The Kavanaugh vote approacheth, and a last-ditch attempt to stop Kavanaugh materializes.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The excitement builds as we approach the Kavanaugh vote.
Mitch McConnell has now filed for cloture.
That means the vote on Kavanaugh will likely take place on Saturday.
Perfect!
I'll be off.
So I won't even know what happened.
The suspense will kill me on Saturday.
Ah, once again, God coming between me and the news.
But, you know, that's just the way it works around here.
Bunch of announcements to make up top here before we get into the latest.
And today we're going to go through a lot of material, including the supposition that Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury on the stand, which is the new angle that's being taken.
We'll talk about all of that.
But first, I want to announce that tonight I am kicking off my YAF tour, Young America's Foundation tour, at University of Southern California.
It starts at 10 p.m.
Eastern, 7 p.m.
Pacific.
So you can watch me take on the left both in person and online.
Come be a part of this fall's speaking tour.
We have a bunch of universities.
We are going to bring your tumblers before the tear harvest is upon us.
So that is exciting stuff.
We are expecting that there will be protesters.
There's actually some talk about violence, which obviously we hope does not occur.
People have been going nuts over this speech, which it's always puzzling to me.
Me?
Really?
I feel like I'm a nice guy.
But, you know, I'm admittedly biased.
Also, we really appreciate you tuning in and sharing the podcast with your friends.
If you enjoy what we're doing, please subscribe to The Ben Shapiro Show on iTunes.
Go over on your iTunes right now and subscribe.
And while you're there, leave us a five-star rating.
A five-star rating.
Go check it out.
Please do that.
If it's anything less than a five-star rating, well, then just skip it.
We don't really need your opinion.
Let's just be real.
The only opinions that we care about are the ones that we like.
But if you like the show, do it.
It only takes a second.
It really does help us out.
Those iTunes rankings actually are based in part on the number of ratings that are given.
So if you haven't rated us yet, go over and give us a five-star rating over at iTunes.
So go check that out.
Also, also, the midterm elections are coming up.
You may know this.
This creates uncertainty in the market.
It creates the possibility of a change in the governance structure because God forbid the Democrats win the House or win the Senate.
This could change how policy is done.
And that's why you ought to be taking at least some of your money and putting it in precious metals.
It's a hedge against inflation, a hedge against uncertainty and instability.
Gold is a safe haven against such uncertainty.
My savings plan is diversified and yours should be as well.
The company I trust with precious metal purchases is Birch Gold Group.
And right now, thanks to a little known IRS tax law, you could even move your IRA or eligible 401k into an IRA backed by physical gold and silver, which is perfect for folks who want to protect their hard-earned retirement savings from any future geopolitical uncertainty.
If you look back, when the bottom falls out of everything else, gold tends to safeguard savings.
Gold has never been worth zero.
Birch Gold Group has thousands of satisfied customers, countless five-star reviews, A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Right now, contact Birch Gold to request a free information kit on physical precious metals.
It's a comprehensive 16-page kit.
It shows how gold and silver can protect your savings, and again, how you can legally move that IRA or 401k out of stocks and bonds into a precious metals IRA, if that's something you're into.
To get that no-cost, no-obligation kit and ask all your questions, go to birchgold.com slash ben.
Ask all your questions, be certain about what you want to do with your finances, and then when you're ready to invest a little bit in precious metals, go check out birchgold.com slash ben.
All right.
Now, to the news.
So, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has announced that he is invoking cloture, meaning that we are not going to allow the Democrats to filibuster the Kavanaugh nominee, and that means that by Saturday, the full Senate will be voting on Brett Kavanaugh.
Here was Mitch McConnell yesterday announcing that he was going to file cloture on the floor of the Senate.
There'll be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on the supplemental material before a Friday cloture vote.
So I'm filing cloture on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination this evening so the process can move forward as I indicated earlier this week.
And the process should move forward.
The process should move forward because guess what?
Shocker.
It turns out that nothing has been found.
And we've now been doing this for another week.
Another week thanks to Senator Jeff Flake and the idea that an FBI investigation was going to quell everyone's fears.
Clearly that's happened.
Clearly, Democrats are now very satisfied with how this has gone.
Everybody has a lot of faith in the FBI.
Folks on the left, they really feel like a full investigation has been done, and they're feeling pretty satisfied about all this.
Take, for example, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who took the results of the FBI inquiry, and she saw that it basically said nothing new, and then she said, you know what?
I feel like this has been settled.
I guess now I'll really consider Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
Or alternatively, she did what everyone knew what she would do, and she said, oh no, the investigation is a bunch of hooey, and it was never meant to be comprehensive, and therefore Democrats can't vote for Kavanaugh on that basis.
Here is Dianne Feinstein, who really has just been I mean, there's no other word for it in terms of the process that she's engaged in than evil.
I mean, it really has been an evil process in which she's engaged, getting an allegation on July 30th, holding it for six weeks until just before the vote, releasing it without any corroborating detail, maybe releasing it anonymously in order to spur the full release of the story, and then grilling Brett Kavanaugh on supposed gang rape.
Now, all of this has just been gross, but here's Senator Dianne Feinstein continuing her pattern of being gross by saying that the FBI investigation is incomplete.
And because it's incomplete, therefore, that's really why we shouldn't vote on Kavanaugh.
But what I can say is that the most notable part of this report is what's not in it.
As we noted by the White House, the FBI did not interview Brett Kavanaugh.
We have seen even more press reports of witnesses who wanted to speak with the FBI but were not interviewed.
Okay, so I love that she says what's most important here is what's not in it.
That's true, but not how she means it.
So she says, what's most important is all the people the FBI didn't interview.
Well, that's because the people that she's talking about could provide no corroborating evidence.
What's not in the report is that there is no corroborating evidence for any of Christine Blasey Ford's allegations.
No corroborating evidence.
None.
The GOP Senate Judiciary Chair, Chuck Grassley, he says there is no hint of misconduct in confidential FBI report on Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct claims.
He says there's nothing in it that we didn't already know.
Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, at least Susan Collins from Maine, she is suggesting that the FBI process has made her feel a little more quiet about this whole thing.
Maybe that's what Jeff Flake was going for.
If so, we'll put the best possible spin on it.
Maybe when Senator Flake called for the FBI investigation, he was just trying to get Susan Collins on board or provide cover for a couple of Democrats like Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp to vote for Brett Kavanaugh.
Also, the polling data this week has been brutal for Democrats.
So that means that Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, that the two of them may in fact vote for Kavanaugh just to preserve their Senate seats.
It is very likely right now that the Democrats, their chances before the Kavanaugh thing were not good.
With regard to taking back the Senate, they had about one in three shot, according to FiveThirtyEight's modeling, of taking back the Senate.
Now that's down to about one in four.
And it looks like Republicans may actually pick up seats in the Senate.
Even the advantage that Democrats have in House races has been reduced by half, as we talked about yesterday on the show.
So this Kavanaugh thing has backfired pretty badly on Democrats.
White House spokesman Raj Shah says the White House has received the Federal Bureau of Investigation's supplemental background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh.
It is being transmitted to the Senate.
With Leader McConnell's cloture filing, senators have been given ample time to review the seventh background investigation.
This is the last addition to the most comprehensive review of a Supreme Court nominee in history, which includes extensive hearings, multiple committee interviews, over 1,200 questions for the record, and over half a million pages of documents.
With this additional information, the White House is fully confident the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
President Trump tweeted out this morning, the harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh He's 100% right on this.
Even Bret Stephens is expressing gratitude that Trump is president today, which is an amazing thing, right?
Bret Stephens is about as anti-Trump as it's possible to be.
This great life cannot be ruined by mean and despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations.
He's 100% right on this.
Even Brett Stevens is expressing gratitude that Trump is president today, which is an amazing thing, right?
Brett Stevens is about as anti-Trump as it's possible to be.
He is a true never-Trump Republican.
And he came out in The New York Times today and said, I am very, very pleased that Donald Trump is president and standing by Brett Kavanaugh.
Now, there are a lot of folks on the left who don't seem to understand why folks on the right are so passionate about this issue.
The reason we're passionate about this issue is because it looks like due process and presumption of innocence have been tossed completely out.
Now, in a second, I'm going to get to the counter argument that's being made by some folks, I think in good faith, folks like Sam Harris on his podcast.
And I'm friendly with Sam.
And we've been having a little bit of a text back and forth about this.
And I'm not spilling any secrets.
He said all this stuff publicly.
I want to talk about that in just a second.
But the way that Republicans are viewing this, the way conservatives are viewing this, the way independents are viewing this is a man was accused after 36 years of allegedly sexually assaulting a girl back when he was 17 years old.
There is no corroborating evidence and Democrats want to run him out of his life over it.
And then the media have decided to latch on to every single rumor they possibly can in order to prevent Kavanaugh from joining the court.
That's what this looks like.
To anyone I think of Objectify, I don't even think it's conservatives, anyone of Objectify, the process sucks.
Now, there are two separate questions.
And this is where I think it's worthwhile discussing the most intellectually honest version of the leftist case.
There are two separate questions.
Does the process suck?
And does Brett Kavanaugh deserve to be on the court?
Now, these two issues are not completely separate.
The process and its suckage are one of the reasons why Brett Kavanaugh got himself into a little bit of trouble with regard to his testimony.
I'm going to talk about the trouble he got himself into with regard to his testimony in just a second.
But the suckage of the process is what most people are concerned with at this point because it feels like whatever Complaints are being made about Brett Kavanaugh are essentially fruit of the poisonous tree.
And when you accuse a guy of gang rape and you start going through his yearbook, and then your final case against him is he fibbed about stuff in his high school yearbook, and that's why he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court?
That feels like fruit of the poisonous tree in the worst possible way.
And in a second, I'm going to discuss that case.
Also, it feels like the media are out to get Kavanaugh, because they are.
Ronan Farrow has done some really good work on the Me Too stuff.
Like, some really excellent work on the Me Too stuff.
And he completely has undermined his own credibility with regard to Brett Kavanaugh.
So, you recall that a week ago, The New Yorker, in a piece by Jane Meyer, who is not a good reporter, and Ronan Farrow, who is a good reporter, they put out a piece suggesting that a woman named Deborah Ramirez, back when she was at Yale, was at a drunken frat party, and Brett Kavanaugh unzipped his pants and exposed himself to her.
That was the accusation.
It was at a party.
She apparently considered it for six days because she wasn't sure that she remembered it correctly or that it was Kavanaugh.
And then she came forward and told the story.
There were no corroborating witnesses.
Well, last night, The New Yorker decides that in order to undermine the credibility of the FBI investigation, they are going to come forward with new witnesses to Deborah Ramirez's statement.
Well, that would be kind of a bombshell, wouldn't it?
Except that's not actually what the report said.
On Wednesday evening, The New Yorker runs this investigative piece from Meyer and Ronan Farrow.
The piece claimed that the FBI investigation into sexual assault claims against Kavanaugh was insufficient.
What made the investigation insufficient?
Well, here's what they said.
They said, quote, frustrated potential witnesses who have been unable to speak with the FBI agents conducting the investigation into sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, have been resorting to sending statements unsolicited to the Bureau and to senators in hopes that they would be seen before the inquiry concluded.
So the FBI investigation is, Justice Feinstein said, insufficient because there are a bunch of witnesses who have not been interrogated by the FBI, and they've been desperately reaching out to the FBI trying to tell their vital stories.
What are their vital stories?
Well, the key vital story comes from a guy named Kenneth Appold.
Kenneth Appold, according to the New Yorker, was a suite mate of Brett Kavanaugh's at the time of the alleged incident.
He had previously spoken to the New Yorker about Ramirez and condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes the FBI must thoroughly investigate her allegation.
Appold, who is the James Hasting Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later.
Appold said he was 100% certain that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez.
Well, okay, that's pretty damning stuff, right?
I mean, here's a guy who's saying that he heard about Kavanaugh exposing himself at this party.
So why isn't the FBI talking to him?
Clearly, the FBI investigation is a ruse.
Clearly, it hasn't been done thoroughly enough, and all the rest of it.
Well, There's only one problem.
Buried a few paragraphs down there in the story is a little spoiler that completely undermines the New Yorker story.
I will explain that spoiler to you in just one second.
But first, let's talk about what you do in case of emergency.
So, you see there are these natural disasters.
You see the videos of them on YouTube or on Twitter.
You watch on TV as a tsunami or a hurricane hits, and you think to yourself, okay, am I really prepared in my own home?
And the answer is, you're probably not.
And that's why you need MyPatriotSupply.
When there's no power, refrigeration fails, and stores close, so what do you do?
Well, that's when you need an emergency food plan.
I trust MyPatriotSupply for dependable food storage, and you should as well.
People in the office have it.
We have actually MyPatriotSupply at the office in case an emergency hits while everybody is here at work, so we don't resort to cannibalism.
I think it is fair to say that Austin goes first.
Each person in your household should have at least a two-week emergency food supply from MyPatriotSupply.
This week, they're offering a special price of only $75 for a food kit that contains 92 servings of breakfasts, lunches, and dinners.
Call 888-803-1413 or go to my special website, preparewithben.com.
This food lasts up to 25 years in storage.
It's only $75.
That includes a rugged tote.
Order now, 888-803-1413 or preparewithben.com.
888-803-1413 or preparewithben.com.
So go check it out right now.
So how did the New Yorker undermine its own case?
So they say here's a witness, a witness who says he heard about Brett Kavanaugh exposing himself to a girl at Yale.
Now again, this is a different allegation than the he tried to sexually Assault somebody.
This is a bad, drunken, frat antic that is gross, but it's not quite the same thing as pressing yourself on a girl and putting your hand over her mouth.
There are gradations of evil.
This one is a little bit lower than the other one.
But, here's the big problem with the New Yorker story.
Okay, the New Yorker story says this.
This is actually what it says in the story.
Quote, So in other words, here's what the New Yorker is reporting.
Here's their big bombshell.
This guy heard secondhand about a party at which Kavanaugh exposed himself without permission to a girl.
And this guy said, I'm not coming forward until I talk to the guy who told me the story.
The New Yorker actually identified that guy who supposedly witnessed the event.
And they went and they talked to him.
And that guy said, I don't remember anything about that.
Wouldn't that actually be the end of the story?
Like in a normal journalistic standard, wouldn't that be the end of the story?
If I spoke to somebody and they said, I heard a rumor from X that this happened and he was an eyewitness.
And then when I spoke to the eyewitness and the eyewitness said, no, I don't remember anything about that.
That would be the end of the story.
The New Yorker ran with it anyway, because this is the length to which journalists will go to sink Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
And then that report in The New Yorker gets even worse.
The New Yorker wrote that some of Kavanaugh's classmates said he was a bully in high school who laughed at other kids.
This is a quote from The New Yorker story.
In his statement, In his statement, which his attorney also sent to several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, he described Kavanaugh as part of a clique of high school athletes, most of whom were on the football team, who routinely picked on less physically fit or popular students.
He said he never witnessed Kavanaugh physically attacking another student, but he recalled him doing nothing to stop the physical and verbal abuse.
Instead, he said Kavanaugh stood by and laughed at the victims.
So what?
So what?
Is the implication that he shouldn't sit on the Supreme Court because he was a jackass in high school?
And I mean, like, in the classic sense?
Like he was a jerk in high school who was part of the popular kids clique?
This is coming from a guy who was deeply unpopular in high school, right?
I have no sympathy for guys who were bullies in high school or who stood by while bullying occurred in high school.
I have no sympathy for that because I was a brutal victim of bullying when I was in high school.
But being a victim of bullying does not mean that I think that anyone who was a bully in high school also raped chicks.
I don't think that's a thing.
There are a lot of guys in my high school who are the worst people imaginable in high school.
I don't think any of them participated, and I have no evidence that any of them participated, in sexual assault on girls.
But that's the implication from the New Yorker story.
And you wonder why the right is reacting with outrage to all of this?
That's why the right is reacting to outrage.
Why else?
Because the left is now desperately attempting to make a series of claims about Kavanaugh that are unconnected to the original allegation.
And I'll get to that in just one second.
So, first we begin with the response from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford to the FBI investigation, which came up with nothing new.
Her attorneys, who are Democratic activists, they sent out a statement and said, quote, An FBI supplemental background investigation that did not include an interview of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford nor the witnesses who corroborate her testimony cannot be called an investigation.
We are profoundly disappointed that after the tremendous sacrifice she made in coming forward, those directing the FBI investigation were not interested in seeking the truth.
A few things.
One, she testified under oath at length.
There is no reason for the FBI to talk to her again.
If she contradicts her story, she commits perjury.
There's really no reason for them to talk to her.
Second, they talked to all of the witnesses.
None.
Zero.
Zip.
sworn statements and those witnesses did not back her story when they say that the fbi didn't talk to the witnesses who corroborate her testimony there are no witnesses who corroborate her testimony none zero zip zilch none i want to by the way i have to debunk a talking point that's
Zilch.
There's this talking point on the left that women would never falsify, would never misremember, would never lie about allegations of rape.
Tremendous sympathy for people who allege sexual assault.
I do.
I mean, when she first came forward, I said, this is a credible account, and I want to wait for corroborating evidence before I make a decision on this.
There's no corroborating evidence forthcoming, and that's why I'm saying that Brett Kavanaugh can't sit on the court.
I still don't know if she's telling the truth.
You don't know either.
Nobody knows, because there's no corroborating evidence and no witnesses.
With that said, one of the things that's been put out there by folks on the left is that there's no incentive for women in high-profile cases to come forward.
I have two words for you.
Anita Hill.
Okay, Anita Hill has been a hero on the left for the last 25 years.
HBO made a full series about her.
And if you think there's no incentive for women to come forward and shape the course of history, I find that highly doubtful.
Highly doubtful.
I mean, here was Time Magazine's cover this week.
The Time Magazine cover this week is of Christine Blasey Ford swearing with her eyes closed and her entire face is made up of words from her testimony.
Does that look like somebody who has not benefited at all from the publicity?
I would say that Christine Blasey Ford is one of the most worshipped figures on the left today.
So, that's not an implication that she's lying, but to suggest that the incentives are all stacked in one direction is just not correct.
It's just not objectively correct.
It is true that Brett Kavanaugh has an interest in her story not being true, but she also has an interest to suggest that women don't have an interest in coming forward in high profile cases because all they're going to get is the downside.
It's just, it's not accurate.
It's just not accurate.
Now, again, that doesn't mean she's manufacturing her case.
It doesn't mean she's lying, but we ought to at least be honest about what the incentive structures here are.
Incentive structures are in place for allegations to sometimes be made.
If they weren't, then you wouldn't have high profile cases where women come forward and say something and it turns out that they're fibbing.
We're making things up.
So that is point number one.
Point number two, there are a bunch of people who are now coming forward and making ancillary claims that have nothing to do with Kavanaugh.
And this is supposed to be the great debunker of Kavanaugh.
So there was a piece in USA Today that a woman was promoting on Twitter in which she claimed that Brett Kavanaugh getting angry in front of the Senate is the reason that he shouldn't be on the court.
So remember, the original reason he shouldn't be on the court was that he was a conservative.
Then, the reason that he shouldn't be on the court is because he allegedly committed sexual assault.
Then, when there was no corroborating evidence, he shouldn't sit on the court because he was partisan and angry.
This woman at USA Today says, I remember my angry father and that's why Brett Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on the court.
What in the world does that have to do with anything?
What does that have to do with anything?
That's like me saying, I was abused in high school by bullies.
Brett Kavanaugh was a bully in high school.
That means he raped a chick.
And therefore, I oppose his nomination.
And it's just, it's an absurd claim.
If a bad thing happened to you in your life thanks to a person who is not the person we're talking about, that doesn't mean that the person at issue actually committed a crime against a person who is not you.
It's legitimately like saying, I have a relative who was murdered.
That means that Senya committed murder of another person.
There's no logic to that whatsoever.
First of all, Senya would get away with it.
She's very clever, dastardly, in fact, in her cleverness.
But it's a nonsensical argument.
That's an argument that's been repeated.
We should believe all women because something happened to me.
And because something happened to me, I believe Christine Blasey Ford.
I don't understand that line of thinking at all.
Bad things have happened to everybody in their life.
Terrible things have happened to many people, some worse than others.
That doesn't mean that third parties are guilty for crimes against fourth parties.
It's just, it's an absurd claim.
It's an absurd claim.
And then, there's this letter from 650 law professors at the Washington Post, and I'll talk about that in just a second.
But first, let's talk about how you keep your home safe.
Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
Today, over a million people use the amazing Ring Video Doorbell to help protect their homes.
Ring knows home security begins at the front door, but it doesn't end there.
So now they're extending that same level of security to the rest of your home with the Ring Floodlight Cam.
Just like Ring's amazing doorbell, Floodlight Cam is a motion-activated camera and floodlight that connects right to your phone with HD video and two-way audio that lets you know the moment anyone steps on your property.
See and speak to visitors, even set off an alarm right from your phone.
With Ring's Floodlight Cam, the Ring Floodlight lets you know when things go bump in the night, so you're going to know what it is.
We have a Ring Doorbell on our door.
It's just fantastic.
It means that when I'm out of town, I know who's actually ringing the doorbell at my house.
I have a lot of safety concerns, and so that helps me feel secure.
The Ring Floodlight Cam is even better.
They're offering the ultimate in-home security with high visibility floodlights and a powerful HD camera that puts security in your hands.
With Ring, you're always at home, even if you're on the road.
Save up to $150 off with Ring of Security Kit.
When you go to ring.com slash ben, that's ring.com slash ben.
Again, ring.com slash ben for 150 bucks off a ring of security kit.
Other products are just terrific.
Check it out.
Ring.com slash ben.
So speaking of this, something bad happened to me and therefore Brett Kavanaugh is guilty.
Connie Chung did that today at the Washington Post.
So Connie Chung, who you recall is a journalist, I believe at, she used to be, was it NBC?
Connie Chung?
CNN?
CNN?
I'm trying to remember where she was a journalist.
In any case, Connie Chung has a piece.
It is called this.
Dear Christine Blasey Ford, I too was sexually assaulted and it seared into my memory forever.
So?
I mean, I don't mean to be insensitive, but so?
Like, why don't you report who sexually assaulted you and then we can, like, go prosecute that guy?
But that's not what the piece says.
It says, Dear Christine Blasey Ford, I, too, was sexually assaulted not 36 years ago, but about 50 years ago.
I've kept my dirty little secret to myself.
Silence for five decades.
The molester was our trusted family doctor.
What made this monster even more reprehensible was that he was the very doctor who delivered me on August 20th, 1946.
I'm 72 now.
It was the 60s.
I was in college.
Am I sure who did it?
Oh, yes.
100%.
And then she just goes on and on about what exactly happened here.
And it's pretty terrible.
Right?
It's pretty terrible.
And she says that she was basically molested by the doctor.
So what is supposed to be the conclusion of this?
I mean, I don't know what the conclusion's supposed to be.
It says, Christine, I know the truth as you do.
This logic is just as applicable to Crystal Mangum, who is the Duke Lacrosse rape accuser, who is lying, or Emma Sulkowicz, the Columbia University rape accuser, who is lying, or to Jackie, the University of Virginia rape accuser, who is lying.
If the standard is something bad happened to me, so you're telling the truth, we have no system of due process, presumption of innocence, or justice.
I mean, it's just an insane claim.
Other insane claims.
1,700 law professors have signed a letter that they sent to the New York Times and then sent on to the United States Senate on October 4th, and they talk about judicial temperament.
So there are several cases now being brought against Kavanaugh based not on the original allegations, but based on ancillary allegations.
So case number one is, something bad happened to me, so I believe Ford.
Terrible case, illogical, makes no sense.
Case number two, Brett Kavanaugh got mad.
You see, he got angry.
You accused him of raping people and then he got angry.
And that means that he's not fit for the court.
And you used partisanship in order to destroy this man's life.
And then you're mad that he called out your partisanship.
That means he's a partisan and he shouldn't sit on the court.
You know the reason no one cares what a bunch of law professors think?
Because everyone knows that law professors are Democrats.
I went to Harvard Law School.
You know how many Republicans were on the staff at Harvard Law School?
As far as I know, one.
Legitimately one when I was there.
I think it was Professor Manning.
He was the only one.
OK, there may have been one other, but like Charles Freed, I believe, was teaching contract law at the time.
I'm not even sure he was a Republican by the time that I took his class.
The number of actual Republicans or conservatives in the halls of law school academia are nil.
So basically, we have a bunch of partisan Democrats signing letters saying they don't like Brett Kavanaugh because he got mad.
Right, which again, as I said, that argument is so bad.
It's like saying that when my daughter takes my little son's hand, she's four and a half, he's two and a half, when she takes his hand and she hits him in the face with it, and then she says, you're hitting yourself, and then he gets angry.
Like, kid, why are you getting angry?
Well, it's because you hit him in his face with his own hand.
Like, that would probably be the reason.
I saw a tweet today.
It's like the Democrats basically said to Brett Kavanaugh, Brett Kavanaugh is responsible for the bee shortage.
And they just release bees in the room, all of which attack Kavanaugh and sting him.
And then they're like, oh, he's screaming about the bee attack.
That's terrible.
No judicial temperament.
Pretty much that.
So this long letter says, we are professors who teach, research, and write about the judicial institutions of this country.
The question at issue is painful for anyone, but Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry.
Uh-huh.
So when the notorious RBG, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, rips on Trump and says he shouldn't be president, that's not partisanship.
She deserves to sit on the court.
But when Judge Kavanaugh gets angry that people are calling him a gang rapist on open television, then that's obviously a reason that he shouldn't be on the court.
So that's case number two, is that Brett Kavanaugh got mad.
Oh no, he got mad, and that means that he shouldn't be on the court.
That's again a pretty astonishing claim.
He got angry, therefore he shouldn't be on the court.
That one is nonsense.
So, that means the Democrats have fallen back on their final case.
Okay, so their final case, the one that they're finally falling back on at the latest, Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury.
So they are suggesting that in his testimony, Judge Kavanaugh committed a bunch of lies.
He lied a bunch of times.
So first of all, let us define what perjury is in the elements of the law.
It is a false statement that is material to the proceedings.
That is the definition of perjury.
OK, this is the United States Department of Justice standard for perjury, section 1748, elements of perjury, materiality.
The false statement must be material to the proceedings.
A false statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.
The testimony not have actually influenced, misled, or impeded the proceedings.
So if you lie to impede a grand jury's line of inquiry, then that would be a violation of perjury charges.
If you're President Clinton, and you suggest you did not, in fact, have sex with that woman, that is legitimate perjury.
But that is not the same thing as, you know, you're asked a question about whether it snowed on a particular day, you know it snowed, but you say it rained, and that has no actual material impact on the course of the investigation, that's perjury.
Okay, that's not how it works.
So what are the lies that Brett Kavanaugh supposedly told?
First of all, It is important to note that all of his testimony was given in the context of him being accused of a gang rape by a bunch of Democrats.
And then they were digging through his yearbook.
So every claim that has been made about his lies has been that supposedly he downplayed his drinking or lies about his high school yearbook.
Or lies about his high school yearbook.
Now, I'm not going to defend lying.
I'm not going to pretend that if Brett Kavanaugh lied about things, I think that makes him squeaky clean.
But let's go through a list of the supposed lies that Brett Kavanaugh told.
This is from Boing Boing, okay?
So Boing Boing is a far-left site, and so this means they're going to give about as comprehensive a view, well, it's actually from Media Matters, which is as comprehensive a view as you can come up with, of Brett Kavanaugh's lies.
So, what are these supposed lies?
Kavanaugh said he did not travel in the same social circles as Ford, but he did.
And then they said, well, he traveled in the same social circles.
Well, what's the evidence?
That some of the people she says were at a party with her were on his calendar.
That's not the same social circles.
That's six degrees of Kevin Bacon.
That's like saying that, you know, I travel in the same social circle as Senya and therefore Senya's friends are in my social circle.
That's not the same thing at all.
Also, they say that he lied when he attempted to fabricate an alibi by suggesting he did not drink on weekdays.
That's not true.
He said he rarely drank on weekdays.
And his own calendar.
And in fact, he referred openly in his testimony to his calendar.
He said, on this day, I probably drank.
How do I know I probably drank?
Because it says so on my calendar.
Kavanaugh said he had no connection to Yale University prior to attending undergrad and law school there, but he was a legacy admittee.
That is not true.
He's not a legacy admittee.
His grandfather went to Yale in 1908.
Not to Yale Law School, to Yale.
So that's not actually a thing.
Where else did he lie?
Supposedly he lied about blacking out from drinking.
But he didn't lie about that.
There's no evidence that he actually did black out from drinking.
Now, the Democrats kept using Blackout from drinking because what they were attempting to establish is that he actually tried to rape Christine Blasey Ford and just didn't remember the incident.
That's what they're attempting to say.
But there's no actual evidence of that, so there's no lie there either.
Now, what you could say is that he was playing his drinking in the most favorable possible light.
I think that's fair.
But that's not the same thing as perjuring yourself, as lying openly.
We'll go through a couple more of the supposed lies that Brett Kavanaugh told.
Rich Lowry has a good rebuttal to this over at Politico as well.
But first, let's talk about your habits in the bathroom.
No matter what you do in the bathroom to get ready, Dollar Shave Club has everything you need to look, feel, and smell your best.
I love Dollar Shave Club products.
They really are awesome.
Their Amber Lavender Body Cleanser.
They also have like a sage and black pepper shampoo.
It's really good and it really smells terrific.
They have amazing shower stuff, hair styling products, toothbrushes, toothpaste, and razors and shave supplies.
I get ready using a lot of their products and you can do it yourself.
No matter how weird you are, you might shave your whole body to get ready for a bike race, because that's the kind of weirdo you are.
Dollar Shave Club's Executive Razor and Shave Butter can help.
You might do your hair to get ready for your soccer match.
Boogies by DSC can help you get your style right.
The thing is, no matter what you do to get ready, DSC has everything you need.
And right now, you can get ready with an amazing deal on any of their starter sets.
I recommend the Daily Essentials Starter Set because I love the Amber Lavender Body Cleanser, but you can't go wrong with any of them.
Head over to dollarshaveclub.com slash ben to pick your own DSC Starter Set for just five bucks.
After your starter set, products ship at regular price.
That's dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
Again, dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
And when you do that, you get to pick your own DSC starter set for five bucks, and then everything ships at regular price.
dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
All righty.
Well, we're going to tell you the rest of Brett Kavanaugh's supposed lies, this kind of final last-ditch attempt to stop his nomination.
It will be confirmed at this point.
It's pretty obvious.
But first, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
So, just to note, this Friday, Daily Wire is launching the next chapter in Andrew Klavan's podcast series, Another Kingdom, as performed by the excrable Michael Mowles, who is actually not that excrable in his performance.
If you aren't caught up on the first season of Another Kingdom, it will be available on the website.
Subscribers to Daily Wire will get early access to every episode and all of it ad-free.
This season, we've actually added a pretty awesome visual component.
You're not going to want to miss it.
So just another benefit you get for being a subscriber over at dailywire.com.
Also, when you subscribe, you get the rest of my show live.
You get to be part of my mailbag, which we are doing tomorrow live.
So all sorts of good stuff coming for you when you subscribe.
$99 gets you the annual subscription, which comes along with this.
The greatest in all beverage vessels.
The leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler, overflowing daily at this point.
And my goodness, we have a plumbing problem around here because of leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
You too can experience the joy that is that fantastic piece of vesselry when you get the annual subscription.
Also go over, subscribe, iTunes, SoundCloud.
Please leave us a review at iTunes, that really does help us.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast in the nation.
So back to the supposed lies that Brett Kavanaugh told us.
So this is their final ditch attempt.
So they said, we can't nominate him because he's a sexual assaulter.
And then they said, we can't nominate him because other women have been raped by other people who are not Brett Kavanaugh.
And then they said, well, we can't nominate him because he got angry.
And finally they came up with, well, he committed perjury.
He committed perjury.
There's only one problem.
No evidence he committed perjury.
So, some of the other accusations.
They say that Kavanaugh cited Maryland's drinking agent explaining his behavior even though he was too young to legally drink in any case.
The only thing is that he said in his testimony he was too young to legally drink.
He said the drinking agent in Maryland was 18.
He said that in his testimony.
And then they get to the boofing, right?
So they suggest that it's a lie.
He committed perjury.
We're going to charge him with perjury for saying that in his yearbook, when he was 17, he used the word boof to mean fart.
And what it actually means is anal sex.
I'm not kidding.
This is what they actually are saying.
That everyone knows that boofing is anal sex.
I didn't know the boofing was that.
That's weird.
Also, it turns out that there are a lot of different ways that people use the word boof.
Also something I didn't know, but there has been substantial research on the boofing, and it turns out that there's no way to substantiate that as a lie.
Also, the term devil's triangle.
So there's a suggestion.
Is that Brett Kavanaugh was using a pornographic reference about two dudes and one girl in a threesome.
Again, he says that that was a drinking game.
It seems a pretty weird way to obscure your past drunkenness to term Devil's Triangle a drinking game.
But again, there are a bunch of people on Twitter who have said that they have heard of that as well.
Okay, so there's a bunch of people who say, no, he actually meant that.
Now, let's remember, why is any of this material?
It's only material because the suggestion by Democrats is that if you put a bunch of sexual references on his Facebook page, that means he sexually assaulted a girl when he was 17.
That in and of itself is an insane line of inquiry.
It's an insane line.
Have you ever read a Facebook page?
Have these people ever been in high school?
I went to an all boys Jewish high school.
My yearbook page was clean.
I can't say the same for all my friends.
There are references that people didn't necessarily understand in the yearbook pages.
At an Orthodox Jewish day school.
I have a feeling that most high schools around the country are replete with such references.
Jess and Senya, you guys went to high school?
Were there any obscure, weird sexual references in your yearbook by dudes?
Yeah, that's right.
Too many to count is precisely the right answer because, of course, have you ever met a teenage boy?
I love all these senators who are drunk and louts going around like, oh, well, when you were 17, you wrote in your yearbook about drinking and making sexual references.
Like...
Okay, if you're a 17-year-old boy, have you ever... Again, have you met a 17-year-old boy?
There's not a 17-year-old boy on Earth who doesn't make sexual references.
None.
Zero.
Zip.
Zilch.
But, if Brett Kavanaugh downplayed that in his testimony, this means he was a perjurer who cannot sit on the Supreme Court now that he is 60 years old.
Uh-huh.
Okay, so...
Here is the final.
So finally, they narrow it down.
Finally, they narrow it down.
So what is this?
They also suggest that he lied when he says that he had a weak stomach, so he used to throw up a lot.
Well, maybe he had a weak stomach and he threw up because of alcohol and or spicy food.
I also have a weak stomach.
I throw up a lot, too.
That could happen from drinking.
I've never thrown up because of drinking, actually, because I don't actually drink.
But the Manischewitz.
Thank you, Alex.
No, I'm not desperate enough to drink Manischewitz.
That would be just terrible.
But it's So finally, they've narrowed in on one thing.
One thing.
So the Bufang and the Devil's Triangle, all this stuff, meh.
It's just a bunch of nonsense.
Then they narrow down to one thing and one thing only.
Here is their only credible claim, in my opinion, their only credible claim that Brett Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
Their only credible claim is that there is a reference on 14 of the boys' yearbook pages about a woman named Renate Dolphin, who is an attendee of a local all-girls high school.
Now, a few things you might need to know about Renée Dolphin before we actually get to the supposed lie.
Renée Dolphin was good enough friends with Brett Kavanaugh that originally she signed a letter in support of the idea that he was very good to girls when he was in high school.
She was on that letter.
She was friends with him for many, many years.
And she signed that letter.
There's no accusation that she had sex with him in high school.
There's no accusation that he sexually assaulted her in high school.
There's no accusation that he touched her in high school.
None.
So what exactly is the claim?
The claim is that on 14 Boys Yearbook pages, there was a reference to Renate Alumnius, referring to her.
And other references suggest that this was a joke among a bunch of guys, suggesting that they were alumni of her genitals, essentially.
That there's a bunch of guys who'd had sex with her.
And when Kavanaugh was asked about this, he said that this was an attempt, a clumsy attempt at affection among his friends.
Right, that's what he said in his actual testimony.
And I want to see if I can grab the actual text of the testimony so that I can find exactly what it is that he was claiming.
But the basic suggestion of Brett Kavanaugh is that this was not, in fact, a reference to sex with Renate Alumnius.
The Renate Alumnius was not a reference to sex with Renate Dolphin.
The New York Times had a piece where they said that it was horrible and hurtful And here's what the New York Times said.
They said that two of Judge Kavanaugh's classmates said the mentions of Rene were part of the football player's unsubstantiating boasting about their conquests.
And Kavanaugh suggested that it was a clumsy attempt.
Right?
That it was a clumsy attempt at affection.
Now, Maybe that's true, and maybe that's not.
But there's no way to substantiate perjury.
First of all, it's not material.
I read you the materiality provision in the FBI, in the DOJ manual.
And second of all, it is fair to say that a clumsy, a clumsily, here's how he phrased it, quote, one thing in particular we were sad about, one of our good, one of our good female friends, who we would admire and went to dances with, had her name used on our yearbook page with the term alumnus.
That term was clumsily used to show affection, to show she was one of us.
There is no way to substantiate anything differently.
Except, theoretically, they could have gone and asked one of the other 13 guys who used your name on the pages if that's what that meant.
They didn't.
Because you know what?
They couldn't find anyone to testify.
What it meant is we all had sex with Renate.
Renate Dolphin.
So based on him being vague about a yearbook phrase two words long from when he was 17, that means he can't sit on the Supreme Court.
Yeah, go with that.
Strong response, Democrats.
That's definitely where I think that you're going to catch him.
So, it's pretty obvious at this point that the Democrats will do anything to stop Brett Kavanaugh, and it's pretty gross.
Now, speaking of doing anything to stop Brett Kavanaugh, Their last such attempt was on Wednesday.
So Senate Democrats released the latest in an absurd spate of Democratic letters.
They'd released a bunch of letters directed at Republicans asking for more information.
Bernie Sanders wanted more information.
And Senator Chuck Grassley responded to him by saying, are you actually considering voting for Kavanaugh?
Because you said the day after he was nominated you wouldn't.
And then Chris Coons wrote a letter asking for an FBI investigation into a non-verified and unbelievable allegation of sexual misconduct.
Well, this time, this is what happened late last night, Senators Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Pat Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal, Mazie Hirono, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris wrote a letter suggesting that the confidential background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh from the FBI prior to the hearings, not the new one, showed there was information related in some way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.
So they wrote a vague letter saying that there was some intimation of inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse in his prior FBI background checks.
There's only one problem.
He wasn't asked a single question at his original confirmation hearings about inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.
And by using the phrase, by phrasing it such that the Democrats were saying that in the past FBI background checks, there was evidence of quote, inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse, that somehow the Democrats knew something they weren't telling us.
Well, it turns out they didn't know anything.
It turns out they were just muddying the waters, which is completely unsurprising because that's where we are at this point in time.
No wonder the Republicans are united on this.
Lindsey Graham, Who has turned into something kind of awesome.
Like Lindsey Graham 2.0 is so much better than Lindsey Graham 1.0.
It's not even close.
Like the new software update is just fantastic.
So Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina, ripped into Dianne Feinstein for ripping into Kavanaugh on his supposed anger on Fox News.
Here's Lindsey Graham.
I like Dan Feinstein.
I don't think she leaked Dr. Ford's name to the media, but somebody around her may have.
If you saw this man as yelling, I saw a man who was offended to his core, defended his good name, took it to the people who were trying to destroy his family.
What would you do if you were in that situation?
Do not let these people.
Do what they've done to Judge Kavanaugh and reward them by saying he's no longer fit because he is in the world's worst position of defending himself against a bunch of garbage from people who don't care about fairness.
Okay, and that's exactly right.
Senator Graham was even better when he did some sort of public event with the Atlantic.
He said that how Kavanaugh's been treated is despicable and the audience started booing him and he went directly after the audience, which was just spectacular.
I don't like what the President said last night.
I'm the first person to say, I want to hear from Dr. Ford.
I thought she was handled respectfully.
I thought Kavanaugh was treated like crap.
Yeah, well, boo yourself.
Good for him.
Boom!
Lindsey Graham just dropping the hammer.
Gotta love that sort of stuff.
And again, the hypocrisy of many members of the left on this, not all members of the left, but many members of the left on this is just astonishing.
People who are saying, oh, it's just a job interview.
Really?
Does this sound like just a job interview?
I know when I interview somebody for a job, the first thing I do is throw uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault at them.
That's the first thing that I do.
When we interviewed Senya, she came in here and I was like, Senya, so I heard that you raped a chicken.
And then we just started from there.
And then if she got mad, I was like, sorry, we can't have you here.
I'm sorry.
We try to run people through the gauntlet around here in our job interviews.
So that's always a very, very strong... Senya gets hit hard because she's in the room.
I would say the same about Mathis.
When Mathis first came in here, I was like, so Mathis, you strangle cats in your backyard.
That was our opening question.
And he handled himself well, and that's why he's been able to rise as the company.
All job interviews go like that around here, I know.
The Democrat hypocrisy on this stuff is really astonishing from a lot of folks.
That's not to say every Democrat is being dishonest, but some certainly are.
One is clearly Alyssa Milano, who says that she is filled with rage at the GOP.
Here she was on... Why is Alyssa Milano a thing?
I don't know.
She was uncharmed, and now she's a thing.
Okay.
Well, here she was on MSNBC explaining how much she hates that the GOP is suddenly tolerant of supposed sexual assault.
I mean, I'm not sure if you were to have a real conversation with any American, whether they be Democrat or Republican, that they would side with this kind of behavior where we've reached a low where we're actually mocking people and their stories of hurt and of pain.
Who are we?
Who do we want to be as a country?
What are we trying to project?
To the young people of this world.
Very upset.
Just very upset about all of this.
So upset about all of this.
So upset that back in 2012, she wrote this on Twitter.
This is Alyssa Milano's tweet on Twitter.
Bill Clinton, I love you so much.
Like crazy amounts of love.
Clearly, these are people who take very seriously allegations of sexual assault.
So yeah, I'm definitely... There's no politicking here at all.
None.
Okay, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like.
I've started watching the show Vikings.
It's a fun show.
It's a fun show.
What's kind of fun is to watch this and there's another show called The Last Kingdom that's on about sort of the...
I saw something.
What did you see?
So Vikings is about sort of the Viking invasion of England.
And the show, The Last Kingdom, is about the British attempt to stop the Viking invasion of England.
So it's kind of fun to watch those two shows back to back and see the kind of differences and similarities.
Here's a little bit of the preview.
I saw something.
What did you see?
God's desire you to have a great future.
But they can withdraw their goodwill at any time.
The laws of man.
If you like shows with swords, then it's great.
That's pretty much my standard.
If there's a show that has people fighting with swords, I'm pretty much in.
I don't have high standards when it comes to that sort of stuff.
It's definitely worth watching.
I'm like three or four episodes in, and so far, I think it's quite good.
It's History Channel trying to get ratings, so it has a few HBO touches, but aside from that, I think that it's A pretty solid show for the most part.
Okay, other things that I like today.
So Kanye West, as I've said many times, Kanye is live by the Kanye, die by the Kanye, right?
You get the good along with the bad.
So sometimes he is implying that Abraham Lincoln might have been a black guy, which he did today.
And that was weird.
And sometimes he is saying that Colin Kaepernick should reach out to President Trump.
He says, reaching out to Colin Kaepernick, I would like you to speak with the president to tell him your experience directly.
Let's have a dialogue, not a diatribe.
Seems kind of reasonable.
Seems kind of reasonable.
I like that Kanye is actually going out of his way to say that people can think differently.
Now, does that mean that all of his different thoughts are good thoughts?
No.
But it means that some of the... that at least...
He's open to having conversations, which is nice.
I was talking to a reporter from the Washington Post yesterday, and I said, one of my chief irritants in life is the fact that I have strenuous disagreements with a lot of folks on the left.
I'm willing to have a conversation with pretty much anybody on the left.
On my Fox News show last Sunday, I had on Ariel Gold.
I think she's wrong about pretty much everything.
I was happy to have a conversation with her.
I think she's wrong, like dead wrong, about everything.
Happy to have a conversation with her.
I've had on Sam Harris on the show.
I'm happy to have a conversation with folks on the left.
I've invited Ta-Nehisi Coates.
He will not come.
I've invited the guys from Positive America.
They will not come.
There's so many people on the left who refuse to show up simply because they think that this is giving credibility to people on the right.
Why is it that...
Half the people who I have invited on the show, I would say a significant percentage of the people on the left I have invited on the show, are people who don't have a platform as big as the platform I can give them.
So it's not just about them legitimizing me, it's about them feeling that they are legitimizing an evil point of view by even having a conversation with me.
And when Kanye says, well, Kyle, why don't you just go talk to Trump?
It seems like a little more of that sort of conversation would be kind of good for the country.
Okay, time for a couple of things that I hate.
Okay, so thing number one that I hate.
This is an amazing video.
So, a dude roundhouse kicked a pro-life woman who was covering an anti-life march, a pro-abortion march.
This guy is clearly a member of society's elite.
And he gets angry, and he just decides to roundhouse kick her.
And then, I love his excuse.
After he roundhouse kicks her, you're gonna hear him yell about how he only meant to kick her phone, which is really a good excuse.
Guess what?
Hey.
Destruction of private property.
It's against the law.
If somebody gets raped by somebody and they're like, I'm a 16 year old and I can't have this baby.
Think you should keep it?
It's a baby.
If someone is raped and she gave birth and she decided to kill her 3 year old child.
I meant to kick your bones!
Solid argument there, dude.
Class act.
What a decent fellow.
What just a nice guy that dude is.
So, that's excellent.
The idea that the left is non-violence is insane.
What we're hearing today at USC, by the way, the leftists, they're so funny.
So, there's only one group of people who are protesting and upset that I'm coming.
Those are the people who are on the left, on the hard left.
And they've been making claims that I'm going to be the cause of violence.
Not a single speech of mine has ever resulted in any violence, ever, by anyone who supports me.
None.
Okay?
And yet, there's been plenty of violence at my speeches, right?
Cal State LA, there was some violence.
There have been many attempts to disrupt.
There was obviously violence when it came to Berkeley.
None of those people are my folks.
Okay, the people who are actually engaging in violence are a lot of folks on the left, and I love the implication that... It's so funny, the police were like, well, we're expecting some things might happen at USC tonight, and these student groups are saying things like, well, you know, if it does happen, it'll come from the other side.
Really?
Really?
Because the police say you're allowed to protest, like, in this area.
They're like, well, we're not sure we can stay in this area because violence might break out.
Really?
Spontaneously.
Amazing.
Amazing how that's going to happen.
Again, I hope everything is peaceful tonight, but the suggestion that folks on the left are inherently nonviolent is insane.
It's also insane in light of the story that broke yesterday.
that is getting wildly undercovered, that a Democratic congressional staffer was arrested by Capitol Police yesterday, suspected in the doxing of some Republican senators last week.
Personal information for Lindsey Graham, Mike Leonor, and Hatch was posted on Wikipedia the day of the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, and Gizmodo reported at the time that the Capitol Police had been notified.
It turns out the guy who did it, allegedly, was Jackson Cosco, a 27-year-old who works for Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and was a staffer for Maggie Hassan and Barbara Boxer, both Democratic senators.
Now, imagine if a Republican Senate staffer had leaked the location of a bunch of Democrats.
Would that be front page news?
Yeah, it would be front page news.
Is it front page news when a Democrat does it?
Well, not quite.
Not quite.
So, solid stuff, as always, from the unbiased media.
Okay, final thing that I hate.
So, Jimmy Kimmel.
Is it funny how she describes President Trump's genitals?
Yeah, it's pretty funny.
and Sarah Paulson.
And Sarah Paulson is sitting there giggling through Stormy Daniels' description of President Trump's genitals.
And I'll be honest with you, is it funny how she describes President Trump's genitals?
Yeah, it's pretty funny.
I mean, she's talking about Mario Kart characters in the context of the president's genitals.
Is she some sort of feminist heroine?
No.
Would they be laughing the same way if this were a Democratic president?
100% not.
Would she be hosted on national television for having had a consensual affair with a guy 12 years ago when he wasn't president?
No.
Would Jimmy Kimmel, of all people, be upholding himself as some sort of pope of sexual purity?
I think not.
But here's what it looked like on Jimmy Kimmel's show on ABC.
The door to the hotel opens and what is Donald Trump wearing?
Uh, silky pajamas.
And they were black pajamas, right?
Yes.
Yeah.
And you made love.
Gross!
What is wrong with you?
I mean... I laid there and prayed for death.
All right.
They might fall off, though.
Oh!
Is this the one?
Okay, so then he brought out, for folks who can't see, he brought out a table full of mushrooms because she said that Trump's genitals look like a mushroom.
He brought out a table of mushrooms and had her identify these on air.
I remember when all the late night comics did the exact same thing with Paula Jones.
I remember that.
That was really an amazing thing, except that never happened.
Right, so it's pretty incredible.
Jimmy Kimmel, a guy who, you know, go back and look at The Man Show, was not exactly pure in his treatment of women.
Now sitting with a woman who consensually had sex with Donald Trump.
I love that she's allowed to make this excuse now.
He says, you made love, and she goes, no, I prayed, I lay there and wished for death.
Really?
You were there voluntarily, and then you voluntarily had sex with him, and then you voluntarily kept in correspondence, and you're a victim?
Got it.
Whole thing's absurd.
It's just absurd.
But this is the world we have.
This is the business we've chosen.
So this is the world in which we live.
OK, we will be back here tomorrow with all of the latest, plus the mailbags.
It'll be a Friday.
If you're coming out to USC, we will see you there tonight.
It should be a lot of fun.
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.