Speaker 1: He's got his own podcast and YouTube show. The man
Speaker 1: has more than seven point two million subscribers. He is
Speaker 1: one of the preeminent conservative voices in the world, not
Speaker 1: just this country. And he's somebody that called me a jackass.
Speaker 1: He wanted to see his boy, your boy as in me. Well,
Speaker 1: here I am The stephen A. Smith Show with mister
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro up next.
Speaker 2: Holla, what's up everybody.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the special edition of The stephen A.
Speaker 1: Smith Show, coming at you as I love to do,
Speaker 1: usually three times a week at the very minimum over
Speaker 1: the digital areas of YouTube, and of course iHeartRadio. Want
Speaker 1: to thank all my followers and subscribers for continuing to
Speaker 1: show love for the show. Keep it coming, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep on coming. I wanted to transition on a
Speaker 1: show like today from the regular norm.
Speaker 3: That's not gonna be a polpo rial topics.
Speaker 1: It's just a conversation with an individual by the name
Speaker 1: of Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro is a guy that's been
Speaker 1: around for a while. He's established himself in the conservative
Speaker 1: community as one of their preeminent voices. He's beloved by
Speaker 1: a lot of conservatives, a lot of right wingers. He's
Speaker 1: unapologetic about his positions on practically most, if not all occasions,
Speaker 1: and he certainly was that way when it came to
Speaker 1: talking about Derek Chauvin, the officer most of us believe
Speaker 1: and the court clearly believed, murdered George Floyd several years ago,
Speaker 1: sparking riots across the country at that particular moment in time.
Speaker 1: Derek Chauvin and an officer, a police officer man Applis, Minnesota,
Speaker 1: ended up being convicted and sentenced the more than twenty
Speaker 1: one years in prison, and in my estimation, he absolutely
Speaker 1: positively deserved it. Derek Chauvin is an individual that I
Speaker 1: believe murdered George Floyd, that most Black Americans feel murdered
Speaker 1: George Floyd, along with the very other bevy of other people,
Speaker 1: not just blacks, not just whites, but even people in.
Speaker 3: The conservative communities.
Speaker 1: The Sean Hannity's of the World and others proclaimed the
Speaker 1: same thing. Ben Shapiro himself felt that way initially with
Speaker 1: what he had tweeted out. Upon further reflection as the
Speaker 1: trial went on, as evidence came forward, he believed otherwise,
Speaker 1: and once Derek Chauvin was convicted and sent to prison
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of that. Donald Trumpy five if the
Speaker 1: President of the United States ultimately became the forty seventh
Speaker 1: President of the United States, winning this last election in
Speaker 1: November of twenty twenty four, and from that moment on
Speaker 1: once he re entered the White House on January twentieth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, Derek scho I'm sorry. Ben Shapiro has
Speaker 1: stated for the record that he believes Donald Trump should
Speaker 1: pardon Derek Chauvin. I took exception to that. I didn't
Speaker 1: know what he was thinking. I said to myself, why
Speaker 1: would you suggest such a thing? And even went so
Speaker 1: far as to say, or to ask Ben Shapiro, a
Speaker 1: devout Jew who is incredibly supportive of Israel and the
Speaker 1: Jewish community and issues pertaining to the Jewish community.
Speaker 3: I asked a simple question.
Speaker 1: If George Floyd had been Jewish and there was a
Speaker 1: knee on his neck for over nine minutes, would he
Speaker 1: feel the same way. So Ben Shapiro, with his own platform,
Speaker 1: which is very formidable, I might add, came right back,
Speaker 1: accused me essentially of race baiting, says it's something that
Speaker 1: I do. All the Thompson's got turned down the volume
Speaker 1: every time I'm speaking. He said a lot of things
Speaker 1: about me, and to his credit, when I invited him
Speaker 1: on the show to have a man and man conversation,
Speaker 1: he did not hesitate. He actually was supposed to do
Speaker 1: this days ago. I had to postpone, so giving credit
Speaker 1: where credit is due, giving him an opportunity to express
Speaker 1: whatever it is that he wanted to express to me
Speaker 1: about me, about George Floyd, about the whole situation involving
Speaker 1: his murder at the hands of Derek Chauvin and beyond.
Speaker 1: I was more than happy to do so. Gave me
Speaker 1: thirty minutes of his time, and and I think it's
Speaker 1: safe to say that both of us might have learned
Speaker 1: a little thing or two from this conversation we had.
Speaker 3: How pleasant was it, how tense was it? You'll have
Speaker 3: to watch to see for yourself.
Speaker 1: Not gonna give away the details, all I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you is that it's worth watching. And keep in mind,
Speaker 1: it's me leaning on what I always tell y'all.
Speaker 3: You might.
Speaker 1: Think differently than me politically, you might come from a
Speaker 1: different ethnic background. Your ideology may not be the same
Speaker 1: as mine. I'm a centrist who leans left. He clearly
Speaker 1: leans right. I'm not one of those people who believes
Speaker 1: because you don't think the way that I think, that
Speaker 1: you should be vilified and excoriated and what have you.
Speaker 1: Just because you think differently than me doesn't mean I'm
Speaker 1: gonna shut you down. And I don't want to hear
Speaker 1: a damn word that you have to say. I'm not
Speaker 1: built like that. I believe grown ups get together and
Speaker 1: talk and hash things out in respectful in a respectful
Speaker 1: and decent manner.
Speaker 3: He called me a jackass. I don't know whether he's.
Speaker 1: Capable of doing what I just described myself as doing
Speaker 1: and being, but I'm about to find out. This is
Speaker 1: a listening session, asking what I want to ask, but
Speaker 1: listening to his point of view and his perspective and
Speaker 1: showing him the respect any decent human being deserves. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna do with Ben Shapiro up next. I
Speaker 1: do not believe this is a conversation you want to miss.
Speaker 3: More to stephen A. Smith's Show in a minute, right
Speaker 3: after I pay these bills.
Speaker 1: Alight, everybody listen up with all the big time sports
Speaker 1: action that's happening each and every day.
Speaker 3: To Stephen A.
Speaker 1: Smith Show, wants to make sure you are taking advantage
Speaker 1: of it all. That's why we've partnered with the Prize Picks,
Speaker 1: the best place to win cash while watching sports. The
Speaker 1: app is really easy to use. To make a lineup,
Speaker 1: all you have to do is pick more or less
Speaker 1: on a few player stats. Choose from any of your
Speaker 1: favorite players Luka, Doncic, Jimmy Butler, and Zach Lavine all
Speaker 1: in the same entry, then sit.
Speaker 3: Back and watch. The list is absolutely endless.
Speaker 1: You can play Prizepects in over forty states, including California
Speaker 1: and Texas. Best of all, Prospects will give you fifty
Speaker 1: dollars when you play your first five dollar lineup.
Speaker 3: Wanna lose, You'll get fifty bucks.
Speaker 1: Just use promo code says and download Prospects right now again,
Speaker 1: download the app and use code sas to get fifty
Speaker 1: dollars instantly after your first five dollars lineup.
Speaker 3: Prize Picks run your game.
Speaker 1: My next guest is a conservative media personality and host
Speaker 1: of the Daily Wires.
Speaker 3: The Ben Shapiro Show.
Speaker 1: He recently made headlines by calling for Derek Chauvin, the
Speaker 1: former police officer who killed George Floyd, to be pardoned.
Speaker 1: We're going to get right into that. Please, welcome to
Speaker 1: the show to one and only mister Ben Shapiro.
Speaker 3: Ben, how are you so? How's everything?
Speaker 4: Thank God? Doing well? Stephen?
Speaker 3: How are you doing okay?
Speaker 1: I want to ask, and I asked this affectionately. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be incinerated. You called me a jackass?
Speaker 1: How many dudes are you calling jackass? And then you're
Speaker 1: going this show? Could you tell me that? Could you
Speaker 1: answer that one?
Speaker 3: First?
Speaker 5: Hey, I appreciate you having me on. And then and
Speaker 5: the invitation, as you know, is open the other way around.
Speaker 5: It's shockingly the answer is probably a lot actually in
Speaker 5: terms over a number of people who I've called the jackass,
Speaker 5: who I've been actually become friendly with, or who I've
Speaker 5: had on the show or vice versa.
Speaker 4: SA. You know you're learning this business. You know it.
Speaker 3: I got you. I got you.
Speaker 1: I'm not overly offended. Trust me on that though, right,
Speaker 1: But thank you for coming on the show. So let's
Speaker 1: get right into it. As you know, I spoke out
Speaker 1: to get your petition to get President Trump to part
Speaker 1: and former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. For those that
Speaker 1: don't know, Chauvin was sentenced to twenty two years in
Speaker 1: prison after being convicted of unintentional second degree murder, third
Speaker 1: degree murder, and second degree manslaughter of George Floyd. I
Speaker 1: wondered if you would feel that way if the office
Speaker 1: so was black and the victim was Jewish.
Speaker 3: That was what I said, And your response was to
Speaker 3: call me a race batter. Why is that?
Speaker 5: Ben Shapiro, Well, to me, the entire case against Derek
Speaker 5: Chauvin was rooted in a sort of public racial essentialism
Speaker 5: that I thought was unnecessary to analyze the case. If
Speaker 5: I'm going to look at this case and just look
Speaker 5: at the facts of the case, the race of the
Speaker 5: person on the ground and the race of the officer
Speaker 5: are irrelevant, and we should treat it exactly the same,
Speaker 5: whether both people were black, both people are white, one
Speaker 5: person was Jewish, one person was not Jewish. The identity
Speaker 5: of the person on the ground, I think should not
Speaker 5: be the deciding factor in whether or not Derek Chauvin
Speaker 5: was convicted of second degree murder. It should be the situation,
Speaker 5: the facts of the case, the autopsy report, and all
Speaker 5: of the rest. And so the thing that I actually
Speaker 5: objected to was the suggestion that my opinion would have
Speaker 5: changed rooted in the say, racial or religious identity of
Speaker 5: the person who died, as opposed to the racial or
Speaker 5: religious identity of the person who is the police officer.
Speaker 5: I just don't think that that's how we ought to
Speaker 5: decide criminal justice cases in general.
Speaker 1: And fairness you, I can understand that in general, damnit.
Speaker 1: In most instances I can agree with that, But those
Speaker 1: are cases that we hear about. I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: visual impact. So let's stay right there, Ben. I am
Speaker 1: a black man, and I see this black man on
Speaker 1: the ground, face down, handcuffs behind, handcuffs behind him. Face
Speaker 1: is imprinted into the pavement. The knee of the.
Speaker 3: Police officer is on the back of his neck.
Speaker 1: He's literally saying he can't breathe, to one point, crying
Speaker 1: for his mama.
Speaker 3: And it happens for over nine minutes.
Speaker 1: I understand from a technical perspective, from a specific analytical perspective,
Speaker 1: forensic evidence, et cetera, et cetera, fentanyl in the system,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 3: I got all of that.
Speaker 1: My point is, and my question to you at that
Speaker 1: time was seeing that, how could you have another opinion?
Speaker 1: How could it be based on the preponderance of evidence
Speaker 1: that you threw into the fray in order to ask
Speaker 1: for this man to be pardoned. I'm just going by
Speaker 1: like there are certain things that you just see and
Speaker 1: it won was one of equals two.
Speaker 5: So I mean, Stephen Ashley, if you go back to
Speaker 5: my tweets at the time May thirtieth, in June, first,
Speaker 5: if you look at my tweets, I'm saying the same
Speaker 5: kind of things you're saying right now. I'm saying the
Speaker 5: same kind of things at that time that everybody else
Speaker 5: is saying seeing the tape, because there's no way to
Speaker 5: look at the tape and not be sort of shocked
Speaker 5: by what you're seeing on the tape, obviously, and then
Speaker 5: I think that the mark of a reasonable person is
Speaker 5: to change your opinion as the evidence changes. A lot
Speaker 5: of evidence emerge between the time that the tape was released,
Speaker 5: that horrible nine minute tape, and the time the conviction
Speaker 5: actually happened. I mean, there's a full trial, there are
Speaker 5: autopsy reports, there's witness evidence that there were other people
Speaker 5: whose testimony was taken, there are multiple medical specialists who
Speaker 5: are called, and so in looking at all of that,
Speaker 5: that's the way we're supposed to adjudicate whether or not
Speaker 5: a person deserves to spend twenty two years in prison,
Speaker 5: not based simply on our immediate gut response to the tape.
Speaker 5: And again I had the same gut response to the
Speaker 5: tape that you did, and I think that everybody did.
Speaker 5: I think, actually that tends to be the gut response
Speaker 5: of people when we see a lot of police activity. Actually,
Speaker 5: it turns out the do a lot of things that
Speaker 5: look really rough on tape and really difficult on tape,
Speaker 5: and this was one of those things. And then as
Speaker 5: we later learned that, for example, the sort of tactic
Speaker 5: that Chauvin is using there was actually trained by the
Speaker 5: Minneapolis Police Department, right putting his putting. It's a submission
Speaker 5: technique that's used if you have a person who's resisting arrest,
Speaker 5: or if you learn during the course of the investigation
Speaker 5: that George Floyd was saying I can't breathe before he
Speaker 5: was even taken out of the car. He says I
Speaker 5: can't breathe on the longer tape six times before he's
Speaker 5: even taken out of the car. I mean, it's a
Speaker 5: very long interaction with the police officers before you get
Speaker 5: to that nine minute tape, the part that we all
Speaker 5: saw and there was a part of the story that
Speaker 5: you can't see on the tape, which is the reverse angle.
Speaker 5: You can't see that there's a big crowd that shouting
Speaker 5: at Chauvin. Chauveren's responding to that crowd. One of the
Speaker 5: preliminaries to getting up off of Floyd that way is
Speaker 5: to call what's called a Code four, which is where
Speaker 5: it's an all clear, where you feel that the crowd
Speaker 5: is not a threat to you. In fact, even the
Speaker 5: EMTs who showed up to provide care for Floyd didn't
Speaker 5: call a code for when they arrived on scene because
Speaker 5: they thought that the crowd was too threatening. So once
Speaker 5: you take into account all of the fact, if your
Speaker 5: opinion doesn't change and the fact pattern is different from
Speaker 5: what you originally thought it was, then you're not doing
Speaker 5: your job as a commentator. So I can have the
Speaker 5: same gut response that you have when I first see
Speaker 5: that tape. The question is what you do when more
Speaker 5: of those facts e merge, When you do see more
Speaker 5: of that evidence emerge, when you do read the testimony
Speaker 5: and see the autopsies.
Speaker 1: See but I believe, and this is just my belief
Speaker 1: because in fairness to you, you're absolutely right. You did
Speaker 1: put out that tweet initially, and your position was it
Speaker 1: was shared by the handities of the World, of Mark
Speaker 1: Levin's of the World, and various others, obviously with a
Speaker 1: lot of people on the left as well, before the
Speaker 1: preponderance of evidence that you're alluding to came into play.
Speaker 1: I get that, so, in fairness to you, I have
Speaker 1: to say that. But sometimes I'm gonna say this to
Speaker 1: you because you're a pretty brilliant dude. Nobody can deny it, well,
Speaker 1: what you've accomplished with the daily while what you've been
Speaker 1: able to do in your career.
Speaker 3: I'm just reading something.
Speaker 1: You were syndicated columnist at the age of seventeenth of
Speaker 1: crime out loud.
Speaker 3: This is who you are. This who I'm talking to here.
Speaker 1: Is it possible that sometimes we could be so brilliant
Speaker 1: that our smart, our intellect gets in the way of
Speaker 1: common sense. For example, what I mean by that is
Speaker 1: this Ben knee on his neck for nine and a
Speaker 1: half minutes. If that didn't happen, is he still alive.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about today because anything could have happened
Speaker 1: to you. I'm just saying the fact that Derek Chauvin's
Speaker 1: knee was on his neck.
Speaker 3: That to me should speak for itself, because if the.
Speaker 1: Man is clamoring for you to get off the back
Speaker 1: of his neck, why you got him handcuffed into the ground? Okay?
Speaker 1: Why is it wrong for us to stop dance? Say
Speaker 1: that was excessive on the part of the police officer
Speaker 1: because you had him continued, he wasn't a threat to you.
Speaker 1: Why is what's wrong with that thinking?
Speaker 4: Okay?
Speaker 5: So there are a couple of things that could be
Speaker 5: argued by the defense, and in fact we were argued
Speaker 5: by the defense in this case. One of them, again was
Speaker 5: that this was a train technique by the Minneapolis Police
Speaker 5: Department to keep somebody in this position so long as
Speaker 5: you have not called a code for which is where
Speaker 5: you say, there's an all clearer. Now you can move
Speaker 5: the person who's on the ground into the ambulance, for example,
Speaker 5: if you've already called the ambulance, or back into the
Speaker 5: police vehicle. When it comes to the actual question as
Speaker 5: to causation of death or he has to be the
Speaker 5: approximate cause of the death, it's not just enough for
Speaker 5: it to be a contributing factor. Because it turns out
Speaker 5: that increased stress can cause death in a person who
Speaker 5: has a human heart that is significantly larger than normal.
Speaker 5: That the autopsy showed that Floyd unfortunately had an incredibly
Speaker 5: in large art much heavier than normal. His lungs were
Speaker 5: much larger than normal person's lungs because of heavy and
Speaker 5: overtime drug use. That he had eleven He had eleven
Speaker 5: nanograms of fentanyl in his system at the time primal
Speaker 5: leader of blood, which is over three times what it
Speaker 5: would cause normally to kill somebody. The original autopsy report
Speaker 5: openly said that if George Floyd had been found in
Speaker 5: his house in the same exact physical condition, they would
Speaker 5: have called it death by overdose. So all of these
Speaker 5: things taking into account, raises the question of reasonable doubt. Right,
Speaker 5: The standard in our criminal justice system is in fact
Speaker 5: a reasonable doubt standard, and that raises the question as
Speaker 5: to why there's not at the very least reasonable doubt.
Speaker 5: So you can say that your sort of first jump
Speaker 5: at this is he's guilty. Look at the knee on
Speaker 5: his neck, there's no damage to his neck tissue. By
Speaker 5: the way, in the autopsy report. You can say all
Speaker 5: of that, and you can say that that's a plausible explanation.
Speaker 5: I won't even make the case that's not a plausible explanation.
Speaker 4: I'll make the case that.
Speaker 5: A plausible explanation is not enough to convict a man
Speaker 5: in court, especially based on the surrounding circumstances. The amount
Speaker 5: of pressure that was brought. This was not a fair trial,
Speaker 5: was one of the points that I'm making. So when
Speaker 5: it comes to the actual trial itself, they are members
Speaker 5: of the jury who are at actual rallies wearing shirts
Speaker 5: that said I can't breathe before they were actually on
Speaker 5: the jury. There are their members of the jury who
Speaker 5: have openly said that they felt public pressure to convict
Speaker 5: in a particular way the president of the United States
Speaker 5: or one of the people who was running for presidents
Speaker 5: of the United States at the time. Joe Biden was
Speaker 5: openly calling for his conviction. The Minneapolis City paid the
Speaker 5: family of George Floyd. I believe it was a twenty
Speaker 5: seven million dollars payout in the middle of the trial.
Speaker 5: So all of this tends to go to is that
Speaker 5: an impartial jury. These all have serious consequences for the
Speaker 5: jury system, and so there's really a few separate questions.
Speaker 5: One is, was Chauvin responsible for Floyd's death. I think
Speaker 5: on that quese, I would say no, you can say yes,
Speaker 5: I would say at the very least.
Speaker 4: There's a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 5: And then there's the question of the amount of pressure
Speaker 5: that was brought on the jury in this particular case
Speaker 5: to bring a verdict. This was the most highly publicized
Speaker 5: trial of the modern era by a long shot, because
Speaker 5: the incident itself has spurred so much public onstine outrage
Speaker 5: and massive protests involving twenty million people and riots that
Speaker 5: had cost the taxpayer some two billion dollars or insurance
Speaker 5: companies some two billion dollars. It was the most highly
Speaker 5: publicized trial probably since the oj trial, and because of
Speaker 5: that that amount of public pressure. Did Chauvin receive a
Speaker 5: fair trial is obviously a very crucial question here.
Speaker 1: But it sounds like your position is that this is
Speaker 1: more of a political issue as opposed to.
Speaker 3: A policing issue.
Speaker 1: And what I would say to you, as a black
Speaker 1: man in America that there are times and there's a
Speaker 1: preponderance of evidence throughout the years that shows that policing
Speaker 1: has been an issue as it pertained to black men,
Speaker 1: which is one of the things that we constantly constantly
Speaker 1: bring up.
Speaker 3: So when that incident happened.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about the officer himself, been Shapiro, and his
Speaker 1: intent from the standpoint, you're having your knee on the
Speaker 1: back of his neck, no matter what from a medical
Speaker 1: perspective we can deduce may have transpired. In the end,
Speaker 1: if you didn't have your knee on the back of
Speaker 1: his neck for that amount of time or exceeding nine minutes,
Speaker 1: this would not have been the outcome.
Speaker 3: And because you were insensitive to that.
Speaker 1: As a trained police officer who should know better, there
Speaker 1: should be a level of culpability that comes in your direction.
Speaker 1: So when somebody looks at you, I look at it,
Speaker 1: and this way I wanted to go as well. I'm
Speaker 1: looking at a Ben Shapiro. And this is what I
Speaker 1: meant when I asked a question about you, being about
Speaker 1: if George Floyd was a Jewish person. I owe you
Speaker 1: an explanation for that. So I want to give it
Speaker 1: to you right now. You are known as a you know,
Speaker 1: a proud Jewish individual, incredibly supportive of the Jewish community,
Speaker 1: being amongst them Israel, other things. And I was bringing
Speaker 1: this up because I said, if that were a Jewish person,
Speaker 1: the conclusion that you ultimately reached. Would you have been
Speaker 1: patient enough to draw that conclusion peeling from the information
Speaker 1: that was the deduced on an objective level to reach
Speaker 1: the conclusion that, Hey, you know what, I don't think
Speaker 1: he should have been put in jail. That's where I
Speaker 1: was going because I know how defensive or I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say defensive, but a defender of.
Speaker 3: The Jewish community that you are. And that's what I
Speaker 3: was thinking along those lines.
Speaker 5: I mean, but I certainly hope so because I can
Speaker 5: name you, ecademic, you a dozen Jewish criminals who absolutely
Speaker 5: deserve to be in jail.
Speaker 4: Right, Jeffrey Epstein was a Jew?
Speaker 5: Hell?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 5: I mean the the I think that I and my
Speaker 5: point is that whenever you know, I'm also a lawyer, right,
Speaker 5: I mean, my identity as a Jew does not mean
Speaker 5: I have solidarity with a criminal who happens to be
Speaker 5: a Jew, or a person who's in a who's in
Speaker 5: a controversial law enforcement confrontation who happens to be a Jew.
Speaker 5: I mean, my job is to literally remove myself from
Speaker 5: and and I think also that, as those original tweets show,
Speaker 5: I don't think that you have to have racial solidarity
Speaker 5: if a person in order to feel empathy for that
Speaker 5: person's situation. I think that the whole basis of a
Speaker 5: democratic republic or us having a conversation right now is
Speaker 5: the fact that he can speak to each other across
Speaker 5: racial and identitarian lawnes. So again, I think that there
Speaker 5: are an enormous number of people in the country who
Speaker 5: disagree with me, by the way, who are who share
Speaker 5: both my race and a lot of Jews who I
Speaker 5: was in the vast majority, who disagree with me on this,
Speaker 5: or many white Americans who looked at George Floyd and
Speaker 5: had exactly the same reaction. And as you say, initially
Speaker 5: I had the same reaction as you, and that had
Speaker 5: nothing to do with race. And so the kind of
Speaker 5: idea that if let's put the say, if race is
Speaker 5: a barrier to logic, then race is the problem, not
Speaker 5: the solution.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: Let me ask you this, I mean, if you looked
Speaker 5: at you said before that you didn't look at the
Speaker 5: autops your report, You're you're not taking a lot of
Speaker 5: time looking at the evidence of the opop. What would
Speaker 5: it take for you to change your mind on the
Speaker 5: case or is there nothing that could change your mind
Speaker 5: on the case because you saw the tape, for example.
Speaker 3: Well, it wouldn't take much.
Speaker 1: And this is why I said this, because normally I
Speaker 1: would look at the autopsy reports or whatever you did.
Speaker 3: I saw it.
Speaker 1: I saw people bringing up as a rest record, I
Speaker 1: saw bringing people bringing up fence and all in the system.
Speaker 1: I saw all of these things, and all I could
Speaker 1: come to ben fair or unfair, was that none of
Speaker 1: that matter if he wasn't on the ground with a
Speaker 1: knee on the back of his neck for nine plus minutes,
Speaker 1: because I'm looking at a trained.
Speaker 3: Police officer who should know better.
Speaker 1: I looked at the experts who were saying with their
Speaker 1: trade there was no reason.
Speaker 3: And you saw it.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you saw this, and not to say that
Speaker 1: you would embrace it with the level of sincerity that
Speaker 1: others may, because I know the level of skepticism that
Speaker 1: you look at when you see the news outlets.
Speaker 3: And by the way, I don't.
Speaker 1: Blame you, I'm with you on that, okay, But I
Speaker 1: would say to you listening to experts talk about how
Speaker 1: police officers are trained, and pointed to the fact that
Speaker 1: Derek Chauvin had no business being in that position and
Speaker 1: putting George Floyd in that position, particularly once he was
Speaker 1: handcuffed and contained. To me, that, along with the ultimate outcome,
Speaker 1: is all the evidence I need.
Speaker 3: And that's where we might differ.
Speaker 4: Right, I mean that it's totally fair if we differ
Speaker 4: on that.
Speaker 5: I guess the question I would ask you is, given
Speaker 5: the fact that that was in Minneapolis Police Department trained protocol,
Speaker 5: given the fact that Floyd did ask to be removed
Speaker 5: from the car. I mean, in the lead up to
Speaker 5: the situation, the part of the tape that nobody watches,
Speaker 5: he was actually outside the car. The police officers move
Speaker 5: him inside the car, he says he's claustrophobic, and then
Speaker 5: he claims six consecutive times that he cannot breathe.
Speaker 4: Well, he's in the car.
Speaker 5: So if the idea is that it was the police
Speaker 5: officer's knee that deprives him of breath, he was already
Speaker 5: claiming that he couldn't breathe inside the car, suggesting he
Speaker 5: was already in the middle of some sort of medical event, right,
Speaker 5: and then he was brought outside the car. I guess
Speaker 5: the question that I have for you again is what
Speaker 5: level of evidence would need to be shown to Freda
Speaker 5: it's a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 4: I mean, you seem incredibly certain.
Speaker 5: All I'm saying is that the reasonable doubt standard is
Speaker 5: what pertains in criminal justice. What would it take to
Speaker 5: get you to criminal to reasonable doubt or is there
Speaker 5: no reasonable doubt that could be achieved simply by dint
Speaker 5: of the fact that he had his knee on his neck.
Speaker 5: By the way, it's not for the full nine minutes.
Speaker 5: There are minutes where it's on his back. I mean,
Speaker 5: the even the prosecution acknowledges that. The real question is
Speaker 5: I think the last fifty seconds, right, the last fifty
Speaker 5: seconds of the tape, where Floyd stops breathing and Chauvin's
Speaker 5: knee is still on his neck, that is really the
Speaker 5: question as to whether this goes into criminal charge character
Speaker 5: otherwise he ends up being in a position where he's
Speaker 5: actually just using a typical subdual technique before you put
Speaker 5: the guy back in the car and you take him
Speaker 5: off to jail.
Speaker 1: And I'm saying, to answer your question, there's absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: that could convince me that Derek Chauvin deserved a different
Speaker 1: outcome because of what you just articulated, what we saw,
Speaker 1: even if it's for the last fifty seconds, I'm not
Speaker 1: changing my positions.
Speaker 4: I mean the restion.
Speaker 5: Do you think, so we've talked about race a little bit,
Speaker 5: do you think that show show was a racist? Is
Speaker 5: that this is a race based crime interview?
Speaker 3: Do I believe that?
Speaker 1: Yes, I don't believe that based on anything about his
Speaker 1: history that they articulated, because I know how people conjure
Speaker 1: up evidence to go at it. I do believe his
Speaker 1: actions indicated that because I didn't see him doing that
Speaker 1: with anybody else, and the times that we were living
Speaker 1: in and the climate, as you articulated accurately.
Speaker 3: I might add the heightened level.
Speaker 1: Of sensitivity that it exists because of brutality on a
Speaker 1: part of some police officers. By the way, I never
Speaker 1: say with police brutality because I don't like to castigate
Speaker 1: all police officers that way. I know, if I'm in trouble,
Speaker 1: I'm calling nine one one. I'm going to sit up
Speaker 1: there and denigrate police officers throughout this country. But there's
Speaker 1: rogues that exist in every profession, and I think there's
Speaker 1: rogues that exists with certain police officers. So to me,
Speaker 1: he came across as one, and that was my problem
Speaker 1: with it. Having said that, I want to get to
Speaker 1: something else, because we're going to stay on this subject
Speaker 1: of race in this regard, when you saw the climate
Speaker 1: that exist, I understand you believe it was primarily instigated
Speaker 1: by the left.
Speaker 3: I want to know.
Speaker 1: Where you draw the line in the sand, and in
Speaker 1: terms of veering away from the political and just looking
Speaker 1: at a case on its merit and saying, this is
Speaker 1: what I see. This is where I stand, completely devoid
Speaker 1: of politics. I'm not talking race, I'm talking politics, meaning
Speaker 1: this has nothing to do with politics. This is the
Speaker 1: climate that we're living in. This officer should have known better, etc.
Speaker 1: Do you ever find yourself in a position where you're
Speaker 1: able to dismiss yourself from the political impact of something
Speaker 1: or the political agenda of something to join your can well?
Speaker 5: I mean, honestly, I think that in this particular case,
Speaker 5: this is a good indicator of trying to withdraw from
Speaker 5: a political sort of calculation. Given the fact that, as
Speaker 5: some people have pointed out on a pragmatic level, they
Speaker 5: suggested that President Trump pardoning Derek Chauvin would be bad
Speaker 5: for President Trump politically. And the case that I've made
Speaker 5: is that's his job determined what's pragmatic for him politically.
Speaker 5: It's my job to call something out as wrong when
Speaker 5: I see it to be wrong. In terms of criminal
Speaker 5: justice cases that have involved race, where I've removed myself
Speaker 5: on the other side, I mean, there are a bunch
Speaker 5: of them. Walter Scott, right is a beauty, is a
Speaker 5: great example of a black man who is victimized by
Speaker 5: white police officer.
Speaker 4: The police officer ends up convicted and going to jail.
Speaker 5: You're saying, I'm not campaigning on his behalf because he
Speaker 5: deserves to go to jail.
Speaker 4: The officer in the Walter Scott case.
Speaker 5: There're been a number of horrifying or police involved crimes
Speaker 5: in which the police officer deserves to lose his job
Speaker 5: and or go to jail, depending on the activities of
Speaker 5: the police officer, and you have to analyze those one
Speaker 5: by one. And I think that what we've seen, particularly
Speaker 5: from the legacy media over the course of the last
Speaker 5: many years, is that the only types of stories that
Speaker 5: tend to break into the news are ones with a
Speaker 5: black victim and a white police officer, and the media
Speaker 5: immediately jumped to a particular narrative conclusion on the basis
Speaker 5: of that, and even if the facts end up debunking
Speaker 5: that conclusion, that narrative continues to be maintained. A good
Speaker 5: example of this might be Michael Brown and Ferguson, Missouri,
Speaker 5: where the initial claim was that Michael Brown was shot
Speaker 5: in the back by a police officer in cold blood,
Speaker 5: and it turned out that every aspect of that story
Speaker 5: was false. And yet there are still people who will,
Speaker 5: you know, sort of repeat the hands up, don't shoot law.
Speaker 4: That never happened.
Speaker 5: I mean that literally never happened, and that was debunked
Speaker 5: by the aeric Holder Department of Justice, for example. So
Speaker 5: I think that we really do have to look at
Speaker 5: each one of these situations in isolation. We're talking about
Speaker 5: the life of a person, if you're talking about narrative,
Speaker 5: if you're talking about sort of generalized race in America,
Speaker 5: then I think that it's important to look at as
Speaker 5: much data as humanly possible. I'm a data driven person,
Speaker 5: and so I'll look at everything from the studies of
Speaker 5: Roland Friar over at Harvard University about police misconduct toward minorities,
Speaker 5: and it ranges on the scale. By the way, what
Speaker 5: Roland Friar studies tend to show is that, for example,
Speaker 5: there is no disproportionate there's no disproportionate killing of black
Speaker 5: men by the police. There's disproportionate use of lower level
Speaker 5: uses of forces by police depending on the circumstance based
Speaker 5: on race. So that's something Roland Bryer has found at heart, right,
Speaker 5: That's the sort of conversation that I think is useful
Speaker 5: and interesting. But I think the one it gets telescoped
Speaker 5: into one particular case and then that case is used
Speaker 5: as sort of the meta narrative justifier, that's really negative
Speaker 5: and that's really bad for the country because what we
Speaker 5: should be doing in there, you.
Speaker 4: Want to lose trust in the criminal justice system overall.
Speaker 5: Telegraph all race relations into the OJ case, the Michael
Speaker 5: Brown case, the Eric Chauvin case.
Speaker 4: The George Floyd case.
Speaker 5: If you take all of America's race relations and you
Speaker 5: sort of put it on the back of one particular
Speaker 5: fat pattern, usually the fact pattern is not capable of
Speaker 5: carrying that narrative burden.
Speaker 1: But ben isn't that easy for us on the outside
Speaker 1: looking at data, look at at analytics to make the
Speaker 1: to jord those conclusions as opposed to us having a
Speaker 1: personal experience or a personal investment, and like, for example,
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Jewish community, I would never
Speaker 1: think for one second that I could fully grasp and
Speaker 1: inhale what you experience as a Jewish person in the
Speaker 1: United States of America, when we've seen heightened levels of
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, for example, when people alluding to those kind
Speaker 1: of things, Well.
Speaker 3: I'm not a Jewish person, so I wouldn't know.
Speaker 1: What about the argument that when we talk about black folks,
Speaker 1: you can point to data all you want to, and
Speaker 1: we get that part, but the real experiences that we
Speaker 1: endure from time to time is not.
Speaker 3: Something that you can necessarily calculate.
Speaker 1: How serious do you take those assertions coming different from
Speaker 1: a community, whether it's your own mind or anybody else's.
Speaker 5: Obviously, it's true that we can never fully get into
Speaker 5: one another's shoes, right, That's just the reality of the world.
Speaker 5: And that's true beyond race. That's just true for individuals you,
Speaker 5: Steven or me. As an individual, you can't live in
Speaker 5: my shoes, I can't live for different people.
Speaker 4: We lived different lives.
Speaker 5: But when it comes to making public policy, then the
Speaker 5: only sort of gauge that you can have really is
Speaker 5: the data, because anecdotal evidence, you can't make public policy
Speaker 5: for millions of people based on anecdotal elevenance, because you
Speaker 5: can't legislate people's feelings. I mean, this is sort of
Speaker 5: one of my things, you know, when it comes to
Speaker 5: trying to craft law, for example, making law based on
Speaker 5: the personal feelings of personal people's quote unquote lived experiences
Speaker 5: is a bad way to make law that is going
Speaker 5: to have to be generally applicable, because I may have
Speaker 5: particular feelings about a particular criminal.
Speaker 4: Case based on my own personal experiences.
Speaker 5: But if we do that, then what you end up
Speaker 5: with is a really high level of tribalism in which
Speaker 5: it's if your racial identity prevails or my racial identity prevails,
Speaker 5: really bad.
Speaker 4: Things can come from that.
Speaker 5: And the law is designed to treat people as equal
Speaker 5: individuals underneath it.
Speaker 4: And so you know, the relevance of lived experience.
Speaker 5: That may play a part in us being able to
Speaker 5: understand one another as individuals if we're having conversation over dinner,
Speaker 5: if we're giving advice to each other about our kids.
Speaker 5: But when it comes to actually making public policy, it's
Speaker 5: a different thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you got, and then you make a valid point
Speaker 1: about policy. When you talk about policy, you can't just
Speaker 1: go by personal experience.
Speaker 3: Has got to be the numbers. Has got to be
Speaker 3: the data. I totally get that, by.
Speaker 1: The way, just as in the side before I get
Speaker 1: to my next question, lung experts testified George Floyd died
Speaker 1: because his breathing was restricted. So I just wanted to
Speaker 1: point that out, now, you know, because again that's with
Speaker 1: the weight on his neck.
Speaker 3: We got to remember that. But let me go to this.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Trump pardon, which you obviously was advocating for,
Speaker 1: would only affect Shovin's federal conviction where he pleaded guilty
Speaker 1: for violating floyd civil rights. The pardon would have no
Speaker 1: bearing on his state sentence for second degree and third
Speaker 1: degree murder. Even if Minnesota Governor Tim Wallace pardoned him,
Speaker 1: he'd remain in prison regardless of Trump's actions. Of all
Speaker 1: the things to ask President Trump to pardon, then why
Speaker 1: this ben Why so?
Speaker 5: So? I've asked President Trumps to do many many things.
Speaker 5: This is certainly not the only thing that I'd like
Speaker 5: President Trump to do, ranging from tariff policy to foreign
Speaker 5: policy to tax policy. There are many things that I
Speaker 5: asked President Trump to do on a daily basis on
Speaker 5: the show. On this one because I think that it
Speaker 5: was such a driver of a narrative that I actually
Speaker 5: do think is false and has been damaging in the
Speaker 5: United States, which is the idea that there is a
Speaker 5: tremendous amount of racial tension in America and that's accelerated
Speaker 5: over the past couple of decades. I think that it's
Speaker 5: important individual justice above again that sort of group identity
Speaker 5: based narrative for the sake of the body politic into
Speaker 5: the The BLM movement of twenty twenty was at the
Speaker 5: very least incredibly divisive and on a material level, incredibly
Speaker 5: zamaging to the United States. And I think that one
Speaker 5: of the things that I'd like to get back to
Speaker 5: in the United States is a time when we actually
Speaker 5: had pretty good racial feelings about one another, and it
Speaker 5: wasn't all that long ago.
Speaker 4: I think that if you go back to the pre data, yes,
Speaker 4: if you go back to I.
Speaker 1: Mean between the black community and the Jewish community show,
Speaker 1: but the black community and white community.
Speaker 5: So if you go back to Gallup Poles with twenty twelve,
Speaker 5: twenty twelve, literally twenty twelve. In twenty twelve, okay, seventy
Speaker 5: five percent of white Americans thought that race relations were
Speaker 5: on the correct were on a good path with Black Americans,
Speaker 5: and sixty five percent of Black Americans also thought that
Speaker 5: race relations were on a good path in the United States,
Speaker 5: and then by twenty fourteen it all jumped down into
Speaker 5: the glow fifty mark for both whites and Black Americans,
Speaker 5: and it never recovered from there. And one of the
Speaker 5: inciding events of that was in fact that the riots
Speaker 5: and Ferguson and the sort of elevation of this narrative
Speaker 5: that America was deeply emically racist and incurable ways, and
Speaker 5: that every inequality in American life could be chalked up
Speaker 5: to inequities that were buried in the founding of the country,
Speaker 5: and this whole broader racial narrative, which I think again
Speaker 5: that the best way to get past a lot of
Speaker 5: these problems, honestly is to It sounds naive, but it isn't.
Speaker 4: It's just reality. Any group problems.
Speaker 5: The best way to get past a group problem, if
Speaker 5: you're an individual, to talk with another individual and to
Speaker 5: treat another individual as an individual, as opposed to trying
Speaker 5: to reduce everything to group identity, which is the reason
Speaker 5: I think I objected so strongly when you started talking
Speaker 5: about racial identity with regard to this case, because my
Speaker 5: whole point was when it comes to interpersonal situations, the
Speaker 5: best way to treat other human beings, of course, is
Speaker 5: not as a member of a race.
Speaker 4: The best way to treat them is as individuals.
Speaker 5: And of course a race is a component of their identity,
Speaker 5: but you treat them as an individual regardless of what
Speaker 5: their race is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but my pushback with you would be Ben, I came.
Speaker 1: I came at what you said, not at you. You
Speaker 1: see what I'm saying, because there's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that you say and do that I don't disagree with.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm a centrist. There's some things, well, damn it.
Speaker 1: When you're make sense, it makes sense. Okay, we're having
Speaker 1: this discussion right here. I'm listening to some of your points.
Speaker 1: I'm like making sense or something. I mean, I get it.
Speaker 3: I can't.
Speaker 1: I might disagree, but I can't refute where you're coming from.
Speaker 3: It makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1: And what I would ask you before we go, because
Speaker 1: I know you have you gotta get on out of here,
Speaker 1: and I can't thank you enough of your time and
Speaker 1: again I'm gonna come on your show when you asked
Speaker 1: me too as well, I really, really appreciate it. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna run from it. But I gotta ask you this.
Speaker 1: When you talk about just treating individuals and individuals, one
Speaker 1: could easily argue that Ben Shapiro with over seven point
Speaker 1: two million followers, by the way, on his YouTube show, Okay,
Speaker 1: let's get that out the way with the Daily Wire
Speaker 1: and what you've been doing with that for years.
Speaker 3: Folks are not necessarily treated.
Speaker 1: As individual There is group thing the earth, and I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about just you.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about all of us. I'm talking about all
Speaker 3: of us.
Speaker 1: I'm guilty, You're guilty of everybody in my estimation where
Speaker 1: we think about something. When you had an issue with
Speaker 1: how I came at you, you brought up the left,
Speaker 1: and I'm disagreeing with the left at least fifty percent
Speaker 1: of the time.
Speaker 3: But you associated me with the left. But you've disagreed
Speaker 3: with others.
Speaker 1: I've heard you associate them with a group as opposed
Speaker 1: to treating them as individuals.
Speaker 3: So that seems to be counter to what you just articulated.
Speaker 5: So I think that you're right to point out that
Speaker 5: I should characterize us an individual with individual political views.
Speaker 4: Sure I could do a better job of that.
Speaker 5: And when it comes to, you know, ideological grouping, I
Speaker 5: will say there is a difference between ideological grouping and
Speaker 5: say racial grouping. Right, Race is an immutable characteristic of
Speaker 5: who people are. You know, no matter how many Kenny
Speaker 5: G tunes you listen to, Steve, and You'll still be
Speaker 5: a black man. And no matter you know, and no
Speaker 5: matter what racial stereotype I engagement, I'll still be a
Speaker 5: nerdy Jewish guy.
Speaker 4: That's just the way it is.
Speaker 5: But when it comes to ideological groups, ideological groups are
Speaker 5: quite real, obviously, and so describing people as a member
Speaker 5: of an ideological camp I don't think is targeting a
Speaker 5: group in the same way as it would be to
Speaker 5: target Blacks as a group, or Jews as a group,
Speaker 5: or Asians as a group, or any other immutable characteristic.
Speaker 1: Hey beg, we're running out of tom. I know you've
Speaker 1: got to go. I've got to go. I would love
Speaker 1: to further this conversation with you in into the future,
Speaker 1: your show, my show, and it doesn't matter. I really
Speaker 1: enjoyed the conversation and I'm thankful that you came on
Speaker 1: my last question and I'm still a jackass. I just
Speaker 1: want to make sure I'm still a jackass. I just
Speaker 1: want to know.
Speaker 4: I just no, no, no, no, Now, you're the best, Steven.
Speaker 4: That's how this works.
Speaker 1: I got you, I got you, Ben Shapiro, Man, I
Speaker 1: appreciate man. I'm looking forward to coming on your show,
Speaker 1: and I'm looking forward to having you back on so
Speaker 1: we can further this conversation because obviously we're both running
Speaker 1: out of time.
Speaker 3: Thank you for the time, Man, I really appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Thanks a lot. I appreciate it, all.
Speaker 1: Right, buddy, what's up everybody?
Speaker 3: Stephen A Smith here. Recently we made news because.
Speaker 1: The great Bill O'Reilly announced a tour that's coming nearest
Speaker 1: to you in the very very near future.
Speaker 3: Get your tickets now for this.
Speaker 1: It's called Three Americans Live March thirtieth at Live Nation's
Speaker 1: Flag Star at the Westbury Music Feel on Long Island.
Speaker 3: Don't miss the very first show.
Speaker 1: As myself, Chris Croomo, and yes, that man Bill O'Reilly
Speaker 1: take our different ideas, a different background, it's different beliefs
Speaker 1: across the country to demonstrate that respectful, meaningful and even
Speaker 1: fun conversation.
Speaker 2: Those are the things that make America as great as.
Speaker 3: It should be.
Speaker 1: The show will be spirited unscripted, and all three of
Speaker 1: us will let it fly as we discuss the topics
Speaker 1: everyone is thinking about these days. There'll also be questions
Speaker 1: from the audience we're not running. Tickets are officially on
Speaker 1: sale now with pre sale code USA at three Americanslive
Speaker 1: dot Com. VIP packages are available with the opportunity to
Speaker 1: meet and take photos with myself and both those fellas.
Speaker 1: That's Three Americans Live March thirtieth at the Westbury Music
Speaker 1: Fair on Long Island. Additional dates and cities to be announced.
Speaker 1: Don't miss it. Trust me, you'll get a kick out
Speaker 1: of it. Welcome back to the Stephen A. Smith Show.
Speaker 1: Needless to say, I didn't agree with everything Ben Shapiro
Speaker 1: said when he dissects things and gets into the particulars
Speaker 1: of what happened with George Floyd and how the preponderance
Speaker 1: of evidence that we ultimately learned from would indicate that
Speaker 1: it wasn't murdered on a part of Derek Show, of an, etc.
Speaker 1: I respectfully disagree with him, but let me be decent
Speaker 1: enough to give him credit where credit is due. First
Speaker 1: of all, I found him to be very, very pleasant,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate it. I can't say enough I appreciate
Speaker 1: him coming on the show. You're gonna call somebody a jackass,
Speaker 1: don't go hide, you know. And he came right on
Speaker 1: the show, and he couldn't have been more pleasant, and
Speaker 1: he could not have articulated his point of view any better.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with it. I believe certain things are
Speaker 1: just simple. I mean, you're gonna put a knee on
Speaker 1: a man's back, back of his neck, etc. Exceeding nine minutes.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear about things that contributed to
Speaker 1: his death. Nothing contributed more than that. I don't want
Speaker 1: to care about it.
Speaker 3: I don't want to hear about an enlarged heart.
Speaker 1: Because I'm thinking along the lines of, well, would that
Speaker 1: have mattered in the moment if you wasn't leaning on the.
Speaker 3: Back of his neck.
Speaker 1: I just think that in certain instances, one plus one
Speaker 1: really really does equal to.
Speaker 3: And it shouldn't be that complicated. And I think that.
Speaker 1: Derek Chauvin showed little to no regard for George Floyd's life.
Speaker 1: But I have to tell you that when Ben Shapiro
Speaker 1: was speaking and the facts that he doled out, I
Speaker 1: wasn't in a position to sit up there and say,
Speaker 1: you're just wrong.
Speaker 3: He talked about whether he was black, he was Jewish,
Speaker 3: or anything.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Ben Shapiro, is not for me to
Speaker 1: be accusing him of taking a position just because that
Speaker 1: was a black man as opposed to if he were
Speaker 1: a Jew. He was right to call me out on that.
Speaker 1: He was right because he said, there's plenty of folks
Speaker 1: from the Jewish community if something like that happened to them,
Speaker 1: and the evidence showed itself to be what I saw
Speaker 1: in terms of the evidence that the George Floyd k
Speaker 1: showed itself to be, I would have taken the same position.
Speaker 3: I don't know Ben Shapiro to refute what he's saying.
Speaker 1: We have to be fair and we're going to move
Speaker 1: forward as a society and be better in getting along
Speaker 1: with one another and walking across aisles and dealing with
Speaker 1: one another. There has to be a level of the
Speaker 1: coreerm indecency, in a willingness to listen, in the comprehend
Speaker 1: and embrace, even if you don't agree with it. I
Speaker 1: can understand where the person is coming from. I don't
Speaker 1: agree with him about George Floyd. I believe Derek Chauvin
Speaker 1: murdered that man, and I believe he deserves exactly what
Speaker 1: he gets, and I'll be damned if Trump should pardon him.
Speaker 1: But Ben Shapiro, coming from the lens that he's coming
Speaker 1: from and the perspective that he provided, I appreciated him
Speaker 1: coming on this platform and stating it for the record,
Speaker 1: very clear, by the way, very in depth, by the way.
Speaker 1: You know, he's one of those dudes. You gotta know
Speaker 1: what the hell you talk about. You're coming after him?
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: I respected it, and I'm going to live up to
Speaker 1: my word. It's not just about him on my platform.
Speaker 1: I promised him I would come on his and when
Speaker 1: he calls, I'm going and whatever conversation he wants to have,
Speaker 1: I'm going to have it because that's what he did
Speaker 1: for me. It's called decency, y'all. I'm glad he doesn't.
Speaker 1: You know, he didn't come to the conclusion that I'm
Speaker 1: gonna ass so or a jackass.
Speaker 3: After all. I'm glad about that. I appreciate that. I
Speaker 3: appreciate that. But I enjoy it.
Speaker 1: I just I don't know how to put it, ladies
Speaker 1: and gentlemen. I enjoy hearing different perspectives and being educated
Speaker 1: about what people feel and why they feel.
Speaker 3: The way that they feel.
Speaker 1: I have grown up so many years watching one politician
Speaker 1: after another or one pundit after another lies and be
Speaker 1: listening so much nonsense just because they want to feed
Speaker 1: some narrative or whatever.
Speaker 3: It's good to run across.
Speaker 1: People that genuinely stand on what they feel and why.
Speaker 1: Now I would like them to be open to being corrected,
Speaker 1: because just because you feel a certain way doesn't make
Speaker 1: you one hundred percent correct. But if you're honest about
Speaker 1: what you feel, and you're willing to articulate why, and
Speaker 1: you have an open mind to hearing and receiving something
Speaker 1: else that somebody's giving you from a different perspective, I
Speaker 1: believe that's how we make the world better, in spite
Speaker 1: of what our politicians and that cesspool they've created in
Speaker 1: the nation's capital try to create in dividing all of us.
Speaker 1: That's what I like. And so Ben's gonna do his thing.
Speaker 1: And I'm not a right wing zealot the way some
Speaker 1: have described him to be, or he might be. So
Speaker 1: I got talked with Megan Kelly earlier in the day.
Speaker 1: I may not share all of her politics, I go,
Speaker 1: damn sure, don't share showing head of these politics Chris
Speaker 1: Cromo's my god, I agree with most of the stuff
Speaker 1: he says, not all so many different Mark Lamont Hill, doctor,
Speaker 1: Michael Rick Dyson. The list goes on and on and on.
Speaker 1: We run across Roland Martin, so not I forget him.
Speaker 1: Candice Own's also been on this show.
Speaker 3: I kind of like.
Speaker 1: Just hearing an abundance of different perspectives and hearing where
Speaker 1: people are coming from, so I can deduce on a
Speaker 1: fact based, on a fact based level, where they're coming from,
Speaker 1: why they're coming from those perspectives, and how we march
Speaker 1: forward and do what we all believe ultimately will be
Speaker 1: in the best interests of this country, for our communities
Speaker 1: and our societies as a whole. I really appreciate it
Speaker 1: being Shapiro coming on the show. I actually had a
Speaker 1: good time talking to him. I know he's smart as
Speaker 1: a whip lawyer by profession. You know, a nationally syndicated
Speaker 1: colonists at the age of seventeen runs The Daily Wire
Speaker 1: once valuated a billion dollars for crying out loud to
Speaker 1: do this big time.
Speaker 3: Whether you agree or disagree with him, he ain't ignorant.
Speaker 1: He's smart as hell, which means if you gonna come
Speaker 1: at him, you better be smart.
Speaker 3: I respect that. I'm glad he came on the show.
Speaker 1: I look forward to going on his show, and I'd
Speaker 1: encourage everybody to continue to watch the show because he's
Speaker 1: a major play in all of this, and what he
Speaker 1: says matters whether you like it or not. You know,
Speaker 1: and if you want to challenge him, the one thing
Speaker 1: that you had to peel from his conversation with me
Speaker 1: is challenge him on what he says and what you know,
Speaker 1: not just what you feel, because he don't have to
Speaker 1: feel that way, and chances are if he feels differently,
Speaker 1: he's got a Factorbate's position to back up his feelings,
Speaker 1: which means you'd better have the same for yours.
Speaker 3: Rising tide lifts all boats.
Speaker 1: That philosophy applies right here when it comes to the
Speaker 1: conversation I just had with Ben Shapiro.
Speaker 3: Thank you agatting Ben for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: Look forward to coming on your show as well, And
Speaker 1: I hope y'all enjoyed that conversation I just.
Speaker 3: Had with him.
Speaker 1: Until next time, everybody, Stephen they signing off, peace of love.
Speaker 3: We'll talk sooner.