All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
53:04
U Can’t Impeach This! | Ep. 896
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Impeachment time!
That's right.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
Now, you may get the sense that I'm not taking this super seriously.
That's because I'm kind of not.
This show, The Ben Shapiro Show, is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Stop putting your online data at risk.
Get protected at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
OK, so the reason I'm not taking this supremely seriously is because everybody knows where this is going.
The Democrats are going to vote to impeach President Trump in the House, and then the Republicans are going to vote to acquit in the Senate.
It's that simple.
That's where this is going.
The only question is whether there is some sort of new bombshell that is dropped.
And given the witness testimony that we expect, the answer is probably not.
The answer is probably not.
The only other question here is whether Democrats are going to be capable of sinking President Trump's sort of public relations stance.
Are you going to see the support for impeachment rise just because there is so much bad press surrounding impeachment and because President Trump continues to insist against pretty much all the evidence that The phone call with Ukraine was absolutely perfect.
Nothing wrong with it.
Absolutely 100% what Abraham Lincoln would have done.
The reason that's not a smart strategy, honestly, in terms of public relations, in terms of impeachment, doesn't really matter what his strategy is.
What's going to be is what's going to be.
But in terms of public relations, the reason that's not a smart strategy is the same reason it is not a brilliant idea to go out at the beginning of your presidency and say, we are going to have 5% growth every year for the rest of my tenure.
The reason it's not smart to say that is because if you come in at 4%, which is great, then everybody goes, oh, well, you said 5, and you completely missed the boat.
Well, if you say that everything with Ukraine was absolutely 100% perfect, unbelievable.
And then people like, well, doesn't look that perfect to me.
It makes them more suspicious of your entire claim.
That's why it is a bad public relations strategy.
As I've been saying from the beginning, the president is not his own best lawyer.
But of course, today is when the public impeachment hearings begin.
Ooh, public impeachment hearings.
And all of these hearings are basically going to repeat the testimony that we saw behind closed doors.
There are no real surprise witnesses here.
Democrats have not approved many of the witnesses the Republicans want.
Yesterday, I talked a little bit about the witnesses that Republicans wanted.
President Trump had put out a list compiled by Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who is currently sitting with the House Intelligence Committee.
He's sort of been swapped in.
He's sort of a ringer brought in to do some of the questioning because he's good at this sort of thing.
And Jordan had released a list of the witnesses that Republicans would like to see.
On that list were people like Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, because Jordan wanted to ask, OK, well, was there something nefarious going on in Ukraine?
And if there was something nefarious going on in Ukraine or suspicious with Hunter Biden, why is it illegitimate of Trump to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate all of that?
Apparently, they also wanted to bring in the whistleblower.
Democrats have been quite reticent to bring forward the whistleblower.
Why?
Well, because they understand that there is pretty good information that the whistleblower is a Democratic operative, that the whistleblower is somebody who's a lifelong Democrat, who works from the Obama administration, who is good, or at least close, relatively speaking, with Vice President Joe Biden, who is close with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence.
And because of that, the Democrats are concerned that if this person is brought forward in question, it's going to turn out this person was coordinating with the head of the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, and that this whole thing was put together behind closed doors.
Now, that would not in and of itself debunk the claims made about Trump and Ukraine, but it would go to motive.
And Democrats understand that would be a bad public relations move for them to allow that testimony, because the first thing that would happen is that Trump would say, which end?
And most Americans would say, yeah, kind of.
Because unless the crime is serious enough that we actually believe that it was not a partisan thing, it was actually just a, this is a danger to the country thing, that's going to be the Republican play.
So it's kind of weird.
It's sort of parallel.
On the one side, the Republicans are going to claim, and this is really what it's going to come down to, Senator John Kennedy finally coming around to adopting the only real defense to Trump's activity, which is that it comes down to intent.
And on the Democratic side, the American people are going to have to decide Democrats' intent.
Here's what I mean by this.
So John Kennedy made clear that when the question is, what was Trump intending to do in Ukraine?
Was he attempting to quote unquote, get Joe Biden?
Was the goal here to get Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election in order to sink His perceived strongest opponents in the Democratic primaries or to or to knock him out in a general election.
Or was this more what I have suggested, which is Donald Trump has a bunch of weird ideas floating around in his head about Ukraine.
He knows that there is something going on in Ukraine with regard to the 2016 election.
He realizes that the Ukrainian embassy was coordinating with Alexander Chalupa, who was an operative for the DNC, and they were coordinating with the Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt about Paul Manafort and presumably about President Trump.
He recognizes all that.
He also recognizes Ukraine has a long history of corruption.
And he's suspicious that some conspiracy theories are true, that Hillary Clinton's server is somewhere in Ukraine, buried in a forest or something.
And that he is suspicious that Joe and Hunter Biden were coordinating in order to get Hunter Biden a nice salary from a very corrupt company allegedly called Burisma.
And that all of this was wrapped up in his head.
And so when people said to him, do you want to give the aid to Ukraine?
He said, no, I want all those things investigated, all of them.
And so it really wasn't about 2020 or getting Joe Biden specifically.
It was about he had a bunch of weird ideas floating around in his head.
So it's not a good thing that he mentioned Joe Biden in this context.
It leads people to believe that he is that he is manipulating the international system and American taxpayer dollars for personal political gain.
But that's not actually what's going on.
Right.
So that's a question of intent.
Senator John Kennedy explained this just the other day.
He said, yeah, I mean, in the end, this is going to come down to a question of intent and a question of motive.
Here are the two possible scenarios.
Number one, the president asked for an investigation of a political rival.
Number two, the president asked for an investigation of possible corruption by someone who happens to be a political rival.
The latter would be in the national interest.
The former would be in the president's parochial interest and would be over the line.
I think this case is going to come down to the president's intent, his motive.
Did he have a culpable state of mind?
OK, I'm glad to hear that John Kennedy, the senator from Louisiana, is finally coming around to the case I've been making with regard to this thing for literally months at this point.
And I think this is the case that Republicans are going to end up coming around to.
Now, there's a question of intent on the right side of the aisle.
We're going to get to the question of intent on the left side of the aisle in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you make your company better.
So let's say that there were somebody in your sound department, somebody who are fresh, On something like the Ben Shapiro Show.
Let's call them Robin and let's say that it was like Robin's first day and Robin just decided to get there late.
And you're like, you know what, Robin?
Nice person, but I'm sorry.
We need to replace you with somebody.
Where would you look?
The place you'd look is ZipRecruiter.com.
Of course, ZipRecruiter is where you go to enhance all of your employment.
Also, you don't have to fire Robin in order to enhance your employment.
You can bring in new employees who are fantastic because ZipRecruiter helps you file through the best employees and find the best employees with results like these.
It's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes.
Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That's ziprecruiter.com slash d-a-i-l-y-w-i-r-e.
It's technology identifies people with the right experience and invites them to apply to your job so you get qualified candidates fast.
ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you.
It finds them for you instead, and then helps you filter all of those candidates.
Go check out ZipRecruiter right now for free at our web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That's ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
Okay, so as I say, there's a question of intent on the Trump side of the aisle, and then there is, in terms of public relations, the question of intent on the Democratic side of the aisle.
And this is the case that Trump is going to make.
Do you really believe that Democrats are All fired, upset about Ukraine, or is this just part of a long campaign of Democrats wanting to get rid of Trump?
Is this really about a sincere effort to protect the presidency and the Constitution, or is this they hate me, they've wanted me out since literally the day I was elected, and before that, they wanted insurance policies against me according to texts from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok?
Right.
And that's exactly why the Democrats are hiding this whistleblower, because I think that the whistleblower is probably going to make it pretty apparent that Democrats were, in fact, motivated by partisan animus.
They were not motivated by some desire to protect the country.
So that is how these impeachment hearings open.
According to the Associated Press, the closed doors of the Trump impeachment investigation are swinging wide open.
The hearings are already underway.
When the gavel strikes at the start of the House hearing Wednesday morning, America and the rest of the world will have a chance to see and hear for themselves for the first time about President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine and consider whether they are, in fact, impeachable offenses.
It's a remarkable moment, even for a White House full of them, says the AP.
All on TV, committee leaders will set the stage.
Then comes the main feature.
Two seasoned diplomats, William Taylor, the graying former infantry officer now charged affair in Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary in Washington, telling the striking, if sometimes complicated, story of a president using allegedly foreign policy for personal and political gain ahead of the 2020 election.
Now, we have to examine exactly what these people are going to be testifying to.
The Democrats are laying out their bar, okay?
And their bar is no longer that Trump was simply trying to influence American elections, that this was overt bribery.
That President Trump was trying to bribe the Ukrainians with American military aid in order to foster his 2020 ambitions.
Now, they can't name the statute that Trump has violated here, because he hasn't violated any statute.
It's the dirty little secret of all of this, and Democrats basically acknowledge this.
But, at least colloquially, they're now accusing Trump of bribery.
So Adam Schiff, the House Intel Chairman, who spent the last several years pitching a pup tent outside of the CNN green room in order so that he could be there at the drop of a hat, Adam Schiff says the impeachable offenses will include bribery.
This will be the central, obviously, claim of the Democrats is that Trump was attempting to bribe the Ukrainians.
And in return, the Ukrainians were attempting to bribe Trump.
Here is Schiff.
I don't think any decision has been made on the ultimate question about whether articles impeachment should be brought.
But on the basis of what the witnesses have had to say so far, there are any number of potentially impeachable offenses, including bribery, including high crimes and misdemeanors.
The basic allegations against the president are that he sought foreign interference in a U.S.
election, that he conditioned official acts on the performance of these political favors.
OK, so Schiff is going to be pushing bribery.
Jackie Speier, another one of these Democrats, by the way, the best part of that clip is Schiff saying that he doesn't know whether impeachment charges are going to be brought.
Yeah, sure.
Okay, Jackie Speier is saying the same thing, so this is becoming a Democrat talking point.
So if the Republican talking point is going to be motive, the Democratic talking point is going to be bribery, and the media are dutifully repeating this, right?
They've decided they are no longer going to use the language quid pro quo, which is more accurate, right?
Because the question is not whether a quid pro quo happened, right?
That part is factually established, that there was some sort of quid pro quo that was attempted, right?
Trump was exchanging military aid for something, right?
He was holding back military aid in exchange for something.
The White House is claiming no.
In reality, he wasn't really because they ended up releasing the aid without getting the something.
Yeah, that's backfilling the story.
The question is why the aid was delayed in the first place.
What has been pretty well established is that Trump was holding back the aid for a reason.
That is a quid pro quo.
The question is whether it's a decent quid pro quo or an illegal quid pro quo.
So Democrats are saying bribery and the media are dutifully repeating the idea that bribery has been established when in fact that is in fact the entire question.
Here's Jackie Speier again repeating the word bribery.
You're going to hear bribery a lot.
You're going to hear extortion a lot.
These are the two terms that Democrats have decided on.
Also, because it sounds a lot more serious than quid pro quo, because many Americans don't understand what quid pro quo means.
Speaking out about the potentiality of it being bribery for some time.
The elements of bribery are there.
You have a president using his official office, using taxpayer money to demand from a foreign government that they are bribed to do an investigation to dig up dirt on the president's opponent in the upcoming election.
The corrupt intent is there as well in many ways.
Probably the most obvious is that they put the transcript or the summary of that phone call on July 25th into a special server.
Okay, there are a few holes in what she is saying here.
Hole number one is that Giuliani was already in Ukraine attempting to dig up dirt presumably on the Bidens.
Number two, when she says that the evidence of guilt is that they hid the transcript on the private server or on the sort of protected electronic server, Yeah, except that the New York Times has reported that Trump has been doing that with documents since basically the beginning, since everybody in his administration worked for Obama and then wanted to leak all that information.
So that is actually not dispositive.
OK, so in a second, we're going to discuss who exactly are the witnesses for today, because there are eight witnesses who are expected to testify within the next week in the House impeachment inquiry.
We'll tell you who those are and who are the people you're going to hear from today.
Oh, are you excited?
Are you excited?
I'm not.
We'll get to all of that in just one second.
First, I know you're doing a lot of online shopping these days because you got Thanksgiving coming up and then you got Christmas and Hanukkah coming up, depending on which religion you are.
All sorts of gift-giving holidays coming up for people in a wide variety of cultures.
And that is why you're doing a lot of online shopping.
Well, when you're online shopping, how would you like to just save money?
I don't mean like you have to do anything to save the money.
I mean like you will just save the money by virtue of being online.
How can you do this?
Well, instead of searching for all of these discount coupon codes and all this, why don't you just get Honey?
Okay, Honey is great.
It's a free browser extension that automatically finds the best promo codes whenever you shop online.
Honey has found over 10 million members, over a billion dollars in savings.
I've saved probably thousands of dollars via Honey at this point.
It works on all the shopping sites including Amazon.com.
Honey supports over 20,000 stores online, and they have over 100,000 five-star reviews on the Google Chrome store.
If you're buying gifts this holiday season, then you do need honey.
If you're not, you probably know somebody who is, so do them a solid and tell them about honey.
Again, there's no reason not to save money.
You literally put it on your computer, it just runs in the background of your computer, and then every time you check out, Then it scans the internet for the coupon codes and helps save you money.
It's free!
I mean, what?
Like, it's free money for you.
Get Honey for free at joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Again, that's joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Joinhoney.com slash Ben.
Go check them out right now.
OK, so the witnesses who are expected to be called over the course of the next week include Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who was a member of the National Security Council.
He is an advisor to the National Security Council, and he was on the Ukraine call, so he can testify as to what he heard.
Gordon Sondland, who is the U.S. ambassador to the EU, who's an actual important witness because Gordon Sondland is the only person of whom I'm aware in this entire shebang, except for Rudy Giuliani, who is coordinating directly with President Trump.
So he may have more of a window into what Trump was thinking than anybody else who's been involved in these conversations.
Basically, Sondland was talking to Trump, but Bill Taylor wasn't talking to Trump Kurt Volker wasn't talking to Trump.
Marie Yovanovitch wasn't talking to Trump.
So if you are trying to pin intent on Trump, you have to talk to somebody who talked to Trump, right?
You can't talk to somebody who talked to somebody who talked to somebody who talked to somebody who talked to Trump.
That's not going to establish motive.
There's no real way to do that.
So Sondland will be a key witness.
Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, who was involved in a lot of these negotiations, but again, was not having direct negotiations with Trump himself.
It was all filed through Mick Mulvaney or through Gordon Sondland.
There will be two State Department officials who are the first witnesses to testify publicly.
These are the guys who are testifying today.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and Acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor.
And each one of them, they have an account to tell, but their account is in fact somewhat secondhand.
So, begin with George Kent.
So the Washington Post has a pretty good rundown on this.
They say he's a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the State Department overseeing European and Eurasian affairs.
Like Bill Taylor, the acting U.S.
ambassador in Ukraine, Kent appears to have been privy to how Trump's point people were trying to get Ukraine to do his bidding and how those efforts were viewed by other administration officials.
He was regularly talking to Taylor, and he heard about Trump's phone call with Ukraine's president from the person who set it up, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
Here's the problem.
George Kent has never talked to Trump.
He was not on the original phone call.
The only thing that George Kent really has to say is how people outside of Trump's very, very core inner circle perceived Trump's actions.
But as I've said before, that doesn't establish motive.
That's like we're trying to establish motive in a murder, right?
And I watch it on the news.
I see that there's news about the murder on the news.
I have an opinion about the motive of the person who committed the murder or committed the homicide.
Was it self-defense or was it an actual murder?
We don't know.
Okay, well, the only way you're gonna know that is by talking to the person who actually committed the crime.
You can't talk to somebody who talked to somebody who talked to somebody who talked to somebody who may have talked to the person who committed the alleged crime.
And so when you're talking about George Kent, Here's what he's testified so far, because all these people, remember, have already testified behind closed doors.
He testified, according to the Washington Post, that Trump wanted Ukraine's newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to publicly and explicitly announce he'd be investigating matters involving Democrats and wanted him to use the words Biden and Clinton.
But here's the problem.
Kent did not hear this directly from Trump, but rather from other officials who talked to people who talked to Trump.
Not even other officials who talked to Trump.
Other officials who talked to people who talked to Trump.
So we are now hearing this fourth-hand, fourth-hand from George Kent.
I love how the Washington Post couches this.
In the absence of people who talked directly to Trump testifying reliably, Kent made the starkest claim yet that the White House's effort to get Ukraine to root out corruption was actually an attempt to make them dig up dirt on Trump's 2016 opponent Hillary Clinton and a potential 2020 opponent, former VP Joe Biden.
But the key part of that sentence is, in the absence of people who talked directly to Trump, so what exactly is George Kent going to say that you and I don't already know?
Ken testified about how corrupt Ukrainians recruited Trump's personal lawyer to attack U.S.
officials with a campaign of lies about then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, which eventually made its way to the President.
And I guess that that lends some color to the idea that Rudy Giuliani was feeding bad information to the President of the United States via some of his Ukrainian colleagues.
But again, there's nothing illegal about Rudy Giuliani feeding bad information to the president of the United States unless he was acting as an actual foreign lobbyist, in which case that's a criminal problem for Giuliani.
But being fed bad information and acting on that bad information by President Trump is not illegal or impeachable.
It's bad judgment.
It's not illegal or impeachable.
From Ken's private testimony, Kent said POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelensky to go to the microphone and say, investigation Biden and Clinton.
That's what Kent said he heard in a text from Taylor.
Okay, but again, Taylor was not talking to Trump, nor was he privy to the conversations between Trump and Zelensky.
So what exactly does Kent have to do with anything?
Basically, they're now bringing in MSNBC commentators, and it could be Fox News commentator, right?
Cable News commentators to talk about what they think of Trump's actions.
That is not impeachable stuff.
It's not impeachable stuff.
Now, the truth is that George Kent has said a couple of things that are actually kind of helpful to Republicans.
He testified in his close testimony that if Hunter Biden was on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma, well, Joe Biden was VP, that that was a conflict of interest.
He also testified that he raised those concerns with the Obama White House and was rebuffed and told, quote, there was no further bandwidth to deal with Hunter.
So that's testimony from George Kent that could in fact actually be damaging to the Democratic push.
So that is witness number one who's being brought forth today.
Then there's witness number two who's being brought forth today, and that is Bill Taylor.
Bill Taylor is the guy who is texting with Gordon Sondland, the EU ambassador, as well as Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine.
And the three of them appear to be sort of trying to navigate the thickets of Trump's thoughts, trying to navigate the thickets of what exactly does Trump want in order to restore this aid.
Now, again, the problem with the charged affair with Bill Taylor is that he's not the one who is actually talking to Trump.
And the reality is, there's only one chain of command that matters in this whole story.
And that chain of command is Trump's real inner circle.
The people who actually were talking with Trump about this thing.
See, I've been saying this about impeachable offenses for a while.
And criminal conduct or political scandals for a while.
The only political scandals that in the end tend to stick to politicians are the ones that are inherently personal.
Which is why sex scandals tend to be very sticky, no pun intended, for politicians.
The fact is that a lot of politicians, right, if you have a financial scandal, you can always blame it on somebody else.
If you're Barack Obama and your IRS starts targeting conservatives randomly, then you can always say, well, listen, I didn't tell anybody to do that.
They just kind of went and did that without my permission and then we policed it.
It's very difficult to pin down a scandal on a politician that is not directly connected to the politician.
Sex always is directly connected to the politician, literally, physically.
So it's very easy to get a politician caught in a sex scandal because who are they going to blame it on?
Their aide?
Right?
There's no way to blame it on a chief of staff or something.
But when it comes to a crime, an alleged crime like this, you need to establish, as John Kennedy said, the requisite intent.
Right?
You have to establish motive on the part of the President of the United States.
The only people who can do that are the people talking directly to the President.
So all of this testimony, From people who apparently have never talked to President Trump.
Like, Bill Taylor has never had a conversation with President Trump so far as I'm aware.
That doesn't make a difference.
Right?
His reasoning is perfectly plausible.
I'm not saying that Bill Taylor's testimony isn't a plausible take on events.
I'm just saying it is not a dispositive take on events.
It is not evidence.
Right?
It is his perception of the situation.
It is not evidence that what he believes happened actually happened.
So the Washington Post also sums up who Bill Taylor is.
He's the acting U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine, also known as the Charged Affair.
Taylor is also a career diplomat and military veteran who has served in Republican and Democratic administrations, including as ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009.
He was asked by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to take over after Trump had Marie Yovanovitch removed from the ambassadorship.
He said it was a tough decision to return to Kiev, but ultimately he accepted Pompeo's request.
He was not in the room, as the Washington Post acknowledges, where the alleged quid pro quo orders were issued.
But he was talking to many people who were in the key rooms, both in Washington and in Kiev.
So again, we have second-hand or third-hand testimony.
In his closed testimony, he was asked specifically if he'd ever spoken to President Trump.
He said, I have not.
He was not present on the July 25th phone call with Ukraine.
He said, I received no readout of the call from the White House.
And his allegations, what were they based off of?
Right, here's the question answer with Taylor from his closed testimony question.
It's your inference that Mr. Giuliani's goal would be the president's goal?
Taylor, yes.
And your source is the New York Times?
Taylor, yes.
So do you have any other source that the president's goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?
Taylor, I have not talked to the president.
I have no information from what the president was thinking.
So again, this is Democrats trotting out people who have perceptions.
And their perceptions are as valid as your perceptions.
Maybe slightly more valid in the sense that they actually know about Ukraine, know about Ukrainian politics, know some of the players.
But, if the idea here is that they can offer the damning testimony that gets Trump?
Nope.
Nope.
The Washington Post, though, is talking him up.
They say he testified that he learned via conversations with White House aides and national security officials and Trump's point people in Ukraine.
There was a concerted effort to force Ukraine into a quid pro quo.
If it wanted military aid and an Oval Office meeting, Ukraine's president needed to publicly agree to investigate Democrats.
What's critical about Taylor's testimony is that he didn't attribute this to one conversation with one person.
He talked to high level officials at the National Security Council, officials in Ukraine's presidential office, and two of the three amigos designated by Trump to handle Ukraine policy outside the normal diplomatic channels.
Taylor said he was in the regular channel.
He said he was also in the irregular channel.
Now, there are a bunch of people who have similar perceptions of all of this.
Taylor's testimony was corroborated by a bunch of other people, including National Security Council official Tim Morrison.
Gordon Sondland originally testified he didn't remember offering Ukraine a quid pro quo to unfreeze its military aid, but then Sondland went back and revised all of that.
This is why the testimony that's really going to matter here is Sondland's testimony.
Even in his own testimony, by the way, Taylor explicitly said that Trump didn't direct all of this, that he didn't know if Trump directed all of this.
So Lee Zeldin asked him, where was this condition coming from if you're not sure if it was coming from the president?
And Taylor said, I think it was coming from Mr. Giuliani.
And Zeldin said, but not from the president?
Taylor said, I don't know.
So again, this is going to come down to, do they subpoena Giuliani?
Does Giuliani have to testify?
And what exactly does Giuliani have to say?
Okay, in just one second, we're going to get to the outstanding questions here.
Also, we're going to introduce you to some of the players who you're going to be hearing about in the very near future, because they are not actual members of Congress.
They're just advising the Democrats and advising the Republicans.
We'll give you their background, and it gives you a window into the strategy being pursued by both Democrats and Republicans.
We'll get to all of that in just one second.
Let me tell you, it is imperative to own home insurance.
In fact, in many states, you actually have to, by law, own a home insurance.
The insurance experts at PolicyGenius don't actually think that getting the best home insurance should be complicated, and that's why they've reimagined the entire process.
Start by answering a few quick questions so the team can get to know you and your property.
Then, PolicyGenius will help you to compare your policy against more than 10 other insurance companies to make sure that you're actually getting the best home insurance coverage at the best possible price.
If there is a better rate out there, PolicyGenius will do all the heavy lifting and get you switched over.
And by the way, if you're already paying your best rate, the PolicyGenius team will reshop your policy for you every single year to make sure that you actually are continuing to get the best updated rate.
You can bundle your home into auto insurance as well.
PolicyGenius has saved their customers an average of $690 per year on home and auto insurance.
So, I mean, they are offering sweet deals.
Competition makes the world a better place.
Whether you need home insurance for a new place or you just want to reshop your current policy, head on over to PolicyGenius.com today.
You can get started on your smartphone right now.
PolicyGenius, the easy way to compare and buy home insurance.
Again, that's PolicyGenius, the easy way to compare and buy home insurance.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so there are a bunch of outstanding questions that we still need answered in this impeachment inquiry.
Amber Phillips over at the Washington Post actually has a fairly good roundup of the questions that still need answering.
And the fact is, Democrats are not going to get the answers from the witnesses that they are proposing to interview right now.
Question number one, who is directing all of this?
Did Trump himself order aid withheld to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents?
Or were some people in his administration acting of their own volition or their interpretation of what he wanted?
And by the way, that last phrase is the key.
Their interpretation of what he wanted.
What we have seen with President Trump over and over and over again is that people who work for him are constantly trying to forecast what he wants.
The most obvious example is there was talk back when Trump was visiting South Korea that people had ordered the cover-up of the USS John McCain, like the logo of the USS John McCain.
And then it turned out Trump hadn't ordered any of that.
It was just some intrepid, forward-thinking member of his administration trying to please him preemptively.
Is it possible that people around him were saying things like, yeah, you know, I can see that Trump is really bothered by all of this, but the thing he's really bothered by is Joe Biden.
And so we really need the Joe Biden statement.
The statement will probably please Trump.
Did Trump demand the statement or was that something concocted by other members of his team in order to sort of please Trump?
And that makes a difference because, again, to go back to the Obama IRS example, let's say you wanted to impeach Barack Obama back in 2015.
Over the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, they were targeting conservative 501c3s and preventing them from receiving their 501c3 status on the basis of ideology, a violation of IRS regulation and the First Amendment.
And he said, OK, well, Obama clearly wanted that to happen.
He was going out and publicly calling for it to happen, in fact.
He and fellow Democrats were suggesting that the IRS do just that.
And then the IRS did that.
Well, Obama would say, well, yeah, but I didn't order anybody to do that.
I'm the president of the United States.
If I want to order somebody to do that, theoretically, I could, but I didn't.
That was just people taking the law into their own hands and trying to forecast what I wanted.
Well, Trump could easily say the same thing here.
In September, as all this was getting started, the Washington Post reported that Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to hold off on aid just before Trump called Ukraine's new president and asked for political investigations.
But weeks of interviews with current and former officials have yet to connect the dots that Trump explicitly ordered the aid withheld to force Ukraine to do something for him.
Right?
So that is obviously the big one.
If you can't link it directly to Trump, if it was just people around Trump who were getting out over their skis because they were trying to please Trump preemptively, well, that's not going to get Trump.
Then question number two.
According to the Washington Post, what was Mick Mulvaney's role?
They say if anyone knows why the aid was paused, it's likely Mulvaney.
He publicly said Trump held up the money to try and force Ukraine to investigate a conspiracy theory about their involvement in the 2016 election.
He said, did Trump also mention to me the past corruption related to the DNC server?
Absolutely.
No question about that.
But that's it.
And that's why we held up the money.
He tried to walk that back later by saying there was no quid pro quo.
But at the very least, he said he knows the aid was held up.
And why?
Well, yeah, that's true.
But again, that's not illegitimate, right?
If Trump said, I want to hold up the aid until you, Ukraine, investigate corruption surrounding 2016, I fail to understand how that is any different in any way from Senator Bob Menendez and two other Democratic senators in 2018.
Sending a letter to Ukraine saying if you don't help with the Mueller investigation to get to the bottom of Russian interference in the 2016 election, then we're going to hold up the aid.
There is, in fact, an ongoing investigation into Ukrainian and Russian interference in the American election.
The results of the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation from the IG are supposed to come out very, very soon, like sometime this month.
Then there is the question of Rudy Giuliani, and this is the big one to me.
Because Rudy is the guy who Trump dispatched to Ukraine, and Rudy has the biggest mouth.
The man has no discipline whatsoever.
So, was Rudy deployed to Ukraine to go dig up dirt explicitly on the Bidens, or was this about assuaging Trump's feelings about 2016?
Was he investigating corruption in Ukraine that had to do with 2016, or was he looking forward to sinking Joe Biden in 2020 by digging up dirt on Joe Biden?
And the only person who's going to be able to testify to that is Rudy Giuliani.
And Giuliani, so far, has said publicly that his whole thing is that he wants to defend Trump against allegations.
Well, defending Trump against allegations is, in fact, tied up in something that does have national security implications.
Meaning, if the allegations are that Trump was involved in skewing the election of 2016, and so Giuliani is out there trying to dig up other information about people interfering in the 2016 election, there's nothing illegitimate about that.
We just did a two-and-a-half-year investigation about foreign interference in American elections.
If, however, it was about Giuliani digging up dirt on Biden in order to benefit Trump for 2020, and then Trump militarizing that with Ukrainian foreign aid, then you got a problem on your hands.
Okay, we're gonna get to more of this, more of the analysis of Impeachmentgate.
The day has arrived.
We'll get to all of that in just one second.
First, you need to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
Why?
Well, you're really missing out if you're not.
Head on over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
For as little as $10 a month, you get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts, our full show library, select bonus content, and our exclusive Daily Wire app, which is a pretty awesome feature.
If you haven't checked it out yet, our app, it is a beautiful, beautiful app.
The technology is sparkling.
If you choose the new all-access plan, you'll get all of that plus the legendary Leftist Tears Tumblr and our brand new Ask Me Anything style discussion feature that allows you to engage our hosts, writers, and special guests on a weekly basis, which is a lot of fun.
So stop depriving yourself.
Come join the fun over at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Go check it out right now.
Go check it out.
Again, we don't know Giuliani's role, we don't know Mulvaney's role, we don't know whether Trump directly ordered any of this.
The Washington Post suggests, if Giuliani was acting of his own volition, his motives are unclear.
We know that two of his business associates who were recently indicted on campaign finance charges had ties to Ukraine, and State Department officials have testified they may have felt threatened by anti-corruption efforts U.S.
diplomats were leading against some Ukrainian officials.
Okay, well, let's say, in the most nefarious circumstance, let's say that there's an accusation made that these Ukrainian officials were trying to make time with the Trump administration by using Giuliani as a funnel for information.
And they were funneling damaging information about Biden, about Ukraine, about corruption via Giuliani to Trump.
Does that implicate Trump or go to Trump's motive?
Not really.
It mostly raises questions about Giuliani.
And fourth question is, did Ukraine know why its military aid in an Oval Office meeting were being withheld?
Well, in order for them to know that, presumably they would have had to coordinate directly with Trump.
So, even answering this question doesn't answer the fundamental question, which was, what was Trump's motive?
What was Trump's intent?
Let's say that Gordon Sondland was misinterpreting Trump, and then he went over to Ukraine and said, we want Biden.
Well, without showing that Sondland was told by Trump to go get Biden, maybe that's Sondland who is acting on his own, not because he hates Biden, but because he is trying to forecast the feelings of the President of the United States.
The Washington Post suggests Sunlin testified he told the Ukrainians they were likely to get their aid released when they announced an investigation into Democrats.
But again, likely to get their aid released means that he is speculating.
The acting U.S.
ambassador in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was in close contact with the Ukrainians.
He testified they knew what was being asked of them and they didn't want to do it.
He said, I think it was becoming clear to the Ukrainians that to get this meeting they wanted, they'd have to commit to pursuing these investigations.
Whether Ukraine knew it was being forced into something would go a long way to confirming a quid pro quo, but Democrats are actually backing off of this proposition because they don't like the idea they're going to have to actually prove the elements of bribery.
Instead, they think that the president's attempt to simply hold back the taxpayer aid for unspecified reasons could theoretically be enough.
Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, he said, extortion doesn't require a you give me this and I'll give you that kind of quid pro quo.
It simply requires using your muscle to get something that you don't have a right to.
Okay, but you haven't established what exactly he doesn't have a right to yet, or that he was applying muscle in order to get that thing.
If I tell you that I'm not going to pay you until you give me that hamburger, that's called a free market transaction.
If I tell you I'm not going to pay you until you off my wife, that is a very different sort of transaction.
So we actually have to determine what kind of transaction this is.
And the fifth question is really the big one, which is why did Trump withhold the aid in the first place?
Like, what was the point?
What was Trump's issue with Ukraine?
And again, I think that the answer here is kind of obvious, right?
I don't think that Trump has been hiding the ball.
Trump thinks that Ukraine is hiding the CrowdStrike server, right?
He thinks they're hiding Hillary's server.
I don't know why.
I don't know why.
He read too much InfoWars.
He put together some weird conspiracy theory.
And now he has been out there proclaiming that somewhere buried in the forests of Kiev is some Hillary Clinton surfer.
They took it from her bathroom.
They flew it over to Kiev.
They took it out into the forest and they buried it under a Dasha or something.
It's like it's... I don't get it.
Okay, but that was Trump's belief.
He also believes, correctly, that the Ukrainians were working with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.
That part is actually true, right?
It was reported by Politico.
Also, he believes that something corrupt is going on with Burisma and Biden.
And he believes that that impacted the 2016 election because obviously if the Ukrainians were working hand in glove with the Obama administration to get him and covering up for the Bidens, that's a big problem.
Right?
So he believes all of those things.
Are any of those beliefs wrong?
Sure.
I think the CrowdStrike thing is completely unsubstantiated.
I think the Hunter Biden, Joe Biden thing so far does not have proper evidence to actually substantiate the allegation.
But is it illegal or impeachable for the president to want things that he wants investigated and investigated?
Not necessarily.
I mean, not really.
Not unless what you're talking about is the president really attempting to leverage American foreign aid on behalf of his electoral results.
Purely.
Purely.
Not as a side effect of foreign policy.
Purely.
Because he wanted Biden out.
And that part, honestly, I don't actually see that in Trump's activity.
People don't believe me when I say this, obviously.
And you shouldn't, right?
Because the fact is, I am a conservative.
I'm a Republican.
But the fact is, I don't actually see objectively that Trump has ever had the level of intent necessary to do anything.
I don't think that he's ever had the level of intent to eat a hamburger.
I think that it's half accident when he eats a hamburger.
I guess the idea here is that Trump, like a laser beam, focused in on Joe Biden.
Then he was like, I'm going to withhold military aid to get Joe Biden because Joe Biden is just so dangerous.
And I have been following this Burisma thing like a hawk.
Or, alternatively, he has thoughts, and he vomits the thoughts whenever he is asked about a particular topic.
Which one sounds more like Trump to you?
Thought-vomit Trump?
Or, like a laser beam, 40 chest, planning out every move in the belly's Admiral Thrawn from the post-Star Wars trilogy?
Yeah, I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Okay, so now we need to introduce you to a couple of the players who are going to become pretty important in this whole impeachment inquiry.
The Democrats have an impeachment lawyer.
The Republicans have an impeachment lawyer.
The Democrats impeachment lawyer is a person named Daniel Goldman.
He spent a decade as an assistant U.S.
attorney in Manhattan.
He left that job in 2016 to become a TV legal analyst, but now he is going to be questioning witnesses called to testify about Trump's efforts to persuade Ukraine to investigate a political rival.
Again, alleged efforts to persuade Ukraine to investigate a political rival would be more honest, Washington Post.
The Washington Post reports that Goldman is slotted to question each witness for 45 minutes, followed by five-minute question sessions for each lawmaker.
Stephen Castor, the general counsel for the House Oversight Committee, will be the Republican's point man.
Apparently, Goldman has been doing high-profile cases for quite a long time, and he has focused specifically on organized crime.
In 2017, when then-assistant U.S.
attorney Brooke Cuccinella was preparing for the trial of Billy Walters, a professional gambler who made millions on insider stock trades, she knew it would make big headlines because the case involved Phil Mickelson.
Cuccinella said she requested Goldman to be on the trial team because he has a bit of swagger as a trial lawyer and has a confidence that serves him well in a courtroom.
He's incredibly effective.
Walters, one of the most successful sports gamblers in Las Vegas history, rolled the dice against Cuccinella and Goldman and lost.
Goldman has a long history of high-profile cases.
According to Preet Bharara, the former U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was Goldman's boss for years.
You can see my interview with Preet Bharara on our Sunday special.
We did it about a month ago, before the impeachment inquiry opened.
Bharara said he was one of the go-to trial guys.
There's no case that's too complex for him.
He's a great prosecutor.
He's got powerful presence.
To the extent the public will be watching him and looking for a credible questioner, I think they'll be very impressed with Dan Goldman.
Papparara said that the impeachment hearing will be challenging, even for a skilled trial lawyer, because of the proceeding's unusual nature.
He said impeachment is fully 100% a legal event, in that it's a constitutional enterprise right from the start.
At the same time, the nature of the constitutional proceeding is a dynamic that includes two political branches, so it's political in that sense, but not political in the pejorative sense.
That's how the founders wanted this to happen.
He says that he thinks that Goldman will handle the spotlight well.
Goldman, by the way, had prosecuted a number of the Genovese mobsters, including a hitman named Fyotis Fredi Gias.
He also prosecuted a sprawling auto insurance fraud case involving Russian organized crime figures.
So his job is going to be to connect the dots on behalf of the Democrats.
This is the idea here.
Meanwhile, on the Republican side of the aisle, there's a man named Stephen Castor, who's the GOP staff attorney.
The Washington Post reports that Castor will help lead the effort as General Counsel for the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
Castor has spent his career avoiding media spotlight.
He's risen through the ranks over nearly 15 years and seven consecutive chairmanships to become the Oversight Panel's top GOP lawyer.
A half-dozen former colleagues and bosses praised him as a straight-shooting attorney whose deliberate low-key style will make him an asset to Republicans amid intense public scrutiny of the impeachment hearings.
Daryl Issa said that Caster's job is to focus on making complex things simple.
Daryl Issa said that Caster's job is to focus on making complex things simple.
Issa said he wouldn't want to play poker because he doesn't give up what he's thinking particularly easily.
Caster was originally hired by the Oversight Committee Chairman Tom Davis in 2016.
He had spent four years as a commercial litigator at the Philadelphia and Washington offices of the law firm Blank Rome.
One of his first investigations involved the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina.
As part of that probe, the GOP-led committee held nine hearings, obtained more than half a million pages of documents, and released a 569-page final report critical of the Bush White House.
Also, he helped handle the probes of Benghazi and the Fast and Furious scandal.
So a lot of, even Democrats, suggest that this guy is an institutionalist who is a solid lawyer.
So those will be two of the faces that you see cropping up throughout this entire process.
Meanwhile, President Trump continues to fulminate.
The best thing that Trump can do here is to sit still.
I mean, again, this has always been true.
It was true during the Mueller report.
It is true now.
The best thing that Trump can do is to sit still.
Just sit down.
Stop saying things.
Feel free to say.
This is a partisan political witch hunt.
If you're Trump's team, you're telling him, yeah, keep saying that, because that obviously, there's truth to it.
I just keep saying that over and over and over.
But other than that, like, stop.
Just stop doing things.
Apparently, however, inside the White House, there are constant conversations about firing people, which is obviously going to be a bad move.
Apparently, Trump immediately wanted to fire Mick Mulvaney after Mulvaney went out there and said there was a quid pro quo.
According to the Washington Post, senior advisors have cautioned Trump that removing Mulvaney at such a sensitive time could be perilous, both because Mulvaney played an integral role in the decision to freeze the aid and because of the disruption that would be caused by replacing one of Trump's most senior aides.
One Trump advisor says, I don't think you'll see him going anywhere until after December.
But the president was very unhappy with that press conference.
That was a very bad day for the president.
Well, the problem is you oust Mulvaney.
And now what exactly is Mulvaney's interest in not going and testifying about what Trump ordered him to do, particularly if he's the one who ends up coming into the crosshairs here?
Trump's advisors are saying, well, you ousted Bolton and now Bolton is flirting with testifying, so why would it be smart to get rid of Mulvaney?
Plus, it would look to the public, the Democrats would make the case that the reason you fired Mulvaney is not because he was fibbing or because he was exaggerating, but because he was telling the truth.
That he said something you didn't like, so you fired him.
And by the way, they're going to use the exact same logic with regard to this other rumor, which is that Trump was apparently considering firing the intelligence community inspector general who reported the whistleblower complaint to Congress.
According to the New York Times, Mr. Trump's private complaints about a man named Michael Atkinson, the Intel Community Inspector General, who deemed the complaint against him to be credible.
According to the New York Times, Trump's private complaints about Mr. Atkinson have come as he has publicly questioned his integrity and accused him of working with the Democrats to sabotage his presidency.
It's unclear about how far Trump's discussions about removing Atkinson have progressed.
Two people familiar with what took place said they thought Trump was just venting and insisted Mr. Atkinson's dismissal was never under serious consideration.
That is probably true.
But, again, sit still.
Sit still.
Stop this.
It is not a smart thing to do.
Now, who are the witnesses who are going to matter?
Okay, well, the people who spoke directly to Trump.
So, Gordon Sondland, the EU ambassador, as I've said, he's going to matter.
The testimony of Rudy Giuliani, when he is forced by a court to testify, which is quite likely, his testimony will matter.
John Bolton, if he is told to testify, that will matter because he can go to state of mind for President Trump.
Right?
Those are all the ones that are going to matter at this time.
Now, meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to beat Trump to the punch a little bit here because the Justice Department Inspector General is now inviting witnesses to review his draft of his Russia report.
And Democrats are deeply afraid that the origins of the Trump Russia report are simply going to lend credibility to Trump's claims that they have been trying to target him via the intelligence community.
Since before he was President of the United States, according to the Washington Post, the Justice Department's Inspector General has begun scheduling witnesses to review draft sections of his report on the FBI's investigation of President Trump's 2016 campaign.
The clearest indication yet that the long-awaited document will soon be released publicly, people familiar with the matter said, and that will be a bombshell dropped right in the middle of the impeachment hearings.
If it turns out that there was malfeasance by the Obama administration, in coordination perhaps with Ukrainian sources, as Politico reported, That is going to throw a bombshell into the middle of this because then it looks like Trump is really upset about something that actually happened.
Ukrainian coordination with members of the Hillary campaign and the Obama administration.
That Trump is really upset about the coordination of Democrats to suggest that he did things that he did not do.
According to the Washington Post, several witnesses have been scheduled or in talks to review sections of the report dealing with their testimony in the next two weeks.
That could mean public release is imminent, though the witnesses will be allowed to submit feedback, which could theoretically spark more investigative work and slow down the process.
But again, if this thing is released in the near future, wow, it will definitely throw a wrench into the entire impeachment hearing.
And if it has anything in it, right?
The Washington Post reported earlier this month the DOJ was trying to release the report quickly.
One person involved said November 20th was being eyed as a target date.
Lest you forget, today is November 13th, so one week from today, in the middle of the hearings, the DOJ report on Trump-Russia investigation origins could break, which would be just wild.
Another person indicated the report was more likely to be released after Thanksgiving.
But we are starting to get close, in other words.
As the Washington Post suggests correctly, conservatives hope the report will give them ammunition to argue the FBI was corrupt in its pursuit of Trump and his alleged ties to Russia, and Republican lawmakers have been pressing the DOJ to make the report public next week.
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa tweeted, quote, I will be very disappointed and left to wonder what the game is.
Is someone at the FBI or DOJ tying the IG's hands?
So, again, this is the next two weeks are going to be a mess.
Welcome to the holiday season, gang.
How exciting.
And meanwhile, the 2020 Democrats are still in turmoil.
Their field is just a mess.
They still have not decided whether, in fact, they want a revolution at the top of the Democratic ticket or whether they simply want a return to normalcy.
Joe Biden would be the return to normalcy candidate, and then you have Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders campaigning for the revolutionary title.
Certain candidates are basically done.
So Kamala Harris is basically finished, right?
She's down at 1% in the polls in New Hampshire.
She's toast.
She can't raise any money.
She's trying to make a comeback in South Carolina and having no success.
And so, and why?
Why?
Well, in one clip, I would go with probably it's because of her crazy laugh.
I know, I know.
That's not a great reason to get rid of a candidate, but when the crazy laugh attaches to lack of credibility and ridiculous policy proposals, you're pretty much toast.
Here's Kamala Harris laughing eerily over the last couple of days.
Isn't anybody in charge?
And no one is laughing with her.
No one is laughing with her.
By the way, she suggests that you text FEARLESS to 70785.
But after hearing that laugh, are you fearless?
Or are you fearful that she will burst out of your closet at 2am and attack your children?
That laugh, man, that is a joker laugh.
A full-on joker laugh.
Oh, my God.
I can't imagine why she's seen no success.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden is still stumbling around and getting angry at people who ask him basic questions.
So somebody had the temerity to ask him about his support for the 1994 crime bill.
And Joe Biden got very frustrated and started asking them personal questions.
Let me answer the question, okay?
Good, thank you.
Very nice.
Number one.
Every single solitary member and major black mayor and mayor in the country said we had to respond to the violent crime rise.
Look at the facts.
That's not true.
That is absolutely true.
Check.
And the majority of the black caucus overwhelmingly supported it.
The number of violent crime has risen after the war drops.
No, violent crime went down, kiddo.
Where do you go to school, man?
Okay.
So, by the way, Joe Biden is saying things that are correct, but he is a bit prickly there.
Okay.
The Democratic field is weak, which is why Hillary Clinton may be thinking about jumping back in.
Really, like she was making noises about, it's never too late for Hillary Clinton.
Never too late.
Ugh.
Just what America needs.
Another Trump-Hillary election cycle after an impeachment hearing.
Just fantastic.
Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then a quick thing that I hate, and we'll be out of here.
So, things that I like.
I'm in the middle of a book by Yannick Wasserman, who's an economist.
It's called The Marginal Revolutionaries, and it is an excellent book.
It is all about the Austrian school of economics.
I tend to think of myself as a devotee of the Austrian school of economics, but it talks about the different sort of views within the Austrian school, right?
Hayek did not agree with von Mises, who did not agree with Schumpeter, These were all different thinkers and it's a fascinating sort of discussion of where the Austrian school came from, what its thought processes were, why in some cases Austrian economics has been exaggerated in terms of libertarianism.
A lot of these economists were in favor of, for example, progressive income tax.
It really does lend a lot of color to some of the basic thought that you would read if you just read The Road to Serfdom.
It gives you a broader background.
The economists really did shape America in tremendous ways, because the battle between the Austrian School of Economics and then its sort of branching successor, the Chicago School of Economics, on the one side, and then the Keynesians on the others, it's really shaped how Americans think about economics.
And now, of course, you have the actual Marxists who are coming back into play, which is absurd.
Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
So, if you think that Democratic cities are good evidence that Democrats should govern, I have some news for you.
San Francisco's new DA says that public urination will not be prosecuted, so that's exciting stuff.
Chase Abudin, the urine and feces-plagued city's incoming district attorney, according to the Daily Caller, pledged during the campaign not to prosecute public urination and other quality-of-life crimes if he was elected.
He declared victory on Saturday night after results showed him winning a plurality of votes in the DA race.
He said we will not prosecute cases involving quality of life crimes, crimes such as public camping, offering or soliciting sex, public urination, blocking a sidewalk, etc.
should not and will not be prosecuted.
He said many of these crimes are still being prosecuted.
We have a long way to go to decriminalize poverty and homelessness.
You're not criminalizing poverty.
You are criminalizing people sleeping on the streets, spreading disease, living in their own filth, pooping on the sidewalks, pissing on the sidewalks, blocking children from going where they need to go, camping in public parks.
Like, is this the America you want?
Because the radicals of the Democratic Party, this is the America they want.
And by the way, things are not going fantastically well in Democrat-governed cities where they have taken up this sort of policy.
The New York Post reported that a homeless man dumped a bucket of hot diarrhea on an LA woman near the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Heidi Van Tassel said she was about to drive home from a Thai restaurant near the famed tourist area in April when her alleged assailant, Jerry Blessings, dragged her out of the vehicle.
He pulled her over into the middle of the street where he dumped a bucket of feces over her head, she said.
It was diarrhea, hot liquid.
I was soaked and it was coming off my eyelashes and into my eyes.
Presumably this all would have been okay if the guy hadn't just dumped it.
If he just sort of like pushed the bucket at her and it had sort of spilled, then I guess that's not prosecutable in the city of Los Angeles.
She was tested for infectious diseases and thank God she came up clean.
But she said that apparently the paramedics said that it looked like the man had been saving all of this up for about a month.
I mean, you never want to spend.
You definitely want to save.
The investment potential is high for hot feces.
So, America's liberal governed cities just doing fantastically, fantastically well.
Okay, we'll be back here a little bit later today for two additional hours of content.
I'm also speaking tonight at Boston University.
It should be fascinating.
I think it will be interesting.
I think you'll want to tune in.
You can check that out at yaf.org slash live.
You can also check it out at dailywire.com and on our Facebook page and on our Twitter and all the rest of those places.
Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow for all of the impeachment updates.
The day has arrived and the process has begun.
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 Sievent.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
It was the best of times.
It was the worst of times.
It was the age of Make America Great Again.
It was the age of America Was Never Really That Great.
It was the election season of hope.
It was the election season of despair.
The Atlantic Monthly and many others think America is heading for a civil war.
It's actually dedicating an entire issue to how that civil war might be avoided.
We will examine how to bring our country back from the brink.
▲
Export Selection