Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 30, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:29

Goodbye To All That | Ep. 791

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Robert Mueller drops the mic, Democrats pick it up, and did President Trump hide the USS John McCain?
	It's like an entire ship.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	A lot going on in the news, most of it chaotic and confusing, But don't worry, we will iron it all out for you when you leave today.
	You will be just graced with a clarity that never before had descended upon you.
	So prepare for yourself for that.
	It's going to be amazing.
	But first, hiring used to be difficult.
	Multiple job sites, stacks of resumes, a confusing review process.
	Today, hiring can be easy.
	You only have to go to one place to get it done.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash Daily Wire.
	ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards.
	But they don't stop there.
	With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience, and then invites them to apply to your job.
	As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates, so you never miss a great match.
	ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five 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/DailyWire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire if you're looking to upgrade your business or you're just looking to bring in some new employees.
	The best way to do it, ZipRecruiter, gonna save you time, gonna save you money. ZipRecruiter.com/DailyWire and try them out for free.
	That's ZipRecruiter.com/DailyWire.
	All right, so it is the day after Robert Mueller's big press conference.
	Ooh!
	And Mueller spoke.
	And it was amazing.
	And the heads exploded.
	And... Okay, so let's analyze what exactly Robert Mueller said, because everybody seems a little more confused today than they were yesterday, because Mueller did not clarify anything.
	In fact, Mueller basically just threw fuel on the fire of impeachment talk without actually adding any new information to the mix.
	There was no real reason for his statement.
	The only thing I think it revealed is that the purpose of his investigation was always confused and confusing.
	So I want to go through what Mueller actually said, because there were a few key messages in his valedictory speech.
	So he began his statement by recognizing that his original brief was to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election.
	Here's what Mueller had to say.
	This was his original brief.
	Remember, this is why he was hired.
	It wasn't really about obstruction.
	He was hired specifically with regard to the Trump-Russia collusion stuff, the first half of his report, where he basically found nothing of importance.
	Two years ago, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel, and he created the special counsel's office.
	The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
	This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.
	As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers, who were part of the Russian military, launched a concerted attack on our political system.
	Yep, it is.
	So this was his original brief.
	His original brief was the Russia stuff.
	And then it quickly morphed into the obstruction stuff.
	And that is the stuff we are talking about today.
	Why?
	Because the Russia stuff turned out to be basically nothing.
	And this is what's got Trump fulminating this morning.
	After two years of hearing that he was a Russian tool, now the case is that Donald Trump was involved in obstruction of the fact that he was not, in fact, a Russian tool.
	And he's very upset about all of this, and I think rightly so.
	So President Trump tweeted out this morning about this.
	Russia, Russia, Russia.
	That's all you heard at the beginning of this witch hunt hoax.
	Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.
	And now, Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.
	It was a crime that didn't exist, so now the Dems and their partner, the fake news media, say he fought back against this phony crime that didn't exist, this horrendous false accusation, and he shouldn't fight back, he should sit back and take it.
	Now, I don't think there's a lot in this tweet that is deeply wrong.
	The phraseology that people are using against Trump here is actually from that first tweet.
	In that first tweet, Trump says, And people are jumping on the phraseology, Russia helping me to get elected, because this is Trump's first admission that Russia was trying to get him elected, something that he has denied for a very long time.
	That's also Trump just being awkward on Twitter, because that's what Trump does for a living.
	Trump clarified this in a statement to the press afterward.
	He said, Russia didn't help me get elected.
	Russia was just trying to interfere with the election.
	He's trying to walk back what he said on his tweet.
	All of this is not useful to the president, at the very least.
	No, Russia did not help me get elected.
	You know who got me elected?
	You know who got me elected?
	I got me elected.
	Russia didn't help me at all.
	Russia, if anything, I think, helped the other side.
	What you ought to ask is this.
	Do you think the media helped Hillary Clinton get elected?
	She didn't make it.
	But you take a look at collusion between Hillary Clinton and the media.
	You take a look at collusion between Hillary Clinton and Russia.
	She had more to do in the campaign with Russia.
	I helped get me elected is pretty astonishing stuff.
	That's pretty good stuff.
	And meanwhile, the second message that Mueller put forward really, and this is where I think Trump does have a right to be somewhat outraged by the extent of the investigation, is that it really never should have included obstruction.
	And Mueller was giving these mixed messages yesterday in his farewell message here.
	These mixed messages about why he was investigating obstruction in the first place.
	So he moved on to this explanation.
	Unlike the election interference investigation, which started as a counterintelligence investigation inside the FBI, the obstruction investigation began as a criminal investigation.
	It was not an investigation of Russia.
	It was an investigation of Trump and his associates for criminal activity.
	But Mueller said yesterday he did not actually have the authority to conclude that investigation.
	Mueller said regarding Russian interference that it was critical to obtain a full and accurate information from every person they questioned.
	But he also explained that the president can't be charged with a federal crime.
	So if he can't be charged with a federal crime, then what exactly were you investigating?
	Like you don't have The police cannot investigate me for a crime that doesn't exist and that I can't be charged for.
	That is not their purview.
	And yet here was Mueller saying, I knew from the very start I could not indict the sitting president.
	So then what the hell was he doing?
	Longstanding department policy.
	A president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.
	That is unconstitutional.
	Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that too is prohibited.
	The special counsel's office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy.
	Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.
	So then what were you doing?
	Everybody's looking around today going, so what was this all about?
	If you could not consider a prosecution at any point and you were unwilling to recommend impeachment straight out or say that the president committed a crime straight out, he wasn't even willing to say the president committed a crime in the absence of the DOJ statute.
	He didn't even do that.
	He just said, I'm not going to come to a conclusion on that because I can't indict And because I can't indict, I'm not going to formally accuse the president.
	Right?
	This is the second thing.
	This is the sort of second aspect of this.
	He says the DOJ cannot even utilize the criminal justice system to formally accuse the president if he can't be indicted.
	This is 2D.
	Here is Mueller explaining that one.
	The opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.
	OK, so then what were you doing?
	What was this all about?
	And this is what drives the actual reason for thinking that Mueller was looking for impeachment.
	He has no other rationale for doing this.
	He himself says, I can't indict him.
	I can't even accuse him such that an indictment would be appropriate.
	So if I can't do either of those things, then why am I doing this?
	So he says, well, maybe we're doing it because we need to make sure that the memories are fresh.
	Memories of what?
	Evidence of what?
	Here's his excuse for the investigation.
	The opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available.
	That evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could be charged now.
	But there were no co-conspirators charged now in obstruction.
	There were no crimes alleged by Mueller.
	So then what the hell was all of this about?
	The answer is what this really was about is impeachment.
	That's really what this was about.
	He said that there was a process, but the process was basically constitutional in nature.
	In other words, I did this as a predicate to impeachment.
	I think it's the only way to read Mueller's press conference, which means that he was acting as a tool for the legislative branch inside the executive branch, which is unconstitutional.
	He's a member of the legislature.
	He's a member of the executive branch.
	The executive branch is unitary.
	He does not work for Congress.
	He works for the president.
	People who work for the president typically are not charged with investigating the president.
	This is why for a long time there was something called the Independent Counsel Act, which made a member of the executive branch subject to the legislature.
	And Justice Scalia famously wrote that he thought that this was unconstitutional.
	That the idea of having an independent counsel who doesn't really work for the president and also doesn't really work for the Congress, that creates a weird fourth branch of government that doesn't really exist.
	So the only takeaway from this is basically that Mueller wanted Trump to go down, but he wouldn't call for prosecution.
	Here's Mueller explaining that effectively.
	There was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
	If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
	We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
	We concluded that we would, would not reach a determination one way or the other.
	About whether the president committed a crime.
	What in the world?
	I mean, this is it's an amazing statement, right?
	What he's saying here is we weren't willing to charge a crime.
	We couldn't charge a crime because of indictment, but we're not going to exonerate the president.
	That was one minute after he said this quote.
	It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge.
	And then he proceeded to say, well, I can't exonerate him.
	So he pulled a James Comey.
	He pulled a James Comey.
	And you remember that James Comey, the former FBI director, basically went out there and said, Hillary Clinton is guilty as sin, but I'm changing the law in order to let her off the hook.
	And a lot of folks were like, whoa, that seems wildly inappropriate.
	Why exactly is he doing that?
	And a lot of people called for James Comey to be fired based on that.
	I was one of them.
	Now you have Robert Mueller basically doing the same thing.
	You have Mueller doing the exact same thing.
	So Mueller, I think, actually dragged himself through the mud here.
	I think he dragged himself through the mud.
	Now, there's one thing that he said that I think cut in favor of the Attorney General Bill Barr, who's also become a target of Democrats.
	We'll get to that in just a second.
	But first, did you know that millennials have three times as much student debt as their parents?
	That's not right.
	But you can get your student loans right by refinancing your loans with SoFi.
	I know tons of folks who have Hundreds of thousands of dollars of student loan debt, and it's really holding them back.
	Well, this is where SoFi comes in.
	SoFi is the leading student loan refinancer in the United States.
	They've refinanced hundreds of thousands of student loans.
	It's fast, it's easy, it's all online.
	You can check your rate in two minutes and lock in a fixed low rate.
	Refinancing your student loans, it could save you thousands of bucks.
	Lowering that interest rate or choosing one of SoFi's flexible terms could help you save thousands.
	When you refinance your student loans with SoFi, you can also get access to SoFi membership, giving you access to exclusive benefits to help you get ahead with your money, life, and career.
	Lock in a fixed low rate today at SoFi.com.
	That's S-O-F-I.com.
	Listen.
	I'm of the generation that took out a lot of student debt.
	I know so many people who might need help refinancing that debt so they can move on with their lives and help consolidate those payments.
	Sofi.com slash ben.
	That's S-O-F-I dot com slash ben.
	Sofi Lending Corp.
	CFL number 6054612.
	Alrighty, so back to Robert Mueller.
	The one thing that Mueller said that cut in favor of the Trump administration is he basically suggested that Bill Barr, the Attorney General, was not trying to hide anything.
	Here's his explanation of this.
	Conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General as required by department regulations.
	The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and to the American people.
	At one point in time, I requested that certain portions of the report be released.
	The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once, We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public, and I certainly do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that.
	Decision.
	Okay, so there he is undercutting the Democratic line that Bill Barr has been lying to them consistently, the Attorney General of the United States has been lying consistently.
	Now, the media are not letting go of the idea that Bill Barr lied.
	So they've been playing on a loop these sort of contradictions between Robert Mueller's statements and William Barr's statements before Congress.
	So there are a couple of contrasts between the statements that we have to analyze to see who's lying or who's telling the truth or if there's really any conflict to begin with.
	I'll point out that the supposed conflicts were Cleared up quasi, in a way, by Kerry Kupec, the spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, and Peter Carr, the spokesman for the Special Counsel's Office.
	They released a joint statement right after Mueller's statement.
	They said, quote, The Attorney General has previously stated that the Special Counsel repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President's obstructed justice.
	The Special Counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other about whether the President committed a crime.
	There is no conflict between these statements.
	I pointed this out yesterday in our analysis that when Mueller said that the DOJ regulations prohibited him from reaching a conclusion, That did not actually contradict the statement made by Barr that Mueller said that even in the absence of the OLC ruling, he might not have prosecuted the president.
	There is no conflict between those two points.
	But let's play some of these clips back-to-back.
	Barr versus Mueller on, for example, the evidence of collusion.
	Because there does seem to be some shading that is going on here.
	Here's William Barr talking about the evidence of collusion versus what Robert Mueller had to say about evidence of collusion.
	The special counsel's report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these hacking operations.
	In other words, there was no evidence of the Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government's hacking.
	The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election.
	This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, As well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
	Those two things are not actually in conflict.
	So you have Mueller saying that there is insufficient evidence of conspiracy.
	That is a softer thing than no evidence of collusion.
	But conspiracy and collusion are two different things.
	Conspiracy is an actual criminal charge.
	Collusion is a general political accusation.
	So when Barr says there's no evidence of collusion, That's correct.
	And when Mueller says there's insufficient evidence of conspiracy, that is also correct because conspiracy is a criminal charge.
	Collusion is not a legal term.
	So the purported conflict between Barr and Mueller on this point, I don't find particularly convincing.
	In a second, we'll get to the other supposed conflict between Barr and Mueller.
	So there's another conflict supposedly between William Barr, the attorney general's testimony, and what Robert Mueller said in his statement yesterday.
	And this one surrounded obstruction of justice.
	So here's what Barr had to say versus what Mueller had to say.
	After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction of justice offense.
	If we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
	We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
	Okay, those two things, again, are not in conflict.
	When William Barr says, right there, that the obstruction of justice evidence isn't sufficient for a prosecution, that is the same thing, effectively, as Robert Mueller saying, we can't exonerate him, but also, we didn't recommend prosecution.
	Again, Barr was using a legal standard and Mueller is going further than that.
	I think that President Trump, frankly, has reason to be angry at Robert Mueller.
	I'm a little more upset at Robert Mueller today than I have been for a couple of years.
	I've been very much in Robert Mueller's corner.
	I believe that this is a guy who is trying to do his job.
	But I think it appeared from his statements yesterday that he surpassed his original brief and that his original brief was not supposed to encompass a lot of the stuff that he ended up doing.
	If Congress wants to investigate this stuff, that is their purview.
	They have every right to do that.
	But to effectively become a tool for impeachment was beyond his mandate, beyond the scope of his mandate.
	Now, what has happened, effectively speaking, is that all of this has now been tossed into the lap of Congress, which is where it should have begun in the first place.
	If Democrats want to impeach, they have every ability to do that.
	The media were blowing this up, suggesting that Robert Mueller had now made the case for impeachment.
	The editorial board over at The Washington Post says, quote, Special Counsel Robert Mueller broke his long silence Wednesday telling a news conference that his two-year Russia investigation is closed and that he did not have anything to say publicly beyond what was written in the report.
	But the key passages he chose to highlight underlined the dishonesty of President Trump and Attorney General William Barr in seeking to dodge and mischaracterize his conclusions.
	The central allegations of the investigators, Mueller said, was that there were multiple systematic efforts to interfere in our elections.
	Yet today, it has not been fully acknowledged by Mr. Trump.
	Okay, that's fair enough.
	Trump has constantly said that he doesn't think that it was important that Russia basically interfered in the election.
	That's a fair criticism, but that's not really a criticism of Barr.
	Then the Washington Post says, Mr. Barr claimed there was not a case to be made against Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice based on Mueller's findings.
	So it's significant that Mueller restated what his report actually says, that if we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.
	Again, those two things are not in conflict.
	This is the Washington Post creating a falsehood.
	When Barr says there was not a case to be made, that it was not sufficiently prosecutable, that is not in conflict with Mueller saying that we can't exonerate.
	We can't exonerate and we can prosecute are two very different terms.
	We can't exonerate OJ Simpson, but we also can't prosecute him.
	He's already been acquitted.
	There are a lot of reasons why you can't prosecute someone who also cannot be exonerated.
	This happens legitimately all the time in the American criminal justice system.
	Mr. Mueller could have avoided much confusion and short-circuited the administration's attempt to manipulate public opinion, says the Washington Post, if he had made his statement weeks ago in conjunction with the release of a lightly redacted version of his report.
	So the Washington Post continues to try to claim that there's some cover-up that went on, even though Mueller explicitly said there was no cover-up that went on in the middle of this press conference.
	The left is basically hoping to hang their hat on Mueller's press conference.
	And what's amazing is that they continue to call out for Mueller to do the work they won't do.
	Here's the problem for the Democrats and for the left now.
	The ball is in their court and they don't actually want the ball in their court.
	They want Mueller to come back.
	It's like the end of Shane.
	You got Brandon Wilder.
	Out there on the planes, shouting out for shame to come back.
	There's a, there's a, there's a, Robert, Robert!
	I mean, just calling across the, and Mueller is just riding away into that painted distance.
	That's all that's going on here.
	Like, Robert De Niro, it's so funny, Robert De Niro, why he has an opinion column in the New York Times is beyond me.
	Robert De Niro is most famous for reading lines other people write for him.
	But he played Mueller on SNL, and this apparently means he has expertise on obstruction.
	The power of celebrity.
	Pretty incredible.
	So Robert De Niro has a piece in the New York Times called Robert Mueller.
	We need to hear more.
	And it's an open letter to Robert Mueller from Robert De Niro in the New York Times.
	Yes, everything is insanely stupid.
	Dear Mr. Mueller, it probably hasn't escaped your attention that I play a version of you on Saturday Night Live.
	Yes, because that was deeply important for Robert Mueller.
	I'm sure he sits up every night thinking about you.
	As Robert Mueller, my character is intimidating because he is so honest and upright.
	I do it for comic effect.
	That's the intention, anyway.
	But there's also a lot of truth to it.
	To put it another way, it's good-natured fun, but not entirely good-natured.
	There's a level of satire directed at the current administration.
	To be fair, not everyone appreciates the humor.
	The president has tweeted there's nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live, and that it's very unfair and should be looked into.
	The what or with whom the show would be colluding is unclear, but then I don't have to tell you about problems with the terms collusion.
	You barely mentioned the word in your report, and then only to explain why you're not using it.
	That could be a punchline on Saturday Night Live.
	How does this crap get through the editorial process at the New York Times?
	Truly, this is incoherent gibberish.
	I'm so glad Roberts is like Martin Sheen sounding off on presidential executive orders because he once played a president on television.
	It's a joke in and of itself.
	Robert De Niro says, As I prepared for my role on the show, I got to know you a lot better.
	I read about your lifetime devotion to public service and your respect for the rule of law.
	I watched how you presided over the special counsel's office, apparently without leaks, and you never wavered, even in the face of regular vicious attacks from the president and his surrogates.
	While I and so many Americans have admired your quiet, confident, dignified response in ignoring that assault, it allowed the administration to use its own voice to control the narrative.
	There's a lot of speculation about the president being tone-deaf to facts, but there's not much disagreement about the tone.
	Whether you take delight in it, as his loyal supporters do, or you're the unfortunate target of his angry rhetoric, the hostile way he expresses himself registers with anyone.
	Say what you will about the president, and I have.
	When it comes to that lying, exaggerating, bullying thing, no one can touch him.
	And here, Mr. Mueller, is where you come in.
	Where you need to come in.
	In your news conference, you said that your investigation's work speaks for itself.
	It doesn't.
	It may speak For itself to lawyers and lawmakers who have the patience and obligation to read through the more than 400 pages of carefully chosen words and nuanced conclusions.
	You've characterized the report as your testimony, but you wouldn't accept that reason from anyone your office interviewed.
	Additional information and illumination emerge from responses to questions.
	I know you're uncomfortable in the spotlight, as the president is out of it.
	I know you don't want to become part of the political spectacle.
	I know you will, however, reluctantly testify before Congress if called, because you respect the system and follow the rules.
	So much heroism.
	You are the voice of the Mueller Report.
	Let the country hear that voice.
	With great respect, Robert De Niro.
	Come back.
	Come back, Shane.
	Why won't you just tell...
	Why?
	Why?
	Why won't you just...
	Please, come back.
	Robert, it's just...
	Oh my goodness.
	It's just amazing.
	Just amazing stuff.
	Well, Mueller isn't coming back, and his report does say what it says, and that means that it's basically up to the Democrats now whether they want to impeach.
	We're going to get to that in just one second.
	First, for decades, credit cards have been telling us, buy it now and pay it later with interest.
	Despite your best intentions, that interest can get out of control fast.
	With LendingClub, you can consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
	Since 2007, LendingClub has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable, fixed-rate personal loans.
	No trips to a bank, no high-interest credit cards.
	Just go to LendingClub.com and tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow.
	Pick the terms that are right for you, and if you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
	LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
	Go to LendingClub.com.
	Check your rate in minutes.
	Borrow up to 40 grand.
	No reason you should be suffering with those high interest rates.
	Get your finances in order.
	Head on over to LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	Alright, so the left has now responded to all of this.
	loans made by Web Bank, member FDIC, equal housing lender.
	Again, that's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	It doesn't take very long to find out how much you can get and what your rate is.
	Check your rate in minutes.
	Borrow up to 40 grand.
	That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	All right.
	So the left has now responded to all of this.
	They now recognize that impeachment is what's on the table.
	This was best summed up by Chris Matthews.
	I'm a mistake.
	Last night, I got very excited after Mueller's statement.
	Get up, come to the show.
	Come on in here.
	Let's have a Robert Mueller talk.
	Pretty amazing.
	And then we talk about impeachment.
	Love impeachment.
	Pretty great.
	Like peaches.
	Impeaching.
	All sorts of great things.
	Go!
	For months now, they've said, well, we just want to hear from this.
	We just want to hear from the Senate.
	We need a Republican senator.
	Or we want to hear from another witness.
	We want to hear from Papadopoulos.
	Who else want to hear from?
	Carter Page.
	They want to hear from Mueller.
	They're not going to hear from Mueller.
	This is it.
	So the train whistle's blowing.
	And Pelosi's got to make a decision.
	And it can't be a waiting game like I'm being audited, like Trump plays.
	It can't be a game of kicking the can down the road.
	It's now, or no, or never.
	And I think that's the tough question for her.
	It's always been.
	Are you willing to say no to impeachment?
	And I think it's totally up in the air what she's going to do.
	I mean, the train is leaving the station.
	I love trains.
	They go choo-choo and chugga-chugga.
	If you're not on that train, you're in front of the train.
	Nancy Pelosi, are you going to be on the train?
	Nancy Pelosi?
	Get on the train, Nancy.
	Or don't get on the train.
	I don't care.
	I'm going to go back home and play with my trains.
	Ah!
	But he's not wrong.
	I'm mocking him because he's Chris Matthews, but he is not, in fact, incorrect.
	What Mueller did here, he basically said, OK, Congress, this one's on you.
	Enjoy yourself.
	And Nancy Pelosi has not a lot of taste for this, according to McClatchy.
	Most congressional Democrats heard one message in Robert Mueller's public statement on Wednesday.
	It's up to you to punish President Donald Trump.
	But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled unwillingness on Wednesday to take a leap that many on the political left have already made.
	Impeachment.
	Investigating and potentially impeaching Trump dominated Capitol Hill talk on Wednesday, both behind closed doors where influential Democrats urged starting an inquiry and out loud among progressives demanding action.
	Pelosi did not utter the word Wednesday in a terse five-paragraph statement issued two hours after Mueller left it to Congress to investigate Trump further.
	The Congress holds sacred its constitutional responsibility to investigate and hold the president accountable for his abuse of power.
	The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy.
	The American people must have the truth.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Now, the reality is that the House Judiciary Committee has not been calling the proper witnesses.
	They've not been subpoenaing the proper witnesses.
	They've not been asking the proper questions.
	In fact, it is not even clear that they are going to subpoena Robert Mueller in all of this.
	There were rumors floating around Capitol Hill yesterday that even Democrats don't want Mueller to testify for a couple of reasons.
	One, Mueller may get up there and say, yeah, I didn't reach a determination on obstruction.
	That's up to you guys.
	I'm not going to sit here and do your work for you.
	I was not allowed to do that by the by the rules of the DOJ, and I didn't reach a conclusion.
	So maybe Democrats don't want to hear that message.
	There's also the possibility that I was hearing that Democrats are concerned that Mueller will look bad in front of Republicans.
	We'll say, OK, so why did you even do this stuff in the first place if the DOJ prohibited you from the very beginning from either recommending an indictment or indicting yourself?
	Here's Jerry Nadler yesterday basically acknowledging that he is not interested in calling Robert Mueller, which is an amazing switch for the Democrats.
	Remember, Robert Mueller was the most important person to hear from for the Democrats for two years.
	For two years, they were buying votive candles.
	For two years, they were suggesting that Robert Mueller is going to save them from Trump.
	And even for the past two months, since William Barr released his four-page letter, the Democrats have been claiming that we need to hear directly from Mueller.
	Well, Mueller spoke yesterday for a grand total of about 9 minutes and 40 seconds.
	And that's all that they're going to get.
	And Democrats apparently are satisfied with that, which suggests maybe they know they're not going to get much more out of Mueller that is going to benefit them.
	Here is Nadler, the head of the House Judiciary Committee, effectively saying, yeah, I'm not interested in calling Mueller at this point.
	Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we need to hear today.
	It's very important to be clear on what he told us, on what the Special Prosecutor told the American people.
	He reaffirmed what was in the investigation.
	Which was in the report about the investigation, which found substantial evidence that Russia attacked our political system, that the Trump campaign benefited from Russia's interference, that Trump and those around him repeatedly welcomed Russia's support, and that throughout the investigation, Trump sought to obstruct justice and undermine Mueller and the investigation over and over again.
	OK, well, again, he's saying, I'm not going to call Mueller.
	We got all we need.
	I'm going to do what I'm going to do.
	But here's the reality.
	The Democrats are not going to do anything here.
	They're not going to do anything here.
	They're going to they're going to smear Trump.
	They're going to suggest that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice.
	The 2020 Democrats are going to suggest that Trump is impeachable without actually having to own all of this.
	Kamala Harris yesterday said, absolutely, we've got to impeach.
	And she's indicative of the general Democratic mindset at this point.
	What was the message that Mr. Mueller was sending to you, a sitting member of Congress?
	And do you have a reaction to the president's tweet saying that this case is closed and nothing has changed?
	Well, I try not to respond to those tweets, but I will say that I think what is clear is that I think it's a fair inference from what we heard in that press conference, that Bob Mueller was essentially referring impeachment to the United States Congress.
	Okay, so she actually went further than that on MSNBC.
	She actually said that President Trump should be prosecuted and locked up.
	So we have shifted from lock her up to lock him up.
	And Kamala Harris has a long history of attempting to lock people up many times unjustly.
	Here is Kamala Harris saying that the president should go to jail.
	I am also clear from reading what he wrote in that report that the only reason they did not return an indictment against this president on obstruction of justice is because of an opinion from the Department of Justice that suggests that you cannot indict a sitting president.
	But there is no question that the evidence supports a prosecution of that case.
	So taking it to the point of your next question, absolutely.
	OK, so this is easy for the 2020 candidates to say it's not so easy for Nancy Pelosi.
	They are going to slow play it, despite Chris Matthews saying that it's time for Democrats to poop or get off the pot.
	They are not going to do that.
	Nancy Pelosi is going to slow play this.
	Nancy Pelosi is not interested in moving forward with impeachment.
	She's got too many moderate members of her own caucus who exist in suburban areas where the vote is closely split.
	And she's deeply afraid those people lose their seats.
	As McClatchy reports, Representative Lucy McBath, a Georgia Democrat who won her seat last year with 50.5% in a district Trump narrowly won in 2016, refuses to mention impeachment.
	She says, The Democrats in moderate areas are not going to talk impeachment.
	We need this administration to stop stonewalling Congress, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	The Democrats in moderate areas are not going to talk impeachment.
	Pelosi knows it.
	There is not the support in the Democratic caucus for impeachment right now.
	So all this has become is just more political fodder, which means in the end, it doesn't mean anything.
	The American people are tired of this.
	The American people are not interested in impeachment.
	The American people are bored with this story.
	The American people already came away with the proper conclusion.
	Trump was not exonerated on obstruction because he's not prosecutable on it.
	And also this stuff is not impeachable.
	That is the exact right conclusion.
	Democrats are not on board with it because it doesn't fit their story.
	But it is the reality, and Nancy Pelosi knows that full well.
	In a second, we'll get to some other Democratic strategies for 2020 that are, I think, kind of scary for some of America's freedoms.
	We'll get to that in just a second.
	First, getting fit, staying healthy, it always sounds easier said than done, right?
	Well, OpenFit, Is bringing you something new that makes it even easier never to miss a sweat session, lose the commute to the gym, let the workouts come to you.
	Okay, I love OpenFit.
	My wife works really long hours, I work some pretty long hours too.
	One of the things we like to do at night, we get home, we open up OpenFit and then we work out together.
	OpenFit takes all the complexity out of losing weight and getting fit.
	It's a brand new, super simple streaming service that allows you to work out from the comfort of your living room in as little as 10 minutes a day.
	Everybody's bodies are different, OpenFit gets that.
	That's why it's personalized to your needs with custom-tailored original content.
	OpenFit classes are led by some of the most effective and engaging trainers in the world.
	The training sessions are really terrific.
	Forget all the complexity and stress around getting fit.
	Just press play and work out on your schedule.
	View on your computer, web-enabled TV, tablet, smartphone, and Roku.
	Lose up to 15 pounds in just the first 30 days.
	Flatten the abs, shape your body, look and feel great.
	Again, I love OpenFit myself.
	If you are short on time, you don't have time to make that commute to the gym, you don't want to pay that gym membership, You don't have time for a personal trainer?
	It's basically a personal trainer in your house.
	OpenFit has changed the way I work out, and with my code SHAPIRO, you can join me on a fitness journey personalized for you.
	Again, use that code SHAPIRO and start using OpenFit for your journey to a healthier life right now during the OpenFit 30-Day Challenge.
	My listeners get a special extended 30-day free trial membership to OpenFit.
	You can lose up to 15 pounds in 30 days.
	Text Shapiro to 30-30-30.
	Get full access to OpenFit workouts, nutrition information, totally free.
	Text Shapiro to 30-30-30.
	OK, we're going to get to other democratic strategies for 2020 coming up.
	Strategies that are going to have some pretty significant implications for your freedoms.
	First, head on over to Daily Wire and subscribe.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
	When you do, you get the rest of the show live.
	You also get two additional hours of the show Every day, we are working to bring you all the up-to-date information.
	Basically, our show goes all day long.
	So, if you want to be part of that, all you have to do is go subscribe.
	Also, when you do subscribe, you get access to our Sunday specials.
	And our Sunday special this week is really, I think, an amazing Sunday special.
	I interviewed several people, several former members of the military who served at Normandy because, of course, June 6th, D-Day, is coming up.
	I think it's something really moving and worthwhile, something that you're going to want to show to your kids and your friends.
	Here's a little bit of that.
	A month after my 18th birthday, I was called up.
	I was 18 years of age.
	112 pounds.
	I flew 36 combat missions over Germany.
	I was a medic.
	We were just assigned a mission and it happened to be D-Day landing.
	Mainly it was chaos.
	I was so frightened.
	I was blacked out.
	And then my mind was flashing through.
	There's a son, a father.
	That we'll be coming home.
	The reason you're sitting here today is because of what we did.
	Of course, it's exactly true.
	Go check it out.
	It's the 75th anniversary of D-Day Special Edition for the Sunday Special.
	You get that on Saturday when you're a subscriber.
	There's also extra materials behind the paywalls, you know, extra questions that I ask these amazing human beings.
	Go check it out.
	I think it's really, really worthwhile.
	Also, you can get the annual subscription for $99 a year over the next year.
	Along with that comes this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, the leftist year's hot or cold tumbler.
	It is indeed magical.
	Please subscribe also over at YouTube or iTunes.
	Give us a review.
	That always helps.
	Tell your friends about it.
	We appreciate it.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Okay, so there's some other tactics that Democrats are trying for 2020.
	I don't think impeachment is going to be sufficient for them for 2020 because I don't think they're actually going to pursue it.
	Well, the other tactic they're trying for 2020 is this sort of nefarious tactic where they signal to social media companies that social media companies ought to shut down material they don't like.
	This is really dangerous stuff.
	So I think after 2016, Democrats refused to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate who lost because she was a garbage candidate.
	Instead, it must have been Russian election interference.
	Instead, it must have been Facebook and fake news and all these other excuses.
	Well, one of the things they are focused like a laser on is that come 2020, they do not want alternative methods of distribution to the mainstream media.
	And so they're focusing it on social media companies.
	They're threatening them with legislation.
	They're threatening them with regulation.
	And so you have the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, now suggesting that because there was a video of her on Facebook, just of her slowed down a little bit.
	So it sounded like she was drunk a little bit, like this humorous video.
	And this shows that the Facebook leaders wittingly helped the Russians, wittingly helped.
	I mean, this is an affarious accusation.
	There is no way in hell that the Facebook leadership, that Mark Zuckerberg, was like, yeah, I'm helping the Russians throw this election to Trump.
	I'm sure that was going through Mark Zuckerberg's head.
	Nor is it the job of Mark Zuckerberg to censor stuff on his platform that is not illegal.
	That is not Mark Zuckerberg's job.
	I've been saying for a very long time that to treat the social media companies as though they are the ultimate arbiters of good and evil, of truth and falsity, is simply nonsense.
	If you want to say that Facebook should remove things that violate the law, violent, incitement, slanderous materials, copyright violations, fine.
	But if you want to say that Facebook is supposed to remove everything Nancy Pelosi doesn't like or they unwittingly help the Russians, or in her case, she says, wittingly help the Russians, this is a pretty close to overt threat against Facebook designed to get Facebook to change its policies in advance of the 2020 election.
	That's what's going on here.
	When something like Facebook says, I know this is false, but it's a lie, but we're showing it anyway.
	Well, to me, it says two things.
	One, that I was giving them the benefit of the doubt on Russia, but clearly they, I thought it was unwitting, but clearly they wittingly were accomplices and enablers of false information to go across Facebook.
	Just ridiculous.
	So Facebook was apparently, according to Nancy Pelosi, wittingly helping Trump win the election.
	So it's not Facebook, it's Mark Zuckerberg who colluded with the Russians, according to Nancy Pelosi.
	This is her threatening Facebook.
	And it's not just her, Hillary Clinton, who can never accept the fact that she lost the election because she's the worst candidate ever.
	That's the actual story of the election.
	Everybody has created this weird mythos about the last 10 years in American politics where Barack Obama was not the electoral outlier.
	Barack Obama was the new normal.
	And then because Barack Obama was the new normal, Trump's victory was some unbelievably shocking thing where he built this brand new coalition.
	No, the actual story is this.
	Hillary Clinton is the normal Democrat.
	Barack Obama is the abnormal Democrat.
	Donald Trump got basically the same percentages as normal Republicans do, even though he is an abnormal Republican.
	So when he beat Hillary Clinton, that was mostly about Hillary sucking at her job, about her not being able to hold the new gains that Barack Obama had made.
	And yet for Hillary Clinton, it's all Facebook's fault.
	So here is, she's making the same point.
	All of this is designed to softly push, not so softly, push Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey over at Twitter and the people over at Google to basically bias their tech in favor of Democrats come 2020.
	That's what this is about right here.
	It's dangerous stuff.
	When Facebook refused to take down a fake video of Nancy Pelosi, it wasn't even a close call.
	The video is sexist trash.
	And YouTube took it down, but Facebook kept it up.
	So let's send a message to Facebook that those who are in Facebook's communities would really like Facebook to pay attention to false and doctored videos before we are flooded with them over the next months.
	OK, this idea that she's going to cram down on Facebook her vision of what is true and what is false is going to get dangerous very, very quickly.
	It's not restricted to the United States, by the way.
	The left is on the move across the world in terms of trying to crack down on social media because they don't like the idea of free platforms.
	My view on this, and I've been targeted by a lot of people on social media for things up to and including death.
	So I'm very well aware of social media being misused.
	But trying to crack down on social media as a platform and instead turn it into some sort of left-wing publishing site, that's what a lot of folks on the left want.
	It's created an enormous amount of blowback in Germany, where Angela Merkel's heir apparent is facing criticism.
	Her name is Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.
	She replaced Merkel as the leader of the ruling CDU last year.
	That's Merkel's party.
	She denied that she was promoting censorship after her comments, which were prompted by a YouTube video by a popular 26-year-old blogger named Rezo.
	In the video, seen by millions ahead of the EU Parliament vote, Rezo called on voters to reject the two parties for betraying the young by not addressing the climate crisis.
	Kramp-Karrenbauer said, quote, I asked myself, what would be the response in this country if, say, 70 newspapers issued a joint appeal two days before the election saying, don't vote CDU or SPD?
	Those would be the sort of center-right or center-left parties.
	She says, that would have been a clear propagandizing before the election.
	I believe it would have unleashed a lively debate.
	So the question remains, what are the rules from the analog era, and how do they apply in the digital era?
	It sounds like she wants to regulate the social media company.
	She wants to regulate YouTube so that you can't electioneer before a campaign.
	The political class, the political elite, do not like the fact that they cannot control podcasts like this one.
	They do not like the fact that they cannot control distribution of information on Facebook and YouTube and Twitter.
	They don't like that.
	And so they are attempting to push pressure cram down their vision of society on the already left-leaning leaders of these various tech companies who are willing to hear it, number one, because many of them are on the left, and number two, because they wish to escape the governmental censure that is going to be promoted by people like Speaker Pelosi and like Hillary Clinton.
	That's some pretty dangerous stuff.
	When we say that freedoms are at issue, this is a fundamental freedom that is at issue right now.
	And meanwhile, President Trump not doing himself any grand favors with this story.
	So this one is not really President Trump's fault.
	Apparently, there's a story originally from the Wall Street Journal all about how The U.S.S.
	John McCain supposedly was hidden from Donald Trump.
	The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the White House wanted the U.S.S.
	John McCain out of sight during President Trump's visit to Japan.
	They reported U.S.
	military officials worked to ensure that President Trump wouldn't see the warship that bears the name of the late senator, a frequent target of the president's ire.
	This story is by Rebecca Ballhouse and Gordon Lewbald.
	So the White House wanted the U.S.
	Navy to move out of sight the warship U.S.S.
	John McCain ahead of President Trump's visit to Japan.
	The ship was named after the father and grandfather of the late senator, a war hero who became a frequent target of Mr. Trump's ire, and the senator's name was added to the ship in 2018.
	In a May 15th email to U.S.
	Navy and Air Force officials, a U.S.
	Indo-Pacific Command official outlined plans for the president's arrival.
	In addition to instructions for proper landing areas for helicopters and preparations for the USS Wasp, where the president was scheduled to speak, the official issued a third director.
	USS John McCain needs to be out of sight.
	Please confirm number three, that was that directive.
	We'll be satisfied, the official wrote.
	When a Navy commander expressed surprise about the directive for the USS John McCain, the U.S.
	Indo-Pacific Command official replied, first, I heard of it as well.
	He said he'd work with the White House military office to obtain more information.
	Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan, according to the Wall Street Journal, was aware of the concern about the presence of the USS John McCain in Japan and approved measures to ensure it didn't interfere with the president's visit, according to a U.S.
	official.
	Trump has fired back on this report.
	He said, quote, "I was not informed about anything having to do with the Navy ship USS John McCain during my recent visit to Japan.
	Nevertheless, the First Lady and I love being with our great military men and women.
	What a spectacular job they do." Now, the Washington Post is reporting that President Trump has spoken out more about this.
	He said, quote, I don't know what happened.
	I was not involved.
	I would not have done that.
	He said, I was not a big fan of John McCain in any shape or form.
	Now, somebody did it because they thought I didn't like him, OK?
	And they were well-meaning.
	It's that last line that's not really great.
	They were well-meaning?
	When your own staff is trying to protect you from a ship that has a dead man's name on it and you didn't like the dead guy?
	That doesn't speak well of your thin-skinnedness when it comes to John McCain.
	But the fact that Trump didn't know about it obviously means that you can't put it on Trump.
	You put it on his staff.
	And his staff obviously should have just said, whatever, it's a ship.
	And if Trump can't get over it, then it's then on Trump.
	But from the staffer's position, I understand you're trying to shield the President, you're trying to prevent a blow-up in public from the President of the United States.
	The fact that Trump has these personality foibles is not A good thing, for sure.
	For sure.
	A senior White House official confirmed on Wednesday the person who issued the directive did not want the warship with the McCain name seen in photographs during Trump's visit.
	The official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the president was not involved in the planning, but the request was made to keep Trump from becoming upset.
	So there are a lot of folks in the White House, apparently, who are attempting to prevent President Trump from basically feeling quasi-angst at the fact that there is a ship named after John McCain.
	Now, it is reported by the Navy Chief of Information that the name of the USS John McCain was not obscured during the President's visit to Yokosuka on Memorial Day.
	The Navy is proud of that ship, its crew, its namesake, and its heritage.
	Trump himself obviously tweeted that he had nothing to do with this.
	this katie tur reports from nbc a spokesperson for the u.s pacific fleet said the picture of a tarp there's a picture from friday of a tarp over the mccain name a spokesperson for the u.s pacific fleet said the picture of the tarp is from friday it was taken down on saturday all ships remained in normal configuration during the president's visitor said commander nate christensen so the media did in fact push this too far The media suggested that Trump himself was responsible for this.
	The media suggested that the ship was in fact hidden when apparently it was not.
	But a couple of things can be true at once.
	One, the media can get overzealous on these stories.
	Two, people around the president need to not protect him from things that are stupid.
	If Trump can't handle it, Trump can't handle it.
	It's a dumb story.
	It's a silly story.
	And honestly, President Trump should just let McCain go.
	People have their opinions about McCain.
	I didn't like McCain as a senator particularly much.
	I didn't think that he was a wonderful senator.
	But he was a military hero.
	He was an obvious military hero.
	That deserves all of our respect and commendation, no matter why I think pretty much everybody agrees on this.
	So again, these sorts of sensitivity issues for the president need to need to go away.
	Meanwhile, in other news, this is a bizarre story out of Israel.
	So you remember there was just an Israeli election like five minutes ago.
	And it was like, wow, look at that.
	Netanyahu won again.
	Well, now there's going to be another election.
	I will say here that it is worthwhile noting that Israel has now had two elections inside of a year or will have two elections inside of a year.
	That's as many elections as the Palestinians have had ever.
	Ever.
	Because Israel is a democracy and a wild, chaotic, functioning parliamentary democracy at that.
	Nonetheless, it's a very weird circumstance.
	The first time in Israeli history that an elected governmental leader has been unable to form a coalition.
	According to the Washington Post, in a stunning turn, Israel will head to elections for a second time in less than six months after President, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to form a government before a midnight Wednesday deadline.
	Rather than give someone else the chance to do so, his party advanced a bill to dissolve parliament and trigger new elections in September.
	Netanyahu was unable to bring Avigdor Lieberman, his former defense minister, into a coalition that would give the prime minister a majority at parliament.
	That's Knesset.
	The two veteran politicians were at loggerheads over legislation sought by Lieberman to draft ultra-Orthodox Jews into the military, a measure bitterly resisted by Netanyahu's powerful political allies in the religious parties.
	There's a lot of controversy over Orthodox service in the military because the military is a pretty secular place.
	There are what they call Hester units, which are units that are specifically of the Orthodox and tend to be more in line with Orthodox rules.
	The expansion of those Hester units would obviously be the proper solution here.
	The move for new elections leaves Israel in political disarray as it now embarks on an expensive nationwide vote that has no guarantee of shifting the balance of power among the They're going to do this again for no apparent reason.
	It's very awkward stuff.
	But again, proof that a functioning democracy is still in Israel.
	Apparently there was a vote of 74 to 45 to dissolve the body just a month after being sworn in.
	Gil Hoffman, chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post said, this is devastating to the average Israeli who's really tired of such selfish politics.
	There's no way to explain the situation to the average Israelis who are saying their politicians aren't working for their interests.
	Would not be a surprise.
	I mean, it's a risky move by Netanyahu.
	Would not be a surprise to see the Blue and White Party gain seats because people are angry at Netanyahu and angry at Lieberman.
	So, pretty fascinating stuff happening over in Israel.
	Alrighty, time for some things that I like and then some things that I hate.
	So things that I like.
	Shannon Bream is just a wonderful person.
	She has a really fun and inspiring new book called Finding the Bright Side.
	And it really is just a memoir from her talking about all of the issues that she has faced in her career, in her life.
	And it's a pretty great conservative little book.
	It's really a lot of fun to read.
	She talks about her conservative religious upbringing.
	She talks about going to Liberty University.
	She talks about how she got into the TV business.
	Shannon is the light of a human.
	And this book is a lot of fun and an easy read.
	So go check it out.
	Finding the Bright Side.
	The Art of Chasing What Matters.
	It's a kick.
	Okay, other things that I like.
	So Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, was getting a lot of flack over the last couple of days because he was specifically asked about whether if Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to leave the court, for example, and Trump were to nominate a replacement, whether they'd fill that vacancy in the last year of his presidency.
	Now, the reason that that has become an issue is because McConnell said that the Senate was not going to vote in the last year of President Obama's presidency on Merrick Garland.
	Now, it is also important to note that Mitch McConnell said at the time, the reason for that is because we have a split in the parties.
	It is not the job of a Republican Senate to approve a Democratic nominee.
	Now, I've always said I didn't understand why that logic obtained only for the last year of a presidency.
	Why did Mitch McConnell have to approve of anybody that was put forward?
	There's an advice and consent rule for Senate.
	The Senate does not have to approve anybody.
	Mitch McConnell made it time-bound, basically saying if Hillary won, they'd vote on Merrick Garland.
	But there's no reason for him to say even that.
	In any case, Mitch McConnell was asked if he would fill a vacancy in the last year of Trump's first term.
	And McConnell's like, yeah, for sure.
	Should a Supreme Court justice die next year before your opposition be on filling that spot?
	We'd fill it.
	Okay, so people are laughing because supposedly this is a hypocritical, hard-nosed move by McConnell.
	And that's very taciturn stuff from Mitch McConnell.
	But what he's saying there is obviously correct.
	Democrats are going to approve a Democratic nominee.
	Republicans will approve a Republican nominee If there is a split, then at the very least, A delay seems somewhat appropriate.
	I would say the delay can be indefinite.
	I don't think that Republicans are bound to vote for Merrick Garland, even if Obama had nominated him in the very first year of his presidency.
	Okay, time for some things that I hate.
	So, the move by major corporations to virtue signal on politics is really quite terrible.
	Disney has now come out and said maybe they'll move their production outside of Georgia if the Georgia law goes into effect.
	Bob Iger said that.
	Netflix has said maybe we'll move our production out of Georgia if Georgia's heartbeat bill goes into effect.
	Well, this is about as gutless a statement as it's possible to make.
	If you don't like pro-lifers in Georgia, they voted for it.
	Pull your money.
	And then we will know, all of us pro-lifers, all of us will know that we just will not see your movies.
	In fact, we can do you severe damage by seeing your movies and just renting them on Amazon.
	We just won't go to the theater and pay you 30 bucks a ticket.
	Instead, we will just wait till it comes out on Amazon and rent it for $2.99.
	And we'll bankrupt you.
	You want to play this game?
	If the left wants to play this game, where they refuse to do business with people with whom they disagree on politics and on crucial issues like abortion, Well, then they're gonna pay the price.
	There are plenty of us.
	There are plenty of us who are not interested in... I'm a Netflix subscriber.
	I'm sure a lot of people who are listening to this show and watching this show are Netflix subscribers.
	If Netflix pulls its money from Georgia, I will end my Netflix subscription.
	I have no interest in promoting a company that seeks to devalue my political point of view as a matter of its business.
	Netflix is in the business of making entertainment.
	They're not in the business of shaping political opinions around the country.
	If they believe they are, then I'm not going to give my money to them because I don't give my money to leftist lobbying groups.
	And the same thing is true of Disney.
	I am more than willing to delay my enjoyment of a Disney movie by watching it at home in the comfort of my home, renting it and spending $2.99 instead of $45 to bring my wife and kids to a movie.
	If this is the game that Hollywood wants to play, there will be consequences to this game.
	So go for it, Hollywood.
	Make it happen.
	Put your money where your mouth is.
	Or otherwise, this is just a bunch of virtue-signaling nonsense, and the reason that you're holding off on pulling from Georgia is because you want the tax benefits, you want to be able to virtue-signal to all your liberal members, your leftist coterie, without actually having to pull the money.
	Also, worthwhile noting, while Disney is talking about pulling all of their production from Georgia because of the heartbeat bill, you know, they also were producing Star Wars The Last Jedi.
	You know where they filmed?
	Croatia, Ireland, and Bolivia.
	At the time, in Croatia, abortion is still illegal after 10 weeks.
	In Ireland, abortion was illegal overall.
	In Bolivia, abortion was and is illegal.
	Didn't see Disney pulling any of its production from there.
	I'm eager to see Hollywood be forced to pay higher production costs by producing only in countries that agree with it politically.
	We'll see how they like production in Sweden.
	Pretty incredible stuff.
	Other things that I hate today.
	So, speaking of Brands that are getting involved in politics in the stupidest possible way.
	The Associated Press is reporting that Gucci has what they call the Cruise 2020 collection.
	It debuted to a VIP audience this week in Rome.
	It was themed around the subject of abortion because I know when I'm buying jeans, I'm thinking about killing babies.
	The collection featured a purple jacket with the slogan My Body, My Choice on the back and a sweater emblazoned with the date May 22, 1978, marking the day abortion became legal in Italy, according to the Associated Press.
	The brand's creative director, Alessandro Michele, says the theme is no coincidence.
	He was inspired, he says, by the sudden pro-life resurgence in the United States The restrictions in the United States, Michelle said, made me consider how much women should be highly respected.
	Sometimes in life, choices are difficult, but I believe it is the most difficult decision for a woman.
	I respect that decision.
	I respect that decision as I respect the idea that the uterus is a garden.
	I wanted to portray the idea that to interrupt a pregnancy does not wipe out the garden, the flower that is the uterus of every woman.
	Well, you know what makes the uterus a garden in this particular metaphor?
	It would be the fact that it grows things like a garden.
	You know what?
	The uterus grows.
	You know, it grows in a uterus.
	Babies!
	And if you kill the babies, it's not really a garden anymore.
	Now it's just... a thing.
	So that's kind of a weird take.
	Again, the same logic applies.
	If we are going to see all of these brands endorse wild left sloganeering, All you're going to see is pop-up brands that do not do this, who are going to pick up the lion's share of the revenue that leaves.
	Capitalism always wins.
	And if this is the game that these corporations want to play, there will be consequences to those games.
	Alrighty.
	We'll be back here later with two additional hours of programming, or we'll see you here tomorrow.
	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 Sajevitz.
	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.
	Robert Mueller won't go away, Joe Biden can't be found, and ugly guys break their faces to look hotter.
	Finally, the mailbag.

▲