Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 22, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show

51:18

It’s Apocalypse Day! Ep. 608

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	President Trump's nightmares come to life via Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort heads for prison, and an illegal immigrant murders a college girl.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	Oh my lord.
	Yesterday was basically drinking from a fire hose of news.
	So after a couple of relatively slow weeks, I say relatively because during the Trump presidency there is no such thing as an actual slow week.
	Relatively slow just means sort of by Trump standards.
	It turns out that all the news happened at exactly the same time yesterday and we will sift through all of it.
	We will analyze all of it for you because some big things happened yesterday with serious ramifications for the Trump presidency.
	But first, Let's talk about your underwear.
	When it comes to comfort down below, there is underwear and then there's Tommy John, which is the revolutionary clothing brand that is redefining comfort for Americans everywhere, including for folks like me.
	Tommy John just doesn't give an F. They give three Fs.
	Fabric, fit, and function.
	They obsess over every little detail and stitch by using proprietary fabrics that perform like nothing you've ever worn before.
	Which means that Tommy John's men's and women's underwear sport a no wedgie guarantee.
	Would have been super helpful for me in high school.
	Comfortable stay-put waistbands so they don't roll down on you.
	And a range of fabrics that are luxuriously soft, feather-light, moisture-wicking, breathable, and designed to move with you, not against you, which means no bunching and no riding up.
	Tommy John is so confident in the quality of their underwear that if you don't love your first pair, you can get a full refund with their best pair you'll ever wear or its free guarantee.
	And this now includes the life-changing women's underwear that sold out in just six weeks and is now back in stock.
	So go check it out right now at tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro.
	The most comfortable underwear you will ever wear, I know, because it's on my butt right now.
	Get 20% off your first order when you go to tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro.
	That's tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro for 20% off.
	Again, tommyjohn.com slash Shapiro.
	Okay, so, yesterday was a day, and today is another day, and things are happening at breakneck speed.
	So, as I mentioned, after the sort of summer lull which lasted approximately 37 seconds, every piece of news in the world hit at exactly the same time.
	Literally within minutes, we got verdicts coming in on the Paul Manafort indictment.
	Paul Manafort was found guilty on eight separate charges.
	There's a hung jury on the other ten.
	And we had the Michael Cohen indictment that came down.
	He pled guilty to a variety of crimes, including, most importantly, crimes regarding campaign finance.
	Let's start with the Cohen stuff, because it's easy to talk about the Manafort stuff.
	The Manafort stuff basically has nothing to do with the president.
	There's some ramifications for the president, theoretically, but those are theoretical.
	Michael Cohen stuff is a lot more damaging to President Trump.
	Here is the direct section from the actual Michael Cohen indictment.
	It says, the United States attorney further charges The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, U.S.
	Code Section 30101, regulates the influence of money on politics.
	At all times relevant to the information, the Election Act set forth the following limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements which were applicable to Michael Cohen, the defendant, Individual 1, and his campaign.
	Individual 1, in this case, would be President Trump, who was, of course, the guy who hired Michael Cohen Here's what the indictment says.
	as his personal lawyer for years because he only hires the best people.
	Here's what the indictment says.
	Individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election.
	And presidential candidates in their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit.
	So I am not allowed to give $3,000 to Donald Trump, and he is not allowed to accept $3,000 from me.
	Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates.
	So if I start an LLC, and I give money directly to President Trump from that LLC, that's a problem, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.
	On or about June 16, 2015, Individual One began his presidential campaign.
	That'd be Trump.
	While Michael Cohen, the defendant, continued to work at the company and did not have a formal title with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and at various times advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of the campaign.
	At all times relevant to this information, Corporation One was a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine, Magazine One.
	This magazine would be, presumably, the National Enquirer.
	In or about August 2015, the chairman and chief executive of Corporation One, this would be Chairman One, this would be David Pecker, who's the head of National Enquirer, in coordination with Michael Cohen, the defendant, and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about individual one's relationship with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.
	Chairman One, that's Pecker, agreed to keep Cohen apprised of any such negative stories.
	Consistent with the agreement described above, National Enquirer advised Michael Cohen, the defendant, of negative stories during the course of the campaign, and Cohen, with the assistance of the National Enquirer, was able to arrange for the purchase of two stories so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election.
	First, in or about June 2016, a model and actress began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with individual one, that's Trump, that had taken place in 2006 and 2007, knowing the story would be of considerable value because of the election.
	She then retained an attorney, this is Stormy Daniels, who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of the magazine and offered to sell Stormy Daniels' story to the magazine.
	At that point, David Pecker and the editor informed Michael Cohen, the defendant, of the story.
	At Cohen's urging and subject to Cohen's promise that the National Enquirer would be reimbursed, the editor of the National Enquirer ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story.
	On or about August 5th, 2016, the National Enquirer entered into an agreement with Stormy Daniels to acquire her limited life rights to the story of her relationship with any then-married man, which would mean Trump, in exchange for $150,000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish over 100 magazine articles authored by her.
	Despite the cover and article features to the agreement, its principal purpose, as understood by those involved, including Michael Cohen, the defendant, was to suppress Stormy Daniels' story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.
	Between in or about late August 2016 and September 2016, Michael Cohen agreed with the National Enquirer to assign the rights to the non-disclosure portion of that corporation agreement with Stormy Daniels to Cohen for $125,000.
	Cohen then incorporated a shell entity called Resolution Consultants LLC for use in the transaction.
	Both David Pecker and Cohen ultimately signed the agreement and a consultant for the National Enquirer using his own shell entity provided Cohen with an invoice for the payment of $125,000.
	However, in or about October 2016, after the assignment agreement was signed, but before Cohen had paid the $125,000, the National Enquirer contacted Cohen and told him, in substance, the deal was off and Cohen should tear up the assignment agreement.
	Cohen did not tear up the agreement, which was later found during a judicially authorized search of his office.
	Second, so I guess I'm sorry, that was with regard to Karen McDougal, not Stormy Daniels.
	Then we've got the Stormy Daniels story.
	Second, on or about October 8th, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress, that'd be Stormy Daniels, informed Editor One that she was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair with Trump.
	The chairman and editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer then contacted Cohen and put him in touch with the attorney for Stormy Daniels.
	Over the course of the next few days, Cohen negotiated a $130,000 agreement with that attorney to himself purchase Stormy Daniels' asylum and received a signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter from that attorney.
	Michael Cohen did not immediately execute the agreement, nor did he pay Stormy Daniels.
	On the evening of October 25th, 2016, with no deal with Stormy Daniels finalized, the attorney told the National Enquirer that Stormy Daniels was close to completing a deal with another outlet to make the story public.
	The National Enquirer texted Cohen that, quote, we have to coordinate something on the matter that the attorney is calling about or it could look awfully bad for everyone.
	The National Enquirer then called Cohen through an encrypted telephone application Cohen agreed to make the payment and then called the attorney to finalize the deal.
	The next day, Michael Cohen, the defendant, emailed an incorporating service to obtain the corporate formation and documents for another shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, which Cohen had incorporated a few days prior.
	Later that afternoon, Cohen drew down $130,000 from a fraudulently obtained home equity loan.
	Which he had obtained because he lied basically about his income.
	The next morning, Cohen went to the bank and wired approximately $130,000 from essential consultants to that attorney on the bank form to complete the wire.
	Cohen falsely indicated the purpose of the wire was a retainer.
	On or about November 1, 2016, Cohen received from the attorney copies of the final signed confidential agreement and side letter agreement.
	Michael Cohen, the defendant, caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election.
	This is the key part.
	So all of this basically only matters if this was an attempt to influence the election, in which case it is considered a campaign expenditure.
	Now, this part of the indictment is the controversial part because there are folks who say, a former chair of the FEC has said this, as we discussed a little bit yesterday, a former chair of the FEC has stated that this is not actually a campaign contribution because it's more of a personal contribution.
	Like, Not everything that has an impact on a campaign is considered a campaign expenditure.
	So if I go and I spend $400 on a haircut, that's not necessarily a campaign expenditure.
	And if I use campaign funding on it, that may actually be campaign fraud.
	So if I pay off somebody, is that a campaign expenditure or is it not a campaign expenditure?
	It's kind of unclear.
	I think that's the fairest way to put it.
	It's a little unclear.
	There are folks, Mark Levin has made this argument, who say that that is not a campaign expenditure.
	There are folks like Andy McCarthy who say it is a campaign expenditure over at National Review.
	In any case, the indictment continues.
	They say,
	In or about January 2017, Michael Cohen, in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Trump company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment Cohen had made to the bank account of Stormy Daniels in advance of the election.
	plus a $35 wire fee, adding in handwriting an additional $50,000 for basically services.
	That's Cohen's kind of transaction fee.
	Cohen added these amounts to a sum of $180,000.
	After receiving this document, executives of the Trump company grossed up for tax purposes.
	Cohen's requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, then then added in a bonus of 60 grand.
	So Cohen would be paid $420,000 in total.
	Executives of the company also determined the $420,000 would be paid to Cohen in monthly amounts of 35 grand over the course of 12 months.
	And Cohen should send invoices for the payments.
	So he sent an executive of the Trump company those monthly invoices.
	It started listing off 35 grand for two months.
	Throughout 2017, according to the indictment, Michael Cohen sent to one or more representatives of the company monthly invoices, which stated, pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for the relevant month of 2017 and sought $35,000 per month.
	Throughout 2017, according to the indictment, Michael Cohen sent to one or more representatives of the company monthly invoices, which stated, Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for the relevant month of 2017 and sought $35,000 per month.
	The company accounted for these payments as legal expenses.
	The company accounted for these payments as legal expenses.
	In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement and the monthly invoices Cohen submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.
	In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices Cohen submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.
	During 2017, pursuant to the invoices described above Michael Cohen, the defendant, received monthly $35,000 reimbursement checks totaling $420,000.
	So that is the charge against Michael Cohen.
	The part of it that matters for Cohen is that he said that he did so in coordination and at the direction of the president of the United States than just a candidate.
	Andy McCarthy suggests that basically the crime here is not necessarily paying people off.
	The problem here is how it was done.
	So Andy McCarthy sums up at National Review.
	He says, Donald Trump could lawfully have made contributions and expenditures in excess of $2,700 per election if he just paid Stormy Daniels directly, no problem.
	Because of that, and because unlike Cohen, Trump is a non-lawyer who may not have fully appreciated the campaign finance implications.
	It would be tough to prove the president had criminal intent.
	Nevertheless, that may not get the president off the hook, says Andy McCarthy.
	As noted above, it is illegal for a candidate to accept excessive contributions.
	It is also illegal to fail to report contributions and expenditures.
	So what it looks like is that Donald Trump basically used Michael Cohen as a go-between in order to avoid campaign finance reporting.
	And then the question is going to be intent.
	Cohen has testified that Trump had full intent to violate campaign finance law.
	Now we'll talk about the consequences of that in just one second, what it means for President Trump, what it means for the possibility of impeachment, how this fits into past issues with regard to campaign finance law.
	But first, let's talk about your watches.
	Okay, so I wear a movement watch.
	I actually have several of them.
	They're really nice, and they are not expensive.
	They're really, really great.
	Okay, I have one, my wife has one, my mom has one, my dad has one.
	I get them for members of my family because I really like movement watches.
	They've come pretty far from being a bunch of crowdfunded kids working out of a living room.
	In the past year, they've introduced sunglasses, fashion-forward bracelets, My wife has sunglasses, so do I. Movement watches are all about looking good and keeping it simple.
	So it's not going to tell you how many steps you took today, but it is going to tell you the time, and it's pretty durable.
	And then my son beats the living junk out of my watch, and it looks just as good as the day that I got it.
	Movement watches start at just $95 at a department store.
	These could be $400 to $500 because they cut out the middleman.
	Classic design, quality construction, style minimalism get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	That's MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	See why the movement keeps growing?
	Again, MVMT.com slash Shapiro.
	I really love my movement watch again.
	Look at this.
	I mean, just classy looking.
	And there are all sorts of types.
	It's fun to browse the website.
	Go check it out right now.
	MVMT.com slash Shapiro for 15% off today with free shipping and free returns.
	Join the movement.
	MVMT.com.
	Use that promo code Shapiro.
	OK, so the deputy U.S. attorney, a guy named Robert Kuzami, announced the Michael Cohen plea deal yesterday.
	Here is what he had to say.
	We are a nation of laws and the essence of this case is about is justice.
	And that is an equal playing field for all persons in the eyes of the law.
	And that is a lesson that Mr. Cohen learned today, and it is a very harsh one for him.
	So there's not actually a signed deal between Cohen to help the government in the Mueller investigation or with the Southern District of New York, for example.
	None of this has anything to do with Russia, obviously.
	And there are a lot of people today saying, well, the Democrats have been talking about Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia.
	This has nothing to do with Russia.
	That's true.
	It's also not sufficient.
	So we'll talk about the level of the alleged crime here and what it actually means in just a second.
	But first, it's important to note that the credibility of this entire allegation is based on Michael Cohen.
	Is Michael Cohen a liar or is Michael Cohen not a liar?
	It's not helping his case that his lawyer, Lanny Davis, is out there basically trying to whore Michael Cohen to Robert Mueller.
	And making allegations that Michael Cohen has not testified to.
	So Michael Cohen has testified to the fact that President Trump instructed him to violate campaign finance law, but now Lanny Davis is out there trying to basically sell the story that Michael Cohen has information on Russia too.
	So now it looks like Michael Cohen is just spilling every bean he can find in an attempt to avoid further jail time.
	That does go to kind of public credibility with regards to this particular witness, who is not known as the most honest guy in the first place, which is probably why Trump hired him.
	Here's Lanny Davis, Michael Cohen's attorney.
	On just the crime of directing somebody to commit a crime, as you pointed out in your opening, it was a crime for President Trump to direct Michael Cohen to the crime of a campaign finance donation that exceeded the legal limitations.
	Why didn't President Trump do this himself?
	Why didn't he write or sign the check himself?
	Was he covering up because he knew that there was something wrong in what he was doing, so he directed his lawyer to do something that he didn't want anybody to know that he did.
	Okay, all of that is the dicey stuff, but then Lanny Davis goes on to suggest that maybe Michael Cohen will reverse his testimony and suggest that President Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower meeting between members of his campaign and the Russian government to solicit information about Hillary Clinton.
	Well, Michael Cohen has already testified before members of Congress that Trump didn't know about any of that.
	So, was he lying then or is he lying now?
	This is one of the problems for this particular case against President Trump.
	The second problem is, of course, the question of whether this actually amounts to a campaign expenditure, which, as I mentioned before, is slightly dicey.
	And then the final problem is, if President Trump is in the habit of signing checks to women to shut them up, Which may, in fact, be the case.
	It's possible he's been doing it for years and years and years and years.
	If that's actually the case, and there's been this pipeline of him shutting down stories via the National Enquirer for years, it could easily not be a campaign expenditure.
	It could just be Trump likes to shut up women, and this is just the latest example of him attempting to shut up women.
	We're going to get to the Trump team's response to all of this in just a second.
	So here is how President Trump has responded to all of this.
	He had a series of tweets about Michael Cohen, as well as Paul Manafort.
	And here is what he tweeted.
	So he tweeted about Paul Manafort, who was convicted on eight counts that have nothing to do with Russian collusion.
	It has to do with Paul Manafort just being corrupt.
	But Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager, didn't testify against Trump at any point during this case.
	And Trump basically is saying that that's a good thing.
	He's basically saying, I'm happy that Paul Manafort shut up, which is not a great thing for the president to be tweeting.
	I mean, it's just not smart.
	So here's what he tweeted out.
	I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family.
	Justice, scare quotes, took a 12 year old tax case and among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him.
	And unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to break, make up stories in order to get a deal.
	Such respect for a brave man.
	So basically he is saying, thanks for keeping your mouth shut, Paul.
	I mean, that little phrase there where he says, make up stories in order to get a deal.
	He's saying that he's glad that Manafort didn't lie to get him, for example, in order to mitigate against him.
	But it's not great.
	The president of the United States is basically saying, I'm glad Paul Manafort didn't spill his guts.
	Like, the omerta is not something that you actually want the president of the United States talking up, per se.
	That's really the only reason that Manafort is relevant in any of this.
	Manafort, of course, doesn't Really have anything on President Trump.
	Again, all the allegations against Manafort basically predate the campaign and have nothing to do with the campaign.
	Then Trump continues in his defense of Manafort.
	And this is what's weird.
	I don't understand why the president is out there defending Manafort, who committed crimes that have nothing to do with his campaign.
	Unless he is actually afraid that Manafort is going to, you know, either start lying or spill his guts to Robert Mueller.
	None of this makes any sense.
	He should basically just cut himself loose of Manafort at this point and say, listen, I knew the guy for three months.
	He was recommended to me by the RNC, which I think is true.
	And I had him on the campaign.
	Turned out he was corrupt.
	I fired him.
	And whatever happens, happens.
	That's the operation of the law.
	That would be the smart thing for Trump to do.
	But instead, he's really kind of cozying up to Paul Manafort, who was just convicted of eight crimes, right?
	He says, a large number of counts, 10, could not even be decided in the Paul Manafort case.
	Witch hunt!
	Okay, it's not a witch hunt when the guy was convicted of eight crimes.
	Now, you might say that the Mueller investigation on Russian collusion is in totality a witch hunt.
	I think there's an argument to be made on that score.
	I don't think there's an argument to be made that the prosecution of Paul Manafort is a witch hunt when he was actually convicted of eight crimes yesterday and will spend a plentiful amount of time in jail.
	Trump continued along these lines.
	He tweeted out also with regard to Michael Cohen.
	That is going to the argument that if you pay somebody off in advance of an election, that's really a personal expenditure.
	It's not a campaign expenditure.
	President Obama had a big campaign violation and it was easily settled.
	So I'm going to get to the context of these other campaign finance violations and how common this is in just one second.
	And then Trump concludes by basically If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen, which is, indeed, the understatement of the year.
	Doesn't really explain why he employed him for a dozen years, but I think it is fair to say the president does not, in fact, hire the best people.
	Between Omarosa Manigault and Mike Flynn and Michael Cohen and Steve Bannon and Paul Manafort and pretty much everyone else who ever worked for the Trump administration or Team Trump, he does not hire the best people.
	Okay, so what does all of this mean in context?
	As I say, the defenses for President Trump in all of this are going to be kind of multifaceted.
	So defense number one is it's not a crime that I paid somebody off.
	That's a personal expenditure.
	It's not a campaign expenditure.
	So even if Michael Cohen pled guilty to a crime because he felt he had to plead guilty in order to mitigate the charges against him, that doesn't mean there's an actual crime here.
	There hasn't been an indictment.
	There's no actual investigation into Trump doing this stuff at this time.
	So you can't get Trump on something that's not a crime.
	That is case number one being made by folks like Mark Levin.
	Case number two is that it's just a campaign finance violation.
	And in this context, people have been looking at past campaign finance violations and suggesting that none of this is a big deal when you compare it to past campaign finance violations.
	So John Fund over at National Review, for example, talks about the campaign finance violations that were committed by the Clinton administration back during the 1996 presidential campaign.
	It was something called Chinagate in which actual members of the Chinese government were funneling money to the Clinton campaign.
	And at the same time, Clinton was declassifying certain nuclear secrets.
	And so the idea was there was this quid pro quo that was never proven in a court of law.
	Clinton basically ended up getting off scot-free.
	And there's also a case with regard to John Edwards, who was in, who actually was tried, but there's a hung jury and he was not convicted.
	And then there's talk about President Obama's campaign.
	They paid $375,000, the largest campaign finance violation of the time in 2008.
	They were paid, they were fined that much money.
	Because they had accepted a bunch of money and not reported it.
	Now, I'm going to explain in just a second the differences between Trump and those campaign finance violations.
	Then we'll talk about kind of the broader ramifications of all this.
	But first, let's talk about your bathroom habits.
	So, no matter what you do in the bathroom every day to get ready, Dollar Shave Club has everything you need to look Feel, smell your best.
	They have amazing shower stuff, hair styling products, toothbrushes and toothpaste, and of course razors and shave supplies.
	My favorite is their Amber and Lavender Body Cleanser.
	It truly is delightful.
	It is a calming body cleanser and it, like really, it does smell terrific.
	That's how I get ready, but you're not me.
	You have your own way to get ready.
	You might shave your whole body to get ready for a bike race because you're a weirdo.
	Dollar Shave Club's Executive Razor and Shave Butter can make that happen for you.
	You might do your hair to get ready for a soccer match, because maybe you like soccer.
	I don't know why, but maybe you do.
	That's why you would want boogies by DSC to help you get your style right.
	The thing is, no matter what you do to get ready, DSC has everything you need for any of that.
	And right now you can get ready with an amazing deal on any of their starter sets.
	I like their Daily Essentials Starter Set, because I love that Amber Lavender Body Cleanser, as I mentioned.
	But head over to dollarshaveclub.com/ben and pick your own DSE starter set for just five bucks.
	After your starter set, products ship at regular price.
	That's dollarshaveclub.com/ben.
	Again, dollarshaveclub.com/ben.
	All their product is fantastic.
	You're really gonna wanna try it.
	That's why I suggest that you get that sort of variety pack, that daily essential starter set for just five bucks. dollarshaveclub.com/ben.
	Go check it out.
	All right, so the consequences of other campaign finance violations have been relatively minimal.
	The Obama campaign was fined $375,000.
	John Edwards was tried in federal court but not convicted.
	The jury hung in that particular case.
	And then you have the Clinton-Chinagate situation in which multiple members of Team Clinton were actually convicted of crimes but it never elevated to the level of President Clinton.
	The difference between those cases and this is that in this case, Michael Cohen, the president's personal attorney, has testified under oath that the president of the United States ordered him, basically, to violate campaign finance law.
	Now, what does that mean for impeachment, for example?
	So let's talk about the legal.
	Consequences for President Trump, and then we'll talk about the political consequences.
	Now impeachment fits under the political consequences, not the legal consequences.
	Impeachment is all about politics.
	Legal consequences are all about what a jury can do.
	So Trump has basically said, look, I can't be incited.
	That's probably true.
	The president of the United States is probably impervious to federal indictment because he is the head of the executive branch.
	The Department of Justice exists under the executive branch.
	And it's very doubtful that the Department of Justice can try the president of the United States because the president can just fire whomever it is that is trying him.
	And the president may in fact have the power to pardon himself.
	It's a real hole in the Constitution, which is why impeachment was originally intended by the founders to be widely applied.
	The notion that impeachment was only going to be applied in the United States twice in American history.
	Nixon wasn't impeached.
	He resigned in advance of impeachment.
	It was only applied against Andrew Johnson after the Civil War, when radical Reconstructionist Republicans decided they didn't want him as president, basically.
	And then it was applied against Bill Clinton in 1998.
	Those are the only two times in American history a president has ever been impeached in the House of Representatives.
	Neither of them were convicted in the Senate.
	The idea of the founders was that impeachment was going to be broadly used.
	In the best of all possible worlds, we would use impeachment on a fairly regular basis, is the truth, because when presidents commit crimes, you would want Congress to check those crimes by impeaching the president or punishing him in some way.
	Unfortunately, the legislature in the United States has basically become a vestigial organ of government.
	They don't really do anything.
	They just toss all power over to the executive branch, and then they expect that maybe the president will be indicted or something.
	The president's not going to be indicted.
	The DOJ has rules in place that basically say the president is not to be indicted.
	Now, the president could still be subpoenaed.
	So, you could have a Southern District of New York investigation against President Trump, and they could subpoena him in order to get him to testify.
	That'd be a nightmare scenario for the president, because then he ends up in exactly the same position that Bill Clinton ended up in in the civil trial of Paula Jones, where he ends up committing perjury, and that is the basis for impeachment.
	Now, let's get to the impeachment question.
	So there are folks who are immediately saying that impeachment is on the table.
	Brett Stevens over at the New York Times, who of course is no fan of the president, he tweeted out that Trump should immediately be impeached based on these allegations.
	He says, I've been skeptical about the wisdom and merit of impeachment.
	Cohen's guilty plea changes that.
	The president is clearly guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
	He should resign his office or be impeached and removed from office.
	On the other side of the ledger, you have people like Andy McCarthy, and he says that this is really not an impeachable offense because it doesn't rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
	It's just a campaign violation.
	He says that to rise this to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, it's not quite perjury.
	So he doesn't think that it rises to that level.
	Here's what he said.
	Here's Andy McCarthy's case at National Review.
	He says, this is with regard to the Clinton impeachment.
	He says, the further removed misconduct is from the core responsibilities of the president, the less political support there will be for the president's removal from office.
	This is critical because impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one.
	So in other words, if the president of the United States uses the IRS to target political opponents, That is much more indicative of a president who deserves to be impeached than a president who committed a campaign finance violation, especially given the fact that campaign finance laws, I think on their face, are basically unconstitutional.
	McCarthy says, This is critical because impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one.
	The way the framers designed the process, which requires just a simple House majority to file articles of impeachment but a two-third Senate supermajority for removal, No president will ever be removed from office absent misconduct egregious enough to spur a consensus for removal that cuts across partisan lines.
	Such misconduct would surely have to involve either A, an abuse of power involving core presidential powers or B, an extremely serious crime.
	And McCarthy says the conduct here is not of an egregious nature that rises to high crimes and misdemeanors.
	It is an infraction committed by many political candidates and often not even prosecuted.
	More to the point, it is remote from the core responsibilities of the presidency, implicating pre-election actions to conceal alleged indiscretions that occurred a decade earlier.
	And while the president has denied the indiscretions, it is not like the allegations come as any surprise to the public, who, while well aware of his flaws, elected Donald Trump nevertheless.
	That said, if the Democrats take the House, there's no question that this will be the basis for some sort of impeachment claim against the President of the United States.
	So we do have to ask the question, what distinguishes Bill Clinton's perjury charges from this particular case?
	What distinguishes a campaign finance violation from perjury?
	Well, you can make the argument that the perjurer is committed, well, Clinton was president, and all of this activity took place before Trump was president.
	That he basically committed the campaign violation before he was president, now he's president, he hasn't actually misused the powers of the presidency in order to do any of this stuff.
	I think that's a semi-fair argument.
	There's also the case to be made that committing a campaign finance violation is not the same thing as lying under oath, which Trump has not done at this point.
	Which is one of the reasons why you could see a situation where Trump is subpoenaed is caught in a perjury trap, and then you have exactly the same situation as Bill Clinton, which is why this is sort of a nightmare scenario for Trump.
	All the people who voted for Bill Clinton's impeachment would then be forced to explain why Trumpian perjury is different from Clintonian perjury.
	Maybe they say that there's less underlying crime here, that it's not really a crime, whereas Clinton was trying to cover up for crime, but he committed perjury with regard to Monica Lewinsky.
	Now, the flip side is also true.
	Remember, every single Democrat in the Senate voted not to convict President Clinton in 1998 because their case was, everybody lies about sex.
	Well, if your case is everybody lies about sex, what exactly do you think Trump was doing here?
	The entire case is that Donald Trump was basically lying about sex.
	So what we've seen is almost a platonic inversion of the natural consequences of actions.
	If this had happened to a Democrat, Republicans would be crying impeachment.
	If this happens to a Republican, Democrats will cry for impeachment.
	The truth is we have to come up with some sort of objective standard as to when impeachment is appropriate.
	I am not sure that we have reached that standard yet, given the fact that Michael Cohen is not the most reliable witness, given the fact that we are not sure whether or not this is a crime in totality, and most of all, given the fact that even if this was a crime, we're not sure whether it rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors at this point.
	That's not stopping the Democrats from celebrating inordinately.
	Kathy Griffin was out there celebrating in the most bizarre possible fashion.
	She released a video of herself dancing topless in front of a window.
	Honestly, when I first saw this, Kathy Griffin blocked me long ago on Twitter to my great fortune.
	I'm very happy about that.
	I was wondering why there was a video of Carrot Top dancing in front of a window, and then it turns out it's just a clown.
	It's actually Kathy Griffin dancing topless as they announce all of the charges in the Michael Cohen situation.
	Now, how's this actually gonna break down?
	It could break down in a couple of different ways.
	So, it could break down in the way that the Democrats take the House.
	And now, because of the basis of all this, they're forced to sort of file charges of impeachment.
	It clears the House, it goes to the Senate, and dies in the Senate.
	That's the most likely scenario.
	And then, we get to find out whether an impeachment trial actually hurts an incumbent president in 2020, for example.
	It's also possible that the Trump base is so driven nuts by all of this talk that they show up en masse in 2018.
	It's also possible that this sort of takes the heart out of the Republican base because there's a feeling of incipient doom that sort of keeps people home in 2018 and 2020.
	My guess is that it is the latter.
	My guess is that as allegations of corruption mount, people are starting to get tired.
	And the president is not doing a very good job of calming that sort of speculation.
	And also, there's a feeling that, okay, if the House Democrats get control and they impeach him, nothing's going to happen anyway because the Senate's not going to do anything about it.
	I'm going to talk a little bit more about what this means for 2018, plus another case that is really damaging to Republicans.
	It was a very bad day for Republicans yesterday.
	We'll talk about why in just a second.
	First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com.
	For $9.99 a month, you can get a subscription.
	Two Daily Wire.
	You get the rest of my show live, you get the rest of Andrew Klavan's show live, the rest of Michael Moll's show live.
	When you spend $99 a year, you get this, the Leftist Heroes Hot or Cold Tumblr.
	That means that you get it cheaper than the monthly subscription and you get to be part of our mailbag, which we are doing on Friday.
	I still can't believe it's not Friday.
	This week is so long.
	Yesterday was eight days long, but If you want to be part of our mailbag on Friday, then get the annual subscription.
	Also, subscribe at YouTube and iTunes.
	That means that you get to see our Sunday special and listen to our Sunday special.
	This week we have on Clay Travis, the sports host who's become very controversial for his statements that he likes the First Amendment as well as breasts.
	Indeed, Clay Travis on the Sunday special.
	I'm Clay Travis, Fox Sports Radio and Outkick the Coverage.
	I'm going to be on the Ben Shapiro Show Sunday special.
	Tune in to hear Ben and I talk about how to make sports great again and why everything else has gone insane in the world of sports and beyond.
	All that should be a lot of fun.
	I hope you guys will come hang with us here on the Sunday special.
	It's a really good episode.
	If you're into sports, if you're into sports media and you're wondering what's wrong with kind of our sporting culture, we talk about it with Clay Travis, so check that out.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	So what are the electoral consequences of all of this?
	Well, every additional scandal from the Republican side just drives down the enthusiasm on the Republican side for getting out there to vote, and drives up the enthusiasm on the Democratic side.
	The proof in the pudding is 2006, when Republicans were running behind Democrats, fairly generically for a while, and then there was a scandal involving Mark Foley, who was a Republican congressperson from Florida, who it turns out had been getting it on with the pages.
	Which is not great.
	And that completely blew up and Democrats won like 60 seats.
	Well, now it turns out that Duncan Hunter, another Republican, has been caught up in a campaign finance violation.
	These ones are actually, I think, worse than the allegations about President Trump.
	According to Amber Phillips over at the Washington Post, federal prosecutors allege that Duncan Hunter and his wife stole $250,000 in campaign funds to do things like take their family to Italy and buy a three-piece luggage set for it, buy their kids school lunches, treat family and friends to hotel rooms and wine and golf, These allegations are really ugly.
	Apparently, when Hunter and his wife chatted with each other about how they were able to get cash from the campaign to spend on daily life, they allegedly said, quote, it was great.
	Margaret Hunter allegedly spent 200 bucks on tennis shoes at Dick's Sporting Goods, which she then claimed as being for an annual dove hunting event for wounded warriors.
	When Hunter told his wife he needed to buy my Hawaii shorts, but he was out of money, she allegedly told him to buy them from a golf pro shop so he could claim they were actually golf balls for wounded warriors.
	Thank you.
	When the water utility company threatened to turn off their water, Margaret Hunter allegedly spent $300 in campaign funds to pay the bill.
	And then she allegedly spent $152 on makeup at Nordstrom and told the campaign it was a gift basket item for the Boys and Girls Clubs of San Diego.
	Not good stuff in any way.
	And Duncan Hunter, of course, is one of the first Congress people to endorse President Trump for the presidency.
	None of this is going to benefit Republicans going into the election.
	Now, the overwhelming feeling of corruption and dirt that this is the swamp, it's not going to be good for the president of the United States.
	Now, is this really going to move President Trump's approval ratings one way or another?
	No.
	As I say, his approval ratings are basically stagnant.
	Everybody has an opinion on Trump.
	Your opinion on Trump is set.
	I think we're going to get a bunch of shock headlines on Friday.
	Oh, Trump's approval rating is the same or it rose two points or something.
	And everybody's going to say, see, it had no effect on President Trump.
	That's not how politics works.
	It's not just about the approval rating for a president who's basically set in stone.
	It is also about whether people go out and vote in 2018 in order to save President Trump.
	You know, these approval ratings polls do not measure public enthusiasm.
	There's a sort of crisis mentality that I think people are trying to drive into Republicans, that if they don't stand up with Trump right now, then Trump will be impeached.
	But it's hard to make that case at the same time that a lot of the Republican Congress people are being swept up in corruption allegations.
	I don't know how motivated Republicans are to get out to vote.
	There are a lot of folks who love President Trump who are motivated, but I think the folks in the middle are not.
	Now, it's important to remember, folks, And this is why Republicans should still go out to vote.
	That all of politics does not, in fact, revolve around President Trump.
	That if Democrats take the House of Representatives, they're going to pass a bunch of horrible, horrible legislation.
	They're going to launch investigations, not only into President Trump, but into a lot of causes you hold dear.
	They're going to attempt to crack down on religious freedom.
	They're going to attempt to blow out the spending.
	They're going to attempt to reverse all of the anti-regulatory policies of the Trump administration.
	Losing the House to the Democrats on the basis of these allegations with regard to President Trump has ramifications that far exceed the impact on President Trump, which is why Republicans should still go out to vote.
	But there's no question that all of this is depressing for Republicans, and we'll have to see how all of it plays out.
	It's also possible that Mueller drops his full report before the election in November.
	There were reports that were coming out today that he was going to drop his full report in October.
	And depending on what's in there, that could depress turnouts still further.
	And there are wages to a president who surrounds himself with people who are not good.
	Michael Cohen is not a good person.
	Omarosa Manigault, not a good person.
	Michael Flynn, involved in a lot of bad stuff.
	Paul Manafort, involved in a lot of bad stuff.
	You surround yourself with pigs and you shouldn't be surprised when you get a little bit dirty.
	President Trump has done that for a very long time.
	That does have some serious electoral consequences and some legal consequences to boot.
	We're gonna have to see how all of this goes.
	I mean, when I say hold off and wait, It's because we still don't have all the information on where this goes next.
	Does this investigation proceed into a separate investigation?
	Is President Trump subpoenaed?
	Does Michael Cohen try to spill the beans on other stuff or make stuff up?
	But suffice it to say, this is going to lead to at least a year-long news cycle that is not beneficial to the president, completely separate from the Russia stuff.
	I was talking to some folks who work with the White House yesterday, and the attitude at the White House is not one of confidence.
	It is one of, they can't, they don't know where the next shoe is gonna drop.
	Now, there are a lot of folks on the right who are saying, witch hunt, witch hunt, everything is a witch hunt.
	Some of this may indeed be a witch hunt.
	Some of this may indeed be an overstepping of boundaries by the Mueller investigation.
	It is also true that if you schtup a, if you schtup a porn star and then you pay her $130,000 through an election by funneling it through your corrupt fixer, That's probably your own fault.
	That's probably and if you and there's no there's no there's no honor among among the corrupt.
	And that is certainly true with regard to Michael Cohen.
	Now, meanwhile.
	The Democrats, this just shows why elections have consequences and why Republicans should still get out to vote.
	The most horrible story of the day yesterday actually had nothing to do with the President of the United States or Michael Cohen or Paul Manafort.
	The most horrible story of the day had to do with Mollie Tibbetts.
	So Mollie Tibbetts was a young woman who was missing, I guess, in Iowa.
	She was abducted in around the 1900 block of 385th Avenue over in Iowa.
	And it turns out the person who abducted her and murdered her was apparently an illegal immigrant.
	Here's the story from the Des Moines Register.
	They say, an undocumented immigrant is in custody charged with first-degree murder in the Molly Tibbetts investigation.
	Christian Bejina-Rivera, 24, has been in the area for four to seven years.
	Charges were filed in the Peweshik County Court.
	He's being held on a $1 million cash bond.
	Tibbetts was reported missing July 19th, according to a criminal complaint.
	Shortly after her disappearance, investigators collected video footage from the east side of Brooklyn from the evening of July 18th.
	The video showed Tibbetts running around Boundary and Middle Streets outside of Brooklyn when a black Chevy Malibu drove in the area around 7.45 p.m.
	July 18th.
	The footage shows the vehicle, driven by Rivera, going back and forth in the area, according to the criminal complaint.
	Officers pulled this illegal immigrant in for questioning Monday when he admitted to making contact with a female running in Brooklyn and that he pursued her to an area east of town in Poitiac County, according to the criminal complaint.
	Rivera told officials he exited his vehicle and started running behind her and alongside her.
	Tibbetts then grabbed her phone and told him she was going to call the police.
	He then told officials he got mad, panicked, and blocked his memory, which happens when he gets very upset, according to the criminal complaint.
	He then abducted her and apparently murdered her.
	He told officials he made a U-turn, drove to the entrance of a field, pulled into a driveway, drove into a cornfield.
	He then realized he had earpieces in his lap, which made him realize Tibbetts was in the trunk.
	Uh, they would not confirm whether the woman was alive or dead when she was inside the trunk.
	Rivera told officials he pulled her out of the trunk, found blood on the side of her head.
	He then dragged Tibbetts to a secluded location in the cornfield.
	He told officials he put her over his shoulder, took her 20 meters into the cornfield, and covered her with some cornstalks, and then left her.
	All of this is deeply, deeply horrifying stuff.
	She was 20 years old, murdered while jogging.
	And this, of course, has become a national news story because the person who did it was an illegal immigrant who apparently passed an E-Verify check, because you can pass E-Verify by using a fake social security number.
	President Trump was speaking at a rally last night.
	This is why he still has loyalty of a lot of his base, because when it comes to issues like illegal immigration, the president takes that stuff seriously where Democrats do not.
	And you saw what happened to that incredible, beautiful young woman.
	Should have never happened.
	Illegally in our country.
	We've had a huge impact, but the laws are so bad.
	The immigration laws are such a disgrace.
	We're getting them changed, but we have to get more Republicans.
	We have to get.
	Okay, Mollie Ivins, who is the, sorry, not Mollie Ivins, rather, Elizabeth Warren was talking about Mollie Tibbetts.
	And Elizabeth Warren responded to the Mollie Tibbetts situation basically by saying that we need more rights for undocumented immigrants and then this stuff never would have happened.
	I'm so sorry for the family here, and I know this is hard, not only for the family, but for the people in her community, the people throughout Iowa.
	But one of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are.
	I think we need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat, and I don't think mamas and babies Okay, what this has to do with anything is beyond me, but this is why people take President Trump seriously on illegal immigration.
	They do not take Democrats seriously on illegal immigration.
	And when Democrats express a lot of sympathy for victims of illegal immigrants, it's a rarity.
	There was an MSNBC guest yesterday talking about Fox News will only pay attention to this case because it's an illegal immigrant.
	Nobody really cares about it.
	Well Fox News is talking about, you know, a girl in Iowa and not this, right?
	And tomorrow morning we know who will wake up and tweet and sort of, you know, besmirch the reputation of Michael Cohen and all the people around him and really go back to Mueller.
	And this is obviously going to boil down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
	They're just talking about some girl in Iowa, so it's not important.
	And why would they possibly talk about some girl in Iowa?
	Well, the answer is because it does go to whether we ought to enforce the laws of our country.
	Now, that applies across the board, and that's why we ought to be taking lawbreaking seriously, no matter who is participating in it, even if we think that the law with regard to campaign finance reform is silly.
	As I say, more information is going to come out, and we'll be able to make further judgments when that information comes out.
	A lot of the talk today.
	is a little bit premature.
	It was a bad day for the president of the United States yesterday, but underlying issues still matter in this country.
	And that's why the president is still a viable president, despite the fact that he's now been implicated by his own former personal attorney.
	Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
	So things I like, I just started watching the show Billions and it's on Showtime, I don't know.
	I guess they just completed season three.
	I've only seen the first couple of episodes, but it's really juicy, and it's really purple, and it's really great.
	So it's Paul Giamatti and Damian Lewis, and basically them trying to outact one another.
	Basically, Paul Giamatti plays a sort of Elliot Spitzer figure, a go-getter attorney, district attorney in New York, who's attempting to get an insider trader, Damian Lewis, a charismatic inside trader.
	It's really fun to watch.
	Here is a little bit of the trailer.
	What we do has consequences.
	Intended and unintended.
	The decisions we make, the actions we bring, have weight.
	Come to work every day and be just and strong in the actions you bring.
	And don't waver.
	When did it become a crime to succeed in this country?
	Everyone has access to the information, we just know how to analyze it better.
	Okay, so it's great, it's fast-paced, it's really well-written, and it's a lot of fun to watch.
	All three firms have links to Bobby Axelrod.
	Okay, so it's great.
	It's fast-paced.
	It's really well-written, and it's a lot of fun to watch.
	It's really over-the-top.
	So if that's your sort of thing, go for it.
	Don't pay attention, really, to the first 30 seconds of the show.
	Like, the opening of the show is basically an S&M scene, and I have to say, it does remind you that people are super weird.
	Basically, the show opens with a pee tape, and you wonder why any... I just have... Like, I understand, you know, whatever floats your boat, but I just wonder why some things float people's boat.
	It's just, like, why?
	Why?
	Why is your... No one knows.
	In any case, you can check out that show.
	It's fun to watch and well worth watching.
	Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
	There's a church in California that is now being promoted by, I think, NowThis.
	And NowThis will basically promote any fringe phenomenon they can find.
	There's a church that apparently combines Sunday worship with beers on tap, talks about how Jesus was apparently a person of color, which is real weird, and also talks about why they're going to donate proceeds to Planned Parenthood.
	So it's not really a church, it's more of just A bunch of atheists getting together and pretending that they care about their own version of Jesus who didn't exist historically and does not exist in the Bible.
	But now this celebrates this because this is the diversity of religion or some such.
	We are open and affirming LGBTQ.
	We are feminist, and I believe Jesus was too.
	We are environmentalist, which I believe that's the original mandate of the children of God to take care of the planet that we all know and enjoy.
	We are anti-war, which I believe Jesus was too.
	We are all for racial justice, which Jesus was a Palestinian Jewish rabbi.
	He was a person of color.
	That was killed by white supremacy, so we're usually making every effort to be on the front lines for racial justice.
	So that's what sets us apart from many American churches.
	We found an awesome spot, consequently happened to be right below Planned Parenthood in Santa Cruz, which we adore and support their efforts for giving health care to women.
	I love that now this always plays this kind of meaningful guitar music under people saying the stupidest possible nonsense they can possibly find.
	Really spectacular stuff.
	So a few things about Jesus.
	He was Jewish.
	He was not a quote-unquote Palestinian.
	He was Jewish because everybody who was called a Palestinian in those days was Jewish because it was Roman Palestine.
	And the word Palestine, there's never been an independent state in the region.
	There's never been a Palestinian state in the region.
	There have only been Jewish states.
	And there's been area controlled by the Romans or the Ottoman Turks.
	Just historically speaking.
	He was not killed because of white supremacy.
	That's really dumb.
	That wasn't like a thing then.
	Jesus was not, it turns out, a feminist in the terms that feminists would use now.
	Jesus did believe in the idea that women were valuable, if you read the New Testament.
	But there are also some pretty awkward things for these feminist scholars about Jesus talking about how relationships are supposed to work inside of marriage.
	Jesus talking about what women are supposed to do in their role in the world.
	To suggest that he's like a third wave feminist is weird.
	And then to suggest that Jesus was very big on the abortions is also particularly weird.
	But it's so funny.
	Folks on the left hate religion when they actually look at the Bible, but they like to cite religion falsely in order to push their particular point of view, which is always very odd.
	Okay, other things that I hate.
	So somebody sent me this video yesterday, which is just an absurd video.
	Riley Dennis is a dude who thinks he's a lady.
	He's a transgender woman, which is to say a biological male, and cut a video in defense of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who requires white knighting apparently, because I challenged Ocasio-Cortez to a debate.
	The left can't let this go.
	It's really astonishing.
	They keep coming back to the idea that I did something deeply wrong in offering a discussion on the Sunday special or debate to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
	As I've said many times, all she had to say was, nah, not interested.
	That would have been the end of it, pretty much.
	Instead, she decided to call me a sexist.
	Riley Dentist... Riley Dennis, who is... I think it's fair to say that it might be more sexist to adopt all of the stereotypically feminine attributes and call yourself a woman than to say to a woman, can we have a discussion about politics?
	Riley Dennis says that it was me engaging in sexism, and he would know as a woman.
	The reason we're talking about this is because recently some conservative a**hole on the internet demanded that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez debate him.
	Apparently I'm allowed to just demand that politicians debate me now.
	I guess that's how this works all of a sudden.
	Can you pause for a second?
	So the answer is yes, you can do that anytime you want, it's a free country.
	If you want people to debate you, you can ask them to debate.
	They also have the right to say no.
	Apparently it's a crime.
	Okay, so let's continue with this volitionist.
	If you ever see anyone disagree with you, even if they're incredibly busy public figures or politicians, you are entitled to a debate with them.
	If they ignore your request for a debate, they're a coward.
	Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
	Imagine if I now went on a Twitter tirade and published a sh**ton of articles demanding that someone debate me.
	Like, it would just be ridiculous.
	It would clearly be more for show than it would be for discussing any sort of actual issue.
	Okay, except that I actually invited Ocasio-Cortez on my show to answer questions, and she turned it down by calling me a sexist.
	So there's that.
	It is amazing the lengths to which the left will go to suggest that even asking for... So if I don't ask for a conversation, it's because I'm dismissive.
	If I do ask for a conversation, it's because I'm sexist.
	And the person telling me I'm a sexist is a biological man who believes he is a woman.
	Awesome.
	I can't imagine why people don't take the left super seriously these days in terms of their ideology.
	Okay, time for a quick psalm.
	So, after watching all that anti-biblical nonsense from that fake church, Let's go through a psalm.
	Always makes me feel a little bit better to do this at the end of the show.
	You know, maybe we... The psalms are very meaningful in a time when everything seems chaotic.
	Psalm 6.
	We've been going through one a week.
	For the director of music with stringed instruments, according to Sheminit Abba.
	Psalm of David.
	Lord, do not rebuke me in your anger or discipline me in your wrath.
	Have mercy on me, Lord, for I am faint.
	Heal me, Lord, for my bones are in agony.
	My soul is in deep anguish.
	How long, Lord?
	How long turn Lord and deliver me.
	Save me because of your unfailing love among the dead.
	No one proclaims your name who praises you from the grave.
	I'm worn out from my groaning all night long.
	I fled my bed with weeping and drenched my couch with tears.
	My eyes grow weak with sorrow.
	They fail me because of all my foes away from me.
	All you who do evil for the Lord has heard my weeping.
	The Lord has heard my cry for mercy.
	The Lord accepts my prayer.
	All my enemies will be overwhelmed with shame and anguish.
	They will turn back and suddenly be put to shame.
	The part of this that's interesting is the idea that you have to demonstrate vulnerability So it's very difficult for people who tend to be prideful, and I'm one of them, to demonstrate vulnerability before God, to ask things of God.
	And when you do ask things of God, what you're basically doing is you're accepting His authority.
	You're accepting that you are not in charge of the world and that God is in charge of the world.
	And so pouring out your pain before Him isn't self-indulgent.
	It's actually a recognition that God is the source of all things.
	And so to recognize that is the first step toward making yourself better.
	I think that much of prayer is not even dedicated toward, you know, quote unquote, changing God's mind.
	It's much more dedicated toward changing you and your attitude toward God.
	Demonstrating vulnerability toward God is the same as demonstrating vulnerability toward anyone else.
	In doing so, you're opening yourself up to being hurt.
	But if you do that with God, then you're demonstrating a fulsome trust in Him that is well worthwhile and warranted.
	Okay, we'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Senya Villareal, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Alex Zingaro.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Carmina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Alvera.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire Ford Publishing production.

▲