All Episodes
Previous Next
April 20, 2021 - The Ben Shapiro Show
45:07
Raging Waters | Ep. 1239
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
As the Chauvin jury begins its deliberations, the media ratchet up the racial tension, and Maxine Waters pushes violence in the streets as Democrats defend her.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Venture Bureau Show.
This show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Don't like big tech and the government spying on you?
Visit ExpressVPN.com.
Slash Ben will get to all the news in just one moment.
First, a quick reminder, if it feels like things are quickly spiraling out of control, that's because, well, they kind of are.
If you look at the inflation rates in commodities right now, They are extraordinary.
It's something the media don't want you to pay attention to, but if you care about your financial portfolio, you probably should.
There's only one great way to protect your savings.
Do what over 10,000 other smart investors have done.
Convert a portion of your retirement accounts into gold and silver with Birch Gold.
When inflation hits, and it already is, gold and silver are your safe haven.
Birch Gold Group.
Those are the people I trust to help you convert an IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by gold and silver.
Through April 30th on qualifying purchases, when you open a Precious Metals IRA with Birch Gold, they'll send you a free home safe.
Birch Gold, those are the people I buy my gold from, and you can trust them as well.
Text Ben to 474747 for your free information kit on Precious Metals IRA, or to speak with a Birch Gold representative today.
Again, with 10,000 customers, they got an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, countless five-star reviews.
You've heard me talk with the representatives here on the show.
They're the people that I trust for my own Precious Metals investing, and they can help you as well.
Text Ben to 474747.
So, the world is now on edge as we await the verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial.
The jury is out.
The jury was issued closing statements by the prosecution and by the defense.
Then there was a prosecution rebuttal yesterday.
And then the jury were sequestered.
Now, they should have been sequestered all along.
The fact that they weren't sequestered is a real problem because it turns out that this is the most publicized, high-profile criminal trial in the United States probably since OJ Simpson.
This thing has taken up enormous sums of time and energy.
It's created protests and riots in the street for the last year.
And now, only now, did the judge decide it was time to sequester the jury.
And that was only after everyone on the jury knows the base and gross truth here, which is that if they don't convict, then their name is going to be on the front page of a paper probably two weeks from now, and then their life will be ruined.
If you are on that jury, I have a lot of sympathy for you, frankly, because it takes an enormous amount of bravery to simply look at the evidence and the facts in the case and come to a logical conclusion.
And there are a couple of logical conclusions here.
I mean, I could certainly see a conviction of Derek Chauvin for manslaughter.
I think it's almost impossible not to see reasonable doubt.
When it comes to the second and third degree murder charges, manslaughter is a lower standard because it suggests reckless disregard for the life of another.
And so you can make the case that even if Chauvin originally wasn't doing anything particularly bad, once Floyd went unconscious, he should have gotten off of him.
That's an easier case than the notion that he was committing a felony assault against George Floyd on purpose.
Or the case that he caused George Floyd's death, not by denying him care after he was already unconscious and staying on top of him, but through his actions alone.
Frankly, I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that the simple pressure of Derek Chauvin's knee on George Floyd's back, not on his neck, on his back, because this was again testified to by prosecution witnesses, Is that the body cam footage showed that Chauvin's knee was not in fact in position to cut off either George Floyd's airways or the oxygen flow to his brain.
If that was the case, then you are suggesting a 140-pound man with 40 pounds of gear on him kneeling on the back of George Floyd for about nine minutes was enough to kill the 6'5", 240-pound George Floyd Without any sort of intervening circumstances.
And people who are testifying on behalf of the prosecution basically said that, which is quite crazy to me.
The idea that the drug-fueled behavior of Floyd for the 16 minutes prior to the 9 minutes that we've all seen on tape, that had nothing to do with anything.
That George Floyd having enough fentanyl in him to kill a horse had nothing to do with anything.
The fact that he had 75% arterial blockage That had nothing to do with anything.
That's the prosecution's case.
That's very difficult to believe.
Again, the prosecution had a heavy burden here because they have to get to beyond a reasonable doubt, right?
It is not just that they have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the standard in civil court, you know, like a majority of the evidence, you think probably it's Chauvin's fault.
It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that this is Chauvin's fault.
And it has to be shown a couple of things.
One, that he did not act as a reasonable police officer should have.
And two, that he's the actual causative factor in George Floyd's death.
That he was a substantial factor in George Floyd's death.
There's a great analysis over legal insurrection, which has been doing excellent work covering the day-to-day on this case.
And one of the analysts over there was writing about sort of the differences in terms of the causation arguments being put forward by the prosecution and the defense.
The prosecution is essentially arguing that this case is akin to a man is on a subway platform and a mugger comes up to him and pops out of the shadows and scares the guy.
And the guy topples backward onto the subway tracks and then is run over.
Is the mugger at fault for that?
Okay, so that would be the substantial factor, right?
Without the mugger there, without the mugger having scared the guy, he would be fine.
And what the defense is arguing is that this is more akin to somebody, like a normal person on the street, encountering a police officer, and the police officer trying to arrest the person, and the person dropping dead of a heart attack.
Was the police officer a substantial factor in that person's death?
The defense is arguing, well, really not, because it was the underlying causes that were the greatest factor in the death.
If the arrest merely sent up the heart rate like it would for any normal person, and this was a particularly susceptible suspect, And that removes the causative factor, because that's factor number one.
The reasonable police officer stuff is all about whether Chauvin did something that is so outside the realm of what a normal police officer would do or reasonable police officer would do that he deserves to get 10 years, 15 years, 20 years in jail for it.
And there again, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauvin acted with a certain level of recklessness, if you want manslaughter, or that he acted with a direct intent to felony assault George Floyd, which, again, is a super hard case.
As Eric Nelson, the defense attorney, kept pointing out, Chauvin knows the body cams are on.
He knows he's being filmed.
The notion that Chauvin is just committing this felony assault in front of people because he desperately wants to kill George Floyd or because he doesn't care if George Floyd dies is sort of counterintuitive, considering that Chauvin was a many-year serving police officer on the force.
This was not his first rodeo, exactly.
But the prosecution laid out its final case yesterday.
The defense laid out its final case yesterday.
The prosecutor's case was very much rooted in emotion.
And I have to say, I think that the judge in this particular case, Judge Cahill, The way that he ruled on a variety of issues presents serious issues for appeal.
We're going to get to Maxine Waters in a second because that is a serious issue for appeal.
But there are many situations here where it seems like there are serious issues for appeal.
Number one, third degree murder should not have been on the docket here.
Third degree murder does not apply.
Third degree depraved heart murder is not the right charge here because depraved heart murder requires that your malice be directed at others, your recklessness be directed at others, not at other.
This is first-year evidence in law school.
You do not allow evidence as a judge that has nothing to do with whether the case is true or not.
going to kill somebody.
That's depraved heart murder.
That charge didn't apply.
Cahill reinstated it.
He shouldn't have allowed a full week of witness testimony that was entirely non-probative.
This is first year evidence in law school.
You do not allow evidence as a judge that has nothing to do with whether the case is true or not.
All it has to do with is how bad you felt about the case.
All that is is prejudicial.
And when you see on TV, people say that certain information is prejudicial to the jury.
What they mean is that it is not relevant or pertinent to the guilt or innocence of a particular party in the case.
Just as it would have been prejudicial to simply talk about George Floyd's criminal background without any reference to the case because it didn't have anything to do with the case.
It is absolutely prejudicial to have witness testimony on how upset they personally were and how they couldn't sleep because they saw George Floyd die.
That's true for presumably tens of millions of people who saw the tape of George Floyd dying in the first place.
So none of that should have been allowed in court.
That's going to be an issue on appeal.
There will be issues on appeal, for sure, with regard to the treatment of the jury by outside forces.
It's my contention that this case never should have been held in Minneapolis in the first place.
This is like a perfect textbook case of when you transfer venue.
Minneapolis is the site, it is the epicenter of racial conflicts in the country right now.
It is the epicenter of all attention in the country right now.
And it is made up of a jury The jurors are members of the community who are going to have to deal with all of that fallout, which of course makes it very difficult to have a fair and impartial jury of your peers if you are Derek Chauvin.
So there can be a lot of issues on appeal here.
So the prosecutor laid out his case and what I was going to say about the prosecutor's case is that it was very emotionally laden.
Most of the prosecutor's case was not about laying out.
He went on for a couple of hours.
Most of his case was not about laying out the fact by fact moment by moment timeline of what happened with Chauvin and Floyd because that actually doesn't cut in favor of the prosecution. Most of it was about the basic idea that if you just watch the tape, you know exactly what happened. And that, of course, is not the whole story, as the defense said. So here is the prosecutor concluding with, I don't know, something from Dr. Seuss's The Grinch.
Here we go. You were told, for example, that Mr. Floyd died, that Mr. Floyd died because his heart was too big.
You heard that testimony.
And now having seen all the evidence, having heard all the evidence, you know the truth.
And the truth of the matter is that the reason George Floyd is dead is because Mr. Shulman's heart was too small.
OK, I mean, that's very emotional and it's going to make a lot of tweets light up with joy.
But is that really a value to the jury?
I mean, again, the case for recklessness, the case for outright malice is pretty low here.
The case for felony assault, I still think is kind of low.
The case for recklessness, he might be able to make on a manslaughter charge, but this sort of, you know, emotionally laden stuff, I don't know.
It doesn't say anything probative to me.
What the prosecutor did do when he was discussing the charges, he put up a chart of the charges against Chauvin.
Explaining the elements of the various crimes.
This chart actually is useful to understand what exactly is happening in the case.
So, murder in the second degree.
There are four elements.
One, the death of George Floyd has to be proven.
Okay, well, he's dead, so that would be proven.
The second element is that the defendant's actions were a substantial causal factor in Mr. Floyd's death.
The fact that other causes contributed to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability.
Okay, so this is where I was talking about the disagreement on causation.
The defense is going to argue substantial causal factor means that it has to be the chief causal factor, right?
There can be other things that are involved.
Right, just like in the case that I was mentioning before, where the robber jumps out, the mugger jumps out at you on the subway platform, it's the subway that kills you if you fall off and the subway runs you over, but the mugger is the substantial chief factor in your death, because it is his fault that you got frightened and fell onto the subway tracks.
Okay, well, the prosecution is arguing something different, which is that if you are just any factor, almost, in the death of somebody, then this means that you are guilty.
I think that's...
kind of unsustainable on the legal basis. The third element of murder in the second degree is the defendant at the time of causing the death of George Floyd was committing or attempting to commit the felony offense of assault in the third degree saying the defendant assaulted George Floyd intentionally applying unlawful force to Floyd without his consent resulting in bodily harm and the defendant inflicted substantial bodily harm on George Floyd.
Both of those elements are in doubt.
Because, again, there is no actual autopsy result showing that there was damage to George Floyd's trachea, for example, or that he was deprived of oxygen to his brain specifically because of the so-called suppression hole that was being used on George Floyd.
And the notion that he was using a form of suppression hold that was not allowed by Minneapolis PD is not true.
It was in the Minneapolis PD playbook.
Final element, the Defendants Act took place on or about May 25th, 2020 in Hennepin County.
Okay, so murder in the second degree, I think it's very hard to meet all those standards.
Murder in the third degree, again, has five elements.
Two of them are the same, right?
You have to prove that he died.
You have to prove when he died.
Okay, but then, and the substantial causal factor element is the same as well.
Murder in the third degree says the defendant caused the death of George Floyd by an intentional act that was eminently dangerous to other persons, but it wasn't eminently dangerous to other persons.
That's the entire thing, right?
So this charge does not apply at all.
I think he can't prove second degree.
I think third degree just does not apply.
Then you get to manslaughter in the second degree, and this one is a lot looser.
Here, you just have to show that the defendant caused the death of George Floyd by culpable negligence, whereby the defendant created an unreasonable risk and consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.
And here, you don't have to intend that your conduct be harmful.
All you have to do is be reckless.
And this is where the defense was focused in on the crowd, right?
Their defense to this was, Chauvin was distracted by the crowd.
He didn't know what was going on under his knee because, again, he's not looking down at George Floyd.
You can see in the tape, he's yelling at the crowd.
The crowd is yelling at him.
He actually reaches for his mace and all of this.
So that's the prosecution's case.
I think that it is very, very weak when it comes to the murder charges.
I think that it is more arguable when it comes to the manslaughter charge.
Meanwhile, Eric Nelson, the defense attorney, he made his case.
He said that Floyd's death, beyond anything else, it just was not Chauvin's fault, just on a root factual level.
Chauvin was not the substantial factor in the death of George Floyd.
And again, this was always the strongest case on behalf of the defense.
And frankly, it's a very plausible case that basically ends the case, in my view.
Again, you don't have to believe this.
You just have to, is this reasonable doubt?
Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
Again, I think that the base medical fact pattern here, which is that George Floyd was high as a kite, had three times the deadly amount of fentanyl in his system, had a 75% arterial blockage.
It's extremely difficult for me to believe that that is not a level of reasonable doubt that applies to the causation factor in all of the charges.
I could see a jury going the other way on manslaughter, but they really would have to ignore this.
Here's Eric Nelson talking about this.
This is the defense attorney for Derek Chauvin.
You have to be convinced that the defendant's actions caused the death of Mr. Floyd.
And throughout the course of this trial, the state has tried And called numerous witnesses to try to convince you that asphyxiation is the singular cause of death.
The singular cause of death.
And why is that?
It's because actions that happened before Mr. Floyd was arrested, that had nothing to do with Officer Chauvin's activities, And again, one of the things that the prosecution never really proved is that if George Floyd was already saying, I can't breathe, if he was already in the midst of a medical issue,
Then Chauvin was not the chief causative factor in his death.
If you fell down on the subway tracks and then the mugger shouted at you, at that point it's not even the mugger's fault if you get run over by the train.
It's sort of the case that the defense was making here.
Now, here is the amazing thing about this.
I'm trying to present this with as much nuance and detail as I can in a short period of time, and we've gone through a lot of the details in the case in a way that you haven't seen in much of the mainstream media.
The establishment media do not want to present you the details of the case.
The establishment media think it is a sin for you to know what the defense has been saying in this case, because the establishment media are rooting for riots.
I cannot see any other reason why they're presenting the case in the light they're presenting it.
They're dedicated to the narrative that America is deeply racist, and that if Derek Chauvin is acquitted, it's because of deep American racism, and they are justifying and excusing rioting and looting.
And anybody who justifies and excuses rioting and looting, they will simply poo-poo and pretend they're not doing it.
It's an amazingly Anti-American citizen thing to do.
You're damaging actual Americans who have a right to expect a level of peace in their communities.
You're damaging them by your establishment media coverage.
The establishment media is, the way that they have ratcheted up the tension here, the way that they have fostered the notion that if the jury goes the wrong way here, the jury is therefore racist.
And that if an individual juror sees fit to find reasonable doubt in these cases, it must be that that juror's life will be ruined.
I mean, honest to God, it will take a person of extraordinary bravery To actually examine the facts in this case.
Which is why my prediction is that the jury will hang on the murder charges and probably come out in favor of manslaughter.
Just my personal opinion, could go the other way.
But we're gonna find out in short order.
But it's the media coverage that is really the bigger issue here.
Because no matter how this trial goes, and yes, I understand that a man's life is at stake, and a man's life was at stake a year ago when George Floyd died, but now Derek Chauvin's future is at stake, whether he's gonna spend the next couple decades in jail, which is a major issue, obviously.
When it comes to the broader national issue, the broader national issue is that the media have a stake in fomenting division in the country that is going to end with more violence and more looting and more rioting unless they get their way.
It is a form of political blackmail that the media are now engaged in with the American people.
They're engaged in a game of political chicken, and they're using other people's businesses, other people's livelihoods, other people's very lives as tools in this game, and it's quite disgusting.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, Let's talk about your sleep quality.
So if all that is going to keep you up at night worrying about it, well, let me just recommend you get a great pillow.
I'm talking, of course, about MyPillow.
Well, now MyPillow has gone even further.
Not only have they created the best pillow on the market, they've also created MySlippers.
The slippers took over two years to develop.
They're designed to wear indoors and outdoors all day long.
Both my wife and I are in MySlippers nearly all the time when we are at home.
The MySlippers are made with MyPillow foam and impact gel to help prevent fatigue.
They are made with quality leather suede.
I can tell you firsthand, these are very comfortable.
You will love them.
I'm wearing them all the time.
The whole family is going to want them.
They make a fantastic gift.
For a limited time, MyPillow is offering 40% off their new MySlippers.
That is 40% off.
So now I've got sheets, pillows, and slippers for MyPillow.
Like all of their products, comfort is key.
Everything they make is just high quality stuff.
Go to MyPillow.com, click on the radio listener square, use promo code DailyWire.
You'll also get deep discounts on all MyPillow products, including the Giza Dream Bedsheets, the MyPillow Mattress Topper, the MyPillow Towel Sets, or call 800-951-7163.
That's 800-951-7163.
Use promo code DAILYWIRE.
Visit mypillow.com right now, or call 800-951-7163 to get started.
Call 800-951-7163, use promo code DailyWire, this is MyPillow.com right now, or call 800-951-7163 to get started.
Okay, so when I say that the media are fomenting all of this, that the media are treating this case as a foregone conclusion or what should be a foregone conclusion just so that people lose their minds if it goes the other way.
They're being perfectly obvious about this.
They're not even hiding the ball.
They're not even trying to hide the ball.
So, for example, here is CNN's senior legal analyst, Laura Coates, on Twitter.
She tweeted out, quote, Defense begins the closing by defining reasonable doubt, not with why Derek Chauvin is innocent.
Think about that.
So in other words, the defense is admitting that Derek Chauvin is guilty.
So no sane jury could find that Derek Chauvin is not guilty.
Now, here's the thing.
The senior legal analyst at CNN, I don't know why she's the senior legal analyst if she doesn't know the simple fact that defining the standard of reasonable doubt is what defense lawyers do in every single case of which I am aware.
In a criminal trial, you always start with defining reasonable doubt so the jury understands what standard the prosecutors have to prove.
If you're trying to argue innocence, then it becomes a preponderance of the evidence case.
Then it's just, okay, is my case better than his case?
But the prosecution has to prove beyond a standard of reasonable doubt.
And yet there you have CNN's senior legal analyst suggesting that it is some sort of sin for the defense to point out the standard.
This means, of course, that the client is guilty.
Meanwhile, you have Don Lemon on CNN, your objective news reporter.
And boy, what a bleep show Don Lemon is.
My goodness.
Don Lemon was never great, but the evolution of Don Lemon from Basically, Anderson Cooper into Joy Reid has been astonishing to watch over the past few years.
He is just an openly partisan hack at this point.
He is not even, I mean, he, he, frankly, he makes Joy Reid look like a piker sometimes.
Here was Don Lemon yesterday suggesting that this was straight up murder.
We all know exactly what can happen when a black man or woman's encounter with police goes wrong.
Every black person in this country understands the anger, the grief, the helpless feeling in the pit of your stomach when it happens again and again.
And now it's all coming to a head in that jury room in Minneapolis where prosecutors today called on jurors to believe what they saw with their own eyes, saying this wasn't policing, this was murder.
And of course, Don Lemon isn't just reporting what the prosecutors are saying, saying what they saw with their own eyes.
You saw it.
You saw it.
Forget that offense.
There's no need to look at the tape.
Sounds like Chelsea Handler here, right?
Saying that you don't need to present that offense when we all saw the tape.
Except that you do.
And when Don Lemon suggests that every police encounter between black Americans and police officers ends with the black person being mistreated, hurt, murdered by the police, I just, there's no statistical evidence to support this.
I don't know how many times I have to say this.
Anecdotal evidence is not statistical evidence.
Provide the data.
Provide the data demonstrating that this is not due to the offenses committed by the suspect.
It is due to police racism.
Explain, like, let's have that argument.
You want to hear that argument?
Let's talk about specific police departments and we can break down, crime by crime, what happened in each case.
But they don't want to do that.
The whole idea here is that you take a data point, even a data point like this one that is awkward and doesn't really fit the narrative of a racist murder, and then you turn it into a racist murder for purposes of suggesting that black people are properly suspicious of all of white America because white America is shot through with white supremacy, the only cure for which is to provide unending revision of the American bargain by the federal government.
That's really what's at stake here.
This is all just a lever for change.
And I don't mean change of the good sort.
I mean a complete revision of the American bargain between individual rights and the body politic.
And the media are fomenting this.
Again, I can't emphasize this enough.
The media are actively fomenting this.
Maxine Waters, who has been promoting violence, mass violence in the streets, for as long as she's been in public politics.
I'm going all the way back to 1992.
This is a piece from the New York Times, circa 1992, talking about the Rodney King riots.
And it's talking about Maxine Waters here.
It says, until three weeks ago, the freshman Democratic congresswoman was little known outside the Washington Beltway and among those who follow California politics are black politicians.
But since the acquittal of four white police officers and the beating of Rodney King set off the worst civil unrest this century, Mrs. Waters has had a lot to say, and not everybody likes it.
More than any other political leader representing L.A., more even than Mayor Tom Bradley, Mrs. Waters seemed to be all over the airwaves, acting as a voice of the disenfranchised after unrest broke out.
Going all the way back, by the way, the media were very warm toward the idea that riots were simply the voice of the dispossessed.
She scared some people and angered others by focusing on justifying rather than condemning the violent reaction to the verdict.
And this is typical Maxine Waters.
I mean, Maxine Waters has, she called the L.A.
riots, in which, by the way, South Central Los Angeles, which was largely black, was burned to the ground in large part, in which Korean business owners were targeted.
She called that an L.A.
uprising.
An L.A.
uprising.
She says, I said in 101 different ways violence is not right, that I don't condone violence, that people can't endanger their own or others' lives.
What I didn't do is use the airwaves to call people hoodlums and thugs for burning down their own communities.
It only makes them madder when you call them hoodlums and thugs, as the president did.
Oh, so you're not justifying what they're doing, you're just saying they're not hoodlums and thugs when they burn down their own neighborhood.
Got it.
And she's been doing this her entire career.
This is nothing new for Maxine Waters.
You'll remember just a couple of years ago when Maxine Waters said that Trump administration members should be actively, physically confronted whenever they go out in public.
Here's Maxine Waters just a couple of years ago.
You see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.
And you push back on them.
And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.
And the left has not only tolerated this, they've celebrated this.
For a while, Matine Waters was considered persona non grata inside the Democratic Party because she was deeply corrupt.
She was on the Financial Services Committee, and there were serious questions about how the Financial Services Committee was directing resources to banks in which her husband was involved.
And she was consistently considered one of the most corrupt members of Congress.
But, during the Trump era, she became anti-Maxine again.
She was the person who was going to be promoted by the media as the person who could speak truth to power.
Trump didn't spring out of a vacuum, guys.
I know that everybody wants to think, on the left, that Trump killed American politics.
Trump was a symptom.
He was the coroner.
He came along and he noticed the body of American politics with the knife still in it.
And then he said, oh, this body has been stabbed.
Didn't heal it, but he certainly didn't start it.
Maxine Waters pre-existed Trump as a prominent person in American politics, as an elected official, by some almost 30 years.
And yet Maxine Waters has not only been tolerated, she's been celebrated, she's been elevated inside the Democratic Party for most of that time with brief periods of respite.
Okay, so Maxine Waters, of course, the other day, she broke curfew.
She traveled from Washington, D.C.
to Minnesota, right, to Minneapolis, to be there, presumably to intimidate the jury, because why the hell else would you be in Minneapolis?
There were protests in Washington, D.C., too.
You could have just protested out there.
She flew into Minneapolis, just as Al Sharpton has now flown into Minneapolis.
A race baiter who himself has been involved in the incitement of riots.
And Maxine Waters then told Black Lives Matter that if they didn't get what they wanted, not just a conviction on manslaughter, she said there has to be a conviction on murder charges.
And then she even suggested there should be a conviction on a charge of first degree murder, which is not even charged in this case.
She said that if they don't get what they want, then they should, quote unquote, get more confrontational.
Well, I don't know what more confrontational means in the context of a city that nearly burned down about a year ago.
So here's Maxine Waters telling BLM just the other day what she wants to happen if she doesn't get her way, if the jury doesn't go her way, which is like pure, simple jury intimidation.
We've got to fight for justice.
But I am very hopeful and I hope that we're going to get verdicts that say guilty, guilty, guilty.
And if we don't, we cannot go away.
What should protesters do?
Well, we've got to stay on the street.
And we've got to get more active.
We've got to get more confrontational.
We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business.
So all of this culminated yesterday with Judge Cahill, who again is a former staffer.
He was appointed by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty originally as a Republican, but he's a former staffer for Amy Klobuchar, right?
So the guy is not some sort of crazed right-wing conservative.
And as I've mentioned, the judge in this case has made a series of decisions, which I think set up the possibility of a serious appeal, even if Chauvin is convicted.
Well, the judge yesterday was asked by Nelson for a mistrial on the basis of Waters' comments.
And the judge said, well, I'm not going to grant a mistrial, but certainly this is an issue for appeal.
I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, especially in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and to the judicial branch in our function.
I think if they want to give their opinions, they should do so in a respectful and in a manner that is consistent with their oath to the constitution to respect a co-equal branch of government.
Their failure to do so I think is abhorrent, but I don't think it has prejudiced us with additional material that would prejudice history.
Okay, so the entire left went insane.
How dare the judge say this?
How da- No one on the left.
I can't find a single prominent figure on the left who condemned Maxine Waters for this sort of language.
So the same exact people who said that Donald Trump, who said that people should peacefully Protest what was going on on January 6th at the Capitol building, and then a few hundred droogs decided it would be a wonderful idea to break into the Capitol building and threaten lawmakers.
The same exact people like Maxine Waters, who suggested that Donald Trump was guilty of incitement of an insurrection, are out there actively defending Maxine Waters today, or at the very least, poo-pooing it.
So spare me your hysterics about Donald Trump's fraught language.
I didn't like his language.
But he said peaceful.
Maxine Waters has never said that sort of stuff.
Maxine Waters is one of the worst actors in Congress, and you guys will never disown your own radicals.
It's fairly impressive, truly, for the Democratic Party.
You have to admire the solidarity.
I've been told over and over by friends of mine who are Democrats, look at these Republicans and how they have all these people in the Republican Party who are wild and crazy, and they won't condemn anybody.
And I just think to myself, well, pretty much every time Trump said something that I thought was bad, I condemned him publicly.
And many other people condemned him publicly, too.
When there were candidates who were so thorough-going bad that I thought they should not be in Congress, I helped run them out of Congress, like Steve King in Iowa.
Right?
Or like Roy Moore in Alabama.
When was the last time you saw the Democrats expel anyone?
When was the last time the Democrats looked at Maxine Waters and were like, you know what?
We don't like this.
Can you find anybody to go on record about it?
Whenever somebody on the Democratic side of the aisle is incredibly radical or foments violence, even if you're somebody who participates in rioting and looting, I mean, first of all, Kamala Harris will contribute to your bailout fund in Minnesota.
But beyond that...
If you are a radical inside the Democratic Party circles, the vision of you is not the way it is in the Republican circles.
If you're in Republican circles and somebody is radical and crazy and spouting conspiracy theories, there's a general sense of embarrassment.
I'm like, that person has bad ideas.
If you're in Democratic circles and you're Bernie Sanders, you're a wild-eyed socialist, or if you're AOC, you've never had a good idea in your entire life, but you're very, very loud.
If you are a Democrat like Maxine Waters, who's fomented violence, Then the entire Democratic Party will rally to your cause and declare that the real problem with you is not that you have bad ideas.
It's not.
Your ideas are great.
The real problem with you is that you just have the pure naivete of a small innocent child.
That's really the reason you're such a bad person is because you're actually super innocent and you don't understand that this isn't how politics works.
You gotta let the adults work it out, sweetheart.
But the reality is that you are just so innocent and so pure.
You're the best of us.
You're not the worst of us.
You're the best of us.
And that's the way the Democratic Party treats their own radicals inside the House.
So, Kevin McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, he slammed Waters.
He says, Waters sees value in violence, which obviously is true.
Here is the House Minority Leader, and then we'll get to the Democratic and media reaction, which is to pretend that Maxine Waters actually didn't say what she just said and you watched her say.
Maxine Waters believes there's value in violence.
This is the first time she's done something like this.
Remember what she said for, in the past administration, for people to get in their faces, to challenge everyone.
And now what she has said has even put doubt into a jury.
You had a judge announce that it was wrong.
I think this takes action, especially when she has a pattern of this behavior.
That, of course, is exactly true.
But what did Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, have to say about Maxine Waters?
What did she have to say?
Remember, this is the same Nancy Pelosi who watered down a resolution to condemn Ilhan Omar's antisemitism into a resolution condemning all the bad things, and then took a trip with Ilhan Omar to demonstrate solidarity.
Now, she was asked if Waters should apologize.
Quote, Oh, really?
Is that what she meant?
Because how would they get more confrontational?
in the manner of the civil rights movement. Oh really? Is that what she meant? Because how would they get more confrontational? How? I mean, seems like BLM did $2 billion of damage across the course of the last summer.
How do you get more confrontational?
Was that the manner of the civil rights movement?
Because I feel like Nancy Pelosi should know better since she was alive for it.
She says, I myself think we should take our lead from the George Floyd family.
They've handled this with great dignity and no ambiguity or lack of misinterpretation by the other side.
No, I don't think she should apologize.
So, no apology required by Nancy Pelosi or requested by Nancy Pelosi.
Jen Psaki over at the White House.
He's asked about Joe Biden's view on Maxine Waters' comments.
And here's Jen Psaki completely dodging the question.
Does the president agree with what she said about getting more confrontational?
Well, I can speak to the president, too.
He has been very clear that he recognizes the issue of police violence against people of color, communities of color, is one of great anguish.
And it's exhausting and quite emotional at times.
As you know, he met with the Floyd family last year and has been closely following the trial, as we've been talking about, and is committed to undoing this longstanding systemic problem.
Okay, so, um, if you recall, the original question was, what do you think of Maxine Waters' comments?
Not, can you quote Jonathan Capehart's bad column in the Washington Post about exhaustion and meeting with George Floyd's family and a bunch of read-out talking points.
All he had to say was, Maxine Waters shouldn't have said that.
It's bad that she said that.
We abhor all violence and Maxine Waters' contribution to raising the temperature is not useful.
That's all she has to say.
She can't say that, because the Democratic Party is very much in favor of this inside-outside game, whereby you get people in the streets actively participating in rioting and looting and anti-police activity.
By the way, I know it's not a national story, because again, national stories are just stories that back the media's establishment narrative.
Hey, I know it's not a national story, but somebody did ambush a Minneapolis National Guard person the other day.
But that's not a national story, guys.
Not a national story at all.
The same day, by the way, I believe that Maxine Waters made that comment.
Doesn't mean they incited it.
Doesn't mean that she's responsible for that.
It does mean that she's not helping, for sure.
But don't worry, the media are there to defend Maxine Waters.
Remember, Donald Trump is solely and completely responsible for the acts of January 6th.
But Maxine Waters, who's been actively fomenting violence since the moment she set foot in Congress, She's never responsible for anything that comes out of her mouth.
In fact, the stuff you heard her say, she didn't actually say.
Here's Don Lemon saying she wasn't inciting violence.
I take this at face value because Don Lemon is an objective news source.
Do you really think Maxine Waters is calling for violence?
Maxine Waters is not calling for violence.
Everyone knows that.
She makes a lot of people uncomfortable, especially a lot of men, and quite frankly, especially a lot of white men, because she puts them in her place.
She tells you, shut up.
Respect this person.
Don't talk to me that way.
And she gives it to you like it is.
Now, that said, Do I think what she said was constructive?
Absolutely not.
I love it.
All she speaks is the truth.
All she says are true things when she's not being a corrupt windbag from California who brings home the bacon to her husband's banks.
All she says are true, wonderful, incredible things.
She's anti-vaccine.
Now, do I think that was super constructive?
No, but she's unbelievable, and if you don't like her, it's because you're a white man.
That's the only reason that you wouldn't like Maxine Waters going to the middle of a trial zone and standing like next to the courthouse, basically, and saying, if they don't give you what you want, then you should get super confrontational, like more confrontational than you've been in the past, in a city that nearly burned down a year ago.
Don Lemon, objective journalist.
These people, they want the conflict.
They want the conflict.
They think the conflict is good.
They think that the conflict makes the country a better place.
I have a question.
Since the Black Lives Matter movement began, what in America has gotten better?
Can you name a thing?
I just want one.
Name one thing that has gotten better since the Black Lives Matter movement began.
Has it gotten better for black people in terms of violence in their cities?
Absolutely not.
It's got significantly worse.
Has it gotten better for black people in terms of inequality, which is the supposed main concern of BLM?
No, it has not.
Has it gotten better in terms of race relations in the country with all of these posturing white left wingers in suburban areas kneeling on tape in front of black people?
Has that made race relations in America significantly better?
Can you feel America getting healthier?
Do you think that black people are more optimistic about race relations or less?
How about white people?
Is a single thing better than it was in terms of race relations in the United States than it was in say 2009 when Barack Obama first took office?
The answer by every available metric is no.
The answer by every available metric is no.
And yet the media are fomenting this.
They're pushing it because no matter the casualty list on the other side, no matter the damage done, all that matters is the utopia they see in their addled brains.
That's all that matters.
And if they have to twist the data, if they have to twist the narrative in order to get there, they will.
They don't care.
CNN did this all day yesterday defending Maxine Waters.
All day.
The same people who say Marjorie Taylor Greene is the biggest issue inside the Republican caucus.
This backbencher from Georgia who created a caucus for Anglo-Saxon cultural defense that had no members.
But that was the biggest issue in America.
You've got an active congresswoman who's been promoting rioting and violence literally her entire career, doing it again the other day in the middle of a trial, so bad that the judge, again, a person who staffed with Amy Klobuchar, The judge said this could be a mistrial issue.
And the Democrats are like, no, she's wonderful.
It's great.
And the media are right there with them.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, let us talk about the fact that if you like your hair, you really have to work on keeping it right now.
I know, dudes, you think you can wait until you're 40, 45, and then you can start worrying about the hair loss.
Here's the thing.
By the time you hit your mid-30s, you're already starting to lose your hair.
You really need 4HIMS.com.
It is your one-stop shop for hair loss and wellness for men.
HIMS is helping dudes be the best version of themselves with licensed medical providers and FDA-approved products to help treat hair loss.
HIMS was created by a guy who knows some men's health conversations are easier online than in person.
No more awkward in-person doctor's visits or long pharmacy lines.
4HIMS connects you to licensed medical professionals online that could save you hours.
Completely confidential.
Completely discreet.
Answer a few quick questions.
A medical professional will review.
If they determine it's right for you, they can prescribe you medication to treat your hair loss.
It is shipped directly to your door.
Today, HIMSS is giving you their best offer yet.
If you're not happy with your results after 90 days, HIMS will give you a full refund.
And right now, my listeners can get their first visit absolutely free.
Go to forhims.com slash ben.
That is forhims.com slash ben.
Prescription products require an online consultation with a healthcare provider who will determine if a prescription is appropriate.
Restrictions apply.
See the website for full details and important safety information.
Remember, that is forhims.com slash ben.
Alright, we can get to more in just one second.
First, it's almost time for another new episode of Candace.
This week's special guest is the awesome Dana White, president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, UFC, the largest mixed martial arts organization on planet Earth.
The show streams on Fridays, 9 p.m.
Eastern, 8 p.m.
Central only at dailywire.com.
You can get 25% off a new membership with code Candace.
Get the audio podcast Candace on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to your podcast.
So, if you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, look no further.
Head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Subscribe today.
Be sure to leave a five-star review if you like what you hear.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
The ongoing defensive waters by the media.
It is consistent.
Yamiche Alcindor, who's not a journalist, she's an activist for PBS, she tweeted out, don't worry, Maxine Waters didn't threaten violence.
Eric Nelson is now using Representative Maxine Waters, saying that protesters should, quote, get more active and more confrontational if Derek Chauvin isn't convicted as a reason for a mistrial to be declared.
He's claiming she threatened violence.
Fact check.
Waters did not threaten violence.
Weird.
Because what she said was way more violent than anything that Donald Trump said on January 6th.
Weird.
I don't remember Yamiche Alcindor feeling the same way.
Here's the thing.
Cowards are going to allow this to happen.
Cowards are going to allow the rioting and the looting to happen.
As I've said, the most important thing that we are watching right now is the simple real-time change in expectations in the United States.
There's now an expectation.
An expectation.
You have it.
I have it.
We all have it.
There's an expectation that any time there is a An incident between a white police officer and a person of color that is caught on tape, no matter the surrounding circumstances, no matter whether the suspect is guilty of the crime or not, no matter whether the suspect resisted arrest, that it will result in riots and looting.
There's a full-scale 100% expectation.
Sometimes, on rare occasions, maybe the expectation is disappointed, but rarely.
Very rarely.
This means that we have now ingrained bigotry with regard to a certain percentage of the population that we believe is now justified in whatever they do without data, without even evidence in particular cases.
That is a very bad thing.
And you're seeing our politicians take advantage of this, presumably for political gain.
So you see Brooklyn Center's mayor saying, it's not safe to drive in Minneapolis while black.
Not safe to drive in Minneapolis while black at all.
Okay, due to what?
Due to what?
Due to one incident, presumably he's talking about the Daunte Wright incident, in which a suspect attempted to flee the police, there was an active warrant out for him, and then the police officer, quite obviously, made a horrible mistake and now will be tried for manslaughter.
And now it's not safe for any black person to drive anywhere in Minneapolis, according to the Brooklyn Center Mayor.
You only say this kind of crap because you're interested in the political gain.
Here's the Brooklyn Center Mayor saying it.
This is something that People in my community have been grappling with for a very long time.
It's not safe to drive in Minnesota while you're black.
I mean, the fact of the matter is, there's so many of us who drive, you know, and if we see police behind us, we're afraid, you know, we're trembling, and that is a kind of terror that No citizen of the United States should ever have to face.
Okay, anytime you want to talk about the terror faced by citizens who are having to face down rioting and looting that have been plaguing your city, you can do that too.
Or you could talk about the terror that faces ordinary black Americans in most of America's major cities because the police are just not in those parts of town.
You could talk about that.
Because your chances as a black American of getting shot by somebody who's not a police officer are way higher than your chances of being shot unarmed by a police officer.
I mean, by several orders of magnitude.
Hey, Minneapolis's mayor, who's a joke, right?
This doofus, you'll remember him from such wonderful tape as, I'm going to go down to the George Floyd rally and get shouted at for being a white racist, even though I'm trying to just demonstrate my fealty to your overblown cause.
I mean, this guy's a tool bag of extraordinary proportions.
Here's Minneapolis's mayor saying that Floyd, no matter what the jury finds, Floyd is killed at the hands of the police.
And then you say you're not justifying rioting.
You're literally saying that the system is stacked against the prosecution of a murderer because of race.
But don't riot guys, the system's gonna work on your behalf.
The sheer moral cowardice of this is pretty hard to exaggerate here.
Here's Minneapolis's mayor.
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, regardless of the decision made by the jury, there is one true reality, which is that George Floyd was killed at the hands of police.
I'll see you next time.
Oh, is that the one true reality?
Because I noticed that that was what was in dispute in the criminal trial.
That's the mayor of Minneapolis.
How can you say that there's not a mistrial here?
I don't understand.
How can you say that the jury has not been prejudiced by the fact that the mayor of the city is saying that the cops killed George Floyd?
Maxine Waters is outside saying you need to get more confrontational with people.
More than last year when you burned two billion dollars worth of stuff and killed a bunch of people.
You need to get more confrontational than that if you don't get what you want.
How in the world was this trial taking place in Minneapolis in the first place?
Again, I'm not even saying that you couldn't make the case that Chauvin should be convicted on manslaughter.
I think that one is a 50-50 coin flip.
But I do think that there is no possible way to read this as anything other than grounds for mistrial when you have the mayor of the damned city is out there saying that no matter what the jury finds, they are wrong if they don't find like I say.
These politicians are craven.
They are cowards.
They do not give one good God bleep about the facts in any particular case.
They don't care about the lives at stake.
They don't care about the policy.
His city has seen an exponential rise in murder and crime over the course of the last year.
The corner where George Floyd died has become an epicenter of crime according to the New York Times.
That guy is the mayor of that city.
And his chief concern is continuing to run down the police on the basis of a conflicting set of fact patterns.
It's unreal.
There's only one thing that can justify this sort of behavior, and that is, in pursuit of utopia, everybody for the left is either a tool or an obstacle.
Derek Chauvin is a tool and an obstacle for these people.
Due process is an obstacle for these folks.
Individual rights are an obstacle, and Maxine Waters is a tool.
Therefore, Maxine Waters will be defended, and due process will be thrown out the window, and you're just supposed to eat it.
Guess what?
The American public at some point is going to stand up on their hind legs and say enough of all this.
Because it is horrifyingly bad for the country.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with an additional hour of The Ben Shapiro Show.
Coming up soon is The Matt Wall Show.
It airs at 1.30 p.m.
Eastern.
Be sure to check it out over at DailyWire.com.
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.
On the Matt Wall Show, we talk about the things that matter.
Real issues that affect you, your family, our country, not just politics, but culture, faith, current events, all the fundamentals.
▲
Export Selection