Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 31, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show

53:51

The End? | Ep. 944

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Republicans look like they have the votes to end this impeachment trial.
	The World Health Organization declares a global emergency on coronavirus.
	And we checked the mailbag.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
	Today's Ben Shapiro Show is sponsored by ExpressVPN News.
	Your online activity shouldn't be public.
	It belongs to you.
	Protect yourself at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
	Alrighty, so we have reached the big day.
	Today might be the day when finally this whole impeachment thing that started all the way back in October and now is carried forward all the way to the beginning of February.
	It may be over today.
	The reason it may be over today is because it appears that the Republicans have the witnesses, have the votes to prevent further witnesses from testifying.
	I say further witnesses because all of the witness testimony from the House was in fact admitted as evidence in the Senate impeachment trial.
	So what you keep hearing from the media, which is that there were no witnesses, not technically true.
	There were witnesses and many of the witnesses that were quote unquote called during the Clinton impeachment was the same thing.
	They were actually interviewed by the DOJ or by the House.
	And then those transcripts were admitted via video or via transcript.
	To the to the Senate impeachment trial.
	So the idea there have been no witnesses is obviously not true.
	The question is, why are there no further witnesses?
	And that question, of course, was exacerbated by that supposed bombshell that John Bolton dropped in which he suggested that the president was pretty explicitly making clear that he wanted to withhold Ukrainian aid in exchange for particular investigations from the Ukrainian government targeting events back in 2016 and Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and CrowdStrike and all the rest of it.
	So There was a big question coming up to Friday, coming up to today, as to whether Republicans were going to vote to admit additional witnesses.
	And as of this hour, effectively, there are a few different options, right?
	The Senate is supposed to convene...
	About 1 p.m.
	today, East Coast time.
	So that means that there are a few different options that are sort of on the table here.
	Option number one is that the Senate votes not to bring in further witnesses.
	And then this thing is over.
	And by tonight, the Democrats have a few kind of holding pattern things they can do.
	They can they can hold up the vote on impeachment for maybe 12 hours or so.
	And by Saturday morning, This thing is over and Monday we begin fresh with the Iowa caucuses and the State of the Union address.
	It's a big week next week, regardless of what happens with impeachment.
	That is option number one.
	That one looks like the most probable at this point.
	Then there's option number two.
	Option number two is that there are three Republicans who vote in favor of further witnesses.
	And this is where things get kind of dicey, because if you get Mitt Romney and Susan Collins, both of whom have come out for further witnesses, and they are joined by Lisa Murkowski, then you have a 50-50 split in the Senate, assuming that everybody on the Democratic side shows up.
	Okay, if you have a 50-50 split, normally in the Senate, the presiding officer breaks the tie.
	And normally the presiding officer in any sort of Senate procedure would be the Vice President of the United States.
	But, in an impeachment trial, the presiding officer is Chief Justice John Roberts.
	So you could end up with the unenviable scenario for Chief Justice Roberts, where he is the person who actually has to make the decision.
	As to whether further witnesses are called, which throws him right in the center of a massive controversy, which, by the way, is the place that Chief Justice Roberts least likes to be.
	If you know one thing about Justice Roberts, he really, really hates being the center of attention.
	He really wants to, quote unquote, stand up for institutional legitimacy.
	He doesn't like to inject himself in politics.
	It's the reason that he let Obamacare be reclassified as a tax rather than as a fee.
	The reason he did that is because he specifically Wanted to, quote-unquote, not interject in the legislative process.
	So making John Roberts sort of the swing vote here is just a disaster for everybody involved, except the Democrats, because they win either way.
	If Roberts says no witnesses, then the Democrats should say, because he's a Republican appointee.
	And if he says, I'm not going to weigh in on this, so it dies, then they say, because he's a Republican appointee.
	And if he votes in favor of more witnesses, then Republicans go on attack against the guy who was appointed by George W. Bush.
	So Democrats, In that scenario, don't really have a losing situation.
	And then there is the most unlikely scenario at this point.
	And that is that somehow the Democrats do pry away four votes for additional witnesses.
	And we hear from additional witnesses over the next couple of weeks.
	Now, as I've been saying for a while, I'm not sure that the smartest strategic play long-term here is to go with no witnesses.
	Like I hear the argument.
	The argument is let's just get this thing over with.
	It's a charade anyway.
	If the Democrats want to reopen this thing in the House, they can.
	If the Democrats want to call John Bolton in the House, they can.
	They can vote for impeachment again.
	Tomorrow, right?
	Which is all true.
	They can do that.
	They can call John Bolton next week.
	They can have John Bolton testify.
	They can wait for the subpoenas to go through.
	And then they can bring another impeachment charge six months from now.
	But the Republican calculation is, OK, you've already taken your shot.
	If you take a shot at the king, you best not miss.
	You missed.
	It's over.
	Right.
	That is sort of logic, number one.
	And there is some merit to it.
	There really is.
	And then there is sort of logic, number two, which is, OK, if they shut down the witnesses and then two weeks before the election, John Bolton goes on a speaking tour talking about all the stuff he would have said if he'd been allowed to testify.
	Then that's not going to look good, not only for Trump.
	I mean, Trump doesn't care, right?
	I mean, Trump is not really vulnerable on the score, but it doesn't look great for a lot of the purple state Republicans who voted against bringing witnesses.
	So it is a not risk-free move to simply vote to shut down the witnesses.
	Okay, we'll give you more of this story in just one moment, because then we are moving forward on the impeachment vote, probably by tomorrow, if all indicators as they are currently hold.
	First, let me tell you something about me.
	You look at me, do you see cowboy?
	Do you see cowboy?
	I don't see cowboy.
	You know, there's a picture of me that's been floating around online for years.
	I was in Texas and I bought a cowboy hat.
	I'm leaning up against a truck.
	It's a Toyota.
	And it's been mocked widely because I'm about as urban a human being as it is possible to be.
	I spent my entire life growing up in big cities.
	And I'll be honest with you, I do own a pair of cowboy boots.
	But the problem is when I brought those cowboy boots home, they're the ones that have like the stitching on them and they're all kind of fancy.
	And my wife looked at me and she said, "If you ever wear those out of the house, I will murder you." And then I said to her, "You know what though?
	I really love cowboy stuff.
	I really do like cowboy stuff.
	You have to know, I'm a huge fan of Westerns.
	I've seen like every Western ever made basically.
	I read Western novels.
	Like the Great American West is a fantastic place.
	So having a good pair of boots that is subtle and that I can actually wear out and not be embarrassed as like a person who is not a cowboy would be great.
	And this is why I'm so excited about Tecova.
	Tecova's cowboy boots are handmade with high quality full grain leather by world-class bootmakers.
	They're built to be comfortable right out of the box for every occasion at home, in the office, out on the town.
	They have tons of timeless style.
	They're really subtle, okay?
	So as somebody who cannot get away with wearing like actual full scale stitched cowboy boots and all this, they have fashions that I can wear out and not be embarrassed.
	Not only not be embarrassed, they look great.
	I just pop my jeans over the top of them and frankly they look just like patent leather shoes.
	Or if I want to wear the boots just normally, they look like normal boots.
	I don't look ridiculous wearing around those boots.
	Not only do I not look ridiculous, I feel like I've engaged in Americana.
	They look really great.
	I mean these are great looking boots.
	Kovas cuts out the middleman, they sell direct to you at an honest price that is truly amazing for this level of quality.
	It's a quality boot.
	I've never worn that other pair of boots again.
	Tecovas is the only boots that I wear and it looks great.
	I mean, listen, feeling a little bit Texas out here in swanky LA is pretty fantastic.
	So do what I did.
	Get yourself a pair of Tecovas cowboy boots today at tecovas.com.
	You can get away with it too, I promise.
	That's T-E-C-O-V-A-S dot com slash Ben.
	Tecovas dot com slash Ben.
	These boots are great.
	They're really fantastic and they're not going to cost you a fortune.
	They look great.
	Tecovas dot com slash Ben.
	Go check them out right now.
	OK, so here's the way the vote is going to go.
	Republican, according to the according to the Associated Press, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee declared late Thursday night he will oppose calling more witnesses in President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, all but dashing Democratic efforts for more testimony and pushing the Senate toward an imminent vote to acquit the president.
	And he put out A long Twitter thread explaining why it was that he was not going to vote for additional witnesses.
	And here's what he said.
	He said, I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the US Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.
	Okay, so the point he's making is the point I've been saying that Trump's team should be making the whole time, right?
	which is, yeah, the president engaged in a quid pro quo in which he requested investigations in exchange for military aid.
	The question is whether that is impeachable or not, given the fact that the United States does have a legitimate interest in the investigations, at least some of those investigations, and given the fact that the president of the United States was engaging in what is generally understood to be foreign policy.
	Now, if you don't like his foreign policy, you have an option to get rid of him.
	That comes in November.
	But you don't simply get to say him exercising his general prerogatives under foreign policy, even if they're prerogatives you don't like.
	By the way, I don't like his policy here, right?
	I think that holding back the Ukrainian military aid was a foolish move.
	I think that him doing it in exchange for weird conspiracy theories about CrowdStrike is idiotic.
	But that does not make it impeachable, as I've been saying, right?
	Lamar Alexander said, there's no more need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
	He said this on television on October 3rd, 2019, and during his July 25th, 2019 telephone call with the President of Ukraine.
	There's no need for more evidence to conclude that the President withheld USAID, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
	The House managers have proved this with what they call a mountain of overwhelming evidence.
	There's no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisors.
	It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold U.S.
	aid to encourage that investigation.
	When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law, but the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the President from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
	The question, then, is not whether the President did it, but whether the U.S.
	Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.
	I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.
	The Senate has spent nine long days considering this mountain of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the President's lawyers, their answers to Senators' questions, and the House record.
	Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution's treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors standard for an impeachable offense.
	The framers believe that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment.
	That is why the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate for conviction, yet not one House Republican voted for these articles.
	If this shallow, hurried, wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist.
	It would create a weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.
	Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with the consent of the governed, not at the pleasure of the United States Congress.
	Let the people decide.
	Okay, so what he is saying here is wholly true.
	I will say this with one caveat, which is this doesn't answer why you would vote against the witnesses, right?
	The answer is why you'd vote against the impeachment.
	The answer is why you would not vote to impeach the president.
	But the Democrats are saying, okay, well, what if John Bolton were to come forward and testify that the president told him he was going after Joe Biden because he was afraid of him in 2020?
	Would that change your math at all?
	And Republicans are pushing back saying, well, you guys could have called them in the House at any time, but it doesn't really answer the question.
	And that's my fear, right?
	Not that John Bolton would actually say that, but that the House Democrats and the Democrats generally and the media claiming that this is a cover-up, whether that has any impact on some of those swing state senators.
	I mean, Adam Schiff was playing this up to the hill yesterday.
	He was basically begging the Republicans, let's limit the witness subpoenas to one week.
	You keep saying it's going to drag out for weeks.
	How about this?
	We'll make a deal.
	We'll limit the witness subpoenas to one week, and then we'll be done.
	Here is Adam Schiff trying to make this argument yesterday.
	I will make an offer to opposing counsel who have said that this will stretch on indefinitely if you decide to have a single witness.
	Let's cabin the depositions to one week.
	In the Clinton trial, there was one week of depositions.
	And you know what the Senate did during that week?
	They did the business of the Senate.
	The Senate went back to its ordinary legislative business while the depositions were being conducted.
	You want the Clinton model?
	Let's use the Clinton model.
	Let's take a week.
	Let's take a week to have a fair trial.
	Okay, the Republican comeback came courtesy of Representative Steve Scalise, the House Minority Whip from Louisiana.
	He says, listen, why exactly does Schiff even need more witnesses?
	I mean, they keep saying he's made the case.
	This is true, right?
	It is true.
	The Democrats keep saying we have the case for impeachment, so why do they need more witnesses?
	That, again, that is a good point, right?
	The point that Democrats made their strongest case.
	The case is not good.
	And so we're not going to make their case for them.
	Like, if they want to take this up in the House again, they can take this up in the House again.
	That's the House's job.
	This is not a bad argument from Scalise.
	Jay Sekulow, I thought, had the mic drop moment when he looked over at Adam Schiff sitting there on the Senate floor today and he said, over 30 times, you said that you made your case.
	And literally, you know, looking over at Schiff and Schiff said, yes.
	So if Schiff made his case, why do you need more witnesses?
	Especially when Sekulow pointed out, oh, and by the way, we'll call the whistleblower.
	We'll call Adam Schiff.
	We'll call Joe and Hunter Biden.
	You know, is this going to go on and on for months?
	Or we all know the president didn't commit a crime.
	Okay, so, Senator Susan Collins, for her part, she came out at basically the same time as Lamar Alexander, and she said that she would vote in favor of more witnesses.
	This makes sense on a political level.
	The reason it makes sense on a political level is she is voting in favor of witnesses, presumably knowing that Lamar Alexander was going to vote against witnesses, so the vote has no actual impact, right?
	She gets to say to her constituents, I called for more witnesses, what are you blaming me for?
	At the same time, her vote was not the swing vote to ensure that the witnesses actually happened.
	She put out a statement saying, we've heard the cases argued and the questions answered, In keeping with the model used for the impeachment trial of President Clinton, at this point, Senators are able to make an informed judgment about what is in dispute and what is important to the underlying issues.
	I worked with colleagues to ensure the schedule for the trial included a guaranteed up or down vote on whether or not to call witnesses.
	I believe hearing from certain witnesses would give each side the opportunity to more fully and fairly make their case, resolve any ambiguities, and provide additional clarity.
	Therefore, a vote in support of the motions will allow witnesses and documents to be subpoenaed.
	If this motion passes, I believe that the most sensible way to proceed would be for the House managers and the President's attorneys to attempt to agree on a limited and equal number of witnesses for each side.
	If they can't agree, then the Senate should choose the number of witnesses.
	Guys, this does give Susan Collins some political cover for her main race, but obviously it has no impact if the Republicans have 51 votes not to call more witnesses at this point.
	And, you know, again, I think the media are going to blame the Republicans.
	But the fact is that if the Democrats had done their job in the House, none of this would have been an issue in the first place, right?
	I mean, if they just waited to adjudicate the Bolton subpoena, if they'd waited to adjudicate the documentary subpoenas from the executive branch, none of this would have been a problem in the first place.
	So it's easy for them to blame the Republicans.
	And sure, you can make the case that Republicans ought to be allowing witnesses.
	But let's just be real about this.
	Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff showed up with nothing but their bleep in their hands here.
	They did not have the case.
	They did not have the case, okay?
	And because they did not have the case, they were then calling on the Senate to fill in the gaps in their own case.
	And let's assume for a second that John Bolton had not come out with this quote-unquote bombshell a week before the end of this thing.
	Then everybody would acknowledge that there was no need to call additional witnesses.
	Because who would those additional witnesses be?
	Okay, it was just because Bolton spoke up that this became a hot issue.
	Now, the reason I've been saying that maybe Republicans should consider additional witnesses is not because I believe it would change the outcome.
	In fact, I've said precisely the reverse.
	I don't think it would change the outcome.
	The only reason that I've suggested that it might be a good idea to allow the calling of additional witnesses is because you want everything out right now because you don't want it all coming out later via another channel and hurting the senators who voted against allowing the witnesses in the first place.
	And you can see the media already building up to this, right?
	Karl Bernstein.
	of Woodward and Bernstein fame.
	He was on television last night and he was suggesting it's a cover-up.
	They have covered up what the President of the United States has done in his grievous action when they had the ability to find out more and reach a bipartisan, as it were, decision if we could hear from the witnesses.
	If Mr. Bolton could come in and tell us, is there anything else there?
	No, maybe it would be exonerating.
	This is a cover-up, plain and simple.
	Okay, it's not a cover-up, plain and simple, because again, the House has the means at its disposal to simply call Bolton.
	So it's not a cover-up when there is a branch, an independent branch of government that has the ability to make all of this happen, like right now, in the here and now.
	It's also not a cover-up because, frankly, the Senate gets to decide its own procedures, right?
	Acting in coordination with normal procedures, which...
	Is what this is.
	Senate gets to decide its own procedures.
	You may not like the procedures.
	That's how the process works.
	That does not constitute a cover-up.
	A cover-up is where you do something illegal in order to prevent information from coming out.
	And as the Trump team and the GOP were pointing out yesterday, there was a political article that came out during Thursday night's proceedings about how former VP Joe Biden actually argued against including new witnesses during former President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial and that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer agreed with him.
	Trump attorney Patrick Philbin called it the Biden Doctrine and the Biden Rule.
	And suggested that five minutes ago, the Democrats were very much in favor of barring witnesses.
	Now, of course, they have flipped their positions.
	Of course, the same is true for a lot of the Republicans with regard to Clinton impeachment.
	Now, in a second, we'll get to the Democratic reaction to all of this because it's beginning to dawn on them that this thing went nowhere and that they don't have a lot coming out of this.
	You don't know what's coming tomorrow.
	You don't know what's coming tomorrow.
	I don't know what's coming tomorrow.
	people are predicting.
	Barring any of that, the Democrats really have nothing here.
	And you can see how desperate they are from the proceedings yesterday and from what they were saying about what impeachment means generally.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	Okay, let's be real about this.
	You don't know what's coming tomorrow.
	You don't know what's coming tomorrow.
	I don't know what's coming tomorrow.
	Is the president going to have to face more witnesses or is he not?
	What's going to happen in Iowa?
	Who the hell knows?
	Is there gonna be an earthquake out here in Los Angeles?
	That you never know at any point.
	This is why, if you are smart, you have home insurance.
	In fact, in many states, it is the law that you have home insurance.
	Well, if you need the best home insurance possible...
	PolicyGenius will compare your policy against options from top insurers to make sure that you are getting the right home insurance coverage at the best possible price.
	They've saved their customers an average of $690 per year doing just that.
	If PolicyGenius finds you a better rate than what you're currently paying, they'll do all the work to get you switched over.
	If you own a car, PolicyGenius will compare your home and auto policies across different insurers and even mix and match to find you savings as well.
	So, you never know what's happening in life, you don't know what's happening next, but this is why insurance exists, to mitigate risk in the future.
	Do it for your home.
	Do it for your auto.
	They also have life insurance policies, if you've heard me talk about that before.
	Be responsible.
	Get insured.
	Check out PolicyGenius right now.
	Everybody gets the future wrong.
	Get your insurance right, because that means that no matter what happens, at least you've made a bet.
	Go check out PolicyGenius.com and insure yourself against future catastrophe.
	Okay, so the Democrats, desperate to spin this thing as a victory in some way, are now trotting out more and more ridiculous arguments.
	So Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House who botched this thing from beginning to end, I mean truly botched it, truly and well botched it, right?
	She put forward this impeachment without actively knowing what was in it, and that pre-committed her to a path where impeachment had to take place.
	And then, because the witnesses were not giving them exactly what they wanted, they just sort of forced through a partisan vote, which gives Republicans the excuse to say this thing is wholly partisan from the outset, which of course it was.
	Well, Nancy Pelosi is now faced with the prospect of having brought an impeachment that did not receive a single Republican vote in favor of the impeachment, and not a single Republican vote presumably in favor of conviction.
	Okay, and now Nancy Pelosi is out there trying to proclaim that she won, she won, she won, right?
	She's insisting that she won, even though the game is over and she lost.
	Here she is explaining, don't worry, President Trump has never acquitted.
	No matter what, he's not acquitted.
	Now, she's gonna have to explain how it is that after you're acquitted by the Senate, you're not acquitted.
	It's sort of like saying that OJ Simpson was not acquitted.
	OJ Simpson, you can still say he's guilty.
	But O.J.
	Simpson was in fact acquitted by a jury.
	Okay, the fact is that Donald Trump will be acquitted.
	That is a thing that is going to happen.
	But she's claiming that his acquittal does not matter.
	It's not real.
	Why?
	Nancy Pelosi, explain.
	Do you think that President Trump will be chastened and understand that he's got a Congress watching him?
	Or will he be emboldened because the Senate will have acquitted him?
	Well, he will not be acquitted.
	You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial.
	And you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that.
	Um, no, that's not how any of this works.
	So a few reasons why this is idiotic.
	Number one, the Senate procedures are decided upon by the Senate.
	That's in the Constitution.
	The trial is at the behest of the Senate and the procedures are decided upon by the Senate and if you're acquitted, You are acquitted.
	That's number one.
	Number two, Nancy Pelosi's actually now making the case.
	She's now actually making the case that Trump was never impeached.
	Not just not acquitted, not impeached, because she's making the case that you cannot have a Senate trial without witnesses, right?
	So that doesn't count as a trial.
	Okay, well, what if you have an impeachment without the very witnesses that you are assuming are necessary for the trial itself?
	Right?
	So if you are saying that the trial never took place because no witnesses were called in the Senate, Well, you didn't call any of those same witnesses in the House.
	So what exactly were you doing in the House?
	Does that count as an impeachment now?
	Like, this is just attempting desperately to grab onto any piece of news and try and treat it as though she's gotten a victory when she's pretty clearly lost.
	Angus King, the quote-unquote independent from Maine, he's not independent in any way.
	He's a Democrat.
	He says, without witnesses, he's never acquitted.
	This is going to be the Democratic talking point.
	He's never been acquitted, guys.
	Don't trust your eyes and your ears.
	Trust me.
	Doesn't matter what the vote says.
	He's never been acquitted.
	Frankly, from the President's point of view, if this trial winds up in the next 24-48 hours with no witnesses, he can say, well, I was acquitted, but he really can't say he was exonerated.
	I think there will always be an asterisk by this, you know, trial but no witnesses.
	I mean, one of the Senators last night said, you know, we had a Okay, again, this is such a ridiculous, ridiculous contention that if you don't have witnesses at the trial... Yeah, you know what else you normally have at a trial?
	never happened before.
	And the American people understand they watch Perry Mason.
	You always have witnesses.
	Okay, again, this is such a ridiculous, ridiculous contention that if you don't have witnesses at the trial, yeah, you know what else you normally have at a trial, a prosecution that brings its case.
	Normally, you have a prosecution that brings its entire case.
	If you're in a normal criminal trial and the prosecution showed up and they're like, okay, well, we don't actually have a crime we're charging, so we're not going to charge a crime.
	Also, we're not going to bring sufficient evidence.
	And we insist that the defense call our witnesses for us.
	We insist that you, like, in no way is a Senate trial comparable to a criminal trial.
	So suggesting that a trial has not taken place because you didn't get the witnesses that you wanted, that you were fully capable of calling in the House is an absurdity on its face.
	But this is what the Democrats have been relegated to because they lose.
	Okay, they lose.
	This is over.
	They lose.
	Speaking of losers, Elizabeth Warren tried to get in a final shot here at Chief Justice John Roberts.
	She is just awful.
	She's truly an awful human being.
	So Elizabeth Warren, what they do over in the Senate during the trial is they submit their questions to John Roberts, who sits there and reads the questions out loud.
	Like, all of these people are contestants on The Price is Right or something.
	And here is John Roberts reading Elizabeth Warren's question, which is designed to, quote-unquote, humiliate John Roberts.
	And of course, the left is like, look at her, humiliating John Roberts.
	Yeah, except you know what's going to happen after this is over?
	John Roberts is going to go back to his life-tenured seat on the Supreme Court and get to wear that robe around all day.
	And Elizabeth Warren is going to lose in Iowa, and then she's going to lose in New Hampshire, and then she's going to lose everywhere, and she's going to go back to being an elderly senator from Massachusetts.
	That's what's going to happen after all of this.
	So the humiliation visited upon John Roberts, first of all, nothing can humiliate John Roberts worse than his own judgment in the Obamacare case.
	But beyond that, like truly, this is this is puerile nonsense.
	From Senator Warren is for the House managers.
	At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses Or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution.
	And then he just stares at her.
	He's like, OK, this is bullcrap.
	Like, you're asking the house managers how humiliated I am.
	Like, what absolute horsepucky.
	Serious nonsense.
	Honestly, I'm more interested in what watch he's wearing.
	That looks like a nice Breguet that he's got on his wrist right there.
	I'm a bit of a watch guy.
	So that's a nice watch there, John Roberts.
	I like what I'm seeing.
	Okay, so this whole thing, of course, is incredibly, incredibly stupid, and it is now over, and we know it's over, and it's just a question of where we go from here.
	Well, that does clear the decks for President Trump to go hog wild out there, and he is indeed going hog wild out there.
	He held a big rally last night in which he just blasted the Democrats.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, let's talk about what happens if you have an employee who just isn't cutting it.
	I mean, I don't mean to single out anybody like, you know, like Michael from IT or something.
	Let's say that your entire job is literally to make sure that all the technology in the office works.
	And then just one day you shut down the server rack, like at an internet company, which is what we do.
	And just the server rack is down and boom, like the entire company is down.
	And let's say your entire job is making sure that the server rack never goes down.
	Well, you know, then you might be looking at ZipRecruiter.com.
	Then your employer might be checking out, might be putting a job listing on.
	I'm just saying, it could be happening.
	Checking it out at ZipRecruiter.com.
	Now, if you want better employees, or let's say that you want to keep Mike around, but he needs a hand in not shutting down the server rack.
	Well, then you might go check out ZipRecruiter.com too.
	They get you great results because you post the job online and then qualified employees come and find you.
	With results like that, it's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
	Every time you open up a job application, you're going to get a mixed bag of candidates, like a bunch of people coming back who aren't that great, except if you use ZipRecruiter, they help filter the candidates for you.
	ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
	See why ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes.
	Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address, ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	That is ZipRecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	Go check them out right now and make sure that your server rack never gets shut down.
	ZipRecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
	Okay, so President Trump going hog wild on the stump.
	This impeachment thing didn't go particularly great for Democrats.
	Now, again, I still think that there is a risk out there lurking in the distance.
	That John Bolton decides that he's gonna talk about Trump saying to him that he hates the Bidens and that's what this is all about, or that Mick Mulvaney does an unfortunate interview or something like that where a document leaks, right?
	This is why I was suggesting maybe that Republicans should just go forward, clear the decks of all of this, and then move on with their lives.
	But!
	Whatever it is, it's over.
	And now Donald Trump is out there and he is on fire.
	He was very jazzed up last night as he was getting the news that there would be no further witnesses and this thing is basically over.
	So this makes two narrow escapes for the president over the last three years.
	We had the Mueller report, which dragged on for years at a time.
	Witch hunt!
	And then that went nowhere.
	And then he got to go out on the stump and talk about how he'd been persecuted, which was fairly true.
	And now he gets to go out on the stump and talk about how he's been persecuted by Democrats, which, again, is about three quarters true.
	I only say three quarters and not wholly because he did make a boo-boo with this whole Ukraine thing.
	It was very stupid.
	But with all of that said, this is the president's favorite place to be.
	He said this way back in 2016.
	It was one of his best and most honest lines.
	The president said, I whine and I whine and I whine until I win.
	He really said, like, this is an actual line that Trump used back in 2016.
	Well, this is his favorite place to be, right?
	Is that he's been victimized by the media?
	True.
	That he's been put upon by the Democrats?
	True.
	And so here he is, blasting the Democrats and saying, what they really want is to make sure that I'm not on the ballot, right?
	That's what they really want.
	By the way, there are polls out.
	It shows that Republican voters are more enthusiastic than Democrats.
	Democrats are nervous.
	Republicans are fired up, which is I just got impeached!
	Can you believe these people?
	is if you impeach somebody and you take the shot and you miss, all you've done is fire up Trump's base, which thinks that you are trying to toss him off the ballot unfairly.
	Here is Donald Trump saying the entire goal of this thing was to come after you, which is, again, true.
	I just got impeached.
	Can you believe these people?
	I got impeached.
	They impeached Trump.
	The best trade deals, the strongest military.
	I took care of the vets.
	We got choice.
	We got accountability for the vets.
	Accountability.
	We got all these things.
	And they impeach you, President.
	No, that's not going to work.
	Watch.
	Just watch.
	They want to nullify your ballots, poison our democracy, and overthrow the entire system of government.
	That's not happening, I can tell you that.
	Okay, so listen, Trump is a larger-than-life figure.
	Again, they keep taking shots at him, they keep missing, they keep stepping on rakes.
	It's a bad look for them, and the rest of their field is just garbage in 2020.
	And this is the problem for the Democrats.
	It truly is.
	Elizabeth Warren has completely lost her mind.
	I mean, at this point, she's gone.
	Elizabeth Warren cannot deal with the fact that just a few months ago, she was the presumed nominee, right?
	I mean, back in October, she was the presumed nominee.
	She was leading in the national polling.
	She was leading in Iowa.
	She was leading in New Hampshire.
	She had the ground game.
	She had the organization.
	And then, she decided to try and fill in the bare bones of Bernie Sanders' idiotic ideology with actual plans.
	And people are like, oh wait, that's what that plan looks like when it's implemented?
	That sounds awful.
	That sounds like garbage.
	And she started to plummet in the polls.
	And so now she's gone right back to the Kamala Harris well.
	And she is pandering so hard.
	I mean, she is pandering like a pander bear eaten at a Chinese wildlife market.
	I mean, she is just really going for it.
	Here is Elizabeth Warren, pandering harder, pandering harder, starring Bruce Willis.
	I'm going to have a secretary of education That this young trans person interviews on my behalf, and only if this person believes that our Secretary or Secretary of Education nominee is committed to creating a welcoming environment, a safe environment, and a full educational curriculum for everyone, will that person actually be advanced to be Secretary of Education.
	What?
	Panderhard with a vengeance, my God.
	Credit to producer Mike on that call.
	My goodness, look at that, that is just, and people are cheering, woo!
	We're gonna find somebody, a child with gender dysphoria, and we're gonna have that child, that seven-year-old child with gender dysphoria, I am jazz, we're gonna have that child interview the prospective secretary of education to tell us what national policy should be with regard to locker rooms and LGBT education, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
	Now, if she really wants to do this, honestly, Elizabeth Warren should, here's what she should announce.
	Senator Warren, if she really wants to win this thing this way, she needs to announce that her vice presidential pick is going to be a trans, Native American, half Native American, like her, half Native American, one quarter Chinese, one quarter African American, one eighth Latinx, disabled person, with With Vitiligo.
	That person is going to be her vice president.
	And then she promises that because that person has the most knowledge of the world affairs, because that person is the most sensitive to everybody's needs, that she will then resign as president and that person will become president.
	That is the most woke thing that she could do.
	She could give up her white woman slot to a minority.
	She could do this.
	She could make this happen.
	We can find the most intersectional human being in existence She can nominate that person as her vice president.
	She can pledge that if elected, she will then resign and hand over all power to the trans little person so that they can shape American policy.
	I'm sorry, this is crazy.
	Who is she appealing to?
	Who is the population like, oh my god, now I'm voting for her.
	Now that she's said that.
	And look at her, she's so enthused.
	She's like, yeah, yeah.
	She's got the hair shaking and everything.
	Wow.
	It's going to be so sad when she loses and then Anne Taylor Loft has to put all those sweaters on at half off because the market for the Elizabeth Warren sweaters are just gone.
	So that's exciting stuff.
	Meanwhile, speaking of delusional people, so it turns out that Michael Bloomberg is going to drop $100 million on ads attacking Donald Trump in just two months.
	According to the Drudge Report, Bloomberg has already spent more than $100 million just on ads that attack Trump.
	And that does not include the nearly $100 million more that Bloomberg has spent on ads on his own behalf.
	And it's true.
	I mean, if you watch YouTube or Hulu, if you watch any of these things that have ads on them, there will be an ad for Michael Bloomberg.
	I have personally seen three ads for Michael Bloomberg.
	Okay?
	And that's amazing.
	He is drying up the market.
	He is blowing out the market.
	It's pretty incredible.
	Meanwhile, national polling, Sanders is now leading an NBC Wall Street Journal national poll.
	So Joe Biden is getting desperate now, and Joe Biden is starting to open up the guns on Bernie Sanders, saying he's a Democrat, Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat.
	Yeah, good luck with that.
	The entire pitch for Bernie Sanders is that he's not a Democrat.
	This is like Jeb Bush saying to Donald Trump, I've been a lifelong Republican, you're not a Republican.
	The entire appeal of Donald Trump is that he was running from outside the party infrastructure and that he was shaking things up and bringing something new.
	Biden, speaking in Pella, Iowa, said, I'm a Democrat.
	Earlier, he had told reporters at Dairy Queen that the contrast between himself and his top rivals were, quote unquote, self-evident.
	He says he says he's not.
	He says he's not registered as a Democrat, to the best of my knowledge, and Bernie has a different view.
	So everybody is sort of going at each other now.
	But the fact is that Biden is old.
	Biden is decrepit.
	Biden is barely holding it together at this point.
	And so I do not think that he can hold off Sanders.
	I just don't.
	I think that Sanders is going to win Iowa.
	I think that Sanders is going to win New Hampshire.
	Again, the polling in Nevada is super slim.
	That is the next state.
	And it's a caucus state, which tends to favor Bernie Sanders because caucus is all about enthusiasm and turnout.
	The only poll taken in the last month with regard to, or the last three weeks with regard to Nevada, had Biden and Sanders dead even.
	The only state, here's, I've been saying this for years, ever since Rudy Giuliani set up the quote unquote Florida firewall in 2008.
	By the time he hit the firewall, it was gone, right?
	Anytime you have a candidate who sets up an electoral firewall, the firewall is breached every single time.
	Hillary was talking about how she had the blue firewall in Michigan and Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, boom, gone.
	As soon as you have a candidate who is talking about a firewall, that requires You know, a full month of losing in order to reach the firewall, that firewall is not going to exist.
	So right now, Joe Biden's firewall is in South Carolina because that's really the first state where a significant percentage of the vote is black.
	I mean, and he is wildly outpacing Bernie Sanders among black voters, but the latest polling in South Carolina was only done on January 8th.
	So it hasn't captured anything that has happened in the last three weeks.
	Right now, the betting markets have Sanders as a fairly heavy favorite to be the nominee for the Democratic Party.
	Which is just unbelievable.
	I mean, it truly is incredible.
	Now, maybe the field consolidates.
	Maybe Elizabeth Warren drops out, and maybe some of those votes go to Joe Biden.
	Maybe Pete Buttigieg drops out, some of those votes go to Joe Biden.
	But by the way, if Elizabeth Warren drops out, there's just as good a shot that Elizabeth Warren's voters move over to Bernie Sanders.
	So right now, you gotta be seeing this geriatric communist as the guy who is the greatest threat to take the Democratic nomination.
	And the reason I call him a communist is because I would like to see him, before I start just signing on to the idea that he is pro-capitalism, I'd like to hear him say, like, a nice word about capitalism, like, one would be good.
	You know, maybe revise his support for various communist regimes over the last 60 years.
	Maybe explain why he was wrong in the 1970s to support nationalization of every major industry in the United States, ranging from banks to the energy industry.
	Like, I would love to hear him explain what changed.
	And if you say, well, he's not calling for that stuff anymore, right, so explain what changed.
	Explain what changed your mind.
	Why you were wrong.
	Why you were wrong in the first place.
	How's nobody ever asked him this stuff?
	But, you know, that's where things stand right now with Bernie and Bernie's got the momentum.
	He does.
	And him being off the campaign trail is not terrible for him.
	It isn't because Joe Biden is still wandering around somewhere in Iowa trying to gather votes.
	This thing is...
	Wide open at this point for, my goodness, geriatric socialist versus Donald Trump.
	This is gonna be, what a year this will be, gang.
	We've already had a conflict in the Middle East with Iran attacking American bases.
	We've already had the President of the United States impeached.
	And we are not even in February yet.
	Wow.
	Wow, you thought 2019 was wild.
	Okay, in just a second, we're gonna get to coronavirus.
	Turns out, folks, don't eat bats.
	I know.
	We'll get to that in just one second.
	First, If you know anything about this show, you most likely heard me talk about my ardent support for the pro-life cause.
	Well, now would be a great time to subscribe to dailywire.com.
	Why?
	Because we are giving a portion of our subscriptions, like just for today, to live action.
	That's particularly important today because you know what just happened to live action, like literally in the last few minutes.
	Live action was just banned utterly from TikTok.
	They were banned from TikTok for the great sin of promoting pro-life viewpoints.
	They've banned and permanently removed live action from their platform.
	Well, that's disgusting, because social media are cracking down on the pro-life cause.
	This is what they do routinely.
	We ourselves at Daily Wire have felt this every time I speak about pro-life causes.
	There are people on the left who try to push our sponsors.
	Your membership helps keep our cameras turned on, our microphones turned up, even when the left pressures our sponsors.
	And that's why from now until today, like, not just now, basically, A portion of any DailyWire.com membership will be donated to live action with promo code LIVEACTION to support awareness and education around the world on the pro-life issue.
	So go check us out over at DailyWire.com.
	Make your pro-life voice heard.
	We are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast in the nation.
	But before that, I almost forgot.
	It's the glorious time of the week.
	Wanna give a shout out to a Daily Wire subscriber today.
	That would be Travis on Instagram, who understands the importance of having the right equipment to get you through the brutal Michigan winter.
	In this picture, Travis's elite beverage vessel is on a job site, nestled in a mound of dirt and snow next to an excavator.
	The caption reads, thanks for keeping my coffee warm on these cold days.
	Real Daily Wire.
	Hashtag leftist Sears Tumblr. Hashtag electrician.
	Glad we could help.
	Glad you didn't major in liberal arts.
	Thanks for the pick.
	Stay safe out there.
	And next week, that could be you if you subscribe.
	So head on over to dailywire.com, use that promo code LIVEACTION, give a portion of what you're doing to people who actually are pushing something pretty spectacular.
	Go check us out right now.
	Right now, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
	Meanwhile, things are getting pretty horrific surrounding this coronavirus.
	I'm always one of these people who says, like, don't panic until it's time to panic, because the time that you've wasted worrying is never receivable.
	You don't get it back on the other end.
	But I will say that this is starting to look not so great.
	The State Department is now telling Americans not to travel to China at all.
	They've issued a travel advisory because of the public health threat posed by coronavirus.
	The WHO has declared the coronavirus outbreak a global health emergency.
	They declared that on Thursday.
	So apparently, apparently there are now over 200 dead.
	There are over 9,000 diagnoses of this.
	Just by contrast, the SARS virus, I believe over the course of an entire year, had about 8,100 diagnoses.
	So this thing is spreading a lot faster than the SARS virus did.
	I've seen estimates that put the death rate from this virus at around 2%.
	The problem is you don't actually know what the rates are because the Chinese government lies.
	So we have no idea how many people are actually dead.
	We have no idea how many people have actually obtained the virus.
	And the biggest problem with this virus is we don't actually know how it is crossing human to human.
	Is it liquid transmission, the way that Ebola is, for example?
	Or is it aerial transmission, which is a lot scarier, right?
	Like the flu, like you sneeze in a room and suddenly somebody could get it, or you breathe on something and somebody can get it.
	That, of course, would be incredibly frightening.
	The fact is that we do have human-to-human transmission outside of China.
	This has happened in the United States when a person who came back from China gave it to her husband.
	Beyond that, we also know that the coronavirus is is giving people sort of secondary conditions.
	A lot of people apparently who are dying are dying of various other sort of conditions that are contingent upon the having of the coronavirus in the first place.
	The biggest problem is, of course, that they are now reporting that you can get the coronavirus.
	You can actually get the coronavirus from somebody who's asymptomatics.
	So somebody's walking around, they appear to be perfectly healthy, but they are a carrier for the coronavirus.
	That makes it nearly impossible to stop the transmission.
	And because you can't even quarantine people, you can't even, you don't know if they have it or if they don't have it.
	So once it spreads, it's going to be very difficult to stop at this point.
	All of this Is scary as hell, obviously.
	But, important to note, again, that in the United States there were 3.7 million diagnoses of the flu just at the end of the year.
	And some 3,000 people died of the flu or conditions related to the flu just at the very end of last year.
	So we're not anywhere near that scale at this point.
	With that said, This is not good news.
	This particular case in which a person transmitted asymptomatically, it was described from Germany, and it could help resolve one of the major unknowns about the virus.
	As of Thursday night, it had infected nearly 10,000 people in China alone and killed 213.
	About 100 more infections have been reported in 18 other countries, but no deaths.
	Now, what we have to know is why people died in China.
	Did they die from lack of medical care because China is a garbage country run by a communist regime?
	Or did they die because China cared for them and the virus is just that much of a killer?
	We don't know any of that.
	But good news!
	Our media are on the case, guys.
	They are on the case.
	And so I bring to you this headline from CNN Politics.
	Are you ready for this?
	So it's a picture of President Trump and his coronavirus task force.
	And it is placed above a picture of Barack Obama and his Ebola task force.
	The headline from CNN, I'm not kidding you.
	Coronavirus task force, another example of Trump administration's lack of diversity.
	I'm not kidding you.
	This is not a parody.
	CNN is complaining that the people on the coronavirus task force are not diverse enough.
	Because that's what I want.
	I mean, I know that it's like, oh god, we have a coronavirus world health emergency.
	Get me three black guys, a Native American, and a transgender little person right now, stat!
	We need those people in here right now!
	Do they have medical degrees?
	I don't care!
	We need diversity in this room, dammit!
	I don't need any medical expertise.
	All those white doctors, you tell them to go straight to hell.
	You know what I need in this room?
	I need diversity in my coronavirus task force.
	I need RuPaul in here.
	Get RuPaul here now.
	Now.
	What is wrong with these people?
	What is wrong?
	How is that even a headline?
	What is wrong with you?
	CNN says, It's a statement that's as predictable as it is infuriating.
	President Donald Trump's administration lacks diversity.
	On Tuesday, Trump tweeted photos of a briefing he'd received on the new coronavirus spreading out of China.
	We will continue to monitor the ongoing developments, the president said in his post.
	We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24-7.
	Who are these experts?
	They're largely the same sorts of white men and a couple women on the sidelines who have dominated the Trump administration from the very beginning.
	Now, nowhere in this article does it actually explain which of these people is not an expert.
	It's just assumed that because they're white, they can't be experts.
	And white men, men, men.
	By contrast, former President Barack Obama's circle of advisors in the face of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was hardly so monochromatic.
	Neither was it so abysmal in terms of gender diversity.
	This is the worst piece ever written.
	We have discovered it.
	We need to frame it.
	We need to put it in the Hall of Fame.
	We need to gild it in gold.
	This is the worst piece ever written over at CNN.
	And yet, as unsurprising as the diversity issue in the Trump era has become, it's still worth pointing out from time to time, especially as the country approaches the 2020 presidential election in earnest.
	That's partly because of the recent photos of the best experts telegraph, the kinds of people the administration deems worthy of holding power.
	What?
	This person was dropped on the head as a baby.
	Like, Brandon Tensley, I don't know what happened to you, sir.
	Please seek medical attention ASAP.
	From the diverse doctor of your choice.
	Please.
	Your hot take is that the doctors who are trying to solve the coronavirus problem are too white.
	That's your hot take.
	If you're looking for some rip on Trump and it's like, oh, well, you know, these doctors he's got here talking about how to stop a global pandemic, he needs in here right now the cast of Project Runway.
	Get them in here right the hell now.
	Okay, speaking of stupid media coverage.
	So, producer Colton made me aware of this idiotic report.
	I'm not even sure who this person is.
	Who is this person, Colton?
	I have no clue who this guy is.
	ASAP Science, okay.
	And this person put out a video.
	We know that he is supposedly intelligent because he's wearing glasses.
	That's pretty much our only indicator.
	And also because he buttons the top button of his polo shirt, which even I, a tried and true dork, do not do.
	In any case, He did a video called Coronavirus and Racism.
	Now, here's the thing.
	He's about to claim that if you think that it's a bad idea to eat a bat, it's because you're a racist.
	Our media, the people on the left, what is wrong with you?
	What is wrong with you?
	Can't they just say it's a bad idea to eat a bowl of bat soup?
	It's a bad idea.
	Like, I understand that you're all bat bleep, but can you just, like, really?
	Come on.
	Okay, let's listen to this idiot for a second.
	Ugh.
	We live in Toronto where the SARS virus got world-scale attention.
	That's because the only people who died outside of Asia from that virus were in Canada, and most of them were in Toronto.
	With only 44 people dying in total in Canada, it had a huge impact on our city.
	We lost a lot of tourism, we lost millions of dollars, but most importantly we saw a lot of stigma and racism towards Chinese people.
	It's important that we do not repeat those racist notions that happened here in Toronto, and we all need to be aware of this when we talk about the current coronavirus.
	On our social media channels we've seen lots of people saying things like this always happens in China and relating it a lot to the types of foods that Chinese people eat.
	But it's important to remember that Western food practices are what created mad cow disease and also Western meat consumption has created a big issue with antibiotic resistance.
	Why is that important to remember?
	Exactly.
	Like, why?
	It turns out that the last several global pandemics have come from outside the West, right?
	We've had Ebola, which happened in Africa.
	And then we've had SARS, which happened in China.
	And then we've had this, which happened in China.
	I believe MERS started in China as well.
	And that has nothing to do with Chinese people being Chinese.
	It has to do with don't eat a fricking bat!
	I'm not the person, by the way, saying don't eat a fricking bat.
	That would be like every scientist you know.
	Don't eat bats, gang.
	You know, it turns out that domesticated animals, you rip on American meat consumption.
	Okay, here's the thing about domesticated animals.
	Typically, domesticated animals have had a lot of disease bred out of them for years, and there may be other problems associated with it.
	But, you know what's one problem that's not associated with that?
	The wild diseases you get from eating like a meerkat.
	It turns out that when you eat weird animals, bad crap can happen.
	And listen, I am- I'm a person with one of the most religiously restrictive diets on the planet, right?
	I keep kosher, which means that we think pigs are exotic.
	But, like, if you think that you are going to, like, take a chomp out of a cobra, and this is somehow a great idea, and that it's racist for me to say that, that somehow it's racist for me to say, please, please, do not go into the forest and tear that lemur off a tree and just take a chomp.
	Please don't do that.
	If that's racist, why- What does that have to do with being Chinese?
	It has to do with cultural practices that involve eating wild animals that, by the way, the Chinese government is trying to ban right now.
	And so if it's racist, then why is the Chinese government trying to ban it?
	Last I checked, the Chinese government is Chinese and filled with Chinese people.
	But apparently the Chinese government is now racist against Chinese people because they're saying, please don't eat the freaking bat.
	Like, this is wild.
	CNN reporting, in Western markets, suppliers can buy beef, chicken, pork, and if they're lucky, perhaps some duck or bison.
	But the options in China can be a bit more exotic.
	Vendors in small city markets often sell wild animals, including rodents, yak, snakes, and even porcupines.
	And experts say that makes them far more dangerous.
	The meat could contain deadly pathogens, like the coronavirus.
	CNN!
	Racist!
	Racist!
	If you say that that guy should not eat a porcupine, it's because you hate the Chinese.
	Breaking news!
	It's amazing.
	Racism is everything now.
	There was this whole controversy yesterday over Pete Buttigieg suggesting that America is driven by heartland values.
	And people were like, Pete Buttigieg is racist because when he says heartland values, he means not black people.
	And it's like, what the hell are you talking about?
	It is hilarious to watch though, by the way, as the media take the exact same position on Pete Buttigieg as they took on Ted Cruz.
	Remember when Ted Cruz suggested that there's a difference between quote-unquote New York values and Heartland values?
	And people were like, he's saying because of Jews!
	And I was like, no, it's because New York has different moral values than people in Indiana.
	They do.
	And also, who do you think Pete Buttigieg is talking about?
	Typically the moral values that people are talking about When they say Heartland Values, very often they have to do with values with regard to sexual activity.
	People would judge a gay man who lives in Indiana.
	So he ain't talking about that.
	He's talking about, like, Heartland Values means, like, hard work, you go out on a tractor.
	Like, we all know what he's talking about.
	He's talking about a Budweiser commercial.
	That's what he's talking about.
	And the entire meeting was like, oh, it's racist.
	He means not black people.
	No, he doesn't.
	Cut it out.
	Okay, it's not racist to say, don't eat the frickin' bat.
	It's not racist to say, you know that rat crawling around in your attic?
	Please do not pull it down and roast it over a spit and take a chomp.
	It is not racist to say heartland values.
	Everybody, loosen up a little bit.
	Because you're making the world a stupider place.
	Like, each and every day a stupider place.
	Donald Trump's task force is not diverse enough.
	It's racist to say that you shouldn't take a, like, it's racist to say now that if you go to the LA Zoo and you take a walk around and you see it as a dinner menu that maybe this is a bad idea.
	What in the?
	You know what, honestly?
	Maybe the coronavirus should come for us all.
	Maybe we've reached that point.
	Maybe it's just time, guys.
	Maybe we should all sign up with Policy Genius and let the coronavirus take us.
	Just come on.
	Bring it.
	We have reached peaks.
	I hesitate to say we've reached peak stupidity.
	Apparently there is no peak.
	It's a Sisyphean task.
	Every time we reach the top of the stupid pile, the boulder rolls back down.
	Then we have to roll it right back up again.
	There is no peak to the stupid pile.
	Alrighty, time for a quick thing that I like and then a thing that I hate.
	So, things that I like.
	So, I told you I was watching, like, 1990s silly movies with my wife.
	And so my wife and I, the other day, watched the John Woo film, Face Off, from 1997.
	This is one of the greatest cheesy action flicks of all time.
	First of all, Nicolas Cage was in every movie.
	Just note that from 1992 to 2000, Nicolas Cage was in every single movie playing Nicolas Cage.
	He's the exact same person in Face Off that he is in The Rock.
	The difference is that in The Rock, he plays like a chemist, he plays a scientist, and in Face Off he plays an international criminal who's crazy, and they're exactly the same person.
	Which is pretty wild, right?
	He's also the same person in Raising Cain.
	So, literally the same person steals a baby, Also performs chemistry experiments and also is an international fugitive.
	So just things to know about Nicolas Cage.
	So this is truly just a wonderful example of horrible overacting.
	It's John Travolta and Nicolas Cage.
	What actually happened during this movie is they had to bring in new scenery for them to chew because they actually ran out of scenery.
	They chewed the scenery so badly.
	They mangled it.
	They had to bring in new scenery.
	The movie's great.
	It's horrible and great at the same time.
	Here's a little bit of the trailer for Face Off.
	Yeah, slow motion, man.
	This is the 1990s.
	Explosions, slow motion, people falling off speedboats, Nicolas Cage and John Travolta looking at each other.
	Yeah!
	He's also in Con Air.
	I'm just gonna point that out.
	Like, Nicolas Cage in every single movie.
	So the whole premise of the film is that people can switch faces, and so John Travolta, in order to stop Nicolas Cage, has to become Nicolas Cage.
	And then Nicolas Cage...
	It's been a bit of a week here, so I think that we are going to skip the things that I hate today, and we'll leave you on a high note.
	Nicholas Cage and Nicholas Cage acting like John Travolta, which is to say both of them just overacting.
	And it's phenomenal.
	It's phenomenal.
	So go check out if you want a dumb movie this weekend, go check out Face Off.
	It is fantastically dumb and also fantastically enjoyable.
	You know what?
	It's been it's been a bit of a week here.
	So I think that we are going to skip the things that I hate today.
	And we'll leave you on a high note because let's be real.
	You can go watch Face Off and worry about the coronavirus this weekend.
	Just try to stay indoors.
	Please, try not to eat the household pets if you can avoid it.
	Just don't eat your cat.
	That's not a racist thing.
	Really, just make sure that whatever you eat is safe enough that you would have a child eat it.
	Don't go to any wildlife markets over the weekend.
	That's not anti-Chinese.
	It just means don't go.
	Please, please do not go to the nearest pound and find the wildlife center and then just take the tarantula and take a bite out.
	Like, please just don't do that.
	Okay?
	Just please.
	We'll be back here next week.
	Presumably, when we come back, impeachment will be over.
	So we'll give you all the updates then.
	And then we'll be heading into Iowa, which happens on Monday.
	Monday is the Iowa caucuses and the State of the Union is Tuesday.
	Wow, a lot going on.
	So make sure that you rest up because next week it's going to be a barn burner.
	I'm Ben Shapiro.
	This is 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.
	On The Matt Walsh Show, we're not just discussing politics.
	We're talking culture, faith, family, all of the things that are really important to you.

▲