The Ben Shapiro Show - October 10, 2019


A Real Constitutional Crisis | Ep. 876


Episode Stats

Length

54 minutes

Words per Minute

210.71385

Word Count

11,512

Sentence Count

793

Misogynist Sentences

17

Hate Speech Sentences

19


Summary

The Trump administration pledges to stonewall Congress, Hillary Clinton signals some interest in 2020, and the Turks begin their attack on the Kurds. Ben Shapiro explains why the White House should not be so hard on Congress, and why they are actually stonewalling. The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by Express VPN. Protect your online privacy today at ExpressVPN.org/ProtectYourOnline Privacy. Ben Shapiro is a writer, comedian, and podcaster. He is the host of the podcast and is a regular contributor to The Weekly Standard, and has been featured in the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, CBS, and NPR. His new book, is out now, and is available for pre-order on Amazon Prime and Vimeo worldwide. If you don't already have an Amazon Prime membership, you can get 20% off for a limited time, but you'll have to pay a small monthly fee of $99.99, plus you'll get access to all of the latest and greatest streaming services, including Amazon Prime, Vimeo, and other major podcasting services. You can get a free 7-day Prime membership trial when you sign up for Prime membership when you place an order of $59.99 starting on January 1st, 2020. It starts on September 1st! You'll get 7GB and 7GB for the rest of the month, plus 3 months of Vimeo membership for free! Subscribe to my podcasting, unlimited access to my entire episodes, and access to the entire podcast library, and all my social media platforms. I'm giving away to my listeners get a discount code . I'll be giving you access to some of my subscribers get a chance to win a FREE trial, and I'll get an ad-free version of the show, too! The offer starts on October 31st, 2019. Thanks for listening to the show! and my ad-only version of my show? if you like the show and review my podcast, I'll give you an ad discount code: at least $5 stars and get 5 stars and a FREE VIP membership offer, too get $5 VIP access, and you get a VIP discount when you enter the offer gets me a discount of $50 or more, and get an additional $5/month to win $50/day and get VIP access to VIP access gets $5,000 VIP access? Thanks!


Transcript

00:00:00.000 The Trump administration pledges to stonewall Congress, Hillary Clinton signals some interest in 2020, and the Turks begin their attack on the Kurds.
00:00:07.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:00:07.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:08.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
00:00:18.000 Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
00:00:22.000 Okay, we've got a ton to get to today, and I take off 25 hours, guys, just to do some atoning, just to get right with God, and the world explodes because that's the way things work.
00:00:31.000 Okay, so, the latest, an impeachment case, 2019.
00:00:34.000 Over the past 25, 36 hours, Basically, the White House has now pledged they're going to stonewall Congress.
00:00:41.000 This is not a good strategy.
00:00:43.000 Now, I know there are a lot of folks on the right who are cheering this, a lot of folks on the conservative side who are saying, this is exactly what the White House should be doing, given the political nature of this impeachment inquiry.
00:00:43.000 It's not.
00:00:53.000 And there is truth to the fact that the White House Should be pushing back on some of the subpoenas that the White House should be pushing back on Congress's power to do some of the stuff that they are doing.
00:01:02.000 However, to simply state that they are going to in blanket fashion sort of stonewall Congress is a mistake.
00:01:07.000 The reason it's a mistake is because it goes one of a couple of ways.
00:01:10.000 One, All of this goes to the courts, and the courts actually rule against the Trump administration, in which case they have to turn over all of this stuff anyway, and now there is impetus for an impeachment move because of so-called obstruction, because the White House is attempting to prevent information from being disseminated.
00:01:27.000 Obstruction was used as an impeachment grounds for both Clinton and Nixon.
00:01:30.000 So, that's possibility number one.
00:01:32.000 Possibility number two.
00:01:33.000 It goes to the courts, and the courts simply decline to answer the question.
00:01:36.000 They say this falls under what they call the political question doctrine, meaning that when the branches are hashing things out between themselves, it is really not the business of the judiciary to step in and do anything about it.
00:01:46.000 Well, that then throws it back on Congress.
00:01:48.000 And Congress, in order to defend its own prerogatives, to get information, because Congress does have the constitutional power to impeach.
00:01:54.000 Congress does have the constitutional power to investigate under Article I and Article II of the Constitution.
00:02:00.000 With all of that said, Congress will then be led to get its sort of spine up a little bit, get its back up, and say to the executive branch, listen, even if we're Republicans, we are not going to let the executive branch simply decline to work with Congress in any way, in any investigation, because that sets a precedent that is undoable once a Democrat is in office again.
00:02:19.000 And then possibility number three is that the White House stonewalls and gets away with it.
00:02:22.000 The problem there is that once that strategy is on the table and has been successfully used, it is now used by presumably every president.
00:02:29.000 And that means that the presidency, no matter which party the presidency is being held by, The president can now get away with anything.
00:02:36.000 Okay, so, with that said, the White House's basic statement, which is that Congress needs to be specific about what exactly it is calling for, what Congress is actually doing legally speaking, that part is true.
00:02:48.000 But the White House basically saying we're not cooperating under nearly any circumstances.
00:02:51.000 It depends how you read the White House's letter, but if that is what they're actually claiming, that's a massive overreach and it's a bad move strategically.
00:02:58.000 It's gonna be much easier to show that the White House is stonewalling and therefore engaged in a cover-up.
00:03:03.000 Then to show that the White House actually involved itself in criminally impeachable behavior in the first place.
00:03:09.000 As I've been saying for a couple of weeks now, it is always easier to get a president for a cover-up than it is to get a president for a crime.
00:03:15.000 It was easier to get Richard Nixon for the cover-up of Watergate than it was to get Richard Nixon for Watergate itself.
00:03:20.000 It was easier to get President Clinton for obstruction of justice than it was to get President Clinton for any of the underlying crimes, including perjury, by the way.
00:03:29.000 And so, The Trump White House should just take note of that fact when they decide how far to stonewall Congress.
00:03:34.000 Okay, we're going to get to exactly what the White House did.
00:03:37.000 Are they actually stonewalling Congress, or are they actually not?
00:03:39.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:03:41.000 First, let's talk about health insurance.
00:03:43.000 Health insurance helps with medical bills, but it does not actually replace your lost income.
00:03:48.000 This is where you have a disability insurance.
00:03:50.000 Disability insurance does replace.
00:03:51.000 Your lost income.
00:03:52.000 It's essentially insurance for your income.
00:03:54.000 It protects that paycheck if you get sidelined by an illness or an injury.
00:03:57.000 So where can you get disability insurance without spending a fortune and without spending a long time figuring out the right place to do it?
00:04:03.000 You go over to PolicyGenius.com.
00:04:05.000 PolicyGenius does all the shopping for you.
00:04:07.000 They compare quotes from the top disability insurance companies to find the best price for you.
00:04:11.000 Then their licensed experts manage the application process to save you time and hassle.
00:04:15.000 And PolicyGenius doesn't just make disability insurance easy, they can also help you find the right life insurance.
00:04:20.000 And home and auto insurance, too.
00:04:21.000 They're your one-stop shop for insurance.
00:04:23.000 So, if you rely on your income to get by, head on over to policygenius.com to compare disability insurance quotes today.
00:04:29.000 It's an important adult thing to do.
00:04:31.000 Insurance is you hedging against the possibility of bad things happening, and if you're an adult, you need to think about that stuff, particularly if you have a family that you are taking care of.
00:04:38.000 PolicyGenius will help you protect your paycheck at a price that makes sense for you.
00:04:42.000 PolicyGenius, the easy way to compare and buy disability insurance and life insurance and all sorts of insurance.
00:04:46.000 Go check them out at PolicyGenius.com.
00:04:49.000 Okay, so here is the actual story.
00:04:51.000 According to the Washington Post, the White House on Tuesday said it would not cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry of President Trump, arguing that the probe, quote, violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent in an escalating standoff with an unbound Congress.
00:05:05.000 In a scathing eight-page letter, the White House said the inquiry into the Ukraine scandal was without merit, complained that the president has been denied his due process rights, and argued that Democrats were intent on overturning the results of the 2016 election and influencing the 2020 contest.
00:05:18.000 Okay, so as I say, there are a couple of angles to this letter.
00:05:20.000 We're going to go through the letter today.
00:05:22.000 Now, does that make it constitutionally illegitimate?
00:05:25.000 The House has the unilateral power of impeachment.
00:05:25.000 Of course not.
00:05:27.000 This entire thing is politically illegitimate.
00:05:29.000 Now, does that make it constitutionally illegitimate?
00:05:32.000 Of course not.
00:05:33.000 The House has the unilateral power of impeachment.
00:05:35.000 It does not make it constitutionally ridiculous for the House to launch an impeachment inquiry, even along the lines that are weak.
00:05:43.000 The White House is also pointing out some shortcomings in the way that the Democrats are approaching this thing legally.
00:05:47.000 They're pointing out the Democrats have not actually voted as a full House to open an impeachment inquiry, which would give them some additional powers.
00:05:54.000 Also, they have not really abided by precedent in terms of using their subpoena power and allowing the minority to subpoena witnesses as well.
00:06:02.000 That part happens to be true.
00:06:03.000 The question is whether the letter is an overreach, what the letter is designed to do, And whether the letter is setting the groundwork for the possibility of a full-scale stonewall by the Trump administration.
00:06:14.000 Now the reason that there is suspicion that this may be setting the precedent for a full-scale stonewall, no matter what Congress does, is because the Trump administration did intervene over the past couple of days And prevented Gordon Sondland, President Trump's ambassador to the European Union, from testifying on Tuesday morning before House committees.
00:06:34.000 House Democrats then issued a subpoena to Gordon Sondland in the impeachment inquiry.
00:06:38.000 He had bowed to a State Department order to skip a deposition earlier in the day.
00:06:42.000 Now, Gordon Sondland, as you know, is the, as I say, Trump's ambassador to the EU.
00:06:46.000 He was on that text message exchange with Kurt Volker, who was the special envoy to Ukraine, as well as with Bill Taylor, who happened to be the special Replacement for the ambassador to Ukraine.
00:06:58.000 They're on this text exchange all about basically whether the Trump administration was pressuring Ukraine to prosecute Joe Biden.
00:07:06.000 In order to receive military aid.
00:07:08.000 And there was a disagreement among these officials on this text message exchange.
00:07:11.000 And so Sondland's testimony presumably would be important in determining exactly what he was told by the Trump White House.
00:07:16.000 The Trump State Department stepped in and they said, we're not going to let him testify.
00:07:20.000 They didn't really make clear under what conditions this was.
00:07:23.000 Democrats had requested that he testify.
00:07:25.000 Now they've issued a formal subpoena.
00:07:27.000 They presumably could hold him in contempt.
00:07:29.000 They could also hold the State Department in contempt.
00:07:32.000 Democrats have subpoenaed Sondland for his testimony and documents that they share being withheld by the State Department.
00:07:37.000 The subpoena demands those documents be turned over by October 14th.
00:07:40.000 And they say that Sondland must sit for a deposition on October 16th before three congressional panels, which means before the end of next week.
00:07:48.000 The three Democrats who lead the various committees that are doing this investigation, Schiff, Cummings, and Engel, they said, we consider this interference to be obstruction of the impeachment inquiry.
00:07:56.000 Now, they can consider whatever they want to be obstruction.
00:07:59.000 It's not obstruction until there's a court order that says that you have to show up for the subpoena under the conditions specified by Congress, and then the person doesn't show up.
00:08:07.000 Then you get into obstruction of justice issues.
00:08:09.000 It is not mere obstruction simply to say, I'm not showing up for a subpoena, and then it gets thrown into the court.
00:08:13.000 In fact, that sort of negotiation happens all the time with regard to subpoenas.
00:08:17.000 Somebody is subpoenaed.
00:08:18.000 They say no.
00:08:19.000 It goes to court.
00:08:20.000 The court rules.
00:08:21.000 But that's why it has to be a formal subpoena.
00:08:23.000 That is the grounds for the lawsuit itself.
00:08:25.000 The State Department has not responded to requests for comments at this point, but President Trump, never one to shy away from trigger, immediately went on Twitter and explained why Sunland was not going to be showing up.
00:08:35.000 He tweeted out, But unfortunately, he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republicans' rights have been taken away and true facts are not allowed out for the public to see.
00:08:48.000 Importantly, Ambassador Sondland's tweet, which few reports stated, quote, That says it all.
00:08:51.000 believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions.
00:08:53.000 The president has been crystal clear.
00:08:55.000 No quid pro quos of any kind.
00:08:57.000 That says it all.
00:08:58.000 So he's happy with that particular text message from Sondland that was to Bill Taylor, the replacement for the ambassador to Ukraine.
00:09:06.000 And he doesn't want Sondland testifying.
00:09:08.000 Notice that he is basically saying, under no circumstances do I want Sondland testifying.
00:09:12.000 Not, there's going to be a negotiation about what documents are turned over.
00:09:15.000 And this is what's leading to the grand suspicion on the part of Democrats and on the part of the media that the White House is going to engage in an overall stonewalling effort.
00:09:23.000 Well, that obviously was bolstered by the letter that was sent by Pat Cipollone, who happens to be the Who happens to be the president's attorney in this particular case.
00:09:36.000 He sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, Engel, Schiff, and Cummings.
00:09:40.000 And it's a fairly long letter, but it's worth going through simply because there's so much controversy over it.
00:09:44.000 And we try to bring you the information as always first, and then we make the judgment.
00:09:48.000 So here's what the letter says.
00:09:49.000 Quote, I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous legally unsupportable demands made as part of what you have labeled contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent as an impeachment inquiry.
00:10:00.000 As you know, you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.
00:10:07.000 Well, not yet.
00:10:09.000 Not yet.
00:10:10.000 Okay, so to make a due process claim, you have to claim that the process has not been due.
00:10:15.000 Now normally, that usually arises at the Senate The Senate criminal hearing part of the process, right?
00:10:23.000 There's the impeachment inquiry.
00:10:24.000 That's the House investigating and the House coming up with whether they believe they should impeach.
00:10:28.000 And then when you get to the Senate, there's an actual trial.
00:10:30.000 At the trial, there has to be a certain level of due process.
00:10:32.000 Presumably, the Supreme Court could step in and say due process has not actually been followed here.
00:10:36.000 Now, where he is right, Cipollone, is that when he says that there are certain things the Democrats are doing that have never been done before, that is true.
00:10:43.000 There are a couple of things specifically.
00:10:45.000 One, They've made clear that they are not going to allow the minority to issue subpoenas.
00:10:50.000 That is different.
00:10:51.000 Two, they keep claiming this is an impeachment inquiry when they have not actually voted in favor of an impeachment inquiry.
00:10:56.000 Basically, they had these ongoing investigations going in the various committees.
00:11:00.000 Nancy Pelosi got up and said impeachment inquiry, and everybody is now treating it like it's an official act of Congress, like Congress is now undergoing an impeachment inquiry.
00:11:07.000 That's not true.
00:11:08.000 Okay, I should have to vote for that in order for there to be an official impeachment inquiry for whatever that's worth.
00:11:13.000 Okay, we can get to the rest of Cipollone's letter in just one second.
00:11:16.000 First, let's talk about every time you head on over to the post office.
00:11:19.000 So, the post office is a great place.
00:11:20.000 I mean, they have all sorts of great services, but do you really want to take all that crap you have to ship and schlep it in the back of your car there, and then you wait in line, and then you have to Just wait to get the parking ticket out front, which is what has happened to me at least the last time I went to the post office.
00:11:34.000 And that was the last time I went to the post office.
00:11:35.000 So I was like, you know what?
00:11:36.000 I can do this faster and easier and actually less expensively by simply going to stamps.com.
00:11:42.000 Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
00:11:44.000 Postal Office directly to your computer.
00:11:46.000 Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
00:11:54.000 Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
00:11:56.000 postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
00:12:01.000 Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier or you drop it in a mailbox.
00:12:04.000 It is indeed that simple.
00:12:06.000 Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
00:12:07.000 It saves you time.
00:12:08.000 It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses use Stamps.com Before, you had to go down to the grocery store to get stamps.
00:12:08.000 It saves you money.
00:12:14.000 No longer.
00:12:15.000 Head on over to stamps.com right now and my listeners get a special offer.
00:12:18.000 It includes a four-week trial plus free postage and a digital scale.
00:12:21.000 No long-term commitment.
00:12:22.000 Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in Shapiro.
00:12:27.000 That is stamps.com.
00:12:28.000 Enter Shapiro and you get that special deal and it is a pretty spectacular deal.
00:12:31.000 Stamps.com.
00:12:32.000 Save time and money.
00:12:33.000 It's great.
00:12:33.000 Go check it out right now.
00:12:34.000 That's why we use it at DailyWare.
00:12:35.000 It's why I personally use it.
00:12:37.000 Okay, so, Cipollone's letter continues.
00:12:39.000 He says, Well, right now, they're just doing an investigation.
00:12:41.000 So, it's not clear that those rights actually obtain.
00:12:43.000 Well, right now, they're just doing an investigation.
00:12:53.000 So it's not clear that those rights actually obtain.
00:12:56.000 Those rights would obtain in a Senate trial.
00:12:58.000 But when it comes to an impeachment inquiry, that's just like every other inquiry that happens on the House level.
00:13:03.000 It's not clear that the House can't set its own rules, for example.
00:13:07.000 Cipollone says you have conducted your proceedings in secret.
00:13:09.000 You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening executive branch officials claiming you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives.
00:13:18.000 OK, now that last part where basically they've threatened to hold people in contempt for not obeying their requests.
00:13:23.000 Those are empty threats.
00:13:24.000 That's not a violation of the Constitution.
00:13:26.000 That is them being legally idiotic and attempting to push a false narrative, which is that if you negotiate with them over the terms of your testimony, that you are somehow going to be held in contempt.
00:13:36.000 That is not something that they actually have the power to do.
00:13:39.000 In order to have a contempt holding, you have to first issue a legally binding subpoena, for example.
00:13:46.000 Never before in our history has the House of Representatives under the control of either political party taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
00:13:52.000 This letter is written more as a political document, obviously, than it is as a legal document.
00:13:57.000 Cipollone says, put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the president they have freely chosen.
00:14:04.000 Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the Democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away.
00:14:13.000 As one member of Congress explained, he is concerned that if we don't impeach the president, he will get reelected.
00:14:17.000 That would be Representative Al Green on MSNBC.
00:14:20.000 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our systems of free elections, and to the American people.
00:14:27.000 It's a perfectly fine political argument.
00:14:30.000 Completely has nothing to do with legality, right?
00:14:32.000 Just from a legal standpoint, this is not part of a legal document.
00:14:35.000 This is a political argument, an argument with which I generally agree, by the way, but a political argument nonetheless.
00:14:41.000 Cipollone's the lawyer.
00:14:42.000 He says, for his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency by declassifying and releasing the record of his call with Zelensky of Ukraine.
00:14:50.000 And then it says the record clearly established the call.
00:14:53.000 the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry.
00:14:56.000 The fact there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiff's decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.
00:15:06.000 Now, again, Schiff made a fool of himself, right?
00:15:09.000 But I don't really think that that is what Schiff was doing.
00:15:12.000 I mean, to be, I'm trying to be fair to everybody here because the fact is that while I think that Schiff is a real snake in the grass when it comes to his proceedings, I think that the pretend outrage at him faking a conversation in a clearly made up way and pretending that everybody thought that was real.
00:15:28.000 I don't really buy that particular line of argument.
00:15:31.000 In addition, information has recently come to light to Cipollone that the whistleblower had contact with Chairman Schiff's office before filing the complaint.
00:15:37.000 That, of course, is true.
00:15:39.000 For these reasons, President Trump and his administration reject your baseless unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process.
00:15:45.000 Your unprecedented actions have left the president with no choice.
00:15:47.000 In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the executive branch, and all future occupants of the office of the presidency, President Trump and his administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances.
00:16:00.000 Okay, the key phrase there is under these circumstances.
00:16:03.000 Because if those circumstances can be rectified, if the House votes for an impeachment inquiry, if the House allows minority rights to the minority party, then will the Trump administration cooperate?
00:16:13.000 If so, the letter's fine.
00:16:15.000 If not, the letter is going to run up very quickly into the Democrats and maybe some Republican members of the House.
00:16:21.000 Suggesting that the Trump administration is engaging in at least a cover-up and what could be a constitutional crisis.
00:16:27.000 A constitutional crisis, as Noah Feldman, law professor at Harvard, correctly suggests, a constitutional crisis is where the branches go up against one another and there is no clear solution as to what happens next.
00:16:39.000 So the legislative branch subpoenas everybody in the executive branch.
00:16:42.000 The executive branch, instead of turning down some, accepting others, and going through the court, simply says, no, under no circumstances are we going to cooperate under any circum... That is what you would call a constitutional crisis, presumably.
00:16:53.000 Although, even there, there is a procedure, right?
00:16:56.000 The judiciary would weigh in.
00:16:57.000 Presumably, if the House was offended enough by the executive, the House could impeach the executive.
00:17:01.000 Okay, so, is this letter actually a blanket attempt to say we're not participating under any circumstances, or is it a conditional letter?
00:17:09.000 Is the letter saying, listen, Under the current circumstances, where you are clearly manipulating the process, true.
00:17:14.000 Under these circumstances, where you're clearly being partisan hacks who have no interest in a fair process, kinda true.
00:17:20.000 If, under these circumstances, where you pretend you have an impeachment inquiry, and the House hasn't even voted for one, which is true, we're not going to participate.
00:17:28.000 That, at least, is part of a negotiation.
00:17:30.000 If it's just, listen, we don't like the basis for the inquiry.
00:17:33.000 We think the basis for the inquiry is wrong.
00:17:35.000 So, no.
00:17:37.000 That is a constitutional crisis and that is not going to end well for the Trump administration.
00:17:41.000 Okay, so the letter continues.
00:17:42.000 They say your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and violates basic due process rights and the separation of powers.
00:17:49.000 So they say that in the history of our nation the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step.
00:18:02.000 That's not really true.
00:18:03.000 In the Andrew Johnson impeachment, I don't believe the House actually formally voted to open impeachment inquiry.
00:18:08.000 They just voted for impeachment.
00:18:10.000 Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated in our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an official impeachment inquiry.
00:18:20.000 Your contrived process is unprecedented.
00:18:21.000 Okay, that part is true.
00:18:23.000 That part is true.
00:18:23.000 The committee's inquiry also suffers from a separate fatal defect.
00:18:27.000 Despite Speaker Pelosi's commitment to treat the president with fairness, the committees have not established any procedures affording the president even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness.
00:18:39.000 Now, the House does have unilateral power over how the impeachment inquiry is run.
00:18:44.000 It is a separate branch of government.
00:18:46.000 It does not have to actually engage in the sorts of negotiation with the White House that the White House is claiming that it has to.
00:18:54.000 So this part, I don't really see the legal basis for.
00:18:56.000 The House has sole power over how it sets up the impeachment inquiry.
00:19:00.000 Again, they can vote for impeachment without an inquiry.
00:19:01.000 They could vote for impeachment today.
00:19:03.000 So they don't actually have to have quote-unquote due process.
00:19:05.000 It's at the Senate trial that presumably you have to have some form of due process.
00:19:09.000 They say these due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the committees to dispense with at will.
00:19:13.000 To the contrary, they're constitutional requirements.
00:19:15.000 The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations.
00:19:20.000 Well, it's not quite as simple as that.
00:19:23.000 The cases that they are citing are not quite.
00:19:26.000 Now, they may be right that the president shouldn't be treated unfairly this way.
00:19:29.000 applies to impeachment proceedings.
00:19:30.000 Yes, in the Senate, in the Senate.
00:19:32.000 The right to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, present evidence, dates back 150 years again in the Senate.
00:19:38.000 That seems to be more true than in the House.
00:19:40.000 Now, they may be right that the president shouldn't be treated unfairly this way.
00:19:43.000 And they may be right that the Democrats should simply allow some of this stuff to happen.
00:19:47.000 But is this a blanket stonewall or is it conditional?
00:19:50.000 Again, that is the big question here, and it's not quite clear from this letter.
00:19:54.000 They say, to comply with the Constitution's demands, appropriate procedures would include, at a minimum, the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to examination of witnesses, or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony.
00:20:11.000 Okay, again, that all makes sense at a trial.
00:20:13.000 It doesn't make sense in the context of a House inquiry.
00:20:17.000 So as I say, the legal basis for this letter are fairly weak.
00:20:22.000 And then they talk about the Congress resorting to threats and intimidation against executive branch witnesses.
00:20:22.000 Fairly weak.
00:20:28.000 Again, that is inappropriate.
00:20:29.000 That does not fatally mean that there can't be an impeachment inquiry or that the White House can ignore all subpoenas, for example.
00:20:36.000 Then the letter gets into basically a political argument saying that the impeachment inquiry is seeking to reverse the election of 2016 and influence the election of 2020.
00:20:45.000 Again, a political argument with which I agree, but has virtually nothing to do with legality.
00:20:50.000 And then they say there's no legitimate basis for the impeachment inquiry.
00:20:52.000 So that again suggests that no matter what Congress does, they are not going to cooperate because they find the basis not legit.
00:21:00.000 Well, if that were the case, Nixon could have just stonewalled, right?
00:21:02.000 He would have just said, listen, I find this whole thing non-legit.
00:21:05.000 It would have been Al Pacino and injustice for all.
00:21:07.000 You're out of order, this entire court is out of order.
00:21:09.000 Yeah, that doesn't work.
00:21:11.000 That doesn't work in actual legal proceedings.
00:21:14.000 The letter concludes, for the foregoing reasons, the president cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the executive branch from their work on behalf of the American people.
00:21:22.000 The president has a country to lead.
00:21:24.000 The American people elected him to do this job.
00:21:26.000 He remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people, etc., etc., etc.
00:21:30.000 They say, we hope that in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the president in focusing on the goals that matter to the American people.
00:21:41.000 Okay, so does this mean that this is a full-scale stonewall?
00:21:44.000 Answer?
00:21:45.000 We don't know yet.
00:21:45.000 We don't know yet.
00:21:46.000 If it turns into a full-scale Stonewall, this is not going to go great for the Trump administration.
00:21:50.000 It's not.
00:21:51.000 If it's just a political ploy by Cipollone and Trump, if it's just, we want these things and if you give us those things we'll cooperate, Then, alright, that's not bad.
00:22:00.000 But if this turns into, we're not cooperating with Congress, I still believe in the Constitution.
00:22:04.000 The Congress does have the power of inquiry.
00:22:06.000 If this were Barack Obama saying, I'm not going to cooperate under any circumstances because I deny your power to investigate, that would be a constitutional violation the Supreme Court is likely to find that way.
00:22:14.000 It's not going to go the way Trump thinks if this is a pure, full-on stone.
00:22:18.000 And again, we don't know whether it is or not because the letter is not clear on that.
00:22:21.000 Okay, in just a second, We're going to talk a little bit more about this whistleblower because now it turns out that there are some serious questions about the nature identity of the whistleblower and the whistleblower's report.
00:22:30.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:22:33.000 First, let's talk about why you need a great suit.
00:22:35.000 So you think that you are going to be able to just go down to the local The suit looks terrible on you.
00:22:46.000 I'm just gonna be frank with you.
00:22:50.000 That suit that you are wearing right now, it hangs off of you like drapes.
00:22:52.000 And this is why you should have a tailored suit.
00:22:54.000 You should look like James Bond.
00:22:56.000 And you can do this without spending an arm and a leg.
00:22:58.000 Head on over to Indochino.com.
00:23:00.000 Indochino is the world's largest made-to-measure menswear brand.
00:23:03.000 They make suits, shirts, coats, and more.
00:23:05.000 Everything is made to your exact measurements for a great fit.
00:23:07.000 You get to personalize all the details, including lapel, lining, and your own monogram.
00:23:11.000 Indochino has hundreds of suit options for all occasions, including work, formal events, even your own wedding.
00:23:16.000 The best part is they're affordable.
00:23:17.000 Almost all of their custom clothing is under $400.
00:23:19.000 The process is simple.
00:23:19.000 $400.
00:23:21.000 Choose your fabric, pick your customizations, submit your measurements.
00:23:24.000 Your package will be delivered straight to your door in two weeks.
00:23:26.000 You can get measured and design your suit at your nearest Indochino showroom.
00:23:29.000 I've done that myself.
00:23:30.000 It's awesome.
00:23:31.000 It's actually a fun day out.
00:23:31.000 It's really cool.
00:23:33.000 Or do it all yourself online at Indochino.com.
00:23:35.000 It's a great suit.
00:23:36.000 It really is.
00:23:37.000 Start your style upgrade now with $30 off your total purchase of $399 or more at Indochino.com when you enter Shapiro at checkout.
00:23:44.000 Plus, shipping is free.
00:23:45.000 That's Indochino.com, promo code Shapiro for $30 off your total purchase of $399 or more.
00:23:50.000 It's an incredible deal for made-to-measure clothing.
00:23:53.000 You really have no excuse to wear clothing that doesn't fit.
00:23:55.000 Go check out Indochino.com.
00:23:57.000 They really are first rate.
00:23:58.000 Okay, so...
00:24:00.000 Meanwhile, there is some news about the whistleblower that should be disquieting, because as I have said, several things can be true at once, as I'm fine of saying.
00:24:09.000 One, bad idea for the Trump administration to completely stonewall the investigation.
00:24:13.000 It has not ended well for Clinton.
00:24:14.000 It didn't end well for Nixon.
00:24:15.000 It's just not a smart strategy.
00:24:17.000 Two, this can be a highly partisan inquiry that obviously smacks of an attempt to take down Trump without proper evidence.
00:24:25.000 I mean, that so far seems to be the case.
00:24:28.000 Three, it can turn out the whistleblower was manipulating things from the inside with the help of Adam Schiff from the outside.
00:24:33.000 It now seems that there is some news about the whistleblower.
00:24:35.000 This would explain why the Democrats, excuse me, have been so eager to prevent the identity of the whistleblower from becoming known.
00:24:43.000 According to Byron York reporting for the Washington Examiner, the whistleblower apparently not only has political bias, but the political bias is that the whistleblower apparently, according to the Inspector General of the intelligence community, had a professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates.
00:25:01.000 Okay, that is not good news, right, for the Democrats.
00:25:05.000 According to a person with knowledge, what Atkinson said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with the current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate.
00:25:16.000 Apparently, the inspector general did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the whistleblower had a connection.
00:25:21.000 It's unclear what the working or professional relationship between the two was.
00:25:25.000 Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and do some rank speculation.
00:25:27.000 Could be completely wrong.
00:25:28.000 I'm gonna say it's probably Joe Biden.
00:25:30.000 I'm going to say that probably what happened here is that this whistleblower had a relationship with Joe Biden.
00:25:34.000 We know he was in the White House working on Ukraine issues.
00:25:37.000 So, is it possible that this whistleblower had a relationship with Joe Biden, knew the situation in Ukraine, and when Joe Biden's name got brought up in the context of Ukraine immediately jumped to the conclusion that there was an investigation into Joe Biden that was the basis of all of this?
00:25:50.000 And he wasn't going to have that because he knows Joe Biden and Joe Biden is a good man?
00:25:54.000 That seems quite possible.
00:25:56.000 And if so, that certainly colors the whistleblower's memo.
00:26:00.000 The original whistleblower memo that apparently raised hackles is now being reported by CBS News.
00:26:04.000 CBS News has learned the full contents of what appears to be a memo written by the whistleblower one day after President Trump spoke with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in July.
00:26:14.000 The memo, dated July 26, is based on a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed White House official who listened to the call.
00:26:19.000 So again, leakiest White House of all time.
00:26:23.000 Apparently, according to the memo, the White House official described the contents of the call as crazy, frightening, and completely lacking in substance related to national security.
00:26:31.000 The whistleblower said the official was visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S.
00:26:36.000 national security apparatus about the call.
00:26:39.000 Okay, what made him call this guy?
00:26:40.000 What made him call this guy?
00:26:42.000 Is it possible that the person on the call is from the White House, is a White House staffer who's a holdover from the Obama administration, was friendly with Team Biden, called up another person who was friendly with Team Biden, and that person filed a whistleblower complaint?
00:26:54.000 Again, rank speculation.
00:26:55.000 Could be completely wrong.
00:26:57.000 I'm gonna guess that is not completely wrong.
00:26:59.000 So I'm sure we'll find out more in the future.
00:27:01.000 If that turns out to be the case, then it certainly casts a lot of doubt on the motives of the whistleblower.
00:27:07.000 Now, does that mean that Trump is innocent of all manipulation in Ukraine?
00:27:10.000 We've read the transcript.
00:27:11.000 We've seen text messages.
00:27:12.000 There will be additional evidence presented.
00:27:14.000 But it does make this look a lot more like a partisan hit on behalf of Joe Biden than it does like an attempt to root out and ferret out corruption inside the White House.
00:27:22.000 Now, one thing is pretty clear.
00:27:24.000 A lot of the diplomats who are involved in the Ukraine situation were at the very least disquieted by the activity in the Trump administration.
00:27:31.000 From that text message conversation between Kurt Volker, the special envoy to the Ukraine, and Bill Taylor, who is the interim ambassador to Ukraine, and Gordon Sondland, who is the EU ambassador, there's obviously a lot of disquiet about this.
00:27:45.000 And now, there are reports from the New York Times That members of the State Department were at least a little perturbed about the way in which aid to Ukraine was restored.
00:27:55.000 Brad Friedan, who is the State Department's Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary overseeing issues in Europe and Eurasia, apparently wrote in a September 12th email the day after the restoration of Ukrainian aid, quote, A wonderful thing to write in an email exchange where people are worried.
00:28:13.000 He said the National Security Council would not publicly announce that $141 million in State Department assistance was being restored after being held up in what the White House described as a normal review, which is weird, by the way.
00:28:23.000 I will say it is weird.
00:28:25.000 Right?
00:28:26.000 It's weird to say that you went through a normal review process and then you greenlit the aid, but we're not going to announce it publicly.
00:28:32.000 Like, why?
00:28:34.000 Why the attempt to keep quiet?
00:28:36.000 According to one of these emails, which is presumably to Bill Taylor, it says, Bill, in terms of public messaging, the National Security Council is deliberately treating both the hold and its lifting as administrative matters.
00:28:46.000 There won't be a public announcement on this end.
00:28:47.000 My advice is to keep your public messaging low key as well.
00:28:50.000 Along the lines of OMB has completed its administrative review of security assistance for Ukraine and our assistance will continue as before, which, again, starts to look at least a little bit suspicious.
00:29:00.000 So, more details, I'm sure, will be forthcoming, as always, because we're at the beginning of this process, not at the end of this process.
00:29:07.000 And lots of things can be true at once.
00:29:08.000 Democrats can be manipulating the process.
00:29:10.000 They can be being unfair to President Trump.
00:29:12.000 This could have been pushed by a partisan whistleblower.
00:29:14.000 And it could be that there was malfeasance inside the Trump White House.
00:29:17.000 All of those things could be possible at once.
00:29:19.000 We're gonna keep an eye on it.
00:29:21.000 And again, I'm one of these people who is fond of the phrase, I don't know.
00:29:25.000 You know why I'm fond of that phrase?
00:29:27.000 You know, you should be fond of that phrase too, because you don't know.
00:29:30.000 The only people who know what actually happened in this whole policy situation are Trump and his immediate aides.
00:29:35.000 Those are the only people who know.
00:29:37.000 Okay, so if you are suggesting that you know full-scale Trump is totally innocent, everything is totally above board and fine, you don't know that.
00:29:43.000 If you're a Democrat and you're suggesting that you know for a fact that Trump was only out to get Biden, you certainly don't know that based on the available evidence at this point.
00:29:50.000 We're gonna find out.
00:29:51.000 And the stonewalling is actually more of a danger to Trump's future as president than is the inquiry itself.
00:29:57.000 I feel like this the same way that I do about the Mueller inquiry, right?
00:30:01.000 During Mueller, there were a lot of people on the right who were urging Trump, fire Mueller, end the investigation, just stop this thing.
00:30:05.000 And I kept saying, nope, let it go.
00:30:07.000 Let it go all the way out, because in the end, Mueller's likely to find nothing.
00:30:11.000 And if you stop it, then it starts to look like obstruction.
00:30:13.000 It starts to look like you're afraid of what Mueller is going to find.
00:30:16.000 Well, the same thing holds true here.
00:30:18.000 Don't stop the investigation.
00:30:20.000 Listen, the Democrats are gonna blow this thing anyway, so you may as well give them enough rope to hang themselves, because they certainly will hang themselves almost no matter what you do.
00:30:27.000 Okay, in just a second, we're gonna get to the situation in Turkey, which has become quite grave quite quickly, because it turns out when the President of the United States signals to a dictatorial foreign power they can go in and murder a bunch of people who helped us out fighting ISIS, Guess what?
00:30:40.000 The Turks move.
00:30:41.000 We'll get into that in just one second.
00:30:43.000 First, let's talk about credit card debt.
00:30:45.000 It's very easy to rack up credit card debt.
00:30:47.000 You know, like, you make a couple bad decisions, all of a sudden you're paying 20% interest rates every single month, and you're stuck in credit card debt forever, and it's hard to get out.
00:30:55.000 Well, this is why you may need to check out LendingClub.com.
00:30:58.000 With LendingClub, Consolidate your debt or pay off your credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
00:31:02.000 Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed rate personal loans.
00:31:07.000 No trips to a bank.
00:31:08.000 No high interest credit cards.
00:31:09.000 Just go to LendingClub.com.
00:31:11.000 Tell them about yourself and how much you want to borrow.
00:31:13.000 Pick the terms that are right for you.
00:31:14.000 If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
00:31:19.000 LendingClub is the number one peer-to-peer lending platform.
00:31:21.000 Over $35 billion in loans issued.
00:31:24.000 It's really easy to get into debt.
00:31:25.000 Instead of fussing and being upset about how you got into debt, instead, solve the problem.
00:31:30.000 Focus on solving the problem.
00:31:31.000 That's where LendingClub comes in.
00:31:32.000 LendingClub.com slash Ben.
00:31:33.000 Check your rate in minutes.
00:31:34.000 Borrow up to 40 grand.
00:31:36.000 That's LendingClub.com slash Ben.
00:31:38.000 LendingClub.com slash Ben.
00:31:40.000 Go check them out right now.
00:31:41.000 All loans made by WebBank, Member FDIC, Equal Housing Lender.
00:31:43.000 Get the problem solved at LendingClub.com slash Ben.
00:31:47.000 Alrighty, we'll get to more of that in just a second, but you're actually going to have to go over to dailywire.com in order to subscribe to see the rest of the show today.
00:31:55.000 Plus, when you subscribe, you get all sorts of goodies.
00:31:57.000 Not only do you get the greatest of all beverage vessels, of course, but you also get special access to our Sunday special, right?
00:32:03.000 You get that on Saturday, and you get all of the material behind the paywall.
00:32:06.000 This week's Sunday special is Neil deGrasse Tyson.
00:32:08.000 It was a blast.
00:32:10.000 As an academic, I care that I learn something every day.
00:32:15.000 If a day goes by and I don't learn something, that's a wasted day.
00:32:19.000 And ideally, you should get your mind blown at least once a week.
00:32:24.000 By just something, whoa, I never knew that.
00:32:26.000 And so, for me, that is how I establish and derive meaning in my life.
00:32:33.000 The conversation really is fascinating.
00:32:34.000 It gets spicy.
00:32:36.000 We go deep.
00:32:36.000 It's really a great conversation.
00:32:38.000 You're going to want to see it, for sure.
00:32:40.000 So go check that out over at DailyWire.
00:32:41.000 Also, note, the DailyWire's long-awaited app is finally here, and it really is first rate.
00:32:46.000 If you're a subscriber, you can access all of our content, including articles, shows, and more, straight from the app, including the Sunday special.
00:32:52.000 All Access subscribers also get our new and exclusive discussion features, where you can interact directly with people like me and our other hosts.
00:33:00.000 Like, why would you want to interact directly with moles?
00:33:01.000 But I guess you can.
00:33:02.000 Writers, other special guests, you can interact directly with us.
00:33:05.000 I mean, all sorts of awesome stuff.
00:33:06.000 We are constantly upgrading that user experience.
00:33:09.000 The app is available on Apple and Android, so download it today.
00:33:11.000 Become a subscriber.
00:33:12.000 Come join the fun.
00:33:13.000 Go subscribe over at dailywire.com.
00:33:15.000 We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
00:33:18.000 We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast.
00:33:30.000 Trump signaled that he was withdrawing some 50 US troops.
00:33:34.000 He said he was withdrawing them from Syria altogether.
00:33:36.000 That's not true.
00:33:37.000 He's apparently just withdrawing them from the area where Turkey wants to invade and kill a bunch of Kurds.
00:33:41.000 And that is...
00:33:43.000 Foolhardy at best.
00:33:44.000 And now you're hearing a lot of arguments today from people, including President Trump.
00:33:48.000 We can't be part of these forever wars, forever wars, forever wars.
00:33:51.000 This wasn't a forever war.
00:33:53.000 It was 50 troops in one place.
00:33:55.000 And here's the thing.
00:33:56.000 There's very, there are very few things that are certain in American foreign policy.
00:34:01.000 One thing that is absolutely certain in American foreign policy, where American boots disappear, things get worse.
00:34:07.000 And when American troops are present, Things are not as bad.
00:34:10.000 When you remove American troops, things get worse.
00:34:12.000 So the question becomes, not how many lives are you going to sacrifice for the Kurds, but how many Kurdish lives are you willing to sacrifice so that our soldiers don't have to stand in this particular place?
00:34:21.000 Because you know how many American soldiers were killed by the Turks over the past several years?
00:34:24.000 The answer is zero.
00:34:25.000 The answer is, you know why?
00:34:26.000 Because the Turks don't want to go to war with us, man.
00:34:28.000 There's this like there's this bizarre notion on the isolationist sort of Pat Buchanan, right?
00:34:33.000 Tucker Carlson sometimes says stuff like this, where he'll say, why should our boys die for X, X being a foreign country?
00:34:39.000 Well, that's not the question.
00:34:40.000 The question is, why shouldn't we stand there so that people don't attack that foreign country?
00:34:44.000 And that's not true in every circumstance, you have to calculate the risk.
00:34:48.000 And you have to calculate the threat.
00:34:49.000 I mean, there are certain places where if you put troops, that is basically an invitation for an attack on American troops.
00:34:54.000 And there are other places where if you put troops, you know, full scale, the Turks are not going to go into this area.
00:34:59.000 Because if they kill an American troop, we are going to then proceed to devastate their economy, for example.
00:35:04.000 So pulling out of that area is actually an invitation to escalation of war.
00:35:08.000 And more than that, when you pull out, like, I'm old enough to remember when Republicans understood that Barack Obama pulling out of Iraq led to the rise of ISIS in the first place.
00:35:15.000 And now, Donald Trump is saying, why don't we just pull out of this area where they're holding like 15,000 to 20,000 ISIS soldiers?
00:35:22.000 We'll pull out of that area.
00:35:23.000 The Kurds who are defending those ISIS prisons are going to be under attack by the Turks.
00:35:27.000 Do you really think that the Turks are going to go in there and stomp out ISIS?
00:35:30.000 They didn't before.
00:35:32.000 The fact is that the Turks kind of have an interest in ISIS being there.
00:35:34.000 It gives them an excuse to go in and kill as many members of the PKK, the sort of communist Kurdish party insurgency, and by the way, non-PKK members, right?
00:35:43.000 Just Kurdish nationalists who don't want to be murdered by ISIS.
00:35:46.000 It gives the Turks an excuse to go into Syria in the first place.
00:35:49.000 It gives Bashar Assad an excuse to go after Syrian dissidents.
00:35:52.000 It gives Iran an excuse to be in the region.
00:35:54.000 This was the problem with ISIS.
00:35:55.000 The reason ISIS was able to fester and become a huge problem is because nobody in the region, except for maybe the Kurds, actually had an interest in killing the members of ISIS, and that's why the United States had to go in.
00:36:06.000 It's not like we pull out and now everybody takes care of their own business.
00:36:09.000 We were in there because people weren't taking care of their own business or because their interests didn't align with ours in this particular part of the world.
00:36:16.000 So President Trump is making what I think is a deeply empty argument when he's like, well, we have to just put, we're ending wars, ending wars.
00:36:23.000 You know who used to say that?
00:36:24.000 I'm old enough to remember.
00:36:25.000 Barack Obama, right?
00:36:26.000 This was his thing.
00:36:27.000 I'm gonna end the war in Afghanistan.
00:36:29.000 I'm gonna end the war in Iraq.
00:36:31.000 Yeah, it turns out that sometimes you ending the war means another war gets started and we have our troops back in there in five seconds, which is exactly what happened in Iraq, right?
00:36:41.000 Obama pulls out the troops, ISIS rises, guess who has to go back in?
00:36:44.000 You know what would have helped?
00:36:46.000 Not pulling out the troops.
00:36:47.000 And when you're talking about a very low level of troop presence, And pretty much zero risk from the Turks toward American troops.
00:36:54.000 Do not follow the BS argument that the Turks were going to go in and start wiping out American troops alongside the Kurds.
00:37:00.000 That is not a thing that was going to happen.
00:37:03.000 Anyway, President Trump tweeted out that he had moved some 50 troops He tweeted out, Okay, well, I thought that you were championing the fact that we defeated ISIS.
00:37:11.000 USA should never have been in Middle East, moved our 50 soldiers out.
00:37:14.000 Turkey must take over captured ISIS fighters that Europe refused to have returned.
00:37:17.000 The stupid endless wars for us are ending.
00:37:19.000 Okay, well, I thought that you were championing the fact that we defeated ISIS.
00:37:23.000 So should we have just left them there?
00:37:25.000 Like really, if the argument is we should never have been there, one of Trump's signal achievements is destroying ISIS, Stan.
00:37:31.000 It's destroying the caliphate.
00:37:33.000 But now he's arguing that we should never have been there in the first place.
00:37:37.000 Okay, well, we weren't in Afghanistan, and then Afghanistan turned over to the Taliban, and then we got 9-11.
00:37:42.000 So it turns out that when we don't fight terrorists overseas, sometimes they come here, and then they kill us.
00:37:48.000 And ISIS was doing that on a fairly regular basis.
00:37:51.000 This is what we call the ultimate strawman argument from President Trump.
00:37:57.000 Lindsey Graham rightly went after Trump over all of this.
00:38:00.000 He says that Trump shamelessly abandoned them, which is strong language from Lindsey Graham, who's been a very, very strong ally of President Trump throughout his presidency.
00:38:09.000 Graham said, pray for our Kurdish allies who have been shamelessly abandoned by the Trump administration.
00:38:13.000 This move ensures the reemergence of ISIS.
00:38:15.000 Fair.
00:38:16.000 Fair.
00:38:17.000 And there's really no rationale for it other than Trump probably got somebody in his ear saying, keep the campaign promise, pull out the troops.
00:38:23.000 Barack Obama did the exact same thing.
00:38:25.000 Turkey, by the way, immediately moved within 24 hours to start killing as many Kurds as humanly possible.
00:38:29.000 According to the Washington Post, Turkey's government launched a long-expected offensive into northeastern Syria on Wednesday, with airstrikes and shelling targeting Syrian Kurdish fighters who have played a central role in aiding the U.S.-led battle against the Islamic State militant group.
00:38:43.000 The operation, with some ground forces crossing the border later, came just days after President Trump's startling announcement that the United States would not stand in Turkey's way, bringing sharp rebukes from even the president's Republican allies.
00:38:54.000 The Turkish foray threatened a further fracture of war-shattered Syria as Ankara, the capital of Turkey, moved to create a safe zone after failing to agree on its size and nature during negotiations with the United States.
00:39:05.000 Turkey's goal is to push the Syrian Kurds, considered enemies by Turkey, from the border region, and apparently civilians are already being killed in this foray.
00:39:12.000 Now, one of the arguments that Trump put out today, he said, well, what have the Kurds ever done for us?
00:39:16.000 He says, well, you know, they've only been defending their own sovereign territory.
00:39:19.000 They weren't there at Normandy, right?
00:39:20.000 They weren't there in other foreign wars.
00:39:22.000 Yeah, well, here's the reality.
00:39:25.000 Most nations have not been.
00:39:26.000 I mean, in World War II, we went to help the Brits.
00:39:28.000 In World War I, we went to help the Brits.
00:39:30.000 When was the last time the Brits had helped us in a war?
00:39:32.000 That wasn't a thing.
00:39:33.000 Okay, the fact is that sometimes the U.S.' 's interests are involved.
00:39:36.000 The U.S.
00:39:37.000 does have an interest in preventing the rise of ISIS again, do we not?
00:39:40.000 The U.S.
00:39:41.000 does have an interest in ensuring that American allies are not abandoned, especially when the cost is minimal.
00:39:46.000 I mean, we're not talking about sacrificing thousands of troops for the freedom of the Kurds.
00:39:51.000 That would be a legit argument about whether we should do that.
00:39:54.000 And I think a strong argument made that we shouldn't.
00:39:56.000 But if you're talking about sacrificing no troops just to have people standing there so the Turks don't go in and murder thousands of people, it seems like a pretty strong argument to leave the troops there.
00:40:10.000 Sergio Gore, who is the, he's one of the press people for Rand Paul, who's an isolationist.
00:40:14.000 He says, it's expected that some in the GOP who took us into these endless quagmires in the Middle East are unhappy about ending wars, but where is the left?
00:40:20.000 The silence is resounding.
00:40:21.000 Silence is not always golden.
00:40:22.000 Donald Trump is doing the right thing and should have bipartisan support.
00:40:25.000 I know Sergio, Sergio's wrong on this.
00:40:26.000 President Trump says, true, should have never been there in the first place.
00:40:29.000 Again, should have never been where in the first place?
00:40:32.000 Like, I don't know what the first place means.
00:40:33.000 Are we talking about like going all the way back to the time of T.E.
00:40:35.000 Lawrence?
00:40:37.000 It turns out the West has been present in the Middle East for quite a long time.
00:40:41.000 And again, we weren't really present in Afghanistan after the late 1980s.
00:40:44.000 It did not redound to our benefit, particularly.
00:40:46.000 So, again, bad policy from President Trump.
00:40:49.000 Meanwhile, the 2020 race is getting weird.
00:40:52.000 Hillary Clinton is popping up her head again.
00:40:55.000 This all happened because Hillary Clinton did an interview with Judy Woodruff in which she explained that if she ran, she would beat President Trump again.
00:41:03.000 Of course, she won the popular vote, but she did not beat President Trump, which is why she's not sitting in the Oval Office right now.
00:41:08.000 So here is Hillary Clinton explaining that, yes, she could be Trump again.
00:41:12.000 By the way, the polls do not show this.
00:41:14.000 It truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me.
00:41:17.000 But this latest tweet is so typical of him.
00:41:23.000 Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my emails.
00:41:28.000 We all know that.
00:41:29.000 So he's either lying or delusional or both.
00:41:31.000 There was no subpoena, as he says in a tweet this morning.
00:41:36.000 So maybe there does need to be a rematch.
00:41:38.000 I mean, obviously, I can beat him again.
00:41:40.000 Okay, and then apparently she tried to claim that she was joking, but would Hillary love to get back in?
00:41:46.000 No doubt.
00:41:47.000 No doubt she would.
00:41:48.000 And the Democratic field is extraordinarily weak.
00:41:50.000 Trump tweeted at Hillary, of course, because he can't resist.
00:41:53.000 He loves the fact that he—as do we all.
00:41:55.000 He said, I think the crooked Hillary Clinton should enter the race and try and steal it away from uber-left Elizabeth Warren.
00:42:01.000 Only one condition.
00:42:02.000 The crooked one must explain all of her high crimes and misdemeanors, including how and why she deleted 30,000 emails after getting C subpoena.
00:42:09.000 C would be congressional subpoena.
00:42:11.000 I do love that he calls her the crooked one.
00:42:13.000 The crooked one.
00:42:14.000 And then Hillary Clinton tweeted back, don't tempt me, do your job.
00:42:18.000 Man, Hillary Clinton jumping back in finally might make this thing fun again.
00:42:23.000 Meanwhile, Joe Biden is out there suggesting that Trump should be impeached.
00:42:27.000 This, of course, because one thing is true.
00:42:30.000 Joe Biden certainly does not want his son, his own conduct in Ukraine, made the center of attention.
00:42:34.000 Again, here is Joe Biden going after Trump.
00:42:37.000 With his words and his actions, President Trump has indicted himself by obstructing justice, refusing to comply with the congressional inquiry.
00:42:49.000 He's already convicted himself.
00:42:51.000 MR.
00:42:53.000 In full view of the world and the American people, Donald Trump has violated his oath of office, betrayed this nation, and committed impeachable acts.
00:43:04.000 To preserve our Constitution, our democracy, our basic integrity, He should be impeached.
00:43:11.000 Okay, he still has not actually explained on what basis.
00:43:14.000 When he says obstruction, not yet.
00:43:17.000 Maybe, maybe that'll happen, but not yet, as we've been discussing all day.
00:43:20.000 By the way, I do love that Joe Biden continues to engage in this myth-making about how there were no scandals in the Obama administration.
00:43:26.000 There's another line that Joe Biden dropped yesterday.
00:43:28.000 He said that one of the things he's proud of is that there were no scandals.
00:43:30.000 Yeah, I was there.
00:43:31.000 There were lots of them, dude.
00:43:32.000 The only thing I'm proudest of is Barack and me.
00:43:36.000 I've never been a scandal.
00:43:39.000 Okay, Peter Schweitzer has a piece in the New York Times today.
00:43:42.000 The Biden campaign is super pissed off about it.
00:43:45.000 The piece is called, What Hunter Biden Did Was Legal, and That's the Problem.
00:43:48.000 And Peter Schweitzer, who has written a bunch of books about corruption inside Washington, is really a terrific researcher.
00:43:55.000 He suggests that the Washington Corrupt Practices Act is necessary to stop political families from self-dealing.
00:44:02.000 He says, as Vice President, Joe Biden served as point person on American policy toward China and Ukraine.
00:44:07.000 In both instances, his son, Hunter, a businessman, landed deals he was apparently unqualified to score, save for one thing, his father.
00:44:13.000 And then he describes the fact that in December 2013, Joe and Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China.
00:44:18.000 Less than two weeks after the trip, Hunter's firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, which he founded with two other businessmen in June 2013, finalized a deal to open a fund, BHR Partners.
00:44:27.000 Thus far, the firm has invested about $2.1 billion, according to its website.
00:44:31.000 In trying to disprove a link between the father's powerful position and the son's surprising success, Hunter Biden's lawyers claim he didn't take an equity stake in BHR Partners until after Biden left office.
00:44:41.000 But he took a board seat when it was founded in December 2013.
00:44:44.000 At the same time, his business partner was a vice chairman.
00:44:47.000 With the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, Joe Biden became point person in Ukraine, too.
00:44:51.000 That same year, Hunter Biden landed a board position with the Ukrainian energy giant Burisma Holdings.
00:44:56.000 Despite having no background in energy or Ukraine, he was paid as much as $50,000 a month, according to financial records.
00:45:03.000 Why would someone with so little experience be able to command such enormous payments?
00:45:07.000 It's pretty obvious his daddy was Joe Biden.
00:45:10.000 So when he says no scandals, what he really means is please don't investigate me.
00:45:14.000 Please, please don't investigate me.
00:45:16.000 And as it turns out, the other Democrats are going to have some problems too.
00:45:19.000 So it came out just a couple of days ago that Elizabeth Warren apparently has been issuing statements that are not consistent about why she was fired in 1971 from a job as a teacher.
00:45:30.000 It turns out she was not fired.
00:45:31.000 She said she was fired because she was pregnant.
00:45:33.000 It turns out not so much.
00:45:34.000 Here's a clip in 2007 in which Warren herself basically acknowledges that she left the job voluntarily.
00:45:39.000 I worked, it was in a public school system, but I worked with the children with disabilities.
00:45:46.000 And I did that for a year.
00:45:50.000 And then that summer, I actually didn't have the education courses, so I was on an emergency certificate, it was called.
00:45:58.000 And I went back to graduate school and took a couple of courses in education and said, I don't think this is going to work out for me.
00:46:07.000 Okay, I don't think this is going to work out for me.
00:46:09.000 Now, she's been claiming simultaneously that she was actually let go because she was pregnant.
00:46:12.000 I am woman, hear me be victimized is her sort of campaign point.
00:46:16.000 Now she's sort of sticking with the story.
00:46:18.000 It doesn't matter that the records show that she resigned.
00:46:21.000 It doesn't matter that they offered unanimously to extend Warren a second year contract with that emergency certificate in place.
00:46:28.000 She's still gonna stick with this story because she has to keep pretending she's a victim.
00:46:31.000 This sort of stuff will come back to bite Elizabeth Warren directly in the ass, right?
00:46:35.000 This is exactly what she did with the Pocahontas nonsense.
00:46:37.000 She's trying to claim a mantle of victimhood because she needs it in the Democratic primaries, but...
00:46:42.000 She's putting herself in for a world of hurt because if she's lying about victimology, she's had a pretty privileged life in the United States.
00:46:47.000 If she's lying about victimology, that is not something that's going to run down to her benefit.
00:46:51.000 She's sticking by her story, however.
00:46:52.000 Here is Elizabeth Warren yesterday saying that, no, no, no, no, no.
00:46:55.000 After all, she was fired because she was pregnant.
00:46:57.000 When I was first hired, I didn't have all of the right courses for a permanent certificate.
00:47:03.000 But I was hired, so it was called an emergency certificate, a one year.
00:47:07.000 But I'd already been renewed.
00:47:09.000 They gave me the job and said, you're hired for the next year.
00:47:12.000 It's yours, kid.
00:47:13.000 And when they discovered I was pregnant, they said, oops, it doesn't matter much what the term is.
00:47:20.000 But let's be clear.
00:47:21.000 I was sick.
00:47:24.000 Six months pregnant.
00:47:26.000 It was my first job.
00:47:27.000 I was 22 years old.
00:47:30.000 And the job that was mine, that I'd been hired for for the next year, was taken away when they knew I was pregnant.
00:47:39.000 Okay, there is no evidence for this.
00:47:41.000 There's no evidence for this, other than her own account.
00:47:43.000 Again, the actual documents, according to the Washington Free Beacon, suggest that she resigned and that her resignation was accepted with regret.
00:47:52.000 So, I'm sure this will not be the end of that particular...
00:47:55.000 Investigation for Elizabeth Warren.
00:47:58.000 Nonetheless, she is the frontrunner and she's not stacking up all that well against President Trump by poll data, so we'll see how all of this works for her as time goes on.
00:48:08.000 Okay, time for a quick thing I like and then a thing that I hate.
00:48:11.000 So, things that I like.
00:48:13.000 Today, let's do another movie that I had to watch on my 13-hour journey to Israel.
00:48:18.000 So, they had a lot of movies that were available for viewing.
00:48:22.000 One of these was the movie Yesterday, and this is a pretty charming movie by Danny Boyle.
00:48:27.000 The basic premise of the movie is that there is a guy who is sort of a pub singer, and he's completely unsuccessful.
00:48:34.000 And then there is basically a major power outage.
00:48:36.000 When the power goes back on all over the world, a bunch of things are missing from everybody's memory, including the Beatles.
00:48:42.000 The Beatles just don't exist.
00:48:43.000 So nobody actually is aware of the Beatles' music, except for this guy.
00:48:47.000 This guy somehow knows the Beatles' music, and so he starts playing their songs and becomes, of course, a rock legend.
00:48:53.000 Here's a little bit of the trailer.
00:48:58.000 This was my last gig.
00:49:00.000 If it hasn't happened by now, it's like a miracle.
00:49:02.000 Miracles happen.
00:49:04.000 What happened?
00:49:14.000 Electricity flicked off all over the world.
00:49:17.000 Cheese!
00:49:21.000 Yesterday... Ellie bought you a present.
00:49:24.000 ...all my troubles seemed so far away.
00:49:29.000 Why did you write that?
00:49:30.000 I didn't write it.
00:49:33.000 Paul McCartney wrote it.
00:49:36.000 The Beatles.
00:49:40.000 Why did you write that?
00:49:42.000 I didn't write it.
00:49:43.000 Paul McCartney wrote it.
00:49:44.000 The Beatles.
00:49:45.000 Who?
00:49:46.000 The movie is quite charming.
00:49:48.000 Now, I will freely admit, I'm not a Beatles fan.
00:49:51.000 I've said before, I think they're the most overrated band in history.
00:49:53.000 They could write a hook.
00:49:54.000 I mean, there's no question they could write a hook, but the movie is cute and does show sort of the power of music and there's a sort of moving moment at the end where you discover that the world is Somehow, in some ways better, because the Beatles music was brought about later in time.
00:50:12.000 It's sort of an interesting flick, and the premise of it is interesting as well.
00:50:17.000 At the very least, it's fun and charming.
00:50:18.000 Go check it out, yesterday, by the director of Slumdog Millionaire.
00:50:22.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
00:50:24.000 Okay, so, over Yom Kippur, there were a bevy of anti-Semitic incidents, as we have become used to.
00:50:32.000 So, in the United States, there was apparently a fire set on the grounds of a synagogue in Brooklyn, which has become sort of rote, frankly.
00:50:44.000 We've seen a bunch of these sorts of attacks in New York.
00:50:47.000 This Brooklyn synagogue was apparently, again, somebody set a fire right there on the front steps during Yom Kippur.
00:50:56.000 According to the police, New York City has seen a massive surge in hate crimes.
00:51:00.000 Many of them have been targeting Jews.
00:51:02.000 Also, Over in Yom Kippur, there was an attack on a shoal in Germany.
00:51:07.000 The attack on the shoal in Germany was by a white supremacist who livestreamed this thing on Amazon.
00:51:12.000 It was hideous, obviously.
00:51:15.000 According to the UK Daily Mail, a gunman in a German synagogue ranted about feminism, immigration, and the Holocaust before he shot two people dead in a live-streamed anti-Semitic rampage on Judaism's holiest day.
00:51:24.000 The shooter killed a man and a woman, threw a grenade into a Jewish cemetery, and left explosives near the synagogue in hell after failing to force his way inside while worshipers prayed on Yom Kippur.
00:51:33.000 The suspect, named by Bild as a 27- I don't name terrorists, and I don't name mass shooters.
00:51:38.000 He was, not to glorify him, he was later arrested after trying to flee in a taxi, according to German media.
00:51:45.000 The German government offered deep sympathy and said it was an anti-Semitic attack, possibly motivated by right-wing extremism.
00:51:51.000 He was wearing military fatigues and a helmet camera, and he shot a woman dead in the street after she confronted him outside the synagogue where about 80 people were praying.
00:51:57.000 Now, I happen to be in Israel right now.
00:52:00.000 And I will just note that many of the same people who claim that Israel is the rationale for anti-Semitism, the reason people hate Jews is because of Israel, because Israel is so cruel and terrible, and because of how they treat the Palestinians and all of this.
00:52:13.000 These are the same people where if Israel didn't exist they would still be shooting Jews, there would just be no place for Jews to go.
00:52:18.000 The fact is that thousands of Jews every year are leaving Europe and good for them because Europe is becoming a hellhole for Jews.
00:52:23.000 Everybody knows this.
00:52:24.000 The Wall Street Journal has reported on it.
00:52:26.000 The New York Times has reported on it.
00:52:27.000 It is not safe for Jews in places like France.
00:52:29.000 It is increasingly not safe for Jews in places like Sweden, places like Germany, places like Great Britain.
00:52:34.000 People are leaving en masse and the place they're going is to the State of Israel because the State of Israel is still a safe haven for the Jewish people.
00:52:40.000 And the same people who are claiming that it's only Israel's presence that is causing anti-Semitism seem to forget that The Jews were killed in the millions when Israel didn't exist, specifically because no country would take in the Jews and because the Jews had no place to go.
00:52:52.000 The British Empire was banning the Jews from entering the nascent state of Israel before it was the state of Israel, from entering British Palestine during the actual Holocaust itself.
00:53:02.000 So for all the talk about why Israel is bad, why it shouldn't exist, why Israel is terrible and horrible and all this, the reason that Israel exists is because of stuff like this.
00:53:10.000 It's because Jews have been the victims of anti-Semitism, will continue to be the victims of anti-Semitism, and so long as people keep maintaining the absolute stupid fiction that if Israel didn't exist, everybody would be nice to the- you know how historically ignorant you'd have to be to actually believe this?
00:53:26.000 That if Israel didn't exist, everyone would be nice to the Jews?
00:53:29.000 Within living memory, three-quarters of the Jewish population on planet Earth was slaughtered, so I'm gonna go no on that.
00:53:34.000 I'm gonna go no- and the state of Israel wasn't there then.
00:53:38.000 No on that.
00:53:39.000 It's absurdity at the highest level.
00:53:41.000 Israel is not the cause of anti-Semitism.
00:53:43.000 Israel is a place where people are fleeing anti-Semitism, and that continues to be the truth, certainly in Europe.
00:53:49.000 Okay, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content, a lot more news that we'll be breaking, I'm sure.
00:53:54.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:53:54.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:54:00.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
00:54:02.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.
00:54:04.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
00:54:06.000 Senior Producer, Jonathan Haig.
00:54:08.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
00:54:10.000 And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
00:54:13.000 Assistant Director, Paweł Wajdowski.
00:54:15.000 Edited by Adam Sajewicz.
00:54:16.000 Audio is Mixed by Mike Koromina.
00:54:18.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
00:54:20.000 Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
00:54:21.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
00:54:23.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
00:54:26.000 Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
00:54:29.000 You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
00:54:35.000 But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.