Ep. 801 – House of Clowns skewers Democrats’ Ukraine impeachment farce, where Alexa’s fake testimony—alleging Trump’s quid pro quo via janitor gossip—triggers CBS’s Nora O’Donnell’s tearful meltdown while Andrew Clavin mocks the lack of direct evidence. Jenna Ellis Reeves counters DACA chaos, arguing Trump’s rescission was constitutional and future presidents must have the power to reverse executive overreach, with Roberts’ vote as the wild card. The episode pivots to Remington’s gun lawsuit, where Reeves defends manufacturers from liability for criminal misuse, before slamming Jojo Rabbit for sanitizing WWII’s horrors—all while Jordan grills Taylor and Kent under impeachment’s collapsing house of cards. [Automatically generated summary]
It was a dramatic first day of impeachment hearings watched by everyone who wasn't otherwise busy picking their noses or bleaching their unmentionable parts.
Eager to get off to a powerful start that would bring forward their best anti-Trump testimony, Democrats introduced their star witness, Alexa, the electronic information assistant from Amazon.
Committee Chairman Adam Guglieshif started the questioning saying, quote, Alexa, did the president demand a quid pro quo from Ukraine, unquote.
Alexa answered, quote, a man passing the White House Tuesday overheard a guard on the sidewalk booth speaking on the phone to his mother and saying he had met a janitor who said he was cleaning an office in the West Wing when he saw an assistant to an aide in the press department texting a disgruntled former employee of the State Department who said he was willing to bet that old Meanie Trump would do anything to bring down Joe Biden,
who will be a terrific threat to him in the 2020 election if he can ever complete an English sentence without his teeth falling out and his eye exploding.
That text was recorded by Facebook, who was spying on everyone and recorded by myself, who's spying on Facebook, which is how I know Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.
Unquote.
On hearing the news, CBS anchorwoman Nora O'Donnell immediately assumed a fake-looking action pose and announced the testimony had been, quote, a devastating bombshell that would have been the last nail in the coffin if it hadn't been so explosive it blew the lid off the coffin, causing the walls to close in at the beginning of the end of a tipping point of a coffin bombshell exploding in the devastating closing walls, unquote.
After that, O'Donnell fell to the studio floor sobbing, I don't know what I'm saying anymore.
Please someone help me.
Testimony will continue Friday, and Democrats say they hope they can tell a powerful and simple story, preferably ending with a kiss under the Christmas tree, because those stories are just the best.
Good morning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boom.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dee-dee.
Ship-shaped, ipsy-topsy, the world is a-biddy-zing.
It's a wonderful day, hoorah, hooray.
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hoorah, hooray.
Today, we'll finish exploring four leftist ideas that make no sense, because basically, I will do anything not to talk about this stupid impeachment farce, because it's beneath my dignity to take this Democrat clown show seriously.
But let us pause before we get to it because we have to get to it.
But today I want to talk about immigration.
Immigration has already gone a long way toward destroying Europe and clearly leftists are hoping they can use it to destroy America as well.
What is the left's idea about immigration?
On the one hand, they tell us the original Europeans like Columbus were wrong to come here unasked, but on the other hand, they want us to let in anyone who does the same thing to us.
What's more, they tell us America is a nation of immigrants and should welcome everyone.
Because unlike other nations, we're not racially conceived, but built on a creed of freedom and equality before the law, and that can apply to anyone.
That's cool.
But America is not just a creed floating in space.
It's also a piece of land.
We know this because if you're born on this piece of land, you're an American, even if you don't ascribe to our creed.
Take Bernie Sanders, for instance.
And even insofar as we are a creedal nation, the left does not believe the creed is for everyone.
We know this because when we try to export the creed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the left condemns us for imposing our cultures on people who don't want them.
Surely then, if we're going to let people into our country, they should be coming here because they want to leave behind the assumptions and practices of their culture and adopt our creed of freedom.
So it's perfectly reasonable for us to examine them closely before we let them in, especially if they come from countries or believe in religions that are incompatible with our creed.
But that, of course, the left utterly rejects as bigotry.
In short, not one single thing the left says about immigration makes any sense when compared with any other thing the left says about immigration.
They're all over the place, and that can only mean one thing.
They're running a scam.
The ultimate purpose of this immigration scam is not just to turn the electorate blue, but to bring in voters who do not share our commitment to individual liberty, because that's the type of liberty that extends to ordinary people whom the left finds deplorable.
Because we're being scammed, any argument we have with the left on this subject is useless because they'll say one thing at one time and another contradictory thing at another time, and then they'll cry over the children and we'll never get around to the point.
All we need to do is apply and enforce a sane, sensible policy that allows people in only if we want them or need them and only if they want to be one of us.
It's not a matter of color.
It's not a matter of race.
It's a matter of merit and commitment, with maybe the occasional exception made for humanitarian purposes if we can afford it economically and socially.
The left's approach to immigration makes zero sense because it's a total, complete, and utter con game, and it should be answered with common sense and a great, big, beautiful wall.
All right, I'm going to have to get to this impeachment farce that was on TV, but first let us talk about Quip.
Public Hearing Surfaces New Claim00:09:57
Quip is an electronic toothbrush, but not the usual big cannon of electronic toothbrush.
It's very beautifully made.
It's very beautifully styled, and it's really easy to travel with because you don't need to, it hasn't got a recharger, it's just operated with batteries.
Quip's electric brush has sensitive sonic vibrations with a built-in timer, 30-second pulses to guide a full and even clean.
Quip makes it easy to stick to a healthy brushing habit, starting with an electric toothbrush, refillable floss, and anti-cavity toothpaste.
The Quip floss dispenser comes with pre-marked string to help you use it just enough.
You've got the floss.
Don't forget the floss.
My dentist tells me this all the time.
Also tells me that electronic toothbrushes are better than ordinary ones.
Just over 3 million healthy mouths.
So get Quip today starting at 25 bucks.
And if you go to getquip.com slash Clavin right now, you'll get your first refill free.
That's your first refill free at getquip.com slash Clavin, spelled G-E-T-Q-U-I-P.com slash Clavin, Quip, the Good Habits Company.
I love it.
They spell get quip.
Anybody can spell GetQuip.
How do you spell Clavin?
There are no easy things.
How do you guess?
That's amazing.
Also, Another Kingdom comes out tomorrow if you are a subscriber.
And that way you can cut one whole day off your Clavenless weekend.
If you're a subscriber, it costs $10 a month, $100 for the year.
You get the app, the new app we have.
You get AMA.
I'm going to do an Ask Me Anything.
I think Knowles is going to be with me, right?
We're going to talk about Another Kingdom.
I think it's tomorrow, 1230 Pacific Time.
We'll be online.
You can find us on the app.
You've got to be a subscriber.
If you subscribe for the year, you also get the famous, unique, handcrafted by Virgins, Leftist Tears, Tumblers, handcrafted by Los Angeles Virgins, so you know online.
So congratulations to the Democrats.
There's no avoiding my talking about this stupid thing.
I mean, these guys, Democrats went on TV, smeared themselves with excrement, set themselves on fire, blew themselves up, and then declared victory.
It was embarrassing.
The Wall Street Journal is a funny paper because their opinion section leans toward the right.
They don't like Donald Trump, but their news section is really trending left, and they hate Trump.
They have this banner headline, Public Hearing Surfaces New Claim.
I'm holding it up.
You can see it goes right across the head.
The Wall Street Journal rarely does that.
So now I was in journalism.
I was a newswriter on radio.
I was a newspaperman for a brief period.
You have a big banner headline like this, public hearing surfaces new claim.
What do you think the lead is going to be?
Because the lead is the first thing that you write.
It's always the big thing, the grabber.
The lead should then be the new claim, right?
And it says, President Trump in a summer phone call asked about politically advantageous investigations.
Well, we're going to take a look at that claim, what this thing is, that we've got a banner headline over because it is hilarious.
I mean, listen, this is a show where I don't even have to write satire.
It is that funny.
So the whole thing, again, they have two witnesses, right?
William Taylor, the acting ambassador to the Ukraine, and George Kent, who's a senior State Department official.
These are their two-star witnesses.
Remember, they wanted to lead off.
It was going to be a blockbuster.
It was going to be really powerful.
John Ratcliffe, one of the Republican congressmen and a good questioner, this is the way he summed up their, he summed up their testimony at the end of it.
This is his question.
In this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call?
Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call?
Shout it out.
Anyone?
Nobody's got anything.
And they keep saying, well, we're not taking sides here.
We're not taking sides.
The information, despite what they tell you, is not new.
Most of the information was not new.
They heard rumors.
They heard ideas that Rudy Giuliani was running around behind the scenes trying to get investigations into the Democrats reaching out to Ukraine for dirt on Clinton and on Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's corruption in taking this job with this corrupt gas company, this corrupt energy company, Burisma, while he had no expertise.
He was being paid massive amounts of money and his father was vice president.
How did that happen?
And they keep telling us, the newspapers, they keep saying there's no indication of corruption here.
The very fact of it is an indication of corruption, as they reported, as the mainstream media reported at the time.
But the other subtext of this, and this is important, before we get to the hilarity, I mean, it's really important to point out that these are career diplomats with an investment in Ukraine being important to the United States and this anti-Russian policy that has been in place since Reagan, basically.
This is this anti-Russian policy.
Now, Vladimir Putin is a gangster, and Russia is a gangsterocracy.
But the fact is, the fact is, our main problem coming up is China.
And eventually, I'm just telling you this, this is not predicting the future because this is just true.
Eventually, we are going to have to work with Russia against China because China is a powerhouse.
Russia is a failed state.
It is a gangsterocracy.
It has no money.
Putin is very good at organizing big shows of force, and he's very good at playing with other gangsters like the Iranians and all this.
They love, you know, gangsters love each other.
They are not a major threat.
And these guys in the bureaucracy don't like the fact that Trump knows this and he's not playing Ukraine.
They keep saying everything leads back to Russia.
Screw Russia.
Really, Russia is a failed state.
Russia, their economy is gone.
The only place they're getting money from is from the Germans having, you know, setting up oil tankers with them, oil pipelines with them.
So they don't like this, all right?
When it gets to the bottom line, Jim Jordan, they added Jim Jordan to this committee, which was a genius because Jim Jordan was a star yesterday.
When it comes to the bottom line of the testimony, the bottom line, right, is they're claiming that there was a quid pro quo that if the Ukrainians did not investigate Hunter Biden, we were not going to give them aid, right?
And aid was held up for 55 days, although the president said he had no idea it was being held up.
But this is Jim Jordan explaining why this entire scenario is absolutely ridiculous.
This is cut number 11.
When you said you had a clear understanding that President Zelensky had to commit to an investigation of Biden's before the aid got released, and the aid got released and he didn't commit to an investigation.
Mr. I was not wrong about what I told you, which is what I heard.
That's all I've said.
I've told you what I heard.
And that's the point.
What you heard did not happen.
It didn't happen.
You had three meetings with the guy.
He could have told you.
He didn't announce he was going to do an investigation before the aid happened.
It's not just could it have been wrong.
The fact is it was wrong because it didn't happen.
The whole point was you had a clear understanding that aid will not get released unless there's a commitment.
Not maybe, not.
I think the aid might happen.
It's my hunch it's going to get released.
You used clear language, clear understanding and commitment.
And those two things didn't happen.
So you had to be wrong.
So in other words, if there was a quid pro quo, but we didn't get the quid, how come we got the quo?
I mean, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
On top of which, George Kent, who is, I think, deputy assistant something or other in the State Department, Kent admitted that this thing, I mean, this is the whole thing about the in-curiosity of the press, the in-curiosity of the Democrats.
We don't want to know who the whistleblower is.
We don't want to know what Hunter Biden was doing.
We don't want to know anything.
We just want to know, can we attack Donald Trump?
So George Kent admitted that it was pretty funny looking.
Maybe it was worth investigating what was happening with Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.
But after you expressed the concern of a perceived conflict of interest at the least, the vice president's engagement in Ukraine didn't decrease, did it?
Correct, because the vice president was promoting U.S. policy objectives in Ukraine.
And Hunter Biden's role on the board of Burisma didn't cease, did it?
To the best of my knowledge, it didn't.
And my concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest.
So they're not angry at Joe Biden, even though his son was pulling down $50,000 a month, because he was following their policy in Ukraine.
And they're angry at Trump because Trump isn't.
But guess who Trump is?
You may not have heard this.
Trump is president of the United States.
Guess who sets the foreign policy in the United States?
You guessed it, President of the United States, who is, may I remind you, Donald Trump.
This little clown with his bow tie, he don't set nothing.
He doesn't decide nothing.
He carries out what the president is going to do.
So he was okay with Hunter Biden, with Joe Biden's son pulling in the big bucks from a corrupt Ukrainian regime.
Didn't mind that, but he does mind that Trump wanted that corruption investigated because Trump wasn't doing what he wanted him to do.
That's really important.
That is what we were watching.
The AOC, we love Alexandria because she's a dope, and she says the quiet part out loud.
She goes on television and she told Wolf Blitzer exactly what this was about.
This is not just about something that has occurred.
Staff Member's Trump Call Insight00:13:54
This is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year.
It's not what happened.
It's about what could happen because Trump could win the election because their array of candidates are a bunch of losers and fools.
All right.
So that's where we are, right?
Nothing happened.
The aid to Ukraine, first of all, again, I said this yesterday, but let me reiterate.
The Obama administration for eight years sent them blankets in Ukraine to defend themselves against the Russians.
They wave the blankets at the Russian soldiers and the Russian soldiers get confused and run away.
Donald Trump sent them lethal weapons, sent them missiles to fight the Russians.
That's what Donald Trump did.
So the eight years, nobody's complaining because they're funneling money into the Russian plan, the anti-Russian plan.
But Donald Trump comes in and says, yeah, you know, I'll send Ukraine stuff to protect themselves.
He holds up the aid for 55 days because he does this all the time with aid because he doesn't like giving foreign nations aid.
Congress said we were going to investigate this.
He said, all right, take the aid.
He never held it up.
There was no quid pro quo in practice.
So none of this took place.
Nothing happened.
And we're going to get to this hilarious, it really is hilarious.
We're going to get to this hilarious new piece of information.
In just a minute, let me talk about Ring.
It is on the way.
My new ring is coming.
They have a new camera and doorbell.
This is a security doorbell.
Wherever you are, I'm traveling all the time.
I am traveling all the time.
But anyone comes to my door and I have that ring doorbell.
I look at my phone.
I can see who it is.
I can talk to them.
I can track them.
I can take care of everything.
And this is really important.
It's really important for security.
It's important if you've got kids and they're going to school and you want to know are they home?
You want to see what's going on?
Who's coming to the door?
Ring helps you stay connected anywhere.
Anybody comes to the door, you can talk to them.
You can question or question them.
And as a listener, you have a special holiday offer on a Ring Starter kit.
Now, this is not just the doorbell.
You get a Ring Video Doorbell 2, which is the one I'm waiting for.
And a motion-activated floodlight cam.
So anyone steps on your property at night, the lights go on and you can see them.
And that's important because people who shouldn't be there don't want to be seen.
The starter kit has everything you need to start building a ring of security around your home, no matter what this holiday season brings.
With Ring, you're always home.
Just go to ring.com forward slash clavin.
That's ring.com forward slash clavin.
Additional terms may apply, but anyone comes to your door, you can ask them, how do you spell clavin?
And there are no easy things.
If they say that, open fire because you know you're under attack.
So all of this, so nothing's happened.
There's no evidence.
Nothing's going on.
And what they've got, all they've got is a Greek chorus in the press.
Let me just show you, because this is what I'm going to talk about for the next few minutes.
And this is the funny part.
I just love this part.
The press has decided to play a Greek chorus.
Doesn't matter what you see.
Who are you going to trust?
Your own eyes?
Because nobody's watching this thing.
They know it.
They know you're just coming to the press to find out what happened.
So who are you going to trust?
Your own eyes or the press?
Nora O'Donnell tries to sell this thing.
This is cut number seven, Nora O'Donnell telling you what you should have feel that you saw.
And there we have it.
Day one of the first public hearings in terms of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump are now in the history books.
Some devastating testimony today from two of America's most respected diplomats who have served both Republican and Democratic presidents.
Our whole team has been watching all morning and all afternoon, and now we get the chance to break it all down for everyone and to highlight many of the key things that we heard today.
If you were bored, you weren't paying close attention enough.
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
You can't even feel what you're feeling.
If you were bored, it's your fault if you were bored.
If you thought nothing was going on, it's your fault.
You didn't see the devastating bombshells, the walls closing in, the tipping point.
If you didn't see, that's on you because Nora O'Donnell saw it all.
I mean, she was looking inside the screen inside her head, but still, if you couldn't see what was inside Nora O'Donnell's head, man, you just aren't paying attention.
I mean, this is the news.
CBS, Edward Armuro would turn over in his grave.
You know, even Walter Cronkite, these guys were liberals.
These guys were selling stuff too.
But this is incredibly twisted stuff.
If you are not, if you don't see the devastating tipping point of explosive walls closing in nails and coffins, man, you just ain't looking hard enough.
So, what did these guys say?
Everything, not one of them, not either of them, I should say, neither of them spoke to Donald Trump.
None of them had any information.
So much of this was hearsay.
At one point, Jim Jordan took apart one of their claims, an amazing claim.
This is cut number six: Jordan talking to William Taylor, the acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, on what his testimony really means.
Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yarmock on September 1st, 2019, in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky.
We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.
Which I mean, even though you had three opportunities with President Zelensky for him to tell you, you know what?
We're going to do these investigations to get the aid.
Didn't tell you three different times.
Never makes an announcement, never tweets about it, never does it see an interview.
Ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you?
You didn't listen in on President Trump's call and President Linsky's call?
I did not.
You've never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?
I never did.
You never met the president?
That's correct.
He had three meetings again with Zelensky and it didn't come up.
So here's Democrat Mike Quigley, cut 13, defending himself.
Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances, and it's certainly valid in this sense.
Well, gentlemen.
Hearsay is much better than direct.
All right, so this brings us to the breaking news.
This is the banner headline, right?
Public hearing surfaces.
A new claim.
This is it.
So let's hear it because, I mean, you know, you might want to stand back because this is a bombshell.
It's explosive.
It's a nail in the coffin.
It's devastating.
And if you don't want to get exploded and have your nail driven into your coffin and be devastated, you do not want to hear.
This is William Taylor.
He is the acting ambassador to Ukraine explaining this is the new thing.
This is the new breaking news, the new thing that came out of this.
Let's make sure we got it right.
The right cut.
Cut number three.
Last Friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on July 26th.
While Ambassador Volcker and I, Volcker, and I visited the front, this member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondlin.
Ambassador Sondlin met with Mr. Yerbok.
Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Ambassador Sandlin called President Trump and told him of his meetings in Kyiv.
The member of my staff could hear President Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Sondlin about the investigations.
Ambassador Sondlin told President Trump the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.
Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Ambassador Sondlin what President Trump thought about Ukraine.
Ambassador Sandlin responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for.
Let me review.
Let me review.
A staff member told Taylor he or she heard Ambassador George Sondlin on the phone with Trump.
And then Sondlin hung up, and then Sondlin told the staff member that Trump cared more about investigations than he cared about the aid to the Ukraine.
And the staff member told this to Taylor, okay?
You got that?
So in other words, the guy's on the phone with Trump.
And you know, Trump is bloviating.
He's always saying things that come up to the top of his head.
And Sondlin hangs up the phone and he says, oh man, that guy cares more about the investigations than he cares about the aid.
And now the staff member, they're at dinner, they're at lunch, whatever it was, comes back and tells this is the breaking news, right?
It's fourth, fifth degrees of separation.
And it's just a remark the guy made, right?
Anybody could say any.
I mean, how many times have you said of somebody you like and somebody's doing a good job?
Oh, that guy's nuts today.
He's got, oh, the things that he's saying are, I mean, how many times have you said that about your boss, right?
Oh, he doesn't know what he's doing, you know?
But you go in and say, basically, the guy's doing a good job.
It doesn't matter.
It's an offhanded remark after a phone call that the guy didn't hear, that the aide didn't hear, that the aide is now telling to Taylor, who wasn't there.
Okay, here's how Nora O'Donnell, Action Stance Nora O'Donnell, played this on CBS as cut number four.
We learned something new.
Ambassador Bill Taylor, the top diplomat to Ukraine, testified about a phone call between President Trump and Gordon Sundlin.
That's the president's ambassador to the European Union.
The takeaway from that phone call, according to Taylor, the president cared more about investigating his political rival than he did about Ukraine.
Taylor, a West Point grad and Vietnam veteran, and George Kent, a career foreign service officer, have served for decades under Republican and Democratic presidents.
They use words like alarming, confusing, irregular, illogical, and crazy to describe the Trump administration's policy towards Ukraine.
I love the credentialism.
You know, these guys are a lifetime.
He was a soldier.
He was a veteran.
You know, this is as if, you know, when they talk about the deep state and how grateful we should be for the deep state because they're patriots.
This is as if there were a military coup.
It's as if we were living in a banana republic.
There was a military coup, and the army marched in, removed all our elected officials, and announced, we are now the army, we are now in charge of the government.
And the New York Times, Nora O'Donnell, said, these people are patriots.
They're veterans.
They love the Constitution.
Isn't it wonderful they took over?
Shouldn't we be grateful that our brave military has taken over our government?
That's the argument they're making.
And if that's not bad enough, Chuck Todd, I'm going to remind you one more time.
A staff member, an aide, told William Taylor he heard Ambassador Sondlin on the phone with Trump, but he didn't hear the conversation.
Then Sondlin hung up and said Trump cared more.
Sondlin testified to Trump's state of mind, right?
Trump cared more.
This is the bombshell.
Now let's hear Chuck Todd.
And you know, if you want the news unbiased, you go to Chuck Todd for a laugh.
Here's Chuck Todd telling us how we should feel about this phone call.
Chuck, let me begin with you.
Does this move the needle acknowledging that there are more public hearings to come?
Well, I think they did today because they got an additional piece of new information.
And it's new information that frankly makes you want to see the next episode, which is Gordon Sundland, the ambassador to EU.
Apparently, a second phone call after the call.
Here is an eyewitness account or an ear witness account of overhearing the president on the phone with Gordon Sundland.
It makes his testimony crucial, Lester, to the point of it could be make or break type of crucial, I think, for the longer portion of this.
I'm embarrassed for Chuck Todd.
I am.
I am.
I'm blushing for Chuck Todd.
I can feel my face getting hot for Chuck Todd making an utter fool of himself, trying to sell this garbage to the American people.
It really is like the Democrats.
So we're going to smear ourselves with crap.
We're going to set the crap on fire.
then we're going to stick a fire stick up our backsides and explode ourselves and then we're going to declare victory.
I mean, it really, it really is something.
And I just got to say one more thing about, what's his name, Adam Schiff, right?
The guy is lying and lying in line.
He's insisting, oh, I had no idea.
I had no idea who the whistleblower is.
And he won't, you know, he's not, he's protecting the whistleblower and everybody, oh, the press is protecting the whistleblower.
Meanwhile, meanwhile, ABC is hunting for the whistleblower who released, remember that tape that Project Veritas and James O'Keefe released of Amy Roebuck, the anchor, saying ABC killed the Jeffrey Epstein story.
We had it three years ago and they killed the Jeffrey Epstein story.
ABC is now hunting for the whistleblower who released that tape.
CBS fired a woman, a young woman, apparently an Emmy-winning young woman.
They fired her because they thought she was ABC's whistleblower and she wasn't.
And now ABC is, where's the whistleblower?
They're hunting through.
Meanwhile, not covering it at all, not covering it up.
ABC covering it up.
CBS covering it up.
They're not talking about this story of why a man connected to some of the most powerful people in this country who is peddling underage women to them.
They're covering it up and they are hunting down anybody who proves that they're covering it up and they're not even covering that they're hunting down the people who are covering it up.
This is your press, ladies and gentlemen.
This is your reporters.
These are your journalists who are reporting this news and telling you about a bombshell because an aide heard an ambassador talk to the president and then say something to the aide who said it to the acting ambassador.
And that's a bombshell.
I mean, this is your press.
Supreme Court and Constitutional Authority00:09:42
It's utterly amazing.
If it weren't for the fact that corruption is the most, it strikes me as one of the most amusing things that can happen, it would be tragic, but at least one of us is laughing and that's me.
All right.
Now, let us talk about life insurance.
You've got to have life insurance.
You've got to be a grown-up.
This is a basic adulting.
You have to take care of the people around you, even if you're not around to be there, especially if you're not around.
Policy Genius helps you do this.
Policy Genius is the easy way to shop for a life insurance plan that's not tied to your job.
You don't want one that if you lose your job, you lose your life insurance.
In minutes on Policy Genius, you can compare quotes from top insurers to find your best price.
And once you apply, the Policy Genius team will handle all the paperwork and red tape.
The life insurance you buy through Policy Genius stays with you even if you leave your job.
And Policy Genius doesn't just make it easy to get life insurance, they can also help you find the right home and auto insurance and disability insurance too.
So when you're looking at your workplace benefits this month, make sure to double check your life insurance options.
Then go to policygenius.com to get quotes and apply in minutes.
Policy Genius is the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
All right, we're going to talk.
I'm going to move on from this.
I could laugh at these people forever, but I'm going to move on.
We're going to bring in one of our favorites, Jenna Ellis Reeves, because there's stuff going on in the Supreme Court and you should know about it.
Come over to dailywire.com, subscribe.
Tomorrow, you could get an early version of the newest episode of Another Kingdom.
And that'll cut a day off the Clavenless weekend, which may make it possible for you to survive, but I doubt it.
we have Jen Ellis coming up.
All right.
You know, do I even have to introduce Jenna Ellis Reeves to you anymore?
She's a constitutional law attorney, a Trump 2020 advisory board member.
She is a frequent guest on Fox News and CNN, but who cares?
She's a frequent guest here.
Jenna, are you there?
I am, Jerry.
Thanks so much for having me.
And this is, of course, always my favorite show.
Of course, of course.
I wouldn't, you, I wouldn't, if you said anything else, I would believe you, but I wouldn't let you come back.
So while all this nonsense is going on on Capitol Hill, and it really is a clown show, it is an unbelievable, I can't believe anybody's taking this thing seriously except as a coup, but while it's going on, there actually is some news going on in the Supreme Court.
So I wanted to talk to you about especially one case, this case of the DREAMers, the DACA case.
Can you explain this to us, what's going on with this?
Yeah, so this is really critical because, of course, you know, the left, they run on feelings.
They don't run on the Constitution and the law.
So while they're trying to make it about the DREAMers, they're trying to enhance this emotionally, from a legal standpoint and from an American constitutional standpoint.
This is what you need to know.
First, all immigration rules have to come through Congress, period.
So if you like DACA, if you think that this is a good idea, then it has to go through Congress.
Of course, it didn't.
So Obama legislated with his foreign independence, and he, through the executive branch, unconstitutionally legislated.
So now what President Trump did was simply rescinded that, and he has tweeted out, you know, hey, if the Supreme Court reverses this, I'm willing to work with Congress, and that's the appropriate and constitutional thing to do.
But so that's the first question, is if the Supreme Court is actually going to abide by the Constitution and say, Congress, you have to fulfill your Article 1, Section 8 authority, and you have to make sure that immigration rules go through you.
And the second question then becomes, can a future president rescind an executive order for any policy purpose that he deems appropriate from a former president?
And the answer to that should be absolutely yes.
Otherwise, we get tyranny.
We get tyranny from the executive that basically any executive order, whether or not constitutional, would simply be in place forever.
So these are two critical issues that executive orders from one president to his successor have to be able to be rescinded.
And second, that there is a separation of powers.
All legislative authority has to go through Congress.
So this is just to remind people, these are the people who were brought into the country, not by their own fault.
Their parents brought them in or they were brought in when they were too young to decide for themselves.
Obama said, what was it, like 23 times?
He said, I don't have the authority to keep them here.
And then suddenly he just decided he did have the authority.
And Trump is basically saying, I mean, they can't possibly make the argument that if one president puts forward an executive order, the next president can't remove it.
I mean, that would be giving him the power not just to make law, but essentially to change the Constitution entirely.
I mean, he would just be declaring what the law was.
How did the judges react to the arguments?
Do we know?
Well, yeah.
And so, I mean, what reports are, and usually the oral arguments posted on Friday on the Supreme Court blog, the SCOTUS blog, or, you know, other places.
So we'll be able to hear that for ourselves either tomorrow or at the latest, probably Monday.
But reports of the oral arguments from people who were there present said that, of course, the bloc of conservative originalists, Gorsuch, Thomas, et cetera, seemed very convinced of the constitutionality of it.
And of course, the liberal bloc is just against President Trump.
They're, of course, all for legislating based on the leftist emotional appeal.
And they look like they'll go outside the bounds of their authority.
So, of course, the key vote here will probably be Chief Justice Roman.
And I hope that he'll be an originalist.
So Trump has said repeatedly that he wants to, I think the words he uses are take care of the DREAMers.
He hasn't, this is not like they're going to reverse the executive order and suddenly all of them are going to be thrown out of the country, right?
This is something that Trump is basically doing because he wants the legality established.
And I think he probably wants Congress to get back on the ball and do something.
Well, exactly.
I mean, this is President Trump staying fully within the margins of his constitutional authority.
And again, DACA may be a good idea.
There are a lot of really great reasons why the DREAM Act is a good idea.
I personally, as a constitutional law attorney, am not against the idea and understanding that most DREAMers are here, you know, law-abiding, and they did not break the law because they were brought in at no fault of their own.
They were brought in at two or three years old.
And so that makes sense, but we have to do this through the constitutional, constitutionally appropriate legislative way.
And that's what President Trump's attempting to do.
So when you hear this in the media of, oh, you know, President Trump just hates the Dreamers, or this is all about, you know, not him not supporting immigration.
That is just leftist mainstream media spend.
This is all about the president supporting our Constitution and our rule of law.
It is hilarious.
Nancy Pelosi, while I was on the air, gave a press conference trying to build up this Ukraine thing, which is just a nonsense.
And oh, she's defending and she's prayerful and she's sorrowful.
She's defending our Constitution, where really it's Trump who's defending the Constitution while they're just doing everything they can to tear it apart.
This really is, we really are down the rabbit hole with this.
There were also some gun cases before the Supreme Court, is that right?
Yeah, and so what's really interesting about this is that the parents of the Perkland shooter are actually suing Remington Arms.
And Remington appealed to the Supreme Court saying that as the gun manufacturer, we're not liable here for crimes that people commit using essentially our product outside the bounds of what it was intended for.
So it'd be the same thing as suing a manufacturer of a car because someone decided to, like in Charlottesville, run people over unfortunately and commit heinous crimes using that manufactured product.
And so while everyone, I think, was really nervous that the Supreme Court just rejected hearing that case out of hand.
They made no comment.
But from a legal perspective, it's possible.
And there have been other instances that the Supreme Court has done this, where they simply want to have more facts available and establish a lower court record before they actually hear the case on appeal.
So it may eventually end up in the court.
And I think that it should, because constitutionally, this shouldn't have any, there should not be any ability for a victim of a mass shooting or their family to sue a gun manufacturer in this type of instance.
I think that that would be well outside the scope of established court law and established precedent.
Yeah, so it's another move to take the guns away.
Let me ask you just very quickly, there was a really interesting piece in City Journal by the great Myron Magnet, a brilliant guy, saying it was called, the title was The Court Moves Right.
And some of the examples that he gave were actually things that had kind of liberal outcomes, where, for instance, Gorsuch would sign on with the liberal side.
But his point, Myron's point, was that he was actually supporting originalism, even though it had liberal outcomes.
Do you believe, do you agree with this that the court is moving in a more originalist direction?
Hitler As The Ego00:07:21
I think for sure that it is.
And I think that, you know, the liberals are seeing that their play over the last 50 and 60 years of judicial activism is being reversed mainly because of President Trump being able to appoint originalist judges to the federal bench.
I mean, we've seen that over 160 now.
I just wrote a piece that was published yesterday in Washington Examiner talking about this.
And for the Supreme Court in particular, I think that because Americans are paying more attention to the Supreme Court, we understand better now what originalism is.
And we're kind of debunking this narrative that the Supreme Court, the majority, can just rule however they prefer and that they're the gods on high.
That has been debunked.
And so I think we are seeing a shift back into rigorism, which is a good thing for every American because equal protection under the law means that everyone, regardless of your opinions, your preferences, or what you'd like to see, that the court should not political ideology.
They should hold according to our rulebook, which is the rule of law and the safe in terms of liberty.
Jenna Ellis Reeves, thank you, Reeves.
Thank you so much for coming on.
I appreciate it.
I hope to talk to you again soon.
It sounds good, Jay.
Thanks so much.
Hi, thanks.
Sorry, she was cutting out there on the end.
I think she was on a train, actually.
You know, a final reflection I want to talk about, I think to talk about the arts, if it were up to me, I'd probably talk about the arts for 45 minutes, but I can't do it.
I went and saw a movie called Jojo Rabbit.
It is being called the satirical black comedy.
It is by a guy named Taika Watiti, who is a New Zealand, I think he's a Kiwi comedian and filmmaker.
It's based on a book by Christine Lunens called Caging Skies.
And the whole thing is, it takes place during World War II, and it's a German boy who is a committed, he's 10 years old.
He's just a little boy.
And he is played by Roman Griffin Davis, excellent, excellent, and adorable actor.
And he is a committed Hitler youth.
He loves the Nazis, and Adolf Hitler appears to him as a kind of imaginary friend.
And it's Hitler, as imagined, by a 10-year-old boy.
So it's partly Hitler, and it's partly this 10-year-old boy's imagining of a father who's gone.
His father is missing.
And it actually is kind of touching, but it kind of shocked critics because it presented Hitler as kind of a funny guy, a sort of ridiculous figure, as opposed to the evildoer that he was.
Here's a brief scene of the boy is off with the Hitler youth.
Oh, and the other trick about this boy is he's committed to being a Hitler youth.
He's obviously replaced his father with Hitler, and he's replaced an idea of manhood with what he's being sold by the Hitler youth.
But he's really a very tender, sweet, lovable boy who loves his mom and whose mom is actually a good person.
And so they give him a rabbit to kill.
And the Nazis would actually do this.
They would give children a pet and get them to love the pet and then get them to kill the pet to train them to be heartless and cruel.
There was nothing bad the Nazis didn't do, right?
So they did this and they give him a rabbit and they ask Jojo, the little boy, to kill the rabbit, and he can't do it.
And he's depressed that he wasn't murderous enough to be a man as the Nazis wanted to be.
And his imaginary Hitler shows up to comfort him.
Poor Jojo.
What's wrong, little man?
Hi, Adolf.
Want to tell me about that rabbit incident?
What was all that about?
They wanted me to kill it.
I'm sorry.
I couldn't.
Don't worry about it.
I couldn't care less.
But now they call me a scared rabbit.
Let them say whatever they want.
People used to say a lot of nasty things about me.
Oh, this guy's a lunatic.
Oh, look at that psycho.
He's going to get us all killed.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret.
The rabbit is no coward.
The humble little bunny faces a dangerous world every day, hunting carrots for his family, for his country.
My empire will be full of all animals: lions, giraffes, zebras, rhinoceroses, octopuses, rhinoctopuses, even the mighty rabbit.
Cigarette?
Oh, no, thanks.
I don't smoke.
So Hitler becomes essentially the spokes, the id of this, or the ego of this little kid talking to him of his own fan, of the kids.
It's obviously the kids' fantasies coming out of Hitler's mouth, and that shocked people.
But it is a movie with a good heart.
Sam Rockwell is in it.
He is unbelievably great, and he is the central original creation of the writer.
By the way, that is Tycha Watiti playing Hitler as well.
But this best creation in it is the Sam Rockwell character who is just basically in love.
He's like in love with the gaudy insanity of war.
And yet he too has a good heart.
It really is interesting.
What I want to say is not a criticism of the film.
It's simply a comment about where we are artistically right now.
One of the things that's strange about the movie is its detachment from the true nature of the evil.
And I've talked about this with Schindler's List and why I think Schindler's List is a brilliantly made movie, but it's not a good movie because it basically centers the Holocaust on heroism and love, and the Holocaust is centered on a black hole of evil, unlike anything that's appeared in history ever before.
It really is almost unique in its evil and its centrality of evil and in the way all good things were disappeared from the world.
And this is detached from that.
It doesn't have a depth of feeling.
There's no depth of feeling.
At one point, basically, its great moral statement is F off Hitler, which I think is simplistic and silly.
And it would be interesting.
It's interesting to note how leftism, which has permeated all of the arts, has made the art shallow because no one can say anything that's politically incorrect.
No one can deal with the fascism that we see now in the guise of anti-fascism, anti-father, people who put on masks and beat people up.
Those are fascists.
Those are fascists acting now, but nobody wants to say anything because no one wants to say anything that might give credence to the right.
You know, a book you might want to read, it's a wonderful, wonderful novel called Germinal by Emile Zola, who said that he was in fact a socialist.
And yet, in Germanal, while he points out the great injustices that were going on in France in the 19th century, it's about a miner's strike, and he points out how tough things were and how maybe detached the rich were, and he shows the socialists, he also shows the socialists whom he agreed with in such a realistic light that he was condemned universally by the left in France for actually showing them as they were.
That's the thing that's missing from our political commentary.
This is a fun film.
It's a cute film.
I recommend it.
If only to see Sam Rockwell, both from the point of view of the writing and his magnificent performance, I recommend the film.
But there's no depth to it.
There's no depth of feeling.
There's no depth of understanding.
And F off Hitler is not exactly something that we need art to take us to get to.
I think we get that point.
It is amazing how the left have basically disemboweled Western art and kept it from seeing the truth and telling the truth about things the way they really are, unless you're listening to Another Kingdom, which you could be doing tomorrow if you're a subscriber or on Monday for everybody.
Listening to Another Kingdom00:01:29
Until then, the Clavenless Weekend is upon you.
Survivors Gather here on Monday.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
And if you want to help spread the word, give us a five-star review and also tell your friends to subscribe too.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Matt Wall Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Austin Stevens and directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
And our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.
Edited by Adam Sayovitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Kormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
Animations are by Cynthia Ngulo.
And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Congressional Democrats call two star witnesses to testify in the impeachment inquiry.
Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent.
And Republican Jim Jordan reduced them both to a sputtering pile of mush in about 25 seconds.
We will examine everything you need to know about impeachment.