Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 2, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

53:25

Impeach For What? | Ep. 871

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Shana Tova, the theory of impeachment keeps changing, Democrats keep pushing full steam ahead, and President Trump continues to lash out in all directions.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	So when last we left, our impeachment story, last Friday, I was preparing for Rosh Hashanah.
	I figured not much would happen over the weekend.
	And it turns out not much did happen over the weekend, except that the theory of impeachment keeps changing.
	So back on Thursday and Friday, the theory of impeachment seemed to still be sort of that President Trump had engaged in a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government in which he basically threatened to withhold aid, American aid, military aid to Ukraine in exchange for the Ukrainian government checking out his chief domestic political opponent, Joe Biden.
	Well, as it turns out, over the past couple of days, it appears, and I'm just catching up on the news, it appears that the theory of impeachment is now changing.
	It is malleable that Democrats weren't able to come up with the quid pro quo they were seeking on the specific transcript of this phone call that Trump had with Ukraine.
	And so now they are attempting to construct Another impeachment based crime and that would be obstruction of justice They are trying to come up with some rationale why they can blame the Trump administration for blocking the investigation now doesn't matter that the Trump administration Turned over the transcript doesn't matter.
	They turned over the whistleblower report doesn't matter that the Witnesses who have been requested by the house thus far have basically been scheduled so far as I can tell including the former ambassador to Ukraine as well as other officials American officials from the State Department who are active in Ukraine.
	Still, the Democrats are pushing forward with the idea that if we can't get them for the underlying crime, we'll get President Trump for obstruction.
	That seems to be one angle.
	And then there's the generalized democratic angle, and you can see this happening in the press, which is that impeachment isn't truly about what Trump did here.
	Impeachment isn't truly about any specific criminal allegation.
	Impeachment is about Trump being a poopoo head.
	Really, that's the case.
	And as we'll see today, the Democrats keep broadening out the case.
	So we are now seeing them begin to speak with more and more wild language about what a bad guy Trump is.
	Well, Trump may be a bad guy according to Democrats.
	That is not an impeachable offense.
	Being somebody that people don't like, being somebody who acts in ways you don't like, that's not impeachable.
	I didn't like Barack Obama.
	That dude was not impeached.
	Hey, Bill Clinton was impeached, but that was for a specific crime.
	That was not because people didn't like his tax policy in 1994.
	We had an election to fix his tax policy in 1994.
	So as we will see, as the impeachment proceeding moves forward, it seems less like Democrats are honing in on any one theory of impeachment, And then getting to the heart of it, it seems instead that like an octopus, the tentacles are just reaching out in every direction and hopefully they can snag something that will be sufficient to move the public so that the public isn't anti-impeachment and it doesn't blow back on Democrats.
	Okay, so along those lines today.
	The media are making a very big deal out of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, has now confirmed that he listened to President Trump's call with the Ukrainian president, which isn't a big surprise.
	There are a lot of people who are listening to that phone call.
	The Secretary of State very often frequently listens to phone calls that the president has with foreign leaders, but this was the first time that Pompeo had openly acknowledged that that is something that happened.
	Before, he had been asked about the whistleblower complaint.
	He said, I never saw the whistleblower complaint, so I have no specific answers about the whistleblower complaint.
	But he never said that he was on the call itself.
	So Democrats, of course, are jumping to, well, this means that it was a cover-up.
	This means that it was a cover-up.
	Except that it's not a cover-up since he just said it.
	The Democrats keep doing this.
	They did it with Mueller.
	They did it with the whistleblower.
	They did it with the transcript of the phone call.
	And now they're doing it with Pompeo.
	They keep claiming that there is a cover-up right about the point when the Trump administration blows the whole thing into public view.
	Right, so here's Pompeo explaining.
	Yes, I was on the phone call with Ukraine.
	I was on the phone call.
	The phone call was in the context of now I guess I've been Secretary of State for coming on a year and a half.
	I know precisely what the American policy is with respect to Ukraine.
	It's been remarkably consistent, and we will continue to try to drive those set of outcomes.
	It's what our team, including Ambassador Volcker, were focused on was taking down The threat that Russia poses there in Ukraine.
	OK, so he was immediately asked, of course, whether Trump did anything inappropriate on the call.
	And he demurred to answer that question.
	He just declined to answer the question.
	Why?
	Well, because the fact is that the president could have done things that are inappropriate but not impeachable.
	But the fact is that Pompeo also works for Trump.
	Trump is particularly thin skinned when it comes to this sort of stuff.
	He doesn't like when his own officials are out there saying that he does stuff that they don't approve of.
	This is what happened to John Bolton, and Mike Pompeo isn't about to fall into that trap.
	Okay, so this follows hard on the Democrats claiming over the past 48 hours that Pompeo is somehow holding up their access to State Department officials.
	So, the New York Times reported yesterday, Now, notice, again, that the language here used by the New York Times, and it's been used consistently by the media now, is that Trump was pressuring Ukraine as opposed to requesting Ukraine, which is a more accurate description of that phone call.
	to pressure Ukraine for political advantage.
	Now, notice again that the language here used by the New York Times, and it's been used consistently by the media now, is that Trump was pressuring Ukraine as opposed to requesting Ukraine, which is a more accurate description of that phone call.
	Pressuring Ukraine would presume, I mean, that assumes the question that is in doubt.
	The question in doubt is whether there was a quid pro quo, right?
	Not whether Trump asked for something, but whether there was a quid pro quo.
	When you use the word pressured, the assumption is that there is something credible on the other end of that pressure, namely a threat.
	So you notice that the word pressure, whenever the media used the word pressure and not the word requested or asked, then that is the media infusing their own bias into a story.
	In any case, the New York Times says, In the first skirmish in what promises to be an epic impeachment struggle between the executive and legislative branches, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lashed out at three congressional committees that are seeking to depose diplomats involved in American policy toward Ukraine.
	Mr. Pompeo called their demands for confidential interviews an act of intimidation.
	Now, the reason that he says that is because he is saying you're not giving them time to get lawyers and deal with State Department lawyers.
	Which, by the way, if that sounds like somebody covering up or somebody covering their butt, let me assure you, I know people who were questioned by the Mueller report.
	Because I know a lot of folks inside the administration.
	I know people who were questioned by the Mueller report.
	It cost them tens of thousands of dollars with lawyers in order to be questioned.
	Because anybody who goes and is questioned by a government committee under oath without a lawyer present at their side to advise them on what they should and should not say is a fool.
	You would be a fool too, and that has nothing to do with truth-telling or not truth-telling.
	It's like going to deal with the IRS without any lawyer on the line.
	Like, doing that is a fool's errand.
	They're literally putting you there so that they can then charge you with some form of perjury or misleading statement, and then they can use that to pressure you to say things you don't want to say.
	Pompeo is saying, okay, we need time to get all these people the lawyers that they want.
	And the Democrats, naturally, because they are attempting to gin up some sort of belief that there is a cover-up going on, they are saying that Pompeo is engaged in the cover-up.
	And again, The two biggest officials who are being questioned so far have already set dates on which they are to be questioned.
	The House postponed the first of the depositions, which had been scheduled for Wednesday, with the former U.S.
	ambassador to Ukraine, but not before the impeachment inquiry's leaders upbraided Pompeo for questioning their work and for asserting that their bid to swiftly schedule depositions did not allow enough time for a proper response.
	The latest standoff unfolded as lawmakers were unexpectedly put on notice Tuesday afternoon that they could soon be provided with new evidence related to the State Department and Ukraine, a twist that could add crucial information to their investigation and potentially complicate Mr. Trump's efforts to block it.
	We'll get to what exactly that crucial piece of information is and why Democrats in the house are extraordinarily excited about a visit from a member of the State Department.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about going to the post office.
	The fact is, the post office is a pretty great place, but if you really want to schlep all your packages in the back of your car and then go down to the post office and wait in line, they offer a lot of great services, but you'd prefer to save time and money, no?
	Well, this is why you should be using stamps.com.
	Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
	Postal Office directly to your computer.
	Whether you're a small office sending invoices, or an online seller shipping out products, even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, Stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
	Simply use your computer to print official U.S.
	postage 24-7.
	Any letter.
	Any package.
	Any class of mail.
	Anywhere you want to send it.
	Once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
	It is indeed that simple.
	Stamps.com, it's a no-brainer.
	Saves you time, saves you money.
	It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com.
	Last time I went to the post office, I got a parking ticket because there's only one thing that the authorities in Los Angeles are good at.
	And no, it is not cleaning up the streets.
	It is giving parking tickets.
	So, I vowed from then on, I will only use Stamps.com.
	So far, I have kept to my vow and it has saved me time and money.
	Right now, my listeners get a special offer.
	It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and a digital scale.
	No long-term commitment.
	Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in Shapiro.
	That is stamps.com, enter Shapiro.
	Okay, so why are the House Democrats so excited?
	Because the State Department's independent watchdog wrote to several House and Senate committees to request a last-minute meeting on Wednesday to discuss and provide staff with copies of documents, according to an invitation reviewed by the New York Times.
	So they're very excited.
	Ooh, what are the documents going to be?
	Well, we don't know yet.
	Maybe when we know, then we can determine whether in fact there was either a quid pro quo or a cover-up, but at this point we do not have evidence of either.
	It said the documents had been given to the Inspector General Stephen Linick by the State Department's Acting Legal Advisor, but did not provide additional information or indicate whether Mr. Pompeo was aware of the action.
	Mr. Linick's office has not responded to calls or emails seeking comment for two days.
	Well, maybe the whole purpose of the speed is because they know that the executive branch is not going to want to comply that quickly because it's actually kind of complicated to comply with subpoenas from the executive branch.
	They are determined to quickly nail down facts at the heart of the whistleblower complaint.
	Well, maybe the whole purpose of the speed is because they know that the executive branch is not going to want to comply that quickly because it's actually kind of complicated to comply with subpoenas from the executive branch.
	You have to determine, for example, what is classified and what is not classified, what the president is going to declare executive privilege over and what he is not.
	You have to make sure that everybody gets lawyers.
	So, by artificially boosting the timeline, perhaps the goal here is for Democrats to actually create exactly the sort of conflict they are pretending they wish to avoid.
	The White House is just as determined to thwart or at least slow the investigation.
	I do love the New York Times language there.
	They're just as determined to thwart or at least slow the investigation.
	Well, which is it?
	Thwart or slow?
	Why don't you just say that they are determined to slow?
	That's obvious, but thwart is a different thing.
	Following back on the approach it has used to stonewall efforts by Congress to delve into episodes detailed by Robert Mueller, the special counsel who investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 election.
	Okay, so we have a few pieces of competing news.
	You have the Pompeo acknowledgement that he was in fact on the phone call, which doesn't actually mean anything unless there was something wrong with the phone call itself.
	You have the House Democrats who are going to try and subpoena members of Pompeo's State Department.
	And Pompeo saying, hold up a second guys, you're moving too fast here.
	And the Democrats then claiming cover up.
	And you have the State Department's Inspector General requesting an urgent briefing with senior congressional staff members after Pompeo pushed back on House Democratic demands to turn over documents.
	So, we are still wondering exactly what exactly, the only real piece of news there, the only real piece of news, is not the hubbub between Pompeo and the House Democrats, and it's not really that Pompeo was on the call, because the call would be just as criminal or non-criminal, depending on whether Pompeo was there.
	Like, Pompeo's presence doesn't change the tenor of the phone call, unless the case is somehow that Pompeo was the hatchet man for the quid pro quo, but even that doesn't answer the question as to whether there was, in fact, a quid pro quo.
	The real piece of news here is that there may be new information that emerges thanks to the State Department Inspector General's request.
	One congressional aide described the State's Inspector General's request as highly unusual and cryptically worded.
	The Inspector General again said the reason for the briefing was that they had obtained documents from an acting legal advisor in the State Department.
	But as I say, you know, all this talk about the Trump administration preventing members of the Trump administration from testifying, not so much.
	The former U.S.
	Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker is set to appear on Thursday, and Kurt Volker is the one who allegedly was texting with Rudy Giuliani.
	So we're going to find out some more information there.
	Was he texting with Giuliani because the Trump administration, in efforts to procure the quid pro quo, had deputized Giuliani from the State Department in order to go over there and dig up dirt with the Ukrainian government?
	Or was Kurt Volker basically just a guy in Ukraine who knew, who was working for the government, knew Rudy Giuliani.
	Giuliani called him up and said, I'd like to talk to Axe.
	And he said, okay, here's his phone number.
	We're about to find that out.
	Meanwhile, Tuesday, the testimony of former U.S.
	Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, which had been scheduled for Wednesday, is now going to occur next Friday.
	So, again, they keep saying this is a cover-up.
	She's gonna wait like a week and a half.
	That's not a cover-up.
	Three committees, the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight panels have scheduled the depositions as part of their probe into whether the president solicited help from a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political opponent.
	And again, that remains the central issue, but we are not seeing any additional information as of yet that suggests that the quid pro quo either took place or that was even threatened.
	Remember, last week we uncovered three separate stories That suggested that the Ukrainian government didn't even know that military aid was on the line.
	And even the aspects of the transcript that look like they are dealing with military aid.
	Where you have Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, talking about buying Javelin missiles.
	I was informed by somebody in the defense arena, shall we say, that even that has nothing to do with the so-called quid pro quo with regard to military aid.
	That had to do with Zelensky trying to butter Trump up by saying he wanted to buy Javelins.
	Meaning that, actually, the entire call was just Zelensky trying to butter Trump up.
	Because foreign leaders are constantly trying to butter the President up.
	That doesn't mean that the President was actually threatening.
	Meanwhile, the House is threatening to subpoena the White House for Ukraine records.
	On Wednesday, the House threatened to subpoena the White House if it did not comply by Friday with requests for a broad range of documents relating to President Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden and his son.
	Again, there is the word pressure again.
	Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the chairman of the Oversight and Reform Committee, notified his committee of the impending subpoena on Wednesday.
	He said the White House had thus far ignored Congress's voluntary request.
	He said, I do not take this step lightly.
	Over the past several weeks, the committee's tried several times to attain voluntary compliance with our request for documents.
	Wait up, what is this past several weeks business?
	I mean, what exactly is that supposed to mean?
	This whole thing happened five seconds ago.
	I mean, it's only been going for two moments so far as we can tell.
	So, again, this seems like thus far overblown Democrats trying to accelerate the timeline specifically so that the White House will buck the timeline.
	And Cummings threatening a subpoena is obviously an escalation along these lines.
	The subpoena threat comes as House Democratic leaders are preparing to lay out steps in their rapidly unfolding impeachment inquiry.
	And we will find out what the State Department Inspector General is about to say as of today.
	In just a second, we're gonna get to President Trump's response to all this.
	Plus, Bernie Sanders hospitalized.
	A heart stent has been inserted.
	He had a heart problem.
	Heart surgery, all of his campaign events have been canceled.
	Obviously, thoughts and prayers to Bernie Sanders.
	You may disagree with him.
	You may think that he's a bad guy.
	I think that his political beliefs are awful, but you don't want to see anybody who is not a terrorist, basically, or a murderer, in this position.
	And so, thoughts to his family, even if I wildly disagree with all of Bernie Sanders's politics.
	Apparently he's conversing, and in good spirits, he'll be resting up over the next few days, according to senior advisor Jeff Weaver.
	We are canceling his events and appearances until further notice.
	Obviously, on a political level, that spells doom for Bernie Sanders' campaign, and it probably means that Elizabeth Warren is the Democratic nominee, which was the direction that this was moving anyway.
	So that is indeed a piece of enormous news.
	We'll get to more on Bernie Sanders and more on President Trump and the impeachment effort in just one second.
	Let's talk about hiring.
	So hiring can be a slow, difficult process.
	Cafe Altura COO Dylan Miskiewicz needed to hire a director of coffee.
	For his organic coffee company, he was having some trouble finding qualified applicants.
	So he switched to ZipRecruiter.
	ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you.
	It finds them for you.
	Its technology identifies people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job.
	So you will get qualified candidates fast.
	Dylan posted his job on ZipRecruiter, said he was impressed by how quickly he had great candidates apply.
	He also used ZipRecruiter's candidate rating feature to filter his applicants so he could focus on the most relevant ones.
	And that is how Dylan found his new director of coffee in just a few days.
	With results like that, it is no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	And here at The Daily Wire, we have tons of employees, and we are constantly thinking about how to upgrade those employees.
	Like, say that you had an employee named Donovan, and the guy just looked like Henry Cavill.
	I mean, the guy was just a studly-looking dude.
	And you thought to yourself, it's really intimidating to have this person around the office.
	I'd like to replace this Donovan fellow with somebody who's not quite as good-looking without violating the appropriate laws.
	Well, I would be going to look at ZipRecruiter.com.
	See why ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes.
	Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	Okay, we'll get to more of that Bernie Sanders stuff in just a minute because at the moment it is breaking news, but President Trump, meanwhile, is blowing back against the whistleblower.
	So, while the Democrats are pushing forward, President Trump is rage-tweeting.
	So, over the last 72 hours, he's been rage-tweeting up a storm.
	And this is where the Democratic case has shifted, and you're starting to see it shift from, maybe Trump did something criminal to Trump is a big poopoo head.
	Really, because Trump started tweeting a lot of stuff, and then people were like, oh my god, I can't believe he tweets all this stuff.
	If you still find Trump tweeting like a madman, somehow shocking, appalling, if it adds a new level of pressure to your day and stress to your day, if you believe that this is like, every time he tweets, it's a new level of low, may I suggest that you take a chill pill?
	Because the fact is that this is what Trump's gonna do, it's what he's always done.
	It's so funny, whenever I say this, people are like, well, if Obama tweeted this, you'd take it seriously.
	Correct, because Barack Obama was a serious human being.
	I don't know what you want from me!
	I mean, Donald Trump is the President of the United States, which means that we should take him with a certain amount of seriousness when he does things.
	But when he says things?
	Really?
	Like, we're gonna pretend that everything Donald Trump says is well-considered, thought-out policy, an official statement from the White House?
	I remember there was a...
	There was a big debate early on in Trump's administration over whether his tweets amounted to actual statements from the White House.
	People were like, yes.
	And so people started releasing these on White House stationary, right?
	It's kind of a joke.
	And it was obvious that this was not official statements from the White House.
	It was obvious that Trump just got up in the morning and he was like sitting on the toilet watching Fox News and he was just tweeting.
	And yet, whenever he does this, people are like, oh my god, it's so terrible, ugh.
	Okay, if you really think that this... He was elected, in part, because of this?
	There'll be a referendum on his tweeting habits in 14 months?
	You can talk about it anyway.
	Here's what Trump tweeted.
	He tweeted, So if the so-called whistleblower has all secondhand information, and almost everything he has said about my perfect call with the Ukrainian president is wrong, much to the embarrassment of Pelosi and Schiff, why aren't we entitled to interview and learn everything about the whistleblower, and also the person who gave all the false information to him?
	This is simply about a phone conversation that could not have been nicer, warmer, or better.
	No pressure at all, as can confirmed by Ukrainian press.
	It is just another Democrat hoax.
	And so there's some things in this tweet that are true, some things in this tweet that are not true.
	It is true that the Ukrainian president said he was not pressured.
	It is also true that I am very skeptical that the whistleblower did not have outside legal help on that letter that he wrote.
	I'm also skeptical the whistleblower is not actually working with Democrats behind the scenes, considering that Adam Schiff was tweeting out the exact points of the whistleblower report two weeks before he was supposed to know about it.
	With that said, the whistleblower was not wrong about the cause.
	I mean, the details of the call, there was one detail of the call that was wrong.
	The vast majority of the details were correct.
	Anyway, Trump says, As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment.
	It is a coup intended to take away the power of the people, their vote, their freedoms, their Second Amendment, religion, military, border wall, and their God, given rights as a citizen of the United States of America.
	Okay, and this is obviously a wild overstatement.
	Impeachment is a political process.
	Even if it moves forward in the House, it's probably going nowhere in the Senate.
	In order for a coup to take place, it has to happen outside the legal system.
	There's no such thing as a legal coup.
	Okay, legal coups are not things.
	They're things that can be done to oust an illegal dictator.
	But working within the system to oust a sitting president within the impeachment system is not, in fact, a coup, and for President Trump to call it that is dumb.
	Okay, that is a silly thing to say.
	However, is anyone supposed to be surprised here?
	Like, are we supposed to pretend that President Trump tweeting things out is supposed to be the big disqualifier?
	And yet, oddly enough, that's exactly what Democrats and many Democrats are now claiming.
	Is that because Trump is a poopoo head, right?
	This is, really, this is, I keep saying poopoo head because that is the best way to describe the sort of labels that they are throwing at Trump, right?
	They're not accusing him of actual criminal activity, really.
	They're not accusing him of violating his oath of office in any serious way.
	They're accusing him of being somebody who they don't like, who mouths off a lot on Twitter.
	And that, I guess, is their case for him being impeachable.
	And I don't really see that.
	I gotta be honest with you.
	Usually impeachment requires a crime.
	And so you see, for example, Joaquin Castro, who's out there, you know, the failing Democratic, well, he's a representative, right?
	Representative Castro.
	And he is a 2020 Democratic candidate for the presidency.
	Oh, sorry, his brother, Julian, is running.
	Joaquin, who's his twin brother, is a representative.
	Joaquin Castro is on CNN.
	And he was out there saying, well, Trump is going to bring harm to the whistleblower.
	Oh, God, really?
	We're going to do this routine?
	So he's impeachable because he's tweeting he doesn't like the whistleblower?
	Yes, I'm sure.
	Like, really, this Democratic line, which is so irritating and so stupid and has been trotted out by people like Ilhan Omar repeatedly, that if you criticize her, if you say that she's a bad congressperson, you're actually threatening her with violence.
	As somebody who has 24-7 security because of legit threats of violence, I can pretty well tell the damn difference between a threat of violence and people who just don't like what I say and are saying mean things about me.
	But Democrats, in an effort to stretch impeachment beyond its natural boundaries, they're like, oh, well, Trump is gonna harm the whistleblower.
	This is impeachable.
	The president at this point has been very abusive of the Whistleblower Protection Act and really is basically on the verge of not only revealing the identity or getting somebody else to reveal the identity of the whistleblower, but also bringing harm to that person.
	It's getting quite scary, the president's behavior and his words and what that could conjure up.
	Okay, and then my favorite part of this is that Castro says that, right, that Trump is going to bring harm to the whistleblower.
	And this is obviously a very, very, very bad thing.
	Super, super bad.
	And then Maxine Waters goes on TV.
	Well, actually, she tweets.
	She tweets, I'm calling on the GOP to stop Trump's filthy talk of whistleblowers being spies and using mob language implying they should be killed.
	Impeachment is not good enough for Trump.
	He needs to be imprisoned and placed in solitary confinement.
	But for now, impeachment is the imperative.
	Hey, so Trump says he doesn't like the whistleblower and he calls him a traitor because Bill Weld called him a traitor and everybody's calling each other traitors these days.
	Maxine Waters suggests the sitting president of the United States should be imprisoned and placed in solitary confinement.
	What does Julian Castro have to- what does Joaquin Castro have to say about that?
	Well, that's fine.
	That's just her being passionate.
	Guys, that's it.
	I have a lot of respect for Maxine Waters, and she's a very passionate person and has felt very strongly for a long time that the president has broken the law.
	And so you see that in her words.
	I think a lot of Americans have been very upset and outraged about the president's conduct.
	I think all of us want to make sure that this process is a fair one, that there is due process for the president and all the other witnesses that are going to come forward.
	But we're committed to getting to the bottom of what happened.
	She's just a passionate person, that's it.
	So when she threatens to put the president in jail in solitary confinement, that's her being passionate.
	When Trump yells about the whistleblower, that's him being impeachable and horrible and terrible and no good and very bad.
	This is part of the broader democratic agenda at this point to delegitimize Trump as president, not on the basis of actual crimes, but based on who Trump is as a person.
	Well, if you want to do that, we have a thing called elections.
	You can do that.
	But that's not what Democrats are doing.
	Instead, they seem to continually be broadening out the scope of the impeachment itself, of the impeachment inquiry, of the impeachment grounds.
	And that is ridiculous.
	As we'll see, that actually ties into a broader agenda on the part of many people on the left, which is to use Legal methods and silencing methods to shut down opposition rather than winning the argument, right?
	They have an election.
	They want to beat Trump.
	They can just do this in 14 months.
	But they're not doing that.
	Instead, they're pursuing impeachment.
	We'll get to more of that in just one second.
	First, gotta tell you about something cool that happened in our house over Rosh Hashanah.
	So right before Rosh Hashanah, we received in the mail from a company called Paint Your Life a portrait A full-on huge portrait of my family.
	It's just great.
	We were able to put it over the fireplace.
	It looks beautiful.
	It really changes the tenor of our house.
	If you want to give a truly meaningful gift, you have to try PaintYourLife.com.
	So here is the way that it works.
	You take a picture and you send it in to PaintYourLife.com and they will send you back an original painting of yourself or your kids or your family or a special place or a cherished pet at a price you can afford from PaintYourLife.com.
	You don't have to hire some artist and then have the artist Sit with you, and you have your portrait painted like Napoleon or something.
	Instead, you send them the picture, and instead, they send you back a true painting done by hand by a world-class artist created from your favorite photo.
	It makes a fantastic gift for birthdays, anniversaries, graduations.
	You choose the artist whose work you most admire, and you work with them throughout the process until every detail is perfect, and there is no risk.
	If you don't love the final painting, your money is refunded.
	So, I mean, that's a pretty awesome, awesome deal.
	It makes a fantastic gift.
	Go check it out right now.
	Again, we got that family portrait.
	It is fantastic.
	It sits above our fireplace right now.
	Right now is a limited time offer.
	You get 30% off your painting.
	That is correct.
	30% off and free shipping, which is a great offer.
	To get that special offer, text the word BEN to 64000.
	That's 64000.
	Text BEN, B-E-N, to 64000.
	Text Ben to 64000.
	When you support our show, you support our sponsors.
	Message and data rates may apply.
	Go check them out.
	Text Ben to 64000 and get yourself a great gift and one for your family.
	It really is fantastic.
	Okay, so as I say, there's part of a broader impeachment agenda here, and that is to continue broadening out the actual accusation.
	You can see it from Will Wilkinson, who writes a piece at the New York Times today.
	He's vice president for research at the Democrat-leaning Niskanen Center.
	And the entire piece is about how Trump ought to be impeached because he has disqualified himself from running.
	Why?
	The president's brazen attempt at cheating has taken decided at the ballot box off the menu.
	Impeachment is imperative.
	Right?
	Beto O'Rourke said in March, I think the American people are going to have a chance to decide this at the ballot box in November 2020, but says Wilkinson, this is no longer a tenable position.
	It's not tenable to allow an election to go forward.
	Trump has to be impeached because otherwise he's going to cheat and he's going to win the election by cheating.
	It's hilarious to watch as Democrats claim that Trump is going to do this while simultaneously claiming that Trump claiming the Democrats are going to do this is somehow impeachable.
	So just to get this straight, if Trump says it's a coup and they're cheating, that's impeachable.
	If Democrats say that Trump is cheating and will engage in a coup, then that's totally fine.
	And not only that, it should be grounds for impeaching Trump.
	So, I mean, that is heads I win, tails you lose right there.
	Wilkinson says, This is no longer a tenable position.
	The president's bungled bid to coerce Ukraine's leader into helping the Trump 2020 reelection campaign smear a rival struck decided at the ballot box off the menu of reasonable opinion forever.
	Forever.
	So apparently whatever happens with the vote will be illegitimate.
	Good news for President Trump.
	Even if he loses, he wins now.
	Because apparently the vote is illegitimate.
	Wilkinson says, Trump's brazen attempt to cheat his way into a second term stands so scandalously exposed there can be no assurance of a fair election if he's allowed to stay in office.
	Resolving the question of the president's fitness at the ballot box isn't really an option, much less the best option, when the question boils down to whether the ballot box will be stuffed Impeachment is therefore imperative.
	So in other words, they still have improved quid pro quo, but because Trump and his campaign were digging in Ukraine for dirt, this apparently perverts the election beyond all reasonable measure and thus all results are perverse.
	Well, there's only one problem with that.
	Hillary Clinton in 2016 worked with the Ukrainian embassy in order to dig up dirt on Trump.
	Did that make the results of the election illegitimate?
	It did not.
	It did not.
	Rudy Giuliani is out there, by the way, making the case that he's going to be able to prove that Barack Obama ordered Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to dig up dirt in Ukraine.
	We'll see if this is true or not or whether this is just another overplay by Rudy.
	The reason why I was investigating, and the reason why the President of the United States had an obligation to ask the President of Ukraine to follow up on these allegations, because there is substantial, and I don't want to exaggerate it, but pretty close to overwhelming evidence, including a finding by a Ukrainian court, that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats Cooperated with Ukrainians with the order coming directly from the White House in January of 2017 to dig up dirt.
	on her political opponent, and they did.
	Okay, so this is Rudy's case.
	And by the way, the case that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, there was something corrupt there, is not insanely weak.
	Now, it's not as strong as I think people have made it out to be, but there are serious questions to be asked about Hunter and Joe Biden.
	Joe definitely knew that Hunter was making money off his name.
	Does that impact his actual policy toward Ukraine?
	That is at best dicey.
	But still, the case that the Democrats seem to be making over and over is that they can just keep broadening out this inquiry until it's meaningless.
	Again, Wilkinson is not making a case that an actual quid pro quo will happen.
	He's just assuming that it did.
	Right?
	This is, this I guess is the grounds for impeachment is that he's not going to allow an actual election to go forward.
	And it turns out that that is not the only Democrat case that's being made today.
	As you'll notice, whenever the impeachment grounds get less and less specific, they get more and more passionate.
	That seems to be the way that this works.
	When this started off, it was supposed to be a very narrowly focused inquiry with a very narrow end goal or end point.
	And that does not seem like what this is turning into.
	It seems like instead it is broadening out and like the case for impeachment is broadening out over and over and over again.
	By the way, I should mention that while Rudy Giuliani is out there talking about how Joe Biden ought to be investigated and Republicans and Trump are saying Joe Biden ought to be investigated and they're saying that's a legitimate point of inquiry given the fact that Ukraine is requesting help and good relationship with us, and therefore we want to make sure that corruption is taken care of.
	With all of that, it is amazing.
	The same people on the left who suggest that people on the right are shying away from the Trump investigation because they're afraid of what they're going to find.
	They're saying over and over and over, there's nothing to find with the Biden stuff.
	Nothing whatsoever.
	How do we know this?
	Well, because we know this.
	Because there can't be anything because we know this.
	Here's Kamala Harris doing this routine.
	If you're elected president, would you allow the son or daughter of your vice president to serve on the board of an oil company outside this country?
	Probably not.
	But I think that the problem that we've got, again, with this issue is that it's a distraction from the fact that, look, as far as I'm concerned, leave Joe Biden alone.
	Just leave him alone on this issue of what this president has done that has been about corrupting America's democracy.
	Okay, my favorite part of that is where she starts laughing hysterically about Joe Biden and his son.
	That's always a good sign.
	When Kamala Harris laughs nervously, you know that she thinks there's actually a there there.
	Okay, we'll get to more of this in a second.
	Plus, of course, Bernie Sanders effectively dropping out of the race today thanks to a health problem.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	Great news for another Kingdom fans.
	The third final season is here at last this Monday, October 7th.
	Episodes 1 and 2 will be released.
	But if you're a subscriber, you get exclusive access to both of those episodes this Friday, October 4th.
	So, do not wait.
	Subscribe now.
	Also, seasons 1 and 2 are available on dailywire.com and iTunes and YouTube.
	Make sure you check those out and get caught up.
	And as I say, you should go subscribe generally because the fact is there are people on the left who, as we will see, are very much interested in destroying the ability of conservatives to get their message out when you subscribe.
	You make sure that we can continue to bring you the truth and the analysis that you need.
	When you get the annual subscription, you get this.
	The very greatest in beverage vessels, the leftist year's hydrocold tumbler.
	It is indeed magnificent.
	Go check that out right now for $99 a year.
	You'll make your life better.
	$9.99 a month.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So, as I keep saying, The goal of the Democrats and many in the media seems to be to broaden out the scope of the rationale for Trump's impeachment from quid pro quo, which would be an actual legal standard, to he's a meanie and we don't like him.
	So Thomas Friedman has a really famously awful column today.
	Thomas Friedman is an awful, awful columnist.
	I've said for years that if you want Thomas Friedman to write a nice column about you, all you have to do is offer him a hotel suite in a nice place for a night.
	He would go to Iran and people would offer him a nice hotel suite and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times would be like, Iran, a wonderful open country with a regime that has been misunderstood.
	If you buy him a nice suite in China?
	He'll write you a piece about how the United States should emulate China's one-party system.
	Well, today, he has a piece in the New York Times talking about how to impeach Trump, and here's how it opens.
	You ready for this?
	I'm going to discuss impeachment today, but first I want to talk about the National Symphony Orchestra's opening concert and gala last Saturday night.
	It was very revealing.
	At mid-concert, the chairman of the Kennedy Center, David Rubinstein, came out to greet the audience and the VIPs.
	He welcomed the different ambassadors, and then he went through the cabinet members present and then the Supreme Court justices.
	He introduced Justice Samuel Alito, who got a smattering of applause.
	Then he introduced Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seated in the balcony.
	First, many women in the audience stood up to applaud, and then everyone stood up, and then everyone applauded, and then everyone applauded more, and then some people cheered, and then some whistled, and it went on and on.
	It was extraordinary.
	I've been to a lot of Kennedy Center concerts, and a few when the president sitting in his official box was introduced.
	But I've never witnessed anything like the reception for Justice Ginsburg.
	And this was not a totally liberal audience.
	There were many older GOP donors and corporate types here.
	Okay, just quick note, it was pretty much a totally liberal audience.
	It's the Kennedy Center event, okay, in New York.
	That means there are like seven Republicans.
	And if they are Republicans in New York, good shot that they are not really hardcore Republicans.
	They're in New York.
	This was a spontaneous bipartisan expression of respect for and longing for a national leader of integrity and humility.
	By the way, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an awful justice.
	I also pray for her health because the fact is we should pray for the health of all of our officials in public positions, but she's a terrible justice who has ruled terribly on virtually every major ruling of the last 30 years.
	But basically, Friedman is saying, Ginsburg is a person of class who unifies the country, but Trump is classless and should be impeached.
	So that's Thomas Friedman's case.
	So we've had Will Wilkinson's case, which is Trump won't let an election go forward, which is nonsense.
	And then you have Friedman's case, which is everyone likes Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
	And then you get Susan Rice's case, which is that nothing says we should write about impeachment and corruption in foreign policy, like Susan Rice, a woman who lied repeatedly to the American public about Benghazi writing in the New York Times.
	By the way, you want to know what drives the right so fully insane about all of this?
	Is the fact that you've got Democrats sitting there on their high horses when they engaged in nearly the same activity repeatedly.
	Whether you're talking about Hillary seeking dirt on Donald Trump from the Ukrainians, or whether you're talking about Barack Obama pledging flexibility to the Russians openly on Mike.
	But you get Susan Rice writing for the New York Times about Trump should be impeached.
	Why?
	Well, because Joe Biden is innocent, right?
	She says Joe Biden is innocent and Trump is guilty because she says that Biden had nothing to do with the Obama policy and that Biden is fine and that Biden was backing a good policy.
	Nothing there about how it was inappropriate for the Obama administration to let Biden run up the Ukrainian policy, to lead up the Ukrainian policy when his son was earning money off his name in Ukraine while working with groups that were under investigation.
	Nonetheless, Susan Rice pushing the point that the Trump administration is the corrupt administration as opposed to the beautiful, wonderful, great Obama administration.
	If you want to drive people nuts, this is the way to do it.
	I mean, this is full-on gaslighting at this point.
	She says, the differences in these two engagements are stark.
	In Biden's case, the purpose of the intervention was to pursue a widely accepted U.S.
	policy objective in the full light of day.
	In Trump's case, it was to advance a personal political interest in opposition to the national interest, and it was deliberately hidden from view.
	Was it deliberately hidden from view that Trump wanted Giuliani in Ukraine?
	I mean, we've known for two years that Giuliani is running around in Ukraine.
	And as it turns out, the Washington Post agreed.
	I mean, they reported that the transcript of the call was not hidden for purposes of this specific call was bad, but because Trump hides all the transcripts because all of them leak.
	This is the stuff that drives Republicans up a wall.
	It drives conservatives up a wall.
	You'll see articles from the press, repeatedly, suggesting that Trump is engaged in corruption, where if you just flip the parties, they'd be talking about how great it was.
	A perfect example today, there's a piece in the Washington Post called, A Presidency of One, Key Federal Agencies Increasingly Compelled to Benefit Trump.
	Have you, maybe you noticed, by the way, that, did you, that, Obama did the exact same- Like, there was the Obama IRS scandal.
	There was the Obama Health and Human Services scandal.
	There was Obama utilizing his DOJ as a protection racket for himself in Fast and Furious.
	But apparently, according to the Washington Post, it is a great shock that the head of the executive branch is also the head of the executive branch.
	They point out that a series of disclosures has illuminated President Trump's command over key federal agencies, revealing how he has compelled them to pursue his personal and political goals, investigate his enemies, and lend legitimacy to his theories about the 2016 election.
	Yes, that's called being the head of the executive branch.
	This stuff drives Republicans up the wall for a reason.
	Again, if we were talking about Obama, the press would be cheering right now.
	By the way, the best case in point, Eric Holder, the head of the DOJ, the Attorney General, who suggested that he was Barack Obama's wingman, now says that Attorney General William Barr may have crossed political lines.
	Eric Holder said that.
	Are we supposed to not laugh out loud?
	To see how the President is now involved in trying to help the Attorney General in that effort gives me pause.
	I think the Attorney General needs to be a little more sensitive to the appearance that that gives.
	You have to not only be substantively neutral, you have to appear to be neutral when you are the Attorney General of the United States, and I fear that he has crossed a political line.
	I mean, does this man own a mirror?
	Are mirrors illegal where Eric Holder lives?
	You have to appear to be neutral?
	You literally call yourself Barack Obama's wingman.
	He declared executive privilege on your behalf in Fast and Furious.
	This sort of stuff.
	It's because there's a generalized belief in the United States that there's a miasma of corruption in Washington, D.C., that the swamp exists, and when Trump is kind of swampy sometimes, people are like, okay, well, and?
	Really, because, sorry, if you think that the world began spinning when Donald Trump was elected president, you may have missed the past 20 years in American politics.
	Meanwhile, I think that this is part of a broader agenda, unfortunately.
	Impeachment is indicative of a broader lefty mindset that has set in, which is that even if you don't have the goods, you use what you have to silence your opposition.
	Again, there's an election in 14 months.
	All the Democrats have to do, if they wish to win, is simply go forward to the election and make a good case for themselves.
	Instead, they're pushing impeachment.
	And this is part and parcel of a broader, radical left attempt to shut down all opinions they do not like.
	And so, for example, you have Kamala Harris suggesting today that Donald Trump's Twitter account should be suspended.
	He's the President of the United States.
	Here she is on CNN, desperately seeking attention.
	I mean, she's basically become Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, boiling a rabbit for attention.
	Here she is.
	When you look at what he's been tweeting today, directed at the whistleblower, directed at so many people, I frankly think that based on this and all we've seen him do before, including attacking members of Congress, that his Twitter account should be suspended.
	When the President of the United States speaks, her words are very powerful and should be used in a way that is not about belittling, much less harming, anyone.
	And this president has, I think, never fully appreciated that responsibility.
	So he should be barred from Twitter, according to Kamala Harris.
	It's funny how comfortable the left is with deplatforming people they just don't like.
	Kara Swisher makes the same case.
	This is the same Kara Swisher who once suggested to Susan Wojcicki, the head of YouTube, that I should be barred from YouTube because her son watches my videos.
	I'm sorry that I make a convincing case to your kid, Kara.
	But, like, now here she is saying Trump is too dangerous for Twitter.
	It's time to bar him.
	Do you get the feeling that there's a group of people in the United States who just don't want to hear the other people's opinion?
	I've never called for Kara Swisher to be barred.
	I've never suggested that Kamala Harris should be barred from Twitter.
	That would be absurd.
	I mean, there are people who target me day in and day out on Twitter.
	I've never called for any of them to be barred unless they're making actual violent threats to me.
	But this is part and parcel of a basic attempt to pressure everyone.
	So you're going to use the pressure tactics of impeachment in order to get rid of a president you don't like, not elections.
	You're going to use the pressure tactics against the advertisers to get rid of shows that you don't like, not just not listening to the shows, not the ratings, and you're going to try and pressure big tech to crack down on opinions you don't like, not simply tune out from those opinions, which would be the proper policy.
	Which, by the way, raises the issue Facebook has now put forward a policy about elections.
	Nick Clegg, who's the VP of Global Affairs and Communications, I'm gonna put forward this policy, and it's a pretty decent policy.
	The basic policy is that they are not going to referee political debates and prevent a politician's speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny.
	So, Facebook exempts politicians from third-party fact-checking programs.
	So, very often, Facebook has what I think is a dumb system of third-party fact-checkers who are very often left.
	You'll see Snopes, or you will see PolitiFact, and these are left-leaning, Left-leaning fact-check sites, and they will use that as an excuse to go after particular stories.
	I've always argued that that's foolishness because bad data in means bad data out.
	There are very few right-wing fact-checking sites.
	There probably should be one, but there aren't.
	Okay, but at least Facebook is not applying that to politicians because that effectively would make them the great truth arbiters in politics, and that is an enormous mistake.
	They said we will not send organic content or ads from our politicians to third-party fact-checking partners for review.
	When a politician shares previously debunked content, including links, videos, and photos, we plan to demote that content, display related information from fact-checkers, and reject its inclusion in advertisements.
	Again, all of this seems...
	Perfectly reasonable.
	Doesn't matter.
	Facebook is being attacked.
	Why?
	Because the left would like to turn Facebook into the arbiter of truth, but the lefty arbiter of truth.
	That's why Elizabeth Warren is targeting Facebook too.
	Again, this is not about Elizabeth Warren just disliking Facebook as a big company.
	This is about the Democrats threatening Facebook so they can control of it politically.
	Mark Zuckerberg knows this, by the way.
	There was leaked audio of him over the weekend pointing out that Elizabeth Warren was an existential threat to his company.
	She is.
	She's an existential threat to big tech.
	And while the right may celebrate the downfall of big tech, the fact is you don't want Democrats in control of big tech.
	That's really what this is about for Democrats.
	In the same way they want to bar Trump from Twitter, they would like to see Facebook broken up so they can then control Facebook and determine what it is that you see and you hear.
	And naturally, the press are cheering this on.
	The New York Times has a headline, Zuckerberg hates Warren's plan to break up Facebook.
	She doesn't care!
	Well, okay, so what?
	So what?
	I mean, who is the aggressor here?
	Mark Zuckerberg built up a bajillion-dollar company that affects billions of people around the world, and Elizabeth Warren is going to willy-nilly grab the power of the American government and try to break it up, and she's the courageous one?
	She didn't build anything.
	She's never built anything.
	She worked as a law professor.
	It's all very silly.
	Okay, meanwhile, gotta give you the update on Bernie Sanders.
	As I mentioned earlier, Bernie Sanders has now had a heart-sense surgery after chest discomfort.
	According to Politico, breaking news, Bernie Sanders experienced chest discomfort during a campaign event on Tuesday.
	He had two stents inserted to address a blockage in an artery, his campaign announced.
	He is, you know, 78 years old, so this is not exactly a massive shock.
	How old is Bernie now?
	Is he 80?
	I think he may be 80.
	So he is, sorry, he's 78.
	I was right the first time.
	He's getting up there.
	And this is, by the way, this is why when people say, older politicians may have health problems, and then everybody's like, that's ageist!
	No, that's called reality.
	With age come health problems.
	According to his senior advisor, Jeff Weaver, he said, Senator Sanders is conversing and in good spirits.
	He'll be resting up over the next few days.
	We are canceling his events and appearances until further notice.
	We will continue to provide appropriate updates.
	Sanders has maintained a relentless campaign schedule over the past several months.
	He is the oldest candidate in the Democratic field, but has projected vigor belying his age.
	The news came a day after Sanders posted a robust $25 million fundraising haul in the third quarter of the year, but as he's been eclipsed in recent weeks by Elizabeth Warren in the polls.
	So apparently, the Sanders campaign canceled the entirety of its recently scheduled ad buy in Iowa on broadcast television.
	They'd announced a $1.3 million ad buy on Monday in the state that was set to begin on Thursday.
	Kamala Harris was eager to jump in and wish him the best.
	She says she looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail soon.
	I'm sure that is not true, but it is certainly true that, you know, listen, you never want to see politicians put out of it by health, obviously.
	Beneficiary politically, you know, putting aside the human aspect, which is, you know, thoughts and prayers to the Sanders family.
	With that said, Politically speaking, obviously Elizabeth Warren now looks to be the heavy favorite for the nomination because the going theory for Joe Biden was that Elizabeth Warren would split the vote with Bernie Sanders on the socialist left.
	Well, now that Bernie Sanders looks to be out of the race for the foreseeable future, there's no way he's gonna recover coming back in.
	It is now a two-person race.
	It is now Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden, and Joe Biden is collapsing in the polls.
	According to the national polling average, Biden is up just a point and a half on Elizabeth Warren, There are now several polls that show them in a dead heat.
	There's an Economist YouGov poll that came out yesterday showing that Warren is now up six on Biden.
	There's a Monmouth poll showing that Warren is up three on Biden.
	So, Warren is obviously in commanding position in the early running here.
	She is leading in Iowa.
	Sanders is at 12%.
	All of that probably kicks to Elizabeth Warren.
	In New Hampshire, Elizabeth Warren is again running within the margin of error.
	In Nevada, she's running inside the margin of error.
	The betting odds on Elizabeth Warren are now up to 49% to Biden's 22%.
	So, she is the prohibitive favorite in this election.
	That means that what we are looking at right now is Donald Trump versus Elizabeth Warren.
	And that, by the way, does explain, at least in part, why the Democrats are moving forward with the impeachment inquiry, even if they're not able to come up with any hard evidence of a quid pro quo.
	That is, if they can portray Trump as corrupt, and then they can portray Elizabeth Warren as the fighter against corruption, the populist fighter against corruption, she wins.
	Well, that's a very scary prospect, because she's a dangerous politician with wild left views.
	Man, there's gonna be one hell of a race.
	Okay, let's do a quick thing I like, and then a thing I hate, and we will be out of here.
	So, a quick thing that I like.
	So there's a lot of talk, very frequently, about racial bias in the justice system.
	Well, there is a case that happened in Dallas of, I guess it was last year it would have been, in which an officer, an off-duty officer, Amber Geiger, She's white.
	She was in the wrong apartment.
	She walked into the wrong apartment.
	She came home from work one night last year, believing she'd found an intruder inside her apartment.
	She then shot the man inside.
	The man she shot was not an intruder, but her neighbor, Botham Shemjean, a 26-year-old black accountant who was watching TV and eating ice cream in the apartment he rented directly above Ms.
	Geiger's.
	On Tuesday, Gene's family braced themselves for the possibility his death would be treated like many others across the country, in which police officers have been cleared of wrongdoing, but that moment never came.
	Instead, a Dallas County jury found Geiger 31 guilty of murder, choosing the more serious conviction over a lesser option of manslaughter.
	And that seems...
	Perfectly appropriate for this fact pattern.
	The case did not fit into the familiar narratives of police killings in which the officers fired their weapons on duty.
	And it just goes to show, again, that the notion that everyone in the United States is eagerly awaiting police shootings of black people by white officers is just not true.
	It's always funny, the left tends to pick out cases where the fact pattern is murky in order to make the case that people don't pay enough attention to black folks being killed.
	And that is not the case, right?
	I mean, they never talk about the case of a man in South Carolina who was shot to death from behind by a police officer who planted the gun on him.
	That officer went to jail.
	They never talk about that, because we all agree on the fact pattern.
	Instead, they talk about Michael Brown, where the fact pattern is in dispute, or Eric Garner, where the fact pattern is in dispute.
	In this case, the fact pattern was not in dispute, and so this officer will go to jail for a very, very long time.
	As is appropriate, because if you shoot somebody in an apartment not your own, that means that you should go to jail.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
	Okay, so, there is a new ruling from a judge about Harvard University.
	New York Times reports, a federal judge on Tuesday rejected claims that Harvard had intentionally discriminated against Asian American applicants in a closely watched case that presented one of the biggest legal challenges to affirmative action in years.
	The lawsuit against the university came from a group hoping to overturn a long-standing Supreme Court precedent that allows race to be considered as one factor among many in admissions, but prohibits universities from using racial quotas.
	The group argued, Harvard favored black and Hispanic applicants at the expense of another minority group, Asians.
	Which is true.
	The judge rejected the plaintiff's argument, said the university met the strict constitutional standard for considering race in its admissions process.
	She defended the benefits of diversity.
	Ah.
	Not ideological diversity.
	Not experiential diversity.
	Racial diversity.
	Which again, there is no benefit to racial diversity on its own.
	As a matter of experiential diversity?
	Sure.
	As a matter of socioeconomic diversity?
	Sure.
	As a matter of viewpoint diversity?
	Sure.
	But why it should make a difference that a black person and a white person are in a room and somehow this is like better than two white people or two black people in a room.
	is beyond me without any other metric.
	That's silly.
	But she said diversity will foster the tolerance, acceptance, and understanding that will ultimately make race-conscious admissions obsolete.
	Okay, they've been saying that for 40 years now since Grutter v. Bollinger in the late 70s, and the court's not letting up on this nonsense.
	So I do—there is a great irony to the fact that now the courts are standing up for diversity by barring Asians from Harvard.
	Well done, everybody.
	Well done, everybody.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here a little bit later today with all the updates on Bernie Sanders' health, and on the impeachment inquiry, and all of it.
	Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
	Shana Tova, I'm Ben Shapiro, this is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior Producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
	Assistant Director, Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Adam Siovitz.
	Audio is Mixed by Mike Koromina.
	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.
	Well, I guess we have to cover this stupid Ukraine story, an amazingly shameless and naked attempt to discredit the people who are in the process of exposing the Obama administration's spying campaign on Donald Trump.
	So that's unpleasant, but we'll also have the mail back, so all your problems will be solved.
	Woo-hoo!
	That's on The Andrew Klavan Show.

▲