The Ben Shapiro Show

00:00:00.000 Democrats get somber and serious about impeachment, Lev Parnas continues his media tour, and we check the mailbag.

00:00:06.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:00:06.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:00:08.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

00:00:16.000 Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash Ben.

00:00:21.000 Impeachment continues apace.

00:00:22.000 Yesterday was the big day.

00:00:24.000 The impeachment charges were walked over from the House to the Senate in a somber, serious, and sober ceremony.

00:00:31.000 It was really sort of like watching the coronation of a British monarch.

00:00:36.000 You had a bunch of members of the House who sort of walked this over through an empty chamber.

00:00:41.000 Very seriously wearing robes.

00:00:43.000 It was pretty wild stuff.

00:00:45.000 And we were told by the media that this was a somber and serious and sober moment.

00:00:49.000 This was not a partisan impeachment in any way.

00:00:51.000 That this was just the Democrats standing up for the constitutional duties to which they had sworn oath.

00:00:57.000 And yet Adam Schiff, pretending to be somber and sober and serious and all of that yesterday in announcing the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, other congresspeople, members of the media saying that this was a very somber and serious and sober moment for a man who spent two years basically with a pup tent pitched outside the CNN green room claiming that President Trump was a Russian cat spa.

00:01:15.000 Here is Adam Schiff, partisan par excellence, suggesting really in his manner and behavior that he was taking his constitutional duty extraordinarily seriously.

00:01:23.000 This isn't just a hit against Trump.

00:01:24.000 This was something that had to be done.

00:01:27.000 House Resolution 755.

00:01:30.000 Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

00:01:37.000 Resolved.

00:01:39.000 That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.

00:01:53.000 Oh, the sobriety.

00:01:54.000 Oh, the somberness and the sadness and the seriousness and all other S-words that you can find using a thesaurus.

00:02:00.000 Basically, the media dragged all of them out.

00:02:01.000 Wolf Blitzer talked about how somber and serious and sad all of this was.

00:02:04.000 The media are just mouthpieces for the Democrats at this point, and they truly are.

00:02:09.000 I won't say the entire media.

00:02:11.000 There are certain members of the media who I think, on occasion, try to do a good job.

00:02:14.000 I will say that the folks over at CNN, generally speaking, do not.

00:02:18.000 Wolf Blitzer and members of the CNN team pretending that this was a serious moment in America after spending years cheerleading for Trump's impeachment, after spending years pushing the Trump-Russia collusion stuff, After years suggesting that Donald John Trump is the worst person who ever lived, they're sitting there like, oh my god, what a serious moment this is for the country.

00:02:37.000 Yeah, I'm gonna go with, these are crocodile tears, here's Wolf Blitzer.

00:02:41.000 Adam Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, was very somber, very serious.

00:02:48.000 He read these two articles of impeachment, abuse of power by the President of the United States, obstruction of Congress by the President of the United States, repeatedly saying that the President of the United States engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.

00:03:01.000 Everybody very much on point here.

00:03:03.000 Everybody understands the somberness and the seriousness and the sobriety of the moment.

00:03:07.000 This is why you had Nancy Pelosi trying to pretend that she was really somber and serious and sober about all of this.

00:03:12.000 My favorite, my favorite actual instance of the somber, serious, sober moment was Kamala Harris.

00:03:17.000 So Kamala Harris...

00:03:19.000 She was doing an interview with MSNBC and she was on camera before she knew she was on camera.

00:03:26.000 And she's yucking it up.

00:03:27.000 I mean, just laughing out loud.

00:03:29.000 And then the camera switches on.

00:03:30.000 She realizes that the red light is on and she puts on her somber, serious, sober face and goes for it.

00:03:36.000 It's clip 24.

00:03:37.000 One of our colleagues, Casey Hunt, who is now with one of those senators, Casey.

00:03:42.000 Ari, thanks so much.

00:03:43.000 We're here with Senator Kamala Harris, who, of course, a former 2020 presidential candidate.

00:03:48.000 I mean, this is a solemn, serious moment.

00:03:52.000 These are the most serious charges ever brought in the history of our country against a president.

00:03:59.000 I'm going to cough up a lung.

00:04:00.000 That's amazing.

00:04:04.000 Show it again.

00:04:05.000 Show it again.

00:04:06.000 Do it again.

00:04:07.000 That's great.

00:04:08.000 One of our colleagues, Casey Hunt, who is now with one of those senators.

00:04:11.000 Casey?

00:04:12.000 Ari, thanks so much.

00:04:13.000 We're here with Senator Kamala Harris, who, of course, a former 2020 presidential candidate.

00:04:19.000 I mean, this is a solemn, serious moment.

00:04:23.000 These are the most serious charges ever brought in the history of our country against a president.

00:04:30.000 The most serious charges ever brought?

00:04:32.000 Ever?

00:04:32.000 Really?

00:04:33.000 There's not a single crime alleged in the impeachment papers.

00:04:36.000 Like, not one.

00:04:37.000 But I'm really... I just... I really... They need to use the word sedate.

00:04:41.000 We need stern.

00:04:42.000 Like, all of the S words, right?

00:04:44.000 I don't know why they picked S.

00:04:45.000 And they could have gone with, they could have gone with portentous, weighty, right?

00:04:49.000 There are plenty of thesaurus items they could have gone with, but it's all the S words.

00:04:52.000 But that shift from that face, from that giant Joker grin and that crazy Joker laugh.

00:04:59.000 I mean, I suggested after she left the presidential race that maybe she was up for the part of the Joker in the next Suicide Squad.

00:05:05.000 But she went from that to, I mean, it's like Joaquin Phoenix in Joker who has this bizarre penchant for laughing at inappropriate times.

00:05:14.000 because he's got an actual condition.

00:05:16.000 Kamala Harris can't stop herself.

00:05:17.000 She's like so happy, she's grinning.

00:05:19.000 And then she realized the camera's on, she goes.

00:05:21.000 And the Oscar for worst congressional actor goes to Senator Kamala Harris.

00:05:29.000 Everybody's so serious about it.

00:05:30.000 Guys, we ought to take this super seriously, because super serious crimes are being alleged, and it's the allegations that matter, as we will find out in a moment.

00:05:36.000 It's not the actual proof, it's the allegations that matter, because now it's up to the Senate to investigate, which is weird, since the Senate is where you hold a trial.

00:05:43.000 See, normally, in the impeachment procedure, You hold the investigation at the House level, and then you hold the trial at the Senate level.

00:05:51.000 Now, I don't know about you, but if you've ever watched, like, a Law & Order episode, there's a difference between the investigation, right?

00:05:56.000 That is the part where the guy who played Lumiere is out there on the streets walking the beat.

00:06:01.000 And then there's the actual trial, and that's the part where you have Jerry Orbach walking the beat, and then you have the part where Sam Waterston actually tries the case.

00:06:07.000 And they're two completely different things.

00:06:08.000 Sam Waterston isn't the one walking the beat, gathering all the facts.

00:06:11.000 He's the one trying the case.

00:06:12.000 It's Jerry Orbach who's supposed to be walking the streets, finding all the evidence.

00:06:15.000 Well, the House is supposed to be Jerry Orbach in this little analogy, and Sam Waterston is supposed to be the Senate, but turns out the House wants the Senate to be the investigative body as opposed to the House being the investigative body.

00:06:27.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:06:28.000 First, let's talk about, have you ever had the situation where something in your car breaks and now you are stuck because your car is broken down and you have to go to an auto parts store If you're like me, you don't know the first thing about auto parts.

00:06:39.000 So you end up going to the auto parts store, somebody sells you a generic part, it turns out not to fit, then you have to go to a second auto parts store, this has actually happened to me.

00:06:45.000 And now it's two days later and you still don't have the right part and you just end up calling AAA.

00:06:49.000 Well, why wouldn't you just use the magic of the interwebs?

00:06:52.000 This is where RockAuto.com comes in.

00:06:54.000 RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.

00:06:58.000 Go to RockAuto.com and shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.

00:07:02.000 They've got everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.

00:07:07.000 Whether it's for your classic or your daily driver, you get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.

00:07:12.000 The RockAuto.com catalog is incredibly easy to navigate.

00:07:14.000 You can quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and filter by brands, specifications, and prices.

00:07:20.000 I'm not a car guy, but if you are a car guy, it's even better, because if you need a real specialized part, really, the best place to go is Rock Auto.

00:07:25.000 Best of all, prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low, and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.

00:07:30.000 They've got great selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.

00:07:34.000 Check them out at rockauto.com.

00:07:36.000 That's rockauto.com.

00:07:38.000 See all the parts available for your car or truck.

00:07:39.000 Write Shapiro in their how-did-you-hear-about-us box so they know that we sent you.

00:07:43.000 Okay, so as I say, Nancy Pelosi did a crap investigation in the House.

00:07:46.000 They didn't call any of the relevant witnesses.

00:07:48.000 Well, they called a bunch of people who had heard third hand about stuff happening in Ukraine.

00:07:52.000 And now Nancy Pelosi says, well, you know, really what we're conveying to the Senate is not about the proof.

00:07:57.000 It's not about the proof.

00:07:58.000 It's about the allegations.

00:08:00.000 Well, I understand that the Democrats have decided that allegations are tantamount to proof as soon as you're talking about someone you disagree with.

00:08:06.000 That if it's Brett Kavanaugh, and there's an allegation made that he participated in a gang rape in 1832, that this is tantamount to proof.

00:08:12.000 And therefore, Brett Kavanaugh should not sit on the Supreme Court.

00:08:14.000 I understand this is their broad view of how due process works, but this is not how due process works.

00:08:19.000 So when Nancy Pelosi suggests that That you don't need proof.

00:08:22.000 You just need the allegations.

00:08:24.000 And now it's up to the Senate to investigate the allegations.

00:08:27.000 No, that was up to you, lady.

00:08:28.000 And if you had just delayed this thing... We keep hearing, now it's bombshell after bombshell.

00:08:32.000 Bombshells dropping everywhere.

00:08:34.000 It's like the film 1917.

00:08:35.000 Just bombshells.

00:08:37.000 Blowing up.

00:08:38.000 Right next to the Trump administration.

00:08:40.000 Well, if you just waited a few weeks, you could have called all those witnesses.

00:08:43.000 Like every single one of the ones you are now calling on the Senate to call.

00:08:46.000 Which suggests that all of this is a put-up job.

00:08:48.000 Nancy Pelosi basically admitting as much yesterday.

00:08:50.000 In any case, it's not a question of saying what proof, it says what allegations have been made.

00:08:59.000 And that has to be subjected to scrutiny as to how we go forward.

00:09:03.000 But it should not be ignored in the context of other events that have happened that would substantiate some of that.

00:09:12.000 I mean, we don't need proof.

00:09:13.000 The allegations are sufficient for us to take seriously the impeachment charges.

00:09:16.000 Again, this is like if Jerry Orbach walked into Sam Waterston's office and he was like, listen, I've got an allegation.

00:09:21.000 A murder has been committed.

00:09:22.000 And Sam Waterston's like, awesome.

00:09:24.000 I'm going to go.

00:09:25.000 I'd like to go try this thing.

00:09:26.000 Where's your proof?

00:09:26.000 And Jerry Orbach was like, well, I think my allegation is enough.

00:09:29.000 Like, there's been an allegation, man.

00:09:30.000 Don't got a body.

00:09:31.000 Don't got a weapon.

00:09:33.000 I've got a suspect.

00:09:34.000 Like, I think that guy did it.

00:09:35.000 Just call it a gut hunch.

00:09:36.000 But I don't really have the proof.

00:09:39.000 Waterston would laugh him out of his office.

00:09:40.000 And he's a TV lawyer.

00:09:41.000 So even Sam Waterston, TV lawyer, knows that if you're going to try a case in the Senate, presumably, if you're the prosecution, which the Democrats are in this particular case, then you should presumably have some proof to back you up.

00:09:53.000 Chuck Schumer, However, is out there saying Trump broke the law.

00:09:56.000 Now, Schumer is basing this on a general, on a government accountability office report that suggests that the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act.

00:10:06.000 We discussed this at length yesterday, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which essentially suggests that the President of the United States has to spend money that is allocated from the legislative branch to the executive branch within a certain specified period of time or issue a special message to Congress explaining why he has not done that.

00:10:20.000 The allegation from the GAO is that the Trump administration did not explain why they had not sent over the Ukrainian aid.

00:10:26.000 And while the aid eventually did go over, the failure to send a message was a violation of law.

00:10:30.000 The Democrats are now suggesting that this sort of law breaking is exactly why we have to impeach Trump.

00:10:35.000 Weird, because the GAO said that the Obama administration broke the law on a number of occasions.

00:10:40.000 The GAO said the Bush administration broke the law on a number of occasions.

00:10:43.000 And with Obama, they said that the Obama administration broke the law by shifting around money in order to secure the release of Bo Bergdahl.

00:10:51.000 The GAO suggested back in September that the Trump administration violated the law by allowing national parks to stay open during the government shutdown.

00:10:58.000 Right, so the GAO suggests that people violate the law all the time.

00:11:01.000 None of that's impeachable.

00:11:02.000 It's particularly not impeachable in terms of the Impoundment Control Act because there you have an actual statutory remedy that is available for failure to send a special message to Congress if you hold up, if you...

00:11:12.000 Participate in what is called a delay or rescission of the actual money.

00:11:17.000 And it's also true that if challenged in court, there are serious questions as to whether the Impoundment Control Act applies to foreign aid, because the president does have plenary power over how to handle foreign policy under the Constitution.

00:11:28.000 In any case, Chuck Schumer gets up there and he's like, this is not trivial.

00:11:31.000 The GAO, the GAO report, this is not trivial.

00:11:34.000 Except for how it was trivial five minutes ago when it was Obama, but it's trivial.

00:11:37.000 Now it's not trivial.

00:11:38.000 Now it's super duper pooper scooper serious, according to Chuck Schumer.

00:11:43.000 The GAO opinion especially makes clear that the documents we requested in our letter to Leader McConnell are even more needed now than when we requested it last month.

00:11:57.000 Because President Trump, simply put, broke the law.

00:12:01.000 Oh, well, he simply broke the law.

00:12:02.000 Yeah, and so did every other administration, according to the GAO, which has been making these sorts of suggestions for literally years.

00:12:08.000 The remedy in this particular case for the quote-unquote violation of law would have been for the Comptroller General of the United States government, an Obama appointee on a 15-year term, to actually investigate and send his own special message, which he didn't.

00:12:20.000 So, again, this is the Democrats trying to play up What they've got.

00:12:24.000 Listen, you don't go to war with the army you wish you had.

00:12:27.000 You go to war with the army that you have, as Donald Rumsfeld put it.

00:12:30.000 And apparently you don't go to Senate trial with the impeachment you wish you had.

00:12:33.000 You go to Senate trial with the impeachment you actually have.

00:12:36.000 And so now you have to backfill all the rationales for impeachment and grasp at any straw that is available.

00:12:42.000 Well, President Trump, for his part, isn't taking this sitting down.

00:12:44.000 He's not taking this quietly.

00:12:45.000 He's taking this in all caps lock Trumpian style.

00:12:49.000 Oh my gosh.

00:12:50.000 Please take his phone away from him.

00:12:52.000 Please.

00:12:53.000 This is not helpful.

00:12:54.000 The reason it's not helpful is because the president should basically be saying, listen, do a full investigation.

00:12:59.000 We're cool.

00:12:59.000 I mean, this is what I suggested throughout the Mueller investigation.

00:13:03.000 And it turned out right.

00:13:04.000 It turned out that if Trump had actually fired Mueller, it would have probably brought him to impeachment a year earlier.

00:13:09.000 But instead, Trump is sort of fulminating.

00:13:12.000 He's bouncing against the glass box in which the Democrats have attempted to push him.

00:13:16.000 He tweeted out yesterday, all capital letters, the caps lock button got stuck.

00:13:20.000 I just got impeached for making a perfect phone call.

00:13:23.000 And all I got was this stupid t-shirt.

00:13:25.000 Now, if he'd added that last part, it would've been actually funny.

00:13:27.000 Like, he should've done that.

00:13:28.000 And I think that would make a great t-shirt.

00:13:31.000 But, I just got impeached for making a perfect phone call.

00:13:34.000 I'm sorry.

00:13:36.000 The man has a gift for me, Marie.

00:13:38.000 What can you say?

00:13:40.000 I recall when Richard Nixon was in the process of investigation, and he tweeted out, I just got impeached for making a perfect phone call.

00:13:48.000 What in the world?

00:13:50.000 Madness, the madness.

00:13:52.000 Now, again, none of this is to suggest that the Democrats have the goods.

00:13:56.000 They don't.

00:13:57.000 It is also not to suggest that the Democrats actually are consistent in how they wish to approach this impeachment, because they are clearly not.

00:14:04.000 For example, Joe Biden, who's now suggesting that we need witnesses and witnesses and witnesses back in 1999, is saying we don't need witnesses.

00:14:11.000 The point here is that they stated the witnesses they needed.

00:14:15.000 They said they needed Betty Curry, they said they needed Vernon Jordan, and they said they needed Monica Lewinsky, and they said why they needed them.

00:14:21.000 I'm willing to hear them say it all over again, but they weren't very compelling when they said it the first time, in my humble opinion, so I don't think they're needed.

00:14:28.000 Okay, they're not needed.

00:14:29.000 So not Betty Curry, not Monica Lynn, not any of the people in the Clinton impeachment were necessary to testify in front of the Senate, according to Joe Biden.

00:14:36.000 Now, of course, the shoe is on the other foot, and we need every witness, all the witnesses to testify, and we need it right now.

00:14:43.000 The witness that they are most interested in bringing forth is, of course, Lev Parnas.

00:14:47.000 We're going to get to Lev Parnas, apparently a vaunted and trustworthy witness.

00:14:51.000 In just one second.

00:14:52.000 It's funny, people are saying, he's like John Dean.

00:14:54.000 He's like all of the members of the Nixon administration back during the Nixon impeachment move.

00:14:59.000 Well, except for John Dean not being under indictment for falsifying documents and lying, that's exactly true.

00:15:05.000 So, in other words, it's not true.

00:15:06.000 Like, at all.

00:15:08.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:15:09.000 First, let me talk about a fantastic present that you can get for yourself, your family, this year.

00:15:13.000 It is just phenomenal.

00:15:14.000 I'm talking about a portrait that is painted of anything you want, done custom just for you over at PaintYourLife.com.

00:15:21.000 You can have an original painting of yourself, your kids, your family, a special place, a cherished pet, and a price you can afford from PaintYourLife.com.

00:15:27.000 We have one of me and my wife and my kids hanging over our mantle at home right now.

00:15:31.000 It is gorgeous.

00:15:32.000 It's beautiful.

00:15:32.000 And not only do people comment on how nice it is, it's wonderful to walk into my house and see this portrait of my family.

00:15:37.000 Every time I walk in, it really does mean a lot to me.

00:15:39.000 And they do an amazing job, because here's how the process works.

00:15:42.000 You choose the artist whose work you most admire, and then you work with them throughout the process until every detail is perfect.

00:15:47.000 And they will just keep redoing it until you are satisfied with the product.

00:15:50.000 There's no risk.

00:15:50.000 If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded.

00:15:53.000 So, really no risk.

00:15:55.000 It's great for decor, and it's a work of art.

00:15:56.000 With Paint Your Life, you get your favorite memories transformed into a work of art that will be cherished forever.

00:16:00.000 It makes a truly special gift for somebody that you love, or for yourself.

00:16:04.000 Right now, as a limited time offer, you can get 30% off your painting.

00:16:07.000 That's right, 30% off, which is a fantastic deal, and free shipping.

00:16:10.000 To get this special offer, text BEN to 64000.

00:16:13.000 That's my name, Ben, to 64,000.

00:16:15.000 Text Ben, B-E-N, to 64,000, and you can get 30% off your painting.

00:16:20.000 This is an amazing, amazing gift.

00:16:22.000 Makes a great gift for Valentine's Day, Father's Day, Mother's Day, or just a birthday.

00:16:25.000 It's just, it's great.

00:16:26.000 I mean, I enjoy it.

00:16:27.000 Again, I plan on getting one for my parents.

00:16:29.000 It's really, really good.

00:16:29.000 Go check it out right now at paintyourlife.com, and text Ben to 64,000 for the special deal.

00:16:36.000 Ben to 64,000.

00:16:36.000 Okay, so.

00:16:39.000 The Democrats have now decided to place their faith in a guy named Lev Parnas.

00:16:43.000 Who the hell is Lev Parnas?

00:16:44.000 Well, he's sort of a Ukrainian fixer who was going around Ukraine on behalf of Ukrainian oligarchs trying to get Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch fired.

00:16:53.000 That's not according to me.

00:16:53.000 That's according to the Department of Justice.

00:16:55.000 The Southern District of New York has Parnas under indictment right now for attempting to funnel money through straw donors into the U.S.

00:17:02.000 into congressional elections in order to try and skew the process against U.S.

00:17:07.000 Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on behalf of the Ukrainian oligarch.

00:17:10.000 That is according to the actual DOJ indictment papers.

00:17:13.000 Okay?

00:17:13.000 And the DOJ indictment papers are coming from the Southern District of New York, which of course is the same Southern District of New York which was investigating the whole Michael Cohen thing.

00:17:20.000 So this is not like Trump's DOJ William Barr trying to go after people to silence them.

00:17:25.000 That's not what this is at all, right?

00:17:27.000 Lev Parnas is in all likelihood guilty as sin, and was accused of falsifying documents in that process.

00:17:32.000 He's accused of lying in that process.

00:17:33.000 He's accused of a bevy of crimes in that process.

00:17:36.000 Well, he and Igor Fruman became sort of Rudy Giuliani's Sherpa guides around Ukraine.

00:17:41.000 Rudy would go to Ukraine in search of information about the CrowdStrike server.

00:17:48.000 He'd go to Ukraine in search of information about Ukrainian election interference.

00:17:51.000 And shock of shocks, there's Lev Parnas and Egor Fruman, both of whom are apparently working on behalf of Ukrainian oligarchs, saying to Rudy, you know, Rudy, you know, we can help you out.

00:18:01.000 And you know what we'd love?

00:18:02.000 What we would love, and let me give you some bad information about this Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

00:18:06.000 You're out here trying to investigate what was happening in Ukraine.

00:18:08.000 Let me tell you, this Ambassador Yovanovitch, bad lady.

00:18:10.000 She's trying to obstruct exactly what you are trying to do.

00:18:12.000 You should tell the president to fire her.

00:18:14.000 That's what was really going on.

00:18:15.000 Well, now Lev Parnas is being trotted out.

00:18:18.000 He's under indictment.

00:18:18.000 He's on bail.

00:18:19.000 He's out on bail right now.

00:18:20.000 He's being trotted out, and he is appearing on all the media.

00:18:23.000 He's doing a full-on media tour in the same way that Michael Cohen did a full-on media tour.

00:18:28.000 He's become a hero of the resistance.

00:18:29.000 Why?

00:18:29.000 Well, he appeared on Rachel Maddow the other night, and while he was on Rachel Maddow, he suggested this was all top-down, that Trump was instructing him to dig up dirt on Marie Yovanovitch, that Trump was instructing him To falsify information about Joe Biden and trying to convince Lev Parnas to act as a go-between to the Ukrainian administration to try and get them to announce some investigation into Joe Biden.

00:18:51.000 Now, do you think that he was working for Trump or do you think that he was playing both sides?

00:18:55.000 The indictment suggests that he was certainly not working specifically for Trump, that he was doing all of this stuff years in advance of Trump, but now he's trying to lay it all at Trump's feet, because if it's Trump's fault, it's not his fault.

00:19:04.000 If he was just following orders, then it's all on Trump, the impeached president, and now Lev Parnas is just an innocent, an innocent abroad in Ukraine, being caught up in the wily schemes of President Trump and Rudy Giuliani.

00:19:18.000 Now, that's a convenient narrative.

00:19:19.000 It's a very convenient narrative for the Democrats, but It happens not to remotely resemble anything credible.

00:19:28.000 Over at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey has a piece on this.

00:19:31.000 He points out that Maddow asked Parnas, do you believe that part of the motivation to get rid of Ambassador Yovanovitch was that she was in the way of an effort to get the government of Ukraine to announce investigations of Joe Biden?

00:19:39.000 And Parnas says that was the only motivation.

00:19:41.000 There was no other motivation.

00:19:43.000 Well, as Ed Morrissey points out, no, the pending indictment against Parnas put his efforts against Yovanovitch at least a year earlier on behalf of a Ukrainian official.

00:19:50.000 The indictment is absolutely clear on this point.

00:19:53.000 Furthermore, last November, Parnas put the effort in April 2018 rather than spring of 2019.

00:19:58.000 So before, in other words, he was attempting to push Trump or push Giuliani on behalf of Trump.

00:20:04.000 Maddow didn't bother to ask about the incitement or Parnas' own previous account when Parnas claimed that the Biden probe was the only motivation.

00:20:10.000 The Department of Justice never alleged this had anything to do with an investigation of any other U.S.

00:20:14.000 person, but only intended for the removal of Yovanovitch for the purposes of one or more officials in the Ukrainian government at the time, the government of Petro Poroshenko.

00:20:23.000 But the timing and the specifics of Parnas' strawman actions tend to corroborate that point far more than they do.

00:20:27.000 Parnas has later claimed that this had to do with Trump's 2019 interest in getting Vladimir Zelensky to pursue a Biden probe.

00:20:33.000 So in other words, Lev Parnas is probably lying.

00:20:35.000 Not only is Lev Parnas probably lying, the man is indicted on charges of falsifying documents.

00:20:40.000 And the Democrats are out there like, well, he presented us with documents.

00:20:43.000 You mean the guy who's under indictment for falsifying documents gave you documents?

00:20:46.000 I cannot believe this.

00:20:48.000 Wow.

00:20:48.000 What are those documents, by the way?

00:20:50.000 They're handwritten contemporaneous notes by Lev Parnas on hotel stationery.

00:20:55.000 So, by the way, there's no way to check the metadata to find out when he input this stuff.

00:20:59.000 There's no way to find out whether he was on the phone with Rudy Giuliani when all this stuff was happening.

00:21:03.000 In other words, a guy who is being tried for lying and falsifying documents And acting on behalf of Ukrainian oligarchs claiming that Trump made him do it.

00:21:10.000 And the media are just lapping this up, lapping this stuff up.

00:21:13.000 Well, folks in Ukraine who know Parnas and know Fruman are like, nah, I'm not going to buy this stuff.

00:21:18.000 Vadim Prishtiko is the foreign minister of Ukraine.

00:21:20.000 He's like, no, I don't believe a word that Parnas says.

00:21:22.000 Why would anybody believe a word that Parnas says?

00:21:26.000 Frankly, I never spoke with this individual.

00:21:28.000 And again, frankly, I don't trust any word he is now saying.

00:21:33.000 The assistance, which he is referring to, was reviewed each and every year, annually, at least twice, and half a year at the end of the year.

00:21:43.000 So we knew that this assistance is to be reviewed sometimes.

00:21:46.000 It would be cut because of some political understanding of what is to be done in Ukraine, sometimes being erased, which is now we're observing.

00:21:54.000 Do you believe that Lev Parnas should be a witness at the trial?

00:21:56.000 of Ukraine, current foreign minister of Ukraine, says, I don't believe a word that Parnas is saying.

00:22:00.000 And now over here in the United States, you get all of the Democrats and their allies in the media, but I repeat myself, who are out there talking about how credible Parnas is.

00:22:07.000 So here's Nancy Pelosi, a very serious, somber, sober, and solemn person, talking about how Lev Parnas is unbelievably credible, incredibly credible.

00:22:14.000 We should take him super duper pooper scooper seriously.

00:22:16.000 Do you believe that Lev Parnas should be a witness of the trial?

00:22:20.000 And if so, do you believe he would be credible?

00:22:22.000 Well, credible, it relates to the documents and the rest.

00:22:26.000 it's not It certainly raises questions.

00:22:29.000 He'd be a credible witness if what he's testifying to relates to the issue at hand, the president's behavior.

00:22:37.000 Why would he be a credible witness as to the president's behavior when he, even in his interviews with MSNBC and CNN, is not saying, and so the president said to me.

00:22:44.000 He keeps saying, I know the president.

00:22:46.000 Yeah, there are some pictures of him with the president.

00:22:48.000 The president also takes pictures of a lot of folks.

00:22:50.000 The question is not, Whether he's in a picture with Trump.

00:22:54.000 The question is whether Trump actually instructed Parnas to do anything, and even Parnas has not alleged that Trump directly instructed him to do anything.

00:22:59.000 At best, Parnas alleges that Giuliani instructed him to do things, which again creates a gap in communication between Trump and Parnas.

00:23:07.000 It also creates the question of whether Parnas was told by Giuliani, for example, to try and obtain an announcement of a Biden investigation or whether he was told by Giuliani to obtain a Biden investigation and Parnas wrote down, all we need is an announcement and I'll have satisfied my guy and then they'll fire Marie Yovanovitch, right?

00:23:21.000 So all of this gets a little bit complicated.

00:23:23.000 Bottom line is Parnas is not credible by pretty much any metric.

00:23:28.000 And yet the Democrats in the media are trying to paint it otherwise.

00:23:31.000 Okay, so you've got Andy McCabe.

00:23:33.000 I love this.

00:23:33.000 Andy McCabe, who literally lost his pension because he apparently lied to the FBI because he was leaking things to the media.

00:23:40.000 He was leaking to the Wall Street Journal about Hillary Clinton.

00:23:42.000 Andy McCabe, who now is a hero of the resistance because anybody who opposes Trump is a hero of the resistance, and again, who lost his pension for allegedly lying about talking to the media, is now talking about credibility on CNN, a network that spent two years pushing the Russia stuff.

00:24:00.000 And here's Andy McCabe saying, I believe him.

00:24:02.000 I believe him.

00:24:02.000 I do.

00:24:03.000 I believe Lev Parnas.

00:24:04.000 It's a contemporaneous recollection of what he was hearing on a telephone conversation, according to him.

00:24:10.000 You could then match that note up to the booking record of proving that he was, in fact, in the hotel at that time.

00:24:16.000 You could also compare it to his phone records from the days he was there and show how many times he talked to Rudy Giuliani during that stay.

00:24:23.000 So there's different ways that you could begin to bolster that testimony.

00:24:27.000 And it makes that record speak more clearly.

00:24:30.000 It's just, I'm sorry, Andy McCabe, who again, lacks his own credibility, sitting there and talking about Lev Parnas being a credible witness and presenting documents, documents presented by a guy who's accused of falsifying documents.

00:24:41.000 It's just amazing.

00:24:42.000 MSNBC's Nicole Wallace, she just straight out says it.

00:24:44.000 Parnas is a truth teller.

00:24:45.000 He's a truth teller.

00:24:47.000 I love that Nicole Wallace is saying this to Brian Williams, the serial fabulist who suggested that he was nearly shot down in a helicopter over Iraq, and also that he landed on the moon with Neil Armstrong.

00:24:58.000 The credibility crisis in our media and in our government has, I mean, all time high here.

00:25:03.000 Here's Nicole Wallace trying to talk up a guy who's under indictment for being a liar.

00:25:07.000 You know, we've been looking for a John Dean.

00:25:10.000 Donald Trump's no Richard Nixon.

00:25:11.000 There was never going to be a John Dean.

00:25:13.000 But maybe in Lev Parnas, there's a truth teller that also has that ability to wake these Republican senators up and say, you know what?

00:25:22.000 The truth will be known.

00:25:24.000 Where do I want to come down when history tells that story?

00:25:27.000 The truth will be known through people like Lev Parnas!

00:25:31.000 Mm-hmm.

00:25:31.000 Okay, so let's hear directly from Lev Parnas.

00:25:33.000 So Parnas was doing his media tour, and yesterday, I believe he was on CNN with Anderson Cooper, and he started talking about what a rough life he has, Lev Parnas.

00:25:42.000 Here he is talking about how there are threats upon his life.

00:25:46.000 They're still rocked to this day.

00:25:48.000 They're still not recovered and I don't know when they will.

00:25:51.000 You have no doubt they felt this pressure, this was a... Oh my god, of course, absolutely.

00:25:57.000 Existential threat to the survival.

00:25:59.000 Well, the main reason my life was threatened because of that.

00:26:04.000 And then, he says, why won't they call me as a witness?

00:26:07.000 They need to call me as a witness!

00:26:08.000 Why won't they call me as a witness?

00:26:10.000 Because you're under indictment for lying?

00:26:11.000 I mean, like, would that be something?

00:26:14.000 Why should they... Because you are wildly attempting to spin so that maybe you can be offered some sort of plea bargain?

00:26:21.000 Maybe because of that?

00:26:22.000 Because you have a series of conflicting interests?

00:26:24.000 But apparently, according to Lev Parnas, they should call him as a witness because he knows all of the things.

00:26:28.000 All of the things!

00:26:30.000 If you really look at it, I should be their best witness.

00:26:33.000 I should be their number one witness because I'm the one that got all the dirt, supposedly.

00:26:37.000 Why aren't they calling me to testify?

00:26:39.000 Why do they need Biden?

00:26:41.000 Call me.

00:26:42.000 Ask me what Biden did wrong.

00:26:44.000 Do you think they're afraid of calling you?

00:26:47.000 I think they're very afraid of me.

00:26:50.000 I think they're afraid of me because I think they made a mistake by, you know, trying to do what they did to me.

00:26:57.000 Okay, first of all, dude needs a haircut.

00:26:59.000 Second of all, Anderson Cooper sitting there and very solemnly and soberly saying to Lev Parnas, do you think they're afraid of you?

00:27:05.000 I love that line by Lev Parnas.

00:27:07.000 Why do they need to call Hunter Biden?

00:27:08.000 Why can't they just call me?

00:27:09.000 Well, first of all, even if you knew stuff about Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden would be the person they would call since he's the subject of the inquiry when it comes to his activities in Ukraine.

00:27:17.000 Just gonna point that out.

00:27:18.000 But it's amazing how the media are taking this guy seriously.

00:27:21.000 I ripped on CNN earlier and I said there are exceptions in the media to the rule that CNN is very bad.

00:27:27.000 Jake Tapper does some good work on CNN, for sure.

00:27:30.000 And now, full disclosure, I know Jake.

00:27:31.000 I like Jake.

00:27:32.000 I think Jake's a good guy.

00:27:33.000 But Jake Tapper, yesterday, he says the correct thing.

00:27:36.000 He says, we disagree politically, obviously.

00:27:38.000 Jake says, why exactly are we taking Lev Parnas seriously?

00:27:41.000 Like, Jake Tapper still has enough of a prefrontal cortex to be like, um, guys, really?

00:27:46.000 This, this one?

00:27:48.000 This guy?

00:27:48.000 Seriously?

00:27:50.000 Him?

00:27:51.000 We can't ignore, Parnas has a serious credibility problem.

00:27:54.000 He's under indictment for campaign finance charges.

00:27:57.000 The foreign minister of Ukraine told CNN's Christiana Mappour that he doesn't trust a word Parnas is saying, and yet I see people out there in social media, Democrats, acting as if this guy is the second coming of Theodore Roosevelt.

00:28:07.000 Correct!

00:28:08.000 Jake Tapper hitting the nail on the head.

00:28:10.000 This is exactly right.

00:28:11.000 Now, the big problem for the Trump administration is that because Trump is so unpredictable and because he is so bad with his comms team, and he is, I should be frank about this, very often his comms team is out there unwilling to say things because they just don't know what Trump is going to say next.

00:28:25.000 Trump does not communicate with his comms team.

00:28:27.000 He does not communicate with the people in communications.

00:28:29.000 He does not tell them what the actual story is so they can go and defend the story.

00:28:33.000 Instead, he sort of throws them out there on TV and then he watches TV to see how loyal they are to him.

00:28:37.000 And then he may undercut their story the very next day.

00:28:39.000 And so you end up with awkward situations like this where Kellyanne Conway is being asked about Lev Parnas.

00:28:43.000 And she's asked directly, like several times, is Lev Parnas lying?

00:28:47.000 And Kellyanne Conway refuses to say that Parnas is lying.

00:28:50.000 Now, people are taking this as the reason she won't say that he's lying is because she knows that he's not lying.

00:28:55.000 In reality, and let me just take, take this, take my word for it.

00:28:59.000 In reality, what's really happening here is that she does not know whether Lev Parnas is saying anything that is true or false, and she is very much afraid that she's going to say Lev Parnas is lying about something and then Trump two seconds later is going to come out and contradict her because he's not actually coordinating with his own comms team.

00:29:13.000 So this is not coming from a place of Kellyanne Conway knows that Lev Parnas is telling the truth.

00:29:18.000 This comes from a place where Kellyanne Conway has no idea whether Lev Parnas is telling the truth, just like anybody else on planet Earth, except presumably for President Trump and Rudy Giuliani.

00:29:26.000 So here's Kellyanne Conway that the media are trotting this out as proof that the Trump administration knows full well that Lev Parnas is a truth teller.

00:29:32.000 That's not what this clip is.

00:29:34.000 What is the White House's position on his allegations that are now public?

00:29:38.000 Well, remember, people who go on TV are never under oath.

00:29:42.000 This is someone who hadn't come forward with his own volition.

00:29:44.000 Are you saying, flat out, a hundred percent, what he alleges is not true?

00:29:49.000 Yes or no?

00:29:49.000 Well, when Lev Parnas says, speaking to the court of law, when he says, the president knew all of my moves... Is he lying or not, Kellyanne?

00:29:58.000 Well, he's a proven liar.

00:29:59.000 He's been indicted.

00:30:01.000 Is that statement true or false?

00:30:04.000 Trump knew what was going on.

00:30:06.000 How?

00:30:06.000 In other words, what is Leopardis actually saying?

00:30:08.000 He's saying the president knew all of my moves.

00:30:12.000 So again, this is being tried out as proof that that Kellyanne Conway won't say that straight out that he's lying.

00:30:18.000 She doesn't know that he's lying.

00:30:20.000 Kellyanne Conway has no idea whether he's lying.

00:30:22.000 That's what happened in that clip.

00:30:23.000 The media are saying, well, that's because the White House refuses to just say that Lev Parnas is lying.

00:30:27.000 Well, no, it's because Trump doesn't communicate with his comms team.

00:30:29.000 In five seconds from now, Trump will come out and just say that Lev Parnas is a liar and some sort of presser.

00:30:32.000 You watch.

00:30:33.000 It's going to happen.

00:30:34.000 OK, in just one second, we're going to get to Chris Matthews doing something right.

00:30:37.000 It's unbelievable.

00:30:38.000 I'm actually going to praise Chris Matthews right now here with that.

00:30:41.000 Messed up hair all messed up, coming to the show?

00:30:43.000 We'll get to that in one second.

00:30:44.000 First, it is that glorious time of the week when I give a shout out to a DailyWire subscriber.

00:30:48.000 Is it you?

00:30:49.000 Well, today it's Rob.

00:30:50.000 So Rob, if Rob is you, then yes.

00:30:52.000 Rob on Instagram is helping his toddler son, JJ, get through cold and flu season with the best remedy known to man.

00:30:58.000 In the pic, little JJ is sitting on the couch in his camo shirt, taking a big swig out of his dad's glorious leftist tears tumbler.

00:31:03.000 The caption reads, Mr. Ben, I have a cold, but at least I have these leftist tears to soothe my sore throat.

00:31:08.000 JJ, hashtag leftist tears tumbler.

00:31:11.000 There is no cure for the common cold, but you can alleviate the symptoms with leftist tears tumbler.

00:31:11.000 Good for you.

00:31:15.000 JJ, we're sorry you're feeling bad, but your dad has fixed you upright.

00:31:18.000 We hope you are on the men's union.

00:31:18.000 Thanks for the shout out.

00:31:20.000 We trust that you soon will be.

00:31:22.000 If you are not already a Daily Wire member, you are missing out right now.

00:31:25.000 Using promo code Shapiro, you'll get 10% off any plan that you choose.

00:31:28.000 Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.

00:31:30.000 Pick the plan that is correct for you.

00:31:32.000 For as little as 10 bucks a month, members get our articles ad-free.

00:31:34.000 Access to all of our live broadcasts and show library.

00:31:37.000 The full three hours of the Ben Shapiro show select bonus content, access to the mailbag, and more.

00:31:41.000 Plus, our new all-access tier gets you into exclusive live online Q&A discussions with me, Andrew Klavan, Matt Walsh, Michael Moles, plus Daily Wire writers and special guests And don't forget, you'll also get the greatest of all beverage vessels, the Leftist Tears tumbler.

00:31:54.000 You get all of that plus 10% off when you use promo code Shapiro.

00:31:58.000 So stop depriving yourself.

00:31:59.000 Come join the fun.

00:32:00.000 We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:32:03.000 President Trump did have one word when it came to the media asking him about Lev Parnas yesterday.

00:32:13.000 He was at the White House, and Jim Acosta, and ladies, find you somebody who loves you like Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta over at CNN.

00:32:20.000 Jim Acosta starts shouting at him, starts shouting at him from the back, and Trump treats Acosta with the disdain to which we have all become accustomed.

00:32:29.000 Here we go.

00:32:31.000 I don't know him.

00:32:32.000 I had never had a conversation that I remember with him.

00:32:34.000 Let me just tell you, you just have to take a look at the polls.

00:32:39.000 Quiet.

00:32:40.000 You just have to take a look at the pictures.

00:32:41.000 You just have to take a look at the polls.

00:32:43.000 You see, I don't need anybody's help.

00:32:47.000 Acosta has this unfortunate habit of trying to talk over President Trump and Trump shuts him down.

00:32:53.000 Of course, this is a sign of the war on the media.

00:32:55.000 By the way, the media are very upset today.

00:32:57.000 It's a war on the media among Republicans.

00:32:59.000 They're very upset at Martha McSally, who I like, the senator from Arizona.

00:33:02.000 Yesterday, as I said on the show, she called Manu Raju, who's a reporter for CNN, a liberal hack.

00:33:07.000 Now, I don't know, Manu Raju, I've seen his reporting, and I actually don't think that he is one of the more hackish CNN reporters.

00:33:13.000 So I think that, you know, Martha McSally was either ticked off in the moment at CNN generally, or she was attempting to play a political game whereby she attacks a reporter, and this is popular with the Republican base.

00:33:25.000 Obviously, the media went nuts over this.

00:33:27.000 Here's Martha McSally calling Manu Raju a hack.

00:33:30.000 Senator McSally, should the Senate consider new evidence as part of the impeachment trial?

00:33:34.000 Man, if you're a liberal hack, I'm not talking to you.

00:33:36.000 You're not going to comment?

00:33:37.000 You're a liberal hack.

00:33:39.000 Okay, and then Manu Raju, of course, talked about this on Twitter and all the rest of it.

00:33:44.000 Martha McSally was on Laura Ingraham's show last night, and she was pointing out that CNN is, in fact, a liberal hack network.

00:33:49.000 If she had said that, I'd be defending her like four square today, because that is a fact of life.

00:33:54.000 Okay, CNN is a left network.

00:33:57.000 And honestly, you're not proving that you're objective, Chris Cuomo, and that your network is objective when you then go on air and you start berating Martha McSally as though somebody just called you Fredo.

00:34:06.000 And let me tell you, he's not Fredo.

00:34:08.000 No one should ever use the word Fredo to describe Chris Cuomo.

00:34:11.000 Fredo is like the N-word for Italians.

00:34:13.000 That's what Chris Cuomo has said.

00:34:15.000 So here's not Fredo explaining why it's very bad to say mean things to reporters.

00:34:20.000 That's what was so upsetting about McSally today.

00:34:22.000 This is a woman with an amazing record of service to this country, and she really acted like a punk today.

00:34:28.000 She did a disservice to herself and the seat that she holds, which is John McCain.

00:34:32.000 But she wasn't even elected.

00:34:34.000 Right, she was appointed.

00:34:35.000 She was appointed, but she lost.

00:34:36.000 And like, through a fluke, like some would say Trump won, but that's a whole other show.

00:34:41.000 Manu Raju is not a liberal hack.

00:34:43.000 He is a very well-respected, seasoned reporter asking a legitimate question.

00:34:49.000 If she couldn't answer it and she can't stand the heat, then get out of the appointed kitchen.

00:34:54.000 I mean, that sort of bias on CNN, that's what she's talking about, OK?

00:34:58.000 Really, she should have been directing her ire toward Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon, the twin pillars of dumb over at CNN.

00:35:03.000 I will also point out that Ilhan Omar has treated Manu Raju with nothing but disdain whenever he asks a legit question.

00:35:10.000 This is why, by the way, I say I don't think that Manu Raju is actually a bad reporter.

00:35:13.000 So I think that he's asked some tough questions to Democrats.

00:35:16.000 Watch him ask a tough question to Ilhan Omar, get summarily dismissed.

00:35:19.000 By Ilhan Omar.

00:35:21.000 I don't remember the media declaring that she was acting like a punk.

00:35:25.000 Do you remember that?

00:35:25.000 I don't remember that either.

00:35:26.000 I don't remember Chris Cuomo or Don Lemon suggesting she was acting like a punk in this particular exchange.

00:35:30.000 What is wrong with you?

00:35:32.000 I'm asking you a question about your tweet.

00:35:35.000 You had a tweet saying the president trafficked in Haiti.

00:35:38.000 Yes, I tweeted.

00:35:40.000 There's a response.

00:35:41.000 You can run that and have a nice day.

00:35:43.000 Okay, what is wrong with you?

00:35:44.000 Are you serious?

00:35:45.000 What is wrong with you?

00:35:46.000 Is she acting like a punk there?

00:35:47.000 Chris Cuomo or Don Lemon?

00:35:48.000 Like it all?

00:35:50.000 I get the feeling that maybe you guys are the liberal hacks.

00:35:52.000 Like, in the end, it's Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon who are the liberal hacks in all of this.

00:35:56.000 The double standard is absolutely unbelievable.

00:35:58.000 Well, I will give points today to one member of the left media, upon whom I frequently I rip and make fun of Emma all the time.

00:36:06.000 Chris Matthews over at MSA.

00:36:07.000 So yesterday he actually said something true.

00:36:09.000 He's talking about the witnesses gonna be called for the Senate and Chris Matthews right in here.

00:36:13.000 Rumpled suit.

00:36:14.000 Coming to the show.

00:36:15.000 Gonna roll on in here.

00:36:17.000 Half drunk.

00:36:19.000 But this time I was half drunk and words of truth spilled out of my mouth.

00:36:22.000 The tingle ran up my leg and out of my mouth came truth.

00:36:25.000 He said, listen, Democrats, they keep saying that they want to call witnesses.

00:36:30.000 Maybe they should call Joe Biden.

00:36:31.000 Why not Hunter Biden?

00:36:32.000 Chris Mackie's doing something unbelievable.

00:36:35.000 Go, go, go!

00:36:37.000 What do you want to ask Senator Biden, just to give him a chance to clear himself?

00:36:40.000 Did you ever talk to your son about taking that contract with Burisma?

00:36:44.000 Did you have anything to do with him doing it?

00:36:45.000 Did you ever tell him not to do it?

00:36:47.000 Did he ever call you and ask you to do a favor for him?

00:36:50.000 These seem to be relevant questions, Jermaine.

00:36:52.000 Look, it's a total sideshow and distraction, as you know.

00:36:55.000 But it's not entirely, because this whole thing is the Republican attempt to smear Biden.

00:37:00.000 You have to say, were they fairly going after him or unfairly going after him?

00:37:04.000 Good for Chris Matthews.

00:37:06.000 Wow.

00:37:06.000 For the first time, good for Chris Matthews, right?

00:37:08.000 That is right.

00:37:09.000 By the way, speaking of Joe Biden, there's a story today about how Frank Biden leveraged his famous name for business gain.

00:37:15.000 This is a story from ABC News.

00:37:17.000 Funny how the media are starting to notice that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden Anyway, ABC News has a story today.

00:37:21.000 in the two weeks before Iowa, almost as though all the oppo files are opening up on Elizabeth Warren's opponents and Elizabeth Warren is being promoted.

00:37:28.000 I'm not going to say that it's a conspiracy because I don't believe in conspiracies, but it's a little weird.

00:37:33.000 Anyway, ABC News has a story today.

00:37:35.000 In 2009, the year Joe Biden took office as vice president, a local business executive met the politician's younger brother, Frank, at a Starbucks in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and later asked him to become the president and frontman for a fledgling charter school venture.

00:37:47.000 Frank Biden, a longtime real estate developer in the state, accepted the offer, and over the years, he touted his famous last name and prominent connections in Washington to help land the company a series of charter contracts from local officials in Florida to open charter schools, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars over a five-year period from the company in the process.

00:38:04.000 In media interviews at the time, Frank Biden was unabashed.

00:38:06.000 He called his last name, quote, a tremendous asset because of the family's record of taking care of people who need help and telling people it brought him automatic acceptance as he sought government approvals for the for-profit Mavericks in education.

00:38:19.000 Claims of mismanagement would ultimately bog down many of the schools, shocking, which focused on educating at-risk teens with troubled backgrounds.

00:38:25.000 In at least two separate lawsuits, Mavericks schools faced allegations of inflating enrollment as part of a scheme to garner more government funding.

00:38:31.000 Critics suggest that when Frank Biden touted his family name to promote the Mavericks charter schools, it was just one example of the Biden family actively benefiting from sharing a name with the vice president.

00:38:41.000 Richard Painter, who's a Trump critic but former White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush, told Politico, Joe Biden needs to recognize it's a problem you can't control your brothers, you can't control your grown son, but you can put some firewalls in place in your own office.

00:38:53.000 Of course, Joe Biden never did any of this.

00:38:56.000 Joe Biden's son, Hunter, has been called into question for basically being a giant bag man running around the world and just picking up bags of cash because his last name is Biden.

00:39:03.000 And then there's James Biden, another one of the president's brothers, who's fighting a lawsuit in which he stands accused of feigning interest in investing in a medical device company as a ploy to steal the company's business model.

00:39:14.000 According to the plaintiffs, Biden said during the investment negotiations, the firm's quote psychiatric care model would be used by Joe Biden as part of his campaign for president of the United States.

00:39:23.000 So now we got Frank and James and Hunter Basically, everyone who has the last name Biden using Joe Biden's last name in order to get ahead.

00:39:31.000 Is it worthwhile asking the question as to whether Joe knew about any of this when it came to Hunter and Ukraine?

00:39:36.000 You bet your ass it is.

00:39:37.000 Okay, meanwhile, the Trump team is now appointing its own defense team.

00:39:43.000 And some of the names that you know and love are going to be appearing.

00:39:46.000 According to the New York Times, you're going to get, of course, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, who have obviously been attorneys for President Trump throughout this process.

00:39:54.000 But the team is now going to be expanded to include Ken Starr and Robert Ray, former independent counsel lawyers, per a person familiar with the plan.

00:40:02.000 The team will also include Alan Dershowitz, who was a guest on our radio program yesterday.

00:40:06.000 A statement from a team spokesman says Professor Dershowitz will present oral arguments at the Senate trial to address the constitutional arguments against impeachment and removal.

00:40:14.000 While Professor Dershowitz is nonpartisan when it comes to the Constitution, he opposed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and voted for Hillary Clinton, he believes the issues at stake go to the heart of our enduring Constitution.

00:40:23.000 He's participating in this impeachment trial to defend the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the creation of a dangerous constitutional precedent.

00:40:30.000 So, the President is putting together his all-star team.

00:40:32.000 Mitch McConnell, for his part, I think would be fairly happy with Ken Starr and Dershowitz, who are both pros at this.

00:40:40.000 He's gonna be a little bit less sanguine about the President's personal More personal attorneys, the Cipollones and the Seculos, who have had a tendency toward, shall we say, colorful defenses of the President.

00:40:51.000 Dershowitz has been pretty measured in his defenses of the President.

00:40:54.000 Ken Starr is a long-time... I am amused to watch the media's take on Ken Starr.

00:40:59.000 CNBC had a long report this morning about the appointment of Ken Starr, and they just basically went through his resume and talked about all the evil that Ken Starr is responsible for.

00:41:07.000 Meanwhile, The democratic prosecutors of this case, the people like Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, they are just the finest and wisest among us.

00:41:15.000 However, the fact is that this impeachment, in the end, is going to go nowhere.

00:41:19.000 McConnell is looking to get this done early and get it done fast.

00:41:23.000 He would like very much to put this thing behind the Republican Party as fast as possible.

00:41:28.000 I think that is likely to happen.

00:41:29.000 Even the witnesses people are talking about, like John Bolton.

00:41:31.000 John Bolton ain't testifying.

00:41:33.000 The chance that John Bolton testifies is very low.

00:41:34.000 Because the president is going to declare executive privilege.

00:41:37.000 That will go to court.

00:41:39.000 The Senate is not going to wait around for the court to adjudicate whether John Bolton is going to... And if John Bolton goes and testifies, he's just going to say what Fiona Hill, his aide, said.

00:41:47.000 And then when it comes to the executive privilege part, he's going to say, well, you know, that's covered by executive privilege.

00:41:51.000 I can't really talk about that.

00:41:53.000 Just saying he wants to testify doesn't mean that he's going to violate executive privilege to do so.

00:41:57.000 Rudy Giuliani is covered by attorney-client privilege.

00:41:58.000 It's going to be very difficult to call him or compel testimony.

00:42:02.000 And the attempt to compel documents Maybe they had some additional documents in the Senate.

00:42:07.000 Unlikely that those documents are deeply damning beyond what we already know.

00:42:11.000 So this means that Democrats have to turn to their secondary, their sort of secondary defense against Trump's re-election, and that is they're going to go after the means of distribution of information.

00:42:21.000 Things are gonna get really rough this year in podcast land, in talk radio land.

00:42:25.000 They're gonna activate, really activate, all of their favorite outlets, the media matters of the world, in order to go after everybody who disagrees with the Democratic candidates and try and rob them of their clientele and of their base.

00:42:36.000 That's their job.

00:42:38.000 Nancy Pelosi is most obvious about this.

00:42:39.000 She's been going after Facebook.

00:42:41.000 Now, if you've been wondering, why is it that all of the people in the Democratic Party are very angry at Facebook, but they're never angry at Twitter, it's because Facebook has actually taken a fairly strong stand when it comes to the dissemination of information.

00:42:51.000 So Facebook has taken the stand that they are not going to allow fact checkers to simply prevent the dissemination of political information on Facebook.

00:42:58.000 That if you are an informed citizen, then you should see a claim, and then you should check the claim yourself, and we have fact checkers, and more speech is better speech.

00:43:04.000 Nancy Pelosi, however, would certainly prefer that the tech companies shut down everything that Nancy Pelosi doesn't like, which is why they like Twitter.

00:43:11.000 Twitter has already said they're not going to run any political ads because they can't fact-check everything.

00:43:15.000 So there will be no dissemination of political information.

00:43:17.000 The goal there is, of course, to lower the number of outlets capable of disseminating information and restrict the entire system back to the mainstream media that the Democrats love, know, and control.

00:43:27.000 Here's Nancy Pelosi ripping on Facebook for not adhering to her preferred policy.

00:43:31.000 The Facebook business model is strictly to make money.

00:43:35.000 They don't care about the impact on children.

00:43:37.000 They don't care about truth.

00:43:39.000 They don't care about where this is all coming from.

00:43:41.000 And they have said, even if they know it's not true, they will print it.

00:43:45.000 I think that they have been very abusive of the great opportunity that technology has given them.

00:43:51.000 They have been very irresponsible.

00:43:54.000 And again, as you say, these are people that we've known and worked with.

00:43:57.000 I think their behavior is shameful.

00:43:59.000 Oh, so Facebook is shameful, but Twitter, which does the bidding of Nancy Pelosi, is not shameful.

00:44:04.000 Are you getting what's going on here, folks?

00:44:07.000 I don't understand that the rip on Facebook's policy.

00:44:09.000 Listen, I think many of Facebook policies are extremely vague.

00:44:12.000 I think their hate speech policy is extremely vague.

00:44:15.000 I think that there's too much wiggle room for Facebook to get rid of people that are politically unpalatable to Facebook.

00:44:21.000 I've sounded off on that before.

00:44:22.000 But their general policy, which is that they're not going to restrict political advertisements, that they're not going to restrict political speech because Nancy Pelosi wants them to do so, that is correct.

00:44:30.000 That's not going to stop the Democrats this year.

00:44:32.000 This year is going to turn into the Democrats basically undermining the foundations of accepting elections.

00:44:37.000 And we keep hearing that Trump is not going to accept the outcome of an election.

00:44:40.000 I don't know.

00:44:41.000 Maybe he won't.

00:44:42.000 What I do know is that Democrats have refused to accept the outcome of any election they haven't won for the past couple of decades.

00:44:47.000 George W. Bush wins the election in 2000, not a legitimate president.

00:44:50.000 Donald Trump wins the election of 2016.

00:44:51.000 You heard earlier, Don Lemon suggests not a legitimate president.

00:44:55.000 The Republicans win the gubernatorial seat in Georgia by 50,000 votes.

00:44:59.000 Not legitimate.

00:45:00.000 And now, leading up to 2020, you got Nancy Pelosi and the entire Democratic Party claiming that if Donald Trump wins, it's illegitimate because he's preemptively stolen the election unless we impeach him.

00:45:09.000 Things are gonna get a lot uglier before we hit election day.

00:45:12.000 Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then we'll get to a couple of things that I hate.

00:45:16.000 So, things that I like today.

00:45:18.000 So I didn't see this in the theater.

00:45:19.000 I'm a big fan of Terminator 2.

00:45:21.000 If you are a sentient human being, Terminator 2 is one of the top three action movies of all time.

00:45:26.000 Die Hard would be in that mix.

00:45:28.000 Probably it's between Die Hard and Terminator 2.

00:45:30.000 Trying to think of another action movie that really stands up to those two.

00:45:32.000 In any case, Terminator 2 is a great movie.

00:45:35.000 And then they made a bunch of bad movies, right?

00:45:36.000 They made Terminator 3, which is unbelievably depressing.

00:45:38.000 And then they made the Christian Bale one, which is most famous for him screaming at a lighting guy.

00:45:42.000 And then they made another Terminator movie that nobody has actually seen, but apparently exists, allegedly.

00:45:47.000 Well, they made a new Terminator movie this year called Terminator Dark Fate, and it's supposed to pick up where Terminator 2 left off.

00:45:55.000 And the movie is 15 minutes too long, and some of the CGI ain't great, but it's definitely enjoyable.

00:46:02.000 It's definitely better than the last few Terminator movies.

00:46:05.000 And it's got a good- Arnold Schwarzenegger's actually fairly- like, the Terminator is a great part for Schwarzenegger because he's not a great actor, obviously, and so him playing a robot playing a human is pretty fantastic.

00:46:14.000 So here is a little bit of Terminator Dark Fate's trailer, which, again, watched with the wife the other night.

00:46:19.000 Very enjoyable.

00:46:20.000 I- really, I liked it.

00:46:23.000 My name is Sarah Connor.

00:46:26.000 Never seen one like you before.

00:46:28.000 Almost human.

00:46:29.000 I am human. - It's time.

00:46:37.000 Why do you care what happens to her?

00:46:42.000 Because I was her.

00:46:43.000 So the movie is actually kind of interesting.

00:46:51.000 They basically make the new Terminator, right, the one who's going to come back and kill basically Sarah Connor again, but not Sarah Connor.

00:46:58.000 They make that character very much like the killer Terminator in T2, except a little bit souped up.

00:47:05.000 But it's an enjoyable film.

00:47:07.000 I mean, honestly, I liked it and it got fairly good reviews.

00:47:11.000 I think the marketing campaign for it was sort of screwed up because the premise of the film was not made clear.

00:47:18.000 Like, the character who is played by Mackenzie... I can't remember her last name.

00:47:24.000 She seems to be a Terminator in the film, but she's not actually a Terminator.

00:47:26.000 In any case, I don't want to give everything away.

00:47:27.000 It's worth the rent.

00:47:28.000 It's worth the rental.

00:47:29.000 So you can go check that out.

00:47:30.000 Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.

00:47:36.000 Okay, so thing number one that I hate.

00:47:38.000 We have to bid a fond farewell to our producer, Rebecca.

00:47:41.000 Not because we're getting rid of her, but because she's getting rid of us.

00:47:44.000 She dumped us.

00:47:45.000 And I gotta say, I'm a little bit perturbed about this, and a little bit miffed about this, but Rebecca's awesome, and she's been an amazing producer, and She's got big opportunities on the horizon that she is leaving to take, and I'm super excited for her, and we're all gonna miss her here, especially because this means that our other producers are gonna take over for Rebecca, and who the hell knows what's gonna happen?

00:48:05.000 We're gonna find out on Monday.

00:48:07.000 But since this is Rebecca's last day, I just wanted to point out that Rebecca is fantastic, and when she is running a major movie studio five years from now, I'm gonna be able to say that she once worked for me, which is pretty awesome.

00:48:16.000 So, good luck to Rebecca and best wishes, obviously.

00:48:19.000 Okay, so I hate that she's leaving.

00:48:21.000 That's why that goes under things I hate as opposed to things I like.

00:48:22.000 I like Rebecca, I hate that she's leaving.

00:48:24.000 Okay, here is another thing that I hate.

00:48:27.000 So, the Virginia General Assembly passed the Equal Rights Amendment in what the media are calling a historic vote.

00:48:33.000 According to the Washington Post, both chambers of Virginia's General Assembly passed the Equal Rights Amendment on Wednesday, fulfilling a promise that helped Democrats seize control of the legislature and marking a watershed moment in the nearly century-long effort to add protections for women to the United States Constitution.

00:48:48.000 Now, you don't need protections for women in the United States Constitution.

00:48:51.000 They can vote.

00:48:52.000 They have all the same rights that men do.

00:48:53.000 The Equal Rights Amendment is a poorly worded amendment that specifically opens the door to the idea that there should never be any separate spaces for men and women at all.

00:49:01.000 That's what the Equal Rights Amendment does.

00:49:02.000 That was the pushback against it in the 1970s.

00:49:04.000 It was led by Phyllis Schlafly at the time.

00:49:06.000 She was correct.

00:49:07.000 Now, the Democrats denied, by the way, that this would provide the basis for getting rid of gendered bathrooms, for example, or gendered sports.

00:49:14.000 Now they, just because of the transgender movement, they openly admit that this is what they would like to see happen.

00:49:20.000 The lopsided votes capped an emotional week in which Democrats celebrated history in the making.

00:49:24.000 The House gallery was packed beyond its 102-seat capacity, with Virginia First Lady Pam Northam and her daughter Aubrey Northam making a rare appearance to bear witness.

00:49:32.000 ERA supporters attended from around the country, many wearing sashes from long-ago marches for women's equality.

00:49:39.000 This makes Virginia the 38th state to approve the amendment.

00:49:43.000 But there is one big problem.

00:49:45.000 There is one big problem.

00:49:46.000 The original ERA had an expiration date.

00:49:49.000 You can't just go around passing amendments that have expired 30 years ago.

00:49:55.000 That's like if the House passed a bill in 1979 and the Senate didn't take it up and the Senate today took up the bill from 1979.

00:50:02.000 It had an expiration date in the bill, right?

00:50:04.000 It says if this bill is not passed in three years, then it is void.

00:50:08.000 And the Senate picking up that bill and then passing the bill and calling it passed.

00:50:11.000 That is not the way any of this works, okay?

00:50:13.000 If the bill, in and of itself, if the amendment, which it did, contained an expiration date saying if this is not enacted within a certain period of time, then it becomes irrelevant, you can't just pass it 40 years later and be like, oh, well, I guess the 38 states have now approved, over time, 38, because here's the thing that doesn't work about that.

00:50:30.000 That gives Virginia a second bite at the apple now, but what about states that originally approved it?

00:50:36.000 Do you think there are 38 states that are willing to approve the ERA today?

00:50:39.000 If there are 38 states willing to approve the ERA today, then why not bring it up in the Senate today?

00:50:43.000 Half the states that approved the ERA originally are not going to approve the ERA today, because everybody understands the implications of the ERA now.

00:50:51.000 Delaware Delegate Jennifer Carroll Foy of Prince William, the resolution's chief house sponsor, introduced the measure with a litany of Virginia's civil rights failures, including slavery, massive resistance to school integration, and the ban on interracial marriage.

00:51:02.000 Because the idea is that these things have not been cured, so we need an equal rights amendment to guarantee their cure, despite the fact that Virginia is no longer segregated, that interracial marriage was declared I think it is right on time for Virginia to finally be on the right side of history.

00:51:14.000 I wrote a book called The Right Side of History.

00:51:15.000 1868 and that and that slavery ended in 1863 under the Emancipation Proclamation.

00:51:21.000 Apparently, we need the Equal Rights Amendment because.

00:51:23.000 Carol Foy said it's Virginia again on the battleground of equality.

00:51:28.000 I think it is right on time for Virginia to finally be on the right side of history.

00:51:31.000 I wrote a book called The Right Side of History.

00:51:33.000 The Right Side of History was written.

00:51:35.000 The title was written, mocking the idea that you can simply declare that you are on the right side of history when history has not yet adjudicated your positions.

00:51:43.000 There are very few things where you can say you are on the right side of history.

00:51:45.000 You can say it about being anti-slavery.

00:51:47.000 That was being on the right side of history.

00:51:49.000 You can say that being pro-capitalism was on the right side of history.

00:51:52.000 You cannot say that a policy you are attempting to enact today is on the right side of history because history hasn't had a chance to sound off, you doof.

00:51:58.000 Unfortunately, this sort of phraseology was used by Barack Obama routinely, and it was idiotic at the time.

00:52:02.000 How you use a phrase is more important than the actual words of the phrase, and this phrase is used idiotically frequently.

00:52:08.000 Calling the balloting that was about to take place the vote of a lifetime, she asked the lawmakers, which side of history do you want to be on?

00:52:13.000 The world is watching.

00:52:15.000 Your mothers, your sisters, your daughters.

00:52:18.000 She's literally a female delegate sitting in the House of Delegates, a black female delegate sitting in the House of Delegates in Virginia, declaring that unless the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, Women, and particularly minority women, have somehow been victimized.

00:52:29.000 You're gonna need to explain that one to me.

00:52:32.000 Delegate Vivian Watts of Fairfax held up a photo of herself and her daughter demonstrating for the ERA in Washington 44 years ago when her daughter was 14.

00:52:39.000 Watt said it should be ancient history.

00:52:41.000 44 years is a long time to wait.

00:52:43.000 You're sitting in the House of Delegates?

00:52:46.000 Please explain to me how women have been greatly victimized by the absence of the ERA.

00:52:50.000 Women now constitute the majority of college graduates.

00:52:52.000 They constitute the majority of medical school attendees.

00:52:56.000 Women now constitute, I believe, the majority of the workforce.

00:52:59.000 So, what exactly are you talking about?

00:53:03.000 Like, truly, what are we talking about here?

00:53:04.000 And the answer is that the Equal Rights Amendment is going to be used, as Democrats and the left always use legislation, as a wedge in order to force their way into areas that have heretofore been left untouched.

00:53:15.000 This is the way that Democrats work.

00:53:17.000 They push forward vague language, and then they say, why don't you support women?

00:53:20.000 Why?

00:53:22.000 Well, that's vague language.

00:53:22.000 I don't know how you're going to interpret that language.

00:53:24.000 You might want to do this crazy thing in five years.

00:53:27.000 No, we would never want to do that.

00:53:28.000 It's just that you hate women.

00:53:30.000 We saw this with the push for same-sex marriage.

00:53:32.000 That originally started as a reasonable request that governments stay out of people's bedrooms.

00:53:36.000 And everybody's like, okay, I'm all right with that.

00:53:38.000 And then it moved to, no, what we really want is we want the contractual ability to get our partner's benefits when they die or they get sick.

00:53:46.000 And you're like, okay, that sounds reasonable.

00:53:48.000 So you don't want to say that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage.

00:53:51.000 You just want, like, civil unions, right?

00:53:54.000 That, okay, all right, reasonable.

00:53:55.000 And they say, well, no, what we actually want is same-sex marriage.

00:53:58.000 What we want same-sex marriage for is to declare that we are morally valuable human beings.

00:54:02.000 And how does it affect your marriage anyway?

00:54:04.000 Does it affect you?

00:54:04.000 Does it affect your church?

00:54:05.000 Does it affect your school?

00:54:06.000 It doesn't affect you in any way if we're able to get the same benefits that you're able to get and the moral imprimatur of the state in approving same-sex marriage.

00:54:14.000 And a lot of Americans are like, well, that one I'm more dicey on, because we think there's a moral difference between traditional heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage.

00:54:20.000 Like, significant differences in kind there, because a man and a man are not the same as a man and a woman.

00:54:24.000 But, I guess you want to make that argument.

00:54:26.000 I mean, you're right that it doesn't affect my marriage, obviously.

00:54:29.000 It affects the society at large.

00:54:31.000 It affects how we perceive marriage, but it doesn't affect my marriage.

00:54:34.000 But you gotta leave our churches and schools alone.

00:54:36.000 And they're like, nope, sorry, we lied, actually.

00:54:39.000 We're gonna come after your schools and your churches, we're gonna remove non-profit status, we're gonna be like Beto O'Rourke, and we're gonna suggest that we need to get rid of all churches and schools that don't approve our morality and our approved way of life.

00:54:49.000 This is why the right tends not to approve vague language on the part of the left, because the left is usually lying.

00:54:55.000 Usually the left is saying that they want something that seems innocuous on its face, but is deeply non-innocuous.

00:55:02.000 That eventually ends up exactly where the right said it was going to go.

00:55:05.000 This happens to be the case with the Equal Rights Amendment.

00:55:07.000 Again, back in 1979, Phyllis Schlafly was like, just by the terms, just by the terms of the Equal Rights Amendment, there cannot be separate bathrooms.

00:55:14.000 And people on the left were like, no, that's crazy, of course there can be separate bathrooms, come on!

00:55:19.000 And now, we live in a world where the Obama administration tried to force, without an Equal Rights Amendment, tried to force the creation of non-gendered bathrooms across the country, and non-gendered locker rooms at high schools across the country.

00:55:32.000 So yes, count me very, very skeptical indeed that the Equal Rights Amendment would simply be another innocuous piece added to the United States Constitution as opposed to a club to be used in litigation in favor of pushing leftist social policy without the approval of the American people.

00:55:46.000 Alrighty.

00:55:47.000 Well, it's a Friday.

00:55:48.000 I hope that you stick around for two more hours of additional content later because we've got a lot to get to including the mailbag, which is why you should subscribe so you can answer your questions in the mailbag.

00:55:55.000 But beyond that?

00:55:57.000 You should stick around for two additional hours because we got a lot of great stuff coming up and and you should have a wonderful weekend if you are not going to do that.

00:56:03.000 And even if you are going to do that, we'll see you here on Monday with all the updates.

00:56:07.000 Take the week.

00:56:07.000 You know what?

00:56:08.000 We'll knock off tonight.

00:56:09.000 Take the next couple of days off and we'll see you back here on Monday.

00:56:12.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:56:12.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:56:17.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Rebecca Dabkiewicz.

00:56:20.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

00:56:21.000 Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.

00:56:23.000 Senior Producer Jonathan Hay.

00:56:24.000 Supervising Producers Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

00:56:27.000 Technical Producer Austin Stephens.

00:56:29.000 Associate Producer Colton Haas.

00:56:30.000 Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.

00:56:32.000 Edited by Adam Sijewicz.

00:56:34.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Carlmina.

00:56:35.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.

00:56:37.000 Production Assistant Nick Sheehan.

00:56:39.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

00:56:41.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2020.

00:56:44.000 On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.

00:56:47.000 We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

So Somber, So Serious, So Stupid | Ep. 934

Summary

Transcript