All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2020 - The Ben Shapiro Show
01:11:33
The Feds Investigate Hunter Biden | Ep. 1154
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In a shocking development, Hunter Biden announces he's now being investigated by the Feds for tax issues.
YouTube announces it will crack down on videos alleging election fraud.
And Trump's last-ditch lawsuit strategy comes down to Texas.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Protect your online privacy today at expressvpn.com.
Slash Ben, we're going to get into all the news.
And let me just tell you, there will be some hot fire today on this show.
So hold on to your hats.
We'll get to that in just one second.
But first, how about putting some real silver in your loved one's stocking this year?
That is right.
Now through December 21st, for every $5,000 you spend with Birch Gold Group on physical gold or silver, Or investing in a precious metals IRA, Birchgold will send you bonus silver, which is an awesome stocking stuffer, especially given the fact that you should be diversifying anyway.
There's a lot of uncertainty in today's market.
We have no idea where COVID is going.
We have no idea where we are going politically.
Everything is up in the air.
You should put at least a little bit of your money into precious metals and diversify against the possibility of inflation, against the possibility of the stock market dropping.
Here's what you need to do.
Text Ben to 474747.
When you speak to your Birchgold representative, let them know you want the free silver with your purchase.
Even if you're investing in a precious metals IRA, you still get the physical silver delivered directly to your door.
I know the folks at Birchgold.
We've been working with them for years.
Text Ben to 474747.
Get a free information kit on diversifying into gold from Birchgold.
They've got that A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau.
Countless five-star reviews.
Again, we've been working with them for years here at the Ben Shapiro Show.
Text Ben to 474747.
Open a precious metals IRA.
Get your free silver before December 21st.
Our media, they have declared that they are the defenders of democracy.
The slogan the Washington Post adopted just after Trump's victory in 2016 was, democracy dies in darkness.
Democracy dies in darkness.
And now, our esteemed members of our journalistic establishment, they have decided that democracy is under threat.
It's under threat because Trump keeps talking about election fraud.
It's under threat because Trump keeps saying that the election was stolen from him.
And it doesn't matter that he's going through a legal process.
And it doesn't matter the Electoral College will vote.
It doesn't matter that the states are certifying.
This is all a threat to democracy, a deep, dark threat to democracy.
Pushing this agenda last night was, of course, block of wood Chris Cuomo on CNN.
So here was Chris Cuomo last night laying out the case for why he, as an officer of the court, is standing up for democracy.
This moment will be remembered for what happens next.
And I want to be on record to you and to all as an American, as a journalist, and as an officer of the court.
Trump and his party are trying to kill our democracy with these efforts.
And I accuse them of this high crime tonight.
This is wrong.
Now, let me just say in no uncertain terms, these people are full of so much crap.
Their eyes are now brown.
If they start off as blue, their eyes are turning brown.
They are so full of crap, it is spilling out their ears from boots to the top of their head.
They're full of absolute unmitigated crap.
The fact is that if democracy is dying, it is largely due to the effect of people who are turning out the lights.
If democracy is dying in darkness, the people who are enforcing the darkness are the members of your esteemed journalistic media, your journalistic establishment, these objective news reporters.
Because as it turns out, yesterday, very late last night, it broke, that Hunter Biden, the president-elect's son, now says that federal prosecutors are probing his taxes.
Now, I'm old enough to remember when the New York Post was banned from Twitter because they posted a story about Hunter Biden's laptop in which it talks about the fact that he was engaged in nefarious goings-on in foreign countries and that those nefarious goings-on may have had some tax consequences.
In fact, the New York Post stories talked about his connections with China.
They talked about the possibility of connections between Joe Biden and his brother and his son.
The New York Post stories talked about all of this and they were banned from Twitter.
Facebook preemptively decided to downgrade the stories.
They said, you know what?
These haven't been subjected to fact check yet.
So pending a fact check, we are downgrading them.
Meanwhile, members of that same established journalistic media, the people who are guarding democracy from the predations of the evil Trump cadre, those same jackasses, they were spending their days suggesting that the New York Post stories were actually Russian disinformation based on nothing, based on literally nothing.
I mean, if you look at the headlines from the members of the media before the election, here are some of those headlines.
Here's Politico's headline.
Hunter Biden's story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.
More than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president's son.
Now, at no point did Hunter Biden ever at any point deny that the laptop was his or that the material on the laptop was his.
At no point did he offer a detailed defense of his activities.
Nor at any point did he offer a detailed explanation of what his relationship was with Joe Biden and whether Joe Biden knew that he was running around the country and for and abroad basically trafficking in daddy's name.
Okay, so now here is the political headline today.
So what changed?
Question, what changed?
Because the answer is nothing.
It turns out that he has been under investigation since 2018.
Since 2018.
So your entire media spent the last year and a half covering up any allegations of Hunter Biden's corruption or any allegations that that corruption was connected in any way to Joe Biden.
And they suggested it was Russian disinformation.
And they had other journalistic outlets like the New York Post downgraded or suspended.
And they banned the dissemination of the story by Twitter accounts.
And they did all of these things Just before the election.
Then the election happens and oh, look at that!
Politico is now reporting that the Justice Department's interest in Hunter Biden covered more than taxes.
And these people have the temerity to suggest that the threat to democracy is coming from somewhere else?
These folks are the threat to democracy.
When your media, who are charged with providing you information, decide that they are going to be the arbiters of what information you are allowed to see, and not only that, they're going to bully social media companies into ensuring that you can't see the alternative information.
Because remember, it's not just the places like the New York Times and CBS News and Politico and all these other journalistic outlets refused to report certain facts about Hunter Biden and investigate certain facts about Hunter Biden is that they actively stumped to prevent social media from disseminating information from websites like the Daily Wire.
The fact of the matter is that the New York Times has several activists on its payroll whose sole job apparently is just to lobby Facebook to downgrade traffic from places like the Daily Wire.
These are the people who are the threat to democracy.
You wonder why there's no systemic trust?
You wonder why the trust in institutions is way down?
Because it's not just that people don't trust the media anymore.
It's that anything the media talk about is now tainted.
If the media say that the election is fraudulent, we don't believe you.
And if the media say that the election is good, we are also not going to believe you because we don't trust you.
See, it's not just that the media's disgusting and nefarious partisanship masquerading as objectivity.
impact how we view the media is that whenever the media says something about another topic, we now no longer believe what they have to say.
Because after all, our news media are supposed to be our prism into the rest of the world.
So if we believe that the prism is broken, if we believe that the glasses that the media are providing to us are sunglasses and they're blocking out light, that's going to affect our interpretation of facts across the spectrum.
It's going to lower our trust in other institutions.
If the media say, people we don't trust say, you should trust X, we're going to say we don't trust X anymore.
That's what's happening here.
If there is a decline in institutional trust in America, and there certainly is, it begins with the media, but it doesn't stop there.
It is now infused into the bloodstream of the American political system.
Again, just as if you knew you had a friend, okay, and it turns out that your friend was a liar and a cheat, and your friend then came to you, and you knew he was a liar and a cheat, and he said, you know who you should trust?
You should trust this guy over here.
Would you trust that guy?
The answer is probably, now, maybe you should trust the guy.
Maybe that guy's actually a good guy.
Maybe your friend, the liar and cheat, is actually right in this one circumstance, but you have no way of telling that.
And if it turns out that your friend, the liar and cheat, has also restricted your access to other information to verify whether this third party is good or bad, Then you are more likely than not to not believe what he has to say.
That is the mainstream media today.
That's the mainstream media.
The mainstream media are not merely about not providing you the facts.
They're about actively covering up the facts, preventing themselves from investigating the facts, throwing journalists like Sheryl Atkinson out of work if they try to investigate particular stories, and then going to social media companies and trying to prevent you from getting another story from another group of people.
That's what they do.
And then they put Democracy Dies in Darkness at the head of their fake newspapers.
It's ridiculous.
And when I say that the Washington Post is a fake newspaper, I don't mean that there aren't great investigative journalists at the Washington Post.
This is the sad part.
A lot of what people do at the Washington Post is useful.
The same thing is true of many of the reporters at the New York Times.
But when you overall turn your brand into basically a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, it makes it impossible for people to distinguish what is true from what is false.
It makes it impossible for people to trust you on any issue, ranging from how we should act with regard to COVID to how we should believe you with regard to foreign interference in American elections.
We just don't know what to believe.
And then when you use censorship in order to quash everybody else, it makes us suspicious that you are seriously lying to us.
We'll get to more of this in a second, because I'm going to bring you the details of this Hunter Biden story.
It's amazing.
All this stuff was available before the election.
And don't tell me that it doesn't affect an election when you prevent the public from seeing things.
What happened is that in 2016, the media actually sort of did their jobs by reporting on Hillary Clinton's emails.
And then they were so regretful of the fact that Trump was elected, they decided they would never again cover a story that hurt a Democrat in the last month of a campaign.
It's that simple.
That's all that happened here.
And you can see it.
You can see it.
You can see it because anytime anybody mentioned anything about Hunter Biden, like when Maggie Haberman tweeted out the Hunter Biden story from the New York Post, she was immediately swamped with a tsunami of other journalists telling her not to do it.
These are activists.
They are not journalists.
They are damned liars and they are destroying the basis, the fundamental basis of a democracy.
Because again, it is one thing to have a variety of news sources you pick from.
It's another thing to have a dominant establishment media that prevents you from seeing any of the other sources that are available to you.
And that's what's going on.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, let's talk about the fact that if you are running a business, there's one set of issues you don't think about too much, but it can absolutely destroy your business.
I'm talking, of course, about HR issues.
They can kill you.
Wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, and HR manager salaries aren't cheap.
They're an average of $70,000 a year.
Bambi, spelled B-A-M-B-E, was created specifically for small business.
You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy, and maintain your compliance, all for just $99 a month.
With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.
Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat.
From onboarding determinations that customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employees day-to-day, for all for just $99 a month.
Month-to-month, no hidden fees you can cancel anytime.
You didn't start your business because you wanted to spend time on HR compliance.
Nobody does.
But if you don't spend the time, if you don't spend the resources, it can come back to bite you.
So why would you spend a bajillion dollars on it instead?
Head on over to Bambi.com slash Shapiro right now.
Schedule that free HR audit again.
That's Bambi.com slash Shapiro.
B-A-M-B-E-E.com slash Shapiro to get started to clear up all of your HR issues quickly and easily.
Bambi.com slash Shapiro.
Okay, so here is the actual story.
According to NBC News, They're allowed to report it now.
It's okay.
It's okay, guys.
The election's over.
They're allowed to now let the light flourish.
Here's D'Artagnan Clark, Tom Winter, and Mike Mimoli reporting.
Hunter Biden, President-elect Joe Biden's son, said Wednesday federal officials in Delaware are investigating his taxes.
Now, number one, weird that we're finding this out from Hunter Biden, isn't it?
Isn't that strange?
Like normally you find this out from leaks via the Justice Department.
Or maybe from the Justice Department directly.
But in this particular case, Hunter Biden is announcing he's under investigation.
How strange!
Almost as though he is getting special treatment.
Hunter Biden said, quote, I learned yesterday for the first time that the US Attorney's Office in Delaware advised my legal counsel also yesterday that they are investigating my tax affairs.
I take this matter very seriously, but I'm confident a professional and objective review of these matters will demonstrate I handled my affairs legally and appropriately, including with the benefit of professional tax advisors. US Attorney for Delaware's Office declined to comment on an ongoing investigation. This news came weeks after an election campaign in which President Donald Trump and his allies made unfounded and baseless claims of corruption regarding Hunter Biden and his father.
How do you know if they're unfounded and baseless if you refuse to do the basic reporting, NBC News?
And what exactly are the unfounded, baseless claims?
Would that be that perhaps Joe Biden knew about what his son was doing?
Because that was not unfounded and baseless.
I mean, that's exactly what Hunter Biden's business partner, Tony Bobulinski, was saying publicly.
That was not unfounded and baseless.
But the media treated it as unfounded and baseless because they obviously have a dog in this fight.
They alleged that Hunter Biden used his father's influence to enrich himself through business deals in Ukraine and China, and that his father not only facilitated, but that he may have benefited financially.
Trump provided no evidence for these claims.
OK, even in the story, you can see the absurd, anti-factual bias.
They allege Hunter Biden used his father's influence to enrich himself through business deals in Ukraine.
They didn't allege that.
Hunter Biden overtly admitted that in a public interview on national television.
They asked Hunter Biden, would you have gotten a job on the Burisma board having no experience in natural oil or gas or Ukraine if your dad's name weren't Biden?
He said, absolutely not.
Of course he was using his father's influence.
Of course he was doing all of these things.
We know that there are companies founded and in their founding documents it talked about using Hunter Biden's influence with Daddy and in Washington, D.C.
We know that is the case because we have seen the documents.
And now we are being told by NBC News that the Trump campaign was making those baseless allegations.
They weren't baseless.
You guys just didn't want to investigate them.
You didn't want to report them.
You still don't want to report them.
That's not an allegation that he used his dad's name to get rich in Ukraine.
That is an actual fact that he has admitted to.
However, says NBC News, Hunter and his ex-wife Kathleen Buell had an internal revenue service lien against them for taxes not paid, possibly including interest and penalties totaling $112,000 until this past March, according to publicly available documents.
The documents filed by the IRS show the tax lien was placed on Hunter and Buell in November of 2019.
It is not immediately clear if the lien has anything to do with the investigation.
The Biden team then put out this pathetic statement, quote, President-elect Biden is deeply proud of his son, who has fought through difficult challenges, including the vicious personal attacks of recent months, only to emerge stronger.
Well, listen, he's a good dad.
He's got a right to be proud of his son.
I'm not sure what about Hunter Biden would make you proud.
It's not like there's a lot there that would make you proud of Hunter.
But with that said, the idea that these were vicious personal attacks, nope, that's just called reporting.
Especially when it turns out that the entire Biden clan, and this has been widely reported everywhere from the left to the right, including a big New Yorker story just a couple of years ago, the entire Biden clan has used its influence and daddy's name in order to get rich.
Hey, that is unchallengeable.
Now it turns out there's even more to the story.
So CNN, now they're allowed to investigate, right?
CNN's allowed to cover this now.
So after months of suggesting that any questions about Hunter Biden were simply made up and we should just ignore them because it was a distraction from Trump's threat to democracy.
Now we've got Evan Perez and Pamela Brown at CNN reporting.
After going quiet in the months before the election, federal authorities are now actively investigating the business dealings of Hunter Biden.
A person with knowledge of the probe said, his father, President-elect Joe Biden, is not implicated.
Now that the election is over, the investigation is entering a new phase.
Federal prosecutors in Delaware, working with the IRS Criminal Investigation Agency and the FBI, are taking overt steps, such as issuing subpoenas and seeking interviews, the person with knowledge said.
Now, I have a question.
Why did they wait until the election was over?
Why?
Seriously, what is the rationale?
Because they wanted Joe Biden to win.
End of story.
That's all.
Typically, legal investigations do not get held up contingent on the person's proximity to an election.
That's insane.
That's an insane act of corruption.
Do you understand how crazy that is?
That if you had prosecutors who are on the trail of a candidate, or a candidate's family member, and they decide, you know what, we're putting this off until after the election because we just don't want to interfere in the election.
That is election interference.
That's election interference.
If Ivanka Trump had committed a crime, and she were under investigation, and the Fed said, you know what, there's an election coming up, we're just gonna put this thing off until like just after the election, that would be election interference.
The same is obviously true of Hunter Biden.
In the first three paragraphs of the CNN story, they mentioned the election three times.
Three times in three paragraphs, the relevance of the election.
Quote, activity in the investigation had gone covert in recent months due to Justice Department guidelines prohibiting overt actions that could affect an election, the person said.
So first of all, if there are actual guidelines from the Justice Department saying you can't take overt action, meaning you can't take perfectly legal action because it might affect an election, that affects an election.
What actually happened here is members of the DOJ decided that they didn't want to get caught in the James Comey trap of 2016, having to publicly investigate one of the candidates or a family member of the candidates.
They didn't want the heat.
They didn't want all of the rage brought about.
And so they said, you know what?
We're going to bury this until after the election.
And the media did the exact same thing.
We're not going to cover this until after the election.
And now the election is over.
And guess what?
Now the DOJ can move forward.
And we're supposed to trust the media and we're supposed to trust these legal institutions that apparently are dedicated to not affecting an election by directly impacting an election?
That's insane.
This is all madness.
This is all madness.
And then you wonder why there are conspiracy theories blooming.
You wonder why people are suspicious of election fraud.
You wonder why people don't trust the system.
Maybe because if you don't trust the media or the prism to view the system, and if it turns out that members of the system are engaged in corrupt activities, they weren't in 2016 with regard to going after Carter Page with a bad FISA warrant, with regard to pumping the Steele dossier through the federal government via a Hillary Clinton law firm,
If you don't trust the system because of that, and if you don't trust the system because before the 2020 election, they decided they were not going to investigate Hunter Biden because it was too close to the election, it might be that somebody might draw the perfectly understandable, if incorrect, conclusion that the entire system is just not worth trusting.
How many times can you go back to the well before people say, you know what, we're done?
That's one of the things that is happening here.
So now, CNN contacted Biden's attorney and the campaign this week, seeking comments about the investigation.
On Wednesday, they released a statement acknowledging the probe.
Okay, so this is the key, right there.
Okay, that is the key.
It is not that Hunter Biden was the first person to find out about the investigation.
CNN knew about the investigation.
They say so.
They openly admit it in the CNN story.
Again, let me read that more slowly.
CNN contacted Biden's attorney and the campaign this week, seeking comments about the investigation.
On Wednesday, which will be after CNN contacted them, they released a statement acknowledging the probe.
Oh, look at that!
That means the media- Hunter was not the first to know.
The media knew as well.
Members of CNN.
Reportorial gang knew.
Which means they could have known before the election.
Because guess what?
This investigation has been ongoing, according to CNN, since 2018!
This is madness!
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
If you're not mad, you're not watching.
Seriously, you should be pissed.
When people talk about rigging the election, you know, people talk about voter fraud or voter irregularity.
No, the way that you rig an election is by taking the entire media infrastructure, using it as cover for the Democratic candidate, hiding all the information, and then, as we will see, trying to mobilize social media to crack down on anybody who would actually report that information.
That's how you rig an election.
The way you rig an election is by preventing the American public from seeing information that they need to see, meanwhile focusing all of your ire on one candidate.
The media decided this election.
Period.
End of story.
That is what happened here.
Aided and abetted by people apparently in the Justice Department.
I'm not saying the Hunter Biden thing would have swung the election to Trump.
I'm saying there's a consistent pattern of the media refusing to report anything about Joe Biden.
Anything at all.
And there's a consistent pattern of social media.
Attempting to downgrade information unfavorable toward Democratic candidates.
And this has an impact.
We'll get to more of this in just one second.
First, you've been staring at screens all day long.
I mean, many of us across the country have been locked in our homes for months on end.
This means you're spending an awful lot of time with screens.
You may have noticed that you've been getting headaches from it.
This is because of the blue light, okay?
It's been shown that blue light can actually cause headaches.
It can prevent you from sleeping well.
This is why you need Felix Grey glasses.
They filter 15 times more blue light from screens than other clear blue light lenses to help restore your balance.
The original optical lenses relieve most eye strain symptoms from daily screen time.
The more advanced sleep glasses actually relieve serious daily eye strain and were specially designed for late night screen time to improve your sleep.
These also happen to look great.
The Felix Grey frames, they are hand finished from Italian acetate that makes them durable, lightweight, super comfortable.
The blue light lenses come standard starting at $95.
Or you can add your prescription to Checkout starting at $145.
If you don't love those glasses, in the first 30 days, their in-house customer care team will take care of exchanges and returns.
No hassle and no questions asked.
You got nothing to lose except that headache.
Get a pair of glasses designed for the 21st century.
Get 5% off your order when you go to felixgrayglasses.com slash ben.
Enter promo code BEN at Checkout again.
That is F-E-L-I-X-G-R-A-Y glasses.com slash ben.
And 5% off with promo code BEN.
I check out free shipping, free exchanges, 30 day money back guarantee.
FelixGreyGlasses.com slash Ben.
Promo code Ben makes a great Christmas gift.
Go check them out right now.
OK, so the CNN story continues.
They say hints of the investigation emerge after President Donald Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani helped orchestrate news stories centered on a laptop purporting to belong to Hunter Biden and said to include his business documents and other personal material.
Again, look how CNN twists the story here, right?
They don't report the contents of the laptop.
They don't suggest that the stories were true, because they were.
Instead, it was that all of these stories were orchestrated by Rudy Giuliani.
Oh, I look forward to hearing how the entire Russian dossier was orchestrated by Hillary Clinton, because it was.
Hillary Clinton and her law firm, through which she was laundering the Steele dossier.
You didn't hear this kind of language from CNN about the Steele dossier.
The FBI took possession of the laptop in late 2019, according to a computer repairman in Delaware who showed reporters a copy of a subpoena.
The subpoena is real, according to people briefed on the matter, but the FBI and prosecutors in Delaware have refused to confirm the existence of the investigation.
It's unclear whether the laptop's contents are relevant to the ongoing federal probe, and whether investigators can even use them given potential chain-of-custody requirements for evidence.
CNN has previously reported that at least some of the information Giuliani claims came from the laptop appears similar to information that was being shared by others last year in Ukraine.
Giuliani's efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine last year were at the heart of Trump's impeachment.
The current investigation into Hunter Biden appears to predate those efforts.
And so this is CNN attempting to defend its own shoddy work in suggesting that the entire story was Russian disinformation when it turns out that every element of the story was apparently true.
The involvement of Trump lawyers in the published news stories on the purported Biden laptop led to a flurry of activity by Republican lawmakers and the Trump campaign, looking to amplify allegations of corruption ahead of the election.
The FBI met with a former Hunter Biden business associate who publicly made claims about potential wrongdoing.
The FBI issued a statement at the time saying, quote, as a general matter, when contacted, the FBI reviews information from the public for consideration of any violations of applicable federal laws.
The political implications of the probe already have been an issue in recent months for William Barr, the AG, who is under public pressure from Trump to make Hunter Biden's business activities an election issue.
To date, the investigation does not involve any allegations of wrongdoing by the president-elect, according to the two main sources briefed on the matter.
Okay, but here is the key of the story.
Are you ready?
Investigators appear to be focused on Hunter Biden's business activities connected to China.
Again, this is a key element of the New York Post story.
Media went nuts.
And the fact is that Hunter Biden was involved in nefarious activity in China, which we all knew because he was taking Air Force Two with dad to China to secure billion dollar loan deals, or at least investments.
Some of his business dealings in China are publicly known through interviews and documents released in September by Senate Republicans on the Finance Committee and the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, says CNN.
After his father left office in 2017, Hunter Biden worked on securing a deal with CEFC China Energy to invest in US energy products according to documents released by Republicans.
At least one of the matters investigators have examined is a 2017 gift of a 2.8 carat Hunter received from CEFC's founder and former chairman, Yi Xiao Ming, after a Miami business meeting. One person briefed on the matter said, in 2019, Biden provided the New Yorker magazine an account of receiving that diamond from Yi. He told the New Yorker he felt uncomfortable receiving it and gave it to other associates. He doesn't know what they did with it. I knew it wasn't a good idea to take it. It just felt weird, he said in his New Yorker interview.
Apparently, he said, the CEFC deal fell through.
He didn't consider Yi to be a shady character.
Chinese authorities later detained Yi amid Chinese media reports of corruption allegations against him.
Receiving such a gift could have potential tax implications, of course.
Sources say that investigators have been looking into whether Biden properly reported his income for tax purposes over a period of time.
Also, Hunter Biden had been involved in an earlier Chinese business venture that drew concerns in the Obama White House and Joe Biden's staff, according to The New Yorker.
In 2013, Hunter Biden became involved with U.S.
and Chinese partners who were creating an investment fund called BHR Partners for deals outside of China.
Hunter Biden was an unpaid member of the BHR board and took an equity stake after daddy left office, according to The New Yorker.
So now it's okay for the CNN to report all this, right?
At the time, it was just a big, a big distraction from all the election issues.
Now it's okay to report it.
The election's over.
But you should trust these people.
You should trust the media.
We'll get to more of this insanity.
I mean, it really is.
It should give you heartburn how much you have been lied to here.
It should give you heartburn how much people who claim to be objective have become just mouthpieces for the Democrats and then decide their timing based on elections.
First, let us talk for a second about the best clothes available.
I'm talking about Cuts Clothing.
For better or worse, 2020 has kicked off the work-from-home era.
Everybody is asking one big question.
What exactly are you supposed to wear?
Do you need to wear a tie for your Zoom meeting?
Probably not.
But you actually don't want to wear like sweatpants and a beat-up old t-shirt.
Instead, you need Cuts Clothing.
It is the perfect solution to your work-from-home wardrobe confusion.
Cuts is the best in the world.
They make technical apparel for the sport of business.
They've got t-shirts, polos, hoodies.
These things are quality.
They've got style.
You can wear them in the office, on a date, anywhere in between.
I basically only wear Cuts clothing.
In 2016, Stephen Borelli was struggling to find the perfect t-shirt.
He wanted something that had enough quality to be worn professionally at work, but enough style for a night out.
He couldn't find anything that fit the bill, so he took matters into his own hands.
Cuts started in 2016, making what GQ calls the only shirt worth wearing.
Athletic, tailored-looking fit.
It's perfect for work, date, everything in between.
Their custom-engineered, wrinkle-free Pica Pro Fabric can only be described as buttery soft.
It really is incredibly soft.
It fits incredibly, incredibly well.
And right now, they've released their new Pica Polos.
They were designed in LA with CUT's custom-engineered Pica Pro Fabric that keeps you fitted for the daily work grind.
They've got hoodies.
They're made from their Hyperloop French terry fabric.
I mean, this stuff is just super comfortable and it looks great.
Cutts is loved by your favorite athletes, entrepreneurs, and even podcast hosts like me.
Seems like everybody is wearing Cutts these days.
Get 15% off your first order by going to cuttsclothing.com slash Shapiro.
That is cuttsclothing.com slash Shapiro for 15% off.
The only shirt worth wearing makes a fantastic holiday gift.
Okay, so the way CNN covers this, of course, is that it's very sad for Joe Biden.
That's the way CNN covers this.
According to CNN.com, in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper last week, President-elect Biden pledged to maintain an independent DOJ free of political influence.
Uh-huh.
Sure.
Sure.
Republicans in Congress, says CNN, are almost certain to seize on the existence of the probe.
Ready to tell?
Every time Democrats do a bad thing, it means that Republicans are about to pounce, pounce, like little kittens.
Pounce, woo-hoo-hoo.
They're gonna pounce.
Or, alternatively, Joe Biden's son is corrupt as the day is long.
Republicans in Congress and CNN are almost certain to seize on the existence of the probe to further their argument that Hunter Biden's activities in China are a sign of his father's conflict of interest when it comes to dealing with foreign policy with Beijing.
Well, I mean, that would seem to be an issue, would it not?
Considering that we now have information that not only have the Chinese deployed spies that successfully infiltrated the offices of both Eric Swalwell, and apparently the bed, allegedly, of Eric Swalwell, as well as the office of Senator Dianne Feinstein, we know from intelligence reports the Chinese desperately wanted Joe Biden to win this election.
So maybe some suspicion would be warranted.
Funny, because we got four years of suspicion that Trump was a Russian agent.
Now, of course, we're supposed to just dismiss all possibility that perhaps Joe Biden could be influenced by the fact that the Chinese were so sweet to his son.
It's likely going to be an issue that Biden's AG nominee will have to face during a Senate confirmation hearing, according to CNN.
Biden's likely attorney general candidate will probably not be recusing themselves in the same way that Jeff Sessions did because he was a member of the campaign.
But this whole thing, it just stinks.
It stinks to high heaven.
The holdup stinks to high heaven.
Joseph Simonson.
And Jerry Dunleavy of the Washington Examiner reporting back in October that Hunter Biden was aiming to avoid violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in pursuit of Chinese business deals.
So it's not like this stuff wasn't known months ago before the election.
It was.
It was reported.
It just wasn't reported by any of the sources that Facebook wanted you to see.
According to the Washington Examiner, again this is late October, Hunter Biden made it clear one of his goals was for him and his associates to avoid violating the anti-bribery Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or having to register as foreign agents as he pursued potentially lucrative deals with a Chinese Communist Party connected company.
According to newly released text from ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski.
James has very particular opinions about this, so I would ask him about the foreign entity.
Biden texted Bobulinski on May 1st, 2017.
make bids on federal and state funded projects.
Also, we don't want to have to register as foreign agents under the FCPA, which is much more expansive than people who should know, choose not to know.
James has very particular opinions about this, so I would ask him about the foreign entity.
Biden texted Bobulinski on May 1st, 2017.
Regardless, we should have a Delaware corporation called CEFC America and ownership should be 50 me, 50 them.
We then cut up our 50 in a separate entity between the four of us, create that company, call it BWBG or whatever.
It's just a pass-through.
So, um, they were openly talking about how to game at the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
And all of this could have been reported by, you know, mainstream media sites.
All of these texts were available.
All of this stuff, these emails were available.
Bobulinski was doing interviews.
And yet it didn't, it didn't, none of it mattered.
Amazing.
Just, just amazing.
Because the media were more focused on protecting Joe Biden's electoral chances than reporting the news to you.
It is simply that easy.
It's that easy.
Speaking of which, it is not merely that your establishment media have decided that it is important that you view only what they allow you to view.
They've decided that you are not allowed to view things that they don't want you to view.
So this is an amazing, amazing clip that I'm about to play for you.
So there's a Man named Steve Cole.
Steve Cole is the Dean of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.
Right, this is Captain Journalism over here, Steve Cole.
He was on MSNBC the other day, and this really does explain where your journalistic betters lie.
It is not merely that they wish to provide you a filter, it's that they wish to prevent you from accessing other sources of information.
So he literally says, this is the Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, perhaps the most prestigious journalism school in America.
Suggesting that freedom of speech is itself a problem.
Freedom of speech is a problem because then you might not get the sort of journalism you're used to from your objective news sources.
Right?
All the people who are journalism-ing all over the place.
All the people pleasuring themselves Jeffrey Toobin style to pictures of the Democratic campaign.
All of those people wouldn't be your only source and that's bad.
We don't want that to happen, says the Dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.
Here is Steve Cole summing up the position of so many of our journalistic betters.
Those of us in journalism have to come to terms with the fact that free speech, a principle that we hold sacred, is being weaponized against the principles of journalism.
And what do we do about that?
I just say, you know, as reporters, we kind of march into this war with our facts nobly shouldered as if they were going to win the day.
And what we're seeing is that Because of the scale of this alternate reality that you've been talking about, our facts, our principles, our scientific method, it isn't enough.
So what do we do?
So what do we do?
And the answer is what they do is they try to pressure social media into preventing other people from reporting.
This is something we've been experiencing with Facebook for the last several months.
Right before the election and then right after the election, it turns out that according to the New York Times, Facebook changed its algorithm to elevate news sources that they deemed to be high quality.
What were those high quality news sources?
Hmm.
Hmm.
Let's think about it.
Oh, look at that.
It's the New York Times.
Shocker.
So the New York Times has Kevin Roos out there every day.
Yelling that people like me, like my Facebook page, has wide reach.
That's bad.
Dan Bongino has wide reach.
That's bad.
Fox News has wide reach.
That's super bad.
And then Facebook magically changes its algorithm right before the election and right in the aftermath of the election to downgrade the news sources that you like in favor of news sources you're trying to avoid by going to Facebook in the first place.
And who's pressuring them to do that?
Your bettors in the media.
They love speech restrictions.
It's not that they are opposed to speech restrictions.
They just don't want speech restrictions on them.
But for everybody else, they're in favor of speech restrictions.
Now, notice the inconsistency here.
I have defended at every step of the way the right of the New York Times to publish whatever the damn hell it wants.
I have defended the right of people I radically disagree with to cover things in ways that I radically disagree with.
They have that right.
I think they're wrong to cover things the way they cover them, but they have absolutely that right.
I've never called for the downgrading of a journalistic source or an opinion news source.
On places like Facebook or YouTube or Twitter.
I've defended people from exactly that sort of stuff.
Hell, I've defended people that I think have horrible evil views from being fired from their jobs if their horrible evil views have nothing to do with their jobs.
And that is the way that you should act if you're a First Amendment advocate.
But that's not the way the Democrats act.
That's not the way members of the media act.
Members of the media are interested in changing your mind about the issues.
And the best way to change your mind is to close your mind.
And the best way to close your mind is to prevent you from seeing any alternative sources of information.
Which is why we should see it as somewhat dangerous that the Biden team has now appointed Rick Stengel As the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, he had that job actually under Obama in 2013.
And now, apparently, Stengel is on Biden's transition team to head the U.S.
Agency for Global Media, an agency that oversees, quote, public service media networks that provide unbiased news and information in countries where the press is restricted.
So he's very much in favor of open journalism and free speech and news reporting, except for the fact that in 2011, he wrote a Time cover piece featuring a picture of the Constitution and a headline saying, Does It Still Matter?
In that piece, he said, quote, But we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.' 's moving into the future with a sensible healthcare system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.
The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty.
Our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution.
The Constitution serves the nation.
The nation does not serve the Constitution.
So, the Constitution is completely malleable.
And then in 2019, he went further.
Here's what he argued in an op-ed for the Washington Post, quote, As a government official, traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.
Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Quran.
Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
Okay, so the supposed defenders of free speech inside the Biden team are openly saying that they don't like free speech, that they think free speech is bad, that free speech ought to be quashed.
Not, by the way, just to affect American elections, apparently, but also to avoid offending the sensibilities of people in other countries.
We're supposed to believe that these people stand for American values.
By the way, that was from a David Harsanyi's piece in National Review, November 11th, 2020.
The fact of the matter is this, your media are trying to shut you down, which brings us to YouTube.
So we'll come to YouTube in just one second, because YouTube has now set a brand new magical standard on what sort of videos they are going to take down.
We'll get to that in just one moment.
First, let us talk about your sleep quality.
So I will admit to you, I'm in a bad mood, not just because of the news today and the fact that you're being lied to on a regular basis by people who are not supposed to lie to you, but also because my kids woke me up like a thousand times last night.
So, my baby daughter woke us up at 11.30, then she woke us up at 2.30, then she woke us up at 5.30.
Well, in those fleeting moments between being woken up, I needed to sleep.
And this is why I relied on my personalized mattress from Helix Sleep.
Helix Sleep has a quiz.
It takes just two minutes to complete.
It matches your body type and sleep preferences to the perfect mattress for you.
Why would you buy a mattress made for somebody else?
With Helix, you're getting a mattress you know will be perfect for the way you sleep.
Everybody's unique.
Helix knows that.
They have several different mattress models to choose from.
They have soft, medium, firm mattresses.
Mattress is great for cooling you down if you sleep hot.
Even a Helix Plus mattress for plus-sized folks.
It's been awesome getting unboxing videos from so many of you.
You've gotten your Helix Sleep Mattress.
It's really cool.
You unbox it, it just inflates right in front of you.
It's awesome.
If you're looking for a mattress, take the quiz, order the mattress, and the mattress comes right to your doorstep for free.
You don't need to go to a mattress store ever again.
Helix is awesome.
You don't need to take my word for it.
They were given the number one best overall mattress pick of 2020 by GQ and Wired Magazine.
Head on over to helixsleep.com slash Ben.
Take that two-minute sleep quiz and change your sleep quality for the rest of your life.
They've got a 10-year warranty.
You get to try it out for 100 nights, risk-free.
They'll pick it up for you.
If you don't love it, you will.
Helix is offering up to 200 bucks off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners at helixsleep.com slash Ben.
That is helixsleep.com slash Ben for 200 bucks off all mattress orders and two free pillows when you access that deal, helixsleep.com slash Ben.
Alrighty, we're gonna get to YouTube's new restrictions on what sort of content they will allow to be posted.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, if you're not already a Daily Wear member, you need to join right now.
I mean, the main pitch, honestly, for joining is not even all the new content we're bringing, which I'll get to in just one second.
It is the fact that the very, Establishment media that is restricting your right to get information.
That is militantly attempting to shut the access to information.
Those people have to be stopped.
They do.
And the best way to stop them is by joining up with organizations like Daily Wire to fight them on every front.
To provide an alternative source of information because they just won't bring you all the information.
To provide you an alternative source of culture because the cultural wars are on.
You need to join the fight.
And one of the ways you join the fight is by helping companies like this one bring you the information that you need.
Because I promise you, they're going to try, they have been, they're going to try to shut off the spigots that you actually cannot see our information.
This is the next step.
We'll talk about that in a second on the show.
But by the way, when you subscribe, you also get a bunch of goodies.
So for example, we are adding the entire PragerU catalog to dailywire.com.
The Michael Knowles Show is now five days a week, which is more content for our members to enjoy.
I'm going to be doing new stuff next year.
Candace Owens is joining the Daily Wire in Nashville.
We are launching our first feature film under Daily Wire's upcoming entertainment channel.
I've seen it.
It's kind of awesome.
We're building a new investigative journalism team so you don't have to rely on these jokers who will suppress information prior to an election.
So, go outside the narrative.
Head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe and join the fight.
Also, have you seen this thing?
Look at this.
Indeed, this is the new improved leftist ears tumbler.
You can keep those leftist ears hot or cold in a new stainless steel design with that custom daily wire lid.
This is snazzy stuff.
And you get that when you become a subscriber.
So head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe right now.
You're listening to the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
Okay, the fact that the media suppressed all this stuff is not the whole story.
It's also the big tech suppressed it.
Remember, the New York Post was banned from Twitter.
Their account was shut for trying to report the Hunter Biden story.
If you tried to tweet out that story, they suppressed your tweet.
Remember that Facebook preemptively shut down the Hunter Biden story.
They said pending a fact check before there was even a fact check, before there was a fact check, they shut down the distribution of the information.
It's absolutely maddening.
It is madness.
The fact that anybody trusts these jokers in big tech or in social media or in the press is beyond me.
Why would you possibly trust them?
OK, well, now YouTube has announced that it's changing its policies.
OK, so here is what they just released.
They released this statement yesterday, quote, We just shared an update on YouTube's election efforts, including how we're handling community guidelines pertaining to election-related misinformation.
Our policies disallow content alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S.
presidential election.
We allow this type of commentary for current elections as election officials work to finalize counts.
December 8th was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S.
presidential election.
States need to resolve contested elections by then, and enough states have now certified their election results to determine a president-elect.
Okay, so just to be fair, We should note at this point that the election date, the date in which the election is essentially over, is not December 8th.
That's the safe harbor provision.
Court challenges could still overturn safe harbor provisions.
December 14th, when the Electoral College votes, that is when this sucker is over.
Okay, so they're preemptively declaring it over, obviously, because if we're going to just talk about legal dates, December 8th does not mean nearly as much as December 14th, when the Electoral College actually meets to vote.
And even that doesn't mean as much as, I believe, January 6th, when that final Electoral College vote is certified, I believe, by the House of Representatives, is the way the process works.
But, YouTube is taking preemptive action.
They say.
As such, starting today, we will remove new content uploaded on or after December 9, 2020, alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S.
presidential election.
For example, we will remove videos claiming that a presidential candidate won the election as a result of widespread software glitches or counting errors.
This is in line with our approach toward historical U.S.
presidential elections.
Content that includes sufficient context may remain on YouTube, similar to how we allow COVID-19 medical misinformation that violates our policies to exist in videos with other context that debunks it, for example.
If your content is impacted, you will receive automated emails from our system regarding this content.
As we ramp up our enforcement, we'll initially remove violative videos without giving a strike.
After Inauguration Day, we'll start giving strikes and taking down accounts, basically.
Okay, so...
A couple of things here.
They're not going to remove a single video claiming that Donald Trump was not the legitimate president of the United States in 2016.
Not one.
Not one of those is going to come down.
So it's only a certain type of election fraud.
It's only a certain type of claiming an election was illegitimate they're going to take down.
So if you say that this election was fraudulent because of vote counts or because of voter fraud or irregularity... By the way, all claims I'm skeptical of, as you know, If you say that, YouTube will take down the video.
If, however, you say Georgia's non-governor, Stacey Abrams, is actually the governor of Georgia thanks to voter suppression, that stays up.
I mean, hell, that was part of the DNC.
We can't take that down.
If you say that Donald Trump was the illegitimate president of the United States because the Russians interfered in the election, are they gonna leave that up?
What if you allege that Donald Trump was made president because of Russian interference in the election, not indirectly, but directly, like they messed with the vote counts?
Is YouTube gonna take that down?
Not that I'm aware of.
This is your social media betters deciding what you can and cannot see.
By the way, it's not going to kill conspiracy theories.
Do you really think that the way that you are going to kill dissemination of information like this, theories about the stealing of the U.S.
election, you think that you are going to kill those theories by having liberals who all gave money to Joe Biden suppress the information?
Good luck with that.
Seriously, good luck.
But this is the goal.
And it all ties into this basic idea that if you are on the right, and it won't stop there, by the way.
And the left doesn't want it to stop there because they simply label anything they don't like disinformation.
It'd be one thing if they were actually exact in their labeling of disinformation.
They are not.
They claimed the Hunter Biden story was disinformation.
They had a blanket shutdown on the Hunter Biden story.
They downgraded content.
The big tech bros.
And now we're supposed to believe they're gonna restrict it to no well-verified claims?
By the way, they've even gamed that system.
The way that Facebook works this thing is that they actually allow left-wing fact-checkers to ding particular news sites in order to downgrade their content on Facebook.
So they just outsource the dinging.
They outsource the censorship.
And then they claim, oh, well, we're not in control of that.
I mean, obviously, listen, we have our factcheck.org folks over there, and they say Daily Wire is not as credible as CNN, and we believe them because their name is Fact Check.
It's right there in the name.
This is all bullcrap.
It's all bullcrap.
It is designed to restrict your access.
It is designed to pervert how democracy is supposed to work.
Free flow of information.
Access to information.
Now does that mean that the solution is going to be federal regulation?
I have doubts about that because I think that Democrats are likely to take over the auspices of running these companies.
I think that if you create a media oversight watchdog, right, a social media oversight watchdog in the federal government, sooner or later, Elizabeth Warren ends up running it.
And then they just restrict it from government as opposed to the sort of social restriction outside.
But should there be liability for companies that effectively promised their consumers that they were going to have free and open access to information so long as it was not defamatory?
I don't see why there shouldn't be some sort of liability from customers who are promised something and given something else.
I think beyond that...
The main theme here is that you gotta find alternative sources of information.
It sounds self-serving, but it happens to be true.
So I'm gonna make it broader than this.
You need to go subscribe, not just to Daily Wire, to Blaze TV.
You need to go subscribe over to Daily Caller.
You need to go subscribe over to Breitbart.
Like any place that you want alternative sources of information, you need to go subscribe today, because the bottom line is that they are going to try to shut down all dissemination of information.
This is what they do.
It's what they are interested in doing.
And then they wonder why people are so skeptical of the media, and not only the media, all of the institutions surrounding the media.
Because we're being gaslit.
We're being gaslit.
Let me give you a great example, okay?
On COVID.
So there's a lot of media coverage right now of the fact that many Americans are skeptical of COVID regulations.
One of the reasons we are skeptical of COVID regulations is because the media got this thing wrong from the beginning.
They botched it every way it was possible to botch it.
First, they said the thing was not particularly dangerous in February when they were saying that Donald Trump was xenophobic for shutting down the borders.
Then they suggested that masks were really not important and you shouldn't wear them.
Then they suggested the masks were the most important thing that ever was and that lockdowns were excellent.
Now they say, well, lockdowns are still kind of excellent, but they're not so excellent if they apply to Democrats.
Also, they suggested in the middle of the summer that millions of people protesting in the streets and spitting on each other over George Floyd, suggesting that America was systemically racist, which is a lie.
They suggested that that was good.
It was a public health problem.
So they had a they had a triple lie there.
I mean, the rare triple lie.
It's an Olympic-level triple lie there from the media.
One, America is systemically racist, and that's why there are disparities between black and white, particularly in policing.
Two, if you go out and protest for George Floyd in the street, that is riskier than if you go to an outdoor church service, and more important, because it's a public health problem.
And three, if you disagree with any of that, it's because you're a COVID denier.
So the rare triple lie, it's like a triple axel.
It's amazing how the media could twist themselves into pretzels.
And then they wonder, why don't they trust us?
Why don't they trust us?
And they engaged in these sorts of lies over and over about COVID, right?
Andrew Cuomo, incredible at his job.
Chris Cuomo on there every night doing buddy comedy with his bro, holding up giant, weird props to talk about the size of his brother's nose while tens of thousands of people died in his brother's state because his brother was shipping old people with COVID back into nursing homes.
Okay, well now, now we're supposed to trust Andrew Cuomo again.
Isn't that fun?
Isn't it fun how this works?
If you feel like you are being swiveled around, like your head is now being moved all the way around, exorcism style, while you vomit in all directions, that's because that's what the media have driven everybody to.
So, quick flashback first.
Okay, here is a flashback.
This is from October.
Okay, this is October.
Good morning, America.
Andrew Cuomo, the greatest governor in America on COVID.
Amazing governor.
And here he is explaining he does not trust a vaccine developed under the Trump administration.
I'm not that confident, but my opinion doesn't matter.
I don't believe the American people are that confident.
You're going to say to the American people now, here's a vaccine, it was new, it was done quickly, but trust this federal administration and their health administration that it's safe?
And we're not 100% sure of the consequences.
I think it's going to be a very skeptical American public about taking the vaccine, and it should be.
They should be skeptical about the vaccine.
OK, fast forward until after the election.
And now what is Andrew Cuomo, the most beloved governor of the media, the greatest governor in world history, saying about the vaccine?
Here he is again.
Nothing changed.
Nothing changed.
People just voted for Democrats.
That's it.
Okay, in his opinion, that's it.
Here is Andrew Cuomo completely reversing himself.
So I guess Andrew Cuomo is going to have to fight Andrew Cuomo over the credibility of the vaccine, because here he was yesterday.
First, we're going to have to have a real public education campaign to battle the skepticism.
Just think of the math on this.
You have to get to 75% to 85% of the overall population vaccinated for the vaccine to be effective.
75% to 85%.
population vaccinated for the vaccine to be effective. 75 to 85 percent. 50 percent of the population says right now they don't want to take the vaccine. They don't trust the approval process.
They're worried about vaccines in general, but 50% are now saying they don't want to take the vaccine.
You cannot get to 75% if 50% don't take it.
Okay.
The media said this guy's an amazing governor.
Super consistent.
You'll click.
He won an Emmy, guys.
He won a TV Emmy for his clarity and his wit in presenting information to the public.
Let me explain something to both Andrew Cuomo and the members of our esteemed journalistic establishment.
Fire truck you.
Seriously.
You guys can just fire truck right off.
You can just take a hike.
Nobody's interested in your opinions.
Nobody believes you when you say that your opinion is separate from the facts.
And nobody really believes you when you say that you're any different than the folks over at The Daily Wire because you are objective while we are biased.
Of course we're biased because we're honest.
You guys are damned liars.
You're liars.
You lie to project any damned narrative you want.
You will suggest that Joe Biden has cured this thing by the time we hit the end of January, that we're on the road to recovery using a vaccine developed under the Trump administration and a distribution plan developed under the Trump administration.
You'll suggest that Joe Biden has fixed everything.
Oh my God.
And we can all see it coming.
We all know where this is going.
You will suggest that you guys were just the reason that so many people voted for Joe Biden is because you were just so honest.
You did the sort of journalistic work that you should have been doing.
And you will continue to pretend that your back rub of Joe Biden, which will continue for as long as Joe Biden is in office, and then any Democrat is in office, that that back rub is really just hard-hitting journalism.
No one believes you anymore.
And so now you have to engage in the sort of monopolistic behavior that prevents anybody from seeing the alternatives.
That's the goal.
In the end, that's the goal.
It's always down to business.
And here, business meets ideology.
The authoritarians in your media don't want you to see certain information, and so you didn't see it.
The authoritarians in the media thought that you were not capable of processing information and making complex decisions, and so they simply prevented you.
And your authoritarians in the media were just upset at themselves, because in 2016, they accidentally covered the Hillary Clinton emails, and it may have cost Hillary Clinton the election, and so they regret it.
And you're starting to see, I mean, the backlash on this sort of stuff to members of the media who actually try to be honest is astonishing.
The other day, Joe Biden completely blew the name of his nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, Xavier Becerra.
He called him Xavier Becerra.
Or something like that, okay?
And a couple members of the media noted this.
Other members of the media said, how dare you cover this?
Why would you cover this?
Democracy is under threat from Trump.
If you guys are just gonna work for the Democratic Party, then seriously, just go get paid by the Democratic Party.
Don't pretend to be what you're not.
And certainly don't try to shut down the spigot of information so that everybody else can see the information that they want to see.
Okay, meanwhile, It is incredible how the Democratic Party is now going to turn on people who are not wild leftists.
So remember, Joe Biden, I mean, speaking of just media bias in the extreme.
So for the entire election cycle, we were told that if you mentioned that Joe Biden is a senile old man, which he clearly is, right?
Joe Biden is in decline.
It's perfectly obvious that he is in decline.
He is not full-scale senility, like thinking the curtains are talking to him or something, but he just is not with it.
He makes mistakes on a constant basis.
He fumbles his words.
I mean, he's 78.
That's not his fault.
But first, I would say that he's, you know, I know a lot of 78-year-olds who are in better mental shape than Joe Biden.
But I know a lot of 78-year-olds who are in worse mental shape than Joe Biden.
But there's no question that Joe Biden now is not what Joe Biden was even 10 years ago.
And Joe Biden 10 years ago was nothing to write home about.
Joe Biden 10 years ago was still an incompetent buffoon who could barely get a paragraph out of his mouth.
Now he's an even more incompetent buffoon who can barely get a sentence out of his mouth.
But if you mention that, then this is because you are apparently an ageist or because you are not taking into account the fact that he had a childhood stammer, which of course, this is not about stammering.
I've said before, anybody who overcomes a stammer has engaged in an act of tremendous courage, and Joe Biden has helped out so many people who have stammered with advice and comfort and all of that.
It's not about that.
It's about the fact that if you believe, as the Democrats do, that he's president-elect of the United States, it sort of matters that the man literally cannot say the names of the members of his own cabinet without stumbling over them.
If you mention that for the entirety of the election cycle, or now, then it is suggested that you are just, you're age-shaming people.
Which brings us to a piece by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker.
Diane Feinstein's missteps raise a painful age question among Senate Democrats.
See, you're not allowed to mention that Joe Biden is 78 years old, because that's ageism.
But if you talk about Diane Feinstein this way, that's fine.
Now, I have a question.
What changed about Diane Feinstein?
What changed over the past few weeks?
Can anybody think of it?
Anybody?
Any questions?
Any answers?
Hand up?
I see you in the back, yes!
The answer is, Dianne Feinstein hugged Lindsey Graham.
That's what changed.
Dianne Feinstein, who is a rabid, militant Democrat, She went after Brett Kavanaugh with pretty much everything she had, and she engaged in really corrupt activities to do so, bringing forth narratives that simply had no factual basis.
But she had the temerity during the Amy Coney Barrett hearings to turn to Republicans and say, you know what?
This was actually kind of nice.
We actually had like a normal judicial hearing, and that was kind of nice.
And then she gave Lindsey Graham, with whom she's been in the Senate for 1,000 years, a hug.
This means she is senile and must be booted from her positions in top positions of committee power.
According to Jane Mayer reporting for The New Yorker, In a hearing on November 17th, Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who at 87 is the oldest member of the Senate, grilled a witness.
Reading from a sheaf of prepared papers, she asked Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, whether his company was doing enough to stem the spread of disinformation.
Elaborating, she read in full a tweet President Trump had disseminated on November 7th, falsely claiming to have won the presidential election.
She then asked Dorsey if Twitter's labeling of the tweet as disputed had adequately alerted readers that it was a bald lie.
It was a good question.
Feinstein seemed sharp and focused.
For decades, she has been the epitome of a female trailblazer in Washington, always hyper-prepared.
But this time, after Dorsey responded, Feinstein asked him the same question again, reading it word for word along with the Trump tweet.
Her inflection was eerily identical.
Feinstein looked and sounded just as authoritative, seemingly registering no awareness that she was repeating herself verbatim.
Dorsey graciously answered the question all over again.
And this has led to serious questions.
Serious questions about whether Dianne Feinstein has lost it.
Okay, now, it may be possible that Dianne Feinstein has lost it.
I'm just going to note that the only way that you are allowed to talk about this now is because Dianne Feinstein has fallen out of favor with the left wing of her party.
That's all that's happening here.
Many others familiar with Feinstein's situation describe her as seriously struggling, say it has been evident for several years.
Speaking on background and with respect for her accomplished career, they say her short-term memory has grown so poor, she often forgets she has been briefed on a topic, accusing her staff of failing to do so just after they have.
They describe Feinstein as forgetting what she has said and getting upset when she can't keep up.
One aide to another senator described what he called a kabuki meeting in which Feinstein's staff tried to steer her through a proposed piece of legislation that she protested was just words which made no sense.
Feinstein's staff has said she sometimes seems herself, other times unreachable.
The staff is in such a bad position, a former Senate aide who still has business in Congress said they have to defend her and make her seem normal.
So, this means that it's time to get rid of her, obviously.
Obviously, Dianne Feinstein is buried in this piece.
The internal criticism grew more intense this fall over Feinstein's handling of Amy Coney Barrett.
Feinstein had bungled the question about abortion during Barrett's 2017 appeals court confirmation hearing, provoking conservative indignation by casting it clumsily as a question about Barrett's extreme religious beliefs.
The backlash over her question about Coney Barrett effectively indemnified Barrett from further questions about how her faith affected her judicial rulings.
According to several sources, Chuck Schumer, Democratic minority leader, was so worried Feinstein would mismanage Barrett's confirmation hearings, he installed a trusted former aide, Max Young, to embed in the Judiciary Committee to make sure the hearings didn't go off the rails.
He did the same during the Kavanaugh confirmation.
Schumer brought Young in from the gun control group Everytown to handle strategy and communications and serve as Schumer's eyes and ears on Feinstein, as one source puts it.
Schumer's office declined to comment.
The precaution failed, nonetheless.
To Democrats' dismay, Feinstein instead hugged the Republican chairman of the committee, Lindsey Graham, thanking him for his fairness and for running one of the best set of hearings that I've participated in.
So clearly, this was a failure, and this means that she's crazy, right?
It can't just be that she handled it how it was actually supposed to be handled, you know, in normal bipartisan fashion, like most judicial nominees.
It was that she was bad, and she was senile, and now she became senile.
So you have Brian Fallon, the executive director of the progressive advocacy group Demand Justice.
He says it's time for Senator Feinstein to step down from her leadership position on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
If she won't, her colleagues need to intervene.
And apparently, Schumer then chided her.
Overtures were made to enlist the help of Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum.
Okay, so let me just point this out.
Let's say Susan Collins were like 10 years older, 15 years older.
And let's say that she were making overtures to people on the left side of the aisle.
And let's say that people on the right were like, you know what, maybe she's senile.
And Mitch McConnell called her up and then called her husband.
To try and pressure her.
You think the media would be like, oh, probably she's senile.
Or do you think the media would be more like, I can't believe they're trying to pressure this person who is a bipartisan hero into giving up her positions.
Look at these extreme right-wingers and their militarization of age.
It's just, it's incredible stuff.
But you know, our media, perfectly consistent across the board on this.
Dianne Feinstein's great, her great sin here is that she wasn't sufficiently woke, she wasn't sufficiently radical.
Speaking of the sufficiently woke and sufficiently radical, that wing of the Democratic Party is in the ascendancy.
Raphael Warnock running for Senate in the state of Georgia.
Every day a new clip from Raphael Warnock who is a Marxist, a Marxist crazy person.
So this one is from Raphael Warnock describing Castro's Cuba as very much like America.
You know, except for the fact that all dissidents are thrown in prison and the fact that people literally get on 1950s Chevys and try to float their way from Cuba to Florida.
That sort of stuff happens in the United States all the time.
Let me tell you, the way that I got to Cal, the way I got to Florida from California is I actually took a tire and I jumped I did that because, you know, America's so oppressive and terrible.
would sort of carry me all the way through the Gulf, you know, go through the Panama Canal and everything, and then I would end up in Florida.
I did that because, you know, America's so oppressive and terrible.
Alternatively, Cuba is nothing like the United States, which is one of the reasons why Cuban Americans vote Republican.
To the great consternation of all the Democrats who think that if they say latinks, that a bunch of Latinos are gonna vote for them.
Just a side note here, I was talking to a couple of the Latina members of the Daily Wire staff before the show, and we were all laughing at the stupidity of this Latinks nonsense.
I had to be informed, my producer Savvy, who is indeed a Latina woman, that Latinks was supposed to be a gender neutral thing because apparently Democrats are afraid that if they say Latino, Latino is used as the
plural right latinos is used as the plural masculine but it's also it covers the feminine also when you say latinos it covers masculine and feminine it's sort of like in in in hebrew right a language i know much better than than spanish in hebrew when you say jews you say yehudim right the im at the end is a masculine suffix okay but it covers everybody when you say people you say anashim right im is the masculine suffix right ot would be the female suffix not to get into linguistics here but im covers Male and female, right?
Apparently the same holds true in Spanish.
Okay, so Democrats were so afraid that this would piss off Latina women that they made up Latinx.
Latinx.
Latinx.
Which is the stupidest thing anyone has ever heard of.
And people who are actually Latino laugh at this.
They think it's the dumbest thing in the world.
But this is where Democrats are.
And then they can't believe that Latinos are voting in larger and larger numbers over time for Republicans.
I mean, they certainly can't believe that Cuban Americans consistently vote for Republicans.
One of the reasons is because you keep running jokers like Raphael Warnock.
Here's Raphael Warnock in Georgia.
We pray for the people of Cuba in this moment.
We remember Fidel Castro, whose legacy is complex.
Don't let anybody tell you a simple story.
Life usually isn't very simple.
His legacy is complex.
Kind of like America's legacy is complex.
No, actually his legacy is not complex.
He took over an island nation with a few hundred people, and then he proceeded to ram down a communist dictatorship on generations of human beings, impoverishing them and turning one of the richer countries in the entire Latin American sphere into basically a hellhole for people to live in.
Again, You don't try to escape great places by getting on an old Chevy and trying to float 90 miles to the coast of Florida.
Typically not a thing that you do.
So, Democrats, running that guy.
Definitely.
By the way, Republicans in Georgia, vote against that guy!
I don't care what you think happened in the presidential election in Georgia.
Go out and vote against that.
You don't want that in the Senate.
By the way, he also said that Benjamin Netanyahu was basically a Nazi, the prime minister of Israel.
He said that he was like an apartheid South Africa racist and all that.
He compared him to George Wallace, I believe was the actual quote.
He compared him to George Wallace.
The Jews, like George Wallace.
Raphael Warnock.
You might want to vote against that.
This is the new face.
Dianne Feinstein is too old.
This is the new face of the Democratic Party.
Karen Bass.
Who's widely considered a possible VP pick for Joe Biden early on.
She went on CNN yesterday and she says that policing is very obvious to Americans that policing is an issue of systemic racism.
Oh yes, this is going to be your Democratic Party from now until the foreseeable future.
Here she was.
Considering the historical moment that we're in post-George Floyd, where people finally in the United States understand that the issue of policing is a question of systemic racism.
We understand because of COVID, the underlying health conditions.
And so we have real issues in this country.
And what we saw over the last few months is that maybe we can address some of these issues.
I think it makes absolute sense.
To do that at the highest level.
Every crisis is an opportunity to cram down a social justice viewpoint on the world for the Radical Democrats.
And anyone who stands in their way becomes an enemy.
I will say there are certain lines that even the Radicals will cross at a certain point.
So apparently Portland's mayor has now evicted a new Red House Autonomous Zone by force.
This is Emily Zanotti reporting for DailyWare.
By the way, imagine that there were a city in which there had been right-wing riots for a hundred straight nights.
A hundred straight nights.
You think that might be a national news story just a little bit?
There were riots for a hundred straight nights in Portland.
And everybody's like, well, you know, that's just Portland.
Kind of kooky.
They like hemp clothing and they wear Birkenstocks.
They're weird.
But you know, it's like a kooky fun thing.
Rioting every night.
For a hundred nights.
Well, according to Emily Zanotti, Portland, Oregon Mayor Ted Wheeler sent the city's police force to evict a new autonomous zone that cropped up around an anti-eviction protest on Tuesday, reversing a months-long policy of tolerating ongoing demonstrations even when they turn violent.
Protesters have been camping out for months to prevent the eviction of the Kinney family.
On Tuesday morning, tensions escalated.
Protesters used fences and barricades set up by law enforcement officials to surround the home, which has been renamed the Red House on Mississippi due to its location on Mississippi Avenue, according to Newsweek.
Videos of the autonomous zone appeared on Twitter showing a shantytown made of cardboard boxes and pilfered public fencing with warning signs posted on the outside.
Reports indicated that a few dozen protesters plan to take up residence in the autonomous zone surrounding the Red House.
The family owes $100,000 on the home.
The bank foreclosed.
Protesters believed that the family should not be forced out during a pandemic and that the bank was seeking a swifter eviction because the property next to the home recently sold for more than seven figures.
When the city refused to honor protesters' demands, they organized an autonomous zone like Chaz Shop in Seattle.
And even this was a little too humiliating for Mayor Ted Wheeler, so he authorized Portland Police to break the thing up.
Shortly before 5 a.m.
on Wednesday morning, the Portland Police and the Multnomah County Sheriff began their property mission, reclaiming the land on which protesters had set up the autonomous zone.
They said it was not simply a protest they were dismantling.
Apparently, there was a stockpile of weapons and the presence of firearms.
Well, I'm glad that they finally realized that there was one bridge that was too far for them.
the threats of the community to media and to police.
We've seen the attacks.
The Portland police will enforce the law and use force if necessary to restore order to the neighborhood." Well, I'm glad that they finally realized that there was one bridge that was too far for them.
But you literally have to get to the point for Democrats of threatening violence before people are like, oh, maybe this person shouldn't be like a mainstream part of our coalition.
All righty.
Now, I do have to bring you an update on the 2020 election.
A lot of focus being put on this final sort of Texas bid.
It's sort of a last-ditch bid by Team Trump to stop the certification of the election.
According to CNBC, 17 states whose elections were won by President Trump told the Supreme Court on Wednesday they support a Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's bid to file a lawsuit that could effectively reverse Biden's projected Electoral College victory.
The filing backing Paxton by the states came a day after he asked the Supreme Court for permission to sue Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all of which Biden purportedly won, over their voting processes.
Later on Wednesday, Trump filed a motion to intervene in the case in his personal capacity as a presidential candidate.
These states are basically saying that if other states vote unfairly, they are being deprived of equal protection under the law.
So Texas is basically saying, for example, that if Pennsylvania screws up its voting procedure, it outweighs our ability to vote fairly.
So we voted fairly, they voted unfairly, therefore Democrats stole that, and therefore we have a stake in the national election.
It's a hard legal argument to make.
17 former officials and lawmakers filed their own brief supporting the four swing states.
They said the Constitution does not make the Supreme Court the multi-district litigation panel for trials of presidential election disputes.
So in other words, states get to make their own voting procedures and other states cannot sue those states for their voting procedures.
This was actually just an attempt to elevate this thing to the Supreme Court.
That was really the idea here.
Because again, under the Constitution, then controversies between states are typically adjudicated by the Supreme Court or can be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
But for a controversy to arise between the states, you actually have to make a plausible federal claim.
Most legal experts think that this thing is basically doomed to failure.
Andy McCarthy, who is an ally of President Trump and has been a big defender of Trump throughout his administration, has a piece over at National Review pointing out that this lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere.
He says, the first thing to notice about Texas's lawsuit is what does not appear on the front page, the name of the state's solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins.
The lawsuit is brought against four other states.
Thus Attorney General Ken Paxton invokes the original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court to hear disputes between the states, but the brief is not signed by the lawyer who typically represents Texas when there is a Supreme Court case.
That's because this thing has no prospect of winning, according to Andy McCarthy.
He says there's a lot to be said for Texas's complaint as a political polemic.
It's true Democrats labor mightily to undermine election integrity.
The only rational reason for that is to make it easier for legally unqualified people to cast ballots and to cast them in bulk.
The ballots of people who would not otherwise have voted.
It's also true.
Mail-in voting on a massive scale creates tremendous potential for fraud.
This potential is inevitably realized in at least some fraud when coupled with other policies that Democrats like, like getting rid of ID or signature verification, witness requirements, ballot harvesting.
All of these matters should be addressed by Congress and by state lawmakers, says Andy McCarthy.
But none of them give state, Texas, the standing to sue other states over the manner in which they do elections.
Again, in order to have a case or controversy.
You have to demonstrate standing.
And you have to show that you have been damaged.
Right?
If Colton gets hit by a car, I can't sue the person who drove the car.
On behalf of Colton, I don't have standing.
Colton, members of Colton's family, would have to sue.
Presumably.
Says Annie McCarthy, this does not mean the flouting of election laws by officials in Pennsylvania and other states is not a serious issue.
It means that if Texas wants to raise that issue, the Supreme Court is not the right forum.
To repeat a point I've made before, the court did not grant review of a case from Pennsylvania it should have taken involving a narrow critical issue of constitutional law pertaining to elections.
When that issue is raised by parties in the Commonwealth who were directly affected, the justices are not going to have interest in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third party state.
He says he thinks that, in all likelihood, they're just gonna throw this thing out.
It's also a problem because it actually creates the legal predicate.
If the Supreme Court were to take it, it would actually create the legal predicate for any state suing another state for any supposed impact on the first state.
So, for example, California could sue Alabama over Alabama's abortion laws, saying that California provides abortion, Alabama does not provide abortion, and therefore, that affects California.
Because people are traveling from Alabama to California to have abortions and it is creating strain on their system, right?
You can see people making those sorts of claims.
This is why you have pretty strict rules in terms of what is a case or controversy and what standing constitutes.
So, it's unlikely that this is going to go anywhere.
According to Annie McCarthy, federal law provides a procedure under which, on January 6th, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes.
If Texas's elected representatives object to the counting of any state's electoral votes, Congress will heard debate and vote on those objections at that point.
There's no way, however, the Supreme Court will entertain that Texas lawsuit.
So it's important that you know that going in, so that we know exactly what is coming down the road.
There's still one outstanding lawsuit in Georgia.
That one has plausible claims to make.
I'll be fascinated to see how Georgia's Secretary of State responds to very specific allegations that are made in the Georgia lawsuit about not only the violation of election protocol, but also About specific voters who should not have voted.
I mean, there's like giant lists of them included in this Georgia lawsuit.
So that one is the one to watch in terms of lawsuits that have a chance of going anywhere.
OK, we'll be back here later today with two additional hours of content.
Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Colton Haas.
Executive Producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our Supervising Producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Production Manager, Paweł Łajdowski.
Our Associate Producers are Rebecca Doyle and Savannah Dominguez.
The show is edited by Adam Ciejewicz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
Hair and Makeup is by Fabiola Cristina.
Production Assistant, Jessica Kranz.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright 2020.
Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection