Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 22, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

55:08

The Schiff Show Begins | Ep. 937

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Democrats scream as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sets the impeachment rules, House impeachment managers and Trump's lawyers open up their cases, and Joe Biden tries to defend himself over Hunter's corruption.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN.
	Why haven't you gotten a VPN yet?
	Check out ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
	Well, you may have noticed that the world seems kind of chaotic these days, from possible conflict in the Middle East to the impeachment fiasco that is currently taking place.
	We have an election this year.
	Things are going to get more volatile.
	And so you may be looking for stability in the markets, especially because you got half of economists saying that a downturn is likely in the sometime near future, and some saying, no, it's going to be fine forever.
	But why not just take a little bit of your money and put it in something that is never worth zero?
	I'm talking, of course, about precious metals.
	Fox Business just published an article on how the world's richest people are stockpiling precious metals right now as part of their strategy to diversify.
	According to Goldman Sachs, gold could surge past $1,600 an ounce within the next year.
	Everybody who is smart diversifies.
	You should diversify too.
	If you have not yet taken the first step of requesting a free information kit on gold, go ahead and do it.
	And if you're thinking about maybe taking a portion of your eligible IRA or 401k and putting it into an IRA in precious metals, you should have that conversation.
	You know, get all the information, ask all your questions.
	I trust the folks over at Birch Gold.
	I've been working with them for years.
	Birch Gold will go to work and make things super simple for you.
	No obligations.
	You have nothing to lose to take that first step and ask all of your questions.
	Text Ben to 474747 during the month of January when you open an IRA in Precious Metals.
	You will get a signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History, for free, which is a pretty solid deal.
	Again, you have to text Ben to 474747 and open an IRA in Precious Metals to get a signed copy of my book, The Right Side of History.
	And again, ask all your questions.
	Get all the information you need.
	And then talk about diversifying.
	Go check out Birch Gold right now by texting Ben to 474747.
	So, the impeachment trial is underway.
	and oh, the excitement.
	And oh, the riveting spectacle of all of it!
	If you feel like this whole thing is too theatrical, that's because it is.
	It's incredibly dumb.
	It's incredibly theatrical.
	And none of it really is going to make a difference because we all know where this is going.
	The New York Times basically admitting as much yesterday, Jesse Wegman, a member of the editorial board, has an entire piece lamenting the fact that the Democrats don't actually have the goods.
	He blames that on Republicans because he's from the New York Times.
	There's an article called, Why Trump's Threadbare Illegal Argument Will Probably Work.
	Thanks a lot, Mitch McConnell.
	Oh, did it give you the sad that the House wasn't unable or unwilling to actually gather enough evidence to push forward a credible impeachment effort?
	Does that give you a sad?
	Is it sad that Mitch McConnell is actually holding to the same process as Bill Clinton's impeachment?
	Is that really sad?
	Is it really sad?
	Yesterday, we saw an enormous amount of wrangling.
	Wrangling when it came to the impeachment, the impeachment procedure.
	According to the New York Times, a divided Senate began the impeachment trial of President Trump on Tuesday in utter acrimony.
	Who could have predicted utter acrimony in Washington, D.C.?
	I mean, these guys are like the best of friends, the most brilliant among us.
	Republicans blocked Democrats' efforts to subpoena witnesses and documents related to Ukraine, and moderate Republicans forced last-minute changes to rules that had been tailored to the president's wishes.
	So, only one of those things matters.
	What you're going to hear from the media today is Republicans were blocking documents.
	They're blocking witnesses.
	Block, block, block, block, block.
	Not true.
	Not true.
	That was not this part of the trial.
	So what Mitch McConnell did is he said, here's the procedure.
	We're going to have 12 hours.
	Well, we're going to have 24 hours of arguments on each side.
	Each side gets three days to make those arguments.
	And then after we make those arguments, then we can vote on which documents to admit into evidence.
	And then we can also vote on witnesses.
	And Democrats instead were like, no, we're going to preemptively vote on documents and witnesses.
	We're going to do that before we even hear the arguments.
	Because guess what?
	We got to get this thing going, got to move it fast.
	It's imperative that we move this thing fast.
	And also, we need to call more witnesses that we didn't bother calling in the House.
	It's really, really fast.
	But now we need it to slow up, guys.
	We need to slow it up.
	We really need to take our time.
	And Mitch McConnell is obstructing.
	He's super obstructy.
	This is the way that they are putting it right now.
	Mitch McConnell is screwing with the procedures.
	Okay, Mitch McConnell is not screwing with the procedures.
	The Republicans, the more moderate Republicans, would be Romney and Collins and Murkowski.
	Basically went to Mitch McConnell and they said, you know, your original plan to have the Senate here 24 hours of arguments from each side in two days each, that's too much.
	You know, we want to go home.
	We want to sleep.
	And we're kind of tired.
	I mean, let's face it.
	We're all old.
	We're all crotchety.
	We want to go home.
	So instead, we're going to do that over three days.
	And Mitch McConnell's like, well, all right, in his very animated fashion.
	Well, Okay.
	And so they literally hand wrote in that change, in the impeachment rules, and then they moved on with their day.
	And this is apparently a bombshell.
	Huge!
	This is just evidence that the Republican caucus is starting to crack.
	Meanwhile, the Democrats, who are preemptively bringing all of these subpoenas for witnesses and documents they didn't bother to bring in the House where they control the process, McConnell's like, no, we're not voting on that stuff.
	And even Romney and Murkowski and Collins were like, no, we're not gonna vote on that stuff preemptively.
	Even during the Clinton stuff, we didn't vote on that stuff preemptively.
	And the Democrats went nuts over this.
	So Chuck Schumer says, Mitch McConnell wants a trial with no evidence and no new evidence.
	He just wants, this is so mean.
	This is the first prosecution in history that I can remember where the prosecutor shows up at the court and his first move is, guys, I know we're gonna do a trial now.
	I need to go gather more evidence.
	You know what would happen in a normal trial?
	The judge would be like, well, shouldn't you have gathered the evidence before you brought this thing to trial?
	But according to Chuck Schumer, it's very bad that Mitch McConnell is not admitting more evidence even before he hears the arguments.
	So here's Chuck Schumer playing the fool.
	Unlike the Clinton rules, the McConnell resolution does not admit the record of the House impeachment proceedings into evidence.
	So McConnell seems to want a trial with no existing evidence and no new evidence.
	No evidence.
	You can understand why.
	It's because he's afraid of evidence.
	So is President Trump.
	So are the President's men.
	A trial with no evidence is not a trial at all.
	It's a cover-up.
	It's a cover-up, a cover-up.
	By the way, they changed the rules and then they admitted all the House stuff.
	Right, so they didn't admit any of the documents, but they did admit the actual House impeachment record.
	And so that has been admitted as well, so far as I understand.
	According to the New York Times, in a series of party-line votes punctuating 12 hours of debate, Senate Republicans turned back every attempt by Democrats to subpoena documents from the White House, State Department, and other agencies, as well as testimony from White House officials that could shed light on the court charges against Mr. Trump.
	The debate between the House impeachment managers and the President's legal team stretched into the early hours of Wednesday morning in a Senate chamber transformed for the occasion with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding from the marble rostrum and Senators sworn to silence looking on from desks piled with briefing books.
	It was the substantive start of the third presidential impeachment trial in American history.
	And all of this was a charade.
	All of this was simply theater.
	It was just John Lovitz going, acting!
	That's all this was.
	Even Mitt Romney, who has been relatively warm toward democratic attempts to open this thing up a little bit more.
	Even Mitt Romney was like, really, we're arguing over a procedure like now?
	Shouldn't we argue over the subpoenas and the witnesses a little bit later and we're going to pretend like this is a big deal?
	Here's Mitt Romney, the most milquetoast man who has ever lived.
	Changes are pretty modest and I don't think are significant in any dramatic way.
	So for instance, whether something is going to be taking 12 hours per day or 8 hours per day, it's still going to get covered in the news.
	And what's officially going into evidence doesn't make a big difference because the Senators are of course free to look at all the information they have that comes from the House.
	I think those two issues are just not big ones.
	I think the Democrats make a mistake when they cry outrage time and time again.
	If everything is an outrage, then nothing is an outrage.
	And that, of course, is true.
	When Romney says that they are acting outraged over everything, as Ted Cruz has pointed out, the rule in court is that if you have the facts, you bang the facts, and if you have the law, you bang the law, and if you don't have either, you bang the table.
	And this is what the Democrats are doing.
	There's a lot of table banging.
	Bill Clinton style.
	No, no, like actually just banging the table, like hitting the table and shouting about it.
	Adam Schiff did a lot of that yesterday.
	So Adam Schiff, who is the biggest partisan hack in Congress, right?
	He spent two years going on CNN every day.
	I remember every time I would go to work out at the gym, CNN would be on the TV to my utter consternation.
	And there would be Adam Schiff on the TV, his eyes popping out like Judge Doom at the end of Roger Rabbit, explaining that we were about to be graced with the final chapter of the Trump presidency, thanks to Russia revelations.
	And none of that ever materialized.
	Here's Adam Schiff, though, pretending that he is a nonpartisan House impeachment manager.
	He is just here to do his solemn duty.
	But the big problem is people are going to think that the Senate's non-impartial.
	OK, I'm sorry.
	Listening to Adam Schiff whine that the Senate is going to be viewed as non-impartial is just hilarious on every level.
	Why?
	Well, here's what we found out yesterday from Politico.
	House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, Do I think that Schiff is making errors about the record?
	No, I don't.
	I think that Schiff is biasing the record because he is a partisan hack who lies about lots of things.
	The issue arose when Schiff sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler last week summarizing a trove of evidence from Lev Parnas, an indicted former associate of Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.
	In one section of the letter, Schiff claims that Parnas continued to try to arrange a meeting with President Zelensky, citing a specific text message exchange where Parnas tells Giuliani, trying to get us Mr. Z. The remainder of the exchange, which was attached to Schiff's letter, was redacted.
	But an unredacted version of the exchange shows that several days later, Parnas sent Giuliani a Word document that appears to show notes from an interview with Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma, followed by a text message to Giuliani that states, Mr. Z answers my brother.
	Which means that Parnas was not trying to arrange a meeting between Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani and Zelensky, the president of Ukraine.
	He was trying to arrange a meeting between Rudy Giuliani and the head of Burisma, which is who Rudy Giuliani was investigating.
	That makes a rather large difference.
	And Adam Schiff knew that, right?
	He'd seen the unredacted version and then he just lied about it in his letter, hoping that nobody would notice.
	I love this.
	This is Politico editorializing.
	The apparent mischaracterization does not undercut Democrats' argument that Trump withheld critical military aid to Ukraine.
	No, nobody said it did, but you literally mischaracterized the evidence on a dramatic scale.
	And that's just a mischaracterization.
	It's not a lie.
	It's a mischaracterization, guys.
	So here's Adam Schiff complaining, many Americans might think that the Senate's not impartial unless they do exactly what Adam Schiff wants.
	Right now, a great many, perhaps even most Americans do not believe there will be a fair trial.
	They don't believe that the Senate will be impartial.
	They believe that the result is pre-cooked.
	The president will be acquitted.
	Not because he is innocent.
	He is not.
	But because the senators will vote by party and he has the votes.
	You mean like in the House where every single Republican voted no and every single Democrat voted yes?
	You mean like that?
	Like where the impeachment was precooked because everyone voted along party lines and you couldn't convince a single Republican to cross those party lines?
	Because your evidence wasn't there?
	You mean like that?
	But I definitely am up for hearing lectures from Adam Schiff about partisan hackery.
	Absolutely.
	And then Schiff went after Trump's lawyers, saying that Trump's lawyers are attacking Democrats to avoid their own failures.
	Shifts opening statement yesterday.
	He didn't bother to actually argue about the impeachment procedures.
	Instead, he just launched into this really long attack on Trump.
	And everybody was celebrating this morning on Twitter.
	Hashtag Adam Schiff rocks was trending, which maybe it was Russian bots.
	Who knows?
	Here's Adam Schiff suggesting that Trump's lawyers are attacking Democrats because they don't have the evidence.
	Dude, you literally, half of Schiff's speech was devoted to, why won't Republicans gather more evidence?
	Because you guys ran the House.
	This is the head of the House Intelligence Committee.
	He had every ability in the world to call witnesses, wait for the adjudication by courts as to whether executive privilege was invoked.
	He didn't do any of that.
	So he shows up and he's like, guys, if you could do my work for me, look, I didn't finish my homework.
	If you could do that for me, that'd be great.
	And if you don't, you're a partisan hack.
	More Adam Schiff.
	When you hear them attack the House managers, What you're really hearing is, we don't want to talk about the President's guilt.
	We don't want to talk about the McConnell resolution and how patently unfair it is.
	We don't want to talk about how, how, the pardon the expression, ask backwards it is to have a trial and then ask for witnesses.
	And so we'll attack the House managers because maybe we can distract you for a moment from what's before you.
	Just ridiculous.
	Ridiculous in every way, because Adam Schiff is ridiculous in every way.
	And it just shows you that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, they know where this is going, and they don't care.
	They understand that they didn't have any opportunity to convince Republicans on the basis of this evidence, so they may as well let Adam Schiff do his lecturing routine.
	They also sent in Zoe Lofgren, another partisan hack, who explained that the evidence overwhelmingly proves Trump's guilt, and that's why we need more witnesses and more documents.
	Which, again, is a strange argument.
	Here is Zoe Lofgren from California.
	The amendment prevents the President from hiding evidence, as he has previously tried to do.
	Now, the House subpoenaed these documents as part of the impeachment inquiry, but the President completely rejected this, and every document subpoenaed from the House.
	As powerful as our evidence is, and make no mistake, it overwhelmingly approves his guilt.
	We did not receive a single document from the executive branch agency, including the White House itself.
	Okay, so I'm just going to point out, if the evidence is overwhelming, then why are you calling for more evidence and for a slowdown in the trial?
	None of this makes any sense.
	Then, I do love this, Senator Mazie Hirono, who is the worst.
	I mean, she's just the worst.
	If you remember her during the Kavanaugh trial, she was the one who was out there suggesting that every wild story about Kavanaugh had to be true.
	She, yesterday, was saying, anybody who suggests that this is just a Democratic conspiracy to get Trump, and that this is all just about people hating on Trump, that's a conspiracy theory.
	We are fair-minded and impartial!
	And if you believe that, then again, that bridge I have in Brooklyn is still for sale.
	Here's Senator Maziarona.
	What we got from the president's people were really what I found astounding was they're still saying that we were out to get the president from day one.
	Some kind of a weird conspiracy theory that I have to say even Kavanaugh brought up.
	They really believe this stuff.
	I find it incredible.
	And so they're still focusing on the process.
	It's a conspiracy theory, guys.
	If you think that the Democrats are partisans and that the Republicans are partisans and that everybody's a partisan, that's a conspiracy theory now.
	That's a conspiracy theory.
	Okay, so meanwhile, President Trump's team responds, and responds in fiery fashion.
	So, Pat Cipollone, he says, listen, we know what this is about.
	The Democrats are trying to pretend that 2016 was not legitimately decided, and then they are also trying to say that 2020 will be illegitimate unless President Trump is thrown from office.
	We'll get to Pat Cipollone's response in just one second.
	First, let us talk about the importance of the Second Amendment.
	So we watched this week as thousands upon thousands of Second Amendment advocates arrived at the Capitol in Virginia to peacefully protest an attempt to crack down on gun rights.
	And the media promptly attempted to portray them as terrorists, because this is the battle that we are in.
	We have one part of the country that wants to believe that everyone who is a Second Amendment advocate is actually a terrorist, and those people are trying to cram down these gun laws that are going to attempt to take away your guns.
	I mean, Beto O'Rourke said it loudest during the 2016 and 2020 primaries.
	He said, absolutely, I'm coming for your AR.
	The reason the Second Amendment exists is to prevent government tyranny.
	The reason the Second Amendment exists is to protect your rights.
	The fact that you own a gun is standing up to the idea that the government can ever effectuate that tyranny.
	You know how strongly I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility.
	And our founding fathers knew that these were the cornerstones of a great civilization, which is why they created that Second Amendment to prevent people from violating the Second Amendment.
	Owning a rifle is an awesome responsibility.
	Building rifles is no different, which is why I am impressed, really impressed with the folks over at Bravo Company Manufacturing, BCM.
	Bravo Company started in the garage of a veteran of the U.S.
	Marine Corps in Heartland, Wisconsin.
	The people at Bravo Company MFG support the right of responsible private individuals to have the access and ability to employ the same tools as civilian law enforcement as a means of defending ourselves, our loved ones, our communities, our freedom, should a threatening situation ever arrive.
	BCM is not a sporting arms company.
	They design, engineer, manufacture life-saving equipment, which is the stuff I care about because I am not a hunter.
	I'm not somebody who goes to the practice range for fun.
	I'm somebody who owns a gun because I want to defend myself and I want to defend my family, and I want a weapon that works, and that's why I trust BCM.
	To learn more about Bravo Company Manufacturing, head on over to BravoCompanyMFG.com, where you can discover more about their products, special offers, upcoming news.
	That's BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	BravoCompanyMFG.com.
	Hey, so the Trump team responds in this impeachment opening.
	Pat Cipollone says, listen, they tried to steal the 2016 election by claiming that this was Russian interference.
	Now they're trying to claim that 2020 is going to be corrupt unless Trump is ousted.
	All of this is nonsense.
	It's outrageous.
	And the American people won't stand for it.
	I'll tell you that right now.
	They're not here to steal one election.
	They're here to steal two elections.
	It's buried in the small print of their ridiculous articles of impeachment.
	They want to remove President Trump from the ballot!
	They won't tell you that.
	They don't have the guts to say it directly.
	But that's exactly what they're here to do.
	Cipollone moved along these lines for most of the most of the day yesterday.
	So the Democrats are saying it's completely unfair.
	These impeachment proceedings are unfair.
	They're unfair.
	So basically, we have now the mirror of what happened in the House.
	In the House, Republicans were saying.
	Guys, why don't you wait for the evidence?
	Why don't you wait for the evidence and why don't you actually allow us to rebut that evidence?
	Why are you rushing this thing forward?
	These procedures are unfair.
	And then we get to the Senate and Democrats are like, why are you rushing things forward?
	Why can't we wait for the evidence?
	Why?
	For those of you keeping score at home, they haven't even started yet.
	right and Democrats are wrong because the thing started in the House.
	The House is where most of the investigation is supposed to take place.
	And as Cipollone points out, Democrats spent nearly the entire day yesterday admitting they don't have the evidence for the impeachment and then whining that Republicans won't do their homework for them.
	For those of you keeping score at home, they haven't even started yet.
	We're here today.
	We came hoping to have a trial.
	They spent the entire day telling you and the American people that they can't prove their case.
	I could have told you that in five minutes and saved us all a lot of time.
	Well, that would have been nice, but nobody's time was saved.
	Instead, we just did this for like the entire day and we'll continue to do this for weeks on end.
	It's just going to be wonderful.
	Meanwhile, a guy named Patrick Philbin, who is a lawyer for President Trump, he's a deputy White House counsel.
	He says, he says, listen, they keep asking for more evidence and they've not compiled any evidence as of yet.
	So the Republican argument is basically you keep whining about the procedures.
	You didn't do your homework.
	The first thing that the House managers have done upon arriving finally in this chamber after waiting for 33 days is to say, well, actually, we need more evidence.
	We're not ready to present our case.
	We need to have subpoenas and we need to do more discovery because we don't have the evidence we need to support our case.
	This is stunning.
	It's a stunning admission of the inadequate and broken process that the House Democrats ran in this impeachment inquiry that failed to compile a record to support their charges.
	It's stunning that they don't have the evidence they need to present their case and that they don't really have a case.
	This, of course, is correct.
	Jay Sekulow is one of the president's lawyers as well.
	And he says, listen, this is just a partisan agenda.
	And this whole thing is such kabuki theater.
	It is such a waste of time.
	And the media are the only people who are truly interested in it.
	If you ask the average American whether they are deeply ensconced in this trial, the answer is no.
	They didn't care.
	Four months ago, they don't care now.
	That's not to say they don't have opinions on it, they do.
	But Americans have opinions on everything.
	I mean, you can poll them on whether they think Elvis is alive.
	You can poll people on anything.
	The country is deeply divided.
	Half the people like Trump, half the people hate Trump.
	And that is reflected in the polling with regard to impeachment.
	But if you ask Americans how many of them are closely following the impeachment, the answer is basically the staff at CNN and MSNBC.
	And everybody else is like, well, got better things to do, man.
	Gotta go get my, gotta go get my toenails filed.
	Here's Jay Sekulow explaining that this is indeed a Democrat partisan hit.
	Why are we here?
	Are we here because of a phone call?
	Or are we here before this great body?
	Because since the president was sworn into office, there was a desire to see him removed.
	I remember in the Mueller report, There were discussions about, remember, insurance policies.
	My favorite part of that is when Jay Sekulow says, why are we here?
	And I think to myself, I don't know.
	To fulfill God's purpose for us.
	The long pause there leads everyone to an existential crisis as we just sit there not understanding what in the hell is going on.
	Like what is this all about?
	So all of this ends with the dumbest in theatrical expositions.
	This was really amazing.
	So this is late last night.
	Jerry Nadler, Partisan Hack, and Pat Cipollone Lawyer for President Trump, also a partisan.
	They go at each other and it's just, it's so silly and it's so ridiculous.
	It truly is.
	And then Chief Justice Roberts signs in.
	He jumps into the fray and he says, no, we've got to respect the Senate, guys.
	This is the war room.
	You can't fight in the war room.
	Here's Jerry Nadler, idiot, and Pat Cipollone, partisan for the president, going at each other while the rest of the world sleeps.
	And Chief Justice Roberts saying, you can't, you're, no, no, the dignity, the dignity of the institute.
	If you're worried about the dignity of the institutions, maybe you should have worried about that when Jerry Nadler got elected to Congress.
	I am struck by what we have heard from the President's Council so far tonight.
	They complain about process, but they do not seriously contest any of the allegations against the President.
	The only one who should be embarrassed, Mr. Nadler, is you, for the way you've addressed this body.
	Mr. Nadler, you owe an apology to the President of the United States and his family.
	Okay, and then Chief Justice Roberts jumped in and went at both of them, and he suggested that they have to have respect for this august body.
	And then he mentions that back in 1905, somebody used the word pettifogging and then was chided in an impeachment trial for a non-president.
	Is this Chief Justice Roberts?
	So here's Chief Justice Roberts signing in and commenting on Nadler versus Cipollone, the showdown.
	I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the President's Council in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body.
	One reason it has earned that title is because its members Avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.
	In the 1905 Swain trial, a senator objected when one of the managers used the word pettifogging, and the presiding officer said the word ought not to have been used.
	I don't think we need to aspire to that highest standard, but I do think those addressing the Senate should remember where they are. - Okay, so now I'm actually even more pissed at Chief Justice Roberts than I am at the very sides.
	I'm sorry, this is so stupid, I'm sorry.
	Like, we're gonna pretend that our nation's political bodies there are so august.
	Okay, people, the guy was almost beat to death in the 1850s on the floor of the Senate.
	So I think we can dispense with the, oh my God, back in 1905, we wouldn't even use the word pettifogging.
	And here we're being mean to each other on the Senate.
	Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!
	It's all tiresome.
	It's all stupid.
	It's all a waste of time.
	Fast forward two weeks, it's over.
	We all know where this is going, barring some unprecedented bombshell, which is not going to drop.
	In a second, we'll get to President Trump responding to all of this in Davos and being very Trumpy in his response.
	Plus, we'll get to the 2020 race where Tulsi Gabbard is now throwing bombs at Hillary Clinton.
	So things are getting fun on that side.
	But first, let us talk about how difficult it is to find the correct part for your car.
	So, if you've ever had a situation, I have, Your car breaks down and then you are just looking for a replacement part.
	Something as simple as a battery.
	Sometimes you go to the store and they are out of the battery and you have to go to a second store and they're out of the battery and then finally you bring the battery back home and it's dead.
	Well maybe you should just be using something called the interwebs because the interwebs will ensure that you get what you are seeking.
	How?
	Well, you can check out rockauto.com.
	It's a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
	Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
	They have everything from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, even new carpet.
	Whether it's for a classic or a daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
	It's great for car enthusiasts.
	I am not a car enthusiast.
	I don't know much about my car.
	But if you really know your car and you know all the parts that you need for your car, you can find these specialized parts over at rockauto.com.
	Best of all, Prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
	You don't get that markup.
	Amazing selection.
	Reliably low prices.
	All the parts your car will ever need over at rockauto.com.
	Go to rockauto.com right now.
	See all the parts available for your car or truck.
	Write Shapiro in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know that we sent you.
	Again, that's rockauto.com and write Shapiro in that How Did You Hear About Us box.
	It's good for them and it's good for us.
	As we all know, litigation would take an extremely long time.
	admitted their agenda today.
	There's a Democrat named Val Demings, who is one of the House impeachment managers, and she got up on the floor of the Senate and she basically just spilled the beans.
	She says, we need to get this done right now or Trump's going to win in 2020.
	As we all know, litigation would take an extremely long time, likely years, not weeks or months.
	This body cannot permit him to hide all the evidence while disingenuously insisting on lawsuits that he doesn't actually think we can file.
	Ones that he knows won't be resolved until after the election he is trying to cheat to win.
	So listen to that.
	If Trump files a lawsuit, Because he's asserting executive privilege.
	And if it's going to take us past the 2020 election, then he is trying to cheat.
	However, if we just decide to go forward without the evidence that we need and try to impeach him, that is not Democrats trying to cheat.
	I mean, that is the Democrats full scale acknowledging that this whole thing is about trying to get it done before the 2020 election because they're afraid Trump's going to win.
	That's all this is.
	That's all this is.
	Truly amazing admission there from Val Demings.
	Okay, so President Trump in Davos, being President Trump, he is asked about this whole thing.
	And Trump says, I'd love to show up at my own impeachment trial.
	I'd love to be there because I want to stare at these bums right in the face.
	Unbelievable girl.
	I'd love to go.
	Wouldn't that be great?
	Wouldn't that be beautiful?
	I don't know.
	I'd sort of love to sit right in the front row and stare at their corrupt faces.
	I'd love to do it.
	I don't know.
	Don't keep talking because you may convince me to do it.
	I think they might have a problem.
	I think they might.
	He is right that his lawyers might have a problem with him showing up, because Trump, you may have noticed, has a tendency toward embellishment, at the very least.
	His mouth is rather large, but when he said, I'd love to shop and lick these bastards right in the eye...
	So Trumpy.
	And then Trump goes after Jerry Nadler.
	And again, like this, one of the reasons that President Trump is president is because not just of the craziness of our politics and the media and the culture wars.
	One of the reasons that Trump is president, as I've said before, do you think that Trump murdered politics?
	Or do you think that he's just the coroner who arrived upon a dead body and declared it dead?
	When I look at Chief Justice Roberts sitting there and saying, this august body must never break down into partisanship.
	This august body.
	I mean, we used to not say petty fogging in here.
	And then I see Trump, I'm like, all right, Trump.
	Seriously, because that's what I think that people actually think.
	At least, when people say that Trump is honest, what they don't mean is that he is honest about everything he says.
	They mean that he is authentic, right?
	He is what he is.
	And he is a better reflection of how Americans think about politics than Chief Justice Roberts doing the, our august institutions must never, ever be frayed.
	So when you get Trump, and he just says, yeah, Jerry Nadler's an ass.
	Okay.
	Honestly, I'll take that above Chief Justice Roberts doing the, we all respect, we're all collegial.
	No, we're not.
	This whole thing's a waste of time.
	It's a waste of our taxpayer money.
	Frankly, I'm pissed I have to cover it.
	Here's President Trump going after Jerry Nadler.
	Gerald Nadler.
	I've known him a long time.
	He's a sleazebag.
	Everybody knows that.
	Pat Cipollone is a high-quality human being.
	I was very impressed with Pat.
	He had great emotion yesterday.
	Pat's a brilliant guy, but I've never seen that emotion.
	And that's real emotion.
	That's because he knows this is a hoax.
	And I was very proud of the job he did.
	I've known Jerry Nadler for a long time.
	He's opposed many of my jobs.
	I got them all built.
	Very successfully built in New York.
	Like that's more authentic American politics than the Chief Justice Roberts.
	We must be dignified throughout this entire idiotic process.
	Trump also went at Lev Parnas.
	Lev Parnas is this guy who's been running around claiming that Trump was giving him direct orders to go shadow the ambassador to the Ukraine and that Lev Parnas is being ordered around by Trump to go do his dirty work in Ukraine.
	Here's President Trump going after Lev Parnas.
	He's a con man.
	Let me answer that one.
	I don't know him.
	Other than he's sort of like a groupie.
	He shows up at fundraisers.
	Okay, so I don't know anything about him.
	I watch Rudy.
	Rudy is a terrific person.
	Great crime fighter.
	The best mayor in the history of New York City by far.
	Solved the crime problem in New York.
	And I think it's very unfair the way the media has treated Rudy Giuliani, I will say this.
	Parnas, I don't know, other than he probably contributed to the campaign along with tens of thousands of other people.
	So where is this going next?
	In just a second, we'll talk about what Democrats are going to try to do in a last ditch gamble in order to try and shore up a case that is completely falling apart.
	First, if you know anything about me, you've most likely heard me talk about my ardent support for the pro-life cause.
	You may also remember the last year I streamed my podcast live from the March for Life in Washington, D.C.
	I gave a speech to tens of thousands of people marching for the cause.
	What you may not be aware of is how much grief this caused us from our political adversaries Our advertisers were actually targeted by left-wing media watchdogs.
	Many of them stood up to those watchdogs.
	A few of them actually dropped out.
	That was not the first time, nor will it likely be the last time, that we are attacked in an attempt to shut down pro-life voices through astroturfed boycott attempts against our advertisers.
	We're not the only targets.
	Live Action is one of the biggest voices in the pro-life movement run by Lila Rose.
	They continue to do some of the great work in the space.
	They raise awareness and education on the abortion issue.
	They do undercover videos that have exposed Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics for horrific human rights abuses.
	They've been banned from advertising on Twitter because they say that we should defund Planned Parenthood.
	They've been banned from Pinterest and other social media platforms.
	I personally support live action.
	I've given money to live action.
	Right now, our dailywire.com members can too.
	Our Daily Wire members are really important.
	Your membership helps keep the cameras on.
	Our microphones turned up even when the left is pressuring our sponsors, which is why from now until January 31st, a portion of any dailywire.com membership will be donated to live action with promo code live action to support awareness and education around the world on protecting the lives of the unborn.
	So again, check us out at dailywire.com when you subscribe right now and type in LIVEACTION, a portion of your Subscription will go to a pro-life cause, which is fantastic.
	So join dailywire.com.
	Make your pro-life voice heard.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	So the Democrats, seeking desperately for some way out of this ditch that they have dug for themselves, are now contemplating the possibility of trading witnesses.
	So according to the Washington Post, Rachel Bade, Robert Costa, and Seung Min Kim reporting, Senate Democrats are privately mulling a witness trade in the impeachment trial.
	They are thinking about allowing Hunter Biden to testify.
	And going along with the testimony of Hunter Biden, so long as they get John Bolton to testify publicly, most Democrats have scoffed, says the Washington Post, at the growing GOP clamor to hear former Vice President Joe Biden's son testify, dismissing him as irrelevant to the charges against Trump, accusing Republicans of trying to distract from the allegations against the president.
	But behind closed doors, a small group of Democratic senators and aides has begun to question that logic.
	Sounding out colleagues on whether to back a witness deal that could lead to testimony from former National Security Advisor John Bolton or other administration officials with possible first-hand knowledge of the Ukraine controversy according to multiple Democratic officials.
	So now, they are throwing a Hail Mary pass, they're gonna go to Republicans maybe, and say, listen, we'll go along with you on the Hunter Biden thing if you let John Bolton testify, first of all.
	That's actually a pretty good trade for Republicans.
	The reason it's a pretty good trade for Republicans is because John Bolton will be heavily covered.
	He'll say exactly the same thing Fiona Hill said.
	It is extraordinarily unlikely that he says anything like, and that's when, his mustache is moving, he says, that's when the president told me that he only wanted Joe Biden down before 2020, right, which would be the impeachable offense.
	That is really, really unlikely.
	What is much more likely is that Bolton says exactly what his aides have already said and mirrors what they said.
	He thought this is a bad idea.
	He thought that Trump was being led astray by Rudy Giuliani and all of the rest.
	And then Hunter Biden gets up.
	And guess what?
	The headlines are there.
	Hunter Biden, a drug addled loser for nearly his entire adult life, was picking up a $50,000 a month check because his last name is Biden while his father was overseeing relations with Ukraine.
	Hey, that is not going to look good for Joe Biden.
	It ain't going to look good for Hunter Biden.
	And it's going to look fairly good for President Trump, who's going to say, yeah, of course I was asking legit questions about that.
	Everyone was asking legit questions about that.
	They're members of the Obama administration who worked for Biden, who said that they were told not to bring up the Hunter Biden situation because Joe Biden just didn't have the bandwidth.
	But everybody acknowledged that there was a conflict of interest.
	Everybody.
	So, if this is the way the Democrats want to go, good luck with this.
	Joe Biden, for his part, is trying to fight back on all this blasting Trump's bleep, horse bleep claims.
	He released a new video on what really happened in Ukraine.
	This is his campaign video on Hunter Biden.
	Here's what it sounded like.
	So where does Donald Trump fit into all this?
	He claims that because the Vice President's son, Hunter, was on the board of the Ukrainian natural gas company, Eurizma, that Biden somehow acted inappropriately when he advocated for Viktor Shokin to lose his job.
	The clinical term for that is horse s***.
	For one thing, Biden was following official United States government policy, which was in agreement with the EU and other international partners.
	Number two, Shokin's investigation of Burisma had fallen dormant over a year before the vice president did anything to try and get him out of office.
	Okay, that second one is actually under controversy.
	It's not necessarily confirmed that the Shokin investigation was completely dormant, that Ukraine had basically left Burisma alone by the time that Biden wanted to oust that official.
	As far as Biden following official U.S.
	policy, well, what if he wanted that policy to be true, right?
	What if he wanted that policy to be correct because he wanted Shokin removed?
	We don't know, okay?
	At the very least, Biden should not have been charged with this policy when his son was picking up bags of cash for being his son.
	I mean, that is literally the only reason that Hunter Biden has any money to his name is because his last name is Biden.
	It turns out that half of Biden's family does this.
	It turns out that he's got two brothers who do this.
	It turns out that his son does it.
	There are people who probably aren't even related to Joe Biden who are just wandering around.
	They have the last name Biden.
	It's like Bob Biden just wandering around somewhere in Kentucky going, you know what my last name is?
	You know what my last name is?
	They're bag men now working in Saskatchewan who are trying to pick up bags of cash because their last name is Biden.
	It's pretty amazing.
	So if this thing goes the way the Democrats are suggesting, if they actually get Hunter Biden up to testify, it is not going to be Joe Biden called to testify in a truth to power moment.
	It's going to be Hunter Biden testifying and then If they do call Joe Biden, do you think that Joe Biden is quick on his feet?
	Now the media will cover him as a hero.
	The media will suggest that he is put upon.
	The media will suggest that all of this is nonsense.
	But here's the reality.
	Is it going to look good for Joe Biden that he has to testify about why his son was picking up bags of cash and he was looking the other way?
	Why he was flying his son to China?
	That his son could do deals in China?
	Using the vice presidential jet?
	I mean, all of that is going to come up, and that ain't gonna be great for the Democrats.
	Which brings us to the Democratic side of the 2020 race.
	So, Hillary Clinton started to walk back yesterday.
	Her comments in the Hollywood Reporter that she might not support Bernie Sanders were he the nominee.
	You will recall, That she did an interview with The Hollywood Reporter in which she blasted Bernie Sanders.
	She said that nobody liked him, unloading on the culture around him.
	Quote, his online Bernie bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women, accusing him of permitting this anti-woman culture.
	And then, I Like Bernie trended on Twitter for much of the day.
	Some of the other Democratic candidates 2020 weighed in.
	Both Tulsi Gabbard and Tom Steyer tweeted out that they like Bernie.
	At least when it comes to Tom Steyer, the feeling is not mutual.
	There are 1,000 tapes of Tom Steyer trying to be best friends with Bernie and Bernie brushing him off like Michael Scott to Toby in the office.
	Sanders said, on a good day, my wife likes me.
	Here was Bernie's response to Hillary Clinton's comments yesterday.
	Hillary Clinton, as you know, said that as a senator, you got nothing done and that no one likes you.
	What's your response to that?
	On a good day, my wife likes me, so let's clear the air on that one.
	And then Hillary Clinton came back and she basically said, I don't know what you're all bitching about.
	She said, really, this is what she actually tweeted.
	I thought everyone wanted my authentic, unvarnished views.
	Fair.
	Points to Hillary.
	But to be serious, the number one priority for our country and world is retiring Trump, and as I always have, I will do whatever I can to support our nominee.
	So she walks that one back.
	She walks that one back.
	Meanwhile, the rest of the Democratic field continues to be just a mess.
	Tulsi Gabbard has now hit Hillary Clinton with a $50 million defamation lawsuit, which is pretty wonderful.
	She's accusing former Secretary of State Clinton of deliberately spreading false accusations that Gabbard is a Russian asset in a lawsuit seeking upwards of $50 million in damages, according to FoxNews.com.
	And during an October 2019 interview with the podcast campaign headquarters with David Plouffe, Clinton suggested the 2020 presidential candidate was the favorite of the Russians and a Russian asset.
	Gabbard says these statements are not true.
	Clinton should have known that at the time.
	Her brief says, rather than facts or liable evidence, Clinton's basis for the defamatory statements was one or both of her own imagination or B, extremely dubious conspiracy theories that any reasonable person, and especially Clinton, a former U.S.
	Senator and Secretary of State, would know to be fanciful, wholly unverified, and inherently and objectively unreliable.
	So it'll be fun to watch that one play out in court.
	terms, Tulsi is not a Russian asset and that neither Russia nor anyone else controls her or her presidential campaign.
	As for why Clinton would make such statements, Gabbard claims Clinton has, quote, a unique personal connection to Tulsi that animates her hostility toward Tulsi and her presidential campaign.
	So it'll be fun to watch that one play out in court.
	Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to make bizarre cases for why they ought to be the leader of the free world.
	Joe Biden yesterday suggested that China is not a threat to the United States and that we should actually be helping China, which is a weird take when China is attempting to expand its 5G systems into impoverished areas of the world simply so that they can get those nations to be indebted to them and then they can effectuate their foreign policy.
	China has been stealing our intellectual property, getting more aggressive.
	They've been building up their military resources at an extraordinary clip.
	According to Joe Biden, though, we need to be friends with them, which is because he's been wrong on everything.
	Why wouldn't he be wrong on this?
	We talk about China as our competitor.
	We should be helping and benefiting ourselves by doing that.
	But the idea that China's going to eat our lunch was like I remember debates in the late 90s.
	Remember Japan was going to own us?
	Give me a break.
	China is not going to eat our lunch economically.
	That's not really the question.
	The question is whether they are going to get aggressive in spheres around the world, which they have and which they did consistently during the Obama administration.
	Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren desperately trying to get some attention.
	So Elizabeth Warren has been dropping in the polls.
	She's unlikely to win either Iowa or New Hampshire.
	The current RealClearPolitics polling average has Joe Biden up now in Iowa, which is horrible news for the rest of the field.
	If Joe Biden wins Iowa, basically this race is over.
	The last two polls have Joe Biden up six on the rest of the field.
	In New Hampshire, Warren is now polling in the RealClearPolitics poll average fourth behind Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
	So she is in serious, serious trouble here.
	And so now she's releasing ads trying to claim that President Trump fears her the most, and thus you should hand her the nomination, even though it is very obvious.
	And I promise you, in the Trump orbit, Elizabeth Warren is one of the ones that they would rather have.
	They would rather have Warren than have Biden, because Warren has pretty much no appeal.
	She's off-putting.
	She's a worse version of Hillary Clinton.
	She lies even more than Hillary did.
	I mean, it's pretty astonishing.
	The president is concerned about running against Elizabeth Warren.
	He fears Elizabeth Warren most.
	The Trump campaign is internally somewhat concerned about her.
	They see her as a threat.
	He's also a little bit nervous about Warren because she does have an economic populist appeal that appeals to some voters that voted for him.
	He's done everything he can for the wealthy and well-connected.
	I'm Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message.
	My favorite part of that clip, of that little ad right there, is that she doesn't quote a single person from Team Trump who says this.
	She just quotes reporters and commentators, right?
	Those aren't all reporters, saying that Team Trump is afraid of her and it's like Lawrence O'Donnell from MSNBC, who last talked to someone who voted for Trump never, ever in history.
	Yeah, good luck to Elizabeth Warren, who is falling apart.
	I mean, it is amazing to watch the collapse of her campaign.
	It's pretty astonishing how she is the only other person who fell apart like Elizabeth Warren did in this race.
	There were a couple others, I guess.
	Kamala Harris did, and Beto O'Rourke did.
	But Warren was widely perceived to be the probable nominee as late as, like, October.
	And now she has completely fallen out of the conversation, which led to her desperately attempting to smack Bernie Sanders.
	Meanwhile, Pete Buttigieg, who was also considered a possible competitor in the early states, has started to fall apart because it turns out that when you expose Pete Buttigieg to sunlight, there's not a whole hell of a lot there.
	Yesterday he had his Jeb Bush moment circa 2016.
	He actually got up and begged his audience for applause and it was supremely awkward.
	By having better hands guided by better values on those pulleys and levers of American government.
	So can I look to you to spread that sense of hope to those that you know?
	Come on!
	Please applaud!
	Please!
	It's over, Pete.
	It's over, man.
	And when the New York Times is patting you on the head and saying, be a good little boy and maybe you can run for a state office, yeah, you're in a little bit of trouble.
	So basically, this is now boiled down to Biden versus Bernie in all likelihood.
	You've got Joe Biden, who is not with it, whose son may be called in front of the Senate to testify as to his own corruption.
	And then you've got Bernie Sanders, who literally said yesterday that he would tear down and think about tearing down existing border walls.
	Really, like, it's not just enough for him to claim that the border wall is unnecessary.
	Bernie Sanders now wants to tear down the existing border walls.
	Now, here's one area I've been critical of Tucker Carlson's takes on Bernie Sanders, because Tucker is what he calls an economic populist, which means that he believes the government should be deeply involved in the economy.
	Okay, but Tucker is right when he says that half of Bernie Sanders' appeal to Team Trump is that The Trump crowd is strong on borders and Bernie Sanders used to be strong on borders, right?
	Bernie Sanders used to believe that if you want a Nordic-style system, you actually had to have a Nordic-style immigration policy, one of the dirty little secrets of all of the democratic socialist countries of Northern Europe.
	Is that, of the Scandinavian areas, is that they all have very tough immigration, and when they don't have tough immigration, right-wing parties get elected to reinforce tough immigration policies.
	Bernie used to be much tougher on immigration, now he has flipped, and he's arguing we should actually dismantle border walls.
	Intersectionality, man, it rots your brain, it really does.
	You said the wall is symbolic, and it represents... Yes.
	So, wouldn't it be proper to tear that symbol down in order to achieve that?
	It may be, but, you know, it's how much is it going to cost to tear it down?
	Should you do that?
	Tear it down?
	I don't know.
	Maybe the answer is yes.
	That's something... That's something you're willing to consider.
	You're willing to consider tearing down existing fencing between U.S.
	and... I'm willing to look, but again, if it's going to cost me billions of dollars to tear it down, I'd rather invest that maybe in the needs for child care in this country.
	But it's something, you know, we can look at.
	We can look at it.
	Maybe it'll be too expensive, but on principle, he has no problem with tearing down border walls for symbolic reasons.
	When we go out in the middle of the desert, we're going to tear down the border walls that have stopped people from crossing that border illegally in many areas.
	That's Bernie Sanders.
	That is one of your two leading candidates.
	With that happening, it's no wonder that there is a new poll showing that Bloomberg is now rising to fourth place in a new national poll.
	Now, you cannot escape his ads.
	Seriously.
	Like, I was watching a video on YouTube last night with my kids about Star Wars, and suddenly there's a Michael Bloomberg ad on that.
	I was watching a show maybe a few nights ago on Hulu.
	There's a Michael Bloomberg ad on that.
	I mean, he is blowing it out.
	When you have too much money, I mean, I guess this is what you do.
	I sound like AOC there.
	Anyway, according to Politico, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg continues to rise in the Democratic primary field according to new nationwide polling out Wednesday as he plows his personal fortune into widespread advertisements for his last-minute bid for the White House.
	The Monmouth University poll found Bloomberg polling at 9% nationally among Democratic voters, good for a distant fourth place in a still-crowded field.
	Joe Biden in that poll is still at 30 percent.
	Bernie Sanders is at 23 percent.
	Elizabeth Warren is all the way down at 14 percent.
	Just bad numbers for Elizabeth Warren.
	And Bloomberg is now rising above South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
	So Buttigieg is toast.
	Amy Klobuchar didn't have any bump in this poll from that New York Times endorsement.
	She's now pulling at a massive 5 percent.
	Andrew Yang just keeps trucking along.
	My boy Andrew Yang.
	He's still pulling at 3 percent.
	So Bloomberg still has this desperate outside hope that what happens is that Bernie and Biden basically split the vote early on, and that Biden is forced to spend a lot of money, that Biden is forced out of the race, and then Bloomberg becomes the sort of moderate alternative to Bernie Sanders.
	The fact is that that is not going to happen, but It is complicating the race somewhat for the rest of the field because Bloomberg is buying up all the ad time and that is driving up rates fairly dramatically for the rest of the field.
	Meanwhile, that rift between the Sanders crew and the Hillary crew, they're trying to rectify it, right?
	They're trying to pretend that they are friends.
	Yesterday, a few days ago, there was video of Bernie and Elizabeth Warren arm-in-arm smiling again.
	And now you've got Bernie and Hillary Clinton who are sort of trying to kiss and make up, although it's a really, really awkward kiss.
	Okay, well, that's because the Democratic Party is deeply worried that the divisions in their own field might sink them ahead of an election with President Trump, who continues to pull durably in all of the swing states.
	Right now, if you had to ballpark this election, very good shot that Trump loses the popular vote and wins the Electoral College again.
	Very good shot that we have an exact repeat of 2016.
	That the Democrats who are most likely to show up are in all of the blue states where Alyssa Milano is respected as a political voice, and all of the Democrats in some of the purple states are less enthusiastic about some of these Democratic candidates.
	This is why the Washington Post is reporting, my advisor, that Sanders' rift may help trump Democrats' fear.
	On Tuesday, when Democrats had hoped to focus Americans squarely on President Trump's impeachment trial, many in the party were instead watching in alarm and dismay as a fresh spat erupted between Hillary Clinton and the candidate she defeated in 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders.
	Everybody is afraid that the party is falling apart.
	They should be worried that the party is falling apart because, frankly, the party is in some pretty serious trouble.
	They got a bunch of bad nominees up there against President Trump, who's just Trump, and everybody's baked it into the cake already.
	Alrighty, time for a quick thing I like and a quick thing that I hate.
	So, things that I like today.
	The Hall of Fame voting.
	I'm with Bill James when it comes to Baseball Hall of Fame voting.
	It has become the Hall of Very Good.
	That's how you have Harold Baines in the Hall of Fame.
	Listen, I'm a White Sox fan.
	I like Harold Baines.
	Harold Baines is not a Hall of Famer.
	But Derek Jeter was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame on Tuesday.
	Jeter was not elected unanimously.
	He was named on all but one of the 397 ballots cast by members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, which is certainly more than enough to clear the 75% hurdle for election.
	This was the second highest voting mark in baseball history after Mariano Rivera, who was indeed elected unanimously.
	He eclipsed Ken Griffey Jr.
	Now, let's just be frank about this.
	Ken Griffey Jr.
	was a way better player than Derek Jeter.
	Derek Jeter was a great leader.
	He was a great face for the New York Yankees.
	He was not even the best shortstop of his generation.
	He was maybe the third best shortstop of his generation.
	There were many years in which he was outplayed by Several other shortstops playing in Major League Baseball, but it was his consistency.
	He was a very intelligent baseball player.
	He was a very clutch player.
	If you look at the number of career wins for Derek Jeter, it was not supremely high.
	His sort of advanced statistics, advanced stat fans are not really fans of Derek Jeter.
	His career war, his career wins above replacement is 72.4.
	That does not tend to rank extraordinarily high.
	Larry Walker, his career war, so his career, let me look it up right now, his career wins above replacement, Larry Walker, who is right on the borderline.
	He actually had more career wins above replacement than Derek Jeter and yet gets fewer votes.
	It just shows you the glory of playing in New York.
	But Jeter was a great face for baseball.
	I'm glad that Derek Jeter is in the Hall of Fame.
	Now we need to convince the Hall of Fame voters to stop with this nonsense where they don't put Curt Schilling in the Hall of Fame.
	That is absolute insanity.
	Curt Schilling was in fact one of the great pitchers of his generation.
	The fact that Curt Schilling is a political right winger has basically kept Curt Schilling out of the Hall of Fame for several years here.
	Were he a political left winger, dude would have been.
	He has He has a higher career war, Kurt Schilling does, than either Larry Walker or Derek Jeter.
	His career war is 79.5.
	If you look at his career, strikeouts to walks ratio, it is one of the highest in baseball history.
	There's no question that Kurt Schilling should be in the Hall of Fame.
	The fact that it's taken him so long is simply because baseball writers are on the left and they don't want to allow in somebody they disagree with politically who didn't like Barack Obama.
	It really is that simple.
	Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate, and then we'll get out of here.
	So there was something that I thought was actually pretty nice.
	Ayanna Pressley, who, as you know, I'm not a fan, right?
	She's the adjunct member of the squad.
	She's the one everybody forgets about, the Ringo Starr of the squad.
	But she did something I thought that was actually quite nice.
	She did a video op-ed in The Root in which she revealed she had alopecia and that she is now completely bald.
	And she, you know, shows that she is bald.
	And, frankly, I'm very much in favor of people showing that medical conditions should not be stigmatized.
	If you have a medical condition, there are lots of other people who probably have that same medical condition, and instead of being embarrassed about a medical condition, talking about it publicly does allow people to feel comfortable in getting treatment, does allow people to feel like they don't have to hide the medical condition in front of other people, it does make the world better for people to be clear and, frankly, brave about things like this.
	I didn't see a single person who objected to this, because who the hell would object to it?
	I mean, good for Ayanna Pressley.
	She's got a medical condition.
	There's no reason why she feels that she should have to wear a wig or something.
	She concludes the video by revealing her bald head.
	Now, there's a piece in the Washington Post titled, Now, I understand the whole argument that for a long time in the country, there were people who discriminated against black women based on the fact that, genetically speaking, black women very often tend to have curly hair.
	And for some reason, people are against that.
	That if you have big hair, they're against that.
	Okay, that's very silly.
	Discriminating on the basis of hair is ridiculous in every possible way.
	But you're looking for a reason to be pissed off if you are citing Ayanna Pressley's video about alopecia as some sort of black moment.
	It's just a human bravery moment.
	I don't know why that's a black bravery moment.
	This has nothing to do with race.
	And again, there was no blowback.
	But this piece...
	By a person named Nana Efua Mumford.
	The whole thing is about how she is taking the fraught black hair conversation into new territory by focusing on the beauty of having no hair at all.
	Now this had nothing to do with race.
	She has alopecia.
	She came out, she said she had alopecia.
	She shows that she's bald.
	Good for her.
	Seriously, good for her.
	What the hell does that have to do with race?
	Now, we live in a country that, thank God, is so racially diverse and tolerant that we now have to make up new excuses to be mad.
	And frankly, the Washington Post can always find a new excuse to be mad and to pretend that the legacy of racism carries on in the non-existent objections to Ayanna Pressley showing that she has alopecia.
	I mean, you really have to stretch to get there.
	Alrighty, we'll be back here later today with all your updates on the impeachment and everything else.
	You're listening to The Ben Shapiro Show.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
	Directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer Jonathan Hay.
	Supervising producer Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
	Assistant director Pavel Lydowsky.
	Technical producer Austin Stevens.
	Playback and media operated by Nick Sheehan.
	Associate producer Katie Swinnerton.
	Edited by Adam Siovitz.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Nika Geneva.
	The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
	Yesterday marked the first full day of President Trump's impeachment trial.
	The trial consisted of House impeachment managers talking and talking and talking and talking and talking for 13 hours.
	Talking.
	And I was up watching until the very last minute so you wouldn't have to.
	That is my service to the American public.
	We will examine the most important moments.
	Then Hillary throws shade at Bernie.
	President Trump wrecks the weak elites at Davos.
	And we announce a fun new project.

▲