All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2023 - The Ben Shapiro Show
55:23
Republicans vs. The FBI
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So everyone is in a state of high excitement this morning in the economic sphere because the inflation numbers are in and they are slightly better than expected.
Down to 3% if you leave aside food and oil prices.
Of course it's kind of hard to leave aside food because food is clocking in still at a 4.8% rate of inflation.
of inflation over last year.
However, this is the lowest rate of inflation that's been recorded during the Biden administration, essentially, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Inflation cooled last month to its slowest pace in more than two years, giving Americans relief from a painful period of rising prices and boosting the chance that the Federal Reserve will stop raising interest rates after an expected increase this month.
The CPI climbed 3% in June from a year earlier.
The Labor Department said on Wednesday that it's sharply lower than the recent peak inflation rate of 9.1% in June 2022.
When gas prices hit a U.S.
record average of $5 a gallon, the June rate declined from 4% in May.
Inflation was last close to 3% in March of 2021.
Now remember, they're searching for 2% inflation, so 3% is still 50% higher than it normally ought to be.
With that said, Whenever you have a 3% inflation rate on top of, say, like, a 9% inflation rate, what we're talking about is, since, you know, two years ago, an inflation rate of 12%, which is still way, way, way too high.
What this is sort of foreshadowing, for those who are watching in the economic sphere, is the idea that the Federal Reserve is going to stop raising those interest rates.
And, of course, raising the interest rates makes it very difficult for people to access liquidity.
If they cannot access liquidity, it makes it hard for them to buy things, and therefore, the economy ends up being slowed.
That's sort of the theory.
So if the idea here is that the Federal Reserve is now going to stop increasing the interest rates, then perhaps we escape recession because the jobs market continues to be strong.
We haven't really seen a fall off in terms of investment as of yet.
The stock market has not crashed as of yet.
I am a little bit less sanguine for a wide variety of reasons.
So one of the reasons I'm a little bit less sanguine than others is because I think that the bite is happening.
It's just not been really measured yet.
It's particularly true when it comes to things like mortgages and real estate.
The situation with regard to mortgages is truly out of control.
If you look at the mortgage rates right now and the mortgage math, mortgage math right now is absolutely brutal.
If you're seeking to buy a home, now is an awful time to buy a home.
Austin Allred, who's co-founder and CEO of BloomTech, points out, the new mortgage math is brutal.
Say you buy a $1 million house with $200,000 down at a 7% rate.
with $200,000 down at a 7% rate.
Over the first three years, you would pay $193,000, which is 5,300 bucks a month.
After that, your $800,000 mortgage is still at $700,000.
So you paid $166,000 in interest and $26,000 in principal.
So right now you have wildly high rates of interest, plus you have very, very high rates of amortization.
So what that means is that the generalized mortgage interest rate is really high and most of the money that you're paying back is going to pay off the interest as opposed to paying back the original principal.
So, it makes it very hard, in other words, for people to buy houses right now, and we haven't really seen that bite yet, but it's going to happen, and the market is going to drop pretty precipitously in real estate.
People, on a personal level, will ask me about buying a house, and again, don't take this as financial advice, but I've told people, who I'm personally close to, that I'd wait a few months, because I think the prices are really going to dump in a lot of areas.
Also, underlying inflation still remains double the Fed target right now.
Financial conditions are as loose, are still looser than in the fall of 2002.
They did not tighten in 2023, which means there's still a lot of excess capital in the system that is yet to be pushed out at this point.
So if the Fed, I think, preemptively stops increasing the interest rates, there's still going to be a lot of loose money out there.
And that sort of loose money out there is going to continue to promote inflation, embedded inflation.
And you can see how much we've already gotten used to this because we hit a 3% rate everybody celebrates.
Whereas, you know, three years ago, if you had said to people, we have a 3% interest rate, year on year, everybody would have been a little bit freaked out.
It's also true that we have seen months before, like in the very recent past, in which the interest rates, in which the inflation rates actually dropped fairly precipitously, and that was not followed by a pattern of inflation rate decreases.
So for example, if you look back at like March of 2022, The percent change in the consumer price index was 0.3% and that was then followed by another spike.
The same thing happened in July of 2022.
The same thing happened in October and November of 2022.
So you see decreases and then those are followed by increases.
So until we know what's going to happen in the next month, we're really not going to know whether this is a lasting trend or whether this is just an outlier month.
So for the Federal Reserve not to increase the interest rates means they're probably leaving too much liquidity in the system.
Meanwhile, The Biden administration continues to pour money into the system, which makes no sense at all.
According to the Wall Street Journal and Greg Ip, the U.S.
government has embarked on the most sweeping foray into industrial policy in generations.
Congress has enacted hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for semiconductors, renewable energy, and infrastructure.
President Biden, like President Trump before him, has used tariffs, export controls, and buy American policies to both bolster domestic industries and counter China.
And that industrial policy is kind of just money that's being helicoptered around.
There's not like a specific goal for a lot of that money.
The risk is obvious, says Ip.
Without a coherent economic framework, industrial policy is more likely to fail and discredit the
entire concept.
This wasn't a big deal when industrial policy mostly consisted of small ticket projects.
Federal loans to Solyndra were only $535 million.
Today, it's big bucks.
The Trump administration's Operation Warp Speed devoted $18 billion to development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.
And of course, the Biden administration and Bidenomics is entirely predicated on spending more money.
So the notion that inflation is done or that the economy has escaped recession, I think it's a little bit early for people to jump on that bandwagon at this point.
I mean, listen, I hope that we avoid recession too.
Recession is bad for everybody.
However, it seems to me that we have spent a long time assuming the laws of gravity do not exist in the financial sphere, which is why you ended up with 40-year highs in inflation.
And so what you'll end up with on the other end of this is either economic stagnation, very, very slow growth, or outright recession.
In just one second, we'll get to the FBI head being grilled by Republicans on the Hill.
First, you know a company is looking out for you when they actually upgrade their service, and you don't actually get charged for that.
This is great news for new and current PeerTalk customers.
PeerTalk just added data to every plan and includes a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever.
If you've considered PeerTalk before, but you haven't made the switch, take a look again.
For just $20 a month, you get unlimited talk text and now 50% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot.
This is why I love PeerTalk.
They are veteran-owned, and they only hire the best customer service team located right here in the great United States of America.
Most families are saving almost $1,000 a year while enjoying the most dependable 5G network in America.
Remember, you vote with how you spend your money, so stop supporting companies that actually hate your guts.
Peertalk.com slash Shapiro is the way to go.
I've been getting all my business coverage from them.
You should do the same.
You'll save an additional 50% off your very first month because they actually value you.
That's Peertalk.com slash Shapiro.
Peertalk is wireless for Americans by Americans.
I know their coverage is great because, again, I use it, their coverage, and you should do the same.
Go check them out right now.
Puretalk.com slash Shapiro.
Save an additional 50% off your very first month of coverage.
That's puretalk.com slash Shapiro.
Okay, so, meanwhile, the backdrop to the FBI hearing that happened yesterday.
66% of voters are now concerned that cheating is going to affect the outcome of the 2024 election.
That includes 64% of independents.
Rasmussen Reports recently did a series of polls in which they showed just how deep this
distrust goes.
Here is what they found leading up to the 2024 election.
66% of voters are now concerned that cheating is going to affect the outcome of the 2024
election.
That includes 64% of independents.
By the way, a majority of Democrats say that they are either very or somewhat concerned
about the possibility of cheating affecting the outcome of the 2024 elections.
To pretend this is a partisan thing, it really isn't a partisan thing.
There's a bipartisan concern that voting is not going to be reflected in the actual outcome.
Not a shock, because Democrats spent Five, six years propagandizing to their own followers that Republicans were going to rig the vote in a wide variety of ways, ranging from gerrymandering to preventing black people from voting.
And meanwhile, Republicans were claiming in the 2020 election that it was outright stolen.
So of course, most people believe at this point that the election is going to be harmed in some way by voter disreputable activities affecting the vote.
64% of voters think the FBI has become politically weaponized, including 50% of Democrats and 61% of Independents.
59% of voters think the media is truly the enemy of the people.
That includes 44% of Democrats.
65% of Americans say that undercover government agents helped provoke the January 6th Capitol riot.
Believe it or not, according to Rasmussen, that even includes some 53% of Democrats.
Sorry, 59% of Democrats.
63% say that our current president enriched himself with a pay-for-play scheme with foreign governments, including apparently 42% of Democrats.
Now, listen, Rasmussen, it's polling, sometimes it's off, but what this says to me overall is that there's tremendous American distrust in the institutions.
A lot of that distrust is well-earned.
I don't think it manifests in ways that are necessarily reflective of the truth.
I think people have a tendency, just as a general rule, to spot patterns and then use those patterns and attribute too much to the patterns.
And so what that means is that if they see one person being corrupt, or if they see the media routinely ignoring corruption, that means that this particular iteration of a question must end up demonstrating corruption.
With that said, the distrust of the FBI is well earned.
We now have Inspector General Reports talking about how the FBI essentially laundered into public view Hillary Clinton led oppo against Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
That's pretty obvious at this point.
We also know that the FBI was pressuring social media to take down particular posts during the 2020 election.
All of that has been well substantiated at this point.
So, yesterday, Chris Wray, who was originally a Donald Trump appointee, He went on the hill and he strongly defended his workforce in testimony before Congress, where he faced hours of combative questioning by Republicans accusing the agency of overzealously targeting their party, namely former President Trump and his supporters, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The appearance was raised first before the House Judiciary Committee since Republicans took control.
The panel's chairman, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who we like on this program, launched an investigation of what he decried on Wednesday as the weaponization of the government against the American people.
Ray then pushed back, focusing on the everyday FBI agents.
Now listen, they do this all the time, and it's true of virtually every major American institution.
The leadership will do something really bad, and they'll filter it down to their top deputies.
The stuff with the Hillary Clinton campaign, that was being done by top members of the FBI.
We're not talking about the low-level agents.
We're not talking about the guys who are actually working the beat.
The people who are doing the street interviews with folks.
Those people are awesome.
I know a lot of the people who work for the FBI at those levels, and they're great.
I've dealt with them on a routine basis, including in terms of my family's personal safety.
I trust those guys without a doubt.
Do I trust the heads of the FBI?
Not given the activities that they have pursued.
It's sort of like, you know, a badly run police department, like Los Angeles or Chicago.
And you have the political appointees at the top of the police department very often.
And then when you criticize, then they're like, yeah, well, the everyday cop is doing a good job.
Yeah, the everyday cop is doing a good job.
You're not doing a good job.
The same thing happens with regard to the military.
You'll have a critique of Mark Milley, for example, chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
He'll say that that guy seems pretty PC.
And then he'll say, well, the everyday soldier is doing, yes, I know the everyday soldier is doing his job.
The same thing is true at the FBI.
When the court says the FBI misled, that's a nice way of saying they lied.
American people goes way beyond the one or two investigations that seem to capture all
the headlines. I mean, I'm sure, again, that that is true, but that does not fix the problem
of systemic issues at the top levels of the FBI.
Here's Representative Jim Jordan on voting on Chris Wray.
When the court says the FBI misled, that's a nice way of saying they lied. They lied.
And as a result, important information was kept from we, the people, days before the
most important election we have, election of President United States, election of the
Commander-in-Chief.
American speech is censored, parents are called terrorists, Catholics are called radicals, and I haven't even talked about the spying that took place of a presidential campaign or the raiding of a former president's home.
But maybe what's more frightening is what happens if you come forward and tell Congress.
If you're a whistleblower, come tell the legislature, come tell the Congress what's going on.
Look out.
You will be retaliated against.
Okay, so those accusations, I think, are very well taken.
And a lot of Americans believe that.
By the way, on both sides, I don't think that that is necessarily a Republican talking point.
Wray, in response, said that it's insane to say that he's biased against conservatives.
Well, he may not be personally biased against conservatives, but the department certainly has been run in a way that has been biased against conservatives.
We've had multiple reports of the FBI targeting, for example, particular religious groups. Religious Catholics, for
example, were targeted at one point. If you're a traditionalist Catholic, it was suggested that you were a
threat to the republic. Here's Representative Harriet Hageman from Wyoming, who is going
after Ray and Ray going back at her.
Director Ray, what are you prepared to do to reform federal law enforcement in a manner
which earns back the trust of the American people? Well, first off, I would disagree with
your characterization of the FBI and certainly your description of my own approach.
the world.
The idea that I'm biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me, given my own personal background.
Okay, and again, I'm not blaming Chris Wray on a personal level.
However, there's no question the FBI has pursued particular issues that are way outside of its purview and that are clearly political in nature.
Not only are Republicans critical, of course, of the FBI movement against Trump during the Trump administration and afterward, they're also very critical of the Hunter Biden plea deal.
It seems very obvious at this point that Hunter Biden got a sweetheart deal.
And again, I think that the evidence tends to show that the IRS whistleblower, Gary Shapley, has a good case to make that the DOJ was basically interfered with by Merrick Garland at the top of the DOJ to prevent a broader prosecution of Hunter Biden.
Republicans are also very upset at the FBI's use of FISA warrants to target members of the Trump campaign.
They're also very upset at the FBI's use of social media.
They're very upset about the discrimination against Catholics.
So, a lot of these sorts of issues have been creeping for a long time.
We'll get to more of how Chris Wray responded to those issues in just one second.
First...
We have a dog.
His name is Happy.
And he's a really, really good dog.
He's a great dog.
This dog, I mean, he's so nice to the kids.
He's getting used to the baby now.
It's really, really cute.
Well, we want Happy to live a long and healthy life.
This is why we give him Rough Greens every single morning.
The dog food you've been giving your dog?
That is dead food.
It doesn't have that much nutritional value.
Brown food doesn't exactly scream nutrition, but green food does.
Rough Greens.
Boosts Happy's food back to life.
It can do the same for your dog.
You don't have to go out and buy new dog food.
Just sprinkle Rough Greens on their food every day.
It contains all the necessary vitamins and minerals your dog is not getting from their regular dog food.
Again, Happy loves his Rough Greens.
Basically demands it by name.
Get it?
He... Rough... Any case, naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black, the founder of Rough Greens, is so confident that this product will improve your dog's health.
He's offering my listeners a free jumpstart trial bag today.
Go to freeroughgreens.com slash Ben.
Let Rough Greens bring your dog's food back to life.
That's free.
R-U-F-F greens.com slash Ben today or call 833 MY DOG 33.
That is 833 MY DOG 33.
Go check it out today.
833 MY DOG 33 or freeroughgreens.com slash Ben.
it out today. 833-MYDOG33 or free roughgreens.com slash them. Okay, so meanwhile, Chris Wray again,
he was being grilled on the Hill yesterday and he was chided by a multiplicity of Republicans
over the FBI colluding with big tech.
I mean, this is a real story, considering that a federal judge has now ruled that the FBI and members of the Biden administration should not be doing outreach to social media to try and bully them to take down particular posts.
We had this explosive, explosive 155-page opinion from a federal court in my home state of Louisiana.
It explains in detail that the FBI has been directly involved in what the court says is, quote, arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.
The court ordered the White House, DOJ, and FBI, among others, to immediately cease colluding with and coercing social media companies to suppress American speech.
Of course, conservative speech in particular.
Director Wray, I find it stunning.
You made no mention of this court opinion either in your opening statement today or in this lengthy 14-page report that you prepared on July 12th, which is eight days after the court ruling.
That is Representative Mike Johnson going after Chris Wray.
In the middle of all of this, Chris Wray made sort of a shocking admission.
So he was asked about the idea of particular companies turning over information to the FBI that really they shouldn't be giving to the FBI.
And Wray said, yeah, you know, Bank of America turns over information to us all the time.
This is Thomas Massey, the congressman from Kentucky, going after Chris Wray here and Wray responding in a way that should bother all of us.
There is such a thing as the Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure.
In the specific instance that you're asking about, my understanding is that that information was shared with field offices for information only, but then recalled to avoid even the appearance of any kind of overreach.
But my understanding is that that's a fully lawful process.
Was there a warrant involved?
Again, my understanding is that the institution in question shared information with us, as happens all the time.
Did you request the information?
I can't speak to the specifics.
Okay, well we've got an email where it says the FBI did give the search queries to Bank of America, and Bank of America responded to the FBI and gave over this information without a search warrant.
So the thing that he is talking about here, Massey, is apparently the FBI received from Bank of America actual purchase records for gun purchases for anybody that was a Bank of America customer.
So the question is, why is that stuff being turned over to the federal government?
Is there a rational basis for that sort of information being even requested by the federal government?
Did they turn over voluntarily?
Why is there this cozy relationship between corporations and the FBI such that they're voluntarily turning over customer information?
Chairman, I've counted in this hearing, and we're only about an hour and a half in, the use of the word laptop about 20 times.
sweetheart deal. Eric Swalwell, a person who is actively sleeping with a Chinese spy. He
was defending the FBI. It's amazing to watch Democrats suddenly turn to defend the FBI.
Chairman, I've counted in this hearing, and we're only about an hour and a half in, the
use of the word laptop about 20 times. In fact, in the chairman's opening statement,
he said that he's upset that he believes the FBI prevented more Americans from learning
about a private citizen's laptop.
That is bananas to me.
You all are bringing up FISA every single question.
You're essentially saying to the American people that you're guardians of personal security and privacy, but the 2020 election Was determined because the FBI didn't let more Americans see a private citizen's non-consensual nudes?
Is that what we're saying here?
So that is Eric Swalwell defending the FBI going after social media and attempting to get them to take down the Hunter Biden post in the lead up to the October of the November 2020 election.
It was in October 2020 they tried to actually stop all of social media from posting that stuff on the basis falsely that it was Russian disinformation.
All of this, again, the willingness of Democrats to defend the FBI in the face of some of these allegations, you wonder about comedy, you wonder about polarization.
This would be one of the reasons.
When the FBI is overtly putting its thumb on the scales and Democrats are cheering for it, that's going to be a real problem for institutional trust in the United States.
Well, as I said before, this sometimes manifests in ways that are not particularly smart.
We'll get to that momentarily first.
Let's talk about your financial future.
You need to set yourself up for success.
One way that you set yourself up for failure is by taking out credit cards and then spending a lot on the credit cards and then you get behind the eight ball with the interest rates.
Well, here's the thing.
If you've got a high credit score, you have more power than you think.
It's time to leverage that score to consolidate your debt as interest rates may continue to rise.
A credit card consolidation loan from Lightstream can help you pay off your credit cards and
lock in a low fixed interest rate.
Rates start at 8.99% APR with auto pay and excellent credit plus the rate is fixed so
it's not going to increase over the life of the loan.
You can get a loan from five grand to a hundred grand without any fees.
You can even get your money as soon as the day you apply.
Lightstream believes that people with good credits deserve a better loan experience.
That's exactly what they deliver.
Just for my listeners, apply now to get a special interest rate discount and save even
The only way to get this discount is to head on over to LightStream.com slash Shapiro.
That's L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M dot com slash Shapiro.
Subject to credit approval, rates range from 8.99% APR to 24.99% APR and include 0.50% auto pay discount.
Lowest rate requires excellent credit.
Terms and conditions apply.
Offers are subject to change without notice.
Visit LightStream.com slash Shapiro for more information.
Okay.
As I say, institutional distrust very often earned at this point in American life, and that is a result of the sort of ultra crepedarian nation and nature of the institutions.
So ultra crepedarianism is a word that just means acting outside of your purview.
So if you're a mathematician and you suddenly start opining on religion, you are now operating in ultra crepedarian fashion.
Right, outside your realm of expertise.
Well, the FBI has now expanded into nearly every arena of American life.
Just as, quote-unquote, the science has expanded into nearly every area of American life.
Just like the federal government overall has expanded into nearly every area of American life.
And it turns out, the more things that agencies try to do, the worse they do them.
And if they do them badly, people start distrusting them.
And then in an effort to regain the trust, the institutions try to do even more.
And now you have this toxic cycle where an institution fails, people distrust the institution, the institution therefore tries to do more things, and then the institution fails.
And the only way to fix that is to do fewer things better, but the institutions aren't doing that.
Well, one problematic side effect of all of that is that this very often leads people to believe that everything the institution is doing is corrupt or bad.
Or that the institution is always lying, when it turns out the institution is only sometimes lying.
Well, this brings up the case of Ray Epps.
So, Ray Epps is a theory that he's a person who is a Trump supporter.
He was originally a former member of the Oath Keepers.
And Ray Epps became sort of national news in the aftermath of the January 6th riots.
So, the day before the riots, Ray Epps was caught on camera telling people that they were going to go into the Capitol building.
In fact, we have video of Epps encouraging people to enter the Capitol.
This would have been on January 5th.
Americans are terrorists!
Yes, you are!
Okay, and you can see people around him screaming, no, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed, right?
Like, even at the time, people are screaming at him that he is a federal agent and that he's actually encouraging people to go into the Capitol so they will then be arrested.
Well, then, of course, people did go into the Capitol and they were arrested.
Ray Epps was present at January 6th, but he didn't end up being arrested.
And so this led to a lot of questions among people on the right that maybe he was a Fed,
that maybe actually January 6th was in part propagated by members of the federal government.
So Representative Nels yesterday, this was Troy Nels of Texas, he asked Chris Wray yesterday,
are you, when are you going to arrest Wray Epps? Like, why is it that he wasn't arrested?
Are you going to arrest Mr. Epps? Yes or no?
I'm not going to engage here in a discussion about individual people who are or are not.
Okay, here we go.
Can I get a commitment?
You just watched the video.
I'm an old law dog.
I understand a little bit about probable cause.
He did very little, there was very little difference what he did and Mr. Strecker, you can see him.
He's encouraging, I almost think he's inciting a riot.
He's encouraging people, the night prior, to go into the Capitol.
The day of, go into the Capitol.
And he was at the first breach.
And he breached the restricted area.
Everybody, a lot of people getting arrested for not going into the Capitol, but they're in the restricted area.
But yet, Ray Epps, who many people feel fed, fed, fed, right?
And there's a lot of clout over this.
So my point is this.
You arrested a lot of folks for unlawful activity.
You just saw the video.
And I will tell you, Mr. Ray, if you don't arrest Mr. Epps, there's a reason behind it.
I believe you know what it is.
And it appears to me you are protecting this guy.
Okay, so then the Ray Epps issue was brought more fully out by Chris Ray.
Here's Chris Ray trying to go after Tucker Carlson for propagating all of these theories about Ray Epps.
I think Tucker Carlson and some of the members' colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that Ray Epps was a secret government agent helping encourage this crime so as to make the president look bad.
Do you have any knowledge of Ray Epps being a secret government agent?
No.
I will say this notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous and is a disservice to our brave, hardworking, dedicated men and women.
Okay, so again, he's trying to rely on, like, the day-to-day FBI agents doing their job to say that the Ray Epps thing is no big deal and federal agents were not involved with any of this.
Then Ray was asked if there were confidential human sources on January 6th.
Confidential human sources would mean, like, informants on January 6th.
And here's his answer.
Former Capitol Police Chief Stevenson reportedly has asserted that the protest crowd was filled with federal agents Are you aware of his assertion?
I am not.
Would you agree with him that it was filled with federal agents on January 6th?
I would really have to see more closely exactly what he said and get the full context to be able to evaluate it.
How many agents or human resources were present at the Capitol Complex and vicinity on January 6th?
Well, again, it's going to get confusing because it depends on when we deployed and responded to the breach.
Okay, so he's trying to avoid the question here.
And you wonder why people are suspicious.
This is the reason that people are suspicious.
Because the federal government won't tell you how many people were actually there working for the federal government who are in the crowd.
And this is why pretty much every time there's any right-wing activity that seems bad, there's now a hue and cry that arises on Twitter suggesting that many of the people who are involved are federal agents.
Specifically because of the lack of transparency on issues like this.
And when you combine that with the investigation into the attempted kidnapping
of the Michigan governor, Richard Whitmer, which involved federal agents
who are actively inciting people into criminal activity, there are a lot of questions to be asked about all of this.
Now, does that mean that Ray Epps actually was a federal agent?
Does it actually mean that Ray Epps was activated by the FBI
and that's the reason that he didn't end up being prosecuted?
Not necessarily, and this presumably is why Fox News is now being sued by Ray Epps.
According to the Washington Post, Ray Epps, the man at the center
of a widespread conspiracy theory about the attack on the Capitol on January 6th,
has now filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Fox News and Tucker Carlson of defamation
for promoting a quote-unquote fantastical story that Epps was an undercover government agent
who instigated the violence at the Capitol as a way to disparage then-President Trump
and his supporters.
Fox News has not issued any sort of response for comment.
We don't know how much the lawsuit is for.
He's speaking an unspecified amount in damages.
Again, this is based on monologues like this one from Tucker way back in the way.
Here is Tucker going after Ray Epps when he was on Fox News.
According to the Justice Department, what Ray Epps did on that video is a federal crime.
In fact, the Biden administration has charged several people with seditious conspiracy for doing precisely what you just saw Ray Epps do, urging others to enter the Capitol complex on January 6th.
Here, for example, is a quote from a DOJ press release.
It describes the federal case against five members of the so-called Proud Boys, a group you're supposed to be terrified of.
Quote, on January 6th, 2021, the Defendants directed, mobilized, and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol."
Again, that's what you just saw Ray Epps try to do.
But here's the difference.
Others who have done that are in prison or facing long terms in prison.
But no charges have ever been filed against Ray Epps, despite the fact there's no question he did it because, once more, it's on tape.
That's very strange.
It just is.
And we don't care how many people call us names for pointing that out.
It is strange.
And we'd like an answer to what the heck is going on.
Okay, so the questions are one thing.
The question as to whether he actually did the thing that he's accused of doing on January 6th is nothing.
So we have him on tape January 5th saying, go into the Capitol building.
Then there was tape that emerged of him whispering to one of the people who essentially then overran the barriers on January 6th.
So apparently, he was standing directly next to another person, that person's name is Ryan Samsel, and Ryan Samsel then breaches the barriers.
And so there was a lot of speculation that he was actually telling Ryan Samsel to breach the barriers.
However, according to the New York Times, Samsel was then questioned by the FBI and then fully corroborated Epps' version of events in which Epps said that he actually told Samsel to calm down.
Samsel said, quote, he came up to me and he said, dude, relax, the cops are doing their job.
Epps was able to prove that he had left the Capitol before the violence even began in earnest.
So he wasn't one of the people who actually breached the Capitol.
He was just present on January 6th.
And a couple of days later when his name and face started appearing on the TV, he called up the FBI and offered to help.
So that is the sort of innocuous reason why presumably he was not prosecuted.
With that said, again, this all underscores the level of institutional distrust that is now endemic, not only on the right wing, but also in the right wing media.
Epps, for his part, says he had no contact with the FBI and that he did meet with the FBI after the attacks.
Here's Epps explaining himself.
We literally hung up the phone and walked right into the house, sat down and called the FBI.
Do you remember what you said to the FBI?
I told them who I was and that I would cooperate in any way I could.
I didn't break any laws.
Two months later, he met with agents.
So when we met with the FBI, I mean, it was like, finally, we're going to clear this up.
There was no, I take the fifth, there was none of that.
It was just like, we're talking right now.
I went through everything and they had a lot of questions.
So, again, does this mean that Ray Epps was the most innocent of the innocent?
No.
Does it mean that Ray Epps is a federal agent?
Also no.
And one of the things that people tend to do is because, again, I tend to attribute nearly everything to stupidity rather than malice, because I just don't think people are all that competent.
But when you see the stupidity falling in one direction over and over and over and over,
people tend to over attribute and everything is very quick to fall into
an overall broader pattern recognition that we have.
And so it's not, you can see why people think or would think that Ray Epps was a federal agent,
specifically not because of, not just because of the tape of Epps the night before
saying that he wanted to run to the Capitol, but also because of generalized distrust of the FBI,
an FBI that still will not tell you how many active federal agents they had in the crowd
on January 6th.
Again, just one second, we'll get to the updates on Ukraine first.
You might have been one of the tens of millions of people who watched Netflix's hit show, Making a Murderer.
If so, you're gonna love Daily Wire Plus's new exclusive 10-part docuseries with Candace Owens, Convicting a Murderer, that is coming this summer.
There's no such thing as your truth, there's only the truth.
While it seems like we're living in a world where the actual truth is pretty hard to come by, Many of us are still pursuing it.
That includes everyone at The Daily Wire, especially Candace Owens.
When Candace found out that key facts may have been omitted in Netflix's series, she set out to uncover the truth behind the notorious Stephen Avery case.
The end result is a new series called Convicting a Murderer.
You're not going to want to miss it.
You'll also get all the other premium content from Daily Wire Plus, including The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, What Is a Woman?, and the largest collection of content from Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, including his series on the Book of Exodus.
Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Become a member.
See the truth when it finally comes out.
Meanwhile, confusion reigns over the American position on the Ukraine war.
So, Vladimir Zelensky was meeting with President Biden yesterday at this NATO summit over in Vilnius, and he issued some nice words for the American public.
He should, considering that we sent him over $100 billion at this point.
Here he was thanking Americans.
So thank you so much for this show.
We really counted on it.
Not only on this, I mean that's totally.
And you gave us huge support.
I want to thank to all Americans.
We understand that it's more than 43 billions for today.
It's big support.
And I understand that it's all your money, but...
You have to know that you spend this money for not just fighting.
You spend this money for our lives.
And I think that we save the lives for Europe and for all the world.
Okay, so that's all very nice and good.
The problem is that Joe Biden has yet to articulate a coherent policy with regard to any of this.
As I've said before, there are three phrases that you hear from the Biden administration on a routine basis and from the West.
And these phrases are all lies.
One is, this is a war for democracy.
Two is, as long as it takes.
And three is, until Ukraine wins.
When they say it's a war for democracy, if they mean that this is a war to simply preserve Kiev from being ruled by Moscow, that's already been done.
Also, I don't believe that this administration engages in wars for democracy as a general rule, considering they pulled out from Afghanistan and turned a nascent democracy into a full-scale Islamic dictatorship.
Two, when they say as long as it takes, nobody believes that either.
Joe Biden is the person who cut and ran from Afghanistan and left billions of dollars in military hardware to the Taliban.
No one believes as long as it takes because it's not true.
And finally, when Joe Biden says things like, We will not waver.
war is won and then he provides no actual metric for what winning looks like.
That just means interminably.
It just means open ended.
It means no actual end goal.
Well, he said all of those things yesterday, which again, likely means that this war just
continues ad infinitum.
So here's Joe Biden trying to sound a rather stoic note and kind of failing saying we will
not waver.
We will not waver.
We will not waver.
I mean that.
Our commitment to Ukraine will not weaken.
We will stand for liberty and freedom today, tomorrow, and for as long as it takes.
Okay, so when he keeps saying, as long as it takes, this was the phrase that kept going, as long as it takes.
First of all, every American foreign policy is four years long.
It's precisely as long as the president, who's the president of the United States.
So, it tends to waver just in terms of public support because Americans support wars until they don't.
Today the members of the G7 are launching a joint declaration of support for Ukraine to make it clear that our support will last long and in the future.
that an election changes everything.
So everybody knows there's a timeline on all of this.
Here he was again saying as long as it takes.
Today, the members of the G7 are launching a joint declaration of support for Ukraine to make it clear
that our support will last long and in the future.
This starts a process by which each of our nations and any other nation who wishes to participate
will negotiate long-term bilateral security commitments with and to Ukraine.
We're going to help Ukraine build a strong, capable defense across land, air, and sea, from which we'll be a force of stability in the region and deter against any and all threats.
I want to thank my fellow G7 leaders and President Zelensky for their work to make this happen.
I think it's a powerful statement.
It's a powerful statement of our commitment to Ukraine as it defends its freedom today and as it rebuilds the future.
And we're going to be there as long as that takes.
Okay, he keeps saying as long as it takes and I just I don't know what that means.
Because no one actually believes that.
Again, the only offer up here is if Biden and the rest of the EU are actually going to Putin behind closed doors and saying, we know what the deal is, let's cut the deal and be done.
And this is all just a front, right?
They're all just saying this sort of stuff to keep the pressure up publicly on Vladimir Putin saying that we're not going to go away and we're going to continue pressing until the deal is done.
But if there's no back channeling going on, Then I don't understand exactly what they're doing.
And even in public, I'm not sure why the West continues to suggest that the goal here is going to be set by Zelensky.
Everybody knows Crimea isn't going to be liberated by Ukraine.
Everybody knows that all of Donbass is not going to be liberated by Ukraine.
So continuing to forward that narrative actually does Zelensky no favors because it's setting up an unrealistic expectation for Zelensky and for the Ukrainian people.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden continues to battle the teleprompter.
There he was at NATO yesterday, and man, this dude just does not look good.
Soon NATO will be the 32nd freestanding, have free, 30 free, 32 freestanding members standing together to defend our people and our territory.
Oh man, that guy's on his last legs.
But unfortunately for him, as always, the person backing him up is Kamala Harris.
Here was Kamala Harris yesterday trying to explain AI.
I don't think that she was good at it.
And I think the first part of this issue that should be articulated is AI is kind of a fancy thing.
First of all, it's two letters.
It means artificial intelligence.
But ultimately what it is, is it's about machine learning.
And so the machine is taught.
And part of the issue here is what information is going into the machine that will then determine, and we can predict then if we think about what information is going in, what then will be produced in terms of decisions and opinions that may be made through that process.
She's like a horrible second grade teacher.
Artificial intelligence is, well, it's AI.
Because that stands for artificial intelligence.
Yeah, we know.
Yeah, that's great.
Can't imagine why people hate her guts or why that's terrible or why RFK Jr.
continues to be viable in the polls, which brings us to the latest on RFK Jr.
This is one of the great political headlines I've ever read.
It is from the New York Post, quote, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
press dinner explodes in... I can't finish.
It's from, oh man, it's from page six.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Press Dinner Explodes in War of Words and Farting.
So, if that did not pique your interest, I'm not sure what will.
Camelot, it ain't.
Page 6 regrets to report that a press dinner to boost RFK's presidential campaign descended into a foul bout of screaming and polemic farting on Tuesday night.
The White House hopeful attended the affair at Tony's on the Upper East Side, no doubt hoping to impress on the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate his worthiness to sit at the very same Oval Office desk once occupied by his late uncle.
But a shouting match over climate change broke out between two boisterous old men, sending the evening down an extremely unfortunate path.
The gaseous exchange to which Page Six bore reluctant witness began after a guest asked Kennedy, founder of the ecological organization Waterkeeper Alliance, about the environment.
It seems that the mere inquiry was enough to set off the apparently drunk gossip columnist-turned-flak Doug Deschert, the host of the event, who became enraged and screamed at the top of his lungs, the climate hoax.
Meanwhile, octogenarian art critic Anthony Hayden Gast, who appeared to have been sleeping happily for most of the dinner, was roused by the abrupt rumpus.
Hayden Guest suddenly opened his eyes and denounced his longtime pal Deshert, calling him a miserable blob.
Shut up!
Hayden Guest replied.
Deshert continued to scream wildly about the climate change scam, while Hayden Guest peppered him with verbal volleys from across the table, calling him variously effing insane and insignificant.
Meanwhile, RFK watched calmly.
Here it seems Deshert sensed the need for a new rhetorical tack, and let rip a loud prolonged fart while yelling, as if to underscore his point.
I'm farting!
Apparently he addresses these issues in the same way that Kamala Harris does.
He was farting.
When he farted, it meant he was farting.
The room, which included a handful of journalists as well as Kennedy's campaign manager, former representative Dennis Kucinich, was stunned, seemingly unsure about whether Deschere was farting at Hayden Guest personally, or at the very notion of global warming.
Regrettably, we made sure, readers, there was no room left for doubt that the climate changed in the immediate environs of the dinner table.
The candidate maintained a steady composure in the face of the crisis.
Sadly, and somewhat inexplicably, another guest brought things back to climate change at a certain point, leading to another round of yelling.
When asked about his outburst the next day, Deschert said, I apologize for using my flatulence as a medium of public commentary in your presence.
He also asked us to refer to him as either a gallivanting Boulevardier or a beer-fueled sex rocket.
Only the best.
This means RFK Jr.
is going to be president, doesn't it?
I mean, this is basically how our culture now works.
I'm pretty sure that our culture now works like whoever has a dinner event covered by Page Six at which people are averring their opinions through farting, that person automatically wins the presidency.
I'm pretty sure that according to the Constitution, that's how all of this works.
Very exciting stuff.
happening in the RFK campaign.
Guys, we have a country of 340 million people and the people that we came up with to run for president
are an octogenarian dotard who is currently occupying the Oval Office.
Donald J. Trump and RFK Jr.
These are the people we came up with.
I have to say, we're not sending our best.
Just as a general rule.
Okay, meanwhile, we now have some good statistics from the 2022 election, and they bode somewhat well for Republicans and somewhat ill for Republicans.
So these statistics are from Pew Research, and what they find is that Republican turnout was way up in 2022 compared to 2020, as opposed to Biden voters.
So, apparently, 71% of Trump voters voted in 2022.
For a Republican House candidate, it's only 67% of Biden voters voted in 2022.
Very few people defected.
So it really was a turnout election.
About 7% of Biden voters in 2020 voted Republican in 2022.
Only 3% of Republican voters in 2020 voted Democrat in 2022.
So, again, that's not a huge kind of swath of independents in the middle of the country.
According to that new Pew Research Center analysis of verified voters and non-voters in 2022, 2020, 2018, and 2016, they found partisan differences in turnout account for most of the Republican gains in voting for the House last year.
Overall, 68% of those who voted in 2020 turned out to vote in the 2022 midterms.
As in previous elections, party loyalty remained strong in last fall's midterms.
Democratic 2018 voters were slightly more likely than Republican 2018 voters to defect in 2022.
That flipped party balance one or two percentage points to the GOP.
So why exactly did Republicans then underperform in the Senate races?
The answer is because all the Senate races were fairly close, but a bunch of people split their ticket.
A bunch of people who voted Republican for House candidates did not vote for the Republican candidate in the Senate.
So that's the part that bodes ill.
But Republican turnout is going to continue to be high because, again, Republicans are pissed off with the state of the country.
They're angry at Joe Biden.
They're angry at the current Democratic rule, not only inside government, but also within the media, within corporate halls.
And so they're going to continue to show up and vote.
But candidate quality does, in fact, matter.
Candidate quality is going to matter.
Now, again, one part of this 2024 election cycle that's definitely not going to benefit Democrats the same way it did as in 2020 is that people are going to show up more in person to vote than they did in 2020.
A huge number of people voted by mail-in because of all of the Democratic attempts to get people to vote early, thanks to scare-tacticking about COVID.
Voting in person on Election Day in 2020 and 2022 increased sharply compared with 2020.
More voters reported casting ballots in person on Election Day in both parties.
The share remained much higher among Republican voters, 51%, than among Democratic voters, 34%.
White voters without college degrees made up a majority, 54% of Republican voters in 2022, compared with just 27% of Democratic voters.
Hispanic voters did, in fact, move over toward the Republican Party.
Hispanic voters favored Democrats by a 21-point margin in 2022, but that was a 47-point margin in 2018.
Black voters continued to support Democrats by overwhelming margins.
93% voted for Democrats in the midterms, only 5% for Republicans.
So, you know, what exactly does that mean for Republicans?
Well, again, it means that they're going to have to count on lower voter turnout for Democrats in order to win the 2024 election if Donald Trump is the candidate.
Because they're not going to be winning a ton of independents.
The 2022 election is a good forecast, you would presume, for what's going to happen in 2024.
Because again, 2020 is even more of an outlier than a typical midterm election.
Whenever you're trying to forecast what's going to happen in the next, you tend to look at the last presidential.
I don't think 2020 is a good predicate election for 2024.
I actually don't.
Because of the wildly increased voter turnout, because of the changes in the voting rules, because of the increase in mail-in ballots, and all of the rest.
And because of all the chaos of 2020.
I'm not sure that replicates itself in 2024, which is why you're seeing Democrats becoming increasingly nervous.
With that said, does Donald Trump actually have a plan to win in 2024?
So he did an interview recently with the Nevada Globe.
And he was asked specifically about what he would do about all of the problems that they had in 2024, in 2020 rather, and how exactly he meant to collect himself and win in 2024.
My question, what is he going to change between 2020 and 2024 to prevent the election from being stolen if you believe the election was stolen, President Trump?
Here was his answer.
So here's the question, quote, how do you win in 2024 if the system is, in your word, rigged?
Trump said, you have to swamp them.
They're cheaters.
They cheat.
They lie.
They're horrible.
I wouldn't have said this two years ago.
Well, I mean...
You would and you did.
He said, who would have ever thought such a thing like this was possible?
They're cheaters.
You have to hope the courts get tougher because they see a lot of it.
They don't want to get involved because they're afraid or something.
Bill Barr was a stiff.
He was afraid of being impeached.
He was petrified of being impeached.
He was just a stiff.
And now, you see with this stuff coming up, it should happen now.
I mean, Garland should do something about what's taking place.
I'm actually surprised more than anybody at Garland because he sees this massive corruption.
I'm surprised he allows it to go on.
I really am.
I had a lot of respect for him.
He was a liberal man and that's fine.
I'm surprised he allowed it to go on.
It's somewhat hard to have a scandal if they're not going to write about it.
The public sees it.
It's a good thing.
By having truth, I have a defense.
Okay, you may have noticed that the question was, how do you plan to overcome the systemic obstacles to your victory in 2024?
And he did not have a single sentence dedicated to that answer.
This is the part that scares me about Trump's candidacy more than anything else.
If it's poorly organized, if it's a close election and it's poorly organized, then even if you believe Trump that the election was stolen from him, he has no plan to actually reverse that result.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
So, Brian Cox is the best thing on the show Succession on HBO.
He played Logan Roy, who's supposed to be sort of a stand-in for Rupert Murdoch.
He was on with Piers Morgan, and he went after woke culture, and I appreciate this, particularly from somebody in Hollywood.
Are things worse now, or is our perception of life worse because of things like social media inflaming everything?
Well, I don't think social media helps.
It hinders rather than helps, and I think it points up Two readily inadequacies that we can actually... And the whole woke... Well, we've talked about this before.
The whole woke culture, I think, is truly awful.
And the shaming culture.
And the shaming culture.
Which I really feel quite strongly about.
This incessant need to shame and bury people.
And I don't know where it comes from.
I don't know who are the arbiters of this shaming.
And it's very hard to pin them down.
And it turns out it's usually a bunch of millennials.
Good for Brian Cox.
And you're starting to see this from some of the older actors, right?
Tom Hanks recently was quoted suggesting that he is tired of this notion that actors can't play people who aren't like the actor in real life.
You've seen Steven Spielberg say some of the same stuff, that he's upset that he acquiesced to political correctness and he took the shot of a person with a gun out of E.T.
So you're starting to see some of the old Hollywood types recognize that all the wokeness is absolutely going to destroy their industry and they need to push back against it.
It's one of the reasons, by the way, the big box office hits of recent vintage are all basically just straight Americana without any sort of politically correct attempts.
A lot of these, a lot of the new movie, the new Mission Impossible movie is going to make bank.
It's going to make bank because there are no sucker punches.
It's just a movie.
And it doesn't attempt the sort of politically correct nonsense that you see in so many Hollywood blockbusters.
It's also the reason why the most successful shows right now are not really attempting the political correct nonsense.
The American public is not into it, and increasingly, neither are the actors.
That's particularly true of the old school actors and the old school directors.
Remember a time before art had been essentially put under the boot heel of PCs.
So good for Brian Cox right there.
By the way, we are doing a Mission Impossible review on YouTube, so you're going to want to go check that out.
Okay, time for some things I hate.
Speaking of political correctness, I gotta say, I'm amazed at the Hollywood continued worship of the Obamas.
Not really amazed because obviously when you have an idol and it's a golden calf, you continue to worship the golden calf until, you know, until you don't.
But the fact that Barack Obama has won a Grammy He won a Grammy for reading his book.
And now that he and Michelle Obama have been nominated for an Emmy for working what we do all day.
It's just, it's so tiresome.
It's so tiresome.
Did anyone even watch that?
The Netflix docuseries, Working What We Do All Day?
Do you know a single person who watched that?
Have you heard of a single person?
I mean, Netflix doesn't release internal stats.
So you have no idea how many people watched it.
I'm going to go with two.
And it's Barack and Michelle Obama.
And then, because Hollywood continues to worship at the altar of the Obamas, they give them Emmy nominations, which means they crowded out somebody more deserving, because literally anyone, I would imagine, would be more deserving.
Working comes from the former president and first lady Michelle Obama's production company, Higher Ground, according to The Hollywood Reporter, which struck a content deal with Netflix in 2018 to produce films and television series for the streaming giant.
What exactly earned the Emmy nomination on that?
She did an interview with Oprah Winfrey.
I'm not kidding.
She did an interview- Michelle Obama did an interview with Oprah Winfrey and they both got Emmy nominated for that.
Oprah Winfrey. What exactly earned the Emmy nomination on that? She did an interview with
Winfrey. I'm not kidding. She did an interview. Michelle Obama did an interview with Oprah
Winfrey and they both got Emmy nominated for that. Just pathetic. Barack Obama has already
won an Emmy because he won last year in the same category for narrating Netflix's Our
Great National Parks, which again, massively watched documentary Our Great National Parks.
And it sounds like a bad documentary title on The Simpsons.
Hosted by Troy McClure.
Troy McClure hosting our great national parks.
I mean, like, the most boring documentaries of all time happening over here.
But it doesn't matter.
He can just churn out crap, and then Hollywood will continue to reward him.
Because why not?
He's Barack Obama.
And he continues to milk that for all that it is worth.
Okay, meanwhile, got a comment on the dumbest fashion trend of the day.
There is such an effort in legacy media to make men into women, it is astonishing.
So there's a new piece at the New York Times by a person named Emma Grillo called
Men are bearing midriffs in crop tops. Some are cropping their shirts at home.
Others are buying them from stores women's sections.
It's first of all 99.8% of the men who are bearing their midriffs and crop tops are gay.
They're not a lot of straight dudes who are like, you know what I'm gonna do.
I'm gonna hang my belly out here.
Those aren't called crop tops when straight dudes do it.
It's just, you're too fat for your shirt when straight dudes do it.
And indeed, every picture from this story is about a gay dude who's burying his belly.
So first of all, let me just say, just as a fashion matter, no one wants to see the midriff of another man.
Just as a general, I'm not gonna speak for gay men.
Women, I don't think, are interested, and neither are straight men.
Like, this is just generally not an attractive thing, as they rule.
But all that is female must become male, apparently.
According to Emma Grillo, it is often the case that as summer rolls around and temperatures rise, so do hemlines.
As men have embraced shorter shorts over the past few years, some have also started to wear shorter shirts, specifically crop tops.
Loner men have been known to wear stomach-bearing garments when they exercise or go to the beach.
Lately, crop tops can be seen on guys at stores and bars.
More modest styles hit right at the waistline.
Many are cropped short enough to expose a navel.
Some wearers are making theirs by taking scissors to hold t-shirts.
Others buy them off the rack, often from stores' women's sections.
David Mendoza, 29, an operations manager in New York, owns crop tops of varying lengths.
Deciding which to wear, he said, often comes down to the occasion.
At first, Mr. Mendoza would cut shirts himself, but as he started to wear more crop tops, he discovered stores including H&M and Rainbow sold women's styles with his preferred fit.
Rainbow, he said, has sexier, more open crop tops that are cut even shorter.
Mr. Mendoza started wearing crop tops two years ago, he said, after noticing male fitness influencers followed on Instagram wore them to exercise.
Oh, just stop.
Just stop.
Is this necessary?
Truly necessary?
I understand that there are trends within the gay community.
That's totally fine.
Do what you want to do.
But are we going to pretend there's like a broad spectrum phenomenon that is happening among the dudes?
Because it is not.
It is ridiculous, and you look silly, and please stop.
Are we allowed to just say that?
I don't really care.
We're allowed to say that.
You look like an idiot.
You look stupid.
Apparently, there are some men who are straight who are doing it.
Or they found the... Let me put that another way.
They found the one man who is straight who is doing this.
Cody James, 27, who works in advertising in New York, said he grew up watching movies and TV shows from the 80s and 90s.
He started wearing crop tops about a year ago, he said, and was influenced in part by styles he saw on screen when he was younger.
He said 70% of the shirts he owns are cropped.
Most, he said, hit below the navel, though a few are short enough to show it.
My girlfriend always makes fun of me, because sometimes she wants to wear a shirt to bed, but they're all crop tops.
She should make fun of you, and also she should run for the hills.
One professor said, men wearing crop tops comes at a time of shifting dynamics of gender and an openness in masculine fashion to truly embrace a variety of aesthetics.
▲
Export Selection