Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 8, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

58:44

Flynn Goes Free | Ep. 1007

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is exonerated by the Justice Department.
	Democrats insist on a continued lockdown with no alternative plan.
	And Tara Reid speaks out.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	This show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.com.
	Don't like the government spying on you?
	Well, visit ExpressVPN.com slash Ben to stay anonymous.
	Okay, so we will get to everything coronavirus related because the new economic reports are just as stunning and shocking as people thought they would be.
	We now have Great Depression level unemployment in this country.
	We went over the course of six weeks from 3.5% unemployment to 14.7% unemployment, which are levels not recorded since the Great Depression.
	Are we allowed to talk about ending this lockdown yet?
	Are we allowed to talk about it?
	Or are you just going to scream that we're killing grandma if we even have discussions about how to responsibly reopen?
	We will get to that.
	But the big story of the day yesterday is that the Department of Justice dropped the case against Michael Flynn, President Trump's former National Security Advisor, to recap what happened with Michael Flynn.
	Basically, Michael Flynn had been put in place as the National Security Advisor, the incoming National Security Advisor for President Trump.
	Fairly significant questions about whether that was a good pick, considering that Michael Flynn was very friendly with Russia today.
	He was very friendly with the government of Turkey.
	There were questions about those sorts of associations.
	But aside from that, he had a call with Sergey Kislyak, who was the Russian ambassador.
	That was not illegal.
	He was the incoming Trump National Security Advisor.
	Not illegal for him to talk to to Sergei Kislyak.
	Apparently, he was talking with Kislyak about sanctions with regard to Israel or UN UN sanctions with regard to Israel, UN resolutions with regard to Israel.
	That was happening simultaneous with the Obama administration attempting at the very last minute to basically pull the rug out from under Israel.
	So he was calling up Kislyak and they were having a negotiation about all of this.
	He was called in front of the FBI.
	The FBI went and visited with him.
	And when they visited with him, they said, don't worry, we're not investigating you or anybody close to you.
	We're just here for like a friendly chat.
	And in the middle of that chat, they asked him whether he'd had a conversation with Kislyak.
	This is in the middle of the entire Trump is Russian cat's paw.
	Obviously, this election only went the way it did because of Russian interference.
	And they asked him if he had talked with Kislyak.
	And he said he had not talked with Kislyak.
	And that meantime, by the way, they had been basically threatening him that if he had talked of Kislyak, he might have violated the Logan Act.
	The Logan Act is a century and a half old piece of legislation that is overwhelmingly believed to be by legal scholars unconstitutional.
	It basically says that if you're an American citizen, you can't carry out your own foreign policy.
	Not only is he an American citizen, though, he was the incoming national security advisor.
	There's nothing remotely illegal about him talking with the Russian ambassador.
	So he fibbed to the FBI, right?
	That is the part that is undisputed, is he fibbed to the FBI.
	Then it comes out that there are all sorts of documents that make it look like the FBI is attempting to get him to fib to the FBI simply so that they can then turn him against other members of the Trump administration and maybe start moving up the food chain toward President Trump in their quixotic quest to get Trump on Trump-Russia collusion.
	Well, it turns out that after three years of this, basically bankrupting Michael Flynn, after three years of him being in danger of having to go to jail for violation of fibbing to the FBI, and I say fibbing as opposed to lying because it's sort of a fib when you lie about something non-material, right?
	It's a lie when you lie about something material, like there's an underlying crime.
	Did you do the drug deal?
	Like, nope, didn't do the drug deal.
	Turns out you did the drug deal, right?
	That's lying to the FBI in pursuit of a crime.
	If they ask you, did you eat ice cream yesterday?
	And you're like, nope, didn't eat ice cream yesterday.
	Eating ice cream was not a crime.
	That's why I'm using the term fibbing as opposed to lying.
	I am deliberately downplaying the extent of the lie because I do not think that this was a material lie and neither did the DOJ.
	According to National Review, the Justice Department yesterday moved to withdraw its case against the former Trump National Security Advisor, citing newly discovered and disclosed information according to a new court filing.
	The move was first reported by the Associated Press.
	It came less than an hour after the top prosecutor on the case, a guy named Brandon Van Graak, submitted his withdrawal from the case.
	It's pretty obvious he knew what was coming down the pike, and he decided he was going to withdraw as a sign of protest.
	The decision said that the White House interview Flynn gave to the FBI, which ultimately led to his guilty plea, was conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.
	In other words, even before the FBI went and talked with Flynn, there had been recommendations to shut down any investigation of Flynn.
	And then they reopened it specifically because they thought that perhaps they could sort of bully Flynn into either lying or into turning on people inside the Trump administration.
	We'll get to more of this in just one second because this is leading to accusations of politicization of the DOJ.
	The only thing I can say to that is, have you heard of Janet Reno?
	A former Attorney General under Bill Clinton.
	Have you heard of Eric Holder?
	Have you heard of Loretta Lynch?
	That's not whataboutism.
	It's just to point out that if this DOJ is politicized, which I think, frankly, this is a less politicized DOJ than anything coming out of the Obama administration.
	If you're talking about the dangers of a politicized DOJ, you might want to start a little bit earlier than the last five minutes.
	Anyway, we'll get to all that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact that now, with this level of economic uncertainty, You need to be on top of your business.
	You just cannot afford to not approach your business in granular fashion, particularly when it comes to your data.
	You need to know everything there is to know about your business.
	This is why you need NetSuite by Oracle.
	It's the world's number one cloud business system.
	With NetSuite, we give you financials, cash flow, payroll, inventory, and more, all in one place, so you have clear visibility and total control of your business.
	NetSuite customers have the flexibility to work from anywhere with immediate clarity on critical information directly at their fingertips.
	No more guessing.
	No more waiting.
	Make smarter decisions with confidence because you know everything there is to know about your business.
	Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to stay in control.
	Here at The Daily Wire, we are focused in extraordinary fashion on our data, but we also don't have a hairball of systems.
	If you've got a hairball of systems, you're doing 10 different systems to keep track of your data.
	You're making a mistake.
	Head on over to NetSuite right now.
	Receive your free guide, Managing Business Uncertainty.
	Schedule your free product tour right now at NetSuite.com slash Shapiro.
	Don't wait to get that free guide.
	Schedule your free product tour.
	NetSuite.com slash Shapiro.
	N-E-T-S-U-I-T-E dot com slash Shapiro.
	NetSuite.com slash Shapiro.
	Get that free guide, Managing Business Uncertainty.
	Schedule that free product tour right now.
	NetSuite.com slash Shapiro.
	Stay on top of the content that you need about your own business over at NetSuite.
	Okay.
	The DOJ puts out a decision letter, and the decision letter says that Flynn entered a guilty plea, which he has since sought to withdraw, to a single count of making false statements, in a January 24, 2017 interview with investigators of the FBI.
	This crime, however, requires the statement to not be simply false, but materially false, with respect to a matter under investigation.
	That is the law.
	Again, it has to be false with respect to a matter under investigation.
	The government has determined, pursuant to the principles of federal prosecution based on extensive review, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.
	Materiality, said the DOJ, is an essential element of the offense.
	Materiality, moreover, requires more than mere relevance or relatedness to the matter being investigated.
	It requires probative weight, whereby the statement is reasonably likely to influence the tribunal in making a determination required to be made.
	And they're saying that this is not something that happened.
	They say, after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant's supplemental pleadings, and basically it was only in the last couple of weeks that the government finally turned over to the defense all of these relevant documents, the government has concluded that the interview of Flynn was untethered to and unjustified by the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn, a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau's own words, prepared to close.
	Because it had yielded in absence of any derogatory information.
	In early January, the FBI had said, we're going to close this thing.
	The government is not persuaded that the January 24th, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn's statements were material, even if untrue.
	Moreover, we do not believe that the government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.
	So here is the background as the DOJ lays it out.
	The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into Flynn on August 16th, 2016, as part of the larger Crossfire Hurricane Umbrella investigation into the presidential campaign of President Trump and its coordination with Russian officials.
	Codenamed Crossfire Razor, the investigation's stated goal was to determine whether Flynn was directed and controlled by and or coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security or possible violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
	In addition to the predication for opening Crossfire Hurricane, which didn't identify Flynn, The FBI predicated the counterintelligence investigation of him on an articulable factual basis that consisted of three facts.
	Flynn's service as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, his publicly documented connection to state-affiliated Russian entities, and the fact that he traveled to Russia in December 2015.
	Now, after four months of investigation, the FBI came up with nothing.
	And they found that he was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger crossfire hurricane umbrella case they prepared to close the investigation.
	At some point prior to January 4th, 2017, the FBI even crafted a closing communication to affect the termination of the case.
	The document noted the specific goal and predication for the investigation.
	It laid out the numerous searches of holdings and investigative steps that yielded no derogatory information on Flynn.
	It stated that the investigation had failed to produce any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.
	It noted no interview of Flynn was required as part of the case closing procedure.
	And then they said the FBI is closing the investigation.
	Before the intended case closing actually took effect, the FBI learned that Flynn had talked to Kislyak in December 2016.
	By this time, of course, Flynn had already been named by Trump the incoming National Security Advisor.
	The FBI had the transcripts of the relevant calls.
	Believing that the counterintelligence of Flynn was to be closed, the FBI leadership determined to continue its investigation of Flynn on the basis of the calls and considered opening a new criminal investigation based solely on the Logan Act.
	And this is where you get into complete BS.
	Again, the Logan Act has not been prosecuted successfully in a hundred years.
	Like really, it's never been prosecuted successfully, not once.
	On January 4th, 2017, FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok learned that the closure had not been timely executed, the counterintelligence investigation into Flynn was formally still open.
	Strzok immediately relayed the serendipitously good news to Lisa Page, the special counsel to FBI Director Andrew McCabe, remarking, Page reacted with surprise and relief.
	Strzok instructed agents to keep it open for now at the behest of the seventh floor.
	Strzok indicated there was a need to decide what to do with him.
	Other internal FBI messages from that afternoon reflect apparently related conversations about a potential interview.
	As of January 4th, the FBI kept its counterintelligence investigation into Flynn open, based solely on his calls with Kislyak.
	On January 12th, the Washington Post reported those communications between Flynn and Kislyak.
	The next day, Sean Spicer, spokesperson for the Trump transition, clarified the communications had involved only logistics that seemed to contradict the nature of the calls.
	And then VP Pence stated in a news interview that Flynn had suggested his conversation with Kislyak did not relate to sanctions.
	Around that time, FBI Director Comey advised DOJ leadership of its investigation into Flynn, and senior officials at the FBI and DOJ had concerns that the incumbent White House official's descriptions of Flynn's calls with Kislyak were not accurate.
	Comey took the position the FBI would not notify the incoming Trump administration of the Flynn-Kislyak communications.
	Okay, so now what we have is they think that Flynn lied to members of the administration, but they have the transcripts of the calls.
	They know that he didn't do anything that actually violated the Logan Act or broke the law, but they're seeing daylight between the Trump administration and Flynn.
	And this is when you get into, do we want to get Flynn fired so that we can get him to testify against other members of the Trump administration?
	Or do we want to catch him in a lie so that he's consistent with what he has told other members of the Trump administration?
	And then we can catch him in a lie and we can threaten him so that he'll turn on members of the Trump administration.
	That seems to be the logic here.
	Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and other DOJ officials believed that the incoming administration should be notified, but Comey said no.
	Yates and another senior DOJ official became frustrated when Comey's justification for withholding the information from the Trump administration repeatedly morphed, vacillating from a potential compromise of a counterintelligence investigation to the protection of a purported criminal investigation.
	The Deputy Attorney General, DNI, and Director of Central Intelligence Agency all agreed the FBI should notify the incoming Trump administration of what had actually been said on the calls.
	Comey refused to brief the White House.
	Because Comey apparently was just thoroughly convinced that the Russians were playing the Trump administration and he didn't want to tip them off to the fact that an investigation was going on.
	Comey should have been fired like forthwith.
	This is ridiculous stuff from James Comey, who's busy posturing presumably in the woods right now.
	Matters came to a head January 24, 2017.
	This is all the DOJ letter.
	That morning, Yates contacted Director Comey to demand the FBI notify the White House of the communication.
	So, Yates has been sort of dragged through the mud by the Trump administration to a certain extent.
	Yates actually wanted the FBI to notify the White House.
	Director Comey didn't return the call.
	When Comey called her back later that day, he advised her FBI agents were already on their way to the White House to interview Flynn.
	Yates was flabbergasted and dumbfounded.
	Other senior DOJ officials hit the roof upon learning of that development, saying an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with the DOJ.
	In fact, senior officials at the FBI had been engaged in discussions of how to approach Flynn and whom to notify.
	On January 21st, 2017, Strzok proposed to Bill Priestap, the FBI's counterintelligence chief, that Flynn should be given a defensive briefing about an investigation under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella, or alternatively, an interview under light defensive briefing pretext.
	Strzok noted that the DOJ might direct us to inform the Vice President or somebody else, and they didn't want to do that.
	And they wouldn't explain why they didn't want to tell the Trump administration.
	On January 22nd, an FBI attorney emailed Strzok and Page that if we usually tell the White House, I think we ought to do what we normally do.
	Though the official noted that they could be told not to debrief or interview Flynn.
	In advance of the interview, Comey determined they would go interview Flynn the following day without notifying either the DOJ or the White House.
	In a December 2018 interview, he said that this was something I probably wouldn't have done or gotten away with in a more organized administration.
	Okay, then messages between Strzok and Page indicated that Prestep had conducted several conversations with Andy McCabe because he wanted to know why we had to go aggressively doing these things openly.
	On the morning of January 24th, follow-up messages between Strzok and Page indicated that Prestep brought it up again in front of Comey, and McCabe was frustrated and cut him off.
	In any event, McCabe called Flynn to arrange the interview.
	He explained that recent media statements about his contacts with Kislyak merited a sit-down, and they said that they wanted to do this quickly, quietly, discreetly as possible.
	Flynn was unguarded in the interview.
	He viewed the agents as allies.
	When interviewing Flynn, Strzok and the other agents didn't show him the transcripts of the calls, nor did the agents give at any point warnings that making false statements would be a crime.
	Now normally, in these sorts of situations, you want to give the person fair warning that they're about to lie, specifically because you already know that they have lied in the past, so you sort of want to put all that out there.
	They didn't want to do that.
	The basic idea here was that they were going to essentially catch Flynn out, and then they were going to use him.
	According to the FBI agent's recollections, when asked if Flynn recalled any conversation in which he encouraged Kislyak not to escalate the situation in response to American sanctions, Flynn responded uncertainly, stating, not really, I don't remember, it wasn't don't do anything.
	Flynn also stated, although it was possible, he didn't recall any conversation in which the ambassador stated that Russia would moderate its response due to Flynn's request.
	Meanwhile, when asked if he recalled asking countries to take certain actions on that UN vote on Israeli settlements, Flynn explained the conversations were along the lines of where do you stand and what's your position.
	After the interview, the FBI agents expressed uncertainty as to whether Flynn had actually lied.
	FBI agents reported to their leadership that Flynn exhibited a very sure demeanor and didn't give any indicators of deception.
	Both of the agents had the impression Flynn wasn't lying or didn't think he was lying.
	When Comey was asked, do you believe Flynn lied?
	Comey said, I don't know.
	I think there's an argument he maybe lied.
	It's a close one.
	On November 30th, 2017, the special counsel's office filed a criminal information against Flynn, charging him with that single count of making false statements Flynn pled guilty to the offense.
	Okay, so the question as to the law is whether there is materiality here.
	They say that it is not just that you have to tell a lie, you have to show that there is materiality to the underlying investigation.
	In the case of Mr. Flynn, says the DOJ, the evidence shows his statements were not material to any viable counterintelligence investigation, or any investigation for that matter, initiated by the FBI.
	The FBI had recognized it lacked sufficient basis to sustain its initial counterintelligence investigation.
	They found no derogatory information on Flynn.
	The communications between Flynn and Kislyak did not warrant either continuing that existing counterintelligence investigation or opening a new criminal investigation.
	The calls were entirely appropriate on their face.
	Flynn never disputed the calls were made.
	Indeed, Flynn, as former DIA, because he was director of Defense Intelligence Agency, would have readily expected the FBI had known of the calls.
	In the words of one senior DOJ official, it seemed logical there may be some communication between an incoming administration and their foreign partners.
	And there was nothing said on the calls to indicate anything inappropriate going on.
	Also, the FBI knew the content of the calls.
	With no dispute as to what was said, there was no factual basis for the predication of a new counterintelligence investigation.
	And they didn't open a criminal investigation based on Flynn's calls with Kislyak predicated on the Logan Act.
	In fact, they never attempted to open a Logan Act investigation on these grounds.
	Flynn's communications implicated no crime.
	So they decide that they're going to let this thing go.
	And the reason they're going to let this thing go is because, again, there was really no criminal activity here.
	This has set off an absolute firestorm.
	The idea here is that Flynn presumably should have been prosecuted because it's unusual for the DOJ, after a guilty plea, to actually just release the person.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the fact that if you are not actively protecting your data online right now, you are doing something wrong.
	The fact is that You're used to working at work and you have IT departments that help you protect your data when you're at work, but now you're working from home and you're online 24 hours a day.
	And you know who else is online?
	Hackers.
	People who want that information.
	They want to steal your credit card information, they want to steal information about you, and they want to use it against you.
	That's why, even at home, I never go online without using ExpressVPN.
	ExpressVPN makes sure your ISP cannot see what sites you visit.
	Instead, your internet connection is rerouted through ExpressVPN's secure servers.
	Each ExpressVPN server has an IP address that's shared among thousands of users, which means everything you do is anonymized.
	It can't be traced back to you.
	ExpressVPN also encrypts 100% of your data with best-in-class encryption so your information is always protected.
	Use the internet with confidence from your computer, tablet, or smartphone.
	ExpressVPN has you covered on every device.
	You simply tap one button and you are now protected.
	Protect your online activity today with VPNitrust to secure my privacy.
	Visit my special link expressvpn.com slash ben.
	You're doing something dumb if you don't.
	And when you use my special link expressvpn.com slash ben, you get an extra three months free on a one-year package.
	That's expressvpn.com slash ben.
	expressvpn.com/ben to learn more.
	Go check them out right now, expressvpn.com/ben.
	Okay, so the Flynn release has basically set off a firestorm.
	The idea here is that Bill Barr, the Attorney General, is doing something deeply, deeply terrible because he's going back on the DOJ's initial prosecution of Flynn or threat of prosecution of Flynn to get him to bargain to a plea deal.
	He originally pled guilty back in 2017, and now they're abdicating basically that They're just getting rid of the case.
	And so people are mad about it.
	Julio Sullivan, former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal law, says, I've been practicing for more time than I care to admit.
	I've never seen anything like this.
	The case against Flynn was originally brought about by the office of the former special counsel, Robert Mueller.
	It had become a political cause for Trump and his supporters.
	Barr instead short-circuited the case.
	On Thursday, Timothy Shea, the interim U.S.
	attorney in the District of Columbia, told the judge overseeing the case the prosecutors were withdrawing it.
	That's because the department could not prove to a jury that Flynn's admitted lies to the FBI were material.
	The move essentially erases Flynn's guilty plea because he was never sentenced and the government is not willing to pursue the matter further.
	The prosecution is virtually certain to end, although the judge could still decide whether to grant the department's request to dismiss it with prejudice.
	It could theoretically be refiled in the future if the judge decides differently.
	A pardon would have been a lot more honest had Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches criminal law at Duke University, Bill says the law regarding what counts as material is extremely forgiving to the government.
	The idea is that law enforcement is permitted to pursue criminal theories of criminality and to interview people without having firmly established there was a crime first.
	Yeah, but if you just like five seconds ago said you were dismissing the entire investigation against somebody and then you are just relieved that it's still technically open so you can try to... I mean, basically they're trying to flip...
	Flynn against other people in the Trump administration.
	Because here's the bottom line.
	It looks like there were people, including Comey, inside the DOJ and the FBI at the time, who were firmly convinced that Trump-Russia collusion had happened.
	And now it's just a matter of raising the evidence so as to go get Trump.
	And so Flynn was just a tool in that.
	He was just a way of going after Trump and or removing Flynn from the process because as the national security advisor, he would be overseeing the investigation itself in some ways that would be able to protect Trump against some of the investigation.
	That's the theory of Andrew McCarthy over at National Review.
	So, the DOJ saying, listen, we're not going forward with this.
	Yes, it's unusual for the DOJ to do this.
	You know what else is really unusual?
	Prosecuting the National Security Advisor on the basis of a Logan Act fib.
	Okay, the Logan Act is not a thing.
	It's not a thing.
	And the idea that the Logan Act was supposedly the predicate for going and getting him to lie so that you could go after him and get him out of the chain of command is really incredible.
	It does undermine faith in the institution in the first place.
	I mean, the fact that they went forward with something like this on the basis of your incoming national security advisor talked with the Russians and then didn't tell everything in the call to Vice President Pence, and that this is a material lie in a criminal case.
	Good luck with that in court, number one.
	But beyond that, The fact that this was being carried out by holdovers from the Obama administration does not exactly create a level of trust.
	And this is particularly true when we find out from Fox News that President Obama was aware of the details of then-incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's intercepted December 2016 phone calls with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, apparently surprising Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, according to documents released on Thursday.
	Apparently, Obama had an intimate knowledge of the details of Flynn's call.
	Obama personally had warned the Trump administration against hiring Flynn, made clear he was not a fan.
	Obama had fired Flynn as head of the DIA in 2014.
	Obama cited insubordination.
	Flynn said that he was pushed out because of his aggressive stance on combating Islamic extremism.
	On January 5th, 2017, Yates attended an Oval Office meeting with Comey and Biden and Brennan and DNI James Clapper.
	They were discussing Russian election interference.
	After the briefing, Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind.
	He said he had learned the information about Flynn and his conversation with Russia's ambassador about sanctions.
	This would have been the day after the request to end the case, right?
	Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently, given the information.
	So there are two ways of reading that.
	One is, should the White House be shutting Flynn off to information because you guys think he's a criminal?
	And that's an honest question.
	The other is, so I've been hearing through the grapevine that basically this case is coming to an end, but I see that there's this call out there.
	Maybe you shouldn't let this case come to an end.
	We don't exactly know what was said.
	Apparently, Yates had no idea what the president was talking about.
	Apparently, Yates was being gone.
	She's the deputy attorney general, and they were going directly around her.
	Yates recalled Comey mentioning the Logan Act.
	I can't recall if he specified there was an investigation.
	Comey did not talk about prosecution in the meeting.
	I mean, it's pretty amazing.
	The FBI suggests, by the way, why exactly Flynn was originally prosecuted.
	Basically, because he was on Trump's team, because he had been on Russia Today, and because he went to Russia in December 2015.
	That's like the whole thing.
	So this whole case was thinly predicated in the very first place, and all the objections that somehow this is really a destruction of the legitimacy of the DOJ to drop a case that was thin to begin with, and that really was dedicated to removing all obstacles between the Mueller investigation and Trump in a case that was poorly predicated itself, that's a mistake.
	All right, coming up, we're going to get to everything coronavirus-related.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let us talk about your sleep quality.
	So I will admit to you that this is a very stressful time for everybody.
	And also, when you are home with your kids, that means that you just are not getting enough hours of sleep.
	My kids are going to bed too late.
	They're waking up too early.
	When I'm on the Helix Sleep mattress, however, those are moments of heaven.
	Helix Sleep.
	A mattress made just for me.
	Helix Sleep has a quiz.
	It takes just two minutes to complete, matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
	Whether you are a side sleeper or a hot sleeper, whether you like a plush or a firm bed with Helix, there's no more confusion and no more compromising.
	Helix Sleep is rated the number one mattress by GQ and Wired Magazine.
	CNN calls it the most comfortable mattress they've ever slept on.
	Just head on over to HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Take their two-minute sleep quiz.
	They will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
	They've got a 10-year warranty.
	You have to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you will.
	Helix is offering up to $200 off all mattress orders right now for my listeners.
	Again, 200 bucks off at HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	That is HelixSleep.com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	10-year warranty.
	Try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
	200 bucks off.
	I mean, does it get better than that?
	HelixSleep.com slash Ben for a mattress personalized To you.
	Really is an amazing mattress.
	Helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	Alrighty, so.
	Meanwhile, the coronavirus situation continues to develop in incredibly, incredibly foolish ways.
	And when I say that it's developing in incredibly foolish ways, what I mean is, it is now clear that we have flattened the curve as much as we are going to flatten the curve with these lockdowns.
	So you've been hearing all sorts of basically media lies about the elevation of cases.
	Oh, we're not locking this thing down.
	New York's starting to decline, but everywhere else is not starting to decline.
	You can't do it the way the media is doing it.
	They're doing an absolute number of cases rising outside of New York.
	Here's an actual chart showing the number of daily positives declining as a percentage of the actual test.
	That is the question.
	If you take a look at the daily positives declining chart from Scott Gottlieb, that's the one I want.
	Daily positivity rate over time is declining.
	So what you see here is that there was a sharp rise between basically March 13th and April 10th or so.
	Which makes sense because those are the two weeks following lockdown.
	So the infection is still running rampant and you're starting to see the testing increases and you're starting to see people testing positive more often.
	And now you're starting to see a fairly sharp decline to the point where we are now in terms of daily positivity test rate.
	We're now down around 10%.
	We're up at about 20%.
	So it's been halved.
	So it's a pretty solid flattening of the curve that has happened right there.
	And then, so what this raises the question of is what exactly are we attempting to do now, right?
	We've locked it down, right?
	We had the lockdown, we flattened the curve.
	And in flattening the curve, we completely flattened the economy.
	The economy has completely flatlined.
	Layoffs have now topped 33 million in the United States, 33 million.
	The unemployment rate in the United States is now 14.7%.
	These are Great Depression levels of unemployment.
	JP Morgan is suggesting it will take 10 years For the economy to recover the jobs that it lost just in the last month and a half alone.
	Are we allowed to discuss risks and trade-offs anymore?
	Are we allowed to do that now?
	Or are we going to continue to do this routine where if we talk about opening up at all, then we're killing grandma?
	So, for the folks who are pushing lockdown, it is obvious this is a political ploy.
	Andrew Cuomo continues to play this game.
	Really, he's a terrible governor, Andrew Cuomo.
	It's incredible.
	The man has an approval rating in the 80s.
	He has mishandled this worse than any governor in America.
	Worse than Gavin Newsom.
	Worse than any of the Republicans who are brought under scrutiny.
	Ron DeSantis is riding in the mid-50s right now.
	Ron DeSantis handled this way better than anybody else.
	Okay, Ron DeSantis basically said, listen, we're only going to shut down when we feel the necessity to shut down.
	Every place else stays open.
	And yes, we'll do social distancing.
	But I'm not going to treat the panhandle of Florida the same way that I'm going to treat Miami and South Beach.
	DeSantis yesterday, for example, he said, listen, people should be outdoors.
	They should be on beaches.
	As long as they're staying away from each other, there's no evidence of outdoor transmission.
	We have virtually no evidence of any outdoor transmissions leading to outbreaks, be it a beach, be it a golf course, be it fishing, anything that Florida is known for.
	The transmission has typically occurred in enclosed environments when you have repeated contact with someone, such as in the home.
	And so our policy was never to try to drive people indoors.
	It does show the incredible power of the media that DeSantis is down in the mid-fifties while dumbass Governor Andrew Cuomo, who's been awful, awful.
	I mean, the fact that he gets on TV and he tells you the bad news, he only has the luxury of telling you the bad news because he can blame Trump at the top of the government.
	But I mean, when he says stuff like, he's such a demagogue, when he says stuff like, you know, every life is priceless, again, every life is priceless in terms of its moral worth.
	When it comes to actually calculating public policy, nobody suggests that we have to mitigate all risks down to zero.
	And this seems to be the newfangled thought here is that we're going to mitigate all risks down to zero.
	You can't come out of your homes.
	You can't start to go back to work with social distancing.
	We can't protect that.
	We're going to just stay locked down forever until the risks go back to zero.
	We're going to abolish death.
	Joe Biden tweeted out that it's not worth one life.
	It's not worth one life to raise the Dow Jones Industrial Average one point.
	Okay, well then I suppose that we should probably just all abandon our jobs and then we can sit in our homes and we can farm dirt in our backyard.
	Sound good?
	We can go back to pre-civilization era when everybody's life expectancy was 35.
	I mean, I guess that's a good alternative if you're a moron.
	So here's Andrew Cuomo suggesting yesterday, you know, we're not going to choose between the health and the economy.
	There's no choice.
	It's a false choice.
	Whenever people suggest in politics that a choice is a false choice, typically they mean that it's just a choice they don't actually want to talk about.
	Here's Andrew Cuomo avoiding responsibility for making choices that he's going to have to make.
	If it's about money, we'll figure it out.
	But you have to have your health.
	That's why public health versus the economy.
	I don't see the trade-off.
	We have to have our health.
	We should protect human life.
	I don't care if a person is old.
	You know, I'm old by your definition.
	I still think I have a value, right?
	My mother's old.
	You know, she's the most precious person to me.
	So, protect every life.
	And I'm not going to trade off public health.
	And we'll figure out the dollars and we'll figure out the economic impact.
	What a cheap and lazy political point of view.
	I mean, that is just cheap, lazy demagoguery.
	Of course, every life has value.
	Of course, I've got parents who are in their 60s.
	You think I want them to plot?
	Nobody wants them.
	I have grandmothers who are in their 90s.
	Do you think I want them to plot?
	Of course, I don't want them to plot.
	Nobody wants anybody to die.
	The question is, what are the risks that we as a society are willing to undertake to allow an economy to function?
	This is complete idiocy, the way that this is being discussed.
	Complete idiocy.
	And by the way, I don't want to hear from Andrew Cuomo about how dedicated he is to protecting the elderly when he wouldn't even protect the damn nursing homes.
	Let me show you some stats from these nursing homes, because they're insane.
	Let me tell you some stats from the nursing homes.
	So, by country, here are the percentage of COVID-19 deaths taking place in nursing homes.
	This is across the world, okay?
	25% of all deaths in Australia were in nursing homes.
	62% in Canada, 33% in Denmark, 51% in France, 36% in Germany, 60% in Ireland, 32% in Israel, 40% in Portugal, 45% in Sweden.
	Okay, and then, if you look at the United States, what you're going to see is similar statistics.
	In the United States, by state, 58% of deaths, nursing homes.
	Connecticut, 55%.
	Delaware, 65%.
	Florida, 38%.
	Georgia, 48%.
	Indiana, 35%.
	Kentucky, 57%.
	Louisiana, 37%.
	Minnesota, 81%.
	Mississippi, 44%.
	New Hampshire, 77%.
	Oklahoma, 43%.
	Rhode Island, 76%.
	Tennessee, 25%.
	Wisconsin, 42%.
	Georgia, 48%. Indiana, 35%. Kentucky, 57%. Louisiana, 37%. Minnesota, 81%. Mississippi, 44%. New Hampshire, 77%. Oklahoma, 43%.
	Rhode Island, 76%. Tennessee, 25%. Wisconsin, 42%.
	New Jersey is reporting that their death share is actually now 50%.
	Pennsylvania is up to 68%.
	Virginia is 59% nursing homes.
	New York, we don't know, because New York refuses to report these statistics.
	Why does New York refuse to report the statistics?
	Because then Andrew Cuomo might be forced to recognize that his dumbass policy of, we are going to force nursing homes to take back in people with COVID-19, killed a lot of people.
	Here was Andrew Cuomo being asked about his state handling of the nursing homes and completely, you know, just botching it.
	We knew the nursing homes were going to be a target.
	And whatever we do, they will be a target.
	Our people are doing everything they can do.
	We have the equipment, we have the staff.
	They're doing everything they can do.
	Okay, they're doing everything they can do.
	Well, they're doing everything they can do in light of the fact that your regulations are garbage.
	But here's the bottom line.
	Would you actually like to protect the people who are dying from COVID-19?
	Protect the nursing homes.
	That is task number one, is protect the nursing homes.
	And then we need to tranche people back into work and we need to do it forthwith.
	And there's nothing more lazy than this idea that if you loosen lockdown, if you let people go back to work, That it's going to be like 9-11 every day.
	That's what Al Gore was saying.
	Al Gore was out there yesterday saying it'll be just like 9-11 every day.
	Provide me an alternative.
	I've not yet heard an alternative from any of you.
	From any of you.
	Like what?
	When the cases get to zero, it ain't happening.
	With 80% asymptomatic transmission.
	What, we're doing 50 million tests a day?
	When we have contact tracing for 50 million people in the United States?
	The hell are you talking about?
	Here's Al Gore being a demagogue.
	When the University of Washington made these adjustments, they said within a month we're going to see 3,000 deaths per day, 200,000 new infections each day.
	That's a 9-11 every single day.
	And ignoring that, thinking that somehow magically that's not going to happen, this is a botched reopening.
	It's a botched reopening.
	We haven't even reopened yet.
	The hell are you talking about?
	And how do you know it's a botchery when you haven't even seen the stats coming out of Georgia?
	My favorite thing is when the members of the media start citing increased testing statistics to cite the increased number of positives.
	They've been doing this routine.
	Oh, look at how many positives are coming out in Texas and Florida.
	Yes, because they're increasing their testing.
	They're increasing their testing, you idiots.
	In just a second, we're going to get to actually, you know, the measures that are now being taken because they're absurd.
	They're absurd.
	I'm sorry.
	They're just absurd.
	And the attitude that's being taken with regard to relieving lockdown.
	We have to discuss the fact that 33 million Americans are out of jobs.
	And if you refuse to recognize this thing, you are abandoning those 33 million Americans.
	And don't tell me you can fill them in with a government check.
	You can't.
	These are people who are losing their livelihoods.
	They're losing their dreams.
	They're losing their ability to feed their children.
	And you're telling me you're the compassionate one because you won't even condemn a governor for refusing to protect the nursing homes?
	Go to hell.
	Seriously.
	It's ridiculous at this point.
	We're going to get to how people won't even discuss the policy in just one second.
	First, let's talk about the simple fact that you're spending a lot of time at home right now.
	You need to be comfortable, but you would also like to be stylish.
	Tommy John has something for everyone.
	No matter what you are working from home situation is, no matter what that situation is from super soft and breathable underwear for answering emails in bed, To loungewear for when you're running to get takeout, Tommy John is here to keep you comfortable.
	Right now, Tommy John is offering all customers 25% off site-wide.
	Treat yourself and upgrade to a few pairs of Tommy John underwear in the softest, most breathable fabrics you have ever worn.
	All of their loungewear leggings are built for next level comfort.
	Whether you're in the hunt for lounge pants, sleep shorts, or lazing around joggers, Tommy John has got you covered.
	They also make great Mother's Day gifts.
	My wife loves Tommy John products.
	I mean, their female products are just fantastic.
	Tommy John is so confident in their products.
	If you don't love your first pair of underwear, you get a full refund.
	With their best pair you'll ever wear, or it's free, guaranteed.
	Tommy John, no adjustment needed.
	There's a reason my wife is only allowing me to get her Tommy John from now on.
	Hurry to TommyJohn.com slash Ben for 25% off your order.
	That's TommyJohn.com slash Ben for 25% off orders.
	TommyJohn.com slash Ben.
	See site for details.
	It's a great deal for the best pair of underwear on the market and all the rest of their loungewear.
	Which is also fantastic stuff.
	Go check out tommyjohn.com slash ben right now.
	All right, we're gonna get back into the politics of lockdown in just one second because it is fairly obvious that there are a lot of people who are basically comfortable with lockdown because what they would like more than anything else is to completely recraft American life.
	You're starting to see this from members of the Democratic Party.
	Ayanna Pressley and Rashad Robinson have a piece over at USA Today basically suggesting just this.
	San Francisco has a few measures of its own.
	All of this is craziness.
	We'll get to it in a second.
	First, it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire member.
	Today, it is Linda Morgan on Twitter.
	She's doing quarantine schooling right.
	In this picture, Linda's husband is diligently helping their happy son with his schoolwork while holding the world's greatest beverage vessel in one hand and a second glorious Tumblr resting on the computer desk.
	That is the way to do it.
	The caption reads, Real Daily Wire, when both your parents are teachers, there is no relief from home learning.
	Thank goodness for the refreshing taste of leftist tears.
	Hashtag leftist tears Tumblr.
	Hashtag Daily Wire.
	Hashtag it's got electrolytes.
	True, true.
	Fantastic.
	His test scores will improve two-fold with two times the tumblers.
	Thanks for the pick, Linda.
	Keep up the good work.
	Now is also a good time to tell you about The Daily Wire's newest, most exclusive membership tier, the All Access Insider.
	The All Access Insider membership tier is our premium level of membership.
	All Access members get all the benefits of our other membership tiers.
	You get that ad-free website experience, all of our live broadcasts, our show library, including the mailbags, the full three hours of The Ben Shapiro Show with the dedicated editorials from me.
	But you also get other amazing benefits, including We left this to your stumbler.
	You also get to join the live exclusive online Q and A's, our daily wire new discussion feature available on both the website and the app.
	Also, you get to participate in our extraordinarily popular all access live.
	That is our brand new show that we've been doing every single day.
	One of our hosts every single day.
	We'll hang out with you 8 p.m.
	Eastern, 5 p.m.
	Pacific.
	I'm on tonight.
	Who knows what craziness will ensue?
	Will I play tunes on my face?
	Will I whistle for you?
	Will I flex my- Who knows?
	It could get crazy, guys.
	Will I dress up as Darth Vader?
	Who knows what insanity will ensue?
	Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe to join Daily Wire's all-access club with a new membership or an upgrade.
	Get 10% off with coupon code SHAPIRO.
	That is dailywire.com slash subscribe.
	See you there.
	You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So these lockdowns, of course, come along with the disadvantage of having to enforce the lockdowns.
	And the general rule is, if you don't want to enforce a rule, then don't put the rule in place in the first place.
	If you want to hand people a ticket for a fine, hand people a ticket for a fine.
	But if you don't feel like tackling people in the middle of New York, or tackling people on the streets of New Jersey, well then probably you shouldn't tell people in the police force that they need to do exactly that.
	Also, other bad ideas.
	Policing the ice cream man.
	This is a thing that happened yesterday.
	There was a local news affiliate that was broadcasting out the face of an ice cream truck driver who was not practicing social distancing.
	He was not.
	He was driving around in his ice cream truck.
	He was not wearing a mask.
	And he was handing children, the least vulnerable members of our population, pre-packaged frozen treats.
	I mean, unbelievable, the level of viciousness of this human being.
	Clearly, he should be featured on local media, and we should make him an outlaw.
	Probably, we should put him on the FBI 10 Most Wanted.
	Because when I think of, like, severe dangers, handing people ice cream outside with, you know, distance between you, that's naturally created by, you know, being inside a truck and handling stuff to people outside.
	Clearly, this guy is just, what a terrible person.
	Here was the local CBS Chicago report on this.
	You think it's a good idea to be doing this with the stay-at-home order?
	With COVID-19?
	Eventually, our Greg got a bit closer.
	Tried to get an answer from Mr. Freeze.
	Again, not his name.
	Why aren't you wearing a mask, sir?
	Why are you selling ice cream to children without wearing a mask?
	Are you sick?
	Am I sick?
	No, and I want to say that.
	I'm not sick either.
	So why are they quarantining healthy people?
	The village manager tells us if you see that ice cream man, call 911.
	Call 9-1-1.
	Mr. Freeze, he's on the loose again.
	Meanwhile, over in Texas, Shelly Luther, who is the salon owner, who was engaged in, you know, social distancing and responsibly opening her business like a few days early, and a judge tried to throw her in jail for a week and fine her $7,000.
	She walked out of jail to loud applause yesterday, which is good news.
	But here's the thing, the pedal is gonna, the rubber meat is gonna meet the road here.
	Okay, there is just no way for you to enforce these sorts of things without actual, without actual Police enforcement.
	Are you willing to do that?
	And are you willing to throw people in jail for not wearing a mask in public areas while providing cannabis to the homeless in San Francisco?
	This is a thing they're actually doing.
	According to the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco's health department confirmed on Wednesday that the city was administering alcohol, tobacco, medical cannabis, and other substances in an effort to prevent a handful of people quarantined or isolating in city-leased hotels from going outside to get the substances themselves.
	So it's great.
	Now we have home delivery by the government of illegal medications.
	Two homeless people who are living in hotels at the expense of the government.
	Great policy.
	Excellent, excellent policy.
	I mean, I'm sorry.
	This is insanity.
	Especially if you were going to say that, sure, we have to be harsh on this because it's really flattening the curve.
	We are really making sure that we are stopping this thing.
	If you got a plan, then let's hear the plan.
	But I haven't heard a plan yet.
	So yesterday, I briefly discussed the fact that there is no actual plan here.
	That we were told to go into lockdown, and don't worry guys, there would be a plan.
	And then it turns out, the plan doesn't exist.
	And the reason the plan doesn't exist is because we don't actually know what's going to happen over the course of the next year.
	We have a series of models and they tell us what's going to happen one month out, but this is basically irrelevant.
	It's basically irrelevant what's going to happen one month out because we know that if people leave lockdown, there will be an additional number of infections.
	That is just the thing that is going to happen.
	So yesterday, I actually put together in colorful fashion the chart of what I'm talking about so you can see exactly to what I am referring.
	Okay, so here's the chart.
	The basic idea here is that there are three curves for folks who cannot see.
	There's a pink curve, there is a blue curve, and there is a green curve.
	Okay, and then there is a red line across the middle of the page that shows medical capacity.
	The three curves represent three different strategies of how to handle this thing.
	The pink curve was uncontrolled spread, right?
	The uncontrolled spread was basically just let everybody go about willy-nilly.
	There's gonna be huge spike in cases, and everybody's gonna get infected, and then a lot of people are going to die because you're going to rise above the medical capacity, right?
	And you don't want that because all the people above the medical capacity might have been able to survive if you had not overwhelmed the medical capacity.
	And that's what we did.
	We flattened the curve.
	So now we're arguing about which curve we want.
	Do we want this blue curve or do we want the green curve?
	The blue curve rises faster and declines faster.
	It doesn't overwhelm medical capacity.
	It rises faster and it declines faster.
	And then there's the green curve, which rises slower and declines slower over time.
	The number of infections, and thus the number of deaths, under both the blue curve and the green curve, because they do not overwhelm medical capacity, the number of infections, and as a percentage of the infections, the number of deaths, should be the same.
	Over time.
	So here's what the media are doing so they can lie to you about how lockdowns are the only available solution, and if you don't lock down, you want to kill grandma.
	What they're doing is they're showing you models that cut off in June 2020.
	It is the vertical line that you see on the left-hand side of the screen.
	And that vertical line says June 2020.
	Now, if you cut off the screen in June 2020, what you would see is a huge number of cases and therefore deaths under the blue strategy, right?
	Which is make sure that people in nursing homes are taken care of.
	Make sure that elderly people stay home.
	Make sure that there is some form of social distancing specifically for people who are most vulnerable, but everybody else.
	You know, if you want to go to a ball game with a bunch of 20-year-olds and then there some infections, in all likelihood, you will be fine because the odds of you getting really sick are really low, right?
	That is pursuing herd immunity in faster fashion.
	It's front-loading the herd immunity.
	So if you front-load the herd immunity, you're also front-loading the infections.
	So if you cut off the model at June 2020, what you see is that there would be a lot fewer people infected and a lot fewer people dead by the beginning of June 2020 under the Heavy lockdown, heavy social distancing model than under the controlled avalanche model.
	But now, move forward to June 2021.
	So move forward a year.
	And what do you see?
	What you see is that the number of infections and the number of dead are basically the same in the blue model and the green model.
	It's just that it was spread out longer over the green model, right?
	The area under the two curves is the same, meaning the number of infections and the number of dead is basically the same, so long as you don't overwhelm the medical capacity.
	The difference between the blue model and the green model is that the blue model involves reopening the economy in heavier fashion, right?
	Not destroying the entire world economy.
	And the green model involves continuing to destroy the entire world economy.
	So here are your choices.
	Same number of people dead over the course of the next year.
	You may save a few months for people, but essentially same number of people infected and same number of people dead over the course of the next year, but front loaded.
	So the pain is now versus Spread out over time so that instead of 2,000 deaths today, you get 1,000 deaths today.
	And then six months from now, you're still getting 1,000 deaths today.
	And in the other model, you're now getting 200 deaths today because you went up and then you went down.
	And in one case, you didn't kill the economy.
	And in one case, you did kill the economy.
	These are the sorts of choices that have to be made right now.
	Now, what the left will say is that the blue curve does not actually exist.
	That it is only a choice between full lockdown and full release.
	And that is not true.
	It is just not true.
	Now the other counter argument that I've seen here is that it's very difficult to do anything like the sort of controlled avalanche strategy that I've been talking about because you get what you call epidemic overshoot.
	What that means is that, let's say that herd immunity happens at 60%, but let's say that the thing spreads faster, then you can actually control it.
	So you may end up with 80% of the population infected when you only needed 60% of the population infected to achieve herd immunity.
	So if you did it slowly, you'd gradually ease up to 60%, herd immunity would be achieved, and then the other 40% of people are protected.
	But if you allow people to go out willy-nilly, then you might achieve herd immunity, but because the thing is spreading so fast, you get people who are infected who wouldn't have been infected if you had done this slowly.
	That's true, but if you involve yourself in social distancing the way that Sweden has, and you approach it more slowly, then you're probably not going to get tremendous levels of epidemic overshoot.
	The key is, how do you get to herd immunity without that tremendous epidemic overshoot?
	Now, it is possible.
	And this is sort of the unspoken assumption that the green curve is better than the blue curve if there's a therapeutic or a vaccine developed.
	Now, people are way too sanguine about the possibility of a very effective vaccine here.
	Even Bill Gates, who's been pushing vaccination, he says that the chances of developing a super effective vaccine over the course of the next 12 months are not supremely high.
	The flu vaccine is used by about half of Americans.
	It's only 45% effective for those who use it.
	Even well-known vaccines, like Pertussis vaccine, Those create a certain level of herd immunity, and that's important, but they're only about 80% effective for people who actually take the vaccine.
	They are not, in fact, a cure-all.
	So you're assuming that there will be a therapeutic treatment or that there will be a vaccine that fix everything.
	If you're not assuming that, then you have to start thinking about what you can do to get past the pain of the health situation in order to ensure that we have a functioning economy.
	Because guess what?
	Not only are you going to get deaths of despair, you're going to get enormous numbers of people in poverty.
	You're going to have ruined lives in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions.
	Within six weeks, basically every small business in America will fail.
	And you can't just keep signing checks for this sort of stuff forever.
	So what is the alternative?
	I keep hearing people like, well, you're saying lockdown needs to end too early.
	Okay, you tell me, when do you think it's safe for lockdown to end?
	And nobody will give you an answer.
	Instead it's, okay, well, when we flatten the curve, we flatten the curve.
	Okay, it'll be when there's a testing and tracing procedure in place that's capable of what?
	Of what?
	Testing and tracing procedure capable of doing what?
	And nobody will explain that.
	Because the testing and tracing procedures are supposed to prevent the overwhelming of the healthcare system, which again, was the presupposition of the blue curve in the chart that I just showed you.
	The presupposition of the blue curve is that it doesn't overwhelm medical capacity.
	So that's what you need the testing and tracing for.
	You don't need it to get the rate down to zero.
	There is no world in which we get the rate down to zero.
	So, how about this?
	How about we recognize the cost of what we are doing?
	I'm sick of hearing there are no costs to what we are doing when there are clearly costs.
	In reality, there are a certain number of people who are deeply, deeply comfortable with all of this.
	They're deeply comfortable.
	And I'm talking about people like Ayanna Pressley, apparently, from Massachusetts.
	She has a piece in USA Today called, Congresswoman, called, In Post-Coronavirus World Politics Has to Change.
	She says the question is how we'll respond.
	Will we once again let fear and worry take over and drive us toward choices that take us backward?
	Or will we rise to the calling of this moment?
	Demand that we replace the principles that define our society today like inequality with the principles of humanity and justice that will help us all succeed.
	In other words, if we continue the lockdown, guess what?
	There's going to be inordinate pressure for massive government interventionism, universal basic income, government subsidization of everybody at extraordinary levels.
	There are some people who are very comfortable with lockdown because they actually like the consequences of the full-scale lockdown.
	That is not something that is acceptable.
	That is not acceptable to me.
	And I'm not going to stay in lockdown just so that you can pursue your socialist utopia.
	And guess what?
	Neither are most Americans.
	It is one thing to stay in lockdown based on expert advice as to how many lives this is going to save over the course of the next year, not over the course of the next two weeks.
	But I want to hear those estimates.
	And I want to hear your plan for reopening in a responsible fashion.
	Because so far, all I hear is people shrieking like banshees every time somebody actually tries to make a calculation.
	This is hanging up with headlines like this from David Axelrod, Donald Trump's cold, hard political calculation.
	Weird, because I don't hear any calculation from folks on the Democratic side.
	I just hear demagoguery.
	Our plan is that no one dies ever again in human history.
	And all you have to do is give up all of your freedoms forever.
	And we'll tell you when you can be free again.
	No.
	I'm sorry, the answer is no.
	No, nobody is offering a solution.
	Nobody.
	It's just a bunch of demagogic nonsense.
	Alrighty, time for some things that I hate.
	We'll start with things I hate today.
	I've been advised by my producer Colton that people like things I hate better than they like things I like.
	So we'll do things I hate today first.
	Okay, so things that I hate.
	I have to acknowledge.
	That Joe Biden, his campaign is just, it's an awful campaign.
	A truly awful campaign.
	So yesterday, Joe Biden had a virtual town hall.
	It was not good.
	It was not a good town hall.
	Basically, it failed technically on every single level.
	It involved Joe Biden trying to work a computer, which is never a good idea.
	Here was Joe Biden trying to determine whether he was answering a virtual rally in Tampa, Florida.
	Here was Joe Biden being confused as to what computers are and why they didn't exist when he was a child.
	Please welcome Vice President Joe Biden.
	That's...
	That's...
	Okay, guys.
	That is not us.
	Those cutouts there, that's not our technical fault.
	That is his technical fault, and the thing was glitching, and he didn't know whether he was on, and he's somehow like sitting in the back of the room, and then he sort of randomly approaches the camera.
	Yeah, good luck right there.
	I will admit, I did appreciate the squawking bird interrupting Biden and giving the most authoritative commentary of the day.
	Here's actually what it sounded like when a squawking bird just started sounding off in the middle of this.
	You know, we should be designing our economic response to avoid these desperate outcomes.
	And they're not only desperate, they affect people in so many different ways.
	So the funds can actually reach people in communities and small businesses, you know, that they're supposed to be helping.
	Okay, good job, Biden campaign.
	Other things that the Biden campaign is handling just top-notch, the Tara Reade allegations.
	So Tara Reade did a sit-down with Megyn Kelly yesterday after the rest of the media basically said they wouldn't have her on for weeks.
	And then finally, they said they wanted to have her on.
	And she was like, you know what?
	After you rejected me for weeks, I'm going to go no on that.
	And maybe I'll go over to somebody who at least is going to be somewhat more sympathetic to allegations of sexual assault.
	So here was Tara Reade yesterday calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race.
	If he's watching this, what do you want to say to him?
	I want to say, you and I were there, Joe Biden.
	Please step forward and be held accountable.
	You should not be running on character for the president of the United States.
	You want him to withdraw?
	I wish he would, but he won't, but I wish he would.
	That's how I feel emotionally.
	Do you want an apology?
	I think it's a little late.
	Okay, and then Megyn Kelly asked Sarah Reid if she'll take a polygraph, and here was Sarah Reid's answer.
	They also point out that she took a polygraph controlled by someone on her team.
	Is that something you want to do?
	I'm not a criminal.
	Joe Biden should take the polygraph.
	What kind of precedent does that set for survivors of violence?
	Does that mean we're presumed guilty and we all have to take polygraphs?
	So I will take one if Joe Biden takes one.
	But I'm not a criminal.
	Okay, so the reality is she should say, sure, I'm happy to take a polygraph, right?
	I have serious doubts as to Tara Reade's credibility here.
	I've been saying this for a while, but I had serious doubts as to Christine Blasey Ford's credibility.
	Like, I think serious questions should be asked of anybody who alleges something as serious as a full-on sexual assault.
	The difference is Democrats don't feel the same way.
	There is certainly more contemporaneous evidence that Tara Reade actually even worked for Joe Biden and made complaints about Joe Biden than there was with Christine Blasey Ford.
	According to the Merced Sun-Star, Taking this apparently from the Washington Post.
	A court document from 1996 shows former Senate staffer Tara Reade told her ex-husband she was sexually harassed while working for Joe Biden in 1993.
	The declaration, I guess it was exclusively obtained by the Tribune in San Luis Obispo, California, does not say that Biden committed the harassment.
	It doesn't mention Reade's more recent allegations of sexual assault.
	But the divorce records do say that there was a, quote, problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment in U.S.
	Senator Joe Biden's office.
	So obviously she was making allegations of something having happened in Joe Biden's office way back when.
	Now what's hilarious is the reaction by Democrats to all of this totally hypocritical and absurd.
	Dianne Feinstein, the senator who five seconds ago was saying that Brett Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination because of questions from Christine Blasey Ford.
	Now she says that the Kavanaugh situation is totally different.
	She says Kavanaugh is under the harshest inspection we give people over a substantial period of time.
	What?
	You mean he's... I mean, one wants to be president.
	That seems like that might require an investigation.
	She says, I don't know this person at all who's made these allegations.
	She came out of nowhere.
	Where's she been all these years?
	He was vice president.
	To attack him this way to me is utterly ridiculous.
	That's unbelievable.
	That's unbelievable from Dianne Feinstein.
	Remember, during the Kavanaugh hearings, if you so much as mentioned that Brett Kavanaugh had been on the D.C.
	Circuit Court of Appeals, that he'd been a very prominent person in public life for a long time, and that these allegations were four decades old, so where was Christine Blasey for all this time?
	Then you were considered not to be taking women seriously.
	Dianne Feinstein says the exact same stuff about Tara Reade, and it's, well, she's taking women seriously.
	She says, why didn't she say something, you know, when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, or after that?
	She said this is incomparable to Kavanaugh.
	And then meanwhile, Senator Amy Klobuchar was asked about this.
	She says about Biden, he's been forthright.
	He's answered the questions respectfully.
	I'm proud to support him.
	Asked if she believes Reid.
	She said, I think he's answered all the questions.
	He's made clear he supports her right to come forward.
	Asked about criticism Democrats to have a double standard.
	Klobuchar didn't answer and walked into an awaiting car, which of course is exactly what you would expect from the Democratic Party.
	I mean, just astonishing, astonishing stuff.
	So the Biden campaign has problems of its own.
	Which is why the Democrats are basically pinning their hopes on the notion that Trump completely botched the handling of coronavirus.
	They're hoping that the economy does not, the economy isn't going to recover very fast.
	Do they have a, I'm not going to say they hope for people to lose their jobs, because I don't think that all Democrats want people to lose their jobs.
	What I will say is that they're in a very comfortable political situation where if the economy continues to tank, they can just point to Trump.
	It's very comfortable politically to be in a position where you can say, if you release us from lockdown, then if one life is lost, it's on you.
	And also lockdown is killing the economy, that's Trump's fault.
	And the same exact people who are saying that this new Great Depression is brought on by Trump are saying that if we relieve the depression by letting people go back to work, then Trump will be killing people.
	So they've set up an absolute catch-22 for anybody who actually wants to mitigate risk to life while also ensuring that the economy doesn't full-on die.
	That's gonna have to be the tent peg upon which they build their entire superstructure here, because Joe Biden does not have a campaign that is worthy of note.
	I mean, it's just a terrible, terrible campaign.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I like.
	So, things that I like today.
	There is a good book that I recommended on yesterday's radio show by Brad Meltzer.
	It's called The Lincoln Conspiracy.
	It's basically a historical thriller about the secret plot to kill Abraham Lincoln the first time.
	There's a pretty sophisticated plot to kill President Lincoln right after he'd been elected.
	And not the one where he actually died.
	There was one way before that.
	The book is really good.
	Brad Meltzer is terrific.
	I've recommended a bunch of his books on the program before.
	I really recommend this one.
	It's a great kind of interesting and uplifting read at a time that is Neither interesting nor uplifting.
	So go check out Brad Meltzer with Josh Mench, The Lincoln Conspiracy, The Secret Plot to Kill America's 16th President, and Why It Failed.
	Okay, other things that I like today.
	So it is good news that the two Georgia men who killed Ahmaud Arbery, Ahmaud, I'm not sure how to pronounce his name, unfortunately.
	Ahmaud Arbery?
	They were arrested Thursday night on charges of murder.
	That was two months after the killing took place on February 23rd.
	They should have their day in court.
	You should see all the evidence.
	The fact that for two months, no arrest was made is an indictment of the criminal justice system in Georgia, which seems to me, people are saying it's based on race.
	I think it's just quite as possible it was based on chumminess between the people who committed the shooting, Gregory McMichael and Travis McMichael, and local law enforcement.
	The the this, of course, has has generated all sorts of national in intensity.
	It should generate national intensity.
	And it's a good thing that this is going to go before a grand jury.
	It should have gone before a grand jury long ago.
	All righty.
	So we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
	Otherwise, have yourself try to have a relaxing weekend as one day bleeds into the next endlessly as weekdays and weekends become one long period of miasmatic waiting.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here on Monday.
	Try to relax.
	Get on that Helix Sleep Mattress.
	Try to get yourself a few moments of relaxation with those Bull and Branch Sheets.
	Go check it out and enjoy yourself.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
	Supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Assistant director Pavel Lydowsky.
	Technical producer Austin Stevens.
	Playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan.
	Associate producer Katie Swinnerton.
	Edited by Adam Sajovic.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
	I think there are enough of those already out there.
	We talk about culture, because culture drives politics, and it drives everything else.
	So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
	Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.

▲