Ep. 967’s host slams media bias, calling NYT and CNN’s praise for Biden’s debate "masterful" while mocking Trump’s drug-test demand as irrelevant, then defends Amy Coney Barrett against baseless smears, contrasting her with left-wing attacks on Kavanaugh. The episode accuses the Times of Pulitzer-winning "malfeasance" over debunked Russia-gate claims, ties Hunter Biden to a $3.5M Moscow-linked payment, and brands mainstream outlets as Democratic "Pravda," ignoring Project Veritas’ Omar ballot-harvesting exposé while shielding Biden’s verbal failures. Trump’s rallies outdraw Biden’s, yet media still frames his tax deals as scandalous while excusing Hunter’s lies—raising whether voters will accept endless deception. [Automatically generated summary]
The news media is ecstatic about how well Joe Biden did in tomorrow's debate.
According to the New York Times, a former newspaper, quote, Biden's performance tomorrow was masterful, as for 90 full minutes against all expectations, he managed to stand on his feet and utter words so that one could only compare him to John F. Kennedy, who also stood for 90 minutes and also uttered words.
Donald Trump had spent much of the run-up to the contest making fun of the fact that the former vice president has barely left his basement and has never been asked a difficult question.
But all that so-called humor ended tomorrow when Biden absolutely crushed the bumptious incumbent by never once making the sort of gaffe in the future that he has repeatedly made in the past.
Unquote.
CNN's Brian Stelter was so impressed with Biden's performance tomorrow that he had to go to bed early and sob with gratitude into his My Little Pony pillowcase.
In a private conversation with his dolly, Buttercup, Stelter said, quote, Biden's performance Tuesday was so spectacular, I just can't wait for Monday to end so Tuesday can be here.
Many people say that CNN is biased or one-sided or so intellectually corrupt that a living brain cell would die of toxic dishonesty if it even wandered by one of our studios.
But no one of any political stripe could disagree that Biden delivered one of the greatest debate performances tomorrow that anyone could have imagined or is imagining right this moment, unquote.
At NBC News, Chuck Todd could only shake his head and wonder at how well Biden did tomorrow.
He said, quote, as everyone knows, I'm an honest, straight-down-the-middle, take-no-sides journalist of the old school.
But from my perspective on this Monday, I have to say Tuesday was a Biden triumph all around, unquote.
Donald Trump called for Biden to be tested for drugs, but the Biden campaign said the drugs would have worn off by tomorrow when Biden won.
So that made no sense.
Trigger warning.
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-boo.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hoorah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hoorah.
All right, we're back for those of you who made it through the clavinless weekend.
If you have not gone on my personal YouTube channel and subscribed, you are an evildoer and will be damned for all eternity.
That's actually in the Bible, or at least it's in my copy of the Bible, next to the right to an abortion in the Constitution.
Subscribe, ring the bell so you can get notices of my new content.
There's original content that's not even in the show, and you always get my openings and everything.
And leave a comment, because if your comment is stupid enough, we will read it on the air just to raise the level of conversation.
Here is the comment.
This is actually, usually we have funny comments, but this is actually a very touching tale from Jack 1066.
I guess it's different than Norman 1066.
Little Norman Conquest joke.
Jack 1066 says, I used to dwell in the clavinless darkness where there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth until I said the words rock auto.
I was immediately whisked away through the skies on a fiery chariot pulled by angels with the faces of Jenna Ellis, Jordan Peterson, and Candace Owens and brought before the mailbag, which was guarded by Spencer Clavin, no relation.
He asked first in Latin, then Hebrew, then ancient Greek, how do you spell Clavin?
Without ease, I answered correctly and gained entry to the mailbag where it was a little cramped, but all my questions were life-changingly answered.
That's actually a true story.
We looked them down, looked them up, and vetted it.
That really happened.
What was I talking about?
Oh, yeah, one of the recurring themes of this show is the observation that the left's domination of the communications industry, the academy news media showbiz nexus that we call the empire of lies, comes at a cost to them.
When you demonize and cancel anyone who disagrees with you, you have no one around to correct your intellectual or moral errors.
Your ideas atrophy and self-contradictions, and it's easy to devolve into wickedness with no one telling you that's the way you're going.
Never was this more apparent than over the weekend when Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Like Brett Kavanaugh before her, Barrett comes to Washington with a reputation for being both brilliant and incredibly nice.
One of her professors at Notre Dame wrote a one-sentence letter of recommendation for her when she applied to be Anton and Scalia's clerk.
It said, Amy Coney is the best student I ever had.
That was the entire letter.
Liberal Harvard law professor Noah Feldman called Barrett brilliant and wrote, quote, Barrett is a sincere, lovely person.
I never heard her utter a word that wasn't thoughtful and kind.
Now, leftists could reasonably attack Barrett by saying she'll reach decisions that they don't like.
That's fair politics.
Instead, they have already begun to unleash attacks on her religion and her children.
Blue-checked Democrat activist John Lee Brower called for an investigation into how Barrett's two adopted kids were adopted and how they're treated.
Newsweek ran an article falsely claiming Barrett belonged to a Catholic group that had inspired the feminist dystopian story, The Handmaid's Tale.
The Washington Post has another stupid story like this today.
To stoop to this kind of self-degrading awfulness requires that you have no one nearby to say to you, don't do that.
Live into your better self.
Instead, they egg each other on.
The left has made a fetish out of attacking shame.
Don't slut shame, they say.
Don't fat shame.
Don't shame anything.
Well, congratulations, lefties, surrounded only by people who agree with you.
You have no one to shame you, and you have no shame.
I think they're going to be very surprised to find out that if they continue these lines of attack, the rest of America will be ashamed for them and of them.
All right, let us talk about Ring.
This is the time when you got a lot of deliveries coming to your house.
You want to be able to look around and see the perimeter of your house.
And Ring doorbells let you do that.
They let you see and talk to people who have come to your door on your phone, no matter where you are at the time.
There's a thousand reasons why protecting your home matters to you, obviously.
And Ring has security products for every corner of your home, inside and out.
You can see it all on one simple app.
And you can keep an eye on your home no matter where you are.
Even if you're at home, you can look outside and see what's going on out there.
You can see and speak to whoever's at your door from anywhere with video doorbells.
You can keep an eye on every corner of your house with easy-to-install indoor and outdoor cams.
And you can protect your whole home with Ring Alarm, a powerful, affordable whole home security system you can easily install yourself.
Get a special offer on the Ring Welcome Kit at ring.com slash Claven.
It comes with Ring's Video Doorbell 3 and Qime Pro, the perfect way to start your Ring experience.
Plus, you get free two-day shipping.
Go to ring.com slash Claven.
That's ring.com slash Claven.
Anyone comes to your home, no matter where you are, you can say to him, how do you spell Claven?
If he knows, call the police.
All right.
So let's take a little look at some of these attacks.
Character and Consequences00:11:07
There's Democratic activist and former Hill staffer Dana Hoole.
Now, these are attacks on Amy Coney Barrett, who's apparently just this lovely, lovely person, but also one of the most brilliant legal thinkers apparently of her time.
Dana Hoole says, I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett and her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti.
So here's a question.
Does the press even investigate details of Barrett's adoptions from Haiti?
Some adoptions from Haiti were sketchy as hell.
Would it matter if her kids were scooped up by ultra-religious Americans or Americans weren't scrupulous intermediaries and the kids were taken when there was a family in Haiti?
I don't know.
I think it does, but maybe it doesn't or shouldn't.
So this is when she kidnapped her two Haitian children.
By the way, you know, the picture of them, like if this family comes out, they're a family out of like Life magazine from the 1950s.
There's this beautiful, beautiful family.
They have more black children than Ruth Bader Ginsburg had black clerks.
So, I mean, I think that's important.
Here's this guy, Ibram Kendi, Ibram X. Kendi, who wrote the book, How to Be an Anti-Racist, who, in my opinion, is an incredible racist.
His entire theory is racist.
And he was responding to a tweet that featured children, parents with black children that didn't depict Coney.
It didn't have anything to do with her.
But he said that this doesn't prove she's not a racist.
He says some white colonizers adopted black children, scare quotes.
They civilize these savage children in the superior ways of white people.
Not damn decent of them, I would say, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.
I'm challenging the idea that white parents of kids of color are inherently not racist.
Who cares whether you think they're racist?
Who cares what you think?
This is an amazing thing.
What the left doesn't realize is, or maybe they do realize it and they don't care, is they set the terms of what is racist.
So if you say, wow, we want to make America great again, they said that's racist because America in the old days, there were laws in the South that were against blacks.
So that's racist to think you want to go back to a better America.
They set those terms.
That we disagree with those terms doesn't seem to matter.
So that way they think they can intimidate us forever.
We're forever on the defensive.
The answer is, too bad, son.
Too bad you don't like her children.
That's, you know, you live with that.
You live with that.
It's not going to keep her off the Supreme Court.
So her family, like I said, was just absolutely beautiful.
And she's beautiful.
And she's apparently just so nice.
Here she is accepting Trump's nomination at the White House.
This is cut one.
I am so grateful to you and the First Lady, to the Vice President and the Second Lady, and to so many others here for your kindness on this rather overwhelming occasion.
I fully understand that this is a momentous decision for a president.
And if the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability.
I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution.
Now, that got a lot of play because, first of all, of course, leftist heads explode.
But it is important because remember, just like I'm not looking for a conservative press, I just want a fair press.
I'm not looking for a conservative court.
I want a constitutional court.
That means sometimes there are going to be opinions that I don't like.
Sometimes people are going to say things that come to conclusions about what the Constitution permits and doesn't permit that I think should be illegal or I think shouldn't happen.
But that's okay with me as long as they are sticking by a definitely clear argument to the Constitution.
ACB's philosophy is that a faithful judge, she says, resists the temptation to conflate the meaning of the Constitution with the judge's own political preference.
She says fidelity to the original public meaning, which serves as a constraint upon judicial decision-making, is important.
You know, this is an important thing about how you read the Constitution.
Some people say, well, you got to get at the intent of the lawmakers, but that's not true because the way a law is made is like a sausage factory.
Nobody really knows the original intent of the people making the law.
What you want is the intent of what the law meant to the public when it was written.
And that's why, you know, and so much of this, so much of this has to do with character, right?
Because we have Neil Gorsuch and Neil Gorsuch is a textualist, which means that he goes by the words of the Constitution.
And the reason he does this, there's a great piece about this by Myron Magnet, the brilliant Myron Magnet in City Journal, a great piece about Gorsuch and his philosophy.
And the whole thing is he believes that the separation of powers is the main bulwark that protects our freedom.
That's what Gorsuch believes.
And so you don't want the legislature acting as the judges and you don't want the judges acting as the legislature.
It is the conflict between these power centers that keeps us free.
So when he says, I'm going to interpret the text of the Constitution and not the intent of some senator or somewhere, what he's saying is, no, their job is to write the law.
My job is to read the law and then figure out what they meant.
And that was what made, you remember his Bostock ridiculous decision when he said that a law prohibiting sexual discrimination also prohibits discrimination against transgender people and gay people.
And not that I think that there should be prejudice against those people, but that's not what the law intended.
And he says, well, I don't have to read the intent.
If you penalize somebody for coming in in a dress and lipstick who's a man, you're just penalizing him because he's a man.
But that's absurd because when they wrote the law, the words man and woman, they don't just mean, men and women don't just mean like the shapes on the restroom door, right?
They mean an entire way of behaving and things that men and women do, like have children and nurture children.
You know, when back in the 80s, I had a friend who worked in the news business who was constantly being penalized for sexual harassment because he cursed a lot.
He had a foul mouth.
And that never bothered anybody when he was around men.
It bothered them when he was around women.
And they would complain and he would get called up for sexual harassment because he cursed, not at the women.
He wasn't cursing at the women.
He just cursed because it was assumed that women didn't like cursing and men didn't mind.
And that was an assumption.
So obviously when they wrote this, they assumed that a woman was somebody who might come to work in a dress wearing lipstick, but not a man.
So I think that that was a ridiculous, ridiculous way of interpreting a text.
But it has to do with character.
I really do think this.
Neil Gorsuch's kids have to go to school with all these D.C. liberals.
They have to basically, his wife has to go to tea parties.
They have to talk to people who are going to condemn them if he says no.
It doesn't protect homosexuals.
It doesn't protect transgender people.
Even if he just said, look, pass that law.
That's fine.
You can pass that law.
But this is not that law.
But I think that character means a lot.
And you have got to have a very, very tough character to stick to your interpretations of the law, to stick to the Constitution as it was written and the words in the Constitution without interpreting it according to leftist strictures.
And I think that that was where Gorsuch went wrong on that decision.
And we'll only know, we'll never know until it happens whether Amy Barrett has what it takes to stand up for that.
Noah Feldman, who's a lefty professor at Harvard, wrote this about her.
He said, like many other liberals, I'm devastated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death, which opened the way for President Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term.
I'm revolted by the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell's willingness to confirm Trump's nominee after refusing to allow a vote on Merrick Garland.
Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question, what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told Associates he plans to nominate.
Here I want to be extremely clear, regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions.
Yet despite this, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith.
This is the attitude that obviously Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg brought to the court as they became friends together while totally disagreeing.
And Amy Cooney Barrett talked about that in accepting the nomination as cut too.
Justices Scalia and Ginsberg disagreed fiercely in print without rancor in person.
Their ability to maintain a warm and rich friendship, despite their differences, even inspired an opera.
These two great Americans demonstrated that arguments, even about matters of great consequence, need not destroy affection.
In both my personal and professional relationships, I strive to meet that standard.
I was lucky enough to clerk for Justice Scalia.
And given his incalculable influence on my life, I am very moved to have members of the Scalia family here today, including his dear wife, Maureen.
I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate.
His judicial philosophy is mine too.
A judge must apply the law as written.
You know, that was, I thought, a perfect tone that she celebrated the friendship.
She said she wants to bring that kind of attitude to the court.
But when it comes to judicial philosophy, she is more Scalia than she is Ginsburg.
And that's a really important thing to know about her.
Those are two important things to know about her.
And again, it speaks to character.
And the reason character is important, you know, Scalia.
We love Scalia.
We love him for his wit, and we love him for the decisions he wrote and his incredible intelligence.
But Scalia was an off-putting character to a lot of people.
He was very aggressive, and he had a very wicked sense of humor, an almost kind of niggling, you know, kind of teasing sense of humor.
And reportedly, Sandra Day O'Connor didn't like him.
And that may have pushed her further to the left.
So it does matter, really, you know, who you are and what kind of people you are.
And this is, so what else has she decided?
She's, you know, she, most of her career, I mean, she's got like seven children, so she's most of her career, she's been a teacher, not a judge, but I guess three years ago, she became a federal judge, and she made a decision granting due process rights to a young man who was charged with sexual malfeasance in high school.
She basically limited, or in a dissent, she limited the power of the state to deprive a felon of gun rights.
She said, really, it should be dependent on whether the felon was actually going to be dangerous.
Avoiding Taxes00:13:17
So Donald Trump, they had this meeting.
I just wanted to show you how CNN covered this event on the White House Law.
This is Cut 13.
It was really a who's who of the president's conservative supporters.
We saw several of them actually enter with the mask, but as soon as they were among the crowd, they took them off.
And we even saw Dr. Scott Atlas, the president's coronavirus advisor, who of course is not an expert in immunology or in infectious diseases, but has become, certainly has the president's ear on these matters.
He was also milling about without a mask.
Most of the people in the audience today were not tested, and many of them arrived with masks on.
Some of them took the masks off as they actually took their seats and began mingling with others.
That is really remarkable.
We need to remind people we are still in the middle of this pandemic.
Boy, we really get the news when you turn it on.
It's like all the news that's fit to ignore.
Anyway, the Democrats are going to make a big fuss about this.
They're already threatening to boycott because there's not really very much they can do.
I think they know that they lost a lot of votes with Kavanaugh and they don't want that this close to the election.
I think it's going to be interesting, but I think it's going to be kind of quick.
That's my guess.
Shouldn't get cocky.
We will see.
We'll see if they can restrain themselves and restrain their supporters.
Life Lock.
You want to know about Life Lock because you want to keep your identity.
You need your identity.
Your name is in it.
And it's really, really easy for someone to steal it off the internet.
Identity theft has become a big-time crime.
Criminal gangs have operating units dedicated to it.
They will not overlook you.
You're not a nobody.
They think they can get money off you and they can.
And certain behavior can make you more vulnerable to identity theft, like not checking your credit card or bank statements, using the same username and password on every account, never checking your credit report.
It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives.
LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats, like your social security number for sale on the dark web.
And if they detect that information, they will send you an alert so you can do something about it.
No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can find out if your information is on the dark web.
You can get a free dark web scan at lifelock.com/slash Claven.
Pick the plan that's right for you and save up to 25% off your first year with promo code Clavin.
That's a free scan at lifelock.com/slash Claven and 25% off with promo code Clavin.
You actually have to go on the dark web to find out how do you spell Claven because not everybody knows this.
There are no E's in Claven.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
I just make it look incredibly easy.
So now is the time.
The New York Times.
Oh my goodness.
Oh my goodness.
It's a bombshell.
It's the walls are closing in.
It's the beginning of the end of the Trump campaign.
The New York Times set off a bombshell over the weekend and blew themselves up.
It was hoist with their own petard, as Shakespeare once said.
A petard is a little explosion to hoist yourself, a little bomb, to hoist yourself with it is to blow yourself up.
That's what the New York Times did.
They got Trump's tax returns.
And I'm sure they got them just now near the election before the debate.
I'm sure that's when they came into their hands.
They weren't holding on to them, waiting for it or anything like this.
I want to take a look at this story because it really is a self-own of the first water.
It's an absolute embarrassment, but the Times is now beyond shame.
You know, the Times is a place where they fire you if you allow an op-ed to go into the paper that their 20-year-old staff disagrees with.
They don't fire the editor.
They fire the little guy that they can go after.
They have this huge headline.
Long concealed records show Trump's chronic losses and years of tax avoidance.
Now, first of all, this is a war-declared headline.
I mean, it's a huge, huge headline.
So all kinds of dark innuendo, and really we should play this with date, what they used to call in the movies danger music.
You want danger, you know, so I'll throw that in if I can.
But here's, let me read you the way this is written, all right?
As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he's in dangers of losing, in danger of losing, his finances are under stress.
Beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed and received after declaring huge losses.
An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million or nothing.
Or he'll get a refund.
They've been doing this to him for 10 years.
They've had this audit going on for 10 years.
The tax returns that Mr. Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public.
His reports to the IRS portray a businessman who takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, yet racks up chronic losses that he aggressively employs to avoid paying taxes.
Now, with his financial challenges mounting, the records show that he depends more and more on making money from businesses that put him in potential and often direct conflict of interest with his job as president.
But nothing.
There's nothing there.
There's nothing there.
It's an entirely dishonest piece of garbage.
This is a guy, Donald Trump, who paid $70 million in taxes over two years, right?
Over two years.
But he has all these businesses and he offsets the profits that he makes with losses on the businesses.
This is what these guys do to avoid taxes.
They go through the way he does it.
A lot of the way he does it had to do with a law that Obama passed during the downturn during the Great Recession.
So he was just using the law.
What would a big story look like?
What would a big war-declared story look like, right?
It would look like he broke the law.
He did something illegal, right?
He took money from Russian spies.
Something, you know, something.
The guy instead, instead they got he uses the law to pay as little taxes as possible.
That's really, and they did this back in 2016.
The Times ran the story back in 2016.
Donald Trump acknowledges not paying federal income taxes for years.
He said it himself.
So he's making a bundle and he's using the law to not pay as much taxes, to pay as little taxes as he can.
I'm not even going to say, you know, it is amazing to me, though.
Like, I'm not going to say that Trump is honest.
I'm not going to say he's nice.
I'm not going to say I would do business.
I have no idea.
But I will say this.
They have hurled everything at him.
The FBI has gone after him.
The CIA, they've been trying to get at this guy.
Every single newspaper, the New York Times, which has certainly the sources, the resources to go after him, they got nothing on him.
I mean, really, really, that he's not always nice, that he didn't always treat his wives well, you know, sure, they got that.
But you'd think at this point this guy would be in prison.
I mean, most people, if you investigated them at this level, you would be coming up with stuff because most of us do something along the line, even by mistake, even by accident, but they can't lay a hand on him.
So they have to tell you, they have to tell you how to respond, right?
First of all, they say in response to a letter summarizing the Times findings, Alan Garden, a lawyer for the Trump organization, said that most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate and requested the documents on which they were based.
The Times declined to provide the records in order to protect its sources, and then Mr. Garden took direct issue only with the amount of taxes Mr. Trump had paid.
So he says the thing is false and he paid taxes.
Trump says the same thing.
But they're going to tell you what this means, okay?
Because it says he paid like $750 in taxes, even though, according to the New York Times, a former newspaper, according to the New York Times, a former newspaper, he paid $750, even though he had enough offsets to pay nothing.
So he paid this number.
So he says, listen to this.
They say, Mr. Trump's U.S. payment, after factoring in his losses, was roughly equivalent in dollars not adjusted for inflation to another presidential tax bill revealed nearly a half century before.
In 1973, the Providence Journal reported that after a charitable deduction for donating his presidential papers, Richard Nixon had paid $792.81 in 1970, an income of about $200,000.
The leak of Mr. Nixon's small tax payment caused a precedent-setting uproar.
Henceforth, presidents and presidential candidates would make their tax returns available for the American people to see.
What has that got to do with Donald Trump?
Absolutely nothing.
But the message that they're sending you is, ooh, Nixon, Nixon bad.
We were important then.
The press mattered then, because this was before we understood what the press was, that it was an agent of the Democrats.
They're telling you how to react.
You know, let's just go back for a minute in time to Harry Reid when Mitt Romney was running against Barack Obama.
Harry Reid went on into the will of the Senate.
And the important thing about this, when you speak in the Senate, you can't be sued.
You can't be sued when you're speaking in the Senate.
And he accused Mitt Romney of not paying any taxes.
Here he is.
If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn't be if he had the, he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns.
So the word's out that he hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years.
Let him prove that he has paid taxes because he hasn't.
We already know from one partial tax return that he gave us, he has money hidden in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and a Swiss bank account.
Not making that up, that's in the partial year that he gave us.
The word is out that he hasn't paid any tax for 10 years.
This turned out to be wholly and entirely untrue, and it was called, quite rightly, McCarthyism.
He was asked about it after the election.
Harry Reid was asked about it on CNN after the election.
Here's his response: So, no regrets about Mitt Romney, about the Koch brothers.
Some people have even called it McCarthyite.
Well, they call it whatever they want.
Romney didn't win, did he?
That's the New York Times right now.
They're all Democrats, it's all the same thing.
I know for a fact that at the New York Times, they suppress any criticism of Joe Biden because they are afraid it will help Trump win.
That is what they do at the New York Times, and that is what they're doing now.
They brought this out at the last minute.
I'm sure they could have had these papers from the Democrats anytime they wanted.
Obviously, it was an anti-Trump source that illegally gave them these documents, these tax documents.
It's illegal for them to do it, even if they possess the Times points out that they possessed the papers legally, but still it was illegal to leak them.
But I'm sure they could have gotten their hands on them anytime.
They got them now.
They wanted them not to be checked.
And compare this, you know, we now know for a fact, right?
We now know that the FBI used information from the Steele dossier to get warrants on Trump people, knowing that the information came from a suspected Russian spy.
Okay, that's what the FBI did, and we know that the decent agents there were upset about this, appalled that this is where they were doing.
The Trimes ran this story in their local Saturday edition, but apparently not in their national edition.
Here's how they listen to how they wrote it.
This is the headline: Justice Department releases information intended to hurt Russia inquiry.
The Justice Department this week turned over to allies of President Trump documents that appeared to, namely the public, documents that appeared to undermine aspects of the investigation into the campaign's ties with Russia.
The campaign had no ties with Russia.
It has been proved, but the New York Times, which won Pulitzer Prizes by running anonymously sourced reports with the anonymous sources we now know directing the press to keep this fake Russia investigation going.
The New York Times won Pulitzer Prizes for this malfeasance for this dishonesty.
And now, when the facts come out and show that what they were doing was not just journalistically wrong, it was morally wrong.
Obama was a corrupt president who was corruptly using the FBI to investigate a president he didn't like, and it was wrongly done and the warrants were wrongly acquired.
We know this now.
The New York Times has never given back.
They're not giving back their Pulitzer Prizes.
They're not apologizing.
And they're running stories like this as if this Russian inquiry were still going on.
It's just embarrassing.
This is an enormous cell phone.
It is an enormous revelation.
There's almost nothing to say about the press anymore because they're not hiding it.
They're doing it right out in the open.
Omaha steaks, or as I call them now, oh oh, oh, oh, Omaha steaks.
I love these steaks.
They send them, I love having them as a sponsor because they send me the steaks, they send me the meat.
It's really, really good.
We've been eating it for days now.
Right now, you can get a gourmet assortment of best sellers with an exclusive offer just for my listeners.
Go to omahasteaks.com and enter the code Clavin into the search bar.
And this week, Omaha Steaks will add two pounds of premium ground beef free with your order.
The butcher's best sellers package includes the famous bacon-wrapped filet mignon.
Let me tell you about the bacon-wrap filet mignon.
The bacon-fat wrap filet mignon.
Biden's Lid Strategy00:12:34
If I had hair, it would stand on end.
It was so good.
Smoky sweet bacon, fork tender filet mignon.
It is great.
Go to omahastakes.com, enter Clavin in the search bar for exclusive offers not available anywhere else.
Don't forget when you order today, Omaha Steaks will add two pounds of premium ground beef free.
Omaha Steaks has been bringing people together for over 100 years.
Enjoy family, enjoy friends, enjoy the best steak of your life.
I know your mouth is watering.
You're thinking, but I don't know how to spell Clavin.
That's K-L-A-V-A-N.
How could you have forgotten?
Tomorrow is the debate at 9 p.m. Eastern, 6 p.m. Pacific.
Donald Trump and the House plant will go at it.
They'll find out whether Trump will wear a mask.
We'll find out whether Biden is sentient.
If you join the Daily Wire now as an insider or an all-access member, you can get 20% off with code DEBATE.
So you can watch all the debate coverage live on Apple TV or Roku or wherever you like to watch us.
We will be doing a backstage to follow the debate.
Members get our articles ad-free, access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro show, exclusive readers' past contents, all kinds of wonderful, wonderful things.
So watch the debate with us on DailyWire.com, YouTube, and Facebook, and get 20% off your Daily Wire membership with code DEBATE when you sign up today.
So I never make predictions because I don't know the future.
I admit it.
But here's what I think is the thing to watch for on the debate.
Seriously.
Everybody's talking about whether Joe Biden will be able to be sentient, cogent.
And I don't know the answer, but I expect he will.
I mean, he's always been a good debater.
I suspect he's being propped up with drugs.
It wouldn't surprise me if he had an ear thing going on.
You know, they'll do anything to get him through this, and I think he will get through it.
But the one thing that nobody's talking about is the fact that Donald Trump is not the man he was four years ago.
You know, Donald Trump is obviously not a big reader.
He's not a guy who studies things and learns things.
And we've all made fun of him.
And all the coastal elites make fun of him for this.
And he has said things during the last debates and during the last campaign that were just manifestly untrue about the Constitution, about he demonstrated ignorance.
However, he is a big on-the-job learner.
And I have been emphasizing this, and a lot of people have been giving me a hard time about it.
But it's true.
He knows a lot, a lot more than he knew when he debated the last time.
So what I would be looking for is not so much what Joe Biden is doing, but whether Trump is a different guy.
Trump's biggest problem in debating, he's a good debater, obviously, he won all those debates.
But his biggest problem in debating is not making it clear to the public what he's talking about.
A lot of times you have to know what he's talking about to understand it.
So we have to come out and explain it later on.
But if he can explain to people now, he has a really deep knowledge of what he's doing.
He learns on the job.
He's a different guy than he was.
And people, somebody asked him the other day, how much are you preparing for the debate?
And he said, hey, I happen to be running a country, which I thought was pretty funny.
But I don't know who's going to win this election.
I really don't.
My gut set tells me Trump has got this thing sewn up and he's going to run away with it.
But the polls do not agree with that.
And a lot of people are saying everybody's got his mind made up already.
And that and Biden is ahead and he's going to stay ahead and he's more ahead than he was than Hillary was at the same time.
So I just don't know.
I don't know.
However, I do know that certain things are going on that really are interesting.
Like Trump's people are going door to door and talk and bringing voters out.
It seems to me when Trump holds a rally, thousands of people turn up no matter where he is.
When Biden holds a rally, it's six guys sitting in separated circles.
He's been doing this thing where he calls, Biden calls a lid.
He did it this morning.
He called a lid on the day.
That means no more questions, no more press appearances.
And they keep saying, well, Biden is studying.
Here's Trump talking about this, Cut 7.
What's going on?
This lid, do you know what a lid is?
He keeps putting, Bernie, keeps putting a lid.
He's got a lid.
It's 8 o'clock in the morning.
Now a lid means you're out for the day.
That means the fake news media can go home.
You know, he's got one.
They've got the easiest job I've ever seen.
They never have to work.
The media, please go home.
There won't be any activity from sleepy Joe Biden today.
You know, I hate to say this, but every time I hear this, in the old days, a lid was slang for a yarmulke, the Jewish hat.
By the way, happy or blessed Yom Kippur, all Jewish friends.
But a lid used to be a slang for a Yarmouk, and so it would be slang for a Jewish person.
It wasn't necessarily derogatory.
It was just a slang way of saying a Jewish person.
So every time I hear that Biden called a lid, I think, why is that news?
I myself have had friends of the Hebrew persuasion.
Why is he calling a lid?
Why should I care if he's calling a lid?
Anyway, so just look at this guy.
I mean, this is the thing that really is getting me.
The polls say he's ahead, and I know some people are going to vote Trump hate, and some people are going to go to the polls.
Democrats will go to the polls in force to vote against Donald Trump.
But how can you vote for this guy?
He was on MSNBC with Stephanie Ru.
And if you're not watching, if you're just listening to this, you have to look at the look on her face.
She's in agony as Biden goes off talking about something and then realizes he's talking about the wrong thing.
And she has to tell him what he's talking about.
It's CUP 15.
The Paycheck Protection Act.
You know, 1% of the money's gone out.
One percent.
One percent of the that's not the paycheck, the the the the.
The bill for major major spending.
She has to down the look on this poor woman's face.
He just wants to carry him in her arms across the finish line.
If she had said to him, my Aunt May's sewing machine, Biden would have said, yeah, that's it.
My Aunt May's sewing machine.
That's what I'm talking about.
But you're not allowed to talk about this.
Jake Tapper asks Joe Biden about the fact that Biden can't get a word out of his mouth correctly.
And not only does she shut him down, but he allows her to shut him down.
This is the way the press, this is journalism at its best.
Your husband has been known to make the occasional gaffe.
Oh, you can't even go there.
You can, after Donald Trump, you cannot even say the word.
I can't even say the word gaff.
Nope.
But are you now?
Nope.
Done.
It's gone.
The gaffe issue is over.
It's over.
So over.
Thank you for explaining that to me, Mrs. Biden, says Jake Tapper.
Jake, you used to be a journalist.
What the hell happened?
I mean, it's not gaffes.
These are not gaffes.
These are gaps in information.
Biden has always been, by his own admission, a gaffe machine.
He makes mistakes that are revelatory of what he's thinking.
But these are not gaffes.
This is a deficit.
You know, Trump is right about this.
And it's going to come in.
It's not going to be a very good deficit to have if you're dealing with Vladimir Putin, who will, in fact, cut your Achilles tendon while he's talking to you.
Meanwhile, this stuff about Hunter Biden, it's really going to be interesting to see whether he is asked about this, whether Wallace asks him about this at the debate, because this is bad stuff.
I mean, this really is.
The Trump tax thing is nothing.
At worst, at worst, at least what I read the entire Times story, and at least I can say at worst, it means that Trump is a shrewd operator.
You know, some people may think, well, I don't like the shrewd operator, but what do we think?
We never thought he was like, you know, a smiley-faced, open-handed guy.
We know he's a shrewd operator, but that's the worst you can say.
But Biden and Hunter Biden's ties to these Russian operatives, to this woman whose husband was the mayor of Moscow and got all these contracts for her company while he was mayor of Moscow, and she sends him $3.5 million, and we don't even know what it's for, the barisma contract, all this stuff.
And Biden has lied about it continuously, first saying that they never talked about it, when now we have congressional testimony that they did talk about it.
But just continually, here is a montage.
I think this is from Grabian, of Biden just saying this stuff never happened.
Every single solitary, serious investigator, including your network and others, have looked at this, have said there's absolutely zero basis to the accusation that I acted anyway inappropriately or that my son did.
Every major national, international, and local news operations looked into it, has said it's a lie.
This is the president's flat lying.
So there's not been a scintilla of evidence pointing out that anything is wrong.
There's not a single solitary scintilla of evidence anywhere.
There's not been one scintilla of evidence that my son ever interfered.
Did I ever ask me anything?
Did I ever got involved in anything?
I mean, come on.
This is.
So you guys are amazing.
Is he going to, they're really, they are going to let him get away with this.
They are going to let him get away with it.
But will the public let him get away with it?
I mean, really, oh, come on, you guys are amazing.
And he has refused to answer whether he'll pack the Supreme Court.
He's refused to release a list of judges that he, justices that he would name, judges that he would name to be justices on the Supreme Court.
He won't say anything, and they never ask him anything.
And meanwhile, he comes up with this about Donald Trump, and nobody says a word.
This is cut 14.
I'm not sure anybody that hadn't already made up their mind they're for Trump, but who knows?
But that's, you know, he's sort of like Goebbels.
You say the lie long enough, keep repeating, repeating, repeating it.
It becomes common knowledge.
There was a day when a presidential candidate accusing the other guy of being like Goebbels, who was Hitler's propaganda minister, would have stopped the election cold.
But nobody says a word.
Nobody says a word about this.
And it really is amazing.
And I just, what I'm wondering, look, the media, which is the Democrat Party, which is the information arm of the Democrat Party, which is, in fact, a shield now for a socialist party.
So we're dealing with a genuine Pravda here, is using all of its influence, is sacrificing all of its credibility, is giving away everything to get this guy, this house plant, across the finish line.
And remember, this house plant, when he was sentient, was a dishonest and stupid person.
This was a dishonest and stupid person before he became a house plant, you know, before he became a guy who doesn't even know where he is.
They are doing everything.
They are sacrificing everything.
And it really is an open question whether the public is going to fall for this, whether the public is going to say, you know what, I'm not going to be lied to.
I'm not going to be treated like this.
I'm not going to be disrespected like this.
That's what really is at stake in the election.
It's not just the future, not just the future of the country, but it's the future of the organs of information and whether we're going to demand that they start playing fair and telling the truth.
Speaking of which, by the way, I just want to mention my friend James O'Keefe over at Project Veritas has a new video out, which is really interesting.
It seems to expose a ballot harvesting scheme with people involved who say that they are loyal to Ilhan Omar.
And he's got all these guys who say they've got these trucks full of ballots and they're out buying them.
There's one guy named Liban Mohamed.
What's going on, what's interesting about it is it's not just Democrat-Republican.
actually a battle between different Islamic factions in the state, you know, and that's what they're talking about.
He's got this guy named Mohamed who is saying, what is it, Liban Mohamed, who says he's collecting ballots to help his brother win the city's special election for a ward boss.
And he talks about the fact that, you know, everything is about money.
Everything is about paying for these ballots.
Here he is, cut 18.
Money is everything.
Money is the king of this world.
If you ain't got money, you shouldn't.
Liban Mohamed's Ballot Battle00:02:25
You should not be here, period.
The way they respond always to O'Keefe and to Project Veritas is they say, oh, he's been debunked a million times.
He's never been debunked once, not once.
And it's because of him that we know that ABC spiked the Jeffrey Epstein story.
It's because of him we know that Twitter is a rat's nest of leftists who are doing everything they can to censor right-wingers.
We know a lot of stuff because of him that the press just won't cover.
What he hasn't got, what he hasn't got is the organization and the resources he needs to back up these secret videos with more investigative journalism.
That's what he needs more of.
That's that he needs that kind of resources.
We all need these kinds of resources because they've all been taken up by ABC and NBC and CBS, the people who have the money and are liars.
And that's really the problem we have.
So it's interesting, this story, instead of just saying, oh, this guy's been debunked, they ought to investigate this story because it really does look like massive, massive dishonesty.
I'm going to stop there, but we will be back again tomorrow.
And I, if you are already an all-access subscriber, I will be on the all-access live show tonight, which is at 5 p.m. Pacific time.
So be there and I will answer all your questions.
And as you know, all my answers are guaranteed 100% correct.
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 Walsh Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Assistant Director, Pavel Wadowski.
Edited by Adam Saivitz and Danny D'AMICO.
Audio mixed by Robin Fenderson.
Hair and makeup, or head and makeup, is by Nika Geneva.
Animations are by Cynthia Angulo.
Production assistants, McKenna Waters and Ryan Love.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to the Ben Shapiro Show.