All Episodes
Previous Next
April 18, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:14
It’s Mueller Time | Ep. 762
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Mueller time.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show.
He's sitting right here.
You're listening to the sound of his voice right at this moment.
We're going to go through as much of this as humanly possible over the course of the next hour.
You're going to know much more than you did when you first started.
I will give you my conclusions.
I will give you the analysis.
I'll give you the text.
Everything you could possibly want, but first, Admit it, you think that cybercrime is something that happens to other people.
You might think nobody 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, it's one of the simplest and 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 giant 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, 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.
It comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
So go protect your online activity today.
Find out how you can get three months for free at expressvpn.com slash ben.
That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-v-p-n.com slash ben for three months free with a one-year package.
Visit expressvpn.com slash ben to learn more.
Go check it out right now.
Okay, so the Mueller Report is out and we will get to all of the content of that in just one second.
I will break the entire thing down for you as best I can inside of one hour.
It's going to be magnificent.
But we have to start with the Attorney General of the United States who held a really random press conference at the beginning of the day.
Now, this is a weird thing to do.
The reason that it's a weird thing to do is because we already have Attorney General Barr's letter, which is his summation of his findings regarding the bottom line of the Mueller report.
I think the reason that he actually held the press conference was to push two particular points.
One point was that he was being as transparent as humanly possible.
And the second point was that he was using President Trump's emotional state as his basis for adjudicating whether or not the president was guilty of obstruction of justice.
Those were, I think, the two key takeaways.
So, obviously, he's already said that the Trump campaign did not collude.
He's already said that this is, that he's redacting as little as humanly possible.
He was also pointing out, I think, that the president had already seen the report, but that that was not illegal.
That's clip five, him talking about the president's counsel being given the opportunity to read the report before release.
In addition, earlier this week, the President's personal counsel requested and was given the opportunity to read a final version of the redacted report before it was publicly released.
That request was consistent with the practice followed under the Ethics in Government Act, which permitted individuals named in a report prepared by an independent counsel the opportunity to read the report before publication.
Okay, so that was Barr's take, and I think that's important, him saying that the President is not here to hide the information that's in the report.
And it is obvious, by the way, that the President could have asserted executive privilege at any point in the middle of this report, as we'll see.
There's plenty of information in the report that definitely falls under the rubric of executive privilege if the President of the United States wanted to assert it.
So Barr is pointing out that the President was not really hiding a lot, which is true.
Also, Barr points out that we have to bear in mind the context of Trump's actions, particularly with regard to obstruction of justice.
Now, the report breaks down, the Mueller report breaks down into two sections.
Section one is about Trump-Russia collusion.
As I suggested before, I didn't think there was going to be a lot of enormous new information about Trump-Russia collusion, and there really isn't.
It really is a rehash of stuff we already knew, the most important stuff being that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was a lawyer who was acting as sort of a Russian front to supposedly pass information about Hillary Clinton to the Trump campaign.
There are also a bunch of Roger Stone references, but not a lot of revelations in the first half of the report.
The stuff that was revelatory, I think to everybody, was the stuff in the second half of the report, the obstruction of justice stuff.
And there the question becomes, did the president obstruct justice when he repeatedly sounded off about wanting to get rid of Jeff Sessions, or when he repeatedly sounded off about wanting to fire Robert Mueller, or when he repeatedly reached out to members of his team and sort of patted them on the back when they did things that he wanted, and then offered them the stick when they did not.
Now, the standard of obstruction of justice, as laid out in the actual Mueller report, is under 28 CFR 600.4A, federal crimes committed in the course of and with intent to interfere with the special counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.
So they break down several basic elements of the crime in this Mueller report, and some of the elements of the crime include intent to commit obstruction of justice.
So according to the Mueller report itself, obstruction of justice law reaches all corrupt conduct capable of producing an effect that prevents justice from being duly administered regardless of the means employed.
An effort to influence a proceeding can qualify as an endeavor to obstruct justice, even if the effort was subtle or circuitous and however cleverly or with whatever cloaking of purpose it was made.
An improper motive can render an actor's conduct criminal, even when the conduct would otherwise be lawful and within the actor's authorities.
So if President Trump was trying to assert some sort of obstruction against, he was trying to get people in his team to corruptly impact the Mueller report, then this would serve as obstruction of justice according to this interpretation of the law.
But you do have to have intent.
You do have to have intent.
So, there has to be a nexus with the current investigation.
And this is where things get dicey.
There has to be a nexus with the Mueller investigation.
So, in other words, if Trump just decided, I'm firing Robert Mueller because I don't like the way his tie looks today, that's not obstruction of justice.
If Trump fires Robert Mueller because he wants to obstruct the investigation, that's obstruction of justice.
Maybe, although he still has the authority to fire Robert Mueller for any reasons, probably more impeachable than even obstruction of justice.
According to the Mueller report, there must be a nexus within a current investigation.
That nexus showing has both subjective and objective components.
As an objective matter, a defendant must act in a manner that is likely to obstruct justice, such that the statute excludes defendants who have an evil purpose but use means that would only unnaturally and improbably be successful.
In other words, you have to be effective in your attempts to obstruct justice, or at least the attempt must be Somehow within the boundaries of reason.
As a subjective matter, the actor must have contemplated a particular foreseeable proceeding.
In other words, again, Trump must have wanted to shut down the Mueller report because he thought that its result would be bad for him.
It can't just be that he wants to shut down the Mueller report because he thinks that the Mueller report is just a waste of government money, for example.
That's why there is the element of corruptly In the obstruction of justice law.
The word corruptly provides the intent element for obstruction of justice.
It means acting knowingly and dishonestly or with an improper motive.
The requisite showing is made when a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
That last phrase is the one that matters.
Inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.
As we will see, President Trump continually tried to interfere with players surrounding the Mueller investigation without in any underlying way Forcing people to lie.
And he did so not because he wanted, in my opinion, and in the opinion of Attorney General Barr, not because he wanted to shut down or obstruct the Mueller investigation, but because he found the entire thing embarrassing and he was attempting to avoid press embarrassment for the most part.
The most damaging section of the obstruction statute is witness tampering.
A more specific provision in section 1512, according to the Mueller report, prohibits tampering with a witness.
That would make it a crime to knowingly use intimidation or corruptly persuade another person or engage in misleading conduct toward another person with intents to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding to hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer.
As we will see, there's behavior that verges on this but doesn't actually cross over Into that boundary.
And finally, there's the question of the attempt.
Is there attempted obstruction of justice?
Mueller says yes.
He says that the section includes attempt.
So if you try to obstruct justice, but you fail, then that could theoretically be obstruction of justice.
Now, the reason that he lays out this interpretation of the law is because Trump's activity here could legitimately be interpreted in a couple of different ways.
On the one hand, it could be interpreted as President Trump trying to actively obstruct the Mueller investigation because he didn't want criminal activity to be uncovered by the Mueller investigation.
Possibility number two is that Trump is a very frustrated guy.
Who spends a lot of time doing immoral, bad things, and then does more immoral, bad, but non-criminal things in order to cover up the original things that he did.
So it looks sort of like the Stormy Daniels scandal, in other words.
Strips a porn star.
It's embarrassing and immoral.
It is not criminal.
And then he does something even more embarrassing and immoral, but not criminal.
He then pays her off to keep her silent just before an election.
This is the pattern for Trump.
So, you can interpret his activities in one of two ways.
Attorney General Barr, I think properly, interprets Trump's activities in the second way that I named, and he especially does that in light of the fact that if he had attempted to prosecute Trump under obstruction of justice, he would have to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
That would not have happened here.
Whether you're on the left or the right, you can think the president did something criminal.
There is no prosecutor who would have taken up this case.
Here's the difference between the Hillary Clinton case and the Donald Trump case.
In the Hillary Clinton case, intent was not an element of the crime.
If you expose classified information to public scrutiny by creating a server and putting classified documents on it, that is in and of itself a crime.
There is no intent necessary.
That's why it was ridiculous when James Comey, the head of the FBI, said that Hillary had not committed a criminal act because she lacked the requisite intent.
There is no requisite intent.
It's a strict liability crime.
There is no requisite intent in that section of the law.
There is requisite intent when it comes to obstruction of justice.
So the reason I'm laying all this forth is because that's where Attorney General Barr is going.
When he says that the president and the president's emotion matter, he says the reason he invoked that is because that stuff is in the report, because it is relevant to determining whether he had the requisite intent to commit obstruction of justice.
Well, actually, the statements about his sincere beliefs are recognized in the report that there was substantial evidence for that.
Okay, so people are treating Barr so people are treating Barr as though Barr is a deeply partisan figure here.
Now, there's a case to be made that Barr is partisan insofar as he works for the President of the United States, but I don't see how an objective prosecutor could bring an obstruction of justice case Or a collusion case on the basis of the evidence that's actually in the Mueller report.
So in a second, we're going to get to all of that.
We'll also show you that the media were attempting to preemptively spin this report even before it was out.
Again, I think it was a mistake to hold this press conference in the first place, but I think the reasons that I laid forth are the reasons that Barr did it.
One, he wanted to show that he was transparent and Trump was transparent.
And two, he wanted to point out that obstruction of justice is an intent crime.
OK, we'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, you've heard me talk about how Ring is reinventing home security with doorbells, cameras, even an alarm you can install yourself.
Now they've reinvented the Neighborhood Watch with a new app they created called Neighbors by Ring.
You remember the Neighborhood Watch.
It's been around for a while.
I remember it from growing up.
It's still a big thing.
People care about making their neighborhood safer.
I know I do.
So Ring, a company synonymous with reinventing home security, reinvented the Neighborhood Watch.
The Neighbors app is like a new Neighborhood Watch.
On your phone.
People taking stuff off porches, trying doorknobs late at night, missing dogs.
The Neighbors app sends real-time notifications to your phone whenever one of your neighbors posts a heads-up about something that's going on, which keeps you informed and allows you to keep yourself safer.
The Neighbors app by Ring is completely free.
Anyone can join, even if they don't own a Ring device.
So I downloaded it myself from the App Store.
I put in my address.
I set the area around my home for two miles, because I really only want to know what's going on within two miles.
It's hyper-local like that.
That's it.
It's easy.
And sure enough, there's a guy who is siphoning, like, natural gas from somebody's house.
It's wild.
You gotta check out the Neighbors app yourself.
The easiest way to get it going is ring.com forward slash Shapiro.
Make your neighborhood safer today with the Neighbors app by Ring at ring.com forward slash Shapiro.
So as I say, Attorney General Barr does this presentation, and the media naturally have to set their side, which is that Barr is a political partisan hack.
Again, even though the President of the United States did not assert executive privilege, even though the redactions Are minimal.
I've looked at the report.
They really only apply in the Roger Stone investigation, which is ongoing.
The media still were claiming that this was some sort of cover-up by Attorney General Barr, which I fail to see how it's a cover-up when I can read the document and you can read the document and everybody can read the document.
Still, you saw all the legal analysts saying ridiculous, silly things.
Neal Katyal is a legal analyst over on CNN.
He suggested, or MSNBC rather, he suggested that Barr sounded like a spokesperson rather than the Attorney General.
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you.
The rhetoric here was extraordinary.
It sounded like a spokesman, not an attorney general.
And the word collusion, I mean, a lawyer doesn't use that term because there is no crime of collusion.
Only Trump uses that term.
And so you have the attorney general parroting that.
But to me, there was one bigger thing that I saw, which was what Barr didn't tell us.
We know there's one sentence in the Mueller report which says, do not, this does not exonerate Trump.
Did we hear a word of that in Barr's, whatever, 15-10 minute summary?
There's nothing I heard about that.
Okay, well, that is very silly.
When he says that Barr using the word collusion is some sort of manipulation, everyone in the media has been using the word collusion to describe this for two odd years.
Let's not pretend that Barr invented the word collusion.
It really is an absurdity.
Now, with all of that said, the case can be made that Barr was coming out to preemptively spin this thing in favor of his own take on the issue.
As I say, maybe that's true, maybe that's not, but the Mueller report was revealed like an hour and a half later, and it says exactly what it says.
So, let's get to the actual Mueller report.
Here we go, guys.
It's an exploration.
Let's have a party.
So, The Mueller report starts off with about 190 pages, 220 pages, something like that, on the Trump-Russia collusion stuff.
And the effective findings are that Trump-Russia collusion did not occur, that members of the Trump campaign were giving shout-outs to WikiLeaks, that there were certain members of the Trump campaign who were unwittingly acting as kind of near-pawns of the Russians, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, for example, but that there was no high-level collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
And there really isn't that much more that we didn't know in the Trump-Russia collusion part.
Now, I will say this.
The information that is clear, there are two conclusions that are pretty obvious and should be stated right at the outside here.
One is that with the number of Trump-Russia contacts that were happening during the election, For all the talk about how this investigation, the Trump-Russia investigation, was begun under corrupt auspices, I don't see the evidence of that.
I see evidence that the Trump-Russia investigation became more corrupt as time went on, particularly with them using the Steele dossier, which turns out to be a bunch of crap.
The Steele dossier is only mentioned in this document a couple of times, and that is because The Mueller report found virtually nothing that corroborated any section of the Steele dossier.
So the fact that the FBI was using the Steele dossier as the basis for large swaths of the investigation, including a FISA warrant against Carter Page, is just an absurdity on its face.
That does not mean, as I've said all along, that the investigation was initiated under improper auspices.
It means that it became improper over time, if anything.
It also doesn't look like Mueller is a political partisan hack here.
Who's simply attempting to do the nefarious work of a fusion GPS or something like that.
So that is a conclusion that is worthwhile noting here.
The second conclusion that is worthwhile noting is that, again, there is nothing in the actual report that suggests that President Trump had any deep abiding deal going with the Russian government.
Basically, as with all things Trump, as I've said again and again, Trump does something embarrassing and then he doesn't want to be embarrassed so he does something else embarrassing.
That is the nature of the Trump-Russia collusion stuff.
Okay, so let's jump in.
So, the report begins by talking about the social media campaign in the GRU, which is the newfangled KGB of Russia, hacking operations.
They say that those coincided with a series of contacts between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government.
The office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election interference activities.
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
In other words, Trump was happy that WikiLeaks was doing what it was doing.
Trump was perfectly happy that the Russian government seemed to hate Hillary Clinton.
But that was about it.
That's the bottom line takeaway.
And again, I'm reading directly from the Mueller report.
The Mueller report also says, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.
Now, that is not to say that no criminal behavior happened.
Maybe criminal behavior happened, but there was not enough evidence to support criminal charges.
Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any campaign officials as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal.
Our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeaks releases of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign finance violation.
Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.
So notice that language.
Was not sufficient to charge.
Not sufficient to charge.
Over and over.
Not sufficient to charge.
That suggests that Mueller still suspects that something nefarious might have been going on, but there is no evidence to actually fulfill that expectation.
And I think that when you read the report, there's fairly good, good feeling that the Trump campaign was happy about all this stuff.
But again, there is no evidence to support the idea that they were actively involved with Russian collusion or conspiracy under any criminal statute.
So, the Mueller report talks about a variety of matters that investigated.
They say, for example, the investigation established the interactions between Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and Trump campaign officials, both of the candidates' April 2016 foreign policy speech in Washington, D.C., and during the week of the RNC, were brief, public, and non-substantive.
You remember, these were treated as bombshells.
The fact that Sergey Kislyak met with people during RNC week, this was treated as a bombshell by the New York Times.
The investigation did not establish that one campaign official's efforts to dilute a portion of the Republican Party platform on providing assistance to Ukraine were undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia.
So in other words, there was one campaign official who wanted to have better relations with the Russians and the campaign platform was changed on Ukraine to reflect that, but that was not a reflection of Trump imposing that from above or Russia seeking it.
The investigation also did not establish that a meeting between Sergey Kislyak and Jeff Sessions in September 2016 at Sessions' Senate office included any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.
Now, you'll recall that that meeting was the basis of Sessions recusing himself from the Mueller investigation, well, from the Trump-Russia investigation, because it was before Mueller, from the Trump-Russia investigation in the first place.
According to the Mueller report, the office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated, including some associated with the Trump campaign, deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long-term retention of data or communications records.
In such cases, the office was not able to fully corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts.
Accordingly, Says the Mueller Report.
In other words, there are holes in the evidentiary record here.
And that's not particularly shocking.
to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible.
Given these identified gaps, the office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light or cast in a new light the events described in the report.
In other words, there are holes in the evidentiary record here.
And that's not particularly shocking.
People in public life use encrypted communications I use encrypted communications all the time because I don't like being hacked.
So that doesn't necessarily mean corruption.
It does mean that there are holes in the evidentiary record.
And then the Mueller report goes through all of the supposed connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.
And most of it, as I say, is about the Trump campaign being very excited that Russia is stumping in its favor, but no actual collusion.
No actual collusion.
It's when we get to the obstruction that things get truly interesting.
And so I'm going to fast forward to the obstruction in just one second.
I think that's where the important stuff in the report lies, as I suggested it would.
Before the report even came out, because I'm just great that way.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, We The People Holsters offers custom-made holsters all produced in the United States of America.
They design their own holsters in-house.
That means they don't use any third-party molds for their holsters.
Instead, they design every unique mold in Las Vegas in order to best fit each and every firearm perfectly.
They constantly update designs, adding new designs every month.
That lets them stay up to date on the newest models that come out.
We The People holsters even have their own 3D design team who measures every micromillimeter of their guns to ensure the perfect fit.
They're really awesome.
I've got one myself.
Their unique and intuitive clip design allows for you to easily adjust both the cant and the right of your holster so that it will fit comfortably and securely at all times.
Every holster also has an adjustable retention, which is signaled with a click sound.
That lets you know that that firearm is securely in place.
If you ever want more tension, you tighten one screw, you're done.
Custom printed designs in-house.
Thin blue line, thin red line, constitution, camo, American flag.
More coming out each month.
And, We The People holsters, they start at just 37 bucks a piece, which is a great price for a holster that comes with a lifetime guarantee.
Every holster ships free.
It is not a perfect fit?
Send it back for a refund.
Right now, listeners of The Ben Shapiro Show can go to wethepeopleholsters.com slash ben.
Enter promo code Ben at checkout to get $10 off your first holster.
That is as low as $37.
Shipping is free with an additional $10 off using my promo code.
Again, that's wethepeopleholsters.com slash Ben.
Promo code Ben at checkout for $10 off.
Go check them out right now.
Great American company and they make amazing product.
Okay, so...
As I say, the Mueller Report has two halves.
Half number one, about Trump-Russia collusion.
Not much there that we didn't already know.
Just a lot of talk about George Papadopoulos and his weird relationship with a guy named Joseph Mifsud, who is maybe a Russian front, and Carter Page, who's a weirdo who kept traveling to Moscow, but...
He would file his reports up the chain and nobody seemed to take advantage of those reports or care about his reports.
So there's not a lot on the Trump-Russia collusion front that we didn't already know.
But as I say, the investigation I don't think from this report was begun under evil auspices, although we will find that out when the Inspector General of the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, releases his own report on Trump-Russia.
Now, we get to the heart of the report.
The heart of the report is the stuff on obstruction of justice.
So the stuff on obstruction of justice is the most dangerous for President Trump.
Now, I will say, leading up to this, Attorney General Barr said, listen, if there's no underlying collusion, there's nothing to obstruct.
That is true.
It is also true that if you order people to lie to the government, that still constitutes obstruction of justice.
So that is sort of where the controversy lies.
Did Trump order anyone to lie or did he just sort of imply that he would like people to lie to the press?
Was he telling people to lie to the government?
Was he trying to shut down the Mueller investigation to avoid some sort of criminal charge?
Or was he just saying stuff because he was angry?
You know, my solution for all of this for President Trump is the dude says a lot of stuff because he's angry.
And he's angry in large part because he feels like his election victory is being taken away from him by a media that was determined to suggest that he did not, in fact, win the election on his own merits, but only because of Russian interference.
In any case, the Mueller report says, first, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution.
But we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment.
Remember, the Mueller report did not recommend that Trump be prosecuted or not prosecuted.
Instead, they just presented the evidence to Barr and Barr, the attorney general said, I'm not going to prosecute.
The Office of Legal Counsel has issued an opinion finding that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
They disagree.
They say a federal criminal accusation against a sitting president would place burdens on the president's capacity to govern.
But, in their later analysis, they say, well, we would still not allow that to prevent us from recommending a prosecution.
They say, while the OLC opinion concludes a sitting president may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the president's term is permissible.
The OLC opinion also recognizes that the president does not have immunity after he leaves office, and if individuals other than the president committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time.
And then they say, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the justice manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions.
We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes.
So in other words, maybe he committed crime, maybe he didn't, but we're not willing to go there.
That's basically what Mueller found.
They said, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.
In other words, this is a judgment call.
This is a question as to whether the president was safe at home or whether he was out at home.
And we are not going to play ump.
We are instead going to leave that up to the attorney general.
And what Barr says is that there is not evidence sufficient to establish a prosecution for obstruction of justice, which after reading the report, I think is probably the fair way to come down on this.
Okay, then we get into the actual meat of the matter.
So the report suggests, during the 2016 presidential campaign, questions arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump.
After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed criticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks.
Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as 2016, the Trump Organization was in fact pursuing the Trump Tower in Moscow.
After the election, the president expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election.
Okay, none of that is obstruction of justice.
That's all public-facing Trump being embarrassed.
The report says that there was conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn.
They talk about how in mid-January 2017, Michael Flynn, the national security advisor, falsely denied to the vice president, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
And then the day after the president requested Flynn's resignation, the president told an outside advisor, now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.
That is not obstruction of justice.
He did not tell Flynn to lie to the FBI.
Later that afternoon, the president cleared the Oval Office.
We know this already from what James Comey has said, and then asked if Comey could see his way clear to letting this go.
But he did not actually do anything about that.
He didn't fire Comey when Comey decided not to let the thing go, so that's really not obstruction of justice either.
Saying a thing is not obstruction.
And then they talk in the report about the president's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.
In February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign-related investigations because of his role in the Trump campaign.
In early March, the president told White House counsel Don McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing.
After Sessions announced his recusal on March 2nd, the president expressed anger at the decision and told advisers that he should have an attorney general who would protect him.
The president also took sessions aside at an event and urged him to unrecuse.
Later in March, James Comey disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
In the following days, the president reached out to the DNI Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, and the leaders of the CIA and the National Security Agency Again, does that constitute obstruction of justice?
The answer is no.
The president did not obstruct justice by asking people to tell the truth, which is that he was not involved in Trump-Russia collusion.
Comey twice directly, notwithstanding guidance from his own White House counsel, Don McGahn, to avoid direct contact with the Department of Justice.
Again, does that constitute obstruction of justice?
The answer is no.
The president did not obstruct justice by asking people to tell the truth, which is that he was not involved in Trump-Russia collusion.
And then the Mello Report discusses the termination of Comey.
And they say that within days of Comey testifying in a congressional hearing about whether the the president was personally under investigation, the president decided to terminate Comey The president fired Comey, and then he told Russian officials he had faced great pressure because of Russia, and that had been taken off by Comey's firing.
But that is not the same thing as the president of the United States saying that he fired Comey so Comey would not find dirty material about Russia.
He was just frustrated with Comey, which we already know because he said that on national TV.
The really dicey material for Trump is all the stuff once we get to the appointment of Robert Mueller.
It seems that once Robert Mueller was actually appointed, then the president's attitude became even more belligerent.
And his activity included activity that looks more akin to obstruction of justice than his other activity.
Now, does it shade over into a provable obstruction of justice?
The answer is no, but Is it bad, immoral behavior?
Yes.
And was he stopped from doing stuff that certainly could have been construed as obstruction of justice by the people around him?
Yeah, he definitely was.
It's not a great thing to work for the president because if you save him from himself, he ends up hating you for it.
But that is, from this report, what probably happened here.
Okay, we'll get to more of this in just a second.
Trying to be as objective about the report as possible, give you all the information, and then opinion.
But first, You need to go check out ZipRecruiter.
So, hiring is important.
And that's why ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire is your place to improve your business.
ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
We use ZipRecruiter here at the DailyWire offices.
It makes our hiring fast and simple.
They don't just stop with posting your job.
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 4 out of 5 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 D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
It is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Go check out ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
Try them out for free right now.
It is the easiest and best way to improve your business.
No need to put up that job on a hundred job boards and then have to sift through all those resumes.
ZipRecruiter helps you out with all that.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
Go check them out right now.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
Okay, so in a second we'll get back to The Muller Report.
First, you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
We have so much great material for you.
Two additional hours of this show a day.
Maybe three today.
We have lots of stuff there.
Plus, we've got the Sunday special, which you get on Saturdays.
This week's Sunday special guest is the incomparable Dennis Muller, who stopped by for the full hour, as Larry King used to say.
Here's a little bit of what that sounded like.
I look at people in Hollywood and I think they're a little haunted by their good fortune.
So they're trying to legitimize themselves now by being, you know, professorial.
And I've got some wisdom here.
And you think you're the fifth lead on Full House.
So go check that out.
You get that on Saturdays, as opposed to Sundays, when you are a subscriber.
Also, so much good stuff.
Andrew Klavan's book, Another Kingdom, is out right now, receiving rave reviews.
If you haven't picked up your copy yet, you can head on over to Amazon or Barnes & Noble, grab one while supplies last.
And today only, you can catch Drew doing a live book signing on today's episode of The Conversation at 7 p.m.
Eastern.
To get a signed copy and a chance to have your question answered, Head on over to PremiereCollectibles.com slash Another Kingdom.
That is Premiere with an E. PremiereCollectibles.com slash Another Kingdom.
Tune in.
Should be a blast.
Go check that out.
So much good stuff.
Also, make sure you subscribe over at iTunes and YouTube.
Leave us a review.
We always appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in America.
Okay, so...
At the point at which Comey was fired and the special counsel, Robert Mueller, was appointed, the president's attitude turned and it got even more angry.
And that anger manifested itself in a bunch of directives to his immediate aides to do stuff that could theoretically be construed as obstruction of justice if they had actually carried it out and would probably be prevented from an obstruction of justice charge only because the president's Intent in saying all this stuff was to prevent public embarrassment, not criminal indictment.
That's why you hear Barr keep coming back to the point.
There was no collusion here for the president to protect himself against.
This was all him being embarrassed by press reports.
And so it was him telling people, hey, maybe you should just go out there and lie to the press.
Which, by the way, is also not obstruction of justice.
Lying to the press is not obstruction of justice.
So here's what the Mueller report says.
They say on May 17th, 2017, the acting attorney general for the Russia investigation appointed a special counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters.
The president reacted to that news by telling advisers it was the quote-unquote end of his presidency and demanding that Jeff Sessions resign because he wanted to put in a new attorney general, presumably who would rein in Mueller.
Sessions submitted his resignation.
The president ultimately did not accept it.
The president told aides that the special counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the special counsel therefore could not serve.
The president's advisers told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the DOJ.
On June 17, 2017, the president called Don McGahn, his White House counsel, and directed him to call the acting Attorney General and say that the special counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed.
McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding he would rather resign than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.
That's an invocation of the Nixon firing of Attorney General Archibald Cox, or the special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
So, you know, all of this Is not necessarily obstruction of justice, but verges on it from the point of view that says that Trump was doing all of this stuff out of frustration that people were going to uncover his crimes.
Again, intent is an element of the crime.
I keep coming back to that because intent is an element of the crime.
If this were a strict liability crime, Trump would be guilty.
It is not a strict liability crime.
You have to show that he had intent to corruptly impede official proceedings.
That is not proved here.
Two days after directing McGahn to have the special counsel removed, the president made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation.
On June 19th, 2017, the president met one-on-one in the Oval Office with former campaign manager and dope, Corey Lewandowski.
And dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions.
The message said that Sessions should publicly announce, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation, that the investigation was very unfair to the president, that the president had done nothing wrong, and that Sessions planned to meet with the special counsel and let him move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections.
Lewandowski said he understood what the president wanted Sessions to do.
This is the thing that comes closest to obstruction.
It is the president trying to tell Jeff Sessions that he was going to change the nature of the special counsel's purview.
Now, even that is not necessarily obstruction in the sense that the president does have authority over the special counsel.
This is the case that Alan Dershowitz has made, is that the special counsel does work for the executive branch.
Trump can fire him for whatever reason he wants.
That's not obstruction.
That may be the grounds for an impeachment.
But that is not necessarily criminal obstruction.
One month later, in another private meeting for Lewandowski, on July 19th, 2017, the president asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the special counsel investigation to future election interference.
Lewandowski told the president the message would be delivered soon.
After that meeting, the president publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions' job was in jeopardy.
Lewandowski did not want to deliver the president's message personally, so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions.
Dearborn was uncomfortable with the task and did not end up following through.
So Sessions never received this message.
His advisors prevented what could have been construed as obstruction of justice right there.
And then there are a bunch of accusations that the president made efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence, but public disclosure of evidence is not in fact a criminal offense.
If I tell somebody to lie to the press, that is not criminal.
It may be bad, but Trump lies to the press all the time.
So, again, baked into the cake.
So when the Mueller investigation says that in summer 2017, the president instructed Donald Trump Jr.
to delete a line from his statement about the Trump Tower meeting to the press, that is not actually obstruction of justice.
That's just him being bad.
And when Michael Cohen repeatedly denied that the president had played any role in Trump Jr.' 's statement, that was lying to the public.
That's bad.
That is not criminal.
Finally, the Mueller investigation says, in early summer 2017, the president called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation.
Sessions did not reverse his recusal.
On October 2017, the president met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to take a look at investigating Clinton.
In December 2017, shortly after Flynn pled guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the president met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior advisor, that if Sessions unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a hero.
well.
Sessions, of course, did not unrecuse.
And the Mueller investigation went forward as stated.
See, as we say, the question as to whether the president did stuff that was quote-unquote criminal here is not provable.
It's not a provable question, which is probably the reason that Mueller left it up in the air.
And I think Attorney General Barr looked at this and said, there's no way that I can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Him going to various advisors and fuming about Jeff Sessions and then not doing anything, especially when he has the full authority to just fire whomever he wants.
If he wants to fire Jeff Sessions, he can fire Jeff Sessions.
If he wants to fire Robert Mueller, he can fire Robert Mueller.
If he wants to order an end to an investigation, the president can even do that, right?
He can even order the end to an investigation without that necessarily being criminal obstruction of justice since he is, in fact, the president of the United States.
That may be impeachable.
It is not necessarily criminal.
In a second, we'll get to more on the Mueller report.
So the Mueller report continues by talking about whether the president ordered people to lie.
So apparently in early 2018, the press reported that President Trump had directed Don McGahn to have the special counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order.
The president reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a rector stating that he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed.
Megan told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the president had directed Megan to have the special counsel removed.
So again, this is The president telling his friends to tell McGahn to publicly dispute the story.
That is not necessarily the president telling people to lie to legal investigators.
Now, if you want to broadly read the statute, and a lot of this relies on sort of legalese, if you want to broadly read the statute to suggest that the president was corruptly intending to interfere with a pending investigation by publicly tweeting things, I don't think that that actually works.
Legally speaking, if the president tweets something publicly, and he says, like, I hate Robert Mueller, and then the charge is you tried to corruptly impede the investigation, that doesn't work.
And if he told Don McGahn, go out and lie to the press, that is also a terrible thing to do.
It is not a criminal thing to do.
The same thing holds true with regard to Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort.
The suggestion that the president was publicly going around saying about Flynn and Manafort and Michael Cohen, where he was praising them and then he was criticizing them based on whether they were talking to the government.
He was doing all of that in public, right?
He was calling Michael Cohen a rat.
Is that obstruction of justice?
I mean, probably not, given that the president can sound off on his opinion as much as he wants.
You could run into serious First Amendment issues, if you called it obstruction of justice, for the president to issue his opinion that Michael Cohen was a rat.
So here's what the Mueller Report says.
They say, Although the series of events we investigated involve discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct toward the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent.
In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases, reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives.
The first phase covered the period from the President's first interactions with Comey through the President's firing of Comey.
During that time, The president had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation.
Soon after the firing of Comey and the appointment of the special counsel, however, the president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry.
At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct involving public attacks on the investigations, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation.
Now, here's the thing.
You would think that that sentence alone Under the, under the broadest standard of obstruction would fall under obstruction, right?
I mean, they are accusing him, point blank, of non-public efforts to control the nature of the investigation.
But that doesn't, again, actually mean obstruction of justice, unless he's doing so with corrupt intent.
And that's Trump's best argument.
I'm angry.
I'm mad that this investigation was going forward.
I'm pissed off in general.
And so I was sounding off to my people saying, you know what, let's shut this thing down because I'm angry that I'm not being exonerated.
Just exonerate me already.
What the hell is this stuff?
That is Trump's best defense.
It always was Trump's best defense.
Judgments about the nature of the president's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.
Now, what that sentence is basically saying is that Mueller suspects that Trump actually wanted to shut down the investigation, but there is not enough evidence to prove that the president wanted to shut down the investigation for corrupt purposes.
They said, because we ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw conclusions about the president's conduct.
The evidence we obtained about the president's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment.
At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the fact that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.
Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Bottom line is, this is all about intent.
How do you read the President's intent?
So people who don't like the President are going to read it as though the President's intent was to quash the investigation out of guilt?
Again, there's no underlying crime.
And people who are more fond of the president, and frankly people I think who are more objective, look at this and they say, there is no underlying crime.
The president is a temperamental person at best.
The president says a lot of dumb crap to his advisors.
Those advisors shut him down on a regular basis and stopped him from doing things that would border on the criminal or veer into the criminal.
And thus, while he has done bad immoral things here, while he has exerted pressure in certain areas, that does not amount to obstruction of justice with corrupt intent.
And that seems to be the nature of a lot of this stuff.
So, for example, when the president was upset about Mike Flynn's firing, he had lunch with Chris Christie.
According to Christie, at one point during the lunch, Trump said, now that we've fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.
And Christie laughed and responded, no way.
The president asked Christie what he meant, and Christie told the president not to talk about the investigation, even if he was frustrated at times.
Toward the end of the lunch, the president brought up James Comey, who was then FBI director, asked if Christy was still friendly with him.
Christy said he was.
The president told Christy to call Comey and tell him that the president really likes him.
Tell him he's part of the team.
At the end of the lunch, the president repeated his request that Christy reach out to Comey.
Christy had no intention of complying with the president's request that he contact Comey.
He thought the president's request was nonsensical.
Christy did not want to put Comey in a position of having to receive such a phone call.
So again, this is Trump lashing out, being mad at the investigation, saying, why don't you call up James Comey and say that we're best friends?
And Chris Christie going, no, that's dumb.
And that's the end of it.
Is that obstruction?
I don't think that amounts to obstruction.
And most of the cases in here are just like that.
Most of the cases in here are very much akin to something like that.
Again, when it comes to Jeff Sessions.
On March 3rd, the day after Sessions recused, Don McGahn was called into the Oval Office.
Other advisors were there, including Reince Priebus, then the chief of staff, and Steve Bannon.
The president opened the conversation by saying, I don't have a lawyer.
He expressed anger at McGahn about the recusal.
He brought up Roy Cohn, saying he wished Cohn was his attorney.
He suggested that Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder would not have allowed this sort of thing.
And then he pushed back on policy suggesting that he should not make contact with Jeff Sessions or with anyone else in the DOJ.
That weekend, Sessions and McGahn flew to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the President.
Sessions recalled the President pulled him aside to speak to him alone, suggested that Sessions should unrecuse from the Russia investigation, which he did not do, and Trump did not fire him.
So again, is that obstruction of justice or is that Trump just being a dummy?
So much of this falls under Trump was frustrated and I think justifiably frustrated about the nature of the investigation, the intrusiveness of the investigation.
Does this count as obstructive activity?
It's sort of a matter of art rather than law.
But is it provable obstruction?
I think under no circumstances could you call this stuff provable obstruction.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I like and then a thing that I hate.
So, Things that I like.
You know, I like to recall times in American politics that were a little bit higher-minded, when people had discussions about ideas.
Well, if you're interested in that sort of stuff, go pick up a copy of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates.
The best version of this comes from the Lincoln Studies Center.
It is edited by Rodney Davis and Douglas Wilson.
It's a revision of the original text, because there are several original texts.
They sort of compile what they think is the best version, and it really does raise issues, not only about the nature of the American Constitution and founding principles.
Douglas basically claimed that slavery Was at least protected by the Constitution.
Lincoln said that the Constitution and the Declaration installed immutable principles that cut against slavery itself.
And thus, you could not create laws that would effectuate the addition of slavery to additional territories.
It has stuff to say about the nature of the American founding, about the nature of America when we were getting rid of slavery, about the nature of questions like abortion, where people very often take the Stephen Douglas position.
Ah, just leave it to each individual state.
The Lincoln position would be protection of human life is a universal absolute.
And there's just a lot there, and it's deep, and it's meaty, and it's great reading.
Go check out the Lincoln-Douglas debate.
Totally worthwhile.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
Okay, so the big thing that I hate today, we'll stick to one thing that I hate today.
So, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has put out an astonishing video.
I didn't even know whether to put this in things I like or things that I hate, because they're, it's just amazing.
So, she put out a video that was supposed to be her new take on the Green New Deal.
Suffice it to say, this video is the most arrogant thing that has ever been produced on the internet.
It is AOC speaking about how she saved the world.
No joke.
About how she in the future is going to talk to us now.
This is a video of AOC in the future talking about how she and her friends saved the world thanks to the Green New Deal.
It's pretty incredible.
We'll play a little bit of it.
Ah, the bullet train from New York to D.C.
It always brings me back to when I first started making this commute.
In 2019, I was a freshman in the most diverse Congress in history, up to that point.
It was a critical time.
I'll never forget the children in our community.
They were so inspired to see this new class of politicians They were so inspired by me, guys.
So super duper inspired by me.
It's often said, you can't be what you can't see.
And for the first time, they saw themselves.
Wow.
I think there was something similar with the Green New Deal.
We knew that we needed to save the planet, and that we had all the technology to do it.
It's so good.
But people were scared.
They said it was too big, too fast, not practical.
I think that's because they just couldn't picture it yet.
They couldn't picture it, and then L.C.
came along.
Then AOC came along.
She's amazing.
And then we fast forward to the end, okay?
And she actually makes the case that the Green New Deal saved the world.
That it created magical new jobs.
That the biggest problem after creating Medicare for All, she says this in the video, Medicare for All and a federal jobs guarantee, the biggest problem is we couldn't find enough workers.
We needed more workers.
There was too much prosperity.
Things were too awesome.
Thanks to AOC and her band of friends.
And this is her in the future talking about the present.
So she has created a fictional future in which she was awesome and saved the world.
I am so convinced.
...the federal jobs guarantee, a public option, including dignified living wages for work. Funnily enough, the biggest problem in those early years was a labor shortage. We were building a national smart grid, retrofitting every building in America, putting trains like this one all across the country. We needed more workers. That group of kids from my neighborhood were right in the middle of it all.
Especially this one girl, Ileana.
It's so absurd.
Her first job out of college was with AmeriCorps Climate, restoring wetlands and bayous in coastal Louisiana.
Most of her friends were in her union, including some oil workers in transition.
Oh, all the oil workers are now restoring bayous, guys.
Exciting stuff.
They got to work planting mangroves with the same salary and benefits.
Oh, man.
Of course, when it came to healing the land, we had huge gaps in our knowledge.
Luckily, indigenous communities offer generational expertise.
I love this.
Just random Native Americans show up to explain how to fix the bayous.
And then, by the way, this girl goes on from working in the bayous to working at a solar plant, and then she decides she wants to be a preschool teacher making $150,000 a year.
In AOC's magical—it must be nice to be in AOC's brain, really.
Like, it must be a nice, happy place.
Like, there's not a lot going on in there.
It seems pretty calm.
Seems like things are—she has a really, like, optimistic vision of what the future is going to be if you just give her complete and utter control over the entire United States economy.
Must be a wonderful place in there, so.
Go check out that video because it is beyond parody.
Okay, other things that I hate today.
So for the second time in two days, the Washington Post has suggested that I am a white supremacist.
Damn it, guys!
Why don't you read a book?
A book!
Okay, a column.
I wrote a piece for the Washington Post in 2015 talking about how evil white supremacism is.
What the hell are you talking about?
There's a piece in the Washington Post today.
Remember, just two days ago, they printed a piece in which they suggested that I had evoked the specter of a war between Islam and the West by saying that Notre Dame Cathedral was an homage to Western civilization and Judeo-Christian heritage.
Well, today they published another piece saying, quote, Ben Shapiro, an influential American right wing pundit with a huge following on social media, lamented a magnificent monument to Western civilization collapsing and then followed up with tweets that insisted upon the Judeo-Christian heritage embodied by Notre Dame and a duty of all to refamiliarize ourselves with the philosophy and religious lamented a magnificent monument to Western civilization collapsing and then followed up with tweets Critics quickly noted the brutal treatment meted out on French Jews for centuries while the cathedral stood.
You're right, guys.
I totally missed it.
I totally missed, you know, how Christian anti-Semitism has been a thing.
You know, as an Orthodox Jew, I can't... No familiarity with it.
Wow.
Breaking news.
Others suggested... I love this.
This is the Washington Post reporting.
Others suggested Shapiro's invocation of Judeo-Christian values were, in this instance, simply a euphemism for white.
F you, man.
I wrote an entire book devoted to why that is a stupid, idiotic notion.
And then they go further.
They say Richard Spencer, an American neo-fascist credited with coining the term alt-right for the online ecosystem of far-right voices in the West, spoke more plainly.
You see, I am covert where Richard Spencer is overt.
Again, double down on the F you.
That is astonishing.
Astonishing language from the Washington Post.
My book is entirely about the Judeo-Christian heritage and Greek teleology that undergird the West.
I have suggested throughout my entire career that Western civilization is not unique to any particular race, and to construe it that way is to reduce Western civilization to mere tribalism, which is idiocy.
In my book, I specifically mention Richard Spencer.
I call him a racist cretin on page 22 of the introduction, an excreble on page 208, and yet apparently I'm just secret.
I'm just secret alt-right.
I'm just a secret white supremacist.
What absolute hackish garbage.
The Washington Post.
Democracy dies in darkness.
The truth dies in stupidity over at the Washington Post.
Okay.
Well, we will be back here a little bit later for much, much more breakdown on the Mueller report and the fallout.
Join us then.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
Spiro, 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 Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright, Daily Wire 2019.
I'm Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show.
Attorney General William Barr has released the Mueller Report with relatively few redactions.
He gives a highly entertaining press conference on the details of its release.
We will analyze all the relevant sections, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
▲
Export Selection