All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
56:49
The Democratic Strategy Emerges | Ep. 785
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump moves to stop his former White House counsel from testifying.
A court rules against Trump on his financial records.
And Tim Cook laments how baby boomers betrayed millennials.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Well, we have a lot to get to today.
I promised no Thrones talk, no Game of Thrones talk.
We did all of it yesterday.
So if you want to hear that stuff, listen to yesterday's show, not today's show.
We'll get to all the actual news today.
But first, Ring's mission is to make neighborhoods safer.
You might already know about their smart video doorbells and cameras that protect millions of people everywhere.
Ring helps you stay connected to your home anywhere in the world.
If there's a package delivery or a surprise visitor, you'll get an alert.
You'll be able to see, hear, and speak to them all from your phone.
That is thanks to HD video and two-way audio features on Ring devices.
I am obsessed with personal security, considering all the threats I get.
And that's why I trust Ring.
When I'm out of town, I know who's at my door as a listener.
You have a special offer on a Ring Starter Kit available right now.
With a video doorbell and motion-activated floodlight cam, the Starter Kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home.
Just go to ring.com slash ben.
That is ring.com slash ben.
The thing that you owe to your family more than anything else is to make sure that your home is safe.
Ring.com slash ben can help you make that happen.
It's ring.com slash ben.
Get that ring of security started.
Honestly, the world is, we live, thank God, in a pretty safe country, but the world is becoming less safe in a lot of ways.
Ring.com slash Ben ensures that your home stays safe.
Go get a special deal when you go over to Ring.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
Ring.com slash Ben.
Use that slash Ben to let them know that we sent you.
Alrighty, so the big news of the day is that President Trump is now being subjected to new scrutiny.
So according to a court, President Trump must now allow his accountants to turn over his financial records, according to a lower court judge.
This is from the New York Times.
President Trump's accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress, a federal district court ruled on Monday, rejecting his legal team's argument that lawmakers had no legitimate power to subpoena the files.
Trump vowed that his legal team would appeal rather than permit the firm Mazar's USA to comply with the subpoena and the ruling.
So the legal fight is far from over.
The ruling by the judge, whose name is Amit Mehta, of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, was an early judicial test of the president's vow to systematically stonewall all subpoenas by House Democrats, stymieing their ability to perform oversight of Mr. Trump and the executive branch after winning control of the chamber in last year's midterm elections.
Mr. Trump's legal team, led by William S. Consovoy, had argued that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had no legitimate legislative purpose in seeking Trump's financial records and was just trying to dig up dirt, like finding out whether the president broke any laws for political reasons so the subpoena exceeded its constitutional authority.
Democrats claim they need the records because they're examining whether foreigners are in a position to use business dealings with the president to exert hidden influence over American policymaking and whether ethics and disclosure laws need to be strengthened.
Judge Mehta is an Obama appointee, of course.
He said that the justification was sufficient to make the subpoena valid.
He said, "These are facially valid legislative purposes.
It is not for the court to question whether the committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations.
Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the oversight committee." Now, this ruling is fairly absurd.
It's fairly absurd.
It relies extremely heavily on a 1957 court ruling that talked about how private citizens could not be targeted by the federal government, by Congress, but made distinction for government figures and quote-unquote legitimate government purposes.
The question is, is there a line that is supposed to be drawn when it comes to how far Congress can go in seeking information on somebody who holds elected office?
This case seems to suggest no.
This case seems to suggest that Congress can, for any reason, as long as they can just say investigation, Congress can, for any reason at all, grab information on basically any elected official.
That's a pretty wide and broad ruling by Mehta.
There was a 1957 Supreme Court decision, as I mentioned, hot air points this out, that limited congressional authority for investigations when it comes to private individuals.
This judge took care to rule that his decision fits well within that precedent, noting that presidents are not private individuals and that their private behavior before and during their tenure in office can be grounds for impeachment.
Mehta notes that Congress went unchallenged in its authority to open such investigations into prior administrations.
He wrote, quote, Twice in the last 50 years, Congress has investigated a sitting president for alleged law violations before initiating impeachment proceedings.
It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and related matters.
Now, Whitewater obviously happened before Clinton was president, although Watergate happened while Nixon was president.
The former investigation included, within its scope, potential corruption by Nixon while in office, the latter concerned alleged illegal misconduct by President Clinton before his time in office.
Congress plainly views itself as having sweeping authority to investigate illegal conduct of a president before and after taking office.
This court is not prepared to roll back the tide of history.
Well, as Hot Air points out, the Supreme Court wasn't asked in any of these cases whether the Whitewater investigation exceeded Congress's authority.
Also, we already knew about Whitewater.
I mean, there were already public reports about corruption in Whitewater.
And at this point, there's no information that suggests that President Trump is actually subject to some sort of nefarious criminal foreign activity.
With regard to being leveraged because of his finances, Trump has called the ruling crazy.
He said, we think it's totally the wrong decision by obviously an Obama appointed judge.
Trump's attorneys have already appealed this thing.
And again, I think that there is a solid case that Trump can make that Congress has to have some limitations here.
I mean, it is truly astonishing that a court is ruling that basically anytime Congress wants to dig up any information about somebody who holds elected office for any purpose, without presumably any actual hook for the investigation, that they are allowed to do so.
That's a pretty amazing statement.
And it's obvious that this ruling is politically driven.
I mean, the ruling opens with a quote from James Buchanan.
You can tell what the judge thinks of President Trump when he opens the ruling with a quotation from James Buchanan, widely derided as the worst president in the history of the United States.
The ruling itself says, the quote from Buchanan is, I solemnly protest against these proceedings of the House of Representatives because they're in violation of the rights of the coordinate executive branch of the government and subversive of its constitutional independence.
And then the judge says, these words written by President James Buchanan in March, 1860, protested a resolution adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives to form a committee known as the Kavod Committee to investigate whether the president or any other officer of the executive branch had sought to influence the action of Congress by improper means.
Buchanan cheerfully admitted that the House of Representatives had the authority to make inquiries incident to their legislative duties as necessary to enable them to discover and provide appropriate legislative remedies, but he objected to the committee's investigation of his conduct.
He maintained that the House of Representatives possessed no general powers to investigate him except when sitting as an impeaching body.
Buchanan feared that if the House were to exercise such authority, it would establish a precedent dangerous and embarrassing to all my successors, to whatever political party they might be attached.
Some 160 years later, President Trump has taken up the fight of his predecessor.
Again, this is a judge who is politically motivated if he's quoting Buchanan.
There are plenty of presidents who have argued that Congress does not have this sort of investigative authority, including President Clinton.
But he's not citing President Clinton or, say, Barack Obama, who used executive privilege in order to shield documents from Congress's prying eyes in the Fast and Furious scandal.
This judge is deliberately trying to humiliate Trump by quoting James Buchanan.
And by the way, just because Buchanan made the argument doesn't mean that the argument is actually constitutionally wrong.
Buchanan's argument, he may be a crappy president, but his argument, which is that Congress only gets to use its investigative powers in the context of an impeachment proceeding, that they can't, in other words, just say, you know what?
I'm now subpoenaing every tax record from every accountant of every politician on the other side, because we theoretically have the power to impeach anybody.
Like, where does this stop?
Let's say that you are the Democrats in the House, and let's say you just don't like Ted Cruz, or you just don't like Mitch McConnell.
Can they now subpoena All financial records from Mitch McConnell.
He holds elected office the same way that Donald Trump holds elected office.
Presumably, without any reference points, they could just issue subpoenas to the accountants for Mitch McConnell, suggesting that maybe he's been compromised by foreign authorities.
And according to this judge, McConnell's accountants would then have to turn over all of that material.
I mean, if the idea is that if you are a public official, you are now exposed to scrutiny without any sort of any sort of hook, any sort of actual crime that you think has been committed.
You're just speculating as to whether a crime could have been committed.
This is going to get very dangerous very quickly.
And Democrats better pay attention to this, because if Republicans retake the Congress, and let's say there's a Democrat who's president and Republicans decide, you know what?
We're going to do exactly what Democrats did.
We're going to subpoena everything, all the things.
Like, where exactly does this stop?
You think Democrats would have been okay if, let's say that the Congress, under Republicans, had said, you know, we are afraid that Barack Obama committed some sort of fraud in his application to Occidental College.
Maybe he committed a fraud.
Maybe he claimed that he was foreign-born or something.
All of this is speculative and nonsense.
But let's say that they had said that.
And so they had subpoenaed Occidental College for his admission records.
And Obama said, wait a second.
This has nothing to do with my presidency.
You don't have any evidence I committed a crime.
And Republicans were like, doesn't matter.
We've got investigative power.
We can investigate anything.
You're an elected official.
What this is going to do is create a situation where no one of any level of decency runs for public office ever again.
Because no one is pure as the driven snow, and no one wants their life turned over this way unless they are absolutely shameless.
I mean, there have to be some limitations to this sort of power.
But according to this judge, there are no limitations of this sort of power.
The court says echoing the protests of President Buchanan, President Trump and his associated entities are before this court claiming that the Oversight Committee's subpoena to Mazars, the accounting firm, exceeds the committee's constitutional power to conduct investigation.
The president argues there is no legislative purpose for the subpoena.
The Oversight Committee's true motive, the president insists, is to collect personal information about him solely for political advantage.
He asks the court to declare the Mazars subpoena invalid and unenforceable.
Courts have grappled for more than a century, says the judge, with the question of the scope of Congress's investigative power.
The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts must presume that Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate, and must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose.
To be sure, there are limits on Congress's investigative authority, but those limits do not substantially constrain Congress.
What do those two sentences even mean?
Context of one another?
What do those sentences mean?
There are limits on Congress's investigative authorities, but those limits do not substantially constrain Congress.
So, in other words, I mean, that's like me saying to my son, who is screaming and trying to stick a fork into an electric socket, you know, there are limits on what I'm going to allow you to do, but those limits don't substantially constrain you.
According to this judge, So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which legislation could be had, Congress act as contemplated by Article 1 of the Constitution.
Well, this is denying the fact that the executive branch also has separate powers, that the executive branch does not have to subjugate itself to the legislative power.
And more than that, this does put private citizens in danger because For example, let's say you're now a candidate for public office, or let's say that you donated to a candidate for public office, and Congress is now investigating you.
Congress, unfortunately, has got its thumb in a bunch of areas in American life that are purely private in scope.
Remember, Congress used to have hearings on steroids in baseball.
I mean, if Congress has the power to do this sort of investigative work, like anytime they don't like somebody, they can dig up anything they want on them, so long as they can make the argument that they're a public figure.
I don't know how far this goes.
Now, maybe you say this only applies to elected officials.
Even there.
How far are we going to take this, exactly?
Can they subpoena President Trump's phone records from the times in the 90s when he was calling up the New York Post as his own press secretary?
How far can they go?
We'll get to more of this in just a second.
But first, when the Founders crafted the Constitution, you know, a little thing that we like to protect our rights, the first thing they did was to make sacred the rights of the individual to share ideas without limitation by their government.
The second right they enumerated was the right of the population to protect that speech and their own persons with force.
You know how strongly I believe in these principles.
I'm a gun owner.
Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility, and building rifles is no different.
Started in a garage by a marine vet more than two decades ago, Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM for short, builds a professional-grade product which is built to combat standards.
This is because BCM believes the same level of protection should be provided to every American, regardless if they're a private citizen or a professional.
Bravo Company Manufacturing is not a sporting arms company.
They design, engineer, and manufacture life-saving equipment.
The people at BCM feel it is their moral responsibility, as Americans, to provide tools that will not fail the end user when it's not just a paper target.
There's someone coming to do them harm.
To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com, where you can discover more about their products, special offers, and upcoming news.
That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
You need more convincing?
Find out even more about BCM and the awesome people who make their products at YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
I know the founders of this company.
They are awesome folks.
Go check them out right now at Bravo Company MFG.com or YouTube.com slash Bravo Company USA.
So this judge rules that applying these principles compels the conclusion that President Trump cannot block the subpoena to his accountants.
According to the Oversight Committee, it believes that the requested records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws.
Okay, so this is an amazing claim by the Oversight Committee.
They're not even arguing at this point that President Trump has committed a crime.
They're arguing that in order for them to do research on the possibility of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws generally, not with application to Trump, and amending the penalties for violating such acts, they now need access to the President's personal finances.
I mean, that's an amazing statement.
So in other words, if I want to pass a piece of legislation on any topic, all I have to do is say, listen, you know, I'm doing research, to go back to the Barack Obama college records example, I'm doing research on college loans and college admissions.
And we're thinking of passing some legislations on loans and admissions.
In order for me to get some background info on that, I'm going to need Barack Obama's personal college records.
Wouldn't everybody go, wait a second, that is not within Congress's scope.
But here, that's exactly what they're saying.
And the judge is like, no problem.
Okay, so we'll get to more of this in just one second.
The judge goes even further than that.
The judge says that according to this oversight committee, the records will assist in monitoring the president's compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
These are facially valid legislative purposes.
It is not for this court to question whether the committee's actions are truly motivated by political considerations.
Accordingly, the court will enter judgment in favor of the oversight committee.
Actually, it is for the court to question whether the committee's actions are motivated by political considerations if they cannot name a relevant hook on which to build this particular subpoena.
This ruling is so insanely broad.
And again, Democrats should understand that because this could come back to bite them in a very serious way.
A Republican will not be president forever and Congress will not be Democratic forever.
President Trump is correct to point out that this ruling is kind of crazy.
Nonetheless, it just exposes once again that the judiciary is out of control, unfortunately.
And I mean, this is a judiciary that is ruling consistently that President Barack Obama had authority to issue effectively immunity for DREAMers, but Donald Trump has no executive authority to rule back the immunity for DREAMers.
The courts are out of control.
It's funny.
When the founders created the Constitution, what they hoped for was a system of checks and balances.
Now, that did not mean that all of the branches were going to be equally powerful.
They thought that the Article 1 branch, the legislature, was going to be the most powerful, followed by the presidency, followed by the judiciary.
In many ways, what has happened is that the legislature has become almost a vestigial organ of government, where all legislation and regulation is actually done from the executive branch, except when there's a political break between Congress and the president, in which case the legislative branch acts as effectively an investigative unit, aided by the judiciary.
This is a different system of checks and balances than was sought by the founders in the first place.
The founders were hoping that the lead check on the executive branch would in fact lie in the legislative branch, but not really through impeachment so much as controlling the means and mechanisms of policy.
Instead, Congress kicked all the means and mechanisms of policymaking over to the executive branch.
The regulatory agencies do virtually all the policymaking in American government now.
And then, when people in Congress don't like the president, instead of them scaling back his authority to do things, they launch personal investigations into his accounting practices from 1992.
That is not the sort of checks and balances we were talking about.
And then you've got the judiciary, which steps in every so often and quashes the ability of the executive branch to enforce laws that are duly on the books.
So it's very weird.
There is a system of checks and balances in place, but the system of checks and balances is completely different than the system of checks and balances originally envisioned by the founders.
The founders thought that That the legislative branch would zealously guard its powers of rulemaking and legislation.
They did not.
They handed those to the executive.
They thought the executive branch would zealously guard its own powers against the legislative authority's encroachment.
And that has happened to a certain extent, but then the judiciary has overruled that and created this weird new system where the executive is basically, is effectively Instituted with all of these, imbued, imbued, with all of these powers, and the only check on the powers of the executive is investigations and impeachment, which is why our policymaking is so fractured right now.
Imagine if we went through the normal channels for making legislation.
Legislation started in the House, and then passed the Senate, and then the President signed it.
Rulemaking was not made by the executive authority.
Well, that would require all of these branches to work together more than they do.
The system that we have now is basically Congress delegates all of its authority to the executive and then whines about it when the executive does what they don't want them to do.
It's pretty amazing.
Meanwhile, this sort of stupid system of checks and balances continues to play out with regard to Don McGahn.
President Trump has now directed his former White House counsel, Don McGahn, to skip a House Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties.
McGahn confirmed on Monday evening that he won't appear.
Now, this is not an argument that McGahn That McGahn couldn't testify if he wanted to.
If McGahn wants to testify, he can.
The argument that President Trump is making is that if McGahn does not testify, there is no punishment in store for him, which is actually true.
The development prompted an obstinate response late on Monday from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York.
He said, we're having the hearing tomorrow.
We are expecting Mr. McGahn to show up pursuant to the subpoena.
They had the hearing today.
There was no, there was no McGahn showing up.
House Democrats are now claiming that maybe they will push forward with impeachment.
They have power to do so.
Are they actually going to do it?
I have my serious doubts.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, desperately attempting to garner attention in this presidential race while riding at a high of 0% in the polls, says, well, you know, maybe this is going to prompt impeachment of President Trump, that he doesn't allow his White House counsel, former White House counsel, to show up, even after allowing his former White House counsel to testify to the FBI.
Which, by the way, if he had lied to the FBI, That's a crime.
He would go to jail.
But according to Gillibrand, if he doesn't show up and answer questions from Democrats, then obviously Trump is going to be impeached.
Yeah, sure.
I think what the Trump administration is doing is fundamentally blocking our constitutional right for oversight and accountability over his administration.
And they're doing it aggressively.
Certainly ignoring the contempt proceedings against Barr is a step.
Telling witnesses like McGahn that they are not supposed to testify.
Uh, you know, I think it's something that Speaker Pelosi, she has six committees of jurisdiction now that are trying to do oversight investigations.
And I think she will continue to push very hard to get testimony and documents.
But if the president keeps stonewalling, it may actually force the House's hands and they might decide to start impeachment proceedings.
Because they need to get access to the truth.
OK, they have access to the truth.
It was all in the Mueller report.
The House is basically just frustrated they didn't get what they wanted from the Mueller report.
And so now they are making excuses.
They're digging through President Trump's personal finances and subpoenaing his accountants.
And they're going after Don McGahn, who again testified in front of Robert Mueller.
And they're going after William Barr, the attorney general, for abiding by the law.
We'll get to Attorney General Barr's response to all of this in just one second.
With stress and anxiety, many people can often feel exhausted during the day, and then it's time to go to bed and you can't fall asleep.
This happened to me all the time, okay?
I lead a fairly stressful life.
Being in the public eye is not exactly stress-free.
And, you know, a couple of weeks ago, we had some death threats on us, the FBI arrested somebody, so...
Sleep was a little bit rough during that period, and that's where Calm came in.
Calm.com.
If worry is affecting your days and nights, it's probably also affecting your overall health, and that's why we have partnered with Calm.
It's the number one app to help you reduce your anxiety and stress and help you sleep better, which is a big problem for me.
That's why I need Calm.
More than 40 million people around the world have downloaded it.
If you head over to Calm.com slash Ben, You'll get 25% off a Calm Premium subscription.
That includes guided meditations on issues like anxiety, stress, and focus, including a brand new meditation each day.
They're also the sleep stories.
This is stuff that I love.
They're bedtime stories for adults designed to help you relax.
And you're having trouble falling asleep?
Well, listen to Stephen Fry read to you about the magical lavender fields of southern France.
Or listen to Leona Lewis talk about the moonlit jungles of Africa.
You are out like a light, man.
They even have soothing music and more.
Right now, Ben Shapiro listeners get 25% off a Calm Premium subscription at Calm.com slash Ben.
That is C-A-L-M.com slash Ben.
Get unlimited access to all of Calm's content today at Calm.com slash Ben.
It works on kids, by the way, too.
So as I say, the Attorney General William Barr is coming under fire from Democrats as well.
They suggest that they might impeach William Barr because William Barr has not handed them all of the unredacted material that he is not allowed to actually hand them.
So William Barr is responding.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Barr has come under criticism from Democrats and some Republicans who say he is acting more like the president's personal lawyer than the nation's top law enforcement officer.
The only Republican I've heard who said that is Justin Amash.
The Republican congressperson from Michigan, Barr, was a private citizen bristled at the barrage of legal and other challenges Trump faced during his first two years in office, said his long held belief in executive power is more about protecting the presidency than the current office holder.
He said, I felt the rules were being changed to hurt Trump.
I thought it was damaging for the presidency over the long haul.
When you look at that court ruling that basically says that Congress can subpoena anything from any public official at any time for any reason, it's hard to disagree with that sentiment.
Apparently, according to the Wall Street Journal, that sentiment, plus coaxing from friends, led the 68-year-old grandfather of five to sign on for another turn at the helm of the Justice Department, where his quest to protect presidential power has taken on new significance in light of special counsel Robert Mueller's report and the Trump administration's efforts to thwart congressional oversight.
He said in an interview, at every grave juncture, the presidency has done what it is supposed to do, which is provide leadership and direction.
If you destroy the presidency and make it an errand boy for Congress, we're going to be much weaker and a more divided nation.
Barr has jumped to the front lines of this Republican president's battle against Congress and the courts.
A House committee has already voted to hold Barr in contempt for providing them the entire Mueller report as well as access to the unredacted portions for Democrats who refuse to go look at it.
Many current and former law enforcement officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have come to view Mr. Barr skeptically, citing his newly launched review of the investigation's origins and what he termed spying on Trump campaign associates over ties to Russia.
He hasn't explained specifically what prompted his concerns, giving fodder for Mr. Trump and his allies to attack the department that he leads.
Republicans have embraced Barr's willingness to bring attention to their grievances with federal law enforcement.
Of course, Trump is very happy with Barr because Barr is defending him and executive power at this point.
He said he apparently spoke with the Wall Street Journal last week, and he suggested that he is really not interested in protecting Trump personally.
He just believes that the rules are being arbitrarily changed in order to harm President Trump.
And again, it is hard to argue with that perspective, given the fact that Democrats were very much in favor of Barack Obama using executive privilege to shield Eric Holder.
They had no problem when Eric Holder called himself the wingman for Barack Obama.
They were very upset with the Kenneth Starr investigation, which was predicated on solid legal grounds.
I mean, Bill Clinton did commit perjury.
He committed a series of crimes, including actual obstruction of justice.
The Kenneth Starr probe was actually into illegality.
No illegality has been found about President Trump thus far.
None.
You may say that he has done stuff you don't like.
That's fine.
He's done stuff I don't like either.
You may say that the President of the United States has done untoward things.
That is true.
Has he committed a criminal act?
Even Robert Mueller, who had full authority to say so, could not bring himself to say that the President had done something criminal here.
And yet, we are seeing the Democrats expand the power of subpoenas to include virtually everything in the world?
This seems like dangerous stuff to me.
Meanwhile, Michael Cohen is out there still making trouble for the president.
Michael Cohen, President Trump's former longtime personal attorney.
President Trump did not hire the best people, as he himself has admitted with regard to Michael Cohen.
Apparently, Michael Cohen told a House panel during closed-door hearings earlier this year he had been encouraged by Trump's lawyer, Jay Sekulow, to falsely claim in a 2017 statement to Congress that negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow ended in January 2016.
In fact, Cohen later admitted, That discussions on the Moscow Tower continued into June of the presidential election year.
House Democrats are now scrutinizing whether Sekulow or other Trump attorneys played a role in shaping Cohen's 2017 testimony to Congress.
Cohen said he made the false statement to help hide the fact that Trump had potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in a possible Russian project while he was running for president.
Adam Schiff, who has made mountains out of molehills for several years here, he says, we're trying to find out whether anyone participated in the false testimony that Cohen gave to this committee.
Well, here's the problem with this story.
The headline says that Cohen told lawmakers that Sekulow encouraged him to falsely basically commit perjury before Congress.
And yet Schiff is now saying, we're trying to find out whether this happened.
Well, if Cohen said that it happened, wouldn't they now have the grounds to open some sort of criminal investigation into Sekulow and the White House?
But they don't.
They haven't been able to come up with anything thus far.
So it's just more Michael Cohen talk.
Doesn't matter.
Press is going to run with it.
This is on the front page of the Washington Post today.
So again, I think that these investigations into President Trump are really designed to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to exacerbate the feeling of chaos that Trump naturally creates around him.
President Trump has a strong re-elect pitch.
His strong re-elect pitch is the economy is really good.
People are very positive about the economy right now.
We're not in the midst of any serious foreign crisis.
He's got a really placid lake of politics in front of him.
And the economy is booming right now.
And this should be a great time for him.
It's no wonder he's upset because, again, he is a chaotic personality in and of his own right, and now Democrats are exacerbating that by creating a feeling of chaos that is not really justified by the fact pattern in front of them at this point.
So President Trump is out there campaigning, and he is doing what he does.
I mean, President Trump is a stand-up comedian, and out there on the campaign trail, he basically does a stand-up routine.
Here's President Trump last night speaking in front of a big crowd.
And asking whether his slogan in 2020 is in Pennsylvania, whether his slogan in 2020 should be make America great again or keep America great.
So now we go.
Ready?
Keep America great.
Ready? - Okay.
Make America great again.
Wow!
Wow.
Well, I like it because we'll sell many, many more hats that way.
He's a funny dude.
And again, the fact that he is that he actually has a strong economic record to run on means that if there is any feeling of solidity with Trump, if people feel that Trump is a solid character or at the very least that he's not going to bother them too much, that he's not in the eye every moment making them nuts, then he is likely to do fine in his reelect effort.
So Democrats now have to create a feeling of chaos around Trump.
Now, Trump doesn't help himself here, as we'll see in a second.
He doesn't help himself by constantly getting himself into trouble and saying dumb things.
Democrats with the investigations are trying to generate controversy around Trump that is beyond what the facts support at this point.
OK, we're going to get to more of that in just one second.
This is where the Biden campaign comes in.
We're going to get to the Biden campaign.
We're also going to get to Tim Cook of Apple.
Apologizing on behalf of Baby Boomers, but for all the wrong reasons.
We'll get to that in just a second.
First, head on over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
First, let me remind you, okay gang, our business is growing rapidly.
I mean, we are hiring up.
That means that we are excited to be offering more opportunities to become part of our in-house team.
If you want to work with us over at The Daily Wire, head on over to dailywire.com slash careers and see if any of our job openings would be right for you or someone you know and get your resume ready.
Come work with us.
It's really a lot of fun to work here.
I mean, my employees will testify to it, and if they don't, I fire them, so it's great.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash careers, and maybe you'll end up working here.
You never know.
Also, go subscribe over at dailywire.com right now for $9.99 a month.
You can help support us.
You can also get the annual subscription for $99 a year.
That comes along with this.
The very greatest in all beverage vessels.
See it.
Believe it.
The left is tears, hot or cold tumbler.
Just incredible.
Feel the power flow through you.
As you hold it, $99 a year, which is cheaper than the monthly subscription.
It gets you all sorts of fantastic things, including access to two more hours of the show every day.
I know we are working hard for your money.
Also, you get the Sunday special on Saturday.
We have a great Sunday special this week.
I will announce it a little bit later this week.
But you get it on Saturday if you're a subscriber, plus material behind the paywall.
All sorts of goodies coming to you when you subscribe.
It makes a great Father's Day gift, by the way.
So go check that out right now.
Also, subscribe at YouTube and iTunes.
That really does help us.
We appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
All righty.
So President Trump on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania.
The polls in Pennsylvania are not fantastic for President Trump.
If you take a look at the polls right now, he is basically losing to Joe Biden.
That's the person he has to worry about most.
And because of that, because of that, he is targeting Joe Biden.
And again, I think he has a fairly solid case against Biden.
He is, by the way, in the polls, he's just getting clobbered.
Right now against Biden.
There are not that many polls out right now, but the last poll from Quinnipiac, which came out on May 15th, so just a little about a week ago, Biden was leading him 53 to 42, which is a blowout in favor of Joe Biden.
And that is trouble for President Trump.
Obviously, President Trump needs to win one of the following three states and maintain all of the other states as well.
He needs to win Wisconsin or Michigan Or Pennsylvania, right?
He needs to win one of those three states or he loses the presidency.
Right now, if you look at Michigan 2020, Biden versus Trump, you see that President Trump is not polling great against Biden in that state either.
Right now, the Emerson poll, which is from March, but I assume it would actually be more in Biden's favor now because Biden has actually jumped in since then, had Biden up 54 to 46 on Trump in Michigan.
And if you look at the Wisconsin 2020 polls, the story is somewhat similar.
Biden versus Trump in Wisconsin.
is the polls show that Biden is beating him by something like eight from that same Emerson poll.
So none of this is really positive for Trump.
He's gonna have to tear Biden down.
We'll talk in one second about how he can do that.
The chief way that he's going to do that is pointing out that his record is better than Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's.
Here is Trump saying, Obama and Biden, they did a bad job.
I'm doing a better job.
The previous administration, what they did to our country, they should be ashamed of themselves.
Sleepy Joe said that he's running to, quote, save the world.
Well, he was.
He was going to save every country but ours.
What they've done to us is indescribable, economically.
We have rebuilt China.
They've done a great job.
And I don't blame China.
I don't blame President Xi.
I don't blame them.
Look, we allowed it to happen.
Our leaders allowed it to happen.
So Trump is going to be running against Obama-Biden.
And what he has to do is come up with some material that damages Joe Biden.
The problem for him is that Joe Biden has 100% name recognition.
He was vice president for eight years.
And a lot of the dirt about him is already out there in public view.
And some of the dirt doesn't actually hurt him.
So Biden right now is winning a disproportionate share of the black vote.
It's the reason why he's clobbering Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.
It's also the reason why, if you're Joe Biden, the person you're looking at for a VP candidate right now is not Kamala Harris or Cory Booker.
It's probably Pete Buttigieg.
You need young millennials showing up to vote for you.
And Biden figures, if I'm clobbering Kamala Harris with black voters, what do I need Kamala Harris for?
She's not going to drive out black voters.
I'm killing her in my own primary.
There's no reason for me to pick Kamala Harris.
So there's been a lot of talk about what sort of dirt Trump could throw at Joe Biden.
And they've talked about the plagiarism stuff or maybe his stance on criminal justice reform.
I don't think so.
I think that the only piece of damaging information that would really hurt Joe Biden at this point is if there was something to the corruption allegations being made about Hunter Biden, his son, And don't forget, Biden deserted you.
operative contract in countries in which Joe Biden was doing business as vice president of the United States.
That would hurt Joe Biden.
Attacks that are not going to fly are ones like this.
Here's President Trump saying that Joe Biden left Pennsylvania for another state.
Note, Joe Biden left Pennsylvania when I believe he was 11 years old.
And don't forget, Biden deserted you.
He's not from Pennsylvania.
I guess he was born here, but he left you, folks.
He left you for another state.
Remember that, please.
I meant to say that.
This guy talks about, I know, Scranton, I know, well, I know the places better.
He left you for another state, and he didn't take care of you, because he didn't take care of your jobs.
He let other countries come in and rip off America.
That doesn't happen anymore.
Now, again, that line of attack is that he did a bad job as vice president is a much more telling line of attack than that he left Pennsylvania when he was 10 or 11 years old.
Nonetheless, the purpose of the investigations that we are seeing right now are to create a feeling of disquiet around President Trump, a feeling that he exacerbates by being the man that he is.
And that means that Biden is doing exactly what I suggested he was going to be doing.
I've been suggesting this for years, that Biden would be a strong candidate against Trump.
I doubted he could get through the primaries unscathed the way that he has so far.
But when it came to a general, I've always said that Biden was a much more dangerous candidate for Trump than anybody else, mainly because he could run a 1920 Warren G. Harding-style return to normalcy campaign.
He could say, Trump is out of the box.
This guy's crazy.
Look at him.
He says wild stuff all the time.
And here I am, Uncle Joe, you know me.
I'm not crazy.
And if I am crazy, it's the kind of crazy you're used to.
And that's the feel that you are getting from Democrats who are basically voting for him because they think that he is electable.
They're voting for him because he is capped in electability as opposed to some of the other wilder Democratic candidates, the Bernie Sanders and the Elizabeth Warrens.
This is the case that Chris Matthews, that everybody say, is trying to make.
He says, everybody's ripping on Joe Biden.
Why?
Why are they ripping on Joe Biden?
I come out here.
I come out of that show.
Drunk looking?
And then I talk about Joe Biden.
He's trying to rescue us.
He's trying to save us, Joe Biden.
If I were drowning in a river, my dog was drowning in the river.
I think Joe Biden would save me, not the dog.
He's a good guy, Joe Biden.
Go!
Biden is basically running for America against Trump.
He's trying to rescue us from Trumpism and Trump himself.
It was very powerful.
I don't know if it'll go all the way through to Milwaukee at the convention.
I don't know.
I'd say, you know, it's 50-50.
All this business, there's always a front runner, there's always a main challenger.
But his emotion is patriotic.
It's not anger.
Unfortunately for him, a lot of the Democratic Party is about anger right now.
Anger against corporations, against fossil fuel.
Listen to Bernie yesterday, Sanders yesterday on Meet the Press.
It was all anger.
He was angry at Ed Rendell.
He was angry at everybody.
But I think Biden's going to have to grab that anger and turn it against Trump.
Okay, so that's what's going to happen here.
He's going to run as a solid, unifying candidate who hates Trump's guts.
That's going to be great.
Let's just do it!
Chris Matthews, let's go!
Yeah, Chris Matthews.
Okay, so.
The benefit for Biden, and this is the narrative that's being built, is that Trump is volatile and Biden is solid.
The problem for Democrats is that many Democrats, as Matthew says correctly, many Democrats don't believe that Biden is going to punch Trump hard enough.
So we'll take an example.
Actor Jeff Daniels, who I don't know why he's on TV talking about politics.
I'm just confused.
Like the fact that he was on Newsroom and read lines written for him by the wildly overrated Aaron Sorkin.
Here's my rip on Aaron Sorkin.
Every character that Aaron Sorkin writes is Aaron Sorkin.
So when it's a woman speaking to Aaron Sorkin line, it's Aaron Sorkin wearing a wig.
And when it's a black guy reading an Aaron Sorkin line, it's Aaron Sorkin, just played by a black guy.
Like, every line that Aaron Sorkin writes, he does not know how to distinguish characters.
But that's an artistic critique, not really a material critique.
Jeff Daniels, I don't know what his political expertise, other than that he played a guy on TV.
He literally, his case is, I played a guy on TV.
It's pretty amazing.
Here he was on MSNBC, however, Why is he there?
Because he's playing Atticus Finch, I guess, in some Broadway production of To Kill a Mockingbird, which, wow, that does confer expertise.
I've also read To Kill a Mockingbird when I was eight.
So thank you, Jeff Daniels.
Here's Jeff Daniels explaining, though, and this does say something about where the Democratic Party is.
He says his great fear is that Biden can't punch anyone.
If politics, you know more than I, is a 180 degree swing, I think that's part of the eight years of Obama.
Let's go for the whitest guy we can.
I mean, I think there's an element out there in the middle of the country.
The other thing, what was the question?
Who are you watching?
So to go away from the toddler-in-chief, let's go to Kamala Harris.
Let's go somebody with a brain in their head.
Let's go with someone with some intelligence who doesn't tweet all day.
Mayor Pete, I'm looking at intelligence now.
I love Joe Biden.
Is he the guy that can stand up and punch him in the face and win?
That's for you guys to decide.
Jeff Daniels' take on intelligence is definitely worth my time, I think.
But this is the conflict inside the Democratic Party.
Is Biden the guy who can punch Trump and take Trump down?
I think what Democrats are failing to recognize is that the guy who can placidly take a punch from Trump is the guy who's likely to win.
It's not the guy who's likely to punch Trump.
It's the guy who can take a punch from Trump and emerge unscathed.
This is why Mayor Pete is actually threatening to Trump.
When Trump hit him with the Alfred E. Newman thing, which is a great characterization by the way, just on a humor level.
It is grade A characterization.
But when Mayor Pete says, that seems like an old person thing.
And then he just sort of lets it go?
That is a smart take by Pete Buttigieg.
When Biden acts unflapped by President- Like, one of the things that Trump was able to do really well, and he's got a gift for it, was he was able to get under the skin of everyone he ran against in 2016.
And part of that is because Trump speaks like Trump, meaning that a lot of intellectual elitists run for office.
Those are people with Ivy League degrees who are fond of the way that they command the language.
President Trump's command of the language is not spectacular.
He is basically a stand-up comic who doesn't read books.
And his popularity is baffling to a lot of people who got A's, straight A's, when they were in high school.
And it gets under their skin that Trump is more popular than they are in a lot of ways.
You saw that in 2016, Hillary Clinton was like, listen, I've been achieving from the time I was seven years old, and here's this doofus who grew up on daddy's money strolling in the front door and beating me.
How is this even possible?
That was that famous clip from Hillary in 2016 where she said, I should be beating this guy by 20.
How is this not?
So whichever Democrat does not have that level of arrogance, whichever Democrats like, yeah, he's popular and he's going to say a bunch of crap, but in the end, you know, doesn't have any impact.
That person is probably going to do best against Trump.
But that's not what the base wants.
What the base of the Democratic Party wants is somebody who punches.
And you're starting to see disquiet build in the in the intelligentsia about Joe Biden, specifically because Trump doesn't seem to get under Biden's skin in the same way that he gets under the intelligentsia's skin.
What's really fascinating about modern politics is that the people who are the most woke, the people who are the most militant, the people who are the most obnoxious, politically speaking, are not the people in the middle of the country.
It's not the unwashed masses.
The people who are the most obnoxious and woke and bothersome are the elite who write for The New York Times, the elitists who write for The New York Times, people like Jamal Bowie.
So Jamal Bowie has a column today about Joe Biden.
Sorry, it's Michelle Goldberg, another New York Times elitist.
She has a piece in the New York Times called, I don't want an exciting president.
Joe Biden makes his supporters feel safe, but nominating him is risky.
Why is it risky to nominate Joe Biden?
She says, what worries me about Biden is that in contemporary politics, the quest to find an electable candidate hasn't resulted in candidates that actually win.
Voters don't do themselves any favors when they try to think like pundits.
This, of course, is simply not true.
The fact is that many of the Democrats who were elected on a congressional level ran as moderates in 2018.
They were not the hard left AOC types.
AOC won in a deep blue district by winning 16,000 votes in a primary against another deep blue guy.
Michelle Goldberg, however, says that basically Democrats should vote with their heart and their heart should say anger, anger, not solidity, not stability, rage.
And this is Trump's best prospect.
Trump's best prospect is that the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot here.
That they've crafted this entire world-beating narrative about President Trump, the chaotic man, the man of absolute, sheer confusion.
And into the phrase steps a solid rock of a human, Joe Biden.
I don't know how that happened, but sure.
And then Democrats destroy that narrative by saying, you know what?
Can't have Joe Biden.
Would rather have a chaotic figure like Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren.
Let's step into that fray.
That is Trump's best prospect at re-election.
According to Michelle Goldberg, she says, Democrats are now in a complicated spot as they make their electoral calculations.
If what you care about most is a candidate's chances next November, pretending otherwise is an artificial exercise, particularly if it's just in the service of making a better judgment about electability.
Some enthusiasm for Biden is genuine, if not passionate.
Often, when people I spoke to at the rally described him as safe, they meant both as a candidate and as a potential leader.
Fair enough.
For many voters, what Biden is promising, a rebuke of Trump and a return to normalcy, is what they want more than anything else, and it makes sense for them to back him.
What's counterproductive is when voters try to think past their own desires.
Man, I hope that Michelle Goldberg somehow convinces her party that she is right.
into a movement matters.
That's especially true in a country as polarized as ours where turnout is as important as persuasion.
Man, I hope that Michelle Goldberg somehow convinces her party that she is right.
That's what I hope is that Michelle Goldberg and that wing of the party decide to destroy the narrative that is being built brick by brick by the Democrats in Congress and by Joe Biden on the other side in favor of somebody so woke that Michelle Goldberg is happy but the rest of America is alienated.
Time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So time for the thing that I like today.
So there's a great book with basically all of Justice Scalia's writing.
Justice Scalia, of course, one of the great writers in the history of the Supreme Court.
They've now taken some of his writings and they've compiled them along with essays from other people about Scalia's thinking into a little booklet called On Faith.
Lessons from an American Believer.
The foreword is by Justice Thomas.
It is edited by Christopher Scalia and Ed Whelan over at one of the foundations whose name escapes me right now.
The book is really great.
For people who are of faith, it's a great reminder of why you believe certain things.
It's a reminder that Scalia was not just a great thinker, that he was a good man who tried to live a virtuous life, and an intellectually rich life as well.
And it's also a reminder that the sort of scorn that so many people in the intelligentsia have for people of faith is totally unjustified.
If you truly believe you're living in New York or LA or something, and you truly believe that you are a higher IQ person than Justice Scalia, or a better thinker than Justice Scalia, because Justice Scalia was one of these rubes who believes in the whole Jesus thing, Read the book, and I challenge you to think beyond your own boundaries.
By the way, I always encourage people who are of faith to read atheist books and think beyond their boundaries as well.
But I've never really run into religious people who are averse to listening to thinkers on the other side.
It's very rare to find somebody who's an atheist, a militant atheist, who's willing to at least hear the argument on the other side.
It's why I treasure my friendships with people like Michael Shermer, who is an atheist, or at the very least an agnostic, who's interested in having those conversations.
In any case, go check out On Faith by Antonin Scalia.
It really is a great book.
It's only a couple hundred pages.
It's a pretty quick read.
Okay, time for some things that I hate.
OK, things that I hate today.
So AOC and her fellow Democrats are constantly complaining that we don't want them to be able to speak.
This is so confusing.
Has anybody on the right tried to silence AOC or Ilhan Omar?
Like really tried to silence them?
Not that I'm aware of.
In fact, every time they say something, we sort of trumpet it because what they say is so unerringly silly.
So AOC, though, claims that the opposition is afraid when she speaks.
If that were the case, she would not be a very famous person right now.
That lack of fear of fellowship is exactly what the opposition does fear.
That and any time Rashida or Ilhan speak, they're scared too.
Myself included.
And, you know, it is great that they got more than they bargained for.
Oh, yeah, that's exactly what happened.
We're so scared when AOC speaks.
I'm particularly scared when she starts talking about vegetables.
Here's AOC yesterday.
She must be silenced.
We must silence her.
This is deeply frightening stuff.
Here's AOC explaining why cauliflower is a colonialist vegetable.
I'm not kidding.
It's a thing, she said, as a human.
When someone says that it's too hard to do a green space that grows yucca instead of, I don't know, cauliflower or something um it you're what you're doing is that you're taking a colonial approach to environmentalism if i went to a predominantly white community and said okay you guys are going to be growing plantains and yuca
and all these things that you don't know how to cook it's and that your palate isn't accustomed to it's gonna be like cute for a little bit but it's not easy Um, yeah, I'm scared.
We need to silence her because she's talking about plantains.
I'm confused.
So apparently there's a group of, are there really a group of environmentalists who go around telling Latinos that they should not be, they should not be planting yucca?
Is this a thing that I'm not aware of?
Apparently this is a thing that happens down in the Bronx.
This is a thing.
People just walk around door to door and they're like, are you planting yucca in that window garden still?
Is that what you're doing right there?
Is that yucca?
Cauliflower, kale, do it!
Also, cauliflower is delicious and yucca tastes bad.
Okay, maybe that's just my different cultural sensibility speaking to me here.
But also, I don't care if you grow yucca.
Again, who are these people?
Colonialist vegetables.
Man, I'm gonna say that these are first world problems.
That would be a first world problem right there.
Somebody came today, they came to my door and they told me, you stopped growing that sweet potato, you stopped growing that yam, it's time for you to grow some asparagus.
And I was like, whoa!
Slow your roll there!
Slow your roll, that is some cultural appropriation right there!
My garden is my own, and if I choose to grow indigenous crops to the United States, well then that's my business.
You white people and you tell...
You white people and you're...
Flips card.
Cauliflower?
All righty, lady.
Okay.
Sure.
Yeah, we're deeply frightened.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Meanwhile, a final thing that I hate today.
So I did mention Jamal Bowie earlier erroneously.
Now I'm going to mention him non-erroneously.
He has an incredibly dumb column today in the New York Times.
Deeply overrated thinker, Jamal Bowie.
He has a piece in the New York Times called, Anti-abortion and pro-Trump are two sides of the same coin.
Both seek to reinforce and re-establish hierarchies that were beginning to lose force.
I am so bored with the argument that every time I disagree with you politically, it's because I'm trying to reinforce a power hierarchy.
Not everything is power hierarchies.
I understand, according to Marxist and post-Marxist thought, that power hierarchies are everything.
That either it's economic hierarchies or it's hierarchies of race or hierarchies of sex.
I understand your deconstructionist crap about how ideas about the protection of human life are secretly nefarious ways to control women's bodies.
Ooh.
I'm familiar with the nonsensical motives that you put on pro-life people, but it is so sneering and dumb that it is hard to overstate how sneering and dumb it is.
So Jamel Bowie, his piece today says, all of the measures, all these anti-abortion measures, as well as the heartbeat bill signed in April by Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio, are designed to bring fetal personhood to the Supreme Court.
And then he talks about, in 2016, anti-abortion conservatives, and white evangelicals in particular, supported Donald Trump on the expectation that he would nominate anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.
Well, partially, yes.
I mean, they expected that he would nominate judges to the Supreme Court who would not read abortion into the Constitution of the United States, which is both a legal and moral absurdity.
But he says, the story of that support, which is also the story of these new laws, isn't purely transactional.
It's about shared commitment to the same overarching goal.
Now, everybody on the right's going, right, the same overarching goal would be to stop the killing of the unborn.
No!
Wrong you are!
According to Jamal Bowie, if you vote for pro-life laws, it's because you hate women and seek to keep them under your thumb.
Take that, patriarchy!
He says the animating impulse of Trump's campaign was a defense of traditional hierarchies.
Oh God, it's so boring.
It's so boring.
Honestly, it makes the conversation boring because I say, here's my pro-life position and here's why I believe it.
And you say, that's not really why you believe it.
I'm like, well, no, that is, I just expressed to you exactly why I believe it.
Like, nope, nope, that's not why you believe it.
You believe it because you're nefarious.
You believe it because you're evil.
You believe it because you hate women.
I can't have a conversation with you along those lines.
Once you start saying that what I believe and my articulated stance on that belief system is not actually my real stance, my real stance is a secret Hitlerian motivation to keep women down or something.
Then I don't... We can't have a conversation at that point.
You've launched a character attack on me.
If I say I'm pro-life because I believe in biology and I believe in the inherent value of human life, and you say, no, you just want to take us back to the dark ages, I got nothing for you.
There's no conversation that can be had.
This is the kind of argument from Bowie that is meant to quell conversation, not to have conversation.
It says, Trump promised explicitly to weaken America's commitment to principles of fairness and equality, to strengthen privileges of race, gender, and wealth.
Did he promise explicitly to do that?
Weird, I don't remember Trump saying that.
Trump promised explicitly to weaken our principles of fairness and equality?
Did Trump say, you know what?
Fairness and equality are bad.
I want racial hierarchies to be reestablished.
See, explicitly is a word that has a meaning.
It means that it's explicit, like you say it.
His personal life, says Jamel Bui, was defined by its hedonism, excess, and contempt for conservative morality, but he pitched himself as a bulwark against cultural and demographic change, a symbol of white patriarchal manhood, aligned against immigrants, feminists, and racial minorities.
A bulwark against cultural and demographic change, despite his stated tolerance for same-sex marriage.
Again, now the idea is that Even though Trump was pro-gay marriage, that that wasn't enough.
His secret motivation was he wants more white people and fewer non-white people, which would also not explain why he would be pro-life when a disproportionate number of abortions are of minority people in the United States.
So none of this makes any sense.
But according to Jamal Bowie, it's the same thing for pro-lifers.
He says the underlying dynamic is straightforward, explains Robert P. Jones, chief executive of the Public Religion Research Institute, in his book The End of White Christian America.
Trump's promise to restore a mythical past golden age, where factory jobs paid the bills and white Protestant churches were the dominant cultural hubs, powerfully tapped evangelical anxieties about an uncertain future.
There's no restoring that past, but with his nomination of conservative judges and Mitch McConnell's successful drive to confirm them in the Senate, Trump has given white evangelicals and their Republican representatives the opportunity to pass the laws and measures that reflect their ultra-traditionalist ideals.
So even if Trump distances himself from any particular law, that's how one should understand the new wave of abortion restrictions as direct attacks on the social and economic autonomy of people who can become pregnant designed to strengthen strict hierarchies of gender.
And then he just tells an open lie.
This is an open lie in the New York Times.
He says, This is an absolute lie.
He's just telling lies now.
It is not true.
We spoke on our radio show yesterday with the architect of the Georgia bill.
This is an open lie now being repeated into the pages of the New York Times to make the case that the real reason that these evil, evil pro-lifers want to save babies, and disproportionately black babies, by the way, The real reason these pro-lifers want to do that is because they want to see what?
A white supremacist hierarchy where there are more black people and brown people in the United States being born?
None of this makes sense, but again, it is...
I will say this, Jamal Bowie is badly motivated.
He's a badly motivated guy.
You're a badly motivated person if your immediate response to somebody explaining their theory of why law should be the way that it is, is that, no, that's actually not their real motivation.
Their real motivation is obviously something nefarious and evil.
You can't have a conversation with somebody like this.
Alrighty, so we'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours of coverage.
Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Adam Sajovic.
Audio is mixed by Mike Karamina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, if it weren't for the fact that the Democrats own the news and entertainment media, it would be obvious by now that they are living in a blithering fantasy world.
Donald Trump is a racist, except who's he racist to?
He's a dictator, except what does he dictate?
He's lawless, but what laws has he broken?
They have invented a Donald Trump of the imagination, and he ain't the real Donald Trump at all.
We'll talk about it on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection