The Ben Shapiro Show - The Biggest Day

00:00:00.000 EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the only first-hand witness to President Trump's thought process on Ukraine, finally speaks.

00:00:06.000 Plus, Democrats prep for a debate battle royale.

00:00:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:09.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:10.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN Podcasts.

00:00:18.000 Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com.

00:00:22.000 We're going to get to all the news, and there's tons of news today.

00:00:26.000 But first, let me explain.

00:00:27.000 When things feel chaotic, and do they feel a little chaotic right now?

00:00:30.000 The stock market is doing really well, but there's a feeling that maybe that might weaken in the near future.

00:00:35.000 We don't know where things are going on the foreign front.

00:00:37.000 Obviously, things are heating up with China.

00:00:38.000 Things are heating up with Iran in the United States.

00:00:41.000 The domestic political situation is unsettled, to say the least.

00:00:44.000 Well, it might be worthwhile to diversify at least a little bit into precious metals.

00:00:47.000 It's something that I have done.

00:00:48.000 It's something that I recommend everybody do.

00:00:50.000 Gold right now is sitting at its five-year high, and I've been telling you for years, one of the things that would be smart to do is take a little bit of your money and put it into an asset that can't be manipulated by the central government.

00:00:59.000 Birch Gold will have that conversation with you.

00:01:01.000 You can determine if precious metals make sense to include in your portfolio.

00:01:04.000 Again, it makes sense for my portfolio.

00:01:06.000 I think it makes sense for yours as well.

00:01:07.000 There's no obligation.

00:01:08.000 You have nothing to lose to take that first step of just requesting a free information kit on gold.

00:01:12.000 Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.

00:01:18.000 I like the folks at Birch Gold Group.

00:01:20.000 I've worked with them.

00:01:20.000 I trust them.

00:01:21.000 For years.

00:01:22.000 Again, that A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau speaks better than I can on it.

00:01:25.000 Text Ben to 474747 to request that free information kit on Gold.

00:01:29.000 Get yourself educated, ask all of your questions, and get your answers from Birch Gold.

00:01:33.000 That's Ben to 474747.

00:01:34.000 Text that, my name Ben, to 474747.

00:01:39.000 Okay, so today is the biggest day in terms of the public hearings that are taking place regarding the Trump-Ukraine quasi-scandal impeachment inquiry.

00:01:43.000 And you should support them as well.

00:01:46.000 Okay, so today is the biggest day in terms of the public hearings that are taking place regarding the Trump-Ukraine quasi-scandal impeachment inquiry.

00:01:55.000 The reason that today is the biggest day is because the only person who has yet testified or is planning to testify, who has had a direct conversation with President Trump, testified today.

00:02:05.000 And that'd be EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland.

00:02:08.000 So, you'll recall that in his original testimony, Gordon Sondland suggested that there was no quid pro quo, or at least that he was told by Trump that there was no quid pro quo.

00:02:16.000 In his original testimony, he suggested that he had only spoken with President Trump maybe five or six times since being appointed ambassador.

00:02:23.000 Other witnesses have suggested that that is not true, that in fact, he'd had many conversations with Gordon Sondland.

00:02:29.000 He had also suggested that he spoke briefly to Trump before traveling to Ukraine for meetings on July 26th, which is right before Trump was supposed to speak with President Zelensky in Ukraine.

00:02:39.000 And he had said at the time, I do recall a brief discussion with President Trump before my visit to Kiev.

00:02:43.000 The call was very short, non-substantive, and did not encompass any of the substance of the July 25th White House call with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.

00:02:53.000 Also, he had some sort of July 26th call.

00:02:55.000 With Trump, but in his initial deposition, he didn't recall that, right?

00:02:58.000 He said he recalled no discussions with any State Department or White House official about former Vice President Joe Biden or his son.

00:03:04.000 He said in his original testimony, remember, all these witnesses have given closed door testimonies.

00:03:08.000 Now they are being brought out into the open.

00:03:10.000 He said in his original closed door testimony, he didn't recall taking part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the Bidens.

00:03:17.000 Okay, then there are other people who have testified that Gordon Sondland had spoken to Trump and that he had been overheard speaking to Trump.

00:03:26.000 There was a witness named David Holmes, who's a political counselor at the U.S.

00:03:29.000 Embassy in Kiev, and he testified that he heard Sondland speak to Trump after a meeting with Zelensky aides.

00:03:34.000 And during that conversation, Sondland had said he was going to call Trump to give him an update.

00:03:38.000 And apparently, Holmes said that he heard the president's voice through the mouthpiece of the phone.

00:03:43.000 And that President Trump clarified that Sunlin was in Ukraine and that President Zelensky quote-unquote loves your ass apparently that's what he said to President Trump and then apparently Trump asked if he was going to do the investigation.

00:03:54.000 Now is any of that substantive in terms of Did Trump commit an impeachable offense?

00:04:04.000 Well, we've known for a while.

00:04:05.000 I've been arguing for a while.

00:04:06.000 In fact, it's pretty obvious that Trump was withholding military aid in exchange for investigations.

00:04:11.000 The question is, is the withholding of aid for the investigations illegitimate?

00:04:11.000 I mean, that part is true.

00:04:15.000 So what was the purpose of the investigations?

00:04:17.000 Were the investigations designed to bring down Joe Biden in advance of 2020?

00:04:21.000 Or were the investigations designed to investigate what happened in 2016?

00:04:26.000 Both because Trump is vindictive about 2016, because he's obsessive about 2016, because he feels that he has been given a raw deal by the media on 2016, which is true.

00:04:35.000 But also because he believes in conspiracy theories about Ukraine, which are not true.

00:04:39.000 Because he knows that there have been credible media reports from places like Politico, that Ukraine was in fact coordinating with the DNC to go after Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman for a while.

00:04:48.000 That part's true.

00:04:50.000 But also, Trump was worried about CrowdStrike, based on bad information from Rudy Giuliani.

00:04:54.000 My suggestion for months at this point has been that President Trump basically wrapped up all the stuff in a ball on Ukraine, decided he didn't really want to give aid to Ukraine anyway because he was always a little bit split on giving more aid to Ukraine.

00:05:06.000 He always felt that Europeans weren't doing their fair share.

00:05:09.000 He always wondered why the United States was Was spending so much time and effort in Ukraine, and he finally allowed that to cloud his judgment to the point where he said, OK, I'm going to withhold the military aid until I get these investigations.

00:05:20.000 And the investigations are everything that bothers me about Ukraine, up to and including Burisma and Joe Biden.

00:05:25.000 Now, the way that you would establish an impeachable offense is if what you found was that and the Democrats basically said this, right?

00:05:31.000 It's not just me saying this.

00:05:32.000 This is the Democrats setting the standard.

00:05:34.000 They suggest that this was to get Biden.

00:05:37.000 This is all about Biden.

00:05:38.000 All the rest of this stuff, the CrowdStrike stuff, the 2016 election stuff, all that stuff is a ruse.

00:05:43.000 Really what Trump wanted was to go get Joe Biden.

00:05:45.000 And all the rest of this stuff he was mentioning, these other investigations having to do with corruption, these other investigations about the Ukrainian embassy coordinating with the DNC in 2016.

00:05:55.000 All of that was merely a pretext for Trump to force Ukraine to go get Joe Biden, right?

00:06:00.000 That's the case.

00:06:01.000 So, Gordon Sondland is the person who theoretically could speak to that, right?

00:06:04.000 Gordon Sondland is the guy who could get up before Congress today, and he could say, right, I talked to Trump, Trump said, go get the Bidens, and the rest of all this was a charade.

00:06:14.000 That isn't exactly what Gordon Sondland said.

00:06:16.000 So, people are honing in on the fact that Gordon Sondland had changed his testimony.

00:06:20.000 His original closed-door testimony, he said he didn't understand there was a quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine.

00:06:25.000 Now, of course, he changed his testimony, and he suggested that there was, in fact, a quid pro quo with Trump and Ukraine.

00:06:31.000 But it is not clear exactly whether that quid pro quo was wrong, whether that quid pro quo was a problem.

00:06:37.000 So, here is what Gordon Sondland had to say in his early testimony today.

00:06:41.000 He had a bunch of things to say.

00:06:43.000 So, He began by explaining that everybody was in the loop on this.

00:06:47.000 Like, everybody knew that Trump was basically withholding military aid in order to get investigations.

00:06:52.000 Whatever investigations means.

00:06:53.000 This is clip 18.

00:06:55.000 He says everybody was in the loop.

00:06:57.000 It's not like this was a giant secret with regard to Ukraine policy.

00:07:02.000 He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a friendly and productive call, no details, prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.

00:07:15.000 Chief of Staff Mulvaney responded, I asked the NSC to set it up for tomorrow.

00:07:21.000 Everyone was in the loop.

00:07:25.000 It was no secret Everyone was informed via email on July 19th, days before the presidential call.

00:07:33.000 Okay, so, not only did everybody know, says Gordon Sunlin, but everybody at the State Department knew, up to and including Mike Pompeo, that President Trump was manipulating Ukraine policy in order to achieve investigations.

00:07:43.000 So, everyone was in the loop, right?

00:07:45.000 Sunlin is trying to say, it wasn't just me.

00:07:47.000 It wasn't me making up this foreign policy.

00:07:49.000 It wasn't, like, don't try to throw me under the bus, right?

00:07:51.000 We've got a problem with the foreign policy.

00:07:52.000 I was not the originator of the foreign policy.

00:07:54.000 I'm not going to be the man who gets caught in the crossfire here.

00:07:57.000 I was doing the will of the President of the United States.

00:08:00.000 Here's Sunlin explaining that everybody at the State Department knew.

00:08:04.000 We kept the leadership of the State Department and the NSC informed of our activities.

00:08:12.000 And that included communications with Secretary of State Pompeo, his counselor Ulrich Brechtel, his executive secretary Lisa Kenna, and also communications with Ambassador Bolton, Dr. Hill, Mr. Morrison, and their staff at the NSC.

00:08:34.000 They knew what we were doing and why.

00:08:38.000 Okay, everybody knew, right?

00:08:39.000 In other words, this was not a giant secret, which you would assume at this point, since half the people on the call, the July 25th phone call, made complaints.

00:08:46.000 Now, and then Sondland continues along these lines, and he says, listen, the only reason we were even working with Rudy Giuliani was on Trump's behalf.

00:08:53.000 So if you think that I was coordinating with Giuliani because I had some sort of side relationship with Giuliani, not gonna happen.

00:08:57.000 So Sondland is trying to achieve a couple of things with this testimony.

00:09:00.000 One, he can't say anything that overtly contradicts his closed-door testimony, because then he would be charged with perjury.

00:09:05.000 Republicans would charge him with perjury.

00:09:07.000 Two, Gordon Sondland does not want to be the guy who is basically put out there as he was freelancing the foreign policy.

00:09:14.000 Now listen, I don't think that that was a credible accusation in the first place.

00:09:17.000 I think that if anybody had claimed that Gordon Sondland was making up Ukrainian foreign policy on his own, the giant owner to Trump who ended up as EU ambassador, suddenly an expert on Ukraine and negotiating with Rudy Giuliani, that was never a credible defense for the Trump administration.

00:09:30.000 Again, the only credible defense Was the one that I have presented for Trump, which was an intent-based defense, right?

00:09:36.000 The no quid pro quo, it was a perfect phone call defense, was obviously crap.

00:09:40.000 It was obviously crap from very nearly the beginning, right?

00:09:43.000 As soon as it came out that the Ukrainians had found out pretty soon after the July 25th phone call that military aid was being withheld, to say that there was no quid pro quo at all was obviously untenable.

00:09:52.000 To suggest that President Trump had engaged in a perfect phone call on July 25th, obviously, was also untenable.

00:10:00.000 The only tenable defense is that President Trump did not have intent to go after Joe Biden specifically in advance of 2020.

00:10:08.000 It was not about getting Biden.

00:10:09.000 It was about all of his thoughts on Ukraine mashed up together, thrown out there.

00:10:13.000 And Ukraine was supposed to fulfill all of these concerns that Trump had, some of which were legitimate, some of which were based on bad information being provided by Rudy Giuliani.

00:10:23.000 But Sondland is trying to avoid the it's-my-fault routine that I think many in the Trump administration wanted Sondland to take the bullet here and Sondland ain't gonna do it.

00:10:31.000 So here is Sondland saying, listen, the only reason we were even talking with Rudy Giuliani is because of President Trump.

00:10:39.000 Finally, at all times, I was acting in good faith.

00:10:45.000 I was acting in good faith.

00:10:48.000 As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the president.

00:10:53.000 We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the president directed us to do so.

00:10:59.000 We had no desire to set any conditions.

00:11:02.000 We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukrainians.

00:11:06.000 Okay, so there it is.

00:11:07.000 Him saying, along with members of the foreign policy team, that they were trying to pry loose the aid from Trump.

00:11:15.000 And it was not about them freelancing with Rudy Giuliani or anything.

00:11:18.000 It was top-down.

00:11:19.000 Trump was the one who was telling him, talk with Rudy Giuliani.

00:11:22.000 And then someone says, Rudy wanted a quid pro quo, right?

00:11:25.000 That the quid pro quo is a thing that happened, and that Rudy Giuliani's request obviously amounted to a quid pro quo.

00:11:30.000 Here is someone using that phrase, quid pro quo.

00:11:33.000 Which is different than what he had said in his closed-door testimony, and then he had revised.

00:11:36.000 Originally, he had said he didn't understand there was a quid pro quo.

00:11:38.000 Then he came back and he said, no, no, no, actually I got that wrong.

00:11:41.000 I'm not charged with perjury.

00:11:41.000 I just want to revise this.

00:11:43.000 I did understand that there was a quid pro quo, even if I didn't understand the full extent of the quid pro quo.

00:11:48.000 Here is Sunlin saying that Giuliani's requests did amount to a quid pro quo.

00:11:53.000 In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 elections and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.

00:12:17.000 I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson.

00:12:24.000 And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians.

00:12:29.000 Sondland then concludes by suggesting that President Trump said that there was no quid pro quo, right?

00:12:33.000 That it is true that he was on the phone with Trump and Trump had said, no quid pro quo.

00:12:38.000 We'll play that for you in just one second.

00:12:40.000 First, let's talk about your sleep quality.

00:12:41.000 So let's be real about this.

00:12:43.000 It's hard to get sleep these days.

00:12:44.000 Politics is exciting.

00:12:45.000 A lot going on.

00:12:45.000 There's probably a lot going on in your life.

00:12:47.000 I mean, we're approaching Thanksgiving.

00:12:48.000 We're approaching Christmas.

00:12:50.000 A lot of stuff going on.

00:12:50.000 and a lot of chaos in life.

00:12:52.000 Well, when you lie down on that mattress, don't you want to be comfortable?

00:12:54.000 So why exactly would you have a mattress that you just picked up at some big box store that's not made for you?

00:12:59.000 Helix Sleep personalizes your mattress to you.

00:13:02.000 Helix Sleep has a quiz.

00:13:03.000 It takes just two minutes to complete.

00:13:04.000 It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.

00:13:08.000 No matter how you sleep, side, back, hot sleep, or whatever, Helix can make what your body needs.

00:13:13.000 Just go to helixsleep.com slash Ben.

00:13:14.000 Take their two-minute sleep quiz.

00:13:16.000 They will match you to a customized mattress that will give you the best sleep of your life.

00:13:19.000 life.

00:13:19.000 When I'm on the road, I do not sleep as well because I do not have the Helix Sleep mattress, which is why I'm always relieved to be home and get on that Helix Sleep mattress for couples.

00:13:20.000 When I'm on the road, I do not sleep as well because I do not have the Helix Sleep mattress, which is why I'm always relieved to be home and get on that Helix Sleep mattress for couples.

00:13:27.000 Helix can even split the mattress down the middle, providing individual support needs and feel preferences for each side.

00:13:32.000 They've got a 10-year warranty, and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.

00:13:32.000 They've got a 10-year warranty and you get to try it out for 100 nights risk-free.

00:13:36.000 They'll even pick it up for you if you don't love it, but you're going to, so don't worry about it.

00:13:39.000 Helix is offering up to $125 off all mattress orders for our listeners.

00:13:43.000 Get up to $125 off at helixsleep.com.

00:13:45.000 That's helixsleep.com.

00:13:48.000 For up to $125 off your mattress order, helixsleep.com.

00:13:52.000 Go check them out right now.

00:13:53.000 They really are fantastic.

00:13:54.000 The mattresses are so good.

00:13:55.000 I got one for my sister for her wedding.

00:13:56.000 I mean, they really are fantastic.

00:13:57.000 Helixsleep.com.

00:13:58.000 Okay, so Gordon Sondland concludes by saying that Trump did say to him no quid pro quo.

00:14:05.000 But basically, I didn't believe him when he said no quid pro quo.

00:14:08.000 Nobody believed him when he said no quid pro quo.

00:14:10.000 Here is Sondland saying that Trump did say no quid pro quo.

00:14:13.000 But I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman.

00:14:17.000 What do you want from Ukraine?

00:14:18.000 I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that.

00:14:22.000 What do you want?

00:14:24.000 And it was a very short, abrupt conversation.

00:14:28.000 He was not in a good mood.

00:14:30.000 And he just said, I want nothing.

00:14:32.000 I want nothing.

00:14:32.000 I want no quid pro quo.

00:14:34.000 Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

00:14:36.000 Something to that effect.

00:14:38.000 Okay, so that's what Trump said, but it's pretty obvious that someone didn't believe him.

00:14:42.000 Now, there is stuff that someone said that goes to the key question, right?

00:14:46.000 So Democrats, the media, they're focusing in on the broader question, which I believe was already established, right?

00:14:51.000 And they're focusing in on that because the Trump administration keeps running away from what is obviously true, right?

00:14:57.000 They keep saying, no, there was no quid pro quo, perfect phone call.

00:15:00.000 Okay, that was always an indefensible position.

00:15:03.000 It was nearly always an indef- nearly always.

00:15:05.000 In the first couple of weeks, it appeared maybe defensible.

00:15:07.000 After that, it was a nearly indefensible position.

00:15:10.000 Saying there was no quid pro quo is obviously untrue.

00:15:12.000 There was, in fact, a quid pro quo.

00:15:13.000 And I'm sorry, but the defense, to be intellectually honest, the defense that was presented by the Trump administration, which was, okay, well, if there is a quid pro quo, Ukraine got its aid.

00:15:21.000 They didn't give us what we wanted.

00:15:22.000 Where's the quid pro quo?

00:15:23.000 Right.

00:15:23.000 The accusation by Democrats and by people who don't like Trump, the accusation is that the reason that he changed the Ukrainian policy and then released the aid is specifically because this became a public issue.

00:15:33.000 It was embarrassing for him.

00:15:34.000 And so he released the aid because he had to.

00:15:36.000 So he preemptively corrected the problem before it materialized in its fullest form.

00:15:40.000 Right.

00:15:41.000 That is the accusation.

00:15:42.000 And so saying that eventually Ukraine got its aid, It's sort of like saying, I tried to blackmail somebody, it failed, and therefore, I'm not guilty for trying to blackmail somebody.

00:15:50.000 That's not a good defense.

00:15:51.000 The only defense here that makes any sense at all is the one that I've been presenting over and over and over again, which is that President Trump, again, because I think this is true, President Trump has in his head a bunch of crap.

00:16:04.000 And that bunch of crap about Ukraine can be listed on a 3x5 notecard.

00:16:07.000 And every time anyone mentions Ukraine, he flips to that notecard, and he gives you everything on that notecard.

00:16:14.000 He gives you Burisma, and he gives you Biden, and he gives you CrowdStrike, and he gives you 2016 election interference.

00:16:18.000 Those are the things on his notecard.

00:16:20.000 And he has a general predisposition not to want to give aid to Ukraine.

00:16:23.000 That is something that I disagree with him on, but he's elected.

00:16:26.000 I'm not, right?

00:16:26.000 So he's the President of the United States.

00:16:28.000 He does get to set foreign policy, even foreign policy, with which I disagree.

00:16:33.000 So the question here for Sunlin is, did Trump make clear to you that he only wanted the Bidens and the rest of this was a pretext?

00:16:39.000 Was Trump using taxpayer dollars to go after a domestic political opponent or was Trump using taxpayer dollars in order to pry anti-corruption concessions out of Ukraine and information about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election?

00:16:54.000 And Sondland, to Democrats' chagrin, right, this is the part you're not going to hear in the media today.

00:16:58.000 Sondland basically says, listen, I knew the foreign policy.

00:17:01.000 Everybody knew the foreign policy.

00:17:02.000 We all knew the quid pro quo was going on.

00:17:04.000 But what we were doing did not appear to be wrong.

00:17:06.000 That's the part everybody is going to ignore.

00:17:08.000 Here's Gordon Sondland, clip 17, saying, listen, I may disagree with the foreign policy.

00:17:12.000 I may have thought Trump should change it.

00:17:13.000 But we didn't think we were doing anything legally wrong here.

00:17:16.000 If we thought we were doing something legally wrong, we wouldn't have done it.

00:17:17.000 Here's clip 17.

00:17:20.000 Still, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong.

00:17:27.000 so Third, let me say, precisely because we did not think that we were engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decision makers at the National Security Council and the State Department knew the important details of our efforts.

00:17:53.000 Okay, and Gordon Sondland said that as far as his own conversations with Ukraine, he didn't recall mentioning the Bidens, which makes sense because officials from Ukraine have said, we don't remember hearing from Gordon Sondland about the Bidens.

00:18:03.000 Here's Sondland saying, so if this whole thing was about the Bidens, then why didn't I mention the Bidens?

00:18:07.000 Clip 16.

00:18:10.000 And then on July 26th, you confirm you did indeed have the conversation with President Trump from a restaurant in Kiev that David Holmes testified about last week.

00:18:17.000 Is that right?

00:18:18.000 Correct.

00:18:20.000 And you have no reason to doubt Mr. Holmes' recounting of your conversation with the president?

00:18:26.000 The only part of Mr. Holmes' recounting that I take exception with is I do not recall mentioning the Bidens.

00:18:33.000 That did not enter my mind.

00:18:34.000 It was Burisma in 2016 elections.

00:18:37.000 You have no reason to believe that Mr. Holmes would make that up, if that's what he recalls you saying?

00:18:41.000 You have no reason to question that, do you?

00:18:44.000 I don't recall saying Biden.

00:18:45.000 I never recall saying Biden.

00:18:48.000 Okay, so he is obviously contradicting the testimony of somebody who says he overheard someone.

00:18:51.000 Okay, so, again, the Washington Post is picking up on the fact that the actual question is a question of intent.

00:18:57.000 There's a piece by Josh Dowsey today called Republicans defend Trump as concerned with Ukrainian corruption, but aides tell a different story.

00:19:04.000 But even the piece basically acknowledges the Democrats have not made their case.

00:19:08.000 So here's what the Washington Post says.

00:19:09.000 Some of President Trump's allies have argued that his motivation for holding up almost $400 million in aid to Ukraine was his deep-seated concern about corruption and that he needed to test the new Ukrainian administration's dedication to rooting it out.

00:19:20.000 In persistent questioning during the House hearings, Republican lawmakers and their staff lawyer have pressed witnesses to agree that Ukraine has long had a corruption problem, and to portray Trump's desire to have Kiev investigate his political rivals as fitting within that broader worry.

00:19:32.000 Representative Jim Jordan said last week, quote, corruption is not just prevalent in Ukraine, it's the system.

00:19:36.000 Our president said, time out, time out, let's check out this new guy.

00:19:39.000 Well, while there is widespread agreement that Ukraine has long struggled with corruption, recent congressional testimony, along with interviews with officials who worked closely with the president, raised questions about how much Trump cared about corruption broadly in Ukraine, as opposed to investigations that stood to benefit him politically.

00:19:53.000 Okay, now, investigations that stood to benefit him politically is not the same thing as solely meant to benefit him politically.

00:20:01.000 Let me give you an example.

00:20:02.000 So, President Trump is very upset about the idea that the Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election.

00:20:06.000 Forget Biden for a second.

00:20:07.000 He's very concerned with the idea that the Ukrainian embassy was coordinating with a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, who is an emissary of the Democratic National Committee, in their attempts to dig up dirt on Trump's campaign.

00:20:18.000 Because apparently the Ukrainian government perceived that the Trump campaign had been pro-Russia, and so they were very concerned that Paul Manafort was the one who was influencing all of this.

00:20:27.000 They started funneling information to the DNC about Paul Manafort.

00:20:30.000 And so Trump's concerned about all of that.

00:20:31.000 And he wants Ukraine to investigate all of that.

00:20:33.000 Now, is that relevant to the American public?

00:20:36.000 Of course that's relevant to the American public.

00:20:37.000 We just did a two and a half year investigation into Russian interference in the American election.

00:20:43.000 Why would it not be relevant to the American public if Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and coordinated with the DNC in order to do so?

00:20:50.000 You can't have it both ways.

00:20:51.000 Either the Mueller investigation was a get Trump effort and irrelevant, or it was based on a fundamentally True assumption about the nature of American elections, which is that foreign countries should not interfere.

00:21:05.000 If the latter, then Trump is perfectly within his rights, even if motivated by certain vindictive anger.

00:21:10.000 He's perfectly within his rights to ask whether the Ukrainians were interfering in the 2016 election.

00:21:15.000 So when the Washington Post draws this false binary between Worrying about Ukrainian corruption and quote-unquote investigations that stood to benefit him politically, that's too broad.

00:21:26.000 There are certain things that fall under both, meaning that presumably if it turns out that the Ukrainians were in fact targeting Trump in 2016, that might benefit him politically going into 2020.

00:21:34.000 It would certainly assuage his feelings going into 2020, but is that an area of relevant political consideration for the American public?

00:21:41.000 Of course it is.

00:21:43.000 Do you think that it would have benefited Democrats politically had they found out that Trump had coordinated with Russia in advance of 2016?

00:21:49.000 Of course!

00:21:49.000 Does that make the inquiry illegitimate on its face?

00:21:52.000 No.

00:21:52.000 Okay, so, what the Washington Post is trying to establish is that President Trump generally doesn't care about corruption.

00:21:59.000 He only cares about Ukraine because it concerns him.

00:22:02.000 Okay, but again, that's too broad.

00:22:04.000 That's true, but that does not mean it's illegit- I mean, it is true!

00:22:07.000 I'm sorry, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Zambia, right?

00:22:10.000 Trump isn't worried about corruption in Mexico, per se.

00:22:13.000 Trump isn't worried about corruption in most places in the world, but he was worried about corruption in Ukraine.

00:22:17.000 Why was he worried about corruption in Ukraine?

00:22:19.000 Not because of Joe Biden in 2020, but because he was angry over 2016, and he saw that the Ukrainians were attempting to target him.

00:22:26.000 According to Politico, not according to Rudy Giuliani or InfoWars or something.

00:22:30.000 And the Washington Post basically acknowledges as much.

00:22:33.000 The Washington Post says, Four former administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe at private conversations, shared Sunland's view and said Trump's main contention was that Ukrainians had, quote, tried to take me down, in the words of one former senior administration official.

00:22:48.000 Trump angrily complained the official said that they had Hillary Clinton's email server, a reference to an unfounded theory that Democrats conspired with Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 election.

00:22:57.000 Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Sunland, and other officials said in testimony that this view was shaped by Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer.

00:23:04.000 Officials said Trump described Ukraine as a problem because it caused tensions with Russia and sucked security money out of the United States.

00:23:09.000 He begrudgingly approved the military aid in 2017 after being repeatedly pushed by national security officials.

00:23:14.000 Okay, so that backs my theory, not the Democratic theory.

00:23:18.000 That backs my theory, that Trump was sitting there and simply mulling over in his mind and obsessing about 2016, not that he was attempting to go after Joe Biden in 2020.

00:23:31.000 That Washington Post piece backs my case, not their case.

00:23:34.000 Okay, in one second.

00:23:37.000 We're going to get to more of the testimony over the past couple of days, which was all supposed to be bombshell, but turns out, in many cases, not really to be.

00:23:45.000 Plus, we'll get to whether inquiring about Burisma is deeply corrupt in some way.

00:23:49.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:23:51.000 First, let's talk about the fact that as you were driving into work today, you looked around, there were a thousand different kinds of car on the road.

00:23:58.000 And let's say that your car broke down, you had a problem with your car, and you just went to the local auto body parts shop.

00:24:02.000 Well, would they have the exact part that they need, or would they give you something generic off the shelf that costs too much money?

00:24:07.000 The answer?

00:24:08.000 Probably the latter.

00:24:09.000 And this is why you should check out RockAuto.com.

00:24:12.000 They're a family business.

00:24:13.000 They've served auto parts customers online for 20 years.

00:24:16.000 Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.

00:24:19.000 They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts, to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.

00:24:24.000 Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.

00:24:29.000 It's a lot better than going to an auto parts store.

00:24:31.000 Wider selection, reliably low prices, no waiting in line for the one person at the desk who's serving, like, ten people at once.

00:24:37.000 Instead, just do it from your home.

00:24:39.000 A fantastic thing.

00:24:39.000 The interwebs.

00:24:41.000 Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low, and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.

00:24:47.000 They've got amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need, rockauto.com.

00:24:52.000 Go check them out right now, rockauto.com, and see all the parts available.

00:24:55.000 And while you're there, write Shapiro in their how-did-you-hear-about-us box so they know that we say that helps us, that helps them.

00:25:00.000 Go check them out, rockauto.com.

00:25:02.000 Again, rockauto.com.

00:25:03.000 Okay, so, as I say, Sunland's testimony is not actually providing answers to the key question.

00:25:11.000 To the key question, which is, what exactly is the intent here?

00:25:17.000 Right, what exactly is the intent here?

00:25:19.000 Now, again, the fact is that Sunlin is not really even testifying as to intent, and when he has testified to intent, then Sunlin has basically suggested that the intent was go after problems in 2016, not problems in 2020.

00:25:34.000 And even in his testimony, he basically suggests the same.

00:25:36.000 Now, all of that can be based on bad information.

00:25:39.000 Now, all that can be based on bad information provided by Rudy Giuliani.

00:25:42.000 President Trump, being a sort of conspiratorial-minded dude, sent Rudy Giuliani over to Ukraine to dig into what happened in 2016.

00:25:49.000 Rudy Giuliani, it appears, was feeding him bad information provided by corrupt Ukrainians who are now being prosecuted under the law.

00:25:57.000 But that's... Trump's fault there is bad judgment, not bad intent, per se.

00:26:02.000 It was bad judgment to trust Rudy Giuliani's info.

00:26:02.000 Right?

00:26:06.000 That does not mean this was all about getting Biden.

00:26:08.000 Remember, the original accusation is that Donald Trump used taxpayer dollars in order to basically bribe the Ukrainians to give him bad information on Joe Biden for purposes of the 2020 election.

00:26:19.000 Not that he had broad Ukrainian corruption concerns dating back to 2016, and that he was using American resources to investigate that.

00:26:26.000 That may have been motivated by base political concerns, but so is nearly everything in Washington, D.C.

00:26:31.000 That's not the same as he was weaponizing a foreign government to go after domestic political rival with an eye toward 2020.

00:26:37.000 And by the way, who's to say that it's illegitimate for people to ask questions about what happened with regard to Burisma?

00:26:47.000 Elise Stefanik, for example.

00:26:48.000 She's the Republican representative who's getting all sorts of press these days.

00:26:53.000 She was talking with Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.

00:26:55.000 He was the Democrats' star witness yesterday.

00:26:57.000 And she asked Vindman about Burisma.

00:26:58.000 And Vindman basically acknowledges that Burisma is corrupt.

00:27:05.000 And so if Trump asked about Burisma, what's illegitimate about that specifically?

00:27:08.000 Here's Elise Stefanik going after Vindman.

00:27:10.000 I know that my constituents in New York 21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden, the son of the Vice President, sat on the board of a corrupt company like Burisma.

00:27:20.000 The Obama Administration State Department was also concerned, and yet Adam Schiff refuses to allow this committee to call Hunter Biden despite our requests.

00:27:29.000 Every witness who has testified and has been asked this has answered yes.

00:27:33.000 Do you agree that Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest?

00:27:41.000 Certainly the potential, yes.

00:27:42.000 OK.

00:27:43.000 And by the way, Vindman also, who was the Democrat star witness yesterday, came in full military regalia, obviously served honorably in the United States military for 20 years and stood on that to the cheers of the media.

00:27:54.000 He was asked specifically about Hunter Biden.

00:27:55.000 He said, yeah, of course, Hunter Biden wasn't qualified for the position he held.

00:27:58.000 I mean, Hunter Biden has acknowledged that himself.

00:27:59.000 Here's Vindman saying Hunter Biden was not qualified.

00:28:02.000 We talked a little bit about at your deposition about whether Mr. Biden was qualified to serve on this board.

00:28:10.000 Um, and, you know, I believe you acknowledge that apparently he was not, in fact, qualified?

00:28:16.000 As far as I can tell, he didn't seem to be, but like I said, I don't know his qualifications.

00:28:23.000 Okay, so again, the questions about Hunter Biden, those are not going away.

00:28:27.000 They're not going away.

00:28:28.000 And so the fact that Trump was concerned about Burisma and Hunter Biden and wrapping that all up in 2016 concerns, that does not speak to go get Joe Biden.

00:28:35.000 It doesn't speak to go get Joe Biden specifically.

00:28:39.000 So, to go back to Sunlin's testimony, I'm reading through his entire opening statement right now.

00:28:44.000 There are a few key sections, right?

00:28:46.000 He says, Again, that is Sunlin maintaining, I'm not the fall guy here.

00:28:47.000 work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine.

00:28:52.000 So we followed the president's orders.

00:28:54.000 Again, that is Sondland maintaining, I'm not the fall guy here.

00:28:56.000 You want to blame somebody, blame Trump.

00:28:58.000 But he also says, although we disagreed with the need to involve Mr. Giuliani, we did not believe his role was improper at the time.

00:29:06.000 As I previously testified, if I had known all of Mr. Giuliani's dealings or his associations with individuals now under criminal indictment, I would not have not have acquiesced to his participation.

00:29:14.000 Still, given what we knew at the time, what we were asked to do did not appear to be wrong. - Yeah.

00:29:20.000 And he said, Precisely because we did not think that we were engaging in improper behavior, we made every effort to ensure that the relevant decision makers at the National Security Council and State Department knew the important details of our efforts.

00:29:30.000 The suggestion that we were engaged in some irregular or rogue diplomacy is absolutely false.

00:29:34.000 So, Sunlin is actually kicking back there against the accusation being made by the other witnesses that there was this irregular channel and that Sunlin and Volker and Rick Perry and the President And Pompeo, they were in this irregular channel.

00:29:45.000 And then there was the regular channel, which was all of the career diplomats, the honorable career diplomats.

00:29:49.000 Someone was like, no, everybody knew about this.

00:29:52.000 Everybody was in on it.

00:29:53.000 Everybody basically acknowledged that it was weird, but nobody thought that this was wrong at the time.

00:29:58.000 And it was only later that people started to suggest that it was wrong, which gives the idea that this was in fact politically motivated, or at least could have been politically motivated from the outset, right?

00:30:07.000 Someone also acknowledged that Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo.

00:30:12.000 Giuliani said that he was expressing the desires of the President of the United States and everybody knew the investigations were important to the President of the United States.

00:30:20.000 And he said in July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine and everybody was upset about all of this.

00:30:27.000 He shared his concerns with Ron Johnson and with the Ukrainians.

00:30:29.000 He says, I was acting in good faith at all times.

00:30:31.000 As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President.

00:30:34.000 We worked with Giuliani because the President directed us to do so.

00:30:37.000 We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukrainians.

00:30:39.000 Indeed, my personal view was that the White House meeting and security assistance should have proceeded without preconditions of any kind.

00:30:45.000 We were working to overcome the problems given the facts as they existed.

00:30:47.000 Our only interest was to advance long-standing U.S.

00:30:49.000 policy and support Ukraine's fragile democracy.

00:30:52.000 Okay, so now the question becomes, with this testimony, do the Democrats have what they need?

00:30:59.000 Do they have what they need?

00:31:00.000 Do they really believe that they are going to be able to somehow draw the impeachment rabbit out of this hat based on Sondland saying that there was a quid pro quo?

00:31:10.000 And some of that is going to depend on the White House actively not pursuing the dumbest possible defense.

00:31:15.000 Like, the one that's not true.

00:31:18.000 I don't know why Trump thinks that it is more embarrassing for him to say, yeah, there is a quid pro quo, but the quid pro quo is for my concerns about 2016.

00:31:28.000 What's the problem?

00:31:29.000 Right, he was angry at Mick Mulvaney for saying that.

00:31:31.000 But Mick Mulvaney actually was saying the actual defense from the White House.

00:31:33.000 I don't know why that's somehow more embarrassing than him claiming pretty obviously, falsely, that there was no quid pro quo and that his phone call on July 25th was perfect.

00:31:42.000 I understand Trump's normal defense mechanism.

00:31:45.000 Is that you defend at the front line every time, right?

00:31:49.000 You never make a strategic retreat.

00:31:51.000 You never reveal your plans, right?

00:31:52.000 I get all of that.

00:31:53.000 But in this particular case, he's put himself out there on grounds that are unsustainable, and Republicans are not going to be able to sustain those grounds.

00:32:01.000 They can easily work within the grounds that I have suggested and that the Washington Post has suggested.

00:32:05.000 Again, it's not just me.

00:32:07.000 The Washington Post is reporting the actual testimony of aides.

00:32:10.000 The aides are saying that Trump was mainly obsessed with 2016.

00:32:12.000 It was not about 2020.

00:32:14.000 And by the way, there is crossover between American interests and 2016.

00:32:18.000 Vindictiveness by President Trump.

00:32:20.000 There is crossover there, whereas there is no crossover with regard to Trump going after Joe Biden specifically because he wanted Joe Biden out in 2020.

00:32:29.000 That is the question.

00:32:30.000 Okay, coming up, we'll talk more about this.

00:32:31.000 Plus, big Democratic debate tonight.

00:32:33.000 Pete Buttigieg is surging in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

00:32:35.000 Does he have a real shot at the nomination beyond that point?

00:32:39.000 We'll get to that.

00:32:40.000 In just one second.

00:32:41.000 First, did you know that nearly 1 billion individuals are affected by sleep apnea around the world?

00:32:46.000 True.

00:32:47.000 My dad is one of them.

00:32:48.000 That means that he has to use CPAP equipment.

00:32:50.000 CPAP equipment is one of the great inventions of all time.

00:32:52.000 It is keeping people alive.

00:32:53.000 But here's the problem.

00:32:54.000 Cleaning a CPAP machine is a real pain in the butt.

00:32:57.000 Well, SoClean is the world's first automated CPAP cleaner and sanitizer.

00:33:00.000 SoClean kills up to 99.9% of all CPAP germs and bacteria that can build up in your mask, hose, and reservoir.

00:33:06.000 You just put the mask in, you close the lid, you walk away.

00:33:06.000 It's easy to use.

00:33:09.000 It works with all popular CPAP machines and masks.

00:33:11.000 SoClean uses advanced technology to sanitize your CPAP equipment with just the touch of a button.

00:33:15.000 It is the safer, healthier way to breathe cleaner and have a better CPAP experience.

00:33:20.000 There's no reason to have a worse night's sleep.

00:33:22.000 You know, breathing in the dirty air from a CPAP when you can actually get SoClean.

00:33:26.000 Go to SoClean.com right now and you can try them risk-free for 30 nights.

00:33:30.000 So don't wait.

00:33:30.000 Even shipping is free.

00:33:31.000 Go to SoClean.com to take advantage of this 30-night risk-free trial and free shipping again.

00:33:35.000 That is SoClean.com.

00:33:37.000 Once more, SoClean.com.

00:33:39.000 Go check them out.

00:33:40.000 Make sure that your CPAP is clean.

00:33:41.000 You don't want to be breathing in dirty air.

00:33:43.000 I mean, this thing's keeping you alive.

00:33:44.000 Make sure it's clean.

00:33:45.000 Soclean.com.

00:33:46.000 That's soclean.com.

00:33:48.000 Alrighty, we'll get to more on Impeachment Gate 2019.

00:33:51.000 Did Gordon Sondland give Democrats what they need today?

00:33:53.000 We'll get to all of that in a sec.

00:33:54.000 Plus, the Democratic debates, which are happening tonight.

00:33:57.000 Another big Democratic debate.

00:33:58.000 Ooh, ah.

00:33:58.000 We'll get to that in a second.

00:33:59.000 First, If you have not been listening to Andrew Klavan's fantasy podcast, Another Kingdom, you're missing out.

00:34:04.000 It's a lot of fun.

00:34:05.000 You need to go to dailywire.com right now and subscribe to catch up, because on Monday, November 25th, at 7 p.m.

00:34:10.000 Eastern, 4 p.m.

00:34:11.000 Pacific, Andrew and Michael Knowles will be sitting down together to discuss the final season and also to take subscriber questions live from fans, which is really cool.

00:34:19.000 This live event will be free for everyone to watch on Facebook and YouTube.

00:34:22.000 Only subscribers will be able to ask the questions at dailywire.com.

00:34:25.000 Plus, subscribers exclusively can watch the entirety of the series.

00:34:29.000 Or you can listen free to the newest seasons on Apple Podcasts.

00:34:31.000 Go check it out.

00:34:32.000 Don't miss the Another Kingdom live discussion happening Monday, 7 p.m.

00:34:35.000 Eastern, 4 p.m.

00:34:37.000 By the way, if you are not already a subscriber, you're definitely missing out.

00:34:37.000 Pacific.

00:34:40.000 Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe for as little as 10 bucks a month.

00:34:43.000 You get the articles, ad free, access to all of our live broadcasts, full show libraries like bonus content, our exclusive Daily Wire app, like all sorts of goodies that we are adding to daily.

00:34:53.000 If you choose the new all-access plan, you'll get all of that, plus the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr and our brand new Ask Me Anything style discussion feature that allows you to engage our hosts, writers, and special guests on a weekly basis.

00:35:03.000 So, stop depriving yourself.

00:35:05.000 Come join the fun.

00:35:06.000 Go do it right now.

00:35:07.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:35:10.000 So Byron York has a really good piece of the Washington Examiner talking specifically about the accusation that Trump never should have asked about Burisma.

00:35:24.000 And he says, well, you know, that's really questionable.

00:35:28.000 He says, one of the most important issues in President Trump's impeachment defense is also one of the least explored.

00:35:33.000 To what degree were Trump's concerns about Ukraine valid?

00:35:35.000 It's well documented that the president fixated on Ukrainian activity in the 2016 election and on the Biden's actions in the Burisma matter.

00:35:42.000 Democrats and many in the media dismiss his concerns as conspiracy theories, but to what extent were those concerns in fact legitimate?

00:35:49.000 If they were even mostly legitimate, Trump defenders could say, look, you had a point.

00:35:52.000 Even if one thinks he handled the issue inappropriately, the fact is what was going on in Ukraine was worrisome enough for the US president to take notice.

00:35:58.000 That would not change minds among those dead set on impeachment, but among others, it would make the case for impeachment and removal much harder to make.

00:36:04.000 Of Trump's two concerns, 2016 interference and Biden-Burisma, the 2016 part came first and is the foundation for Trump's later concerns about the former VP.

00:36:12.000 So leave the Biden part for a later article focused on Ukraine and the 2016 election.

00:36:15.000 Like, this is the part that's so weird.

00:36:17.000 I keep seeing articles from the mainstream media suggesting that Trump's concerns about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election are completely fictitious.

00:36:24.000 In fact, he had testimony to that effect yesterday.

00:36:27.000 It was very, very weird.

00:36:29.000 Right?

00:36:29.000 You had people who were suggesting that Ukraine was never involved in the 2016 election.

00:36:34.000 Like, for example, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, this is clip 5, suggested that Trump's focus on 2016 interference by Ukraine was totally fictitious.

00:36:42.000 There was no evidence to it whatsoever.

00:36:44.000 Are you aware of any evidence to support the theory that the Ukrainian government interfered in the 2016 election?

00:36:51.000 Congressman, I am not.

00:36:52.000 And furthermore, I would say that this is a Russian narrative that President Putin has promoted.

00:36:58.000 And are you aware of any part of the U.S.

00:37:01.000 government, its foreign policy or intelligence apparatus that supports that theory?

00:37:07.000 No, I'm not aware of.

00:37:09.000 You are aware that other parts of the U.S.

00:37:12.000 government, our intelligence community for example, has said definitively that it was the Russians who interfered in the 2016 elections.

00:37:19.000 That is correct.

00:37:20.000 Okay, so here is the problem.

00:37:22.000 It is true that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election.

00:37:24.000 It is also true that there have been widely available public reports from credible sources, like Politico, sugge- If you find Politico credible, which I do.

00:37:33.000 As a general matter.

00:37:35.000 Those reports say Ukraine was coordinating with a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, who is a DNC hack, in order to grab information on Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman.

00:37:44.000 So Byron York says...

00:37:46.000 During the summer of 2016, candidate Trump was under constant criticism for being insufficiently critical of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

00:37:52.000 From Ukraine's perspective, Trump's statements were linked to the presence of Paul Manafort in the Trump campaign.

00:37:57.000 Manafort was promoted to campaign chairman in June.

00:37:59.000 Few Americans knew much about Manafort, whose best-known political efforts were with the Gerald Ford campaign in 1976, but Manafort later made millions in Ukraine, working for President Viktor Yanukovych and the pro-Russia Party of Regions.

00:38:11.000 Trump's comments on Crimea and Ukraine ...set off a strong reaction in Ukraine.

00:38:17.000 Some high-ranking members of the Ukrainian government took to social media in an attempt to influence as best they could the U.S.

00:38:22.000 presidential race.

00:38:23.000 On Facebook...

00:38:25.000 Arsene Avakov, at that time the Interior Minister, tweeted that Trump was a clown, added that a Republican candidate was an even bigger danger to the U.S.

00:38:31.000 than terrorism.

00:38:32.000 He said the shameless statement of U.S.

00:38:33.000 presidential candidate Trump on the possible recognition of Crimea as Russia is a diagnosis of a dangerous outcast and called him dangerous and all the rest of this.

00:38:40.000 Okay, and at the same time, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, a person named Valerie Chaley, wrote an op-ed published in The Hill.

00:38:46.000 Chaley said Trump's statements on Russia and Crimea have raised serious concerns in Kiev and beyond Ukraine.

00:38:51.000 Okay, so obviously Ukraine was very, very concerned about Trump.

00:38:55.000 And based on Trump's commentary, for decent reason, it seems.

00:38:59.000 But the question is, did they then interfere in the actual election cycle?

00:39:06.000 Because it turns out that the Trump-Ukraine brouhaha shed light on the activities of a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, who worked in the Clinton White House and later with the DNC.

00:39:15.000 Chalupa's parents immigrated to the U.S.

00:39:17.000 She maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S.

00:39:17.000 from Ukraine.

00:39:21.000 Embassy in Ukraine, according to a January 2017 article in Politico.

00:39:25.000 Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.

00:39:27.000 That is the best source of information on her activities.

00:39:30.000 Politico reported that in 2014, Chalupa had a client interested in the Ukrainian crisis.

00:39:35.000 As part of that, she began looking into Manafort's activities in Ukraine.

00:39:38.000 Chalupa, quote, developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence operatives.

00:39:46.000 In 2015, Chalupa began focusing her research on him.

00:39:50.000 The website reported that Chalupa occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

00:39:55.000 In March 2016, she went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and shared her concern with Politico, according to Politico, with Ambassador Chaley and one of his deputies, Oksana Shulyar.

00:40:04.000 Not long after, Chalupa spoke again with the DNC, and according to Politico, with the DNC's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which then-President Petro Poroshenko might discuss Manafort's ties to Yanukovych.

00:40:17.000 So in other words, it sounds like Chalupa, on behalf of the DNC, wanted the Ukrainian government to make a public statement discussing Trump's campaign manager.

00:40:26.000 They sound familiar?

00:40:29.000 Politico then added, quote, Andrei Tilijenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian embassy under Shuliar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort, and Russia.

00:40:39.000 Oksana said if I had any information or knew other people who did, I should contact Chalupa, recalled Tilijenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev.

00:40:46.000 They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexander Chalupa.

00:40:52.000 Adding, Oksana was keeping it all quiet, but the embassy worked very closely with Chalupa.

00:40:56.000 In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called to Lyshenko into a meeting with Chalupa to provide an update on an American media outlet's ongoing investigation into Manafort.

00:41:07.000 Politico also reported that Chalupa, quote, discussed the possibility of a congressional investigation with foreign policy legislative assistants in the office of Representative Marcy Kaptur, who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus.

00:41:18.000 The investigation didn't end up happening.

00:41:21.000 So, is there any evidence about the CrowdStrike nonsense?

00:41:23.000 No.

00:41:24.000 But is there evidence that the Ukrainians were involved in 2016?

00:41:26.000 Yeah, there is!

00:41:28.000 There are serious open questions about that.

00:41:30.000 And that's what Trump is obsessing about, even according to the Washington Post.

00:41:34.000 Even according to the Washington Post.

00:41:36.000 So, did today's... So did today's testimony change that fundamental intent issue?

00:41:43.000 Not really.

00:41:44.000 Not really.

00:41:46.000 President Trump suggested So, according to Gordon Sillman, so this is what he just testified moments ago.

00:41:46.000 Right?

00:41:52.000 He said, President Trump never told me directly that aid was conditioned on the meetings.

00:41:56.000 The only thing we got directly from Giuliani was that Burisma in 2016 elections were conditioned on the White House meeting.

00:42:01.000 The aid was my own personal, you know, guest, based on your analogy 2 plus 2 equals 4.

00:42:05.000 Okay, but again...

00:42:07.000 Assuming that the quid pro quo is a thing, which I am happy to assume because I think it is true, the question becomes intent.

00:42:14.000 Is the intent impeachable here?

00:42:16.000 My answer all along has been, I am doubtful that it is.

00:42:19.000 And someone has not yet provided any testimony that changes that.

00:42:22.000 Okay, so tonight is the next big democratic debate and the field is just a mess.

00:42:27.000 I mean, it is an absolute mess.

00:42:29.000 We've had basically several people contending at the top of the field.

00:42:32.000 There are four top contenders right now.

00:42:34.000 Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders still hanging around.

00:42:36.000 You've got Elizabeth Warren, who is dropping fast, and you've got Pete Buttigieg, who is climbing fast.

00:42:42.000 So, it seems to me that Elizabeth Warren is in a lot of trouble.

00:42:45.000 It also seems to me that the romance with Pete Buttigieg is likely to peter out here.

00:42:50.000 There are some new national polls out today, and they show Joe Biden actually gaining in the national polls.

00:42:54.000 There's an Economist YouGov poll today that has Joe Biden up nationally, 30 to 22 over Warren, Sanders at 12, Buttigieg at 9.

00:43:01.000 According to the Hill-Harris poll that came out in the last couple of days, it's Biden at 30, Sanders at 18, Warren at 15, Buttigieg at 7.

00:43:09.000 I'm telling you, this feels a lot like 2012.

00:43:10.000 It feels a lot like 2012 on the Republican side.

00:43:13.000 It feels like there was a frontrunner, everybody was unhappy with the frontrunner, Everybody else is going to get a chance at the top.

00:43:20.000 Everybody's going to fall and Biden's going to be the nominee.

00:43:21.000 If you had to predict it right now, that's what I would suggest.

00:43:24.000 The betting odds aren't reflecting that.

00:43:25.000 They still say that Warren is the likeliest nominee, but I'm not seeing why that would be the case.

00:43:29.000 Right now, Buttigieg is leading by big numbers in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

00:43:33.000 There's a brand new poll out in New Hampshire that is devastating for Elizabeth Warren.

00:43:37.000 That is her neighboring state.

00:43:38.000 She has to win.

00:43:39.000 If Elizabeth Warren does not win New Hampshire, she does not win the nomination.

00:43:43.000 But, according to a new St.

00:43:44.000 Anselm poll, Pete Buttigieg has vaulted to a 10 point lead over the rest of the field.

00:43:49.000 Buttigieg 25, Biden 15, Warren 15, Bernie Sanders 9.

00:43:54.000 Now, people would suggest here maybe hardest hit is Joe Biden, right?

00:43:57.000 Because Buttigieg is stealing sort of moderate support away from Joe Biden in early caucus states.

00:44:02.000 But that's not correct.

00:44:03.000 The reason that's not correct is because if Elizabeth Warren does not win in Iowa or New Hampshire, which are super white, super progressive territories, how the hell do you think she's going to perform in South Carolina where one black person supports her?

00:44:13.000 Two-thirds of the electorate in South Carolina on the Democratic primary side of the aisle is black.

00:44:17.000 Which is why Joe Biden is way up in South Carolina.

00:44:20.000 He continues to be up 19 points in South Carolina.

00:44:22.000 He continues to be up 9 points in Nevada.

00:44:25.000 Buttigieg, by the way, is pulling at 7% in Nevada.

00:44:28.000 So if Buttigieg were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, it's still unlikely he's the nominee because he has no minority support.

00:44:34.000 As in, none.

00:44:35.000 Zip zilch.

00:44:35.000 Zero.

00:44:37.000 Now, Bernie Sanders is falling out of the race, but his support, it seems, is not bleeding over to Elizabeth Warren, particularly.

00:44:44.000 And tonight, the candidates on the debate stage, Elizabeth Warren, because she's, like, Buttigieg is in good position because he is climbing in some of the important state polls, but Elizabeth Warren is still widely perceived by the media as the frontrunner, and she has opened herself up to every possible attack.

00:44:58.000 Every plan that she has proposed is garbage.

00:45:00.000 She's been shifting her plans repeatedly.

00:45:02.000 Her wealth tax is nonsense.

00:45:07.000 And there are people on stage who are only going to be able to make hay by attacking Elizabeth Warren.

00:45:10.000 So I'm talking, of course, of Cory Booker, who, if he has any brains at all, should be going after Elizabeth Warren on her decision to go against charter schools that she previously supported.

00:45:20.000 And he's going to have to do that.

00:45:21.000 He's going to have to say, listen, Elizabeth, I know that you're a very, very white person despite your Native American ancestry, but your former support for school choice, which was a good idea, You've now subsumed that in order to win over college-educated white people in Iowa.

00:45:36.000 And what about people who actually need a better educational opportunity for their kids?

00:45:39.000 In Newark, I did X, Y, and Z, right?

00:45:40.000 That should be Cory Booker's attack.

00:45:42.000 Kamala Harris should be attacking Elizabeth Warren on the basis of stolen racial valor.

00:45:49.000 Kamala Harris should say, listen, as a black woman in America, I know what it's like to be victimized.

00:45:52.000 You claim to be a victim by claiming Native American heritage and that is absolutely unsustainable, right?

00:45:57.000 That'd be a brutal attack on Elizabeth Warren tonight.

00:46:00.000 Bernie Sanders should attack Elizabeth Warren saying, listen, it's my plan.

00:46:04.000 You stole my plan.

00:46:06.000 And then you presented it in the worst, stupidest possible way.

00:46:08.000 You lied about the costs of the plan.

00:46:09.000 At least I'm honest.

00:46:10.000 You are a damn liar.

00:46:11.000 She has opened herself up to attack from every possible angle.

00:46:14.000 Every possible angle.

00:46:15.000 So, expect a pretty good night for Pete Buttigieg.

00:46:19.000 Expect Joe Biden to continue to be Joe Biden.

00:46:21.000 He's never going to have a wonderful night.

00:46:22.000 He's never going to have a horrible night.

00:46:24.000 Expect that Elizabeth Warren is going to have to fend off attacks and she has not proved adept at fending off those attacks.

00:46:29.000 She has not.

00:46:31.000 So in the aftermath of this debate, she is the one most at risk here.

00:46:34.000 And if you are Elizabeth Warren tonight, you are nervous.

00:46:37.000 You are very, very nervous.

00:46:39.000 And you should be extremely nervous.

00:46:41.000 She's the most vulnerable candidate at the top of the field right now.

00:46:46.000 And as again, for the Buttigieg surge, I think that he has a good ground operation in Iowa.

00:46:51.000 He's getting the glowing media coverage that was reserved for Elizabeth Warren until about six weeks ago.

00:46:55.000 But the media fall in love with, and then out of love with candidates extremely quickly.

00:47:00.000 Watch for in the next few weeks, Elizabeth Warren, for Pete Buttigieg to be hit with a spate of stories about how he has badly governed racial politics in the city of South Bend, right?

00:47:09.000 That's where he's most vulnerable.

00:47:11.000 Watch for that.

00:47:12.000 And watch for Cory Booker and Kamala Harris to go after him on that.

00:47:14.000 And watch for Joe Biden to continue to skate by.

00:47:16.000 So in a certain way, Joe Biden is actually benefiting from the fact that he is the actual front runner being treated as though he is not the front runner.

00:47:22.000 It's actually not a terrible place to be.

00:47:24.000 It means most of the attacks are not going to be leveled at Joe Biden.

00:47:26.000 In fact, the Democrats basically have exhausted their attacks on Joe Biden.

00:47:30.000 What else is there to say about the guy?

00:47:32.000 They've already hit him on criminal justice reform.

00:47:34.000 They've already hit him on working with Republicans.

00:47:37.000 They've already hit him on being old.

00:47:38.000 Like, what else is there?

00:47:39.000 But there are brand new attacks on these other Democratic candidates every day of the week, so...

00:47:44.000 I feel like Joe Biden is actually in shockingly good shape here.

00:47:47.000 Like in shockingly good shape.

00:47:48.000 So two things were true.

00:47:49.000 One, I was right that his best day was his first day.

00:47:51.000 But also, none of these other candidates are rising from the bottom up to the top.

00:47:56.000 It's pretty incredible.

00:47:58.000 Okay, time for a quick thing I like and then some things that I hate.

00:48:01.000 Things that I like today.

00:48:03.000 So there is a fun kids movie called Abominable that is out.

00:48:06.000 It's kind of fascinating also to look at the Chinese-American politics in this film.

00:48:10.000 So this movie was a joint production by a Chinese production company and an American production company.

00:48:15.000 I think it's a DreamWorks production.

00:48:17.000 It was obviously meant for release in China.

00:48:18.000 The sort of rosy depiction of China is pretty hilarious.

00:48:22.000 At the same time, it really is a fun kids movie.

00:48:24.000 I took my kids to see it.

00:48:25.000 They really enjoyed it.

00:48:26.000 It's really fun.

00:48:26.000 It's really innocent.

00:48:29.000 I've come around to the notion that the movies are just not fun anymore, which is why everybody's going to Marvel movies and superhero movies and kids' movies.

00:48:34.000 It's why those are the big earners.

00:48:36.000 And that the less fun the movie is, the more the critics love it.

00:48:39.000 But this is a really nice, sweet film for kids.

00:48:41.000 There are no sucker punches or anything.

00:48:44.000 If you're... I have a kid who's three, watched the movie, loved it.

00:48:47.000 So if you're interested in a kids' movie, taking the kids out to the films tonight, then Abominable is definitely a worthy choice.

00:48:55.000 There are people looking for you.

00:48:57.000 Go faster!

00:49:00.000 You can do magic?

00:49:01.000 This is amazing!

00:49:03.000 This is impossible!

00:49:07.000 I wish dad were here to see this.

00:49:12.000 Yeah, Ma.

00:49:13.000 Beijing is great!

00:49:14.000 Oh, Peng is a...

00:49:15.000 So one of the things that's actually kind of cool about this film, so a lot of it is about getting...

00:49:19.000 Basically, it's about getting a Yeti back to Everest, right?

00:49:21.000 It's a fantasy film, and it's fun.

00:49:23.000 It's a fun movie.

00:49:24.000 And one of the kids who stars in it, one of the kids who stars in it, is the grandson of Tenzing Norgay, who was a Nepali-Indian Sherpa mountaineer.

00:49:34.000 One of the first people to climb, he summited Mount Everest with Edmund Hillary.

00:49:38.000 And so his grandson actually plays one of the parts in this movie.

00:49:40.000 It's kind of fun.

00:49:42.000 And, you know, again, if you're looking for a fun movie for your kids tonight, this would be one to check out.

00:49:47.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.

00:49:53.000 Exciting news, the ACLU is celebrating International Men's Day.

00:49:57.000 International Men's Day.

00:49:58.000 So, yesterday was International Men's Day.

00:50:00.000 It was supposed to sort of signify the problems that men have.

00:50:04.000 Men have a higher suicide rate, for example.

00:50:07.000 They have male health issues.

00:50:10.000 The idea was that it was supposed to celebrate male contributions to society, promote male role models, etc.

00:50:15.000 Well, the ACLU came out with a tweet.

00:50:17.000 That basically tells you about the status of modern politics and why we are totally screwed.

00:50:22.000 Here's ACLU's tweet.

00:50:24.000 There is no one way to be a man.

00:50:25.000 Men who get their periods are men.

00:50:28.000 Men who get pregnant and give birth are men.

00:50:30.000 Trans and non-binary men belong.

00:50:33.000 Hashtag International Men's Day.

00:50:35.000 I'm gonna have to ask a question here.

00:50:37.000 If there is such a thing as an International Men's Day and an International Women's Day, presumably there is some distinction between them.

00:50:44.000 Explain.

00:50:45.000 Really, explain.

00:50:46.000 Define man.

00:50:47.000 Define man.

00:50:48.000 If you are going to say that a man can get his period, then I don't know what to tell you.

00:50:54.000 Obviously, your definition is not biological.

00:50:56.000 So, if your definition is a characterization of gender stereotypes, then which gender stereotypes are male?

00:51:04.000 Is it aggression?

00:51:05.000 Is it aggression that makes a man a man?

00:51:07.000 Because if so, then a biological female who says that she is a man, but does not have the male characteristic of aggression, is not a man.

00:51:17.000 And by the way, men who are biological men, who are not aggressive, are not men.

00:51:22.000 You have to set a standard.

00:51:22.000 The problem for folks who keep suggesting that trans and non-binary men are men, If the idea is that you are not a biological man, but you are a man, then you have to have an alternative definition of man that has some sort of internal coherence.

00:51:36.000 The left has none.

00:51:37.000 And so you end up with this stupid— I mean, it's absolute stupidity.

00:51:41.000 And the ACLU blames inaccurate stereotypes for opposition to biological male athletes competing in female athletics, by the way.

00:51:47.000 I mean, the ACLU is completely out of touch.

00:51:49.000 They've lost whatever tenuous grasp of reality they ever had.

00:51:53.000 The ACLU actually gave a statement last year suggesting that trans women should be able to compete as women, meaning a biological male should be able to compete alongside the women.

00:52:02.000 And they suggested it was inaccurate stereotyping to oppose biological male athletes competing against women.

00:52:08.000 As opposed to, you know, the basic biological dichotomy between mammalian males and females.

00:52:15.000 True in every mammalian species.

00:52:19.000 The ACLU at the time tweeted, Equal participation in athletics for transgender people does not mean an end to women's sports.

00:52:24.000 Trans women are women, including women and girls who are transgender.

00:52:29.000 Advances women's equality and well-being.

00:52:32.000 Um, no.

00:52:34.000 Having a biological male, like Fallon Fox, fight a biological female does not advance women's equality and well-being.

00:52:40.000 It's just a dude hitting a lady.

00:52:42.000 Which, last I checked, is not only unchivalrous, but also quite dangerous.

00:52:47.000 This is pretty... I mean, this is just absolute garbage.

00:52:53.000 It's just ridiculous.

00:52:54.000 It's just ridiculous.

00:52:55.000 All the way through, ridiculous.

00:52:57.000 But, the left is so focused on changing definitions of basic biological reality that they end up in the position of actually taking the interest of women.

00:53:06.000 And making them completely secondary.

00:53:07.000 Perfect example.

00:53:08.000 There is a school district in Illinois that has now decided that you get to go into the locker room of your gender decision.

00:53:14.000 So if you're a boy and you decide that you are a girl today, you get to go and undress in the women's locker room.

00:53:19.000 Well, here's a video of a teenage girl at one of these schools talking about the fact that she no longer feels safe in the bathroom because now there are biological boys walking into the bathroom who could spot her undressing.

00:53:29.000 This is clip 23.

00:53:31.000 Uncomfortable that my privacy is being invaded as I am a swimmer.

00:53:35.000 I do change multiple times naked in front of the other students in the locker room.

00:53:43.000 I understand that the board has an obligation to all students, but I was hoping that they would go about this in a different way that would also accommodate students such as myself.

00:53:54.000 Okay, well, there is no... I mean, the alternative that has been suggested in the past to having, you know, biological boys dress alongside females has been to have, like, a separate bathroom for transgender kids, right?

00:54:06.000 Or to have these transgender kids dress behind a curtain, allow the girls to dress behind... But apparently, the privacy concerns of a woman are no longer relevant so long as a boy who says he's a girl is treated as a girl.

00:54:16.000 This is all insanity.

00:54:18.000 It has nothing to do with reality.

00:54:19.000 It has nothing to do with biology.

00:54:21.000 It's just... There's no description that is appropriate beyond it is pure insanity to suggest that this is the case.

00:54:30.000 Truly.

00:54:31.000 It was amazing.

00:54:32.000 I do have to mention this.

00:54:32.000 It was pretty amazing.

00:54:33.000 So I saw an argument the other day.

00:54:35.000 I've always taken the position that pronouns refer to objective biological characteristics.

00:54:42.000 Right?

00:54:42.000 That when I say male and I say female, I mean biological male and biological female because there is literally no other descriptor that fits.

00:54:48.000 And if you take on the attributes of a male or female, that does not make you a male or female.

00:54:52.000 You have to be biologically male or biologically a female.

00:54:55.000 Now, for purposes of identifying for going into a bathroom, what you appear to be objectively to the outside world will probably be good enough because otherwise we're not going to check everybody's genitals as you walk into the bathroom or something or check your genetics as you walk into a bathroom.

00:55:07.000 But, for purposes of saying male and female, we mean biological male and biological female.

00:55:11.000 So, some dolt.

00:55:13.000 Suggested to me, well, look at the romance languages.

00:55:16.000 There are lots of romance languages where the verbiage is gendered.

00:55:20.000 Right?

00:55:20.000 If you look at Hebrew, to take a non-romance language, then the verbs are gendered.

00:55:25.000 Right?

00:55:26.000 The nouns are gendered as well.

00:55:27.000 So, for example, the word for table, shulchan, is a male word.

00:55:30.000 So that means that all of the verbs are male verbs.

00:55:33.000 And thus, because the language is gendered, why should we say that the word male applies to a male and not to a trans male?

00:55:40.000 This is the stupidest argument you could possibly imagine.

00:55:43.000 The fact that there are gendered objects in language for grammatical reasons does not mean that the table is a male.

00:55:53.000 Nor does it mean that the male is a table.

00:55:55.000 Nor does it mean that a male is not a male.

00:55:57.000 There's no transitive property that applies here.

00:55:59.000 Plus, the logic here is completely asinine.

00:56:02.000 Because you have to assume one of two things.

00:56:04.000 Either you assume that the gendering of objects means that gender has no actual relevance to terminology.

00:56:11.000 In which case, what do you care if I call a male a male and a female a female?

00:56:15.000 Because these words mean nothing anyway.

00:56:16.000 Or you have to assume that gender does have content.

00:56:19.000 In which case, you're with me.

00:56:20.000 If gender has content, then a male is a male and a female is a female.

00:56:23.000 But the social left wants to have it both ways.

00:56:27.000 And by both ways, I mean they just want to rewrite the entire doctrine of human language and human logic in favor of the asinine notion that men can have periods.

00:56:36.000 Alrighty.

00:56:36.000 We'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.

00:56:38.000 Plus, we will be back here tomorrow if you missed that.

00:56:41.000 And we'll recap the debate for you then.

00:56:43.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:56:43.000 This is the Ben Shapiro show.

00:56:44.000 The Ben Shapiro show is produced by Robert Sterling.

00:56:52.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

00:56:53.000 Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.

00:56:55.000 Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.

00:56:57.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.

00:56:59.000 And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.

00:57:02.000 Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.

00:57:04.000 Edited by Adam Siavitz.

00:57:06.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

00:57:07.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

00:57:09.000 Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.

00:57:11.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

00:57:13.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:57:15.000 An insufferable power-hungry bureaucrat testifies before Congress, the ACLU celebrates menstruation on International Men's Day, and the UK's first gay dad is dating his daughter's boyfriend.

00:57:28.000 But don't worry, because the governor of South Dakota is on meth.

The Ben Shapiro Show - November 20, 2019

The Biggest Day | Ep. 901

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript