
That in reality, the Mueller Report, which is about 400 pages, and should apparently be released sometime in the next couple of weeks, that the Mueller Report, in truth, secretly, is actually a damning indictment of the Trump campaign and the Trump administration, and that it really is going to put out in public view all sorts of stuff we didn't know.
Now, I have been doubtful for a very long time that this is the case.
Simply because we know a lot already.
A lot of material was leaking out.
So we knew about the Trump Tower meeting because Don Jr.
actually tweeted that out.
He just tweeted out the Trump Tower meeting.
We know about President Trump telling people that he would like to fire Robert Mueller repeatedly because Trump sort of said this stuff openly.
Trump is not a good secret keeper.
And there were lots of stories about him going to Don McGahn, who's the White House counsel, and saying to him, I would like to end this investigation.
McGahn saying, no, that's a bad idea.
And Trump going, oh, OK.
And that's the end of it.
So what additional material will there be that changes the nature of that narrative?
I am not sure there'll be much.
Nonetheless, the media are now ferreting out information, supposedly from Team Mueller, about how William Barr is not properly representing the results of the Mueller report.
In other words, the Mueller report is really, really bad for Trump, and Barr has downplayed how bad it is for Trump.
By the way, we'll know all of this in the next two weeks, because Barr has said he's going to release a lot of this stuff, and Congress could just change the law.
If Congress really cared about this, all they could do is just change the law and say that we do not require redactions when we are talking about a secret report handed over to the Judiciary Committee.
They could do that, like, right now.
According to the New York Times, however, there is a cover-up in place.
They say some on Mueller's team say a report was more damaging than Barr revealed.
Well, it would be hard for it to be more damaging than Barr revealed because Barr didn't reveal very much.
Again, Barr said no evidence of collusion.
Also, we were provided evidence on both sides of the obstruction question.
We didn't have enough evidence to prosecute.
That's what the letter actually said, so not sure how it's going to be significantly more damning than that, but here is the New York Times reporting.
Some of Robert Mueller's investigators have told associates that Attorney General William Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.
Okay, so let's break down that paragraph just in terms of where the sourcing is coming from.
It is not coming direct from Mueller.
It is not coming direct from Mueller's team.
It is coming from people who talked, supposedly, to members of Mueller's team.
So this is now a second-hand account being reported to the New York Times, which makes it a third-hand account.
Because it's government officials and others familiar with simmering frustrations.
At stake in the dispute, the first evidence of tension between Mr. Barr and the special counsel's office is who shapes the public's initial understanding of one of the most consequential government investigations in American history.
Some members of Mr. Mueller's team are concerned that because Mr. Barr created the first narrative of the special counsel's findings, Americans' views will have hardened before the investigation's conclusions become public.
But the investigation's conclusions are already public.
They were made public in the Barr report.
What Democrats are talking about are not the conclusions.
I mean, this is pretty bad media coverage, honestly.
What the Democrats are talking about is not the conclusions of the Mueller team, but the underlying evidence that the Mueller team provided to William Barr.
We already know the conclusions.
And as far as our perceptions having hardened, what the polls actually show is that people's perceptions were hardened long before the Barr report actually came out.
In fact, the vast majority of Republicans thought this was a witch hunt.
Most Americans thought this was overblown.
Still, a plurality of Americans think that the Trump team was guilty of something, even if they can't say what.
So, opinions have basically been shaped already, and not universally in favor of President Trump.
Nonetheless, the New York Times is trying to push the theory that the media didn't blow this entire story from top to bottom, that really, secretly, there will be some sort of magical elixir in the Mueller report that will allow them to claim that they did a great job covering this thing, even though it didn't result the way they wanted it to.
According to the New York Times, Mr. Barr has said he will move quickly to release the nearly 400-page report But needs time to scrub out confidential information.
The special counsel's investigators had already written multiple summaries of the report.
Some team members believe that Mr. Barr should have included more of their material in the four-page letter he wrote on March 24th laying out their main conclusions according to government officials familiar with the investigation.
Again, this is third-hand reporting because it is not actually people who are on Mueller's team.
It is people who are familiar with people who are on Mueller's team being reported by the New York Times.
And if the complaint is that Barr should have cited more stuff in the original letter, well, again, the American public, I'm sure, is going to be curious about what exactly is in that Mueller report.
I mean, we've spent $25 million on it.
I feel like we should know.
And that's all going to be coming out in the next couple of weeks.
The special counsel's office never asked Mr. Barr to release the summaries.
Soon after he received the report, a person familiar with the investigation said, So what?
So what?
Do they understand how chain of command works over at the New York Times?
The Justice Department is underneath the auspices of the Attorney General.
What are they talking about?
Who cares what the Justice Department asked Barr to release?
Barr gets to release what he wants.
He's the head of the Justice Department.
That's like somebody saying that my producer wants me to say something on the air.
That's nice.
Okay.
Whatever.
The Justice Department quickly determined that the summaries contained sensitive information, like classified material, secret grand jury testimony, and information related to current federal investigations that must remain confidential, according to two government officials.
Barr was also wary of departing from Justice Department practice not to disclose derogatory details in closing an investigation, according to two government officials familiar with Barr's thinking.
They pointed to the decision by James Comey, the former FBI director, to harshly criticize Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Well, announcing that he was recommending no charges in the inquiry into her email practices.
And this is right, by the way.
James Comey never should have given that press conference in which he laid out all of the Hillary flaws and why she should be indicted, and then reached the conclusion that she shouldn't have been indicted.
If he had reached the conclusion, no indictment, he should have just said, no indictment, I didn't find evidence necessary to prosecute here.
He didn't do that.
And he ended up really hurting Hillary Clinton pretty badly in that campaign because of it.
The officials and others interviewed declined to flesh out why some of the special counsel's investigators viewed their findings as potentially more damaging for the president than Mr. Barr explained, although the report is believed to examine Mr. Trump's efforts to thwart the investigation.
So I love this.
So now what do we have?
Buried down in paragraph number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, all the way down in paragraph 6, we find out that even the sources for the New York Times are not explaining what material exactly they think Barr is hiding.
So all they're saying is that Barr hasn't revealed all the material, which we know, since Barr already said so.
But those officials are not saying what is the completely damaging material they are afraid that Barr is going to cover up.
It was unclear, according to the New York Times, how much discussion Mueller and his investigators had with senior Justice Department officials about how their findings would be made public.
It was also unclear how widespread the vexation is among the special counsel team, which included 19 lawyers, about 40 FBI agents, and other personnel.
So in other words, here is the real story, right?
When you boil it down, there is one dude who is part of Mueller's team who talked to a person, supposedly, and that person talked to the New York Times.
That's what this amounts to.
And there's a front-page story in the New York Times.
Not sure that that is particularly solid journalism, particularly given the fact that we are going to know all of this stuff in the next week and a half.
Legitimately, it is already April 4th.
This is supposed to be released by the middle of April.
It's like a week and a half before we find out.
So, why is the media pre-writing the narrative?
It's funny, they're accusing Trump of pre-writing the narrative by having Barr release the findings.
But then they are pre-writing the narrative, which is the cover-up, without any evidence of an actual cover-up at this point.
And it's not just the New York Times.
The Washington Post is doing the same thing.
According to the Washington Post, limited information Barr has shared about Russia investigation frustrated some on Mueller's team.
This is according to Ellen Nakashima, Carol Lennig, and Rosalind Helderman.
Members of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team have told associates that they are frustrated with the limited information Attorney General William Barr has provided about their nearly two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether President Trump sought to obstruct justice.
According to people familiar with the matter.
Again, very, very vague sourcing.
People familiar with the matter.
Well, hell, I'm familiar with the matter.
I mean, what level of familiarity are you talking about here?
Get to more of the Washington Post report here in just a second.
First, let's talk about how you can make your business better.
Well, hiring can be challenging, but there is one place you can go where hiring is simple and fast and smart.
It's a place where growing businesses connect to qualified candidates.
That place is ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
But they don't stop there.
With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job.
As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that 80% of employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That is ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Go check them out right now at ZipRecruiter.com.
slash Daily Wire and try ZipRecruiter for free right now.
Make your business better.
Make sure that your new hires are great.
Check them out at ZipRecruiter.com.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Okay, so the Washington Post continues here.
And they say that the displeasure among some who worked on a closely held inquiry has quietly begun to surface in the days since Barr released a four-page letter to Congress.
In his letter, Barr said the special counsel did not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
And he said that Mueller did not reach a conclusion one way or the other as to whether Trump's conduct in office constituted obstruction of justice.
Absent that, Barr told lawmakers he concluded the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the president obstructed justice.
But members of the Mueller team have complained to close associates that the evidence that they gathered on obstruction was alarming and significant.
It was much more acute than Barr suggested, said one person, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.
So again, this is third-hand reporting.
I don't know why they would imply that Barr was trying to cover something up.
Again, I'm confused about this.
Barr didn't suggest anything.
He just said, I don't have evidence to prosecute.
That is a binary question.
Do I have evidence to prosecute?
Do I not have evidence to prosecute?
There was nothing in the letter that said there is no evidence that could possibly be construed as obstruction.
Like this is a deliberate misread of the text of Barr's letter to suggest that he was deliberately downplaying the obstruction situation.
But that simply is not the case.
I mean, I'm looking directly at the bar letter right now.
Here's what the bar letter said.
Quote, The special counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.
Over the course of the investigation, the special counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the special counsel's obstruction investigation.
After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues, consulting with department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel, and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense.
That's all he says.
We don't have enough evidence to prosecute.
That's it.
But there is no actual implication that there's no evidence that could be construed as obstruction of justice that's not present in the bar letter.
So ripping the bar letter as itself a form of obstruction is really over-the-top and inaccurate.
According to the Washington Post, some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Bard did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions.
There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead.
According to one U.S.
official briefed on the matter, summaries were prepared for different sections of the report.
With the view that they could be made public, the official said, But, so what?
The report was prepared, said the front matter from each section could have been released immediately or very quickly, the official said.
It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.
Yes, but Attorney General Barr does not have to do that.
And again, I want transparency.
I don't want Mueller's summary and I don't really want Barr's summary other than the bottom line charges.
And that last part on obstruction is his decision.
The DOJ doesn't get to decide.
Those FBI lawyers don't get to decide whether obstruction is charged.
Barr gets to decide whether obstruction is charged.
So why would he release their report when he's the one making the call as to whether obstruction is going to be charged or not?
None of this makes any sense.
Now, again, if people are unhappy and they want more information out there, congratulations to them.
We're going to be finding out in the next couple of weeks what exactly was in there.
But the preemptive move to suggest that obstruction is taking place or a giant cover-up is taking place, I just don't see the evidence of it yet.
Now, again, maybe it will turn out that there's evidence that Barr covered something up.
But as I've been saying all along, every step of the way, how about we just wait?
I know everybody's impatient.
How about we just wait?
In two weeks, we're gonna know.
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden basically doused himself in gasoline and lit a match yesterday politically.
There are a lot of people who think that this is going to get Joe Biden off the hook.
Joe Biden, of course, has been accused by multiple women who are coming out basically from the woodwork to proclaim that he makes them uncomfortable, which, of course, he does.
I mean, like, yeah, that's what Joe Biden does.
He makes people feel weird and uncomfortable.
That's pretty much a description of his career.
Three more women, according to the New York Post, have come forward with accounts of inappropriate touching.
No touching!
Involving former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a report in the Washington Post.
The women, Sophie Karasek, Vail Conner-Yount, and Allie Cole, told the Washington Post stories similar to those of four other women who have already described unwanted touching by Vice President Joe Biden.
These accounts are somewhat varied, but they carry a similar tang.
Bail Conor Yount said she was a White House intern in the spring of 2013 and one day tried to exit the basement of the West Wing when she was asked to step aside so Biden could enter.
After she moved out of the way, she said, Biden approached her to introduce himself and shake her hand.
He then put his hand on the back of my head and pressed his forehead to my forehead while he talked to me.
I was so shocked that it was hard to focus on what he was saying.
I remember he told me I was a pretty girl, Conor Yount said in a statement to the Post.
She described feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed that Biden had commented on her appearance in a professional setting, even though it was intended as a compliment.
I do not consider my experience to have been sexual assault or harassment, she stated, adding she believes Biden's intentions were good, but it was the kind of inappropriate behavior that makes many women feel uncomfortable and unequal in the workplace.
Now, again, is this sexual harassment or assault?
No, it's not.
It's not, okay?
He did it in front of an entire team of people.
Al Franken was surreptitiously grabbing women's asses, not the same thing.
And I will point out to a lot of Republicans who are pretending to be upset about Joe Biden's behavior, there's a difference between pointing out the wild inconsistencies in the Democratic position about touching and sexual assault and standards of evidence and suggesting that Joe Biden is guilty of a deep, dark crime here.
Remember, President Trump has admitted to behavior significantly worse than anything That Joe Biden is accused of doing here.
So before we go off on the well, you know, Biden is really he's not fit to be president.
If you're a Republican and you're like, well, he's not fit to be president because he's a creeper.
I urge you to go back and look at all the allegations against President Trump and All the rest and stuff that President Trump has said publicly on Howard Stern about peeking at the women in his Miss USA contest and what he said in the Billy Bush tape.
Like, let's not get over our skis, guys.
I mean, let's be real about this.
Now, does that mean that Joe Biden isn't in trouble in the primaries?
No, he is very much in trouble in the Democratic primaries.
In response to Joe Biden issuing a video, Conor Young emailed, Now, Joe Biden's a weirdo.
I know a lot of people Joe Biden's age.
I'm friendly with many people Joe Biden's age.
This is not mainly about whether Joe Biden has adequate respect for personal space.
It's about women deserving equal respect in the workplace.
And this is what the narrative is going to become, is that Joe Biden is an emissary of a broader problem with men.
Men like Joe Biden.
Now, Joe Biden's a weirdo.
I know a lot of people Joe Biden's age.
I'm friendly with many people Joe Biden's age.
They're people who are a little bit, you know, maybe 10, 15 years older than my parents.
This is not super duper common.
There are guys who are like this, but it's not super-duper common.
It's not common that older men randomly grab women by the back of the head and kiss them, or that they grab them and put their foreheads to their own, or rub noses with people.
I mean, this is weird behavior.
He's a creepy dude.
Is that sexual harassment or assault?
No, it really is not.
There are two other allegations that have come forward as well.
The Democratic mayor of Atlanta, Keisha Lance Bottoms, on Wednesday evening tweeted a photo of herself and Biden standing forehead to forehead.
She says everyone experiences their own.
As for mine, I found my introduction and interaction with Joe Biden to be genuine and endearing.
Six other women have shared stories similar to Flores's.
DJ Hill and Kaitlyn Caruso told the New York Times on Tuesday Biden had made them feel uncomfortable during their encounters with him.
Sophie Karasek was part of a group of 51 sexual assault victims who appeared on stage at the Oscars with Lady Gaga that year Biden had introduced at the singer's performance.
Karasek said as she met Biden after the ceremony, she was thinking about a college student who'd been sexually assaulted and recently died by suicide.
She decided to share the story with the VP, and Biden responded by clasping her hands and leaning down to place his forehead against hers, a moment captured in a widely circulated photograph.
Karasek said she appreciated Biden's support, but also felt awkward and uncomfortable that his gesture had left their faces suddenly inches apart.
She didn't know how to respond to Biden crossing the boundary into her personal space at a sensitive moment.
Now, I love this.
Someone printed her the photo of the moment.
What did Karasek do with it?
She framed it and put it on a shelf.
And now she's complaining that it was something terrible.
Now she's complaining that it's something terrible.
The wildly differing standards that are obviously based on a political attempt to nail Joe Biden to the wall I have to say, from a Republican perspective, it's amusing.
From an honest American perspective, it's really nasty.
It really is.
Like, if someone takes a picture of you in an uncomfortable position, if you were really that uncomfortable, would you print it out, frame it, and put it on your shelf?
I don't remember that ever being the case, where I was in a really uncomfortable situation, someone snapped a photo, and I was like, you know what?
I'm gonna go get that framed.
What a weird response.
Ali Cole said she was a young Democratic staffer helping run a reception of about 50 people when Biden entered the room.
She said she was then introduced to Biden, who she said leaned in, squeezed her shoulders, and delivered a compliment about her smile, holding her for a beat too long.
She said she felt that his alleged behavior was out of place and inappropriate in the context of a work situation.
She said there's been a lack of understanding about the way that power can turn something that might seem innocuous into something that can make somebody feel uncomfortable.
Honestly, if we are now in the realm of not the reasonable person standard, but the fully subjective standard, there is no way for anyone to know if their behavior crosses the line, legitimately.
I think that on an objective level, without us having to know how these women felt, Joe Biden crosses lines of personal space.
It's what he does.
It's been true for years.
I didn't need to hear these women's accounts to say that from a reasonable perspective, going up to random women and putting your forehead to theirs is a weird thing to do.
But we were told that that was endearing by the press.
We were told that that was endearing by Democrats.
We were told that that was merely tactile politics.
That's how the Washington Post described it.
Okay, fine.
Well, if, in your view, that is not an objective breach of space, then it becomes purely subjective.
And if it's purely subjective, then any conduct can be taken as insulting or terrible.
Legitimately, any conduct.
I am extraordinarily, extraordinarily The word in Talmudic Hebrew is medakdek.
I'm extremely careful not to invade others' personal space, because I really don't like having my own personal space invaded.
It's not a thing for me.
But can I guarantee that there's no time that anybody in history has ever felt uncomfortable even shaking my hand?
Of course not, because I don't know these people.
I don't know any of these folks.
I mean, chances are much larger that I've felt uncomfortable shaking somebody else's hand than the opposite.
And there are famously photos of me doing a hover hand, because I don't want to put my hand on somebody's shoulder.
But still, this sort of subjectivity, which is politically driven, where one moment you feel like, I'm going to print this photo out and put it on my shelf, and the next moment you feel like, you know what?
That was some sort of brutal assault on my individual space.
Yeah, I'm not buying it.
Now, still, Joe Biden has not handled this the proper way.
Joe Biden has not handled this well, and I will explain in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you can defend yourself.
When the founders crafted the Constitution, the first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share their ideas without limitation by their government.
The second right they enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force.
You know how strongly I believe in these principles.
I've been strong and loud about them for a very long time.
Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM, was started in a garage by a Marine veteran more than two decades ago to build a professional-grade product that meets combat standards.
BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American, regardless of whether they are a private citizen or a professional.
BCM is not a sporting arms company.
They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment.
They assume that each rifle leaving their shop will be used in a life-or-death situation by a responsible citizen, law enforcement officer, or a soldier overseas.
Every component of a BCM rifle is hand-assembled and tested by Americans to a life-saving standard, and that's because BCM feels a moral responsibility as Americans to provide tools that will not fail the user when it's not just a paper target, but somebody actually coming to do you harm.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com, where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
If you need more convincing, you can find out more about them at YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
Fantastic company, fantastic folks running it.
BravoCompanyMFG.com.
Get a weapon that you know will work.
Check it out.
YouTube.com slash BravoCompanyUSA.
Alright, so Joe Biden is facing down these accusations.
Now, he has a couple of options.
Option number one is he can simply say, listen, I don't think I ever did anything wrong.
If these women feel a particular way, I'm sorry they feel that way, but all of these actions were done in public.
There's never been an allegation of sexual assault or harassment against me, nor should there be because I have never done any of those things.
I'm a hugger.
If I invade people's personal space, that is not unique to women.
I do it all the time with everybody.
And that's just me.
And I'm sorry about that.
But that's about it.
That's what Joe Biden could do.
Instead, Joe Biden decides that he is going to kowtow to the radical feminist left, and he is going to explain that he's sorry.
So sorry.
I just don't know who he thinks he's winning over by doing this.
The coming month, I expect to be talking to you about a whole lot of issues, and I'll always be direct with you.
But today I want to talk about Just as a support and encouragement that I've made to women and some men, and I've made them uncomfortable.
And I always tried to be, in my career, I've always tried to make a human connection.
That's my responsibility, I think.
I shake hands, I hug people, I grab men and women by the shoulders and say, you can do this.
And whether they're women, men, young, old, it's the way I've always been.
It's the way I've tried to show I care about them and I'm listening.
And over the years, knowing what I've been through, the things that I've faced, I've found that scores, if not hundreds of people have come up to me and reached out for solace and comfort.
Something, anything that may help them get through the tragedy they're going through.
And so it's just who I am.
And I've never thought of politics as cold and antiseptic.
I've always thought about connecting with people.
As I said, shaking hands, Hands on the shoulder, a hug, encouragement.
And now it's all about taking selfies together.
You know, social norms have begun to change.
They've shifted.
And the boundaries of protecting personal space have been reset.
Okay, pause it there for one second.
Here is where Joe Biden gets into dicey territory.
Right, so before, what he said up to now is basically everything I said he should say, right?
This is who I am.
I've tried to care for people.
I've tried to help people.
If people felt uncomfortable, I'm sorry about that.
But here is where he gets into dicey territory, because now what he is saying is that the boundaries have changed, and I'm an old man, and now I recognize that my entire life I violated the boundaries.
Well, which is it?
Did you violate the boundaries or did you not violate the boundaries?
Did you do something wrong or did you not do something wrong?
And what you are really acknowledging in this video is that you are Pastor Prime, right?
This is the problem for Joe Biden.
The theme against him is that he is old and that he is behind the times and that he has to constantly be racing to adjust to the new woke left and that he is out of touch.
And here's where he's going to make himself seem out of touch.
Instead of just doubling down and saying, listen, this is how I am.
Sorry if people felt offended by that.
I will try to do better in the future.
Instead, now he is saying, well, you know, the times have changed and we have to listen to all stories and I'm an old man.
And this is where it starts to get dicey for him.
And I get it.
I get it.
I hear what they're saying.
I understand it.
And I'll be much more mindful.
That's my responsibility.
My responsibility, and I'll meet it.
But I'll always believe governing, quite frankly, life for that matter, is about connecting.
About connecting with people.
That won't change.
But I will be more mindful and respectful of people's personal space.
And that's a good thing.
That's a good thing.
I've worked my whole life to empower women.
I've worked my whole life to prevent abuse.
I've written... So the idea that I can't adjust to the fact that Personal space is important, more important than it's ever been.
It's just not thinkable.
I will.
I will.
I'll change.
I'll adjust.
I'll change.
It's up to me.
I hear you.
Now, maybe this works.
I have a feeling it really is not going to.
I don't think that any of the accusations are going to stop.
I think that Biden has basically just thrown gasoline on a fire that was already raging.
I think that when Vice President Biden says things like, I'll change because I have to, And we all have to change.
Instead of just saying, listen, I am who I am.
Take it or leave it.
If you feel like you don't want me to do that sort of stuff, just tell me and I won't do it.
But like, come on, I'm not sexually assaulting or harassing anybody.
Everybody needs to lighten up.
Right?
That would be what, honestly, could somebody just say that once in a while?
Can people just say, listen, I don't want to invade anybody's... Here's the problem for Joe Biden.
Either it was a problem or it wasn't a problem.
Either it was a problem or it was not a problem.
You don't get to subjectively change the standard and then determine that everything retroactively was very, very bad.
Yet that is what his Democratic rivals are doing.
They're doing it on the fly, and it really is unpleasant to watch, just on an objective level.
Beto O'Rourke, for example, saying, listen, what we need to do, we need to listen to all the stories.
How about if Joe Biden said, listen, if you felt uncomfortable, I'm sorry.
That's it.
If you felt uncomfortable, I'm sorry.
End of story.
You didn't accuse me of sexual assault or harassment.
That's it.
That's the whole thing.
Instead, it's, we have to listen to their stories.
We have to talk about how women are made to feel uncomfortable.
Why do we have to talk about women generally being made to feel uncomfortable?
Really, I don't understand why everything turns into a generalized conversation about women being made to feel uncomfortable when this was a specific conversation about a specific guy doing specifically weird things.
Like, I'm not doing any of these things.
And there's this tendency in the media, whenever a Democrat does something bad, it requires us to do a generalized conversation that reinforces their narrative.
Notice which incidents require a generalized conversation.
It's all the incidents that reinforce a particular Democratic narrative, a particular left-leaning progressive narrative.
If we were talking about something that didn't reinforce that narrative, we wouldn't be pushing it very hard.
Here's Beto O'Rourke reinforcing the narrative in the hopes of winning over suburban women in the primaries.
I think we need to listen to those who are raising their stories, who have the courage to come forward, to share their experience, and also to be part of the conversation about either his candidacy or how he fares as a contender for the nomination if he jumps in.
So I think ultimately that's going to be a decision for him to make.
Okay, um, yeah, the idea that we're gonna push him out of the race because we have to listen to everybody's stories.
Okay, how about if we listen to somebody's story and then we go, yeah, I think that you're not really suffering very much.
Like, are we allowed to say that?
Because if you printed out a photo of a person doing something so terrible to you and then framed it and put it on your desk, I'm gonna go with you didn't suffer all that much.
Can we not pretend that this is some sort of sexual assault survival story?
Because it isn't.
It's irritating.
Now, the person who could save Joe Biden from all of this is, of course, standing over here in the wings.
And like Rorschach, he looks down and says, no.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about cybercrime.
Admit, you think cybercrime is something that happens to other people.
You may think no one wants your data or that hackers can't grab your passwords or credit card details.
You would be wrong.
Stealing data from unsuspecting people on public Wi-Fi was one of the simplest, cheapest ways for hackers to make money.
When you leave your internet connection unencrypted, you might as well be writing your passwords and credit card numbers on a huge billboard for the rest of the world to see.
That's why I decided to take action.
To protect myself from cybercriminals, I use ExpressVPN.
ExpressVPN secures and anonymizes your internet browsing by encrypting your data and hiding your public IP address.
ExpressVPN has easy-to-use apps that run seamlessly in the background of your computer, phone, and tablet.
Turning on ExpressVPN protection?
Well, that only takes one click.
Using ExpressVPN, I can safely surf on public Wi-Fi without being snooped on or having my personal data stolen.
For less than $7 a month, you can get the same ExpressVPN protection that I have.
ExpressVPN is rated the number one VPN service by TechRadar and comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
Protect your online activity today.
Find out how you can get three months for free at expressvpn.com slash ben.
That is e-x-p-r-e-s-s-vpn.com slash ben for three months free with a one-year package.
That is expressvpn.com slash ben to learn more.
Expressvpn.com slash ben.
Go check them out right now.
In just a second, we are going to get to the one person who could save Biden from himself here and will not do so.
And the Democrats kowtowing to one of the worst people in the history of modern American politics, We'll get to all that in just a second.
First, you have to subscribe.
Go over to dailywire.com for $9.99 a month.
You can get a subscription to dailywire.com.
When you do, you don't just get this show, you also get everybody else's show.
You get Andrew Klavan's show, and Matt Walsh's show, and Michael Moles' show, and you get two additional hours of me every afternoon.
When you get the annual subscription, you get all sorts of goodies, too.
First of all, you get the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr.
It is also cheaper than the monthly subscription.
Go check that out right now.
And our Sunday specials become Saturday specials.
I'm particularly excited about this week's Sunday special, which features the Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, who had the bravery to actually walk in a studio and have, you know, a normal conversation with someone who disagrees with some of the things he says.
I know, it's crazy, man.
So go check that out.
When you become a subscriber, there's also additional material behind the paywall.
For the Sunday specials as well.
Also, subscribe over YouTube or iTunes.
If you want some additional fun, go check out Joe Rogan.
I was on Joe Rogan's show yesterday.
We had about a two and a half hour conversation on everything ranging from social media, censorship, to gay marriage, to pot, to the use of psychedelic drugs and the burning bush in the Bible.
There's a lot there.
So you can go check that out as well.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So there's one person who could save Joe Biden from himself here.
Could step in and just say, guys, calm it down.
We all know Joe Biden's not a sexual harasser.
He's not a sexual assaulter.
We all know Joe is huggy.
But can we just like cool your jets for a second here?
He's sorry if he offended anybody, but let's be real about this.
That person is former President Barack Obama, who's been utterly silent throughout all of this.
Other 2020 presidential candidates have spoken about it.
So has Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
However, Obama hasn't been quoted in a single report.
He's tweeted no expression of support for Biden.
Why?
Because the truth is that Barack Obama is out to protect Barack Obama.
He's not out there to protect his former VP.
The hits against the 76-year-old are designed to make him seem past his prime and done.
The only person who could save him at this point is Obama.
Obama saluted Biden as a brother in his farewell address, as the Washington Free Beacon points out, but it's more like, see you later, brother, than, oh look, my brother is running for president of the United States.
So Barack Obama is sitting this one out as honestly I sort of expected he would.
And I think most observers expected him to do.
Meanwhile, Democrats like I have such trouble with the Democratic Party that finds it significantly more troubling and offensive that Joe Biden publicly was was putting his forehead to other women's and men's foreheads.
They find that more troubling than the fact that every single major Democrat showed up to pay homage to one of the worst racial hoaxers in American history.
I'm speaking, of course, about Al Sharpton, who is just a bag of human debris.
I mean, he's just a terrible person, Al Sharpton.
Al Sharpton, in 1987, completely fabricated a rape hoax about Tawana Browley.
It was significantly worse, by the way, than Jussie Smollett.
He actually fingered an individual human being named Stephen Pagones.
Stephen Pagones was the prosecutor.
He suggested that he was responsible for raping, kidnapping, writing racial slurs in feces on the body of a 15-year-old black girl.
Pagones ended up winning a slander lawsuit against Sharpton, Sharpton, Sharpton never paid what he owed.
Pagonis said, quote, I view Al Sharpton as being nothing more than an opportunist and a race baiter.
What I hope the networks and advertisers would push for would be for Sharpton to admit that he now knows that Pagonis and other individuals he lied about had nothing to do with whatever happened to Braly.
Braly, it turns out, had not actually been raped or kidnapped or anything like that.
It had all been staged.
Al Sharpton is the guy who helped initiate the Crown Heights riots in 1991.
There's a Hasidic Jew who accidentally killed a young black kid in a car accident.
So Sharpton headed on over to Crown Heights, a heavily Jewish neighborhood, where he spoke at the funeral.
And there, he said that diamond merchants had the blood of innocent babies on their hands and said, quote, if the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin back their yarmulkes and come over to my house.
Then there were riots that ended with the death of Yonkel Rosenbaum, an Orthodox Jewish student.
Rosenbaum's brother said he has never apologized, he has never offered any sincere remorse for the atrocious things he has done by way of terrible racist behavior and lies for inciting racial events.
In 1995, Al Sharpton helped initiate an actual arson attack at Freddy's Fashion Mart.
Freddie's Fashion Mart had raised its own rent on a black-owned music store that was in the Fashion Mart because it had had its own rent raised by a black landlord in Harlem.
That did not stop Sharpton from blaming Freddie's Fashion Mart and accusing them of racism.
He said, quote, we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.
Protesters at that particular event were shouting, burn down the Jew store.
One of the protesters then shot four employees of Freddie's Fashion Mart and set the store on fire.
And then, of course, you'll recall that after the Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper named Crystal Mangum, Sharpton showed up ready to battle.
He said, I think when you look at the racial atmosphere, when you look at the fact that there again were the allegations of racial statements, when you look at a lot of the people feeling they have been treated differently, where this girl has basically had a character charged in the media, there's a lot of racism that's in the air.
Mangum was not only lying, she was later convicted of murdering her boyfriend.
I mean, Sharpton is one of the worst racial actors in America and all he does is shake down companies.
He accuses them of racism and then if they give a donation to the National Action Network, from which he pays himself a nice salary, then he says, oh look, they've been cured of racism.
Magical.
So Democrats naturally show up to pay homage to this bag of garbage.
He's just a bad person, Al Sharpton.
I mean, really a bad guy.
And Al Sharpton I guess his National Action Network has become a way station for all these Democratic nominees.
So let's get this straight.
They wouldn't show up at AIPAC.
They wouldn't show up at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Because if they did, if they showed up at that public affairs conference and spoke in front of the Jews, then too many members of the progressive base would be upset.
But if they show up and speak in front of Al Sharpton, as they have been doing every year for years, then this is seen as some sort of woke intersectionality off.
A dozen Democratic candidates for president showed up at the National Action Network, where the smartest of these folks pandered directly to Al Sharpton with race-based appeals.
This is why I think Beto O'Rourke is still a sleeper, guys.
You know, I keep dismissing Beto because, I mean, he's a joke.
I mean, Beto rides around on a skateboard with the bangs in his eyes and is all weird and eats New Mexican dirt and all that.
But the truth is that O'Rourke is more astute a politician, at least in terms of straightforward Retail politics than a lot of his associates.
Here's Beto O'Rourke yesterday at the National Action Network standing alongside Al Sharpton and explaining he wants a commission on reparations.
Your fellow Texan, Sheila Jackson Lee, has proposed a commission to study reparations.
If that passes and you are President of the United States, would you sign that Yes.
Foundational to reparations is the word repair.
Foundational to repair is the truth.
And until all Americans understand that civil rights are not just those victories that I began with at the outset of my comments, but the injustices that have been visited and continue to be visited on people, we will never get the change that we need to live up to the promise of this country.
So absolutely, I would sign that in the law.
He's such a middle school debater, Beto O'Rourke.
Did you know that the foundation of reparations is repair?
Wow, thank you, Beto O'Rourke, for that insightful etymology of the word reparations.
That is clear from the actual word reparations.
And the foundation of repairing is the truth.
Wow.
I mean, the depth of this person.
But obviously he is there because he's hoping to win an outside share of the black vote, particularly as Joe Biden goes down.
Right now, Joe Biden is the person who's carrying the plurality of the black vote.
Beto O'Rourke didn't stop there.
He also suggested that mass incarceration was a huge problem in the United States.
Now, I'm not a big fan of the mass incarceration argument because I keep wondering who are the guilty, who are the innocent people who have been jailed for no reason at all?
Now, you can say that you want to change the drug laws, but And very frankly, I'm in favor of changing a lot of the drug laws.
But the vast majority of people in prison are not in prison for mere possession of marijuana.
This mass incarceration argument that the police are going around willy nilly arresting innocent people is just nonsense.
Beto O'Rourke says it at the National Action Network, though, because, you know, that's what he's doing.
In a kindergarten classroom where those children are five years old, a child of color is five times as likely to be disciplined, suspended or expelled as a white child in the same classroom in front of the same teacher.
So this schoolhouse to jailhouse pipeline and this problem of mass incarceration is much deeper than police, than our courts.
It is our country and we absolutely must face it.
So I don't even know what that means.
It's not a problem of our police or our courts.
It's not even the criminal justice system or the cops, according to Beto O'Rourke.
It's all of us.
It's in our hearts.
I'm telling you, Beto O'Rourke, that guy is going to appeal on the basest level to every member of the progressive coalition.
He's still dangerous.
I'll tell you who's going to have trouble, though.
The person who's going to have a little more trouble than she thinks she's going to have is Kamala Harris.
Andrew Krasinski at CNN has been doing really solid work digging up material on some of these Democratic candidates because it's actually newsworthy.
He has a piece today about Kamala Harris.
It says, Kamala Harris as district attorney fought public defenders in push for higher bails for gun crimes.
The problem for Kamala Harris is that, in the perspective of many in the progressive woke base, she's too much of a narc to win.
As District Attorney of San Francisco, Kamala Harris supported higher bail amounts on gun-related charges, sparking a fight with the city's public defender and defense attorneys who argued that the measures would disproportionately affect the poor.
But in her career on the national level, Harris has sought to address the disproportionate impact of cash bail on poor defendants.
She has made reducing the burden of bail a part of her 2020 Democratic presidential campaign and Senate tenure.
In July 2017, she introduced legislation with Rand Paul to encourage changes or replacement of the cash bail system.
She said it was long past time to address bail reform across the country, but that was not the case when she was actually a district attorney.
She says that she once viewed higher bail amounts as a way to fight what she said was a public safety issue.
She argued that San Francisco's low bail meant that criminals traveled to the city to commit crime because the punishment there was cheaper than the surrounding counties.
Harris's presidential campaign spokesperson, Ian Sams, told K-File that Harris was responding to an increase in gun homicides and illegal guns in the city, and that her efforts today still take into account the threat a defendant poses when considering bail.
Well, if that's the case, if the idea is that when crime accelerates that Kamala Harris is going to step in and raise cash bail, that she's in favor of actual law and order, that isn't going to play.
That isn't going to play all that well.
This is why I think that Kamala Harris may be in trouble as a candidate, too.
A lot of talk early on about Kamala Harris being the sort of de facto Democratic frontrunner.
I'm not sure that's going to play out the way that Kamala Harris thinks it is.
She doesn't have that same progressive support that Beto O'Rourke does.
And she's not raising the kind of money, frankly, that Beto O'Rourke is.
I mean, Kamala Harris has raised something like $12 million so far.
Beto O'Rourke raised that in about one-third the time.
He raised $9.4 million in about one-third the time.
So I'm not sure that this is going to play out exactly how Kamala Harris wants it to play out.
Suffice it to say, one of the uglier aspects of our electioneering is the sort of pandering that you are seeing at the National Action Network, where you can say things that are patently untrue so long as they please the audience.
This, by the way, is not unique to the National Action Network, of course.
This is true for virtually every political crowd.
You go there and you pander to them.
The bravest politicians are the ones who actually go to places and then say things that are unpopular to the crowd.
Well Stacey Abrams wasn't doing that yesterday.
She continues to maintain that she might run for president herself on the basis of her losing a Georgia gubernatorial race.
Beto O'Rourke has never held an office higher than House of Representatives.
That's a step higher than Stacey Abrams who's never held an office outside the Georgia House of Representatives.
Now she says she might run for president over at the National Action Network and she is still claiming that she won her election in Georgia despite losing by 50,000 votes in Georgia.
I know you've heard from a lot of folks.
And I think some of you know what I'm going to say.
We had this little election back in 2018.
And despite the final tally and the inauguration and the situation we find ourselves in, I do have one very affirmative statement to make.
We won!
No, you didn't.
No, you, in fact, did not.
Again, it's very convenient to go to two different places around the country to your supporters and just say what they want to hear.
The fact that people are doing that for Al Sharpton is pretty astonishing.
I think that the there is something humorous about some of these fringe candidates trying to do this routine.
Bill de Blasio continues to pretend that people want him to run for president, despite the fact that legitimately no one wants him to run for president.
There's something perverse about the mayor of New York standing in front of Al Sharpton while talking about redistributing wealth.
I mean, it's... Oh boy.
Here is Bill de Blasio, the communist mayor of New York.
We have a chance to talk about the fact that our country, for so many people, is going in the wrong direction.
But don't let people tell you we can't afford to fix these problems.
Don't let people tell you we cannot afford to take care of working families.
It's not for lack of money.
There is plenty of money in this world.
There is plenty of money in this nation.
It's just in the wrong hands.
Okay, that's really the problem.
If we could just give the money to Al Sharpton, you know, through payoffs, if we could just ensure that Al Sharpton got more money at the National Action Network, if we could just make sure that the city government of New York was leveraged to investigate every allegation made by Al Sharpton, but never to investigate Al Sharpton himself, that would probably be the best way to do all of this.
Our politics are getting uglier.
They are not fact-based.
The fact that Al Sharpton is still considered a mainstream figure is perfect evidence of that.
If Al Sharpton were a white guy who pulled the same kind of crap that Al Sharpton has pulled over his career, there's a high likelihood that not only would he not be in politics, he would be facing significant criminal liability for all the stuff that he's done over the course of his career.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
So there's a movie that I recommended earlier this week called The Highwaymen.
It's really good.
It's with Kevin Costner and Woody Harrelson.
And it's about the cops, the Texas Rangers, who hunted down and killed Bonnie and Clyde.
And the movie is really great, specifically because it shows that Bonnie and Clyde were actually evil sociopaths, which they were.
And there are a lot of critics who are angry at The Highwaymen.
They were angry because it blew up the mythos of Bonnie and Clyde that was created By a film that was made back in the 1970s, 1960s, I believe, 1970s, early 70s, which was called Bonnie and Clyde with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway, in which crime was romanticized as a sort of redistributionist socialism.
I mean, the tagline for the film was, they're young, they're in love, they rob banks.
And there were these young, beautiful people in love, happy, and society was sort of just harming them.
And so they decided to randomly murder people and shoot cops and rob banks.
The movie is, it's a great movie.
It really is a good movie.
It also features the first performances of both Gene Hackman, I believe, as well as Gene Wilder.
Gene Wilder shows up for a little while and is very funny.
Here's a little bit of the preview.
Their paths crossed like two hot wires.
They roared off on what might easily have been a wild, romantic lark.
Oh!
But almost before they knew it, with the giggles still in their ears, they had bloodied up poor state.
Where you going?
Get away!
Honey!
Go home!
Honey?
Please, honey, don't ever leave me without saying nothing.
So this came out in 1967.
The movie was deeply effective in romanticizing crime and suggesting that crime was actually just a romantic socialist redistributionist scheme.
And so there are a lot of critics who are very angry at The Highwaymen because The Highwaymen disabuses people of this notion and points out, I mean, it really just...
I mean, it really destroys the narrative of Bonnie and Clyde.
There's a line where this gas station attendant says something to Kevin Costner about how Bonnie and Clyde are just robbing banks, and banks are the ones who have hurt me.
And Kevin Costner says, they shot a gas station attendant over $4 in the face.
So, that's really who Bonnie and Clyde were, but it's an important movie in sort of the history of cinema.
Also, the use of violence is romanticized and made, and it's slow motion and very graphic.
At the time, it was extraordinarily controversial.
It did lead to this wave of new movies that made crime into something glorious in the late 60s and early 70s.
It was part of the cultural zeitgeist.
And so for that reason, it's sort of an important film, even though it is a pack of lies about who Bonnie and Clyde actually were.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So Chelsea Clinton is now explaining how she explains global warming to her five-year-old.
She was on The View.
Why does everyone get booked on The View except me?
I mean, I guess it's just jealousy that I don't get booked on The View at this point, but my goodness, guys.
I mean, what do I have to do?
I had the number one New York Times bestselling book last week.
It's still the number three New York Times bestselling book this week.
We have a pretty popular podcast.
Guys, is it too much to ask?
In any case, I don't have to openly appeal for your sympathy.
In any case, Chelsea Clinton was on The View, and there she explained that she's already teaching her small children about global warming.
Kids are still very young.
At what age do you start talking to them about serious issues like climate change?
So we're already talking about it.
We talk about climate change, and we talk about why we make the choices we make at home to recycle.
Our kids help take out the recycling.
They're two and four, but they can carry cardboard boxes to the recycling bin.
Our daughter now helps us when we're changing the light bulbs, and we talk about why we're using energy-conscious light bulbs.
and they may not understand all those words megan but i hope that by talking about these kind of big issues in a way they hopefully do understand excuse me at home early on they'll not only appreciate why we're making those choices but make those choices themselves like as they grow up okay so here's here's my only problem with all of this does this shade over like this this what What she's actually saying here is not terrible, right?
I mean, the idea that we make certain choices at home, we have to explain to our kids why we're doing that, don't really have a problem with that.
My problem is when the media shades stuff like that over into something broader, which is we have to indoctrinate five-year-olds in the Green New Deal, and then those kids show up in Dianne Feinstein's office and harass them.
So my problem is not with Chelsea Clinton, who it seems, by the way, Chelsea Clinton seems like a perfectly reasonable and somewhat charming young person.
I know this is an unpopular point of view, but I mean, she will speak truth sometimes to people in her own party, which is something that I admire.
With that said, the kind of push that we are supposed to indoctrinate our children in political matters that really have no relevance to home life, That's something I'm uncomfortable with, even if I think Chelsea Clinton is not doing anything particularly wrong right there.
Okay, we'll be back a little bit later today with two more hours of The Ben Shapiro Show.
One quick correction from yesterday.
I mentioned in the Roadmap to 2020 episode yesterday that Donald Trump had to win two of the following three states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or Michigan, plus all the states he won last time in order for him to win the election.
That's not true.
He has to win one of those three states.
He has to maintain Florida, he has to maintain Ohio, and all of the other states he needs to win to get to 270.
Either Wisconsin or Michigan or Pennsylvania, which means he does have a path.
Democrats in the over the overarching critique, however, is correct.
The Democrats, by moving far to the left, are coming much closer to handing Trump the election.
All right.
We'll be back here later today or we'll see you here tomorrow.
Make sure go pick up a copy of my new book.
The Right Side of History continues to chart.
At the New York Times.
Number three on the New York Times bestseller list.
It was number one last week.
So go check that out right now at Amazon.
Check out my interview that I did with Joe Rogan as well if you have some extra time on the internet today.
It was a lot of fun.
Joe's awesome.
And we'll see you a little bit later.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Adam Sajovic.
Audio is mixed by Mike Caromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright, Daily Wire 2019.
Hey, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
The Democrat press is at it again, trying to make a scandal where no scandal exists.
But is a holy Democrat press actually good for the Democrats?
We'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection