Ep. 187 skewers Obama’s G20 summit as a farce—mocking his "weak" label from China, Putin’s backhanded praise, and deals like Syria’s betrayal of rebels or Iran’s $150B cash-for-terrorism swap—before dissecting the 2016 debate where Matt Lauer’s softballs let Clinton evade on emails while Trump’s ISIS flip-flops and Putin fawning exposed leadership vacuums. Kimberly Strassel’s The Intimidation Game reveals how Democrats weaponized IRS raids, gag orders, and Prop 8 harassment to silence conservatives post-Citizens United, with Clinton’s anti-speech agenda threatening to institutionalize the trend—proving the left’s war on dissent isn’t partisan, but systemic. [Automatically generated summary]
If you've been wondering why you haven't been hearing that droning, superior whine preaching misguided values in a tone of disengaged arrogance indicative of a narcissism approaching the level of psychopathy, President Obama has been in Asia recently.
The soon-to-be former leader from behind of the used-to-be-free world traveled to China where he met with the heads of the 19 other top economies in a gathering named the G20 after the expression, gee 20 more years of crappy socialist governance and this will be called the gee whiz because we'll have pissed all our money away.
The summit was Barack Obama's last trip to Asia as president and reflected the results of eight years of his use of smart power to restore America's reputation.
A reputation that was nearly damaged beyond repair when George W. Bush recklessly used our military to make our enemies surrender and caused our friends to take us for granted because we were so reliable.
Fortunately, all that is over now.
What a relief.
The summit began with a meeting between the president and a minor Chinese aide who met Obama on the tarmac in Hangchou with a bouquet of flowers, saying, quote, I give you flowers because you weak like woman.
Now go stand far away from respectable Chinese men where I spit on shiny shoes, tui tui, unquote.
Afterward, Obama arranged a private meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In a press conference afterward, Putin told reporters, quote, I am very grateful to girly black man from once great country.
Without him, I am still weak leader of paper tiger with no economy to pay for soldiers to invade Ukraine.
Now I am strong man again and can slap Pansy golf boy in face like Chechnyan prostitute and tell him to smile and say he likes it.
I know he will do this humiliating thing because he is Obama.
And when Vladimir sees such wimpish girly man behavior from American so-called commander-in-chief, it makes him laugh like, ha unquote.
Obama and Putin did reach a peace settlement in Syria that provides for Obama to hold his peace in Syria while Putin takes a piece of Syria.
So everyone gets peace in Syria except for the pro-democracy rebels who all get killed.
Obama celebrated the agreement saying it was, quote, every bit as good as my deal with Iran to give them billions of dollars in cash to pay for their terror operations, a deal which will prevent them from appearing to have nuclear weapons until their sudden and devastating attack on Israel after I'm safely out of office, unquote.
From China, Obama moved on to Laos, where he expressed regret that America bombed that nation in the 60s and 70s for no other reason than that we were at war with murderous communists who were seeking to enslave or annihilate everyone who stood in their way.
Obama concluded the trip by telling reporters, quote, if you remember, when I took office, I promised to restore America's standing in the world.
Stop remembering that.
In fact, never think about it again, unquote.
Then the humiliated president hid in his room, weeping quietly, until he was coaxed out at suppertime by the smell of macaroni and cheese, his favorite.
Matt Lauer's Indictment00:14:56
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I guess we reset that guy, laughed in his monologue to zero again, didn't we?
How many days?
All right, we've got Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal here today to talk about her amazing book.
It's really a devastating book, The Intimidation Game, How the Left is Silencing Free Speech.
It is just a true indictment of this administration's attack on a freedom of speech.
But that is in the second half of the show.
So now things are getting really complicated.
If you're on Facebook or YouTube and you are a subscriber, you can come to the Daily Wire and watch the rest of the show free.
Am I getting this right?
Yes.
Okay.
If not, you are plunged into the exterior darkness where there is great wailing and gnashing of teeth, so you better subscribe.
But you can download the sound on iTunes or SoundCloud or here at the Daily Wire.
Somebody on Twitter yesterday said, why should I subscribe?
You're not much to look at.
But we actually fact-check that, and it's not true.
I'm fantastic to look at.
So you want to be here.
And please order my book.
I got my book in the mail.
I got all my copies, and I brought in copies for everyone here, but I left them in the car because I was so late because of the traffic.
The great good thing: a secular Jew comes to faith in Christ, so you can order it now.
You'll probably get it pretty soon.
And if you send me your e-receipt to a Clavin at theedailywire.com, I will sign a sticker that you can put in the book.
All right.
So before we get to Kimberly Strassel, we have to talk just briefly about this Commander-in-Chief forum last night.
Trump must have won because Matt Lauer was just roasted in the press.
Matt Lauer, the way it worked is Hillary Clinton and then Trump came out in front of an audience, and Matt Lauer and some of the audience members asked questions.
And I'm looking at it and I'm thinking, well, she sounds dishonest and he sounds dumb.
That was pretty much what was my usual Al Capone versus Bozo the Clown moment.
But I think Trump must have won because they just ripped Matt Lauer apart in the New York Times and everywhere.
They're just, oh, he didn't ask Trump the tough question.
The left is so spoiled by only having questions asked them of their fellow Democrats that whenever they get tough questions, they just look, you know, they just feel that they're being decimated.
But it's actually just, that's actually called report journalism.
You know, so maybe Matt Lauer wasn't that bad.
He did, he hammered Hillary on questions about her emails.
To me, the most devastating moment was when a naval officer asked her about the emails.
So let's look at that.
As a naval flight officer, I held a top-secret, sensitive, compartmentalized information clearance, and that provided me access to materials and information highly sensitive to our warfighting capabilities.
Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.
Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are entrusted with America's most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?
Well, I appreciate your concern and also your experience, but let me try to make the distinctions that I think are important for me to answer your question.
First, as I said to Matt, you know and I know classified material is designated, it is marked.
There is a header so that there is no dispute at all that what is being communicated to or from someone who has that access is marked, classified.
And what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked.
There were no headers.
There was no statement, top secret, secret, or confidential.
I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system.
I took it very seriously.
When I traveled, I went into one of those little tents that I'm sure you've seen around the world because we didn't want there to be any potential for someone to have embedded a camera to try to see whatever it is that I was seeing that was designated, marked, and headed as classified.
So I did exactly what I should have done, and I take it very seriously, always have, always will.
What was damaging about this was right afterwards, her pants caught on fire.
I don't know what that was about, but it was just a very sudden kind of thing.
You know, the lie that was buried in there, aside from all the other lies that I did everything right, always have, always will, all that stuff, the lie that was buried on there was where she said hundreds of people were using this insecure server to send these messages.
That was because it was her server.
I mean, she's blaming the State Department for using her server when she should have been using the State Department server.
It's insane.
I mean, she just, every time she opens her mouth, and then there was this brilliant moment on Libya.
This was really bad.
With respect to Libya, again, there is no difference between my opponent and myself.
He's on record extensively supporting intervention in Libya when Gaddafi was threatening to massacre his population.
I put together a coalition that included NATO, included the Arab League, and we were able to save lives.
We did not lose a single American in that action.
And I think taking that action was the right decision.
Not taking it and permitting there to be an ongoing civil war in Libya would have been as dangerous and threatening as what we are now seeing in Syria.
So wait, we didn't lose a single American in Libya?
Is Benghazi in Ohio?
Was I misreading, was I misreading the news stories on that?
Yes, so many.
I mean, she says that everything is great in Libya.
Everything is in chaos.
They have this government propped up by the UN.
It's collapsing.
There's chaos.
ISIS is attacking them in the north.
It is true that this is what Obama called the worst mistake.
I mean, this is what a guy who never admits to a mistake called the worst mistake of his presidency.
And it is true that Trump supported intervention in Libya, but the worst mistake was that they didn't follow up.
They didn't actually, if you're going to kill the king, you got to go in there and piece the place together or let it go.
Just let it go into chaos, which is what they did.
So the thing that they're on Matt Lauer about is this big thing they're on about.
Mostly they feel he went too easy on Trump.
Trump, as always, was blathering away.
He was saying all this stuff.
He never gets specific.
He never says what he's going to do.
He's got a great plan.
He's going to defeat ISIS quickly.
He said yesterday he's going to give the generals 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS quickly.
They've had a lot of time to come up with plans.
Whether or not Obama's listening to them or not is another question.
But here is what he said about Iraq, that this is why they attacked Matt Lauer.
I look today and I see Russian planes circling our planes.
They're taunting us.
I see in Iran, I see the boats taunting our ships, our destroyers.
What have you done in your life that prepares you to send men and women of the United States into harm's way?
Well, I think the main thing is I have great judgment.
I have good judgment.
I know what's going on.
I've called so many of the shots.
And I happened to hear Hillary Clinton say that I was not against the war in Iraq.
I was totally against the war in Iraq.
You can look at Esquire magazine from 04.
You can look at before that.
And I was against the war in Iraq because I said it's going to totally destabilize the Middle East, which it has.
It has absolutely been a disastrous war.
And by the way, perhaps almost as bad was the way Barack Obama got out.
That was a disaster.
Okay, so they attacked him because of this 2002 interview he did with Howard Stern.
Here's the one piece of it on Iraq.
Are you for invading Iraq?
Yeah, I guess so.
You know, I wish it was, I wish the first time it was done correctly.
This is the big lie that the New York Times and everybody else on the left, you know, media, what is it called?
Media Matters, is raving about, that Matt Lauer didn't call him out on this lie.
I got to be honest.
I mean, I've said what I had to say about Trump.
I think he sounded kind of uninformed, like he didn't take the whole thing seriously, hadn't done any briefing whatsoever.
But on this, you know, all through 2003, he did make that.
He was clearly talking off the cuff.
All through 2003, he got more and more concerned about Iraq, and he was basically worried about his investments and what it was going to do to the economy.
And he ultimately started to call it a disaster.
You know, I guess it's true that he made up his mind slowly over time.
To me, the stuff that really bothers me was the stuff like this moment when he's talking about Vladimir Putin.
Let me ask you about some of the things you've said about Vladimir Putin.
You said, I will tell you in terms of leadership, he's getting an AR president, is not doing so well.
And when referring to a comment that Putin made about you, I think he called you a brilliant leader, you said it's always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his country and beyond.
Well, he does have an 82% approval rating according to the different pollsters, who, by the way, some of them are based right here.
Look.
He's also a guy who annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine, supports Assad in Syria, supports Iran, is trying to undermine our influence in key regions of the world, and according to our intelligence community, probably is the main suspect for the hacking of the DNC computers.
Well, nobody knows that for a fact, but do you want me to start naming some of the things that President Obama does?
But do you want to be complimented by that former KGB officer?
Well, I think when he calls me brilliant, I'll take the compliment, okay?
The fact is, look, it's not going to get him anywhere.
I'm a negotiator.
We're going to take back our country.
You look at what's happening to our country.
You look at the depleted military.
You look at the fact that we've lost our jobs.
We're losing our jobs like we're a bunch of babies.
We're going to take back our country, Matt.
The fact that he calls me brilliant or whatever he calls me is going to have zero impact.
But the fact that you say you can get along with him, I think I'll be able to get along with him.
Do you think the day that you become president of the United States, he's going to change his mind on some of these key issues?
Possibly.
It's possible.
I don't know, Matt.
It's possible.
And it's not going to have any impact.
If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him.
He just makes himself sound ridiculous and shallow.
And comparing Obama to Putin, I thought was, you know, obviously I'm no fan of Obama.
But the problem with Obama is he's an incompetent.
The problem with Putin is he's not.
You know, so that I think that that's just an unfair comparison.
He makes himself sound.
Look, what I saw yesterday at this thing was a fair representation of what's happening in this country.
In fact, it's happening throughout the West.
On the one hand, we have corrupt officials who are hostile to the rule and the freedom of the people, who are represented by Clinton.
That's who she is.
She doesn't care what you think.
She doesn't care what you want.
She just wants to get what she wants, her power and her money, and she gets it.
She's the government.
She's the elite.
On the other side, you have this kind of furious but inarticulate populace that is absolutely in a rage about the fact that they're not being paid attention to, but they're not necessarily sure where to go next.
That's represented by Trump.
And, you know, those are not very, those are two not very good choices, right?
You know, what you need is you want a leader who knows where we should be going and is willing to let us show us the way and let us make our choices.
And that's what we need.
A new leader for a new century.
So far, no such luck.
All right, we're staying on Facebook so you can enjoy the interview with Kim Strassel.
Is she there?
Jesus.
There she is.
Hi, Kim.
How you doing?
Kim Russell.
How are you?
I'm good.
I didn't introduce you yet.
I want to just say that Kimberly Strassel is, of course, one of the great columnists on the Wall Street Journal, one of the best columnists.
I asked her on because I read her tremendous book, The Intimidation Game, which really, Kim, is a sensational piece of journalism.
It really is.
I actually had hair when I started reading it, but it caught on fire because I got so angry.
It's just a genuine indictment of what's been going on in the administration.
Let me get you to tell some of this story.
You start the story, interestingly enough, with the Citizens United decision, which is obviously something that drives Hillary Clinton and the left crazy.
Can you explain it so that people can understand it?
Yeah, so the premise of the book is that we've seen this political shift go on in the country, and it starts with Citizens United because that's the day the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, frees up the First Amendment.
It lets a whole bunch of groups that have been barred from politics back into the political arena.
The left hates this because they had really come to rely on campaign finance laws, I call them speech laws, to keep their opponents quiet.
So when this happens, they have a collective discussion.
You can actually trace it.
It's out there, where they say, well, if we can't outright bar them anymore from taking part, we're going to do the next best thing.
We're going to intimidate them, harass them, scare them, generally send the message that if they engage in these new First Amendment rights, they've been restored.
They will pay a political and personal price.
And you trace this directly to Obama.
I mean, he manages to keep his fingerprints off it, but he actually is the inspiration behind all of it.
Yeah, because you see a lot of different tactics.
And Obama's been behind one of the worst ones, which is, in essence, sicking the federal bureaucracy on your opponents.
That's been a big part of this new game.
And of course, the best example of that is the IRS targeting scandal.
You talk to the White House elected Democrats.
They will to this day claim that, you know, this was just a couple of line agents for the IRS out in Cincinnati.
They didn't understand the law.
No big deal.
You know, in fact, what happened is following Citizens United, the president went out almost every day on the campaign stump.
Remember, it was the 2010 midterm elections, and said, look at all these scary Tea Party groups that are coming into the realm.
Look at all these not-for-profits.
They're shadowy.
We don't know who's funding them.
They could be funded by foreign entities.
Somebody ought to do something about it.
It was a dog whistle to a very partisan IRS to act.
Yet elected Democrats who were outright writing letters to the IRS demanding that they take actions against the very groups that they took action against.
So basically, it was like Henry II with Beckett.
Irs Targeting Scandal00:13:03
He didn't have to actually give the order.
He's just, who will free me from these meddlesome Tea Party?
Yes, exactly.
Who will rip me from the meddlesome Tea Party thing?
We also know, too, look, this debate about nonprofits, the IRS, had been raging within Washington for several years, even if it wasn't out among most of the public.
And this bureaucracy at the IRS, led by Lois Lerner, was primed to act when Democrats asked it to.
We have all the documents from all the investigations, and we know that these groups were deliberately put on ice, that they were harassed, they were interrogated.
We also know, which not a lot of people I think are aware of, that senior leaders at the IRS and the Treasury Department by early 2012 knew that something very bad was going on.
They did an internal investigation.
They discovered what was happening, and then they kept that secret from Congress for another year so that these groups would continue to sit on ice during the 2012 presidential election.
Do you think it had an actual effect on the outcome of the election?
I think it may have because I think the important part about this intimidation is that it's not just about the outright harassment.
It's sending the message out there that the government is watching you.
It's designed in part to make people not participate in the first place.
So being able to measure how many people were affected by this, how many people were too scared in the end or too harassed in the end to take part is an almost an impossible task, but it was surely a big number.
You know, one of the things that kind of surprised me is you go pretty easy on the media in this book, I thought.
You know, you basically say that they were trying.
I mean, the way it looked to me, just as a media consumer, it looked to me like that, yes, for a minute, for a week, they picked up this scandal, and then they dropped it.
And when Obama said there's not a smidge of corruption, it all went away.
Do you feel that they were better than that, or do you feel that they were silenced too?
No, there was probably far more room in this book for media criticism because they played a huge role in this.
One of the reasons I wanted to write this is because the media has been appalling on this issue.
And I think part of it is maybe ideology.
I think part of it, though, is just laziness.
They chase after headlines.
You know, and they watched what happened in the IRS targeting scandal, as you said, for a couple of months, began with outrage, then just sort of accepted, again, this whole left-wing line that this was an accident.
Nobody meant for it to happen.
And by the time the real investigations came out, which is what my book is based on, they weren't paying attention anymore.
So that whole meme is still out there that this is just a just, you know, kind of a boneheaded error by some IRS officials because the law was really complicated.
When in fact, this was one of the worst abuses of American constitutional rights that we've ever had in this country.
And you say, you suggest, anyway, in this book, The Intimidation Game, you suggest that it's still going on, basically.
Yeah, there are still groups that do not have their nonprofit status from the IRS that are still waiting six years later.
We still have an IRS that is actively attempting to put in place a rule that would, in essence, formalize all of the restrictions that it was putting on these Tea Party groups in an informal basis before.
You know, and we have many other episodes of this kind of intimidation happening through other tactics.
Another one that you see increasing across the country, liberal prosecutors who abuse their position to go after their opponents.
The book recounts what happened in Wisconsin, where a couple of liberal prosecutors went after about 30 different conservative groups that had supported the conservative reforms of Governor Scott Walker.
They launched this bogus campaign finance suit.
They staged pre-dawn raids on people's houses.
They confiscated their emails, went through their financial records, forced all of them to hire lawyers at great cost.
This ultimately, oh, by the way, all of this was done under a gag order.
So not a single person who was a target of this investigation was even allowed to say that they were being investigated.
Someone finally broke that gag order.
It led to a lawsuit.
It took the Wisconsin state Supreme Court to shut this charade down.
And when they finally did and issued their ruling, they basically said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, but they said, you know, the prosecutors in this case have invented theories of law to go after citizens that were wholly innocent of wrongdoing.
So just so the audience understands this, because in the book, this part is amazing.
I mean, it really does make you see red.
People, ordinary people, not public officials always, ordinary people had the cops come into their home basically before they got out of bed in the middle of the night, and then were not allowed to say anything about it.
I mean, that's what happened, right?
Because of their opinions.
Yes.
One of the most horrible stories in this book, one of the targets of those raids, he and his wife were off on a charitable fundraising trip and their teenage son was home alone.
The cops come in the dark in the morning, bust into the house.
They won't let him call an attorney.
They won't let him call his grandparents who live down the road.
They ransack the house, haul stuff off, and as they're leaving, inform him, yeah, you're going to be late for school.
And guess what?
You can't tell anyone why you are because if you talk about what happened to you here this morning, you will go to jail.
So this is happening in the United States.
And I guess, you know, it goes beyond intimidation, obviously.
It's abuse of government power.
It's amazing.
The other thing, you mentioned this a little at the beginning, but you talk a lot about this idea of disclosure.
And I think I, like a lot of people, think of disclosure as a good thing.
You know, we think, you know, we want to see on the side of our food what's in the food and all this stuff.
Every time the government gives us information, we sort of feel like, yeah, that's okay.
But actually, disclosure is a way of targeting people, right?
Yeah, and we need to rethink this a little bit.
Obviously, disclosure sounds good, transparency sounds good, and in the best circumstances, it is good.
But what has happened as part of this intimidation racket that the left is engaging is they figured out how to use it as a weapon.
And what they do is they go out and they try to enforce disclosure laws or use disclosure laws to get the names of new targets of people that they can go after.
Another story in the book is what happened out in California during the Prop 8 ballot initiative.
And this really is a story of average Americans, but that was, of course, a ballot initiative in favor of traditional marriage.
Many people contributed to that cause.
Opponents of that went and got all of their names off of financial disclosure records.
Then they put their names and their addresses on a searchable, walkable map so you could go home to home to target them.
The people who were on that list, they had their cars keyed, their windows broken, they had flash mob protesters show up at their small businesses.
So this is how disclosure is being used by the left.
We actually have some really good Supreme Court cases that ought to be protecting people's anonymity a little bit better.
But the court has sort of forgotten about some of those in their rush to also jump on the disclosure bandwagon.
But this is something, you know, Congress and people in the states really need to be thinking about a lot more because you see these initiatives by the left getting now ginned up in different states trying to call out more disclosure.
And it's usually not in the aim of having cleaner elections.
It's usually in the aim of attempting to give them new tools to harass people.
You know, you also, the Wall Street Journal has been great about this.
The entire paper has been really good about focusing on this attempt to shut down people who don't believe that climate change is a man-made catastrophe.
I mean, climate change, you know, you always feel like you have to say that climate change, you know, entire history books from prehistory can be written about climate.
You know, climate changes.
We're on a rock spiraling down into the sun.
The climate changes from time to time.
But if you basically think that this doesn't mean the government should take over our oil industry, they come after you, right?
Yeah, and, you know, this is the latest example of intimidation.
When I first read about this, I was like, darn, I just finished writing the book and now I need a sequel.
Because what you're seeing out there, of course, these 17 attorneys general who are going after Exxon and not just Exxon, but any conservative think tank that had worked with Exxon over the year.
And in essence, saying that they are debating, bringing racketeering charges against Exxon and potentially these groups for the crime of not thinking the right way on climate science.
I mean, it's an astonishing thing.
They issued subpoenas.
And by the way, I'd make the point, Andrew, that while Exxon has got all the headlines, and while I think these prosecutors would be thrilled to get Exxon to, for instance, engage in some giant settlement where they could spread the money out to all their states, their real targets here, I think, are these conservative think tanks.
It's designed to send a bigger message throughout the kind of thought world that you could end up in the dock as well if you associate or think the wrong way on certain kind of academic research.
Because they know that those grassroots groups and those think tanks are some of their biggest, you know, thorniest problems out there.
And so I think it's a very alarming, alarming tactic because now we're seeing it happen a lot more often.
This is an amazing story.
I'm running out of time.
I got to ask you two more questions.
The first one, I'm always interested in this.
You bring out this book, and it's really a well-researched book.
It's not a screed.
It's not you yelling and screaming.
It's just the facts, basically, telling what happened, which are appalling enough and fascinating enough.
Have you been on any mainstream media?
Have they interviewed you in the middle?
I've been on a few the first week.
Okay.
But I will tell you an interesting story.
So we actually did a lot to promote this book out there before it came out with tea party groups and grassroots people.
You're right.
It is a, I mean, I'm a fairly respected Wall Street Journal writer.
I spent years reporting this book.
No one to this day has been able to say that there's a single fact wrong in the book.
But the first week it came out, BookScan, which tracks book sales, said that we were the sixth best hardcover seller nonfiction cover in the country the first week.
I didn't appear anywhere on the New York Times' top 20 list.
Yeah, yeah.
No, I know.
It's a totally skewed list.
I know it.
But at least they give you some play.
You did get on some of the networks maybe somewhere.
Yeah, I got on, I was on Fox News and I was on Morning Joe.
There were a lot of shows that absolutely did give me time to talk about this, for which I was great.
Okay, well, that makes me feel better.
So now you're looking at the future.
I'm looking at this election, which to my poor eyes looks like kind of a car wreck, but there it is.
Are things going to get better or worse, do you think, on this issue?
In terms of free speech, in terms of politicians' dedication to shutting us up, what are our chances?
Yeah, so I'm actually very worried about this.
And I don't care who wins the White House only because you know this as well as I do.
You watch politics.
Usually when you have a person in a senior position like the President of the United States who begins to just wantonly take actions that are extra-constitutional, they let the genie out of the bottle.
And it's very hard to put it back in because subsequent presidents feel as though they get to behave in the same manner.
I don't think there's any question that Hillary Clinton would do so.
She's already out there.
One of her top campaign promises is to, you know, she likes to say, issue an amendment or file an amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Let's be clear what that actually means.
She wants a new amendment to the Constitution that would give government the power to decide who can speak in elections.
So, you know, the intimidation game is their interim strategy until they reach, she's laid out what the end point is, which is to give their side the control to say who can play.
Very scary stuff.
Kimberly Strassel, The Wall Street Journal, the author of The Intimidation Game, a terrific book, a really good piece of journalism, and I congratulations on it.
Thank you for coming on.
It's been great talking to you.
Thank you, Andrew.
It was a lot of fun.
All right.
I'll see you again.
All right.
That's it for this week.
We go into the Clavenless weekend.
Go careening into the Clavenless weekend.
And do get that book.
Yeah, put up.
Can you put up the graphic of the book?
The Intimidation Game.
I forget how the Left is Silencing Free Speech by Kimberly Strassel.
Really good book.
Really interesting.
You'll be bald afterwards because your hair will catch on fire with rage.
All right.
Let's leave with some great music.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Here's Ella Fitzgerald, the greatest scat singer who ever lived, singing It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing by Duke Ellington.
Careening Into Clavenless Weekend00:01:05
It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that swing.
Boo a boo a boo a boo a boo wa boo wa boo wa booa.
It don't mean a thing.
All you gotta do is swing.
Boo a booa boo a boo wa boo wa boo a boo a boo wa.
It makes no difference if it's sweet or hot.
Just kids are riddle everything you've got.
It don't mean a thing if you ain't got that swing.
Boo a boo wa boo wa booa boo a boo wa boo a booa.
Bo badu bit do it do it no.
Mo bada do it up to tibi di bidi da ya no ba bito baby da Bupo bed da da da popa.