The Ben Shapiro Show - January 16, 2020


Impeachment Hits The Senate | Ep. 933


Episode Stats

Length

51 minutes

Words per Minute

207.063

Word Count

10,681

Sentence Count

665

Misogynist Sentences

19

Hate Speech Sentences

4


Summary

Nancy Pelosi can t contain her glee as she conveys impeachment to the Senate, the Government Accountability Office dumps all over Trump, and we finally know what Warren and Sanders said to each other. Ben Shapiro's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN's Stand Up For Your Digital Rights. Visit expressvpn.org/standupforyourdigitalrights to get a FREE stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint to help you get a better deal on your first round of your 401(k) or college savings plan. Use the promo code: "ELISSA" to receive $5 and contribute $5 to StandUP FOR YOUR DUTCH when you sign up! To find a list of our sponsors and show-related promo codes, go to gimlet.fm/OurAdvertisers. Our ad-free version of the show is available wherever you get your product. Thanks for listening and share the podcast with your fellow podcasting friends! If you haven t already done so, please take a quick five-star rating and review the podcast on Apple Podcasts! or wherever else you re listening, you'll be helping us spread the word about our amazing podcast! We're listening to the podcast. Thank you so much for being a friend of The Ben Shapiro Show! -Ben Shapiro's Show is a podcast that covers everything from politics, culture, business, entertainment, and culture, and everything else going on in the world. -The Ben Shapiro Podcast. Music: "Good Morning America" by Suneaters, "Goodbye, My Dear Lord" by The Good Lady" by Fountains of Brooklyn, LLC "Outro by Sweeny Hill, by Fergie, Jr. "By Haley Shaw, Jr., "Thank You, Thank You, Good Morning, by Ms. Goodnight, Good Night, Thank Me, Good Day, & Good Morning? & "A Little More? " by Sondie, Please Please Say So Much More, Please Say Me And Good Morning Me And I'm Thank Me And Thank Me So Much So Much, Good Maysie, And So Much Thank Me & I'm Squeellie & So Much And Good Night And Good Effance, Good And Good So Much By So Much ... -- -- "By Mr Or Me & Good And Bless Me And A Little More, Goodbody & Goodbody And Good And Thank You And A Good Night)


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Nancy Pelosi can't contain her glee as she conveys impeachment to the Senate, the Government Accountability Office dumps all over Trump, and we finally know what Warren and Sanders said to each other.
00:00:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:00:09.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:11.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN's Stand up for your digital rights.
00:00:21.000 Visit expressvpn.com.
00:00:23.000 Well, it's almost as though there is some sort of coordination going on as the impeachment charges are conveyed to the Senate.
00:00:29.000 Why, in the last 24 hours, it's as though a bevy of bombshells have dropped on President Trump in the midst of this impeachment inquiry.
00:00:36.000 They didn't drop for weeks, for months, actually.
00:00:38.000 Well, the Democrats were pursuing their impeachment investigation.
00:00:41.000 Democrats didn't even bother calling any of the relevant witnesses.
00:00:44.000 But now we have two big bombshell stories dropping within literally hours of each other and all of that within hours of Nancy Pelosi conveying the impeachment charges to the Senate.
00:00:54.000 I mean, maybe all of that's a coincidence, or maybe it's not so coincidental.
00:00:58.000 In any case, we're going to go through all of it momentarily, but the big news yesterday was that Nancy Pelosi had finally decided to stop holding up impeachment.
00:01:06.000 She was going to convey the impeachment charges to the Senate, and she was gleeful in doing so.
00:01:10.000 We were told this was sober.
00:01:11.000 Remember, it was sober, serious.
00:01:13.000 It was really...
00:01:15.000 Well, I don't think that Nancy Pelosi was too sober and too serious yesterday, aside from handing out golden pens after she signed the impeachment.
00:01:29.000 Which, again, there's some precedent for it, but not a great look.
00:01:34.000 Basically could not contain herself as all of this happened.
00:01:37.000 She signed the articles and she handed them over and you can watch how it looked.
00:01:40.000 Again, didn't look very sober and serious to me, but that is the way that it is.
00:01:44.000 She can't contain her smile.
00:01:50.000 She's so happy.
00:01:53.000 She literally cannot stop smiling as this is happening.
00:01:57.000 But don't worry, it's incredibly sober, it's incredibly serious, and she's writing each letter of her name with a different pen so that she can hand out the pens to all of those who have worked so hard to impeach President Trump.
00:02:09.000 And here she is conveying the impeachment charges to somebody, and everybody is clearly pretty happy about this.
00:02:14.000 Maxine Waters standing right behind Pelosi, and also unable to contain herself.
00:02:18.000 Nancy Pelosi then came out and talked about how sad she is about all this, again, not able to contain her joy.
00:02:25.000 So sad, so tragic for our country that the actions taken by the president to undermine our national security, to violate his oath of office, and to jeopardize the security of our elections, the integrity of our elections, has taken us to this place.
00:02:48.000 She's literally grinning.
00:02:49.000 Big old grins.
00:02:51.000 Guys, it's so sober.
00:02:52.000 It's so serious.
00:02:54.000 If we don't take this seriously, it's because it's our fault.
00:02:56.000 It's not because this whole thing by Nancy Pelosi was basically a blown political opportunity for her.
00:03:01.000 No, it's not that this is political in any way.
00:03:04.000 It's that we didn't take it seriously.
00:03:06.000 So Pelosi, I mean, she was giddy.
00:03:07.000 She was handing out the pens and she was giddy handing out the pens.
00:03:11.000 You can see she is just extraordinarily happy.
00:03:14.000 Everybody's smiling, holding up their pens.
00:03:15.000 Oh my gosh.
00:03:17.000 It's like they just won an Oscar.
00:03:18.000 I mean, really, really exciting stuff.
00:03:21.000 And then she, of course, announced that impeachment was forever.
00:03:24.000 And because impeachment is forever, her work here is done.
00:03:24.000 Impeachment.
00:03:27.000 This is the neener, neener, neener impeachment.
00:03:29.000 Here's Nancy Pelosi yesterday suggesting that Trump's impeachment will last forever, no matter what happens going forward in the Senate.
00:03:35.000 The president is not above the law.
00:03:38.000 He will be held accountable.
00:03:40.000 He has been held accountable.
00:03:41.000 He has been impeached.
00:03:42.000 He's been impeached forever.
00:03:45.000 They can never erase that.
00:03:47.000 Well, it's over.
00:03:48.000 It's over.
00:03:49.000 So, I mean, now that he's been impeached, I guess we can all go home happy, right?
00:03:53.000 I mean, she's happy.
00:03:54.000 We're going to get to the actual bombshells that have been dropping left and right in just one second.
00:03:59.000 First, let us talk about what you do if you have an employee who just isn't really cutting it.
00:04:04.000 Let's say that you have an employee.
00:04:06.000 Let's call him Chad.
00:04:07.000 And let's say that Chad is a really swell dude.
00:04:09.000 I mean, somebody just great, makes sure that your family is safe and protected.
00:04:13.000 Let's say that Chad has a side career that interests him more than his central career.
00:04:16.000 Let's say that he's very into movie making and has appeared in, actually, a Best Picture flick this year.
00:04:21.000 Let's say that Chad, really, he's got a future in a different industry.
00:04:25.000 You just want to help him accelerate that future in a different industry by looking for a replacement for somebody like Jeff.
00:04:30.000 Well, you would be looking to ZipRecruiter.com.
00:04:32.000 ZipRecruiter sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there.
00:04:37.000 With their powerful matching technology, ZipRecruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job.
00:04:44.000 As applications come in, ZipRecruiter analyzes each one and spotlights the top candidates so you never miss a great match.
00:04:49.000 ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day.
00:04:55.000 It's important to get hiring right because you don't want to have to sit on your employees to focus on their job, Chad.
00:05:01.000 Instead, what you want is an employee who's focused like a laser beam on their job.
00:05:04.000 This is where ZipRecruiter comes in right now.
00:05:06.000 My listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
00:05:10.000 Ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:05:12.000 That's right.
00:05:13.000 Ziprecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
00:05:16.000 Ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:05:18.000 Ziprecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
00:05:21.000 Okay, so the Democrats better have some bombshells in waiting here because what they conveyed to the Senate doesn't have bombshells.
00:05:27.000 What they conveyed to the Senate doesn't even have an articulated crime.
00:05:29.000 Chris Wallace over at Fox News, who has been no proponent of the president throughout this process, he says, look, Nancy Pelosi blew this.
00:05:35.000 She could not make Mitch McConnell bow to her will.
00:05:38.000 I want to just talk, if I could briefly, Harris, about Speaker Pelosi's delay, the month's delay in sending over the articles of impeachment, because I think you can see it two ways.
00:05:49.000 If the purpose was to force Mitch McConnell to bow to her will and to agree to call witnesses and to get more documents, then it was a total failure.
00:06:00.000 There's no question about it.
00:06:02.000 Okay, so that is true.
00:06:04.000 Well, now Nancy Pelosi has picked her team and she's picked an extraordinarily political team.
00:06:08.000 She didn't attempt to drive any sort of bipartisan consensus by picking well-respected members of her House contingent.
00:06:13.000 Instead, she decided that she was going to bring forth the most radical members of her contingent.
00:06:19.000 She said that she is going to deploy Adam Schiff, She's also going to deploy Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee, two of Pelosi's quote-unquote top lieutenants, according to the Associated Press.
00:06:28.000 Nadler says President Trump gravely abused the power of his office.
00:06:32.000 He did all of this for his personal, political gain.
00:06:35.000 Ahead of Wednesday's session, Schiff released new records from Lev Parnas, an associate of Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, about the Ukraine strategy, including an exchange with another man about surveilling later-fired Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
00:06:45.000 Schiff said that the new evidence should bring more pressure on McConnell to call Lev Parnas as a witness.
00:06:49.000 There are a couple questions about that.
00:06:51.000 One, Lev Parnas is under indictment.
00:06:53.000 Two, Lev Parnas could have been called by the House, and the House didn't bother to call him.
00:06:56.000 But according to Adam Schiff, you know, there's new evidence likely to emerge And behold, within 24 hours, new evidence is emerging, almost as though something was mildly coordinated here.
00:07:05.000 Here's Adam Schiff.
00:07:07.000 There's a tremendous volume of documents and materials that Mr. Parnas has turned over to us.
00:07:13.000 We are still going through them all because there's such a great volume.
00:07:16.000 Many of them are in Russian and they had to be translated.
00:07:20.000 And fortunately, we have members of our staff that can help do that.
00:07:25.000 But there is still a great many other documents to go through.
00:07:30.000 And it's not just what we got from Lev Parnas.
00:07:33.000 And then Adam Schiff then talks about how there will be more Lev Parnas documents that are forthcoming in the very near future.
00:07:39.000 He says we're still going through the Parnas documents.
00:07:41.000 So Schiff obviously is treating the House impeachment effort as though it is not over, which is weird since they just conveyed the impeachment charges to the Senate.
00:07:50.000 OK, this brings us to today's bombshells.
00:07:52.000 We have a couple of bombshells that we have to go through today.
00:07:54.000 And let's be frank about this.
00:07:55.000 None of this is fantastic for President Trump.
00:07:56.000 I mean, President Trump was His behavior with regard to Ukraine was bad.
00:08:00.000 Okay, the reason that it was bad was not because he was interested in Burisma or Hunter Biden or Joe Biden or any of the rest of it.
00:08:07.000 The reason that it was bad is because he has law enforcement agencies at his disposal and deploying Rudy Giuliani, Who has a tenuous grasp on reality to say the least to Ukraine in order to dig up dirt that would prove that 2016 it was Ukrainian election hacking that was responsible rather than Russian election hacking.
00:08:25.000 President Trump's tendency to buy into his own conspiracy theories with regard to CrowdStrike hiding Hillary Clinton's server in Ukraine.
00:08:31.000 All of that was sheer nonsense and to hold up Ukrainian military aid in order to go after all that information was bad policy.
00:08:38.000 And it was bad policy from the start.
00:08:40.000 Now, you can make the argument that President Trump was doing that, not with an eye toward 2020, not with an eye toward corrupting the 2020...
00:08:46.000 Presidential race it was with an eye toward 2016 and uncovering what he thought to be corruption and so is his version his ill-founded version of the Mueller report that basically the Mueller report was all about Russian interference in 2016 and Trump's response was 2016 was not about Russia it was about Ukraine and I'm deploying my friend Rudy Giuliani and his friends to go and investigate this whole thing inside Ukraine and that is going to ask questions about Ukrainian corruption and Ukrainian coordination with the Obama administration and all the rest of this.
00:09:15.000 And I've been suggesting for a while that I think that that situation is much more plausible than he did it in order to quote unquote get Joe Biden in 2020.
00:09:22.000 And notice how the charges here have morphed, right?
00:09:24.000 The charges here have morphed from President Trump was going after Joe Biden to have the Ukrainian government basically manipulate information to take Biden out of the 2020 race or hurt Joe Biden.
00:09:34.000 And then they moved to President Trump doesn't have the authority to do any of these things that he actually has the authority to do, like fire Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.
00:09:41.000 Well, this brings us to the big bombshell story of the day.
00:09:44.000 We'll get to the Lev Parnas stuff in just a second, which is a little more complicated.
00:09:48.000 This brings us to the big bombshell story of the day.
00:09:50.000 That big bombshell story of the day is that the Government Accountability Office has now released an eight-page letter suggesting that the Trump administration violated what is called the Impoundment Control Act.
00:09:59.000 Which was passed in 1974 when the administration did not convey to Congress the reason for holding up Ukrainian military aid.
00:10:07.000 And there had been some signals that this was going to become an issue for the Trump administration as soon as it was announced that Trump had held up the aid without really giving an excuse to Congress.
00:10:15.000 Now, the Empowerment Control Act Kind of an obscure provision of federal law.
00:10:19.000 It was passed in 1974 in response to a Supreme Court decision declaring that President Nixon could not simply withhold budget requirements that had been passed by Congress.
00:10:28.000 So Congress had passed certain budgetary items, sent them over to the President of the United States.
00:10:32.000 The President of the United States, Nixon, had refused to then spend the money, and Congress sued and went to the Supreme Court.
00:10:37.000 The Supreme Court said, no, Nixon does have to spend the money that has been allocated to the executive branch.
00:10:42.000 The executive branch does not, in fact, have a quote-unquote line item veto.
00:10:45.000 Right, which allow the executive branch to basically cut down on spending by refusing to spend money already allocated by the legislative branch.
00:10:51.000 The legislative branch has the power of the purse.
00:10:53.000 The executive branch doesn't get to pick and choose which parts of the allocations it wants to spend.
00:10:59.000 And the Impoundment Control Act, which may or may not be constitutional, that was passed in the direct aftermath of that Supreme Court case.
00:11:06.000 Now, this has always been a sort of controversial provision of federal law.
00:11:09.000 Daniel Henninger, writing back in 2011 over at the Wall Street Journal, he points out, here is a list of U.S.
00:11:14.000 presidents and public figures who have used or supported the impoundment power.
00:11:17.000 Impoundment power would be Congress allocates money for something, the president says, nope, not spending it.
00:11:23.000 Here is a list of people who have supported the impoundment power.
00:11:25.000 Abe Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton, the Bushes, John McCain, John Kerry, Al Gore, Pat Buchanan, Jeb Hedzerling, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, Judd Gregg, Paul Ryan, and Barack Obama.
00:11:36.000 Daniel Henninger writes, in the early 1970s, Richard Nixon tried aggressively to impound spending, touching off a war with Congress's prerogatives.
00:11:43.000 Then Watergate broke.
00:11:44.000 In a fury, one of the most liberal Congresses passed the Budget Control Act of 1974.
00:11:47.000 It transferred most spending control to Congress, which one commentator at the time called a congressional government and chaos.
00:11:54.000 And it's unclear exactly how to divide this authority, and the Supreme Court in coin flip decisions has tended to side with Congress.
00:12:03.000 Many sort of political watchers over the past few years have suggested, including Barack Obama, that having the president have a sort of line-item veto power to be able to not spend that sort of money would be a good thing.
00:12:13.000 But suffice it to say, the Impoundment Control Act is an operative act of law, right?
00:12:18.000 That is something that exists.
00:12:19.000 So, with that said, there are specific provisions to the Impoundment Control Act.
00:12:22.000 The Impoundment Control Act dictates the president has to spend money that is allocated to the executive branch within a certain period of time.
00:12:29.000 If it is not allocated within a certain period of time, then it will Then the executive branch has to make a report to the legislative branch.
00:12:37.000 And if the legislative branch does not make a report, the executive branch does not make a report to the legislative branch, and this is the key, then the legislative branch is supposed to launch its own inquiry into why the executive branch is not doing that and or file lawsuits.
00:12:50.000 So there is no impeachable Offense in violating the Impoundment Control Act in the sense that there is an actual statutory remedy for this, right?
00:13:00.000 In the statute it says what is supposed to happen if the president violates the Budget Control Act, if he violates the Impoundment Act.
00:13:07.000 And the answer is not impeachment.
00:13:09.000 The answer Right there is that the Comptroller General is supposed to file a civil lawsuit against the President of the United States against the Executive Branch, which did not happen here.
00:13:18.000 At no point does the Comptroller General of the United States, who by the way is a Barack Obama appointee with a 15-year term, at no point was that lawsuit actually filed.
00:13:25.000 Okay, so this is more a matter of sort of imagery and imagistics than it is a matter of, okay, now he's committed an impeachable offense through the Impoundment Act.
00:13:35.000 In fact, there have been allegations that Trump was violating the Impoundment Control Act with regard to Puerto Rico because he wasn't freeing up the money to go to Puerto Rico fast enough.
00:13:42.000 So this is a pretty regular feature of American government that the executive branch is accused of not doing Congress's will and spending money that has already been allocated by Congress.
00:13:49.000 Okay, so now the Office of Management and Budget said, no, we didn't violate the Impoundment Act.
00:13:53.000 And you have the General Accounting Office, the Government Accountability Office rather, suggesting that the act has indeed been violated.
00:14:01.000 So here is what the GAO found today.
00:14:04.000 They say, in the summer of 2019, OMB withheld from obligation approximately $214 million appropriated to the Department of Defense for security assistance to Ukraine.
00:14:12.000 As explained below, we conclude that OMB withheld the funds from obligation for an unauthorized reason in violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
00:14:19.000 We also question actions regarding funds appropriated to the Department of State for security assistance to Ukraine.
00:14:25.000 In accordance with our regular practice, we contacted OMB, the Executive Office of the President, and DOD to seek factual information and their legal views on the matter.
00:14:33.000 OMB provided a written response letter and certain apportionment schedules for security assistance funding for Ukraine.
00:14:38.000 The Executive Office of the President responded to our request by referring to the letter we had received from OMB and providing that the White House did not plan to send a separate response.
00:14:46.000 Thus far, the DOD has not provided a response or a timeline for when we will receive one.
00:14:51.000 On October 30th, 2019, Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Delaware, asked the Comptroller General about this matter during a hearing before the Senate Committee on the Budget.
00:15:00.000 And then they get into the background.
00:15:01.000 We'll get into that in just one second.
00:15:03.000 First, let's talk about a brand new way that bad people have of stealing your money.
00:15:08.000 People online, criminals, are incredibly clever.
00:15:10.000 They've found ways to steal credit card numbers.
00:15:12.000 They've found ways to steal your data.
00:15:13.000 Well, here's a brand new way that they're going about stealing your data, and they could actually bankrupt you.
00:15:18.000 This is called Home title theft.
00:15:20.000 I mean, what they are doing right now is they actually go online, they find your home title, they find the documents that you filed for your home title, and then they hijack those documents, they alter the documents, and then they run up tabs on the basis of your home equity.
00:15:36.000 This is a thing that is happening.
00:15:38.000 Deborah says criminal found the title to our home online and filed forged documents claiming they owned it.
00:15:43.000 She says I was evicted from my own home and 85 grand in equities stolen.
00:15:47.000 Nobody believes you can get your home stolen this easily, but as all these records become digitized, as it's easier and easier for hackers to access that data, And then to go after your home title and then use that.
00:15:56.000 I mean, it's probably the biggest asset you own in all likelihood.
00:15:59.000 And then use that to rack up all sorts of charges to take out loans, to steal your home title.
00:16:03.000 This is dangerous stuff.
00:16:04.000 Well, good news.
00:16:05.000 There's a way for you to protect against all of this.
00:16:07.000 Go to hometitlelock.com right now.
00:16:09.000 That's hometitlelock.com right now.
00:16:12.000 Register your address to see if your home's title has been tampered with.
00:16:15.000 If so, you should call the police.
00:16:16.000 If not, you should register your home for 60 risk-free days of protection at hometitlelock.com.
00:16:22.000 Again, that's hometitlelock.com.
00:16:24.000 When money can solve your peace of mind problems, you should totally do it.
00:16:26.000 HomeTitleLock.com.
00:16:28.000 This is a thing that Forbes reported on.
00:16:30.000 It's a thing that's increasingly been happening.
00:16:32.000 And again, as criminals realize that this is an actual way of gaining money, they're going to be increasingly doing it.
00:16:37.000 Protect your home title today at HomeTitleLock.com.
00:16:40.000 Again, that's HomeTitleLock.com.
00:16:43.000 Okay, back to this Government Accountability Office report suggesting that the President violated the Impoundment Control Act.
00:16:49.000 For fiscal year 2019, Congress appropriated $250 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
00:16:55.000 The funds were available to provide assistance including training, equipment, lethal assistance, logistics support, supplies and services, sustainment and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.
00:17:05.000 DOD was required to notify Congress 15 days in advance of any obligation of the USAI funds.
00:17:11.000 In order to obligate more than 50% of the amount appropriated, DOD was also required to certify to Congress that Ukraine had taken substantial actions on defense institutional reforms.
00:17:20.000 In its certification, DOD did include descriptions of its planned expenditures totaling $125 million.
00:17:25.000 On July 25, 2015, OMB issued the first of nine apportionment schedules with footnotes regarding USAI funds from obligation.
00:17:36.000 The footnote said, amounts reapportioned but not yet obligated as of the date of this reapportionment for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative are not available for obligation until August 5, 2019, to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.
00:17:50.000 Based on OMB's communication with DoD, OMB understands from the department that this brief pause in obligations will not preclude DoD's timely execution On both August 6th and 15th, 2019, OMB approved additional apportionment actions to extend this pause in obligations with footnotes that, except for the dates, were identical to the July 25th, 2019 apportionment actions.
00:18:15.000 They kept basically saying that we are investigating, we're trying to figure out the best way to spend the money.
00:18:20.000 OMB approved additional apportionment actions on August 20th, 27th, and 31st, and on September 5th, 6th, and 10th.
00:18:26.000 The footnotes from these additional apportionment actions were, except for the dates, otherwise identical to one another.
00:18:31.000 They nevertheless differed from those of July 25th and August 6th and 15th, 2019, in that they omitted the second sentence that appeared in the earlier apportionment actions regarding OMB's understanding that the pause in obligation would not preclude timely obligation.
00:18:44.000 So now, they're saying, well, maybe it will preclude timely obligation.
00:18:47.000 Okay, well, as we'll see under the Act, it's the timely obligation aspect of here that makes the situation ripe for violation of the Impoundment Control Act, because there is, in fact, a statutory period where they can consider whether to release the funds.
00:18:58.000 If you don't release the funds in time, then you're supposed to send a notice to Congress.
00:19:02.000 The apportionment schedules issued on August 27th and 31st, 2019, and on September 5th, 6th, 10th, 2019, were identical except for the dates.
00:19:11.000 According to OMB, approximately $214 million of the USAI appropriation was withheld as a result of these footnotes.
00:19:17.000 OMB did not transmit a special message proposing to defer or rescind the funds.
00:19:21.000 So, the question is whether OMB had the authority to withhold or defer the funds.
00:19:26.000 According to the GAO, the Constitution specifically vests Congress with the power of the purse, providing that, quote, no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of the appropriations made by law.
00:19:35.000 The Constitution also vests all legislative powers in Congress and sets forth the procedures of bicameralism and presentiments, and now they're going through the law, suggesting that the President has to faithfully execute the law by spending the money allocated to him by Congress.
00:19:47.000 And Appropriations Act is a law like any other.
00:19:49.000 Therefore, unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise, the President must take care to ensure that appropriations are prudently obligated during their period of availability.
00:19:57.000 The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.
00:20:02.000 Instead, Congress has vested the President with strictly circumscribed authority to impound or withhold budget authority only in limited circumstances expressly provided in the Impoundment Control Act.
00:20:12.000 And here's where they get into the actual law that they say Trump violated.
00:20:15.000 The ICA separates impoundments into two exclusive categories, deferrals and rescissions.
00:20:19.000 The president may temporarily withhold funds from obligation, but not beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the president transmits the special message by proposing a deferral.
00:20:27.000 Okay, so this is important.
00:20:28.000 The president did not actually propose a rescission, a rescission, right?
00:20:31.000 He didn't rescind the funds.
00:20:33.000 He deferred the funds.
00:20:34.000 He actually signed over the funds in September after the whistleblower story was filed.
00:20:39.000 At that point, you're still in the same fiscal year, so this does not count as a rescission.
00:20:42.000 It counts as a deferral.
00:20:43.000 The president may also seek the permanent cancellation of funds for fiscal policy or other reasons, including the termination of programs for which Congress has provided budget authority by proposing a rescission, which he didn't.
00:20:55.000 In either case, the ICA requires that the President transmit a special message to Congress that includes the amount of budget authority proposed for deferral or rescission and the reason for the proposal.
00:21:03.000 These special messages must provide detailed and specific reasoning to justify the withholding as set out in the ICA.
00:21:08.000 So Democrats are going to claim that it's a cover-up because President Trump did not actually convey a special message to Congress suggesting why the funds were being withheld.
00:21:16.000 There's no assertion or other indication here that OMB intended to propose such a rescission.
00:21:19.000 Not only did OMB not submit a special message with such a proposal, the footnotes in the apportionment schedules, by their very terms, established dates for the release of the amounts withheld.
00:21:27.000 The only other authority, then, would have been a deferral.
00:21:30.000 The ICA authorizes the deferral of budget authority in a limited range of circumstances, to provide for contingencies, to achieve savings made possible, or through changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations, or as specifically provided by law.
00:21:42.000 No officer or employee of the U.S.
00:21:44.000 may defer budget authority for any other purpose.
00:21:46.000 Here, OMB did not identify any contingencies as recognized by the ICA, savings or efficiencies that would result from a withholding, or any law specifically authorizing the withholding.
00:21:55.000 Instead, the footnote in the apportionment schedules described the withholding as necessary, quote, to determine the best use of such funds.
00:22:02.000 In its response to us, OMB described the withholding as necessary to ensure that the funds were, quote, not spent in a manner that could conflict with the president's foreign policy.
00:22:09.000 The ICA does not permit deferrals for policy reasons.
00:22:12.000 OMB's justification for withholding falls squarely within the scope of an impermissible policy deferral.
00:22:17.000 Thus, the deferral of USAI funds was improper under the ICA.
00:22:22.000 All of that is perfectly fair, by the way.
00:22:24.000 When the GAO says that the President of the United States does not have the power to simply, for policy reasons, withhold the funding under the ICA, that's correct.
00:22:32.000 That's correct.
00:22:33.000 So the question becomes, what is then the solution for when the President does not comply with his obligation here?
00:22:39.000 Really, this is just a fight between the branches.
00:22:41.000 It's a normal fight between the legislative branch and the executive branch.
00:22:44.000 And the GAO says, faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law.
00:22:51.000 In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA.
00:22:56.000 But Trump released the funding.
00:22:58.000 So the big complaint here is that Trump did not inform Congress as to why he was withholding the funding.
00:23:03.000 He didn't make it public.
00:23:05.000 And then when he was called on it, he released the funding.
00:23:08.000 Well, that's not a good look.
00:23:09.000 I've been saying that since the very beginning.
00:23:12.000 It may be a violation of the Impoundment Control Act, frankly.
00:23:14.000 There's only one problem.
00:23:15.000 Violation of the Impoundment Control Act has a very specific solution in the Impoundment Control Act, and it is not impeachment.
00:23:21.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:23:22.000 So...
00:23:23.000 The GAO concludes, OMB's assertions have no basis in law because OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay.
00:23:34.000 It argues that a policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation, so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic.
00:23:42.000 OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered pragmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives.
00:23:53.000 OMB's assertions, say the GAO, have no basis in law.
00:23:57.000 We recognize that even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment.
00:24:07.000 However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated.
00:24:16.000 This presumes, of course, the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate.
00:24:19.000 So, now they're making the argument that it's true, Trump didn't withhold the funds, right, the funds went forward, but the reason that he didn't withhold the funds was not sufficiently given to Congress, and not only that, you can't call it a programmatic delay, because a programmatic delay is we meant to give the funding, and then exigent circumstances barred us from giving the funding.
00:24:36.000 The GAO says, At the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DoD had already produced a plan for expending the funds.
00:24:44.000 DoD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23rd, 2019.
00:24:50.000 Therefore, programmatic spending was already underway, so we can't accept OMB's assertion that its actions are programmatic.
00:24:56.000 We conclude that OMB violated the ICA when it withheld USAI funds for policy reasons.
00:25:02.000 Hey now, there are a couple of problems with this whole thing.
00:25:07.000 Okay, so, Josh Blackman Is a law professor over at the Cato Institute and he has a threat on this says the GAO found that OMB violated the Impoundment Act and suggested that the President violated his duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
00:25:25.000 To be precise, President did not and could not personally violate the Impoundment Act because the law does not control his personal actions.
00:25:31.000 His liability, if it exists at all, derives from his failure to supervise that his subordinates faithfully executed the law.
00:25:37.000 Seth Tillman and I explained this dichotomy.
00:25:40.000 In the impeachment context, Trump's liability could result from knowingly failing to take care that his subordinates faithfully executed the law.
00:25:47.000 Most of the criticisms we received assumed the president personally violated the ICA.
00:25:51.000 OMB violated the statute, not the president.
00:25:53.000 Whether the president violated his duty of faithful execution is a different question that the OMB does not decide, but only hints at.
00:25:59.000 Beyond that, even a violation of law, even a violation of law in this particular case, Does not necessarily mean that the proper solution is impeachment.
00:26:09.000 The reason I say that the reason I say that is because the law itself.
00:26:15.000 The law itself has an answer to this.
00:26:18.000 U.S.
00:26:18.000 Code 2, Section 687, Chapter 2, Section 687, suits by Comptroller General, if under this chapter, budget authority is required to be made available for obligation, and such budget authority is not made available for obligation, the Comptroller General is hereby expressly empowered, through attorneys of his own selection, to bring a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, to require such budget authority to be made available for obligation.
00:26:43.000 And such court is hereby expressly empowered to enter in such civil action against any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States, any decree, judgment, or order which may be necessary or appropriate to make such budget authority available for obligation.
00:26:56.000 No civil action shall be brought by the Comptroller General under this section until the expiration of 25 calendar days of continuous session of Congress following the date on which an explanatory statement by the Comptroller General of the circumstances giving rise to the action contemplated has been filed with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate.
00:27:12.000 In other words, The Comptroller General is supposed to file a lawsuit against the President in the D.C.
00:27:16.000 Circuit Court of Appeals.
00:27:17.000 It's not supposed to be impeachable.
00:27:19.000 Now again, this has been considered for quite a while as a possibility that there is going to be an attempt to use the ICA to smack Trump.
00:27:26.000 Nathaniel Cogley wrote a piece over at the Washington Examiner.
00:27:29.000 Cogley is an assistant professor of poli-sci at Tarleton State University in Texas.
00:27:33.000 And he went through all of this.
00:27:36.000 He points out a few things.
00:27:38.000 He says Democrats have long sought whatever excuse was available to impeach, but the law prescribes a much less drastic remedy for when a president withholds appropriated funds.
00:27:45.000 First, the committee's report falsely characterizes what the law says about the temporary withholding or deferral of funds.
00:27:52.000 The original report by the impeachment committee, the intelligence committee, says, quote, any amount of budgetary authority proposed to be deferred or rescinded must be made available for obligation unless Congress completes action on a bill rescinding all or part of the amount proposed for rescission.
00:28:05.000 But this is false.
00:28:06.000 Although permanently rescinded funds must be made available in this manner, the language in Section 684 contains no such requirement for funds that are temporarily withheld or deferred, as in the case of the aid to Ukraine.
00:28:18.000 The difference between a rescission and an impoundment resolution is actually pretty significant here.
00:28:23.000 The former must be taken up by Congress before the end of the first period of 45 calendar days, but the latter, an impoundment resolution, has no timeline.
00:28:30.000 Also, the report implies that Trump failed to send a special message, and that is an obstructive act, but if you read the law, it's not.
00:28:37.000 Because if the Comptroller General finds that the President has failed to transmit a special message with respect to such reserve or deferral, the Comptroller General makes a report, and such report shall be considered a special message transmitted under Section 683 or 684.
00:28:48.000 In other words, if the President does not transmit a special message explaining why the thing has been deferred, the Comptroller General is supposed to make a report, and that is considered the presidential message.
00:28:58.000 So, the actual remedy for all of this is not impeachment.
00:29:02.000 The actual remedies that now does that mean that Trump did the right thing here?
00:29:04.000 No.
00:29:05.000 Does this mean that the president did suspicious stuff?
00:29:08.000 Absolutely.
00:29:09.000 But does that mean that it's impeachable under the terms of the Impoundment Control Act?
00:29:13.000 It's not impeachable like at all, right?
00:29:15.000 It's not.
00:29:17.000 There's an actual solution under the Impoundment Control Act.
00:29:19.000 And again, as I will remind everyone, the power of impoundment has been a controversial power that pretty much every president has wanted, including Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.
00:29:28.000 So this is more of a fight between the executive and the legislative branch as far as what sort of powers the executive branch should have than President Trump did something that is impeachable.
00:29:37.000 Even by the actual solution of the ICA, it's not impeachable.
00:29:41.000 Okay, in just a second, we're going to get to the other big bombshell.
00:29:43.000 Of the day.
00:29:44.000 And this, of course, is the testimony of Lev Parnas, who's not actually testified, but he was on Rachel Maddow last night, and everybody's going crazy about it.
00:29:50.000 So we're going to talk about what exactly Lev Parnas had to say.
00:29:53.000 Is he trustworthy?
00:29:54.000 Is he a source you should take seriously?
00:29:56.000 Or is he sort of like a Michael Cohen character and you kind of take seriously what he's saying?
00:30:00.000 Maybe it's true, but there are a bunch of missing connected dots here.
00:30:03.000 We'll get into that in just one second.
00:30:04.000 First.
00:30:05.000 If you're not already a Daily Wire member, you are truly missing out.
00:30:08.000 Right now, using promo code Shapiro, you'll get 10% off any plan that you choose.
00:30:12.000 Head over to dailywire.com slash subscribe, pick the plan that is right for you.
00:30:15.000 For as little as 10 bucks a month, members get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show, select bonus content, access to the mailbag, and more.
00:30:24.000 Plus, our new all-access tier gets you into exclusive live online Q&A discussions with me, Andrew Klavan, Matt Walsh, Michael Moles, plus Daily Wire writers and special guests.
00:30:33.000 And don't forget, you'll also get the greatest of all beverage vessels, the leftist Sears tumbler.
00:30:37.000 Yes, you get all of that plus 10% off when you use promo code Shapiro.
00:30:41.000 So stop depriving yourself.
00:30:43.000 Come and join the fun.
00:30:43.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
00:30:46.000 Now, quick final note on that GAO report.
00:30:54.000 There are some people who are going to point out today, and I think fairly, that Joe Biden did in fact threaten Ukrainian aid.
00:31:00.000 And so did senators, right?
00:31:01.000 But senators can.
00:31:01.000 They're in the legislative branch.
00:31:02.000 But Joe Biden is not.
00:31:03.000 He's in the executive branch.
00:31:04.000 When he was vice president, he bragged about threatening Ukraine's aid.
00:31:07.000 Now, presumably he could do that if he went to Congress and then demanded some sort of Recision.
00:31:14.000 He went to Congress and he notified them of his authority.
00:31:16.000 But let's say that Joe Biden had not done that.
00:31:18.000 Let's say that he just threatened Ukraine and said, listen, they're corrupt.
00:31:20.000 I'm withholding this.
00:31:21.000 I forgot to send the statement or I didn't feel like sending the statement.
00:31:24.000 Would that have been impeachable?
00:31:25.000 Apparently, according to the Democrats, the answer is yes.
00:31:27.000 I think that that is a stretch considering the terms of the Impoundment Control Act itself.
00:31:32.000 OK, now, On to the Lev Parnas of it all.
00:31:34.000 So, Lev Parnas is an associate of Rudy Giuliani.
00:31:37.000 It was idiotic, full stop, idiotic for President Trump to employ Rudy Giuliani as his man in Ukraine.
00:31:43.000 It was fully moronic.
00:31:45.000 I've been saying this since the very beginning.
00:31:47.000 The President has an unfortunate tendency to to believe things that confirm his priors.
00:31:53.000 He never has wanted to believe that the Russians were involved in the 2016 election.
00:31:57.000 Now, I agree with the president that the Russians were not the reason that Hillary Clinton lost.
00:32:01.000 Hillary Clinton is the reason that Hillary Clinton lost.
00:32:04.000 But Trump's obsession with this idea that it wasn't the Russians, it was actually the Ukrainians, because this apparently gets him off the hook in some way, although I'm not sure what hook he thinks he has to get off of.
00:32:13.000 His belief that it was the Ukrainians who were the real problem led him to employ Rudy Giuliani as his man in Ukraine, and Rudy Giuliani then relied on a bunch of nefarious characters, including Lev Parnas, who were people doing business in Ukraine who had a series of cross-cutting interests.
00:32:27.000 So Lev Parnas was this guy doing business in Ukraine with a bunch of Ukrainian oligarchs who didn't like the ambassador, Maria Ivanovich.
00:32:34.000 Parnas had been seeking Yovanovitch's ouster since 2018.
00:32:36.000 Yovanovitch had apparently been blocking things that Parnas wanted, so Parnas had his own sort of agenda in Ukraine.
00:32:44.000 And then, when Rudy started talking to him, suddenly Parnas, being a somewhat canny political operator, he then starts feeding Giuliani what he thinks he wants, which is You know what happened here?
00:32:53.000 Yovanovitch is blocking investigations into Biden and Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election.
00:32:58.000 You know what you should do?
00:32:59.000 You should talk to Viktor Shokin and all these old prosecutors who are looking into Burisma and Biden.
00:33:02.000 So Parnas becomes the funnel of information to Giuliani, who's funneling that information to Trump.
00:33:07.000 So the accusation today by members of the left is that Lev Parnas was getting orders from Trump.
00:33:12.000 That he was getting orders from Trump to do illegal things like presumably shadow Marie Yovanovitch.
00:33:17.000 The Ukrainian government has now opened an investigation into people shadowing Marie Yovanovitch.
00:33:22.000 And Parnas is trying to blame this on Trump.
00:33:23.000 Parnas is going out on national TV and he's saying, it wasn't me.
00:33:25.000 I wasn't initiating any of this.
00:33:27.000 It was just President Trump.
00:33:28.000 President Trump wanted things and I did it.
00:33:29.000 I was just a loyal American.
00:33:31.000 I was just a lackey of the president.
00:33:33.000 That does not Honestly, it doesn't hold true to the record of the fact that Lev Parnas is under indictment, sitting under indictment right now.
00:33:40.000 So here's Lev Parnas suggesting that the President is responsible for everything he did, shifting responsibility from himself to President Trump.
00:33:46.000 Even though, by the way, again, Parnas has never had a conversation with President Trump about any of this, so far as we are aware, like at all.
00:33:52.000 He was talking to Rudy.
00:33:53.000 So the best we have is Parnas talking about what he talked about with Rudy.
00:33:56.000 Rudy has never been called before a committee.
00:33:58.000 He was not called in front of the House.
00:34:01.000 So we don't know what Rudy was being told by Trump.
00:34:03.000 So again, we sort of have the Gordon Sondland problem from early on in the impeachment process.
00:34:07.000 You had the EU ambassador saying, here's what I was telling people.
00:34:10.000 I only talked to Trump like once.
00:34:12.000 And, uh, you know, it was kind of unclear what he wanted and all of this.
00:34:15.000 Well, Lev Parnas is again, two steps removed from Trump himself here.
00:34:20.000 And yet he is testifying as to President Trump's intentions and, of course, shifting responsibility from himself.
00:34:25.000 And again, he'd been engaged in nefarious actions in Ukraine for quite a while, including going after Yovanovitch before Trump was even concerned about it, before Trump knew who Yovanovitch was, frankly.
00:34:33.000 He's now trying to shift responsibility.
00:34:35.000 And Rachel Maddow is there for it, man.
00:34:37.000 She is there for it.
00:34:38.000 What do you think is the main inaccuracy or the main lie that's being told that you feel like you can correct?
00:34:45.000 That the president didn't know what was going on.
00:34:49.000 President Trump knew exactly what was going on.
00:34:52.000 He was aware of all of my movements.
00:34:54.000 I wouldn't do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president.
00:34:59.000 Okay, so again, he's trying to shift all responsibility onto Giuliani and the president as opposed to what appears to be more accurate, which is that Parnas was doing his own stuff in Ukraine and then he was using Giuliani in order to try and give him authority and color of authority to do things, right?
00:35:13.000 Parnas wanted to meet with people in Ukraine.
00:35:14.000 How do you do that if nobody wants to Well, you find the president's man, you get the president's man's request that you meet with those people in Ukraine and suddenly you have an awful lot more power.
00:35:22.000 I know people who are like this in politics.
00:35:24.000 There are many of them.
00:35:25.000 So Parnas then starts testifying as to his impression of the Ukrainian aid issue.
00:35:31.000 And again, you got to take everything that Parnas says with a grain of salt, even the notes that he submitted where he says, get Biden to commit, get Ukraine to commit, Zelensky to commit to announcing an investigation of Biden.
00:35:43.000 Is that what Trump told him?
00:35:45.000 Is that what Giuliani told him?
00:35:46.000 Was that Parnas's impression of that's all that it would take in order to satisfy Trump?
00:35:50.000 We don't know the answer to this because again, we still have not heard testimony from anyone except for Gordon Sondland who had a direct conversation with Trump.
00:35:56.000 So once again, we are getting third-hand reporting by a guy with absolutely obvious conflicting interests in Lev Parnas.
00:36:03.000 Mayor Giuliani told me, after meeting the president at the White House, he called me.
00:36:08.000 The message was, it wasn't just military aid, it was all aid.
00:36:12.000 Basically, the relationships would be sour, that we would stop giving him any kind of aid.
00:36:18.000 Unless?
00:36:18.000 Unless there was an announcement made.
00:36:21.000 Well, several things.
00:36:21.000 There were several demands at that point.
00:36:24.000 A, the most important one was the announcement of the Biden investigation.
00:36:28.000 Okay, so again, he's got an agenda here, and we're going to have to take all of this with a grain of salt, and the biggest grain of salt of all is the House never called this guy, right?
00:36:35.000 He was fully available to be called.
00:36:37.000 He obviously wants to spill.
00:36:39.000 He has nothing to hide at this point.
00:36:40.000 He's been conveying documents to the House Democrats.
00:36:42.000 Why didn't they call him?
00:36:43.000 That's a real question that the Senate is going to have to take up.
00:36:45.000 Meanwhile, FBI investigators have now gone to the home and business of a man named Robert Hyde.
00:36:49.000 The agents were seen by CNN and confirmed by a law enforcement official.
00:36:53.000 Who exactly is Robert Hyde?
00:36:55.000 Well, Robert Hyde is a human who apparently was coordinating with other members of sort of Team Giuliani.
00:37:05.000 Hyde had a relationship with Lev Parnas that involved sending a large volume of WhatsApp messages and there are accusations that Hyde was stalking Maria Ivanovich.
00:37:13.000 He was stalking her around Ukraine.
00:37:17.000 Hide called for release of all of Lev Parnas' texts and he said that the left would be offended by what had not been made public.
00:37:24.000 And it was pretty wild.
00:37:26.000 So Robert Hide appeared, again there's pictures of him with Roger Stone, so he's part of this whole kind of team of dolts.
00:37:33.000 He appeared on Eric Bolling's show to talk about whether he was in fact stalking Maria Ivanovic.
00:37:38.000 Did you have eyes on Maria Ivanovic?
00:37:41.000 Absolutely not.
00:37:42.000 Are you kidding me?
00:37:43.000 I'm a little landscaper from Connecticut.
00:37:45.000 Excuse my language.
00:37:49.000 Come on.
00:37:50.000 You know me, Eric.
00:37:51.000 Well, I do.
00:37:51.000 I do.
00:37:52.000 I've known you.
00:37:52.000 I believe I was in Ecuador while we were WhatsAppping each other.
00:37:55.000 That's why we were using WhatsApp.
00:37:57.000 I mean, I'd like to see the full text come out, because there was some real colorful stuff sent by Parnas.
00:38:02.000 OK, so here is the latest.
00:38:04.000 According to NPR, Ukraine's national police are now investigating And whether U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was under surveillance in Kiev last spring, something implied in a series of WhatsApp messages between Robert Hyde and an associate of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal lawyer, between Lev Parnas and Robert Hyde.
00:38:20.000 The text made public between Parnas and Hyde, a Trump supporter and retired Marine running for Congress in Connecticut, suggested that Yovanovitch was being monitored both electronically and in person in an apparent breach of diplomatic security.
00:38:33.000 Hyde wrote in one message, they are moving her tomorrow.
00:38:35.000 He added, the guys over there asked me what I would like to do and what's in it for them.
00:38:38.000 Ukrainian authorities said the implication that an ambassador was under illegal surveillance and her electronic gadgets were interfered with by the private persons at the request of U.S.
00:38:45.000 citizens suggests a possible violation of its own laws, as well as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which protects diplomats on foreign soil.
00:38:53.000 So, in other words, Lev Parnas, the guy who is testifying that this is all Trump's fault, was coordinating with Robert Hyde, possibly, according to these text messages they seem to suggest, in order to surveil Marie Yovanovitch.
00:39:03.000 And, according to Parnas, all this is coming top-down from Trump.
00:39:06.000 Which is weird, because Trump could have just fired Yovanovitch anytime he wanted.
00:39:09.000 She was his ambassador.
00:39:09.000 He's the President of the United States.
00:39:11.000 Why in the world would he need surveillance?
00:39:13.000 Why would he need eyes on Marie Yovanovitch in order to do all of this?
00:39:17.000 There's no actual reason.
00:39:17.000 Now, it's possible that idiocy explains all of this and that Trump is involved deeply in the idiocy, but we're going to need to talk to somebody who actually talked to Trump.
00:39:24.000 And that is why, in the end, all that's going to happen here is the Senate is going to have to call some of these people as witnesses.
00:39:30.000 That's where this is going.
00:39:31.000 The Senate will, in fact, call these people as witnesses.
00:39:33.000 There is not enough support in the Senate to just dismiss the charges outright, especially not with all of this roiling.
00:39:39.000 So, this impeachment thing in the Senate could actually get fairly interesting between talk about the Impoundment Control Act and Lev Parnas and all the rest.
00:39:47.000 But, suffice it to say that the media's newfound obsession with Lev Parnas, hero of the resistance?
00:39:53.000 They should wait a little bit.
00:39:54.000 Michael Cohen was a convicted liar.
00:39:57.000 Lev Parnas is under indictment right now for corruption.
00:40:01.000 Those are not your best sources when it comes to an unbiased view of what exactly is going on here, especially when they're appearing on Rachel Maddow and enthusiastically feeding her whatever it is that she wants to hear.
00:40:11.000 So that is your latest on the bombshells in Impeachment Gate 2020, which is in fact eating up.
00:40:15.000 I mean, both of those are relevant pieces of information.
00:40:17.000 Lev Parnas' story and the GAO story.
00:40:20.000 Again, the GAO story, I tend to actually kind of agree with the GAO's assessment, but that does not mean that it's impeachable.
00:40:25.000 It just means a problem between the executive and the legislative branch that has a statutory remedy.
00:40:29.000 You have Parnas stuff, the idea that the president was telling him to go get people to shadow Yomanovich, or that the president was telling Lev Parnas that he ought to go dig up nefarious information on Joe Biden or all.
00:40:43.000 Again, that is third-hand stuff, and the Democrats could have called Parnas at any time, and they could call Giuliani at any time, but they are not calling any of these people, which is, at the very least, somewhat suspicious.
00:40:53.000 Better for them, frankly, that Trump gets acquitted, and then they can sit around talking about how it's a giant cover-up by all the Republicans.
00:40:59.000 I think that is what they're looking for at this point.
00:41:01.000 Okay, meanwhile, in the 2020 Democratic presidential race, we saw Rock'em Sock'em Robots in the debate.
00:41:06.000 The other night it was really between Sanders and Warren.
00:41:09.000 Elizabeth Warren suddenly conveniently remembered like two weeks out from the Iowa caucuses, which by the way are going to be wild because the Iowa caucuses this year are going to be held differently than they have been in past years.
00:41:18.000 So typically the Iowa caucus results.
00:41:21.000 Come down to who has the most delegates.
00:41:23.000 Now, the Democratic Party is going to announce who has the most votes at the beginning of the night, who has the most votes at the end of the night, and the number of delegates won, which could create the ability for several candidates to claim victory, because just because you win the most votes does not mean that you win the most delegates in caucus states, because again, the caucuses are not held on raw voting power, not on aggregate voting power, right?
00:41:44.000 The way that you have certain caucuses, and the caucuses, if a majority of the caucus votes for a candidate, then all of that caucuses Electoral votes, all of its delegates go to that candidate.
00:41:54.000 So it's sort of like the Electoral College.
00:41:56.000 There could be a difference between the popular vote and the Electoral College in Iowa, effectively speaking.
00:41:59.000 Well, that could create room for conflict.
00:42:02.000 Things get real wild.
00:42:03.000 Well, as you're saying, Elizabeth Warren the other night suddenly conveniently remembered two weeks out that Bernie Sanders is a brutal sexist.
00:42:10.000 And then you'll recall the magical moment after the debate Where Elizabeth Warren went up to Sanders, Sanders stuck out his hand to shake her hand, and she immediately started berating him about something, and Tom Steyer, awkwardly in the background, started to back away like Homer Simpson into the bushes.
00:42:24.000 Well, now, CNN has released the audio of this exchange.
00:42:27.000 Now, I have a question.
00:42:29.000 How is that even remotely journalistically decent?
00:42:32.000 Truly, like, that's a serious question.
00:42:35.000 You know, we have all of these, like, if you're on CNN and you're one of the candidates, your assumption, fairly, is that after the debate is over, your mic is off, right?
00:42:44.000 That is the assumption.
00:42:46.000 And the fact that CNN is not, like, CNN's not releasing the conversations that are going on in the background right here between Joe Biden and Tom Steyer or anything, right?
00:42:53.000 They're only releasing the conversation between Warren and Sanders.
00:42:57.000 I mean, I think Sanders's people have absolute reason to complain here.
00:43:00.000 Why is it that CNN is conveniently releasing audio I think you called me a liar on national TV.
00:43:08.000 What?
00:43:09.000 I think you called me a liar on national TV.
00:43:11.000 Let's not do it right now.
00:43:12.000 You want to have that discussion?
00:43:13.000 We'll have that discussion.
00:43:15.000 Anytime.
00:43:15.000 You called me a liar.
00:43:16.000 You told me.
00:43:18.000 Alright, let's not do it now.
00:43:20.000 I don't want to get in the middle of it.
00:43:23.000 - I'm a liar on national TV. - Let's not do it right now.
00:43:26.000 You wanna have that discussion, we'll have that discussion.
00:43:28.000 You called me a little, you told me.
00:43:30.000 All right, let's not do it now. - I don't wanna get in the middle of it, I just wanna say hi, Bernie.
00:43:32.000 - Yeah, okay.
00:43:33.000 - Okay. - And like Tom Steyer's like, I don't wanna get in the middle of this.
00:43:36.000 I'm gonna, I'm gonna, ooh, ooh, ooh.
00:43:38.000 And he just sort of runs away.
00:43:40.000 Okay, Bernie comes off better in that exchange 'cause he's not being a jerk.
00:43:43.000 Elizabeth Warren is awful.
00:43:45.000 Elizabeth Warren is awful, and she comes off awfully in that exchange.
00:43:48.000 The Sanders-Warren thing is not good for the Democratic Party.
00:43:51.000 It really is not, which is why party leaders are apparently freaked out Over the Warren Sanders split.
00:43:56.000 The Washington Post has an entire piece today about this freakout taking place on the top level.
00:44:00.000 They say an angry split among liberal Democrats broke into the open Wednesday as two prominent presidential candidates exchanged accusations of dishonesty, raising fears among party leaders of a repeat of the internecine bitterness that many Democrats say contributed to President Trump's victory in 2016.
00:44:15.000 The dispute simmered all day between Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren over whether he had told her that a woman cannot win the presidency.
00:44:21.000 Social media users identifying themselves as Sanders supporters used snake icons to symbolize Warren's ostensible duplicity, played up her Republican roots, and circulated a hashtag that never Warren hashtag.
00:44:32.000 So things are getting ugly over in the Democratic Party, which is probably why they would prefer to focus in on impeachment.
00:44:36.000 whether many of Sanders' supporters are sexist, and whether he contributed to the party's disastrous 2016 loss with a display of self-centered petulance.
00:44:43.000 So things are getting ugly over in the Democratic Party, which is probably why they would prefer to focus in on impeachment.
00:44:48.000 Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then we'll get to a thing I hate.
00:44:52.000 So, things that I like today.
00:44:54.000 Well, I guess it's time to cancel the creators of James Bond.
00:44:57.000 I think it's time to cancel the creators and owners of the rights in James Bond.
00:45:01.000 So, the rights in the Bond franchise are held by Barbara Broccoli.
00:45:06.000 She oversees the franchise with her half-brother, Michael G. Wilson.
00:45:10.000 That was an arrangement first hammered out by Broccoli's father, the producer Albert Cubby Broccoli, when John F. Kennedy was president.
00:45:16.000 Well, now, The broccoli family is saying, no, we are not doing this whole, there's going to be a female bond.
00:45:22.000 You know why?
00:45:23.000 Because it's idiotic!
00:45:24.000 Okay, so good for them.
00:45:26.000 Here's what Broccoli says.
00:45:27.000 There are certain things the duo appears open to considering, this is according to Variety, and other conversations that are non-starters when it comes to selecting the next bond.
00:45:34.000 He can be of any color, but he is male, says Broccoli.
00:45:36.000 I believe we should be creating new characters for women, strong female characters.
00:45:39.000 I'm not particularly interested in taking a male character and having a woman play it.
00:45:43.000 I think women are far more interesting than that.
00:45:46.000 Okay, it's time to cancel them, obviously.
00:45:47.000 They just said that women and men are different, and that you can't just have a woman play a male character, or a male player play a female character, and then expect that the dynamics are exactly the same.
00:45:55.000 This is unacceptable!
00:45:57.000 Not in 2020!
00:45:59.000 No!
00:45:59.000 Not as progressive as we have become.
00:46:01.000 Every female character should be played by a male, and every male character should be played by a female, because males and females are exactly the same.
00:46:08.000 We should remake Casablanca, except that Rick and Ilsa are Rick and Bob.
00:46:13.000 And we'll make Claude Raines a girl.
00:46:14.000 Just, just, I don't know.
00:46:15.000 Let's just shake it all up.
00:46:16.000 It's all the same.
00:46:18.000 It's all the same.
00:46:18.000 Because gender dynamics mean nothing.
00:46:22.000 Now, I got a lot of flack from the left for suggesting that I don't think that the next James Bond should be a female.
00:46:26.000 And my suggestion was, you have lots of female action stars.
00:46:30.000 My wife and I, last night, we started watching the new Terminator movie.
00:46:33.000 It was out, available for rental.
00:46:34.000 It's actually pretty good.
00:46:35.000 I'm kind of enjoying it.
00:46:36.000 Hey, Linda Hamilton was a big action star back in the 1980s.
00:46:40.000 You have lots of female action stars.
00:46:42.000 But, the key is that they're female, and they actually have female characteristics.
00:46:46.000 A well-written part is a specific part.
00:46:49.000 James Bond is a man.
00:46:51.000 If you change the gender dynamics, it does not work.
00:46:53.000 The entire appeal of James Bond is that he is a competent man who can bed any woman.
00:46:57.000 That is the appeal of James Bond as a character.
00:47:00.000 That is why he's a long-standing character.
00:47:02.000 You know what we call... James Bond is a rogue, but he's a rogue with a heart of gold, and he is utterly capable with women, so he's wish fulfillment for a lot of dudes.
00:47:11.000 You know what we call a woman who can bed any man?
00:47:14.000 We call her a woman.
00:47:16.000 Because it turns out that men and women are completely different when it comes to sexual relationships.
00:47:20.000 This is perfectly obvious to anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex.
00:47:23.000 So good for the broccoli family for saying, no, this is a bunch of nonsense.
00:47:26.000 We're not doing that.
00:47:28.000 The fact that the media were pushing it just demonstrates how out of touch they are.
00:47:31.000 are.
00:47:31.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
00:47:33.000 With all the focus here in the United States on domestic politics, have you noticed that America's two greatest enemies are now lifelong dictatorships?
00:47:45.000 So Xi Jinping over in China has declared himself dictator for life.
00:47:48.000 The Communist Party is ensconced, well ensconced there, presumably for as long as the West allows it to be without any sort of economic sanctions.
00:47:58.000 That is a dangerous move, especially because China is getting more and more aggressive on the international stage, as the people of Hong Kong can attest.
00:48:04.000 Well, yesterday we found out that Vladimir Putin has essentially made himself dictator for life.
00:48:08.000 This has been true since he took office in, what, 1999?
00:48:10.000 He's been in power for 20 years at this point.
00:48:13.000 He will die in office.
00:48:14.000 According to Russia Today, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has announced that the entire government is resigning in a surprise statement released shortly after President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual State of the Nation address.
00:48:25.000 Accepting the resignation, Putin thanked the ministers for their hard work and asked them to function as a caretaker government until a new one can be formed.
00:48:31.000 Medvedev and Putin had met for a work meeting to discuss the State of the Nation address earlier on Wednesday.
00:48:36.000 Medvedev explained that the cabinet is resigning in accordance with Article 117 of the Russian Constitution, which states, The government can offer its resignation to the president, who can either accept or reject it.
00:48:47.000 During his speech, Putin said he intended to create the position of Deputy Secretary of Russia's Security Council, which would then be offered to Medvedev.
00:48:53.000 So instead of Medvedev having sort of an independent position in the Russian government, now he will just be purely and simply without any sort of, without any sort of obfuscation, a lackey of Putin directly.
00:49:03.000 Medvedev's move to the new rule will mean Russia will have a new Prime Minister when a new government is formed.
00:49:08.000 Basically, Putin runs the place.
00:49:10.000 He runs the place like a thug.
00:49:11.000 He is a dictator.
00:49:13.000 He is one of the world's worst people.
00:49:14.000 This is why, when you hear people on the right these days defending Vladimir Putin, why can't we be friends with Vlad?
00:49:20.000 Because he is an old KGB thug who wishes to maximize Russia's security presence in the world, expand its borders, and oppress dissenters.
00:49:29.000 He's a bad man, and he just enshrined his own dictatorship basically forever.
00:49:35.000 Putin also proposed multiple amendments to Russia's constitution.
00:49:38.000 His proposals would entail substantial changes to the constitution, as well as to the entire balance of power, the power of the executive, the power of the legislature, the power of the judiciary.
00:49:46.000 So...
00:49:48.000 Putin will now, under the Putin plan, the State Duma, which is the lower House of Parliament, will be granted the power to appoint the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet, as opposed to just approving their candidacies, as is currently the case.
00:49:59.000 And the State Duma is basically run by Putin.
00:50:01.000 Another idea voiced by Putin is to make the consultation body, the State Council, a permanent fixture, with its status and role written into the Constitution.
00:50:09.000 The President praised the Council's effectiveness, stressing its working groups ensure that the most important problems for the people are thoroughly looked into.
00:50:18.000 Even according to RT, which is a Russian government outlet, basically.
00:50:21.000 They say that this is a step towards diversification of power.
00:50:27.000 Yes, sure.
00:50:28.000 Sure, that is such obvious nonsense.
00:50:33.000 Putin made himself dictator for life yesterday.
00:50:35.000 It weakens anybody who would take over, but it's a shake-up that keeps him in power longer, effectively speaking.
00:50:42.000 So that is effectively what happened in Russia.
00:50:44.000 Don't worry guys, he's our ally.
00:50:45.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with all the latest developments and news is breaking fast, so you're going to want to stick around for that.
00:50:50.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
00:50:51.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:50:52.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:50:57.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz.
00:51:00.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.
00:51:01.000 Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
00:51:02.000 Senior Producer Jonathan Hay.
00:51:04.000 Supervising Producers Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
00:51:07.000 Technical Producer Austin Stevens.
00:51:08.000 Associate Producer Colton Haas.
00:51:10.000 Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.
00:51:12.000 Edited by Adam Sajevitz.
00:51:13.000 Audio is Mixed by Mike Carmina.
00:51:15.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
00:51:17.000 Production Assistant Nick Sheehan.
00:51:18.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
00:51:21.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
00:51:23.000 Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
00:51:26.000 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.
00:51:32.000 But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.