All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
56:00
Blowing The Whistle On The Whistleblower | Ep. 892
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Republicans debate unmasking the original Trump-Ukraine whistleblower, news stories circulate about Joe Biden's family problems, and Bill Gates shreds Elizabeth Warren.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Your data is your business.
Protect it at expressvpn.com slash ben.
Also, we're going to get to the news in just one second.
You may have been noticing that things seem kind of chaotic right now.
Nobody knows which direction the economy is going to go.
There's a lot of political chaos.
There's a lot of foreign policy chaos.
What does that mean?
It means a lot of people are looking for a safe haven for their investments because the stock market tends to reflect world conditions.
When there's a lot of chaos, people move out of sort of a safety and security feeling about the stock market and investments.
And instead, they start looking at items that don't lose value over time, right?
Items that don't experience the same sort of volatility depending on a chaotic market.
And that would be things like gold, right?
You go to a place that is a safe haven that has never been worth zero.
This is where Birch Gold comes in.
Gold is sitting at its five-year high right now.
This makes sense because again, there is a lot of chaos out there.
Birch Gold, Can help you answer all your questions about investing in precious metals and then help you do the investment itself.
If you haven't taken the first step of requesting a free information kit on gold, you should do it.
It's free.
Birchgold will go to work and make things simple for you.
They'll have a conversation with you.
You can determine if precious metals make sense to include in your portfolio.
Again, makes sense for my portfolio, which is why I'm diversified at least a little bit, and you should be too.
I know people at Birchgold.
I've been working with them for years.
They are trustworthy.
Again, you should diversify that portfolio.
Text Ben to 474747 today.
To see how simple and straightforward this move can be for you.
Again, that is Ben to 474747.
When you speak to them, be sure to ask what promotions they're currently offering because they do have some good stuff going on.
Check out Birchgold right now.
Text Ben to 474747.
Okay, we will get to the impeachment gate 2019 updates of the day because that is the large majority of the news today.
But first, I want to give you a quick update on what's going on tonight.
So tonight, I'm speaking at Stanford University, and it should be a lot of fun.
I mean, every year I do the campus tour.
This year, in this quarter, we haven't announced what's happening in the next semester, but this semester, we are speaking at Stanford University, as well as Boston University and Baylor University.
And in each one of these universities, we have seen people on the left lose it.
Over at Boston University, apparently they have been adorning the flyers for my speech with Hitler mustaches, which is always delightful because, you know, when you take an Orthodox Jew and then label him a Hitler.
That's never a bad look at all.
I will say it.
It is amazing.
So many of these social justice warriors on the left, these so-called snowflake types, are the people who are so sensitive that they can't bear to hear an opposing viewpoint.
And they're really sensitive because if you say something, it hurts them.
It's so hurtful.
And the hurt Oh, I can't help it.
It just, it hurts so much.
And they have to stand up and they have to, they have to protest or they have to, they have to try and get you cancelled.
These same people whose sensitivities are just like the all-time high, when it comes to the most blatant violations of civic discourse, they are first and foremost.
Now, you contribute to ignorance, like they don't know anything, because this is particularly true when it comes to stereotypes about Jews.
They don't know anything and they don't care anything about that because Jews are not an intersectional hierarchy group.
For people who don't understand intersectionality, the original concept of intersectionality, as thrown out there by Kimberly Crenshaw, this professor, Maybe that's true, right?
sons.
Her argument was that there are different ways people can be discriminated against.
And if you check the box in a couple of different categories, then you may be discriminated against in more than one way.
So for example, if you're a woman, maybe you get discriminated in one way.
And if you're a black woman, maybe you get discriminated against in another way because you're discriminated against by virtue of being both black and a woman.
Now, maybe that's true, right?
That argument is at least plausible.
But what the intersectional left has done is they've taken that argument and then they have decided that there is an intersectional hierarchy, that there are levels of victimhood in American society that there are levels of victimhood in And the more levels of victimhood you check, the more we should value your opinion and the more victimized you are by American society.
Well, that means that Jews don't rank, right?
Because Jews are disproportionately well-educated.
Jews are disproportionately wealthy.
Jews are disproportionately living in nice areas in the United States.
They don't have severe family problems as a general statistical rule.
And that means that they don't list on the intersectional hierarchy despite the fact that Jews are per capita the group most likely to be targeted by hate crimes in the United States, for example.
But the left doesn't care about that.
The left thinks that Jews are not part of the intersectional hierarchy and that means they don't bother to learn The offensive lingo they shouldn't be using.
So the left is supremely sensitive about any language that is used by anyone reasonable, and then they imply that that language is exorbitantly racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic.
So for example, if you say Western civilization, People on the hardcore social justice warrior left will say, what you actually mean by Western civilization, actually, what you mean is you mean white people.
You're like, no, I, that's not what I mean.
If you say Judeo-Christian culture, like, no, it's not, by Judeo-Christian culture, you mean white people.
What, what now?
Say, say what?
So their, their, their antenna are up.
They're up.
Everything is a dog whistle for the left.
Right, when Donald Trump said that this impeachment hearing is a political lynching, they immediately went to, oh, he means like black people.
He's comparing himself to black people being lynched in 1921 Tulsa.
That's what he means.
And it's like, no, he means the same thing that Joe Biden meant when he talked about Bill Clinton being politically lynched in the late 1990s.
He meant like, you know, the long history of people in the United States of many different races actually being killed without a proper trial.
I mean, that's what Trump meant, but the antennae are up, except when it comes to the Jews.
And you can see this in perfect Perfect ways with regard to this one group at Stanford.
So they're holding what they call the silent rally, which has got to be the most boring rally of all time, right?
What do you do?
You just stand there?
It's not even a die-in, right?
Like, a die-in is dramatic.
You actually festoon yourselves with makeup or something.
A silent rally is, I guess, you just stand there, and then we're all supposed to believe that you've been silenced even though you have silenced yourself.
Like, you can stand there and yell.
I'm not stopping you.
Enjoy yourself.
So they put out a flyer about me.
And again, it just shows that the sensitivity is only supposed to run in one direction.
This was their flyer.
We are tired of Stanford administration's complicity in putting black, brown, trans, queer, and Muslim students at risk by allowing the Stanford College Republicans to bring Ben Shapiro to campus.
So we'll start with this particular point before we get to the insanity of the rest of the flyer.
So this is a line that the left likes to use a lot, is that if they hear something they don't like, they've now been put at risk.
They've been put at risk.
When you come to my speeches, if you've ever been to one of my college speeches, nobody's at risk at any point.
People who disagree are told that they should go to the front of the line so that they can ask questions.
Everything is very respectful.
Everything is very civil.
And the fact that they think that this is now putting people at risk, that it is incitement, my language is incitement by virtue of the fact they disagree with it.
I've never called for violence against anybody.
This is complete insanity.
But this is how they try and throw you off campus, is they say that your language is inherently inciting.
Why?
Because I say that transgenderism, gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder is a mental illness?
How is that inciting?
I don't believe that people with mental illness should be harmed in any way, God forbid.
That's ridiculous.
I'm talking about the classification of a disorder.
And it's categorized as a disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.
In any case, they continue, we do not protest because we are too sensitive to hear opinions we don't like.
We protest because we are strong enough to defend ourselves.
Well, no, I'm pretty sure it's because you're too sensitive to hear opinions you don't like.
Because it's not just that you're protesting, it's also that you say that Stanford is complicit in putting students at risk.
Because I'm saying stuff, okay?
But that's not the best part of it.
And then it says, please wear black if possible.
Which I guess, I'm not sure why.
Is it a funeral of some sort?
In any case, that's not the worst part of this flyer.
So, here is, here's the worst and also the best part of this flyer.
So, this flyer includes, it includes a spray bottle, a graphic of a spray bottle, that says on it, Ben be gone.
Silent rally, Hoover Tower, 6 p.m.
And then below that, there's a picture of me and a picture of an ant and a picture of me and a picture of a cockroach and a picture of me and a picture of a potato bug, it looks like.
So I am literally portrayed a Jew as an insect to be exterminated on their poster.
Oh, oh, the most sensitive people on earth.
They're so sensitive.
Oh, we dog whistles everywhere.
And they're just openly saying stuff.
I mean, this is the same kind of it is the same graphic that was being used in like the Rwandan genocide by people who wanted to murder vast swaths of people that famously Famously, the groups in Rwanda were being targeted on radio, the ones that were murdered, they were being targeted as quote-unquote cockroaches.
Here you have an exact graphic of this sort of thing.
It's like Nazi rhetoric, and they put it on the poster.
And then, they issued some sort of apology, which is hilarious.
Their apology is almost as bad as the bottle picture itself.
I guess it's an ant, a flea, and a beetle on the bottle.
So they issued an apology.
And in the apology, they call me an anti-Semite.
Okay, so they issue an entire flyer talking about how terrible I am and how terrible all of this is.
And then they issue like this full... There's no other way to put it.
I mean, that image is...
I'm not going to say it's anti-semitic.
It's certainly ridiculous.
Okay, it's certainly ridiculous.
I think it's ignorant.
I'll credit them with ignorance because I think they really are stupid to put this on a poster.
I think they're morons more than they are open anti-semites.
But then they apologize by calling me an anti-semite in their letter.
It's beyond... it beggars belief.
It beggars belief.
Their apology says we would like to apologize to the Jewish community for the flyer put out with the Ben Be Gone bottle that resembled insect spray.
Not me.
They're not apologizing to me.
They're apologizing to the Jewish community more broadly.
We understand that this imagery plays into anti-Semitic tropes that say Jews are insects and pests that need to be exterminated.
This trope has been used to justify violence against Jews in many instances throughout history and is never acceptable.
We sincerely apologize for using this imagery.
While it was not our intention to hurt anyone or invoke Ben Shapiro's Jewish identity with this flyer, we hold ourselves accountable to the impact of this imagery.
As a coalition of concerned students that includes Jewish students, we are very sensitive to anti-Semitism.
Are you, though?
Are you, though?
Because you continue this way.
They say, therefore, as we call back this flyer and apologize for its anti-Semitic tropes, we condemn Shapiro's unwavering Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.
I'm the anti-Semite, you see.
Not the people who put an Orthodox Jew on an extermination bottle of insects.
Me.
I'm the anti-Semite.
The Orthodox Jew who keeps kosher, just spent a month in Israel, keeps Sabbath, sends his kids to Jewish school.
Like, I'm the anti- Nailed it, guys.
Nailed it.
Right on the money.
They say, they reject my anti-semitism, because why am I anti-semitic?
They say because of my belief that the only way to be a real Jew is to agree with him, and through his strong support of Zionism.
So my support of Zionism makes me an anti-semite, you see.
Because I support the existence of a Jewish state, I hate Jews.
If you can follow this logic, you should join this group.
And then you should go wear black and silence yourself, because you're an idiot.
Really.
By the way, I don't say the only way to be a real Jew is to agree with me.
I do believe that Judaism is a philosophy as well as a religion, and if you reject all the tenets of the philosophy and the religion, then it's very hard to argue that you are in any way consonant with Judaism.
It's like saying that you're not a real Christian if you reject the divinity of Jesus, right?
I mean, that's... it seems like fairly obvious.
They also say, we reject Shapiro's false belief in white Western supremacy, that he cloaks in the idea of Judeo-Christian values.
Now they're back to the dog whistling.
I say Judeo-Christian values, and they say what I mean is white Western supremacy.
White?
When have I ever talked about white people being supreme?
Ever.
Are you out of your minds?
The answer, of course, is yes.
We will not let Ben Shapiro's manipulative and hateful language divide us, they say.
We hope you join us this Thursday.
My manipulative and hateful language.
Okay, so that is the update from Stanford.
I look very much forward to speaking tonight at Stanford University.
I think it's going to be a blast.
So we'll get to more on that in just a moment.
Plus, I do have an update for you on a story that of course made major headlines across the country.
That is the story of this kid in Texas who was nearly handed over to his mom, who was basically prepping him for gender transition at age seven.
She said she was gonna wait till he was 11, but nothing stopped her from reinforcing all of the kids' supposed priors about being a girl.
I have an update on that story that's pretty amazing in just one second.
First, let's talk about the earbuds you're using to listen to this show.
So, are you using those old-fashioned earphones?
You know, the ones like from 1985, Marty McFly wears them while he's riding a skateboard.
You're wearing those because those are out of date.
You're wearing the earphones, the earbuds that have the wires, and you put them in your pocket, and then you take them out of your pocket, and they are all tied up like the Gordian knot, but if you cut it, then you ruin the earphones.
Well, instead, you should have wireless earbuds.
But you don't need to pay a fortune for wireless earbuds.
Instead, you should check out Raycons.
Raycon just released their best model yet, the E25s.
They have six hours of playtime, seamless Bluetooth pairing, more bass, a more compact design that gives you a nice noise-isolating fit.
Raycon's wireless earbuds are so comfortable, they are perfect for on-the-go listening and for taking phone calls.
Unlike some of your other wireless options, Raycon earbuds are both stylish and discreet, there are no dangling wires, and there are no stems.
You should go get them right now and don't spend a fortune because Raycons are not going to cost you the same as other companies and they sound great.
Now's the time to get the latest and greatest from Raycon Get 15% off your order at buyraycon.com slash ben.
That is B-U-I-R-A-Y-C-O-N dot com slash ben for 15% off Raycon wireless earbuds.
Buyraycon.com slash ben.
Again, buyraycon.com slash ben for 15% off.
Okay, so quick update on this case in Texas, and then I promise we will get to all of the impeachment gate 2019 updates.
Okay, so here is the update according to Amanda Prestigiacomo over at Daily Wire.
A seven-year-old boy, whose mother claims he's actually a girl named Luna, recently chose to go to school as himself, a boy named James, now that his father has been granted equal say in his transition.
Two weeks ago, Dallas Judge Kim Cooks ruled that Dr. Ann Georgilis and Mr. Jeffrey Younger, James' parents, have joint managing conservatorship and joint decision-making over their boys.
James also has a twin brother named Jude.
Both Georgilis, a pediatrician, and Younger had gag orders placed on them by Judge Cooks barring them from speaking to the media.
Well, a third party yesterday posted on Facebook a picture of James going to school as James does going to school.
This is what it looks like when James gets to choose.
person should not be Mr. Younger.
Well, a third party yesterday posted on Facebook a picture of James going to school as James.
It says, going to school, this is what it looks like when James gets to choose.
Affirm this.
Also, a photo taken yesterday just before church, James and Jude, proud to be men.
Save James, save thousands of children.
In an update, it was noted that Mr. Younger emailed the principal on Monday, and James and Jude's teachers had reported there was zero stress or disruption in the classroom today.
Just another day in school, prayers answered, the updates concluded.
As you know, Georglas argued that James was actually a girl, because James said that he was a girl, and there was testimony from the father that mom had basically been telling him he was a girl since the age of three and reinforcing all of his gender confusion.
Younger said that his ex-wife would, in his opinion, only show James love and affection when he would present as a girl.
He also posted a video that we played on the show of James at three, telling Younger that mommy tells him he is a girl.
Giorgalis had complete authority over the psychological and psychiatric care for the boys prior to the judge's October 23rd ruling, but the fight over James is not over.
According to the Dallas Morning News, now Giorgalis is seeking to have Judge Cooks recused, so she's going after the judge.
Why?
Because the judge tweeted out or put out on Facebook an article from the Dallas Morning News and captioned it, the governor, nor any legislature, had any influence on the court's decision.
Basically saying, yeah, we're an independent court and the fact that Greg Abbott said that he would step in and investigate had nothing to do with what the court actually ruled here.
Before Younger was hit with the gag order, he told LifeSite News reporter Madeline Jacob his ex-wife contemplated, quote, cutting the penis off James in an email presented to the jury.
He said, the Texas I grew up in, the Texas I live in, if a parent did that, we're just gonna give him the child to the other parent.
We're not gonna tolerate that kind of craziness.
It tells you how far our society has changed.
Well, if that story is accurate, if this is all accurate, then...
James is now going to school as a boy.
It does give the lie to the idea that somehow this kid invariably identified as a girl, that parental behavior has no impact on child behavior.
I mean, that's an insane idea in the first place.
That parental reaction to child behavior has no impact on how children act.
That's asinine.
Anybody who has kids knows that.
So we'll keep you updated on that case as updates become available.
Okay, meanwhile, the latest in ImpeachmentGate 2019.
So the left is trying to dredge up, basically, I think that there's a game that's now being played by the left on ImpeachmentGate.
On the one hand, they're suggesting that there is an actual issue With Trump's Ukraine behavior that is impeachable.
And there, they're asking a bunch of questions, they're bringing in people to testify, they're running.
What is, in effect, a normal impeachment process?
I know that a lot of people on the right say that the impeachment process is not normal, that the process is skewed.
There is some truth to that.
I mean, they did a lot of this behind closed doors.
They did not actually comply with the same sort of procedures that they did with regard to the Clinton impeachment.
But now they're doing a lot of open doors hearings.
Next week, they have vowed that they are going to open the doors and do a bunch of different hearings.
Apparently those hearings are going to include hearings with William Taylor, the ambassador, Bill Taylor, who was the highest ranking Ukraine official from the United States during this entire period.
Taylor has been militant in his belief that President Trump was attempting to engage in a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government to benefit himself politically.
They're also going to interview George Kent, and they're also going to interview Mary Yovanovitch, who was the ambassador to Ukraine, who the best information seems to suggest was ousted because Trump didn't trust her.
And maybe he didn't trust her because Rudy Giuliani was telling him not to trust her.
Adam Schiff announced these hearings so that the Wednesday hearing will feature Bill Taylor and George Kent and then next Friday they'll hear from Mary Yovanovitch.
So the impeachment hearings are moving forward in a sort of If not normal, then close to normal way, right?
This is the way that the process typically sort of works.
But then there's another track that the Democrats and the media seem to be pushing, and that is trying to get inside Trump's head, trying to trigger him to do something.
And frankly, it's a smart, if nefarious, strategy.
One of the things that you saw from the second half of the Mueller report is that President Trump is reactive to the media coverage of him.
He is extremely reactive.
To the chaos that he senses around him.
So, if he feels as though the media are targeting him, he is more likely to fly off the handle, according to the Mueller report, and then he is more likely to say things like, go fire Mueller, and get himself in trouble.
In other words, when you put pressure on Trump, he tends to lash out, and exactly that sort of lashing out is what Democrats are looking for, because what they would like for Trump to do is appear to be obstructing the investigation, appear to be involving himself in further law-breaking activity, because here's the truth.
It's going to be very difficult for them to prove that Trump engaged in any sort of law-breaking with regard to his Ukraine activity.
Now, it may be bad.
It may be wrong.
It may be something a president shouldn't do.
But in order for them to determine that President Trump has committed a crime, they actually have to fulfill statutory definitions of bribery, and that's very difficult.
It's going to be difficult to prove that.
Even folks on the left acknowledge this.
Even if they were to come up with a serious abuse of power, what they would basically have to do in that case Is they would have to show full intent by Trump to get Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election, not intent by Trump to target political opponents from 2016 out of ire over 2016.
Right?
One of those has crossover with American interests.
We just spent two and a half years investigating whether Russia interfered with the American election.
So if we get to investigate that, why would we not get to investigate whether Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election or to condition Ukrainian aid on their investigation of corruption?
I mean, Joe Biden allegedly did just that, and that was totally fine.
So in order for Democrats to prove actual wrongdoing here, they have to prove intent.
Proving intent with Trump is a tricky business.
It's a very difficult thing.
This is what the Democrats found out in the second half of the Mueller report.
It's why they didn't impeach over the second half of the Mueller report because basically the second half of the Mueller report said Trump was fulminating about Mueller all the time.
He was ordering members of his cabinet to issue letters to other members of his cabinet telling them to do certain things and then those things were being rejected.
And so Democrats could have pushed impeachment, but Trump would have said, listen, I didn't have the requisite intent to shut down the investigation.
I didn't shut down the investigation.
I had the full power to do so, and I didn't do it.
So difficult for you to claim intent.
Well, same thing applies here.
So instead, Democrats are trying to push Trump to make a mistake now.
Not six months ago, not three months ago, now.
They're trying to push Trump to do something now that will lead Trump into an obstruction trap, or into a perjury trap, or into something that will create an impeachable offense moving forward, because they actually don't have the goods moving backward.
And this is why you're seeing the media start to manipulate their coverage to basically elicit a response that will be wild from Trump.
That also happens to benefit them electorally, right?
I mean, the wilder Trump looks, the worse it's going to be for him in 2020.
Whoever is the adult in the room in 2020 is likely to win because nobody, nobody who is center to center right wants to vote for Elizabeth Warren.
All Trump has to do is appear to not be crazy and he will win.
All Democrats have to do is appear not to be crazy and they will win.
And right now both are failing.
So Democrats are attempting, they understand they're not going to make Elizabeth Warren sane.
So instead what they have decided to do is make Trump Act crazy.
And the story they are using today to do this is this story from Anonymous.
So remember there is a New York Times op-ed writer who wrote anonymously, he's supposed to be a member of the Trump administration.
And now that person has written a book.
And the book is supposed to be about how Trump is just the worst.
The book is called A Warning.
Okay, well now, Huffington Post journalist Yash Arli has reported on Wednesday night that the book claims that Mike Pence, the Vice President of the United States, was fully prepared to go along with the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove the President of the United States from mental incapacity.
Now there's a lot of talk about this in left-wing circles immediately after Trump's election that Trump is so crazy he can't be president the cabinet will oust him on the basis of the 25th amendment that he's incompetent and that he has to be put aside.
If you know Mike Pence, if you know anything about Mike Pence, the idea that Mike Pence was telling anyone around him that he was ready to get rid of Trump over the 25th Amendment, that is patently ludicrous.
It is insane.
But the media have been pumping this story anyway, with a serious amount of credulity.
This claim does not warrant credulity.
In fact, this claim basically undermines the entire credibility of the anonymous person who wrote this particular book.
According to Yasha Ali, the much-anticipated book A Warning, reportedly written by an unnamed senior White House official, claims that high-level White House aides were certain that VP Mike Pence would support the use of the 25th Amendment to have President Donald Trump removed from office because of mental incapacity.
The source that provided the excerpts did so on the condition of anonymity.
So it's an anonymous source providing stuff from an anonymous book by an anonymous person inside the Trump administration.
So now we are now three levels of anonymity removed from reality.
According to the Huffington Post, According to Anonymous, there was no doubt in the minds of these senior officials that Pence would support invoking the 25th Amendment if the majority of the cabinet signed off on it.
The discussions about invoking the 25th Amendment took place, according to the book, soon after FBI Director James Comey was fired by the president.
Katie Waldman, the press secretary for Pence, responded to the news report by tweeting fake news.
A top Trump ally in the White House responded to the report, told the Daily Wire, whoever anonymous is, assuming this is actually in the book, has exposed themselves as a complete fraud.
Anyone who knows the VP knows he would never tolerate such talk and any such person would be immediately shown the door.
Mark Lauder, the Trump 2020 director of strategic communications, responded to the story, writing on Twitter, this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
I served as vice president's press press secretary at the time.
Anyone who gives this nonsense, any credibility does not know Mike Pence.
By the way, even leftist journalists and center journalists were saying like, this is crap.
Jonathan Swan of Axios says, anybody who covers Pence knows this is an absurd claim.
Well, Jonathan's a good reporter and that is 100% true.
Washington Post White House reporter Josh Dousey also agreed said, what Mr. Swan said, Obviously, that's true.
But the goal of these sorts of stories is not, of course, to illuminate the situation in the White House.
It's to get inside Trump's head.
It's to get inside Trump's head.
Because the belief is on the left, the more you get inside Trump's head, the more likely he is to be volatile and to do something that will harm him in this whole impeachment saga and in the 2020 election.
And listen, I think Trump has reason to be suspicious.
I do.
I think he has reason to be suspicious of people surrounding him.
His administration has been insanely leaky.
The media have been given extraordinary access to stuff they should not have access to in any normal administration.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, let's talk about you getting ready for work in the morning.
When you get ready for work in the morning, typically that means if you're a dude, you gotta shave, you gotta shower, the whole deal.
And when you get those goods, it means you gotta go to the store.
When you run out, you gotta go to the store, you gotta pick between a thousand different goods.
Some of them are good, some of them are bad.
Or, Theoretically, you could just have this stuff delivered to your door and get best quality products very, very easily.
And this is where Dollar Shave Club comes in.
Dollar Shave Club helps make your life easier, taking the guesswork out, guaranteeing quality shaving products.
Dollar Shave Club, by the way, is way more than just razors.
They've got you covered head to toe.
They've got everything you need to shower, shave, style your hair, brush your teeth.
It's a one-stop shop for all of your grooming needs.
They've got amazing stuff like their amber lavender body cleanser.
It is calming.
It is soothing.
They've got the hairstyling gel, like all sorts of great stuff.
Dollar Shave Club can keep you automatically stocked up on the products you use.
You get what you want whenever you need it, whether that's once a month or a few times a year.
I never have to waste time at a store wondering if what I'm getting is any good.
I don't have to go to the store at all, actually.
Right now, you can put the quality of Dollar Shave Club's products to the test.
Their ultimate shave starter set has basically everything you need for an amazing shave.
They've got the Executive Razor, Shave Butter Prep Scrub, Post Shave Dew.
The best part is, you can try it for just five bucks.
After that, the restock box ships regular sized products at regular prices.
Get your Ultimate Starter Set for just five dollars at dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
That is dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
Go check them out right now.
dollarshaveclub.com slash ben.
Okay, so.
As I say, the strategy of the left getting under Trump's skin, it's not a bad strategy.
It isn't a bad strategy because the fact is that Trump has a rationale for being pretty suspicious of the people who are coming after him.
So there are tweets now that have emerged from the whistleblower's lawyer.
So you remember the whistleblower in this case, right?
The whistleblower in this case is the person who first reported the Trump-Ukraine phone call, reported it up the chain, and then there were pretty serious and I think pretty well-substantiated allegations that the whistleblower was coordinating with Adam Schiff's team.
And then it started to come out that this whistleblower Whose name has been named?
I mean, we mentioned it on the show, right?
It was allegedly, right?
John Solomon at The Hill reported it.
The guy's name allegedly is Eric Jaramillo.
It's not illegal for me to say that.
Let me just point that out.
It's not illegal for me to say that.
It's not illegal for Trump to say it.
It's not illegal for anyone to say it except for the inspector general of the intelligence community, apparently.
Okay, and that's not according to me.
That's according to NPR.
NPR says, In recent days, President Trump and his allies have amplified their calls for the whistleblower who sparked the impeachment inquiry to be identified, presenting the question of whether it would be a crime for the president to unmask the anonymous whistleblower.
Now, let me make clear.
The whistleblower laws are meant to protect the job of the person.
They're not meant to protect the anonymity of the person.
They're meant to protect the job.
So you can't fire the guy, which is appropriate, right?
When someone blows the whistle.
You shouldn't fire them.
You shouldn't be able to fire them.
But it's not meant to protect their anonymity.
And that makes sense because what if the anonymous whistleblower is a partisan hack?
And that has some ramifications for things that matter for the country like, say, impeachment.
According to Robert Litt, former General Counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence under Barack Obama, he says if Trump thinks he knows the name, he can come out and say it.
He's probably as protected as anyone is.
Litt and several other legal experts who talked to NPR said that Trump uttering or tweeting the name could in theory trigger an article of impeachment for retaliating against a whistleblower.
That'd be kind of rough.
But it would not run afoul of any federal criminal statutes.
Similarly, if a news outlet, member of Congress, or member of the public outed the whistleblower, legal experts said, no criminal law would be violated.
Dan Meyer, lawyer and former executive director of the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Program, says, There's no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal law.
Congress has never provided that protection.
Now, again, is it relevant to the consideration of the American people, who the whistleblower is, and how this whole thing came about?
I mean, it is.
I think it's important.
Now, it's not dispositive.
Okay, for people on the left who don't understand the word dispositive, dispositive means it is not sufficient to get rid of the charges against President Trump to point out that the whistleblower is a hack.
The whistleblower can be a hack, and his allegations can be true and troubling.
Both of those things can be true, but in calculating for the American public, whether this is in fact a good-faith attempt to impeach a president on the basis of constitutional violations, or whether this is a put-up job by Democrats seizing on a violation by President Trump allegedly of the Constitution or official duty, It's funny to me to watch the media pretend that motivation of the people behind this thing doesn't matter when they ran along with the motivations of the people behind impeachment are bad for literally years during the Clinton impeachment stuff.
I'm old enough to remember when James Carville was saying about Paula Jones that if you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, you'll come up with people like Paula Jones.
James Carville worked for the president at the time.
Was that maligning accusers?
I'm old enough to remember when Hillary Clinton went on national television and accused Kenneth Starr of being part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
And Linda Tripp.
And everybody else.
Vast right-wing conspiracy.
Did the media really suggest that that was super-duper wrong?
So Trump is doing the same thing here.
It's exactly the same thing.
You may not like it.
It's hard-nosed politics.
It's smash-mouth politics.
And it's usually the way these things go.
Okay, and that is only going to be exacerbated by the fact that the identity of the whistleblower, again, who was mentioned by John Solomon, is the alleged identity.
The guy apparently was an Obama acolyte, worked with Joe Biden, worked with James Clapper, was staffed in the White House, in the Trump White House, and then was thrown out and apparently went back to the CIA base at Langley after people in the White House suspected he was leaking to the media.
And now it comes out that Mark Zaid, who's one of the attorneys representing the intel community whistleblower, tweeted in January 2017, quote, A coup has started, and impeachment will follow ultimately.
He tweeted, we'll get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive, even him and his supporters.
He also tweeted, as one falls, two more will take their place, apparently referencing the Trump administration employees who defy the White House.
Zaid promised that the coup would occur in many steps.
So, should Trump be suspicious?
Yes.
I mean, here's President Trump last night at a rally saying, yeah, the whistleblower's lawyer was plotting a coup from the very start.
I mean, those tweets say what the tweets say.
I don't know if you saw, I just got off, I'm coming off the plane and they hand me, look at this character.
Okay, they just hand me this story.
Coup has started, whistleblower's attorney said, in 2017.
You know when that was?
That was a long time ago.
It's all a hoax!
They say January 2017, a coup has started and the impeachment will follow, ultimately.
It's all a hoax.
It's a scam.
And you know who helps them?
These people right back here, the media.
Okay, imagine that Paula Jones's lawyer had said back in 1995 that a coup had started against President Clinton.
How do you think the media would treat that?
Do you think that they would absolutely uphold the anonymity of Paula Jones if she insisted on remaining anonymous?
The answer is likely not.
Likely not.
So, is Trump suspicious of all this?
Yeah.
Should he be suspicious of all this?
Yeah.
Is it going to lead him to make volatile responses?
Maybe, and this is why he should be careful, and this is why, again.
The people around him, they need to say no to him sometimes.
What the Mueller report showed is that when Trump does stuff that's crazy, people around him have to say no.
The problem with the Trump-Ukraine stuff is that apparently nobody around him just said, Mr. President, no.
That's sort of John Kelly's claim, the former chief of staff, and that seems plausible.
We'll get to more of this in just one second, because the media are making hay out of, how dare Trump go after the whistleblower?
How dare Donald Trump Jr.
mention the name of the whistleblower?
And if the parties here were reversed, I have very, very little doubt that the media would be outing this whistleblower inside of 30 seconds.
Inside of 30 seconds.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, it's really important to invest when you're young.
Have you ever taken a look at those charts that show you the age you start investing and how quickly the wealth accrues if you start investing?
I know a lot of people who listen to the show are actually disproportionately young.
You need to start investing now.
But how should you go about doing that?
Well, I have a great way for you to go about starting to invest.
That would be SoFi Invest.
Getting your money right doesn't have to be hard.
You get access to SoFi's financial advisors who can answer any questions you have at no cost because taking control of your investments shouldn't be intimidating.
The fact is millennials are under-invested, but you should get started right now.
SoFi Invest makes it incredibly easy for anyone to start investing with as little as just like a buck.
Really, like, honestly, like, put a dollar in now and it's going to matter.
You can even buy a piece of companies like Amazon, Google, or Disney with SoFi StockBits at whatever amount you want, which is a super cool thing, right?
You want to invest in a brand-name stock, but you don't have a couple grand lying around to buy one share of Amazon or something?
Instead, you can buy a StockBit, and now you own a piece of Amazon, but the amount that you can actually afford to pay for.
There's not an excuse to avoid investment any longer.
Check out SoFi.com slash Ben and create an account.
You can choose to either do it yourself or you can let SoFi's automated investing build your portfolio for you.
You can use those stock bits to buy fractional shares of your favorite stocks and start with as little as a buck.
Compound interest is the most magical thing in finance.
Go invest right now.
See for yourself how easy it is to start investing with SoFi at SoFi.com slash Ben.
Again, fund your SoFi Invest account, and right now you receive 25 bucks in mystery stock.
These are brand name stocks or bits of brand name stocks.
That's free stock just for signing up.
Go to SoFi.com slash Ben to claim your free stock today.
That is S-O-F-I.com slash Ben.
Again, S-O-F-I.com slash Ben.
SoFi Lending Corp, CFL number 6054612.
Okay, in just one second we're gonna get to More of Impeachment Gate 2019.
And the media frenzy over outing the whistleblower.
How dare we out the whistleblower?
We'll get to all that in just one second.
First, if you're not already a subscriber, you're really missing out.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe for as little as 10 bucks a month.
You get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts, our full show library, select bonus content, our exclusive Daily Wire app.
Pretty amazing feature.
If you haven't checked it out yet, I mean, we spent serious quan on building this thing.
And it is beautiful.
If you choose the new all-access plan, you even get that, plus the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr.
Ooh, ah, magical.
And our brand new Ask Me Anything style discussion feature, it allows you to engage our hosts, writers, and special guests on a weekly basis.
So, stop depriving yourself, come join the fun.
Also, one of the great things you get when you subscribe, you get our Sunday specials on Saturday.
This week, super excited to welcome to the program the inimitable, World-famous George Will, who stopped by for a delightful hour.
What a great dude he is.
It's a fascinating, interesting discussion about his new book, about conservatism and about the role of the government and the role of the judiciary.
It's big ideas and interesting ideas.
I loved this discussion.
I think you will too.
Here's a little bit of what it sounded like.
Politics is dangerous.
There's no safe harbor.
Police could become Gestapos.
Taxation could become confiscation.
But we need police and we need taxation.
There is no safety in politics.
Life is lived on a slippery slope.
Get over it.
Amazing stuff.
It's really, really good.
You're going to love it.
Go check it out right now.
Subscribe to get all of those benefits.
Plus you're protecting the content you love from a left that wishes to destroy that content.
I mean, as we noted at the top of the show, the left, they're more interested in silencing than they are in discussion.
So you can protect the content you love by subscribing.
It really does help us out and make sure that we can continue to bring you the best in conservative content.
We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Alrighty, so let me just note for the record, you know, when I talk about the press and their unwillingness to out whistleblowers, like their standards, their standards and practices, we are not going to mention the name of this whistleblower.
Let me tell you a story.
Let me tell you a story.
This is the story of a CBS News staffer who was just fired.
Why was this CBS News staffer just fired?
By our illustrious media, by our illustrious media.
Why was this CBS News staffer fired?
Well, because it turns out that this CBS News staffer was the source of the video from ABC News.
of an anchor talking about how the ABC News brass stopped a story on Jeffrey Epstein.
Yashar Ali, really good reporter, good dude.
Here was his thread on Twitter.
You ready for this?
Scoop.
ABC News execs believe they know who the former employee is who accessed footage of Amy Robach expressing her frustrations about her shelved Jeffrey Epstein story.
That former employee is now at CBS and ABC executives have reached out to CBS News executives.
In a statement, an ABC News spokesperson tells me, we take violations of company policy very seriously, and we're pursuing all avenues to determine the source of the leak.
It's important to note that ABC News does not know if this former employee leaked the footage to Project Veritas.
What they do know is who accessed the footage.
It's possible that person could have shared it with others who leaked it.
As I noted in this thread, ABC News has confirmed they're conducting an investigation into the leak.
In response to an email, CBS News says they're declining to comment for this story.
Update!
Two sources familiar with the matter tell me that CBS News has now fired the staffer in question.
This comes after ABC informed CBS that they had determined who accessed the footage of Amy Robach expressing her frustrations about the Epstein story.
So just to point out the insane contrast here.
The same media who are saying, we cannot know the net.
We must never mention the identity of the whistleblower.
Who initiated an impeachment inquiry into the President of the United States.
We have to keep his name locked up under lock and key.
We're not protecting his job.
He's protected.
He can't be fired.
He's a federal employee.
He can't be fired.
But we're protecting him because that's the right thing to do.
ABC News just went to CBS News, a completely different company.
They're not the same company.
ABC News went to CBS News, a competitor, and said to CBS News, you know one of your employees?
That person leaked footage, from us, to other members of the media, on the conservative side.
And CBS said, you know what?
You're right, we're firing him.
What?
What?
So, amazing, amazing.
Really, protecting your whistleblowers over their media.
Stephen Miller, not the one from the administration, Red Stees on Twitter, he says, two news networks colluding to fire someone who leaked a massive bombshell about one of them covering up for a highly connected pedophile.
Now watch as journalists all turn away so as not to endanger their own future job prospects.
But sure, guys, truth to power or something.
Guessing there won't be a ton of drum banging about this whistleblower's rights.
Uh, yeah?
Ya think?
So, when you hear the media getting all hot and bothered about the fact that Donald Trump's son tweeted out a link to Breitbart that named the alleged whistleblower, and the media are like, oh, that's so terrible, how could this happen?
Oh, it's just, again, he didn't violate a law.
Rand Paul has pointed this out.
NPR has pointed this out.
No law was violated.
Is it in the interest of the American public to know who initiated an impeachment inquiry into the President of the United States?
I think so.
Don't you?
Now again, it doesn't answer all the questions that the whistleblower provides.
It doesn't answer the allegations by Bill Taylor.
It doesn't answer the allegations about Marie Yovanovitch.
And it's important to note that those people, right, the ones that the Democrats are painting as patriots, all of them are patriots.
We know that because we know their names, right?
We know what they do.
We know who they are.
We don't know anything about the whistleblower except that which has been reported by John Solomon and Breitbart.
The fact is that the media have not dug into the story because if they dig into the story, they may come up with some answers they don't like.
So the AFP, for example, could not independently verify the whistleblower's identity as not publishing the name.
Weird, because it seems like the entire press was happy to run with Brett Kavanaugh as a gang rapist on the basis of Michael Avenatti saying a bunch of crap.
Pretty amazing.
My favorite is that they say that they're not gonna name the names because they're afraid for the guy's safety.
So just to recap, they will fire a person who leaked information relevant to public discussion from a different network But they're afraid to leak the name or talk about the name of a whistleblower who is not protected by law when it comes to anonymity.
They won't discuss the name or the identity or anything about the whistleblower.
They won't do it because it might put him at physical risk.
These are the same people who have outed people who made memes on Twitter.
When somebody made a meme of President Trump tackling a CNN-headed cartoon on Twitter, the media outed that guy.
When a guy named Carson King in Iowa committed the egregious sin of giving a million dollars to charity after he held up a sign at a college football game and received a million dollars from people offering to buy him beer, the media promptly outed him, went back to his old tweets, and tried to destroy his reputation.
They're super concerned, however, about the safety of the whistleblower.
I'm sure.
It has nothing to do with partisanship.
It must be that you are suddenly concerned about the safety of people's private information.
I trust the media when it comes to this stuff.
They're always concerned about this sort of stuff.
According to Vanity Fair, though, that's their excuse.
To name or not to name.
That is the question that may soon bear down on mainstream news organizations as Donald Trump's allies step up the pressure to make the Ukraine whistleblower's identity public.
As in, all over cable news and on the front page of the New York Times type of public.
So far, as Politico reported Tuesday, mainstream newsrooms have been unified in their resistance to naming the whistleblower, whose anonymity is meant to be protected by law.
Now, again, they say his anonymity is meant to be protected by law.
Literally not true.
Not true.
His job is meant to be protected by law.
His anonymity is not specifically meant to be protected by law.
On Monday night, Rand Paul implored the media, do your job and print his name.
On Wednesday, Donald Trump Jr.
raised the stakes.
He tweeted the alleged whistleblower's name along with a link to a Breitbart article.
He told Yashar Ali, the outreach on this is BS.
Those pretending that I would coordinate with the White House to send out a Breitbart link haven't been watching my feed for a long time.
The Drudge Report screamed, Jr.
outs the whistleblower, but apparently the Drudge Report had previously linked to an article that mentioned the whistleblower, so there's that as well.
So again, it's amazing to watch.
Suddenly the violation of privacy is a big deal to the media that don't care about privacy at all, except when it applies to apparently one side of the aisle.
Representative Jim Jordan, for his part, he is on the Intelligence Committee and he says that we are going to question this whistleblower.
Six weeks ago, Schiff said the whistleblower would testify and that he must testify, right?
Remember, what happened is that the whistleblower report, the existence of it came out, then the transcript came out.
The transcript didn't back everything the Democrats were claiming, right?
It didn't say explicit quid pro quo.
It didn't make clear that the Ukrainians even knew that military aid was being withheld or any of that.
And then Schiff said, well, we're gonna get the whistleblower to testify.
Then a bunch of other people came forward and said what Schiff wanted the whistleblower to say.
And then he was like, well, I guess we don't have to have the whistleblower testify anymore.
Well, according to Jim Jordan, he has a piece in USA Today, he says, Six weeks ago, Schiff said the whistleblower would testify.
He has now changed his mind.
What happened in the interim?
Just two things.
We learned the individual met with Schiff's staff, and we learned about their political bias.
The whistleblower only knew about the call from the characterizations of others.
He waited 18 days before filing a complaint with the Inspector General.
During those 18 days, the whistleblower met with Schiff's staff, but failed to disclose this communication to the Inspector General.
Schiff also hid this meeting.
Americans understand fairness.
They know when someone is getting a raw deal.
The impeachment push, based on this anonymous and secondhand complaint, is fundamentally unfair.
And then Jim Jordan says, President Trump and Zelensky, and President Zelensky of Ukraine, affirmed there was no quid pro quo and no pressure.
The transcript of the call shows no conditionality.
At the time of the call, Ukraine did not, no security aid was delayed, and Ukraine never took any of the actions it was supposed to take under pressure, and the Trump administration turned over the aid.
So that is at least a partial defense.
Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to maintain that the identity of the whistleblower is sacrosanct.
So nothing is sacrosanct except that, apparently.
So that is where things currently stand.
Meanwhile, for all the people who talk about the Trump administration basically just being a proxy for Trump himself and ripping into Attorney General William Barr, who's supposed to be a political hack, a massive political hack.
Well, it turns out that according to the Washington Post, President Trump went to Attorney General Barr.
He wanted Barr to hold a news conference saying that Trump broke no laws in his call with the Ukrainian leader.
And Barr declined to do so.
According to the Washington Post, the request from Trump traveled from the president to other White House officials and eventually to the Justice Department.
Right.
This is kind of what you need.
As I said, you need people around Trump to just say no to him.
And if you have some guardrails, basically, President Trump's presidency is like bowling with my kids.
And when I bowl, I don't need the I don't need the bumpers in the lanes.
When President Trump bowls here, he needs the bumpers in the lanes.
Right.
It's good.
It's good for him to have the bumpers and the lanes.
That's why he has people around him.
It keeps the presidency on track.
The request from Trump traveled from the president to other White House officials and eventually to the Justice Department.
The president has mentioned Barr's demurral to associates in recent weeks, saying that he wished Barr would have held the news conference.
In recent weeks, the Justice Department has sought some distance from the White House, particularly on matters related to this burgeoning controversy.
People close to the administration say that Barr and Trump remain on good terms.
And according to Deputy White House Press Secretary Hogan Gidley, the president has nothing but respect for AG Barr and greatly appreciates the work he's done on behalf of the country.
Again, this is, I think, at least in part, an attempt by the media to, again, generate controversy within the Trump administration.
By the way, there was some news yesterday that did not get the kind of play that you would have suspected it would get, given the contents of these impeachment hearings.
And that is news surrounding Kurt Volker.
So Kurt Volker was the special envoy to the Ukraine.
He did testify.
I mean, his testimony was released.
He did testify that he didn't know anything about a quid pro quo.
He said, I did not know there was a quid pro quo.
And when he was confronted with the fact that Ambassador Bill Taylor had suggested there was a quid pro quo, then he said, well, no.
In those texts, he was asking if there was a quid pro quo.
He wasn't saying he knew if there was a quid pro quo.
So President Trump tweeted out and he said, well, thanks to Volcker for saying there was no quid pro quo.
The fact is the only way you're going to know whether there was a quote unquote quid pro quo for something corrupt is when you get Rudy Giuliani in to testify.
All of this is going to come down to Rudy Giuliani because all the rest of it is third party perception of action that was being taken by Trump and Giuliani.
That's all.
That's all.
Okay.
Meanwhile, bad news for Joe Biden.
There's another piece in Politico today for a guy who's supposedly non-shady.
He does a lot of shady things for his family.
According to Politico.com, in 2013, an oil heiress hired a Florida state senator to lobby the federal government on behalf of a pet cause, banning the slaughter of horses for meat.
The lawmaker, Joe Abruzzo, was a close associate of Frank Biden, the younger brother of then-Vice President Joe Biden.
At the time, the younger Biden was looking for state funding for his charter school business, and Abruzzo sat on a key appropriations subcommittee in the Florida legislature.
The two men met frequently, so it's only natural that when the horse slaughter measure stalled in Congress, Abruzzo sought Frank Biden's help.
As those involved recounted months later in videotaped remarks for an equine welfare conference, the VP quickly went to bat, quote, I also turned to Frank and said, we may need a little help from the VP and the administration talking to some senators, said Abruzzo.
Biden then leaned on Mitch McConnell to overcome the minority leader's objections.
Frank Biden said on video, my brother's long-term relationships in the Senate proved to be the final nail in the coffin to be able to pull this thing forward.
By the way, Frank Biden and Abruzzo run a lobbying business together, basically.
And get paid money for it.
In fact, after Frank Biden and Abruzzo teamed up on the horse measure, after Abruzzo received nearly $900,000 in lobbying fees from his wealthy client, the pair teamed up again to lead the government relations division of a law firm in Florida, where they've been pushing a high-profile class-action lawsuit.
So, does it raise questions that Joe Biden's family was doing business in Ukraine?
Particularly because, as we've mentioned over the past couple days, there is now some very solid information.
that Hunter Biden's firm, that the Burisma firm, had hired public relations specialists to go to the State Department and try to have the State Department relieve pressure on Burisma by using Hunter Biden's name.
That report was out there, again, from John Solomon, who's been doing the leading edge on this work.
According to Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air, basically, it looks as though Biden's son, that firm, hired somebody to use Hunter Biden's name to get access to the State Department.
And a month later, Joe Biden was talking publicly about pressuring the prosecutor to step down.
Ed Morrissey says that certainly looks like the kind of corruption of which House Democrats are accusing Trump, does it not?
At the very least, these emails undermine the idea that Shokin wasn't being tough enough on Burisma and that no one in the Obama administration connected the dots between Hunter Biden, his dad, and Burisma.
It stinks of corruption and interference for personal or familial gain.
Accurate.
So there's still open questions for Biden that are going to have to be answered here.
All right, meanwhile, in the 2020 presidential race, all of this is going to harm Joe Biden, but Elizabeth Warren is running into some headwinds, and those headwinds are coming from people who actually know how business works.
So people who are actually in the business world, lifelong Democrats, are looking at Elizabeth Warren and going, No, no, this is not a real human that I'm going to vote for.
Bill Gates, who's a, I mean, real lifelong Democrat, has given millions of dollars to democratic causes.
Bill Gates was on TV.
He warned Elizabeth Warren, I'm going to vote for who is more professional in 2020.
And that may not be you, given all of your grandstanding about corporations.
Here's Bill Gates.
you know, make political declarations.
But I do think no matter what policy somebody has in mind, a professional approach is even, as much as I disagree with some of the policy things that are out there, I do think a professional approach to the office, whoever I decide would have the more professional I do think a professional approach to the office, whoever I decide would have the more professional approach in is the thing that I'll weigh the most.
And I hope the more professional candidate is an electable candidate. - Okay, what he means by that is Elizabeth Warren is a crazy person.
By the way, Elizabeth Warren then fired back at Bill Gates because this is her shtick, suggesting that she wants to meet with Bill Gates and talk about his wealth tax.
She says, I'm always happy to meet with people, even if we have different views.
Bill Gates, if we get the chance, I'd love to explain exactly how much you'd pay under my wealth tax.
I promise it's not $100 billion.
No, you're just going to devastate the wealth of people who have earned it.
Bill Gates has been paying his taxes, and he gives an awful lot of charity, and Elizabeth Warren is an awful, awful liar.
I mean, just terrible.
So, there it is.
Even the business community is turning against Elizabeth Warren, which is, of course, why all of the focus is going into impeachment.
Alrighty, time for a thing I like and then a thing that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
So, Jeff Sessions is going to run for Senate in Alabama.
Now, this has drawn the ire of a lot of people.
It's drawn the ire of the White House.
The White House keeps saying, well, we don't like Jeff Sessions.
Jeff Sessions is a bad Attorney General.
Actually, Jeff Sessions is a pretty good Attorney General.
Jeff Sessions being in that slot basically prevented Trump from engaging in activity that probably would have resulted in this impeachment inquiry two years sooner.
People rip on Jeff Sessions.
Jeff Sessions was the first senator in the United States Senate to endorse President Trump.
He was a longtime ally of Trump, and Trump just crapped all over him.
He's a guy who received very bad treatment at President Trump's hands.
Trump has still retained all of his advisors.
Stephen Miller was a Jeff Sessions guy before all of this started.
Sessions is going to announce that he's running for Senate in Alabama.
Why am I happy about that?
Because the reason that the Alabama Senate seat right now is being held by a Democrat, Doug Jones, is because the Republicans, like idiots, nominated Roy Moore, an alleged creeper going after 14-year-old girls at the food court.
Allegedly.
And right now, there are people in the Republican Party saying, we don't need Jeff Sessions in this race.
We don't need Jeff Sessions in this race.
Why?
Because it's a crowded field.
Representative Bradley Byrne, Republican of Alabama, former Auburn University coach Tommy Tuberville, Secretary of State John Merrill, Stanley Adair, State Representative Arnold Mooney, and Roy Moore.
And people are like, well, that's a crowded field.
Why do we need one more candidate?
That's why you need Sessions in there.
Really, if you're a Republican, and you wanna see that seat be read, the only thing that will prevent that seat from going red, literally the only thing, is if Roy Moore is the nominee.
If Roy Moore is the nominee, he is not making it into the Senate, Doug Jones is gonna earn himself another term, like a full term, not in a special election.
Okay, so what that requires is somebody who can actually consolidate support behind them.
The problem with a crowded field is, who is the biggest name in that field?
The only two big names in that field are Tommy Tuberville and Roy Moore.
And there's a good shot that Roy Moore is able to consolidate his base to a much stronger extent than anybody else in the field.
Sessions was a longtime senator from Alabama.
Coming back in and sweeping to victory with 65% of the vote would be a very good thing for the Republican Party.
The fact that Trump has personal animus for Sessions should not prevent the Republican Party of Alabama from actually putting a Republican back in the Senate.
Apparently Sessions has yet to speak with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Senator Todd Young, the chairman of the Senate GOP campaign arm.
Sessions has actually not talked to Trump or Vice President Pence either.
Although the White House has communicated to Sessions' inner circle, they would view his candidacy extremely unfavorably.
The operative said, the one thing you want in 2020 is to ensure that the Alabama race is not a national news story.
If it's no drama affair, the outcome isn't in doubt.
Yeah, but it will be a drama affair because Roy Moore is going to run again.
So what you need is a name who has won before.
The operative said, Sessions is the favorite in the primary.
If Trump decides to embark on a tweet storm, it changes everything.
Right.
So tell Trump not to do it.
Tell Trump not to do it.
I'm sorry, but if Trump's personal animus causes Republicans to lose the Alabama Senate seat again, that is unforgivable, politically speaking.
It's insanity.
Insanity.
Jeff Sessions should run, and Trump should stop it, and that's the end of that story.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
Okay, so Beto O'Rourke is out of the race, but not out of our hearts.
I mean, he was never really in our hearts.
I mean, Beto O'Rourke's the worst.
But Beto O'Rourke, Beto, still cruising the land, and he has decided that he is going to be a resistance hero, and he's gonna lobby hard for that commentary spot on MSNBC, which he's been aiming for.
That Saturday morning slot is wide open for a Beto comeback, brah!
Well, Beto is now going around saying that the American flag is too negative to display.
By the way, if this Beto O'Rourke had run in Texas against Ted Cruz, he gets shellacked.
This is not the Beto O'Rourke who ran in Texas and lost by two points.
This is the Beto O'Rourke who, if he ran in Texas, would get Wendy Davis-style numbers in a gubernatorial race.
Here's Beto O'Rourke saying that the American flag is too negative to display.
At a time that we seek to repair the damage done following the legacy of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and suppression, I think it's really important to take into account the impression that that kind of symbol would have for many of our fellow Americans.
And so, respect the decision that Nike made.
Okay, so, we can't display the American flag, it's too divisive.
If you can't display the American flag in America, I would suggest that you might think about whether there's a future for you in the country.
I don't see why this is super controversial.
Listen, you have a right to burn the flag, you have a right to kneel on the flag, you have a right to do all of those things, but if you believe that the Ameri- if you actually believe, like as a politician, that the American flag itself is too divisive, not all the issues that you're associating with the American flag, the flag itself is too divisive, then there's no future for the country, so why would you stay here?
Beto O'Rourke, again, signifying the id of the Democratic base, and that is ugly, ugly stuff.
Okay, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
Also, speaking at Stanford University tonight, make sure that you watch the Young America's Foundation livestream.
We'll also be livestreaming it from our Facebook account and all the rest, so go check that out tonight.
Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
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 Sajovic.
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