The Ben Shapiro Show - The Impeachment Trial Of The New Century | Ep. 935

00:00:00.000 The impeachment trial is almost ready to begin in the Senate.

00:00:02.000 The Democratic race remains wide open and the Women's March falls apart.

00:00:06.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

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

00:00:09.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.

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

00:00:20.000 Well, I hope you got your rest this weekend because there is a lot of stuff that is happening this week.

00:00:25.000 A little bit later on in the show, we'll get to these gun rights protests in Virginia being maligned by the media.

00:00:29.000 We'll get to the women's march, but we begin with your impeachment update. 1.00

00:00:33.000 So the New York Times basically admitting at this point that the Democrats do not have enough material to impeach.

00:00:38.000 Report from the New York Times today, Democrats seek more testimony and evidence for impeachment trial.

00:00:43.000 Which sort of requires us to ask the question, why would they need more testimony and evidence, given the fact that I was informed they had great testimony and great evidence.

00:00:52.000 I was informed of this.

00:00:54.000 I was informed that they had an open and shut case.

00:00:56.000 So why do they need more testimony and evidence?

00:00:58.000 I mean, they gravely and soberly and seriously and somberly announced the impeachment, and then they soberly, seriously, sadly walked over the impeachment charges.

00:01:07.000 From the House to the Senate, and I was informed that this thing was a done deal, that basically they had all the evidence they needed.

00:01:13.000 Well, now the New York Times is reporting, with President Trump's impeachment trial getting underway, Democrats are intensifying their demands for more testimony and documents that could add to the already voluminous evidence against him and bolster their case by shedding new light on several key questions.

00:01:27.000 Now, as I mentioned last week, this would be about the time where you should have a complete case.

00:01:31.000 You can call additional witnesses, of course.

00:01:33.000 The Senate can do its own investigation.

00:01:35.000 All of that is true.

00:01:36.000 But the fact that Democrats are now relying on the Senate Republicans to do so demonstrates a giant failure on their own part to actually do their research, to wait for the proper witnesses.

00:01:47.000 Does it not?

00:01:48.000 The New York Times says, despite the White House strategy of blocking testimony from top officials and rejecting demands for documents, the Senate will have in front of it various accounts of how Mr. Trump eagerly sought to persuade Ukraine's new president You want to know what the Democrats thought they had?

00:02:00.000 matters that could benefit him in his reelection campaign.

00:02:02.000 Those matters are dealings in Ukraine involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden and purported Ukrainian meddling in the American 2016 presidential election.

00:02:10.000 Now, notice how The New York Times is already morphing the charge.

00:02:13.000 Originally, you want to know what the Democrats thought they had?

00:02:16.000 Go back to Adam Schiff's silly fake reading of President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky.

00:02:23.000 If you actually go back and you listen to what Schiff said, what Schiff said is that Trump had called up Zelensky and then he had said, I want you to make up information about Joe Biden.

00:02:31.000 And in return, we want our military aid, right?

00:02:34.000 We'll give you the military aid as long as you give us some fake information about Joe Biden, right?

00:02:37.000 Make up an investigation.

00:02:38.000 Just make it up.

00:02:39.000 That would be impeachable.

00:02:40.000 That would be a crime.

00:02:41.000 That would actually be bribery.

00:02:42.000 But they've not proved any of the elements of that, and so instead they have now broadened this out.

00:02:47.000 So the way the New York Times is describing the charges now is that Trump pursued investigations into two matters that could benefit him in his reelection campaign.

00:02:54.000 Okay, well again, that standard is too vague, as I have been saying since the very beginning.

00:02:57.000 If the standard for mis...

00:03:01.000 For some sort of bad action in a foreign country is doing something that theoretically could benefit you in a re-election campaign.

00:03:09.000 Welcome to foreign policy, where nearly every president does something that could benefit them in their re-election campaign.

00:03:14.000 The question is whether you violated the law or whether you engaged in some sort of high-level corruption.

00:03:19.000 According to the New York Times, in part because of the White House's decision not to cooperate, the record of actions by Mr. Trump and his underlings is riddled with gaps.

00:03:26.000 That is the New York Times description phrase, riddled with gaps.

00:03:26.000 That's the admission right there.

00:03:30.000 And new evidence has been surfacing at the 11th hour.

00:03:32.000 No, there's not been any new evidence surfacing.

00:03:34.000 You have the testimony of Some kook named Lev Parnas, who was, according to the U.S. 0.57

00:03:39.000 DOJ, working for Ukrainian oligarch and trying to manipulate events so that the U.S.

00:03:43.000 ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, would be fired, and then he's been going around on national TV basically lying about it to the cheers of the media.

00:03:51.000 According to the New York Times, testimony from Mr. Trump's senior advisors could illuminate how overt the president's efforts were, though it is unclear if that would persuade any Republican senators to abandon their defense of the president.

00:04:00.000 The bias in the media is it's all fake guys.

00:04:03.000 Guys, it's all fake.

00:04:04.000 On Sunday, Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the lead House impeachment manager, said he was concerned that the CIA and National Security Agency were withholding information about Ukraine out of fear of angering the president.

00:04:15.000 Well, the president is the head of the executive branch.

00:04:18.000 The CIA and the National Security Agency do not actually work for Adam Schiff.

00:04:22.000 Schiff said, the NSA in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine, but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial.

00:04:31.000 Okay, well, you could subpoena the documents and then you could wait for it to be adjudicated by a court and then they have to turn it over.

00:04:37.000 But they didn't do that.

00:04:38.000 Instead, they decided to rush forward with all of this.

00:04:40.000 Senator John Cornyn of Texas said, This to me seems to undermine or indicate that they are getting cold feet or have a lack of confidence in what they've done so far.

00:04:47.000 And that, of course, is exactly correct.

00:04:50.000 Now, President Trump, for his part, has had a couple of his lawyers in this matter, Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone.

00:04:55.000 He counseled to the president, one to the White House, one to the president personally.

00:04:59.000 Sekulow is for the president personally.

00:05:00.000 Cipollone is for the White House.

00:05:02.000 They have issued only a seven page response to the articles of impeachment.

00:05:07.000 So the articles of impeachment are like a hundred pages.

00:05:09.000 Most of it is filled with stuff that we already know.

00:05:12.000 We've gone through most of it here on the show.

00:05:14.000 Trump is like, this thing does not even meet basic standards of evidentiary scrutiny.

00:05:18.000 And so they issued what effectively is a seven page rebuttal.

00:05:22.000 And it's just a harsh letter, effectively.

00:05:24.000 The letter says, the articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.

00:05:30.000 This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away.

00:05:38.000 The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.

00:05:43.000 The articles of impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face.

00:05:47.000 They failed to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors as required by the Constitution.

00:05:53.000 They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness.

00:05:57.000 Nothing in these articles could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected president or warrant nullifying an election and subverting the will of the American people.

00:06:05.000 And then the letter goes on this way that the process violates all precedent and that the articles of impeachment are in front of the Constitution.

00:06:13.000 All of that is simply editorializing.

00:06:16.000 It's not unconstitutional.

00:06:17.000 Unconstitutional would be if the Senate with 51 votes decided to oust the president, right?

00:06:22.000 That would be unconstitutional.

00:06:23.000 But they can impeach for any reason.

00:06:25.000 I mean, impeachment is, in fact, a political process.

00:06:28.000 And the process in the House was run like other processes in the House have been run. 1.00

00:06:31.000 It was run stupidly. 0.99

00:06:33.000 It was run in biased fashion. 1.00

00:06:35.000 Partisans were running the thing, but that is not any surprise.

00:06:38.000 At this point, Cipollone and Sekulow go through the charges.

00:06:43.000 They say the first article, the article with regard to abuse of power, fails on its face to state an impeachable offense.

00:06:49.000 It alleges no crime at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors.

00:06:51.000 In fact, it alleges no violation of law.

00:06:53.000 House Democrats' abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution.

00:06:58.000 And they say that Trump has never in any way abused the powers of the presidency.

00:07:02.000 And they say that it was a perfect phone call and all the rest of President Trump's defense.

00:07:06.000 And then they say the second article of impeachment also fails to state an impeachable offense.

00:07:10.000 This would be the one about obstruction of Congress.

00:07:12.000 They say, to the contrary, the president's assertion of legitimate executive branch confidentiality interests grounded in separation of powers cannot constitute obstruction of Congress.

00:07:19.000 Now, they are correct that the articles of impeachment do not allege a crime.

00:07:23.000 Now, is that the end of the story?

00:07:25.000 Of course not.

00:07:25.000 I mean, the House, the Senate, they can impeach and convict for any reason whatsoever.

00:07:29.000 You don't have to have a criminal offense, but Speaking of precedent, has there ever been an impeachment effort that was not based on some violation of law?

00:07:38.000 Not really.

00:07:39.000 Not really.

00:07:40.000 So that is unique.

00:07:41.000 And Trump's attorneys are right to point that out.

00:07:43.000 Okay, we'll get to more of this in just one second.

00:07:45.000 Trump has now formed his legal team.

00:07:47.000 It includes a couple of sort of big names.

00:07:50.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:07:51.000 First, Let us talk about how you can save money quickly and easily, and you can do it for free.

00:07:55.000 Okay, I use this service, it's called Honey.

00:07:57.000 You install Honey on your computer, it runs in the background of your computer, and then it just saves you money, like literally every time you shop.

00:08:03.000 It goes online for you, and then it finds all of the applicable codes, and then it applies them to what you are buying.

00:08:08.000 I probably saved thousands of dollars at this point using Honey, and I did the other day.

00:08:11.000 I went to the MLB store and I bought myself a Chicago White Sox jersey and Honey went looking for a code and saved me a little bit of money.

00:08:18.000 And a little bit of money adds up the more you purchase.

00:08:20.000 I purchase like everything online.

00:08:21.000 It works on Amazon.

00:08:23.000 It works on eBay.

00:08:24.000 It works on pretty much everything that you can buy online.

00:08:27.000 Honey has found it's over 18 million members, over $2 billion in savings.

00:08:30.000 Honey supports over 30,000 stores online.

00:08:33.000 Including Macy's, Target, Sephora, Best Buy, and more.

00:08:35.000 And they're adding more every day.

00:08:37.000 And users love honey.

00:08:38.000 And there's a reason for that, because why the hell wouldn't you?

00:08:40.000 I mean, it's saving you money right now.

00:08:42.000 Using honey feels pretty great.

00:08:43.000 Think of it as a little daily victory and making your wallet a little bit heavier as opposed to making it a little bit lighter.

00:08:48.000 Plus, it's free to use.

00:08:49.000 It installs in just a few seconds.

00:08:50.000 Get honey for free at joinhoney.com, slash Ben.

00:08:53.000 That is J-O-I-N, honey.com, slash Ben.

00:08:56.000 Joinhoney.com, slash Ben.

00:08:58.000 Go check them out right now.

00:08:59.000 Okay, President Trump has formed His legal team includes a couple of heavy hitters in terms of big names.

00:09:05.000 Alan Dershowitz, who's a guest on the show last week, and of course, longtime famous lawyer who has been involved in trials ranging from the OJ trial to the trial Of a man who is accused of killing his wife, and it wasn't true, or at least it didn't seem to be true.

00:09:22.000 Dershowitz has been involved in a lot of very famous cases, and so bringing him aboard sort of gives this whole thing the Hollywood appeal.

00:09:29.000 Kenneth Starr has also joined on, and people are going nuts over this.

00:09:32.000 How could Kenneth Starr, the man who went after Bill Clinton, now be defending Donald Trump?

00:09:37.000 Well, because in the Bill Clinton trial, he actually committed perjury.

00:09:40.000 Yes, Kenneth Starr did a full investigation on uncovered crimes.

00:09:42.000 Here, no crimes have actually been uncovered, which is why the articles of impeachment don't include any crimes.

00:09:46.000 Nonetheless, George Conway, who has become famous simply by virtue of the fact that his last name is Conway and his wife is famous, and now we are supposed to take his legal analysis even more seriously than we would if you were just some rando lawyer in the Washington D.C.

00:09:58.000 area, he has a piece in the Washington Post today that says, This is what happens when you don't pay your legal bills.

00:10:03.000 President Trump, whose businesses, and now campaign, Have left a long trail of unpaid bills behind them, has never discriminated when it comes to stiffing people who work for him.

00:10:10.000 That includes lawyers, which is part of the reason he found the need to make some curious last-minute tweaks to his team, announcing the addition of the legal odd couple Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Starr.

00:10:19.000 The president has consistently encountered difficulty in hiring good lawyers to defend him.

00:10:23.000 In 2017, after Robert Mueller became special counsel, Trump couldn't find a high-end law firm that would take him as a client.

00:10:30.000 His reputation for non-payment preceded him.

00:10:32.000 Now he's trying to make up an excuse, Conway, for why a big firm wouldn't take on Trump.

00:10:35.000 The answer is a big firm wouldn't take on Trump because there are too many lawyers who don't like Trump and they're afraid of the blowback they'd get from their other clients.

00:10:41.000 Right, if Davis Polk Wright Tremaine had picked up Trump as a client, they would get enormous blowback from the partners, from the other associates.

00:10:47.000 They don't care about the associates, but certainly from their clientele.

00:10:51.000 This is... Okay, here's the real reason, and Conway buries it.

00:10:54.000 Of course, being cheap wasn't the only reason Trump struck out among the nation's legal elite.

00:10:58.000 There was the fact that he would be an erratic client who'd never take reasonable direction.

00:11:01.000 Firms also understood that taking on Trump would kill their recruiting efforts.

00:11:04.000 That would be the actual issue. 0.94

00:11:07.000 That left Trump to be personally defended in the Mueller investigation by a random patchwork of counsel, including Jay Sekulow, a lawyer specializing in religious liberty cases, and John Dowd, a Washington solo practitioner who, according to Bob Woodward, viewed Trump as an effing liar.

00:11:20.000 Dowd denies that.

00:11:21.000 And then Trump had the assistance of Rudy Giuliani.

00:11:24.000 Wow, so that means that Clinton was innocent because he could get big-name lawyers to defend him from well-established firms.

00:11:32.000 with heavy hitter Bob Bennett's handle, the Paula Jones case, and the elite Washington defense from Williams and Connolly, led by the brilliant David... 0.65

00:11:38.000 Wow, so that means that Clinton was innocent because he could get big-name lawyers to defend him from well-established firms.

00:11:44.000 Either that or it meant he was a Democrat.

00:11:45.000 But according to George Conway, it's very bad that Dershowitz and Starr are now defending the president.

00:11:51.000 He says, Dershowitz may be a genius in some ways, but he's not necessarily the advocate you want on your side.

00:11:55.000 Judges have told me they find him condescending in manner and tone.

00:11:59.000 Wow.

00:12:00.000 Wow.

00:12:00.000 Oh my gosh.

00:12:01.000 Judges told George Conway a thing?

00:12:03.000 That's crazy.

00:12:04.000 And then I love this.

00:12:05.000 As his former Harvard colleague, Professor Lawrence Tribe has put it, Dershowitz revels in taking positions that ultimately are not just controversial, but pretty close to indefensible. 0.95

00:12:13.000 This would be the same Lawrence Tribe who spent the last several years absolutely losing his mind and just tweeting garbage that makes no sense because he has Trump derangement syndrome like terminal Trump derangement syndrome. 0.75

00:12:23.000 George Conway is also very upset with Kenneth Starr. 0.95

00:12:25.000 He says, I know and like Starr, but I can't comprehend what he's doing here.

00:12:28.000 He's best known as the independent counsel whose investigation led to the impeachment of Clinton.

00:12:32.000 That's hardly helpful for Trump because Clinton was a piker compared with Trump. 1.00

00:12:36.000 Or alternatively, it's actually good for Trump because Ken Starr, who knows what an impeachable offense looks like, is saying this is not an impeachable offense.

00:12:42.000 Okay, so that is the setup.

00:12:44.000 Alan Dershowitz was on the Sunday shows making the rounds.

00:12:47.000 He made the case that abusive power is not impeachable.

00:12:49.000 Now, here is the reality.

00:12:51.000 Anything is impeachable.

00:12:52.000 And the media are, of course, jumping on this.

00:12:54.000 to suggest that that Dershowitz doesn't understand what impeachment is. 0.96

00:12:58.000 That, of course, is incredibly silly.

00:12:59.000 Dershowitz fully understands that you can impeach for any reason.

00:13:02.000 He is just saying that in his opinion and in the opinion of most senators, if you are going to impeach somebody, you need to allege a crime.

00:13:07.000 Here's Alan Dershowitz explaining that just saying abuse of power does not make does not make activity impeachable.

00:13:13.000 In order for a president to be impeached, and Johnson was impeached on charges that didn't include criminal conduct, he argued successfully to the Senate that criminal-like conduct is required.

00:13:25.000 That argument prevailed.

00:13:26.000 I will be making that argument as a lawyer on behalf of the president's defense team against impeachment.

00:13:35.000 Now, the media went nuts over all of this, suggesting that Dershowitz is saying something crazy.

00:13:39.000 No, he is not.

00:13:40.000 He's pointing out a very obvious truth, which is, if you're going to try to impeach a president, typically you should actually register some sort of criminal activity, like an actual crime.

00:13:49.000 Now, last week, they tried to suggest that Trump had violated the law because the Government Accountability Office suggested that his administration had not given a special message to Congress about why they had delayed aid to Ukraine.

00:14:00.000 But as I mentioned last week, that same statute has a remedy in the statute for what is supposed to happen, and none of it actually involves the impeachment of the President of the United States.

00:14:08.000 Normally impeachment is reserved for situations in which the President commits an actual crime that would send him to jail, like perjury.

00:14:14.000 And then, because you cannot actually charge a President, With a criminal offense, then you have to impeach him in order so that you can free up that actual prosecution because then you have basically a constitutional impasse.

00:14:25.000 The same is not true when the president just violates the law and there's an actual remedy in the law for when the president or the executive branch violate the law, which is exactly what happened in this government accountability office report.

00:14:36.000 In just a second, we'll get to more of Alan Dershowitz.

00:14:38.000 Then we'll get to the Democrats who are being very sober and serious and somber and fist bumping each other on Friday nights.

00:14:44.000 Seriously, on national TV, fist bumping each other.

00:14:47.000 We'll get to that in just one second.

00:14:48.000 First, let's talk about how easy it is to rack up big credit card charges.

00:14:52.000 It's very easy, unfortunately, to rack up these big credit card charges and you figure I'll pay for it now and then I will just repay it later.

00:14:58.000 The problem is that if you wait like a day extra, suddenly you're paying these exorbitant fees.

00:15:02.000 You can bankrupt yourself this way really, really easily.

00:15:04.000 I have friends and family who have done this sort of thing.

00:15:07.000 This is why you should be looking to pay off your credit card balances and save with a credit card consolidation loan from Lightstream.

00:15:13.000 You can roll multiple credit card payments into just one payment at a lower fixed rate.

00:15:17.000 Lightstream's credit card consolidation loans have rates as low as 5.95% APR with AutoPay, which is a lot lower than the national average interest rate for this sort of thing, which is over 20% APR.

00:15:26.000 Plus, there are absolutely no fees, no application fees, no origination fees, no transaction fees, no prepayment penalties.

00:15:32.000 The application is quick.

00:15:33.000 And it's easy and you can apply right from your phone.

00:15:36.000 Lightstream believes that people with good credits deserve a better loan experience.

00:15:38.000 That's exactly what they deliver.

00:15:39.000 So this is not for somebody who's like blown out your credit and you have zero credit score and you've really like, it's over for you.

00:15:45.000 This is for somebody who has pretty good credit and you've just fallen behind on your credit card payments and now you need to get out without spending a fortune.

00:15:51.000 Just for my listeners, apply now and you get a special interest rate discount.

00:15:55.000 The only way to get this discount is to go to lightstream.com slash Shapiro.

00:15:59.000 Again, that's L-I-G-H-T. 1.00

00:16:01.000 S-T-R-E-A-M.com. 0.90

00:16:03.000 Lightstream.com slash Shapiro.

00:16:05.000 Subject to credit approval rate includes 0.50% auto pay discount.

00:16:10.000 Terms and conditions apply.

00:16:11.000 Offers our subject to change without notice.

00:16:12.000 Visit Lightstream.com slash Shapiro.

00:16:14.000 Get all the information and go check them out.

00:16:16.000 If you've fallen behind and you have good credit, go check them out right now at Lightstream.com slash Shapiro.

00:16:21.000 That's Lightstream.com slash Shapiro.

00:16:23.000 Okay, so Alan Dershowitz is doing the right thing as a lawyer.

00:16:26.000 He was asked on national TV.

00:16:27.000 Are you saying that Trump's phone call was perfect?

00:16:29.000 That Trump never did anything wrong?

00:16:30.000 Dershowitz is like, no, I'm not going to say that.

00:16:32.000 I'm just going to say this is not impeachable because the standard of law is not the president did nothing wrong.

00:16:37.000 The standard of law is impeachable.

00:16:39.000 The president's brief filed last night says very clearly the president did nothing wrong and you're saying you're not willing to endorse that statement.

00:16:44.000 I did not read that brief or sign that brief.

00:16:47.000 That's not part of my mandate.

00:16:49.000 My mandate is to present the constitutional argument.

00:16:53.000 And if the constitutional argument succeeds, we don't reach that issue because you can't charge a president with impeachable conduct if it doesn't fit within the criteria for the constitution.

00:17:04.000 So he is right about all of this, but the Democrats are already ecstatic because they got what they wanted, right?

00:17:08.000 Nancy Pelosi got up last week and she said, he's always impeached for all time.

00:17:13.000 She was very solemn and sober and sad.

00:17:17.000 It was a very moving moment.

00:17:19.000 When a bunch of House Democrats who hate Trump and wanted him impeached on day one were impeaching the president and we were told that it was very solemn and sad and sober.

00:17:26.000 So Nancy Pelosi shows up on Bill Maher to be solemn and sad and sober wearing her gold lamé outfit left over from the Oscars and here is Nancy Pelosi sitting with Bill Maher and fist bumping him, physically fist bumping him over impeaching the president because obviously this is a sober, sad, solemn occasion.

00:17:44.000 Thank you so much for waiting till we got back on the air before you started the impeachment.

00:17:48.000 Yeah, and she's happy and he's happy and everybody's happy because the president's impeached and it's so solemn and so... Remember that time when she said it was super sober and she was saving the Constitution?

00:18:00.000 And look at her, she is so...

00:18:02.000 How do you take these folks seriously?

00:18:03.000 It's nearly impossible to take these folks seriously.

00:18:05.000 Then you have Adam Schiff, who's trotting out there, suggesting that he's out there to protect the Constitution after several years of lying about having secret information that would tie Trump to Russia in such a way that Trump would be impeached over the Mueller report.

00:18:16.000 That ended up being a complete dud.

00:18:17.000 And so Adam Schiff just moved right on to Ukraine.

00:18:20.000 And then he goes on national TV and he suggests that when Dershowitz says abuse of power is not impeachable, no, abuse of power would have appalled the founders.

00:18:28.000 Tell me more about appalling the founders, dude who literally spends his days camped out outside the CNN tent.

00:18:35.000 Abuse of power is at the center of what the framers intended an impeachable offense to be.

00:18:42.000 The logic of that absurdist position that's being now adopted by the president is he could give away the state of Alaska.

00:18:48.000 He could withhold execution of sanctions on Russia for interfering in the last election.

00:18:54.000 to induce or coerce Russia to interfere in the next one.

00:18:58.000 That would have appalled, the mere idea of this would have appalled the founders who were worried about exactly that kind of solicitation of foreign interference in an election for a personal benefit. - There's nothing I like more than a man who lied about Trump and Russia going on TV and maintaining that he didn't lie about Trump and Russia and that Trump and Russia were actually the mere idea of this would have appalled the founders who were worried about exactly that kind of solicitation of foreign interference in an election for a personal benefit. - There's Very, very trustworthy, folks.

00:19:23.000 Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to figure out exactly how they're going to thread this whole witness needle in the impeachment, because here's the problem.

00:19:29.000 If they call somebody like Lev Parnas, if they try to bring in a witness like Lev Parnas, who, as we discussed last week, is this Ukrainian Operator, or this American operator in Ukraine who is dealing on behalf of the Ukrainian oligarch and violating law in the process, and then under indictment for falsifying documents and lying to the federal government, he's going around on the media and blaming Trump for all of his mis-action, for all of his malfeasance.

00:19:54.000 If Democrats call that guy, it's pretty obvious that Hunter Biden is also going to be called, and that ain't going to go well for Hunter Biden, because it turns out that Hunter Biden is utterly unqualified for anything except being the neighborhood janitor, and he's been using his daddy's last name to fly around the world picking up bags of cash.

00:20:06.000 Okay, so Sherrod Brown, the senator from Ohio, he was on CNN over the weekend suggesting that Parnas should testify, but Hunter Biden is not relevant.

00:20:16.000 So somehow, Lev Parnas is deeply relevant, but Hunter Biden, whose activity in Ukraine lies at the very center of President Trump asking the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter Biden.

00:20:25.000 That would be irrelevant, according to Sherrod Brown.

00:20:29.000 I assume we want him to testify.

00:20:30.000 I know we want Bolton.

00:20:31.000 I know we want people who are in the room.

00:20:34.000 I don't have strong feelings yet until I hear from the House managers and what they want to see.

00:20:40.000 But I assume, why not have witnesses that have a lot of information about this?

00:20:47.000 So I think Parnas makes sense.

00:20:49.000 Okay, and then he says he wants Lev Parnas to testify.

00:20:53.000 But Hunter Biden, I guess we'll call him.

00:20:55.000 I mean, if we have to.

00:20:56.000 But why would we even want to talk to Hunter Biden?

00:20:58.000 The person whose activity led off this entire debacle.

00:21:02.000 Here is Sherrod Brown again saying yes on Lev Parnas.

00:21:05.000 But Hunter Biden, I guess we'll do it if we have to.

00:21:07.000 But like, is he really relevant, guys?

00:21:10.000 We take the position that we want to hear from witnesses.

00:21:13.000 I don't know what Hunter Biden has to do with the phone call.

00:21:16.000 But you're fine hearing from him?

00:21:19.000 I'm fine with hearing.

00:21:20.000 I mean, I understand.

00:21:21.000 I'm not a lawyer.

00:21:22.000 I understand both sides get to call witnesses.

00:21:25.000 I'm not sure that a lot of Republicans think.

00:21:27.000 I mean, I think many Republicans think that's a distraction.

00:21:30.000 By the way, Bernie Sanders is putting out notices today in advance of Iowa.

00:21:33.000 He literally just put out, his campaign put out what they call the burn notice.

00:21:37.000 It says that Joe Biden has a big corruption problem.

00:21:40.000 So the real reason Democrats don't want Hunter Biden testifying is because it might actually show that President Trump, his suspicions were not completely unfounded, that Hunter Biden was simply serving as a bag man for himself.

00:21:50.000 And using Joe Biden's last name in order to do so.

00:21:53.000 Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are suggesting that we must, must, must have witnesses back in 1999 were suggesting that we should have no witnesses.

00:21:59.000 Now, I think we should have as many witnesses we want.

00:22:01.000 I don't really care.

00:22:02.000 I think we should have as many witnesses.

00:22:03.000 Well, I'm not going to stand here and pretend that I think that it's.

00:22:06.000 That it is a good policy to prevent witnesses from testifying in the Senate impeachment trial.

00:22:10.000 I think the American people deserve to know what happens in nearly every aspect.

00:22:13.000 I think transparency is good.

00:22:15.000 I do.

00:22:16.000 But the Democrats don't think so.

00:22:18.000 Back in 1999, one day before President Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial before the Senate, Chuck Schumer, who's now the Senate Minority Leader, penned a passionate letter outlining why the process had taken unfair toll on the nation, according to the New York Post.

00:22:29.000 He noted that the president believed he had not crossed the line, he praised the large threshold needed to get a conviction in the Senate, and then he went on record suggesting that the whole thing had been a giant waste of time.

00:22:39.000 He said it has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a president not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he's committed, but because conditions in the late 20th century America have made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.

00:23:00.000 He says, if you had asked me one year ago if people like this with such obvious political motives could use our court to play the media and tantalize the legislative branch to achieve their ends of bringing down the president, I would have said, not a chance.

00:23:10.000 That doesn't happen in America, but it almost happened.

00:23:13.000 And then he says, what Bill Clinton did was wrong and arrogant.

00:23:14.000 We all agree.

00:23:15.000 We are all angered, but let's express some sympathy.

00:23:19.000 And now you've got Chuck Schumer leading up the mob against Trump on this without actually advocating a crime that was actually committed.

00:23:28.000 Pretty amazing stuff from Chuck Schumer, going all the way back to 1999.

00:23:33.000 Meanwhile, Jerry Nadler is really objecting to Hunter Biden being called.

00:23:38.000 He, of course, is the head of the House Judiciary Committee.

00:23:40.000 So, Jerry Nadler, head of the House Judiciary Committee, very much in favor of calling people like Lev Parnas, who he suggests he would like to see called.

00:23:46.000 Now he says that we should not even request Hunter Biden testify because that is doing Trump's dirty work.

00:23:52.000 This whole controversy about whether there should be witnesses is really a question of, does the Senate want to have a fair trial, or are they part of the cover-up of the President?

00:24:01.000 Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses, or even that witnesses should be negotiated, is part of the cover-up.

00:24:09.000 Did the president, as the evidence shows that he did, betray his country by conspiring with a foreign country to try to rig the election?

00:24:19.000 Hunter Biden has nothing to say about that.

00:24:21.000 Their asking for Hunter Biden is just more of a smear of Hunter Biden that the president is trying to get the Ukraine to do.

00:24:27.000 So yes, witnesses, but not those witnesses, guys.

00:24:30.000 We can't have those witnesses.

00:24:30.000 Those would be bad witnesses.

00:24:32.000 Meanwhile, Adam Schiff.

00:24:33.000 He was asked about Lev Parnas' credibility, and he won't even answer whether he thinks that Lev Parnas is credible.

00:24:38.000 But we should call him anyway.

00:24:39.000 So no on Hunter Biden, but yes on Lev Parnas, who is currently under indictment for lying to the federal government and falsifying documents.

00:24:45.000 It is the fact with many of the people surrounding the president that they end up indicted.

00:24:49.000 These are the people that the president has chosen to work with.

00:24:53.000 People like Michael Cohen, like Lev Parnas, like so many others, Paul Manafort, and these are people that do have information about the president's misconduct.

00:25:02.000 But right now, George, we don't know what witnesses will be allowed, and even if we'll be allowed witnesses, we can't really make a determination on which witnesses we'll call in the absence of knowing whether the Senate will allow any at all.

00:25:15.000 So again, Lev Parnas maybe, but Hunter Biden really not.

00:25:19.000 Chris Wallace went after Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat congressperson from New York over the weekend on Fox News.

00:25:24.000 He said, listen, you guys keep talking about how you want more witnesses and more witnesses and more witnesses, and then you say you have an open and shut case.

00:25:29.000 So which is it?

00:25:30.000 You got to pick one.

00:25:32.000 Well, we proceeded expeditiously because, you know, Trump's abuse of power, his pressuring of a foreign government, in this instance, for his own personal political gain, related to an urgent matter of national security.

00:25:43.000 You know, the notion of withholding $391 million that was allocated on a bipartisan basis... But again, you can't have it both ways, Congressman.

00:25:51.000 You say it was an urgent matter, it was a threat, and then Nancy Pelosi waited a month to even hand over the articles of impeachment. 1.00

00:25:58.000 Yeah, I'm glad you raised that, because there's two parts to this process.

00:26:02.000 I'm glad you raised that, but I'm not really that glad you raised that, Chris Wallace, because this whole thing is awkward.

00:26:07.000 So how long is this whole thing going to take?

00:26:08.000 According to Ted Cruz, it could take six to eight weeks.

00:26:10.000 In reality, it's only going to take a couple of weeks.

00:26:12.000 I do not think this is going to drag out for more than a month.

00:26:15.000 I think by the time we are midway into the Democratic primaries, this thing will be over.

00:26:18.000 Speaking of which, the 2020 Democratic presidential race continues apace.

00:26:23.000 President Trump has a very simple case to make.

00:26:25.000 He continues to make it strongly.

00:26:27.000 Which is that the Democrats are too far left to be trusted with power, especially given a strong economy.

00:26:32.000 The Democrats have pledged to take economic measures that will absolutely stop the longest, now longest recovery in the history of the United States, and a recovery that has picked up pace under President Trump.

00:26:41.000 It was very slow under Barack Obama, and it picked up pace under President Trump, including increases in wages at the low end of the income spectrum.

00:26:47.000 Here's President Trump going after the Democrats.

00:26:51.000 The far left, they want to massively raise your taxes, crush your Your businesses with regulations take away your health care and send bureaucrats to interfere with your property and second-guess every decision that you make. 0.95

00:27:06.000 The radical left in Washington wants to demolish these gains and they frankly want to destroy your way of life.

00:27:14.000 They are not for the farmer.

00:27:18.000 They are not for our military.

00:27:20.000 Okay, what he is saying here is going to be his campaign, and it's the right campaign.

00:27:24.000 And the fact is the Democrats are split.

00:27:26.000 They're not sure which way to go.

00:27:27.000 Do they move into the sort of more mainstream direction?

00:27:29.000 Do they try and grab that middle voter?

00:27:31.000 Or do they skew to the left?

00:27:33.000 That split was reflected by the editorial page of the New York Times, which hilariously today issued their endorsement in the Democratic primaries.

00:27:40.000 And they chose two people.

00:27:43.000 Two people, which is super exciting stuff!

00:27:46.000 They chose two people, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.

00:27:50.000 Truly.

00:27:51.000 So if you're wondering how to spend both your votes, now you know.

00:27:54.000 You can vote once for Elizabeth Warren and once for Amy Klobuchar.

00:27:59.000 What actually happened here? 0.99

00:28:00.000 What actually happened here is they desperately wanted to endorse Elizabeth Warren, but they also recognized that they would have been viewed as hacks on behalf of Elizabeth Warren, which they are, and so they decided to also endorse a person who has no shot at winning the primaries, Amy Klobuchar, so they could cover their ass. 0.96

00:28:13.000 In the editorial board room, it was... 0.91

00:28:13.000 That's really what happened here. 0.91

00:28:16.000 We could endorse Elizabeth Warren, but we've been busy kissing her ass for the last year, and it's going to look kind of ridiculous if we now endorse her. 0.98

00:28:24.000 So let's endorse somebody who's not like an actual mainstream competitor. 0.99

00:28:28.000 We'll endorse somebody who looks a little bit more moderate, and we can say that it's all about female power, and then we'll endorse Amy Klobuchar. 0.71

00:28:34.000 Now all I can envision is the editors of the New York Times breaking a pool cue, tossing it between Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, saying, we're having tryouts.

00:28:42.000 But with that said, it's pretty hysterical.

00:28:45.000 And the editorial itself is really, really funny.

00:28:47.000 It's funny because what they think of as qualities of these candidates are just bizarre.

00:28:52.000 They're just bizarre.

00:28:52.000 By the way, the New York Breaking News, the New York Times has now suggested that both the San Francisco 49ers and the Kansas City Chiefs will win the next Super Bowl.

00:29:00.000 According to the New York Times, American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.

00:29:06.000 The incumbent President Donald Trump is clear about where he is guiding the Republican.

00:29:09.000 White nativism at home. 0.87

00:29:12.000 Is that really what, really?

00:29:14.000 That's what he's been clear about?

00:29:15.000 That if you vote for Trump, you're a white nativist now?

00:29:17.000 That's the way this is working?

00:29:18.000 How about all the minority people who are voting for Trump?

00:29:20.000 There are many of them.

00:29:22.000 Is it possible that maybe the New York Times is sort of pigeonholing what they think Trump voters are into a box?

00:29:28.000 And they say, in America, first unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues, and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.

00:29:40.000 By the way, when we speak about mythological histories, the New York Times' mythological history in the 1619 Project is utterly astonishingly bad.

00:29:46.000 So much so, that it was ripped by professional historians ranging from James McPherson to Gordon Wood.

00:29:51.000 It takes a lot of gall to suggest that the traditional history of the United States is somehow a myth.

00:29:57.000 Well, their version of the United States was that the United States was rooted in racism, white supremacy, slavery, sexism, and bigotry, and that everything in U.S.

00:30:04.000 history has been an outgrowth of that, except for the times when we overthrew the principles for just one second, and then went right back to our racism and bigotry.

00:30:13.000 It takes a lot of gall for people who push that agenda to suggest that history is being rewritten by Trump.

00:30:18.000 They say on the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation.

00:30:24.000 Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible.

00:30:29.000 Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten they must be replaced.

00:30:35.000 The Democratic primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and progressives.

00:30:39.000 To some extent, that's true.

00:30:41.000 But when we spent significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental issues became striking.

00:30:47.000 Okay, that part is true, that a lot of these so-called moderates in the Democratic Party are actually the same as the progressives when it comes to policy. 0.95

00:30:52.000 We'll get to the rest of this idiotic New York Times editorial endorsing both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, which is super unhelpful. 0.86

00:30:59.000 Wait till you get their description of Elizabeth Warren is wonderful. 0.98

00:31:01.000 We'll get to that in one second.

00:31:02.000 First, I need to talk to you about an issue that's been incredibly important to me for a very long time.

00:31:07.000 If you're a regular listener, you most likely heard me talk about my ardent support for the pro-life cause.

00:31:12.000 I've not been shy about this.

00:31:13.000 You may also remember that last year, I streamed this podcast live from the March for Life in Washington, D.C., which is the biggest pro-life rally in the country, where I also gave a speech to the crowds marching for the cause.

00:31:23.000 What you may not be aware of is how much grief this caused us from our political adversaries.

00:31:27.000 Our advertisers were targeted by left-wing media watchdogs Several of them actually pulled their ads from our show under pressure, even though I said absolutely nothing objectionable.

00:31:37.000 This wasn't the first time, nor will it likely be the last time, that we are attacked in an attempt by the left to shut down pro-life voices.

00:31:43.000 We're also not the only targets.

00:31:44.000 Live action is one of the biggest voices in the pro-life movement.

00:31:47.000 I personally give money to live action.

00:31:48.000 I think they're wonderful.

00:31:49.000 They continue to do some of the most important work in this space.

00:31:52.000 From raising awareness and education on the abortion issue to undercover videos that expose Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics for horrific human rights abuses.

00:32:00.000 Live action has been targeted a lot on social media.

00:32:02.000 They've been banned from advertising on Twitter for their calls to defund Planned Parenthood.

00:32:06.000 They've been banned from Pinterest altogether for quote spreading medical misinformation.

00:32:09.000 They've seen their advertising efforts and their online distribution restricted depending on the platform.

00:32:14.000 This cause is supremely important since the passing of Roe v. Wade, the creation of Roe v. Wade.

00:32:19.000 Over 60 million pre-born children have been killed in the womb, 60 million kids who never had a chance to give the world their love, and countless young women harmed physically and emotionally last year.

00:32:27.000 The left went even more insane.

00:32:29.000 They passed the New York law allowing abortion up to birth, the Illinois law allowing partial birth abortion.

00:32:33.000 This year, virtually every Democratic candidate, basically everyone except for Tulsi Gabbard, supports no restrictions on abortion, which is the most radical position threatening the right to life.

00:32:42.000 That is why our DailyWire.com members are really important.

00:32:44.000 Why?

00:32:45.000 Well, your membership keeps our cameras on, our microphones turned up.

00:32:48.000 Also, your direct support helps us say no to advertisers who cave to left-wing ideologies.

00:32:52.000 You keep us and our message from being canceled, and you help the conservative pro-life movement get louder, which is why from now until January 31st only, just for the next couple of weeks, a portion of any DailyWire.com membership purchase will be donated to live action with promo code LIVEACTION.

00:33:06.000 So when you use that promo code LIVEACTION, you get our membership.

00:33:09.000 We're going to donate part of that to live action.

00:33:10.000 The portion will go to support awareness and education around the world on the pro-life issue.

00:33:14.000 So join us here at DailyWire.com.

00:33:16.000 Make your pro-life voice even louder and protect the causes that you care about from the viciousness of a left wing that seeks to silence.

00:33:22.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.

00:33:25.000 So to continue with this New York Times editorial, they endorse both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.

00:33:36.000 They say many Democratic voters are concerned first and foremost about who can beat Mr. Trump.

00:33:40.000 But with a crowded field and with traditional polling in tatters, that calculation calls for a hefty dose of humility about anyone's ability to foretell what voters want.

00:33:47.000 So that is the New York Times throwing its hands in the air and saying, yeah, we know Elizabeth Warren isn't super electable, but we like her. 1.00

00:33:53.000 We like her! 1.00

00:33:56.000 Choosing who should face off against Mr. Trump also means acknowledging that Americans are being confronted with three models for how to govern the country, not two.

00:34:02.000 Democrats must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the republic.

00:34:09.000 The party's large and raucous field has made having that clean debate more difficult.

00:34:12.000 With all the focus on personal characteristics, age, race, experience, and a handful of the most contentious issues, voters have not benefited from a clarifying choice about the party's message in the election and the approach to governing beyond it.

00:34:23.000 It was a privilege for us on the editorial board to spend more than a dozen hours talking to candidates, asking them any question that came to mind.

00:34:29.000 Yet, that exercise is impossible for most Americans.

00:34:31.000 Now is the time to narrow the race. 0.99

00:34:34.000 That's why we're endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach.

00:34:37.000 They're not gonna make up their minds on which approach is better.

00:34:39.000 The sort of return to normalcy approach?

00:34:41.000 Or the let's rip everything down approach?

00:34:44.000 They're Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

00:34:47.000 Wow, amazing.

00:34:49.000 They say, and then they explain why they will not endorse Sanders.

00:34:52.000 They say, Senator Sanders has spent nearly four decades advocating revolutionary change for a nation whose politics often move with glacial slowness.

00:34:58.000 Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office.

00:35:01.000 And after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern.

00:35:03.000 Then there's how Mr. Sanders approaches politics.

00:35:06.000 He boasts that compromise is anathema to him.

00:35:08.000 Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive.

00:35:13.000 He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda.

00:35:17.000 Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage in exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.

00:35:24.000 By the way, if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, I'm going to throw that line back in their face the moment they endorse Bernie Sanders.

00:35:29.000 It's good news then that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard bearer for the Democratic left.

00:35:33.000 Their description of Warren is just phenomenal.

00:35:35.000 Here it is.

00:35:36.000 Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. 0.98

00:35:39.000 That is one way of saying a congenital liar. 0.63

00:35:42.000 A gifted storyteller. 0.78

00:35:44.000 You know, telling stories about her time wandering the plains with the Cherokee people.

00:35:50.000 Stories about how she was fired for the sin of being pregnant when all documentary evidence shows that she was actually unanimously requested to retain her job.

00:35:58.000 All of her stories about her difficulties in life.

00:36:01.000 What a difficult life she's led. 1.00

00:36:02.000 I mean, how many stories have we debunked about Elizabeth Warren on this show?

00:36:05.000 Five?

00:36:06.000 Ten?

00:36:07.000 And she just says things that are not true on a routine basis.

00:36:09.000 But she's a gifted storyteller, guys!

00:36:11.000 A gifted storyteller.

00:36:13.000 Wouldn't you want Elizabeth Warren telling you a story?

00:36:17.000 You wouldn't?

00:36:17.000 No?

00:36:18.000 Because you're a sentient human?

00:36:19.000 Well, I guess you're not on the New York Times editorial board.

00:36:21.000 She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans, and of our chance to rewrite the rules of power in our country, as she put it in a speech last month.

00:36:30.000 In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma, and a middle-class family whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country.

00:36:40.000 By the way, Her work on bankruptcy is largely bullcrap.

00:36:43.000 David French has debunked it.

00:36:45.000 The idea that people are on mass suffering from medical bankruptcy, it's just not true.

00:36:50.000 The way that she actually classified those studies, she said, if you went bankrupt and you had a medical bill, she called that a medical bankruptcy.

00:36:56.000 The word rigged, according to the New York Times, feels less bombastic than rooted in an informed assessment of what the nation needs to do to reassort its historic ideals, like fairness, generosity, and equality.

00:37:08.000 And then they go on to talk about how she has so many plans.

00:37:11.000 Warren accurately describes a lack of housing construction as the primary driver of the nation's housing crisis.

00:37:11.000 Ms.

00:37:16.000 And she has proposed both increases in government funding for housing construction and changes in regulatory policy.

00:37:21.000 Yes, because government housing has always been a boon to the American people.

00:37:24.000 Building projects has always worked out just phenomenally.

00:37:27.000 And they talk about how she's just going to spend enormous amounts of money. 0.62

00:37:30.000 They never talk about how she's going to pay for any of this.

00:37:32.000 They never talk about how she's going to do any of this.

00:37:34.000 But she is the best, they say.

00:37:37.000 And then they say, but we have a problem.

00:37:40.000 American capitalism is responsible for its share of sins, but Ms.

00:37:44.000 Warren often cast the net far too wide, placing the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole.

00:37:53.000 This country needs a more unifying path.

00:37:55.000 Okay, and that is why we have also decided to talk about Amy Klobuchar.

00:37:59.000 Ooh, Amy Klobuchar.

00:38:01.000 First, they dismiss Pete Buttigieg.

00:38:03.000 They say that we look forward to him working his way up, which is the worst tut-tutting ever.

00:38:09.000 Oh, Pete, you're so cute.

00:38:11.000 Next time around, Pete Buttigieg.

00:38:14.000 Andrew Yang.

00:38:15.000 They say he has virtually no experience in government.

00:38:17.000 We hope he decides to get involved in New York politics.

00:38:19.000 And then they say that Michael Bloomberg is very bad.

00:38:21.000 Why?

00:38:22.000 Because he's a multi-billionaire.

00:38:23.000 He's very bad.

00:38:25.000 And they say that his current campaign approach reveals more about America's broken system than his likelihood of fixing it.

00:38:31.000 And then they say that Joe Biden is prone to verbal stumbles, but it is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.

00:38:39.000 Nothing says passing the torch to a new generation of political leaders like being 77 and passing the torch to somebody who's 70.

00:38:45.000 Elizabeth Warren is 70 years old.

00:38:47.000 So there's that.

00:38:48.000 And then they talk about Amy Klobuchar.

00:38:50.000 Good news that Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard bearer for the Democratic Center.

00:38:54.000 Her vision goes beyond the incremental.

00:38:56.000 Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.

00:39:02.000 The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit, and stick-to-itiveness.

00:39:07.000 Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a dealmaker, a real one, and unite her for the wings of the party and perhaps the nation.

00:39:16.000 So why didn't they just endorse her outright?

00:39:19.000 Well, apparently they didn't endorse her outright because she treated her staff badly. 1.00

00:39:24.000 They're gonna go with the, she eats salad with a comb story to not endorse her over Elizabeth Warren.

00:39:29.000 That's literally the only, and then they say, she doesn't have the polished veneer and smooth delivery that comes from a lifetime spent in the national spotlight.

00:39:35.000 She has struggled to gain traction on the campaign trail, but she's really popular in Minnesota.

00:39:40.000 And they basically say, well, no matter who we endorse, it's better than Trump.

00:39:45.000 Ms.

00:39:45.000 Klobuchar and Ms.

00:39:46.000 Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate.

00:39:49.000 May the best woman win. 0.88

00:39:50.000 And then they toss that Joker pool cue right between them and say, go for it.

00:39:54.000 So, who you got?

00:39:55.000 Amy Klobuchar with the comb?

00:39:56.000 Or Elizabeth Warren with the knife she just removed from Bernie Sanders' back? 0.99

00:40:00.000 Meanwhile, the race moves forward apace.

00:40:03.000 Bernie Sanders, who a new poll shows actually in second place in Iowa.

00:40:06.000 There are three new polls in Iowa, all of them showing Bernie Sanders dropping behind Joe Biden.

00:40:11.000 If Joe Biden, by the way, wins Iowa, this thing is basically over before it begins.

00:40:15.000 And that New York Times endorsement doesn't mean jack.

00:40:18.000 And now Bernie Sanders is out there on the apology tour trying to explain to women that gender remains an obstacle for women in politics. 0.99

00:40:25.000 He has to pay homage to the intersectional notion that women are greatly victimized in American politics despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was propped up as a political figure despite having no political experience running for the Senate, and then she was a horrible Secretary of State, and then she was a horrible presidential candidate twice, and we're still being told the only reason she lost is because of the Russians.

00:40:41.000 Here's Bernie Sanders explaining it's rough to be a lady. 0.99

00:40:44.000 Do you think that gender is still an obstacle for female politicians? 1.00

00:40:48.000 Look, the answer is yes, but I think everybody has their own sets of problems.

00:40:52.000 I'm 78 years of age.

00:40:53.000 That's a problem.

00:40:54.000 There are a lot of people who say, well, I like Bernie.

00:40:56.000 He's a nice guy, but he's 78 years of age.

00:40:59.000 So we have to argue, please look at the totality of who I am.

00:41:03.000 If you're looking at Buttigieg, he's a young guy.

00:41:06.000 And people will say, well, he's too young to be president.

00:41:08.000 You look at this one, she's a woman. 1.00

00:41:11.000 So everybody brings some negatives, if you like.

00:41:14.000 Bernie has to say that part about how you're really disadvantaged if you're a layman.

00:41:17.000 My favorite is the lady asking him the question, who says, is it hard to be a woman? 0.89

00:41:21.000 And she's trying to telegraph him the answer.

00:41:23.000 She's actually nodding as she utters the question. 0.97

00:41:26.000 Look, the reason that Bernie Sanders, by the way, if he doesn't win the nomination and if he doesn't win the presidency, the reason he doesn't is because he's a crazy communist.

00:41:33.000 He had John Cusack out on the road stumping for him because nothing says connection with the American people like John Cusack.

00:41:33.000 That's why.

00:41:41.000 Explaining this very wealthy actor.

00:41:42.000 We have 10 years to save the planet from capitalism.

00:41:45.000 10 years to save the planet from the greatest force for human prosperity in the history of the world.

00:41:49.000 I was looking up these statistics.

00:41:51.000 I'm writing a book that's due out late July, I believe.

00:41:54.000 And I was looking up the statistics on the growth of global GDP.

00:41:59.000 The growth of global GDP.

00:42:00.000 So the growth of global GDP from like 1800 to 2015.

00:42:06.000 It increased global GDP, not American GDP, global GDP increased by 15,700% in the previous millennia, okay, in like the last two millennia before that, increased by like 100%.

00:42:18.000 And then the Enlightenment and free markets happened and boom, prosperity.

00:42:21.000 But according to John Cusack, I'm going to take his word over the experience of the last couple of centuries, he explains we have 10 years to save the planet from capitalism or we're all going to die or something.

00:42:31.000 We know this form of capitalism takes and takes.

00:42:36.000 It takes whatever, whenever, however it wants.

00:42:39.000 It'll take our lives.

00:42:41.000 It'll take our labor, our spirit, our air and water, even our earth.

00:42:45.000 And Bernie respects us enough to tell the truth, the hard truth.

00:42:49.000 We have a 10 to 12 year window to radically transform our energy systems or climate change, predatory capitalism and the endless war economies will rob us of the right to any future at all.

00:43:00.000 So, no.

00:43:02.000 That is why Bernie Sanders has trouble, because in the end, Bernie Sanders is a radical. 0.95

00:43:08.000 Meanwhile, you get Elizabeth Warren, who's just as radical, but the Democrats are going to pretend that she's a moderate, explaining that Trump has nominated racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-trans judges.

00:43:19.000 I think what's at the heart of it is who you ask to be a judge, who you want on your list to be a judge.

00:43:25.000 And I'll tell you what the answer has been for Donald Trump, because I've seen this, guys.

00:43:29.000 Homophobic, that's in. 0.94

00:43:32.000 Racist, that's in. 1.00

00:43:35.000 Sexist, oh yeah, most definitely. 0.99

00:43:37.000 And anti-voter.

00:43:39.000 That's been a big qualification.

00:43:41.000 He has named one person after another. 0.99

00:43:45.000 So they're all vicious brutes. 1.00

00:43:47.000 Vicious, brutal racists. 1.00

00:43:49.000 If these are the Democrats for you, good luck with that. 0.87

00:43:52.000 This is why Joe Biden, in two recent polls, the last two polls in Iowa, is now up by six in that average.

00:43:56.000 Okay, I want to talk for a second about the media's contrasting coverage.

00:44:01.000 You wonder whether the media are biased?

00:44:03.000 Just take a look at the Virginia gun rights rally that is happening today. 0.80

00:44:06.000 Now, there's a lot of talk about the Virginia gun rights rally being infiltrated by kooks and white supremacists. 0.56

00:44:11.000 Hey, this is a real concern.

00:44:12.000 Whenever you have a very, very big rally, you have to worry that there are gonna be some fringe people who try to glom onto the sides of the rally, and then the media will cover those people and pretend that the rest of the rally doesn't exist.

00:44:21.000 Okay, this is not like the Unite the Right rally, which is openly, openly marketed in Charlottesville as a white supremacist rally.

00:44:26.000 This is not that.

00:44:27.000 Okay, this thing is marketed as a pro-gun rally, and by all available evidence, it is a pro-gun rally.

00:44:32.000 Thousands, tens of thousands of people apparently showing up at the Virginia Capitol to protest the removal of gun rights in the state of Virginia, and doing so peacefully.

00:44:39.000 They're there, like, chanting the Pledge of Allegiance, and members of the media are just lying about them.

00:44:44.000 Openly lying, suggesting it's a white supremacist rally.

00:44:46.000 It is not a white supremacist rally.

00:44:48.000 And just because you can find a couple of white supremacists who try to infiltrate the rally because they know they'll get media coverage that way, that does not make the entire rally white supremacist any more than a couple of Antifa members infiltrating the Women's March makes it a terrorist rally.

00:45:00.000 That's not the way this works.

00:45:02.000 Rallies should try to do a good job of policing who shows up at the rallies, but you can't slander the entire rally because five guys in Nazi hats show up.

00:45:10.000 In this case, there's not even been any evidence of that thus far, and yet the media are portraying this as a terror rally.

00:45:16.000 Seriously.

00:45:17.000 Like Gabe Gutierrez over at NBC News tweeted out a video of people literally chanting the Pledge of Allegiance, and he tweeted, chants of, we will not comply from gun rights protesters in Richmond.

00:45:27.000 They're literally chanting the Pledge of Allegiance.

00:45:29.000 You can hear it.

00:45:31.000 And he just lies about it.

00:45:32.000 And that's not the only lie being told.

00:45:33.000 He had a couple of other reporters suggesting that it was a terrorist rally.

00:45:38.000 Saying that carrying guns openly in Virginia, which is legal, that this is somehow a violation of the Second Amendment, is not what the founders intended when it was literally what the founders intended.

00:45:47.000 The coverage of the Virginia gun rights rally is astonishingly bad.

00:45:51.000 Awful.

00:45:52.000 So far, I know the media would love, they would love nothing better. 0.99

00:45:55.000 Many of the media would love nothing better than a Charlottesville-like scenario, where a bunch of white supremacists show up and start killing people. 0.99

00:45:59.000 That would be their favorite thing ever, because then it could claim that all gun rights advocates in the United States are actually vicious, violent, racist brutes. 0.99

00:46:05.000 That would be their favorite thing in the world. 0.96

00:46:06.000 It hasn't happened.

00:46:08.000 Benny Johnson, over at TPUSA, who's there covering this thing, says, no riots, no violence, no targeting of citizens, no attacking cops, just thousands upon thousands of peaceful, law-abiding citizens gathering in Virginia's capital to protest an unconstitutional assault on their rights.

00:46:22.000 And that, of course, is exactly, that's exactly right.

00:46:27.000 It's amazing.

00:46:27.000 That's exactly right.

00:46:28.000 I mean, they're really spending, they're really spending their day trying to suggest that this thing is terrorism.

00:46:35.000 It's... But they did the same thing with the Tea Party.

00:46:37.000 The Tea Party was apparently terrorist and racist, despite no evidence that it was terrorist or racist.

00:46:41.000 Meanwhile, the Women's March, which was run for years by open anti-Semites, here's how that was covered over the weekend.

00:46:46.000 So nobody showed up.

00:46:47.000 Isabella Gomez Sarmiento reported from NPR, quote, The fourth annual Women's March descended on the streets of Washington on Saturday.

00:46:57.000 Unlike the first demonstration that brought hundreds of thousands to the Capitol the day after President Trump's inauguration, the march drew just a fraction of the original turnout, as the movement has struggled with changes in leadership and questions about inclusivity.

00:47:07.000 But they were passionate.

00:47:08.000 They were so passionate.

00:47:10.000 And that's what really mattered.

00:47:13.000 The permit only allowed up to about 10,000 people, by the way.

00:47:17.000 The permit filed with the National Park Service.

00:47:18.000 But it was passionate, guys.

00:47:20.000 So the media say that the Women's March, passionate, passionate but small.

00:47:24.000 The Gun Rights Rally March, large and terrorist and white supremacist, no evidence of terrorism or white supremacism.

00:47:30.000 Well done, media.

00:47:31.000 This is what you guys do.

00:47:32.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I like and then a quick thing that I hate.

00:47:36.000 And we will get out of here because we have two more hours of stuff to do later.

00:47:39.000 Okay, things I like.

00:47:40.000 Over the weekend I was reading some of my, one of my favorite authors, Ray Bradbury.

00:47:45.000 So Bradbury, of course, is known for Fahrenheit 451, one of the great American novels.

00:47:48.000 He's also a terrific little horror writer.

00:47:52.000 When I say little, I just mean in terms of short stories.

00:47:54.000 He wrote like 300 stories, but His sci-fi is great.

00:47:58.000 Martian Chronicles is great.

00:47:59.000 I'm a big Bradbury fan.

00:48:00.000 I was looking for something to read over at the weekend.

00:48:03.000 No, over the weekend.

00:48:04.000 And so I picked up The October Country, which is a book of his horror stories.

00:48:08.000 Some of them are great.

00:48:09.000 Some of them are not as great.

00:48:10.000 But that's the great thing about short stories.

00:48:12.000 You're spending like 15, 20 minutes on them.

00:48:14.000 I love short stories.

00:48:15.000 It's sad to me that short stories seem to have fallen out of fashion.

00:48:18.000 And maybe somebody will bring them back at some point.

00:48:21.000 I know that the magazine that Bradbury wrote for, which was called Weird Tales, I know that it's still around, although I have no idea whether it's any good or not.

00:48:27.000 I'd love to see the short story brought back.

00:48:28.000 Ray Bradbury's The October Country, but he has a bunch.

00:48:31.000 Sound of Thunder is another short story collection.

00:48:34.000 If you liked Fahrenheit 451, his short stories are of equal quality.

00:48:38.000 You can go check that out.

00:48:39.000 Okay, other things that I like today.

00:48:41.000 So this is hilarious.

00:48:44.000 A court A court in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal has now ruled that a federal prisoner who calls himself a her and wants to be transferred to a women's facility, this person appealed to the court and said, I want to be called her in all the court filings.

00:48:58.000 And the court said, no, that's giving away the argument.

00:49:00.000 No, we're not doing that.

00:49:02.000 And this apparently is very bad.

00:49:04.000 Because now, the left would like for the court to engage in the logical inconsistency of going along with the lie that this person is a woman, but then ruling objectively on whether a woman should be placed with other women.

00:49:16.000 The entire controversy in this case is over whether this person is a woman or a man.

00:49:21.000 You can't just grant the premise of the lawsuit in the lawsuit itself out of sensitivity.

00:49:26.000 That's absurdity.

00:49:27.000 I've said this a thousand times.

00:49:28.000 It's amazing.

00:49:28.000 People always get my position on transgender pronouns wrong because they wish to.

00:49:32.000 I've said one million times that if you're at dinner with somebody and that person wishes to be called as a member of the opposite sex, Then I'm not going to go out of my way just to call the person a member of their biological sex, because why ruin dinner? 0.78

00:49:44.000 But when we are talking about public policy, when we're talking about whether that person actually is a member of the opposite gender, no, I'm not going to go along with that. 0.96

00:49:51.000 If I'm in public debate with a person who's transgender, I'm not going to grant them the premise that they are a member of the opposite sex. 1.00

00:49:56.000 That's the subject of the entire debate.

00:49:58.000 There's a difference between a public issue and what you say to somebody in private at dinner.

00:50:05.000 Right, if my son wishes for me to call him Luke Skywalker today, which he probably does, at home, I'll probably do it.

00:50:11.000 If I'm on national TV and he says, call me Luke Skywalker, I'm gonna say, no son, that's not your name, right?

00:50:15.000 I mean, that's not the way any of this works.

00:50:17.000 But according to the Washington Post, supposedly, the court was supposed to go along with the request to call a him or her, and then to rule objectively on the question of whether this him should be placed with women.

00:50:26.000 By the way, in this particular case, What the media would like is for this biological male who is engaged in pedophilia. 0.62

00:50:33.000 That's why the person's in prison.

00:50:35.000 The person was engaged in trafficking and child pornography.

00:50:38.000 They want, the Washington Post columnist today, wants this person to be labeled a woman. 1.00

00:50:44.000 Okay, ladies, if you want that person labeled a woman, have at it. 1.00

00:50:48.000 Have at it.

00:50:49.000 It seems to me that the vast majority of child pornography charges accrue to men.

00:50:53.000 Biology may have something to do with crime rates. 1.00

00:50:56.000 When it comes to male versus female, which is why 98% of people in prison are male.

00:51:01.000 Come on.

00:51:02.000 It's just absurd.

00:51:03.000 Everyone knows that male aggression and male sex drive is very different from female, which is why crime rates are different between male and female.

00:51:09.000 Duh.

00:51:10.000 But we're going to pretend not for purposes of what?

00:51:13.000 Transgender sensitivity? 0.99

00:51:14.000 Absolute silly towns. 1.00

00:51:15.000 Okay. 0.93

00:51:16.000 Good for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal for rejecting that and saying, no, we're not going to forego the argument out of sensitivity.

00:51:21.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate. 0.98

00:51:23.000 So my home state of California is just turning into a garbage heap. 0.95

00:51:31.000 I've lived here literally my entire life.

00:51:33.000 I think every day now about how long we can stay here.

00:51:36.000 The state of California has been transformed into homeless central.

00:51:41.000 We have, at this point, literally hundreds of thousands of homeless people living in the state of California.

00:51:44.000 You cannot drive a freeway in Los Angeles without seeing literal tent cities. 0.99

00:51:48.000 I mean, I'm talking about full-on tent cities.

00:51:51.000 It looks like Hoovervilles.

00:51:52.000 And Governor Gavin Newsom, who is A Ken doll in every way. 1.00

00:51:57.000 He is stupid and he is vacuous and has that plastered back hair. 1.00

00:52:03.000 He was opening a new homeless facility and he explained that California has been nowhere to be found on homelessness. 1.00

00:52:08.000 Weird, because it seems like Jerry Brown was the governor for a thousand years and then you've been the governor for a while.

00:52:12.000 It seems like every major city in Los Angeles has been governed by a Democrat for a very long time and yet somehow you've gotten no handle on homelessness.

00:52:18.000 Not only that, it's gotten massively worse underneath the Democratic purview.

00:52:22.000 Here is Gavin Newsom admitting, Let's just be candid. 0.99

00:52:25.000 The state of California has been nowhere to be found on the damn issue of homelessness. 0.96

00:52:30.000 We haven't been focused on this issue. 0.98

00:52:33.000 There's a reason.

00:52:34.000 Things the way they are.

00:52:36.000 It's because we haven't addressed them.

00:52:37.000 It's happened on our watch over the last decade.

00:52:40.000 In particular, it's really gotten bad in the last decade.

00:52:43.000 And we were just slow to respond.

00:52:45.000 Look, we had a crisis.

00:52:46.000 Governor Brown did an amazing job balancing the budget.

00:52:49.000 We were triaging that.

00:52:51.000 We had a lot of other things that were prioritized, but it got in the way of our focus on this.

00:52:55.000 Did an amazing job balancing the budget.

00:52:56.000 The way that California balanced the budget is by lying about the accrual of interest in CalPERS.

00:53:01.000 They just went to their pension funds, and then they suggested that those pension funds were going to outperform the market by large percentages, and then we wouldn't have to worry about investing on behalf of those pension funds, so we would sign all these bad pension contracts.

00:53:13.000 Jerry Brown did a wonderful job balancing the budget.

00:53:15.000 He's raised the top income tax rate to 13.3%, driving business out of the state at record rates.

00:53:20.000 We actually had a net loss of population in the state of California, I believe, last year.

00:53:24.000 Gavin Newsom, sorry, we couldn't handle the homelessness crisis where you have 65,000 people in Los Angeles County alone who are homeless in the city.

00:53:32.000 And that is very partially as a result of high housing prices.

00:53:36.000 But the regulations in the city of Los Angeles make it nearly impossible to build new housing.

00:53:40.000 And in large part, that is because the cops have been not allowed to arrest people for trespass.

00:53:45.000 And also, there's been tremendous underfunding of the one thing that the government ought to fund in the state of California, namely mental health facilities and drug dryout facilities.

00:53:52.000 And mandatory drug dryout for people who are on the streets shooting heroin into their feet in front of businesses.

00:53:58.000 I mean, you can find open needles half a block from my house, and I live in a fairly nice area.

00:54:03.000 So hearing Gavin Newsom complain that he's done a bad job on what is his watch?

00:54:08.000 Look, the state of California can either wake up or it can die, and right now it is choosing to die, because better to sleep and pretend that everything is fine and the weather here is really nice and we got beaches.

00:54:16.000 But the fact is, this state continues to be a garbage heap, Gavin Newsom continues to make it a garbage heap, and we continue to vote Democrat to make ourselves feel better, even though no Democrat has solved any of these problems in the last decade or more. 0.96

00:54:28.000 It's insane. 0.97

00:54:30.000 I mean, the city of Los Angeles, which I can speak to very personally because I live here, Eric Garcetti, who thought about running for president, has been awful.

00:54:37.000 Every so often, right before there's a photo shoot, basically, they'll clean up the streets a little bit, they'll move some of the homeless people out from underneath the embankments, and then...

00:54:45.000 As soon as the media stopped covering it, those people are right back there.

00:54:49.000 I will say, some of the permanency of these residencies is pretty astonishing to me.

00:54:53.000 The other day, right here in Los Angeles, I saw a person who had wired into, you wonder how folks are living on the streets, this person had actually wired into a streetlamp, which is pretty dangerous, you shouldn't do this, had wired into a streetlamp for electricity.

00:55:06.000 It actually pulled off the plate at the base of a streetlamp and had wired into the streetlamp.

00:55:13.000 And not only have they wired into the streetlamp, I saw that they actually had an old-fashioned turntable.

00:55:18.000 They had like an old record player.

00:55:20.000 So we now have hipster homeless people in the city of Los Angeles.

00:55:23.000 We actually have people who are not satisfied with the quality of digital music.

00:55:27.000 Right?

00:55:27.000 They need the original vinyl.

00:55:30.000 Now listen, this is not to say that these people are not suffering.

00:55:32.000 I think they are suffering.

00:55:33.000 I think it is absolutely unjust and unfair and not right and disgusting that the solution of this state and of this city is to leave them living in their own filth on street corners and then pretend that that is what is called freedom.

00:55:44.000 It is not.

00:55:44.000 A huge percentage of these folks are people suffering from mental illness.

00:55:48.000 A huge percentage of these folks are people who are suffering from severe drug addiction.

00:55:51.000 Leaving them on the streets to get disease and die.

00:55:54.000 is a horrible commentary on what our government thinks freedom is.

00:55:58.000 So according to the government of the state of California, if you work a job and you earn, then freedom is the government takes a huge chunk of your salary.

00:56:07.000 And also, if you're living on the street in your own filth because you're mentally ill or because you have a drug addiction, then freedom is you get to live on your own and police can't even move you.

00:56:16.000 And I know a lot of the members of the LAPD.

00:56:18.000 First of all, it is disgusting that they've turned the LAPD into their solution for failures to deal with drug addiction and failures to deal with severe mental illness.

00:56:27.000 The police were not supposed to be first line of response for people who are mentally ill or drug addicted.

00:56:31.000 That's absurd.

00:56:32.000 They're already stretched too thin and it is not their job.

00:56:34.000 And you wonder how they get into confrontations with the homeless and then you end up with bad tape on the news.

00:56:39.000 That is exactly how.

00:56:40.000 And it gets a lot worse when you suggest the police cannot even move bags of garbage on the street.

00:56:45.000 Thanks to ACLU action in the city of Los Angeles, The police could actually be sued if they move a shopping cart full of garbage.

00:56:53.000 Seriously.

00:56:53.000 Because this has been declared the personal property of people living on the streets.

00:56:57.000 Even though they are living on the streets that you and I pay for as taxpayers.

00:57:02.000 And provide a disease threat.

00:57:04.000 And provide a violence threat.

00:57:06.000 How many situations have we had in the nicer part of the cities?

00:57:08.000 I'm talking about like Hollywood Boulevard, like Hollywood and Vine, areas of the city that are tourist centers.

00:57:13.000 We've had people who have been attacked and buckets of hot feces dumped on their head in the middle of the city.

00:57:19.000 Seriously.

00:57:20.000 We've had people stabbed to death in the middle of the city by homeless folks who are suffering from severe schizophrenia, deep forms of mental illness, drug addiction.

00:57:28.000 And the city's solution is to have Gavin Newsom get up there and say, well, you know, we've been ignoring the problem.

00:57:33.000 Here's the bottom line is, here's the bottom line.

00:57:35.000 The voters of the state have not forced Democrats to deal with the problem because there's no incentive to deal with the problem.

00:57:39.000 All that the Democrats are elected to do is continue signing lucrative government contracts with massive unions who then spend that money to re-elect the government employees and grow the bureaucracy and grow the state, a state that does not protect its own citizens and just drains them dry.

00:57:53.000 And it's going to get worse.

00:57:54.000 It's not going to get better.

00:57:55.000 The tax rates will continue to go up.

00:57:57.000 The law enforcement will continue to drop.

00:57:59.000 The people stuck in the middle are the cops and the taxpaying citizens. 0.85

00:58:02.000 Gavin Newsom's a disgrace.

00:58:03.000 He'll run for president anyway in a couple of years, if the Democrats don't win. 1.00

00:58:07.000 It's just, it's ridiculous.

00:58:09.000 This state, this state is on its last legs and Gavin Newsom proves it.

00:58:12.000 We'll see you here later today for two additional hours of content, or we'll see you here tomorrow.

00:58:15.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.

00:58:15.000 Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.

00:58:17.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.

00:58:25.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.

00:58:27.000 Executive producer Jeremy Boring.

00:58:28.000 Senior producer Jonathan Hay.

00:58:30.000 Supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.

00:58:33.000 Assistant director Pavel Lydowsky.

00:58:35.000 Technical producer Austin Stevens.

00:58:36.000 Playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan.

00:58:39.000 Associate producer Katie Swinnerton.

00:58:41.000 Edited by Adam Siovitz.

00:58:42.000 Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.

00:58:44.000 Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.

00:58:46.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.

00:58:48.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2020.

00:58:50.000 Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.

00:58:53.000 You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.

00:58:59.000 But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.

The Ben Shapiro Show - January 20, 2020

The Impeachment Trial Of The New Century | Ep. 935

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript