The Ben Shapiro Show


The Schiff Hits The Fan | Ep. 897


Summary

The New York Times says that the testimony from William T. J. Taylor was a bombshell . But is it? Or was there nothing new to be learned from it? And why is the media so focused on the optics and not the substance of the testimony? Ben Shapiro takes a look at the media coverage of the hearings, and asks whether there was any bombshell testimony at all. The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN. To find a list of our sponsors and show-related promo codes, go to gimlet.fm/sponsorships and use promo code: CRIMINALS at checkout to get 10% off your first month with discount code CRIMIALS. The show is also available on most major podcast directories, including Audible, iTunes, and Podcoin. Thanks for listening and share the podcast with your fellow podcasting friends! Ben Shapiro is a writer, comedian, and podcaster. His latest novel Other Words For Smoke is out now, which is out in paperback! If you haven t yet, you can get a copy of the book, "The Devil Next Door" for free on Amazon Prime, wherever you get your hard drive, for only $99.99, and includes an ad-free version of the podcast is available on Audible and Vimeo for free. . The book is available in Kindle and Audible for only 99 places nationwide. You can get 20% off for a limited edition edition edition of The Devilproof paperback edition of the novelist edition, The Devil's Guide to the White House Journalist, out now. by clicking here. You won't have to pay postage, they won't get a discount anywhere else, but you'll get a free shipping deal, they'll get the book for that too get it for free, too get a $99, but they'll also get the ad-only deal, and it'll be shipping it on the best of course, and they'll have it on Prime Video, too, and shipping it's also get all that'll get you an ad free, free shipping, and a limited promo code, too will you get it'll get it's best of all, free of course you'll be getting all that, plus a $5 stars and a lifetime of VIP access, and all other places get $5, plus shipping and shipping is free, plus all other options, plus they'll receive all kinds of other goodies, too!


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Public hearings begin and we review the supposedly bombshell testimony of the Democratic witnesses.
00:00:05.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:00:05.000 This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
00:00:11.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
00:00:13.000 Why have you not gotten a VPN yet?
00:00:16.000 Visit ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
00:00:19.000 Okay, we got a ton to get to today.
00:00:20.000 I'll tell you a little bit later on in the show about how things went at Boston University last night.
00:00:24.000 It was pretty interesting and I think a lot of fun.
00:00:27.000 But of course, we begin with the news of the day, which is all the fallout from yesterday's bombshell testimony.
00:00:32.000 Oh, much bombshell.
00:00:33.000 Okay, so here is the way that the New York Times is covering this thing.
00:00:37.000 Their headline says, behind a star witness, Democrats take their impeachment case to the public.
00:00:41.000 Ooh, ah, a star witness.
00:00:44.000 They say their goal is to transform what might seem like an abstract debate over foreign policy into high crimes and misdemeanors in the public mind.
00:00:49.000 As Republicans argue, there is no case for impeachment.
00:00:52.000 Peter Baker is the writer.
00:00:53.000 He says, William Taylor was the witness that Democrats had hoped Robert Mueller would be, but was not.
00:00:57.000 The image, at least, of a wise, fatherly figure with Kevlar credibility Expressing restrained but unmistakable disapproval of what he found when he turned over the rock.
00:01:07.000 Objective media coverage right here.
00:01:08.000 So much journalism.
00:01:10.000 House Democrats let off their highly anticipated impeachment hearings on Wednesday.
00:01:14.000 with a figure projecting probity, a combat veteran turned career diplomat who narrated with a deep baritone voice reminiscent of Walter Cronkite's what he saw as the corruption of American foreign policy to advance President Trump's personal political interests.
00:01:27.000 It was not clear that minds were changed.
00:01:29.000 Shouldn't you lead with that, right?
00:01:30.000 Isn't that the question?
00:01:31.000 Is whether any minds were changed or whether the testimony itself changed anything or offered anything that was bombshell anew as opposed to, he appeared to be a gray fox, this William Taylor fellow.
00:01:42.000 Patriotic, stolid man.
00:01:44.000 This was a Hero of the Republic.
00:01:46.000 And because we've heard the Hero of the Republic routine before from the media, it didn't change anything.
00:01:50.000 James Comey, Hero of the Republic.
00:01:53.000 Andrew McCabe, Hero of the Republic.
00:01:56.000 Vindman, hero of the Republic, and now it's William Taylor, hero of the Republic.
00:01:59.000 Now, listen, you look at his public service, the guy is, in fact, a hero of the Republic for his public service.
00:02:05.000 But that does not mean that he testified as to anything impeachable yesterday.
00:02:09.000 And yet the media are making this out to be really about the optics.
00:02:11.000 And that, in the end, really is sort of, it betrays the agenda.
00:02:15.000 The agenda here is that this is all about the optics and not about anything new.
00:02:19.000 Nothing new has actually happened here.
00:02:20.000 That's the dirty little secret, because we're going to go through the testimony yesterday, and nothing new, no new ground was broken.
00:02:26.000 Instead, it was all the same ground that we've heard before, sort of trod over repeatedly.
00:02:31.000 And so in terms of substance, I don't think the American people are going to hear anything new that changes their mind.
00:02:36.000 But in terms of optics, the Democrats are hoping that if they bring out a bunch of gravely voiced, very somber speakers who have long histories in American foreign policy, then this will somehow turn the American public against Trump.
00:02:48.000 Well, if people cared about that, Trump wouldn't be president.
00:02:50.000 Let's face this thing, okay?
00:02:51.000 Donald Trump was not elected because people had a ton of respect for America's institutions.
00:02:55.000 He was elected specifically because people did not have a ton of respect in America's institutions, and putting out somebody with Walter Cronkite's voice isn't going to change any of that, just on a purely political level.
00:03:05.000 But the New York Times says it was not clear that minds were changed.
00:03:08.000 Certainly, they were not inside the room and most likely not elsewhere on Capitol Hill, where Republicans and Democrats were locked into their positions long ago.
00:03:14.000 Nor were there any immediate signs that the hearing penetrated the general public.
00:03:18.000 While major television networks broke into regular programming to carry it live, there was little sense of a riveted country putting everything aside to watch, a la Watergate.
00:03:25.000 Okay, so then what are we talking about?
00:03:28.000 This is my favorite line from the New York Times.
00:03:28.000 I love this line.
00:03:30.000 It's just spectacular.
00:03:31.000 But whether or not voters were watching, history certainly was.
00:03:36.000 What the F is that supposed to mean?
00:03:38.000 History was watching.
00:03:40.000 Like seriously, what does that mean?
00:03:40.000 What is that?
00:03:42.000 History was watching.
00:03:43.000 History's watching everything.
00:03:44.000 History's watching you on the toilet.
00:03:46.000 If by history is watching, you mean that history is something that happens and then people later read about it.
00:03:53.000 That could be anything, right?
00:03:54.000 It could be anything.
00:03:55.000 History was, well, I mean, if history was watching, that changes everything, New York Times.
00:03:59.000 You've changed everything, New York Times.
00:04:01.000 Amazing.
00:04:02.000 Over the course of five hours of relatively sober testimony, interrupted by fewer partisan histrionics than might've been expected, Mr. Taylor, the top American diplomat in Ukraine, and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, according to the New York Times, laid out what they saw of the president's efforts to pressure a foreign power to provide damaging information about his Democratic rivals.
00:04:20.000 Mr. Taylor was the star witness Democrats have sought.
00:04:23.000 For a long time.
00:04:24.000 As opposed to Mueller, who sort of bumbled and bumbled and looked old.
00:04:27.000 Like Mr. Mueller.
00:04:28.000 Mr. Taylor, 72, is a septuagenarian Vietnam veteran with a chiseled face and reassuring gray hair.
00:04:35.000 I didn't realize that gray hair was reassuring.
00:04:37.000 I'll have to tell my wife about that as I age here.
00:04:39.000 My hair is reassuring.
00:04:41.000 That's some solid writing right there.
00:04:43.000 Reassuring gray hair.
00:04:44.000 When was the last time you were like, ah, you know, I'm feeling a little bit nervous.
00:04:47.000 Oh, thank God, a man with gray hair.
00:04:49.000 Ah, I'm so reassured now.
00:04:51.000 A chiseled face and reassuring gray hair after a lifetime of service to his country.
00:04:54.000 But where Mr. Mueller seemed unsteady and uncertain last summer, when he testified about his special counsel investigation into Russian interference, Mr. Taylor came across as calm, confident, and in command.
00:05:04.000 Ooh, alliteration.
00:05:05.000 Calm, confident, cool.
00:05:06.000 Collected.
00:05:07.000 In command.
00:05:08.000 Of the facts as he knew them.
00:05:10.000 With a more in sadness than anger tone, he told lawmakers that in decades of public service under administrations of both parties, he had never seen any president warp foreign policy for his own personal advantage, the way Mr. Trump tried to do.
00:05:20.000 But, Mr. Taylor was careful to retain an official neutrality on what Congress should do with his testimony, and when lawmakers tried to goad him into taking a more political stance, he smiled serenely and declined to take the bait.
00:05:31.000 Okay, so this was the take from the New York Times, and the take from the Washington Post was quite similar.
00:05:36.000 The take from the Washington Post says new testimony ties Trump more directly to Ukraine pressure campaign.
00:05:42.000 Elise Wiebeck reporting.
00:05:44.000 After weeks in which President Trump's top aides have figured as the major players in the Ukraine narrative testimony in the first few hours of the public impeachment hearings Wednesday thrust Trump himself back to center stage.
00:05:54.000 Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor told lawmakers about a previously unknown effort by the president to make sure Ukraine was looking into his political opponents.
00:06:01.000 A phone conversation he said Trump had with the top U.S.
00:06:03.000 diplomat Asking about the status of the investigations.
00:06:07.000 The phone conversations described by Taylor gave Democrats a chance to renew questions about Trump's personal involvement in the effort to push Ukraine to investigate his political opponents while the United States withheld security assistance and a sought-after White House meeting.
00:06:22.000 We'll hear about exactly what Taylor had to say on this in just one second.
00:06:26.000 Okay, but the media are trying to claim basically that the testimony, even though it didn't change things, it probably should change things.
00:06:33.000 Even though it didn't make things any different, even though there wasn't anything new, there was something brand new.
00:06:39.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:06:40.000 The truth or falsity of those statements.
00:06:42.000 Because here's the reality.
00:06:44.000 I'm trying to be as objective as I can.
00:06:46.000 If I say that a hearing is bad for Trump, I'll say that a hearing is bad for Trump.
00:06:46.000 And you'll know.
00:06:50.000 If I think that a phone call was bad for Trump, I'll say it's bad for Trump.
00:06:53.000 I at least try to analyze these things as objectively as I can, even though I think that the Democrats have not proven their case.
00:06:58.000 I don't think that yesterday was particularly bad for Trump.
00:07:00.000 I really don't think it hurt him in any serious way.
00:07:02.000 The media are trying to spin it that way.
00:07:04.000 I do not think that that is accurate.
00:07:06.000 That's why they're sort of falling back on the line of the New York Times.
00:07:10.000 History was watching.
00:07:11.000 Yeah, well, history can watch all it wants, but it hadn't happened yet.
00:07:15.000 You know, come back to me in 20 years and we'll talk about how history watched.
00:07:17.000 You don't even know who's gonna win the next election.
00:07:19.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:07:20.000 First, let's talk about the watch upon your wrist.
00:07:24.000 Okay, so I have this brand new watch.
00:07:25.000 Look at this thing.
00:07:26.000 This is beautiful.
00:07:27.000 This is a watch from Vincero.
00:07:28.000 Vincero, check this thing out.
00:07:30.000 It is spectacular, right?
00:07:31.000 It's a really nice watch.
00:07:32.000 And it will not cost you a fortune.
00:07:33.000 This one is called the Rogue.
00:07:34.000 It is a chronograph.
00:07:36.000 I'm kind of a watch guy.
00:07:37.000 I really do like watches.
00:07:38.000 I like high-end watches.
00:07:39.000 I like fashion watches.
00:07:40.000 This is a really solid, durable, beautiful watch.
00:07:42.000 It really is well-crafted.
00:07:44.000 Head over to VinceroWatches.com forward slash Shapiro to see my favorite picks.
00:07:49.000 And don't forget to use code Shapiro at checkout for 15% off your entire order.
00:07:52.000 I like Vincero watches so much, by the way.
00:07:54.000 I just got one for my sister for her birthday.
00:07:56.000 I gave one to my dad.
00:07:57.000 You can engrave their watches, which is actually a pretty cool feature.
00:08:00.000 In fact, Vincero sent me one that says, wait for it, facts don't care about your feelings on the back of the watch.
00:08:04.000 Which is an awesome feature when you're getting a gift for somebody for the holidays or for a birthday.
00:08:08.000 I mean, we're coming up on the Christmas season, so it's a great time to get somebody a Vincero watch.
00:08:12.000 From their small batch manufacturing process to their customer service, Vincero does everything in-house.
00:08:16.000 Nothing is actually outsourced.
00:08:18.000 Vincero believes that watches make a statement about you, and they do, right?
00:08:20.000 A nice watch is something that catches the eye.
00:08:22.000 It starts conversations.
00:08:24.000 Plus, you feel good every time you look down and you see what time it is.
00:08:27.000 People notice a watch if you wear one, so why not wear something nice?
00:08:30.000 You really should check out Vincero today.
00:08:32.000 The deal is too good to pass up.
00:08:34.000 Go to vincerowatches.com.
00:08:35.000 That's V-I-N-C-E-R-O watches.com forward slash Shapiro and use code Shapiro to get 15% off.
00:08:42.000 That is V-I-N-C-E-R-O watches.com forward slash Shapiro.
00:08:46.000 Use code Shapiro to get 15% off.
00:08:48.000 15% off.
00:08:48.000 They have a wide variety of styles, right?
00:08:50.000 I've got these.
00:08:50.000 This is a little bit more sporty.
00:08:52.000 The Rogue that I'm wearing.
00:08:53.000 They've got other types of watch that are a little bit less sporty, but are great for dinner.
00:08:58.000 They even have some automatic watches, which is really cool.
00:09:00.000 If you're not a watch person, an automatic watch is one that's not run off battery power.
00:09:03.000 It actually just charges off of the movement of your wrist.
00:09:06.000 So they've got all sorts of varieties, all sorts of colors.
00:09:09.000 They've got for men.
00:09:09.000 They've got for women.
00:09:10.000 It really is fantastic.
00:09:11.000 Go check them out right now at VinceroWatches.com forward slash Shapiro.
00:09:15.000 Use code Shapiro to get 15% off.
00:09:16.000 Okay.
00:09:19.000 The Democrats thought they were going to have a big day yesterday and it turned out not to be a big day for them yesterday.
00:09:24.000 It started off with Adam Schiff at the very opening saying this this process was meant to be a punishment for criminal activity not a punishment for political activity but a lot of the testimony was based around the opposite idea that a bunch of people who are in the foreign policy establishment didn't like Trump's foreign policy and they were angry at Trump's foreign policy and that's the real reason why they were going after Trump, right?
00:09:43.000 The real reason they're going after Trump is because they disagreed with him withholding aid from Ukraine and they couldn't see why he was doing it.
00:09:49.000 And so they were mad about that.
00:09:50.000 Now, does that mean that Trump was doing something that was corrupt or does it mean they just disagreed with him about the foreign policy?
00:09:55.000 Here is Adam Schiff at the opening suggesting that impeachment was originally meant to be a punishment for criminal activity, which sort of cuts.
00:10:00.000 Again, he hasn't proved any criminal activity here.
00:10:02.000 Our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency, but the future of the presidency itself and what kind of conduct or misconduct the American people may come to expect from their commander in chief.
00:10:16.000 Thank you.
00:10:17.000 There are few actions as consequential as the impeachment of a president.
00:10:22.000 While the founders did not intend that impeachment be employed for mere differences over policy, they also made impeachment a constitutional process Okay, so again, he's saying this is not a political thing, it's a criminal thing, and yet they have yet to bring forth the elements necessary to prove any sort of criminal abuse of power.
00:10:43.000 Schiff, I do love that Schiff is doing this routine where he pretends that he's reserving judgment.
00:10:48.000 He simultaneously said that he's reserving judgment and also that Trump's abuse of power is terrible, which means he's not reserving judgment, obviously.
00:10:54.000 Here's Adam Schiff suggesting that he is reserving judgment in all of this.
00:10:58.000 That's right, he's opening an impeachment inquiry where he's reserving ju- Like, really, if you believe this, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn.
00:11:02.000 It's available for just a couple of dollars and I can make this magic happen just for you right now.
00:11:07.000 Here's Adam Schiff talking about reserving judgment.
00:11:09.000 I'm reserving judgment on the ultimate questions once the testimony is complete about what should follow from this.
00:11:18.000 What are the consequences?
00:11:20.000 It is certainly the case that The founders were deeply concerned that a president of the United States one day may be elected to office that would put his or her interests above the country, that would sacrifice our national security either to get a political or personal favor or owing to some foreign influence.
00:11:42.000 Oh, he's holding off on judgment.
00:11:44.000 That's the sound of a man holding off on judgment, flanked by a bunch of other people holding off on judgment, namely Democrats who are going to vote for impeachment, right?
00:11:51.000 So listen, this thing's already been preset.
00:11:53.000 We already know that.
00:11:54.000 That's why when Devin Nunes, who is the Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is the Republican leader in the House Intelligence Committee, when he says that this is just a low-rent sequel to the Russia hoax, that has some credibility, given the fact that it does feel like a partisan hit by Democrats.
00:12:09.000 Now that doesn't mean that there aren't questions to be asked about Trump's behavior, I've said this all along, but does this feel like a partisan exercise?
00:12:14.000 You bet your ass it feels like a partisan exercise.
00:12:16.000 Here's Devin Nunes pointing this out.
00:12:18.000 Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent, I'd like to welcome you here.
00:12:21.000 I'd like to congratulate you for passing the Democrat Star Chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the Capitol.
00:12:32.000 It seems you agreed, witting or unwittingly, to participate in a drama.
00:12:38.000 But the main performance, the Russia hoax, has ended.
00:12:42.000 And you've been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.
00:12:47.000 Okay, so that's an overstatement because, again, we don't know exactly what all the evidence is, but there is a widespread perception in the United States, and I think that it's a well-based perception, that this is more of a partisan effort than it is really an effort to curb the misuse of the power of the presidency.
00:13:01.000 Okay, so then we get to the actual testimony, and here is the problem for the Democrats.
00:13:05.000 The actual testimony didn't really change anything.
00:13:08.000 It didn't really change anything.
00:13:10.000 So, the only real bombshell yesterday is that Bill Taylor suggested that he heard somebody from his staff tell him about a conversation that he overheard with President Trump in which Trump was talking about investigations.
00:13:23.000 And he didn't hear Trump's side of the conversation, apparently he only heard the person on the other side of the conversation.
00:13:28.000 And this is Bill Taylor's account of this magical, magical conversation.
00:13:33.000 So Taylor had suggested That there was a previously unknown effort by the president to make sure Ukraine was looking into his political opponents, a phone conversation he said Trump had with a top U.S.
00:13:42.000 diplomat asking about the status of the investigations.
00:13:45.000 But the diplomat was not Bill Taylor.
00:13:48.000 And herein lies the problem.
00:13:49.000 Bill Taylor, their star witness, a man with reassuring gray hair.
00:13:53.000 I mean, that hair, so reassuring.
00:13:56.000 Yesterday, he says, listen, I can't tell you what was in Trump's head.
00:13:59.000 I can tell you what I heard from people.
00:14:01.000 What the hell does that, like, really?
00:14:03.000 You can tell us what you heard from people?
00:14:05.000 This would not make for good evidence in any criminal trial.
00:14:09.000 I can tell you what I heard from people.
00:14:11.000 I can tell you what I heard from people.
00:14:12.000 You can tell me what you heard from people.
00:14:13.000 We can all talk about what we heard from people.
00:14:15.000 And then we can all be reporters for TMZ.
00:14:17.000 Like, what does this mean?
00:14:18.000 Here's Bill Taylor.
00:14:19.000 I can tell you what I heard from people.
00:14:20.000 Very important stuff, what he heard from people.
00:14:23.000 Mr. Goldman, what I can do here for you today is tell you what I heard from people.
00:14:30.000 And in this case, it was what I heard from Ambassador Sondland.
00:14:35.000 He described conditions And you heard that from Ambassador Sondland himself, correct?
00:14:52.000 Correct.
00:14:53.000 Okay, so he can tell you what he heard from people, which is very exciting what he heard from people.
00:14:56.000 Now, does that matter?
00:14:57.000 It matters when they bring Sondland in, right?
00:14:59.000 Because now they're going to say, well, either Taylor is lying or Sondland is lying or somebody's making mistakes somewhere in here.
00:15:04.000 So it matters for Sondland.
00:15:04.000 But does that go to Trump's state of mind?
00:15:07.000 Not particularly, because again, Taylor has never had a conversation with Trump.
00:15:12.000 And yet, you had Taylor drawing these fantastical conclusions about Trump.
00:15:17.000 I mean, these very strong conclusions about his perception of what Trump was doing.
00:15:21.000 Listen, he can speculate as much as he wants, and he can draw any conclusion he wants.
00:15:24.000 It's a free country.
00:15:25.000 And I'm not saying that his conclusion is implausible.
00:15:28.000 All I'm saying is that his conclusion is based purely on conversations that he had with people who were not Donald Trump.
00:15:34.000 We'll get to that in just one second.
00:15:35.000 First, let us talk about the status of your home right now.
00:15:40.000 Does everything look good at home?
00:15:41.000 You just did the floors nice?
00:15:42.000 The walls are nice?
00:15:43.000 And then you look around, something looks a little dingy?
00:15:45.000 Yeah, it's the window coverings.
00:15:46.000 You haven't thought about them, have you?
00:15:47.000 Have you?
00:15:48.000 Well, you should be thinking about them now, since I've mentioned it.
00:15:50.000 Go check out blinds.com.
00:15:52.000 With 15 million windows covered, over 30,000 five-star customer reviews, blinds.com is America's number one online retailer for affordable, quality custom window coverings.
00:16:00.000 Blinds.com makes the whole experience fast and easy.
00:16:02.000 Plus, every single order gets free samples, free shipping, a free online design consultation.
00:16:07.000 You just send them pictures of your home and they will send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme, furniture, and specific rooms.
00:16:15.000 They'll even send you free samples to ensure that everything looks as good in person as it does online and that every order gets free shipping.
00:16:21.000 Here's the best part.
00:16:21.000 If you accidentally mismeasure or you pick the wrong color, if you screw up, Blinds.com will remake your blinds for free.
00:16:27.000 They've made it really easy for you.
00:16:28.000 Go check them out right now.
00:16:29.000 For a limited time, my listeners get $20 off at Blinds.com when you use promo code BEN.
00:16:36.000 That is blinds.com, promo code Ben for 20 bucks off, forward blinds, cellular shades, roller shades, and more, blinds.com, promo code Ben, rules and restrictions do indeed apply.
00:16:44.000 Okay, so, here is Bill Taylor drawing a very strong conclusion from the fact that he talked to people, to people.
00:16:50.000 Here's Taylor saying, well, you know, Trump cares more about investigating Biden than Ukraine.
00:16:54.000 How does he draw that conclusion?
00:16:55.000 Well, he's talked to people, and those people have talked to people, and those people in turn have talked to other people who once talked to somebody who knew Trump.
00:17:01.000 So your staff member over here is the president asking about the investigations, meaning Burisma and the Bidens in 2016.
00:17:09.000 And Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward?
00:17:14.000 He did.
00:17:17.000 And I think you said that after the call, when your staff asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought of Ukraine, his response was that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden?
00:17:29.000 Is that right?
00:17:30.000 And Burisma, yes sir.
00:17:31.000 Okay, so here's Taylor talking about what Sunland allegedly said to him.
00:17:34.000 As I've said all along, Sunland's testimony is gonna matter.
00:17:37.000 I'm not sure that Bill Taylor's testimony matters a whole hell of a lot.
00:17:39.000 The person in the crosshairs now is Sunland.
00:17:42.000 And then Taylor said, well, I came to believe that because Sunland told me that.
00:17:45.000 Okay, fine.
00:17:46.000 Well, again, you're a third party.
00:17:48.000 And then Taylor says that Giuliani wanted to get Biden.
00:17:50.000 That it was his perception that Giuliani was after Biden.
00:17:52.000 He wasn't after investigating supposed corruption in 2016 or CrowdStrike.
00:17:56.000 He wasn't after looking into the situation in Ukraine during 2016 and whether they were interfering in the election.
00:18:02.000 No, Bill Taylor says no, it was Giuliani, who's Trump's personal lawyer, who wanted to get Biden.
00:18:05.000 Are you, Giuliani, promoting U.S.
00:18:08.000 national interests or policy in Ukraine, Ambassador?
00:18:13.000 I don't think so, ma'am.
00:18:14.000 Mr. Kent?
00:18:15.000 No, he was not.
00:18:17.000 What interest do you believe he was promoting, Mr. Kent?
00:18:22.000 I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle.
00:18:28.000 Ambassador Taylor?
00:18:31.000 What interest do you believe he was promoting?
00:18:33.000 I agree with Mr. Kent.
00:18:35.000 Okay, so again, that is their perception, and that does not really make much of a difference.
00:18:40.000 I'm sure the Democrats believe the same thing.
00:18:41.000 I'm sure there are some people who, again, it's plausible, who believe that Giuliani's sole task in Ukraine was to dig up dirt on Biden, but that would not really explain why he was so concerned with, for example, the CrowdStrike server, which was an evidence-less conspiracy theory, nor does it really explain why he was concerned about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, because that has nothing to do with Biden.
00:18:59.000 So here's the question.
00:19:00.000 Why was Giuliani spending time investigating those other things if it was all really about the Bidens?
00:19:06.000 Okay, then there was George Kent.
00:19:07.000 So George Kent is this undersecretary of state.
00:19:09.000 He's the man who you will see if you subscribe to the show, who you will see sitting next to Bill Taylor.
00:19:14.000 He doesn't get the same sort of enormous media plaudits that Taylor does, right?
00:19:18.000 Because he wears a bowtie, which means that he doesn't have as much gravitas, because bowties don't have as much gravitas as reassuring gray hair, obviously.
00:19:24.000 Well, Kent He basically suggested many of the same things that Taylor did, but he made some claims that were also a little bit outlandish.
00:19:35.000 I mean, his testimony was a little bit more colorful, actually, which is, I think, why the media is not covering it so much.
00:19:40.000 He said a couple of things that cut in favor of President Trump, and he said a couple of things that cut against President Trump.
00:19:45.000 The first thing that he said is he was asked about conditions being placed on Ukrainian aid, and he said, yeah, conditions have always been placed on Ukrainian aid.
00:19:53.000 Which again is true and cuts in favor of the idea that the president has plenary power over placing conditions on Ukrainian aid so long as it is not a specific design to go after a domestic political opponent.
00:20:02.000 Here's George Kent.
00:20:03.000 There are and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine.
00:20:09.000 Conditions include anti-corruption reforms as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets.
00:20:15.000 The International Monetary Fund does the same thing.
00:20:18.000 Congress and the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
00:20:27.000 Okay, and that's true, right?
00:20:28.000 It is true.
00:20:29.000 Joe Biden put obvious conditions on the ability of Ukraine to receive loan guarantees, for example.
00:20:35.000 The question here is whether it was legit or not.
00:20:37.000 So when people say, well, Trump was withholding the aid, therefore something bad happened.
00:20:40.000 Well, no, it depends on the purpose for which he was withholding the aid.
00:20:43.000 Now, I said yesterday and I've been saying for weeks that this requires us to discern President Trump's intent.
00:20:47.000 Was this about 2016 Ukrainian corruption?
00:20:49.000 Was this about his anger that the media have decided that he won because of Russian interference?
00:20:54.000 And so he was concerned about Ukrainian interference in the election.
00:20:57.000 Was it him going off on some tangential conspiracy theory about 2016?
00:21:00.000 Or was it specifically about Biden?
00:21:02.000 If it was specifically about Biden in 2020, that's impeachable.
00:21:05.000 If it's any of the others, it is not.
00:21:06.000 And I said yesterday, I don't think that Trump had the requisite intent to go after Joe Biden because that does not sound like Trump.
00:21:12.000 Now, I exaggerated a little bit.
00:21:13.000 I said, well, I don't think Trump has the intent to eat a hamburger.
00:21:15.000 Obviously, I am joking when I say that.
00:21:17.000 But I think that the problem for Trump is that it is difficult to discern what the man's intent is because he doesn't tend to have large-scale focused intent over long periods of time.
00:21:27.000 He doesn't tend to have plans.
00:21:28.000 He tends to have, as I said yesterday on the show, a sort of thought vomit when it comes to a lot of these issues.
00:21:34.000 And this is the problem that Democrats have.
00:21:36.000 You paint him as an idiot for years, right?
00:21:37.000 You say that he's a moron for years.
00:21:39.000 You say that he doesn't have the capacity to put together plans for years.
00:21:41.000 And now you have swiveled, and you are saying that he has this very specific plan to get Joe Biden.
00:21:46.000 And not only does he have this plan to get Joe Biden, and he has deployed Giuliani, he has told Giuliani to cover his tracks by asking about crowd strike and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
00:21:55.000 And he has also told Sondland that he wants investigations into ancillary matters not involved with Biden just to cover his tracks.
00:22:01.000 Does that sound like Trump?
00:22:03.000 Does that sound like Trump?
00:22:05.000 Okay, well, even George Kent's testimony seems to suggest more that Rudy Giuliani was mucking things up than that Trump had specific intent to get Joe Biden, even though he believes that Trump had specific intent to get Joe Biden.
00:22:14.000 Here is George Kent suggesting that it was really Giuliani's interference that was screwing with the president's head.
00:22:20.000 Over the course of 2018 and 2019, I became increasingly aware of an effort by Rudy Giuliani and others, including his associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, to run a campaign to smear Ambassador Yovanovitch and other officials at the U.S.
00:22:33.000 Embassy in Kyiv.
00:22:35.000 The chief agitators on the Ukrainian side of this effort were some of those same corrupt former prosecutors I had encountered, particularly Yuri Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin.
00:22:45.000 They were now peddling false information in order to extract revenge against those who had exposed their misconduct.
00:22:52.000 Okay, so, if that is the case, they were peddling false information, and that that was being peddled to Giuliani, who was peddling it to Trump, Is that specific intent to get Joe Biden?
00:23:00.000 Really?
00:23:00.000 Because again, the whole thing comes down to Trump's intent.
00:23:03.000 Did he intend to get Joe Biden or was that part of his bigger ball of random thoughts about Ukraine and his general antipathy toward Ukraine?
00:23:11.000 Okay, we're gonna get to more of George Kent's testimony and then we'll get to the other issues plus the performance of the various players in this drama.
00:23:17.000 We'll get to all of that in just one second.
00:23:19.000 First, let's talk about keeping your home safe.
00:23:20.000 So as you may know, I am now obsessive about safety.
00:23:23.000 We just get all sorts of death threats.
00:23:24.000 Unfortunately, I personally have been made the subject of many death threats just in the past couple of weeks alone.
00:23:30.000 It's just a party.
00:23:31.000 All the time, it's a party.
00:23:32.000 Well, that means that I am obsessed with security, and that's one of the reasons I have Ring.com.
00:23:36.000 Ring helps you stay connected to your home from anywhere.
00:23:40.000 If there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you get an alert.
00:23:42.000 You're able to see, hear, speak to them all from your phone.
00:23:44.000 If you're on the go this season, whether it's across town or across the country, you can check in anytime for some much-needed holiday peace of mind.
00:23:50.000 So I know exactly what is going on on my property, whether or not I am actually at my property, which is fantastic.
00:23:55.000 As a listener, you have a special holiday offer on a Ring Welcome Kit available right now.
00:23:59.000 With the Ring Video Doorbell 2 and a Chime Pro, the Ring Welcome Kit has everything you need to keep an eye on home, no matter what this holiday season brings.
00:24:05.000 You don't have to be a high-profile public figure to worry about your safety at your house.
00:24:08.000 You should be worried about your safety at your house if you're a responsible human being and you have kids, for example, or you just don't want people messing around with your property.
00:24:14.000 With Ring, you're always home.
00:24:15.000 Just go to ring.com forward slash ben.
00:24:18.000 That is ring.com slash ben.
00:24:19.000 Additional terms may apply.
00:24:20.000 Go check them out right now.
00:24:21.000 It's a company I trust with my family's safety, which is my number one issue.
00:24:24.000 Ring.com slash ben.
00:24:26.000 Go check them out right now.
00:24:27.000 Okay, so.
00:24:28.000 Back to George Kent and his testimony.
00:24:30.000 So then George Kent gets into the vagaries of the sort of theories Trump and Giuliani were pursuing.
00:24:37.000 And he says a couple of things.
00:24:38.000 One of them is true and one of them, not so much.
00:24:40.000 So here's the one that, the thing that he says that is true.
00:24:43.000 He says, there is no factual basis to the CrowdStrike theory.
00:24:45.000 Now remember, if you go back to that June 25th phone call between President Trump and Vladimir Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, what you see is that Trump is demanding a few things or requesting a few things.
00:24:53.000 Requesting is probably more accurate from the transcript of the, or the memo That sort of summarizes the transcript of the phone call.
00:25:00.000 So he requests a few things.
00:25:02.000 One, he wants an investigation into Ukrainian corruption surrounding the 2016 election.
00:25:07.000 Two, he wants an investigation into CrowdStrike because he has this weird theory that Hillary Clinton's server was actually not handed over to the FBI because it had been hacked by the Ukrainians, not by the Russians.
00:25:18.000 And that CrowdStrike, the firm that did the actual analysis, is owned by a Ukrainian.
00:25:22.000 And therefore, Hillary Clinton's actual server is buried somewhere in a forest outside of Kiev.
00:25:27.000 Okay?
00:25:27.000 There's not a lot of evidence to that particular theory.
00:25:29.000 And then, there was his talk about Burisma and Biden.
00:25:31.000 So there were a few issues that got mentioned with regard to corruption in Ukraine and Trump's request for investigations.
00:25:37.000 So here's George Kent correctly pointing out there is no factual basis to the CrowdStrike theory.
00:25:41.000 This, of course, is true, but it does not go to whether Trump believes that it was true.
00:25:45.000 Remember, let's say for sake of argument that the CrowdStrike theory were true.
00:25:50.000 Would it be in America's interest to know whether, in fact, the Ukrainians hacked Hillary Clinton's hard drive and the DNC hard drive?
00:25:57.000 Would that be in America's interest to know?
00:25:58.000 Yes, it certainly would.
00:25:59.000 Well, just because Trump believed that bleep loony theory does not mean that he was out to get Joe Biden.
00:26:05.000 In fact, it tends to support the idea that he was out to protect America's interests as he wrongly perceived them with regard to CrowdStrike.
00:26:11.000 So here's George Kent knocking down the CrowdStrike theory.
00:26:14.000 When he talks about this CrowdStrike and the server, what do you understand this to be a reference to?
00:26:21.000 To be honest, I had not heard of CrowdStrike until I read this transcript on September 25th.
00:26:26.000 Do you now understand what it relates to?
00:26:29.000 I understand it has to do with the story that there's a server with missing emails.
00:26:37.000 I also understand that one of the owners of CrowdStrike is a Russian-American.
00:26:45.000 I'm not aware of any Ukrainian connection to the company.
00:26:48.000 Okay, and then Kent says something, so all of that is true.
00:26:51.000 And then Kent is asked about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.
00:26:54.000 Now here he's got a problem, because the fact is that Politico reported, as did other outlets, that there was a nexus between the Ukrainian embassy and the Hillary Clinton campaign, and that a woman named Alexandra Chalupa had been visiting the Ukrainian embassy trying to dig up dirt on Paul Manafort.
00:27:06.000 Okay, those are public reports from Politico.
00:27:09.000 Here's George Kent saying there's no factual basis to claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election.
00:27:13.000 That may be true with regard to Ukraine and hacking into servers, but it is certainly not true with regard to their coordination with the DNC and Hillary Clinton.
00:27:20.000 Now are you aware that this is all part of a larger allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?
00:27:29.000 Yes, that is my understanding.
00:27:31.000 And to your knowledge, is there any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election?
00:27:39.000 To my knowledge, there is no factual basis.
00:27:41.000 No.
00:27:42.000 Well, okay.
00:27:42.000 Okay.
00:27:43.000 How about some Politico's knowledge?
00:27:44.000 How about some mainstream media reports?
00:27:45.000 Because there are those reports out there.
00:27:48.000 So unless he is firmly rebutting the Politico report, I'm not sure what he is talking about.
00:27:51.000 Okay.
00:27:52.000 So there you have the testimony.
00:27:54.000 That is the summary of the testimony.
00:27:55.000 Taylor and Kent basically saying that they, they think very strongly.
00:27:59.000 They have opinions and those opinions are very strong opinions.
00:28:02.000 And those very strong opinions mean that Trump did a very, very bad thing.
00:28:06.000 The only thing that we got new from either of the testimonies here is Bill Taylor suggesting that he had an aide who overheard Gordon Sondland talking to Trump and talking about investigations and how the Ukrainians were going to accede to Trump's request so he should release the aide, right?
00:28:18.000 That is the only thing that is new.
00:28:20.000 That puts pressure on Gordon Sondland, but again, I'm wondering why it is that Bill Taylor is testifying as to what his aide heard from Sondland as opposed to, you know, the aide coming forward and testifying as to what he heard from Sondland, because now we are not talking about Even a secondhand report of what Trump said.
00:28:34.000 We don't even know what Trump said on the other end of the line.
00:28:37.000 All we know is that, apparently, according to Bill Taylor, Trump talked to Sunland, Sunland was at some sort of public restaurant, one of Taylor's aides was at the same restaurant and overheard Sunland's side of the conversation, and then the aide went and talked to Bill Taylor.
00:28:49.000 So, Bill Taylor is now three degrees removed from President Trump.
00:28:52.000 I am more closely related to Kevin Bacon than that.
00:28:55.000 Again, that doesn't mean that the account of the conversation is false.
00:28:58.000 It just means that it doesn't say anything about what Trump was even saying on the other side of the conversation.
00:29:02.000 And this is a point you're going to hear Republicans hammer home in just one moment.
00:29:06.000 Because this really was the Republican counterattack was, you're bringing forth these star witnesses and none of them have ever had a conversation with Trump.
00:29:12.000 They're removed from the actual Policymaking apparatus.
00:29:16.000 And that, by the way, is their complaint, right?
00:29:17.000 Their complaint is, we were removed from the policymaking apparatus.
00:29:20.000 We were not part of these conversations.
00:29:21.000 So, you can't have it both ways.
00:29:23.000 Either you're mad that you were not part of the conversations, and therefore you are not privy to the information that people who were part of the conversations are privy to.
00:29:30.000 Or, you were part of the conversation, but you don't have enough evidence to get Trump.
00:29:33.000 So one of those two things is true.
00:29:35.000 And both of them establish that you are not, in fact, star witnesses, that you are, in fact, just the best the Democrats can offer right now, because the fact is that if you actually wanted to break down what was going on in Trump's mind, you need to talk to one of three or four people.
00:29:47.000 Rudy Giuliani, Gordon Sondland, who will be called, you need to talk to Mick Mulvaney, maybe John Bolton.
00:29:53.000 That's about it.
00:29:55.000 I'm not aware that anybody else was privy to the mind of President Trump.
00:29:58.000 And yet Democrats and the media are trotting up Bill Taylor, who, again, has never spoken to Trump, and George Kent, who has never spoken to Trump.
00:30:05.000 You're going to hear Republicans hammer home this point, and it is a very telling point.
00:30:08.000 We're going to get to that in just one second.
00:30:10.000 First, it's about the time of year for open enrollment, and that means that you are checking out.
00:30:14.000 You are looking right now.
00:30:16.000 At your life insurance policies.
00:30:17.000 Well, good for you.
00:30:18.000 You should.
00:30:19.000 But if you think that that life insurance that you got right now from your employer is actually going to cover your needs, probably not.
00:30:25.000 The fact is that most people need about 10 times the life insurance coverage they get through their jobs.
00:30:29.000 And that means that your employer to life insurance is leaving you underinsured.
00:30:31.000 That's where Policy Genius can help.
00:30:33.000 Policy Genius is the easy way to shop for a life insurance plan that is not tied to your job.
00:30:36.000 In minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers and find your best price.
00:30:40.000 Once you apply, the Policy Genius team will handle all the paperwork and the red tape.
00:30:44.000 The life insurance you buy through PolicyGenius also stays with you.
00:30:47.000 It's not attached to your employer, so if, God forbid, you lose your job, you still have that life insurance policy.
00:30:52.000 So when you're looking at your workplace benefits this month, make sure to double-check those life insurance options.
00:30:55.000 By the way, if you have other insurance needs, you should also check out PolicyGenius because they do home insurance and auto insurance and disability insurance.
00:31:01.000 It's your one-stop shop for insurance, basically.
00:31:03.000 Head on over to PolicyGenius.com to get quotes and apply in minutes.
00:31:07.000 That's what responsible human beings do.
00:31:07.000 Insure yourself.
00:31:09.000 Policygenius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
00:31:12.000 Check them out at policygenius.com.
00:31:14.000 Get those quotes and apply in minutes.
00:31:16.000 Alrighty.
00:31:16.000 We're going to get to more of this because there's plenty more to get to.
00:31:19.000 More analysis.
00:31:20.000 The Republican fight back.
00:31:22.000 The Democrats kind of blowing it.
00:31:23.000 We'll get to that in a second.
00:31:24.000 If you're not already a subscriber, however, you are really missing out.
00:31:26.000 You need to subscribe.
00:31:27.000 Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe for as little as 10 bucks a month.
00:31:30.000 You get all of our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts, our full show library, select bonus content, our exclusive Daily Wire app, which is, in fact, a pretty great feature if you haven't checked it out yet.
00:31:40.000 If you choose the new all-access plan, you get all of that, plus the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr and our brand new Ask Me Anything style discussion feature that allows you to engage our hosts, writers, and special guests on a weekly basis.
00:31:50.000 By the way, how popular is this Leftist Tears Tumblr right here?
00:31:53.000 This magnificent piece of vesselware?
00:31:55.000 How great is it?
00:31:56.000 It's so great that Elizabeth Warren is now copying it.
00:31:59.000 She put out a mug that says on it, billionaire's tears.
00:32:01.000 There's only one problem with that.
00:32:04.000 The sales of those mugs are powered by Spotify.
00:32:07.000 I believe it's, yeah, it's Spotify, right?
00:32:09.000 And Spotify happens to be owned by a billionaire, so billionaire tiers.
00:32:12.000 Buy a mug to catch Elizabeth Warren's billionaire tiers in order so that the money can go to a billionaire.
00:32:18.000 Pretty great cell phone there from Elizabeth Warren.
00:32:21.000 So Shopify, Shopify is the owner.
00:32:23.000 Pretty spectacular stuff.
00:32:25.000 In any case, if you want the original, the greatest, and the most accurate, go check out Daily Wire, right now, and get the subscription and get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
00:32:33.000 Stop depriving yourself, come join the fun.
00:32:34.000 We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
00:32:37.000 All righty, so here's the problem, right?
00:32:45.000 All of these witnesses, as I say, Taylor, Kent, these are people who are not first-hand witnesses to events that actually matter.
00:32:51.000 They are second-hand witnesses to all of the actual information that is flowing.
00:32:55.000 They are third-hand, fourth-hand witnesses in some cases.
00:32:58.000 And this is how you end up with the bizarre spectacle of one of the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.
00:33:04.000 His name is Quigley, suggesting that hearsay can be better evidence than direct evidence, which is just no, no, that's incorrect, sir.
00:33:12.000 Here is Representative Quigley.
00:33:14.000 I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created, needed, No, that's Mike Quigley from Illinois being a horrible lawyer, apparently.
00:33:31.000 No, that is not right.
00:33:32.000 Hearsay is generally not better than direct evidence.
00:33:35.000 in this sense.
00:33:36.000 Nope.
00:33:38.000 No, that's Mike Quigley from Illinois being a horrible lawyer, apparently.
00:33:41.000 No, that is not right.
00:33:42.000 Hearsay is generally not better than direct evidence.
00:33:44.000 And when he talks about the exceptions to hearsay, exceptions to the hearsay rule generally include things like party admissions and statements against interest, but it actually has to include, you know, like the party themselves, not like a third party saying something or a dying declaration, which again comes directly from the party or past recollection record, right?
00:34:02.000 These are some of the exceptions.
00:34:03.000 None of those apply here.
00:34:04.000 When we're talking here, say we're not just talking about like somebody said that Trump said.
00:34:07.000 They're talking about somebody said that an aide said that Sondland said that Trump said.
00:34:11.000 No, that is not better than direct evidence.
00:34:14.000 It certainly, certainly is not.
00:34:16.000 Republicans hone in on this point.
00:34:17.000 So Republicans are going to hammer down on all of this at least Stefanik.
00:34:24.000 Well, actually, let's start with Mike Turner.
00:34:25.000 Representative Mike Turner from, I believe, Ohio.
00:34:28.000 He says, listen, you keep talking about Trump's thought processes.
00:34:32.000 You've never actually met the president or had contact with the president, have you?
00:34:35.000 Ambassador Taylor, is that you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the president of the United States, is that correct?
00:34:43.000 That's correct, sir.
00:34:44.000 Mr. Taylor, Mr. Kent, have you had any contact with the president of the United States?
00:34:47.000 I have not.
00:34:48.000 So, not only no conversations with the President of the United States about Ukraine, you've not had any contact with the President of the United States, correct?
00:34:55.000 That's correct.
00:34:56.000 Okay.
00:34:56.000 So, you both know that this impeachment inquiry is about the President of the United States, don't you?
00:35:01.000 I mean, the man that neither one of you have had any contact with, you're the first up witnesses.
00:35:07.000 I just find that a little amazing that the first up would be two people who've never had any contact with the President himself.
00:35:15.000 Yes, this would be the operative point, right?
00:35:17.000 And this is the reason why I've been saying all along that if the Democrats actually wish to get Trump, they need to bring in people who spoke directly to Trump or Trump himself, right?
00:35:24.000 Those are the only options here.
00:35:25.000 Instead, they're bringing in Bill Taylor and George Kent, who've never met the president and never spoken to the president.
00:35:30.000 Jim Jordan, the representative from Ohio, he made the exact same point.
00:35:33.000 He said, you guys are the star witnesses, right?
00:35:36.000 The Democrats are highlighting you as the star witnesses.
00:35:39.000 You don't even know the person that you're testifying about.
00:35:41.000 Here's Jim Jordan going after the same point.
00:35:44.000 Ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you?
00:35:46.000 You didn't listen on President Trump's call and President Zelensky's call?
00:35:49.000 I did not.
00:35:49.000 You've never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?
00:35:51.000 I never did.
00:35:52.000 You never met the President?
00:35:53.000 That's correct.
00:35:53.000 You had three meetings again with Zelensky and it didn't come up.
00:35:56.000 And two of those they had never heard about as far as I know.
00:35:59.000 There was no reason for it to come up.
00:36:00.000 And President Zelensky never made an announcement.
00:36:03.000 This is what I can't believe.
00:36:04.000 And you're their star witness.
00:36:06.000 You're their first witness.
00:36:09.000 You're the guy based on this, based on... I mean, I've seen...
00:36:13.000 I've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this.
00:36:18.000 And that is absolutely true.
00:36:19.000 I mean, you can even see even Bill Taylor looks a little bit like flustered by this because, of course, it's true.
00:36:24.000 I mean, listen, I know that his gray hair is reassuring, but it is also true that the guy has no actual inside information.
00:36:30.000 He's not privy to the thought process that would make this bribery as opposed to just a normal exercise of foreign policy power in a way that the foreign policy establishment doesn't like.
00:36:40.000 Or even if it's an abnormal exercise of foreign policy power, that doesn't make it illegitimate as an impeachable form of foreign policy power exercise.
00:36:49.000 Even if you think that it's bad, that doesn't make it impeachable.
00:36:52.000 I tend to think that this is bad policy based on bad information, funneled by Rudy Giuliani.
00:36:57.000 It doesn't make it impeachable.
00:36:58.000 And trying to bring out witnesses who have no actual window into Trump's state of mind is definitely a bizarre move.
00:37:04.000 Jordan really hammers this point home even more.
00:37:07.000 He says, you know, let me just read you sort of the chain of events here, and you try to explain it to me.
00:37:11.000 Let me read it one more time.
00:37:12.000 Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yarmouk on September 1st, 2019 in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.
00:37:24.000 We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.
00:37:32.000 Again, I think this is what the American people are going to take away.
00:37:35.000 Jordan doing an excellent job of pointing this out, or as Democrats would claim, obfuscating the issue.
00:37:40.000 But I think that that's actually a fair point, which is that these people are in a chain of communication that isn't the actual chain of communication that matters, and they acknowledge as such.
00:37:47.000 Here's the thing.
00:37:49.000 And Kent basically acknowledged they were outside the actual chain, the unofficial chain of information upon which Trump was making his decisions.
00:38:00.000 Now, where Republicans are on a little bit weaker ground is when they try to argue that if the Democrats proved their case, it still would not be impeachable.
00:38:06.000 So you have Elise Stefanik, who is an excellent young Congresswoman from New York, and she says, you know, there are a couple of key facts Democrats are ignoring here, and those key facts make it so that this is utterly unimpeachable conduct.
00:38:16.000 I think this is an overstatement by Elise Stefanik.
00:38:18.000 For the millions of Americans viewing today, the two most important facts are the following.
00:38:24.000 Number one, Ukraine received the aid.
00:38:27.000 Number two, there was, in fact, no investigation into Biden.
00:38:30.000 Okay, well, that is not enough, right?
00:38:32.000 Obviously, the accusation is that Trump was withholding the aid in order to achieve a particular foreign policy purpose.
00:38:38.000 When that came to light, then he tried to backfill the problem, right?
00:38:41.000 That's not enough.
00:38:42.000 And you're hearing Republicans repeat that point.
00:38:43.000 So Republicans are deploying a few defenses.
00:38:45.000 One is an obvious lawyer defense, which makes a lot of sense.
00:38:48.000 You don't know Trump's intent.
00:38:49.000 You don't know his state of mind.
00:38:50.000 You don't know his motives.
00:38:51.000 And trying to establish those motives through the testimony of somebody who once heard of Trump, who once ate at the same restaurant of Trump, is not going to do it.
00:38:58.000 And then you have the Republican stronger defense.
00:39:00.000 This is the one Trump wants them to push, which is, he never did anything wrong.
00:39:03.000 And that one, I think, is a lot harder to push.
00:39:06.000 In this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call?
00:39:11.000 We're going to need to hear the impeachable offense here.
00:39:12.000 In this impeachment hearing today where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call?
00:39:21.000 Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?
00:39:26.000 Shout it out.
00:39:29.000 Anyone?
00:39:29.000 Okay, but it's not just in that call, right?
00:39:32.000 I mean, that is also a bit of a misnomer.
00:39:34.000 They're just trying to analyze this fairly.
00:39:36.000 Nobody is claiming that the call itself is the impeachable offense.
00:39:39.000 They are claiming that the policy linked to the call for several months here was the impeachable claim.
00:39:45.000 Again, all that Trump has to do, like any good defense case, he doesn't have to prove that he is, quote-unquote, innocent of any bad activity.
00:39:52.000 He just has to show that he didn't do anything criminal.
00:39:55.000 And the criminal activity at issue here is bribery, which includes an intent.
00:39:59.000 It includes an intent.
00:40:00.000 It is amazing.
00:40:01.000 The Democrats will read intent out of the law when it is convenient to them, and they will read intent into the law when it is convenient to them.
00:40:07.000 So Hillary Clinton takes classified information, puts it on her own personal homebrew server in her bathroom, And Jim Comey will say, no, no, no, that's not prosecutable because she didn't have intent to expose that information to prying eyes.
00:40:20.000 Sure, she had intent to misuse classified information, but she didn't have intent to expose that information to the Russians or to anybody else, to prying eyes.
00:40:27.000 And he read an intent element that is not in the law into the law.
00:40:30.000 And he said that based on precedent.
00:40:32.000 Yeah, I think that that is a bad practice.
00:40:33.000 I think it's arguable at best.
00:40:35.000 Okay, and then Democrats will say, okay, well, yes, bribery requires intent, but we don't have to prove intent.
00:40:40.000 We can just assume intent.
00:40:41.000 Well, no, you can't.
00:40:42.000 If you actually want to prove intent, you have to prove intent.
00:40:46.000 Well, President Trump reacted to all of the hearings yesterday.
00:40:49.000 He got a bit personal with Adam Schiff, of course.
00:40:52.000 He said that Adam Schiff had to bring in a ringer because he's not capable of doing his own questioning, which, of course, is sort of true.
00:40:57.000 Republicans, by the way, also brought in a ringer, so it's not a perfectly fair statement, but here is Trump going after Schiff.
00:41:03.000 I did not watch it.
00:41:05.000 I'm too busy to watch it.
00:41:06.000 It's a witch hunt.
00:41:07.000 It's a hoax.
00:41:08.000 I'm too busy to watch it, so I'm sure I'll get a report.
00:41:11.000 There's nothing.
00:41:13.000 I have not been briefed, no.
00:41:14.000 There's nothing there.
00:41:15.000 I see they're using lawyers that are television lawyers.
00:41:18.000 They took some guys off television, you know.
00:41:21.000 I'm not surprised to see it because Schiff can't do his own questions.
00:41:24.000 Okay, there's Trump just taking a shift on Schiff.
00:41:27.000 It's pretty solid stuff right there from President Trump, what you would come to expect.
00:41:31.000 Now, the only headline that may come out of this is that, remember, the only thing that's new in any of this testimony is Taylor testifying again.
00:41:39.000 And one of his aides overheard Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the EU, talking to Trump about investigations.
00:41:44.000 Trump is asked about this and he says he doesn't remember any of the, he doesn't remember any phone call referenced by Taylor here.
00:41:50.000 I know nothing about that.
00:41:51.000 First time I've heard it.
00:41:53.000 The one thing I've seen that Sondland said was that he did speak to me for a brief moment and I said, no quid pro quo under any circumstances.
00:42:03.000 And that's true.
00:42:04.000 The other, I've never heard this.
00:42:06.000 In any event, it's more secondhand information, but I've never heard it.
00:42:09.000 Do you recall having a conversation with Sondland?
00:42:11.000 I don't recall.
00:42:12.000 No, not at all.
00:42:13.000 Not even a little bit.
00:42:15.000 The only thing, and I guess Sondland has stayed with his testimony, that there was no quid pro quo.
00:42:21.000 Okay, so Trump is saying the only conversation I had with Sondland is one in which I explicitly told him that there was not a quid pro quo.
00:42:27.000 Sondland of course says he believes that there was in fact a quid pro quo.
00:42:31.000 This could get Trump in trouble if Sondland were to get up and say, no, no, no, I actually There was a phone call, and Taylor was right, and we did talk about it in the investigation.
00:42:39.000 Presumably, Trump could just say, I didn't remember that conversation.
00:42:41.000 Trump could also theoretically say, it was the same conversation as the one where I said no quid pro quo, because you didn't hear my side of the conversation.
00:42:47.000 But that is the only new news from this entire day, is that Taylor claimed there was another call, Trump says he doesn't remember another call.
00:42:54.000 So we'll find out the truth about that because someone's going to testify.
00:42:56.000 Okay, so is any of this devastating or bombshell?
00:42:59.000 Is anything that we've said so far a devastating bombshell tossed into the middle of impeachment or is it basically just Democrats putting on a TV show for people?
00:43:07.000 And it's obvious which this is because you can see how the media are analyzing it.
00:43:10.000 The New York Times, for example, called in their television critic to actually do an analysis.
00:43:15.000 of how this thing looked on TV.
00:43:17.000 So we all know what this is.
00:43:19.000 It's made for TV drama.
00:43:21.000 James Ponowizek, who is their TV critic, wrote a piece for the New York Times called, A Tale of an Irregular Channel, Playing on Many Channels.
00:43:28.000 In the middle of the testimony of William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine that opened the House impeachment hearings Wednesday, a guessing game broke out on social media.
00:43:36.000 He sounded like someone, didn't he?
00:43:38.000 His deep, assuring, steady voice reminded some people of Tom Brokaw.
00:43:41.000 No, maybe it was Walter Cronkite?
00:43:45.000 N-word, R-Murrow.
00:43:47.000 It's telling that all these comparisons were to old-school news anchors because I think what people were hearing in Mr. Taylor's gravelly composure was the voice.
00:43:54.000 Not so much of another person, but another time.
00:43:57.000 A time of authoritative voices that a wide audience found credible.
00:44:00.000 It was like a science fiction story in which someone turns on an old radio and hears a staticky broadcast from the past.
00:44:06.000 Even the text of Mr. Taylor's introduction had a Cronkitean ring.
00:44:09.000 I am not here to take one side or the other, he said.
00:44:11.000 My sole purpose is to provide facts as I know them.
00:44:13.000 And that's the way it is.
00:44:15.000 That this was in fact 2019, where there is no unified audience willing to accept a single way that anything is.
00:44:23.000 And then he just goes on to talk about the optics of this whole thing.
00:44:26.000 Because he's just like Walter Cronkite.
00:44:29.000 So again, the media are reviewing this thing from a television perspective.
00:44:33.000 There's a whole column in the Washington Post by Robin Gibbon, their fashion critic, suggesting that Jim Jordan needs to put on a jacket.
00:44:43.000 Obviously, the most important element of our times is whether Jim Jordan is wearing a jacket or not.
00:44:47.000 By the way, Jim Jordan never wears a jacket.
00:44:48.000 I mean, if you've ever been in any of the hearings... I mean, I've testified in front of Jim Jordan in Congress.
00:44:52.000 He does not wear a jacket.
00:44:54.000 This is not, like, something new.
00:44:56.000 But she says, of course, Representative Jim Jordan took his seat Wednesday morning at the opening of the public impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill, wearing nothing but his shirt sleeves.
00:45:03.000 No suit jacket.
00:45:03.000 That's how Jordan dresses.
00:45:05.000 It's his power move.
00:45:06.000 His sartorial chest thump.
00:45:08.000 All the other members of the House Intelligence Committee turned up in suits and ties or other business attire, but not Jordan.
00:45:13.000 Everyone else was willing to offer at least a symbolic nod to decorous formality, to that old-fashioned notion of civility.
00:45:19.000 Jordan announced himself as the man who was itching to rumble.
00:45:21.000 He was the guy who came not to do as the Constitution demands, with measured deliberation, but to brawl.
00:45:26.000 She could tell all this by the fact he wasn't wearing a suit jacket, which he never wears.
00:45:31.000 I've met Jim Jordan several times.
00:45:32.000 He has never worn a suit jacket.
00:45:34.000 As far as I'm aware, I don't even know that he owns a suit jacket.
00:45:36.000 The man probably buys his suit jacket and his pants separately at Macy's.
00:45:40.000 Like, I don't know.
00:45:41.000 He doesn't do that.
00:45:42.000 But apparently, according to the Washington Post, that's the big takeaway.
00:45:45.000 The big takeaway from all of this?
00:45:46.000 Bombshell.
00:45:46.000 Jim Jordan doesn't wear jackets.
00:45:50.000 Jordan has a reputation for rarely wearing a suit jacket, the Washington Post acknowledges.
00:45:54.000 A Twitter account is dedicated to his jacketlessness.
00:45:56.000 He's the man on the dais who refuses to show witnesses the same respect they inevitably show to him and to the circumstances.
00:46:03.000 Typically, men who are called to testify before Congress wear a suit.
00:46:06.000 They recognize the seriousness of the situation and they dignify it.
00:46:09.000 Even Mark Zuckerberg, who almost single-handedly made hoodies and t-shirts the uniform of the modern mogul, wears a suit.
00:46:14.000 When comedian Hassan Minhaj went to Capitol Hill to discuss student loan debt, he also wore a suit.
00:46:18.000 The extras in the audience, as the impeachment drama unfolded, were wearing suit jackets.
00:46:22.000 The witnesses were in suit jackets.
00:46:24.000 But Jordan, in his role as representative of the American people, couldn't be bothered to suit up.
00:46:30.000 When Jordan was interviewed recently by a Wall Street Journal reporter about why he doesn't wear a jacket, he said, quote, I'm not even sure.
00:46:35.000 I don't know why.
00:46:36.000 But of course, that was disingenuous.
00:46:38.000 After a pause, he admitted he does wear a jacket when the rules require him to do so, as when he's on the House floor.
00:46:43.000 And he wears a jacket when he aims to be respectful, such as when he's in the company of the president or on a visit to the White House.
00:46:48.000 Presumably he doesn't consider sitting alongside his colleagues during a matter of national importance to be a situation that deserves his high regard.
00:46:54.000 I remember that time when Barack Obama didn't wear a jacket in the Oval Office and some people were like, oh, that's terrible that he didn't do that.
00:46:59.000 Ronald Reagan always used to put on a jacket and we were like, how dare you say that about Barack Obama?
00:47:03.000 How dare you?
00:47:03.000 Now it's Jim Jordan doesn't wear a jacket and it's the end of the world.
00:47:07.000 By the way, I just should point out that despite the fact there was no devastating bombshell testimony yesterday, listen to CBS talk about the devastating bombshell testimony yesterday.
00:47:15.000 And there we have it.
00:47:16.000 Day one of the first public hearings in terms of impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump are now in the history books.
00:47:28.000 Some devastating testimony today from two of America's most respected diplomats who have served both Republican and Democratic presidents.
00:47:38.000 So bombshell, so testimony.
00:47:40.000 Yeah, except that nothing new happened.
00:47:42.000 And that's the real story of yesterday.
00:47:43.000 Okay, time for a thing I like and then a quick thing that I hate.
00:47:46.000 So, things that I like today.
00:47:48.000 So, I was watching old movies while I was on my trip to Boston.
00:47:52.000 And I watched, it was streaming on Prime, Saturday Night Fever, which I'd never seen.
00:47:57.000 Sort of a classic movie from the 1970s with a very, very young John Travolta.
00:48:00.000 The movie's actually quite good.
00:48:02.000 It's been parodied so much in movies like Airplane.
00:48:04.000 You forget that the movie is actually pretty good.
00:48:06.000 It also is a relic of a time, and when you watch it, you realize that that time, the 1970s, as scuzzy and terrible as it was in a wide variety of ways, that our sensitivities now would not allow a movie like this to be made.
00:48:18.000 It wouldn't.
00:48:19.000 I mean, John Travolta, his character, spoiler alert from a movie that is nearly 50 years old at this point, but spoiler alert, John Travolta at one point attempts to nearly rape a female character in the movie and she ends up being friends with him at the end of the movie.
00:48:34.000 That would certainly not be allowed in a movie today.
00:48:36.000 It's a very gritty movie and people forget how gritty the movie is because it's about disco.
00:48:39.000 But here is a little bit of the preview for Saturday Night Fever.
00:48:42.000 Very iconic stuff.
00:48:50.000 John Travolta walking down the street and the playing of the Bee Gees and all of this sort of stuff.
00:48:56.000 But the movie is a pretty good examination of Brooklyn life circa 1977.
00:49:00.000 And it's a good reminder that cultural breakdown can happen in virtually any community.
00:49:07.000 This is really a movie about cultural breakdown, about the evils of the sexual revolution.
00:49:11.000 It's actually quite a conservative film when you come right down to it.
00:49:14.000 So if you don't remember that, it's worth checking out again, the movie Saturday Night Fever.
00:49:19.000 Plus the dancing is actually pretty good.
00:49:21.000 John Travolta actually could dance back in the day.
00:49:23.000 Alright, time for a quick thing that I hate.
00:49:28.000 Okay, so quick things that I hate.
00:49:30.000 Well, first of all, it's sort of a thing that I like, because I showed up at Boston University last night.
00:49:34.000 It was great.
00:49:35.000 1,500 students came out, packed house.
00:49:36.000 It was in the Boston athletic arena, which was pretty cool.
00:49:41.000 It was kind of a neat setting.
00:49:42.000 And it was a lot of fun.
00:49:44.000 A lot of protesters showed up outside, which is, I mean, more power to them.
00:49:47.000 I said last night, like, if you show up in 20 degree weather to actually protest, more power to you, because I've been to so many schools where it is cold, and protesters say they're going to show up, and then they chicken out.
00:49:55.000 So at least in Boston, they have the power of their convictions.
00:49:57.000 They were protesting me, suggesting that I was a racist, because the name of the speech was, America wasn't built on slavery, it was built on freedom.
00:50:03.000 They were suggesting I was going to make light of slavery.
00:50:05.000 I then spent 45 minutes explaining the role of slavery in America's history, it's great evil, and the transition away from slavery, and America's defeat of slavery, and defeat of Jim Crow segregation.
00:50:15.000 And so it didn't go quite how the left thought it was going to go because the left has this weird picture of conservatives as people who deny American history, which of course is not true.
00:50:22.000 It is the left that frequently denies American history in favor of a darker version of American history that simply isn't true.
00:50:27.000 There are a bunch of protesters of all sides.
00:50:30.000 There are some people who showed up from sort of the nationalist conservative side of the aisle.
00:50:36.000 There were a few alt-righters who showed up as well.
00:50:38.000 There were some people who, there's a transgender protester.
00:50:40.000 It was a bit of fun.
00:50:43.000 But, this is sort of, this is how things should go on campus, right?
00:50:46.000 It was an open conversation, everybody had a good time, but that is not what is happening on our college campuses.
00:50:51.000 Now, it is very, very, very bad, obviously, if you allow this sort of thing to go on.
00:50:56.000 The University of Florida has a student body president, and this student body president is now, apparently, facing impeachment for allowing Donald Trump Jr.
00:51:06.000 to speak on campus.
00:51:08.000 His book is number one on the New York Times bestseller list.
00:51:09.000 He's obviously a public figure.
00:51:10.000 All sorts of public figures get to speak on college campuses, particularly public college campuses like the University of Florida.
00:51:16.000 Now the student body president is facing impeachment.
00:51:18.000 According to the New York Times, a sitting president is facing impeachment, accused of collusion and abusing his power.
00:51:23.000 Support falls along political lines.
00:51:25.000 The opposition party is determined to remove him.
00:51:28.000 His allies maintain he did nothing wrong, but this impeachment inquiry is taking place far from Washington.
00:51:32.000 Even though the football stadium known as The Swamp looms nearby, student representatives at the University of Florida introduced a bill on Tuesday.
00:51:39.000 To impeach Michael Murphy, the student body president, accusing him of improperly using student fees to pay one of President Trump's sons to speak on campus.
00:51:47.000 It all began when Mr. Murphy, a senior, invited Donald Trump Jr.
00:51:49.000 and Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox News host and advisor to the president's campaign, to speak on campus and paid them $50,000 with university funds.
00:51:56.000 Some students say the payment was a violation of the student senate code and possibly the law.
00:52:00.000 Okay, does any of that mean it's illegitimate to invite a public figure like Donald Trump Jr.
00:52:03.000 to your campus?
00:52:03.000 Not that I am aware of.
00:52:04.000 By the way, how many payments have been made to left-wing speakers at University of Florida?
00:52:07.000 election campaign to set up the visit and that Mr. Murphy had attended Trump's inauguration.
00:52:11.000 Okay, does any of that mean it's illegitimate to invite a public figure like Donald Trump Jr. to your campus?
00:52:15.000 Not that I am aware of.
00:52:17.000 By the way, how many payments have been made to left-wing speakers at University of Florida?
00:52:21.000 I would suggest more than a few.
00:52:22.000 Students who drafted the impeachment bill personally handed Murphy a copy of it on Tuesday night.
00:52:27.000 They argue in the bill that Murphy's use of student funds violates the Student Senate Code, which forbids spending student fees to support a political party.
00:52:34.000 Yeah, except that Donald Trump Jr.
00:52:36.000 isn't running for office.
00:52:39.000 So this has led to this sour split on campus.
00:52:43.000 Jared Rodriguez is a junior and treasurer for the University of Florida College Republicans.
00:52:47.000 He said that this move is, quote, a mirror image of the partisan politics at the national level.
00:52:51.000 He said he attended the talk and never viewed it as a campaign event.
00:52:53.000 The drive to oust Mr. Murphy, he said, showed that the opposition party would look for anything to remove the elected president.
00:53:00.000 He said, I think they have no cigar in both cases.
00:53:03.000 But again, the idea here is that the real problem, of course, is that they don't want Trump Jr.
00:53:08.000 speaking on campus, right?
00:53:08.000 I mean, that's really what this is about.
00:53:10.000 Just like all these Boston University students didn't want me speaking on campus, they don't want conservatives speaking on campus.
00:53:15.000 Doesn't matter if it's Trump, doesn't matter if it's me.
00:53:17.000 Nobody.
00:53:17.000 They don't want anybody there.
00:53:18.000 And it doesn't matter what the people say, by the way.
00:53:20.000 Like, at all.
00:53:21.000 Again, I spoke at Stanford last week, and protesters shouted for me to leave while I was ripping into Nazis.
00:53:25.000 I mean, it's unbelievable.
00:53:27.000 So this is just the latest iteration of campus radicalism.
00:53:29.000 It is stupid, it is ridiculous, and it is contrary to the goal of the university in the first place.
00:53:35.000 Thank you, by the way, to Boston University for making sure that the event could happen in safety and security.
00:53:40.000 The administration did a fine job over there.
00:53:42.000 Alrighty, we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of content.
00:53:45.000 Plus, check us out tonight over at dailywire.com.
00:53:48.000 The reason you should?
00:53:48.000 Well, if you subscribe, then you get full access to our Daily Wire backstage, which we'll be discussing impeachment and many other issues of the day.
00:53:55.000 It should be a lot of fun.
00:53:56.000 And if you are a subscriber, then you get to ask the questions and you get all the goodies behind the paywall.
00:54:00.000 So go do that right now.
00:54:01.000 Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
00:54:02.000 I'm Ben Shapiro.
00:54:02.000 This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
00:54:03.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
00:54:12.000 Directed by Mike Joyner.
00:54:13.000 Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
00:54:15.000 Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
00:54:17.000 Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
00:54:19.000 And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
00:54:22.000 Assistant Director, Pavel Wydowski.
00:54:24.000 Edited by Adam Sievitz.
00:54:25.000 Audio is Mixed by Mike Koromina.
00:54:27.000 Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
00:54:29.000 Production Assistant, Nick Sheehan.
00:54:30.000 The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
00:54:33.000 Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
00:54:35.000 On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
00:54:38.000 We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.