The Ben Shapiro Show - Leaning Left And Letting Fly | Ep. 900

00:00:00.000 Barack Obama warns Democrats if they move too far left, they'll lose.

00:00:03.000 But will they listen?

00:00:04.000 Plus, Eric Swalwell denies it.

00:00:06.000 But did he supply it?

00:00:07.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:07.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:13.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

00:00:16.000 Stand up for your digital rights.

00:00:17.000 Visit expressvpn.com slash ben.

00:00:21.000 Okay, so we begin today with the most important story that's happened in America since Epstein didn't kill himself.

00:00:26.000 And that, of course, is the great question of the day.

00:00:29.000 Whether Congressman Eric Swalwell, former presidential candidate whose candidacy didn't last nearly as long as a fart in the wind, whether he actually blew a large gas or a national TV lesson.

00:00:41.000 Now, I know it's not an important story.

00:00:43.000 I know it's not an important story.

00:00:45.000 But hey, if we can't have fun with this, then what can we have fun with?

00:00:48.000 So that's night on MSNBC.

00:00:49.000 Appearing on Harbaugh, Chris Matthews.

00:00:51.000 Chris Matthews rolled out into the studio.

00:00:53.000 He's talking to Eric Swallow about impeachment.

00:00:55.000 In the middle of this talk, Eric Swallow was talking about impeachment.

00:00:58.000 All of a sudden, right in my ear, there's something wild happening.

00:01:01.000 Next, what we'll go.

00:01:02.000 Uncontradicted that the president used taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help him cheat an election. - Okay.

00:01:12.000 Okay, come on.

00:01:12.000 If you can't laugh at a fart joke, what can you laugh at?

00:01:15.000 Now, MSNBC did claim.

00:01:18.000 He denied it.

00:01:18.000 He did.

00:01:19.000 Swalwell denied it.

00:01:20.000 Did he supply it?

00:01:22.000 I think the rules speak for themselves.

00:01:24.000 You can see the fear in his eyes as this Uncontradicted that the president used taxpayer dollars to ask the Ukrainians to help him cheat an election. 0.65

00:01:35.000 Then there's a mild pause.

00:01:36.000 In any case, am I a fart truther?

00:01:39.000 I don't know.

00:01:39.000 In any case, Eric Swalwell denies that he did this.

00:01:41.000 Chris Matthews also denied it.

00:01:43.000 He said it wasn't me.

00:01:44.000 I didn't do it either.

00:01:44.000 I mean, come on.

00:01:46.000 You think I would care?

00:01:47.000 I'd just denounce it if it was me.

00:01:49.000 I play hardball here.

00:01:50.000 I don't hide the ball.

00:01:51.000 If it was me blowing on national TV, you think I'd hide that?

00:01:56.000 No, I'd brag about it.

00:01:57.000 I'd talk about having the best.

00:01:58.000 MSNBC is the best place for gas on national TV.

00:02:01.000 You think I'd do that?

00:02:02.000 Kathleen, tell them.

00:02:06.000 Hardball actually claimed that it was their mug.

00:02:10.000 They actually claimed that it was Chris Matthews moving a mug, moving a mug on his desk, and that is what caused that.

00:02:19.000 And then they tried to sell the Hardball mug on that basis.

00:02:21.000 And as Josh Barrow, the columnist, said, I'm not sure that a farting mug is actually your best pitch for people to buy the mug.

00:02:28.000 Huh.

00:02:28.000 In any case, does any of this matter?

00:02:30.000 No, but listen guys, if we can't take a break from politics for just a second and come together around a man barring nationality.

00:02:38.000 Even Alyssa Milano.

00:02:40.000 Alyssa Milano and I disagree on everything, but again.

00:02:43.000 There are certain simple joys in life that bring us back to our childhood.

00:02:46.000 And a solid fart joke on national TV.

00:02:48.000 I think that does it.

00:02:50.000 Okay, in a second we're gonna get to actual important news.

00:02:53.000 But first, let's talk about how you can be supplied with the greatest steaks on this planet.

00:02:59.000 This season, Omaha Steaks is sharing an amazing limited time offer with my listeners to get a jump on your holiday shopping.

00:03:05.000 You know what the dudes in your life are looking for?

00:03:07.000 They're looking for fantastic meats as the holidays approach.

00:03:10.000 So head on over to OmahaSteaks.com, enter the code Shapiro in the search bar, and order the favorite gift package, the gift anyone who loves steak will love, for only $69.99.

00:03:19.000 Order now, and you'll get four six-ounce bacon-wrapped filet mignons, four premium pork chops, four Omaha Steak burgers, four perfectly brown potatoes au gratin, four made-from-scratch caramel apple tartlets, an Omaha Steak signature seasoning packet, plus only for my listeners a free six-piece cutlery set and cutting board, which is an awesome gift set. plus only for my listeners a free six-piece cutlery set I have a lot of friends, may not be keeping the kosher, and they love these steaks.

00:03:42.000 I mean, the bacon-wrapped filet mignons, I've heard bacon is incredible, by the way.

00:03:46.000 Certain things, you know, Judaism, you take them on, and you're like, oh man, I wish I... In any case, this is good stuff. 1.00

00:03:52.000 If somebody sent you in the mail, wouldn't you love it?

00:03:54.000 All this delicious food, plus the free cutlery set they'll enjoy for years to come.

00:03:57.000 For only $69.99, Omaha Steaks is a fifth-generation, family-owned company, over 100 years of expertise in delivering perfectly aged beef, hand-cut by master butchers in the heartland of America.

00:04:06.000 Again, order now.

00:04:07.000 You get the favorite gift package, plus the free six-piece cutlery set and cutting board.

00:04:10.000 Only $69.99.

00:04:11.000 Just head on over to omahasteaks.com, type Shapiro in the search bar for the special deal.

00:04:15.000 Don't wait.

00:04:16.000 The offer ends soon.

00:04:17.000 Order the favorite gift package today in advance of Thanksgiving and Christmas.

00:04:20.000 It will be awesome.

00:04:21.000 Everyone will appreciate it.

00:04:22.000 Go to OmahaSteaks.com and type Shapiro in the search bar.

00:04:24.000 And then, after you get somebody the gift package, then ask them to invite you over so you can share the meat, because come on.

00:04:29.000 Okay, again, OmahaSteaks.com, type Shapiro in the search bar.

00:04:33.000 Okay, so, in actual news, the big question for Democrats going into 2020 is just how radical can they be?

00:04:39.000 And there's something reminiscent, actually, about 2008 here, slightly.

00:04:44.000 In 2008, there was serious talk about whether Barack Obama was too radical to be the nominee.

00:04:49.000 Now, Obama really hit it.

00:04:50.000 Obama didn't proclaim that he was quite as radical as he ended up being.

00:04:53.000 He didn't talk nationalized health care quite as much early on in the campaign.

00:04:58.000 He sort of proposed that he was a moderate who was going to unite the blue states and the red states.

00:05:02.000 We're all going to get together.

00:05:02.000 We're all the same.

00:05:03.000 And then, of course, he ended up being a fairly radical left president.

00:05:06.000 But there was some controversy over whether he was too far to the left because obviously he was running against Hillary Clinton, who is widely perceived as more moderate.

00:05:14.000 And the Democratic Party said, no, we're going to go with the more radical guy.

00:05:16.000 And then, of course, Obama ends up being a sort of once-in-a-generation candidate and wins a sweeping victory over John McCain.

00:05:22.000 Well, now, Barack Obama is warning the Democrats that they are too far left.

00:05:26.000 Now, when Barack Obama is warning you that you are too far left, Okay, this is Stalin warning Trotsky that he is not in line.

00:05:33.000 And because the fact is that Barack Obama, he's not, he's not Stalin.

00:05:37.000 But the point is that Barack Obama is, in fact, a far-left guy.

00:05:41.000 And when he's warning the Democrats that they are so far over the rails that Donald Trump is going to win re-election, you might think that the Democrats would take a hint.

00:05:48.000 But they're not.

00:05:50.000 Some far-left Democrats very angry at Obama.

00:05:52.000 They've been using the hashtag too far left, sniping at Obama.

00:05:57.000 Obama told a group of Democrat donors at a dinner event on Friday evening, quote, even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality.

00:06:04.000 The average American doesn't think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.

00:06:09.000 And that's obviously him sort of slapping at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

00:06:12.000 He says, I don't think we should be deluded into thinking that the resistance to certain approaches to things is simply because voters haven't heard a bold enough proposal.

00:06:19.000 And if they hear something as bold as possible, then immediately that's going to activate them.

00:06:23.000 And this, of course, is true, because in the swing states, the fact is that the vast majority of voters are not in favor of Medicare for all.

00:06:30.000 Elizabeth Warren, as her proposals have been exposed to the light of day, has been dropping in the polls pretty significantly.

00:06:36.000 Again, the betting odds on Elizabeth Warren have dropped dramatically over the past few weeks.

00:06:41.000 In the middle of October, she was better than 50% in the odds to take the nomination.

00:06:46.000 Now, she's all the way down at 29% in the odds, with Biden at 24% and Pete Buttigieg at 19%.

00:06:53.000 And the fact is that right now, Elizabeth Warren is only leading in one state, New Hampshire, which happens to be next door to her home state of Massachusetts.

00:07:00.000 Pete Buttigieg is in the lead in Iowa.

00:07:02.000 Warren is running second, maybe third, depending on where you put Biden in those poll numbers.

00:07:07.000 In New Hampshire, Warren is running first, Biden is running second.

00:07:10.000 And then in all the other states, Biden is cleaning up.

00:07:13.000 So Elizabeth Warren has been dropping like a stone. 0.98

00:07:15.000 So Barack Obama is correct about all of this.

00:07:17.000 And the proof is in the pudding, right?

00:07:19.000 Even as the Democrats claim That they want to move far to the left.

00:07:23.000 The ones who are actually winning are the ones who are more moderate.

00:07:26.000 So Rahm Emanuel, who is the mayor of Chicago, right?

00:07:28.000 I mean, he was Obama's chief of staff.

00:07:31.000 This is not a person who is a moderate.

00:07:33.000 Rahm Emanuel is warning the Democrats, guys, you are way off the rails here.

00:07:37.000 He has a piece in the Washington Post today called, if they're not true to their history, Democrats risk squandering a rare opportunity.

00:07:43.000 He says credit where credit is due.

00:07:45.000 Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have done a masterful job baiting the rest of the field into fighting this campaign on their turf.

00:07:50.000 Many voters inevitably presume today that redistribution of wealth is the Democratic Party's animating creed.

00:07:55.000 But that's simply not true to history.

00:07:57.000 Since the New Deal, Democrats have thrived when championing ideas moored in the belief that rights come with responsibilities and benefits are earned through work.

00:08:04.000 Which actually sounds a lot more like a Republican creed than a Democratic creed.

00:08:08.000 He says, if we fail to return to that agenda ahead of the 2020 election, we risk squandering a rare opportunity.

00:08:13.000 Fortunately, we now have a chance to shift that narrative.

00:08:16.000 He says, amid all the talk about programs designed to redistribute America's wealth, the phrase most glaringly absent from the 2020 campaign to this point is inclusive growth.

00:08:25.000 With former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick entering the race last week and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg emerging as another late entrant, we can begin to have an ideas primary in earnest.

00:08:33.000 We're stronger as a party when we debate substantive proposals for how to expand prosperity and opportunity.

00:08:39.000 But to meet the far left's big ideas, traditional liberals need to show up with bold ideas of their own.

00:08:44.000 Rahm Emanuel says, admittedly, I've been critical of those trying to steer the Democratic Party further to the left.

00:08:48.000 I think Medicare for All is a pipe dream, though I support efforts to expand coverage and control costs.

00:08:52.000 And much as I agree that concentrated power is a threat to American prosperity, I believe a universal basic income runs counter to America's deep-seated belief that people should earn their living by working hard and playing by the rules.

00:09:03.000 As power and money have flowed away from the working and middle classes, a change driven as much by technology and globalization as by a rigged system, government has too frequently turned the other cheek.

00:09:11.000 Since we have consensus on the nature of the problem, the question then is how to level the playing field.

00:09:16.000 Rahm Emanuel says traditional liberals need to begin offering their own bold ideas for three principal reasons.

00:09:21.000 The first, and most important, centers on history.

00:09:23.000 Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, Bill Clinton's New Covenant, and Barack Obama's belief that, quote, there's not a liberal in America and a conservative America, there's the United States of America.

00:09:32.000 All appealed to voters by tapping into the nation's firmly established belief that people should earn their prosperity through hard work.

00:09:39.000 Social Security and Medicare aren't handouts.

00:09:40.000 They're financed by what workers pay through a payroll tax.

00:09:42.000 The GI Bill and AmeriCorps both offer tuition assistance in return for national service, says Rahm Emanuel.

00:09:49.000 The Earned Income Tax Credit is designed to boost families working their way out of poverty.

00:09:53.000 And then he talks about the fact that when they win elections, it's because they have moved along the lines of work deserves better pay, not along the lines of tearing down wealth.

00:10:02.000 He says, when our party has nominated candidates banging the drum for redistribution, like George McGovern or Walter Mondale, we've lost.

00:10:07.000 Hopefully bids from Bloomberg and Patrick will serve as a wake-up call.

00:10:11.000 And then he points out that these policies are also bound to fail.

00:10:15.000 He says, big ideas aren't necessarily good.

00:10:17.000 And that is a slap at Warren and Sanders.

00:10:19.000 He says, with any luck, Bloomberg and Patrick will spur traditional liberals to reanimate the bold democratic creed centered on work, responsibility, shared prosperity, and equal access to opportunity.

00:10:27.000 If the new contenders inspire a new wave of progressive thinking, we'll not only prevail next November, but for years to come.

00:10:32.000 But will those ideas prevail?

00:10:34.000 Will those ideas prevail?

00:10:35.000 Because the Democratic Party is fringing itself.

00:10:38.000 I mean, that is what is happening in real time.

00:10:40.000 The Democratic Party is fringing itself.

00:10:42.000 And in a second, I will show you how the Democratic Party is taking victories and turning them into defeats because of their own allegiance to radical ideas.

00:10:52.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:10:53.000 First, let's talk about the fact that there's a good shot, dudes, that if you have hair loss in your family, you will lose your hair as well.

00:10:59.000 Two out of three dudes will experience some form of male pattern baldness by the time they are 35, which is bad news for me.

00:11:05.000 I'm 35.

00:11:05.000 The good news, With today's advancements in science, Keeps offers proven treatments that can combat the symptoms of hair loss and help you keep the hair you have at half the cost of your local pharmacy.

00:11:16.000 And here's the thing, once you start losing significant amounts of hair, usually it ain't coming back.

00:11:20.000 So you really should work to stop the hair loss right now.

00:11:23.000 You don't have to go broke to avoid going bald.

00:11:24.000 Keeps offers generic versions of the only two FDA-approved hair loss products out there.

00:11:28.000 Some of you may have tried them before.

00:11:29.000 You've probably never done so for this price.

00:11:31.000 Plus, Keeps now offers a prescription shampoo to keep your scalp healthy as well.

00:11:35.000 Prevention is key, and Keeps treatments really do work.

00:11:37.000 They're up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss.

00:11:41.000 So the sooner you start using Keeps, the more hair you're going to save.

00:11:43.000 So act fast.

00:11:44.000 Find out why Keeps has more five-star reviews than any of its competitors.

00:11:47.000 and nearly 100,000 men trust Keeps for their hair loss prevention medication.

00:11:51.000 The treatment starts at just $10 a month plus.

00:11:52.000 For a limited time, you can get your first month for free.

00:11:55.000 If you're ready to take action, go to Keeps.com slash Ben.

00:11:58.000 Receive your first month of treatment for free.

00:11:59.000 That is K-E-E-P-S dot com slash Ben.

00:12:02.000 Keeps.com slash Ben.

00:12:03.000 If you don't do this, in five years you're going to look around.

00:12:06.000 Your bald dome's going to be reflecting in the mirror.

00:12:08.000 You're going to regret that you didn't call up Keeps.

00:12:09.000 Go check them out right now at keeps.com slash ben.

00:12:12.000 K-E-E-P-S dot com slash ben. 0.86

00:12:14.000 Okay, so as I say, the Democratic Party, despite the advice of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel, they are moving in radical directions.

00:12:23.000 According to the New York Times, the Democratic Attorneys General group has now decided that they will not endorse any candidate for State Attorney General across the country unless they explicitly endorse abortion on demand.

00:12:36.000 Which is Full-scale insanity.

00:12:39.000 The fact is that if Democrats want to win in purple areas, what they shouldn't do is embrace their more radical side, but that is what they are doing.

00:12:46.000 According to the New York Times, an association of Democratic state attorneys general will become the first national party committee to impose an explicit abortion litmus test on its candidates, announcing on Monday that it will refuse to endorse anyone who does not support reproductive rights and expanding access to abortion services.

00:13:00.000 To win financial and strategic backing from the group, candidates will be required to make a public statement declaring their support of abortion rights.

00:13:07.000 So it's an actual full on litmus test.

00:13:09.000 The group, the Democratic Attorneys General Association, recruits candidates and helps their campaigns with financial support, data analysis, messaging and policy positions.

00:13:17.000 The decision comes as a series of state legislatures have approved restrictive laws designed to provoke a renewed legal battle over abortion rights with the aim to reach the U.S.

00:13:25.000 Supreme Court and topple Roe v. Wade.

00:13:27.000 Letitia James, the New York AG, who, by the way, is an awful AG, and I pointed out when she was elected that she said that she was going after Trump, which, by the way, is not the way AGs are supposed to work.

00:13:36.000 It's not, I identify the person I wish to target, and then I find a crime.

00:13:41.000 It's, I identify a crime, and then I go after the criminal.

00:13:44.000 But she says Attorneys General are on the front lines of the fight for reproductive freedom. 0.99

00:13:48.000 They have the power to protect your rights.

00:13:50.000 It is important to note here that the same Democratic Party that claims that Attorney General William Barr is a political hack is openly calling for Attorneys General to be political hacks.

00:13:58.000 Because we have actually seen Attorneys General like Kamala Harris across the country simply refuse to defend the laws of their state. 1.00

00:14:05.000 And the insane Supreme Court has decided that if a state attorney general refuses to defend the law of a state, the state no longer has standing to sue for the law being upheld.

00:14:15.000 This actually happened in the Proposition 8 case in California, where the Californian public voted overwhelmingly to protect traditional marriage in the state constitution.

00:14:24.000 That was elevated to the Supreme Court.

00:14:27.000 Senator Kamala Harris was then Attorney General of the state of California.

00:14:31.000 She refused to defend Proposition 8 in court, saying that she could not in good conscience do so, but she also wouldn't resign, right?

00:14:36.000 She just wouldn't defend it.

00:14:37.000 And then the Ninth Circuit said, well, since your state AG is not defending the law, the state of California does not have the standing to sue for the defense of its law in court, which is fully insane.

00:14:46.000 I mean, it basically gives veto power on any law to a state AG.

00:14:49.000 I mean, that's the height of illegality.

00:14:53.000 The Democrats treat the law as a standard to be tossed or adhered to at political whim.

00:15:00.000 Well now, as I say, the Democrats' AG group, they're saying to their own people, we're not going to back you unless you back abortion on demand.

00:15:06.000 The new standard is unlikely to have an immediate impact on incumbents, according to the New York Times.

00:15:10.000 Of 27 Democrat AGs currently in office, just one, Jim Hood of Mississippi, describes himself as a pro-life Democrat.

00:15:15.000 But officials believe it could have a ripple effect throughout the Democratic ecosystem, reflecting the changing mores of a national party I thought the AG's job was to enforce the law, not to enforce democratic priorities that are not the law.

00:15:24.000 She says we're going to be the ones right out in front.

00:15:26.000 Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum of Oregon.

00:15:28.000 She said state attorney generals are now on the map as taking the lead when it comes to democratic values.

00:15:33.000 It should scare the hell out of anybody.

00:15:35.000 I thought the AG's job was to enforce the law, not to enforce democratic priorities that are not the law.

00:15:40.000 She says we're going to be the ones right out in front.

00:15:43.000 Hopefully other committees will follow right along.

00:15:45.000 The new litmus test does worry some Democrats who fear it could hurt their party in rural areas and more moderate suburban districts than one Democrats control of the House last fall.

00:15:54.000 There are 40 districts the Democrats won that were in very close toss-up Trump or very slightly Hillary districts in the last election cycle.

00:16:02.000 Former Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who served two terms as her state AG, described the decision as wrongheaded.

00:16:08.000 She lost her seat representing her red state after voting against the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year.

00:16:15.000 And she points out correctly that Governor John Bel Edwards of Louisiana just won re-election on Saturday after campaigning on his opposition to abortion and supporting a state law barring abortion after the pulsing of what becomes the fetus's heart can be detected.

00:16:27.000 In other words, in Louisiana, if you want to be a Democrat who gets elected, then probably you shouldn't be radically pro-choice.

00:16:34.000 The Democrats are embracing the politics of AOC in the land of Donald Trump, which makes no sense at all, politically speaking.

00:16:42.000 Heidi Heitkamp says there are very principled people who are Democrats who feel very strongly about this issue for religious reasons, and when you say you're not welcome in our party, I think it's exclusionary.

00:16:51.000 You have to look at the totality of a candidate.

00:16:52.000 By the way, even the way that Heitkamp describes that is incorrect.

00:16:55.000 There are many people, I would say the vast majority of people, who are pro-life, who are not pro-life for religious reasons.

00:17:00.000 They're not pro-life because of the Book of Psalms.

00:17:02.000 They are pro-life because the science suggests that human life begins at conception.

00:17:06.000 In any case, the Democratic Attorney General Association is now forcing this litmus test down the throats of their own people, which is full-scale political insanity, especially, again, given what just happened in Louisiana.

00:17:20.000 As Charles Camosi writes over at First Things, Democrat John Bel Edwards dramatically expanded Medicaid in his state, yes, but he also signed a bill banning abortion after a heartbeat can be detected.

00:17:31.000 That's why he managed to win the governorship of a deep-red state in which the president has a plus-12 approval rating.

00:17:36.000 As Camosi points out, simply put, Bel Edwards never could have won in such a state if he were not pro-life.

00:17:41.000 His traditional values in this area reflect both his deep commitment to Catholicism and the views of Louisiana voters, especially Democratic voters of color.

00:17:48.000 In the run-up to the election, both racial justice activist organizations and Edwards' campaign itself made a dramatic increase in African-American voter turnout a major priority.

00:17:57.000 And with good results, voters of colors put Edwards over the top, especially when it came to early voting.

00:18:03.000 It would be interesting to know, says Camosi, what white, progressive, highly educated Democrats think of all this.

00:18:07.000 After all, they have been primarily responsible for the party's turn to the kind of abortion extremism that would have doomed an Orthodox Democrat in a race like this one.

00:18:15.000 Mother Jones ran a piece a few days before the election with the headline, Is There Still Room for an Anti-Abortion Hardliner in the Democratic Party?

00:18:23.000 The answer in the party platform, which claims that abortion should be unrestricted, that it should be paid for by pro-lifers tax dollars, and that it is core to women's, men's, and young people's health and well-being, is obviously in the negative.

00:18:34.000 Now, Democrats will support Bell Edwards when it comes to defeating Donald Trump, but the fact is that Democrats who violate the sort of radical left have become the enemy inside the Democratic Party, which is a very bad move for them.

00:18:47.000 I mean, the fact is that Tulsi Gabbard has suggested that abortion ought to be safe, legal, and rare, and she gets blasted by the people in her own party. 0.98

00:18:54.000 I mean, Democrats, it's foolishness. 0.99

00:18:58.000 I mean, it's real foolishness. 0.94

00:18:59.000 And you're starting to see this break out into the Democratic primary as the more moderate candidates are ripped up and down for the great sin of not being radically to the left.

00:19:09.000 And as the more leftist candidates signify to the voters that they are more pure.

00:19:14.000 Now, will primary voters buy it?

00:19:16.000 I'm not so sure.

00:19:17.000 I'm not so sure.

00:19:17.000 We'll get to more of this in just one second.

00:19:19.000 First, let's talk about the fact that in a time of great chaos, you sometimes are going to need to invest some of your money in a diversified asset that is not subject to the whims of centralized governments.

00:19:30.000 Yeah, well, the problem is that if you're investing in currencies, the fact is that governments can manipulate the currency, and the value of your investment then goes up and down with the value of the Chinese government or the American government.

00:19:40.000 So, for example, last week, China devalued its currencies and the markets tanked.

00:19:43.000 One consequence is that Bitcoin prices rose.

00:19:45.000 Why?

00:19:46.000 Because Bitcoin is basically digital gold.

00:19:47.000 Effectively, what Bitcoin is, is it is an asset that you invest in, and it is not as though you receive a piece of gold in the mail or something.

00:19:54.000 Instead, what it is, it's a digital asset whose value is assigned by the market itself.

00:20:00.000 And there's blockchain, which prevents anybody from hacking it or inflating the currency, and you're not gonna see a centralized government that is inflating the currency in order to pay off its debts or anything.

00:20:09.000 It is you investing in a currency that is not manipulable by central governments, which is why central governments have had such a problem with Bitcoin, which is one of the reasons you might think about investing in Bitcoin.

00:20:17.000 Well, if you're interested, then you should think about investing with eToro.

00:20:20.000 It's smart crypto trading made easy.

00:20:21.000 eToro's social trading platform has over 11 million traders and facilitates over 1 trillion bucks in trading volume per year globally.

00:20:28.000 You can access the world's best cryptocurrencies.

00:20:29.000 We've got 15 different coins available.

00:20:31.000 You can try before you trade with a virtual portfolio with a $100,000 budget.

00:20:35.000 Never miss a trading trend with charts and pricing alerts.

00:20:37.000 Sign up today at etoro.com slash Shapiro.

00:20:40.000 That's E-T-O-R-O dot com slash Shapiro. 0.96

00:20:43.000 etoro.com slash Shapiro.

00:20:44.000 Give them a try.

00:20:45.000 Again, they have that ability to test out your investment expertise before you put any of your own money in.

00:20:49.000 Check them out at etoro.com slash Shapiro.

00:20:52.000 So, as I say, the gap between the so-called moderates and the radical leftists in the Democratic Party is now breaking out into the open.

00:21:00.000 So basically, on the one side you have Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and maybe Cory Booker, and on the other side you have people like Julian Castro, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren.

00:21:09.000 And the Democrats seem fairly split, almost right down the middle on this particular issue.

00:21:14.000 The reason that Joe Biden continues to be durable in the polls, the reason that he has never budged below around 25 to 30 percent in the national polling data is because people in the Democratic Party understand, I think a large chunk of them understand that you push too far to the left and the American people are not up for this.

00:21:30.000 Joe Biden's case is basically I'm the only one who can beat Trump.

00:21:34.000 Here is Joe Biden making that case yesterday.

00:21:35.000 It's not going to be easy to beat him.

00:21:37.000 We're talking about this is going to be this, the cakewalk.

00:21:40.000 He is going to have a billion dollars.

00:21:44.000 He's going to have an awful lot of the same kind of negative campaigns that he's run in the past.

00:21:49.000 And he is he's not going to be that easy to beat.

00:21:53.000 So we better be careful about who we nominate as our candidate, because the risk of.

00:22:00.000 Nominating someone who can't beat Donald Trump or doesn't beat Donald Trump is a nation and a world we don't want to leave to our kids.

00:22:07.000 Okay, and so Biden's case is the only person who can beat Trump is somebody who's not going to be a full-scale crazy. 0.95

00:22:12.000 The problem is the full-scale crazies in the Democratic Party are in control of the boat, at least when it comes to social media, and many of the Democrats have followed them down this rat hole.

00:22:21.000 This is why you end up with the spectacle this morning of Tea Party trending on Twitter.

00:22:25.000 So Tea Party was trending on Twitter and I was thinking to myself, well, the Tea Party hasn't really been a term that's been mentioned for several years.

00:22:31.000 I mean, the Tea Party basically went defunct as in terms of having events as of like 2014, 2015, like it just kind of stopped being a thing.

00:22:40.000 So why exactly was it trending?

00:22:41.000 Well, it turns out it was trending because way back in 2011, Pete Buttigieg spoke at a Tea Party event.

00:22:46.000 I have to admit as a Democrat that many of my friends and supporters looked at me as if I was absolutely nuts when I suggested that I would be coming tonight to speak with a group that's often identified with the Tea Party.

00:22:56.000 new Unearthed video.

00:22:58.000 I have to admit as a Democrat that many of my friends and supporters looked at me as if I was absolutely nuts when I suggested that I would be coming tonight to speak with a group that's often identified as a Tea Party.

00:23:10.000 There are some, especially in my party, where the Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary Republican Party.

00:23:16.000 But there are many others who believe that the Tea Party is motivated by real concerns about the direction of our government and the responsiveness of our government to citizens.

00:23:26.000 And above all, the frustration with businesses.

00:23:29.000 That is what motivated me to run.

00:23:32.000 Okay, so that was Buttigieg when he was running for mayor of South Bend, actually trying to appeal to people across the aisle by saying, I'm not going to castigate Tea Party as terrorists.

00:23:40.000 He's getting blasted for this today.

00:23:41.000 I mean, just ripped up and down by the entire Democratic left.

00:23:45.000 How could he have ever treated people in the Tea Party as human beings?

00:23:48.000 And you saw the same thing with Joe Biden.

00:23:49.000 When Joe Biden said, yeah, I used to work across the aisle with my good friends like John McCain.

00:23:53.000 And people, how dare you work with John McCain?

00:23:55.000 He was a very bad man.

00:23:57.000 That side of the Democratic Party, which side is going to win?

00:24:00.000 Honestly, for the good of the country, it's kind of funny.

00:24:03.000 As a conservative, as a Republican, Donald Trump has a better shot of winning if he runs against somebody like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders than somebody like Biden or Buttigieg.

00:24:11.000 Because the more sort of moderate the Democrats are, the better shot they have at winning.

00:24:16.000 So on the one hand, as a conservative, I'm rooting for the Democrats to nominate somebody like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren because I don't think that they will survive the election.

00:24:25.000 I think that they will implode on impact.

00:24:27.000 But, at the same time, for the good of the country, I think it would be much better if the Democratic Party were a reasonable party.

00:24:32.000 I think that having two parties that are reasonable is a lot better than having one that is reasonable and one that is unreasonable, at least in terms of policy.

00:24:39.000 So, on the one hand, I'm rooting for the Democrats to nominate the worst candidate, which would be somebody like Sanders or Warren.

00:24:44.000 On the other hand, I'm rooting for the Democrats to nominate somebody who actually signifies that the country has a shot of coming back together, because the more radical Democrats get, the worse it is for the country.

00:24:56.000 So again, this whole thing is breaking out into the open.

00:24:58.000 Julian Castro, who's been campaigning as sort of Beto Light, right?

00:25:02.000 So he's run to the radical left also.

00:25:04.000 He's slamming Buttigieg going, well, what has he actually done?

00:25:06.000 What have you actually done?

00:25:08.000 Like seriously, you're Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

00:25:10.000 Ooh, ah, Housing and Urban Development.

00:25:12.000 Wow, that was a real important gig over there.

00:25:14.000 Here's Julian Castro going after Buttigieg.

00:25:17.000 I was mayor of a city that was 14 times larger than South Bend, Indiana.

00:25:23.000 So, I've seen a lot when it comes to urban policy, and not only that, have a stronger track record, not only with the black community in San Antonio versus Mayor Buttigieg's record with the black community in South Bend.

00:25:37.000 I actually have a record of accomplishment, of things that I can point to from the time that I was Mayor and HUD Secretary, unlike Mayor Buttigieg, that you never hear What did he actually do in office when he was there?

00:25:50.000 Okay, wow, he was mayor of San Antonio.

00:25:51.000 Huge, huge, amazing.

00:25:53.000 And he's not wrong that Buttigieg doesn't have tons of experience.

00:25:56.000 But the fact is what Julian Castro is really ticked about is the fact that Buttigieg is getting attention when Julian Castro is getting none.

00:26:02.000 Meanwhile, Cory Booker is going after Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as well.

00:26:05.000 He should.

00:26:06.000 He has a piece in the New York Times today called, Stop Being Dogmatic About Public Charter Schools.

00:26:12.000 He says, we can't dismiss good ideas because they don't fit into neat ideological boxes or don't personally affect some of the louder, more privileged voices in the party.

00:26:19.000 Which is him saying to Elizabeth Warren, you are very wealthy.

00:26:22.000 You are very wealthy, and now you don't care about charter schools, which is weird, because you used to support them.

00:26:26.000 Here's Cory Booker blasting Elizabeth Warren. 0.91

00:26:28.000 He says, about 15 years ago, when I was living in Brick Towers, a high-rise, low-income housing community in Newark's Central Ward, a neighbor stopped me and told me about how her child's public school was failing its students, like many others in our area at the time.

00:26:42.000 Desperate, she asked if I knew a way to help get her child into a private school.

00:26:45.000 She knew, as all parents do, that a great education was her child's primary pathway to a better life.

00:26:50.000 And he talks about how his parents got him into a better school.

00:26:53.000 He says, parents in struggling communities across the country are going to extraordinary lengths to try to get their children into great public schools.

00:26:59.000 There's even a trend of children's guardians using fake addresses to enroll them in better schools in nearby neighborhoods or towns.

00:27:04.000 Living in fear of hired investigators who follow children home to verify their addresses.

00:27:08.000 He says, it's largely up to Democrats.

00:27:11.000 He rips down Republicans and says, for some reason, that Republicans are making the problem worse, which of course is untrue, but Booker's a Democrat, so of course he's gonna lie about that.

00:27:18.000 He says it's up to Democrats, especially those of us in this presidential primary race, to have a better discussion about practical K-12 solutions to ensure that every child in our country can go to a great public school.

00:27:28.000 That discussion needs to include high-achieving public charter schools when local communities call for them.

00:27:32.000 He says many public charter schools have proven to be an effective, targeted tool to give children with few other options a chance to succeed.

00:27:40.000 And he points out that when he was mayor of Newark, they invested in both traditional public schools and high-performing public charter schools, and the citywide graduation rate rose to 77% in 2018, from 50% a decade ago.

00:27:51.000 Today, he says, Newark is ranked the number one city in America for beat-the-odds, high-poverty, high-performance schools by the Center on Reinventing Public Education.

00:27:58.000 This is, by the way, the one good thing that Cory Booker did as mayor of Newark.

00:28:02.000 It is the one interesting thing.

00:28:02.000 And the fact that he has waited until now to run on it is pretty amazing and demonstrative of just how far the Democratic Party fell down the rat hole here.

00:28:11.000 Because the fact is that if Booker had campaigned from the outset on charter schools, he'd be doing much better in these primaries.

00:28:16.000 He really would.

00:28:17.000 Because again, his record as mayor of Newark was much more suggested of a sort of Biden-esque bipartisanship than it was a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

00:28:26.000 Now in a second we're going to get to Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but suffice it to say that the sort of subtweeting of Sanders and Warren is now an ongoing thing.

00:28:35.000 It's an ongoing thing and it should be an ongoing thing inside the Democratic Party.

00:28:38.000 I think it's a good thing for the country that it's an ongoing thing for the Democratic Party.

00:28:40.000 We'll get to more of The war inside the Democratic Party, should they move moderate or should they skew to the radical left in just one second?

00:28:47.000 First, let's talk about saving you time and money during the holiday season.

00:28:49.000 So you're gonna be sending lots of gifts.

00:28:51.000 We all know this.

00:28:52.000 And when you do this, this means you have to take all that stuff, you gotta schlep it over to the post office, you gotta slap some stamps on it, you gotta wait in line.

00:28:58.000 They have great services.

00:28:58.000 Listen, the post office is great.

00:28:59.000 But why not do all that stuff from home and not schlep all the stuff in the car?

00:29:03.000 Instead, use stamps.com.

00:29:05.000 Stamps.com brings all the services of the U.S.

00:29:07.000 Postal Service direct to your computer.

00:29:08.000 Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.

00:29:16.000 Simply use your computer to print official U.S.

00:29:18.000 postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.

00:29:23.000 Once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.

00:29:26.000 It is indeed that simple.

00:29:27.000 With Stamps.com, you get five cents off every first class stamp, up to 40% off priority mail.

00:29:32.000 So what the heck are you waiting for?

00:29:34.000 We use stamps.com here at the Daily Wire offices.

00:29:35.000 I use it at home as well.

00:29:37.000 It's very easy.

00:29:37.000 You should too.

00:29:38.000 They make it very simple.

00:29:39.000 Don't spend a minute of your holiday season at the post office this year.

00:29:41.000 Sign up for stamps.com instead.

00:29:43.000 No risk.

00:29:44.000 With my promo code, Shapiro, you get that special offer.

00:29:46.000 It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and the digital scale, which is a heck of an offer.

00:29:50.000 No long-term commitments or contracts.

00:29:52.000 Using that code, you'll be saving money and supporting the show as well.

00:29:54.000 Go to stamps.com.

00:29:55.000 Click on the microphone at the top of the homepage.

00:29:57.000 Type in Shapiro.

00:29:58.000 That's stamps.com.

00:30:00.000 Enter code ShapiroStamps.com.

00:30:02.000 Never go to the post office again.

00:30:04.000 Okay, in just one second, we'll get to the rest of the Democratic breakdown. 0.93

00:30:08.000 Sanders and Warren continuing to skew to the left.

00:30:10.000 Warren, you know, she was running as the person with one foot in either camp, in sort of the moderate camp and the radical camp.

00:30:16.000 Not anymore.

00:30:17.000 Both feet are in the radical camp.

00:30:19.000 And in honor of the hilarious self-own by Elizabeth Warren tweeting that she is selling billionaire tears mugs, on a website that actually benefits the billionaire.

00:30:28.000 We now have a brand new offer for you.

00:30:32.000 Our brand new offer is that if you go over to dailywire.com right now, what you will receive is a special 20% off on our all access.

00:30:32.000 We do.

00:30:42.000 A special 20% off.

00:30:44.000 I mean, that is a great offer.

00:30:46.000 And Insider Plus subscriptions when you use the promo code WARRENTEARS.

00:30:49.000 Because obviously this doesn't, when we say that this Tumblr right here is going to fill with leftist tears, those are Elizabeth Warren's very salty tears.

00:30:55.000 Plus, with Insider Plus and All Access, you get the incredible leftist tears hot or cold Tumblr, which is the original, the best, not billionaire tears.

00:31:01.000 First of all, there's not that many billionaires.

00:31:02.000 Even if you get their tears, is it really going to replenish you?

00:31:05.000 Leftist tears, however, are replenishing each and every day.

00:31:08.000 Today is the last day to join, so again, that is promo code WARRENTEARS for 20% off on your subscription.

00:31:13.000 Come join the fun over at dailywire.com.

00:31:15.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:31:17.000 All righty.

00:31:24.000 So Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren continue, meanwhile, to skew to the left.

00:31:29.000 There's an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about Bernie Sanders' brokerage tax.

00:31:34.000 So the fact is that Bernie Sanders, he has a proposal for a financial transaction tax.

00:31:40.000 It is going to dramatically lower your ability to invest in the market.

00:31:44.000 In fact, European countries that have tried to levy a 50 point basis tax on all equity trades, they've had to dismantle that tax because it's so bad for the markets.

00:31:52.000 Sweden repealed it because all of their trading volume migrated to London.

00:31:56.000 We tried this sort of tax in 1914, but it was scrapped in 1965 because it was producing little revenue.

00:32:03.000 And lowering growth.

00:32:04.000 And according to Georgetown economist James Angle, the tax could reduce retirement savings by as much as 8.5% over a typical worker's lifetime.

00:32:12.000 But Bernie Sanders is pushing it anyway, which is exactly what you would suspect. 0.99

00:32:16.000 Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren continues to be a massive hypocrite. 1.00

00:32:19.000 So while she is ripping on rich people, she is worth $12 million. 1.00

00:32:22.000 It turns out that her close allies, who are very, very rich, are maintaining campaign titles as Warren's finance co-chairs.

00:32:28.000 This would be Paul Egerman and activist Shanti Fry.

00:32:31.000 Politico.com reporting that even as Warren has sheered links to the Democratic donor class, Fry and Eagerman are courting big donors in the Northeast by organizing trips, hosting events, and acting as conduits for information about the campaign.

00:32:44.000 She's going to raise money, you know she will, for outside sources to spend money. 1.00

00:32:49.000 Also, the DNC can spend as much money as it wants, and just because her campaign forswears big donors does not mean the big donors can't go over to the DNC, which then spends on behalf of Elizabeth Warren, of course.

00:32:57.000 It's all a scam.

00:32:59.000 Politico is noting this.

00:33:00.000 They say their efforts highlight how some wealthy donors, especially progressives in her Boston base, have continued to embrace Warren, and they are planning on giving her a lot, a lot of money.

00:33:11.000 Apparently, these two very, very rich people, Egerman and Fry, continue to fly around the country trying to raise money for her.

00:33:20.000 Steve Grossman, former chairman of the DNC, says they're playing a non-traditional role.

00:33:24.000 He says they are rolling up their sleeves and they're doing it.

00:33:27.000 He says that doesn't mean they're not asking people for substantial contributions.

00:33:30.000 Grossman said, adding that his wife Barbara donated $2,800 to Warren after a request from Frye.

00:33:37.000 Warren's campaign declined to answer questions from Politico about whether the campaign had paid for any travel for Egerman or Frye or for the donors on trips that the finance co-chairs have organized to early voting states and other Warren events.

00:33:49.000 So, again, if Warren becomes the Democratic nominee, according to Politico, friends and allies expect Egerman and Frye to work to corral donors to write big checks to the DNC and help Warren fundraise for other campaigns and state parties, all of which the campaign has said she would do in a general election.

00:34:03.000 So a lot of this is hypocrisy.

00:34:05.000 Now, Warren and Sanders penned a letter together just today to underscore their socialist bona fides ripping on private equity.

00:34:14.000 They did so in the most dishonest possible way, which is not a great shock.

00:34:18.000 They're both ripping into a study that just came out from Ernst & Young, released in partnership with the American Investment Council, which is a trade group for the private equity industry.

00:34:29.000 The report was prepared as a response to private equity legislation pushed by Warren Sanders called the Stop Wall Street Looting Act of 2019, which should tell you everything you need to know about the act.

00:34:39.000 The legislation is designed to basically tax private equity.

00:34:42.000 And what the report said is, guys, private equity is supporting a lot of jobs in this country because private equity does a couple of things.

00:34:50.000 Some people think private equity is all the sort of leveraged buyouts of companies that are falling down on the job and then selling off all of their assets.

00:34:58.000 They think it's the movie Wall Street, in other words.

00:34:59.000 Well, that's not really all that private equity is doing.

00:35:02.000 Private equity is giving loans to startup companies.

00:35:04.000 Private equity is investing in companies that need investment.

00:35:07.000 And yes, private equity is taking over unprofitable companies, cutting the fat and relaunching those companies or selling off the assets if those companies are no longer able to support the workers or compete in the global industry. 0.88

00:35:17.000 But the idea that without private equity, there would be more jobs rather than fewer jobs is purely asinine.

00:35:21.000 Yes, private equity does engage in what Joseph Schumpeter calls creative destruction.

00:35:26.000 There's no question that private equity will buy up a business at a bargain basement price and then sell off the assets if the business is no longer operating fully.

00:35:32.000 But that does not mean that the business would continue to operate at a loss forever.

00:35:36.000 It would just declare bankruptcy and in many cases wouldn't even be able to restructure.

00:35:40.000 So this report from Ernst & Young and the American Investment Council estimates that the U.S.

00:35:45.000 private equity sector provides employment and earnings for 8.8 million workers earning $600 billion in wages and benefits because the private equity sector is supporting all of these people with their investments, obviously.

00:35:55.000 They say the average U.S.

00:35:57.000 private equity sector worker earned approximately $71,000 in wages and benefits in 2018.

00:36:04.000 So this is really funny.

00:36:05.000 Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are very upset with this study.

00:36:08.000 They say, well, why are you using the average salary?

00:36:10.000 I mean, that includes people who are in private equity at Goldman Sachs and also the line worker over at Sears.

00:36:15.000 So why are you averaging out the salary?

00:36:17.000 I don't know.

00:36:17.000 The same reason that you average out the salaries of women and men and then pretend that women earn less than men on a per point basis.

00:36:24.000 Okay, the fact is that if you want to make the case that there is tremendous economic inequality in the American economy, that of course is true, but that does not change the fact that if you are talking about generating more jobs and better jobs, that is going to require investment from somewhere and the government ain't doing it, nor is the government qualified to do it.

00:36:40.000 Ernst & Young also points out that the U.S.

00:36:42.000 private equity sector directly generated $1.1 trillion of value added in the United States in 2018.

00:36:48.000 Value added measures a sector's or industry's contribution to the production of final goods and services produced in the U.S.

00:36:54.000 or U.S.

00:36:54.000 gross domestic product.

00:36:56.000 The U.S.

00:36:56.000 private equity sector's value added comprised approximately 5% of U.S.

00:37:02.000 GDP in 2018, so fairly significant, obviously.

00:37:07.000 Also, the U.S.

00:37:07.000 private equity sector generates tax revenue through U.S.

00:37:10.000 private equity firms, private equity-backed companies, and its employees.

00:37:13.000 In 2018, according to this report, the U.S.

00:37:14.000 private equity sector paid $174 billion of federal, state, and local taxes.

00:37:19.000 But according to Elizabeth Warren, all of the private equity sector is very bad and basically should be put out of business.

00:37:25.000 Why?

00:37:25.000 Because they point out that some private equity deals end with the closing of business, which of course is true.

00:37:31.000 But if private equity weren't doing it, you know what happened to those businesses?

00:37:34.000 They would go bankrupt, obviously.

00:37:37.000 I mean, Elizabeth Warren, as well as illustrious economic names like Ayanna Pressley and Bernie Sanders, And Rashida Tlaib, right?

00:37:48.000 These people signed this 10-page letter talking about how terrible private equity is.

00:37:52.000 And the letter makes no sense, right?

00:37:53.000 I mean, the letter talks about how if you compare companies that are invested in by private equity with companies that are not invested in by private equity, the companies that are not invested in by private equity very often do better.

00:38:04.000 Yes, because why do you think private equity gets involved in a business?

00:38:06.000 You think that they are going to buy into a successful business?

00:38:09.000 Why would anybody sell the successful business?

00:38:11.000 Private equity gets involved very often when a company is already failing.

00:38:16.000 But again, for the left in the United States right now, for the hard left, it is about punishing success and punishing people who are perceived as successful.

00:38:24.000 This is why Elizabeth Warren is selling billionaire tears mugs. 1.00

00:38:27.000 That's why.

00:38:28.000 She perceives billionaires as the ideological enemy.

00:38:31.000 I perceive the hard left as the ideological enemy.

00:38:33.000 That's why we sell leftist tears mugs, right?

00:38:34.000 Not liberal tears, leftist tears.

00:38:36.000 Liberals are people who disagree with me on economics.

00:38:39.000 Disagree with me on social policy?

00:38:40.000 Leftists are people who want to shut down debate by pretending that mainstream conservatism is outside the Overton window.

00:38:45.000 It's a very different thing.

00:38:46.000 Elizabeth Warren perceives billionaires themselves to be the enemy, which is why she is selling billionaire tears mugs. 1.00

00:38:51.000 It is very obvious what she is doing.

00:38:53.000 She's just mirroring the same policy as Britain's Labour Party, the Socialist Labour Party over there. 0.84

00:38:59.000 They've been taking aim at quote-unquote obscene billionaires, pledging radical redistribution of wealth to cut the power of the super-rich.

00:39:07.000 The transnational radical left is on the rise.

00:39:10.000 Okay, meanwhile, in a major policy shift that should be celebrated, the Trump administration has now announced that the Trump administration views American policy on Israeli settlements as Israeli settlements are not a violation of international law.

00:39:24.000 Now, it was always absurd to suggest that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law.

00:39:27.000 Jews have been living in this area for literally thousands of years.

00:39:31.000 The international community had suggested it was a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention for Jews to settle in these particular areas.

00:39:39.000 Why?

00:39:39.000 Because there's a provision in the Fourth Geneva Convention that says that you're not allowed to deport your population into occupied areas.

00:39:47.000 But the population isn't being deported into occupied areas.

00:39:50.000 Israel won that territory in a legitimate war with Jordan.

00:39:54.000 Has offered the territory back to Jordan, by the way.

00:39:55.000 Jordan has turned it down.

00:39:56.000 There's never been a sovereign Palestinian state in that area.

00:40:00.000 Every offer to create one has been rejected by the Palestinians. 1.00

00:40:03.000 And Jews have lived in this area for literally thousands of years.

00:40:06.000 Thousands of years.

00:40:06.000 So that is not the deportation of a foreign population into a foreign area.

00:40:11.000 Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, that is a domestic population that has been living there continuously for literally thousands of years.

00:40:17.000 So good for the Trump administration.

00:40:18.000 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced during a press briefing on Monday, according to Ryan's Vedra at the Daily Wire, that the Trump administration was reversing an Obama-era policy and now does not view Israel's settlements in the West Bank as a violation of international law.

00:40:30.000 He says the Trump administration is reversing the Obama administration's approach toward Israeli settlements.

00:40:34.000 U.S.

00:40:35.000 public statements on settlement activities in the West Bank have been inconsistent over decades, which is true.

00:40:40.000 He said in 1978, the Carter administration categorically concluded that Israel's establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law.

00:40:47.000 However, in 1981, President Reagan disagreed with that conclusion and stated he didn't believe the settlements were inherently illegal.

00:40:53.000 Which obviously is true. 0.73

00:40:54.000 If Jews settle in East Jerusalem, why should that be illegal in any way?

00:40:58.000 Pompeo said subsequent administrations recognized that unrestrained settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace, but they wisely and prudently recognized that dwelling on legal positions didn't advance peace.

00:41:08.000 However, in December 2016, at the end of the previous administration, Secretary Kerry changed decades of this careful bipartisan approach by publicly reaffirming the supposed illegality of settlements, which basically suggests that the Palestinians own Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip.

00:41:23.000 Outright, without any negotiation, which of course is not only true, it raises the prospects of terrorism, right?

00:41:28.000 It's not only a base lie to suggest that this is historic Palestinian territory, it also raises the prospects of terrorism because now you are claiming that any Jew living on that territory is a violation of international law, so why shouldn't the Palestinians ethnically cleanse the Jews in this area? 0.82

00:41:43.000 Pompeo says, I want to emphasize several important considerations.

00:41:46.000 First, we recognize that as Israeli courts have the legal conclusions related to individual settlements must depend on assessments of specific facts and circumstances on the ground.

00:41:55.000 Therefore, the US government is expressing no view on the legal status of any individual settlement.

00:42:00.000 He says Israeli courts have confirmed the legality of certain settlement activities and has concluded that others cannot be legally sustained.

00:42:05.000 Second, we're not addressing or prejudging the status of the West Bank that's for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate.

00:42:10.000 International law does not compel a particular outcome or create any legal obstacle to a negotiated resolution.

00:42:16.000 Third, says Pompeo, the conclusion that we will no longer recognize Israeli settlements as per se inconsistent with international law is based on the unique facts, history, and circumstances presented by the established civilian settlements in the West Bank.

00:42:28.000 Our decision today does not prejudice or decide legal conclusions regarding situations in any other part of the world.

00:42:33.000 And finally, calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law Has not worked.

00:42:39.000 It has not advanced the cause of peace.

00:42:41.000 The hard truth is there will never be a judicial resolution to the conflict, which of course is true.

00:42:45.000 Good for the Trump administration for recognizing baseline reality on the ground.

00:42:49.000 The Obama administration was attempting to force Israel to abandon these particular areas to the tender mercies of terrorists, by the way, by trying to claim that historic Jewish living in these areas was somehow forbidden by international law. 0.99

00:43:01.000 It was always a garbage position. 0.97

00:43:03.000 Good for the Trump administration for reversing it. 0.99

00:43:05.000 Okay.

00:43:05.000 Now, finally, to the latest on Impeachment Gate.

00:43:07.000 Now, I haven't talked about Impeachment Gate so far, because frankly, I don't think the testimony today matters very much.

00:43:12.000 I think the only testimony that is probably going to matter is the testimony tomorrow of Gordon Sondland, who's the EU ambassador.

00:43:17.000 Nonetheless, the media are playing up the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.

00:43:21.000 The reason they're playing up this testimony is because Vindman shows well on TV.

00:43:25.000 Alexander Vindman, National Security Council official.

00:43:28.000 He's a Purple Heart recipient.

00:43:29.000 He testified today about his alarm at President Trump's request that Ukraine investigate his political opponents.

00:43:34.000 But as I have been saying for literally weeks here, there were many people on that call.

00:43:38.000 Their perceptions of the call are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether a crime was committed.

00:43:43.000 Whether an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor was committed.

00:43:46.000 They have a perception about the call.

00:43:47.000 You know who else has a perception about the call?

00:43:49.000 You.

00:43:50.000 I have a perception about the call.

00:43:51.000 We all have a perception about the call.

00:43:53.000 Because it turns out we've all seen the memo slash transcript of the call.

00:43:57.000 Vindman himself suggests that the transcript is pretty good, right?

00:43:59.000 It's not a full transcript.

00:44:01.000 But it does signify what exactly was talked about.

00:44:04.000 So why exactly are the Democrats calling Vindman?

00:44:07.000 They're calling Vindman for the same reason that they were calling Bill Taylor for the same reason that they've been calling other members Marie Yovanovitch because they're trying to create the image of a Trump administration gone wild.

00:44:18.000 So this is more of an electoral tactic than an impeachment one.

00:44:21.000 They're basically trying to make the case that Trump ought not be president because he has bad judgment.

00:44:26.000 Now, you can make that case, but making that case in the context of an impeachment inquiry is pretty ridiculous when you're out from the election.

00:44:33.000 If you want to make the case that Trump is unfit for the presidency, we have these things called elections in the United States.

00:44:37.000 You can make that case.

00:44:38.000 You're going to get the chance to.

00:44:39.000 You've been making the case all along, but turning this into an impeachment inquiry on the basis of testimony from people like Vindman makes no sense.

00:44:45.000 Now, if you want to bring forward People who have first-hand knowledge that Trump was attempting to solicit a bribe from Ukraine, for example.

00:44:51.000 This is why Sunlin's testimony tomorrow matters, because he actually talked to Trump.

00:44:55.000 That's one thing.

00:44:57.000 But propping up all of these third parties who had perceptions of the call is utterly irrelevant.

00:45:02.000 So really, this is all about optics, right?

00:45:03.000 We all know this is about optics.

00:45:04.000 So, Vindman is being brought forward for a couple of reasons.

00:45:07.000 One, because he has a long storied history as a patriotic American. 1.00

00:45:12.000 Two, because some people on the right were foolish enough to attack him, which is an idiotic proposition. 0.99

00:45:17.000 You could have just said, listen, his perception is not of great consequence to the question of whether Trump committed a crime. 0.99

00:45:23.000 He's welcome to his perception.

00:45:24.000 He's an American patriot.

00:45:26.000 You don't have to castigate him as a person in order to disagree with his perception of the circumstances.

00:45:32.000 But a lot of people on the right were ripping into Vindman personally, suggesting it was all politically motivated and all the rest of this sort of stuff.

00:45:37.000 So Vindman, in turn, has now taken up the baton of I'm a victim, that he is being victimized by people on the right.

00:45:44.000 And Democrats are playing this to the help.

00:45:45.000 They did the same thing with Marie Yovanovitch on Friday.

00:45:47.000 Yovanovitch, who says that she was wrongly fired as ambassador.

00:45:51.000 The case can certainly be made that she was wrongly fired as ambassador, but that's not criminally fired, just bad policy. 0.57

00:45:57.000 She proclaimed that she was greatly intimidated by Donald Trump tweeting about her, which, of course, is silly.

00:46:02.000 Well now, Vindman, he testified this morning, and in his testimony he did a routine suggesting that he was in dire danger, significant risk.

00:46:11.000 Now, maybe that's true.

00:46:12.000 As a person who's been the subject of many death threats over the course of my career, I can say it is uncomfortable.

00:46:18.000 But the Democrats are obviously playing this sort of thing up because what they are attempting to suggest is that Trump is militarizing the civilian population against witnesses who don't like him.

00:46:27.000 So here is Lieutenant Colonel Vindman telling his father, they came from the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union was still standing when he was a child, saying, Dad, I'll be fine as I testify.

00:46:38.000 It's high drama, but it has nothing to do with impeachment.

00:46:43.000 Dad, I'm sitting here today in the U.S.

00:46:46.000 Capitol, Talking to our elected professionals is proof that you made the right decision 40 years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to the United States of America in search of a better life for our family.

00:47:00.000 Do not worry.

00:47:01.000 I will be fine for telling the truth.

00:47:04.000 Thank you again for your consideration.

00:47:06.000 I'll be happy to answer your questions.

00:47:08.000 Right, so that last line there is basically, people are threatening me, the President of the United States is threatening me, and I'm standing up here being brave.

00:47:15.000 Now, listen.

00:47:16.000 Can there be truth to that?

00:47:17.000 Sure.

00:47:17.000 But is this optics?

00:47:18.000 Of course, this is optics.

00:47:19.000 And Vindman was definitely playing this up, right?

00:47:22.000 I mean, during the testimony, at one point, somebody called him Mr. Vindman, and he immediately corrected them and said, no, Lieutenant Colonel, because, again, the Democrats, the media, they've been playing this whole – they did the same thing with Bill Taylor, right?

00:47:32.000 You served in Vietnam, and you are an American hero, and as an American hero, you don't like Trump.

00:47:37.000 That's a lot of the game that's being played here.

00:47:38.000 Here's Vindman doing a little bit of it.

00:47:39.000 Mr. Vindman, you testified in your deposition that you did not know the whistleblower.

00:47:46.000 A ranking member, it's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please.

00:47:49.000 Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified in the deposition that you did not know – Who the whistleblower was.

00:48:00.000 I do not know.

00:48:00.000 Okay, so Vindman then testified that he was concerned by the phone call and he didn't think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate U.S.

00:48:08.000 citizens.

00:48:09.000 That testimony was contradicted by Tim Morrison, who is another official who was on the phone call, who suggested that he was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed on the phone call.

00:48:20.000 And also he disagreed with Vindman's characterization of the conversation.

00:48:24.000 Vindman suggested that the term Burisma was used on the call.

00:48:27.000 Morrison says that he doesn't remember that term being used on the call.

00:48:30.000 Even Vindman acknowledged that from his conversations in Ukraine, he didn't get the impression that the Ukrainians were feeling pressured by President Trump particularly.

00:48:39.000 Colonel Vindman, you testified that President Trump's request for a favor from President Zelensky would be considered as a demand to President Zelensky.

00:48:53.000 After this call, did you ever hear from any Ukrainians either in the United States or Ukraine about any pressure that they felt to do these investigations that President Trump demanded?

00:49:12.000 Not that I can recall.

00:49:13.000 Okay, so you can't recall having any conversations with the Ukrainians where they were expressing to him any consternation about what President Trump had actually demanded.

00:49:20.000 So that's really the key to his testimony, but the Democrats are trying to make it that the key to his testimony is his perception of the phone call more broadly.

00:49:27.000 And that's the story of today's testimony.

00:49:29.000 All the people who will be testifying today are basically going to testify as to their impressions on all of this.

00:49:35.000 And their impressions are basically not particularly useful.

00:49:40.000 They're not particularly useful.

00:49:42.000 And so, Vindman testified.

00:49:44.000 He said that he told lawmakers that vile character attacks against public servants testifying in the impeachment inquiry were reprehensible and urged Americans to be better than the callow and cowardly attacks.

00:49:55.000 He was wearing his army uniform and medals while he did all of this, obviously.

00:49:59.000 He was basically subtweeting Trump in all of that.

00:50:01.000 And again, this is about the optics of electioneering.

00:50:04.000 This has very little to do with the actual charges at hand.

00:50:07.000 The other people who are scheduled to testify today are Kurt Volker, the former U.S.

00:50:10.000 Special Envoy to Ukraine, Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, and former National Security Council Russia expert Tim Morrison.

00:50:19.000 According to prepared testimony, Jennifer Williams said that Trump's phone call was unusual because it involved a discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter.

00:50:27.000 Williams was then attacked by Trump on Twitter just days before her public appearance.

00:50:32.000 Trump went after her on Sunday as a never-Trumper who should, quote, work out a better presidential attack.

00:50:37.000 And he has, you know, Trump obviously has gone after a lot of these witnesses.

00:50:41.000 It's bad optics. 0.95

00:50:41.000 It's foolish of Trump because, again, this is directed toward elections. 0.95

00:50:45.000 Volker told lawmakers in October he didn't know of any effort by Trump to press Ukraine to investigate Biden. 0.95

00:50:50.000 He said that Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion, but other people have tried to claim that Volker was one of the people working out Ukrainian foreign policy.

00:50:59.000 Vindman and Volker have clashed over what occurred at previous meetings, so we'll see what Volker has to say today.

00:51:04.000 Bottom line is that none of these people have first-hand knowledge of what exactly it is that Trump wanted.

00:51:09.000 The only person who really does, presumably, is Sondland, who's going to testify tomorrow, and that's where all the big headlines are going to be.

00:51:14.000 Alrighty, time for a quick thing I like and then a quick thing that I hate.

00:51:17.000 So, things that I like today.

00:51:19.000 As I say, I've been on a Paul Johnson kick, really enjoy his work.

00:51:22.000 Historian wrote a very fun, short biography of Mozart back in 2013.

00:51:26.000 So if you're a fan of Mozart's music, then this does bust a few key myths about Mozart.

00:51:32.000 Among them, that Mozart was an irreligious philanderer.

00:51:35.000 That is not true.

00:51:36.000 He was a deeply religious guy.

00:51:38.000 Also, that Mozart was deeply troubled.

00:51:40.000 Not a lot of evidence to that effect.

00:51:42.000 Also, that his wife Constance was actually a terrible wife who was sort of frivolous.

00:51:48.000 The perception of her in Amadeus.

00:51:50.000 That obviously is untrue as well.

00:51:51.000 She's actually a pretty good wife. 1.00

00:51:53.000 She experienced the tragedy of losing a bunch of children very early on in their life.

00:51:57.000 She was sick a lot of their marriage, but she was, she ensured that basically their finances were taken care of.

00:52:02.000 The idea that Mozart was perennially in debt and was thus panicked about money, that is not true either.

00:52:07.000 The idea that he was tremendously at odds with his dad is not true.

00:52:10.000 So basically all of the myths that you see in Amadeus, which by the way is one of my favorite movies, They're really not true.

00:52:15.000 Mozart was a happy guy who composed music, great music.

00:52:18.000 His entire life was an expert on a variety of instruments, really understood the instruments. 0.96

00:52:23.000 Religious was not, in fact, an idiot savant the way that he is made out to be in Amadeus. 0.93

00:52:27.000 He's actually quite a brilliant fellow. 0.95

00:52:28.000 If you read his letters, it's pretty obvious that he was a very, very intelligent person.

00:52:32.000 So it's really good.

00:52:33.000 It's short.

00:52:34.000 I mean, so if you want to know kind of the key facts about Mozart's life, plus some great discussion of his music, check out Mozart, A Life by Paul Johnson.

00:52:39.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.

00:52:41.000 Alrighty, so this is exciting stuff.

00:52:48.000 More canceling, more canceling is necessary.

00:52:50.000 So now the New York Times is going after Paul Galwin, which is very exciting.

00:52:56.000 So Paul Galwin, last I checked, has been dead for like 150 years, right?

00:53:01.000 I mean, Paul Galwin died in 1903, age 54. 0.99

00:53:06.000 And it wasn't like people haven't known that he was kind of a scumbag for a really long time. 0.97

00:53:10.000 I mean, his personal life was a shambles. 0.99

00:53:13.000 He treated people horribly.

00:53:15.000 But, I was not aware that we are now going to be in the business of going back into history and determining when people did bad stuff and then canceling them.

00:53:22.000 There's literally a piece in the New York Times called, Okay, so that's bad stuff.

00:53:25.000 Gal Gwynn got canceled. 0.94

00:53:27.000 Museums are reassessing the legacy of an artist who had sex with teenage girls and called the Polynesian people he painted savages. 0.89

00:53:33.000 Okay, so that's bad stuff.

00:53:36.000 Also, is his art good?

00:53:37.000 I'm highly irritated by this notion that we can't separate the art from the artist in terms of appreciating the art.

00:53:45.000 Now, it may give you a better understanding of their motivations when they were painting, to understand what they were thinking, but that does not change the actual art.

00:53:53.000 It doesn't change the art itself, right?

00:53:55.000 If the art itself is good, then the art itself ought to be seen as good.

00:53:59.000 It should not be based purely on the sort of deconstructionist narrative that people in the past did bad stuff, therefore we can't look at their art anymore. 1.00

00:54:05.000 This is stupid. 0.98

00:54:06.000 So according to the New York Times, is it time to stop looking at Galwin altogether? 0.99

00:54:10.000 That's the startling question visitors hear on the audio guide as they walk through the Galwin Portraits exhibition at the National Gallery in London.

00:54:16.000 The show, which runs through January 26th, focuses on Galwin's depictions of himself, his friends and fellow artists, and of the children he fathered and the young girls he lived with in Tahiti. 0.93

00:54:25.000 In other words, he was a douchebag.

00:54:27.000 is Tehamana has many parents. 0.98

00:54:29.000 It pictures Galgain's teenage lover holding a fan.

00:54:31.000 The artist repeatedly entered into sexual relations with young girls, marrying two of them and fathering children, reads the wall text.

00:54:37.000 Galgain undoubtedly exploited his position as a privileged Westerner to make the most of sexual freedoms available to him. 0.99

00:54:43.000 In other words, he was a douchebag. 1.00

00:54:45.000 But everybody knows he was a douchebag. 0.99

00:54:47.000 So, I mean, I'm fine with examining Paul Galgain's life That's fine. 0.92

00:54:52.000 We should always understand the dark sides of history.

00:54:55.000 But this attempt to quote-unquote cancel a dude 120 years after his death? 0.78

00:55:00.000 Is fairly ridiculous, is it not?

00:55:02.000 Can't we just appreciate the art for what it is, understand that it came from a bad place, that this was a bad man, and then also recognize that the art is interesting and has something to say?

00:55:12.000 If we are now going to get into the business of examining the sins of great or small, of any person who creates art, there's not going to be a lot of art.

00:55:19.000 It turns out that a huge number of artists were horrible, horrible people. 0.59

00:55:23.000 Horrible people. 0.99

00:55:24.000 As my friend Andrew Clavin likes to say, talent falls on the smart and the dumb, on the good and the evil alike. 0.98

00:55:32.000 But according to the New York Times, it's time to cancel, Galguin.

00:55:34.000 Born in Paris, the son of a radical journalist, Galguin spent his early years in Peru before returning to France.

00:55:39.000 He took up painting in his 20s while working as a stockbroker, a profession he would soon give up, along with his wife and children to make art full-time.

00:55:45.000 He set sail for Tahiti in 1891, searching for the exotic surroundings he had known as a boy in Peru.

00:55:49.000 Galguin spent most of the 12 remaining years of his life in Tahiti and on the French Polynesian island of Hiva Ola, cohabiting with adolescent girls, fathering more children, and producing his best-known paintings.

00:55:58.000 In the international museum world, Galwin is a box office hit.

00:56:01.000 There have been a half dozen exhibitions of his work in the last few years alone, including important shows in Paris, Chicago, and San Francisco.

00:56:07.000 Yet, in an age of heightened public sensitivity to issues of gender, race, and colonialism, museums are having to reassess his legacy.

00:56:14.000 A couple of decades ago, an exhibition on the same theme would have been a great deal more about formal innovation, said Christopher Riopelle, a co-curator of the National Gallery show.

00:56:22.000 Now everything must be viewed in a much more nuanced context, he added.

00:56:27.000 Oh, so in other words, it used to focus on his art, now it's going to focus on the fact that we don't like him anymore.

00:56:32.000 And the fact, like, by the way, for a long time, the left was very much in vogue with Paul Galguin because Paul Galguin had abandoned his wife and kids and was seen as a political radical.

00:56:42.000 So only now are they beginning to realize, oh, you mean that the political radicalism went along with him mistreating young girls and treating native peoples horribly?

00:56:51.000 He said, I don't think any longer it's enough to say, oh, well, that's the way they did it back then.

00:56:54.000 Well, you don't have to say that in order to recognize that maybe you should assess him on an artistic level.

00:56:58.000 Riopelle described Galguin as a very complicated person, a very driven person, a very callous person, said he was disappointed that his overwhelming urge to make art led him to hurt or use so many people badly.

00:57:08.000 The show is co-produced with the National Gallery of Canada and Ottawa Open in Ottawa in late May.

00:57:13.000 Nine labels were changed to avoid culturally insensitive language, according to the museum's press office.

00:57:18.000 In Ottawa, the title, Head of a Savage Mask, was shown with an extended label explaining that the words savage and barbarian, considered offensive today, reflect attitudes common to Galguin's time and place.

00:57:29.000 Elsewhere, his relationship with a young Tahitian woman was changed to his relationship with a 13 or 14 year old Tahitian girl.

00:57:34.000 By the way, those changes are fine.

00:57:36.000 I don't see any real problem with being more specific in your description of Galguid.

00:57:42.000 But as far as quote-unquote cancelling him, I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

00:57:47.000 To other museum professionals, re-examining the lives of past artists from a 21st century perspective is risky because it could lead to the boycott of great art.

00:57:53.000 The person I can totally abhor and loathe, but the work is work, said Vincente Tadoli, who is Tate Modern's director, when I stage a major Galgain exhibit in 2010.

00:58:01.000 Once an artist creates something, it doesn't belong to the artist anymore, it belongs to the world.

00:58:04.000 Otherwise, he cautioned, we should stop reading the anti-Semitic author Luis Ferdinand Selin or Sean Cervantes in Shakespeare if we found something unsavory about them.

00:58:12.000 That, of course, is correct.

00:58:15.000 But because he was a bad guy, apparently we're now supposed to cancel him.

00:58:20.000 Thank you.

00:58:21.000 Thank you.

00:58:22.000 Galguin, you piss me off, begins two nudes on a Tahitian beach, 1894, a poem by a New Zealand poet and academic, Selina Tusitala Marsh.

00:58:30.000 You stripped me bare, asked to turn me on my side, shove a fan in my face, et cetera, et cetera.

00:58:34.000 The anonymity of his Tahitian portraits is another cause of frustration.

00:58:37.000 In the 2009 photographic series, Dee and Dallas do Galguin, the New Zealand-born Samoan artist, Tyla Vow, has cut out the faces in Galguin's reproduction and inserted photos of her own sister and friend.

00:58:48.000 Galwin's art is a problem if it continues to be used to frame the Pacific in this timely semi-damaged past when there's actually so much going on, says Carolyn Vercoe, a senior lecturer in art, in such a lively and dynamic culture within the indigenous context as well.

00:59:02.000 So again, the notion that we are going to quote-unquote cancel people 120 years after their death because they were bad when they lived, There's no limit.

00:59:12.000 There's no limiting principle here.

00:59:13.000 It turns out that by historic standards, most people were bad.

00:59:16.000 And it turns out in a hundred years, most people are gonna think we're bad.

00:59:18.000 So, if you like what is being done with Paul Galguin, then by all means, recognize that in a hundred years it'll be done to you.

00:59:25.000 And that is not to justify Galguin's behavior. 0.85

00:59:27.000 Galguin was, again, for the fourth time, a douchebag when he was alive.

00:59:31.000 But the attempt to cancel artists and say we can't show their exhibitions anymore because they're very bad people?

00:59:36.000 That is not going to end well for the artistic community above all.

00:59:41.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here later today for two additional hours.

00:59:43.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.

00:59:44.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:59:44.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:59:45.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.

00:59:55.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

00:59:56.000 Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.

00:59:58.000 Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.

01:00:00.000 Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.

01:00:02.000 And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.

01:00:05.000 Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.

01:00:07.000 Edited by Adam Siavitz.

01:00:09.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

01:00:10.000 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

01:00:12.000 Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.

01:00:14.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

01:00:16.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

01:00:18.000 Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell broadcasts hot air on MSNBC, but not so much hot air as Democratic Senator Chris Murphy or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

01:00:28.000 We will examine the shameless gasbaggery of our leaders.

The Ben Shapiro Show - November 19, 2019

Leaning Left And Letting Fly | Ep. 900

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript