All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2018 - The Ben Shapiro Show
54:01
Insanity *Intensifies* | Ep. 627
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Accusations and counter accusations mount regarding Brett Kavanaugh's nomination, Ted Cruz's run out of a restaurant, and President Trump visits the UN, i.e.
Mos Eisley.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Hey, well, I'm back, and I'm very excited to be here.
I mean, I was out for two days, and apparently the world exploded, and then I returned this morning, and things were just as bad.
I mean, Michael Avenatti's making all sorts of trouble.
Lots of parties happening all over the place.
Plus, Ted Cruz gets run out of restaurant.
We do have a lot to get to here today.
I'm gonna get to all of it in just a second.
But first, let me tell you.
About Birch Gold.
So, here is the situation.
Right now, our national debt, which is money we owe other countries and unfunded liabilities that we owe to ourselves, it's greater than the entire economic output of the United States.
If your entire life savings is tied to the U.S.
dollar, ask yourself, what is your plan for hyperinflation?
If the stilts should fall out from under the economy.
Well, this is one of the reasons why you should be at least a little diversified.
You should have some of your money in precious metals because precious metals do in fact hedge against inflation.
They hedge against uncertainty.
They hedge against instability.
Gold is a safe haven against all that stuff.
My savings plan is diversified and yours should be too.
Go check out Birch Gold Group right now.
They have thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
What's your plan?
Well, part of it should be Birchgold Group.
Y'all know about Birchgold's free information kit, but for a limited time, qualified purchases can earn up to an additional $10,000 in precious metals for free through September 30th.
To find out if your purchase will qualify, contact Birchgold right now.
Go to birchgold.com slash ben.
Speak to a Birchgold rep.
Mention I sent you.
That's birchgold.com slash ben.
Do it now.
The offer only runs through September 30th.
Terms and limitations do apply.
Ask your sales representative for details.
All right, so.
A lot breaking this morning.
Michael Avenatti has now come forward with his bombshell accusation.
And this is one of these accusations where it's either true or it's false.
And if it's true, it shouldn't be all that hard to prove because the witness who Avenatti is bringing forward is claiming an enormous number of people who should have seen this going on, who should have seen the events going on.
So here's what's happening.
The precursor was that Michael Avenatti, over the past 48 hours, while I was out, announced that he had a woman who was willing to come forward and testify that Brett Kavanaugh was involved in a gang rape ring.
That was legitimately his words.
So Avenatti wrote Sunday in an email to Mike Davis, quote, who's the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
We are aware of significant evidence of multiple House parties in Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s, during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol slash drugs to allow a train of men to subsequently gang rape them.
He says there are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts.
Each of them must be called to testify publicly.
Now, it is worth noting that Michael Avenatti has, in the past, come up with some credible accusations, i.e.
Stormy Daniels, and in the past, he has made some non-credible accusations.
So, for example, he claimed that he had a DVD of Trump engaged in sexual congress, and he suggested there were three other women he was going to bring forward who'd been paid off by Trump, and then any of those things.
Evidence to support such an accusation would surely upend Kavanaugh's confirmation, which has already become a Chernobyl-like political disaster for the White House, according to Vanity Fair.
In reality, it is not, in fact, a Chernobyl-like political disaster for the White House.
The polls don't show any impact on Trump on the 2018 election.
Nothing.
But Michael Avenatti today, he finally comes out with the accusation.
So first, he was accused of getting this story from 4chan.
So the 4chan pranksters decided that they were going to accuse Avenatti of picking up on some rumor that they had put out there, essentially for fun, in order to harm Avenatti.
Avenatti denied all that and he came forward and he said that his client was going to come forward within 48 hours.
This is clip 11.
Well, Rachel, I'm representing one client who I can describe as a witness and victim, as well as additional corroborating witnesses to what she is going to allege publicly within the next 48 hours.
As it relates to her particular allegations, we're not going to provide additional information beyond that.
So Avenatti was acting kind of suspicious in the run-up to the release of this.
For example, he began protecting his tweets, which is unusual for a guy who has said that he wants to run for president in 2020.
He also then released the sworn declaration of a woman named Julie Swetnick, and he tweeted out a picture of her and said, here's her name, here's her picture, please respect her privacy, which is a very weird way to ask for somebody's privacy.
In any case, here is her declaration.
It just came out this morning.
Quote, my name is Julie Swetnick and I'm a resident of Washington, D.C.
I fully understand the seriousness of the statements contained within this declaration.
I have personal knowledge of the information stated herein and have called to testify to the same would and could do so.
And then she names off all of the places that she has worked before.
She says that she has worked for places, including the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S.
Mint.
She held inactive security clearances with the Department of State and the DOJ.
She says, I first met Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh in approximately 1980 to 1981.
I was introduced to them at a house party that I attended in the Washington, D.C.
area.
I observed Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh as extremely close friends during the early 1980s, when I knew them and interacted with them.
I would describe them as quote joined at the hip and I consistently saw them together in many social settings.
There's no question in my mind that Mark Judge has significant information concerning the conduct of Brett Kavanaugh during the 1980s, especially as it relates to his actions towards women.
Following that first introduction, I attended well over 10 house parties in the Washington, D.C.
area during the years 1981-1983, where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present.
These parties were a common occurrence in the area and occurred nearly every weekend during the school year.
On numerous occasions at these parties, I witnessed Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking no for an answer.
Kind of vague, because you don't know what that means.
Now remember, she's not claiming she's one of these girls.
Now remember, she's not claiming she's one of these girls.
She's saying that she witnessed this sort of behavior.
It says, I likewise observed him to be verbally abusive toward girls by making crude sexual comments to them that were designed to I likewise observed him to be verbally abusive toward girls by making crude sexual comments Like, you're saying that?
So the last part there is him being a jackass in high school.
I often witnessed Brett Kavanaugh speak in a demeaning manner about girls in general as well as specific girls by name.
Again, jackass in high school.
I also witnessed Brett Kavanaugh behave as a mean drunk on many occasions at these parties.
Again, jackass in high school.
So far, the only allegation she's made that is actually damaging is the allegation that he was engaged in physically aggressive behavior toward girls without their consent.
Guys saying mean stuff about girls when they're in high school is kind of called high school.
I've been told by other women that this conduct also occurred during the summer months in Ocean City, Maryland on numerous occasions.
I also witnessed such conduct on one occasion in Ocean City, Maryland during Beach Week.
And she says, I've reviewed Brett Kavanaugh's recent claim on Fox News regarding his alleged innocence during his high school years and lack of sexual activity.
We'll get to that in just a second.
This claim is absolutely false and a lie.
I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s.
And then here's where she gets to the actual damaging allegation.
And it's a little vague, as I'll explain in just a second.
Now, There's nothing to suggest that it's non-credible.
Again, we have to say whether it's credible or not.
She seems like a credible person from the text of the actual claim.
She doesn't seem to be a complete crazy person, although we haven't seen her speak out loud yet, so we really don't know.
And it is also worthwhile noting that she has not been called to testify in any setting.
She is not testifying under oath, as far as I'm aware.
And Michael Avenatti, when specifically asked whether she was accusing Brett Kavanaugh of indeed being involved in a gang rape, He demurred.
He's not answering the question.
Here is the actual accusation.
During the years 1981-1982, I became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to spike the punch at house parties I attended with drugs and or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say no.
This caused me to make an effort to purposely avoid the punch at these parties.
I witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to target particular girls so they could be taken advantage of.
It was usually a girl that was especially vulnerable because she was alone at the party or shy.
I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to cause girls to become inebriated or disoriented so they could then be gang raped, this is an actual accusation, in a side room or bedroom by a train of numerous boys.
I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their turn with a girl inside the room.
These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.
So now she's saying that she knows that there was a gang rape train going on and the line included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.
So that's an actual accusation.
Now, here's where it gets vague.
Finally, 1982, I became the victim of one of these gang or train rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh are present.
Now, here's where it gets vague.
It's not clear whether she is saying that they were involved in the gang rape or train or whether they were just at the party, like she was also at the parties.
So, you know, there were people at the party apparently.
So obviously a pretty terrible story.
And then she swore this under penalty of perjury.
She's executed this declaration as of yesterday.
So, obviously, it's a pretty terrible story.
And then she swore this under penalty of perjury.
She's executed this declaration as of yesterday.
So, the question here is a pretty simple one.
Is it true or is it false?
Is it true or is it false?
She's claiming now that they were at parties where there were dozens of witnesses, where people saw this gang rape train occurring on a regular basis, that she would continue going to these parties on a regular basis, even knowing that these boys were performing a gang rape train in the other room, which is sort of an odd sort of suggestion.
If you went to a party and you saw people performing gang rapes there, at the very least, would you continue going to those parties on the weekend?
Seems kind of suspicious.
The fact that she went to Michael Avenatti to reveal this particular scenario is also suspicious.
Bottom line is, we're going to need more evidence on this.
We're going to need some corroborating details.
We're going to need to know what the weekends were.
We're going to need to know who else was there.
She says that she's aware of other witnesses that can attest to the truthfulness of each of the statements above.
Who are these other witnesses?
We just don't know at this point.
We have no idea.
So, all of this is brand new.
We don't have any of the details as of yet.
It's not clear.
Now, one of the things that's happening here is that Democrats and folks on the left are jumping on Brett Kavanaugh's interview on Fox News last night to claim that Brett Kavanaugh actually was claiming that he is clean as the driven snow, pure as the driven snow, and therefore, if they can find evidence that he went to parties and was drinking, then he is therefore a liar and ought not sit on the Supreme Court.
It's this big straw man that's being set up against Brett Kavanaugh.
So here's what Brett Kavanaugh actually said.
He was on Martha McCallum's show, and he talked about his experiences in high school, and here's what he had to say.
We're talking about an allegation of sexual assault.
I've never sexually assaulted anyone.
I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter.
And the girls from the schools I went to and I were friends.
So you're saying that through all these years that are in question, you were a virgin?
That's correct.
Never had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school?
Correct.
And through what years in college, since we're probing into your personal life here?
Many years after.
I'll leave it at that.
Many years after.
Okay, so, number one, it's kind of absurd that he's now on TV having to brag about whether he was a virgin in high school.
Now, as somebody who thinks that there's nothing wrong with being a virgin in high school or all the way until marriage, I don't have much of a problem with folks saying this, but this is what our political discourse has now come to based on unverified allegations.
We're gonna get to the unverified nature of Christine Blasey Ford's allegations in just a second, but to finish up with the Kavanaugh interview here, It's being portrayed by the media as though Brett Kavanaugh said that he was, again, as clean and as pure as anyone has ever been in high school.
That's not exactly what he said, and I'll explain in just one second.
But first, let's talk about the quality of your sleep.
We're not going to agree on everything, but I think we can all agree we can use more sleep.
And you think about a lot of things when you go to sleep.
You think about the quality of the light in your room.
You think about the quality of the mattress in your room.
But do you think about the quality of the sheets that you use?
Well, you should, because it does make a huge difference with regard to the kind of sleep that you get.
That's why you ought to be using Bull & Branch.
Everything Bull & Branch makes, from bedding to blankets, is made from pure 100% organic cotton, which means they start out super soft, and they get even softer over time.
You can buy directly from them so that you are actually paying direct prices, as opposed to paying the middleman.
Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in places like Bed Bath & Beyond, but go to a Bull & Branch Website, and their sheets are gonna cost you only a couple of hundred bucks.
Everybody who tries Bull and Branch sheets loves them, which is why they have thousands of five-star views.
I like their sheets so much that after my wife and I tried them out, not only did we buy a few more sets, we actually got rid of all the other sheets in our house because they are indeed that comfortable.
Three US presidents sleep on Bull and Branch sheets.
Shipping is free.
You can try them for 30 nights.
If you don't love them, send them back for a refund, but you're not gonna want to send them back, but it's risk-free, so why not try it out?
To get you started right now, my listeners can get 50 bucks off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
Go to BolinBranch.com today, again, for $50 off your first set of sheets.
That's B-O-L-L and Branch.com, promo code Ben.
BolinBranch.com, promo code Ben.
Go check it out.
So, here is what Brett Kavanaugh actually said about his life during high school.
He says, yes, there were parties.
And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion, and people generally in high school.
I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but that's not what we're talking about.
We're talking about an allegation of sexual assault.
I've never sexually assaulted anyone, right?
That's when he gets to the part that he was talking about.
So, McCallum asked him, sir, you're gonna be pressed on something you just said about people do things in high school, and you were all drinking.
Were there times, perhaps, when you drank so much, was there ever a time you drank so much you couldn't remember what happened the night before?
And Kavanaugh said, no, that never happened.
McCallum said, you never said to anyone, I don't remember about anything about last night.
And Kavanaugh said, no, that never happened.
So, the great lie here that is being promulgated is that Brett Kavanaugh is saying that he was completely innocent in high school, that he never drank to excess, that he was never involved in raucous parties or anything like that.
But that wasn't the accusation.
Remember, the original accusation is that he tried to rape a girl.
The original accusation is that he pushed a 15-year-old girl into a room, pulled down her clothes, and tried to rape her, and then stifled her screams with his hand as she tried to cry out.
Now we have the second accusation from Avenatti, and it's not even clear at this point what exactly the accusation is, because the woman who's making the claim is basically saying that she was present at parties where gang rapes were occurring, and she saw Brett Kavanaugh in line, and she saw Brett Kavanaugh, I guess, grab and fondle girls, but those girls haven't come forward, and then she's making a claim that she was gang raped at one of these parties.
And Brett Kavanaugh is present at the party, but not clear that Brett Kavanaugh is actually involved in the gang rape.
So the extent of the claims that she's making is not particularly clear.
And you can see that the media are attempting to push the boundaries of the actual accusation.
Now the media are moving into the arena of suggesting that Brett Kavanaugh was basically a sloppy drunk.
The new accusation against him is that he was a sloppy drunk.
So they're going to claim that he was a sexual assaulter, and if they can't prove that, they're going to claim that he was a sloppy drunk, and therefore, if he was a sloppy drunk and he lied about it, he shouldn't sit on the Supreme Court.
So we're seeing a sort of mission creep with regard to what Democrats are claiming about him, depending on how seriously they end up taking Michael Avenatti's suggestions.
Okay, so speaking of that, The Washington Post has a long piece today about Kavanaugh's quote-unquote choir boy image.
Now, again, I'm not sure what makes people think that Brett Kavanaugh has claimed for himself a choir boy image.
As I just read to you from the transcript of McCallum's show, he is not claiming that he had a choir boy image, right?
He is saying that he was drinking to excess at parties.
But the Washington Post has a long piece today, an investigative piece about Brett Kavanaugh drank a lot.
Okay, drinking a lot in high school?
If that were a crime, 90% of the American public would be ineligible for any government job.
Really.
I mean, the amount of drinking that goes on in high schools across America is exorbitant.
It's exorbitant.
But the Washington Post has this long piece today.
They say on Monday night, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh said in a nationally televised interview that in his younger years he was focused on sports, academics, and service projects, but it was his comments about drinking that rankled some Yale University classmates, prompting them to speak out.
For the first time.
Liz Swisher, who described herself as a friend of Kavanaugh in college, said she was shocked that in an interview focused largely on his high school years and allegations of sexual misconduct, he strongly denied drinking to the point of blacking out.
Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him.
I watched him drink more than a lot of people.
He'd end up slurring his words and stumbling, said Swisher, a Democrat and chief of the Gynecological Oncology Division at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
There's no medical way I can say that he was blacked out, but it's not credible for him to say he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.
Well, but I don't understand what that means.
Like, he said that he wasn't a blackout drunk, and then he says that he remembered what went on.
That's completely subjective.
I'm not sure exactly how you would claim that he had memory lapses when he claims he didn't have memory lapses.
Lynn Brooks, who, like Swisher, was a college roommate of one of the two women now accusing Kavanaugh of misconduct, said the nominee's comments on Fox do not match the classmate she remembered.
He's trying to paint himself as some sort of choir boy, said Brooks, a Republican and former pharmaceutical executive who recalled an encounter with a drunken Kavanaugh at a frat event.
You can't lie your way onto the Supreme Court.
And with that statement out, he's gone too far.
It's about the integrity of that institution.
So now the accusation made by the Washington Post and made by these women is that if Brett Kavanaugh looked too clean in that interview, Then he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
So it's no longer sexual assault.
It's Brett Kavanaugh looked like a choir boy in that interview, and he wasn't a choir boy back when he was in high school and college.
But as I say, in the interview, he said that he went to parties where too much drinking occurred.
And he says he got drunk.
So I don't know what exactly the accusation is.
So now they are trying to basically say that he perjured himself on the basis of all of this.
That he perjured himself on the basis of, did you get drunk in high school?
That's not going to cut it.
It's just not going to cut it.
And then meanwhile, there's another allegation that they've brought forth, the Democrats have brought forth, and it is indeed an extraordinarily weak allegation.
It's an allegation from the New Yorker.
This broke Sunday afternoon.
It's an allegation from Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer over at the New Yorker, and this allegation is Basically a nothing.
The claim dates to the 1983-1984 academic school year when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University.
According to the New Yorker, the offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation.
At least two began investigating it.
Senior Republican staffers learned about the allegations last week.
The woman at the center of the story is a woman named Deborah Ramirez.
She has consistently refused to testify under oath.
She's not testifying under oath.
She's made clear that she's not testifying under oath.
In fact, Her own attorney said that she would probably not be testifying under oath.
Her own attorney said that she wasn't convinced of the veracity of her own memories with regard to this particular accusation.
This is clip 7.
Here's her attorney explaining that she didn't even know whether her own memory of the situation was true and yet were supposed to take it seriously.
Um, with that passage of time, you know, she went through those memories and there were some things that she believed were probably true, but she didn't disclose those because she wasn't completely convinced of their accuracy.
So that's the only reason why she did the work with the attorney and spent the six days to make sure that that information she did put forward was indeed accurate.
So, in other words, she didn't remember, and then she talked to her attorneys for six days, and Democratic staffers for six days, and then she came forward.
A lot of problems with this particular story.
Even Ronan Farrow seems uncomfortable that he ran this story in the first place.
The woman at the center of that story is a woman named Deborah Ramirez.
She's 53.
She attended Yale with Kavanaugh.
She studied sociology and psychology.
The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh.
How did they hear about that?
Well, they heard about it from Democrats.
The Democrats referred this woman to the New Yorker.
The New Yorker ran with the story.
It says, quote, after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez says she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dorm party, thrust his genitals in her face and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed it away.
And then she says she wants an FBI investigation but won't testify under oath.
And Kavanaugh, of course, completely denies the allegation.
And a bunch of witnesses say that they don't know what exactly she is talking about.
So this allegation is, again, really weak as well.
The allegations that have been put forth are unverified.
This latest allegation from Avenatti, we're gonna have to see whether anybody comes forward to verify it.
But right now, all of this looks just like I mean, it looks weak.
I gotta be honest with you.
It looks weak.
I don't trust Avenatti.
This woman coming forward...
Has not brought any other witnesses or corroborating details, so we're going to have to find out about that.
And the fact that all of this is being conjured out of the nearby Democrats makes me a little suspicious of all this.
Speaking of which, we're going to show you in one second all of the reactions of the political players to all of this.
We're going to get to that, and we're going to get to the big hearing that's supposed to happen tomorrow on Capitol Hill if Christine Blasey Ford decides to show up.
But first, let's talk about your investment strategy, Robinhood.
is an investing app that lets you buy and sell stocks, ETFs, options, and cryptos, all commission-free.
They strive to make financial services work for everyone, not just for wealthy folks.
It's simple and intuitive.
It's a clear design with clear data presented in an easy-to-digest way.
Folks in our office have tried the Robinhood app.
They say that it really looks good.
I mean, I've looked at it as well, and it is a very clean-looking app.
It does make trading extraordinarily easy and provides you information at the click of a button, touch of a finger.
Their costs, fee, their structure fee, is pretty great.
Other brokerages charge up to $10 for every trade, but Robinhood doesn't charge commission fees.
You can trade the stocks and keep all of your profits.
They have all these easy-to-understand charts, market data.
You can even group by 100 most popular sectors like entertainment or social media.
And this teaches you to invest simply by doing, because just put a little money in there and you can play around with it and see how you like to invest.
Robinhood is giving my listeners a free stock like Apple, Ford, or Sprint right now to help you build your portfolio.
All you have to do is go to shapiro.robinhood.com.
That's Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
Go check it out right now.
Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
Again, Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
Great app.
Go check it out right now.
And save money because you're not using any of those other apps.
Go check it out.
Shapiro.Robinhood.com.
The political reaction to all of this continues to play out.
There's a big story yesterday that seems a little bit overblown.
This is that the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court on Friday morning, less than 24 hours after Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, this is the original accuser, appear before the panel to discuss Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago.
Speaking of which...
There's an amazing media report out today from Peter Alexander, who's over at NBC News.
And Peter Alexander puts out, he says, NBC News has obtained sworn and signed declarations from four people who corroborate Christine Blasey Ford's claims of sexual assault against Kavanaugh sent to the Senate committee.
Well, that'd be pretty damning stuff, right?
I mean, four people corroborating her claims.
Except none of the four declarations actually corroborate her claims.
All of the declarations basically say that Christine Blasey Ford told them about it 30 years later.
That is not corroboration.
If I claim right now on this show that Dianne Feinstein slaughters puppies in her backyard, And then I get signed declarations from the million people who listen to this show saying that they heard me claim that Dianne Feinstein slaughters puppies in her backyard.
That is not actually a corroboration of the claim that Dianne Feinstein slaughters puppies in her backyard.
You're corroborating the claim that I said it.
You're not corroborating that it happened.
But the media say that this claim has now been corroborated.
And this is the problem with all of these stories.
These all should be easily verified and corroborated.
These happened in public settings.
These happened at parties.
To date, there are zero witnesses outside of the accusers themselves who have backed up any aspect of any of these stories.
Deborah Ramirez's story in The New Yorker?
No one at any of the parties backs up her story.
Apparently this happened in public.
This did not happen in private.
Christine Blasey Ford's stories?
There is nothing there.
There is nothing there that actually has backed up her story, including the witnesses that she herself has named.
All of them have denied that anything like this happened.
They say they haven't seen anything like this.
This new Avenatti accuser says that there are other witnesses.
Okay, so where are the other witnesses?
Any time now.
Just bring them on up.
Bring them on up.
I mean, this is amazing.
By the way, it is worth noting that if these accusations that are now being brought forth by Avenatti are true, Kavanaugh shouldn't just lose his Supreme Court seat, he should lose his D.C.
Circuit Court seat, right?
I mean, if he was involved in gang rapes with Quaaludes when he was in his teens, seems to me that that dude shouldn't be sitting on any court, let alone the Supreme Court of the United States.
But we're gonna need some verifying evidence.
Supposedly, everybody knew about all of this.
Supposedly, this was all clear.
So, I mean, this is what's... It's just hard to... Honestly, it's hard to buy the Avenatti story.
It's hard to buy the Avenatti story because she's saying there are tons of witnesses to gang rape and nobody has come forward yet.
I mean, this guy's an absolute sociopathic monster if this is true.
Forget Choir Boy.
The guy's Hitler if this is true.
I mean, these accusations are as bad as they get.
But, in the end, for Democrats, it's really not about presumption of innocence.
Chuck Schumer said as much.
Here's the Senate Minority Leader saying that Brett Kavanaugh, in his hearing on Thursday, is not entitled to a presumption of innocence or guilt.
They're just fact-finding, so we shouldn't suggest that he's innocent until proven guilty, or innocent until preponderance of the evidence shows otherwise, or anything.
The burden of proof, according to Chuck Schumer, doesn't exist.
There is no burden of proof.
He has the, quote, presumption of innocence.
I agree that we, this is not, that's a criminal trial.
What I believe is we ought to get to the bottom and find the facts in the way that the FBI has always done.
There's no presumption of innocence or guilt when you have a nominee before you.
Okay, no presumption of innocence or guilt?
Well, I mean, the American public should have some presumption of innocence.
Otherwise, what are we supposed to do?
Just believe every accuser that comes along without any other evidence?
Really, I guess that's the suggestion here.
He says there's no presumption of innocence or guilt, but there's a presumption of something, right?
Because that presumption decides the burden of proof.
So in court, when you say somebody is innocent until proven guilty, that means the quote-unquote burden of proof is on the prosecutors to show that the person is guilty.
The burden is not on the person being accused to show that they are innocent.
The burden lies with one party or the other party.
It doesn't lie in between.
There's no way to have a situation where there's no presumption of guilt or innocence.
That doesn't exist.
Right?
Either you presume that the accusation is true, in which you presume he's guilty, or you presume that the accusation is not true until proven otherwise, in which case you presume that he's innocent.
But the idea that there's no presumption either way, and we are just a fact-finding inquiry, like you're the police, kind of hard to credit when Democrats have trotted this out every step of the way as politically as humanly possible.
This all, frankly, it stinks.
I mean, on the part of the Democrats, it just stinks.
It just stinks.
I mean, it's very difficult to credit any of this.
By the way, Brett Kavanaugh has denied Avenatti's accusations already.
He did it preemptively in his interview with Martha McCallum.
He says, listen, all these accusations that I was involved in a gang rape, just nonsense.
He said this on Fox.
Did you ever participate in, or were you ever aware of any gang rape that happened at a party that you attended?
That's totally false and outrageous.
I've never done any such thing, known about any such thing.
When I was in high school, and I went to an all-boys Catholic high school, a Jesuit high school, where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship.
Friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local all-girls Catholic schools.
Okay, so he's denied the accusations that Avenatti is putting forward already, and that's perfectly obvious that he's denying the accusations that have been put forward.
But Democrats, again, they're playing a game here where we don't even know where the burden of proof lies.
We just don't know.
We have no clue where they're even putting the burden of proof, what their specific allegation is, what they have to prove in order for them to knock Kavanaugh out of the box.
None of this is clear.
And so President Trump, when he comes forward and he says, listen, this seems to me like a con game, I gotta agree with the President of the United States.
Here's President Trump speaking on this.
Normally, I hate when he speaks about stuff like this, but when he's right, he's right.
And I think what he says here is basically correct.
This is a con game being played by the Democrats.
Also, take a look at the lawyers.
These lawyers are the same lawyers that have been fighting for years.
They keep fighting.
Take a look at the lawyers.
Okay, again, I don't think that there's anything wrong with him saying that, and I think that he's basically right, that this has all been ginned up by Democrats at this point.
I mean, look at Kirsten Gillibrand, who basically said that Brett Kavanaugh should be calling for an FBI investigation into himself, or he's guilty in some way, which is essentially a Stalinist tactic.
Now she's saying Fox News is evil because they're trying to confuse people about Kavanaugh.
No, they're trying to say, you're gonna need to show some proof of something here, but here she is making the claim anyway.
Every time you hear on Fox News, oh, innocent, assume you're innocent, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, they're trying to confuse voters, they're trying to confuse people across this country.
That is not what this is about.
No, you are trying to confuse people across this country by not making clear your standard of proof and by not making clear the nature of an accusation that you think should rule somebody out of politics.
Again, if the accusation is he got drunk in high school, guilty.
He says he got drunk in high school.
If the accusation is that he sexually assaulted somebody, I don't know what you're going to be able to do with that.
Like, I just, I don't understand what exactly the accusation is.
You know, it's very difficult It's very difficult to figure out exactly what the claim is.
Like really, I'm having a difficult time coming up with what the claim is because Christine Blasey Ford has made a claim.
It is not clear to me what exactly the evidence is for that claim.
Is it enough to claim that he grabbed a girl and pushed her on a bed and she screamed and he put a hand over her mouth?
Yes.
Obviously that would be enough to rule him out.
Would it be enough to claim he was part of a gang rape train?
Yes.
Is it enough to claim he was drunk in high school?
No.
That would clearly not be enough.
And yet Democrats keep trying to expand the borders of this particular claim.
Now, in a second, we're going to get into all of the details of this hearing that's supposed to take place tomorrow.
But first, let's talk about life insurance.
So, September is National Life Insurance Awareness Month.
If you listen to this show a lot, you've heard me talk about how important life insurance is.
But, Here is the thing.
40% of Americans still don't have life insurance, which is foolish.
Because if you plot, your family is basically screwed.
So make sure that you go out and get life insurance today.
And the best way to do that is by going over to policygenius.com.
Policygenius is the easy way to get life insurance online.
In two minutes.
You can compare quotes from the top insurers and find the best policy for you.
And when you compare quotes, you save money.
It's that simple.
PolicyGenius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance.
They've placed over $20 billion in coverage.
And they don't just make life insurance easy.
They also do disability insurance and renter's insurance and health insurance, if you care about it.
They can cover it.
So, if you're looking for a good reason to buy life insurance, I've got three.
It's National Life Insurance Awareness Month, rates are at a 20-year low, and Policy Genius makes it easy for you to get the right policy for you.
There really is no reason not to have a life insurance policy.
This is just basic, responsible adulting.
Go to policygenius.com, get those quotes, apply in minutes, you can do the whole thing on your phone right now.
Policy Genius is indeed the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
Go over to policygenius.com and get those quotes and apply in minutes.
Alrighty, so we're gonna discuss what we can expect at the hearing tomorrow, plus President Trump at the UN and Ted Cruz being chased out of a restaurant.
We'll get to all that stuff, but you're gonna have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For $9.99 a month, you can get the rest of Daily Wire's shows, right?
You can get them all live.
You can get the rest of my show live.
You can get the rest of...
Andrew Clavin's show live.
You can get the rest of Michael Knowles' show live.
Plus, when you subscribe, you also automatically download and have access to our Sunday specials, which are just fabulous.
We have an extra question that we ask on the Sunday special you can't get unless you are a subscriber.
This week's Sunday special features Cameron Kasky, a Parkland student who was present during the mass shooting and was a member of March for Our Lives.
He's now left March for Our Lives.
A really interesting interview.
I think that you'll enjoy it.
Hey everyone, I'm Cameron Kasky.
These are my tears and I'm on the Sunday special.
So go check that out right now.
I think Cameron is really genuine kid.
I think that I'm old enough to call him a kid, which freaks me out.
But I think Cameron is a genuine guy trying to search for some better answers for himself and at least have honest conversations.
So you're going to want to hear this one.
I think that it's worthwhile.
Also.
Go check us out at YouTube or iTunes, subscribe, leave us a review, we always appreciate it.
I don't have my leftist tears hotter called Tumblr, so I hold up my invisible one that I bring with me whenever I'm on the road.
This one right here is a $99 subscription Tumblr.
It is magnificent.
It is better than the $9.99 a month subscription because, hey, it's cheaper, and also you get a mug with the powers of invisibility, which is pretty incredible.
So go check that out right now.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So here is the latest on the hearing that's supposed to take place on Thursday, Democrats keep trying to push off these hearings, keep trying to prevent anybody from actually testifying.
Two days ago, Senator Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to the Washington Post, called for a delay in further consideration of Brett Kavanaugh after a second woman accused him of sexual misconduct.
She said, Does it seem like a group of people who desperately want to have their clients testify?
Does it seem like a group of people who really want to have their clients questioned by prosecutors?
Seems to me like not.
And Democrats are very upset because Republicans are going to have an Arizona prosecutor asking the questions instead of members of the committee.
According to LMT Online, Republican senators have selected Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, according to a top senator.
Mitchell is the Sex Crimes Bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix.
And she's going to query the two at Thursday's highly anticipated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
She's a registered Republican.
She's worked for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for 26 years.
Because she's in Maricopa County, this has led Democrats to claim that they basically went through Sheriff Joe Arpaio to come up with this prosecutor.
There's no evidence of that whatsoever.
She's a well-respected prosecutor in this particular region.
Republicans are turning to her to ask all the questions specifically because she's a woman.
Let's be honest about this.
They're doing this because Democrats claimed that Republican senators should not ask questions because they were men.
So Republicans said, okay, well, how about we bring a woman?
And Democrats said, that's not fair because we wanted it to be men so you'd look bad.
I'm not kidding.
This is exactly what Democrats are saying.
Maisie Hirono, who's the Democrat Senator from Hawaii, she basically said that, right?
After spending days and days and days saying it's just terrible that all these old white men want to question this young woman who has a traumatic experience in her past, now when Republicans say, okay, we'll have a woman do it, now the Democrats come forth and they say, it's just terrible that these old white men won't question this young, traumatized woman.
Here's Maisie Hirono doing just that.
But it should be very obvious to the people of our country by now that the Republicans do not want to question Dr. Ford directly because it will reveal who they are and I think they're afraid of that.
Okay, so they don't want the Republicans questioning them, but they also don't want a woman questioning them, which suggests, again, these do not look like honest allegations that are coming from an honest place for the Democrats.
Now, maybe all of this happened, and if it all happened, as I say, over and over and over, these are egregious crimes that he's being accused of.
If they are true, He should lose his job, right?
I mean, he should not sit on the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals, let alone the Supreme Court.
But it seems to me much more like Democrats just want to create a miasma of confusion around Kavanaugh based on unverified allegations.
Hirono's making that obvious, right?
Hirono says that Kavanaugh will always have an asterisk over his name no matter what happens from now on, which is a pretty hellish standard.
If the way we're going to now run things is that there's an asterisk by your name if an allegation is even made about you, what's to prevent allegations from being made about everyone at any time for any reason, and then there's just a cloud surrounding you?
That's why we require evidence.
That's why evidence is useful.
If we're going to ruin somebody's life, at the very least we ought to have some evidence their life ought to be ruined.
That's not what we've seen so far.
Here's Hirono.
Should he get on the court, there will always be an asterisk and a cloud over his name and on his name.
And I think that is not what we want to do to the Supreme Court.
And to be frank about this, you know, when she says that there will always be an asterisk over his name, Democrats have tried to place an asterisk by the name of every single justice who's been appointed by a Republican for the last 25 years.
Clarence Thomas, George W. Bush appointed two of them.
Democrats say he wasn't even elected properly, so both of those should be out of bounds.
And now they're trying to do the exact same thing.
With both Gorsuch and now with Kavanaugh, right?
Both of them were appointed by Trump who lost the popular vote and who stole the seat from Merrick Garland.
So all five of the justices appointed by Republicans who currently are sitting on the court or about to sit on the court, Democrats have attempted to create a miasma of confusion about.
And that miasma of confusion extends to the way that they talk about the case itself.
So Christine Blasey Ford is the one who wants to limit the Senate coverage.
And she says she only wants one camera in the room.
And apparently Republicans agreed to that, which is insane.
That's insane.
I don't even know why you would agree to such a thing.
Why would you agree to one camera in the room?
And we have one camera in the room right now.
Why?
Because there's only one target for the camera in the room.
It's me.
But if we wanted Colton on camera, now we're asking Colton questions, you'd need two cameras in the room, otherwise you just get the camera swiveling.
And it's silly.
You'd want to see my reaction to Colton's answers, for example.
If ever we were to interview Colton for some bizarre reason.
But the reality is that in this particular case, you need a camera on her, and you need a camera on the person asking the questions.
You need two cameras.
Republicans apparently agreed to one.
She doesn't want mass press coverage, so she wants to limit the number of people in the room.
I don't understand how she's being allowed to get away with any of this.
She was allowed to drive across the country instead of fly.
Based on what?
Not clear.
None of that is clear.
All of this just, it just stinks to high heaven.
It just stinks to high heaven.
Until I see more evidence, I cannot buy into this.
This is not to say that the allegations, if they are credible, and if they are, if there's any evidence to them, that they shouldn't be damaging.
They should.
But because they are damaging, that's why we need evidence.
That's the whole purpose of having evidence in any of these cases in the first place.
Okay, so, meanwhile, Ted Cruz was chased out of a restaurant.
You want to generate sympathy for Ted Cruz, all you have to do is unleash a bunch of nasty leftists on him.
So he went to a restaurant in the Washington, D.C.
area, apparently, and he was immediately chased out of the restaurant by a bunch of lefties who were screaming at him.
We believe survivors!
Okay, so he's there with his wife and they're not letting his wife through and they're trying to impede her passage.
Really classy folks.
These folks are just classy.
This is smash racism DC.
Because obviously this has to do with racism for some odd reason that nobody knows.
So there are a bunch of videos around this.
Apparently one shows a woman who identified herself as a constituent and a survivor of sexual assault said, I'd love to talk with you about Brett Kavanaugh.
I'm a constituent.
I'd love to know what your vote is going to be.
I know you're very close friends with Mr. Kavanaugh.
Do you believe survivors, sir?
Again, this is such a stupid question.
Do you believe survivors?
I believe survivors when there's evidence to back their case.
I'm not saying I don't believe survivors when there's not evidence, but I don't have enough evidence to say I fully believe them.
I can say I find their account credible, but I can't say I fully believe every detail of that account without any corroborative evidence from 30 years ago.
I can't do that.
Hey, because it's a leading question.
It's a circular question.
Do you believe survivors assumes the truth of the accusation?
Right?
I mean, because you're saying she's a survivor, so that means that the accusation is by necessity true.
And saying, like, do you believe the account of a Holocaust survivor?
Yes, because you called them a Holocaust survivor.
Hey, do I believe the account of Richard Blumenthal that he served in Vietnam?
No, right?
Because he wasn't telling the truth about all of that.
So it depends on the account that's being stated.
It's not a properly formed question, as we might say in the legal profession.
It is an improperly formed question.
The question is, do you believe every allegation of sexual assault ever made by a woman?
That is the question that actually is to be asked.
And the answer to that, obviously, should be no.
Because there are some accusations that are not true, or people misremember, or they get the facts wrong.
But, that means that we have to run Ted Cruz out of a restaurant, and people on the left will say, well, you know, that's good, Ted Cruz deserves it.
You gotta live out your values in public life.
Listen, I'm lucky.
I go to kosher restaurants, and I'm pretty popular with my crew.
So when I go to kosher restaurants, this has never happened to me.
But I could see it happening if I was ever out to lunch with some folks, you know, and just having my typical water while they eat a nice dinner.
If I were to do that, I could see this happening.
The idea that we're going to extend all of this to public life?
You want a worse country?
We're getting it right here.
So Beto O'Rourke condemned it.
Good for him.
He said, And we know that in June, Maxine Waters suggested that people do exactly this sort of thing.
So this is a split among members of the Democratic Party as to whether this sort of activity is okay or not.
Okay, meanwhile, President Trump was at the UN yesterday.
He's at the UN today as well.
He's presiding over the Security Council.
And it is, in fact, deeply amusing to watch him gavel to silence the constituencies, the representatives of China, for example.
He's actually sitting there with a gavel, which is pretty awesome.
But he gave a speech at the UN General Assembly yesterday.
And it was quite good.
There was a lot there that was quite good.
He said that we defend sovereignty.
This was his sort of main claim.
I think that this particular claim is not one of his best.
And he says we defend sovereignty of other nations.
And then he sort of suggests that they get to define their own values.
That's true to a point, obviously.
It is not true to the ultimate point, which is that you get to define how you treat your people without any sort of interference from the outside.
That obviously is untrue.
But here was the president making his main point, talking about America first and sovereignty.
To unleash this incredible potential in our people, we must defend the foundations that make it all possible.
Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered.
And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.
So I agree with all of that, right?
Everything that he just said there about nationalism actually being a good vehicle, everything there about nationalism being a good vehicle for human society, agree.
And the idea of a global government where we're all brothers, a brotherhood of man, as John Lennon says in Imagine, that's a bunch of nonsense.
With that said, even Trump believes that nationalism doesn't mean that sovereignty is completely left alone, right?
So for example, He said this about socialism and communism.
He basically said Venezuela can't run things like the Venezuelan government is currently running things.
That's a breach of Venezuelan sovereignty, I would imagine.
The basic rule about Venezuela and the basic rule about nationalism is that nationalism is good so long as it follows good ends and uses good means.
It is not good so long as it involves genocide against a population or so long as it involves socialism and communism, destruction of the rights of the individual.
Here is President Trump going off about Venezuela.
He's correct about this, obviously.
Virtually everywhere socialism or communism has been tried, it has produced suffering, corruption, and decay.
Socialism's thirst for power leads to expansion, incursion, and oppression.
All nations of the world should resist socialism and the misery that it brings to everyone.
In that spirit, We ask the nations gathered here to join us in calling for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela.
Okay, so obviously when he talks about sovereignty, he only means that sovereignty applies so far as it doesn't violate sovereign human rights and individual rights, which is correct, which is correct.
And I think that he should make that clear in future speeches, but a lot of this is very good.
And it is good to have a president who goes before the UN and doesn't make apologies for the United States.
I mean, I think President Trump is at his best in international scenarios because a muscular America on the world stage defending her own interests is a very good thing for the world as a general rule.
An America that goes in front of the U.N.
and apologizes for Ferguson or Baltimore, which is what Barack Obama did in front of the U.N., apologizes for American interests, apologizes for America promoting her own interests around the world, suggesting that national sovereignty of bad countries is more important than human rights or national sovereignty of good countries.
That was devastating stuff.
And I know that a lot of people say, oh well, you know, President Trump went there and he got laughed at by the international community.
Why do you care if a second-rate dictator is laughing at you, so long as we're taking action to stop the second-rate dictator?
I would much prefer that the second-rate radical Islamic dictators of Iran laugh at President Trump and feel it in their pocketbook than that they smile at President Obama and enrich themselves on the back of their own people and then use all of that money to fund terrorism.
So, President Trump, I thought, did a just fine job at the UN in the General Assembly yesterday.
The way that he talked about Israel and Iran, I thought, was just terrific.
Here's what the President said with regard to Iran.
It's a very different language than President Obama was using just a couple of years ago.
This year, we also took another significant step forward in the Middle East in recognition of every sovereign state to determine its own capital.
I moved the U.S.
Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
The United States is committed to a future of peace and stability in the region, including peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
That aim is advanced, not harmed, by acknowledging the obvious facts.
Okay, and then what do you have to say about the Israelis and Palestinians?
Obviously a far cry from when Barack Obama would go to the UN and suggest that all world problems were to be laid at the feet of the Jews.
They would be laid at the feet of the Israelis, who are of course so intransigent with regard to, you know, the terrorist groups on their borders.
And if they would only be a little nicer, that would solve the problems with regard to Iran.
I do like that the President's America First attitude on the world stage means that we're going to stand up to bad countries again.
He was doing that today in the Security Council.
Apparently he said today in the Security Council that China has been attempting to interfere with our elections.
He suggested that Russian interference in Syria cannot go unnoticed.
All of that is very good stuff.
So good for the President of the United States.
More of that.
More of the President speaking on international affairs in the face of countries that are pursuing evil ends.
And, you know, less of the President tweeting.
I think the last several weeks for the President have actually been quite good.
He's really kept himself from saying the obviously dumb thing.
Much more frequently than usual, and that would be good.
I'd like to see a continuation of that.
Again, if I were running the president's team, I would be sending the president abroad as often as possible to talk about how bad Iran is, to talk about foreign policy and building up America's military capacity, to talk about building up America economically.
The president performs pretty well overseas, generally.
Generally.
I'm not gonna include Helsinki in that particular assessment.
Okay, so, let's do a couple of things I like, and then a couple of things I hate, and then we will be back here tomorrow with a lot more from the Christine Blasey Ford hearing.
So, things I like.
Over the Jewish holidays, I did some light reading.
I was reading Paradise Lost by John Milton.
If you've never actually read Paradise Lost, It is a masterful use of the English language and people misread paradise law so because we live in a post-romantic era in which people value emotions above facts and in which people value rebellion and passion above I think lucid thought.
People for a long time have identified Satan in Paradise Lost as sort of the anti-hero, that really the hero of Paradise Lost is Satan, right?
Satan fights a war with God because he doesn't feel like paying obeisance to God all the time, and so God casts him down, and then Satan infiltrates the world and acts as the snake in order to seduce mankind into original sin, and then God sends Jesus in order to make up for the original sin, basically.
But Satan gets all the good speeches.
There's no question about this.
I mean, when you read it, Satan gets all the good dialogue.
So everything Satan says is really compelling because good evil characters on film and in plays and in Paradise Lost are very compelling because something draws us to the passion of evil.
That's true.
But Milton specifically said that this book was written And this epic poem was written as a piece of theodicy.
It was trying to explain why bad things happen to good people, why original sin occurred, what God's actual plan is, trying to justify the actions of God.
And if you read it with sympathy for Satan in mind, you're getting it completely wrong.
The whole point is that Satan is cunning.
The whole point is that Satan is deceptive.
The whole point is that Satan is attractive.
And that if we are to look to our own lives and see the activities of what we in Judaism call the yetzer hara, the kind of evil inclination, we would see that it's not as obvious as Somebody just saying, let's go do something evil, it really more often is somebody saying, let's go do something brave.
Let's go do something spectacular.
Let's go do something that fits our ends.
And if in doing so, we have to break a few eggs, well, I guess that we'll have to do that.
There's something attractive about that to the human nature, to the human mind.
That doesn't mean that Satan is right and God is wrong.
It means that we are wrong and God is right.
And that's what Paradise Lost is really about.
The word choice, the biblical references, it's just magnificent.
I've really never spent any time with it before.
It's truly incredible.
So go check it out.
Paradise Lost by John Milton.
Okay.
Time for a couple of things that I hate.
So, things that I hate today.
So, Bill Cosby, good, was convicted on an account of date rape, basically, where he was quaaluding women and then having sex with them against their will, which is what Michael Avenatti is now accusing sort of Brett Kavanaugh of doing.
So if Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of it, then obviously Brett Kavanaugh should go down, but you're going to need some actual proof.
So Bill Cosby's lawyer said the dumbest thing that is possible to say here.
And he said that Bill Cosby being persecuted here after acknowledging that he used Quaaludes, like Bill Cosby said, he himself said he used Quaaludes when he was with women.
His lawyer says that this was just like the persecution of Jesus.
Jesus didn't date rape people.
Just FYI.
For those who've never read the New Testament, nothing in there about Jesus turning the water into the wine without the consent of the women.
That was not actually a thing.
So here is Bill Cosby's lawyer saying silly things.
Mr. Cosby's doing great, and Mr. Cosby knows that God is watching over him.
He knows that these are lies.
They persecuted Jesus, and look what happened.
I'm not saying Mr. Cosby's Jesus, but we know what this country has done to black men for centuries.
Well, I don't think that this is about his race.
I think this has a lot more to do with the fact that there are a bunch of women, as in dozens of women, who came forward with credible allegations, all of which backed one another.
Now, here's the part where it gets dicey.
A CNN guest goes on and says, Really?
Can't I?
Why not?
You know, during the break, I'm scrolling through Twitter and I'm looking at people actually saying and applauding the judge in this sentence, and then in the same breath, wanting to defend Kavanaugh.
And it's disturbing to me, because again, like Areva said, this is a monumental, defining moment this week, when you have someone like Cosby going to prison, and then in the same breath, having Kavanaugh possibly going to the highest court in the land.
This is Yodit Tewald.
Her name is... It is idiotic.
Her name is Yodit Tewald.
She's a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor.
No, the difference is that there was actual evidence in the Bill Cosby case.
Like corroborative evidence.
Not the same thing.
The fact that Democrats are trying to link together Cosby and Kavanaugh without actual evidence that Kavanaugh did any of this stuff yet, outside of the allegations themselves, pretty astonishing and demonstrative of just how intellectually bankrupt a lot of folks on the left are.
When the evidence is presented, I am more than happy to follow the evidence, but I'm actually going to have to see that evidence.
That doesn't make me a sexist.
It doesn't make me someone who takes sexual abuse lightly.
It makes me someone who likes evidence before we decide that we're going to destroy somebody based on accusations alone, unsourced accusations alone.
Okay, well, we'll be back here tomorrow with all the latest high drama as Christine Blasey Ford heads to the Senate to testify, being questioned by an Arizona prosecutor.
Brett Kavanaugh will be there as well, and we'll be there to cover all of it.
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.
▲
Export Selection