The Ben Shapiro Show - September 27, 2018


The Big Day | Ep. 628


Episode Stats

Length

49 minutes

Words per Minute

211.96638

Word Count

10,510

Sentence Count

720

Misogynist Sentences

25

Hate Speech Sentences

5


Summary

Today, Brett and Christine Blasey Ford testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She accuses him of sexually assaulting her at a party when she was 15 and he was 17, and he denies it. But there's no question that she's the most credible accuser, and the one with the most compelling evidence. Is it enough to stop a Supreme Court nominee who's been nominated by President Trump? Or is there more to the story than meets the eye? Ben Shapiro explains why the hearings are not going well, and why they should have been designed to do what they were not. Plus, a tip of the iceberg on why the hearing is a disaster, and what Republicans should have done to fix it. Ben Shapiro is on The Ben Shapiro Show with Ben Shapiro, wherever you get your news and information. Check out Ben Shapiro's new book, The Devil Next Door: Inside the White House: The Inside Story of Watergate and the Deep State s Deep State, out now. If you like what you hear, you'll love the Ben Shapiro show! Subscribe to Ben Shapiro s newest podcast, The Dark Side Of. Subscribe on iTunes and leave us a rating and review on iTunes. Rate/subscribe in Apple Podcasts! or wherever else you re listening to podcasts are listening to this podcast. You can also become a supporter of the show by becoming a patron. . Rate, review, and subscribe to our new episodes on Apple Podcast, and other podcasting services! Thank you for supporting the show, Ben Shapiro and other links mentioned in the show. I'll send Ben Shapiro.co/Ben Shapiro's New York Times bestselling books, Thanks for listening and much more! I hope you'll like Ben Shapiro and I'll be checking out Ben's work, too! Ben's New Book Reviewed by you're listening to Ben's new novel "The Dark Side of the Hill" by: by: Ben Shapiro on Yelp on Podchaser Subscribe and Reviewed on Anchor.co , is out on Medium in paperback edition of The Hill? on Good Morning America, Outtro is out! on Tuesday, October 30th, 2019, on Wednesday, October 31st, November 5th, 2020, and so on and so forth, out in Australia, so watch it on Amazon Prime Day, November 7, 2019


Transcript

00:00:00.000 It's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing day for Christine Blasey Ford, one of Brett Kavanaugh's accusers, and Brett Kavanaugh will testify as well.
00:00:06.000 So that's all that matters today.
00:00:08.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:00:09.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:15.000 Oh yes, we will go wall to wall with all of the latest.
00:00:18.000 Suffice it to say, this is not going well for Republicans.
00:00:20.000 I will explain why for all of the reasons it is not going well.
00:00:23.000 Also, what the actual hearings should have been designed to do and what they actually were not designed to do.
00:00:28.000 We'll get to all of that in just one second.
00:00:30.000 If it feels like you need a drink, you're not alone.
00:00:32.000 Okay, the reality is that on a day like this, pretty much all of us, especially in this business, need a drink.
00:00:37.000 And if you actually would like a drink of something good, then you should go out and check out our friends over at Wink.
00:00:41.000 Wink makes it easy to discover great wines.
00:00:44.000 Well, we've taken a little bit of time to wring ourselves out from the new year, and if you wanna, you know, go back to drinking, now's the time to do it.
00:00:49.000 Go check it out with Wink.
00:00:50.000 Wink's wine experts select wines matched to your taste, personalized for you, shipped right to your door, starting at just 13 bucks a bottle.
00:00:55.000 There's nothing like coming home to a bottle of delicious Wink wine selected just for you.
00:00:59.000 They have this thing called the Palate Profile Quiz, and they ask you simple questions like, do you like blueberries, or how do you take your coffee?
00:01:04.000 And then they give you wine recommendations based on that.
00:01:06.000 Folks around the office have had taste tests of the wine, and they love it.
00:01:11.000 I mean, so much so that they are not usable the rest of the day after these taste tests.
00:01:14.000 But you can go check out Wink.com right now.
00:01:16.000 It's TryWink.com slash Ben.
00:01:18.000 T-R-Y-W-I-N-C.com slash Ben.
00:01:21.000 And when you use that slash Ben, you get $20 off your first shipment, which is a pretty solid deal.
00:01:25.000 TryWink.com slash Ben.
00:01:27.000 Wink sends wines curated to your taste each month.
00:01:29.000 There are new delicious wines.
00:01:30.000 There's no membership fees.
00:01:31.000 You can skip any month.
00:01:32.000 You can cancel any time, and shipping is covered.
00:01:33.000 So pretty solid deal.
00:01:34.000 Go check it out right now.
00:01:35.000 Try wink.com slash ben for $20 off.
00:01:38.000 Okay, well, today is, of course, the big hearing day, and today is the day in which the Senate Judiciary Committee, after a long last...
00:01:46.000 Interviewed Christine Blasey Ford, who is the first accuser against Brett Kavanaugh.
00:01:50.000 Now, to stop for just a second before we actually get into the accusations that Christine Blasey Ford made, we should recognize that there have been a number of allegations that have been made, and I want to go through them.
00:02:00.000 This is the one that matters.
00:02:01.000 Christine Blasey Ford is the one that matters because it is the most credible.
00:02:04.000 And it's the most credible because it is the one that rings the truest.
00:02:09.000 There are still questions about it, and this is the problem for Republicans.
00:02:12.000 From the very outset, it was unclear what Republicans were attempting to argue about these allegations.
00:02:17.000 Were they arguing that Christine Blasey Ford was lying?
00:02:20.000 I, for one, never argued that Christine Blasey Ford was lying.
00:02:22.000 I always believed that she sort of believed what she believed.
00:02:24.000 She'd come forward
00:02:26.000 With these allegations before Brett Kavanaugh was even selected for the Supreme Court when he was just on the shortlist.
00:02:30.000 And there's evidence that she had talked about it back in 2012.
00:02:33.000 I was never somebody who suggested that Christine Blasey Ford was lying.
00:02:36.000 I question whether her memories might not have been correct because memories change over 30 years.
00:02:42.000 I question whether, more importantly, the evidence was sufficient to knock Brett Kavanaugh out.
00:02:46.000 And this was always the big question.
00:02:48.000 The big question to me was, is an allegation alone, no matter how credible, without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, is that enough to stop a nomination?
00:02:57.000 That's really the question, because no matter how credible a witness is, it's going to be he said, she said, if they're the only people in the room.
00:03:04.000 And in this particular case, Christine Blasey Ford had suggested there were other people at a party when she was 15 and Brett Kavanaugh was 17.
00:03:10.000 She says that at that party, Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge forced her into a room, turned up the music, and Kavanaugh forced her onto a bed where he attempted to take off her clothes and then placed his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.
00:03:20.000 There's no other witness that has verified this count.
00:03:22.000 Mark Judge has denied it.
00:03:24.000 I think he should be subpoenaed, but Mark Judge denied it.
00:03:26.000 Brett Kavanaugh denied it.
00:03:27.000 She says there were other people at the party.
00:03:29.000 We'll get into her specific allegations in a moment, including one of her close friends who has denied that she was at any party with Brett Kavanaugh.
00:03:35.000 So there is no corroborating evidence.
00:03:36.000 We don't know date.
00:03:37.000 We don't know location.
00:03:38.000 We don't know time.
00:03:39.000 We don't know how she got there.
00:03:40.000 So even if she's telling the absolute truth, there is no way to actually corroborate any of her story.
00:03:45.000 The reason that matters is because this was happening in a quasi-public setting.
00:03:50.000 There should be some corroborating detail.
00:03:52.000 If you look at situations involving Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein, there are ways that you can corroborate at least the people who are telling the story at the time.
00:04:00.000 As I mentioned on the show, when I was in high school, I've said 15, but I believe I was actually 13 or 14 because it was my sophomore year of high school.
00:04:08.000 When I was in high school, I was abused by some kids in my class.
00:04:11.000 I remember where it was, I remember who the kids were, and I should be able to lock down the date if I just look at a yearbook or look back at a calendar.
00:04:17.000 And I can find people to corroborate the story.
00:04:19.000 There's no corroborating evidence here, and Blasey Ford has been unable to really corroborate any of that.
00:04:24.000 Now, does that mean she's lying?
00:04:25.000 No, it doesn't mean she's lying.
00:04:27.000 It doesn't mean she's lying at all.
00:04:28.000 And so what this comes down to is, is the allegation itself enough?
00:04:32.000 If you believe the allegation itself is enough, all that mattered today from the hearing is that Blasey Ford was emotional when she spoke about this because she obviously experienced the trauma and experienced pain.
00:04:41.000 Both of which I believe, by the way.
00:04:42.000 I believe that she did experience some trauma and she is experiencing pain.
00:04:45.000 I don't doubt any of that.
00:04:47.000 But the question becomes, without any other corroborating evidence, is that enough?
00:04:52.000 And so that just made today basically a sort of public
00:04:56.000 An assessment of her performance.
00:04:57.000 Was her performance credible?
00:04:59.000 Was her performance believable?
00:05:00.000 Was her performance emotional?
00:05:02.000 Which is kind of gross.
00:05:03.000 I mean, that is kind of gross.
00:05:04.000 The fact that the public question was going to come down to how well could this alleged attempted rape victim tell her story?
00:05:11.000 Because in that sense, if she had been more robotic, would we not have believed her?
00:05:15.000 If she had come off a little bit less collected, would we not have believed her?
00:05:19.000 If she had not come across emotional, would we not have believed her?
00:05:22.000 Those are uncomfortable questions.
00:05:25.000 But that's why Republicans never should have gotten into this line of questioning in the first place.
00:05:28.000 The question always should have been, listen, even if we believe your story, there's no corroborating evidence and we have a denial on the other side.
00:05:34.000 That means that there is some burden of proof to come forward with some form of corroborating evidence and you just haven't supplied that.
00:05:40.000 Because Republicans didn't do that, the hearing turned into, is Christine Blasey Ford a credible witness?
00:05:45.000 Is she a believable witness?
00:05:47.000 And what you'll see is a lot of folks on the right saying she's not credible, she's not believable, because her memory was skewed in other areas.
00:05:52.000 But her contention, and I think it's not a completely unfair contention, is, well, I may not have remembered the actual date of this happening, but I certainly remember the feeling of being pushed down on a bed, having a guy jump on top of me, put his hand over my mouth, and I remember his face.
00:06:05.000 That's not an incredible suggestion.
00:06:09.000 That's not non-credible.
00:06:11.000 That's relatively credible.
00:06:12.000 When bad things happen in your life, you remember the specific bad thing that happened in your life.
00:06:16.000 You don't necessarily remember well the surrounding circumstances.
00:06:18.000 The problem is there's no way for us to adjudicate whether her memory is faulty or not because there's no corroborating evidence.
00:06:24.000 Okay, so that's Christine Blasey Ford.
00:06:25.000 I want to mention these other allegations to demonstrate
00:06:28.000 But not every allegation necessarily ought to be believed just on the basis of the allegation.
00:06:33.000 So Debra Martinez said in a piece in the New Yorker earlier this week on Sunday, the New Yorker reported that Martinez had alleged that Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face at a frat party at which he was drinking while he was at Yale University.
00:06:46.000 But the New Yorker piece is extraordinarily weak.
00:06:49.000 According to the publication, she was hesitant to speak publicly because, quote,
00:06:52.000 Her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident, and she was, quote-unquote, reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh's role in the alleged incident with certainty.
00:07:00.000 So even she says that she didn't know what happened, this particular accuser, only after, and this is a direct quote from The New Yorker, six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorneys did she decide to come forward.
00:07:12.000 No corroborating witnesses have come forward.
00:07:14.000 Then, yesterday, there was an accusation made by Julie Swetnick, who was a woman brought forward by Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels.
00:07:22.000 And 2020 Democratic candidate for president.
00:07:24.000 And according to her sworn declaration, she saw Kavanaugh get drunk in high school and then grope girls against their will, as well as spiking punch with quaaludes in alcohol and participating in a gang rape line at multiple parties.
00:07:35.000 That's her description.
00:07:37.000 Swetnick says she went to approximately 10 parties at which such events took place.
00:07:40.000 Sorry, it's Deborah Ramirez, not Martinez.
00:07:42.000 Swetnick says she went to 10 parties at which such activities took place.
00:07:46.000 She says she was the victim of such a gang rape, but is unclear in her declaration
00:07:50.000 Whether Kavanaugh participated, Avenatti refuses to answer simple questions on her behalf.
00:07:55.000 He has not made her available to testify.
00:07:57.000 She says there are other witnesses, but none have come forward to, again, an accusation with no corroborating evidence.
00:08:01.000 The New York Times put it kindly, quote,
00:08:10.000 And then late on Wednesday afternoon, a fourth allegation came forward.
00:08:13.000 This was from NBC News, reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee was inquiring about another allegation of misconduct.
00:08:19.000 They reported that an anonymous woman said that her daughter's friend was physically assaulted by Kavanaugh in a Washington, D.C.
00:08:25.000 area bar while he was drunk.
00:08:27.000 She said when they left the bar, under the influence of alcohol, they were all shocked when Kavanaugh shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually.
00:08:33.000 There were at least four witnesses, including my daughter.
00:08:35.000 The daughter has not come forward.
00:08:36.000 The woman has not come forward.
00:08:37.000 None of the witnesses have come forward.
00:08:39.000 So another uncorroborated, in this case, anonymous allegation made against Brett Kavanaugh.
00:08:43.000 Now, maybe Kavanaugh did some of this.
00:08:45.000 Maybe he did none of this.
00:08:46.000 We don't know any of those questions.
00:08:48.000 What is certainly true is that there is not a court of law in the United States, civil or criminal, that would either convict or punish based on just the allegations alone.
00:08:56.000 There's no way to do that.
00:08:58.000 So, in a country where there is due process, it seems to me that an allegation alone should not be enough to support the destruction of a man's life and a man's career, no matter how credible the person telling the story.
00:09:11.000 And this is what Republicans failed to say in the lead up to this hearing.
00:09:14.000 Instead, the narrative was put out there that maybe she was lying, or maybe she was politically motivated, but that was never the question.
00:09:21.000 We live in a system where due process actually matters.
00:09:24.000 And that due process doesn't necessarily apply in the court of public opinion, but if we're going to be intellectually honest about how we actually assess situations, we have to have something beyond a mere allegation.
00:09:35.000 Maybe it's that there are multiple allegations, and all the allegations have similar elements, as in the Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein cases.
00:09:40.000 Maybe it's that there's corroborating evidence that some of this stuff happened, as with Roy Moore.
00:09:45.000 But an allegation alone, it seems to me, is really weak sauce.
00:09:48.000 And if that had been the case, nothing in the hearing with Christine Blasey Ford would have changed anything today.
00:09:54.000 Nothing would have changed anything.
00:09:55.000 Because not only did she not provide any corroborating evidence, what she actually showed is that the only memory she seems to hold clearly is the actual incident itself with Kavanaugh.
00:10:04.000 Everything else, her memory seems particularly hazy.
00:10:08.000 And again, that doesn't answer whether this happened or not.
00:10:11.000 And it doesn't even answer whether she is correctly remembering what happened with Kavanaugh or not.
00:10:15.000 What it is suggesting is that memory itself is variable.
00:10:19.000 And not only that, it suggests that without any other corroborating evidence, which she actually weakened today, right?
00:10:23.000 She weakens the possibility of corroborating evidence today.
00:10:26.000 She did not strengthen the possibility of corroborating evidence.
00:10:29.000 Nothing she said today.
00:10:30.000 brought additional evidence to the table.
00:10:32.000 It was just her telling her story in her words.
00:10:34.000 So you have to ask yourself, what changed between yesterday and today?
00:10:37.000 Last night, she put forward her actual statement.
00:10:39.000 Her statement was written.
00:10:40.000 It was very similar to what she had told the newspapers.
00:10:42.000 It's very similar to what she had said in a letter to Dianne Feinstein and a representative in California named Anna Eshoo.
00:10:49.000 None of that changed.
00:10:50.000 The only thing that changed is that we actually put a face to the accusation.
00:10:53.000 If that's the case, then what we really had today was an emotional appeal.
00:10:57.000 And listen, I felt the emotional appeal too.
00:11:00.000 Because it's hard not to watch a woman who's experiencing pain that she attributes to a dire trauma, right?
00:11:06.000 To an incident that any of us would have responded with fury to and say, okay, well, that's now more credible.
00:11:12.000 But is it more credible because she said it out loud?
00:11:16.000 Is it more, as opposed to credible, does it provide any level of objective verification of the events she speaks of because she said it out loud?
00:11:23.000 I don't think so.
00:11:24.000 I don't think so.
00:11:26.000 And if it does, you have to ask yourself what exactly changed?
00:11:28.000 What exactly changed?
00:11:29.000 Now, this was a loss for Republicans.
00:11:31.000 And I'll explain why it was a loss for Republicans in just a second.
00:11:34.000 But first, let's talk about your sleep quality.
00:11:36.000 There's nobody on the planet like you, so why would you buy a generic mattress built for anyone else?
00:11:40.000 Helix Sleep has built a sleep quiz that takes two minutes to complete.
00:11:43.000 They use the answers to match your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress.
00:11:47.000 Whether you're a side sleeper or a hot sleeper, whether you like a plush or a firm bed, with Helix, there's no more guessing and no more confusion.
00:11:52.000 Just go to helixsleep.com slash ben, take their two-minute sleep quiz, and they will match you to a mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.
00:11:59.000 I've taken this sleep quiz with my wife.
00:12:01.000 We ordered the mattress.
00:12:01.000 It came in the mail.
00:12:02.000 You unwrap it.
00:12:03.000 It just inflates in front of you.
00:12:04.000 You pop it on the bed frame.
00:12:04.000 You're good to go.
00:12:05.000 I got one for my sister for her wedding because the mattresses are just that comfortable.
00:12:08.000 Couples can even have each side tailored for your particular sleep preferences.
00:12:13.000 They have a 10-year warranty, and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.
00:12:15.000 So there really is nothing to lose.
00:12:17.000 Right now, Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders.
00:12:20.000 Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com slash ben.
00:12:24.000 That's helixsleep.com slash ben for $125 off your mattress order.
00:12:27.000 Again, helixsleep.com slash ben.
00:12:30.000 Go check it out.
00:12:30.000 Their mattresses are supremely comfortable and again, tailored specifically to you.
00:12:34.000 So, you're getting a tailored mattress made just for you.
00:12:36.000 Helixsleep.com slash ben.
00:12:38.000 Use the slash ben to let them know we sent you and get $125 off your mattress order.
00:12:42.000 Okay, so back to the setup for the hearing.
00:12:45.000 What Democrats wanted out of the hearing was something very simple.
00:12:48.000 A binary.
00:12:49.000 She's lying or she's not lying.
00:12:50.000 That was the binary.
00:12:51.000 And Democrats said, we believe her, she's not lying.
00:12:55.000 And what they were hoping to do by that is suggest that anyone who didn't believe her was therefore a sexist and doesn't believe women who are credible.
00:13:02.000 But that really wasn't the question.
00:13:03.000 Again, the question for this hearing should have been, even if you believe she is not lying, are allegations without any corroborating evidence whatsoever, none, zero, zilch, any corroborating evidence, are those allegations enough to finish a guy's career?
00:13:15.000 That's how Republicans should have played this.
00:13:17.000 They should have said, we don't know whether to believe her or not.
00:13:20.000 We may find her credible, but we can't have a standard of evidence in this country.
00:13:24.000 Where people are denied a career and a life based on unverifiable and unverified allegations from a vague time in the past where there should be public witnesses and there are none.
00:13:34.000 That's what Republicans should have been arguing.
00:13:36.000 Instead, they allowed Democrats to turn this into, is she believable or is she not?
00:13:40.000 And the answer is, yeah, she's believable.
00:13:42.000 There's nothing about her that suggests that she's not believable.
00:13:44.000 Listen to her tell her story.
00:13:45.000 So here is Ford.
00:13:47.000 She told her story.
00:13:48.000 And what you'll see is that Republicans had appointed
00:13:52.000 A woman named Mitchell, who's a prosecutor, to question her.
00:13:57.000 And this woman basically went after the fact that Blasey Ford's memory has lots of holes in different places.
00:14:03.000 But Blasey Ford basically defeats all of those attempts with a simple statement, which is, I may not remember everything else in my life, but I remember that time the guy jumped on top of me, put his hand on my mouth and tried to rape me, right?
00:14:13.000 That's all she had to say.
00:14:14.000 It takes everything else off the table.
00:14:16.000 If Republicans had said before that, listen,
00:14:19.000 It sounds like what happened to you was awful, but we have a guy over here who denies it.
00:14:23.000 You've provided no other evidence.
00:14:24.000 And then they'd asked her, okay, well, you can't provide any other evidence.
00:14:27.000 Can you help us?
00:14:28.000 Can you help us establish another chain of evidence?
00:14:30.000 If Republicans had done that, then maybe this turns into something else.
00:14:34.000 Instead, what it turned into is we're supposed to doubt her because of various questions about her history of flying, or we're supposed to doubt her because she has not been completely forthcoming about her polygraph, or stuff like that.
00:14:47.000 They're trying to kind of
00:14:48.000 I am here today not because I want to be.
00:14:49.000 I am terrified.
00:14:49.000 I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.
00:15:18.000 OK, so she obviously is pretty collected here.
00:15:21.000 And then she goes on to say that she believed that Kavanaugh was going to rape her.
00:15:25.000 I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me.
00:15:30.000 He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me.
00:15:36.000 I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me.
00:15:39.000 And I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy.
00:15:45.000 Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes.
00:15:48.000 He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing.
00:15:58.000 I believed he was going to rape me.
00:16:01.000 Okay, so obviously this is very affecting testimony.
00:16:03.000 There's no way not to watch this and feel enormous sympathy for the person who's telling the story.
00:16:07.000 Does it give you any corroborating detail?
00:16:09.000 No.
00:16:10.000 How are you so sure that it was he?
00:16:36.000 The same way that I'm sure that I'm talking to you right now.
00:16:39.000 It's just basic memory functions and also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that sort of, as you know, encodes that neurotransmitter, encodes memories into the hippocampus.
00:16:55.000 And so the trauma-related experience then is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.
00:17:02.000 So what you are telling us is this could not be
00:17:05.000 A case of mistaken identity?
00:17:07.000 Absolutely not.
00:17:09.000 I can't guarantee that there weren't a few other people there, but they are not in my purview of my memory.
00:17:17.000 Would it be fair to say there were at least four others?
00:17:20.000 Yes.
00:17:21.000 Okay, so there is where she sort of changed her story.
00:17:24.000 But again, it doesn't matter because the Republicans had not established what exactly they were trying to do there.
00:17:29.000 And this was part of the problem with the format.
00:17:30.000 So you see Blasey Ford said, listen, it's imprinted on my memory that somebody tried to rape me.
00:17:34.000 And then she says all the other details were hazy.
00:17:36.000 And then when Republicans, the woman questioning is Rachel Mitchell, who is this Republican special counsel, when she pushes back and she says, okay, well,
00:17:44.000 What about the fact that you've now changed your story multiple times on how many people were at the party?
00:17:49.000 Blasey Ford says, right, I don't remember that stuff so well because that's not when I was being raped, right?
00:17:53.000 So she preempted the attack by essentially stating, this is the only thing that I can remember really well.
00:17:59.000 And this is the problem.
00:18:01.000 And this was underscored by the next thing she said, where she was asked specifically about what she remembers the most.
00:18:08.000 And this is the quote that's going to be played a thousand times tonight on cable news.
00:18:13.000 Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter.
00:18:17.000 The uproarious laughter between the two.
00:18:23.000 And they're having fun at my expense.
00:18:29.000 And you were the object of the laughter?
00:18:31.000 I was, you know, underneath one of them while the two laughed.
00:18:38.000 Two friends having a really good time with one another.
00:18:41.000 Okay, so this opened a bunch of questions for Republicans, none of which they were willing to take, right?
00:18:46.000 They could have called Mark Judge to rebut.
00:18:48.000 That's the guy who she claims is in the room with Kavanaugh.
00:18:50.000 He's already said under oath that he was not there for any of this and he doesn't know what any of this was, but it would have been worthwhile to question him.
00:18:57.000 But here's the point.
00:18:58.000 What Republicans did with this hearing was a huge mistake, because what they did is they basically brought in a special counsel to talk to this accuser.
00:19:06.000 And then they split it up.
00:19:07.000 They had her ask a question for five minutes, and then they let Democrats grandstand for five minutes.
00:19:11.000 And so there was never any line of continuity trying to establish what it was they were trying to establish.
00:19:15.000 What should have happened is you got Mitchell out there, says, listen, whether we believe your story or not, and you seem like a credible, very nice person who suffered an awful trauma, we need to try and find some detail we can corroborate here so that we can move forward with the seriousness of the allegations.
00:19:31.000 And so now I'm going to ask you a series of questions that are designed to elicit just that sort of corroboration.
00:19:35.000 And then at the end you say, okay, well, if we couldn't find corroboration, we can't find corroboration.
00:19:39.000 Instead, Republicans started asking questions that went to flaws in her memory, but that don't undermine her central case.
00:19:45.000 Meanwhile, Democrats ask questions like, how did it feel when a guy was trying to rape you?
00:19:48.000 Who do you think is going to win that PR battle?
00:19:50.000 Because that's what this has become, right?
00:19:52.000 I mean, this is a PR battle.
00:19:53.000 This is not a question as to the truth or falsity of the allegations, unfortunately.
00:19:56.000 Democrats are not interested in that.
00:19:58.000 Republicans don't seem particularly interested in that.
00:20:00.000 Nobody's really interested in the truth or falsity because there's no way to find that out.
00:20:04.000 So this has become a political tool.
00:20:06.000 We'll get to more of this in just one second.
00:20:08.000 But first, let's talk about making your company better.
00:20:11.000 Well, the best way to make your company better is to head over to ZipRecruiter.com.
00:20:15.000 You don't want the worst applications coming in.
00:20:17.000 You don't want to have to post on a thousand job sites.
00:20:19.000 Instead, go to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:20:22.000 ZipRecruiter doesn't wait for candidates to find you.
00:20:24.000 ZipRecruiter finds them for you.
00:20:25.000 It has powerful matching technology.
00:20:27.000 It scans thousands of resumes, identifies people with the right skills, education, and experience for your job, and actively invites them to apply.
00:20:33.000 So you get qualified candidates fast.
00:20:35.000 No more sorting through the wrong resumes.
00:20:37.000 No more waiting for the right candidates to apply.
00:20:39.000 It's no wonder ZipRecruiter is rated number one by employers in the United States.
00:20:43.000 And right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address.
00:20:47.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
00:20:49.000 That's ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
00:20:52.000 D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E.
00:20:54.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
00:20:56.000 You can try it for free.
00:20:57.000 Upgrade the members of your staff.
00:20:59.000 I mean, if somebody does a bad job today, they might be out on the street.
00:21:01.000 I'm not going to mention any names like Alex.
00:21:03.000 I won't mention any names like that and say that maybe we'll be replacing him with DailyWire later on.
00:21:07.000 Alex, silence back there.
00:21:08.000 Listen,
00:21:09.000 ZipRecruiter.com
00:21:26.000 The, as I say, the way that this was formatted for Republicans was bad, because if they had been trying to establish that there were no corroborating details, and if they had been trying also to establish the Democrats manipulated the process, there were ways to do that.
00:21:39.000 Because the truth is, there are holes in Ford's testimony.
00:21:42.000 She was asked specifically, for example,
00:21:45.000 What year did this take place?
00:21:47.000 Because earlier she had said it took place sometime when I was in high school, then she had narrowed it down to the specific summer, and she never really gave an excuse as to why that happened.
00:21:55.000 She was specifically asked about whether she gave her psychiatrist's records to the Washington Post, for example, because the first account that she had told of this story to someone, not her husband, was to her psychiatrist.
00:22:07.000 This sort of locked it into a timeline back in 2012.
00:22:12.000 She's claimed medical privilege on those records.
00:22:14.000 She has not handed them over to the actual Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would kind of be important because you'd want to see if there are discrepancies in her account of the events.
00:22:22.000 She hasn't handed those over, but she did hand them to the Washington Post.
00:22:25.000 How do we know she handed them to the Washington Post?
00:22:28.000 We know she handed them to the Washington Post because it said so in the Washington Post story.
00:22:32.000 The Washington Post story explicitly said that she gave her psychiatrist's records to the Washington Post, but when she was asked about it, suddenly she didn't remember, which does raise questions about the capacity of her memory, for example.
00:22:42.000 A full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to the Washington Post.
00:22:49.000 Um, I don't remember.
00:22:52.000 I remember summarizing for her what they said.
00:22:56.000 So I'm not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.
00:22:59.000 Okay, so obviously she did give them the record.
00:23:03.000 Is she misremembering?
00:23:05.000 You don't know, right?
00:23:06.000 Speaking of misremembering, we were told last week that Christine Blasey Ford could not show up on Monday for a hearing because Christine Blasey Ford had a fear of flying.
00:23:14.000 This was a serious question because in the past week, there have been a bunch of more unverified allegations that have come forward that seem timed by Democrats.
00:23:22.000 I mean, it's just a giant coincidence that all these allegations come forward from Monday through Thursday, and they all start breaking in the news this week.
00:23:30.000 Well, Blasey Ford's original claim, or at least the claim of her lawyers, is that she couldn't show up on Monday because, number one, she didn't want to be questioned on that side of the country, and number two, she had a fear of flying.
00:23:39.000 Well, it turns out that her fear of flying has not prohibited her, I assume she has a fear of flying, but it hasn't stopped her from flying in what she considers important circumstances.
00:23:47.000 Circumstances ranging from surf trips, to visiting her family on the East Coast every year, to coming in August
00:23:54.000 To Maryland, I think to Delaware, to take a polygraph test.
00:23:58.000 So in other words, she flies an awful lot.
00:24:00.000 And yet somehow she couldn't fly, but then she did fly to get to this hearing.
00:24:04.000 She didn't take a car across the country.
00:24:06.000 She flew across the country.
00:24:07.000 Well, that raises questions about how Democrats have manipulated the timeline here.
00:24:10.000 Again, the person who's been done the most disservice by the Democrats is Blasey Ford.
00:24:14.000 She's been under tremendous disservice because let's say that she's telling the absolute 100% truth, it looks manipulative no matter how this was played because Democrats were in fact manipulating the process.
00:24:23.000 Dianne Feinstein did not come forward with the allegations for eight weeks.
00:24:26.000 Dianne Feinstein did not release it to the FBI.
00:24:28.000 Dianne Feinstein did not question Kavanaugh about it, either in public or in private.
00:24:32.000 The Democrats turned down a private hearing for Ford.
00:24:35.000 Right?
00:24:36.000 The Republican said, you want to do this behind closed doors?
00:24:37.000 Let's do it there.
00:24:38.000 Nope.
00:24:38.000 The Republican said, what if we send our representatives to you and question you out west?
00:24:42.000 Nope.
00:24:43.000 Instead, they said, she has to come east, but she can't fly.
00:24:46.000 But then she turned out to fly.
00:24:47.000 Rachel Mitchell points this out.
00:24:49.000 That was certainly what I was hoping was to avoid having to get on an airplane.
00:24:53.000 But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane.
00:25:01.000 When you were here in the mid-Atlantic area back in August, end of July, August, how did you get here?
00:25:11.000 Also by airplane.
00:25:13.000 I come here once a year during the summer to visit my family.
00:25:16.000 In fact, you fly fairly frequently for your hobbies, and you've had to fly for your work.
00:25:22.000 Is that true?
00:25:23.000 Correct, unfortunately.
00:25:24.000 So folks on the left were mocking this, like, oh, well, who cares about her flight?
00:25:28.000 Well, it goes to the Democratic manipulation of the process, because again, we were told that Democrats just wanted to get down to facts, but it turns out they were delaying the timeline for obviously political reasons.
00:25:37.000 All of which still does not go to the key point of this case.
00:25:40.000 And I get back to the key point of this case over and over again because I think it really is important, not just for this nomination, which I'll explain what I think is going to happen with it in just a second, but it's also important because of what's going to happen with future nominations.
00:25:53.000 Is it enough to have a credible allegation of something bad happening, uncorroborated by a fact?
00:26:00.000 A fact.
00:26:00.000 Okay, there's no corroborating fact here.
00:26:02.000 None.
00:26:03.000 None.
00:26:05.000 It's not just me saying this, by the way.
00:26:06.000 Jake Tapper even made this point on CNN last night, that there's no real corroborating evidence for any of this, because it turns out there's no corroborating evidence for any of this.
00:26:15.000 By not setting the standard, Republicans really did Kavanaugh a disservice and did themselves a serious disservice.
00:26:21.000 Democrats are saying that Kavanaugh obviously should withdraw.
00:26:25.000 This in and of itself is sort of self-defeating.
00:26:27.000 I'm not sure why they think that he should, like they're saying he should withdraw.
00:26:31.000 Why not just call for there to be a vote?
00:26:34.000 Why not just put Republicans on the record?
00:26:35.000 It seems to me that if Democrats really wanted to put Republicans feet to the fire, they would say, no, he shouldn't withdraw.
00:26:41.000 Make Republicans say whether they believe or not.
00:26:42.000 That would be the smart political move.
00:26:44.000 I don't think President Trump is actually going to pull the nomination.
00:26:48.000 The reason I don't think Trump is going to pull the nomination is because
00:26:51.000 President Trump tends to believe that accusations by women are very often false.
00:26:55.000 He feels he's been victimized by such accusations.
00:26:58.000 In some cases, he certainly has not been victimized by some accusations.
00:27:01.000 President Trump did a presser yesterday, and here's what he had to say about the situation.
00:27:06.000 This, of course, was before the hearing.
00:27:08.000 But I've had a lot of false charges made against me, really false charges.
00:27:12.000 I know friends that have had false charges.
00:27:15.000 People want fame, they want money, they want whatever.
00:27:19.000 So when I see it, I view it differently than somebody sitting home watching television where they say, oh, Judge Kavanaugh, this or that.
00:27:27.000 So when you say, does it affect me in terms of my thinking?
00:27:30.000 With respect to Judge Kavanaugh?
00:27:33.000 Absolutely, because I've had it many times.
00:27:35.000 Okay, the reason this is a giant fail is because this is President Trump falling directly into the trap the Democrats have set for him, which is President Trump saying, I've been accused falsely a lot of times, therefore Kavanaugh has been accused falsely a lot of times.
00:27:46.000 Except that there are a lot of allegations of President Trump engaging in really bad behavior with women, sexually abusive behavior with women.
00:27:53.000 And President Trump was caught on tape, lest we forget, saying he grabs women by the genitals.
00:27:57.000 Not the same thing as Brett Kavanaugh, who maintains his complete innocence in all of this.
00:28:02.000 But this does set the mindset for the president to not believe any of this.
00:28:06.000 He doesn't believe it about himself.
00:28:07.000 And he also, like, I think that if you give President Trump a lie detector test, a polygraph really only detects stress.
00:28:13.000 It really detects whether you think you are lying.
00:28:15.000 It doesn't detect whether you are telling the truth, but it detects whether you might think you're lying and supposedly raises stress levels, not particularly scientific.
00:28:22.000 If you hooked President Trump up to a lie detector, to a polygraph machine, my guess is that everything President Trump says would always pass the lie detector test because he actually believes all the stuff that he says.
00:28:32.000 The problem is that he has now set it up, is Ford lying or is she not?
00:28:36.000 Well, what this means is I don't think that Trump pulls Kavanaugh's nomination.
00:28:40.000 I think Trump leaves Kavanaugh's nomination no matter what happens.
00:28:44.000 And Kavanaugh, I can't imagine, is going to be able to rebut the testimony.
00:28:48.000 No matter how much sympathy he shows, you can't rebut the testimony of a woman who claims that you were lying on top of her trying to rape her.
00:28:53.000 Pretty difficult to rebut that.
00:28:55.000 I don't think Trump pulls the nomination.
00:28:56.000 I think instead what happens is probably that Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine
00:29:02.000 Probably vote against Kavanaugh's nomination.
00:29:05.000 That kills the nomination.
00:29:06.000 Trump blames squish Republicans for finishing Kavanaugh.
00:29:09.000 His base is happy because he didn't pull the nomination and he fights.
00:29:12.000 And by the way, I don't think he should pull the nomination because again, I think there should be a standard of corroborative evidence that is presented if we're going to start pulling nominations.
00:29:20.000 But.
00:29:20.000 I don't think Trump pulls the nomination.
00:29:21.000 I think he lets this thing go down in flaming defeat.
00:29:23.000 I think he nominates Amy Coney Barrett.
00:29:25.000 And then Democrats get what they want, which is a referendum in November on whether Republicans should control the next Supreme Court seat.
00:29:31.000 If Republicans do not have a majority in November of the Senate, there will be eight people on the Supreme Court from here until 2021.
00:29:38.000 Democrats are not going to allow President Trump to fill the seat.
00:29:41.000 That's what this has always been about.
00:29:42.000 This is always for Democrats, not for Ford, for Democrats.
00:29:45.000 This has always been about political manipulation for the press.
00:29:48.000 It's been about political manipulation as well.
00:29:50.000 There are too many members of the press who have treated allegations as verified facts.
00:29:54.000 There are too many members of the press who have treated evidence-free allegations as absolutely
00:30:00.000 Justified?
00:30:00.000 We're going to get to all of that in just a second.
00:30:02.000 But first, let's talk about your comfort with your underwear.
00:30:05.000 You may know Tommy John as the creators of the most comfortable underwear on the planet for men and women.
00:30:10.000 But little did you know, they've been working on revolutionizing comfort for men's dress shirts as well.
00:30:14.000 After six years and 200 different wear-tested prototypes, Tommy John has perfected the stay-tucked dress shirt.
00:30:20.000 It's truly unlike anything guys have ever experienced.
00:30:22.000 The Stay Tucked Dress Shirt.
00:30:23.000 It's fantastic.
00:30:24.000 I wear button-down shirts every day.
00:30:25.000 And I can tell you, Tommy John shirts, just great.
00:30:27.000 Why?
00:30:27.000 Because these are created to end the constant tuck of war men have endured for years with their dress shirts.
00:30:32.000 Get it?
00:30:32.000 It's a tuck of war because you're tucking it in.
00:30:34.000 With Invisigrip Snap Technology.
00:30:36.000 You won't have to deal with any billowing or bunching.
00:30:39.000 The 360 degree underarm stretch panel allows for full range of motion.
00:30:42.000 Stretch, twist, even put luggage on an airplane without restriction or untucking.
00:30:46.000 Upgrade today with Tommy John.
00:30:47.000 No adjustment needed.
00:30:48.000 Go to TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro to save 20% on your first order, plus free shipping and free returns on all dress shirt purchases.
00:30:55.000 That is TommyJohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off.
00:30:58.000 Other products are just fantastic, by the way.
00:31:00.000 Not just the dress shirts.
00:31:02.000 Everything is great.
00:31:02.000 Their underwear is supremely comfortable.
00:31:05.000 It has a no wedgie guarantee, which I could have used in high school.
00:31:07.000 Go check it out right now.
00:31:08.000 Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off.
00:31:10.000 Again, that's Tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off.
00:31:15.000 Just let them know that we sent you.
00:31:16.000 All right.
00:31:17.000 So I do want to get into the press's behavior and Democratic behavior today at the hearings, because again,
00:31:23.000 I'm not going to say that Christine Blasey Ford is a political actor.
00:31:26.000 I am going to say that Democrats and the media have acted in entirely political fashion surrounding the Kavanaugh accusations.
00:31:33.000 We'll get to that in just a second.
00:31:34.000 For that, you have to go over to Daily Wire and subscribe.
00:31:36.000 For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription to Daily Wire.
00:31:39.000 When you do, you get the rest of the show live.
00:31:40.000 You get the rest of the Andrew Klavan show live, the rest of the Michael Knowles show live, the rest of the Matt Walsh show live.
00:31:45.000 I don't know why you'd want Knowles' show, but I mean, if that's a thing you want, you can still get it.
00:31:49.000 $9.99 a month gets you all of those things.
00:31:51.000 Plus, for $99 a year, you get this.
00:31:53.000 Leftist tiers.
00:31:54.000 Hot or cold tumbler.
00:31:55.000 Notice, it says leftist tiers, not liberal tiers.
00:31:57.000 Liberals are just people who
00:31:58.000 Disagree with me on politics.
00:31:59.000 Leftists are people who try to shut me down from speaking at USC.
00:32:02.000 But, go check it out right now.
00:32:04.000 $99 cheaper than the monthly subscription, and you get this, the very greatest in beverage vessels.
00:32:08.000 It does give you the power of invisibility, I have heard.
00:32:10.000 I can't make that claim with full veracity, but...
00:32:14.000 I have heard.
00:32:14.000 Also, Eternal Life.
00:32:15.000 If Indiana Jones had just chosen the Leftist Tears Hot or Cold Tumblr, if that other guy in Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail had chosen that at the end of the movie, his face wouldn't have melted off and withered.
00:32:24.000 Go check it out right now for $99 a year.
00:32:27.000 Also, please subscribe to us at YouTube or iTunes.
00:32:29.000 We have a Sunday special this week featuring Cameron Kasky, someone with whom I disagree a lot on politics, but a 17-year-old kid who's at Parkland and really, I think, is attempting to search for a better politics, so good for him.
00:32:39.000 You can listen to that interview this week.
00:32:41.000 Go check it out right now.
00:32:42.000 We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
00:32:49.000 So the treatment of the Democrats is really what's been egregious in all of this.
00:32:54.000 Republicans have basically said, we will do whatever Ford wants in terms of having her here.
00:32:59.000 We are willing to hear allegations.
00:33:00.000 I will say that I think Republicans should have subpoenaed Mark Judge.
00:33:03.000 I don't understand why they didn't subpoena Mark Judge if they think that they are trying to get down to the facts.
00:33:08.000 Democrats have been political with this since the beginning.
00:33:10.000 Dianne Feinstein was political with this since the beginning.
00:33:13.000 The media have been political about this too.
00:33:15.000 Why?
00:33:15.000 Well, look at the way that they treated, at least many in the media, not everyone in the media, look at how many in the media treated the Michael Avenatti allegations from yesterday.
00:33:23.000 So an allegation comes forward, a woman claims that Brett Kavanaugh was part of a gang rape gang back in high school.
00:33:28.000 She said there were tons of witnesses.
00:33:30.000 Not a single witness comes forward.
00:33:32.000 She claims that she went to 10 separate parties at which there were these gang rapes and drugging of women, which does beg the question as to why would you go back?
00:33:42.000 I mean, when's the last time you went to a party, you saw a gang rape line and people drugging the punch and you're like, you know what?
00:33:47.000 There's one of these next week.
00:33:48.000 I'm coming back.
00:33:49.000 I gotta see whether it just goes differently next time.
00:33:51.000 And then do that 10 times.
00:33:53.000 It turns out, by the way, that the woman who makes the accusation was three years older than Brett Kavanaugh, graduated in 1980, which suggests that she was actually a college woman, like a full-grown woman, going to high school parties, watching gang rape lines happen, and then saying nothing, which is weird in and of itself.
00:34:08.000 But the way that many in the media treated this was a massive headline.
00:34:10.000 It was repeated over and over and over without a lot of these questions being asked.
00:34:15.000 I will point out one person who did ask the question.
00:34:16.000 CNN's Jake Tapper did grill Michael Avenatti on this, and Avenatti obviously had no answers.
00:34:21.000 That, by the way, did not stop Dianne Feinstein from today, in the hearing, suggesting that there are three separate credible allegations against Kavanaugh, which there are not.
00:34:28.000 There's one seriously credible allegation against Kavanaugh, in my opinion.
00:34:32.000 That's Ford.
00:34:32.000 Even that has no corroborating evidence.
00:34:34.000 The other two, from Deborah Ramirez and from the Swetnik,
00:34:39.000 I think that those are significantly less credible, the least credible is Swetnick, for precisely the reasons Jake Tapper is about to show you.
00:34:45.000 I mean, just to say he was present is a really egregious lack of specificity when you're talking about charges this horrific.
00:34:55.000 And I'm not saying that I don't believe them, I'm just saying, what exactly are you saying, or is she saying, that he did?
00:35:02.000 Jake, I disagree completely with what you just said.
00:35:05.000 Let me be clear about something.
00:35:07.000 This is not my declaration.
00:35:10.000 These are statements by my client.
00:35:13.000 These are her statements about what happened.
00:35:16.000 Okay, well, that doesn't help at all.
00:35:18.000 And Tapper, of course, is exactly right about all of this.
00:35:21.000 I should note on Mark Judge, Republicans did interview Mark Judge.
00:35:24.000 Democrats refused to participate in the interview of Mark Judge.
00:35:27.000 That doesn't mean they shouldn't have publicly subpoenaed Mark Judge.
00:35:29.000 I think that they probably should have.
00:35:30.000 But
00:35:31.000 It turns out that Avenatti's entire allegation from yesterday begins to fall apart.
00:35:36.000 In Miami-Dade County, according to Politico, a Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vennessy, who told Politico the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
00:35:48.000 Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.
00:35:53.000 According to Vinnacy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.
00:35:59.000 So, he says, this is a direct quote from her former boyfriend, quote,
00:36:05.000 Didn't matter.
00:36:05.000 The media repeated this stuff.
00:36:07.000 And I will point out, again, there's some diversity in the media.
00:36:10.000 You have people like Jake Tapper, who I think does try to be honest.
00:36:14.000 This is why I respect Jake.
00:36:15.000 And then you have people like Don Lemon, who really does not try very hard on CNN.
00:36:18.000 Here's Don Lemon on CNN saying that Brett Kavanaugh is like Bill Cosby.
00:36:22.000 Based on?
00:36:23.000 He doesn't say.
00:36:24.000 Right now, a Supreme Court nominee faces two allegations of sexual assault or misconduct from his time in high school and his time in college back in the late 1980s.
00:36:34.000 Kavanaugh denies that they ever happened.
00:36:37.000 When Bill Cosby was initially accused, many people for many years could not believe it.
00:36:42.000 The women's accounts were questioned.
00:36:44.000 It took a very long time and a lot of investigating and multiple proceedings before there was a verdict as to the truth of what really happened.
00:36:54.000 Okay, so that is not helpful at all, obviously.
00:36:56.000 There's no corroborating evidence, but it doesn't matter.
00:36:58.000 He's just like Bill Cosby.
00:36:59.000 It doesn't matter that Bill Cosby admitted openly to using quaaludes on women.
00:37:04.000 Kavanaugh's exactly like that.
00:37:05.000 And it's not just him.
00:37:06.000 Obviously, you've got Katie Tour over at MSNBC.
00:37:10.000 Who did exactly what Democrats are apt to do, which is suggest that anybody who doubts corroborating evidence says that the accusers are all liars.
00:37:19.000 Again, I'm not claiming Deborah Ramirez is a liar.
00:37:21.000 I've not claimed in this entire show, or any other show, that Christine Blasey Ford is lying.
00:37:25.000 I have said there's not corroborating evidence.
00:37:27.000 Why?
00:37:27.000 Because facts don't care about your feelings on this one.
00:37:30.000 There is no corroborating evidence.
00:37:33.000 I feel terrible for these women as well.
00:37:35.000 Corroborating evidence is necessary for you to buy an account.
00:37:39.000 You can't just buy an account because someone told you the account.
00:37:42.000 In just a second, I'm going to play what Katie Turr had to say to Kavanaugh's lawyer, and then I'm going to show you other evidence of the media playing this as politically as humanly possible.
00:37:50.000 So, Jeffrey Toobin on CNN, he, he, so we'll get to Toobin in one second.
00:37:54.000 First, let's do Katie Turr.
00:37:55.000 So, Katie Turr,
00:37:57.000 Was questioning Kavanaugh's lawyer about the Deborah Ramirez allegations.
00:38:00.000 And of course, she doesn't ask her, why do you doubt the why do you doubt the accusations?
00:38:05.000 Then the lawyer can say, listen, I don't know whether to doubt the accusations or not.
00:38:07.000 I can tell you there's no corroborating evidence.
00:38:09.000 And instead, it's why do you think she's lying?
00:38:12.000 I don't have to believe somebody is lying to suggest that their account may be faulty.
00:38:16.000 I don't have to believe that somebody is like this happens all the time in your daily life, in your daily life with people you love.
00:38:22.000 They tell you stories and you think, is that really how it went?
00:38:24.000 That's what people you love.
00:38:27.000 My wife is sitting behind the camera today.
00:38:28.000 There are times when my wife will tell me something that happened, and I'll say, is that really how it went?
00:38:32.000 And then she'll say, well, more often she says this to me.
00:38:35.000 I'll tell her how something went.
00:38:35.000 She says, is that really what you said?
00:38:36.000 And I'll think about it some more, and I'll say, no, not exactly.
00:38:39.000 Here's what I actually said, right?
00:38:40.000 That sort of thing happens all the time with people you actually like.
00:38:42.000 I assume my wife likes me.
00:38:45.000 It is a truth
00:39:00.000 You don't believe any of these women because you think that women are liars.
00:39:04.000 You believe the myth of Eve, the liar, bringing the apple to her husband.
00:39:09.000 You hate all women.
00:39:11.000 This is the narrative the Democrats and many members of the media have been trying to promote.
00:39:15.000 Here's Katie Tour doing just that yesterday.
00:39:17.000 Are you calling her a liar?
00:39:19.000 I'm not calling her a liar.
00:39:20.000 I think she has known about this for a while, supposedly, and so has Mr. Avenatti.
00:39:24.000 He waived this on some of your programs since last weekend and said he knew about it, and he never went to the police as an attorney.
00:39:32.000 I know what my obligation is.
00:39:33.000 It's to my client.
00:39:34.000 And if I had represented her, it would have been my duty to go to the police immediately.
00:39:39.000 But this is the question, right?
00:39:40.000 The question is what mattered there, not the answer.
00:39:42.000 The question was, are you saying she's lying?
00:39:44.000 If that's going to be the standard from now on, it's going to be impossible for anyone to escape any hearing unscathed, ever.
00:39:50.000 Because anyone can come forward with any allegation.
00:39:52.000 And then all you say is, do you believe the woman?
00:39:55.000 Is she lying?
00:39:55.000 Are you saying women lie?
00:39:57.000 Well, we don't know whether somebody is lying or misremembering or telling the truth unless there's actual evidence.
00:40:02.000 You could have said the same thing about Tawana Browley.
00:40:05.000 You could have said the same thing about Crystal Mangum in the Duke La Crosse case.
00:40:07.000 You could have said the same thing about Jackie from UVA.
00:40:10.000 You could have said the same thing about Emma Sulkowicz at Columbia.
00:40:13.000 All those women, it turns out, were not telling the truth.
00:40:15.000 I'm not saying any of these women are not telling the truth.
00:40:17.000 I'm just saying, I don't know.
00:40:19.000 Neither do you.
00:40:20.000 Were you there?
00:40:21.000 Unless you were.
00:40:22.000 And if you were, you should probably come forward and testify, I think.
00:40:25.000 But if you were not there, you don't know.
00:40:27.000 You don't.
00:40:28.000 I don't know either.
00:40:30.000 My tendency is to believe Christine Blasey Ford's story, but I don't have enough corroborating evidence to finish a guy's career based simply on the allegation.
00:40:39.000 By the way, I think there are a lot of folks on the Democratic side who would be more honest if they said the same thing about people like Juanita Broderick.
00:40:44.000 When Juanita Broderick accused Bill Clinton of rape, the answer the Democrats gave was, she's not credible.
00:40:49.000 Why?
00:40:49.000 What made her non-credible?
00:40:51.000 What they could have easily said is, well, her story is credible, but there's not enough evidence for me to corroborate it, which is the actual objective truth about things people tell you in real life.
00:41:01.000 But when it comes to politics, we all suspend this.
00:41:04.000 When it comes to politics, we all suspend the way that we normally work in the realm of the real in order to defend people we like or to target people that we dislike.
00:41:13.000 For example, Senator Patty Murray, she comes forward, and again, playing politics, she says that anybody who claims that this is a smear campaign, well, that frightens me as a woman.
00:41:22.000 Well, it is a smear campaign by Democrats to bring forward a bunch of unverified allegations with no corroborating evidence.
00:41:27.000 There's no question that is.
00:41:28.000 But what Patty Murray is doing is, again, drawing that crucial binary.
00:41:31.000 Democrats know they have a massive advantage right now with female voters.
00:41:35.000 A lot of that is driven by President Trump.
00:41:37.000 It really is.
00:41:38.000 Look at the polls.
00:41:39.000 From 2012 to 2016, Republicans lost women in droves.
00:41:42.000 They've been losing women in droves ever since.
00:41:44.000 Democrats know that they can just plow a wedge between men and women on a voting basis if they can credibly accuse Republicans of being sexist.
00:41:52.000 That's the game, and Patty Murray is playing it.
00:41:55.000 The message that this is a smear campaign frightens me as a woman that, once again, we are saying to women out there, don't come forward.
00:42:03.000 You're going to be accused of smear campaigns.
00:42:05.000 No one's going to believe you.
00:42:07.000 Stop.
00:42:08.000 Do the investigation.
00:42:09.000 Okay, they are doing an investigation, and then you yell at them for doing the investigation.
00:42:13.000 It's not just members.
00:42:14.000 The worst of all is, of course, Jim Acosta from CNN, who's just a garbage heap.
00:42:17.000 I mean, Jim Acosta is just, just awful.
00:42:20.000 Yesterday, Jim Acosta asks President Trump at his presser why he doesn't call on a female reporter.
00:42:24.000 This is just the worst kind of grandstanding.
00:42:26.000 What difference does the question make whether it comes from a female reporter or a male reporter?
00:42:30.000 If you put the exact same words in somebody's mouth, you should get the same exact answer, is my opinion, because I treat people as individuals.
00:42:35.000 According to Acosta, though, Trump won't call on female reporters because he's a sexist or something.
00:42:40.000 If you don't mind, after I'm finished, if Weijia or Hallie or Vivian or one of our female colleagues could go after me, that would be great.
00:42:47.000 Mr. President, just to follow up on these allegations against Brett Kavanaugh— What does he mean by that?
00:42:52.000 Explain.
00:42:53.000 What does that mean?
00:42:54.000 I think it would be great if a female reporter— What does it mean?
00:42:56.000 No, what does it mean?
00:42:57.000 I think it would be great if a female reporter would ask you a question about this issue.
00:43:01.000 So if you don't mind— I wouldn't mind that at all, no.
00:43:03.000 I wouldn't mind it at all.
00:43:04.000 All right, well, let me— Wouldn't make any difference to me.
00:43:07.000 All right.
00:43:07.000 Go ahead.
00:43:08.000 Good for Trump.
00:43:08.000 Okay, that's the actual correct answer, but you can see what Acosta's trying to do.
00:43:11.000 That's reporting.
00:43:12.000 So much reporting.
00:43:13.000 So much journalisming from Jim Acosta, who loves him some Jim Acosta.
00:43:17.000 Find you somebody who loves you like Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta.
00:43:20.000 My goodness.
00:43:21.000 But that, of course, is the narrative that's being drawn.
00:43:23.000 Okay, so, how does all this play out?
00:43:25.000 It probably plays out with Kavanaugh going down.
00:43:28.000 It probably plays out with Kavanaugh losing the vote, or being withdrawn, and then all hell breaking loose.
00:43:33.000 And Democrats proclaiming victory, and Republicans proclaiming that they were stabbed in the back, and things just get uglier.
00:43:39.000 Because corroborating evidence doesn't matter, and we're not honest enough to actually set a standard beforehand as to what constitutes evidence that somebody's career should be finished.
00:43:47.000 Okay, time for some things I like, and then some things that I hate.
00:43:50.000 So,
00:43:51.000 Things that I like.
00:43:52.000 I'll remind you that when we say believe all women, nobody actually believes we should believe all women.
00:43:58.000 Nobody actually believes that because we have to actually look at each account on its face.
00:44:02.000 We have to determine whether somebody is telling the truth or not.
00:44:05.000 The way you do this is through corroborating evidence.
00:44:07.000 So, I take for my example today, the movie To Kill a Mockingbird.
00:44:11.000 The book To Kill a Mockingbird is, of course, one of the great books in the English language.
00:44:15.000 I think, you know, people always say, what's the great American novel?
00:44:17.000 To me, it's either Moby Dick or To Kill a Mockingbird.
00:44:19.000 The movie of To Kill a Mockingbird is a, it's a great movie, although Gregory Peck cannot do a southern accent for his life.
00:44:26.000 But the score is really tremendous.
00:44:28.000 Elmer Bernstein did the score, just a beautiful, beautiful score.
00:44:30.000 It used to be the ringtone on my phone, actually, the score for To Kill a Mockingbird.
00:44:33.000 But here is, here's a little bit of the preview of To Kill a Mockingbird, and then I will explain why this is relevant.
00:44:39.000 And now, happily, To Kill a Mockingbird becomes a motion picture, and its memorable characters come vividly alive.
00:44:46.000 That's Scout.
00:44:47.000 Some people call her Jean Louise Finch, but she insists on Scout.
00:44:52.000 And that's her brother, Jim.
00:44:54.000 Just a boy until the day he learns there is evil in the world.
00:45:01.000 The movie's terrific, and the score is great, obviously.
00:45:05.000 Gregory Peck won Best Actor for his performance in this, which, again, is weird because he didn't do a southern accent, but in any case, the movie's great.
00:45:11.000 One of the reasons that I bring up this movie is because the movie is entirely about, or at least the main part of the movie, is about an actual false allegation of rape against a black man by a white woman who was actually sexually abused by her father.
00:45:23.000 And the way that the accusation is overridden in the court is not through a he said, she said.
00:45:28.000 It's through corroborative evidence.
00:45:30.000 It's through the fact that Tom Robinson, who's the black man, actually gets up and shows that he was not physically capable of hitting this woman on a particular side of her face because his arm is withered from a cotton gin accident from his youth.
00:45:44.000 The point here is that evidence still matters.
00:45:45.000 Okay?
00:45:46.000 Due process still matters.
00:45:47.000 And whether I believe Christine Blasey Ford or not,
00:45:50.000 That is secondary to whether any standard is necessary in order for us to destroy somebody.
00:45:56.000 Is any standard other than the allegations self-justifying?
00:46:01.000 That's the big question today.
00:46:02.000 That's the question nobody's going to ask, and it's the only question that in the end really matters for the future of the country when it comes to nominations, due process, or any sort of trial in the court of public opinion.
00:46:11.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
00:46:17.000 So the thing that I hate today, Don Lemon of CNN, again, I've already hit Don Lemon earlier, but he really, he really outdid himself yesterday.
00:46:23.000 I don't know, I don't know what he was on yesterday, but it was solid stuff.
00:46:27.000 He was talking about Ted Cruz going to a restaurant in Washington, D.C.
00:46:32.000 And there, he suggested that Ted Cruz, so what happened is, Ted Cruz goes to the restaurant, a bunch of activists start yelling at Ted Cruz about Kavanaugh, and he is forced to leave the restaurant with his wife.
00:46:43.000 Here is Don Lemon explaining why this is totally cool.
00:46:46.000 I don't like it, but it is one reason I'm not a public official, that I'm not running for office.
00:46:55.000 In a way, I think it goes with the territory.
00:46:56.000 I don't like that they were blocking his wife.
00:46:57.000 But that's what he signed up for, and as a strict constitutionalist, which Ted Cruz is, he knows that it's protected under the First Amendment.
00:47:07.000 First of all, it's a lie.
00:47:08.000 It's not protected under the First Amendment to go into a private establishment and yell at people until they leave.
00:47:12.000 That is not protected under the First Amendment.
00:47:15.000 It isn't.
00:47:16.000 There's a lot of speech, thank God, in this country that's protected under the First Amendment.
00:47:19.000 I can't enter your place of business and just start screaming at you.
00:47:21.000 That is not actually protected by the First Amendment.
00:47:24.000 But Don Lemon saying that he signed up for this?
00:47:26.000 Yeah, I'm sure he'd feel exactly the same way if Republicans came and yelled at Don Lemon.
00:47:30.000 Who, by the way, is a major media figure.
00:47:32.000 Did he sign up for this?
00:47:33.000 I don't think Don Lemon signed up for this.
00:47:34.000 I don't think I signed up for this.
00:47:35.000 I don't think Ted Cruz signed up for this.
00:47:36.000 I don't think Trump signed up for this.
00:47:38.000 I don't think Bill Clinton signed up for this.
00:47:39.000 I don't think people sign up for harassment in a law-abiding country.
00:47:42.000 I don't.
00:47:43.000 But according to Don Lemon, apparently, they do.
00:47:46.000 The other thing I have to say that I hate today, Jeet here is a
00:47:50.000 An alleged journalist over the Atlantic and he tweeted this out in the aftermath of some allegations that were that were dumped yesterday.
00:47:57.000 So Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee released a Kavanaugh investigative summary that included an anonymous claim of rape forward by Kamala Harris's office that turned out to be complete nonsense.
00:48:09.000 Two interviews and a written statement from a man who believes that he, not Kavanaugh, actually was responsible for the assault.
00:48:15.000 And so, Jeet here tweeted out,
00:48:26.000 Okay, this is raw gossip or personal accounts with the intent of muddying the water.
00:48:31.000 Okay, particularly this week.
00:48:33.000 Put aside Blasey Ford, who again has no corroboration for her statements.
00:48:37.000 This week, we've seen several attempts at muddying the waters coming from Michael Avenatti, coming from The New Yorker, all of it uncorroborated, all of it raw gossip intent at muddying the waters, but apparently it only applies to one side of the aisle.
00:48:48.000 This is what's so irritating about all of this.
00:48:49.000 None of this is really an attempt to get down to who should be on the Supreme Court or standards of proof.
00:48:54.000 None of this is really an attempt to get down to even the basic truth of what happened because there's no way to do that without corroborating evidence.
00:49:00.000 All of this is political and anybody who tells you difference is lying to your face.
00:49:03.000 We will be back here tomorrow with all of the fallout because I'm sure it will be magnificent in its horror.
00:49:09.000 We'll be back here with all of it.
00:49:10.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:49:11.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:49:16.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
00:49:21.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
00:49:26.000 Edited by Alex Zingaro.
00:49:27.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Caramina.
00:49:29.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
00:49:31.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.
00:49:33.000 Copyright Ford Publishing 2018.