Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 1, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show

57:01

Impeach Or Go Home | Ep. 888

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Democrats vote to establish impeachment ground rules.
	We may have learned the identity of the original whistleblower, and Nancy Pelosi comes out in strong defense of Katie Hill.
	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.
	Okay, so.
	Yesterday, impeachment got real because Democrats finally voted on procedures for impeachment.
	Now, Republicans had been saying for a while that all of this was illegitimate because Democrats had not held an official vote on whether there ought to be an impeachment inquiry.
	Basically, Nancy Pelosi had gone out there and said, impeachment inquiry declared.
	That has no legal status.
	It has no legal effect.
	She's the Speaker of the House, but she is saying a thing.
	It's the equivalent of Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy in the office by standing in the middle of the office and shouting, I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!
	So Republicans kept saying, well, you've established no procedures.
	The procedures that you haven't established are obviously bad for us.
	All of this stuff is being hidden behind closed doors.
	So how are we supposed to take any of this seriously?
	Well, the Democrats were holding off from officially declaring an impeachment inquiry And setting the ground rules because they didn't really know where this was going to go.
	Originally, all of this was expected to be quick and dirty.
	Originally, the Democrats said that within a month, like by Halloween, they were already going to be voting on impeachment.
	Why?
	Because they felt like the transcript of the call was going to be the nail upon which they hung the impeachment.
	And then, that was going to be it.
	Right, they were just going to move forward.
	It was going to be completely partisan.
	They were just going to do their interviews behind closed doors, vote for impeachment, done.
	And then the Senate presumably acquit the president and we'd all move on to the election.
	Well, as they have dug into this, they actually think they have something here.
	This is what this vote betrays.
	The Democrats actually believe that they now have enough material to at least damage President Trump.
	And let's be straight about this.
	In order for Republicans in the Senate to vote to actually convict the president and remove him from office, it's going to take a lot more than what Democrats have right now.
	Again, the entire allegation against President Trump relies on his intent, on his intent level.
	Was he intending to militarize a foreign government by using taxpayer dollars as leverage to get them specifically to target an American citizen, Joe Biden, for political purposes?
	Not as part of a broader anti-corruption rubric, not as part of a broader 2016 investigation, not as part of a broader anti-Ukrainian agenda.
	As part of a, I want Joe Biden to go to jail in a foreign country thing.
	And so I'm withholding American taxpayer dollars so that the Ukrainians will go get Joe and Hunter Biden, right?
	That's always been the question.
	And the transcript didn't clear that up.
	None of the testimony so far has cleared that up.
	I've been saying this for weeks now, probably months at this point.
	The fact is that unless Trump testifies or Rudy Giuliani testifies, those are the only two people who really know what the president's intent was in all of this.
	Because the president's intent Let's just say it's a skittish thing.
	It tends to move around a lot.
	President Trump is not a guy who plans one year in advance what he's going to say.
	He doesn't plan five seconds in advance what he's going to say.
	He is a bundle of sort of reactions.
	And so I've been saying the whole time, I think that this whole phone call with the Ukrainians, his whole Ukrainian policy here, is basically just a reaction to Rudy Giuliani telling him things.
	The person at fault here, yes, the president for not actively We're actively failing to recognize what Rudy Giuliani was doing.
	Yes, the president should have should have not taken Giuliani so seriously, but Giuliani was the one who was feeding all this information to Trump.
	Trump was taking all of that, wrapping it up in his mind with Ukrainian corruption and then talking to the Ukrainians about it in the same way because he does this with everything.
	He does this with every single topic.
	Every topic, the President of the United States has sort of this file card, right, like almost just a note card, a three by five, that has like a few ideas on it, and he just spits them out if you give him the topic.
	So you say global warming and he'll go, Chinese hoax, spend too much money, like it's just a bunch of ideas that come in response to a stimulus.
	And the same thing happens with regard to Ukraine.
	Somebody says Ukraine to him, and the first thing that he thinks is, Ukraine, 2016, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, like it's not that he is thinking this thing out.
	This has been my entire contention.
	Now, does that mean he did something smart here?
	No.
	Does it mean that he did something that a president should do?
	No.
	Does it mean that it's impeachable?
	Also no.
	That's been my case in defense of President Trump.
	Well, Democrats believe they've got enough politically damaging material on Trump that now they're going to move forward with a formal impeachment inquiry and call the Republican bluff to the extent that they have now fully voted on at least opening the impeachment inquiry.
	We'll get to all of that in just one second.
	First, the fact is that if you run a business, hiring can be pretty challenging.
	Here at The Daily Wire, we hire on a regular basis.
	We're constantly trying to upgrade our staff, make our staff better.
	All of my employees back in Los Angeles are dreading the day when I arrive back in town and suddenly I can keep an eagle eye on them because I I use ZipRecruiter.com to make our business better here at Daily Wire.
	And it's not just Daily Wire using ZipRecruiter.
	Codable co-founder Gretchen Hiebner needed to hire a game artist for her education tech company.
	She knew it wouldn't be easy to find someone to grow with her team, so she went to ZipRecruiter.
	Because 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 get qualified candidates fast.
	Gretchen posted her job on ZipRecruiter and she was quickly finding applicants.
	The same thing has happened for us here at Daily Wire.
	With results like that, it's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	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.
	Last night, the House passed an impeachment resolution along basic partisan lines.
	Only two Democrats voted against.
	Only one Republican voted in favor.
	That would be Justin Amash, who was recently re-registered as an independent.
	According to the Wall Street Journal, the House passed a resolution almost entirely along party lines to initiate the public phase of an inquiry into President Trump's dealings with Ukraine, setting a blueprint for the fourth presidential impeachment investigation in American history.
	The 232-196 vote underscored the sharp partisan divide in Washington over impeachment.
	All Democrats but two supported the measure.
	All Republicans rejected.
	The independent, Amash, who used to be Republican, voted yes on the measure.
	Though the move, according to the Wall Street Journal, will make the investigation more public, including the likelihood of televised hearings, no timeframe was given for when that will happen.
	The resolution authorizes the House Intelligence Committee to release transcripts from past closed-door interviews with witnesses and gives more power to Republicans, including the right to call their own witnesses, though those requests are subject to approval by Democrats.
	So, in reality, This thing is still going to be kept largely behind closed doors.
	It's still going to be handled by the majority.
	This is not a shock.
	Republicans who are acting outraged at the fact that the Democrats are going to veto witness requests and subpoena requests from Republicans, that's sort of how this works.
	I mean, the majority does have the power to do that as a general rule.
	With that said, Once this moves into the Judiciary Committee, it becomes incredibly public.
	So the basic Democratic plan is have Schiff, who is a partisan hack of the highest order, right?
	The guy who is spending every five seconds on the CNN cameras talking about how the Mueller report was definitely going to take down Trump.
	He had set up an actual pup tent outside the green room at CNN.
	He just spends his days over there.
	Like he would bring a thermos and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and just wait for the producers at CNN to call him up.
	And then he would just walk one foot into the CNN studios and do a hit.
	Well, now Adam Schiff is going to be running this thing.
	Yes, it will still be behind closed doors.
	They have the authority to release transcripts from past closed-door interviews, but that authority does not necessarily have to be exercised.
	House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said ahead of the vote, if we don't have a system of checks and balances, we might as well just elect a president and go home.
	She waved away GOP complaints, saying these rules are fairer than anything that has gone before in terms of an impeachment proceeding.
	The two Democrats who opposed the measure were Representatives Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota.
	Both of them are in Trump District circa 2016.
	Republicans have said that this investigation is still a sham, that the procedures are still unfair.
	House Republicans' campaign arm sent moving boxes to about 20 vulnerable Democrats' offices.
	Trying to suggest that all of these swing Democrats are in serious trouble.
	Democrats are buoyed by polling, however, that shows growing support for at least the impeachment inquiry.
	So most Americans believe the impeachment inquiry should move forward.
	Very few actually believe that there's enough evidence to go after Trump and impeach him now.
	Which is probably why the Democrats are looking for the televised House hearings, right?
	What they are trying to do is build momentum for the impeachment itself.
	Because what they've done is they've pried open the door where Americans say, well, we'd like to hear more, but what you've got now is insufficient.
	So Democrats are saying, well, how would you like it if we just spilled it all out in public?
	This is a demonstration of a certain level of confidence by Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
	There's no question about that.
	The resolution passed on Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal, will allow President Trump and his counsel to attend all Judiciary Committee hearings, cross-examine witnesses, and make closing presentations.
	Republicans in the White House criticized the resolution because it doesn't give the president these rights while the investigation is run by the Intelligence Committee, as it currently is.
	Democrats say this is still because this is early, we're in our information-gathering stage.
	Now, here's the problem.
	Once you say that you've opened the impeachment inquiry, Then it's hard to say that you are still in the information gathering stage.
	Meaning, you can initiate any investigation at any time in the House of Representatives.
	You don't have to officially open an impeachment inquiry in order to do all of that.
	Once you officially open the impeachment inquiry, then it's pretty obvious what you're talking about now.
	Now you're talking about impeachment.
	You're not just talking about investigating a phone call.
	You're not just talking about investigating, I guess, a potential crime, although nobody has been able to point to the statute that Trump allegedly violated here.
	So the question becomes whether this is really still a sham process.
	Republicans were complaining it was being done by the Intel Committee behind closed doors.
	It's still being done by the Intel Committee behind closed doors.
	But now Democrats are saying openly, we'll push it over to the Judiciary Committee.
	At that point, it becomes public.
	At that point, Trump can have a representative question the witnesses.
	But if you're the Judiciary Committee, you don't have to call anybody you don't want to call.
	So it's still Pretty unfair to President Trump.
	It's still pretty unfair to Republicans.
	Again, there are consequences to losing the House of Representatives, as it turns out.
	Which is true.
	I mean, two things can be true at once.
	One, Democrats are partisan hacks who want to destroy the President.
	Two, there can be some open questions that probably should be asked about Trump's behavior with Ukraine.
	The problem is that it's very difficult for the, it's going to be difficult for the American people to separate those two things.
	And frankly, I'm not sure that they should.
	I mean, it is pretty obvious that the Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump since the day that he was elected and they continue to want to impeach Trump.
	And so when they stand there and say, we're just here defending the constitution, the American public is like, well, are you though?
	Or is it just that you really, really, really hate Trump?
	In the private depositions, according to the Wall Street Journal, that the House has already conducted, Republicans and Democrats on the three committees of jurisdiction have had equal time to question witnesses, but lawmakers not on the panels have also been excluded.
	Conducting witness interviews behind closed doors has been pretty common in high-profile investigations run by both Republicans and Democrats.
	Well, not impeachment inquiries.
	Under GOP leadership, both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees conducted separate reviews of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
	They interviewed witnesses in private.
	But again, there is a difference in kind between inquiries into particular events.
	As I say, that would make sense.
	And once you've declared this is about impeachment, at that point, we all know what this whole thing is.
	At that point, we should really be hearing what is going on behind closed doors.
	So we'll get to more of that in just one second.
	First, The fact is, with the news going the way it is, you are probably looking at a screen 90% of your waking life, right?
	You're at work, and you're looking at a computer, or you're on your phone scrolling through the news all the time.
	One of the things that you never think about is the fact that you could be getting headaches because of all that.
	It turns out that staring at screens all day is not particularly good for your eyes.
	The average American blasts their eyes with bright screens for up to 11 hours every day, whether you are watching Netflix, whether you're on Amazon Prime, or whether you're watching this show.
	Or whether you're just doing your work on Excel.
	The fact is, screen time is not going anywhere.
	That's not going to change.
	But you can protect your eyes from it with a pair of Felix Grey blue light filtering glasses.
	They're available in both non-prescription and prescription.
	They're really, really cool looking.
	Felix Grey glasses filter out 90% of high-energy blue light.
	They eliminate 99% of glare coming from your daily barrage of screens.
	And unlike other blue light filtering glasses, Felix Grey uses proprietary blue light technology embedded into the lens.
	As opposed to one of those cheap coatings that tends to scratch or chip over time like the sunglasses that you bought when you were five years old at the local fashion mart.
	Felix Gray frames are handcrafted from the same high quality materials used in high-end designer frames like organic Italian acetate and German engineered steel.
	Don't go another day looking at screens without the help of some Felix Greys.
	It can really help you out.
	Go to FelixGreyGlasses.com slash Ben for free shipping and 30 days of risk-free returns or exchanges.
	That's FelixGreyGlasses.com slash Ben.
	Again, FelixGreyGlasses.com slash Ben.
	So Republicans are really, really angry about the Democratic vote as well they should be.
	Nancy Pelosi, by the way, if you think Nancy Pelosi really wasn't here to do the impeachment, she just sort of stumbled into it.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	So back in March, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she would only move forward with Trump's impeachment if the move received significant bipartisan support.
	Not a single Republican voted in favor.
	The New York Times reported the vote was expected to be deeply partisan.
	Pelosi claimed historically that she was not for impeachment.
	This is all the way back in March, right?
	So we're not talking about ancient history here.
	She said impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country.
	He's just not worth it.
	Well, weird, because now she doesn't care anymore.
	Very, very weird.
	By the way, back in 1998, she said similar stuff.
	And when she was talking about the Clinton impeachment, she said impeachment is traumatic for the country.
	You should really only do this if you have bipartisan support.
	Because to move forward on an impeachment is very serious.
	I think it has traumatic impact on the confidence that the American people have in government, that the world has in our president, and that we are setting a precedent Uh, that we, and I believe that we shouldn't be frivolous in how we go forward in punishing a president whose politics we don't approve of.
	Well, flip the parties and obviously she flips on that nearly immediately.
	She then came out yesterday and she said, listen, this is a tragic day for the country.
	Oh, the crocodile tears just spilling down her well Botox cheeks.
	I mean, this is crocodile tears, obviously.
	She says, nobody comes, nobody comes to Congress to impeach a president.
	Really?
	How about like everyone elected in 2018?
	Half the Democrats campaigned on that.
	This is a sad day.
	The crowd, the squad, they've all been saying for months.
	Every major Democratic presidential candidate has said they want Trump impeached.
	So nobody comes to Congress to impeach a president.
	That's pretty much the only reason half the members of the Democratic caucus came to Congress in the first place.
	Here's Nancy Pelosi just lying about it. - This is a sad day.
	It's a sad day because nobody comes to Congress to impeach a president of the United States.
	No one.
	She can't hold back a smile while she's saying it's a sad day.
	She's like, it's a sad day.
	Look how sad I am.
	I'm so sad about this whole impeachment thing.
	Aren't you sad about it?
	I'm so sad.
	Yeah, she's very, very sad, Nancy Pelosi.
	And then Adam Schiff does the same routine.
	Adam Schiff, who has spent his entire waking life for the past several years talking about why President Trump should not be president, why the Mueller report was going to get him.
	And then if the Mueller report wasn't going to get him, then racism was going to get him.
	And if racism wasn't going to get him, Ukraine was going to get him.
	Now you got Adam Schiff also doing me more in sadness than an anger routine.
	Adam Schiff, I believe him.
	I think he is totally broken up about this effort to impeach President Trump, Adam Schiff.
	I don't think he's been spending every single breath he has from like 24 hours a day, even in his dreams, he is thinking about how he gets rid of Trump and then stands on the steps of the Capitol building and talks about what a hero he is.
	Here is Adam Schiff pretending to be very sad about all of this.
	We take no joy in having to move down this road and proceed with the impeachment inquiry.
	But neither do we shrink from it.
	Okay, sure.
	You take no joy in it.
	And then he goes back to the back room and he puts on some Queen and does a happy dance.
	It's very obvious what's going on here.
	And this is why, again, I don't think that most Americans truly believe that the Democrats are doing this in good faith.
	So, they're saying, we're willing to hear it.
	The American people are taking the correct attitude about this.
	They are.
	I know there are a lot of Republicans who say, no, the American people should just reject all impeachment inquiry out of hand.
	That's not the job of the American people.
	The American people should keep their minds open to new information, just as they were with the Mueller report.
	But just as with the Mueller report, there was no support for impeachment, there was no support for getting rid of President Trump, and the American public did not draw conclusions about Trump-Russia collusion.
	They just said, listen, we want to wait and see all the information.
	This should be the new slogan of the show, right?
	You got Washington Post with its nonsense declaration, democracy dies in darkness.
	But the slogan of our show should be, let's wait for the info, right?
	I mean, because that's really what I say half the time, is just wait for the information.
	Here, let's wait for the information.
	All I'm saying is that if you actually believe that Democrats are not partisan hacks here, I don't know what planet you are living on.
	Wait until you see Eric Swalwell doing the same routine.
	I mean, they're just bad actors, right?
	I mean, it's just bad acting.
	They need to go to the Lee Strasberg School of Acting because they're just bad.
	Eric Swalwell, who spends Who spends all of his time thinking about nuking gun-owning Americans.
	He lasted in the presidential race for a grand total of 3.7 seconds, in which he completely humiliated himself.
	Eric Swalwell, who constantly talks about getting rid of Trump, says, This is a very solemn day.
	It's so solemn.
	The solemnity of this day.
	I mean, my God, it's like a wedding or a funeral, the solemnity of this day.
	Eric Swalwell talking about the solemnness of this solemn, solemn day.
	You know, today was a solemn day.
	It's one that none of us, you know, really look forward to.
	But you're right, we did afford, as we move to this public phase, a process.
	A process for the President as well as for Republicans.
	I can't control how they spend their time, but it is time for them to get serious about what is alleged.
	He's so happy.
	I mean, he can barely hold back the smiles.
	It is hilarious to watch Democrats pretend to be bipartisan with not a single Republican supporter.
	It's funny to watch them act as though they are doing this not because they hate Trump, but because they just care about the Constitution of the United States.
	As we'll see in a little while, the Democrats are not particularly interested in corruption.
	They don't care about corruption.
	Okay?
	At the same time that they are talking about impeaching President Trump and all of this, which again, open questions on what Trump did, They are out there fulsomely defending Katie Hill, who is stooping nearly every member of her congressional staff, male and female.
	They're out there defending that.
	Nancy Pelosi was out there defending that.
	So don't give me, you guys are deeply concerned about corruption, when you're out there defending a member who is under an ethics investigation and had to resign because she was under an ethics investigation and calling it sexist that she had to resign because she was under an ethics investigation.
	I'll explain in just one second.
	First, There's something that you need to know about the use of a firearm in self-defense.
	Real-life gunfights, robberies, you know, defending yourself.
	It's not like the movies.
	Roughly 80% of all shots fired in self-defense will miss their targets, even when fired by trained gun handlers.
	Over 60% of the time, the assault victim is violently ambushed.
	The average attack only lasts three seconds.
	So what does that tell us?
	Well, it means one, you have to have a concrete self-defense plan in place.
	And number two, you have to practice.
	And number three, you better have some sort of legal remedy in case you actually do have to fire a gun in self-defense.
	And that's exactly why the USCCA was founded.
	When you join the U.S.
	Concealed Carry Association, you get instant access to industry-leading self-defense education, training, and legal protection.
	You'll have thousands of hours of life-saving resources from the USCCA's award-winning self-defense team right there at your fingertips.
	They're giving away 19 free chances to win $1,000 for the firearm of your choice.
	You're a law-abiding citizen who cares about the Second Amendment.
	You should own a gun.
	But hurry!
	This offer ends Thursday, October 31st.
	Text WIN to 87222 right now to learn more.
	Get your 19 free chances to win.
	Text WIN, that's W-I-N, to 87222 to claim your entries and learn more.
	WIN to 87222.
	You should join the USEC anyway.
	They do an awful lot of great stuff.
	Go check them out right now.
	Okay, so.
	The Democrats who are spending, again, an enormous amount of time talking about how much they hate corruption, despise corruption.
	It's not so true when it's Katie Hill.
	So Katie Hill is this Democrat from California who, again, is under investigation for ethics violations.
	It turns out you're not supposed to shtoop people, you're paying with congressional dollars.
	That's a violation of the House rules.
	Well, she had to resign.
	On her way out the door, she ripped shameless Republicans and gutter operators.
	Here is Katie Hill, Playing the victim as she made her way slowly.
	I mean, they had to rip her out the door.
	She said, at the end of her speech, she said, I'm yielding the rest of my time, but not forever.
	I'll be back.
	No, you won't.
	You're done.
	Sorry.
	Nobody's looking forward to electing you.
	You seem dissolute.
	You seem as though you can't get your act together, and it seems as though you're using your congressional offices as a sort of personal sexual playground.
	I don't think that many people are in favor of that.
	I'm very much amused by the idea that Katie Hill is being targeted because she's a woman.
	I'm really amused by this.
	Do you believe that if Katie Hill were a man, stripping a male subordinate and a female subordinate in his own office, that that person would not be forced to step down?
	Do you really believe that?
	Or would this thing have been so much worse?
	There'd be no media defenders.
	Now there are lots of media defenders, because Katie Hill's a woman, and because she is bisexual, that means she's part of the intersectional hierarchy, but...
	If you were a white male Republican doing the same thing with the same people, then it would be, look at this piece of crap.
	This piece of crap has to go.
	Like, we all know what this is.
	But the Democrats are out defending it.
	Here was Katie Hill yesterday announcing that this was all about shameless Republicans and gutter operators.
	Weird.
	The House is controlled by Democrats right now.
	So if you wished to stick around, you could.
	You could try your luck.
	It seems to me that probably you were getting some pressure not from Republicans to step down, but from Democrats.
	Here's Katie Hill.
	I'm leaving because I didn't want to be peddled by papers and blogs and websites, used by shameless operatives for the dirtiest gutter politics that I've ever seen, and the right-wing media to drive clicks and expand their audience by distributing intimate photos of me, taken without my knowledge, let alone my consent, for the sexual entertainment of millions.
	Okay, well, I don't know when those photos were taken.
	According to media reports, some of the photos she posted along with her husband online.
	So, that's a her problem.
	I mean, if those media reports are true, that is a her problem.
	That is not the fault of Red State.
	That is not the fault of the UK Daily Mail.
	That is her problem.
	Also, her problem, don't F your staffers.
	Okay, like, I don't know what to tell you, lady.
	Bad idea.
	Bad idea to do this.
	It's a violation of congressional ethics.
	And yes, if you were a man, it would be much worse for you.
	Not like a little worse, much worse for you.
	Hey, but Nancy Pelosi was out there defending Katie Hill.
	Don't tell me the Democrats are deeply, they're deeply committed to fighting corruption in every aspect of American life, except when a congressional, when an elected congressperson is stripping half her staff and paying them at the same time, then Nancy Pelosi, The same Nancy Pelosi is like, more in sadness than in anger.
	It's not partisan.
	We're not going after Trump for partisan reasons.
	In fact, we're sad to do it today.
	But this Katie Hill, she's a delight.
	And I wish she would remain, says Nancy Pelosi.
	Katie Hill's decision to resign is her decision to resign.
	She's an absolutely outstanding young public servant.
	Very smart, strategic, patriotic, loves our country, respected by her colleagues in the Congress for the work that she does here.
	She made her decision and her timing, and I respect that.
	Is that true?
	Is that true?
	I don't think so.
	I respect her timing.
	She stepped down.
	I wish she would stick around.
	Sure you do, Nancy.
	Sure you do.
	This had nothing to do with you going to Katie Hill and saying, you know, lady, I might want to resign.
	It had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi forcing her out.
	I love her.
	Well respected by her by her colleagues, especially the ones she's having sex with.
	I mean, like, really?
	So when I say that I have trust issues with the Democrats when it comes to their honesty on issues like impeachment, There's a reason I'm saying that.
	By the way, I have trust issues with the media, too.
	The media that wants to root out corruption.
	They are really angry about corruption.
	Except, again, when there's an ethics investigation into a sitting congresswoman who was apparently sexually using the help.
	Right?
	I mean, like, that's a...
	Wait until you hear the media's take on Katie Hill leaving versus imagine for just a second it were President Trump.
	Imagine President Trump were having an affair, I know this is weird, with one of his male staffers and one of his female staffers while the White House is paying them.
	Do you think that maybe the media might be less sympathetic?
	Less sympathetic?
	Wait until you hear the media's coverage of the Katie Hill debacle.
	It's really amazing.
	First, You know, one of the things you want to make sure that your kids never see are the actual pictures of Katie Hill.
	That's something that you don't want your kids to see online, because let's face it, they're not wonderful.
	That's just not material you want your kids viewing, but your kids are online.
	They're using screens all the time.
	How can you make sure that your kids are not seeing stuff they really shouldn't be seeing, guarding the innocence of your kids?
	You should be using Circle.
	Circle helps you set limits and end the screen time debate with your kids once and for all.
	Circle is the easiest way to manage your family's online time all across their connected devices inside and outside your home.
	With Circle Home Plus and the Circle app, parents can filter what content is allowed, set limits for screen time, and monitor history and usage as well.
	You can keep track across every connected device from laptops, phones, and tablets to smart TV streaming devices and video game consoles all from one app.
	Every family member has a profile.
	It's fully customizable to their needs, age, and maturity, which is great.
	You don't want your 3-year-old treating the internet the same way your 13-year-old does.
	You'll never stop worrying about your kids.
	With Circle, it gives you one less thing to worry about.
	You should be keeping track of what your kids do online.
	There's just too much bad material out there.
	Right now, our listeners get $30 off of a Circle Home Plus when you visit meetcircle.com slash ben and enter ben at checkout.
	Get $30 off when you visit meetcircle.com slash ben and again, enter ben at checkout.
	That's meetcircle.com slash ben.
	and enter Ben to save $30.
	I have young kids, I'm deeply concerned about what their life is gonna be like as they deal with the online world.
	I am definitely planning on installing Circle Home Plus as soon as they are physically capable of using these devices on their own because frankly, kids should not be left to their own devices with these devices.
	Okay, well, as I say, the media reaction to Katie Hill Let's just say it's a little bit different than the media reaction to the Trump impeachment.
	So the media reaction to the Trump impeachment is like, yeah, Trump has to go.
	Trump definitely did something very, very bad and very, very wrong.
	And then when it's Katie Hill, the media mourn it.
	And it's because she's a victim.
	She's a victim, you see.
	Now, I've said all along since day one of the Katie Hill debacle that if, in fact, people were releasing revenge porn on her, they should go to jail.
	That is a crime in the state of California.
	It should be a crime, right?
	She is a victim of people who are doing that to her.
	Also, she's involved in pretty severe ethics violations if she is doing what she is alleged to have been doing, and she was, because The material is out there.
	I mean, the pictures are there.
	That is what it is.
	The media though, they're mourning Katie Hill.
	Oh, Katie Hill.
	Again, imagine she were a man for half a second.
	Not even a Republican man.
	Imagine she were a Democrat man.
	All we would get for weeks on end is toxic masculinity.
	Men are pigs.
	This is why we need more women in Congress.
	By the way, you know who used to say that?
	Katie Hill.
	Back in 2017, she had an entire tweet with a list of men who were sexual abusers or accused of sexual harassment.
	And she said, this is why we need more women in Congress.
	What, to act just like those dudes?
	I mean, like, I'm very confused, Katie Hill.
	And anyway, in any case, the people over at the Washington Free Beacon put together this supercut of the media mourning Katie Hill.
	It is pretty astonishing.
	She did resign today.
	It's been a difficult week for Katie Hill.
	This is pretty shocking.
	Turn of events.
	She was such a star.
	And it's unfortunate because she was a rising star.
	A first-term representative considered a rising star.
	Yeah, she was a rising star.
	She was a rising star.
	The rising star in the Democratic Party.
	Considered a rising star.
	There's no doubt she was one of the named ones that we know about.
	For the big blue wave.
	Another tragic case.
	She was such an up-and-rising, great star.
	She was an up-and-coming star.
	Really, was.
	She flipped her district from red to blue.
	It's a loss.
	But, you know, I think there's a double, double standard on the Hill.
	Yeah, and she was young and soon going to be the face of the party.
	I think the whole situation is quite unfortunate.
	I don't feel it was the right move.
	I feel that there is incredible hypocrisy that goes on.
	Nancy Pelosi is...
	Okay, so, pretty amazing.
	The bad guys won here.
	Which bad guys?
	Which bad guys?
	You mean Nancy Pelosi who told her to step down, in all likelihood?
	Nancy Pelosi's trying to backfill that now, saying, no, I didn't tell her to step down.
	The media rushing to Katie Hill's defense.
	Let's just say that they do not have tons of credibility when it comes to, we are the corruption fighters.
	It seems to me that your agenda is pretty clear.
	Now, with that said, I've been saying all along, there's still open questions about President Trump's conduct with regard to Ukraine.
	Now, there was a piece of testimony that was pushed out there yesterday, and the media jumped all over it.
	This was the testimony of Tim Morrison.
	Tim Morrison is a senior White House official who listened to President Trump's controversial call with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, according to the Daily Beast.
	And they were pushing out this testimony, the Democrats were, the media were, because they were suggesting that he was deeply worried about the phone call.
	But there's one thing that he said in his testimony that kind of is the crux of the matter.
	Quote, I want to be clear.
	I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.
	Isn't that the whole thing?
	Isn't that the whole thing?
	Like, Trump does stuff that's uncomfortable all the time.
	It's called, like, Trump.
	There's not even... That's what he does.
	I mean, watch his Twitter account.
	If you want to be made uncomfortable at least once every week, just watch his Twitter account.
	It's not difficult.
	We all know this.
	This is all baked into the cake, okay?
	No surprises here.
	The question is, did he do something illegal?
	So, he said two things in his testimony.
	One of them was widely covered by the media, one not so much.
	The one not so much was he didn't do anything illegal.
	The one that was widely covered is that after the call between Zelensky and Trump took place, Morrison directed that the transcript of it be put on a secret White House server.
	He said that the memo the White House released about the call, to the best of his memory, is complete and thorough.
	Okay, so that gives the lie to all of the testimony that was being put out there that the ellipses in the transcript of the call revealed the part where Trump offered to sign a personal check to Vladimir Zelensky if he prosecuted Joe Biden personally.
	Like, that never happened.
	The call is what the call is.
	You can interpret it how you want to interpret it.
	You can read it.
	Apparently, President Trump wants to do a dramatic reading.
	The latest news is that President Trump is so confident in the perfect phone call that he apparently wants to read the Ukraine call transcript to the American people.
	This is where people around him should say, Mr. President, let's not.
	Bad idea.
	Bad ideas, Mr. President.
	He wants to do a dramatic reading.
	According to the Washington Examiner, a defiant President Trump signaled he will not cooperate with the Democratic Party's impeachment proceedings, insisting his telephone conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky was a good call, that he might read it aloud to Americans so they can see his point.
	He said in an interview with the Washington Examiner, this is over a phone call.
	That is a good call.
	He said, at some point, I'm going to sit down.
	Perhaps it's a fireside chat on live television, and I will read the transcript of the call because people have to hear it.
	When you read it, it's a straight call.
	Bad idea.
	Why is this a bad idea?
	Okay, first of all, then there will be audio of your voice reading the very things that you threatened Zelensky with.
	Like, how is that?
	You want to create campaign ads for Democrats?
	I can't think of a much better way to do that.
	Like, when you get to that line, I'm asking you for a favor.
	Don't you think the Democrats are immediately gonna grab the audio of you saying that and put it at the lead of every single ad they run from now till the end of the election?
	Like, what in the world?
	This is why Republicans should, in Congress and elsewhere, Do not take your hints on the defense of the President from the President.
	He's not a lawyer.
	The lawyers he hires so far have been Michael Cohen, who's in jail, and Rudy Giuliani, who may go to jail.
	So, like, just take a break, take a Valium, and think to yourself, What did Trump actually do here?
	If you want to defend the President, if you want to defend Trump, think, like, how would be the best way to do that?
	And the best way to do that is not please the baby.
	Okay, like, I have a three-year-old.
	He always wants to eat sweets.
	I can give him sweets, he's gonna be fat and he'll die of diabetes.
	Like, or I could just say, no, that's not a good idea.
	When President Trump comes to defending himself, do not feed the baby the sweets.
	Stop it.
	No.
	The answer is no.
	And I hope to God somebody steps in with him and says, no, don't do that.
	Because again, the Democrats have to prove something.
	Right?
	The Democrats have to prove something and they have not proved it yet.
	And the American people don't believe they've proved it yet.
	The American people are fine with asking questions.
	They're always fine with asking questions.
	Good for the American people.
	But Democrats actually have to prove this stuff.
	Okay, so as I say, the media were trying to turn Tim Morrison's... I mean, this is a perfect example of the media trying to spin a piece of testimony that's not actually great for the Democrats.
	Tim Morrison said a couple of things, and only one of those things... only one of those things actually...
	The one that helps Democrats, the others do not.
	The one that helps Democrats is the idea that he put it on a secret White House server.
	But even that doesn't really help the Democrats.
	That's been common practice for years.
	The New York Times already reported that.
	Why has that been common practice for years?
	Maybe because every single time Trump says anything, it gets leaked to the media.
	So he's been putting it on the secret server for years.
	Like he's been putting on this confidential server.
	He can do that.
	He's the president.
	He can make things classified.
	He can make things unclassified.
	And then Morrison said two other things, right?
	He said it wasn't illegal behavior.
	He said that the president did not engage in illegal behavior and the transcript was complete.
	None of that cuts in favor of Democrats.
	But the headline, of course, is that the headline from Politico is that this particular official, Morrison, confirmed key testimony linking Trump to quid pro quo.
	Listen, we know what happened here.
	The White House should stop saying there was no quid pro quo.
	There was a quid pro quo.
	The question is whether it was a corrupt quid pro quo, as I've been saying for weeks.
	Quid pro quos in foreign policy happen all the time.
	You know what's a quid pro quo?
	Joe Biden saying explicitly he was going to link foreign aid to Ukraine to them cleaning up their act on corruption.
	That's a quid pro quo.
	Is it an inappropriate quid pro quo?
	Probably not.
	The question is whether this is a violation of law in terms of being bribery or attempt to influence the election from outside or anything like that.
	Now, as I say, Republicans are increasingly suspicious about all of this, mainly because Democrats continue to make Republicans suspicious about all of this.
	I'll explain in just one second.
	First, you're going to have to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
	$9.99 a month gets you a subscription to Daily Wire.
	When you do, you get all sorts of fantastic goodies, including special access to the Daily Wire app.
	That app is here.
	It is really first-rate.
	If you're a subscriber, you can access all of our content, including articles, shows, and more, straight from the app.
	All Access subscribers get our new exclusive discussion features where they can interact directly with our hosts, writers, and other special guests.
	The app is available on Apple and Android.
	Download it today.
	Become a subscriber.
	Come and join the fun.
	We have all sorts of goodies for you.
	So please, go check that out.
	Right now, for $99 a year, obviously, as you know, you get the greatest in all beverage vessels.
	It is magnificent in every conceivable way.
	Go get that by spending $99 a year, which is cheaper than the monthly subscription.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Okay, so what are the Republican defenses against all this going to be?
	Well, first of all, they are going to cite the fact that this is indeed highly partisan, and they are going to cite to a report that was made by Paul Sperry yesterday at Real Clear Investigations, talking about who this whistleblower is.
	According to Sperry, and according to sources inside various congressional committees, Sperry reports, the person is a guy named Eric Schiramella.
	And apparently he is an associate.
	He's a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House.
	He previously worked with VP Joe Biden.
	He previously worked with former CIA Director John Brennan.
	And he left his National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media.
	He has since been returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
	According to a former NSC official, according to Paul Sperry, he was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump.
	Also, apparently he huddled for guidance with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
	So, if you are a Republican, of course, you have a lot of trust issues with this particular impeachment inquiry.
	The whistleblower who apparently created the thing was a Democratic operative who was working for the National Security Council and then was booted from the NSC and back to CIA headquarters.
	Because he didn't like Trump.
	And then he was working with Adam Schiff behind closed doors.
	And now you have Adam Schiff leading up an impeachment inquiry that does not have proper evidence.
	So that gives Republicans a few lines of defense.
	Basically, the Republican line of defense is sort of akin, but with more evidence, to the Hillary Clinton line of defense during the Clinton impeachment.
	So she said there was a vast right-wing conspiracy.
	The line on the right is going to be that this was a Democratic put-up job from the very start.
	That everybody knew there was no illegal activity, but They were going to elevate activity about which they could rightly be concerned into impeachable activity because they were looking for an excuse to impeach.
	Liz Cheney, who is the third-ranking member of the House on the Republican side, she said history will hold the Democrats responsible.
	You saw Democrats on the floor of the House arguing that somehow it was Republicans who were putting politics above national security.
	There is no one who has done that the way that Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff have done that.
	History will hold them accountable.
	History will judge them.
	We're at a moment where the nation faces grave, significant, ongoing threats.
	Okay, Kevin McCarthy, who is the House Minority Leader, he said something very similar.
	He said, look, this is obviously not about what Trump did.
	This is obviously about an attempt to undo the last election.
	And when it comes to motives, he's right.
	Again, two things can be true at once.
	Democrats are badly motivated.
	Also, there can be open questions about the Ukraine thing.
	But what McCarthy says here is true.
	Democrats are trying to impeach the president because they are scared they cannot defeat him at the ballot box.
	That's not my words.
	That's the words of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle that has offered impeachment three different times.
	This impeachment is not only an attempt to undo the last election, it is an attempt to influence the next one as well.
	Okay, and of course that is true.
	Speaking of attempts to influence the next election, the media are cheering wildly as Twitter decides they're going to ban political ads.
	Why do they want to ban political ads, the media?
	Because then, guess who gets to be the middleman between the politicians and you?
	The members of the media.
	They don't want you to see direct appeals from politicians.
	They don't want you to see Trump's actual ad.
	What they want is for you not to see that ad.
	They don't want it to pop up in your feed because you might be convinced by the ad.
	Instead, they want you to read their garbage fact check of the ad.
	Why?
	Because it turns out that Trump's ad campaign is probably going to be pretty effective.
	So during the World Series, the Trump campaign already ran one ad.
	They ran an ad during the World Series.
	The ad is actually Pretty good.
	Here is the ad that the Trump campaign ran during the World Series.
	President Trump is changing Washington, creating 6 million new jobs, 500,000 new manufacturing jobs, cutting illegal immigration in half, obliterating ISIS, their caliphate destroyed, their terrorist leader dead.
	But the Democrats would rather focus on impeachment and phony investigations, ignoring the real issues.
	But that's not stopping Donald Trump.
	He's no Mr. Nice Guy, but sometimes it takes a Donald Trump to change Washington.
	I'm Donald Trump, and I approve this message.
	That's a good ad.
	That's a good ad.
	That is a good, strong ad.
	The reason it's a good ad is because, again, even the Trump campaign is like, you may not like him, but you need him.
	Right?
	You don't like him, but you need him on that wall.
	And that is Trump's best pitch.
	Yeah, I'm going to say crazy things.
	Yeah, I'm going to do ridiculous stuff.
	But I took out Baghdadi, right?
	The economy is really good.
	I'm standing up to China.
	Because if he just ran on his record, he'd win.
	Right, so the ad campaign is going to be that.
	So what you're going to see is an attempt, an overt attempt, by the members of the media to actually stop political advertising.
	Why?
	Because they know that if Trump runs an ad, they're just going to critique the ad.
	And then the only thing you see is their critique of the ad, if you can't directly access the ad by going onto Facebook or Twitter.
	That's why the media are wildly cheering a shutdown in core political speech by Twitter.
	Twitter yesterday announced that they were going to not run any political ads, no ads by politicians.
	And they said they're going to do this because they don't have the resources to fact-check the ads.
	Well, they don't have the resources to fact-check every tweet either.
	If they did, they'd have to shut down Twitter.
	So what exactly are they talking about here?
	What they're really talking about is shutting down the ability of campaigns to reach you.
	They don't want Republican campaigns to reach you because they know full well that Democratic campaigns will reach you through the editorial board of the New York Times, through the shows at CNN.
	There are two methods of receiving information.
	One is through the media, and one is directly from politicians.
	Trump has an uncanny ability to go around the media and directly address the American people.
	He does it all the time.
	That's what his Twitter account is really good for, for him.
	That's why he's constantly talking it up.
	What Democrats thus would like to do is deprive him of that second ability, so everything has to be filtered through the prism that the media are using.
	And that's why they're attacking Mark Zuckerberg, right?
	This is what you're seeing over at the New York Times every single day.
	They're trying to browbeat Mark Zuckerberg into banning political advertising on Facebook.
	Now, What they are neglecting is that at a certain point, this is going to come back and bite them too, right?
	What happens when Planned Parenthood wants to run an ad?
	Why is it that a politician should not be able to run an ad, but Planned Parenthood should be able to run an ad?
	You're not fact-checking Planned Parenthood's ad, are you?
	So this thing is going to extend out pretty radically.
	Some of the accusations made against Zuckerberg are patently ridiculous.
	So for example, Yesterday, Kara Swisher, who's just a god-awful columnist at the New York Times, she suggested that Mark Zuckerberg is allowing political ads on Facebook, not because he doesn't wish to quash free speech, but because he needs the profit.
	Okay, the gross revenue of Facebook, you know how much of the gross revenue of Facebook is like direct political ads from campaigns?
	It's a minute percentage, minute, minute percentage.
	Now the media were saying just a second ago that when Facebook was fined some $5 billion for privacy violations, the fine wasn't big enough to affect their behavior.
	I promise you that Facebook is not making $5 billion from political advertising.
	They're probably not even making 500 million.
	They're probably not making $5 million.
	Maybe they're making $5 million, maybe.
	From advertising.
	This isn't about profit.
	It's about the media wants an excuse to shut all this down.
	So the dumbest column of the day along these lines comes courtesy of Aaron Sorkin, who frankly sounds like he's back on the sauce.
	Aaron Sorkin has a piece today titled, An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg.
	Says Mark, in 2010, I wrote The Social Network and I know you wish I hadn't.
	You protested that the film was inaccurate and that Hollywood didn't understand that some people build things just for the sake of building them.
	We do understand that.
	We do it every day.
	I didn't push back on your public accusation that the movie was a lie because I'd had my say in the theaters.
	But you and I both know that the screenplay was vetted to within an inch of its life by a team of studio lawyers with one client and one goal.
	Don't get sued by Mark Zuckerberg.
	Okay, so first of all, that's a very different standard from it's true.
	Not suable and true are two very different things.
	In order for Zuckerberg to sue, you would have had to defame him.
	It would have to be a particular standard.
	It would have to be with malice, a malicious attempt to defame Zuckerberg.
	So that's a pretty high standard.
	That doesn't mean that the movie is true.
	The movie is half fiction.
	In any case, what Sorkin then goes on to say is absurd.
	He says, I didn't push back on your public accusation that the movie was a lie.
	It was hard not to feel the irony while I was reading excerpts from your recent speech at Georgetown University in which you defended, on free speech grounds, Facebook's practice of posting demonstrably false ads from political candidates.
	I admire your belief in free speech.
	I get a lot of use out of the First Amendment.
	More important, it's a bedrock of our democracy and it needs to be kept strong.
	But this can't possibly be the outcome you and I want.
	To have crazy lies pumped into the water supply that corrupt the most important decisions we make together.
	Lies that have a very real and incredibly dangerous effect on our election, and our lives, and our children's lives.
	Don't say Larry Flint.
	Not even Larry Flint would say Larry Flint.
	This isn't the same as pornography, which people don't rely upon for information.
	Last year, over 40% of Americans say they got news from Facebook.
	Of course, the problem could be solved by those people going to a different news source or you could decide to make Facebook a reliable source of public information.
	The tagline on the artwork for the social network read in 2010, you don't get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.
	That number sounds quaint just nine years later because one third of the planet uses your website now.
	And right now on your website is an ad claiming that Joe Biden gave the Ukrainian attorney general a billion dollars not to investigate his son.
	Every square inch of that is a lie and it's under your logo.
	Well, that's not actually what the ad actually says.
	The ad is a little bit more oblique than that, to be fair, to the ad.
	But with that said, Sorkin saying that he wants to be the fact-checker is patently insane.
	But everybody on the left wants to be the fact-checker because what they really want is for Trump not to be able to run that ad on Facebook.
	Right?
	That is the goal.
	This column's an absurdity.
	He says, Even after the screenplay for The Social Network satisfied the standards of Sony's legal department, we sent the script, as promised over a handshake, to a group of senior lieutenants at your company and invited them to give notes.
	After we shot the movie, we arranged a private screening of an early cut for your chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg.
	Ms.
	Sandberg stood up in the middle of the screening, turned to the producers who were standing in the back of the room and said, How can you do this to a kid?
	You were 26 years old at the time, but alright, I get it.
	I hope your CEO walks into your office, leans in and says, how can we do this to tens of millions of kids?
	Are we really going to run an ad that claims Kamala Harris ran dogfights out of the basement of a pizza place, while Elizabeth Warren destroyed evidence that climate change is a hoax, and that Deep State sold meth to Rashida Tlaib and Colin Kaepernick?
	What in the world is he even talking about?
	What in the actual hell is he talking about?
	The answer is that none of those ads would ever run.
	Why?
	Because the blowback from the ads would be worse than the effect of the ads themselves, obviously.
	The greatest check on misinformation is good information.
	It is not a shutdown from people who supposedly know better.
	By the way, Zuckerberg promptly destroyed, I mean like really owned Sorkin.
	He proceeded to, it's pretty fantastic, he proceeded to tweet out an actual quote from the American president In which the main character waxes philosophic about the First Amendment.
	Zuckerberg responded to all of this by tweeting out, quote, America isn't easy.
	America is advanced citizenship.
	You got to want it bad because it's going to put up a fight.
	It's going to say, you want free speech?
	Let's you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
	You want to claim this land as the land of the free?
	Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag.
	The symbol also has to be one of its citizens, So, again, what is this really about?
	This is about the fact that they want to shut down the flow of information.
	That is the goal, to shut down the flow of information.
	Why are Democrats so focused in on this?
	Because they lost in 2016.
	And why are they focused in right now on this?
	Because going into 2020, Democrats are weak.
	This is why they are doing the impeachment thing.
	It's also Why Bill is still leaving it out there that maybe Hillary will jump in the race.
	Bill was asked about this in the last 24 hours.
	And here's Bill Clinton explaining Hillary may run or she may not run.
	I don't know.
	No idea.
	I'm the only one that's not running for anything and ever, or at least she may or may not ever run for anything, but I can't legally run for president again.
	She may or may not run.
	She may or may not.
	By the way, my actual belief is that she will not run.
	I don't think that she's going to jump back in.
	She'd be a full Nazi, by the way.
	She really should.
	Because what does she have to lose?
	Her sterling credentials here?
	What exactly does she have to lose?
	Her long history of losing?
	Oh wow, she lost one more time.
	Like, it doesn't even hurt her.
	But do I think... I don't think Bill has any insight.
	I don't think they talk to each other.
	I think that Bill and Hillary haven't had a face-to-face conversation in about 15 years.
	But with that said, the fact that the Democrats are still leaving the door open to that...
	Demonstrates how desperate they are.
	Meanwhile, the Democrats are celebrating because President Trump apparently announced on Twitter that he is moving out of New York.
	He tweeted out, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House, is the place I have come to love and will stay for hopefully another five years as we make America great again.
	But my family and I will be making Palm Beach, Florida our permanent residence.
	I cherish New York and the people of New York and always will.
	But unfortunately, despite the fact that I pay millions of dollars in city, state, and local taxes each year, I've been treated very badly by the political leaders of both the city and the state.
	Few have been treated worse.
	I hated having to make this decision, but in the end, it will be the best for all concerned.
	As president, I will always be there to help New York and the great people of New York.
	It will always have a special place in my heart.
	This prompted Andrew Cuomo to tweet out, good riddance.
	It's not like Donald Trump paid taxes here anyway.
	He's all yours, Florida.
	I have a feeling that he paid some taxes in New York.
	And then Bill de Blasio said, don't let the door hit you on the way out or whatever.
	Serial groundhog killer Bill de Blasio has some words.
	Obviously, look, Trump is making a good move.
	He doesn't need to stick around New York.
	Why would he stick around New York where the Attorney General overtly stated upon her election that she was out to get him?
	But it does show that the gap in the country that has now arisen and it's the reason why Any impeachment inquiry from here on out, unless the evidence is clear and convincing, the American people are just not going to trust it.
	Right now, the evidence is not clear and convincing.
	The Democrats have not proved themselves to be honest arbiters of any of this, which means they better come up with the goods or the American people are not going to back them in this.
	Right now, it's not hurting them because the American people are withholding judgment.
	But there will come a point at which Democrats vote on this thing.
	And if the evidence is just not strong enough, the American people are going to buck back against them.
	And that's when you could actually see a bit of a boost for Trump.
	Okay.
	You know, instead of things I like and things I hate today, because it's a Friday, I've decided that we're going back to the Bible.
	So, this is something that we started last week.
	Every week, the Jews read a portion of the Old Testament.
	This week's portion of the Old Testament is the story of Noah.
	It also happens to cover the story of the Tower of Babel.
	And it's really, you know, it's all puzzling stuff.
	Genesis is really interesting and metaphorical.
	It's got all sorts of real-world implications.
	It's really deep, deep-layered stuff that is buried in the Western psyche.
	That's why I talk about the Bible.
	Not just because I'm a Bible believer, but because even if you're not a Bible believer, as I say every week now, even if you're not a Bible believer, you should understand the roots of your civilization and how deeply embedded these stories are in the psyche of Judeo-Christian civilizations in the West.
	The Parsha, which is what we call Parsha means portion, the portion of Genesis that we read is this portion about Noah.
	And this portion covers basically three different fundamentally different ways of viewing the world.
	So this portion begins with libertinism.
	The world before Noah is this very libertine place.
	Right?
	The world is filled with sin.
	That is the quote, right?
	The ways of for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.
	The earth had become corrupt before God.
	The earth had become filled with robbery.
	This is a libertine society where everybody could do basically what they want.
	And the society tears itself apart.
	The entire world had become corrupted.
	In a live and let live world, the person who doesn't actually indulge, it becomes... You see this in the West now to a certain extent.
	In a libertine world, it's not about you just hurting other people.
	It's about if you refuse to celebrate sin, then you become the bad guy.
	That is what was happening then, that is what is happening to a certain extent now.
	If you don't celebrate sin, and engage in sin, and cheer sin, then that's because you're intolerant, and you're bad, and you have to be sort of roped into the hedonistic good time, or you are the killjoy.
	Okay, so that is institution number one.
	It fails, that society fails, and brings upon the earth the flood.
	Okay, then there's the second institution, which is what is saved from the flood, and that is the institution of family, right?
	That is Noah and his immediate family.
	So, God, in the Bible here, eliminates all of the social institutions except for the family.
	So God says, So the purpose of building the ark is to keep the family alive.
	It's to be holy within the confines of your own domain.
	So that is institution number two.
	So you have three ways of viewing the world.
	One is a family-based way of viewing the world.
	One is an individual way of viewing the world that doesn't care about anybody else.
	And then finally, you have the other extreme, which is the communal-based way, the communitarian way of viewing the world, where the individual doesn't matter.
	The only thing that matters is the collective.
	So we've had the individual is the only thing that matters, not the collective.
	Then you've got the collective matters, but not the individual, and then you've got the family, which is the proper merger of how society is supposed to be formed, based on these small phalanxes of people who have individual interests, but exist within a communal sphere.
	The sort of communitarian way of viewing the world is told by the Tower of Babel.
	So, the Tower of Babel story is really puzzling, because what's wrong with a bunch of people getting together and building up a tower?
	Like, why is God so ticked off?
	What exactly is the problem here?
	Well, according to the Torah, the whole earth is of one language and of common purpose.
	They said to one another, come, let us make bricks and burn them in fire.
	And the bricks served as stone and the lime served them as mortar.
	And they said, come, let us build a city and a tower with its top in the heavens.
	And let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed across the whole earth.
	So God promptly disperses them.
	So people read this as they were building a tower to challenge God.
	Okay, that's actually not in the text of the Bible.
	It doesn't say that they were like on top of the tower with a spear, like throwing the spear at the clouds or something.
	That's not what was going on.
	What happens here is that the community starts to value itself more than it values any individual.
	So there's something in the Jewish commentary called the Midrash.
	The Midrash is basically kind of expounding on the stories and adding to the stories in ways that explain the story, usually metaphorically.
	According to the Midrash, the Tower of Babel becomes so tall and so grand, it supposedly took a year to shuttle bricks from the bottom of the tower to the top, which of course is an exaggeration, but the idea is that this is this grand, magnificent project.
	And this is the key part of the Midrash.
	People mourned when a brick fell and broke because a year of work had been lost.
	But when somebody died, there was no mourning.
	They just put them right into the wall, right?
	They just walled them right in.
	And they used it as part of the building of the tower.
	The idea is that human beings, individuals, mattered a lot less than the collective project.
	So God sees this and he says, this is a mistake.
	Humanity is not supposed to do this, right?
	Humanity is supposed to recognize the value of the individual.
	So God says, behold, they are one people with one language for all, and this they begin to do?
	And now, should it not be withheld from them all they propose to do?
	So he's not shocked at them building a tower to challenge him.
	He's, God, I didn't care.
	What he is shocked by is what these people are doing to themselves.
	He has made them individuals.
	He has breathed life into them as individuals.
	He has made them in the image of God, and they are promptly subsuming that for the building of the greater good.
	So what this portion of the Bible is really talking about is what sort of society is the best society to build.
	The society that's built on the individual alone without reference to the collective, the society built on the collective alone without focusing on the individual, or the society that is built on family structure, recognizing that you value the people who are closest to you the most, but also that you're an individual who has to work within that family structure and that families have to learn to live with each other in a broader collective while still maintaining their value as families.
	The very libertine movement, the hedonistic movement hates family.
	They want to destroy the institution of family.
	They consider it patriarchal.
	They consider it to be an imposition on your individual freedom.
	You've seen this attack.
	And then on the other side, you've got the sort of communist movement, which says family is also bad because family stands up to the communist project, which says that we are all supposed to view each other the same way that I would view my sister or brother or kids or wife.
	Which of course is nonsense.
	That's not how human society is going to work.
	The godly society in the Bible takes the best of both worlds.
	The individual society...
	Lives for the present.
	It doesn't live for the future because eat and drink and be married tomorrow, we're dead.
	The communitarian project lives only for the future because what we're doing now doesn't matter.
	Our lives don't matter.
	All that matters is the grander project.
	The family project is about living for the now and living for the future.
	Right?
	Building a family around you that you enjoy because you are also building for the future.
	As Solomon says, enjoy life with the wife you love through all the fleeting days of your life.
	He has granted you beneath the sun all of your futile existence for that is your compensation in life and in your toil which you exert beneath the sun.
	So that's the covenant that God ends up making with Noah, is that he's preserving the earth for families.
	That is the goal, to preserve the earth for families.
	Okay, so that's a little bit of Bible talk for you on a Friday.
	We'll be back here a little bit later today with two additional hours.
	Otherwise, we will be here with all the updates for you on Monday.
	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 Sievitz.
	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.
	On The Matt Waltz Show, we're not just discussing politics.
	We're talking culture, faith, family, all the things that are really important to you.

▲