All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
55:08
Pelosi Goes Full Thelma And Louise | Ep. 910
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announces Democrats will move forward with impeachment.
Democrats call lawyers to jabber how much about they hate Trump.
And the Democrats have some explaining to do on surveillance of political opponents.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
Your data is your business protected at expressvpn.com.
Okay, so the big news of the day is that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has now formally announced that the Democrats will move forward with impeachment.
Now, this was a foregone conclusion.
Obviously.
The minute that she announced there would be an impeachment inquiry, we knew where that was going.
Because, after all, why would the Democrats announce an impeachment inquiry and then A month later, be like, yeah, you know, we inquired and it turns out he was fine.
Turns out it was great.
The only reason that you overtly announce an impeachment inquiry as opposed to just pursuing that inquiry sort of quietly is because you know where this is going.
The brick was already on the accelerator and Nancy Pelosi just confirmed that today.
Yesterday, she had gone to her Democratic House caucus.
And she had asked them, quote, are you ready?
And apparently the answer was a resounding yes.
According to the Associated Press today, Nancy Pelosi came out and she made an announcement.
She said, I am asking my Democratic colleagues to bring forward articles of impeachment.
Now, hilariously enough, I should note that the Democrats don't even know what these articles of impeachment are going to encompass.
According to The Hill, Democrats are debating how broadly to make their impeachment case against President Trump, with some lawmakers seeking to expand the list of charges, even as the House Judiciary Committee members signal a relatively narrow approach.
House Democrats at the first Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing on Wednesday gave the clearest sign yet of the scope of their likely articles by unveiling posters featuring three possible charges, abuse of power and bribery, obstruction of Congress, and obstruction of justice.
I'm free.
Keep it simple, Scope, said Eric Swalwell, directly before recommending the nuclear annihilation of all gun owners in the United States.
The charts provided a clear signal of intent by the Judiciary Committee, as did Counsel Norm Eisen's pointed questions to a panel of constitutional experts about whether Trump had committed the impeachable offenses.
Three witnesses invited by Democrats all answered affirmatively.
We'll get to their testimony in just a little while.
Suffice it to say that the 300-page report brought forward by Adam Schiff yesterday Adam Schiff, there are serious questions about Adam Schiff's behavior in this whole debacle.
Okay, that report does not substantiate the charges to the extent necessary to support an impeachment effort.
Democrats overreached here.
Politically, strategically, legally.
What they should have done, is they should have moved forward on censure.
They should have said, President Trump did something bad and he did something wrong here, and now we are moving forward with a censure motion.
And force Republicans between a rock and a hard place.
In the sense that if they don't vote for censure, then they look like hypocrites because Trump was not in fact clean as the driven snow on this whole thing.
And second, if they did endorse the censure, then Trump gets very angry and yells about them on Twitter and they get primaried.
That would have been the smart Democrat political move.
Instead, they decided to go whole hog impeachment inquiry.
We're going to get rid of this guy.
Now, listen, it's going nowhere in the Senate.
We all know it's going nowhere in the Senate.
The Democrats know it's going nowhere in the Senate.
The reason they are rushing this thing forward The reason that they are pushing as hard as they can to do this as quickly as possible is because they know they do not have the goods.
Adam Schiff basically admitted as much yesterday.
He said, listen, we have to rush this because every day Trump's in office is another danger to the Republic.
Yeah, sure.
I mean, you've literally been saying he's a danger to the Republic since the day he was elected.
You've said it's a danger to the Republic when he tweets things you don't like.
He made a big fuss when he tweeted a picture of himself as Rocky Balboa like a week ago.
Spare me.
But Democrats have been pushing this idea he's a threat to the Republic since the very beginning.
And so we have to rush this.
We have to rush it.
We can't even wait for all the facts.
Adam Schiff actually said that yesterday.
He said, we can't wait for all the facts.
We don't have to wait for all the facts.
Remember, Democrats in the fact portion of the inquiry in the Intelligence Committee with Adam Schiff leading, they called precisely one witness who had ever had a direct conversation with Donald Trump.
One, Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the EU.
And Gordon Sondland did not give them what they were looking for.
He did not give them a window into Trump's intent with regard to his activities in Ukraine.
And these are all intent crimes.
Abuse of power and bribery, that's intent.
And suggesting that obstruction of justice has taken place is an absurdity on its face.
There is no obstruction of Congress.
There is no obstruction of justice.
The reason there is no obstruction of Congress or obstruction of justice is because every subpoena issued by the Democrats Has been challenged in court.
Normally, the way a subpoena works is that you are subpoenaed, and then if you don't want to answer the subpoena, you challenge it in court, you wait for the judge to rule on it, and then you have to listen to the judge.
Not a single one of these subpoenas has been ruled on by a judge, and Democrats are claiming obstruction of justice anyway.
Congress does not have the untrammeled power to simply issue a subpoena, and then everyone has to obey, or Congress impeaches them.
That's not how any of this works.
Okay, so the Democrats don't have the goods, but Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had already pre-committed to impeachment, literally the day that she opened an impeachment inquiry.
So today, Nancy Pelosi announced, we're moving forward with these impeachment charges.
Now, that's hilarious also, because as you'll recall, just yesterday, Adam Schiff was saying, no, we're still making up our minds.
We're still making up our minds.
It's all kabuki theater from the moment she said impeachment inquiry.
Impeachment was inevitable.
I've been saying that since that day.
Nancy Pelosi comes forward and she says that she is going to call on her colleagues to impeach the president of the United States.
It's very dramatic.
She says, we will impeach the president of the United States should the president's actions have seriously violated the constitution.
He leaves us no choice but to act.
She spoke for about six minutes.
She took no questions.
But she did, in fact, come back to the podium and start yelling at the press.
There's one point where she started yelling at the press.
And we'll get to that in just one second.
First, let's talk about the difficulties of running a business.
It is very difficult to run a business.
It's particularly difficult to run a business when you are racking up heavy legal costs.
When you rack up these massive legal costs, it can really hurt your bottom line.
This is one of the reasons you should be using LegalZoom.
I've been using LegalZoom for legal resources since way before they were a sponsor of the program.
Like, going back 10 years, I was using LegalZoom for things like wills and trusts.
Over the past 18 years, LegalZoom has helped more than 2 million business owners get started.
But every entrepreneur knows that getting started is just the beginning of your journey.
What happens along the way determines your success.
That's what LegalZoom's network of independent attorneys and tax professionals can help with.
Knowing where to turn for advice on trademarks, tax law changes, review and contracts puts you at an advantage.
Plus, you'll save money by avoiding hourly fees because LegalZoom isn't, in fact, a law firm.
Don't get distracted by legal hurdles and business questions as the year winds down.
Go to LegalZoom.com today.
Find out all the different ways they can help your business.
And don't forget to enter the promo code BEN in the box at checkout.
That's LegalZoom.com, promo code Ben.
LegalZoom, where life meets legal.
Go check them out right now.
Save yourself money.
Don't put your business behind the eight ball when it comes to legal costs.
Go check them out at LegalZoom.com, promo code Ben.
Again, that's LegalZoom.com, promo code Ben.
So remember, according to the Democrats, this entire shebang is based on a desperate need, a desperate need to impeach Trump on constitutional lines, on constitutional bases.
It is not about personal animus for the President of the United States.
It's not about that at all.
That's what Pelosi said.
She said, this is just about The crucial nature of impeaching the president for high crimes and misdemeanors.
This prompted President Trump for his part to go on Twitter.
And tell the Democrats to get this done fast because he's coming after him.
He said, The do-nothing radical left Democrats have just announced that they are going to seek to impeach me over nothing.
They already gave up on the ridiculous Mueller stuff, so now they hang their hats on two totally appropriate, perfect, phone calls with the Ukrainian president.
This will mean that the beyond important and seldom used act of impeachment will be used routinely to attack future presidents.
That is not what our founders had in mind.
The good thing is that the Republicans have never been more united.
We will win.
Now, he is correct that he's not going to be removed from office.
Not on the basis of the slim read the Democrats have proposed here.
They just don't have the goods.
When he says it's a perfect phone call, I've been saying all along it was not a perfect phone call.
It was obvious it was not a perfect phone call, but the Democrats overreached and that overreach is going to allow Trump to survive all of this and survive fairly easily.
Okay, so Nancy Pelosi, again, here's what it sounded like when she announced the impeachment effort.
Let's go back to that clip.
Here is her original announcement of the impeachment effort.
Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee, at the Judiciary Committee, the American people heard testimony from leading American constitutional scholars who illuminated without a doubt that the President's actions are a profound violation of the public trust.
The president's actions have seriously violated the Constitution.
Today, I am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment.
I commend our committee chairs and our members for their somber approach to actions which I wish the president had not made necessary.
Okay, so, basically, according to Nancy Pelosi, it is these lawyers who came forward who changed the entire nature of the ballgame.
We'll get to the lawyer testimony in just one second, because it did not change the nature of the ballgame.
It was basically a bunch of lawyers who are Democrats, who came forward and said that Trump should be impeached, and then one lawyer, who apparently is also a Democrat, who said Trump should not be impeached.
That is not dispositive.
Sorry, that's not how this works.
Okay, so, Nancy Pelosi says that.
Then, she has this very wild moment, where she's about to walk off stage, and James Rosen, Who's a reporter formerly for Fox News.
He asks her whether this is all based on hatred for Trump.
Because that, of course, is what Republicans and Trump have been alleging.
Right?
Is that this is all about personal animus.
That Democrats want Trump out.
This isn't about anything that is legally based.
That there is no actual crime that's been committed here.
And Nancy Pelosi turns around and starts berating him in the most bizarre possible fashion.
If this were a Republican, the media would be talking about how unhinged this is.
If this were a Republican, if Mitch McConnell did this, the media would be talking about how McConnell had lost his cool, about how McConnell was going crazy.
As it is, the media are talking about Nancy Pelosi's righteous indignation, standing up for the Constitution of the United States.
But what she says here is patently not.
Here's Nancy Pelosi saying, no, it's not about hatred of Trump.
Also, as a Catholic, as a Catholic, I'm offended you used the word hate in the same sentence with me.
Okay, really?
We're gonna go here now?
Seriously?
It's an attack on your religion?
If you say that you, a Democrat, hates the President?
That you hate the President?
That is an attack on your Catholicism?
By the way, the convenient Catholic card is one of the more irritating points about Nancy Pelosi, a woman who backs abortion on demand, the suggestion that men can become women, And same-sex marriage sponsored by the federal government.
None of which are positions of the Catholic Church.
She's a very convenient Catholic when it comes to invoking her Catholicism for purposes of outrage.
Here's Nancy Pelosi getting very angry that anyone would suggest that this impeachment effort is about personality rather than actual crimes and misdemeanors.
Nancy Pelosi came out right off a tele...
Sorry.
Representative Pelosi, please not ask.
I'm not happy to raise an outlet house, we don't hate anybody, not anybody in the world.
I'm not...
They're latched in.
Excuse me.
I did not excuse me.
You did, you did.
I asked the question.
This is about the Constitution of the United States and the facts that lead to the President's violation of his oath of office.
And as a Catholic, I resent your using the word hate in a sentence that addresses me.
How dare you, as a Catholic!
I'm gonna call the Pope over here, and the Pope is gonna tell you how mean you are!
The Pope!
We're gonna get Francis in here, and he's gonna tell you that you are not allowed to use the word hate with me, Nancy Pelosi, a woman who believes that abortion should be legal all the way until birth, on demand, for any reason.
We'll get the Pope right in here, man.
Right in here.
By the way, does that look like a person who doesn't hate the president right there?
Just gonna ask that.
Does that seem like a person who is very calmly and solidly just pointing out the law?
That she really is centered?
The rest of that clip is even wilder, right?
I mean, she starts the clip and she starts waving her hands around talking about how the president, she thinks he's a coward on gun control and a coward on climate change.
And those are all political questions, but this right here, this is a matter of standing up for the constitution.
Does anyone believe this crap?
No one believes this.
The media are orgasming over it, of course.
The media are just orgasmic, over the moon, over all of it.
But, does it really make a difference to the American people?
I would suggest probably not.
Probably not.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, let's talk about how you can save time and money this holiday season.
So, we approacheth Christmas.
We approacheth Hanukkah.
It's time to send a lot of packages in the mail.
But, it's gonna be a pain in the butt to schlep all that stuff over to the post office.
And, why should you pay a price that you don't have to pay, when you could just go to stamps.com.
Stamps.com brings all the great services of the U.S. Postal Service directly to your computer.
Whether you're a small office sending invoices, an online seller shipping out products, or even a warehouse sending thousands of packages a day, stamps.com can handle it all with ease.
Simply use your computer to print official U.S. postage 24-7 for any letter, any package, any class of mail, anywhere you want to send it.
Once your mail is ready, just hand it to your mail carrier or drop it in a mailbox.
It is indeed that simple.
With stamps.com, you get 5 cents off every first class stamp and up to 40% off priority mail.
It's no wonder.
Over 700,000 small businesses already use stamps.com.
So if you haven't tried it yet, what exactly are you waiting for?
Don't delay.
Sign up right now.
Life is too short to spend all that time schlepping the boxes all the way to the post office.
Just do it from home.
We use it here at Daily Wire.
It saves us time.
It saves us money.
Right now, you get a special deal.
No risk.
My promo code SHAPIRO.
You get a special offer.
It includes a four-week trial, plus free postage and digital scale.
No long-term commitments or contracts.
Using our code, you'll be saving money and supporting the show.
So head on over to stamps.com.
Click on that microphone at the top of the homepage.
Type in Shapiro.
That is stamps.com.
Enter Shapiro.
Stamps.com.
Never go to the post office again.
So as I say, the media are just over the moon about the fact that Nancy Pelosi has officially opened this thing!
Yeah!
It's the time!
And she's not about hate.
She's not about personal animus for the president.
Doesn't matter that the Democrats still have not come up with the exact grounds of the impeachment.
By the way, good indicator that you don't actually know anything beyond you want the president out.
When people say, do you want to impeach the president?
You go, yeah!
And they say, well, what do you want it, how?
And you go, well, we're figuring it out!
It seems as though perhaps it might have something to do with you wanting Trump out, not so much you having objections to the president's behavior, per se.
Or at least objections serious enough to warrant impeachment.
And again, that Nancy Pelosi invoking her Catholicism, To be offended by- How dare you!
How dare you say that I am doing something that- out of hate!
No!
I'm- I'm a- I'm Mother Teresa!
Except Mother Teresa wasn't for the on-demand killing of unborn human beings.
Other than that!
Exactly like Mother Teresa!
Exactly!
So obviously that is silly stuff.
And she's hanging her hat, and so are the Democrats today, on the testimony of lawyers.
Ooh, lawyers.
Especially lawyers who are from, like, Ivy League schools.
Whoa!
So they called three, count them, three lawyers.
I know.
Amazing.
Life-changing.
They called three lawyers yesterday, who are all Democrats, to testify about how Trump should go.
And Nancy Pelosi is basing her announcement today on the fact that after one day of like four hours of hearing, now the Democrats know.
Until then, they were on the fence.
But then, they heard the compelling words of a professor named Pamela Carlin, and that changed everything.
That changed everything, because she is a legal authority on impeachment.
Now, if the Democrats had any stones at all, what they would just say is, listen, we don't have to have legal authority to do this.
We don't have to call lawyers.
It's a political process.
We think Trump is unfit for the presidency, we're impeaching him.
And then we can all have a referendum on that.
And then we can all say, okay, is impeachment worthwhile when we have an election a year away?
Because that's really what this is about, isn't it?
Is that the Democrats can make every case they're making against Trump in an election.
I mean, we're coming up hard on an election right now.
The Democrats are choosing their candidate right now.
And yet the Democrats are trying to push impeachment.
So that means they have to go above and beyond the simple political case, but they don't have anything above and beyond the political case.
So instead, they call a bunch of lawyers to jabber about it.
So they call one woman named Pamela Carlin, and the media are touting her yesterday.
I mean, just a law professor said Trump should be impeached.
Ooh!
Probably she's very objective in her approach.
Probably she's a constitutional expert with no serious political bias in any direction.
Or alternatively, she is a wild liberal who is so far to the left that Barack Obama did not choose her for the Supreme Court in part because she was too radical and too far to the left.
But he considered it.
Also, she worked in the Obama Department of Justice.
Also, she clerked for Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court.
She also has performed litigation in the Supreme Court.
She teaches at Stanford Law.
She has performed litigation in the Supreme Court on landmark gay rights cases, trying to claim that sexual orientation is protected by a Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which of course, it is not.
But she's an expert.
She's an expert.
She is widely known in liberal circles according to the New York Times.
She is chairman of the board of directors for the left-leaning American Constitution Society.
In December 2016, she and other scholars signed a letter expressing concerns over Trump's statements and actions during the 2016 presidential campaign.
She suggested in May 2017 that we had hit a constitutional crisis.
Here is a flashback clip of Professor Carlin suggesting that when she saw Trump's name in public, she physically had to cross the street.
Okay, this is who the Democrats called as their objective witness on whether Trump ought to be impeached.
I was struck, you know, I came in from the airport yesterday and I got off the bus from Dulles down at L'Enfant Plaza and I walked up to the hotel and as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now the Trump Hotel, which I had to cross the street, of course.
Are you staying there?
God, no.
Never.
Never.
You see, it's not about hatred for Trump, guys.
It's about pure constitutional righteousness.
That's all.
It's not about how much she hates Trump.
By the way, how terrible is this person?
As a witness, she decided it would be a great idea to just go after Barron.
Like, Barron has nothing to do with anything.
But she, in the middle of her testimony, bizarrely decides to attack the president's son.
For no reason.
At all.
Just because she wants to be a horse's ass.
So here's Pamela Carlin being a horse's ass.
President Trump has said Article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants.
And I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king.
Which is, the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility.
So while the president can name his son baron, he can't make him a baron.
I mean, oh, the hilarity.
Oh, I mean, what?
Don't worry, she's not partisan, guys.
She's not partisan.
She just drops barren Trump jokes.
I'm Manchin, by the way.
That Republicans had tried to impeach Obama, which they did not.
And imagine that they had gone up there and made Sasha and Malia jokes.
Would the media have ever, ever stopped talking about how mean-spirited that was?
Later, she had to apologize for it.
Later, she said, you know, probably I shouldn't have referenced Barron.
That was in her prepared testimony.
Okay, she had pre-written that joke.
It wasn't like it just occurred to her to make a pun about Barron's name.
She was like, oh, well, I can make a, I can, like titles of nobility, his name is Barron.
First of all, it's a terrible joke.
Did you know that there was an artist in the United States named Prince, but he was not actually a prince?
Just want to put that out there.
Did you know that Martin Luther King was not actually a king?
Unbelievable.
Now things you learn each and every day in this country.
Here is Pamela Carlin having to back off of this and then apologize for referencing Barron.
And if I can just say one thing?
I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son.
It was wrong of me to do that.
I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong, but I do regret having said that.
Okay, that's always my favorite thing is, I apologize for that.
This is, by the way, the worst tactic you can use in marriage.
Honey, I really apologize for not taking out the garbage, but I wish you would apologize for being terrible at everything.
Obviously a great way to make an apology.
Okay, in just a second, we'll get to more of the Democrat witnesses who apparently convinced the Democrats' higher echelon that they must impeach.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, I want to tell you about a movie that is now out.
It is great.
It is called No Safe Spaces.
No Safe Spaces, starring my friends Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager.
It's in theaters nationwide Friday, December 6th.
It takes you to the heart of the free speech battle in America.
And Adam and Dennis take you on this, it's a pretty great, I've seen the movie, it's really terrific.
Not just because I'm one of the stars of the movie, although mostly because I'm one of the stars of the movie, but also you should go see No Safe Spaces because it is a wild, hilarious, well-done ride to show you the effects of political correctness, identity politics, and cancel culture.
No Safe Spaces argues About why free speech is important to a free society, how it's being threatened, what we can do to fight back.
By the way, the film does take you behind the scenes of that crazy 2017 Berkeley speech that cost the city of Berkeley $600,000 for security because Antifa decided to threaten violence because I was speaking about free speech.
There are a bunch of different voices in this thing.
President Obama shows up, Brett Weinstein, Cornel West, Jordan Peterson.
Take all your liberal friends to see it because it really should cross partisan aisles.
Go check out No Safe Spaces this weekend.
It's rated PG-13 in theaters Friday, December 6th.
Also, help out conservative filmmaking.
Help out filmmaking that makes a difference in the culture.
Go to nosafespaces.com slash Ben for ticket information and theater locations.
Go check them out right now.
Okay, so as I say, the Democrats, Pelosi launched the statement this morning saying that it was the legal testimony of these objective experts that convinced her.
that a constitutional crisis had arisen and it was time for impeachment to be invoked.
Okay, but as I point out here, Pamela Carlin is a hack.
She's always been a hack.
She is a hack who is a very far left radical.
Okay, Matt Goetz, congressman of Florida, points out to Carlin that she has routinely spoken about how conservatives are nasty people and she dislikes them.
Now, have you ever been on a podcast called Versus Trump?
I think I was on a live panel that the people who rammed the podcast called Versus Trump...
On that, do you remember saying the following?
Liberals tend to cluster more.
Conservatives, especially very conservative people, tend to spread out more, perhaps because they don't even want to be around themselves.
Did you say that?
Yes, I did.
Oh, she's a perfectly objective witness, and you can hear the Democrats laughing about it.
No, this has nothing to do with partisanship, guys.
I believe Nancy Pelosi when she says she's very offended as a Catholic and anyone would think this is merely a partisan inquiry.
By the way, I'm old enough to remember, because I'm more than six months old, when Nancy Pelosi suggested that impeachment would be inappropriate if she did not have bipartisan support.
There is not one Republican that supports impeachment.
Not one.
That should tell you something, and it's not just that President Trump has tremendous sway inside his own party.
Not one.
Even Republicans in swing districts, even Republicans in swing states.
Okay, so she is the most obvious far-left legal commentator called Pamela Carlin, but she's not the only one called by the Democrats.
Another professor named Noah Feldman He teaches at Harvard Law School.
Feldman also testified that President Trump should be impeached.
And there's only one problem with that, which is that Noah Feldman in the past, as in like in the last two years, wrote a piece in the New Yorker looking for grounds for President Trump's impeachment and has talked openly as early as like March 2017 about how Trump's tweets made him impeachable and led to a constitutional crisis.
But here's Noah Feldman explaining why this set of circumstances is really impeachable.
Not the other stuff that I said was impeachable before.
This stuff is the truly impeachable stuff.
On the basis of the testimony and the evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency.
Specifically, President Trump has abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.
Okay, but he's also very objective, guys.
It's not that he thinks Trump's been impeachable since day one.
It's only now.
Only now have circumstances arisen.
And then the Democrats call a third witness.
Ooh, a third witness!
We'll get to that third witness in just a second.
Another very objective witness being called by the Democrats to testify that impeachment is appropriate here.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, would you like some free money?
I know, it sounds crazy, but this is an actual program, it will save you money.
They're not actually going to send you a check, but effectively speaking, that's kind of what they are doing, because every time you shop online, Honey searches the web for all of the promo codes that you need in order to save money on every deal, so you can make sure that you are always getting the best deal.
Honey has saved me probably thousands of dollars at this point, it works on every shopping site.
From Express, to Amazon, to any place.
I mean, Honey is constantly trying to save you money.
All you have to do is put it on your computer, it runs in the background, and then every time you shop, it searches for the best deal for you.
It's a free browser extension that automatically finds the best promo codes whenever you shop online.
Honey has found it's over 10 million members, over a billion dollars in savings.
Honey supports over 20,000 stores online, and they've got over 100,000 five-star reviews on the Google Chrome store.
Again, I've been using it shopping for the holidays.
It's been saving me a fortune.
If you're buying gifts this holiday season, you need honey.
If you're not, you probably know somebody who is, so do them a solid and tell them about honey.
Honey can help make sure you're getting the best price for whatever it is you are buying.
It is free to use.
It installs in just two clicks.
Get honey for free at joinhoney.com slash ben.
That's joinhoney.com slash ben.
So for free, you're saving money.
Sounds great, because it is.
Go to joinhoney.com slash ben and get honey for free.
I can testify, it saved me a bunch of money.
Joinhoney.com slash ben.
Okay, check that out.
The Democrats also called a third lawyer!
Ooh, lawyers!
Yeah!
Okay, if it seems as though I am less than impressed with people who have law degrees, it's because I have one.
Okay?
Because I went to the same Ivy League schools as many of these professors.
Because they have the same degree that I do.
And you know what it does?
It teaches you to think in a particular legal way, but it does not obscure your politics.
If you are a Democrat and you went to Harvard Law School, you're still a Democrat.
If you're a Republican and you went to Harvard Law School, you are still a Republican.
Ted Cruz went to Harvard Law School.
Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School.
So the law degree does not confer upon you a degree of objectivity that suddenly makes you magically capable of discerning whether an offense is inherently impeachable.
It's a very silly contention.
That's exactly what Nancy Pelosi is contending today.
Again, if she had the guts, she would just say, listen, I don't care what the lawyers say, this is impeachable, we're doing it!
We're doing it because it's impeachable, and I think it's terrible.
But instead, it's like, no, these legal authorities say we must.
It is with sadness in my heart and prayer for the president.
That's always the most obnoxious thing, is when you hear Nancy Pelosi say things like, I'm not angry at the president.
I'm just praying for him.
Yeah, I'm sure.
I'm sure you get down on your knees every night and you pray to God for President Trump.
I am sure.
Devout Catholic Nancy Pelosi is.
I'm sure that that's what she does every night when she's not being offended by people saying that perhaps she hates the president.
So the Democrats call forth Michael Gerhart, a professor who, according to the New York Times, made impeachment his specialty.
Gerhart testified that he's a professor at University of North Carolina.
This is the second time he's appeared as a witness.
And he was called in 1998 to testify on Clinton's impeachment.
So Michael Gerhardt said that Trump's actions are worse than any other prior president.
Any of them.
Any prior president.
Like all of them.
Which is a hell of a statement.
I mean, like, Watergate is a thing that happened.
We've had Teapot Dome.
We've had the President of the United States, FDR, essentially try to pack the Supreme Court of the United States and force private citizens to display insignia in their window so that they would be left alone by the government.
We've had Woodrow Wilson run completely roughshod over the Constitution of the United States and merely arrest people he disagreed with.
So, yeah, I mean, if we're talking about, like, things that are bad, the President... FDR interned 100,000 Japanese-American citizens.
And the Supreme Court, by the way, okayed that in Korematsu.
So in any case, the idea that President Trump has done something so far beyond the bounds of any... Sure, sure.
Okay, sure.
Here is Gephardt, Professor Gephardt saying, Gerhardt rather, saying that Trump's actions are worse than any other prior president.
If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning.
And along with that, our constitution's carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil, and therefore, I stand with the Constitution and I stand with the framers who are committed to ensure that no one is above the law.
Well, you know, that's very exciting stuff, except for the fact that this particular dude, Gerhardt, it turns out that he is also really far to the left.
It turns out that he is a partisan because he served as deputy media director for former Vice President Al Gore's first Senate campaign.
He was involved in Bill Clinton's transition to the White House in the early 1990s.
He was involved in confirmation proceedings for seven of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, and for two of those, he was special counsel to Senator Pat Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, who is one of the most left-leaning members of the Senate.
So, is that guy partisan?
Yeah, it turns out he's a partisan too.
So on the basis of three partisan Democrats, the Democrats are going, hey look, our partisan Democrats say we should impeach?
Mmm, we should impeach.
The Republicans had one witness, Jonathan Turley.
Jonathan Turley is not a Republican.
He's not.
I mean, as far as I'm aware, there's no information that suggests that he is a Republican.
In fact, he has been a liberal contrarian for a very long time, according to the New York Times.
He had called for Bill Clinton's impeachment like 20 years ago, but he was also sharply critical of George W. Bush.
He represented in 2011 two lawmakers, Representative Dennis Kucinich, who's the most left-leaning member of the House of Representatives, and Representative Walter Jones, a Republican who sued Barack Obama for participating in the NATO air war over Libya without congressional authorization.
So Turley is not exactly kind of your classic, he's not exactly your classic Republican lawyer.
And he testified yesterday, too, and he said, no, you Democrats, you have not shown that this impeachment is apolitical.
In fact, you're proving yourselves incredibly political.
Here's Turley.
If you prove a quid pro quo that you might have an impeachable offense, but to go up only on a non-criminal case would be the first time in history.
So why is that the case?
The reason is that crimes have an established definition and case law.
So there's a concrete, independent body of law that assures the public that this is not just political, that this is a president who did something they could not do.
You can't say the president is above the law if you then say the crimes you accuse him of really don't have to be established.
Okay, that's a great point.
The point that he is making is, if you're going to say the president is above the law, you have to establish what the law is.
If you cannot establish what the law is, then really you're not saying he's above the law, you're saying he's below the law, and that you can impeach him for something that is not, in fact, a criminal offense.
We'll get to more of Jonathan Turley's testimony yesterday, and we'll get to the media's response to all of that, because Even some members of the media, who you would typically expect to be fairly pro-impeachment, were like, yeah, I'm not so sure about this.
You can see the Democratic members of the media shifting away from even pretending that this isn't political.
Even as the Democrats maintain, like Pelosi, that this is absolutely apolitical.
Even as the Democrats claim that, many left-leaning commentators stare like, you know what?
Let's just get rid of the ruse.
We want him out.
It's that simple.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, let me tell you about the greatest holiday gift.
The greatest holiday gift.
You want to make sure that somebody loves the holiday gift this year?
Very simple answer.
Cookies.
Really.
Has there ever been a human being who doesn't like cookies?
Maybe Hitler?
Like, who doesn't like cookies?
Everyone loves cookies.
Okay, and that is why you should go check out Mrs. Fields' special deal this year.
When Debbie Fields started Mrs. Fields Cookies 40 years ago, she won over cookie lovers everywhere with her gooey chocolate chip cookies, melt-in-your-mouth brownies, and passion for sharing the joy of baked goods.
I mean, this is good stuff.
Brownies, cookies, everything joyous in life.
Nowadays, you can have cookies sent right where you want them without visiting a bakery.
With gourmet gift tins and baskets filled with fresh-baked cookies, You know that your order will arrive fresh and flavorful.
Ordering is easy.
They can ship your cookies anywhere across the country.
If you're ordering as a gift, you can add a personal custom message, or a company logo, or a family photo.
And Mrs. Fields offers a 100% customer satisfaction guarantee.
You know why they can do that?
Because everyone is satisfied with cookies.
Every single human.
To sweeten the deal, Our listeners get 20% off your amazing order when you go to mrsfields.com and enter promo code SHAPIRO.
That's 20% off any gift at mrsfields.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
That's mrsfields.com, mrsfields.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
Your cookies are on the way.
Why would you not enjoy the cookies?
Go enjoy the cookies.
mrsfields.com, promo code SHAPIRO.
Okay, we'll get to more of the Democrats impeachment charade in just one second.
But first, if you're not already a subscriber, you're missing out.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Perhaps you missed out on our special deals last weekend.
Good news, you can still become a subscriber.
You have to pay a little bit more than you would've last weekend, but it ain't that much more, and it's awesome.
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, which is pretty awesome if you haven't checked it out yet.
If you choose the new all-access plan, you 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.
You also get our Sunday special early on Saturday.
This week's Sunday special features my good friend, Lila Rose, who's the head of Live Action, a pro-life advocate extraordinaire.
Here's a little bit of what that sounds like.
The head nurse at UCLA sits me down and she says, point blank, UCLA doesn't support women who are pregnant or help them.
So it was very crystal clear immediately why there's no pregnant girls on campus, because we were being told, point blank, you should have an abortion.
It's really interesting stuff, really important stuff.
If you are on the fence about the pro-choice versus pro-life debate, it's worth listening to.
Check that out.
That's our Sunday special this week.
week, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So the Republican Party brings forth Jonathan Turley, who again is not a Republican, to point out that the Democrats have not actually fulfilled any definition of a statutory crime.
He says there was no bribery, no extortion, no abuse of power shown.
And of course, Turley is exactly correct.
So if I were to summarize your testimony, no bribery, no extortion, no obstruction of justice, no abuse of power.
Is that fair?
Not on this record.
Okay, and then Turley points to the Democrats and he said, listen, if you want to talk about abusive power, you guys are abusing power.
I mean, right now, what you guys are doing is an abuse of power.
I can't emphasize this enough, and I'll say it just one more time.
If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power.
It's your abuse of power.
You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing.
We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches.
And what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.
Okay, what Turley is saying here specifically is he's talking about the obstruction of justice charge.
He's saying what I've been saying, which is of course legally factual.
If someone subpoenas you, you go to a court if you don't want to obey the subpoena.
The court then rules.
If you do not abide by the court, now you're obstructing justice.
But it is not an obstruction of justice to tell the Democrats to stuff it until you go to a court.
And if Democrats are to call that obstruction of justice, they're pretending the judicial branch does not exist.
Now, speaking of abuse of power, the Wall Street Journal editorial board has an interesting editorial today about Adam Schiff and his possible abuse of power.
According to the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Adam Schiff's 300-page House Intelligence Impeachment Report does not include much new about President Trump's Ukrainian interventions, but it does disclose details of telephone calls between ranking intelligence Republican Devin Nunes, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon, former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, the White House, and others.
The details are metadata about the numbers and length of the calls, not the content.
The impeachment press is playing this as if the calls are a new part of the scandal, but the real outrage here is Schiff snooping on political opponents.
The Democrats' motive appears to be an attempt to portray Devin Nunes, a presidential defender and Schiff's leading antagonist in Congress, as part of a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.
Schiff told the press on Tuesday, I think it is deeply concerning that at a time when the President of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board says, complicit in what?
Doing his job of congressional oversight?
Talking to Trump's lawyer to get a complete view of the Ukrainian tale?
Apparently Schiff now wants to impeach members of Congress too.
This is an unprecedented, and it looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain.
Democrats were caught using the Steele dossier to coax the FBI into snooping on the 2016 Trump campaign.
Now we have elected members of Congress using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public, the call records of political opponents.
Our sources, says the Wall Street Journal, say that Schiff issued a subpoena in September to AT&T, demanding call logs for five numbers, including Giuliani's.
Subsequent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon demanded more details.
Republicans were told of the subpoenas, but under rules of committee secrecy, they couldn't raise public objections.
Here, the companies appear to have handed over metadata based on little more than Schiff's say-so and an AT&T's case in response to a request that was made even before the House began a formal impeachment inquiry.
AT&T released a statement on Wednesday saying it is required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement agencies.
But AT&T can question the validity of subpoenas in courts, and they had grounds to do so given the highly political nature of their requests.
Then again, maybe it felt it had no choice.
We'll leave it to legal experts to decide whether a powerful congressman's demands of a highly regulated company are extortion.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Schiff's metadata disclosures hardly bear on his impeachment case.
Giuliani had broadcast to the world he wanted Ukraine to investigate Hunter and Joe Biden.
He's also Trump's personal attorney.
Does Schiff have a legal opinion saying he can ignore attorney-client privilege?
Schiff published a select log of Giuliani's calls, but presumably he has a record of everyone Giuliani spoke to for months.
Imagine the political outrage if Republicans had snooped on Rudy Giuliani's attorneys.
Schiff's accusations against Nunes are even more suspect.
The Democrat doesn't know the content of Nunes' conversations, and the Republican says he believes his spring talks with Giuliani related to the Mueller report.
Noons can speak to whomever he likes.
Schiff has no authority to investigate fellow members.
Since Schiff is going to release the call logs of Republicans, can we see the logs of his calls with the impeachment press and, by the way, with any whistleblowers?
And by the way, Schiff's targets include one of their own, John Solomon.
How is Solomon's reporting trail relevant to impeachment?
The media usually condemn government officials who use surveillance to track and intimidate the media, but here they're cheering Schiff on.
So he subpoenaed AT&T for a bunch of phone numbers, including Giuliani, and then just spilled that out into public.
How exactly is that a good look?
And meanwhile, it seems like the Democrats themselves, many of the Democratic commentators, are basically just letting the cat out of the bag at this point.
They're not gonna bother with the whole pretense of legality here.
They're just gonna say, no one cares about the actual articles of impeachment, whatever.
Just say he sucks and then impeach him.
Michael Tamasky has a piece at the New York Times today called, Do Voters Even Care About the Articles of Impeachment?
Everyone knows what Trump did.
The Democrats shouldn't draw out the process any longer than necessary.
In fact, why even do the process?
That's the real question.
Why not just vote for impeachment?
We all know what this is.
We all know the Democrats are voting this way.
This whole thing is ridiculous.
It's not convincing a single American one way or the other.
Not one.
Right?
All this is baked into the cake.
In this way, Tamasky's right.
Because this is a hack job.
But Tomaski says, "The questions now facing House Democrats "concern scope and speed, "whether to pass one or two articles of impeachment quickly "or bide their time and pass several articles "that more comprehensively reflect the record "of Trump's crimes against the Constitution.
"In general, those in the former camp "tend to be members from purple swing districts "that Mr. Trump may have carried in 2016.
"They've almost all signed on to the effort at this point, "but they'd just as soon get it over with "and get back to talking about prescription drugs.
"Those in the latter camp tend to be "from safer blue districts, "which gives them the freedom to take a position "that sounds more uncompromising." By the way, this should be a dead giveaway that Democrats know they're losing this debate.
If the purple district Democrats are the ones pushing for a rush, you know this ain't going well for the Democrats.
If only blue district Democrats are like, yeah, let's take our time and put this together.
That means only the true believers really think that there are grounds for impeachment here.
The purple Dems are going to vote with the blue Dems because they have to, because of partisanship, but they don't actually believe that they have the grounds to do it, and they don't actually believe that they have the political wherewithal to benefit from it.
According to Michael Tamasky, He says, But, everyone knows what went on.
this has become such a pitched battle, it's a deeply emotional question.
To many, it's a clear matter of right and wrong.
To fail to condemn Trump's many sins in official articles of impeachment constitutes a whitewashing of history.
But everyone knows what went on.
So let's just push forward, he says.
He says an extended process might produce more riveting testimony.
But if a separately orders the former White House counsel, Don McGahn, to testify, he will have to, whether it's officially part of an impeachment proceeding or not.
I mean, Americans will watch his testimony and take it in.
There's risk in the maximalist approach.
A process that drags on for too long might just result in more Democratic infighting, at a time when the party needs to be unified.
There's a decent argument for throwing the hot potato to Mitch McConnell and shaming him, and the Senate Republicans, for abasing themselves of the blanket exoneration of Mr. Trump.
Well, that's not how this is going to go, by the way.
If this gets to the Senate, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden will be called.
They will.
And then, they will be subpoenaed.
And then, if they refuse the subpoena, we'll go to court.
And then, Republicans can make the exact same case Democrats are making, that simply by appealing a subpoena, Hunter and Joe Biden are involved in obstruction of justice.
That's exactly what Democrats are claiming now.
And we're seeing again this opinion, you know, repeated across the media that we don't need any grounds for this impeachment.
We should just push it forward no matter what.
At least that's honest.
At least that's honest.
So, that is where things stand.
By the way, the media continue to try and dig up dirt on President Trump in the weirdest possible ways.
There's an article in the Washington Post today going to talk to his housekeepers.
What did they find about the housekeepers?
These housekeepers apparently at Mar-a-Lago were illegal immigrants.
Which we've known for a long time is that Trump employed illegal immigrants.
Because he runs a very large firm and because a lot of large firms employ illegal immigrants and now his firm employs E-Verify.
But the real core of this dumb Washington Post piece Is that Trump has personal habits and those personal habits are supposedly bizarre.
So the Washington Post has this long piece today about how the president liked his Diet Coke in small glass bottles with a plastic straw that no one could be seen touching.
Impeach!
Impeach!
The Washington Post says the undocumented workers were often left to perform the most intimate and personal work.
Those who cooked and served Trump knew he liked his cheeseburgers well done.
Trump loved Tic Tacs, but not an arbitrary amount.
He wanted, in his bedroom bureau at all times, two full containers of white Tic Tacs and one container that was half full.
The same rule applied to the Bronx Colors brand face makeup from Switzerland that Trump slathered on.
Two full containers, one half full.
Even if it meant that housekeepers had to regularly bring new shirts from the pro shop because of the rust color stain on his collar.
A special washing machine in the laundry room was reserved for his wife Melania Trump's clothing.
Donald Trump liked Irish spring bar soap in his shower.
Impeach!
He does not use body wash.
Bar soap is not as clean as body wash.
Impeach!
Also, it turns out according to the Washington Post, I know, breaking news here.
On the floor!
Brutal!
Cruel!
Housekeepers quickly learned not to throw out his soap, even if it had worn down to the tiniest sliver.
Trump decided when he wanted something discarded.
When that happened, with clothes or newspapers, he would toss them.
On the floor.
Brutal.
Cruel.
Impeach.
All of this is really dumb, but yeah, I definitely trust our media to be objective in their coverage.
Meanwhile, speaking of objective media coverage, I have to say, I am deeply enjoying the media coverage of Kamala Harris's political demise.
It really is amusing to me.
One of the reasons that it is so immensely amusing to me Is because Kamala's candidacy was a complete fail.
She leapt to the top of the standings, then she completely collapsed.
And now, the going conventional wisdom is that everybody in the United States is racist because we didn't make Kamala Harris president.
It's like Barack Obama never existed.
Now, if you say, well, Barack Obama, that doesn't show that you're not racist.
Well, then why are you using the presidential race as a litmus test for racism?
Either it's a litmus test or it isn't.
If it is, Americans ain't racist.
If it isn't, then Kamala Harris dropping out is not an indicator of American racism.
But Cory Booker is continuing to try and play this card.
It's pretty amazing.
And Cory Booker is a desperate, desperate man.
Pops on those angry's eyes, the angry eyes.
Blinks in very deliberate fashion to demonstrate that he is extremely angry.
Hey guys, and then he sends out emails like this.
He's been sending these... I mean, he is like a jilted lover, man.
He is sending these emails once every six hours.
It is incredible.
So here's the new one from Cory Booker today.
As the current December debate lineup stands, not a single one of the candidates who will appear on stage is a person of color.
This is a shame, Ben.
Well, I disagree, Cory.
The 2020 Democratic field promised one of, if not the, most diverse sets of candidates in modern history, though you wouldn't see that from looking at the frontrunners.
Our party is better than this.
It's time we show it.
I love, LOVE, that Cory Booker is now calling his own party racist.
That's what that is!
Cory Booker is now suggesting that his own party is completely racist.
It's fantastic.
It's really, really good stuff.
Because, again, I guess that's the way you play this game inside the Democratic Party.
And then, there's a piece from Melania Price, a political scientist who specializes in contemporary black politics, public opinion, and political rhetoric at the New York Times, called Why There Won't Be a Black Woman Running for President.
Cause she was terrible!
That's why!
I also love that we are ignoring the simple and obvious fact that if Michelle Obama jumped into the race today, she would win the nomination by 40 points going away and probably be the next president.
A black woman.
So no, it ain't about black women.
It is about Kamala Harris specifically.
But we are now going to get a bevy of articles where every... It's amazing.
It's amazing.
No matter what the antecedent is of the if-then relationship in democratic statements, the then is always America is racist.
If the sky is blue, Americans are racist.
If Kamala Harris is out, Americans are racist.
If Barack Obama is elected president, Americans are racist.
It doesn't matter what is on the if side of that arrow.
The only thing that matters is what's on the then side of that arrow, of that logical arrow.
So why there won't be a black woman running for president?
When Senator Kamala Harris of California entered the race for the presidential nomination in January, many believed she would be hard to beat, writes Dr. Melania Price.
Telegenic, highly educated, from a multi-ethnic background, she would have been an ideal candidate in the pre-Obama era.
We expected her to create an all-American narrative that is relatable to a wide cross-section of the country.
After all, that's how President Obama ascended in 2004.
But Ms.
Harris failed to do that.
As we write eulogies of this once-promising campaign, which ended on Tuesday, it is important we talk about more than just personal failings by Harris and her staff members.
We need to talk also about what campaigning looks like for Black women, and what challenges and hurdles the Harris campaign laid bare.
There are biases and structural disadvantages that can be found in subtle ways.
The media and the public responded to her candidacy.
I mean, oh, the bias.
Oh, the subtle racism.
Subtle, subtle, subtle.
And she says, well, it's because when we talk about electability, we mean white.
No, when you talk about electability, you mean not a crazy person.
Kamala Harris, if she were not a crazy person, would be a very likely nominee right now.
Unfortunately for Kamala Harris, she was a crazy person who locked up half the state of California.
So that didn't, that didn't work particularly well.
Melania Price, professor at A&M University in Texas.
Texas.
She says, I'm still trying to make sense of her candidacy and its larger implications, but I have seen how uncertainty about black women can be the Harris may not have been the black woman to upend these biases in 2020.
We can't let our notions of who is electable cause us to overlook black women in the future.
them in terms of how many of them go to college and in terms of baseline income.
Well, Ms. Harris may not have been the black woman to upend these biases in 2020.
We can't let our notions of who is electable cause us to overlook black women in the future.
And that's not the only article like this today.
There's also an article from Danielle Campo Amor over at NBC News called Kamala Harris's failed presidential campaign is bad news for Democrats, even her critics.
You don't have to be a supporter of Harris or even like her very much to understand why her dropping out now is bad news for the Democratic Party.
Harris' exit from what was once a historically diverse pool of presidential hopefuls signals how truly difficult that fight—the fight for all people to be represented by their elected officials and to be heard by those in positions of power—truly is.
Because when diverse candidates such as Harris or New York Senator Kyrsten Gillibrand drop out of a presidential race, Even as white male billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer enter it, something is broken.
By the way, I love that Deval Patrick entered.
He's a black dude.
Totally overlooked here.
No one cares.
They'll love the fact there are two women on the stage still, Klaubuchar and Warren.
Doesn't matter.
Kamala Harris is an indicator of deep, brutal American racism.
It's pretty amusing.
So let them fight.
In the famous words of that Godzilla film, Okay, time for a quick thing I like, and then a thing that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
So, I'm late on this, I'll acknowledge, because, frankly, it looked like a soap opera to me, but my wife was interested in watching the show.
We watched the first episode, and it's really enjoyable.
This Is Us, the network television show, it's available on Hulu now.
I don't even know what network it is, because I cut the cable a while ago, but This Is Us is actually, the first episode of it, anyway, is pretty spectacular, and extraordinarily pro-life.
It's one of the great ironies of Hollywood that on an emotional level, they understand that a baby is a baby is a baby.
It's on NBC, I guess.
That a baby is a baby is a baby.
But on an intellectual level, they refuse to acknowledge this.
So the entire premise of the opening episode of This Is Us is that losing a baby during childbirth is a horrific tragedy because you've lost a baby, not a cluster of cells.
And yet the Democrats will still claim that aborting a baby just before birth is perfectly morally acceptable.
In fact, morally praiseworthy in many circumstances.
Here's the trailer for This Is Us, an extremely pro-life first episode, at least.
Tell me to wake up!
Tell me to lose the damn weight!
We lost the third baby, but you have two healthy children, Jack.
I quit.
Screw you.
So it's a little soap opera-y, but it's good.
And some of the performances are actually quite spectacular.
So if you haven't checked out This Is Us, I can only vouch for the first episode.
So far, so good.
It's really good and really, shockingly pro-life.
And I won't tell you the twist at the end of the first episode if you're one of the five people, like I was until five seconds ago, who doesn't know the twist.
Okay, other things that I like today.
There's a great article in the Washington Post today.
about a guy named Freddy Figures who was set down next to a dumpster in a rural area of Florida's Panhandle in 1989.
He is now an entrepreneur worth millions of dollars because it turns out that every human life is worthwhile.
Every single one.
A passerby found him alone and in distress and called police.
The infant was hospitalized with minor injuries for two days, then placed in a foster home.
The couple who took him in, Nathan and Betty Figures, lived in nearby Quincy, Florida.
They already had a daughter.
Shortly after Freddy began living with them, the Figureses, who often took in foster kids, decided to adopt him.
He was called Dumpster Baby by other kids at school, because kids can be awful to each other.
But as he grew older, it turns out that he was great with technology.
He'd gotten so good at tinkering with computers that when he was 13, the city of Quincy hired him to help repair its computers.
When he was 15, he started his first company, Figures Computers, repairing computers in his parents' living room, helping clients store their data on servers he created.
He decided to skip college, and then his big break came several years later in 2012 when at age 23, he sold a GPS tracker program to an undisclosed company in Kansas for $2.2 million.
He had apparently created a device also that he could insert in his dad's shoe.
His dad apparently developed Alzheimer's and would wander off.
He developed a device he could insert in his shoe that would allow him to track him, plus talk to him, through his shoe.
Nathan Figures, the father, died in 2014 shortly after Freddie started Figures Communications and developed 80 custom software programs with the money he'd earned from his smart shoe technology.
He now lives in Parkland, Florida.
He's founder of Figures Wireless, a privately held telecommunications company he said was appraised in 2017 worth more than $62 million.
And also runs the Figures Foundation, which donates to a variety of causes, including relief efforts after natural disasters, college scholarships for high school students, and assistance with school supplies for cash-strapped teachers.
Spectacular, spectacular story.
After Figures grew up, he learned that his birth mother was a prostitute with a drug addiction.
He said he has not met her.
He said he has no desire to.
He said, my parents adopted me and gave me love and a future.
They did their best to make the world a better place.
And now that's all I want to do, too.
He's married to Natalie Figures, an attorney.
Yes.
You know what's a good thing?
That that kid was born.
Good thing for the world.
Good thing for the United States.
Good thing for his family.
The idea that circumstances are better when you kill an unborn human being because the unborn human being is going to be born into a bad situation.
Bad situations can be made better.
Death cannot.
So that's a great story.
Okay, we've run out of time, so we'll skip Things I Hate today, but we will be back here later today with two additional hours of content, or we will see you here tomorrow for our Friday Frenzy.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz.
Directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive Producer Jeremy Boring.
Senior Producer Jonathan Hay.
Supervising Producers Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Technical Producer Austin Stevens.
Associate Producer Colton Haas.
Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.
Edited by Adam Sijewicz.
Audio is Mixed by Mike Karlmina.
Hair and Makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production Assistant Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler and the House Judiciary Committee presided over the first day of official impeachment hearings yesterday, where expert witnesses made the incisive constitutional argument that Orange Man bad.
Orange Man very, very bad, explained the expert constitutional experts.
Therefore, we got to overturn the 2016 election.
We will examine their arguments and the arguments against impeachment from an unexpected source.
▲
Export Selection