All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:51
Barr Brawl | Ep. 771
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Special Counsel Robert Mueller apparently complained to Attorney General William Barr, and now Democrats are all mad about it.
Plus, chaos continues in Venezuela.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Okay, so today's episode is titled Bar Brawl, and it is indeed a brawl over William Barr.
See, it's punny.
We'll get to all of that in just one second.
First, after a childhood full of unsuccessful attempts to lie to your mother, do you really think she won't be able to tell the difference between a last-minute Mother's Day gift and something truly thoughtful?
This Mother's Day, don't settle for anything less than the biggest and brightest bouquets from 1800flowers.com right now.
1-800-Flowers has great deals for mom, like 24 assorted roses for 24 bucks.
That's only a buck per rose.
I love 1-800-Flowers.
Every time I need to send my wife flowers, whenever I go on the road, I send my wife flowers.
Whenever she does something cool, like pass the boards, I send her flowers.
From 1-800-Flowers, because their flowers are the best.
She loves them every time.
With a bright and beautiful mix of orange, yellow, and pink blooms, these assorted roses are guaranteed to make her smile.
Assorted roses are the perfect way to surprise all of the moms in your life.
Wife, sister, grandma, roses from 1-800-Flowers are picked at their peak from Premier Farms and shipped overnight to ensure freshness.
24 assorted roses for 24 bucks.
It's an amazing offer, but you have to hurry because it expires on Friday.
Trust 1-800-Flowers to make mom feel loved this Mother's Day.
Order today from 1-800-Flowers.com.
To order those 24 assorted roses for $24, go to 1-800-Flowers.com-slash-Shapiro.
That's 1-800-Flowers.com-slash-Shapiro.
And make sure she knows that you put some thought into it because she's a bloodhound.
She's going to find out if you didn't.
Go check it out at 1-800-Flowers.com-slash-Shapiro.
The offer expires on Friday.
1-800-Flowers.com-slash-Shapiro.
All right, so controversy, controversy.
A day of controversy.
Democrats in the media, but I repeat myself, are very upset at Attorney General William Barr.
Deeply upset at Attorney General William Barr.
Why, you ask?
Why would they be upset at the Attorney General?
After all, the Attorney General simply provided a while back, a month ago, a month and a half ago, A four-page synopsis of the findings of the Mueller Report.
And then we actually got to see the Mueller Report, all 448 pages of it.
And it turns out that Attorney General Barr accurately summarized the conclusions of the Mueller Report, which is exactly what he said he was doing.
You don't have to take anybody's word for it.
You can read the Mueller Report.
You can also read Barr's letter.
So where's the controversy?
Ah, apparently Robert Mueller was very upset, very mad, that William Barr's original synopsis of the findings did not include the mood of Robert Mueller's team.
In the summary.
I kid you not.
He's whining.
Robert Mueller.
Listen, I've been very fair to Robert Mueller.
I've been suggesting for years, literally years, that Robert Mueller is an honest broker, that we ought to let him do his job.
And when this was all done, he had done his job.
He had done a thorough investigation, not only of Russian collusion, of which there was none, but also a thorough investigation of supposed obstruction of justice.
And it turns out there was nothing prosecutable there.
And that's what Barr said.
He said, listen, there's no evidence of collusion.
That is Mueller's finding.
Also, he says in the letter itself, the William Barr letter itself suggests that Robert Mueller did not make a finding on obstruction of justice.
They declined to make a finding on obstruction of justice.
And that in the end, the Attorney General declined to prosecute because the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a prosecution.
That is what the Barr letter says.
Bottom line, Democrats in the media don't like that that's what the Mueller report said, and they can't blame Mueller because they've been buying votive candles of him for years, and they don't want to sell those things on eBay.
So instead, they're going to suggest that William Barr is the big baddie behind it all.
He's the guy who hid things from the American public.
He lied to us all.
Now you may be wondering, How did he lie when three weeks after the release of his letter, he then released the entire underlying report, which you can read, and is public, and is on the bestseller list, and you can buy from Amazon in print edition?
How is that a lie?
It's the worst lie ever.
If he's lying, that's the dumbest, stupidest lie ever.
So, I read a book, and then I decide I'm gonna write a review of the book.
So I write a review of the book, and the book is publicly available.
Now you can say that I mischaracterized the book in my initial review, That's fine, we can have arguments over that, but to say that I lied about the book when the book is publicly available, particularly if I'm in a government position, I'm not just a reviewer.
I'm in a government position and it's my job to summarize the findings.
And the findings do match up with the findings of the Mueller Report.
That is not a lie.
Here's what's really going on here.
Robert Mueller is pissy.
He's mad today.
He's mad because his report is really about President Trump's impeachment.
His report is that he doesn't like President Trump and that President Trump is a very mean bad man who says bad things about people and then tries to manipulate things behind the scenes but fails.
That is what Mueller's report is about.
Not that Trump was engaged in criminally prosecutable activity.
Not that Trump was engaged in something that would result in an obstruction of justice charge.
But that Trump was engaged in things that Robert Mueller and his team don't like, and that Barr's initial summary of the report didn't include all those things in his summary.
Which is not William Barr's job.
So basically, what Mueller wanted is he wanted to have it both ways.
He wanted to completely abdicate by not suggesting an obstruction of justice charge.
And then he wanted Barr to do his dirty work for him by releasing Mueller's summary publicly to humiliate the president but not prosecute him, which is not the job of the special counsel.
The job of the special counsel is to investigate criminal activity.
It is not to investigate and publicize mean activity or embarrassing activity.
That is not inside his mandate.
His mandate is to investigate criminal activity.
And if he didn't find any, then you don't get to whine when someone says there was no criminal activity that was found here.
Lots of embarrassing stuff, sure.
And we got to read all of it!
It's not as though Barr has buried the report.
The report, again, has been read by, apparently by poll numbers, 3% of Americans, which is a pretty large number of people reading a particular report.
Now the reason all this is cropping up again is because of a bombshell Washington Post report.
That came out last night.
Now, you can tell that this thing is all staged because William Barr was set to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning.
And in fact, he did testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning.
But before that happened, before that happened, late last night, there was a report, a bombshell report from the Washington Post.
And this bombshell report from the Washington Post was titled, Mueller complained to Barr about memo on key findings.
Now, what you would take away from that headline is that Mueller complained to Barr about the memo's key findings.
That somehow, Barr had not properly summarized the key findings of the Mueller report.
But that is not what the Washington Post report itself actually says.
Here's what the Washington Post report itself actually says.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller wrote a letter in late March complaining to Attorney General William Barr that a four-page memo to Congress describing the principal conclusions of the investigation into President Trump did not fully capture the context nature and substance of Mueller's work, according to a copy of the letter reviewed Tuesday by the Washington Post.
I do have a full copy of the letter, which I will read to you in a second because we always bring you all the information you need to know, even if you disagree.
The letter and a subsequent phone call between the two men reveal the degree to which the longtime colleagues and friends disagreed as they handled the legally and politically fraught task of investigating the president.
Democrats in Congress are likely to scrutinize Mueller's complaints to Barr as they contemplate the prospect of opening impeachment proceedings and mull how hard to press for Mueller himself to testify publicly.
Well, they obviously want Mueller to testify publicly because now they have information that Mueller would like to crap on the president.
I mean, that's basically what this letter shows.
At the time Mueller's letter was sent to Barr on March 27th, Barr had days prior announced that Mueller did not find a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian officials seeking to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
In his memo to Congress, Barr also said that Mueller had not reached a conclusion about whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice, but that Barr had reviewed the evidence and found it insufficient to support such a charge.
All of which is perfectly accurate.
How do we know that that's perfectly accurate?
Because the report is available!
For the ninth time, you can read the report!
You're not burying something if it's right here.
If I kill somebody and then I leave the body in the middle of the street, that is not me burying the body.
The body is in public view.
The report is in public view.
This is the worst cover-up of all time, in other words.
Days after Barr's announcement, Mueller wrote the previously undisclosed letter to the Justice Department, laying out his concerns in stark terms that shocked senior Justice Department officials, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Ooh, anonymous sources.
I wonder who they could be.
Might they be, I don't know, people in Mueller's team?
The most honest team of all time?
Mueller wrote, Because it didn't include all the mood music.
In other words, it just had the bottom line.
It just had the bottom, stark line.
No collusion.
did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions.
Because it didn't include all the mood music, in other words.
It just had the bottom line.
It just had the bottom stark line.
No collusion.
No evidence necessary to sustain an obstruction prosecution.
Done.
But it didn't include, you know, the mood music.
It didn't include the Kenny G of the Mueller report.
It didn't include the rose petals strewn across the floor for the Democratic impeachers to find.
Mueller wrote, There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.
This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel, to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.
The letter made a key request that by release the 448-page report's introductions and executive summaries and it made initial suggested redactions for doing so, according to Justice Department officials.
A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment.
Justice Department officials said on Tuesday they were taken aback by the tone of Mueller's letter and that it came as a surprise to them that he had such concerns.
Until they received the letter, they believed Mueller was in agreement with them on the process of reviewing the report and redacting certain types of information, a process that took several weeks.
Barr has testified to Congress previously that Mueller declined the opportunity to review his four-page memo to lawmakers that distilled the essence of the special counsel's findings.
In his letter to Barr, Mueller wrote that the redaction process need not delay release of the enclosed materials.
Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.
So, buried in paragraph 14.
of this story, all the way down in paragraph 14, is the key element of the story, and the only element that actually matters.
A day after Mueller sent his letter to Barr, the two men spoke by phone for about 15 minutes, according to law enforcement officials.
In that call, Mueller said he was concerned that media coverage of the obstruction investigation was misguided and created public misunderstandings about the office's work, according to Justice Department officials.
In other words, what Mueller was really concerned about was not what Barr had written, but what everyone was taking away from what Barr had written.
Presumably, he was mad that a lot of the media coverage was about Trump being exonerated.
Mueller felt that he wasn't really exonerated.
Mueller felt that there was a lot of underlying embarrassing material, and that if Barr had just said, Note, a lot of underlying embarrassing material that all of this could have been avoided.
That is not Barr's job.
He is the Attorney General.
His job is to prosecute or to decline prosecution.
In other words, he was very, very upset and very, very mad about the obstruction stuff, but he didn't care.
He didn't care that Barr had summarized his findings on Russian collusion by saying there's no Russian collusion.
Barr has testified previously he did not know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction.
So Barr has not lied anywhere in here.
He's correct.
Barr didn't know whether Mueller supported his conclusion on obstruction because Mueller didn't come to a conclusion on obstruction.
This is Mueller's fault, not Barr's, in other words.
When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr's memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not.
Okay, let's underline and bold that.
When Barr pressed Mueller on whether he thought Barr's memo to Congress was inaccurate, Mueller said he did not, but felt that the media coverage of it was misrepresenting the investigation.
Officials said, Wow.
Wow.
So in other words, the media sucks at their job, and therefore the media are now going to blame William Barr for them sucking at their job.
Because people inaccurately covered Barr's letter and stretched it in one direction or the other.
Thus, Muller was mad, and thus it's Barr's fault.
Amazing.
In a second, we'll get to more of this, because I want to break this down in full.
I think this is Muller's fault.
Really, I think this is Muller's problem and Muller's fault.
I'll explain in just a second.
First, Mother's Day is coming up, as you know.
There's absolutely nothing most of us wouldn't do to make sure the special moms in our life are happy.
Sherry's Berries has special Mother's Day berries designed just for mom.
They're topped with chocolate chips, pink shimmer sugar, swizzles, You choose your delivery date to ensure mom gets your gift of Sherry's Berries exactly when you want her to, and your satisfaction is always guaranteed.
Let me explain something to you.
Honestly, Sherry's Berries is the greatest chocolate-like substance on planet Earth.
It is freaking phenomenal.
It is so good.
I mean, they're a sponsor, but after my wife tasted this stuff, I went and I bought, like, an entire giant box of Sherry's Berries products because they are so unbelievably good.
These are the best sweets you will ever taste.
Don't wait until the last minute on this one.
Visit berries.com today to order freshly dipped strawberries starting at $19.99 for the moms in your life.
To make mom really happy, you can double the berries for just $10 more.
They do have some kosher products.
Go check it out.
Mother's Day is Sunday, May 12th.
So visit berries.com.
That's B-E-R-R-I-E-S.com.
Click on the microphone in the upper right corner.
Enter my code BENCHO.
That is berries.com.
Click on the microphone.
Code BENCHO.
Go check it out right now.
Okay, so.
In other words, even according to the Washington Post report itself, Mueller doesn't think that Barr did anything wrong.
He just doesn't like that Barr didn't include the mood music.
He didn't include the wafting scented candles.
He didn't include the tone and the tenor.
He didn't include the shading and the substance.
That's what he didn't include.
The actual conclusions, he was right, of course.
But he didn't include any of the stuff that Mueller really wanted him to include, which was the seething undertone of disdain for the president.
That's what he wanted in there.
Which is obvious from the Mueller report.
When you read the Mueller report, the second half of the Mueller report is basically, God, this guy Trump, he's terrible.
He's terrible.
I wish we could prosecute him, but you know, we can't really.
So we're just going to, instead of us just saying we can't prosecute him, we're going to just throw that to Barr.
And then it's on Barr if Barr doesn't prosecute him.
But really, we don't like the guy and he's a jerk.
And then Barr writes, okay, so I'm not prosecuting him.
And Mueller's like, well, why didn't you include the fact he's a jerk?
Why didn't you say all the stuff we wanted you to?
About how he's mean, and petty, and ridiculous.
Why didn't you include all that stuff?
And Barr's sitting there like, well that's not my job, I'm the Attorney General.
I am not, in fact, your third grade teacher who is summarizing your beautiful essay on Alice in Wonderland.
Yes, I read Alice in Wonderland when I was in third grade.
In any case, This is the push from the media and it is sheer garbage.
It is not true.
It is not true.
William Barr did not lie anywhere here.
What happened is that people... Here's the real truth.
Democrats, media, they're angry at Robert Mueller.
They cannot direct their anger at Robert Mueller and so they've misdirected to William Barr.
Okay, so the New York Times is reporting right now that the special counsel pushed Attorney General William Barr two times to release more of his investigative findings in late March, after Barr outlined the inquiry's main conclusions in a letter to Congress.
Citing a gap between Barr's interpretation and Mueller's report, according to that letter that we are talking about, the letter revealed deep concern about how Mr. Barr handled the initial release of the special counsel's findings.
And we have the text of the letter.
So here is what Mueller actually wrote in full.
It says, Dear Attorney General Barr, I previously sent you a letter dated March 25th, 2019 that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the special counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by federal rule of criminal procedure 6E.
that concern declination decisions that's the declination to to determine or related to a charged case we also had marked an additional two sentences for review and have now confirmed that these sentences can be released publicly accordingly the enclosed documents are in a form that can be released to the public consistent with legal requirements and department policies i am requesting that you provide these materials to congress and authorize their public release at this time and then here is the here is the part that everybody is honing in on as we stated
stated in our meeting of March 5th and reiterated to the department early in the afternoon of March 24th, the introductions and executive summaries of our two-volume report accurately summarize this office's work and conclusions.
The summary letter the department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office's work and conclusions.
Well, it wasn't up to Barr to summarize their work and conclusions.
It was just up to him to summarize the conclusions, which is what he said.
The entire letter says this is not a full summary of a 450-page report.
It is just saying, no collusion, no prosecutable obstruction.
Mueller continues, we communicated that concern to the department on the morning of March 25th.
There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation.
This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel to assure the public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.
While we understand that the department is reviewing the full report to determine what is appropriate for public release, a process that our office is working with you to complete, that process need not delay release of the enclosed materials.
Release at this time would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation.
In other words, Mueller wanted them to release his summary because his summary said all the mean stuff about Trump.
And Barr said, I don't want to release that summary because that summary is going to confuse people.
Instead, people need the bottom line.
Trump ain't going to jail for this stuff.
Trump ain't being prosecuted for this stuff.
And then, instead of your characterization of your own report, they can just read the report itself.
Where is the cover-up?
The report is fully available.
And this is what Barr testified to this morning under oath.
Barr was asked about all of this and he said, listen, Robert Mueller told me that he was not really willing to prosecute President Trump and that the reason he wasn't willing to prosecute President Trump had nothing to do with the Office of Legal Counsel memo on obstruction of justice and the presidency.
He just didn't feel that he had the necessary evidence to recommend a prosecution one way or another.
He left it up to me.
Here's Barr explaining that today.
Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting, in response to our questioning, that he emphatically was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction.
He said that in the future, the facts of a case against a president might be such that a special counsel would recommend abandoning the OLC opinion, but this is not such a case.
We did not understand exactly why the special counsel was not reaching a decision.
And when we pressed him on it, he said that his team was still formulating the explanation.
Okay, so in other words, Mueller was not willing to prosecute.
Mueller was not willing to recommend a prosecution.
Mueller told Barr this three separate times.
Okay.
And then Mueller is bitching publicly about, oh well, and leaking to the public about, well, you guys, you didn't, in that initial letter, you didn't include all of my damaging material about President Trump.
Here's the bottom line.
Mueller didn't have the balls to go forward with an obstruction of justice charge against the president.
That is the bottom line.
He could have done it.
He had the authority to do it.
He could have recommended prosecution.
He didn't.
Why didn't he?
Because as much as he dislikes the President of the United States, Robert Mueller, on the whole, is still an honest man.
And that means he knew that he did not have the substance necessary to sustain an obstruction of justice prosecution.
And that had nothing to do with the Office of Legal Counsel letter.
It had nothing to do with the various definitions of obstruction of justice used by William Barr, as opposed to Robert Mueller, which I discussed at the time.
Mueller's definition was very broad.
Barr's definition was more specific.
But even under Mueller's definition, he didn't feel he had the evidence necessary to go forward.
The reason that he declined to make a decision on obstruction is because he wanted to humiliate President Trump and lay out groundwork for impeachment.
You can read the report.
It is obvious from the report that that's what is going on.
And then he sent that report to Barr and Barr said, OK, well, all I need to say as attorney general is no prosecution on obstruction.
And then Miller was like, well, why didn't you include all the damaging material?
That's the stuff I want out there.
And the answer is because that is not your job.
The job of the special counsel is not to reveal to the public damaging information about people who are not being prosecuted.
In fact, that is not the job of law enforcement anywhere.
It is not the job of law enforcement to do what James Comey did to Hillary Clinton, where he revealed every detail of the investigation pointing toward her prosecution, and then said, and by the way, we're not prosecuting.
It was terrible for Hillary Clinton that he did that.
And Hillary's camp had a proper complaint.
The counter complaint on the right was, you just explained why she should be prosecuted, why aren't you prosecuting?
That, I think, was a more accurate complaint.
But if Comey wasn't going to prosecute, then spilling his gut in public about all of his feelings about Hillary Clinton, that is not the job of law enforcement.
Can you imagine if every time law enforcement investigated anyone, they just dumped out into the public all of this damaging material about people that is not prosecutable?
These are not muckraking journalists.
It's the job of journalists and congressional investigators to get to damaging material.
It is the job of our criminal justice system to get to criminal behavior.
I remember, probably a year back, there was a shooting, I believe it was in Dallas.
It was a bad shooting.
There was a police officer, an off-duty police officer, who accidentally walked into somebody else's apartment, thought that the person in the apartment was actually in her apartment, and proceeded to shoot that person to death.
The person happened to be a black person who was in his own apartment.
And then the Dallas Police Department, if I'm... I think it was Dallas, so I just want to make sure.
May be wrong here, but I'm fairly certain it was Dallas.
The Dallas Police Department then publicly released the information that this guy, who'd been shot in his own apartment for doing nothing, had pot in the apartment.
And a lot of people correctly pointed out, including me, why are you smearing the dead guy?
He didn't do anything.
Law enforcement's job is not to smear people.
Law enforcement's job is to enforce the law.
So why is Mueller so focused on smearing Trump?
And by smear, I don't mean he's saying stuff that isn't true about Trump.
It was true there was pot in this guy's apartment, too.
I'm saying that is not the job of law enforcement.
And now he's mad that Barr would not participate in this game where you humiliate the president, but you don't prosecute him.
And that's somehow Barr's fault.
If Mueller had the courage of his convictions, he would have pushed obstruction.
And if he knew that there was no obstruction, he has no complaint here.
In a second, I have a little bit more to say on this because it really is perverse.
I mean, what the Democrats are doing now with Barr is perverse.
Get to that in a second.
First...
Window treatments.
It's one of those soulless, adulting terms for something necessary but boring.
Your blinds.
You don't even think about them unless you move or they break.
But when they are right, everything in your home looks better.
When they are wrong, everything in your home looks cheap and tawdry.
Let's be honest.
Taking the time to pick out and buy blinds sounds expensive, kind of boring.
Installing them yourself sounds harder than any self-respecting adult wants to admit.
But Blinds.com makes it really easy for you.
You're not sure what you want or even where to start?
With Blinds.com, you get a free online design consultation.
Just send them pictures of your house.
They send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, specific rooms.
They will even send you free samples to make sure everything looks as good in person as it does online.
Every order gets free shipping.
Here's the best part.
If you accidentally mismeasure or if you pick the wrong color, if you make the mistake, Blinds.com remakes your blinds for free.
They made it incredibly easy for you so you have no more excuses to leave up those mangled blinds that make your place look like a set from The Wire.
For a limited time, get 20% off everything at Blinds.com when you use promo code Ben.
That is Blinds.com promo code Ben for 20% off everything.
Faux wood, blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more.
Blinds.com promo code Ben.
Rules and restrictions apply.
Go check it out right now.
Okay, so as I say, Democrats are now pushing forward with the idea that Barr must be impeached.
Based on nothing.
So here is Representative Ted Lieu.
Who's a joke of a representative out here in California.
I mean, I know the people in his district.
Here's Representative Lew, suggesting that Barr lied.
Now, he can't name the specific lie that Barr told, because Barr hasn't lied.
Doesn't matter.
Somebody must have lied somewhere, even though the report is public, guys.
There's no lie when the report is public.
There's not a cover-up.
What is he even talking about?
Here's Lew.
We know the Attorney General chooses every single word carefully.
Do you think he lied to Congress?
I do.
But let's just take a step back and see how extraordinary it is what Bill Barr did.
Not only did he write a four-page summary that misled the American people, he was then told by Robert Mueller that he misled the American people, then he lies in front of Congress, and then he does a press conference misleading the American people again.
It is incredible the actions he took.
He absolutely needs to go, and then he can apply to be White House Press Secretary where he can lie all he wants.
He didn't lie.
There is no lie.
Name the lie.
Nonetheless, you've got Don Lemon on CNN.
Very objective journalism.
Journalism everywhere.
Getting the journalism all over the place.
Here is Don Lemon on CNN explaining Barr doesn't work for the rule of law to his fellow block of wood, Chris Cuomo.
There appears to be collusion between the President of the United States and the Attorney General.
When you're supposed to be the party of the rule of law, when you have a President and the Attorney General who are not fighting for the rule of law, but who are carrying the water for indecent and inappropriate and possibly even unlawful behavior.
What is going to upset you?
What are you going to take issue with?
Is there anything?
What are you even... What?
What are you talking about?
The report is public, you idiots!
The report is public.
Everyone can read it.
I have read it.
You can read it.
If you are capable of reading English, it is possible for you to read it, right now, for free, on the Justice Department website.
The Justice Department, headed by William Barr.
Wait, what?
How are you...
I, honest to God, have no explanation for how people in the media and on the left are making the claim that Barr is working against the rule of law when he released the full report and when his original memo accurately summarizes the findings of the Mueller report, according to both your eyes and also according to Robert Mueller, the guy who's now whining about it.
Robert Mueller is only whining because what he really wanted, again, for the thousandth time today, what Robert Mueller really wanted, this was obvious from the report, was for the damaging material about Trump to take front and center stage, not the actual finding of the report.
But when it comes to criminal justice, the actual finding of the report is what matters.
The actual decision, whether to prosecute or not, is the thing that matters in the end, and you can't call it a cover-up if then you release a 450-page report replete with the president acting like a jackass.
How is that a cover-up?
You think the report makes Trump look good?
The last half of the report is all about Trump ranting and raving around the White House and throwing his wig around and stuff.
I mean, it's crazy.
That last is a John Adams reference, by the way.
That's totally insane.
And yet you see the entire Democratic Party now circulating that if there is no cover-up, they have to manufacture a cover-up.
And William Barr is obviously guilty of a cover-up when in reality there is no cover-up because you can read it.
Asked about his original letter, Barr has testified that his letter was designed to deliver the verdict of the investigation and nothing more.
Which was obvious from the text of the letter.
I read you the entire letter.
In its entirety.
I think twice on the show.
Totally crazy.
And now you've got the New York Times saying it seems pretty important for the DOJ to release the earlier Mueller letter, the one from March 25th.
We have to hear about Mueller's opinions on this stuff.
Okay, fine.
Then subpoena Mueller and have him testify.
And then we can have Mueller testify about how he thought Trump was rude and arrogant and obnoxious and terrible.
And then he can also testify, as members of his team have already testified, that there was no obstruction.
That people were not prevented from speaking with people.
That the White House was transparent with the Mueller investigation, except for specific instances named in the Mueller report.
Just insanity.
Maxine Waters, the dumbest person this side of a potato, says William Barr should resign or be impeached.
I'm always excited to hear Maxine Waters, one of the most corrupt members of Congress of the last half century, talk about when people ought to be impeached.
After she used her perch at the House Financial Services Committee to allegedly funnel money to a bank in which her husband was an investor, here's Maxine Waters explaining from her high moral perch.
Atop which, she has suggested that the L.A.
riots, which ended in some dead and probably billions of dollars in property damage, that was an uprising, according to Maxine Waters.
She's the light.
But I want to hear her opinions about the rule of law.
I think that Barr should resign.
And if he does not resign, he should be facing impeachment proceedings also.
He has abdicated on his responsibility.
He has lied.
He has used the very words coming right out of the president's mouth.
No collusion, no collusion, no collusion.
And made a decision that despite what the special counsel put into that report about obstruction of justice, he said he made the decision that he had not obstructed justice.
It is outrageous and he needs to go.
Okay, everything that you just said is an accurate summation and nothing about it is wrong.
There was no collusion.
Mueller didn't even object to that part of the of the summary letter.
And as far as Barr saying that he was not prosecuting and it was his decision, it is his decision.
He's the attorney general.
And Robert Mueller didn't make a recommendation.
Again, if Robert Mueller wanted to prosecute, he had the capacity to recommend a prosecution.
He declined to do so, which means it was now up to William Barr.
And when William Barr said, I don't have the evidence to do that.
And then Mueller says, well, you know, I kind of agree with that, but there's all this stuff over here.
I wish he had mentioned about how Trump's a big meanie.
And Barr was like, well, good news.
In four weeks, we're going to release the whole thing.
Where is the controversy here?
This is all manufactured.
Anderson Cooper, he too, journalism-ing all over the place, all over the CNN set, Anderson Cooper.
He says Barr's letter looks like a love letter, a sweet, sweet love-making letter to President Trump.
I think there's an argument in defense of Barr that says he was doing what he was supposed to do, and yes, you can argue with how he characterized it publicly in coming out.
He did characterize it, and to your point, literally repeating the words of the president, it seemed as much of a love letter to the president as possible from an attorney general.
Yeah, but he included the key line.
Which was that he couldn't, you know, establish that infrastructure does nor exonerate him.
I mean, if you were doing the soundbite, you'd lift that line right from the reporters.
Okay, well, that final, that final representation that is not being made there by Anderson Cooper, what's the name of this person?
I can't, I can never remember the name of this particular reporter.
But in any case, the reporter who's speaking at the last year is being accurate.
It's Anderson Cooper who's being inaccurate.
It's a love letter.
It's a love letter.
It's not a love letter.
It was a summary of conclusions alone.
This is such a manufactured, nonsensical controversy.
But, you know, go for it, guys.
Go for it.
It's just, it's amazing.
It's amazing.
Okay.
Meanwhile, controversy chaos continues to break out in Venezuela.
We'll bring you the latest on that controversy that is breaking out with regard to Venezuela momentarily.
But first, let's talk about the fact that you need to make your business better.
You do.
The fact is that your business, you require better employees.
The best way to do that is ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
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're never going to miss a great match.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
And 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, and there's no reason for you to use any dumber way to hire when ZipRecruiter makes it so incredibly easy for you.
All you have to do is go check them out for free right now at ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
There's a reason that when we are looking for employees, that we ourselves here at DailyWire use ZipRecruiter.
You can too.
ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, we're going to bring you the updates on Venezuela.
Momentarily.
First, you're going to have to go subscribe over at dailywire.com.
$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to this show, which is the best show.
Come on, guys.
It's awesome.
Also, you get two additional hours of the show every single afternoon where we have fantastic guests.
In the last couple of days, we've had the rabbi who was shot at Chabad of Poway on the show.
We have had senators.
We have had governors.
We have had the vice president of the United States on the show.
We have lots of great guests on the show all the time.
Plus, my incisive and brilliant commentary for two additional hours a day.
And because our show is basically split, because we do a morning show and an afternoon show, it's basically like having me in your ear 24 hours a day, which is my wife's worst nightmare, but your dream.
So go check it out right now.
And for $99 a year, you also get this.
The greatest in all beverage vessels.
The leftist here is hot or cold tumbler.
Cast your eyes upon it and see the joy that can flow through you if only you had this in your hand.
For $99 a year, you can have that in your hand.
You can have this Leftist Tears Hot and Cold Tumblr right there on your desk right now.
Also, you get access to our Sunday specials a day early.
I can't reveal to you who our new Sunday special guests are going to be that we are filming this week.
I can just say they are awesome sauce.
So go check that out right now.
Also, as I mentioned before, we are the second largest podcast in America, period.
And you can make us the first largest podcast if you tell all of your friends to watch us over at YouTube or download us at SoundCloud or iTunes.
Go check us out.
Leave us a review.
We always appreciate it.
it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in America.
All righty, so quick correction and note.
The reporter who was speaking on that Anderson Cooper clip is David Gregory.
Okay, so, on to Venezuela, because I'm sick of talking about a non-troversy, which is this bar thing.
Let's talk about an actual serious situation in Venezuela.
So, the latest in Venezuela is new protests have broken out.
Apparently, there are reports that Nicolas Maduro is basically on the ropes at this point, that Maduro is effectively waiting to be sent out of the country and back to Cuba.
And that he would have, that would have happened yesterday, except that Russia talked him out of it.
It's amazing to watch Americans, who supposedly hate Russian collusion, now collude with Russia in their interests in Venezuela.
Bunch of folks, I haven't heard a word from Bernie Sanders about Venezuela, as this is happening.
Not one from Ilhan Omar.
Not one from AOC.
Nothing.
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.
Nothing.
Hey, that's pretty weird since people are getting run over by socialist humvees over in Venezuela right now.
It seems like a good time to talk about how maybe a popular left uprising, okay, Juan Guaido is not on the right in Venezuela.
How that might be a good thing to mention, but the Russians have basically maintained that Maduro should stay in power.
According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on CNN yesterday, Nicolas Maduro, the socialist evil dictator of Venezuela who has overrun all democratic boundaries, he was ready to leave.
He was on the tarmac yesterday and then Russia talked him out of it.
It's been a long time since anyone has seen Maduro.
He had an airplane on the tarmac.
He was ready to leave this morning, as we understand it, and the Russians indicated he should stay.
We think the situation remains incredibly fluid.
We know that there were senior leaders inside the Maduro government that were prepared to leave.
They told us as much over the past few weeks, and we're convinced that the Venezuelan people are going to get their democracy back.
The American left, which is still hearkening back to its glory days stumping for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, they're still arguing that America has no role whatsoever in public pressure on Venezuela.
A lot of people, isolationist right and on the left, suggesting that it's American involvement in Venezuela that's the problem.
Okay, Russia is active there.
Russia is making sure that Maduro, who's an evil dictator, stays in power with troops capable of shooting on the population.
Okay, in opposition to millions of people who have been reduced to eating dogs in one of the most oil-rich countries on planet Earth.
Cuba is active there.
So here's the choice.
This is the truth about so much of American foreign policy.
When America does not play a role, that is not left as a vacuum.
When America does not play a role, there are other powers in the world who do not have such qualms about quote-unquote imperialism, and they get involved immediately.
It is much more imperialistic for Russia to be propping up a socialist dictator who has basically centralized military command so he can shoot dissenters.
There's a difference between that and the United States saying, hey, look, a popular opposition, maybe we should lend them diplomatic support.
And yet you see the left running headlong away from this.
The latest from Venezuela is that thousands of pro-Guaido demonstrators are gathering in Caracas again, according to CNN, which, by the way, has been turned off in Venezuela.
Venezuela's government has prevented CNN from broadcasting.
So don't worry, the true threat The real threat, as we all know, to the press is right here in America.
I mean, Jim Acosta was saying as much yesterday.
Jim Acosta actually tweeted out a picture of himself reading his new audiobook.
Here's what he tweeted.
Putting my vocal cords to the test this week, recording the audio version of my book out in June.
The enemy of the people, a dangerous time to tell the truth in America.
The studio placed me in the U2 suite.
Love that because it is a dangerous time to tell the truth in America when you can be in an air conditioned suite audio reading your book from the U2 suite, actually, as your own network is being shut down in Venezuela.
Obviously, the true threat to press freedom is President Trump saying mean things to Jim Acosta because, I mean, Jim Acosta, that dude loves him some Jim Acosta.
In any case, CNN is reporting that in Venezuela, These crowds are gathering in the heart of the opposition in Venezuela's capital.
They're not showing signs of moving anywhere just yet.
Guaido tweeted today that he would see people in the streets.
He said, to our workers, we recognize the value of dignified work, which affords you well-being and progress.
Today, we know there is no salary which reaches that and that your rights and achievements are ignored.
May 1st, we accompany you in your demands.
See you in the street.
John Bolton has said that Maduro is now surrounded by scorpions in a bottle.
He said Maduro spent the day not in the company of Venezuelan forces, but surrounded by Cubans, because he doubted the loyalty of his own Venezuelan armed forces.
So the military, it seems, may be turning on Maduro, which is a very good thing.
John Bolton had said yesterday that all options are on the table, that if, for example, Maduro were to start launching missiles at his own people, the United States might get involved.
Now, let's make clear, the United States is not getting involved in Venezuela.
Trump does not want to be involved.
The administration does not want to be involved.
I know virtually everyone in the administration, this is not something they are seeking.
But, Barack Obama, everyone, every president always has all options on the table, because guess what?
When you're in the United States, all options are always on the table, just some are off to the side of the table.
We don't want to break that glass and hit the button.
If we have to, we will, but that's not something we want.
Here's John Bolton explaining all the options are on the table.
Is the US prepared to use any option, including a military option, to support North Biden?
Let me say two things to be very clear.
Number one, we want, as our principal objective, the peaceful transfer of power.
But I will say again, as the President has said from the outset, and that Nicolas Maduro and those supporting him, particularly those who are not Venezuelan, should know, is all options are on the table.
Okay, so that, you know, obviously is not something that he wants.
In a second, I'm going to get to the left's opposition to this, and it's really amazing.
So the left is happy to defend the worst people in the world in Venezuela, namely Nicolas Maduro and his allies in Cuba and Russia.
It's pretty incredible.
Ro Khanna, who's a congressperson from out in California, he suggested that America is responsible for Maduro's Humvees driving over civilian protesters yesterday.
It's America's fault, always.
According to the radical left, everything is America's fault.
It's never to America's credit when good things happen.
It's always America's fault when bad things happen.
The vice president shouldn't be interfering and inciting violence with Guaido.
What we should be doing is deferring to the Pope to have a negotiated settlement or Uruguay or Mexico.
It looks like the United States is getting, inching in to yet another bloody conflict.
And this is not going to be easy.
Venezuela is one of the most armed nations in the world.
1.6 million militias.
Okay, so this is the new claim.
The claim is that America's getting involved in a war overseas, we should leave it to the Russians in Maduro.
That's what we should do.
Now, America's not getting involved in a war over there.
We're not getting involved militarily.
That's not something, number one, we need to do.
The fact is that Venezuela is surrounded by states that do not like Nicolás Maduro because Nicolás Maduro is a threat to the region as well as to his own country.
I'm sort of amazed, though, by there are some people on the right who have been making the same sort of claim.
Why do we care about what happens in Venezuela?
So, Tucker Carlson, a guy who I really like, and I'm friends with Tucker, but Tucker is an isolationist on foreign policy, or at least largely isolationist on foreign policy.
And Tucker, last night, he started asking, so why are we even meddling in Venezuela?
What's the purpose?
I'll explain why in just a second.
When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country?
Has it ever worked?
How are those democracies we set up in Iraq and Libya and Syria and Afghanistan tonight?
How would Venezuela be different?
Please explain and take your time.
So what's the point of doing that?
So our lawmakers can feel like good people?
And if they are indeed good people, why do they seem to care more about Venezuela than they care about this country, the one that they run?
They're happy to send their military to South America at the first sign of chaos, but U.S.
troops to our own border to stem the tide of 100,000 uninvited arrivals a month?
No way, they tell us!
That's crazy talk.
Okay, well, no.
Okay, so a couple of things.
One, nobody cares about Venezuela more than they care about the United States.
Nobody is even talking about deploying military force in any serious way in Venezuela.
But why should we care?
Well, one of the things that Tucker cares about, presumably, is illegal immigration.
He's very strong on illegal immigration.
The number of Venezuelan immigrants in the United States rose from 216,000 in 2014 to 351,000 in 2017.
A growth of 61,000 in one year alone, according to migrationpolicy.org.
And that is, I believe, just legal immigrants to the United States.
That does not include illegal immigration to the United States.
One of the reasons we've seen heavy illegal immigration to the United States in recent years is specifically because of the enormous amount of chaos in South and Central America.
As far as when is the last time that the United States successfully imposed democracy?
Well, let's see.
After World War II, we did it in Germany.
We also did it in Japan.
We were successful in staving off a communist takeover of Italy in the aftermath of World War II.
South Korea is a democracy because we were involved in the Korean War.
Vietnam today would be a democracy if we had not precipitously pulled out of Vietnam.
As far as Iraq, Iraq was a functioning democracy until we decided to precipitously pull out and hand it over to Iran and ISIS.
So, Actually, the United States has a pretty solid record in a lot of these areas.
And as far as how Venezuela is different from Iraq, how Venezuela is different from Syria, I mean, there are not a lot of similarities.
Venezuela had a functioning democracy before Hugo Chavez took that democracy and turned it into a socialist dictatorship.
And in fact, the opposition in Venezuela is being put up by the National Assembly, which is a democratically elected body.
So, these are not similar in any way.
Syria has no history of democracy.
Syria has been a tribal dictatorship for decades at this point, without any history of functioning democracy.
The same is not true in Venezuela.
So, to simply equate these countries is not accurate.
And as far as American involvement, again, if we are not getting heavily involved, I fail to see why, why are you, like, what's the objection?
Is are we better off with Maduro in power in Venezuela?
Having an entrenched anti-American socialist who threatens his neighbors and serves as a launching platform for America's enemies?
Is that better than having a functioning democracy with somebody who is relatively pro-America there?
I don't see why.
What really?
Tucker, I think, is by nature somebody who doesn't want to get involved overseas, which is fine.
I don't think anybody really wants to get involved.
Nobody.
I'm not interested in getting involved militarily in Venezuela.
But to pretend that America can retreat from the world and that our enemies will not just take over territories.
I mean, this is basic Monroe Doctrine type stuff.
I mean, this has been true since the early 19th century, that America suggested that we shouldn't have foreign powers encroaching in our hemisphere because it was a threat to America's national security.
That remains true today.
You know, I wonder if Tucker would have felt the same way during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
When Russia was invading, was using the Cuban Revolution as an excuse to place missiles 90 miles from America's heartland.
90 miles from Cuba.
90 miles from Florida, rather.
But he said, why are we getting involved in Cuba?
What does this have to do with us?
Well, it has something to do with us, since they're right there.
And Venezuela has something to do with us.
And as the world grows smaller, America is involved in foreign policies that do affect us here at home, both economically and in terms of terrorism and immigration.
There are a lot of complex issues that are a lot more complicated than simply, why do we care about Venezuela and caring about Venezuela more than we do?
I just don't buy any of that.
I just don't think that that is correct.
In any case, the funniest point about Venezuela yesterday was actually made by an MSNBC reporter.
An MSNBC reporter unwittingly makes the strong case for the Second Amendment yesterday.
Pretty hilarious.
He appears to still control the military.
You have to understand in Venezuela, gun ownership is not something that is open to everybody.
So if the military have the guns, they have the power and as long as Nicolas Maduro controls the military, he controls the country.
Okay, so that is hilarious.
That is hilarious only in that that is exactly the case.
That's Kerry Sanders of MSNBC, making the case for why Americans should not give up their guns.
Because it turns out that when you give up all your guns to a centralized government, that government then controls all aspects of your life.
MSNBC, welcome to the Second Amendment Camp.
I really appreciate you joining.
Welcome to the party, gang.
Alrighty, time for some things that I like, and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
There is a great video that is out from Jonathan Sachs.
Jonathan Sachs was the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom.
There's a great video that he has put out.
It's a scribing video, so it's Kind of a drawn video, really neat to watch.
You should go check it out about the connection between Judaism and Israel.
What we've watched over the last several years, really over the last 15 to 20 years, is the left try and suggest that you can be in favor of the extermination of the state of Israel, but that's not anti-Semitic.
So simply getting rid of the single largest repository of Jews on planet Earth, not anti-Semitic.
Disestablishing Israel as a Jewish state, not anti-Semitic.
Rabbi Sacks blows up that notion in this five minute video.
We'll play a little clip of it and you should go check it out yourself.
How can anti-Zionism be the new anti-Semitism?
Surely there's no connection between them.
Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews as a people, a race, an ethnic group.
Anti-Zionism is an objection to a country, a nation, a state.
What's the connection between them?
Okay, and then he goes on and explains what the connection is between them.
Watch the video.
It's a great six minute explanation that is purely intuitive and understandable and common sense about why it is that hatred of Jews has now morphed into hatred of Israel.
Bottom line is that over history, Jews have been corporately attacked.
Whether as a religion, or as a culture, or as a race, and now as a state, that's what's happening with regard to the state of Israel right now.
Okay, time for some quick things.
Actually, one more quick thing that I like.
So I do have to note here, Stacey Abrams, who has made a big fuss about how she's the actual governor of Georgia.
She is not, in fact, the governor of Georgia.
She continues to maintain that she is, but she doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to run for Senate.
So she says that she is not going to run for Senate in Georgia.
Why?
Because she understands that last time around was kind of an aberration and she'll get skunked.
Here she is explaining that she will not be a senator from Georgia.
I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for the United States Senate.
I am so grateful for all of the support and encouragement I've received, from fellow Georgians to leaders of Congress and beyond.
However, the fights to be waged require a deep commitment to the job, and I do not see the U.S.
Senate as the best role for me in this battle for our nation's future.
But let's be clear.
I will do everything in my power to ensure Georgia elects a Democrat to the United States Senate in 2020.
Except for running, so that's not happening.
So the Democrats have lost out on a bunch of candidates who are supposedly strong candidates for Senate come 2020, which suggests they may not be as strong going into 2020 as they purport to be.
Okay, time for some things that I hate.
Okay, so Angela Davis is a former terrorist and an anti-Semite.
She's also hailed around the left as some sort of heroine.
She was almost certainly involved in the shooting of a federal judge, for which she was labeled a terrorist and put on the FBI's top ten most wanted list.
Now she wanders around campuses It's not a shock that Angela Davis, who is not a fan of the Jews, is also a fan of Ilhan Omar, who is not a fan of the Jews.
of leftist stupidity.
It's not a shock that Angela Davis, who is not a fan of the Jews, is also a fan of Ilhan Omar, who is not a fan of the Jews.
Here's Angela Davis explaining.
I am extremely proud that finally we've elected someone to Congress who speaks out in such a powerful way on behalf of black women, on behalf of Palestinians, on behalf of all people who are They're oppressed.
Angela Davis is a joke.
The fact that she is still seen as someone worthy of emulation on the left demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the left.
She calls herself a political prisoner even though she was involved in an act of terrorism.
Because she was involved in that act of terrorism with regard to a federal judge.
She was quoted as saying of Czech dissidents, quote, of the Soviet... She was a Stalinist, Angela Davis.
And now she is an intellectual.
So she was quoted as saying of Czech dissidents, according to Mosaic, they deserve what they get.
Let them remain in prison.
According to Ellen Dershowitz, he asked for her help for Jewish refuseniks and other prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union.
She told him, quote, She's a joy.
I'm so glad that Democrats continue to maintain that Angela Davis is a person worthy of our respect.
Okay, other things that I hate today.
So, the editorial board of the New York Times has now run an editorial about how terrible they were for running this horribly anti-Semitic cartoon.
And their editorial is actually quite good.
The editorial acknowledges that anti-semitic imagery is particularly dangerous now.
They talk about the rise in anti-semitism.
They say this is also a period of rising criticism of Israel, much of it directed at the rightward drift of its own government, some of it even questioning Israel's very foundation as a Jewish state.
We have been and remain stalwart supporters of Israel.
This is the New York Times editorial board.
No.
No, you have not.
I have an entire article in National Review today about how you have a long history of hating the state of Israel and seeking to ally with those who would destroy it.
The New York Times says, we believe that good faith criticism should work to strengthen Israel over the long term by helping it stay true to its democratic values, which is a way of saying we have always hoped to undermine the state of Israel by appealing to generalized democratic principles that don't actually apply in the way we say they apply.
Anti-Zionism, says the Times, can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism.
Now, look at even the language there.
So New York Times is being hailed as, as look how honest they were.
They're coming forward.
Well, first of all, I haven't seen them change their editorial coverage of Israel.
I'm looking forward to the next 20 editorials about how Benjamin Netanyahu is the true obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and how Hamas is really the voice of an oppressed people.
But look at the language there.
Anti-Zionism can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism.
And some criticism of Israel, as the cartoon demonstrated, is couched openly in anti-Semitic terms.
That phrase, anti-Zionism, can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism.
No.
Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
If you say that the Jews can't have a state, as opposed to Christians having many states and constituting a majority of a wide bevy of states, and that Muslims have 50-odd states, but the Jews can't have a state.
The Jews cannot exist as a corporate body, as a religious body.
They can't exist.
But that's just cover for anti-Semitism.
You don't get the problem, New York Times.
Of course they don't, because they are an anti-Zionist organization.
So, here's my feeling.
They're earning all sorts of praise, particularly from their own employees today.
I'm seeing columnists at the New York Times, shockingly, coming out in defense of the New York Times.
Look at our beautiful editorial.
How about this?
Change your coverage, and then we'll talk about whether you have figured out your anti-Semitism problem.
Okay, so we'll be back here later today with two additional hours.
There's a lot I wanted to get to on today's show that I couldn't, which is why you should subscribe, because then you can see all of it later.
Two additional hours later today.
So we'll see you then.
I'm Ben 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 Ciejewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Karumina.
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 guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today.
Well, they've got Trump this time.
They've really got him this time.
The left now claims that a Washington Post report confirms that the Attorney General obstructed justice for Trump.
Except the only problem, of course, is that the Washington Post report confirms exactly the opposite of that.
We'll talk about it.
Also, does the President's love for tweeting Help or hurt his re-election chances.
We'll try to figure that out.
And schools in Virginia claim that there are thousands of transgender students enrolled in their schools.
If that's true, what does it actually tell us?
▲
Export Selection