All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 23, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:02:47
What If Everybody Is Corrupt And Terrible? | Ep. 881
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President Trump's ambassador to Ukraine turns on him, Trump says he's the victim of a lynching, and the media prove their leftist bona fides once again.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com slash Ben.
As you'll learn on today's show, it's kind of important.
OK, we have a lot of news to get to here today.
You know, you miss half a week and suddenly the world is new and there are all sorts of brand new news stories that you come back and you're really excited to talk about.
Or alternatively, everything is terrible and we have to talk about all the terrible things that happened in my absence.
So let us begin with impeachment, Gabe.
2019!
We begin with the latest polling on impeachment.
According to Nate Cohen over at the New York Times, they did some polling on impeachment in six swing states, and what they found is that there are a lot of people who are sort of interested in impeaching President Trump, but not particularly interested in removing President Trump.
In other words, they kind of want to censure his behavior.
But by the same token, they don't actually want to see him removed from office.
We're a year out from an election.
According to Cohen at the New York Times, voters in the states likeliest to decide the 2020 presidential election support the impeachment inquiry.
House Democrats began last month, but a majority still opposes impeaching President Trump and removing him from office, according to a New York Times Siena College survey.
In the six closest states carried by the president in 2016, registered voters support the impeachment inquiry by a five-point margin, 50% to 45%.
But the same voters oppose impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office, 53% to 43%.
In other words, they are saying we have not yet seen enough evidence to suggest that Trump has done something so wildly out-of-the-box criminal that he deserves to be removed from office.
And as I've said before on the program, there are a few questions that have to be asked about impeachment.
One, was an impeachable offense committed?
Two, is that impeachable offense beyond that sort of offense that other candidates, other presidents have actually committed in the past?
Because to impeach, virtually every president commits at some point an impeachable offense because presidents routinely violate their oaths of office.
Presidents routinely overstep their boundaries according to the Constitution.
I mean, to take just a quick example, George W. Bush overtly stated when he signed campaign finance reform that he didn't think it was constitutional.
Well, he took an oath to preserve and uphold the Constitution of the United States.
It seems like a violation of that oath to then sign a bill you say is overtly unconstitutional.
But, was that really impeachable?
Not really, it was just a bad political move by President Bush.
You know, the fact is that presidents do things all the time that violate The powers delegated to them in Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States.
Barack Obama was droning American citizens overseas.
Controversial?
Yes.
Impeachable?
Probably not.
With all of that said, that brings us to the actual allegations of offense against President Trump.
And it seems like the American public at this point are saying, listen, we don't see allegations so damning that he ought to be removed from office.
Yes, they go to his fitness.
Yes, they go to whether President Trump is a good president or whether he's good at his job.
But overall, in today's political landscape, the American public tend to believe that everybody is corrupt and terrible.
And if everybody is corrupt and terrible, then by the logic of The Incredibles, nobody is corrupt and terrible.
The idea here is that if everybody is at sort of an equal plane of stupidity, corruption, and ineptitude, well then that means that no one should be singled out for stupidity, corruption, and ineptitude.
I really think that's where the American public are on this, and I think they've been here on this for quite a while, actually.
According to the New York Times, the survey depicts a deeply divided electorate in battleground states a year from the election, with the president's core supporters and opponents exceptionally energized and unified.
Yet at the same time, a crucial sliver of relatively moderate voters, 7% of the electorate, support the inquiry without backing Trump's impeachment and removal from office.
The findings suggest that public opinion has actually stabilized since shifting quickly against the president in late September.
It leaves American politics where it was for some time, deadlocked, with neither side likely to face severe political costs for its position on the president.
And you can see why this is, right?
If you're on the right, as we will see in today's show.
You look at the left, you look at the media, you look at the Democratic Party, which is filled with partisan hacks.
You look at the political landscape, where it seems that increasingly basic liberties are being violated.
And you say, at least Trump is standing in the breach.
And if we're going to get him on these kind of ticky-tack fouls, then what exactly is all of this nonsense?
It's obviously badly motivated.
On the left, Democrats are saying, OK, well, Trump is something completely out of the box, something completely new.
He is running roughshod over the niceties of the office.
And while we can't exactly get him on criminal conduct, he is so just—he's so wild and so crazy and so—he's not normal, right?
That's the sort of phraseology they use.
Not normal.
And thus he must be removed from office.
And people in the middle seem to be kind of like, well, Everything both of you guys are saying are true, and so we have an election in like a year.
So we could probably just do that.
That seems like where things stand.
Now, we'll get to the testimony that Democrats are hoping shift things in just one second.
That'd be the testimony of Ambassador William Taylor, Bill Taylor.
It was given yesterday, behind closed doors, in front of the House Intelligence Committee.
And it is not good for President Trump.
It is also not completely damning of President Trump in one particular way, which I will explain.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fun and interest of finding out your ancestry.
So I care about my ancestry.
Hell, I'm in Israel, right?
I mean, that's a thing.
But, you know, the fact is that I do care about my own genetic composition.
I've taken the 23andMe test.
Turns out 100% Ashkenazic Jewish.
I know.
Shocker.
But the fact is, I'm the only person in America who is less Native American than Elizabeth Warren is.
If you're interested in finding out about your ancestry, 23andMe is the best way to do it.
And it's not just about ancestry, obviously.
It's also about finding out health patterns.
It's about finding out how you react to certain substances.
How you react to alcohol, for example.
Whether you need sleep.
You know, finding out more information about yourself allows you to tailor your lifestyle in a way that connects with your genetics in a deeper way.
If you've been thinking about buying a DNA kit, now would be the perfect time because 23andMe, the best DNA kit on the market, just got even better.
They've added new features.
23andMe has now introduced an ancestry and traits service.
It has more than 1,500 geographic regions, a new automatic family tree builder, and a free trait report.
The new automatic family tree builder is really easy to use.
It actually starts automatically building your family tree for you using your DNA.
So you don't have to dig through archives and records for hours on end to start that family tree.
23andMe will do all the work to get you started.
The new Ancestry and Trait service now includes 30 plus trait reports for free.
Trait reports explore how your DNA can influence your likelihood for certain things like motion sickness or mosquito bite frequency.
Ancestry, researching all this stuff, it's really important and it's really cool.
Go check them out at 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
Order your Ancestry and Traits service today at 23andme.com slash Shapiro.
23andme.com slash Shapiro.
Makes a fun gift, by the way.
Gives people more information about where they come from.
23andme.com slash Shapiro.
Okay, so.
Today was a statement by Ambassador William Taylor.
Ambassador Taylor was the interim ambassador to Ukraine.
And we know about him because we saw him involved in text message exchanges with other members of the Trump administration, including Gordon Sondland, who is Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, and Kurt Volker, who is the special envoy to Ukraine.
And there are all these text messages in which Taylor kept saying, guys, This looks an awful lot like President Trump is withholding military aid to Ukraine in order to get Joe Biden.
Well, as we will see from his testimony, he basically is sort of reiterating and clarifying what everybody already knew, which is that Trump was very concerned about 2016 election interference by Ukrainian sources, which Again, if he believes that that is what was happening, it would be a legitimate thing to try to get to the bottom of it after Democrats spent two years trying to investigate Russian election interference in the 2016 election.
And as part of that, Trump claims, that has to do with Burisma, it has to do with this natural oil and gas company that put Hunter Biden on its board, and he wanted all of this investigated as an investigation into corruption more broadly.
Taylor is going to claim that all of this was really sort of a get Joe Biden effort.
Now, that distinction is crucial, because if it was a get Joe Biden effort, if it was really just Trump trying to trump up charges against an American citizen in order to knock him out of a presidential race by using foreign military aid, then that would be impeachable, pretty obviously.
If, however, this was all just Trump saying, I want to fight corruption in Ukraine.
And by corruption, I mean A, B, C, D, Burisma, E, F, G. That's a little bit of a different story.
And it seems more like the latter than the former, but Taylor's testimony is damaging to Trump and damaging to other members of the administration.
So in his testimony, he talks about a wide variety of members of the administration who seem to be going along with Trump's kind of weird ideas about Ukraine.
I say weird because there wasn't a lot of evidence to back the idea that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election via crowd strike.
There's good evidence to suggest that the Ukrainian government was working with Hillary Clinton to dig up dirt on Trump.
That was reported by Politico in 2017.
So that's nothing new.
I mean, that's stuff we already know publicly.
But if we're talking about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and Burisma, there are not a lot of evidentiary suggestions that Joe Biden was specifically manipulating Ukrainian policy in order to benefit his son Hunter.
It looks more like Hunter has been spending his life riding daddy's coattails.
Which, as it turns out, is a frequent practice in politics.
Children of famous politicians riding their coattails to glory.
That sort of thing happens a lot.
Some in more corrupt ways, and some in less corrupt ways.
Just because you're a kid of a politician doesn't mean that your success is due to the politician.
At the same time, if you're Hunter Biden and you've got no qualifications for anything, and you're being paid 50 grand a month to sit on the board of a company because your last name is Biden, it doesn't smack of exact honesty from Hunter Biden in any case.
Bill Taylor testified in front of Congress today.
He says, ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009, having been nominated by George W. Bush.
And he said that he had remained engaged in Ukraine, frequently visiting since 2013.
He's obviously very pro-Ukraine versus Russian aggression outside.
He supported stronger American sanctions against Russia.
He said he considered saying yes.
His wife didn't want him to because she felt that the Trump administration was just not a good place to serve.
He says,
He was the interim ambassador to Ukraine.
So he returns to Kiev and he says as soon as he got there, he, quote, discovered a weird combination of encouraging, confusing and ultimately alarming circumstances.
So he talks about how he was hopeful about President Zelensky fighting corruption.
He said, He said, He He said this is the regular channel.
At the same time, there was an irregular, informal channel of U.S.
policymaking with regard to Ukraine, one which included then-Special Envoy Kurt Volker, Ambassador Sundlund, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and as I subsequently learned, Rudy Giuliani.
I was clearly in the regular channel, but I was also included in the irregular channel.
He says the irregular channel began when Ambassador Volker, Ambassador Sundlund, Perry, and Senator Ron Johnson briefed Trump on May 23rd upon their return from Zelensky's inauguration.
The delegation returned to Washington enthusiastic about the new Ukrainian president, but President Trump did not share their enthusiasm for a meeting with Mr. Zelensky.
He says, "When I first arrived in Kiev in June and July, the actions of both the regular and the irregular channels of foreign policy served the same goal: a U.S.-Ukraine partnership.
But by August, all of this was diverging." He says that, "On June 27th, Ambassador Sumblin told me during a phone conversation that President Zelensky needed to make clear to President Trump that he, President Zelensky, was not standing in the way of investigations." And he didn't know, Taylor didn't know, what exactly this was supposed to mean.
He didn't understand what exactly were the investigations that he was supposed to get to the bottom of.
He said it was not clear to me on that call what this meant.
But Ambassador Volcker noted he would relay that President Trump wanted to see rule of law, transparency, but also specifically cooperation on investigations to, quote, get to the bottom of things.
He says he reported on this call to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, who had responsibility for Ukraine.
He said, By mid-July, it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted with Trump was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US elections.
It was also clear that this condition was driven by the irregular policy channel I had come to understand was guided by Giuliani.
Now, Trump's defense to this is going to be, Right, I want all of the corruption in Ukraine investigated, including Burisma.
I don't want the Burisma investigation dropped because that's a good indicator of corruption in Ukraine.
That's going to be Trump's defense.
The left, Democrats, are going to claim, no, the reason that he was so all-fired concerned with Burisma specifically is because he wanted to go after Joe Biden.
So Taylor says that he had a series of meetings in which it was clear that everybody in state and defense wanted to resume aid to Ukraine, but Ukraine was being held up specifically by Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, and the Chief of Staff maintained a skeptical view toward Ukraine.
He said, needless to say, the Ukrainians in the meetings were confused.
Ambassador Bolton in the regular Ukraine policy decision-making channel wanted to talk about security, energy, and reform.
Ambassador Sondland, a participant in the irregular channel, wanted to talk about the connection between a White House meeting and Ukrainian investigations.
He said he had a July 19th call in which it was discussed that Rudy Giuliani ought to be involved in this process.
And then he talks about the text messages that he held with other members of the Trump administration in which he suggested that there might be a quid pro quo going on.
He says, later on July 20th, I had a phone conversation with Ambassador Sondland while he was on a train from Paris to London.
Ambassador Sondland told me he had recommended to Zelensky, he used the phrase, I will leave no stone unturned with regard to investigations when President Zelensky spoke with President Trump.
And then on July 25th, they had this conversation.
He says, After our meeting with President Zelensky the next day, Ambassador Volker and I traveled to the front line in northern Donbass to receive a briefing from the commander of the forces on the line of contact.
Arriving for the briefing in military headquarters, the commander thanked us for security assistance, but I was aware this assistance was on hold, which made me uncomfortable.
And they looked over all the damage that had been done by Russian-led forces.
Over 13,000 Ukrainians had been killed in the war, one or two a week.
He says on August 16th I exchanged text messages with Ambassador Volker in which I learned that Andrei Yermak had asked the United States to submit an official request for an investigation into Burisma's alleged violations of Ukrainian law if that's what the U.S.
desired.
A formal request to the Ukrainians to conduct an investigation based on violations of their own law struck me as improper.
I recommended to Ambassador Volker that we stay clear.
By mid-August, because the security assistance had been held for over a month for no reason I could discern, I was beginning to fear that the long-standing U.S.
policy of support for Ukraine was shifting.
He told Pompeo that he'd have to resign if the aid was not restored.
Ambassador Bolton encouraged him to keep informing Pompeo of this.
So Bolton, obviously, who was Trump's national security advisor, did not actually want any of this going on.
He said on September 1st, three days after he cabled Pompeo, Zelensky met Vice President Pence at a bilateral meeting in Warsaw.
President Trump had planned to travel to Warsaw, but at the last minute had canceled because of Hurricane Dorian.
And he said that he had contacted the ambassador from Ukraine to let him know that the delay of U.S.
security assistance was an all or nothing proposition in the sense that if the White House did not lift the hold prior to the end of the fiscal year, the funds would expire and Ukraine would receive nothing.
He was hoping that his pressure would sort of restore the aid.
Politico then reported on the missing aid and the aid was quickly restored.
So bottom line here is that Taylor is just reiterating a lot of the claims that he was making in those text messages, which we have already seen, which is that he believes that the Burisma affair was at the center of this.
Right.
He says before the text messages that he had with Ambassador Sondland about the quid pro quo, he says during our call on September 8th, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman.
When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check.
Ambassador Volcker used the same terms several days later while we were together at Yalta European Strategy Conference.
I argued to both that the explanation made no sense.
So that is Taylor's testimony and Democrats are jumping all over it.
Holding up security assistance for domestic political gain was crazy.
As I had said in my text message to Ambassador Sumlin and Volcker on September 9th, on September 11th, the hold was lifted.
The security assistance would be provided.
So that is Taylor's testimony, and Democrats are jumping all over it.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, let's talk about making yourself healthier.
So the fact is that if you want to be healthier, you need to change your actual lifestyle.
It's not just about going on a diet.
It's about changing how you think, about things like what you eat, about how you exercise.
It's about getting more information and learning how to attune your habits to living healthier.
Well, good news for you, there's a service that helps you do this.
That service is called Noom.
I know they're great because I've been using Noom and they help me lose a little bit of weight.
I've not just lost a little bit of weight.
It's also helped me eat healthier.
It's also helped me keep on track with regard to my exercise.
It is easy and it is convenient.
Based in psychology, Noom teaches you why you do the things you do and arms you with the tools to break the bad habits and then replace them with better ones.
Noom is not a diet.
It's a healthy and easy to stick to way of life.
No food is good or bad or off limits.
Instead, Noom teaches moderation and can be used in conjunction with a lot of pre-existing popular diets if you actually want to do so.
And Noom just asks you to commit about 10 minutes a day, and that's really all that it takes.
I've recommended it to my parents because it is so good.
You don't have to change it all in one day.
Small steps do make big progress.
Sign up for your trial today at Noom, N-O-O-M dot com slash Shapiro.
Visit Noom.com slash Shapiro to start your trial today.
That is N-O-O-M, N-O-O-M dot com slash Shapiro.
The last weight loss program, you'll need Noom.com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so naturally, the left is jumping all over Bill Taylor's testimony.
They're suggesting that it adds something new to the mix.
I don't think that it does actually.
It seems to me that the same thing is basically It seems to me the same thing is basically being reiterated here, that if you perceive this as Trump trying to hold up aid to get Biden, it looks like that.
And if you perceive it as Trump very upset about a wide variety of corruption angles that affect him personally, as well as affecting the country and Rudy Giuliani feeding him bad information, Trump is reacting to all of that.
And so what you have is basically the continuation of this Rorschach test that has existed ever since the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call came out a few weeks ago.
President Trump, for his part, is of course deeply, deeply upset about all of this.
And he is more upset about all of this because he looks at the behavior of the Democrats and he says, these people are not acting in honest fashion.
Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona has a piece in the Washington Examiner talking about the process being used in the House.
He says that this is corrupt.
He says, earlier this week, Representative Denny Heck, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, who told reporters that Republicans are darn lucky these hearings and depositions weren't public, The implication was the information coming out is horrifically damaging to Trump.
The reality is if the information was damaging to Trump, Democrats would hold open hearings.
They would have already released transcript of the testimonies.
Trump didn't ask the Ukrainian president to investigate a political opponent.
The Trump administration has released the transcript of the telephone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky.
The Trump administration will provide additional evidence and witnesses in an open and transparent process.
But why should they cooperate when the fix is in?
Adam Schiff keeps holding these closed-door meetings in the top security room in the basement of the Capitol.
He's doing this to keep the public and the president in the dark.
Nonetheless, leftist media outlets report on the substance of what has been testified to and what documents have been produced in the hearings.
Someone from the left is leaking.
He says that Pelosi, Schiff, Democrats in Congress are ignoring historical norms and processes in order to try to remove Trump from office.
He says we usually have a process in which an impeachment investigation is commenced by a formal vote by members of the House of Representatives.
The investigation is then conducted by the Judiciary Committee or a special select committee.
At the same time that the formal resolution to investigate the president is voted on, the House establishes rules of the investigation, sets the committee that will investigate, and any other particular instructions necessary for the committee to do its work.
But Democrats aren't doing this.
Instead, they're doing this on an ad hoc basis, and so Trump feels like he's being screwed.
Meanwhile, Molly Hemingway over at The Federalist is pointing out that Adam Schiff is flip-flopping on the public nature of whistleblower testimony after reports that he was coordinating with the whistleblower.
Hemingway says, at first, Schiff insisted an anti-Trump bureaucrat sharing allegations against the president must share his story with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
But after news broke that Schiff's staff had secretly worked with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being lodged, discussions that the whistleblower failed to mention when specifically asked about them as part of the official whistleblower process, Schiff moved to prevent the testimony.
The move appears designed to prevent Republican lawmakers from asking the individual under oath about his discussions with House Democrats, media, and others involved in the impeachment effort.
So, as she points out, Schiff has now shifted his position on exactly what should happen with the whistleblower.
Should the whistleblower testify?
Should the whistleblower not testify?
By Sunday, Schiff was claiming that the testimony was not even needed.
So, of course Trump is going to be suspicious of all of this.
I mean, Trump has reason to be suspicious of the Democrats.
The Democrats obviously want to impeach him.
They've wanted to impeach him since the day he was elected.
And he also feels as though he has been targeted, and correctly so, he feels that he is being targeted by people inside his own administration to the cheers of the media.
And that's true.
He is being targeted by people in his own administration to the cheers of the media.
The evidence of this is that the anonymous author of a Trump resistance op-ed is now going to publish a tell-all book and remain anonymous while doing so, and claims that he is a top-ranking member of the Trump administration, who's presumably being paid a hefty sum by a publisher to write a book about how terrible Trump is while serving in the Trump administration.
Well, if he doesn't like it, he has a very simple solution.
He can resign and then reveal publicly who he is.
But he's not going to do that.
Hey, well, by the way, we've seen a bunch of people do this, right?
We've seen a bunch of people inside the Trump administration publicly resign and say they can't serve under this president.
Well, at least that's honest.
What is deeply dishonest is a person who is an anonymous, non-whistleblower, right?
Not going through formal channels, writing a book for money in which they discuss ongoing events inside the Trump administration to the wild cheers of the media.
That's not good for the presidency, it's not good for the country, and of course it's going to underscore how suspicious Trump is of people inside his administration, and it's going to encourage Trump to set up exactly the sort of irregular channels that Bill Taylor was talking about, right?
Why would you set up an irregular channel?
The only reason to set up an irregular channel is because you don't trust the regular channel.
One of the reasons you might not trust the regular channel is it feels like the regular channel is being used as a method of hurting you.
It feels like members of the intelligence community are going after you.
It feels as though members of the State Department on lower levels are attempting to skew your foreign policy.
It appears that members of the quote-unquote deep state are going after you.
It's hard to argue with Trump about why Trump should feel, should feel differently when you have articles like this from Philip Rucker in the New York times quote, the author of an anonymous column in the New York times in 2018, who was identified as a senior Trump administration official acting as part of the resistance inside the government has written a tell all book to be published next month.
The book titled a warning is being promoted as an unprecedented behind the scenes portrait of the Trump presidency that expands upon the times column, which ricocheted around the world and stoked the president's rage because of its devastating portrayal of Trump in office.
And just a second, I'm going to give you more information on this anonymous book that again is underscoring the president's distrusting government, which leads him to set up irregular channels, which leads them to make mistakes, which leads him into traps, which leads the Democrats to seem to believe that they have material to impeach.
This is all part of a big, big picture.
And if you don't see the big picture, you can't understand anybody's perspective right, left, or center.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let me explain that my sleep quality in Israel, it ain't what my sleep quality is at home.
One of the reasons for that is because the sheets here, just not that great.
At least the sheets where I am staying.
I wish I had brought with me my bull and branch sheets.
Why?
Because everything bull and branch makes, from bedding to blankets, is made from pure 100% organic cotton.
They start out super soft.
They get even softer over time.
You buy directly from them, so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store, but Bull & Brand sheets are only a couple of hundred bucks.
Shipping is free.
You can try them for 30 nights.
There's no risk and there's no reason to not give them a try.
Try Bull & Branch Sheets.
I promise you'll love them.
We do.
We actually got rid of all of our other sheets in our house, and we only use Bull & Branch.
To get you started right now, my listeners, get $50 off your first set of sheets at bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
Go to bullandbranch.com today for $50 off your first set of sheets.
That's B-O-L-L and branch.com, promo code Ben.
Bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
These sheets are incredibly comfortable, and they get more comfortable the more often you use them, which is pretty amazing.
Again, don't get those sheets with the high thread counts from the local gas station.
They're not going to be comfortable.
They're just tarps.
Instead, go get really nice sheets at bullandbranch.com.
You should spend some money on your sheets, but don't break the bank.
That's why you should use bullandbranch.com, promo code Ben.
Get $50 off your first set of sheets.
Okay, so back to this anonymous whistleblower thing.
Let's say that you're Trump.
Like, to just get in the man's head for a second.
Let's say that you're President Trump, and every day in the White House you see a story from your administration leaking.
Something that nobody is supposed to know outside the administration, because this is the center of foreign policymaking in the United States.
And there it is leaking.
And then let's say that there are a series of op-eds that keep coming out from members of your administration, lower-down members of your administration, either quitting or anonymously ripping into you.
And let's say that you feel like your policy is being thwarted.
And let's add to that, you believe that the media hate you, because they do.
And let's add to that, that it feels like major companies, big tech companies, are biased against you, which in many cases, they are.
Wouldn't you start to get a bit of a persecution complex?
Wouldn't you start to think, okay, well, whatever power I do have, I'm going to use to investigate this sort of corruption, because forget me.
The power of the presidency is under attack.
No one should have to operate this way.
And there is this ridiculous double standard where if you're a Democrat and you're in power, the entire quote-unquote apparatus works for you.
But if you're Republican, half the apparatus is working against you.
Half the time.
And that's a disaster area.
Again, this anonymous book is really case in point of this.
As I mentioned, the New York Times is reporting that there is an anonymous anti-Trump book that's going to be published from inside the administration.
The author of a column in the New York Times, which was titled, I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration, which by the way is wildly unconstitutional.
I mean, to be part of a resistance to an administration inside the administration?
You know what you can do?
You can quit.
You know, the other thing you can do, you can work through official legal channels.
You know what you're really not supposed to do?
Is go leaking confidential information on the workings of administration to the media.
That's not something you're supposed to do.
Trump lashed out at the anonymous author after the column's publication.
The president questioned both whether the author existed and whether the author had committed treason, and he demanded on Twitter the Times turn over the gutless anonymous person to the government at once, which the Times, of course, did not.
The forthcoming book will list the author as anonymous.
Although the person does not reveal their identity in the book, they will discuss the reasons for their anonymity, according to people involved in the project.
The book is set to be published November 19th, and the media are really excited about all of this.
The author is being represented by Matt Latimer and Keith Urban of Javelin.
They're the same literary agents who represented both fired FBI director James Comey and former White House aide Cliff Sims for their memoirs.
People involved in the project say that both Twelve and Javelin have verified the book's author is the same person who wrote the Times column, but they will not share the author's identity with the Washington Post.
There is no modern historical precedent for a first-hand account of a sitting president written in book form by an anonymous author.
Many senior government officials have written books under their own name, but this is something completely different.
The author could have received a seven-figure advance for writing this book, said Latimer, but a warning was not written for financial reasons.
The author sees this as an act of conscience, which is why the author refused any advance and is donating a substantial portion of any royalties to charities that protect those seeking the truth around the world.
Well, I wonder what that substantial portion is.
I mean, is he keeping any money?
How exactly is this supposed to be working?
I mean, beyond that, there is something deeply disturbing about members of an administration writing anonymous books about the administration.
You want to come out, you want to bash the administration, quit your job.
You don't get to take taxpayer dollars while bashing the administration you're supposed to be working for.
And all this is leading Trump to rant and rave, obviously.
Just a day ago, the Los Angeles Times reported, That President Trump had a cabinet meeting in which he spent some 71 minutes ripping into the media, ripping into people who are criticizing him.
He says the Democrats went crazy about the report that he was planning on holding in the next G7 summit at Doral, the Florida golf resort that Trump owns.
That wasn't just Democrats who were going crazy.
Last week I pointed out that this certainly gives the appearance of corruption.
But, with that said, he said, you don't think I get enough promotion?
I get more promotion than every human being who has ever lived.
I don't need promotion.
It would have been the greatest G7 ever.
You people with this phony emoluments clause.
The president repeated his claim.
He had lost billions of dollars by becoming president.
He says, I'm making a big difference for the country.
So whether I lost two billion, five billion, more or less, it doesn't make any difference to me.
I don't care.
If you're rich, it doesn't matter.
I'm doing this for the country.
Okay.
Well, that may well be true.
And the president also obviously feels that he is under assault, mainly because he is in fact under assault.
And so he is, I mean, right now he is busily investigating the intelligence community's actions in 2016.
His own attorney general, Bill Barr, has been investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia probe that ended up being a big nothing during the Mueller report, right?
The Trump-Russia stuff ended up basically amounting to nothing.
It was the obstruction stuff that was damaging to President Trump.
According to Politico, William Barr has been meeting with the U.S.' 's closest foreign intelligence allies in recent months, making repeated trips overseas as part of an investigation he is overseeing into the origins of the Russia probe and whether any inappropriate spying occurred on the Trump campaign.
As part of that investigation, Barr and John Durham, the federal prosecutor he appointed to conduct it, have been probing a conspiracy theory for which there is little evidence, according to several people with knowledge of the matter, that a key player in the Russia probe, a professor named Joseph Mifsud, was actually a Western intelligence asset sent to discredit the Trump campaign, and that the CIA under John Brennan was somehow involved.
Trump, meanwhile, has been quote-unquote obsessed with Brennan, who frequently gets under the president's skin by publicly questioning his mental acuity and fitness for office.
Trump has repeatedly attacked Brennan.
Well, Brennan has repeatedly attacked Trump publicly.
I mean, Brennan has come out and claimed that there was information waiting in the wings that suggested that Trump was going to be impeached over the Russia stuff, and that turned out not to be true.
Brennan, of course, also allegedly lied in front of Congress.
With all of this miasma of corruption and ugliness and partisanship floating around, you can see why everybody has retreated to their partisan corners, because nobody believes that any single standard is being held on any of this stuff.
If you're a Republican, even if you think Trump's behavior is questionable, you're saying to yourself, Would Democrats impeach if this were a Democrat?
And the answer you come to is absolutely not.
And if you're a Democrat looking at Republicans, you're like, would Republicans have impeached if this were a Democrat?
Absolutely yes.
So we're going to impeach here, right?
I mean, that's exactly where all of this is.
And if you're Trump sitting here, you're going, listen, I always thought American politics was corrupt.
And so I acted like I think American politics is, which is to say corrupt, right?
I acted in a way that I thought was beneficial for the United States in a way I think politics works.
In a certain way, governance is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you believe governance is an honest business of back and forth, you're more likely to govern that way.
If you think that politics is basically a business of greased palms and people slapping each other on the back in cigar smoke-filled rooms, that is likely the way that you're going to operate.
And the fact is that American politics these days may be more like the latter than like the former.
We'll get to President Trump's response to all of this, and then he got himself in trouble because he used a word.
A word!
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let us talk about the amount of money that you spend on mail.
I'm not even talking about the postage.
Like, the post office does a good job.
I'm talking about the amount of money you have to spend schlepping your packages down to the post office, the amount of time you have to spend doing all of that.
Instead, wouldn't it be nice if you could just do all of this from your computer?
Well, this is where Stamps.com comes in.
We use Stamps.com at the Daily Wire offices.
It means that I no longer have to personally drive over to the post office in the Shapiro household.
Stamps.com brings all the amazing services of the U.S.
Post Office directly to your computer.
Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or 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 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, you just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
It is indeed that simple.
Stamps.com is a no-brainer.
It saves you time.
It saves you money.
It's no wonder over 700,000 small businesses already use Stamps.com right now.
My listeners get a special offer.
It includes a four-week trial plus free postage and digital scale.
No long-term commitment.
Just go to stamps.com, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, and type in Shapiro.
That is stamps.com.
Enter Shapiro.
Okay.
In just one second, we are going to get to the rest of the reasons why Trump would feel under attack, because he is under attack.
And there's some good new evidence from Steven Crowder that election results are being manipulated by big tech.
The allegations he makes are pretty damning.
And we have an example.
of the media taking a story non-seriously as long as it is a Democrat.
That would be a front-page story across the nation if it were a Republican.
We'll get to all of that in just one second.
First, you have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
$9.99 a month will get you the subscription.
$9.99 a year gets you the subscription along with this, the very greatest in all beverage vessels, the leftist tears, hot or cold tumbler.
It is indeed magical.
We have all sorts of good stuff happening over at dailywire.com.
We have a brand new Daily Wire app that you are absolutely going to love.
It allows you to have Q&As, With me.
Like, I will answer your questions in real time.
If you're a subscriber, you can access all of our content, including articles, shows, and more, straight from the app.
All of our all-access subscribers get our new exclusive discussion features.
That's what I'm talking about with the Q&As.
The app is available on Apple and Android, so download it today.
Become a subscriber.
Come join the fun.
We are constantly upgrading the content we provide to you.
It's really, really good.
Go check us out over at dailyware.com and become a subscriber.
We really appreciate it.
We are the largest, fastest-growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Okay, so just to complete the reasons why President Trump feels unfairly under attack.
And that doesn't necessarily mean that his activity is justified.
It's just to get straight why everybody is acting the way that they are.
I mean, if we're going to explain why Trump is acting the way that he is, why Democrats are acting the way that they are, why Republicans are acting the way that they are, and why independents are just kind of going like, Guys, can we just wait for more information?
Which I think, by the way, is almost always the proper response to nearly anything.
You have to understand that if you're Trump, you feel like this array of forces is aligned against you.
And you are right about that, right?
You have people inside your own administration writing anonymous accounts for for Penguin or whatever it is for Hachette about exactly why you are so terrible without quitting while still taking taxpayer money and being hailed as heroes for doing so.
You have John Brennan running around running that Trump Russia investigation while at the same time for several years claiming information that he did not have and being a dishonest human being and being a dishonest human being.
And then, you also have the media, which is always going to treat you unfairly.
When Trump says the media treats Republicans unfairly, of course, 100% that is true.
Perfect example.
There's this astonishing story about Representative Katie Hill, Democrat from California.
She's Vice Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
And she is an open bisexual, which is of no relevance except that it's very relevant to this particular story.
Photographs and text messages obtained by Red State show that Representative Hill was involved in a long-term sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer.
The woman, whose name is not being released, was hired by Hill in late 2017 and quickly became involved in a thrupple relationship with Hill and her estranged husband, Kenny Heslip.
Hezlip and the staffer, according to text messages provided to Red State, believe the polyamorous arrangement to be a long-term committed relationship.
The trio took multiple vacations together, including to Alaska, where the photograph was taken.
She was being paid, presumably, on the campaign or taxpayer dime at the time.
Red State has obtained Intimate photographs of the women, which they've chosen not to publish.
According to a source close to the Stafford, the Thruple agreed to continue their committed relationship when Hill moved to Washington, D.C.
on January 2019.
But, Heslop and the Stafford quickly noticed a difference in Hill's demeanor.
By late May, Hill broke off her relationships with both Heslop and the Stafford, claiming she wanted to focus on this important work and it wasn't unfair to be involved in the relationship.
The staffer, as the text messages show, was distraught, trying to figure out how to move on with her life.
Now, why does this matter?
Well, because she's on the Oversight and Ethics Reform Committee, okay?
Like, that stuff actually... Like, this is an ethics complaint.
If you are having sex with a staffer, that is an ethics complaint.
Her response, by the way, is interesting.
Her response on Twitter was that she reached out to Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer personally to deny improper relationship with her staffer, which is a pretty astonishing denial considering there are actual pictures of the two of them going at it.
I mean, like, one of the pictures Red State released is a picture of Hill stark naked sitting behind her own staffer combing her hair.
Like, I don't know about your work relationships, but that is not something that I do with my staffers, because that would be sexual and weird.
In a statement, Hill says she's going through a divorce from an abusive husband who is determined to try to humiliate me.
She says, I've notified Capitol Police who are investigating the situation and potential legal violations of those who posted and distributed the photos.
So, um, yeah, so she's trying to turn her ethics violation into her being the victim of an anti-feminist attack, which is, which is interesting.
Ryan Saavedra over at Daily Wire is reporting that the woman is now suggesting that she was involved in the relationship in sort of an abusive way.
There's a new report from Red State which raises questions about the possible abuse by Hill toward the young female candidate staffer, campaign staffer, with whom she was allegedly having a sexual relationship.
The new report also raises questions about the staffer's ability to give consent in the relationship.
In the red states, Jennifer Van Laar exclusively reported on Friday on all of this.
The young female campaign staffer described the relationship as being toxic.
She wrote Hill a message in June 2019 saying, I'm terrified of pushing back against you or upsetting you.
I've seen how you treat Kenny.
I think if I cause any issues, even if I'm very worried about how you were acting, you will quickly decide you don't want me in your life.
And then apparently the staffer said, I don't know, I was getting ready.
I was thinking about how much Katie liked to watch me.
It's okay, she can't take this from me, she can ruin politics, take all my friends and isolate me, but she can't have this.
So the mainstream media have been ignoring all of this.
There's been very little coverage of all of this because, of course, this is a Democrat.
If this were a Republican, would this story ever stop being covered?
Like, ever, ever, ever?
The answer, of course, is no.
The answer, of course, and that is not even the biggest story with regard to sort of institutional bias against Republicans today.
My friend Stephen Crowder, the comedian, He has a new report out claiming that YouTube actually tried to suppress Democratic Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard's videos following her feud with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In other words, he's claiming that YouTube does the dirty work of the Democratic establishment.
Now, I know for a fact that for a while there, if you searched my name on YouTube, no result from the Daily Wire or Ben Shapiro channel would pop up.
None.
And the same thing was happening to Crowder as well.
I mean, we discussed this.
Okay, well now, Crowder has revealed that if you use a VPN from Spain, the results that return on Tulsi Gabbard are wildly different from the results that return if you do not use that VPN from Spain.
Crowder tweeted a video, according to the Washington Examiner, showing two separate YouTube searches for content related to Gabbard, whom Clinton called a Russian asset.
The first attempt was a standard search on October 18th using an American device, which yielded several videos related to Clinton's claim that Gabbard was being groomed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, but none of the campaign's videos.
The second search was conducted using a VPN, which made the search appear as though it were being conducted in Spain.
The search results for Spain offered completely different results.
Instead, the search showed Gabbard's own content along with other videos.
Crowder ran his test again on October 20th, using the same search method after the Clinton controversy died down.
This time, the search results for the two countries aligned to include Gabbard's videos.
Crowder alleges that YouTube is intentionally suppressing other content about Gabbard during her spat with Clinton to influence the 2020 election.
Gabbard, of course, already has an outstanding lawsuit with Google.
She claims that Google intentionally blocked her campaign ads following a presidential debate where she was the most searched candidate.
Google denied wrongdoing.
They said that they hadn't provided incomplete data with regard to payment for the ads, and that's why there was this holdup.
Bottom line is, the allegations themselves are deeply disturbing.
If Big Tech actually has somebody with a button who's actually pushing the button and saying, we are now going to silence content from particular candidates, doesn't that scare you?
Much more, by the way, than the Russians posting memes.
If you got somebody in Big Tech who's sitting there, at any of these Big Tech companies, at YouTube, sitting there, and during the campaign debates, like between Trump and Elizabeth Warren, or Trump and Biden, Sitting there and pushing a button and demoting Trump's content?
Isn't that scary as all hell?
I mean, no wonder Trump is feeling under assault.
Okay, so President Trump himself said many a thing about this whole impeachment gate 2019 situation.
He started off yesterday by saying, we have an obligation to investigate corruption in Ukraine.
Again, the two dueling narratives are going to be from Bill Taylor, which is that Trump wasn't interested in corruption in Ukraine.
He was interested in going after Joe Biden with American foreign aid directed at Ukraine.
And then Trump's story is, I'm interested in fighting corruption in Ukraine, and that corruption includes corruption that was directed against me in 2016, and it includes Burisma, it includes all of these things.
So why exactly wouldn't we investigate all of that stuff?
We have an obligation to investigate corruption.
And that's what it was.
In my opinion, that's what it was, is corruption.
And if Ukraine would know something about the 2016 election, you have to give that information.
I hope that they would give the information.
And everybody agrees with me, 100%.
But when I look at experts that are on your show, and other experts, they're all saying you have an obligation to do that.
Okay, so that was Trump on Sean Hannity's show the other night.
Trump also added that it would be great for him if the Democrats were to impeach him.
That may or may not be true.
If people think that the auspices are strong for impeachment, obviously that won't be true.
But Trump then made a statement that got him in all sorts of hot water with the left.
He called this a political lynching.
So he went on Twitter and he said, so someday if a Democrat becomes president and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the president without due process or fairness or any legal rights.
All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here, a lynching.
But we will win.
Okay, so, the word lynching obviously has connotations that I think everybody jumps to these days with regard to racist lynchings of America's past, which are one of the most horrifying aspects of American history.
Do I think that's what Trump was referring to here?
No.
I do not think that Trump was referring to the racist lynching by the KKK of black people in Alabama in 1920.
I do not think that's what was going on here.
I think that Trump is referring to the typical use of lynching in politics to mean, you know, anytime a mob rule jury is sort of rounded up and then people are unfairly hanged.
I mean, a bunch of people in America who are not black for non-racial reasons We're lynched in the United States for decades in the United States.
So lynching does not only have the racial connotation.
It does have racial connotations.
It can be read that way, but it's pretty obvious that's not what Trump means here.
How do we know this?
Well, because Joe Biden said in 1998 that the Clinton impeachment could be seen as quote unquote, a partisan lynching.
And then Joe Biden tweeted today, impeachment is not lynching.
It is part of our constitution.
Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching.
To even think about making this comparison is abhorrent.
It's despicable.
Except that in 1998, again, Joe Biden said that the Clinton impeachment could be seen as a partisan lynching.
That was reported by CNN.
He said, even if the president should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching.
Joe Biden, 1998.
So the point here is that the Democrats were claiming this is obviously a racial thing.
That's obviously dishonest.
Are you seeing Democrats do this?
Al Green said that Trump should be impeached.
The Democratic representative said Trump should be impeached just for saying the word lynching.
Al Green also said that President Trump should be impeached because he said bleephole countries about particular countries.
Like, Al Green, basically, he is, he's just proving the old sort of logical truism that the last half of the sentence does not have to have anything to do with the first half of the sentence, right?
You can, if you have an if-then statement, The then part of the statement can be true, even if the if part is not true.
Meaning, if I say the sky is blue, if that's the conclusion of my statement, I can say, if the grass is yellow, the sky is blue.
Well, that does not mean that only on the condition that if the grass is yellow, the sky is always going to be blue.
Well, for Al Green, the conclusion of the sentence is, if blank, Trump should be impeached.
In this case, it's Trump used the word lynching.
How dare the president compare Lynching to impeachment.
How dare he do this?
Does he not know the history of lynching in this country?
At some point, we must say enough is enough.
At some point, we must move on to impeach.
You are unfit to hold this office.
Okay, so, really?
Like, really?
Okay, so, raise your hand, really, if you believe that Trump, when he threw out lynching, he's like, I'm just like a black person in the South being lynched by the KKK.
Like, really?
You think that's what Trump was saying?
You really think that's what Trump was saying?
Or, is this just another cynical attempt to manipulate language?
Everybody knows that when Trump said lynching, he did not mean the lynching of black people.
That's very, very silly.
But, again, everything becomes a controversy these days because Here's the reality.
Democrats in 2020 are looking at their field and they are starting to panic.
There's an entire article in the New York Times today titled, Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, Is There Anybody Else?
Quote, When a half dozen Democratic donors gathered at the Whitby Hotel in Manhattan last week, the dinner began with a discussion of which presidential candidates the contributors liked.
But as conversations among influential Democrats often go these days, the meeting quickly evolved into a discussion of who is not in the race but could be lured in.
Would Hillary Clinton get in?
The contributors wonder.
By the way, Hillary wants in.
Hillary's obviously trying to talk her way into this race.
She's obviously trying to talk herself into this race.
There is just no question, right?
Because what does she have to lose at this point, right?
She's run twice, she's lost twice, and once she won the popular vote.
Her image is what her image is.
In the words of a famous woman, what difference at this point would it make?
Why not?
Why not jump in?
You can see that she obviously wants to do so.
Over the weekend, she was at some sort of event.
And somebody from the crowd shouted, maybe you should jump in.
And she sort of smiled and then ignored the question.
She would love to jump in.
Why?
Because this is an extraordinarily weak field.
It's an extraordinarily weak field.
And Hillary's obviously tempted to jump.
I mean, she's commenting more and more often.
So she went after Tulsi Gabbard in the weirdest way while I was on break here.
She suggested that Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian agent, which is a pretty incredible allegation to make about a woman who served in the United States military.
I mean, last I checked, this isn't Kevin Costner in No Way Out.
In any case, Hillary called Tulsi a Russian asset, which was odd.
I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate.
She's a favorite of the Russians.
They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.
And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset.
Yeah, she's a Russian asset.
I mean, totally.
And so they know they can't win without a third party candidate.
Okay, and then Tulsi immediately slapped back, because this is exactly what she's been waiting for, is that fight.
She says, Great!
Thank you, Hillary Clinton!
You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption!
Boo!
Boo!
Sorry.
It reads directly like the monologue by The Witch and the Princess Bride.
The queen of war mangas, embodiment of corruption, boo!
Boo!
Personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long has finally come out from behind the curtain.
From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation.
We wondered who was behind it and why.
Now we know it was always you, through your proxies.
and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine afraid of the threat I pose, it's now clear that this primary is between you and me.
Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies.
Join the race directly.
And Hillary obviously is considering that because the rest of this field is unbelievably weak.
Elizabeth Warren is weak.
She is weak.
She released her educational plan yesterday.
She used to be an advocate for charter schools.
Her educational plan now includes a complete ban on any federal funding of charter schools, plus a mandate that charter schools are supposed to follow a bevy of regulations.
And then she says that charter schools are uncompetitive, which is nonsense!
Charter schools are the only places where parents can voluntarily enroll or disenroll their children in the public school system.
What are you talking about?
I mean, it's...
These candidates are weak.
They're incredibly, incredibly weak.
And if you're Hillary, you gotta be thinking, maybe I ought to jump back in.
Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then we'll get to a bevy of things that I hate, a veritable cornucopia of things I despise.
Let's start with a quick thing I like.
So, over the holiday weekend, so on Sunday, it was a day called Hoshana Rabbah, which is sort of the second to last day of the Feast of, the Festival of Booths.
So that was the, it's, Kind of the day that is a special day for prayer in Judaism.
There's talk about Yom Kippur as the day when you kind of absolve all of your sins, and then the gates of heaven are closed.
And then there's more Jewish thinking that says that Hoshana Rabbah is sort of the final day where God sort of figures out whether you have repented or not.
You've now had a trial period.
We figure out where you are.
In any case, on Hoshana Rabbah, I ascended to the holiest site in Judaism, the Temple Mount.
It is allowed.
You are allowed to visit the Temple Mount if you are Jewish.
There is a long-standing myth that you are not allowed to visit the Temple Mount if you are Jewish.
The rules allegedly specify that you are not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount if you are Jewish.
Now, that's kind of controversial in Israel because the fact is Muslims can pray up there, Christians can pray up there, but there is an apartheid-like law that suggests that Jews are not allowed to pray up there.
The Supreme Court has basically already gutted that a little bit, so went up to the Temple Mount with security and with a group of other people and First of all, the Temple Mount is enormous.
I mean, it's an enormous, enormous site.
And there's something to be said about the fact that the holiest site in Judaism now has a mosque sitting directly on top of it.
But let's just say that the behavior of the Islamic Waqf is bizarre.
So the Islamic Waqf are the guardians of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
We sort of walk around the very, very outside of the Temple Mount.
Producer Colton can attest to this, he was there with me.
And as we were walking around, we stopped in what is sort of the direct line of sight to what would be the Holy of Holies if the Jewish Temple were still standing, or if the Third Temple were to be rebuilt at some point.
And so you're looking up into sort of the Kodosh Kedoshim, into that area.
Until we stopped and we took out our phones and we were doing a little bit of praying.
Now, if you really believe that it is incredibly deeply offensive for somebody to pray, not out loud, right?
I mean, pray silently, off their phone, on a Jewish, the holiest site in Judaism.
Then I would suggest you have something wrong with you.
While the Islamic Waqf immediately comes over and tries to shut this down, the police up top start to move us along.
At that point, it appears that the member of the Islamic Waqf decided to radio some of the people who were nearby, and a bunch of people came over and started shouting Allahu Akbar at the group, which was really delightful.
One of the members of our group was carrying Again, I didn't run the group.
I'm just a guest, right?
So none of this has to do with me on the Temple Mount.
I went, I prayed, we were pushed off the Mount, basically.
It wasn't a violent situation or anything like that.
One of the people there was carrying Aravo, which is one of the sort of rituals that you do on Sukkot.
He was nearly arrested by the police.
The police then let him go because people in the group said, listen, let him go, we'll leave, it's fine.
And as we were moving, A bunch of people came over and started chanting Allahu Akbar, because it's deeply insulting for people to pray silently on the holiest site in Judaism.
It's another thing to shout insults at people as they're walking along the holiest site in Judaism.
So they start shouting Allahu Akbar at people in an attempt to obviously sort of, I don't want to say insult, because they're shouting God is great in Arabic, which is not quite an insult, but it's obviously an attempt to provoke.
And some members of the group, some of the more enthusiastic members of the group, started singing back Songs from the Book of Psalms, which of course is deeply offensive, right?
Singing psalms from the Book of Psalms.
Very, very offensive.
And at that point, the police, not wanting a confrontation, rightly so, decide that they're going to push the entire group off the Temple Mount.
The point here is twofold.
One, the site's incredible.
If you're ever in Jerusalem and you have a chance to visit it, you certainly should.
It is the holiest site in Judaism.
It is allegedly the third holiest site in Islam.
I'm only saying allegedly because I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I'm really not sure, but I think they say it's the third holiest site in Islam.
And if you want to see where Jesus walked, this is obviously one of the places where Jesus walked.
So it's a very, very holy site.
That's cool.
Second thing is, it is absurd that Jews are not allowed to openly pray up there.
They should obviously be allowed to openly pray up there.
Muslims not only are allowed to openly pray up there, they have a Dome of the Rock and a mosque up there.
In fact, I think there's a strong case to be made that Jews should be building a... if they can't build the temple, because there's the Dome of the Rock right there, they should at least build a synagogue up there so you can have regularized prayers.
If Muslims are able to build a school on one end, which they have done, it seems to me that Jews should be able to build a synagogue in a space that is roughly the size of three football fields.
It is enormous.
But it was definitely a pretty incredible experience, and The Kotel, the Western Wall, which everybody always says is the holiest site in Judaism, that's because they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
They're getting it wrong.
The holiest site in Judaism is the stuff that is above the Western Wall.
The Western Wall isn't even one of the original walls of the Temple.
It is an outer retaining wall that was outside the walls of the Temple.
So, a little bit of summation of what happened on the Temple.
I was getting a little bit of press coverage, and that's sort of what happened.
Obviously, look, I wasn't there to provoke.
I don't think people in our group were there to provoke.
There's something wrong with any law that suggests that I cannot pray on a Jewish holy site.
That's absurd.
And people should remember that when they talk about partitioning the Holy Land, because it turns out that places where the Palestinian Authority governs, Jews are not allowed in, and they're not allowed to pray in any of these holy sites.
And by the way, they also deface Christian holy sites as well, so that's something to keep in mind when you talk about the so-called peace process.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So, things that I hate today.
So, there is this story.
I want to treat it with caution because I haven't read the entire trial transcripts.
So, I'm going to tell you what we know from media reports, and then I'm going to suggest there may be more information I don't know.
So, I'm only going to give you my judgment operational on the basis of the information I'm about to provide to you.
Again, approaching it with caution.
This information is the crux of the information.
If there are no other issues that we don't know about, then this is one of the worst stories of government child abuse I've ever heard of.
If there's more information, then there's more information.
And again, I'm gonna pose it that way because I haven't read all the trial transcripts, and I think that, and I'd like to have all the information before I jump, because when you make a statement as strong as this is one of the worst cases of government child abuse you've ever seen, you want all the information?
So I'm just gonna put that in a conditional form.
Here is the story according to Amanda Prestigiacomo of Daily Wire.
On Monday, a jury ruled against a Texas father named Jeffrey Younger attempting to stop his seven-year-old son from a gender transition being facilitated by Dr. Ann Georgilis, the boys' mother and Younger's ex-wife.
With a consensus of 11 of the 12 jurors, the jury decided not to grant Mr. Younger sole managing conservatorship over his two twin boys, according to LifeSite News.
They voted that the current joint managing conservatorship should be replaced by a sole managing conservatorship, but that Mr. Younger should not be that person.
Apparently, according to LifeSite News, Georgalis has been granted authority to move forward with puberty blockers, which can cause chemical castration and potentially hormones, if the mother so chooses.
According to reporting from the Texan, this happened in, where was it, Plano?
So this wasn't exactly in Austin.
George Gillis' lawyer, Jessica Janicek and Laura Hayes, said the mother does not plan on giving James hormone blockers at this time, but no one has stated that she would not be open to using them when James begins puberty, which would be around 11 and a half for the boy.
With the jury's decision, Mr. Younger will likely be forced to affirm his new son's gender identity, a girl named Luna.
So Younger did an interview with a host named Luke Macias, and he said that basically his claim is that his ex-wife is indoctrinating his child into transgenderism, is basically his claim.
He is saying that when the kid is with him, the kid has no problem being called by a boy's name, acts like a boy, doesn't want to dress up as a girl, and as soon as he goes back to mommy, mommy is pressuring him.
In fact, the father claims that the mother is actually My ex-wife claims that James is a transgendered girl.
And she has, to date, actually socially transitioned him.
Meaning that he wears a dress at her home.
He has a new made-up name, Luna.
Appears in the court filings.
He goes to school.
what the father had to say. - My ex-wife claims that James is a transgender girl, and she has, to date, actually socially transitioned him, meaning that he wears a dress at her home, he has a new made-up name, Luna, appears in the court filings, he goes to school, the teachers call him Luna, he uses the girls' bathroom at school,
All of his authority figures, his mother, his teacher, the librarian at school, the police officer at school, the principals at school say he's a girl.
I'm the only authority figure in his life that tells him the truth, that he's actually a boy.
Okay, and for that crime, according to the father, the child is now being removed from his home.
According to court documents, they show the younger son only dresses as a girl when he is with his mother, who calls the boy by his trans name and has even enrolled James as Luna in school.
According to Younger, James consistently chooses to wear boys' clothes, violently refuses to wear girls' clothes at my home, and identifies as a boy whenever he is around him.
According to Younger, the boy has already been quote-unquote fully socially transitioned.
The father noted in his opinion he witnessed his wife was only giving James love and affection when he was acting like a girl.
She used to lock James in his room and tell him monsters only eat boys, Younger added.
He said, every single day you have to see your son sexually abused and you have to maintain your calm because the courts are not going to be fair to you.
The only way you can survive this and get your son through this alive is to calmly allow your son to be tortured right before your eyes and outlast the opposition.
That's what it's like.
They're asking me to affirm an illusion.
Okay.
If what the father is saying is true, this is one of the worst cases of child abuse I've ever heard of, is the court and the state mandating that a father treat a seven-year-old child who's not capable of deciding his own gender.
That's absurd.
That's absurd.
It's a scientific absurdity.
To suggest that a seven-year-old who doesn't know anything, kids are dumb, to know, I have a five-year-old, she doesn't know anything.
You're saying that a seven-year-old knows the difference between male and female to the extent they're going to be able to choose their own gender for life and that puberty blockers should be applied based on the opinion of psychologists who can't even define gender or the difference between men and women?
It's an absurdity.
It's a moral abomination.
So if what we are hearing right here is the state mandating that the father give up custody of his child because he wishes to treat his boy as a boy, and that the mother, because of her virtue in pushing a young boy to be treated as a girl, That that is what the state now approves, that it is considered quote-unquote child abuse in some way for you to treat your boy as a boy and refuse to treat him as a girl even though a seven-year-old says he is a girl.
And apparently, according to the dad, the seven-year-old doesn't even say he's a girl.
The mom says he's a girl.
That is...
It's hard to think of something more evil for the state to participate in than that sort of abuse.
Now, again, as I said at the beginning, there may be more information here that I just don't know.
And I'm fully leaving the possibility open that that is the case.
So, let that be clear.
If, however, what we are hearing from James Younger, the father, if what we are hearing from the father is the whole story, It's egregious, it's horrifying, and the people of Texas should be ashamed that this is happening, frankly.
Okay, well, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours, or we'll catch you here tomorrow with all the latest updates.
We will be broadcasting overlooking the Western Wall in Jerusalem.
You can see a little bit of that Temple Mount I was talking about.
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 Haigh.
Our Supervising Producer is Mathis Glover.
And our Technical Producer is Austin Stevens.
Assistant Director, Paweł Wajdowski.
Edited by Adam Sajewicz.
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 everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection