Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 17, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

56:42

Democrats Just Keep Doubling Down On Kavanaugh | Ep. 862

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Despite a nothing burger New York Times report, Democrats keep doubling down on Brett Kavanaugh, Elizabeth Warren flexes her muscles, and debate breaks out among Republicans over Iran.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro show.
	You know, our goal each and every day here at the Ben Shapiro show is to bring you the news and also to trend on Twitter.
	So today, yesterday was a great day.
	We're going to see if we can match that today.
	We're going to try and trend on Twitter nearly every day because, hell, as my old mentor Andrew Breitbart used to say, whatever doesn't kill me just makes me more famous.
	But in any case...
	In any case, we'll begin with the still news of the day, and that is this ridiculous New York Times supposed bombshell on Brett Kavanaugh.
	So you'll recall from yesterday's famous show that the New York Times had this report.
	It was in the news analysis section.
	It was not in the news section because it wasn't actually news.
	It was in the news analysis section so they could pretend that it was quasi-news.
	And it was this excerpt from a book called The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.
	And the new bombshell report is that some dude who worked at a Washington non-profit, that's all we knew about him, that this person says that he had once witnessed another dude push Brett Kavanaugh's penis into the hand of a woman who was sitting there.
	This was the story.
	I'm not laughing because that would be funny if it happened.
	I'm laughing because literally every aspect of the story is ridiculous, up to and including the fact that, as it turns out, the book itself reports that the alleged victim in this case doesn't remember any of this.
	She doesn't remember any of this, but the New York Times didn't actually report originally that she didn't remember any of this.
	In fact, the original report said nothing about the alleged victim, making it appear as though there was a substantiated and corroborated piece of evidence about Brett Kavanaugh exposing himself to unapproving women in an act of sexual assault.
	As it turns out, that was a bunch of crap, and the New York Times had to issue a correction in which they acknowledged that, yes, indeed, the alleged victim says that she doesn't recall any such event.
	And amazingly enough, this morning, the authors of the book at issue, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, they were appearing on television and they explicitly state, they explicitly point out that the New York Times original draft did include the line where it said that the alleged victim had no memory of the incident and that the stellar editors engaging in unbelievable levels of journalisming Remove that line.
	So the original report, now it's not just that they missed the line, or that it wasn't there in the first place, they had a line in there saying, the alleged victim in this case doesn't remember the incident, won't be interviewed, any of that, that was in the original piece, and the New York Times editors, in all of their wisdom and glory, decided to remove that from the piece.
	Here are Robin Pogrebin and Kay Kelly, who actually write for the New York Times talking about this.
	Somewhere in the editing process, those words were tracked.
	Yeah, I mean, I think what happened actually was that, you know, we had her name and, you know, the Times doesn't usually include the name of the victim.
	And so I think in this case, the editors felt like maybe it was probably better to remove it.
	And in removing her name, they removed the other reference to the fact that she didn't remember it.
	So the way, in your draft for The Times, you used basically the exact words that are in the book that I deliberately left off the name because that passage begins with the name.
	And so, in their removal of the name, they ended up removing what follows it.
	Oh, so oops!
	Oops!
	We took out the only relevant portion of the story, which is that the alleged victim doesn't remember this story ever happening.
	OK, so how nothing burger was this story?
	Here's how nothing burger this story was.
	Vanity Fair is reporting this morning, quote, Why did the Kavanaugh excerpt end up in the review?
	In the New York Times review of books, people familiar with how things went down told me that Kelly and Pogrebin initially pitched their scoop to the news side, but the top editors ultimately felt there wasn't enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page one treatment.
	Instead, Pogrebin and Kelly were told they could pitch the review, which is entirely independent of the news department.
	I asked for clarification as to what about the story wasn't news pages worthy, but the Times declined to comment, as did Kelly and Pogrebin.
	A Times spokesperson did, however, point out it's not unusual for opinion or Sunday review pieces to break news.
	OK, the real answer is because there was no news there.
	There's no news there.
	I'm sorry.
	An allegation by a third party who will not go on record when talking with you and also who's in which the alleged victim says that she has no memory of the incident.
	That's not news.
	That's just called somebody saying a thing.
	That's not, in and of itself, news.
	Now, here's the funny part.
	There was an actual piece of news in the education of Brett Kavanaugh.
	A pretty significant piece of news, as it turns out.
	What was this piece of news?
	Well, Jan Crawford of CBS reported it.
	Okay, the actual piece of news is that Blasey Ford, Christine Blasey Ford, who was the original big-name accuser against Brett Kavanaugh, this professor out in California who suggested that back when he was 17 years old, he held her down on a bed while laughing and tried to rape her and that it was emblazoned in her memory and all of this.
	Well, she had suggested that there was a woman named Leland Kaiser with whom she was friends and that her friend was at the party.
	Well, according to Jan Crawford at CBS, Leland Kaiser says that, in the book, that Christine Blasey Ford's story is not believable and that Christine Blasey Ford's allies pressured Leland Kaiser to change her story.
	Now, it seems to me that this would be, you know, the definition of actual news.
	If it turns out that the biggest news story in America, the news story that put Christine Blasey Ford on the cover of national news magazines and had her touted as a Me Too heroine, If it turns out that her close friend, who was supposed to be the person backing up her story, said the story is not, number one, not believable, and number two, I was pressured by Ford and her allies to lie about it, isn't that a page one news story?
	Here is CBS Evening News reporting this.
	Speaking publicly for the first time to the Times reporters, Ford's close friend Leland Kaiser, who Ford said was at the party, said she didn't believe Ford's account and that it just didn't make any sense.
	She also said she told the FBI that Ford's allies pressured her to say otherwise.
	Now, all four people that Ford identified as being at that high school party in the summer of 1982 have now said no such party occurred.
	That's unbelievable!
	How is that not the front page news?
	Good for CBS for covering this, but what in the actual hell?
	What the hell?
	So we get now a new, renewed debate over allegations with regard to Deborah Ramirez that were supposedly corroborated by a completely separate incident substantiated by a third party who says that he saw a completely separate incident, not with Deborah Ramirez, but about a separate woman who denies that the incident occurred or that she remembers it.
	And that is front page news.
	That is news that we have to cover on the front page.
	Oh my God, how could the Republicans not investigate?
	Investigate what?
	An allegation by one dude that a thing happened where the victim says it didn't happen?
	Like, what exactly is supposed to be investigated there?
	But you know what we should definitely, definitely not report on, at least not on the front page of the New York Times, is the allegation in the same exact book, by the same exact authors.
	That the key allegation in the Brett Kavanaugh saga in the first place was doubted by the key witness cited by the alleged victim, Christine Blasey Ford.
	She's the one who called out Leland Kaiser.
	And she's like, yeah, my friend Leland can back this up.
	And Leland Kaiser was like, no, sorry, this thing doesn't wash.
	I don't remember anything like this.
	Doesn't make any sense to me.
	And by the way, Christine Blasey Ford and her friends were pressuring me to lie about this.
	This is in the education of Brett Kavanaugh, in the same book, in the same book.
	Now that is newsworthy.
	That should be on page one of the New York Times.
	But instead, that doesn't make the New York Times at all.
	So Maggie Haberman over at the New York Times, after Jan Crawford over at CBS reported this, This is unbelievable.
	Maggie Heyman tweeted out, yeah, we at the New York Times knew that.
	We knew that, right?
	Actually, we reported that.
	It's like, well, did you report that in, you know, the same bold headline banner fashion as you reported this crap allegation by Max Stiers, who, as it turns out, we now have details on, and was a lawyer for Bill Clinton during his impeachment in the 1990s.
	Weird how everyone connected with these stories is super politically connected.
	Molly Hemingway also reporting that one of the reporters in this particular book Pogrebin was a longtime roommate at Yale with Kathy Charlton, the woman centrally involved in the anti-Kavanaugh efforts, according to public statements from her husband.
	It's unreal.
	It's unreal.
	None of this withstands a moment's scrutiny.
	Not a moment's scrutiny.
	And yet somehow, The story that the media take away from this is that Brett Kavanaugh needs to be impeached.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about making your company better.
	Hiring can be difficult, it can be slow, it can be arduous.
	Café Altura's COO Dylan Miskiewicz, he needed to hire a director of coffee for his organic coffee company.
	But he was having trouble finding qualified applicants, so he switched over to ZipRecruiter.
	ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you.
	It finds them for you.
	Its technology identifies people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job.
	So, you will get qualified candidates and get them fast.
	Dylan posted his job on ZipRecruiter, said he was impressed by how quickly he had great candidates apply.
	He also used ZipRecruiter's candidate rating feature to filter his applicants so he could focus on the most relevant ones.
	And that's how Dylan found his new director of coffee in just a few days.
	With results like that, it's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	I mean, ZipRecruiter is fantastic.
	Every day I look around the office and I think, who should I think about replacing with ZipRecruiter today?
	Like, for example, yesterday, we have a makeup artist here named Jess, and Jess is just a wonderful person.
	I love Jess a lot.
	She's terrific.
	But Jess decided to walk to the wrong studio and then walk back to this studio.
	So by the time she got here, she was like an hour late and she was pouring sweat from walking in New York's terrible humidity.
	And I thought to myself, how could I make her day better?
	Well, theoretically, I could fire her and replace her with ZipRecruiter.
	I decided not to do that in the end, but ZipRecruiter.com would have been the resource that I would have used if I decided to replace Jess with somebody who knows directions.
	Go check out ZipRecruiter right now.
	ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes.
	Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
	Try them out for free.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	So, as I say, there was an actual piece of news in this book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh.
	It was not reported anywhere except on CBS like a day later.
	Then there was a piece of crap news, and that was the Max Steyer piece of news.
	And it was just nonsense.
	It was just a nonsense piece of news, because it wasn't news.
	And that ends up being the big story of the day.
	Yesterday, 2020 Democratic candidates coming out and saying that Brett Kavanaugh should be impeached over all of this.
	And the Federalist, which got an advance copy of the book, reports, quote, The book offers no evidence in support of the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford, but, write the authors, their gut reaction was that her allegations rang true, which means nothing.
	I'm sorry, that means nothing.
	If I make an allegation, you're like, oh, well, that rings true.
	Well, that sounds like evidence in court to me.
	It rings true.
	It's like when you watch a detective show and somebody's like, I'm working off my gut instinct.
	Yeah, well, gut instincts in the past have been wrong about pretty much everything.
	Apparently their gut instinct was based on the fact that Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh grew up in the same rough area and she had once dated one of his friends.
	Further, Leland Kaiser had gone out on a date, maybe even two dates, they're not sure, with a friend of Kavanaugh's.
	None of that means that Ford was in fact assaulted by Kavanaugh, they write, but it does mean she has a baseline level of credibility as an accuser.
	What exactly is that supposed to mean?
	At the end of the book, according to Molly Hemingway, The authors say, quote, we spoke multiple times to Leland Kaiser, who also said she didn't recall that get together or any others like it.
	In fact, she challenged Ford's accuracy.
	I don't have any confidence in the story.
	Hemingway also has detailed the pressure applied on Kaiser to get her to back up Ford's tale.
	So does the new book.
	It says that Ford's friends had, quote, grown frustrated with Kaiser.
	Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited, some of them felt, and did not help their friend's case.
	Surely, given what a close friend Kaiser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford's testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford's more specific memories.
	Except she was supposed to have been at the party.
	So if she had gone out and said, you know, I don't remember this, but Christine, I totally believe her.
	How could she say that having been at the same party?
	Apparently, Kaiser told the authors, quote, I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn't comply.
	How is that not page one news?
	Who was saying to an alleged witness of a sexual assault?
	That there would be rumors spread about her if she didn't comply with their wishes to testify about something that she didn't know to be true.
	I mean, that's a criminal act, folks.
	If you're trying to suborn perjury, right, if you pressure somebody to lie and you threaten them to lie, under oath, presumably, if you try to blackmail them, forget about suborning perjury, which requires an actual judicial proceeding.
	If you try to blackmail somebody to do something by threatening to release information about them, that is a crime.
	That is called blackmail.
	How is that not a page one story?
	The new book also delves into one bizarre aspect of Ford's claim, according to Joe Curl over at Daily Wire, how she got home after she abruptly left the party.
	As previously reported in Justice on Trial, Kaiser continues to think about the story in which she was supposed to have played a part.
	She has both logistical and character-driven problems with it.
	Focusing on one of the angles that many women had trouble believing, she says, quote, It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave, and then not figure out how she's going to get home.
	The authors previously note that Blasey Ford suggested that Kaiser might have driven her home, which they do not note is a change from her claim she doesn't know how she got home.
	Kaiser also reflects that the get-togethers of their youth were not like the one Ford described.
	She says, I just really didn't have confidence in the story.
	I mean, it's just, it's unreal.
	It's unreal.
	So there is a real story here.
	It is the story that the media are largely ignoring, except for Jan Crawford and CBS.
	The New York Times instead deciding to focus on a story that turns out to be complete and sheer nonsense.
	It's truly amazing.
	The New York Times, by the way, defended its coverage, and the way they defended their coverage is just ridiculous.
	So they have a piece today titled, Answers to Reader Questions on our Brett Kavanaugh essay.
	The Times' deputy editorial page editor, James Dow, answers questions about how they handled the essay on the Supreme Court justice and a third accusation of sexual misconduct.
	Now, I want you to note how they even pitch the supposed third aspect of sexual misconduct.
	So they say, quote, the essay included a previously unreported claim that friends pushed Mr. Kavanaugh's penis into the hand of a female Yale student during a dorm party with drunken classmates.
	During the author's investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Steyer, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the FBI.
	The authors corroborated his story with two government officials who said they found it credible.
	Based on that corroboration, we felt mentioning the claim as one part of a broader essay was So even that last part, you know, as part of a broader essay, we mentioned it suggests that there's no substantiation and that this is super weak.
	In other words, we couldn't have run with this story in the news section because it ain't news.
	So we ran with it in the broader context of Yale climate at the time to try and illuminate what was going on in the seedy halls of Yale.
	But even how they phrase the accusation is not true.
	So they say the essay included a previously unreported claim that friends did this, right?
	And then they say, during the author's investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Steyer, witnessed the event.
	Okay, what the story says is that Max Steyer claims he witnessed the event.
	It does not say that they had stories about an event and then found a guy to corroborate that story.
	That would be double-sourcing.
	If they just went to Max Steyer and he says, hey, you know what?
	I saw a thing.
	That's not double-sourced.
	The entire problem with the story is it's not double-sourced.
	But if you actually read those two sentences, they make it sound like it's double source.
	They make it sound like somebody claimed this happened, and so they went and found a witness to it.
	That's not what the original New York Times story says.
	Okay, and that wasn't the limit of the New York Times' stupidity over all of this.
	All the news that's fit to print over there.
	The old gray lady, apparently going senile.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let's talk about something important you can do.
	You want to preserve your memories, you know, outside the auspices of the New York Times trying to jog them.
	Perhaps you should go and preserve the memories that you got in your garage, in that cabinet in the back of your house, the ones that you haven't looked at in a while.
	You got tapes, you got old VHSs, and you have film reels from your parents, and you've got old photos that are degrading.
	Why not just have all of those digitized?
	Why not have all that digitized, put it on a thumb drive, put it on a DVD, and then it's easy to access.
	You can use it.
	If, God forbid, something happens, you can run out of the house with it without having to schlep a bunch of boxes to your car.
	They don't degrade.
	This is all great.
	This is what Legacy Box does, and it is a fantastic, fantastic idea for a gift.
	There are lots of people who are using Legacy Box for a lot of reasons.
	You're saving all of your family films and photos from degrading or being lost forever.
	Maybe you don't have a VCR anymore, so you can't even watch the tapes.
	Well, now you can.
	Send your Legacy Box filled with old home movies and pictures, and then Legacy Box does the rest.
	They professionally digitize your moments onto a thumb drive, digital download, or DVD.
	They've got easy-to-follow instructions and safety barcodes included for every single item.
	Over 450,000 families have trusted Legacy Box, including mine.
	There's never been a better time To digitally preserve your memories, visit LegacyBox.com today to get started.
	Plus, for a limited time, they are offering my listeners an exclusive discount.
	Just head on over to LegacyBox.com slash Shapiro to get 40% off your first order.
	Again, LegacyBox.com slash Shapiro.
	Say 40% today.
	Get started preserving your past at LegacyBox.com slash Shapiro.
	Get 40% off your first order.
	Great company.
	I know the folks who run it and founded it.
	And you're doing yourself and your family a service.
	Go check them out at LegacyBox.com slash Shapiro.
	Okay, so.
	As I say, the New York Times incompetence is not limited to merely what they reported and what they did.
	And they then tweeted out something about how it may have seemed like harmless fun when Brett Kavanaugh started waving his penis around at people.
	And then they had to delete it because who said that was harmless fun?
	Has anyone ever said that's harmless fun?
	Like, really, is that a common thing?
	That people call it harmless fun?
	Well, according to the New York Times, the opinion section, like other parts of the Times, has a process for writing and editing social media copy.
	In this case, the process was not followed properly, resulting in a tweet that fell well below our standards.
	The department is reviewing with everyone involved, including me, what went wrong to determine how we can avoid similar mistakes.
	Well, it turns out that there are now allegations that the person who actually wrote the tweet were the reporters in that particular story.
	So they wrote the tweet and the New York Times tweeted it out as though it was the opinion of the New York Times itself.
	I mean, this is just, this is all a botchery.
	It is a massive, massive botchery.
	All of this led President Trump to go off as he has wanted to do.
	So he was doing a rally.
	In New Mexico, he's trying to turn New Mexico red again.
	And he brought up the Kavanaugh stuff as well he should because it is perfect evidence of just how biased the media are and how terrible they very often are at their jobs.
	Listen, I'm somebody who relies on major mainstream media reporters, particularly in foreign reporting, to actually get the facts right.
	You undermine the credibility of your own outlet when you do stuff like this.
	Here's President Trump going hard after the New York Times.
	I just put out a statement on social media that said I don't think they'll do it, but they should, for the good of the nation.
	I call for the resignation of everybody at the New York Times involved in the Kavanaugh smear story.
	And while you're at it, the Russian witch hunt hoax, which is just as phony a story.
	The Times is dead.
	Long live the New York Times.
	Okay, so President Trump going hard after The Times and doing so with a reason.
	Mitch McConnell, who is not exactly known for getting fiery on the Senate floor.
	I mean, the man has the demeanor of a turtle and looks to match.
	Here is Mitch McConnell yesterday getting pretty upset.
	I mean, I don't know if he has a broken arm or something.
	He's done something to his arm in this clip.
	Maybe it was just from slamming his desk out of frustration at the idiocy of the media.
	Here's Mitch McConnell talking about the Kavanaugh rehash once again.
	Over the last couple of days, Leading Democrats have tried to grab on to yet another poorly sourced, thinly reported, unsubstantiated allegation against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
	But it would be a mistake to dismiss this as a bad case of sour grapes.
	This is not just a left-wing obsession with one man.
	It's part of a deliberate effort to attack judicial independence.
	When you are this willing to launch unhinged personal attacks You reveal a whole lot more about your own radicalism than about the men and women you target.
	Okay, so here is how the media have responded to this.
	Okay, he is right, of course.
	The fact is that the Democrats have no new evidence.
	None.
	None, zero, zip, zilch.
	In fact, as I say, the main revelation from the new book is that Christine Blasey Ford's best friend does not believe her, and not only does not believe her, has now suggested openly that she was being pressured by Christine Blasey Ford and allies to go after Brett Kavanaugh.
	That's an astonishing story.
	That's an astonishing story.
	Imagine that the same thing had happened about Paula Jones in the 1990s.
	That there was somebody who Paula Jones counted on as a witness to her encounter with Bill Clinton.
	And then that person would come out and say, not only do I not believe Paula Jones, Paula and her friends in the Republican Party were calling me and pressuring me.
	You think that might have been front page news?
	But here it's not front page news.
	It's reported begrudgingly and late by the New York Times.
	Here's how the media have decided to cover all of this.
	So is the story the botchery of the New York Times?
	No, that's not the story.
	The story is, according to the Washington Post, inaction on Kavanaugh allegations reignites political rancor.
	So you get this?
	You get this?
	So another Empty allegation is put forward with no corroborative evidence.
	None.
	That was the main topic of our show yesterday that went viral.
	Okay, there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever from anyone who is willing to go on the record.
	We don't know the names of any witnesses to these events who say that they were present.
	The main quote-unquote victims in these cases, the alleged victims, do not specifically recall the events.
	Even Deborah Ramirez, who's now being trotted out as the main witness to a sexual assault, She had to spend six days talking with her lawyer and refreshing her memory before she even felt comfortable talking about this whole thing.
	And then you have Christine Blasey Ford, whose entire story is doubted by her main witness, Leland Kaiser.
	And the story isn't Democrats try to reignite political fervor with empty allegations.
	No, the story is, you know, the Republicans didn't fully investigate these empty allegations.
	How would they invest?
	Real serious question.
	How would you suggest that they investigate an allegation by a guy who provided apparently no details in which the alleged victim doesn't recall the event?
	How do you purport to go about investigating that?
	You know, law enforcement has resources.
	Those resources are not endless.
	They don't spend every day tracking down every allegation of misbehavior in which there is no supportive evidence provided.
	But here is the reporting.
	Again, great reporting over at the Washington Post by Seung Min Kim.
	Inaction on Kavanaugh allegations reignites political rancor.
	Four days before Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court by the narrowest of margins, Senator Chris Coons sent a letter to the FBI urging appropriate follow-up on new information he believed was relevant to sexual misconduct allegations made against the nominee.
	Then, apparently, not much happened.
	Not at the FBI, which assured Coons it had received the letter, but did not interview the person whom the senator referred to the bureau.
	Not in the office of then Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, which was copied on the letter that contained few in the way of specifics.
	By the way, Grassley says that they never really even received the letter.
	It is also important, I love that they just sort of, by the way, it contained very little in the way of specifics.
	Maybe that's why the FBI didn't spend its time and resources investigating.
	If you say I saw a bad thing happen, what do you think the FBI is going to do with that?
	Not among Democrats, several of whom had been unaware of the information until a New York Times report this weekend detailed a new alleged incident involving Kavanaugh.
	So weird.
	Chris Coons knew about this.
	Why didn't all the other Democrats?
	If he thought it was such a serious allegation, why wasn't Nancy Pelosi yelling about it?
	Where were all the other Democrats yelling about it?
	According to the Washington Post, that inaction, made public in recent days through new reports about Kavanaugh's alleged misbehavior, has renewed a bitter debate about how his confirmation was handled, angering Democrats about a process they felt was rushed, and animating Republicans who decried what they viewed as attempts to assassinate Kavanaugh's character.
	I love that the idea here is that what led to this outrage is a lack of investigation by the FBI, not a bunch of fresh, non-corroborated allegations from the New York Times that have been blown so far out of proportion that the New York Times wouldn't run this as a news story because they didn't feel there was enough juice.
	So in other words, the New York Times editorial board said this isn't news enough for us to run in the news section.
	But the Washington Post and New York Times editorial boards also say the FBI should have expended full resources investigating this nothing burger of an allegation.
	It's unreal.
	And it's obviously politically motivated, just as the original allegations against Kavanaugh were by the Democrats.
	Not Blasey Ford.
	I don't know why Blasey Ford did what, maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.
	I have no evidence one way or the other.
	Neither do you.
	That's the point.
	Without evidence, how the hell are we supposed to judge if a thing is true?
	But what I do know is that the Democrats, with no evidence, were willing to destroy the character of Brett Kavanaugh.
	They're willing to malign him and lie about him.
	And now they are doing the same thing for political gain.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second.
	First, let's talk about that credit card debt you've been racking up.
	Now, let's be real.
	It is very easy to fall into credit card debt.
	You're told that you just buy for it now and you pay for it later.
	The problem is, you get behind on those credit card bills and they really start racking up the interest charges.
	Well, now you have a solution.
	That is LendingClub.
	Consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
	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.
	Tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
	Pick the terms that are right for you.
	If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
	Lending Club is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
	It's really easy to get into debt.
	Some people just overspend.
	Some people do it by accident because they just needed to use a credit card to get by on their bills.
	But there's no reason you should be living with those enormous upcharges from the credit card companies.
	Instead, go consolidate your debt over at LendingClub.com.
	You can check your rate in minutes.
	You can borrow up to $40,000.
	That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	All loans made by WebBank member FDIC equal housing lender.
	That is LendingClub.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	So as I say, the media's angle on this is the FBI is bad.
	So just to get this straight, it's not that the New York Times is bad for printing a baseless allegation.
	Or for editing that baseless allegation to make it seem like it had more of a basis?
	Or for not bold-faced reporting on Christine Blasey Ford's close friend undercutting her entire allegation?
	Now the problem here is the FBI.
	So the Washington Post editorial board has a piece today titled, And this was the word of the day.
	Yesterday was sham.
	You saw it in every Democratic tweet.
	A sham investigation.
	Sham this.
	Sham... Almost as though everybody's talking to each other and using exactly the same verbiage.
	Weird, weird.
	So the Washington Post editorial board says, in September 2018, as the battle over the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court raged, then-Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona and Chris Coons of Delaware struck a deal.
	Mr. Flake would delay confirming Kavanaugh until the FBI completed an investigation into credible allegations of sexual misconduct, but the investigation couldn't be open-ended or last ages.
	Despite these caveats, both senators insisted the inquiry must be conducted in good faith.
	GOP senators who subsequently voted to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh praised the resulting investigation for being thorough.
	Now comes additional evidence that the investigation was, in fact, far from thorough and more of a sham than it seemed at the time.
	Reasonable investigative steps were not pursued.
	Ah, the gumshoes over at the Washington Post.
	They know.
	They know those gumshoes.
	Those FBI experts.
	Again, I said at the time that the foolishness of Jeff Flake caving to the Democrats and pretending as though any FBI investigation would please them is insane.
	The FBI does not have unlimited resources.
	Beyond that, it is not the FBI's job to track down every unverified allegation made about a human.
	There were literally thousands of allegations that came in.
	All of them, I mean, I'm talking about like the crazy letters.
	Not one has been substantiated.
	Not one.
	You think the press haven't spent time trying to substantiate this stuff?
	If it was that easy, what was the FBI going to do?
	Truly, that the media have not already done, or have done now, and still the media can't come up with anything.
	So show me the evidence that the FBI missed the thing.
	What's the thing they missed?
	What's the crucial area they missed here?
	According to the Washington Post, in an article adapted from their forthcoming book on the Kavanaugh controversy, two New York Times reporters revealed that the FBI interviewed practically no one regarding one of the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh, in which one of his Yale classmates, Deborah Ramirez, said Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her.
	During his Senate testimony, Kavanaugh said, if the incident Ms.
	Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been the talk of campus.
	Our reporting suggested that it was, the reporters wrote.
	They found that federal agents interviewed none of the two dozen people who Ms.
	Ramirez said could bolster her story and ignored an allegation of a second episode.
	Okay, that second episode is the one that we are talking about.
	As far as the general allegation that she had two dozen witnesses or whatever.
	Weird, because she provided exactly those witnesses to these New York Times reporters and they could come up with no one who actually verified her story.
	In fact, she herself couldn't verify her story because she said that she had to sit around for a week trying to figure out if it was Brett Kavanaugh.
	But according to the Washington Post, this investigative shoddiness was apparently the fault not of the FBI, but of Republicans looking for cover.
	At first, they limited the FBI questioning to only four people about two separate allegations.
	Agents eventually got an expansion.
	They contacted 10 people, but not an extension of their deadline.
	As though the deadline actually mattered here.
	They could have extended the deadline for months.
	Bottom line is that the media are grasping for any straw with which to club the DOJ and to club Trump and to club Kavanaugh and it doesn't matter that this allegation fell apart upon arrival.
	It was DOA and it doesn't matter.
	They're treating it as though it is an animate corpse wheeling that sucker around like Weekend at Bernie's.
	Gonna pretend there's an actual story.
	It ain't.
	It ain't.
	And all this is part of a broader trend, which is the supposed corruption inside the Trump administration, over at the DOJ, and...
	Like really, really weak stuff.
	In a second, we'll get to a little bit more on this.
	First, you know what I do when I want to take a break from the political maelstrom?
	Well, I head on over to the sports page because I love, love sports, which is why I am excited to share with you a new daily sports podcast from Wondery and The Athletic you're going to want to listen to.
	It's called The Lead.
	Every weekday morning, The Lead will bring you one big story from the athletics all-star team of local and national sports reporters.
	Some stories will be a fresh take on a major news event.
	Other episodes will feature an in-depth look into what's been happening off the field.
	From the story of how a truly awful call in last year's NFL playoffs enraged the entire city of New Orleans, to in-depth interviews on mental health and sports, The Lead is your daily lens into the biggest stories of the day.
	It's hosted by a couple of great sports writers, Kavitha Davidson, And Anders Kelto, who will take you close to the story through comprehensive reporting, fascinating clips, exclusive interviews you won't hear anywhere else.
	I love staying up to speed on sports, and so I've made this a regular part of my diet.
	Go subscribe to The Lead on Apple Podcasts or wherever you are listening to this right now.
	Again, if you love sports and you need a break from the craziness of the day, you're going to want to go check out The Lead on Apple Podcasts from Wondery.
	It is fantastic.
	Okay, in just a second, we're going to get to New York prosecutors honing in on President Trump's tax returns, and we'll get to Elizabeth Warren threatening to violate the Constitution every which way from Sunday.
	First, you have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	When you do, you get the rest of this show live.
	You get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, and Matt Walsh's show live, and Michael Mulls' terrible show live.
	You get all of those wonderful things.
	Also, when you get the annual subscription, you get this, the very greatest in beverage vessel.
	The Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr, filling up nearly daily.
	And you get the same sort of access that Media Matters has to this show, you know, where they watch the show and then clip out of context a lot of things from the show and put them up.
	You can do the same exact thing, except not be an evil piece of garbage like the people at Media Matters.
	Go check us out right now over at dailywire.com.
	Again, for 99 bucks a year, you're helping keep us on the air.
	You're helping us bring you the material that you love and that you need.
	We really appreciate it.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So the Democratic candidates, of course, making hay out of this Kavanaugh thing, even though there's no hay to make.
	Kamala Harris, who is the most rehearsed, I mean, people have compared Elizabeth Warren to Hillary Clinton.
	Kamala Harris is much more similar to Hillary Clinton than Elizabeth Warren is.
	So Elizabeth Warren is a lot more shrewd.
	She doesn't appear quite as calculated as Kamala Harris.
	Kamala Harris is rehearsed in every way, shape, or form.
	Here she was on MSNBC last night with Rachel Maddow.
	And just really wildly entertaining stuff.
	And here's Kamala Harris explaining.
	And when it came to the Kavanaugh hearing, men were coming up to her on the street in public places, crying.
	To which I'm gonna say, that's a bunch of crap.
	Here's Kamala Harris.
	I mean, listen, after the initial hearings that happened a year ago, the number of women and men who approached me in public places and cried, About what this meant to them.
	Because there is so much about this issue and one of the worst things that happens is that when we are not willing to believe the victim and take them seriously.
	Okay, if we're going to get back into this routine, believe all women, this whole nonsense that you pushed before, how about believe most women?
	How about believe women, and how about not by percentage?
	How about believe allegations that have substantiation to back them up?
	How about that?
	How about like corroborative details?
	She was a prosecutor for God's sake!
	And do I really believe that men were coming up to Kamala Harris on the street, wrapping their arms around her and sobbing on her shoulder about Brett Kavanaugh?
	No.
	No, I'm sorry.
	I don't believe that.
	The good news for Kamala Harris is she's receiving a bit of a renaissance in the media.
	There's a big article in The Washington Post yesterday about Kamala Harris going to Howard University.
	There's another big article in The New York Times about Kamala Harris.
	They're trying to sort of Revitalize her campaign because they're starting to realize that Elizabeth Warren has no support in the black community and that Kamala Harris may have more support in the black community if she gets better media coverage.
	They're trying to revivify her.
	The most awkward attempt at revivifying her dying candidacy.
	I mean, she was at like 16 percent two months ago.
	She's now at five or six percent.
	This happened on Jimmy Fallon.
	I don't know why Jimmy Fallon continues to do this, but He does this slow jamming the news with particular Democratic candidates, and it's so awkward and so terrible and so telling.
	Here's Jimmy Fallon slow jamming the news with Kamala Harris.
	If you call this comedy or entertainment, man, let me recommend that you actually go view some actual comedy.
	I like the way you work it, Kay Higgity.
	But I gotta ask, lately this country's been so divided, sleeping on opposite sides of the bed.
	Why do you think we can't all just come together?
	Well, it's my opinion that we need a president who fights for the best of who we are.
	And over the past three years, Donald Trump has done the exact opposite.
	Hold up.
	So what you're trying to say is that Trump's the bad guy?
	Duh.
	So much humor.
	So much comedying.
	I can't imagine why Jimmy Fallon is falling apart in the ratings.
	Kamala Harris, wildly entertaining.
	Good stuff there from the 2020 Democratic candidates.
	Now, the fact is that she is not part of this race at this point at all, right?
	The main factors in this race are Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
	Elizabeth Warren held this massive rally in New York yesterday.
	Her campaign said 20,000 people showed up.
	The cops said something like 5,000 people showed up.
	Whatever it is, she is generating enthusiasm.
	Maybe it's a little bit astroturf, but she's generating enthusiasm.
	She was speaking yesterday in New York City, and she explained how basically she is just going to start ignoring this thing called the Constitution.
	She suggested that she's going to use her executive authority as president of the United States to fix the so-called pay gap between men and women.
	This coming from a millionaire woman who has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to teach property at Harvard Law School for decades.
	Here she is explaining that women are highly victimized, so she should become president.
	On day one of my administration, I will use my executive authority to start closing the pay gap between women of color and everyone else, because it's about time we valued the work of women of color.
	We must recognize the systemic discrimination that infects our economy, and we must work actively and deliberately to root it out and set this country on a better path.
	My God, she's boring.
	I mean, that is intensely boring stuff and false stuff, by the way.
	Whenever she talks about the pay gap, she uses the debunked statistics.
	I'm basically aggregating the average wage of various groups against the average wage of other various groups without concern with number of hours worked, or the kind of job held, or educational level, or time in the workforce, or time away from the workforce, or any of that sort of stuff.
	You can't use your executive authority to fix the pay gap.
	You're going to have to explain how you're going to do that.
	But I love that people cheer for this sort of stuff because people have come to believe on both the right and the left, and it's really irritating, that the president is a magical, magical personage.
	And if the president is just the right person, then they can wave their magic wand and boom, all of your problems just disappear.
	Well, she pledged another problem she would make disappear.
	She said she was going to fight corruption, did Elizabeth Warren, which is always amusing since Democrats are very much in the pocket of a bunch of different political interests, including particular unions.
	Elizabeth Warren yesterday suggested that she was basically going to run roughshod over the First Amendment.
	So it's not just that she's going to run roughshod over the checks and balances of power.
	She's also going to run roughshod over the First Amendment.
	No more hiring corporate lobbyists to staff up the federal government.
	The right of every person in this country to petition their government does not protect a multi-billion dollar influence industry whose sole purpose is to undermine democracy and tilt every decision in favor of those who can pay.
	Okay, now do unions, Elizabeth Warren.
	Now do unions.
	Like, it's always fascinating to watch as the exact same people who are celebrating Walmart for injecting itself into the Second Amendment debate, and celebrating, like, Zara's and Forever 21 for having comments about abortion, and those same exact people who are looking to corporations to be our moral leaders, like, those corporations have no rights!
	They have no rights!
	Okay, well, if the corporations are not people, then you're gonna have to explain to me why you should tax a corporation.
	It's not a person.
	So why should you be able to tax a corporation?
	It's just a legal entity, after all.
	Why are you able to prosecute corporations?
	Why are you able to bring them to court and sue them?
	So they're treated as people in every way under the law, except for if you and I get together, form an LLC, and decide that we want to spend some money.
	On an issue ad in Virginia.
	Then it's very bad.
	Then it's corporate influencing.
	Unless we're a union.
	If we form a union, then Elizabeth Warren is totally fine with it.
	This agenda is particularly radical, but Elizabeth Warren is stealing the Bernie base and it's working out well for her.
	Meanwhile, President Trump facing a couple of new obstacles today.
	According to the Associated Press, New York City prosecutors have now subpoenaed President Trump's tax returns.
	A person familiar with the matter told the AP on Monday.
	Now, I've long suspected that the reason that President Trump doesn't want his tax returns revealed, is because they're going to reveal that he is not as wealthy as he says he is.
	Which, again, I'm not sure why he cares at this point.
	He should just be like, whatever man, I'm only worth a billion dollars, or half a billion dollars, as opposed to ten billion dollars.
	Like, does he really believe anybody cares about that?
	Truly?
	Like, that would make for a few late night jokes, and everybody would go, yeah, dude's way richer than I am, so whatever.
	Nonetheless, he is now fighting a battle with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, That's Cyrus Vance.
	Their office recently sent a subpoena to President Trump's accounting firm seeking the last eight years of state and federal tax returns for Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, the person said.
	This person who talked to the AP was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
	Asked about the subpoena as he left the White House on Monday, Trump said, I don't know anything about it.
	A lawyer for the Trump Organization, Mark Mukasey, said he is evaluating the situation and will respond as appropriate.
	Vance is a Democrat, of course.
	He subpoenaed the Trump Organization last month for records related to payments that Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, helped to arrange to a porn actress who claimed she had an affair with Trump.
	His office is also pursuing a state mortgage fraud case against former Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.
	Now, maybe there's crime there.
	Maybe there's not.
	You do get the feeling that Cyrus Vance is basically sitting there with a target list and then trying to dig up crime on the particular target list.
	Now, if he digs up crime, so be it.
	Let the chips fall where they may.
	Crime is crime and should be punished accordingly.
	But, again, there's something disquieting about prosecutors sitting there and using their influence in order to target particularly political enemies.
	Trump has already been fighting efforts by several Democratic-led congressional committees to obtain his tax returns and other records that could give them a window into his finances.
	Of course, Trump and his kids filed a lawsuit in April seeking to block House committees from getting records that his longtime lender, Deutsche Bank, has said includes tax returns, saying that this is not relevant to any investigation.
	Trump happens to be right about that.
	He is right.
	But with that said, Democrats are not going to let up in any of this.
	It is pretty amazing that The members of the New York Bar who are in charge of law enforcement have openly said that they're targeting Trump.
	New York Attorney General Letitia James is now investigating whether Trump exaggerated his wealth to obtain loans.
	Again, she said upon taking office that Trump was basically in her crosshairs, which is pretty disturbing.
	Whether you're right or left, the idea of a prosecutor sitting there and being like, I don't like this guy.
	I'm going to find something he did.
	That is troubling.
	Typically, prosecutors find crime and then prosecute it.
	They don't find people and then try to find crimes that they committed as an excuse for prosecution.
	So that is one problem on Trump's hands.
	The other problem on Trump's hands is that it is very rare that a first-term president does not experience some sort of foreign policy crisis.
	And we could be looking at that foreign policy crisis Over in Iran.
	It looks as though the foreign policy crisis with China may be abating just a little bit.
	It doesn't mean a long-term trade deal with China is on the table, nor really should it be until they stop stealing our intellectual property.
	But it seems like the tensions are abating just enough that we're not going to have a full-scale trade war.
	But as that happens, tensions are ramping up in the Middle East where Iran is doing its damnedest in order to pressure the Europeans to make concessions to it.
	On Monday, President Trump stopped short of directly blaming Iran for a major attack on Saudi oil installations, allaying, at least for a moment, fears of a military conflict between the United States and Iran.
	President Trump obviously does not want to go to war with Iran.
	His administration does not want to go to war with Iran.
	Even John Bolton did not desperately want to go to war with Iran, contrary to popular opinion.
	John Bolton wanted to respond to fire if fire were to happen.
	But I am not aware that John Bolton was advocating for heavy airstrikes on central Iranian military targets.
	The only airstrikes I think he was in favor of was in response to ships being bombed in the Straits of Hormuz and he was suggesting that certain naval targets in the Iranian Navy be hit.
	Officials in Washington and Riyadh spent the day analyzing satellite photos and other intelligence they said indicated that Iranian weapons were used in the assault on Saudi Aramco facilities.
	But they presented no new information that would conclusively show that Iran directed or launched the attack.
	Saudi officials said it led to a 50% reduction in oil production.
	U.S.
	officials did reject claims by Houthi rebels in Yemen.
	That they launched the strike.
	They said it was too sophisticated and powerful for that.
	But Trump is, for the moment, withholding his judgment on whether, in fact, it was Iran.
	Trump said on Monday, I'm not looking to get into new conflict, but sometimes you have to.
	Asked what message he wanted to send to Iran.
	Trump said, I think I'll have a stronger message or maybe no message at all when we get the final results of what we're looking at.
	There's no rush.
	So Trump is not rushing to go to war here.
	There seems to be a contingent of the Republican Party that believes that he is, and that I find weird.
	I've yet to see the evidence that Trump is desperate to enmesh us in a serious foreign war.
	Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic presidential candidate who has not met any of the thresholds for remaining in the debate.
	She's an isolationist on foreign policy, of course, very close with Bashar Assad in Syria and has toured over there and has praised him.
	In any case, she went after Trump, suggesting that Trump was prostituting the United States out at the behest of the Saudis.
	Yesterday President Trump offered to place our military, my brothers and sisters in uniform, under the command of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the dictator of the Islamist kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
	You're offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to use as he sees fit is a betrayal of my brothers and sisters in uniform, who are ready to give our lives for our country.
	Not for the Islamist dictator of Saudi Arabia.
	My fellow service members and I, we are not your prostitutes.
	You are not our pimp.
	Okay, I am not aware, I am not aware anywhere here that Trump offered to put our soldiers under the command of Mohammed bin Salman, right?
	No one would be in favor of that, including President Trump, that's an insane contention.
	We can see that Trump is not interested in going to war here.
	The truth is that the only solution may be to just muddle through.
	And this is the underrated solution in American foreign policy.
	Everybody always wants a final answer to serious foreign policy questions.
	How can we make it so that terrorists are never a threat again?
	The answer is you can't.
	How can you make it so that Iran doesn't threaten the region?
	Well, maybe you can't.
	Maybe you have to just contain them.
	Maybe every day that there's not a full-scale war is a good day.
	Maybe every day that Iran is not multiplying its terrorist influence is a good day.
	Maybe every day that Iran goes without the funds necessary to spread its cancerous tentacles throughout the Middle East is a good day.
	Maybe that.
	Maybe foreign policy is really about just maintaining.
	And I know that's not romantic and it's not sexy, but maybe that's really what foreign policy generally is.
	And then you wait for opportunities to make a major push.
	And those opportunities are rare.
	And maybe that opportunity is not what is happening right now.
	I think Trump is actually demonstrating a fair bit of common sense here that I think is well worth it.
	Here's Trump yesterday explaining, listen, I haven't promised the Saudis that we're going to protect them.
	At the same time, he's saying, well, I'm not letting the Iranians know that we won't protect them because then that would obviously lead the Iranians to get more aggressive.
	I mean, that's not wrong.
	No, I haven't.
	No, I haven't.
	I haven't promised the Saudis that we have to sit down with the Saudis and work something out.
	And the Saudis want very much for us to protect them.
	But I say, well, we have to work.
	That was an attack on Saudi Arabia.
	And there wasn't an attack on us.
	So now they're under attack, and we will work something out with them.
	But they also know that, you know, I'm not looking to get into new conflict.
	But sometimes you have to.
	As President Trump was talking with the Pentagon, the Pentagon is urging him not to get into a new conflict.
	In a message posted on Twitter, Mark Esper, who's the Defense Secretary, he said that the United States military and other government agencies were, quote, working with our partners to address this unprecedented attack and defend the international rules-based order that is being undermined by Iran.
	So there is this delicate dance that is being played.
	One of the things that has to happen, obviously, is the United States should work to strengthen Saudi's capacity to defend itself against Iranian incursions.
	Otherwise, it does put the U.S.
	on the hook every time Iran, every time Saudi Arabia is in threat of invasion.
	I mean, that's how we ended up in the first Gulf War.
	The United States should be working with foreign nations to flag their vessels.
	The United States should be providing escorts to foreign boats in the Straits of Hormuz.
	Iran should know that we're not looking for all-out war, but if you fire on an internationally flagged vessel, you will be fired upon.
	And if you attempt to send drones into Saudi Arabia, the Saudis should have the capacity to shoot down those drones and to retaliate in like fashion against Iranian military targets.
	Deterrence is an aspect of foreign policy.
	There seems to be this weird binary view of American foreign policy, where if the United States threatens force, that that ends up meaning that we use force.
	We threaten force, like, all the time in American foreign policy.
	And that is what is called deterrence.
	The vast majority of cases, deterrence is enough.
	We have the most powerful military on planet Earth.
	You know who doesn't want war more than the United States?
	Iran.
	Because if Iran were to actually go to full-scale war with the United States, you know who ends up dead?
	The mullahs.
	Okay, that is not a war that the Iranians want to fight.
	Now, does that mean that the United States should want to fight that war?
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	I mean, we have too many people in the region.
	Our bases are not sufficiently protected.
	We are stretched militarily because of the Obama year cuts.
	But with that said, foreign policy is a delicate balance of the threat, the credible threat of aggression, Combine with a desire for diffusing situations.
	And I think, frankly, that President Trump has not done a bad job on this front at all.
	And I think he continues to do a good job on Iran.
	We need to keep the pressure up.
	We need to strengthen Saudi Arabia's ability to defend itself from these sorts of incursions.
	But we shouldn't be looking to go to all out war.
	And I think, frankly, that is where President Trump is at this point.
	OK, time for some things I like and then time for some things that I hate.
	So things that I like today.
	There is a phenomenal series on Netflix, a really first rate series on Netflix.
	Starring Sasha Baron Cohen, who, as it turns out, can act.
	And not just a comedic actor, actually a good, like, actor actor.
	The series is called The Spy.
	He plays a spy named Eli Cohen.
	Eli Cohen was one of the most famous spies in Israeli history.
	He actually rose to become, effectively, the deputy defense minister of Syria.
	I mean, it's an amazing story.
	He infiltrated the government of Syria in the 1960s and became so friendly with everybody that they elevated him to one of the top government positions.
	He was special defense advisor to the president of Syria in the middle of the Israeli-Syrian conflict.
	And his work was responsible for saving innumerable Israeli lives.
	It's a touching story.
	It's a tragic story.
	It's really, really well done.
	Gideon Raff was the guy behind the original Israeli version of Homeland, created the series, and Baron Cohen does a terrific job with it.
	Here's a little bit of the preview.
	Do you consider yourself a patriot?
	I love this country with all my might.
	Welcome to Syria.
	If your country needed you to lie to your friends, your family, your wife, would you do it?
	I would be a buyer, working for the government.
	If your country asked you to risk your life, would you do it?
	This is the opportunity for me to give you the life that I promised your daddy.
	My name...
	My name is Kamel Amin Thabit.
	It really is terrific.
	I mean, first rate, well produced, beautiful, beautiful looking.
	Tragic.
	It's I can't speak highly enough of the series.
	It really is great.
	Go check out The Spy.
	One of the things that's great about The Spy is that it does make clear the stakes in the Middle East.
	So today is Israel's election.
	Here's the reality of Israel's election.
	It does not matter who the prime minister of Israel is.
	The defense policy will be nearly precisely the same.
	The left in the United States and internationally would like to pretend that with Netanyahu not in power, suddenly Israel is going to cut some sort of deal with terrorists.
	It ain't happening.
	The left in Israel no longer exists.
	Kachov Levan, which is the centrist party, that is a center-right party.
	If it were not for the fact that Netanyahu, because he is a power broker in Israeli politics and a power player and very Machiavellian, had basically ousted a lot of former leaders inside his own Likud party, the fact is that the Likud coalition would be like 90 seats, not 60.
	So we'll see how the elections shake out tonight.
	But this does raise the question of continued anti-semitism because this movie does show that there's one fantastic scene in which Ellie Cohen is at the Syrian border and in a Syrian high-ranking military officers explaining that killing civilians is totally worthwhile and necessary because each civilian that is killed in Israel is killing a future soldier or a current soldier.
	They're looking like shooting farmers.
	It's a pretty telling moment.
	The fact is that that is the anti-Semitism that Israel does face in the Middle East.
	They've always faced that in the Middle East.
	It's not going to abate anytime soon.
	The Israeli government knows it.
	The center knows it.
	The right knows it.
	The Israeli people know it.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	So speaking of the continued prevalence of antisemitism and the willingness to abide it on the left, the Women's March has gotten rid of some of its leaders.
	So they finally got rid of Linda Sarsour.
	She is out.
	So is Bob Land.
	So is Tamika Mallory.
	Sarsour, of course, is a rabid antisemite.
	Tamika Mallory is a person who has paid homage to Louis Farrakhan repeatedly.
	Well, now they've been replaced.
	Isn't that exciting?
	And they've been replaced by a bunch of people who are basically just as terrible.
	There's one named Zahra Bilu.
	Okay, and turns out that Zahra Bilu is just a civil rights lawyer and now a new head of the Women's March.
	She has some opinions on the Jews and it's not great.
	She's tweeted in favor of Hezbollah and Hamas.
	She's tweeted in favor, she accused the FBI of recruiting mentally ill young people for ISIS.
	Okay, she suggested that Hamas is superior to what she calls Apartheid Israel.
	She says, Israel is an Apartheid racist state which engages in terrorism against Palestinians, just in case the Zionists didn't hear me.
	So they replaced some anti-Semites with other anti-Semites, which is really exciting and solid stuff.
	Well done, everybody.
	She actually tweeted out in 2014, blaming Hamas for firing rockets at Apartheid Israel is like blaming a woman for punching her rapist.
	Hamas was democratically elected to govern Palestine, so she's an actual terror supporter.
	The Women's March replaced some anti-Semites with other anti-Semites.
	Also, she'll be joined in the leadership of the Women's March by a woman named Samia Assad, who apparently also tweeted, the more appropriate question to ask in the context of this conversation is, do you believe in how Israel exists now?
	I will tell you no.
	To this day, Israel has never declared its borders and continues to occupy lands and deny Palestinians human rights.
	So just wonderful job, everybody.
	You've done fantastic work there over at the Women's March.
	It's just weird how this coincidence keeps happening, just keeps happening over and over.
	But don't worry, anti-Semitism is dead.
	It doesn't exist.
	And obviously, Israel needs to elect someone who's going to make a deal with Hamas at the behest of Ilhan Omar, just so long as, listen, Ilhan Omar says, as long as Netanyahu is not existent, if he stops existing, things will be better.
	The world may be in for a rude awakening, because whether Netanyahu is re-elected, in which case everybody freaks out, or whether Netanyahu is not re-elected, and the new government does exactly what the old government did, they're about to find out the Israeli public is not willing to go quietly into that good night at the behest of the international left and their terrorist allies in Hamas and Hezbollah.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here tomorrow with the results of the Israeli election, among other pieces of news.
	I'm Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Adam Siovitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
	We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

▲