The Ben Shapiro Show - ACB Wrecks The Democrats | Ep. 1115

00:00:00.000 ACB devastates ill-prepared Democrats.

00:00:02.000 Nancy Pelosi loses it on CNN's Wolf Blitzer for asking her a basic question. 1.00

00:00:06.000 And Nikole Hannah-Jones has a rather revealing meltdown. 1.00

00:00:09.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

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

00:00:19.000 Your data is your business protected at expressvpn.com slash Ben.

00:00:23.000 Well, yesterday was another good day for Amy Coney Barrett.

00:00:26.000 It turns out that she's very good at her job.

00:00:27.000 She's also very good at defending herself and defending her judicial philosophy. 0.91

00:00:32.000 Democrats, however, are not particularly good at their job, which was to somehow paint Amy Coney Barrett as a deplorable painter, as a crazy right winger. 0.99

00:00:40.000 who is basically using the Constitution as a guise for her own political viewpoint. 1.00

00:00:43.000 They did not succeed in this.

00:00:45.000 And so as per our usual arrangement, they've decided to change the terms of the debate itself.

00:00:49.000 We are now living in a world where terms randomly shift definition in chameleonic fashion.

00:00:54.000 It's really impressive.

00:00:55.000 Court packing over the last week turned from a very clear and concise term referring to adding seats to a court in order to change the political constituency of that court into filling seats that are open.

00:01:07.000 That just happened, and Democrats, they started it, and then the media went along with it, and suddenly it became rote to suggest that it is court-packing if you fill open seats or if you hold open seats because you do not wish to confirm somebody of the opposite political party.

00:01:20.000 That is not, in fact, court-packing.

00:01:21.000 Well, now, as we are about to see, the Democrats are starting to trot out a new narrative, and that new narrative is that the term sexual preference is homophobic.

00:01:30.000 Sexual preference itself, that term, is homophobic.

00:01:34.000 They're trying this one.

00:01:36.000 When you are losing the argument, you simply change the rules of the game.

00:01:39.000 This is why, honestly, we say this is how you got Trump too often, but it is true, this is how you got Trump.

00:01:44.000 People get so angry at the Calvin Ball that Democrats and the media are constantly playing, that they're like, we're sick of the BS, just bring the guy who's gonna break everything.

00:01:51.000 Just bring that guy. 1.00

00:01:54.000 Because there is nothing quite as irritating as watching people change the rules of the game in real time and then declaring that they are the defenders of fairness, decency, and light.

00:02:03.000 So I'll explain how all of that happened as this show develops.

00:02:08.000 But let's begin with Amy Coney Barrett herself.

00:02:10.000 So, Coney Barrett is an excellent judicial candidate.

00:02:14.000 She has a very clear and concise judicial philosophy.

00:02:16.000 She understands originalism really well, and she expresses it really well.

00:02:19.000 Here was Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday explaining the role of a judge in a democracy.

00:02:26.000 Part of the rationale for courts adhering to the rule of law and for judges taking great care to avoid imposing their policy preferences is that it's inconsistent with democracy.

00:02:38.000 Nobody wants to live in accord with the law of Amy.

00:02:41.000 I'm sure my children don't even want to do that.

00:02:43.000 So I can't, as a judge, get up on the bench and say, you're going to live by my policy preferences because I have life tenure and you can't kick me out if you don't like them.

00:02:52.000 So she understands the rule of a judge, what a judge is supposed to do, unlike Democrats and Democrat appointees who believe that a judge's job is simply to define the universe for everybody else.

00:03:03.000 Amy Coney Barrett continued along these lines.

00:03:05.000 She says, Here's Amy Coney Barrett saying she is not, in fact, the ruler of the universe.

00:03:08.000 You said you're an originalist.

00:03:09.000 the Constitution. That is up to Congress. It is up to the states. They can do all of this.

00:03:12.000 Here's Amy Coney Barrett saying she is not, in fact, the ruler of the universe.

00:03:16.000 You said you're an originalist. Is that true? What does that mean in English?

00:03:23.000 Okay, so in English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.

00:03:37.000 So that meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.

00:03:44.000 Okay, this kind of stuff ticks Democrats off to no end because, of course, they want justices to impose their own policy views on the Constitution so long as they are from the left.

00:03:53.000 And in order to justify that, they have to openly state or imply that originalists are actually just liars.

00:04:00.000 They don't actually care about the original meaning of the Constitution.

00:04:02.000 They are just using that as a guise in order to forward their own political agenda.

00:04:07.000 Sort of like how the 1619 Project suggests the Declaration of Independence was a bunch of lies written and designed in order to protect slavery, which of course is untrue.

00:04:14.000 People on the left pretend that originalism is about somehow shoehorning in your right-wing policy preferences into the law via this document, the Constitution.

00:04:25.000 Well, that's a lot of projection because it is the Democrats, it is Democrats appointees who have historically shoehorned their own policy preferences into law.

00:04:31.000 In fact, you can see this statistically.

00:04:33.000 Ilya Shapiro of Cato Institute pointed out that during the 2019 Supreme Court term, there were 67 decisions.

00:04:39.000 The four justices appointed by Democrats voted together 51 times out of the 67.

00:04:43.000 Republican appointees only voted together 37 times.

00:04:46.000 In other words, there's a lot of difference between how Republican appointed justices vote People are heterodox in how they approach these issues if they are originalists or textualists.

00:04:55.000 On a fundamental level, Republican appointees don't see their job as policy preference.

00:05:00.000 They see their job as interpreting the law faithfully.

00:05:03.000 But Democrats only celebrate the court when the court is doing their policy preference.

00:05:06.000 This is why they love Roe v. Wade so much.

00:05:08.000 Roe v. Wade is a terrible case legally.

00:05:10.000 Even its own advocates will admit it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

00:05:14.000 It's why some of the most celebrated positions in constitutional law are positions the left loves, specifically because they have nothing to do with the Constitution.

00:05:22.000 Some of their favorite quotes are things like this from Planned Parenthood versus Casey, where they say that every person in the United States, quote, has the right to, quote, define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

00:05:34.000 Well, if they really believe that, then presumably you'd be able to decide that on the level of a locality or a state.

00:05:41.000 But what they really mean is that the Supreme Court is going to define for everybody their specific definition of the concept of existence, meaning the universe and the mystery of human life.

00:05:50.000 What the hell does that have to do with the Constitution?

00:05:52.000 Democrats see nothing but wonder in Supreme Court justices declaring that the judiciary has been delegated enforcement of a, quote, charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.

00:06:03.000 In other words, the Supreme Court gets to be the evolving standards of decency by which we are all judged.

00:06:08.000 Another Supreme Court, quote, evolving standards of decency.

00:06:11.000 They don't say that when we have evolving standards of decency, we get to vote on those evolving standards of decency.

00:06:16.000 That's just called the Democratic Republic.

00:06:17.000 They say that they get to cram down on all of us their own evolving standard of decency.

00:06:22.000 They believe that they get to make law via emanations and penumbras from the Constitution.

00:06:26.000 That's Griswold v. Connecticut of 1965.

00:06:28.000 It was on that slim reed that Roe v. Wade is based.

00:06:31.000 This is what Democrats want from the court.

00:06:33.000 But this is not what originalists do.

00:06:35.000 And this is why Democrats are so angry at originalists like ACB.

00:06:38.000 Because, number one, they don't like originalism.

00:06:41.000 Originalism defeats their definition of the court.

00:06:43.000 And two, originalism gives the lie to their cynical viewpoint, which is that judges ought to basically impose their own vision of the law on the rest of the country.

00:06:54.000 So ACB continued along these lines.

00:06:56.000 She explicitly rebuked, essentially the Barack Obama vision of a judge.

00:06:59.000 So Barack Obama infamously stated that he wanted judges with empathy and life experiences because their life experiences would help them define how they made judgments.

00:07:07.000 ACB said, I have interesting life experiences.

00:07:10.000 They have nothing whatsoever to do with how I judge a case.

00:07:15.000 While my life experiences, I think, you know, I hope have given me wisdom and compassion.

00:07:23.000 They don't dictate how I decide cases.

00:07:26.000 Um, because you know, as we discussed before, and I've discussed a couple of times, sometimes you have to decide cases in ways where you don't like the result.

00:07:36.000 So while I hope that my family has made me a better person and my children definitely have given me new perspectives on life.

00:07:43.000 I still, in applying the law and deciding cases, you know, don't let those experiences dictate the outcome.

00:07:49.000 Okay, so normally the way that the Democrats fight this sort of thing is by claiming that the person doesn't have empathy.

00:07:55.000 That the judicial nominee is cruel and vicious for not using their own life experiences, not looking into their hearts before interpreting constitutional law.

00:08:02.000 There's only one problem.

00:08:04.000 Amy Coney Barrett is a particularly sympathetic figure.

00:08:07.000 She is not only a very brilliant legal mind, she also happens to be a mom of seven, and she's very personable.

00:08:13.000 And this came across very well in the hearings yesterday.

00:08:16.000 Here was Amy Coney Barrett talking about her adoption of two children from Haiti.

00:08:22.000 When Jesse and I were engaged, we met another couple who had adopted, in this instance it was a couple who had adopted a child with special needs.

00:08:31.000 And then we also met another couple who had adopted a few children internationally.

00:08:35.000 And we decided at that point, while we were engaged, that at some point in the future, We wanted to do that ourselves.

00:08:43.000 And I guess we had imagined initially that we would have whatever biological kids that we had decided to have and then adopt at the end.

00:08:50.000 But after we had our first daughter, Emma, we thought, well, why wait?

00:08:56.000 Okay, well, that does not seem like an unsympathetic, terrible person to me, which is what Democrats would prefer to paint her as.

00:09:02.000 They would also prefer to paint her as a racist. 0.99

00:09:04.000 It makes it kind of difficult when she's obviously not a racist.

00:09:06.000 So here was ACB yesterday talking about the George Floyd video and watching it with her two black children.

00:09:13.000 I was there, and my 17-year-old daughter, Vivian, who's adopted from Haiti, all of this was erupting.

00:09:21.000 It was very difficult for her.

00:09:23.000 We wept together in my room.

00:09:25.000 And then it was also difficult for my daughter, Juliet, who's 10.

00:09:29.000 I had to try to explain some of this to them.

00:09:32.000 I mean, my children, to this point in their lives, have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced Hatred or violence and for Vivian.

00:09:45.000 You know, to understand that there would be a risk to her brother or the son she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation.

00:09:55.000 It's a difficult one for us, like it is for Americans all over the country.

00:09:59.000 Okay, the other problem for them is it turns out that Amy Coney Barrett does represent a lot of viewpoints from the middle of the country.

00:10:04.000 She lives a lifestyle that many in the middle of the country can identify, but people on the coast sometimes have trouble identifying.

00:10:10.000 Until very recently.

00:10:12.000 I lived in Los Angeles with my parents, lived very closely nearby.

00:10:15.000 My mom worked in Hollywood.

00:10:17.000 And at her office, sometimes she was asked how many kids she had.

00:10:21.000 And she said, I have four kids.

00:10:22.000 And people would look at her cross-eyed.

00:10:23.000 Four kids?

00:10:24.000 Of course, in the religious community, that's not a lot of children, right?

00:10:24.000 That's so many children.

00:10:27.000 We're Orthodox Jews.

00:10:29.000 And in the Orthodox Jewish community, if you say you have four kids, they say, okay, what happened to the other three?

00:10:32.000 Right?

00:10:33.000 Because the fact is that the Orthodox Jewish community, like the Catholic community, is very fertile.

00:10:39.000 Well, there are certain cultural things about living in the middle of the country or living in a religious community that people find absolutely natural in the middle of the country, but people on the coast really don't.

00:10:47.000 And you can tell by the media coverage.

00:10:49.000 Yesterday, Amy Coney Barrett was asked whether her family owns a gun, and she said yes.

00:10:52.000 And the media were like, oh my God, she owns a gun. 1.00

00:10:55.000 And the hundred million gun owners in America were like, okay, so?

00:10:57.000 Like, good, she should own a gun.

00:10:59.000 I mean, it's good to be able to defend yourself.

00:11:00.000 Here's Amy Coney Barrett yesterday.

00:11:03.000 When it comes to your personal views about this topic, do you own a gun?

00:11:09.000 We do own a gun.

00:11:12.000 Okay.

00:11:14.000 Alright.

00:11:16.000 Do you think you could fairly decide a case even though you own a gun?

00:11:20.000 Yes.

00:11:20.000 Judges can't just wake up one day and say, I have an agenda, I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion, and walk in like a royal queen and impose, you know, their will on the world.

00:11:31.000 Okay, that of course is exactly right.

00:11:33.000 Again, she is saying, my own personal views on these issues don't have any relevance to interpreting the law, which of course is right. 1.00

00:11:39.000 I mean, that is what a judge is supposed to do. 0.94

00:11:41.000 Your job is to judge, right?

00:11:42.000 It is not to impose, it is to judge.

00:11:44.000 There's a certain irony to the fact that if Amy Coney Barrett had gone in there and said, I've had three abortions, the Democrats would be cheering.

00:11:49.000 But if she says that her family has a gun, the Democrats are scared beyond all measure.

00:11:53.000 It does say something about the relative moral viewpoint of the various political sides.

00:11:57.000 The most viral moment from Amy Coney Barrett yesterday happened when she was asked specifically by John Cornyn of Texas to show the notes that she was using during the hearing.

00:12:06.000 So all of the Democratic senators, they brought like big binders of notes to try and question Amy Coney Barrett.

00:12:11.000 And Coney Barrett was asked, so what kind of notes are you using in order to respond to all of this?

00:12:15.000 And she had a response.

00:12:18.000 You know, most of us have multiple notebooks and notes and books and things like that in front of us.

00:12:23.000 Can you hold up what you've been referring to and answering our questions?

00:12:30.000 Is there anything on it?

00:12:31.000 That letterhead that says United States Senate.

00:12:35.000 That's impressive. 0.90

00:12:37.000 Well, slay a queen, but actually, like, slay a queen. 0.94

00:12:40.000 That's kind of awesome. 0.85

00:12:41.000 Right?

00:12:41.000 That's kind of awesome.

00:12:42.000 The fact is, as we'll see, when it came to her running circles around the Democrats intellectually, it was fairly obvious.

00:12:48.000 And Democrats tried, tried to get their viral moments, but they completely failed.

00:12:52.000 And so they've now been relegated to rewriting the English language.

00:12:56.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:12:58.000 First, we need to talk about the fact that when you are running a business, HR issues actually matter.

00:13:04.000 HR issues can absolutely kill you.

00:13:06.000 Wrongful terminations, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations.

00:13:09.000 And HR manager salaries, they're not cheap.

00:13:11.000 They average $70,000 a year.

00:13:13.000 Bambi, it's spelled B-A-M-B-E, was created specifically for small businesses because you don't actually want to spend your time doing HR.

00:13:20.000 All you want to do is create products and services for others, but you're going to need to cover HR or it could cost you hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars.

00:13:26.000 You can get a dedicated HR manager from Bambi, craft HR policy, maintain your compliance, all for just 99 bucks a month.

00:13:32.000 With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.

00:13:35.000 Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat.

00:13:39.000 From onboarding determinations, they customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employees' day-to-day all for just $99 a month.

00:13:46.000 Month-to-month, there are no hidden fees.

00:13:47.000 Cancel any time.

00:13:48.000 You didn't start your business because you feel like spending time on HR compliance is super fun.

00:13:52.000 There's a reason that everybody hates Toby on The Office.

00:13:55.000 And the fact is, what you need is HR, and you need HR done quickly, and easily, and inexpensively, and Bambi can get it done for you right now.

00:14:02.000 Go to Bambi.com slash Shapiro right now.

00:14:04.000 Schedule your free HR audit.

00:14:06.000 That is Bambi.com slash Shapiro.

00:14:08.000 Spell BAM to the B-E-E dot com slash Shapiro.

00:14:11.000 Go check them out right now.

00:14:12.000 Okay, so, the Democrats Spent the entire time trying to do gotchas against Amy Coney Barrett. 0.75

00:14:18.000 That was their big thing.

00:14:19.000 They were going to gotcha Amy Coney Barrett over and over and over.

00:14:21.000 Well, there's one problem, which is that back in 1993, Democrats established a rule.

00:14:26.000 It was called the Ginsburg Rule.

00:14:27.000 It was named after Ruth Bader Ginsburg because Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an ACLU litigator Who had argued in favor of legalizing prostitution against separate prisons for men and women.

00:14:37.000 And she had speculated that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. 0.78

00:14:39.000 That was back in 1993.

00:14:41.000 And Republicans were preparing to ask her all of these difficult questions.

00:14:44.000 And so Democrats came up with a rule.

00:14:46.000 This rule was actually crafted, handcrafted, by one senator from Delaware named Joseph Biden.

00:14:52.000 He came up with the Ginsburg Rule.

00:14:55.000 The rule was that you could not actually ask a question or allow judges to answer questions on issues likely to come before the courts or make any statement that would create the appearance that they are not impartial.

00:15:09.000 So, Senator Biden said that between 19- that basically nominees never testified during confirmation hearings prior to 1955.

00:15:16.000 In 1949, there was a nominee who was called to testify and refused and was still confirmed.

00:15:22.000 This is all according to Heritage Foundation.

00:15:24.000 Biden warned senators not to ask questions about how Ginsburg will decide any specific case that may come before her.

00:15:29.000 Ginsburg followed Joe Biden's roadmap.

00:15:32.000 Senator Pat Leahy, who was still in the Senate at that time.

00:15:36.000 Senator Leahy has been in the Senate since the establishment of Vermont as a state in the 1770s.

00:15:40.000 He asked about the religion clauses of the First Amendment, and Ginsburg said, I prefer not to address a question like that.

00:15:45.000 Leahy pressed her for interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, and Ginsburg said, I would prefer to await a particular case.

00:15:51.000 And then Leahy said, I understand.

00:15:52.000 Just trying, Judge.

00:15:53.000 Just trying.

00:15:55.000 Ginsburg just refused to answer over and over and over.

00:15:58.000 She refused two senators' requests to address gay rights.

00:16:00.000 She said anything I say could be taken as a hint or a forecast on how I would treat a classification that is going to be in question before the court.

00:16:07.000 Again, this was called the Ginsburg Rule.

00:16:09.000 Ed Meese, the former U.S.

00:16:11.000 Attorney General, writes about this.

00:16:13.000 Here was Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 helping to establish the so-called Ginsburg Rule.

00:16:19.000 A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, No hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

00:16:43.000 Okay, so Democrats now are angry at the Ginsburg rule.

00:16:45.000 Again, this is how it works.

00:16:46.000 This is all Calvin Ball, right, from the Calvin and Hobbes cartoons, in which the rules are constantly changing.

00:16:51.000 It's just Calvin Ball.

00:16:54.000 There's a famous baseball movie called Bang the Drum Slowly, in which baseball players win money from unsuspecting people in sort of bars and hotels.

00:17:07.000 They understand that commoners want to play cards with them.

00:17:10.000 And so they set up a game, and the game is literally called the Fun and Exciting Game with No Rules.

00:17:17.000 And they just randomly change the rules because they understand that commoners want to play with them.

00:17:21.000 This is what Democrats do.

00:17:22.000 What Democrats do is they sit around and they establish rules that they then break as soon as those rules are no longer convenient to them.

00:17:29.000 So yesterday, every Democrat, all of whom, most of these Democrats were there in 1993, all of them know about the so-called Ginsburg rule.

00:17:36.000 OK, all of them decided it was very bad for Amy Coney Barrett not to violate the Ginsburg rule.

00:17:41.000 So here is Dianne Feinstein trying to press Amy Coney Barrett about Roe v. Wade and Amy Coney Barrett saying, listen, I can't speak to how I will adjudicate on a case that has yet to come before me.

00:17:50.000 And if I give you my specific opinion on how Roe v. Wade was decided, then you may take that as an indicator of how I'm going to rule on a case in which Roe v. Wade is the precedent.

00:18:00.000 And I'm not going to do that.

00:18:01.000 Now, let me be frank about this. 1.00

00:18:02.000 I think the Ginsburg rule is stupid. 1.00

00:18:04.000 I think the Ginsburg rule is idiotic. 1.00

00:18:05.000 I think you should be able to ask a judicial nominee about anything under the sun. 0.99

00:18:08.000 But unfortunately, because Democrats have politicized the court, this has become impossible.

00:18:12.000 The Ginsburg rule was a natural reaction to the Borking of Robert Bork. 0.85

00:18:15.000 In the 1980s, Robert Bork was brought up before the Senate, and Joe Biden was involved in this, then too.

00:18:21.000 He was involved in going after Bork and calling him a racist and suggesting that he was a benighted refugee from 1853.

00:18:29.000 And then Republicans said, OK, fine, well, we're going to ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg the same question. So Democrats set up the Ginsburg rule. And now Democrats want to violate the Ginsburg rule because, again, there's a Republican nominee before them. So here was here was Dianne Feinstein going after Amy Coney Barrett. Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided? Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question,

00:18:56.000 but again, I can't precommit or say, yes, I'm going in with some agenda because I'm not.

00:19:03.000 Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe can and should be overturned by the Supreme Court?

00:19:11.000 Well, I think my answer is the same because, you know, that's a case that's litigated.

00:19:18.000 Okay, and you can see Feinstein is very angry that you won't answer our question on Roe vs Wade, the goal here.

00:19:23.000 is to get ACB to say she's going to overturn Roe.

00:19:26.000 Which, by the way, Roe is not going to get overturned.

00:19:28.000 Even if Amy Coney Barrett were to vote to overturn Roe, I think there are at best three votes on the Supreme Court, certainly not five, to overturn Roe v. Wade.

00:19:34.000 Roberts ain't going to vote for it.

00:19:35.000 Kavanaugh's not going to vote for it.

00:19:37.000 I don't think Gorsuch would vote for it.

00:19:39.000 So I think at best you have three votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

00:19:43.000 Then Barrett replied to Dianne Feinstein, Listen, you keep wanting me to say political things.

00:19:47.000 I'm not going to say political things.

00:19:48.000 If you want to do something political, you know you're sitting in a body called the United States Senate.

00:19:51.000 You can do it anytime you choose.

00:19:53.000 Any issue that would arise under the Affordable Care Act or any other statute should be determined by the law, by looking at the text of the statute, by looking at precedent the same way that it would for anyone.

00:20:06.000 And if there were policy differences or That of course is exactly right.

00:20:12.000 Okay, so now the Democrats start to get more and more desperate.

00:20:15.000 It's really a question of adhering to the law, going where the law leads, and leaving the policy decisions up to you.

00:20:22.000 That of course is exactly right.

00:20:23.000 Okay, so now the Democrats start to get more and more desperate.

00:20:26.000 So Amy Klobuchar tries to ask ACB about Roe She asked whether it constitutes quote-unquote super precedent.

00:20:31.000 Super precedent is a case that is so well established in the American political system that it would be impossible to overturn it regardless as to whether there are legal flaws in the reasoning of the case.

00:20:42.000 So Brown versus Board is a clear and obvious example of what Supreme Court scholars have called super precedent precedent that will never be overturned simply because it has been so deeply embedded in the life of our nation, right?

00:20:52.000 Marbury versus Madison is super precedent.

00:20:54.000 Roe versus Wade is clearly not super precedent because super precedent is something that is so well established there is no debate over it any longer.

00:21:00.000 Like there is no debate over segregation in the United States.

00:21:04.000 There's no debate over whether it is legal.

00:21:05.000 There's no debate over whether it is good.

00:21:07.000 There's no debate over whether the 14th Amendment allows it.

00:21:09.000 Right?

00:21:09.000 It is super precedent.

00:21:10.000 There's debate every single day.

00:21:13.000 Every single day.

00:21:14.000 Over Roe vs. Wade.

00:21:15.000 Because Roe vs. Wade was not only precipitously decided, it was wrongly decided.

00:21:19.000 So it is certainly not super precedent.

00:21:21.000 Okay, so in a second, we'll get to Amy Coney Barrett's answer on that particular question.

00:21:25.000 First, let us talk about the fact that you're spending an awful lot of time on that sofa lately.

00:21:29.000 And if you do not have an all-form sofa, I honestly don't even know what you're doing with your life.

00:21:32.000 I mean, this is like an incredible, incredible sofa because it's not going to cost you a fortune.

00:21:35.000 It's incredibly durable.

00:21:36.000 It is super comfortable.

00:21:38.000 So comfortable, in fact, that when I have relatives come over, people sort of fight on who gets to sleep on the all-form sofa, because the sofa is more comfortable than many of the beds in our house.

00:21:47.000 If you've been listening to the show for a while, you've heard me talk about my Helix Sleep Mattress.

00:21:50.000 Well, the same people make all-form sofas.

00:21:53.000 Allform makes premium customizable sofas and chairs shipped directly to your door.

00:21:57.000 What makes an Allform sofa really cool?

00:21:58.000 Well, for starters, it's the easiest way you can customize a sofa using premium materials at a fraction of the cost of traditional stores.

00:22:04.000 You can pick your fabric.

00:22:04.000 It is spill, stain, scratch resistant.

00:22:06.000 The sofa color, the color of the legs, sofa size and shape to make sure it's perfect for you and your home.

00:22:10.000 They've got armchairs and loveseats all the way up to an eight-seat sectional, so there's something for everyone.

00:22:14.000 You can always start small and buy more seats later on if you want your Allform sofa to grow and change with you when you move.

00:22:20.000 Allform sofas, they're also delivered directly to your home with fast, free shipping.

00:22:23.000 In the past, if you wanted to order a sofa, it could take weeks, even months, to arrive.

00:22:26.000 You would need somebody to come and assemble it in your home.

00:22:28.000 Allform will take you just three or seven days to arrive in the mail.

00:22:31.000 You can assemble it yourself in just a few minutes.

00:22:32.000 No tools needed, I know, because I have done this.

00:22:35.000 If getting a sofa without trying it in store sounds risky, don't worry.

00:22:37.000 You get 100 days to decide if you want to keep it.

00:22:39.000 Which is more than three months.

00:22:40.000 If you don't love it, they'll pick it up for free, give you a full refund, and they have a forever warranty.

00:22:44.000 So what do you have to lose?

00:22:45.000 Go to allform.com slash Ben right now.

00:22:47.000 They're offering 20% off all orders for our listeners at allform.com slash Ben.

00:22:51.000 Again, that is allform.com slash Ben.

00:22:54.000 As I say, our Allform sofa is tremendous.

00:22:57.000 We have the sectional with its chaise.

00:23:00.000 It's a three-seat sofa with chaise in the sand color with espresso legs.

00:23:03.000 It's fantastic.

00:23:04.000 Everybody loves it.

00:23:05.000 Go check it out right now, allform.com slash Ben.

00:23:09.000 Is Roe a super precedent?

00:23:11.000 increasingly desperate during this hearing with ACB.

00:23:13.000 So Amy Klobuchar confuses herself by asking Amy Coney Barrett about super precedent, and it doesn't go great for Amy Klobuchar.

00:23:30.000 I'm not.

00:23:31.000 I'm up here, so I'm asking you.

00:23:32.000 Okay, well people use super precedent differently.

00:23:34.000 Okay.

00:23:35.000 The way that it's used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article that you're reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.

00:23:48.000 And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category.

00:23:54.000 Owned with facts and logic, Amy Coney Barrett for the win. 1.00

00:23:58.000 I mean, this is why you don't leave open-ended- I mean, Klobuchar's a lawyer.

00:24:02.000 Don't ask questions you don't know the answers to.

00:24:04.000 If you have a definition of super precedent, lay it out there, and then ask Amy Coney Barrett whether it fulfills the definition.

00:24:09.000 If you allow Amy Coney Barrett to set the definition of super precedent, of course she's going to define it in the way that she has defined it before.

00:24:16.000 Amy Klobuchar did not look good in that exchange. 1.00

00:24:18.000 It got progressively worse for Democrats. 0.99

00:24:19.000 Dick Durbin, who's an idiot, started berating Amy Coney Barrett over Indiana gun laws, which, like, I wasn't aware that she set Indiana gun laws or that she's a legislator in the Indiana State Assembly or anything. 1.00

00:24:33.000 Here is Senator Dick Durbin being an idiot. 1.00

00:24:35.000 We know how it works. 1.00

00:24:37.000 Where you live, you know how it works.

00:24:38.000 There's a traffic between Chicago, Northern Indiana, and Michigan going on constantly.

00:24:43.000 Gun shows are held in Gary, Indiana, and other places.

00:24:46.000 And when they're selling these firearms without background checks, unfortunately, these gangbangers and thugs fill up the trunks of their cars with firearms and head into the city of Chicago and kill everyone from infants to older people.

00:24:59.000 It's a horrific situation.

00:25:02.000 Okay, so what does that have to do with Amy Coney Barrett exactly?

00:25:05.000 The answer is nothing.

00:25:06.000 Cory Booker, Mr. Potato Head, the worst actor in the United States Senate, put on his angry eyes to question Amy Coney Barrett, and then he blinked very seriously.

00:25:15.000 And then he articulated all of his words, because he is the worst. 0.97

00:25:20.000 That mouth, man. 0.98

00:25:21.000 Here is Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey questioning Amy Coney Barrett on whether she supports white supremacy. 0.99

00:25:28.000 Yes, I'm sure that she is a member of the KKK with her two adopted black children. 1.00

00:25:32.000 Go, Senator Booker. 0.79

00:25:35.000 I want to just ask you very simply, and I imagine you'll give me a very short, resolute answer, but you condemn white supremacy, correct?

00:25:43.000 Yes.

00:25:45.000 Thank you.

00:25:46.000 I'm glad to see that you said that.

00:25:47.000 I wish our president would say that so resolutely and unequivocally as well.

00:25:52.000 She's like, what in the F are you talking about? 1.00

00:25:54.000 Cory Booker, are you an idiot? 1.00

00:25:55.000 And the answer is yes, Cory Booker is, in fact, an idiot. 1.00

00:25:58.000 So the looks I mean, I'm old enough to remember that vice presidential debate where Kamala Harris was was doing the fake laugh and the weird smirk. 1.00

00:26:08.000 Amy Coney Barrett's facial expressions are so much more slay queen than Kamala Harris's, it's not even close. 1.00

00:26:13.000 She's looking at him like, are you a dumbass? 1.00

00:26:16.000 And the answer, of course, is he is. 1.00

00:26:18.000 He is, in fact, a dumbass. 1.00

00:26:19.000 It got even worse than that. 1.00

00:26:21.000 So we'll save the very best for last, but Maisie Hirono asked a couple of questions. 1.00

00:26:27.000 One of them was so beyond the pale stupid that it is nearly impossible to describe how stupid it is. 1.00

00:26:31.000 It was immediately picked up by the media and turned into a bizarre narrative. 1.00

00:26:35.000 They literally shifted dictionary definitions to meet Democratic talking points.

00:26:38.000 We'll get to that in a second. 0.98

00:26:39.000 But she also asked, this was her less dumb question.

00:26:42.000 Okay, let's get to our last topic. 1.00

00:26:43.000 So Maisie Hirono, the stupidest person in the United States Senate. 1.00

00:26:46.000 She is a moron. 1.00

00:26:47.000 I mean, a pure, full-scale moron. 1.00

00:26:49.000 IQ of a potato. 1.00

00:26:50.000 And I don't even mean like a baked potato.

00:26:52.000 I mean like a raw potato pulled directly from the ground.

00:26:54.000 A full-on tuber pulled directly from a field.

00:26:56.000 That is the brainpower of Maisie Hirono, the Democrat from Hawaii.

00:27:00.000 She asked ACB, randomly, if she had ever committed sexual assault.

00:27:05.000 I'm gonna go no on that one. 0.94

00:27:07.000 So we've now been asked whether ACB likes white supremacy and also if she is a rapist. 0.97

00:27:13.000 Did she just have this one left over from the Kavanaugh hearings or what? 0.56

00:27:16.000 Here's Maisie Hirono.

00:27:18.000 I ask each nominee these two questions and I will ask them of you.

00:27:23.000 Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?

00:27:33.000 No, Senator Hirono.

00:27:35.000 Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?

00:27:40.000 No, Senator.

00:27:43.000 It's hard not to laugh right now.

00:27:43.000 Yeah, man.

00:27:46.000 Because what the hell? 0.97

00:27:47.000 You literally just spent time in a Supreme Court hearing asking a Catholic mother of seven, whether she has engaged in sexual harassment or assault. 0.97

00:27:56.000 Mm hmm.

00:27:58.000 Yeah, man.

00:27:59.000 Yeah.

00:28:00.000 And then we got Sheldon Whitehouse.

00:28:03.000 I mean, these are the people you elect, folks.

00:28:05.000 I have a question.

00:28:05.000 Do you want to give any of these people more power?

00:28:08.000 Like, you can say that the Republicans in the Senate are idiots. 1.00

00:28:11.000 You can say that the Democrats in the Senate are idiots. 1.00

00:28:13.000 Okay, if they're all idiots, why do you want to give them more power? 1.00

00:28:15.000 I don't understand. 1.00

00:28:16.000 I really do not understand.

00:28:17.000 Americans keep saying how much they hate Congress and how much they hate the president and how much they hate the federal government.

00:28:21.000 And then they're like, but what if we gave them more power?

00:28:24.000 Okay, here is brilliant Brilliant Sherlock Holmesian sleuth, Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.

00:28:31.000 Yeah, this guy is just, this is, this is me trying to explain.

00:28:36.000 You know, Talmudic injunctions about how to set up an Eruv to people who don't even know what a Jew is.

00:28:43.000 This is like, what is he even doing right here?

00:28:46.000 I don't, I don't know.

00:28:47.000 He takes out a chart to explain how this is all driven by money.

00:28:51.000 Money!

00:28:52.000 Sheldon Whitehouse.

00:28:53.000 He takes out a chart.

00:28:54.000 He first took out a chart, I have to say.

00:28:56.000 He took out a big sign and it said, the scheme, as though it was one of those Act breaks in a Tarantino film, he broke like a placard.

00:29:04.000 It said, The Scheme.

00:29:05.000 And then you sort of expected, you know, like Tom Sizemore to walk out and start speaking in jargon to Harvey Keitel or something.

00:29:12.000 He said, The Scheme.

00:29:14.000 And then, he takes out a sign that has on it a bunch of words that have very little to do with each other and a bunch of money signs.

00:29:22.000 And he starts explaining this thing, like Charlie Day in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

00:29:29.000 Here we go, Sheldon Whitehouse.

00:29:30.000 And by the way, the point that he's making is that conservative groups want conservative justices appointed.

00:29:34.000 That's his point.

00:29:35.000 And he starts, like, taking yarn and using it like Kerry on Homeland to make one of these giant FBI boards.

00:29:42.000 Sheldon Whitehouse, genius.

00:29:43.000 Sherlock Holmesian sleuth.

00:29:45.000 In all cases, there's big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity.

00:29:51.000 One lane of activity is through the conduit of the Federalist Society.

00:29:55.000 It's managed by a guy, was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo, and it's taken over the selection of judicial nominees.

00:30:03.000 All the same funders, over and over again.

00:30:06.000 Bringing the cases, and providing this orchestrated, orchestrated chorus of amici.

00:30:13.000 Then, the same group also funds the Federalist Society over here.

00:30:17.000 It was an 80 to 0, 5 to 4 partisan rout.

00:30:23.000 Ransacking.

00:30:27.000 And then there's a cutaway to Lindsey Graham, and Graham's like, what did they put in this guy's coffee?

00:30:33.000 What in the world is going on?

00:30:35.000 It did not go great for Sheldon Whitehouse.

00:30:37.000 By the way, Cruz then blowtorched Sheldon Whitehouse.

00:30:39.000 He pointed out, you know who spends an awful lot of money on legal issues?

00:30:43.000 Everyone, including the left.

00:30:45.000 Sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.

00:30:48.000 The fact is that the court system in the United States has routinely been used in order to make certain laws illegal, in order to strike down certain laws.

00:30:57.000 The entire Rosa Parks heroic story was orchestrated by the NAACP.

00:31:03.000 It was not that Rosa Parks spontaneously decided to sit down in the back of the bus.

00:31:06.000 It was well planned with other local leaders.

00:31:08.000 This sort of stuff has been done for years on end.

00:31:12.000 Brown v. Board was a legal strategy that was undertaken by the NAACP.

00:31:16.000 This notion that political groups don't spend money in the realm of law is bizarre.

00:31:22.000 Here is Cruz just going after Sheldon Whitehouse and blowtorching him.

00:31:26.000 The senator from Rhode Island talked about big corporate powers without acknowledging that the contributions from the Fortune 500 in this presidential election overwhelmingly favor Joe Biden and the Democrats.

00:31:40.000 So all of the great umbrage about the corporate interest or spending dark money is wildly in conflict.

00:31:53.000 Okay, that of course is exactly true.

00:31:58.000 Okay, so this brings us to the key moment of the entire day.

00:32:03.000 It had nothing to do with Amy Coney Barrett, because Coney Barrett will be confirmed.

00:32:05.000 What it had to do with is, again, this absurd move to redefine basic terms of language in order to drive narratives.

00:32:16.000 It's incredible.

00:32:17.000 We've watched it happen again with court packing in the last two weeks, and now we're watching it happen with the term sexual preference.

00:32:22.000 So sometime yesterday, there was a producer for Lawrence O'Donnell who got angry at Amy Coney Barrett because she used the term sexual preference, which is a widely used term.

00:32:30.000 It's been used by the gay advocacy magazine, The Advocate.

00:32:33.000 Joe Biden used it less than five months ago during a debate, I believe, or at least during a rally.

00:32:39.000 And Judge Amy Coney Barrett used it when she was speaking about sexual preference.

00:32:44.000 Meaning like, are you straight? 0.61

00:32:45.000 Or are you gay? 0.57

00:32:46.000 Or are you bisexual? 0.52

00:32:48.000 There is nothing discriminatory about the term sexual preference.

00:32:51.000 Nothing.

00:32:52.000 So this guy got angry.

00:32:54.000 He said, sexual preference suggests that we have a choice in how we choose to prefer things.

00:33:00.000 Well, no, actually, it doesn't suggest that at all.

00:33:03.000 We have lots of preferences in our daily life that are biologically driven.

00:33:07.000 Many of them.

00:33:09.000 The term sexual preference has been widely used for decades at this point.

00:33:13.000 In fact, sexual preference was a term that was widely used in the gay community for many years.

00:33:19.000 It's used right now.

00:33:21.000 But Maisie Hirono picked this up and then decided Amy Coney Barrett was an obnoxious heteronormative homophobe because she used the term sexual preference, which is incredible. 1.00

00:33:33.000 I mean, this is just absurd. 0.99

00:33:34.000 So here's Maisie Hirono saying something incredibly dumb. 1.00

00:33:37.000 And as we will see, I mean, this is Stalinist. 0.98

00:33:39.000 It really is Stalin-esque stuff.

00:33:41.000 The dictionary, Webster's Dictionary, went in and revised their definition of the term sexual preference to reflect this newfound umbrage taken by Democrats.

00:33:52.000 So within 30 seconds of Democrats redefining the term sexual preference to be offensive, Webster's Dictionary redefined its own definition.

00:34:00.000 Okay, this is Stalin disappearing people from the photos. 0.99

00:34:03.000 Here's Maisie Hirono originally laying out this idiocy. 1.00

00:34:07.000 Not once, but twice, you use the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. 0.99

00:34:17.000 And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term.

00:34:24.000 It is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.

00:34:31.000 It is not.

00:34:32.000 Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity.

00:34:36.000 That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. 0.99

00:34:43.000 Okay, and again, Coney Barrett's looking at her like, what are you talking about?

00:34:46.000 I haven't suggested anything to the contrary there.

00:34:47.000 What are you, what, what in the world?

00:34:49.000 So Webster's Dictionary, I mean, this is how fast these things, this is when we say that the institutions are stacked against not only conservatives, but against reason.

00:34:57.000 This is, this is why.

00:34:58.000 Our cultural institutions are stacked, and they are stacked on behalf of the left.

00:35:02.000 They are willing to redefine dictionary terms in order to meet with democratic and woke fascist-y approval.

00:35:08.000 Okay, literally yesterday, yesterday, they went in and redefined Webster's Dictionary, redefined the definition of preference.

00:35:16.000 Okay, so the fifth definition of preference in Webster's Dictionary, up until yesterday, was orientation, as in sexual preference.

00:35:24.000 Okay, they went in, they redefined the term yesterday, as soon as this narrative started to take root, to say offensive, see usage below, orientation, sexual preference.

00:35:35.000 It's offensive.

00:35:36.000 Okay, they literally changed the dictionary definition of a term in order to meet with the approval of Democrats.

00:35:43.000 It's incredible.

00:35:45.000 It really is impressive stuff.

00:35:46.000 It's impressive stuff that the democratic machine, the media democratic complex, is so well-oiled that within 30 seconds of a bold bleep, nonsensical rhetorical move to redefine a long-held American term, they'll just do it.

00:36:02.000 No problem.

00:36:03.000 This is gaslighting, it's deconstructionism at its height.

00:36:08.000 This is Jacques Derrida driving everybody up a wall in the name of leftist politics.

00:36:12.000 If we don't have a common language, we can't have a common conversation, and maybe that's the goal.

00:36:16.000 No common conversation.

00:36:17.000 We'll just shift the literal definition of human terminology in order to meet with particular political preferences.

00:36:25.000 Preferences, by the way, is meant non-offensively there.

00:36:28.000 Okay, so then the Democrats tried to come up with finally some sort of semblance of a narrative that they could pick up from all of this.

00:36:34.000 They tried to say that Kamala Harris did a good job with Amy Coney Barrett.

00:36:36.000 She did not.

00:36:37.000 She did a terrible job.

00:36:38.000 She spent the first 20 minutes of her 30 minutes basically giving a campaign speech from her basement. 1.00

00:36:44.000 It was not particularly inspiring.

00:36:46.000 Here was Kamala Harris talking directly.

00:36:48.000 She was supposed to question ACB.

00:36:49.000 Instead, she's like, I'm gonna use this time to talk directly to the American people.

00:36:53.000 Oh God, please, please don't.

00:36:55.000 If ever somebody comes up to you and they say, I want to talk directly to you, Turn around and run.

00:37:00.000 Turn around and run.

00:37:01.000 I don't care who you are.

00:37:03.000 If this sort of stuff doesn't bug you, then you haven't been watching politics long enough.

00:37:08.000 Before I begin, I wanted to take a moment to talk directly to the American people about where we are and how we got here.

00:37:16.000 So we are in the middle of a deadly pandemic that has hit our country harder than any other country in the world.

00:37:24.000 More than 215,000 of our fellow Americans have died and millions more, including the president, Republican members of this committee, and more than 100 frontline workers here at the Capitol complex have been infected.

00:37:42.000 Okay, what does that have to do with Amy Coney Barrett?

00:37:44.000 The answer is nothing, of course.

00:37:45.000 This is just Harris posturing and grandstanding.

00:37:47.000 So the Democrats tried to say there was one moment where she got Amy Coney Barrett, except she didn't.

00:37:51.000 She was inexact in her language, and Barrett picked her apart.

00:37:54.000 Here was Harris asking, if it's important for the Supreme Court to be impartial, why don't you recuse yourself?

00:38:00.000 And ACB saying, look, you guys set up the Ginsburg rule.

00:38:02.000 You can't do this.

00:38:04.000 Do you think it is important for the American people to believe that Supreme Court justices are independent and fair and impartial?

00:38:12.000 Is a yes or no answer, please?

00:38:14.000 Yes, Senator Harris.

00:38:17.000 A number of my colleagues have asked you today whether you would recuse yourself from cases on the Affordable Care Act.

00:38:22.000 You did not directly answer their questions and instead you described a process.

00:38:27.000 I can't have you elicit a commitment from me about how I would make that decision in advance.

00:38:32.000 That would be wrong.

00:38:33.000 Okay, and that was the big moment for Kamala Harris.

00:38:36.000 It was not a big moment.

00:38:37.000 You can tell how badly this went for Democrats because MSNBC absolutely melted down.

00:38:41.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:38:43.000 First, let us talk about the fact that you don't want to be spending any time at the auto body store.

00:38:47.000 You wouldn't want to in the middle of a COVID pandemic, but you especially would not want to, like, ever.

00:38:52.000 And the reason is because why would you stand in line to get up to the front, request a part, get a generic part that doesn't work right, or have them order it online, then it takes a week for it to arrive and your car still doesn't work instead?

00:39:02.000 Why don't you just go online and do it yourself?

00:39:04.000 Go to rockauto.com.

00:39:05.000 Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear, like airlines do.

00:39:11.000 Why would you spend up to twice as much for the same parts?

00:39:14.000 Like, say you happen to need a Delphi FG1456 fuel pump assembly.

00:39:17.000 That'll cost you $354 at a big chain store, but you can get it at Rock Auto for $217.

00:39:24.000 RockAuto.com.

00:39:25.000 It's a family business, serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.

00:39:28.000 Head on over to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.

00:39:33.000 Again, those prices are reliably low.

00:39:35.000 The same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.

00:39:37.000 Why would you spend up to twice as much?

00:39:38.000 for the same parts. Head on over to rockauto.com right now.

00:39:41.000 See all the parts available for your car or truck. Write Shapiro in there. How did you hear about us box? So they know that we sent you.

00:39:46.000 Again, that is rockauto.com. Write Shapiro in that. How did you hear about us box? So they know that we sent you. Okay. In just a second, we'll get to MSNBC melting down and then Nancy Pelosi So Nancy Pelosi, it's amazing.

00:39:58.000 Nancy Pelosi is Trump. 0.50

00:40:00.000 She's just female and Democrat. 1.00

00:40:02.000 As much as the press love to talk about how Trump hates the media and how he's thin-skinned and all this kind of stuff, Nancy Pelosi makes Trump look like an island of calm in a river of crazy. 0.80

00:40:15.000 I mean, that's how bad Nancy Pelosi is. 1.00

00:40:17.000 We'll get to Nancy Pelosi in just one second.

00:40:18.000 First, if you haven't heard already, Daily Wire's old glory Daily Wire baseball bat is back.

00:40:23.000 This is our limited edition, handcrafted, custom-painted baseball bat emblazoned with that magical Daily Wire logo, which means that it is super powerful.

00:40:29.000 Since we relaunched on Monday, they're almost all sold out.

00:40:32.000 Today is the last day they will be available.

00:40:34.000 You can still get yours if you hurry.

00:40:35.000 Text the keyword baseball to 83400 to purchase your bat today.

00:40:38.000 And if you haven't already, head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.

00:40:42.000 Become a member today.

00:40:43.000 Members get our articles ad-free.

00:40:44.000 Access to all of our live broadcast and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show, exclusive Reader's Pass content, available only to Daily Wire members.

00:40:51.000 If you're considering an all-access membership, you get to join us on all-access live every night for online and live stream discussions.

00:40:56.000 You also get not one, but two leftist-tier tumbler with your membership, as well as early, sometimes exclusive, access to new Daily Wire products.

00:41:04.000 So go check us out over at dailywire.com right now and get your all-access membership.

00:41:08.000 You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:41:11.000 So the way you can tell that Amy Coney Barrett did really well last night is because all of the media talking heads were super, super angry at her.

00:41:24.000 So Ellie Mistal, who's lost it, is now comparing ACB to the Proud Boys on MSNBC.

00:41:31.000 This is what passes for intelligent commentary over on MSNBC, the land of crazy.

00:41:37.000 Here is Ellie Mistal just losing it. 1.00

00:41:41.000 It's almost like Donald Trump is telling her, stand back and stand by, right?

00:41:45.000 Again, we have to understand what this woman is being sent to do.

00:41:50.000 Trump has already told us he wants the Supreme Court to look at the ballots.

00:41:54.000 It would be the easiest thing in the world for her to say, you know what, I'm not going to do that.

00:41:58.000 The fact that she won't do it tells you all you need to know about her character and all you need to know about what she intends to do if she is confirmed before the election.

00:42:09.000 She literally said, I can't judge a case until it comes up before me.

00:42:12.000 And he's like, she's gonna stuff the ballot box.

00:42:14.000 She is like the Proud Boys. 1.00

00:42:15.000 Okay, I'm sorry, you're a crazy person. 1.00

00:42:17.000 Joy Reid, another crazy person on that same show. 0.99

00:42:19.000 She said, Amy Coney Barrett doesn't know the law. 1.00

00:42:22.000 Yes, I'm sure that legal expert Joy Reid will inform us of the law.

00:42:24.000 Here's Joy Reid informing us of the law.

00:42:28.000 This lady is a, let's just remind her, she's a sitting judge right now, so she theoretically knows the law. 1.00

00:42:34.000 Amy Klobuchar, who I think also is a very effective questioner today, asked her a pretty simple, straightforward question.

00:42:39.000 Is voter intimidation illegal?

00:42:42.000 Okay, she knows the law.

00:42:44.000 I'm fairly certain that she knows the law, as it turns out.

00:42:48.000 Okay, well, the true meltdown of the day was not over on MSNBC, it was over on CNN.

00:42:53.000 So Nancy Pelosi has been holding up this stimulus package. 0.99

00:42:55.000 Republicans have proposed $1.8 trillion in new spending to stimulate people who have been hurt by the lockdown.

00:43:01.000 Because again, when the government forces you not to do your business, well, then the government has taken something from you and they ought to compensate you.

00:43:07.000 This is the Fifth Amendment, the Takings Clause. 0.98

00:43:10.000 Even Democrats have been slamming Nancy Pelosi for her unwillingness to take any sort of deal. 0.91

00:43:15.000 Andrew Yang, over the weekend, tweeted at her, and he told Pelosi to take the deal or risk political fallout.

00:43:20.000 He said, put politics aside, people are hurting.

00:43:23.000 Former Obama administration official Dan Pfeiffer agreed, telling Pelosi to ignore potential risk and just ink the deal.

00:43:29.000 He said Democrats should aggressively pursue a COVID relief deal with Trump, according to Emily Zanotti over at Daily Wire.

00:43:36.000 He said it's the right thing to do, but the politics can also work in our favor.

00:43:39.000 Even Representative Ro Khanna, who's very far to the left, like a Bernie Sanders leftist, suggested that a stimulus package would be a good idea.

00:43:47.000 So she was asked about this by Wolf Blitzer on CNN.

00:43:50.000 How unused to criticism is Nancy Pelosi? 1.00

00:43:52.000 When she is asked a simple question by Wolf Blitzer, she loses her damned mind. 0.99

00:43:56.000 She starts to look like the bad guys at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where their faces melt off. 0.99

00:44:01.000 I mean, she just lost it.

00:44:02.000 She called him a Republican apologist?

00:44:06.000 I mean, this was a crazy, off-the-rails interview.

00:44:08.000 And if she weren't a Democrat, everybody would be— This is the brilliant strategist, we have all been told, is the mistress of our imagination.

00:44:15.000 Here was Nancy Pelosi melting down on Wolf Blitzer, of all people. 0.89

00:44:19.000 Excuse me for interrupting, Madam Speaker, but they really need the money right now.

00:44:25.000 And even members of your own caucus, Madam Speaker, want to accept this deal, 1.8 trillion dollars.

00:44:34.000 So what do you say to Ro Khanna?

00:44:36.000 What I say to you is, I don't know why you're always an apologist.

00:44:40.000 And many of your colleagues, apologists for the Republican position.

00:44:44.000 Ro Khanna, that's nice.

00:44:46.000 That isn't what we're going to do.

00:44:48.000 Okay, Wolf Blitzer is an apologist for the Republicans?

00:44:53.000 Really?

00:44:53.000 Wolf Blitzer and CNN?

00:44:56.000 You know how wildly leftist and in-your-bubble you have to be to believe that Wolf Blitzer is an apologist for the Republicans?

00:45:03.000 It got worse, by the way.

00:45:04.000 Nancy Pelosi, if Trump had done this to any member of the media, it'd be, this is a threat to the free press.

00:45:09.000 How dare anybody treat a member of our beloved journalistic establishment like this?

00:45:14.000 This is just terrible.

00:45:15.000 The president only wants his name on a check to go out before election day and for the market to go up.

00:45:21.000 Is that what this is all about?

00:45:23.000 Not allow the president to take credit if there's a deal that will help millions of Americans right now?

00:45:27.000 No, I don't care about that.

00:45:28.000 He's not that important, but let me say this.

00:45:32.000 With all due respect, with all due respect, and you know we've known each other a long time, you really don't know what you're talking about.

00:45:40.000 That was a lot of due respect there.

00:45:42.000 I felt the respect.

00:45:42.000 Did you feel all the respect there?

00:45:44.000 With all due respect, with all due respect, you're an ass. 1.00

00:45:50.000 She's lost her mind. 1.00

00:45:51.000 My goodness, my goodness.

00:45:53.000 This is 14 minutes long.

00:45:55.000 It's 14 minutes of pure pain in the octagon.

00:45:59.000 She got even more unhinged.

00:46:01.000 Here she was.

00:46:02.000 Do you have any idea of how... That's precisely why, Madam Speaker... Just woefully short, they're concerned.

00:46:08.000 We're concerned.

00:46:09.000 It's so important right now.

00:46:10.000 Yesterday I spoke to Andrew Yang, who says the same thing.

00:46:13.000 It's not everything you want, but there's a lot there.

00:46:17.000 Honest to God, you really... I can't get over it.

00:46:20.000 I didn't come over here to have... So you're the apologist for the Obama... Excuse me.

00:46:26.000 God forbid.

00:46:27.000 Madam Speaker, I'm not an apologist.

00:46:29.000 I'm asking you serious questions because so many people are in desperate need right now.

00:46:34.000 Let me ask you this.

00:46:35.000 When was the last time... Let me respond to you.

00:46:39.000 Unbelievable.

00:46:39.000 Okay, and then it concluded with her saying to Wolf Blitzer, I feed poor people.

00:46:44.000 What, from your $20,000 Sub-Zero fridge with your $13 pints of custom-made gelato?

00:46:50.000 Nancy, that's how you're feeding the poor? 1.00

00:46:52.000 Here's Nancy Pelosi talking about, I feed the poor people. 1.00

00:46:56.000 Let them eat cake.

00:46:57.000 Literally, we're talking about how you're not feeding the poor people.

00:46:59.000 That's literally the topic of conversation, is why won't you just sign a $1.8 trillion deal to give people money in the middle of the greatest lockdown in modern American history?

00:47:09.000 And she's like, I feed poor people.

00:47:11.000 I feed poor people nothing.

00:47:15.000 Here is Nancy Pelosi concluding this brilliant interview with Wolf Blitzer.

00:47:17.000 Remember, this is the most brilliant strategist of our time, we've been told.

00:47:21.000 We know them.

00:47:22.000 We represent them and we know them.

00:47:24.000 Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as they say here in Washington.

00:47:31.000 Madam Speaker. 0.99

00:47:32.000 Always the case, but we're not even close to the good.

00:47:35.000 All right, let's see what happens, because every day is critically, critically important.

00:47:40.000 Thanks so much for joining us.

00:47:40.000 Thank you for your sensitivity to our constituents' needs.

00:47:44.000 I am sensitive to them, because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money.

00:47:48.000 Madam Speaker, thank you so much.

00:47:49.000 Have you fed them?

00:47:50.000 We feed them.

00:47:51.000 We feed them.

00:47:52.000 Well, no you don't.

00:47:53.000 I feed them.

00:47:54.000 And here's a here's a 13 a $13 pint of ice cream you poor person WAPSHUAA EHEHEHE That's incredible stuff How do you know somebody's been in the bubble too long?

00:48:05.000 That's how you know somebody's been in the bubble too long.

00:48:06.000 When Wolf Blitzer is owning you in an exchange, you've been in the bubble a little, little bit too long.

00:48:13.000 Wild stuff.

00:48:14.000 But that media bubble is extraordinary.

00:48:16.000 My media bubble is incredible.

00:48:18.000 So how bad is the media bubble?

00:48:20.000 Here is how bad the media bubble is. 0.99

00:48:22.000 So the 1619 Project is garbage. 0.98

00:48:25.000 I've talked to you about how the 1619 Project is garbage. 0.99

00:48:27.000 The 1619 Project posits that the American experiment is rooted in slavery, that America is a deeply racist, horrible, no good, very bad place. 0.95

00:48:36.000 And that every problem in America is traceable to slavery and every good in America is traceable to slavery.

00:48:41.000 Historians, Pulitzer Prize winning historians have debunked the 1619 Project.

00:48:46.000 It is a bad piece of faux journalism. 0.98

00:48:49.000 It was crap from the beginning. 1.00

00:48:50.000 It is crap now. 1.00

00:48:52.000 So, Bret Stephens over the weekend wrote a column about how it was crap and how they had retconned the 1619 Project. 0.99

00:48:57.000 Again, there is so much gaslighting and Stalin-esque retconning of history here. 0.74

00:49:01.000 It's amazing.

00:49:02.000 And the original 1619 Project literally had a graphic of the term 1776 crossed out and over it superimposed 1619.

00:49:11.000 It literally said, what would it mean to consider 1619 the true founding of America rather than 1776?

00:49:18.000 When this came up, Nikole Hannah-Jones ran from it. 1.00

00:49:20.000 She's always metaphorical.

00:49:21.000 We never meant that 1776 didn't matter.

00:49:23.000 You literally wrote in your original essay, the Revolutionary War was fought, at least in part, to preserve slavery, which is a lie.

00:49:28.000 It is not true.

00:49:30.000 Okay, so it was a bad piece of journalism.

00:49:33.000 The New York Times has defended its bad piece of journalism.

00:49:36.000 But the fact that they even ran a piece by Bret Stephens criticizing the 1619 Project and their rewriting of their own history caused Nikole Hanna-Jones to absolutely meltdown.

00:49:44.000 Remember, Nikole Hanna-Jones is one of the prized.

00:49:47.000 Nikole Hanna-Jones, she gets to claim that she's a victim of discrimination in America while writing absolute horse s*** for the most prestigious paper in America. 0.88

00:49:55.000 And then winning a Pulitzer Prize for writing stuff that is blatantly untrue.

00:49:59.000 Wouldn't even do basic fact-checking on her own piece.

00:50:02.000 She won a Pulitzer Prize for that. 0.99

00:50:03.000 And then she claims that she's the victim of racism against black women by exactly the people who pay her, give her a job, and defend her bullcrap. 1.00

00:50:11.000 It's amazing. 0.98

00:50:11.000 It's an amazing, amazing thing. 0.98

00:50:14.000 So, how bad a person is Nicole Hannah-Jones? 0.99

00:50:17.000 So, Bret Stephens puts out this column.

00:50:20.000 And then the New York Times leadership put out a bunch of statements about how they love the 1619 Project.

00:50:27.000 They wanted to make her happy.

00:50:29.000 Dean Beckett put out a notice to the entire newsroom about the 1619 project in the wake of Bret Stephens' column. Quote, 1619 is one of the most important pieces of journalism the Times has produced under my tenure as executive editor. It changed the way the country talked about race and our history. It has given millions of Americans a new framework and a critical new date, 1619, for understanding the nation's past. Okay, first of all, Nikole Hannah-Jones has said it wasn't journalism.

00:50:53.000 Right?

00:50:53.000 She said that.

00:50:54.000 She actually said that it was a piece of historic rethinking.

00:50:58.000 It wasn't really journalism so much.

00:50:59.000 She said it has also generated a lot of debate.

00:51:01.000 This is Dean Baquette.

00:51:02.000 That's no surprise.

00:51:03.000 Work that boldly challenges prevailing views usually does.

00:51:08.000 A column this weekend in our opinion section took issue with the 1619 Project.

00:51:11.000 As the editor who runs the newsroom, I do not oversee opinion or the views of its columnists.

00:51:15.000 I do welcome opinion's role in hosting a wide range of views, including those that challenge our work.

00:51:20.000 This column, however, raised questions about the journalistic ethics and standards of 1619 and the work of Nicole Hannah-Jones, who inspired and drove the project.

00:51:26.000 That criticism I firmly reject. 0.83

00:51:29.000 Okay, so sure, we can have like an open-ended debate on the 1619 Project and whether Nicole Hannah-Jones is full of crap, but We can't do that.

00:51:36.000 Sorry, guys.

00:51:36.000 Actually, as it turns out, we don't want to do that because an open debate would mean that you offend Nikole Hannah-Jones.

00:51:42.000 And we are never allowed to offend Nikole Hannah-Jones.

00:51:45.000 Never, ever offend Nikole Hannah-Jones.

00:51:48.000 She is one of the holy.

00:51:49.000 She is one of the sainted.

00:51:50.000 She can speak whatever nonsense comes into her mind.

00:51:53.000 She can pretend that she is speaking truth about American history while overtly pushing lies.

00:51:58.000 After being told that they are lies.

00:51:59.000 And we will defend her.

00:52:00.000 This is the New York Times journalistic standard.

00:52:02.000 She says the project fell fully within our standards as a news organization.

00:52:05.000 Yes, this I believe.

00:52:06.000 I believe that the New York Times' news organization standards do include promoting overtly false material.

00:52:11.000 By the way, when you ever see the fact-checkers on Facebook or on Twitter fact-checking right-wing sites and claiming that they're doing things out of context, when are they ever going to fact-check the 6019 project?

00:52:20.000 At any point?

00:52:21.000 Of course not.

00:52:22.000 The New York Times is spending millions of dollars to promote the 1619 project on Facebook.

00:52:27.000 They spent literally, I believe, $3 million on like three ads for the 1619 project on Facebook, according to outside estimates.

00:52:35.000 But Dean Baquette says, in fact, 1619, especially the work of Nicole, fill me with pride.

00:52:40.000 Our readers, I believe our country, have benefited immensely from the principled, rigorous, groundbreaking journalism of Nicole and the full team of writers and editors who brought us this transformative work.

00:52:49.000 There's only one problem. 0.99

00:52:51.000 It's garbage. 1.00

00:52:53.000 But the New York Times defended it. 0.99

00:52:55.000 That was not enough, guys.

00:52:56.000 Do you understand?

00:52:57.000 That's not enough for Nikole Hannah-Jones.

00:52:59.000 Dean Beckett put out a full statement talking about how much he wished to lend his body to the mercies of Nikole Hannah-Jones.

00:53:08.000 How much he wished to lend his institutional integrity to the predations of Nikole Hannah-Jones.

00:53:15.000 How he wished that he could lie down on puddles so Nikole Hannah-Jones could walk over him.

00:53:18.000 And Nikole Hannah-Jones was not having any of it. 0.83

00:53:21.000 She is the victim of a rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Oh yes. 1.00

00:53:30.000 According to the Washington Post, Hannah Jones was livid.

00:53:34.000 Okay, number one, this ain't 1894.

00:53:35.000 Kathleen Kingsbury and Brett Stevens know it in emails ahead of publication.

00:53:38.000 On the day the National Association of Scholars called for the revocation of her Pulitzer, she tweeted that efforts to discredit her work quote put me in a long tradition of black women who failed to know their places. She changed her Twitter bio to slanderous and nasty-minded mulatris, a tribute to trailblazing journalist Ida B. Wells whom the Times slurred with those same words in 1894. Okay number one this ain't 1894. Two, she ain't Ida B. Wells. Ida B.

00:54:02.000 Wells was reporting true things.

00:54:03.000 Nikole Hanna-Jones is overtly reporting false things.

00:54:07.000 Ida B. Wells was slandered for her race. 0.55

00:54:08.000 Nikole Hanna-Jones is being granted extra credit because of hers.

00:54:13.000 If Nikole Hanna-Jones were not of diverse ancestry, if Nikole Hanna-Jones were just a white lady working for the New York Times writing stuff that turned out to be overtly false, she would be on suspension right now. 0.81

00:54:22.000 Especially if she'd been warned prior that the stuff that she was writing was not true.

00:54:28.000 Hannah Jones now acknowledges that she should have been more careful with how she wrote certain passages, but my goodness.

00:54:34.000 Everything, everything for Nicole.

00:54:36.000 It must be wonderful to be able to simply reply to all of your mistakes and people pointing them out by claiming that it is an act of racism to point all of that out.

00:54:45.000 This is the wonderful thing about our woke culture, is that there are no limits to the woke culture.

00:54:51.000 A couple more examples on the woke culture.

00:54:53.000 This one is fully insane.

00:54:55.000 So there is a group called WNET Group.

00:54:57.000 It's the parent company of New York's public television stations.

00:55:00.000 They've now called for the resignation of the longtime chief executive, Neil Shapiro.

00:55:03.000 They say he has not done enough to improve working condition for employees, especially those of color.

00:55:08.000 So what exactly did he do?

00:55:10.000 Well, the big problem is that Neil Shapiro is not a person of color.

00:55:14.000 He is a former president of NBC News.

00:55:15.000 He has led WNET since 2007.

00:55:19.000 He apparently said that much of what has been written is inaccurate, misleading, or out of context.

00:55:25.000 WNET has a workforce of 380 people, 70% of whom identify as white, which, by the way, is about the same constituency as the country.

00:55:32.000 The country is in the mid-60s in terms of percentage white.

00:55:37.000 Apparently, people are very angry at Shapiro.

00:55:39.000 Why?

00:55:40.000 Why are they angry at Shapiro?

00:55:41.000 Not really because of what he has done with his personnel, but because of this.

00:55:44.000 You ready for this?

00:55:45.000 This is how crazy people are. 1.00

00:55:46.000 This is how crazy our woke race fascisti are. 0.96

00:55:50.000 On June 1st, six days after George Floyd's death, Shapiro released a statement on WNET.org. 0.98

00:55:55.000 Quote, racism is a cancer in the soul of this nation.

00:55:59.000 This has been an agonizing and painful week.

00:56:01.000 Our hearts go out to so many, especially so for our African-American colleagues.

00:56:04.000 At the same time, it is a reminder of what drew many of us to public media to help build a more informed country with equal justice for everyone based on understanding and mutual respect.

00:56:13.000 That sounds like a pretty woke statement, right?

00:56:15.000 Racism is a cancer in the soul of the nation, and we have to show that equal justice is still a reality for black Americans.

00:56:22.000 He's buying into the systemic American racism narrative, of course. 0.96

00:56:25.000 This was bad, the statement.

00:56:27.000 It was not good enough.

00:56:28.000 So let's see.

00:56:28.000 Well, let's play racial jeopardy.

00:56:31.000 Can you, woke jeopardy, here we go.

00:56:33.000 Can you name, for $400, what in that statement is the problem?

00:56:38.000 Doon, doon, doon, doon, doon, doon, doon.

00:56:41.000 Beep, beep, time's up.

00:56:42.000 Okay, so what is the problem in the statement?

00:56:44.000 According to the Inclusion and Diversity Council, they objected to Shapiro likening racism to cancer.

00:56:50.000 Quote, it is our view that this represents your profound misunderstanding of our nation's history and its current reality.

00:56:56.000 Racism is not an anomaly separate from us.

00:56:59.000 Rather, it is woven into the fabric of this country and in fact our own institution.

00:57:04.000 Amazing.

00:57:09.000 Okay.

00:57:09.000 Also, they did something else that's bad, right?

00:57:11.000 So first of all, you're not allowed to say racism is a cancer.

00:57:13.000 It's an inherent part of you.

00:57:15.000 It's not something that you can remove from.

00:57:16.000 It can never be removed.

00:57:17.000 It is inextricably intertwined with your identity.

00:57:20.000 Racism.

00:57:21.000 Which means, of course, it's never healable because it's part of who you are. 0.99

00:57:23.000 All you can do is shut up. 0.99

00:57:25.000 All you can do is shut up and listen. 1.00

00:57:27.000 My goodness. 0.76

00:57:29.000 Another point of contention between the Inclusion and Diversity Council, which again, these institutions, when they talk about inclusion and diversity, it doesn't sound like they're very inclusive, like of anything.

00:57:39.000 These are all Orwellian terms.

00:57:40.000 The Inclusion and Diversity Council got mad because there was a 36-second video the company posted on its social media accounts on June 3rd.

00:57:48.000 Set to a plaintiff piano, according to the New York Times, the video presented images of harmony between New York City police officers and citizens.

00:57:54.000 In one photo, a black man in a hoodie is seen fist-bumping a white police officer in riot gear.

00:57:58.000 In another, a white police officer marches in a protest next to a black woman wearing a Black Lives Matter t-shirt.

00:58:04.000 The montage also showed a black woman embracing a police officer.

00:58:06.000 The Inclusion and Diversity Council said the video displayed quote, bias in favor of the police and WNET removed it.

00:58:13.000 Removed it.

00:58:14.000 By the way, how crazy is this council?

00:58:17.000 So the company appointed a woman named Eugenia Harvey, an executive producer who had joined WNET in 2018, to a new position, Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer.

00:58:26.000 The Diversity Council criticized Harvey's promotion.

00:58:29.000 Why?

00:58:30.000 Well, Harvey is black, but they hadn't been consulted before the move.

00:58:34.000 They said, being a black woman is not enough of a qualification to head diversity at a company like ours. 1.00

00:58:39.000 This is a big deal.

00:58:40.000 It was not treated with proper respect. 0.59

00:58:41.000 We feared that Neil Shapiro was creating a shield for himself using a black woman as the shield.

00:58:46.000 Okay, I'm sorry.

00:58:47.000 If you choose to kowtow to this sort of stuff, you get.

00:58:50.000 You deserve every single thing that you get.

00:58:52.000 And frankly, I am experiencing nothing but Troy and Fred for people who cave to this stuff and then are getting it good and hard.

00:58:57.000 They deserve it.

00:58:58.000 Speaking of people who are getting it good and hard, Meredith R., who is the NBC top unscripted executive, she is now out.

00:59:06.000 She and NBC's former entertainment president have been accused of fostering a toxic workplace.

00:59:12.000 The inquiry sprang from a Hollywood Reporter report on allegations of homophobic, misogynistic, and racist behavior, especially within the network's reality division.

00:59:20.000 Sources say the investigator interviewed more than 60 current and former network employees and found that Arr's behavior was not in line with the standards the company expects, especially from its senior leaders.

00:59:30.000 Hilariously enough, who is Meredith Arr? 0.96

00:59:31.000 Well, according to Deadline Hollywood, go all the way back to May 2019.

00:59:36.000 In NBC's ongoing advocacy for representation in key production roles, they've launched the network's first below-the-line initiatives.

00:59:42.000 The two newly created pipeline programs focus on diversifying representation among production coordinators and production assistants.

00:59:48.000 The new annual initiatives are spearheaded by NBC's scripted programming co-presidents Lisa Katz and Tracy Picasta, alternative and reality group president Meredith R.

00:59:57.000 Oh, so they made her queen of diversity, and then it turns out she created a toxic work culture in thwarting diversity. 1.00

01:00:05.000 So everything's going great in diversity land.

01:00:08.000 Yep, the woke come for all. 0.86

01:00:10.000 You can feed the alligator hoping it will eat you last, but you will still be eaten and probably not last.

01:00:15.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.

01:00:18.000 We'll get to Mitt Romney's statements about Donald Trump.

01:00:20.000 We'll get to Donald Trump tweeting out about Joe Biden.

01:00:23.000 He tweeted, oddly enough, that, Immorally enough, that Joe Biden was a resident of an old-age home, which is, on a meme level, hilarious, and on a political level, it's a bold strategy when you need to win people above 65 to call your opponent a member of an old-age home, but, you know, I'm not the president.

01:00:39.000 We'll get to that a little bit later.

01:00:40.000 And a new proposal to reach herd immunity that has the left and the media being driven up a wall.

01:00:47.000 We'll talk to a high-ranking epidemiologist about it this afternoon, so make sure that you stick around for that.

01:00:52.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.

01:00:53.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

01:00:53.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

01:00:59.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.

01:01:02.000 Our Technical Director is Austin Stevens.

01:01:04.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.

01:01:05.000 Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

01:01:08.000 Assistant Director, Paweł Wajdowski.

01:01:10.000 Our Associate Producer is Nick Sheehan.

01:01:12.000 The show is edited by Adam Sajewicz.

01:01:14.000 Audio Mixed by Mike Karomina.

01:01:16.000 Hair and Makeup is by Nika Geneva.

01:01:18.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:01:20.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2020.

01:01:22.000 You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.

01:01:26.000 I think there are enough of those already out there.

01:01:28.000 We talk about culture, because culture drives politics, and it drives everything else.

01:01:32.000 So my main focuses are life, family, faith.

01:01:37.000 Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.

The Ben Shapiro Show - October 14, 2020

ACB Wrecks The Democrats | Ep. 1115

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript