All Episodes
Previous Next
April 16, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show
46:45
Another Anti-Trump Media Story Implodes | Ep. 1237
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The establishment media repeated an apparently false story about Donald Trump for months.
A 13-year-old black kid is shot by police in Chicago, prompting more talk about the evils of the police, and the Democrats are looking to pack the Supreme Court.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Your data is your business protected at expressvpn.com slash ben.
We'll get to all the news in just one moment.
First, a quick reminder, you're spending hundreds of dollars too much on your cell phone bill if you are not using Pure Talk USA, which is why thousands of customers have been canceling the nation's largest wireless providers because they found out they can get the same service at half the price by switching over to Pure Talk USA.
A lot of my listeners are doing exactly this.
That's right.
Instead of charging obscene fees to pay for the Massive mainstream media campaigns and corporate campuses and retail outlets across the country, Pure Talk is passing the savings directly on to you.
The average family saves over $800 a year.
And switching is super simple.
You can keep your phone, keep your number, or get huge discounts on the latest iPhones and Androids.
Right now, you can get unlimited talk, text, and 6 gigs of data for just $30 a month.
If you go over on the data, they're not going to charge you for it.
From your cell phone, dial pound 250.
Say Ben Shapiro.
You will save 50% off your very first month.
That is pound 250.
Say Ben Shapiro.
A lot of phone companies are not particularly transparent when it comes to what exactly you are getting for your money.
A lot of them will tell you you need unlimited data.
You don't.
What you need is unlimited talk, text, and six gigs of data for 30 bucks a month.
And again, if you go over on the data, they're not gonna charge you for it.
You got nothing to lose.
Dial pound 250.
Say my name, Ben Shapiro.
You will save 50% off your very first month of coverage at Pure Talk USA.
Alrighty, so.
If you remember all the way back to the 2020 campaign.
June 26th, 2020.
The New York Times has a bombshell story.
Another one of these bombshell stories that is designed to really harm the Trump White House.
And the story is, quote, This is reported by Charlie Savage, Eric Schmidt, and Michael Schwartz, all three of whom were deeply involved in the Russiagate nonsense that was promoted for years, that Trump was a cat's paw of the Russian oligarchy.
According to the New York Times, back in June of 2020, American intelligence officials have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan, including targeting American troops, amid the peace talks to end the long-running war there, according to officials briefed on the matter.
The United States concluded months ago that the Russian unit, which has been linked to assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe, intended to destabilize the West or take revenge on turdcoats, had covertly offered rewards for successful attacks last year.
And this became a major issue in the campaign.
You'll recall that Joe Biden commented on it and suggested that Donald Trump was not being harsh enough with the Russians because, again, he was in the pocket of the Russians.
And remember that over and over and over, the media covered this thing.
In fact, we have a compendium, courtesy of The Daily Caller, of members of the media talking up the bounty scandal.
In our World Lead Today, President Trump dismissing the Russian bounty intelligence story as a hoax meant to damage him and Republicans.
The White House also responding tonight to a bombshell report accusing Russia of offering bounties to the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan.
And now you know, from this reporting in the New York Times, which has since been confirmed by the Wall Street Journal, that not only does the president know that Russia was paying for American soldiers' deaths, Get this, the Washington Post is now reporting that the alleged Russian bounties to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are believed to have resulted in the deaths of U.S.
troops.
Like this New York Times story about a stunning U.S.
intel assessment.
Okay, so this is not the first story that has been blown, like completely blown by the media.
As it turns out, it is now being reported that the intelligence community has very low confidence that this ever happened.
In fact, Jen Psaki admitted this at the White House yesterday.
She said, yeah, we don't really think that this is what was happening.
They assessed with low-to-moderate confidence, as you alluded to, that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks against U.S.
and coalition personnel in Afghanistan.
The reason that they have low-to-moderate confidence in this judgment is in part because it relies on detainee reporting and also due to the challenging operating environment in Afghanistan.
So it's challenging to gather this intelligence and this data.
Okay, so it turns out that the story has very, very little to back it.
Trump called it a hoax at the time.
He was the head of the White House, so presumably he was being provided with the intelligence reports.
The media immediately called him a liar.
In fact, the Washington Post called it a Four Pinocchio lie.
Not a Four Pinocchio lie, by the way.
When Joe Biden, the current president of the United States, says that Jim Crow is now being reinstituted across the South in the United States, and that black Americans are being forced to do Things like guess the number of jelly beans in order to vote the way that they were back in 1890, right?
That's not a Four Pinocchio lie from the Washington Post, but it was a Four Pinocchio lie when Trump said that a story that turns out to be nonsense was actually a hoax way back when.
Molly Hemingway of the Federalist who reported all the way back then that she was deeply skeptical of this particular story, that there was nothing to back it.
She was mocked, roundly mocked by the media at the time for suggesting all of that.
Why?
Because all of this pushes the narrative.
It's weird how every story that damaged Donald Trump was considered perfectly plausible up until Joe Biden became president, at which point half those stories fell apart.
Whether we're talking about this story, or whether we're talking about conversations that Trump held with Ukraine, and it turns out that some of those conversations were completely misreported by the mainstream media.
Some of them were not, but some of them were.
There's an effort to suppress information that is harmful to Democrats, and there's an effort to play up information that is harmful to Republicans, even if that information turns out not to be true.
And that, I don't know why Americans would have any sort of faith in the media to get these things right.
It is so easy to launder these stories through the media now.
All you need is basically one source in the intelligence community to tell a story to the New York Times, and then that same source will talk to the Wall Street Journal or to the Washington Post, and they'll tell the same story, and then the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal will say, we have confirmed that this story is true.
So you can launder a false story throughout the media simply by dint of having some sort of connection to the intelligence community.
I mean, that is deep state kind of stuff.
I'm not a big believer in this idea that there is a conspiratorial cabal within the intelligence community that's seeking to oust Donald Trump.
But it's certainly the case that there are a bunch of people in the intelligence community who did not like Donald Trump and were perfectly happy to harm Donald Trump, and many in the media who are perfectly happy to go along with that and not do their actual footwork in terms of ensuring that the stories were true in the first place.
Yesterday at the White House, a reporter asked Psaki if Joe Biden felt any remorse at all for attacking Trump repeatedly over a story that turns out not to be true.
Given that assessment, does the president have any regrets for how many times he attacked President Trump on the campaign about this issue or not taking action related to the Russian bombings?
Well, I'm not going to speak to the previous administration, but I will say that we had enough concern about these reports and about the targeting of our men and women serving, the men and women who are proudly serving around the world, that we wanted our intelligence community to look into it.
Okay, so no, there's not going to be any apology forthcoming because why would you apologize?
The Democratic Party has the same mentality as Harry Reid.
Harry Reid, the former Senate minority leader.
You'll remember that Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney back in 2012 that he didn't pay any taxes.
He had nothing to back that whatsoever.
Later it came out, of course, that Romney did pay taxes.
And Harry Reid said, didn't matter.
I was trying to make him lose the time.
This is the mentality of the media.
It is spread throughout social media as well.
The latest evidence of this is that Twitter has now banned James O'Keefe.
Why?
What did James O'Keefe do?
Well, his project Veritas has been releasing tape of CNN directors talking about the bias at CNN.
Twitter claimed without evidence, according to the Daily Wire, that O'Keefe was, quote, violating the Twitter rules on platform manipulation and spam.
According to Twitter, as outlined in our policy on platform manipulation and spam, you can't mislead others on Twitter by operating fake accounts, and you can't artificially amplify or disrupt conversations through the use of multiple accounts.
O'Keefe immediately said that this is a lie.
He called their statement accusing him of operating fake accounts false.
He said, I am suing Twitter for defamation.
Donald Trump Jr.
responded to Twitter's latest crackdown by saying, in case you haven't figured out how it works by now, CNN spreads propaganda to elect Democrats, and then Twitter runs interference to protect CNN.
They're all on the same team.
You remember that not all that long ago, the claim was that James O'Keefe's material couldn't be put online because it was some sort of hacked material, because it was undercover material.
The same sort of nonsense that they trotted out there to explain why they were suppressing the Hunter Biden story in the month leading up to the election.
The idea there was this was hacked material.
We can't allow hacked material, which is weird since you allowed tons and tons of hacked material Again, the real story with James O'Keefe is that O'Keefe got CNN producers and directors to admit on tape that they basically biased their media coverage in order to oust Trump.
But according to Twitter, the bad guy here is James O'Keefe, obviously.
And it's not just the O'Keefe story that is now being suppressed.
Facebook apparently is now blocking users from sharing another New York Post story.
What exactly is this New York Post story?
Well, the New York Post reported, as we talked about on the show, that Patrice Concolors, who is one of the Black Lives Matter co-founders, has now purchased a new $1.4 million home in a super white area of California.
According to Mediaite, the stories about Concolor's a 37-year-old self-described Marxist who spent $3.4 million on homes last year and another $1.4 million in March began in the Post on April 10th, with the first one titled, Marxist BLM Leader Buys $1.4 Million Home in Ritzy LA Enclave.
The Daily Mail picked it up.
Black Enterprise did so two days later, with a call from New York City BLM Chief Hawk Newsom calling for an investigation into where exactly this money was coming from.
When exactly did the media decide to crack down on this?
As soon as Jason Whitlock started sharing the story.
Twitter decided to suspend Whitlock for tweeting out the story.
Facebook is now banning you from sharing the New York Post story in the first place in the same way that they banned you from sharing the Hunter Biden story.
Which is insane.
Here is Facebook's explanation for why they actually blocked the story.
The article shared multiple details which could identify the residence of one of BLM founders, in violation of our privacy rights.
As per our community standards, we do not allow people to post personal or confidential information about yourself or of others.
We remove content that shares, offers, or solicits personally identifiable information or other private information that could lead to physical or financial harm, including financial, residential, and medical information, as well as private information obtained from illegal sources.
We also provide people ways to report imagery they believe to be in violation of their privacy rights.
All they did in this original story was they shared a picture of the house.
They didn't give the exact location.
This sort of reporting is done literally all the time.
All the time.
In fact, right now, online, you can find pictures of the house of the Minneapolis officer who's just brought up on manslaughter charges.
You can find pictures on real estate sites of the house that I just sold in California.
It is not difficult to find stories with regard to what people's houses look like, particularly if they are celebrities and if they are political celebrities.
So this is just a lie.
They're suppressing the story because they don't like the contents of the story.
This has nothing to do with the specific methodology of the story.
They didn't give out her address.
They didn't take a harasser.
Nothing like that.
They just printed a story, which is extremely newsworthy, that the Marxist founder, of a Marxist organization who suggests that America is deeply in thrall to white supremacy just bought a gigantically expensive house in a super duper white area of California.
That's a story.
Not only is that a story, that's a story with public interest.
Not only is it a story of public interest, it doesn't threaten her in any way.
It does undercut a lot of her claims.
If she's so scared of white people, if she believes that white supremacy is really an institutional problem that is putting black people in serious danger, why in the hell is she moving to an area with like three black people?
She tripled the black population of Topanga Canyon simply by moving there with members of her family.
Okay, but it undercuts that.
It undercuts the idea that she's an actual Marxist.
She's not.
Or maybe she is.
She's just like Stalin was a Marxist, right?
Stalin also had a nice Dasha.
Everybody else was living in abject poverty or being slaughtered in Ukraine, but he was living in a really, really nice area.
Turns out this is the way Marxists often work.
They get to live in the really nice house.
You're the one who has to suffer.
Nicolas Maduro has a really, really nice house in Venezuela.
So I guess she's just taking a page from the normal sort of Marxist playbook, which is those at the top of the echelon, they get to have the really nice houses.
Everybody else has to be a Marxist.
In any case, Patrice Cullors went on air with Marc Lamont Hill to try and explain why she'd been investing, you know, $5 million, apparently, over the course of the last year and a half in real estate.
Pretty non-Marxist stuff there.
The way that I live my life is in direct support to Black people, including my Black family members, first and foremost.
And for so many Black folks who are able to invest in themselves and their community, they choose to invest in their family.
And that's what I've chosen to do.
I have a child.
I have a brother that has severe mental illness that I take care of.
I support my mother, and I support many other family members of mine, and so I see my money as not my own.
I see it as my family's money as well.
Oh my god.
Okay, so she's just a capitalist!
She's just a capitalist!
And not only is she a capitalist, she doesn't believe that America is a deeply white supremacist place where white people are routinely targeting black people.
Because if she did, she wouldn't be moving out to the boonies.
Topanga Canyon is a very rich area of L.A.
I lived in L.A.
for 30 years.
Topanga Canyon is not an impoverished area of L.A.
It is not a heavily minority area of L.A.
I love that it's okay for her to use millions of dollars Weird, because you know what?
I have the same exact view about my money.
My money is not just my money.
It is my family's money.
It is not your money, Patrice Cullors.
It is not the money of Black Lives Matter.
It is not the money of the federal government.
weird because you know what?
I have the same exact view about my money.
My money is not just my money.
It is my family's money.
It is not your money, Patrice Cullors.
It is not the money of Black Lives Matter.
It is not the money of the federal government.
It is my money and it is my money and my family's money.
And I earn money so that I can help my family.
I have exactly the same view that she does about helping my family.
Which is why I moved to a safer area.
It's why I moved to a better area.
And every single American should have the same exact right and viewpoint about their money and their family's money as Patrisse Cullors.
It just demonstrates what a damned hypocrite she is.
She and her organization go around talking about how evil America's systems of capitalism are.
Tear down the family.
Weird, because here you are talking about how you are the support system for your family.
But I thought that the family was a patriarchal, terrible structure, which was on the BLM website until five seconds ago.
I was told that Marxism was the solution to the problem, but here you are talking about your money and your family's money.
I noticed you didn't say the people's money.
I noticed you didn't say that, Patrisse Cullors, but don't worry.
It's an embarrassing story, and the media will step in to protect Patrisse Cullors.
The social media bosses will step in to protect Patrisse Cullors.
I noticed they have no sort of compunction about printing stories regarding a wide variety of housing situations for a wide variety of politicians, but if you step on PLM's toes, this thing gets shut down.
Your establishment media, your social media bosses, they are corrupt.
And by the way, if you believe that this is all about suppressing misinformation, again, there's a difference between disinformation and misinformation.
Social media bosses should not be in the process, should not be.
Involved in suppressing quote-unquote misinformation because sometimes what they perceive to be misinformation is actually correct.
Disinformation is active propaganda on behalf of a foreign power.
You'll notice that over the past few years there's been a subtle shift from disinformation to misinformation in the way that the media talk about information spread online.
They went from disinformation is bad, true, because it is foreign propaganda, to misinformation is bad, which is anything we don't like is misinformation and we will shut it down.
But I've noticed that only certain types of misinformation are being shut down by the social media bros.
I've noticed that.
I'll give you a perfect example of misinformation not being shut down in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact you don't wanna go to the auto parts store.
Who wants to go to the auto parts store?
I mean, you stand in line forever, then you finally get to the front of the line, they ask you a bunch of questions you don't know the answer to, you ascertain which part you need, and then they're like, hey, we don't have that here, we're ordering it online, and we're gonna upcharge you for the pleasure.
Instead, why not head over to rockauto.com?
Rockauto.com is way easier than doing any of that stuff.
They offer the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do.
Why would you spend up to twice as much?
For the same exact parts.
Like, for example, let's say you need, just off the top of my head, a Delphi FG1456 fuel pump assembly for a 2005-2010 Honda Odyssey.
Well, that'll cost you like $354 at a big chain store.
It's the kind of thing you can get at Rock Auto for $217.
RockAuto.com.
It's a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Head on over to RockAuto.com right now.
Shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
The RockAuto.com catalog is unique, remarkably easy to navigate.
You're going to get the part that you need.
You're going to get it less expensively than you would at an auto parts store.
And you're not going to have to wait for it the same way you would by waiting in line.
Head over to RockAuto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car or truck with Shapiro in there.
How did you hear about us, Boxer?
They know we sent you.
That's RockAuto.com.
When I talk about the misinformation that the media simply don't care about, and that social media will not shut down, what if I told you that MSNBC's Joy Reid had on a guest, like, last night, in which they just suggested, with no evidence whatsoever, that the Matt Gaetz scandal, which again has shifted in sort of tone and tenor, remember it went from he was engaged in full-on sex trafficking, to...
He was engaging in consensual sex with adults in perverse ways.
It's kind of shifted and moved.
My view on this has been the same always.
If he's committed criminal activity, bring the evidence and then we'll go to court.
That is the way that the system is supposed to work.
In any case, Joy Reid, put that aside, Joy Reid and her guest here suggest that Ron DeSantis is going to be dragged into the scandal.
Based on what?
Based on nothing.
Based on pulling this directly out of their colon.
Does this count as misinformation?
I feel like it probably should.
Here they are, suggesting that the sitting governor of Florida, a probable presidential candidate in 2024, is going to be dragged into an unrelated sex scandal featuring a congressperson from Florida because that guy happens to be from Florida.
Notice if you see somebody's name that rings a couple of times.
You had at least five women per Politico.
You had Gates.
You had a guy named Jason Perizzolo, the hand surgeon and GOP fundraiser, to Ron DeSantis, who apparently Gates wanted to turn into the Attorney General of Florida.
There's Halsey Beshears, a former state legislator and former appointed official in the DeSantis administration.
If you're Ron DeSantis, does this feel like it's creeping closer to you?
Because these are your friends.
These are your allies.
What in, what?
Does it feel like it's creeping closer to you?
Matt Gaetz is a, Matt Gaetz is a Republican in Florida.
He presumably uses the same fundraising network as pretty much all the Republicans in Florida, just like the same Democratic fundraisers fundraise for a bunch of Democrats.
Does it feel like it's coming close to, in what way?
Explain.
Like seriously, do you have any sort of linkage whatsoever except for the fact that Florida is a giant state with 21 million people in it and that the Republican politicians tend to fundraise from the same people?
That is the weakest link of evidence I've ever heard in my entire life.
And Drury's just throwing it out there.
Does it feel like the Gates scandal is going to approach Ron DeSantis?
I know you guys have thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at Ron DeSantis, and you have failed because your misinformation campaign against DeSantis is disgusting and terrifying.
I mean, you just keep throwing out false headlines about DeSantis.
Oh, he's going to kill everybody at the Jacksonville beaches.
Oh, he was probably rolling out this Publix vaccine thing because he was paid $100,000 into a super PAC by Publix.
Sure, Publix happens to be the single most populous grocery line in all of Florida.
But it was really about the $100,000 donation, guys.
It was probably about that.
Oh, well, he was probably falsifying his death statistics.
Sure, you have no evidence he was falsifying his death statistics.
Well, you know, probably we should listen to this crazy lady who used to work for the Florida Health Services and was fired because she's actually a terrible employee and also kind of a congenital liar, apparently.
Like, you guys have tried to go after dissents on everything.
So now, the last-ditch attempt here from Joy Reid is try to link him to the Matt Gaetz scandal.
Now, I've noticed there's been no blowback for Joy Reid on this.
None.
No one's commented on this.
No one cares.
Imagine for a second that Joe Biden were linked to, I don't know, like his actual son, his actual son, who in text messages was talking about the big guy receiving 10% of particular businesses and was going around, jet-setting around the world, picking up bags of cash for no reason other than his last name is Biden, while being a complete scuzzbag on the personal front.
And let's say that the New York Post reported that a month before the election.
Social media cracked down on that, right?
That was a bad thing.
We were told that that was Russian misinformation, that it was hacked material, that it was all dangerous.
American people should not be able to even distribute that story.
We're being told that Patrice Cullors, we shouldn't know that she actually bought another house.
What is that, her third house?
She bought another house in the whitest area of LA.
We shouldn't know that stuff, because that stuff is dangerous to know.
But if we're just going to go speculating, like Joy Reid's going to go speculating about Ron DeSantis being dragged into a sex scandal with no evidence whatsoever, that's totally cool.
It's totally fine.
This is the way your establishment media work.
If it damages a Republican, it doesn't have to be true.
It doesn't even have to be credible.
It just has to be an accusation.
And then you run with the headline, accusations made.
You'll remember they did the exact same thing with the Steele dossier.
The Steele dossier was never verified by any member of the media.
Instead, what happened is that James Comey went and briefed Trump on the Steele dossier.
And then CNN reported James Comey has briefed Trump on the Steele dossier.
And then BuzzFeed was like, what is the Steele dossier?
Boom.
Here's the Steele dossier.
We get years of speculation about pee tapes because of this nonsense.
I mentioned on the air a few days ago this piece by Margaret Sullivan from the Washington Post talking about how the American people hold no values in common with journalists, because journalists like transparency, and they like information seeking, and they like objectivity.
No.
The American people don't like the media because the media are damned liars, and they are just political partisans on behalf of the Democratic Party.
They are propagandists at this point.
If you trust these people further than you can throw them, I don't know what to tell you.
You're a fool.
You're a fool.
Alrighty.
Now, we get to the other big story of the day, and that is the continuing narrative that is pushed by the media with regard to the police.
So the continuing narrative over and over and over is that the police are systemically racist, that every individual anecdotal incident involving a white police officer and a black suspect that goes bad, every one of those is evidence that black Americans are an existential threat in the United States.
Once again, there is no statistical evidence that black Americans are an existential threat in the United States.
None.
Black Americans represent 13% of the population of the United States, meaning there are about 40 million black Americans.
Every year, there are fewer than 25 black Americans who are shot unarmed by the police.
That is not an existential threat to black Americans.
You are far more likely in black America to be killed by a fellow black person than you are to be killed by a white cop.
And if you're a white cop, by the way, you are significantly more likely to be killed by a black American than you are likely to kill a black American in the line of duty.
By the way, that intra-group violence thing, that's true.
Intra-group violence, that is true of every single racial group in America, with the exception of Asian Americans, who are most likely to be targeted, according to FBI statistics, by black Americans.
If you're white, you're not most likely to be targeted by a black person.
You're most likely to be targeted by a white person.
If you're black, you're most likely to be targeted by a black person in your community.
And if we're talking about extraordinary rates of murder in the black community, and what are the real threats to black life in America, the police rank extremely low on that list.
And the absence of police Ironically, ranks extremely high on the list because it turns out that when the police leave, more people shoot each other, regardless of race.
Okay, so, that is not the narrative of the media.
The narrative of the media is that the police are the existential threat to black Americans.
Chelsea Handler, that dolt, she tweeted out the other day that why would she obey police orders when there's like a 50-50 shot that even if you obey police orders, you're gonna get shot.
That statistic is pulled directly out of her ass.
She had to remove her head from her ass in order to get to the stat.
A 50-50 shot of being shot by the cops if you comply with orders?
There are 40 million police interactions with suspects in the United States every year.
40 million civilian police interactions.
Again, the number of black unarmed Americans shot and killed by the police every year is fewer than 30, according to the Washington Post database.
That is not a 50-50 shot, gang.
But the narrative has to be promulgated because the narrative is more important than the data.
The narrative is more important than the reality.
The narrative that you are powerless in your own life if you're a black American, that you are living at the mercy of systems beyond your control, and that the only way that you are going to ever live free in the United States is by abdicating responsibility and abdicating power to a giant government apparatus that is going to save you.
It's a lie, but it is the narrative of the Democratic Party.
And it's forwarded by every aspect of your media, from the Trevor Noahs of the world to your mainstream establishment media.
Here's Trevor Noah the other day, suggesting that there are no good apples in the police.
Weird.
He says, you know, we keep hearing about bad apples, but there are no good apples in the police.
No good apples?
40 million interactions between cops and civilians every year in the United States.
No good apples?
My God.
I mean, the utter, the sheer ingratitude and arrogance of people like Trevor Noah, who is sitting in his house, presumably with enough security that he doesn't feel threatened by his neighbors, who is living presumably in a very upscale area with a solid police force, saying there are no good apples in the cops is pretty astonishing.
Where are the good apples?
If we're meant to believe that the police system in America, the system of policing itself is not fundamentally broken, Then we would need to see good apples.
And by the way, I'm not saying that there are no good policemen.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm asking where the good apples are.
We don't see a mass uprising of police saying, let's root out these people.
We don't see videos of police officers stopping the other cop from pushing an old man at a Black Lives Matter protest or from beating up a kid in the street with a baton.
We don't see that.
So my question is, where are the good apples?
We're not dealing with bad apples.
we're dealing with a rotten tree.
Oh, the entire tree is rotten.
So, okay, and that's the narrative, right?
The narrative is that the cops are entirely rotten.
The entire system is completely rotten.
And every anecdotal piece of evidence that comes down the line is then misinterpreted by the media in order to achieve this outcome.
That every incident, that the anecdotal evidence that you see in a George Floyd tape or that you see in a Daunte Wright case, those statistically very, very rare incidents, those particularly rare incidents are indicative of the entire policing structure of the United States.
This is the way, by the way, that so much of our sort of race-conscious writing is done and commentary is done in this country.
It's every Ta-Nehisi Coates article, right?
Every Ta-Nehisi Coates article is, here's a terrible thing that happened in 1890.
Fast forward to 2021, nothing has changed.
And we just skip the entire civil rights movement.
We skip the Civil Rights Act.
We skip the growth of the black middle class.
We skip the fact that we've had a black president twice.
We skip like all the things.
We just go direct from 1890 to 2021.
By the way, There's a thought experiment that I sometimes enjoy doing.
If an alien looked at America in 1890 and then looked at America in 2021, do you think that that alien would have said, look, things look exactly the same?
Because if that alien said that, that alien would be mentally ill.
If you were just a person who came down from space and you looked at America, 1890, black people and white people drinking at separate water fountains.
Black people, no policing.
None.
One of the reasons that you have higher rates of black homicide in the United States, according to Thomas Sowell, is because, deliberately, of racist under-policing in the black community.
There was a view in the white community, the racist white community, in 1890, 1880, well, you know, if black people kill each other, we don't care, so we're not even gonna send the cops in there.
There was no intermarriage.
I mean, the levels of intermarriage between black and white in 1890 were essentially nonexistent because it was illegal in large swaths of the United States.
Fast forward to 2021.
Huge amount of intermarriage between the races.
Black people have been president.
Black people have been Secretary of State.
Black people are on the Supreme Court.
Black Americans are at the highest levels of America's industry.
Black Americans are outvoting their percentage of the population, like, to pretend that there's been no progress, but that's how Ta-Nehisi Coates does his shtick, right?
He just skips all of the intervening data to pretend that nothing has changed.
That's the great lie, and it's pushed also by idiots like Nikole Hannah-Jones over at the New York Times.
And now you get that same sort of stuff being done with the police.
Here are a couple of anecdotal instances of things that are either controversial, so we don't even know that they're bad yet, we don't have all the information, either controversial or bad.
And we take those pieces of anecdotal evidence and then we attribute it to the system, broadly speaking.
By the way, this is how you get to terrible stereotypes.
Honestly, you want to talk about how people get to racism?
How people get to terrible stereotypes?
They take pieces of anecdotal evidence that they have in their lives about people of a particular race acting badly and then they attribute them to the entire group.
And that's exactly what you're seeing Trevor Noah do right here.
Trevor Noah is saying, I've seen a tape of a police officer doing a bad thing.
Must be that all people who wear that uniform are bad.
Where are the good apples?
Says Trevor Noah.
And there are no good apples because the tree is rotten.
The latest example that is being used today is this situation in Chicago in which a 13-year-old kid, and he has a kid because there's no such thing as a 13-year-old man.
Again, two things can be true at once.
He's a kid.
Kids are generally not responsible for their actions because they are children.
Also, any sort of social and cultural system that generates 13-year-olds running around at 3 a.m.
holding guns and being called Baby Diablo as members of a gang, that is a broken cultural system.
That is a very broken cultural system.
Anyway, this kid is running around.
His name is Adam Toledo.
Running around, carrying a gun.
Apparently, there were shots fired and the police were called to the scene.
And this kid, because he's a kid, ran away.
Okay, and politicians have been saying this is a deliberate shooting of an unarmed black kid.
That is not true.
We have the body cam footage.
But the body cam footage is going to make no difference.
The media have a narrative to push.
They're going to continue to push the narrative, no matter what the actual body cam footage shows, in the same way that they're actually ignoring the fact that the Daunte Wright case is a pretty obvious case of an accident.
The officer shouts, Taser, taser, taser, shoots Daunte Wright, and then immediately says, Oh my God, I shot him.
That is the most obvious body cam footage I've ever seen of a person who mistook a taser for a gun.
That was not a purposeful first degree murder.
That was not I shot him and I'm covering up for it by pretending I was going for my taser.
That is none of that.
The media have run with the idea that perhaps it was a murder anyway.
They're doing the exact same thing in the Adam Toledo case.
We're going to get to this in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that free email services like Gmail and Yahoo, they're not really free.
You pay with your privacy.
In fact, internet giants like Big Tech bank on exploiting your data by selling it to the highest bidder.
Startmail keeps my email private, period.
Every email can be encrypted, even if the recipient doesn't use encryption.
When you delete an email in StartMail, it is gone forever.
And StartMail uses their own servers, not Amazon's, which means they cannot be put out of business the way that Amazon put Parler out of business.
Switching to StartMail is seamless.
You can easily transfer all your current email data so there's no starting from scratch.
StartMail is also backed by the most stringent privacy laws in the world.
You get unlimited anonymous aliases.
This feature protects your main email address from spam and phishing attacks when you're starting to give your email to a company or want to protect your identity.
StartMail can generate a shareable alias email so people can't sell your information.
And they can be deleted at any time.
Your cybersecurity has never been more at risk.
Why would you trust the tech bros with your most private information?
Instead, start securing your email privacy today with Startmail.
Sign up today, you get 50% off your first year.
Go to startmail.com, slash Ben, that is startmail.com, slash Ben, S-T-A-R-T, mail.com, slash Ben for 50% off your first year.
Honestly, I can't imagine.
Many more important internet services than having an email server.
You can trust startmail.com slash Ben.
All right, we're gonna get to the actual body cam footage in the Adam Toledo case in one second.
First, it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a Daily Wire member.
Today, congratulations to Dylan Killman on Instagram, who understands the importance of instilling solid values in kids.
In this picture, Dylan's adorable son, Aiden, stands proudly holding two examples of the world's most exclusive Now here's the thing.
Yesterday's troubling events between Twitter and Project Veritas should concern everybody left, right, and center.
It's becoming easier and easier for big tech to just silence people they view as problematic.
there. Thanks for the pic. Thanks for being a Daily Wire member. Now here's the thing. Yesterday's troubling events between Twitter and Project Veritas should concern everybody left, right, and center. It's becoming easier and easier for big tech to just silence people they view as problematic. It's going to get worse and worse before it gets better. It's one of the principal reasons why the Daily Wire embraces a membership-based business model.
You saw they kicked James O'Keefe off Twitter.
You see how they're attempting to suppress information at Facebook.
We cannot become reliant on big tech.
We cannot be subject to their arbitrary whims.
Every new member who joins us makes us a little bit less dependent on big tech.
You're helping us ensure that we don't go off air.
You're helping us ensure that they cannot take us offline.
Building up our membership base is the only way to ensure The Daily Wire can continue to grow and thrive into the future.
If you're a Daily Wire member already, thank you.
We appreciate you.
You're the best.
If you're not a Daily Wire member, what are you doing?
Join us today.
In fact, it's so vital that we quickly build up our membership base.
We are offering 25% off new memberships when you use the code CENSORSHIP at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
We don't just want your support.
We want to keep bringing you new awesome content like tonight's episode of Candice with Candice Owens' latest guest, Adam Carolla.
There are also some pretty good Hunter Biden jokes.
Tonight's episode streams live at 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central on dailywire.com.
If you aren't a member, you can get the audio podcast, Candace.
It drops Saturdays on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcast.
So remember, for a limited time, get 25% off a new membership when you use code CENSORSHIP at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
It's a great deal.
Keep us from being dependent on big tech so we can keep bringing you the news and content you want and you need.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All right, so let's get to this body cam footage.
So one of the nice things about body cams is that we actually have evidence of what goes on in these shooting scenarios.
Apparently, the police were called because Adam Toledo, who is the 13-year-old kid in this case, was one of several youths who were shooting guns at 3 a.m.
in the morning.
You know, we've seen too many stories, by the way, in places like Chicago of kids being hit by stray bullets.
It's dangerous.
You're not supposed to shoot guns at any time in Chicago, randomly, and you're certainly not supposed to shoot at 3 a.m.
in the morning.
The question that nobody has the actual balls to ask here is where are the parents?
Where are the parents?
Who lets a 13-year-old run around with a gun at 3 a.m.
in the morning?
Where the hell is the system that is supposed to prevent all of this from happening?
Where's the social system that's supposed to prevent all of this from happening?
In any case, this kid is running from the cops.
The cop is chasing the kid.
And you can see the body cam footage.
Now, the way this was originally reported was unarmed black kid shot.
That is not true.
Okay, it is not true.
The kid is running.
Finally, the kid stops.
And the police officer says, turn around and drop the gun.
The kid has his hand behind him.
Okay, it is very difficult from the body cam footage to see where he drops the gun.
So you assume that the officer has the same vantage point.
So the kid has the gun sort of on his right hip.
He reaches behind him.
He drops the gun and raises his hands in one motion.
He drops the gun directly behind him and raises his hands in one motion.
But because his hand is behind him when he drops the gun and when he starts to raise his hand, by the time his hand begins to raise, the shot has been fired.
The shot gets fired before his hand is all the way up to the top of his head because it's literally a bang-bang scenario.
Hey, now, cops are not robots.
The kid did have a gun.
If you drop the gun right before the cop shoots you, it is very difficult to call that unarmed.
This is very reminiscent of that case in Baltimore recently, in which the suspect threw away the gun, and in the same motion, as he's running, he throws away the gun and gets shot at exactly the same time.
It looks very much like this.
So, the still that has gone out from the media is the still of the kid raising his hands as he's being shot.
But they don't go to literally a split second beforehand.
If you rewound this, a split second, what you will see is the kid's hand behind his hip, right there, it's behind his hip, and you will see that he has a gun in his hand behind him.
So how is a cop supposed to deal with that?
When the hand is obscured, he's not facing him, when the hand is obscured behind his hip and he raises his hand, you don't know whether the gun is coming up with him in his hand.
There's a reason why even CNN legal analysts were like, this is a good shoot.
They're like, what are you supposed to do if you're a cop?
Are we supposed to tell cops that they're just supposed to take the shot?
Like, are they just supposed to receive the shot?
What exactly are they supposed to do right here?
So, the media have decided this is yet another murder of a young person in Chicago based on race, of course.
Okay, that is an absurd contention.
The evidence on that, again, is just as scanty as the evidence that Daunte Wright was shot because of race or not by accident.
Hey, but here's the thing.
The evidence does not matter for the narrative.
In the end, the evidence does not matter for the narrative.
Perfectly indicative case of this, there's a woman named Christine Emba, who writes a column for the Washington Post, and her piece over at the Washington Post is titled, Why I'm Not Watching the Derek Chauvin Trial.
And it's such a telling piece, because basically what it says is, I don't wanna hear any extraneous evidence that might change my mind.
That's basically the piece.
The piece is, I already know what happened.
I'm not gonna listen to anybody who dissents from my belief about what happened, including the actual evidence in the case.
She says, Oh, you mean the defense laid out a defense is what you're talking about.
Well, not sat it out exactly.
The internet and cable news exist, so it's impossible to avoid reports of the testimony, the prosecution witnesses tears, and the defense has scrambled for any possible way to paper over the truth that we all saw with our own eyes.
Oh, you mean the defense laid out a defense is what you're talking about.
And also it's not papering over the truth when you present medical experts who testify as to what Derek Chauvin was doing with his knee, not on the neck, what Derek Chauvin, what George Floyd's medical state was during the actual case, but none of that matters.
Christine Ebba says, to be honest, I sat it out because I'm black, I'm tired.
And because I know I will have the chance to see it or something like it again.
The trial could have been a moment of national catharsis.
At least that's what pundits hoped and politicians begged for after the protests of last summer, police department faints had becoming more kind, solemn statements from state houses and courthouse steps.
Instead, it became mirror background to more of the same.
The Sunday as the trial paused, police in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, pulled over Daunte Wright while he was driving, citing a traffic violation.
Air freshener hanging from his rear view mirror, An expired tag, the police department said.
By the way, it was not the air freshener.
It was the expired tag by the visual evidence.
Either way, not capital offenses.
Wright attempted to get back into his car and a police officer shot him to death.
Allegedly, she mistook her gun for her taser.
She has at least resigned and been charged with manslaughter.
What do you mean, at least?
That's called the system working.
OK, the system would work better if she followed procedure.
But when the system does not work, there is a secondary system called the justice system.
She's now in it.
She's been charged with second degree manslaughter.
And what is this?
I love that she says that it is clear from the evidence of our own eyes that Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, but it is not clear from the objectively clear body cam footage that she mistook her gun for a Taser.
It's the clearest thing on body cam footage.
Doesn't matter.
That's alleged.
But Derek Chauvin killing George Floyd, not alleged.
That's just reality.
Says Christine Emba of the Washington Post.
She says, That's not even true!
They're just lies.
Tim Walls is a Democrat.
Department's response to protests was to string up a thin blue line flag above the building, removing it only after an outcry online. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, a Democrat, threatened to send in the largest police presence in Minnesota history to arrest and charge those protesting the fact that a 20-year-old was shot dead by the police. That's not even true.
These are just lies. Tim Walz, a Democrat, Tim Walz pledged to send in cops to stop rioting and looting, not protests. So she's just lying.
Again, the narrative matters way more than the facts for a lot of the folks in the media.
Who are the people?
By polling data, that's not true.
By polling data, the people actually want the same or more police.
United States last summer, the people want fewer police.
Send more of them.
Who are the people?
By polling data, that's not true.
By polling data, the people actually want the same or more police.
By all polling data I've ever seen.
De-escalation training.
How about we militarize them instead?
Investment in communities?
How about a robot police dog to terrify and harass you, as if the real ones aren't frightening?
Yes, that's what's happening.
We're creating the hound from Fahrenheit 451.
That's clearly, like, number one priority.
Floyd's death and Chauvin's trial could be teaching America a lesson, but it is clearly not one that all of us are ready to learn.
Okay, this is my favorite part of the article from Christine Emba, because once again, it just demonstrates that evidence does not matter.
Data do not matter.
All that matters is the narrative.
That's all that matters.
Feckless legislators are trotting out old arguments against those who seek reform in police conduct.
If the real problem is black criminality, the police don't deserve all this trouble.
Well, how about this?
How about there are several problems?
Really, resisting arrest is a problem.
Police being poorly trained, as in the Daunte Wright case, that is a problem.
Failure to get rid of bad cops when they have many complaints against them that are justified.
That's a problem.
There can be many problems.
And it turns out that criminality is indeed a problem when you are talking about confrontations between police and suspected criminals.
Well, here's the best part of the article.
So Christina Emba says, in the words of Senator John Neely Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, the next time you get in trouble, call a crackhead.
And she writes this.
This is the line.
Well, maybe I will.
They're statistically less likely to shoot me, it would seem.
Now, that's my favorite line.
I have a question.
Based on what is she saying that?
Seriously, based on what is she saying that a crackhead is less likely to shoot her statistically than a cop?
She doesn't provide any stat.
She just says, they are statistically less likely to shoot me, it would seem.
No stat cited.
Okay, that's not what the word statistically means.
Statistically generally is followed by, you know, a statistic, typically.
But that doesn't matter.
She can just say statistically that you are safer with a crackhead than a cop.
So I asked Christine Emba, do you want to go hang out with crackheads or at the police house?
You get to pick one tonight.
Which one do you think is going to be safer for you, a columnist for the Washington Post?
A crack house or a police headquarters?
Which one?
Pretty obvious answer here, but it doesn't matter because that's contradictory to the narrative.
Just like it's contradictory to the narrative that police colors decided to buy in the whitest area of L.A.
as opposed to plunking down her flag in the middle of South Central Los Angeles.
The minute she could move away from crime-ridden areas, she did!
Okay, that- how people act- quick rule of social science.
How people act is significantly, significantly more telling than what people say they think about things.
Every self-survey has a bias toward people who are taking the self-survey.
If you ask people how well they did on their SATs, they will just lie.
If you take a poll today, because Biden won, how many people say they voted for Biden?
It'll actually be higher than the number of people who voted for Biden in the last election cycle.
Because people have a tendency to flatter themselves that they're on the right side of history, or that they make all of these good moral decisions, but then you watch what they do and it's completely different.
When you say things like you trust crackheads more than cops, I just, I don't, I don't believe you.
I think you're a liar.
When you suggest that you are happier in a high-crime area than in a low-crime area, because that low-crime area is predominantly white and white supremacy rules the roost, and then you move to the white low-crime area, I feel like that's more telling about what you actually think about the world than what you say on the BLM website or your latest appearance on Rachel Maddow.
The evidence, the data, they don't matter.
You know what actually matters?
The narrative.
That's all that matters, because it's about tearing down the institutions of the United States, and that is continuing a pace among the Democrats and in the media.
It is continuing every single day, the attempt to tear down these institutions, and to justify tearing down the institutions by claiming that America's institutions need to be torn down.
This is why Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are now pushing court packing.
Now, realistically speaking, are they going to pack the court?
No.
They don't have the power to do so.
They can't do it through reconciliation, which means they need a filibuster-proof majority.
Even if they could do it through reconciliation, do you really think that Kyrsten Sinema, who's in a very purple state in Arizona, and Joe Manchin, in a very red state in West Virginia, are going to vote to simply add seats to the Supreme Court?
The answer is no.
But it's all about pushing a narrative, the narrative being that the Supreme Court is an institutional obstacle to you getting what you want.
So vote for Democrats, right?
That is the goal of Democrats here, is to cast the Supreme Court, which, by the way, is the only branch of American government that Americans broadly trust, taking the Supreme Court and grinding it under your ideological boot heel.
That is the goal here, not actually changing the Supreme Court.
Jen Psaki said yesterday that Joe Biden is now open to court packing, which is weird because he wouldn't answer that question throughout the entire campaign.
And in fact, if you asked him the question, you were told that you were being too harsh on Joe Biden.
They're going to look at a number of issues.
The size of the court is one of the issues, but there are a number of other issues they'll look at.
I'm sure the president will look forward to reviewing that report when it comes to his desk, and then I'm sure it will impact his thinking moving forward.
But we don't know what that report will look like, and he obviously can still make the decision about what he supports.
I mean, who knows?
By the way, this is the same Joe Biden who just a few years ago was saying that it was corrupt to pack the Supreme Court.
My favorite part of this is how the media just go right along with it.
The media just go right along with it.
So Jerry Nadler laid out the most Orwellian perversion of language of the last, you know, seven minutes because they just keep perverting language.
Remember when sexual preference went from just a term to describe whether you are gay or straight to a slur because Maisie Hirono in Hawaii said that it was a slur?
They're doing the same thing now.
So now Jerry Nadler says that when you pack the Supreme Court, you're actually unpacking the Supreme Court.
As David Burge, Iowa hawk, on Twitter said, yeah, and when I crash my truck into a 7-Eleven, it's actually, when I pull out, that's actually me uncrashing my truck into a 7-Eleven.
That's the part to focus on.
Here's Jerry Nadler claiming that when you add seats to the Supreme Court, you're actually unpacking the Supreme Court.
It's the proper number.
It matches the number of circuits as it has historically.
And it also will enable us to do justice and to rectify the great injustice that was done in packing the court.
And some people will say we're packing the court.
We're not packing it.
We're unpacking it.
Senator McConnell and the Republicans packed the court over the last couple of years, as Senator Markey outlined.
So this is a reaction to that.
We just changed the definitions.
Packing is unpacking.
Healthcare is infrastructure.
Like, the language just randomly changes.
That's all.
And it all changes in accordance with the democratic agenda, because that's all that matters.
Agenda, agenda, uber alice.
Effectiveness does not matter.
Truth does not matter.
Data does not matter.
All that matters is what the utopian left wants to do and what they have to break that's in their way.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of content.
Otherwise, we'll see you here next week.
Also, you can't forget to end your week by checking out The Andrew Klavan Show.
Drew's show is every Friday.
He's got an exciting evening planned for you, as always on Fridays.
Head on over to dailywire.com this evening, 7 p.m.
Eastern.
Tune in.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Elliot Feld.
Executive Producer Jeremy Boren.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
And our Assistant Director is Paweł Łydowski.
Editing is by Adam Sajewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Christina.
Production Assistant is Jessica Kranz.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Hey everybody, this is Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon's turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection