Andrew Clavin’s episode skewers the Times’ satirical push for abolishing free speech and court-packing to block Trump, contrasting it with Judge Barrett’s originalist clarity that’s winning public support. He exposes media suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop emails—dismissed as "Russian disinformation"—while Trump’s ads highlight Burisma payments and Ukraine pressure tied to his impeachment. Biden’s town hall evasions on court-packing and transgender policies clash with Trump’s blunt style, yet polls show Trump leading in swing states despite media bias, as voters reject establishment narratives. The episode ends with a dig at Hollywood horror’s modern excesses, framing classic subtlety as superior to today’s melodrama. [Automatically generated summary]
The New York Times, a former newspaper, has released a 56,000-word editorial opposing free speech in cases where people speak freely.
The editorial was written by Times editor-in-chief Blithering Prevarication III, who scrawled it on his silken napkin at the restaurant Le Bernadin between an appetizer of seared yellow-tailed homachi accompanied by a pickled cucumber and mango salad sprinkled with lemon tendoi olive oil, which was absolutely stunning, and a main course of warm Pikito crab on a bed of shaved heirloom cauliflower with just a hint of mustard cream sauce, which frankly was a bit overdone.
The editorial said, quote, for too long, America has given the right to speak freely to those who speak freely.
This endangers our government by allowing speech that is simply not acceptable in any of the places where the right sort of people gather.
This was all well and good in the bad old days before black people invented science, but now there are certain ideas that are absolutely settled, like the fact that a child's life doesn't begin until you're certain you can get the right decorator for the nursery, or that gender is not a restrictive matter of male and female, but an exhilarating confetti blast of imaginative possibilities, or that climate change is endangering the earth.
You can't just have such absolute truths undermined by the opinions of ordinary people, some of whom don't even live on the coast.
Free speech should be speech that sets us free, whereas hate speech should not be free because it's full of hate and hate is bad, as everyone who's anyone knows.
For instance, it's fine if you can book a qualified drag queen to do erotic dances for kindergarten children, but once you start throwing around words like pedophiliac monster who will burn in hell for all eternity, things have gotten out of hand.
We must get rid of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment and end the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court.
Otherwise, Donald Trump will simply ruin the Constitution.
Unquote.
Trigger warning.
I'm Andrew Clavin and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-gunky.
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, hoora.
All right, we're back laughing our way through the fall of the Republic.
Go on YouTube and subscribe to my personal YouTube channel, the Andrew Clavin YouTube channel.
You'll get all my content there.
If you ring the bell, I will actually come to your house and hand you the content on a silver tray with little rows in a vase.
And also, you want to leave a comment, and if the comment is sufficiently idiotic, we'll put it on the show because no one will notice the difference.
We have one today from Carl Labarge.
He says, you know, I just realized not only are there no E's in Clavin, there are no E's in Batman.
Now, am I saying that Clavin is Batman?
No, but I've not seen them in the same room together.
Then again, we've been tasked with saving the Clavin, so he probably isn't Batman.
Well, I'm glad you figured that out because if you'd said I was Batman, I'd have had to kill you to protect my secret identity.
One of the reasons doing daily commentary like this doesn't come easy to me is because I really feel when you're giving opinions every day, you may miss the big picture.
So today, I'm going to put forward a theory about something that I think is kind of happening beyond the news of the day, a kind of turning point that I think happened this week.
But I'm going to build up to it, so bear with me, and it's not a prediction of the future.
It's just something that I kind of think happened beyond what we're talking about this week.
But let's start here.
I'm going to build up to it because I want to get a couple of things out first.
Yesterday, Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal wrote a column on the mainstream press's reaction to the faith and family of Amy Coney Barrett.
And he linked to a New York Times attack on Barrett written by three female reporters.
So I went and read the Times piece.
And without intending to, I think this piece tells us a lot about the left assault on free speech, which we saw yesterday and yeah, and the day before with Twitter and Facebook trying to shut down this Joe Biden story.
So here's an excerpt from the Times piece.
It says, From her formative years in Louisiana to her current life in Indiana, Judge Barrett has been shaped by an especially insular religious community, the People of Praise.
The group has a strict view of human sexuality that embraces once traditional gender roles, such as recognizing the husband as the head of the family.
To Judge Barrett's critics, she represents the antithesis of the progressive values embodied in Justice Ginsburg, her life spent in a cocoon of like-minded thinking that in many areas runs counter to the views of a majority of Americans.
Well, they say that clear writing means clear thinking, so it's not surprising that the prose here is absolutely terrible.
It's almost illiterate.
But while the prose, the language is meaningless, it's also strangely revealing.
The writers say Barrett's views in many areas run counter to the views of a majority of Americans.
Now, obviously, that's a nonsense.
Either a majority of Americans oppose traditional gender roles, or they oppose those roles in many areas, or they oppose those roles in so many areas that they make up a majority.
But if you say in many areas, a majority of Americans oppose trad roles, you're just babbling.
But it's a revealing kind of babbling because what these ladies are really saying is in the areas that matter, the right zip codes, the places where we live, people like us live, a majority of people oppose those traditional roles.
Which leads me to think it isn't Judge Amy Barrett who lives in a cocoon of like-minded thinking.
It's these idiots from the New York Times.
This brings me back to the Times article I read yesterday in which the Times attacked freedom of speech because it allows people to express hopes, dreams, ideas, and fears that are different than the hopes, dreams, ideas, and fears that the New York Times mistakes for facts because everyone they know shares them.
Clearly, if anyone is living in a cocoon of like-minded thinking, it's the writers at the New York Times.
And unlike Barrett's thinking and her cocoon, if she's in one, the Times cocoon is endangering our God-given right to speak our minds.
So all of us are on the computer all the time.
We're on the internet all the time.
And now that we're staying home a little bit more, we're on even more.
This is a good time to get Life Lock to keep your identity from being stolen.
Synthetic identity fraud is one of the fastest growing financial crimes in the U.S.
It happens when criminals use a combination of fake and real information to create an entirely new identity.
And they combine real personality, identifiable information such as a social security number that they've stolen with a fake name and address to open bank accounts, seek credit, or even obtain health insurance.
It's important to understand how these cyber crimes and identity thefts are affecting our lives.
Every day we put our information at risk on the internet.
Proof of Russian Influence?00:15:31
You could miss certain identity threats by just monitoring your credit, but LifeLock can help.
LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats like your social security number for sale on the dark web.
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.
Get your free dark web scan at lifelock.com slash scan.
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 lifelonglifelock.com slash scan and 25% off with promo code Clavin.
Obviously, you need to first go on the dark web and find out how to spell Clavin.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no E's in Claven.
So let's catch up with what's going on with Joe Biden and his scandal and our friends at Twitter and Facebook as they try to destroy our culture of the First Amendment.
These emails that are supposed to have come from Hunter Biden's laptop that he left at a store, somebody left at a store, and that supposedly are also in the hands of the FBI, they show that they, and Tucker Carlson has also got emails that he believes to be from this laptop, and some of these are his emails.
So it seems that Burisma wanted Hunter Biden.
Remember, they were paying Hunter Biden between $50,000 and $80,000. a month for we don't know what, right?
Because he had no expertise in the field of energy.
And Burisma wanted him to arrange for good PR for his company and a visit to Ukraine by high-ranking officials who would help close down any cases or pursuits against Burisma.
And lo and behold, about a month later, Biden went to Ukraine and attacked the prosecutor, Viktor Shokhin, and forced them, blackmailed, basically, Ukraine into firing him by threatening to withhold a billion dollars in aid.
Now, Biden has claimed that the prosecutor was corrupt, that Shokin was corrupt, and Ukraine is a corrupt country, so perhaps everybody was, but who knows, that he claims the prosecutor was corrupt and was slow walking the investigation into Burisma and other corrupt companies in return for kickbacks.
He was blackmailing them, and that's why he shut them down.
That story has been taken as given by most of the mainstream media, but we have no proof of that.
And there's plenty of other evidence that in fact, Biden got rid of this guy because he was investigating burisma.
And remember, when Donald Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate this, that's when they impeached him, right?
That's when they impeached him.
So it does kind of speak of a lot of dirty money going around and a very, very dodgy operation being run out of the White House.
So Trump now has an ad targeting the corruption of Hunter Biden and Joe.
This is cut one.
I don't think that there's a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn't Biden.
Like your investment firm striking a billion-dollar deal with a Chinese-owned bank 10 days after you and Joe visit and collecting over $80,000 a month from a Ukrainian energy company after your father was named point man on Ukraine.
It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards that I just mentioned without saying that I'm the son of the vice president of the United States.
The question is not why Hunter Biden used his name to get these gigs.
It's why Joe Biden let him do it.
So, you know, Twitter and Facebook covered this story up, but they probably brought it more attention than it would have gotten anyway.
They now have say they have changed, modified their rules, because the rules before would have stopped any journalism from taking place.
It was against unauthorized material, publishing unauthorized material.
But they still have some rules in place.
And just remember, these are the guys, the last CEO of Twitter, he tweeted something where he said, Dick Castolo, his name was, and he tweeted recently, me first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution.
I'll happily provide video commentary.
So these guys are pretty, pretty bad news.
So Donald Trump is threatening them with modifying 230, the thing that allows them to modify content without declaring themselves a publisher.
The Congress is subpoenaing them to come and talk.
We will see where this goes, but they did overstep.
And this is part of why I think, part of why I think there may be a turning point that happened this week kind of behind the scenes.
So now let's take a look at the reaction of the press.
So what was censorship?
There's Twitter, more Twitter than Facebook.
Facebook kind of made it harder to spread the news, but the news got out on Facebook.
But Twitter really was trying to shut this thing down.
They shut down the Post.
They shut down Kayleigh McInenney.
They shut down anybody who was spreading this word.
And now they've backed off a little bit.
At one point, the whole site shut down.
I don't know if that was intentional or what.
But you'd think the press would get this.
You'd think they would say, oh my lord, this is terrible.
But instead, you get this from Nora O'Donnell on CBS.
Here's the way she reported this story.
Listen closely because otherwise it'll slide by you as a cut five.
Tonight, the Trump campaign is accusing Twitter and Facebook of censorship after the social media companies blocked the spread of an unverified story about former Vice President Joe Biden's son and a laptop allegedly full of his old emails.
It's a story raising concerns about whether it's real or just designed to sow confusion in the final weeks of the election.
Here's CBS's Nancy Cordis.
Experts say it has all the hallmarks of information laundering and all the headaches of 2016.
I have nothing to say about WikiLeaks.
Back then, it was Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta whose emails were stolen and then dribbled out in the last month of the race.
This time it's a tabloid newspaper dribbling out emails, purportedly swiped from Vice President Joe Biden's son.
Now you notice they repeatedly said this is unverified.
Fair enough, but it's too bad the CBS doesn't have any reporters who could go out and try and verify it.
If Tucker Carlson is getting stuff, the Wall Street Journal did the same thing.
They said this is unverified.
And of course, the New York Times is basically just covering the story up.
But first, they say it's unverified, and then they compare it to the WikiLeaks leak of DNC emails that was purportedly done by the Russians.
That, remember, the FBI never took possession of that computer.
It just said, yeah, this was done by the Russians after talking to people hired by the DNC.
So we don't know whether that was done by the Russians or not.
But just don't forget that those emails, it's always a little confusing with these emails because Hillary's emails and the DNC's emails get confused.
But Hillary's emails were bleach-bit and they disappeared.
DNC emails were released and what they showed, they were embarrassing to the DNC because they showed the DNC rigged the primaries for Hillary Clinton.
That was the thing that they kind of revealed.
And they took up a lot of air in the room during the campaign, but they were real.
They were real emails.
So to compare it and say, well, the sinister thing happened, those were real emails.
And since all the stuff, all these journalists have been, you know, getting all this information, this leaked information about phone calls the president has made and information that came out about the steel dossier, which turned out to be completely bogus.
You know, I don't understand why this is the big threat.
The DNC is only the stuff that hurts the Democrats is the big threat.
And don't forget, don't forget, like, this is the stuff that Adam Schiff was peddling, that these WikiLeaks was proof of Russian collusion when he was doing his McCarthyite routine and telling the news media, oh yes, oh yes, I've seen proof that you can't see that I can't tell you about, but I've seen proof that there was Russian collusion, right?
Remember, he was doing that, and it was all completely bogus.
Here he is back in 2017 selling that very story, that these leaked emails that were hacked off the DNC because they got John Podesta's, they phished John Podesta's password, so it's pretty easy to steal them.
And then they were released by WikiLeaks who said they didn't get them from the Russians, who said they never got them from the Russians.
2017, here's Schiff selling this as proof, as proof of Russian collusion on CNN.
Now, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, will be Mueller's question to answer, that the Russians communicated to the campaign that the way they were going to deliver the help they offered and that the campaign accepted was not by handing the emails directly over to the campaign, but by publishing them.
That will be up to Mueller, and we continue to try to fill in all of the missing pieces.
But we do know this.
The Russians offered help.
The campaign accepted help.
The Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help.
And that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not.
It's not proof of anything, right?
It's not proof of absolutely nothing.
We don't know that it was the Russians who took the emails.
We know that they came out of WikiLeaks.
There was no proof that Trump knew anything about the WikiLeaks thing.
It was complete nonsense that he was selling.
It was really McCarthyite nonsense, and they let him do it, and then they let him come back.
And here he is again.
Here he is now talking about the Hunter Biden emails as a cut three.
The online ecosystem and unwitting audiences that the Kremlin so ably exploited remain vulnerable to unscrupulous, homegrown actors who seed and spread falsehoods of their own.
If left unchecked, there could be irreversible damage, not only to our nation's discourse, but to how we as a society discern fact from fiction.
The leading social media platforms have all made significant changes in their policies and capabilities since 2016, but they have not changed the foundational features of their platforms that expose users and even recommend to them often extreme, sensational, or emotionally charged content.
This is the guy, this is the guy who took a leak of the president's call to Ukraine asking him to investigate these very facts and led the impeachment drive against them for this.
This is what the president was trying to get Ukraine to investigate.
He was trying to investigate whether Joe Biden was running a corrupt scheme where he got money.
And remember, Rudy Giuliani is charging, and this is in one of the emails, that Biden was getting half the money that Hunter Biden was getting.
So he was participating in this.
And Biden is a wealthy man for some reason, even though he's been in government for 47 years.
So that's another part of this that they're saying, which means that Biden would have been taking money.
And again, Biden was the point man for the Obama administration in Ukraine.
I don't want to get too complex about this, but basically the charge here is that Biden was taking money to affect the foreign policy of the United States of America, which is as corrupt as you get if the story pans out.
And, you know, again, it's possible.
There's something so on the nose about this story that I hesitate to embrace it, but it would be a John LeCouray level scam if it is, because it's an amazing amount of information.
And the New York Post is a good paper.
The New York Post does good work.
So they've obviously seen more of this than I have or than Tucker Carlson has.
And they actually think this is a good story, and they're bringing it out still.
So you've got Democrats, you've got Democrats and the press, but I repeat myself, in favor of censorship, right?
So why do I think that a turning point is going on behind the scenes, okay?
You know, there was Amy Cooney Barrett's questioning if her confirmation hearings have come to an end and they're going to have a vote on her next week.
And it looks like she's a shoe-in Mitt Romney said he will vote for her, said he can't wait to vote for her.
A Politico Morning Consult poll on the day Mr. Trump nominated Judge Barrett showed 37% of Americans thought she should be confirmed.
I'm reading from Kimberly Strassel in the Wall Street Journal.
The same poll this week saw an 11-point rise with 48% in favor, 31% opposed, and 21% with no opinion.
Democratic support for Judge Barrett has doubled from 14 to 27%, and independent support has grown 10 points from 28% to 38%.
Now, why is that important?
Okay, that means Democrats actually were embracing her in larger numbers and the public in general.
That's a plurality, 48%, were embracing her and they weren't before.
And why is that important?
It's important because her hearings were not like other Supreme Court hearings.
And this is something Jonathan Turley, the law professor from George Washington University, this is something he wrote about today, that she was very open about her philosophy, not like other candidates are.
She was very open about being an originalist like Scalia and what originalism is.
Remember, we played this cut where she said, I interpret the Constitution as law, that I interpret its text as text.
I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it.
And this is what Scalia and Scalia said.
He was an originalist.
Clarence Thomas is an originalist.
Others, not so much.
You know, John Roberts has never said he's an originalist.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have sort of said they're originalists.
I mean, it's a word that gets played.
Even Elena Kagan has said she's an originalist, but it's a word that gets played around with.
She was very definitive about what she wants and who she is.
So now you've got people actually seeing on television, despite all the Democratic fuffrah with their throwing around crazy accusations and everything, but they were very restrained because they have to be because they know the public doesn't want this.
When the people see what we believe, when they see what we believe, they like it.
And that's what I'm talking about.
The fact that they have to stop us from talking is because when we talk, the people like it.
They only dislike it when they hear it through the veil of the press yelling racism, racism, racism.
So that brings me to these town halls, right?
And that's why that's the light I wanted to look at these town halls in, because this is what they're trying to protect themselves from.
They're trying to protect themselves from hearing who we are as conservatives.
Now, Trump makes it easy on him.
Trump hurts himself.
You know, I know you guys hate it when I say this, but he does.
He hurts himself with the tweets and all the stuff that his base loves, but they distract from what he's actually doing and what he's accomplished and what he believes, or at least what he represents, because it's sometimes hard to know what he believes, but what he represents is conservatism, which is freedom, which is the Constitution, which is the things that Amy Coney Barrett was talking about very, very definitively on the air.
So the reason I'm saying this is kind of a turning point is suddenly people, I think, saw, oh, they don't believe in free speech.
They believe in shutting speech down.
What do the conservatives believe in?
Oh, they believe in what Amy Coney Barrett is, that the Constitution is the law of the land.
So now they have these dueling town halls because they didn't get the second debate, right?
Instead of the second debate, they gave a town hall to Biden on ABC and a town hall to Trump on NBC.
And everybody was furious that these two things were going to be on at the same time because they had, you know, if only, if only they had invented the DVR, we would have been able to tape one and watch them at different times.
But that won't happen for many, many years into the future, probably not till 2020 at least.
So, you know, so they're complaining about this.
But, but these two town halls were so different.
Court Packing Debate00:07:16
Before I get into the substance of them, which is kind of amazing, actually, let's just play a montage of Savannah Guthrie, the way she handled this, right?
He was supposed to be taking, Trump was supposed to be taking questions from the audience.
And every now and again, he'd get a question from the audience.
But Savannah Guthrie would not shut up.
Here she is in cut six.
As the president, I have to be out there.
I also know.
There's no one that says you can't be out there, but it's just about wearing masks and having, for example, your rally.
But our death rate is worse than, well, not Spain, but the Latin country.
The United States is down 21%.
But we have, our deaths per capita is among the highest.
I wouldn't be able to get the word out.
And the word is falling.
And you know, if it's dumped in a garbage can and they happen to have my name on it, I'm not happy with that.
But just those are case packages.
There is no, there is, in fact, no evidence of widespread fraud.
I want the money to go to directly.
They're going to be a number.
They're going to be so far.
They have not.
They got rid of the individual mandate.
We will always protect people with preexisting conditions.
If you're successful in working in November, those pre-existing conditions.
That's the way Savannah Guthrie handled Trump.
And here are the kinds of questions that Biden got on his town hall over at ABC as Cut 7.
Every day, my wife and I are in disbelief at the lack of coordinated federal action on COVID-19.
We know that your administration would follow the science.
What would your administration do in terms of following the science with real concrete policies that haven't been done by the current administration?
Merritt Garland didn't get a hearing for all of 2016, and Amy Coney Barrett's being pushed through at the last minute, even though millions have already voted.
So what do you think about ideas from people like Pete Butijej and others to put in place safeguards that will help ensure more long-term balance and stability?
And what do you say to LGBTQ Americans and others who are very worried right now about erosions of their rights and our democracy as a whole?
Did I put this off all on the T before you, Mr. Vice President?
He still blew it.
I mean, he still was unbelievable.
But just now, this is the way the New York Times, a former newspaper, reported this, okay?
You just saw the way Trump was treated and the way Biden was treated.
Here's how the Times reported it.
A combat of Trump and a deliberate Biden spar from afar at town halls.
President Trump spoke positively about an extremist conspiracy theory group, expressed skepticism about mask wearing, rebuked his own FBI director and attacked the legitimacy of the 2020 election in a televised town hall forum, veering away from a focused campaign appeal.
Instead, he further stoked the country's political riffs as his Democratic opponent, Joseph Biden, pushed a deliberate message anchored in concerns over public health and promises to restore political norms.
So it's the old Raymond Chandler line.
First, they knock your teeth out and then they kick you in the stomach for mumbling.
Okay.
So let's take a look.
First, you have to deal with the court packing.
This is the thing.
This is the thing.
Remember, when the people hear what they believe in and when they hear what we believe in, we win.
It's getting the message out that is so incredibly difficult because they have got this incredible machinery of communication with which, which they use to silence us.
So here he has asked about court packing.
I guess this is cut 14.
Cut 15.
If they vote on it before the election, if they vote on it before the election, you are open to expanding the court?
I'm open to considering what happens from that point on.
You know, you've said so many times during the campaign, all through the course of your career, it's important to level whatever.
It is.
But George, if I say, no matter what answer I gave you, if I say it, that's the headline tomorrow.
It won't be about what's going on now, the improper way they're proceeding.
But don't voters have a right to know where you stand?
They do have a right to know where they stand, and they'll have a right to know where I stand before they vote.
So you'll come out with a clear position before election day?
Yes, depending on how they handle this.
So I'll come out with a clear position.
Now, Don Lemon is so startled by this that information might come out before the election about what this guy who's running for president would actually do.
He's so terrified by this that he asks Kamal Harris about it.
This is cut two.
Were you surprised to hear the former vice president say that he's going to take a stance or give his position on this court packing before the people vote?
I think that Joe Biden has been consistent about saying that this is not the time right now to have this discussion.
And frankly, to be honest with you, Don, and just to be very straightforward, if we're going to talk about court packing, which is something that all of a sudden has become a big point of discussion, I think because our distraction is actually a distraction, and I just wanted to get you on the record.
So because maybe if you guys answer it, you'll get it behind you and it doesn't become her emails.
And that's up to the media, too, to not make it her emails.
It's up to the media.
You don't want any news being done at the CNN newsroom.
Let's not have any news.
And I think it's a distraction too, says Don Lemon.
I don't want to hear what the guy who wants to be president of the United States, what he's actually going to do.
We don't want that getting out.
This is what I'm talking about.
When they hear what we have to say, we win.
And this week, they heard what we had to say in the much more acceptable package of Amy Coney Barrett, who is a much more acceptable package than Donald Trump to a lot of people.
But seriously, that is the difference.
After all, we are voting on policy as much as we're voting for people.
Here is Biden, an unbelievable response on transgenderism from a woman who says she has an eight-year-old transgender child as cut 18.
The idea that an eight-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, you know, I decided I want to be transgender.
That's what I think I'd like to be.
I'll make my life a lot easier.
There should be zero discrimination.
There is no reason to suggest that there should be any right denied your daughter or daughters, whichever one or two, one, your daughter, that your other daughter has a right to be and do.
None, zero.
An eight-year-old child, that is genuinely sick.
And this is Mr. Science.
This is Dr. Science, Joe Biden.
There's no science on this.
There's none.
We don't know what makes people feel that they're transgender, and we do not know.
Most children who think they're transgender, oftentimes children who think they're transgender turn out to be gay, not transgender.
And we don't know what transgenderism is.
And there's no evidence that any kind of operations or hormonal treatments make people happy in a general way, that they've solved the problem.
And a child doesn't know what he or she is.
A child, the inner feelings of a child are not a good reason to do things that affect their health, that affect their ability to have children.
That's a sick, sick answer.
And I think that this idea that it's somehow prejudiced to not let a child's body be butchered by some lunatic who thinks, oh, my child played with a doll today, so I'll cut him up.
That's insane.
QAnon Denounced00:11:13
And this is a guy who's been throwing softballs.
Listen to his answer on police reform is Cut 14.
There's a lot of things we've learned.
And it takes time, but we can do this.
You can ban chokeholes.
But beyond that, you have to teach people how to de-escalate circumstances.
De-escalate.
So instead of anybody coming at you and the first thing you do is shoot to kill, you shoot them in the leg.
I just love it.
When I was a little kid, there was a show on television called The Lone Ranger.
And The Lone Ranger was the super good guy, dressed all in white, and he was absolutely Mr. Integrity.
He was there to teach little kids integrity.
And I frequently joke that I learned everything I know from the Lone Ranger and now I know why he's lone.
But one of the things he used to say is, I shoot to wound.
I only shoot to wound.
You know, you grow up, you find out you can't do that.
You got to shoot at this center body mass, you know, and that's how, because otherwise you're going to miss.
That's why the cops don't do that.
And once the shooting starts, once you're shooting, you're shooting.
You're not going to put a well-placed bullet in.
The guy's an idiot.
Biden is not just, he's not just potentially corrupt.
He is also truly an idiot.
All right.
Let's move on and take a look at a closer look at the Trump thing.
Because I mean, there are other things that he said.
He has said before that he was going to repeal Trump's tax cuts.
Oh, we got to stop and go over to and let you know that you should go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
You want to be there so you can get all access.
We did an all access show last night and also be in the mailbag where all your problems will be solved.
So, again, you know, Biden, I think Biden just made an utter fool of himself, the things that he's saying.
It's amazing.
They just like, just cover it up.
But people were watching.
The ratings for the Biden one were better, I think, than the ratings for the Trump one.
Although who knows, with the way people watch TV, it's very hard to get ratings at this point.
But still, people were watching Joe Biden, and they saw that stuff.
And at least, you know, he was putting together an English sentence, but the English sentences he was putting together were absolutely absurd.
Then you have Savannah Guthrie.
And, you know, what's her job?
What's her job?
Her job is to elicit from the president answers so people can hear what he thinks, not to let us know what Savannah Guthrie thinks.
Believe me, we know.
We know what every journalist in the country thinks.
We know what they all think because that's all we hear.
All we hear is their opinion.
We don't get to hear the people themselves speak.
She would not stop talking.
So first, she asked, she does ask, though, a really, I have to give her credit, she asked a really important question that no one's ever thought of asking before.
This was really, you know, because we just don't know the answer to this.
She asked Trump how he felt about white supremacy.
And I think, you know, if I this, I'm surprised this has never come up before.
So I'm glad she got down to this.
It's Cut 13.
I denounce white supremacy.
Okay.
You've been denouncing white supremacy for years, but you always do it.
You always start off with the question.
You didn't ask Joe Biden whether or not he denounces Antifa.
I watched him on the same basic show with Lester Holt, and he was asking questions like Biden was a child.
Well, so this is all.
Are you listening?
I denounce white supremacy.
What's your next question?
Do you feel it feels sometimes you're hesitant to do so?
Like you wait.
Here we go again.
Every time, in fact, my people came, I'm sure they'll ask you the white supremacy question.
I denounce white supremacy.
I love it.
You know, you ask the guy the question 150 times and finally he says, ah, shut up.
And I say he didn't denounce white supremacy.
And he's absolutely right about this Antifa thing.
You know, as you know, I hate the extremes of both sides, but the extremes of the right are out on the extreme where the extremes of the left are in Congress.
And that's a big difference.
And sometimes the extremes of the left are in the White House.
This is amazing, this thing that Antifa is an idea.
White supremacy is an idea.
I mean, these things are ideas.
Unfortunately, they're ideas that people believe in and hurt people over.
And he's absolutely right about this.
And I just love the line, are you listening to me?
Because of course the answer is no.
And here's the one, here's the one that got the New York Times so upset.
And this one actually cracked me up.
This is the one that he fails to denounce QAnon, which he's repeatedly said he doesn't know that much about.
I have to be honest, I've had a hard time.
I've researched QAnon.
I have a hard time understanding what the hell they believe.
But here's this question.
This to me is amazing.
I'll tell you why after he answers cut 10.
Disavow QAnon in its entirety?
I know nothing about QAnon.
I just told you.
I know very little.
You told me, but what you tell me doesn't necessarily make it fact.
I hate to say that.
Republican Senator Ben Sasse said, quote, QAnon is nuts, and real leaders call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories.
Why not just say it's crazy and not true?
He may be right.
I just don't know about QAnon.
You do know.
I don't know.
No, I don't know.
Why should he know?
Why should he pay any attention to it?
But here's the thing that got me about this, okay?
And this is, as I call it, Clavinon.
This is like the truth, the true conspiracy behind the crazy conspiracies, because what I've learned about QAnon seems nuts.
It seems like they've made up a story about Donald Trump coming to the rescue of this massive child sex ring that's going on behind the scenes.
But at the base level of QAnon, all right, and all that stuff is crazy.
It's all ridiculous.
I get it.
But at the base level of QAnon is a sense, a sense that children are being sexually abused and the abuse is being covered up.
That's at the base level of QAnon, right?
That's the kind of thing that is giving the jet fuel to the crazy conspiracy theory, which I don't even know why the crazy conspiracy theory matters.
I mean, there are plenty of crazy conspiracy theories.
There have always been crazy conspiracy theories.
I don't know why this one, they keep picking on it.
I guess because it's a right-wing one.
Okay.
So at the base of this is the idea that children and underaged people are being sexually abused and it's being covered up.
Now, while she's asking him this question, While she's asking him this question, and the New York Times is getting all upset.
Joe Biden is on the other channel, ABC, being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, okay?
George Stephanopoulos, who attended a party for Jeffrey Epstein after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of serially abusing underage children.
He attended a party in honor of Jeffrey Epstein.
George Stephanopoulos did.
George Stephanopoulos, as I've said a million times, but I love saying it because nobody else covers it.
Nobody else covers it.
George Stephanopoulos worked for Bill Clinton, silencing women and intimidating the press so they would not report on the women that Bill Clinton allegedly chased around the room with his fly unzipped and molested in the Oval Office and all the things that he did to women or women have accused him of doing, including the very credible accusations of rape against Bill Clinton.
George Stephanopoulos worked for him, covering that stuff up.
Now he's the head of ABC News, where we know from Project Veritas, we know that the Jeffrey Epstein story was spiked during Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency.
So QAnon, crazy people who think that the abuse of underage people, of underage girls and boys, is being covered up.
And Trump won't denounce QAnon because he says he doesn't know what it is.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, but he won't denounce it.
And that's a big story.
But it's not a big story that on the other channel with Joe Biden tossing sauceballs at Joe Biden is George Stephanopoulos, who we know works for a station that has covered up the abuse of underage children.
We know they did.
We know that.
You know, it's not, it's not, it's on camera.
We have it on camera.
It's unbelievable.
It is unbelievable.
If they had no double standards, they would have no standards at all.
And then we've got the mask thing.
Do I even want to go into the mask?
Yeah, let's go and just to hear Sylvana Guthrie mouth off this cut nine.
If everyone wore a mask, you could cut expected deaths in half 60,000 miles.
Well, what does that mean?
Scott Askins to give you a look at Scott, Dr. Scott.
He's from Great Guy, Stanford.
He will tell you.
He's not an infectious disease expert.
Oh, I don't know.
Look, he's an expert.
He's one of the great experts of the world.
I don't get it because you have so much power and influence as president.
You could go to your, you've got required at your rally.
And you should say, everyone put on a mask right now.
And the University of Washington says you can save lives.
You can't do the University of Washington and you have other places say different things.
I'm shocked that Trump had enough restraint not to just say to it, shut up.
Close your pie hole for two seconds and let the president of the United States talk on his town hall.
But he didn't.
He didn't say that.
I would have said it, but he didn't say it to his credit.
He did say at one point, he said 85% of people who wear masks get the Chinese flu, but that's not true.
What is true is that 85% of the people who get the flu reported having worn masks most of the time.
So their science on that is unsettled.
They're doing a test.
Where did I say yesterday?
Denmark was it?
They're doing a test on that now, but the science is not quite settled on that.
And they've just become obsessed with it because he obviously doesn't care.
So here's just an interesting little story that I'll conclude on in my little theory that there was a turning point this week.
It doesn't mean that Trump's going to win the election.
I don't have no idea, but there is a place called Trafalgar, a polling place called Trafalgar, which was the firm that called Trump's wins in Michigan and Pennsylvania four years ago when every other pollster was predicting Clinton victories, some by blowout margins.
I'm reading this from Hot Air.
Trafalgar was the only outfit to find Trump ahead in Michigan in any survey taken that year.
Two years later, with the rest of the field polling, the field expecting Andrew Gillum victory in Florida, Trafalgar final poll found Ron DeSantis would win.
They were right about that.
And the secret is that they try to adjust for social desirability bias, the reluctance of some people to tell pollsters the truth about their preferences for fear of being judged disapprovingly.
Robert Cahalli, Trafalgar's lead pollster, is of the belief that that effect is especially prevalent among Trump voters.
And here is what he is saying now as CUP 24.
Right now, I think Trump wins in the mid-270s.
I think he wins Florida.
Florida is, I don't think Florida's a question.
Ohio and Florida are not a question.
Anybody talking about Georgia and Texas, that ain't going to happen.
I think North Carolina, he'll edge out North Carolina, win it, and then he'll, I think he'll win Arizona.
And so then it comes down to he only has to win one of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
And I believe he will win one of them.
And I think Michigan is an excellent chance for a Trump victory.
I would say probably of those four, Michigan is the most likely one that he will win.
And if he wins the others, that's all he needs.
So I'm not predicting anything because I don't know the future, but I will tell you this.
I think this week people got to see what conservatives believe for a change without the news media blocking the way because they could see Amy Coney Barrett for themselves.
The Haunting of Hill House00:04:26
Their opinions changed in our favor.
They also got to see Twitter and Facebook silencing news, which brought the news to the fore that Joe Biden may be corrupt and it may actually be coming out.
And so the people saw a lot of stuff this week.
And if Trump can just stay out of the way and let the truth come out, he's got a chance.
Halloween is coming, which means that my favorite thing is on TV, which is ghost stories.
And I just want to point out this one thing that's really kind of interesting.
On Netflix, remember, I think it was last year they did The Haunting of Hill House, which is based on a Shirley Jackson novel.
And I didn't like it very much.
It was very popular.
I stopped watching it after a while.
And the reason I stopped watching it, it was a real, when I say it was based on The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson, it was loosely based.
It kind of went off into this whole modern story.
And it had some good stuff in it.
And I really love ghost stories, but I hate horror stories.
I don't like, you know, gore and I don't like people being tormented and I don't like women shrieking while people kill them.
You know, it's just not what I want to spend my time watching.
I don't need that in my head.
But I love the uncanny.
I love the sense that something out of the corner of your eye is there that shouldn't be there.
So the simplest ghost stories in the world just really send a chill up my spine and I love it.
And you have to have a very subtle touch to do a really good ghost stories.
There aren't that many of them, but when you do them right, they're great.
So they took Shirley Jackson as one of the classic ghost story novels.
Very few, most great ghost stories are stories, but there are a few great ghost story novels and Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House is one of them.
So they took The Haunting of Hill House.
And what I thought they did with it, which really bothered me, was they would do a subtle scare and then feeling that you wouldn't get the subtle scare, they would back it up by having somebody's mouth open too wide and their face distort.
And I just got really bored with it.
Like I just got bored with, I get bored with like boo scares, that's what they call them in Hollywood, jump scares, boo scares, where things jump out at you suddenly because anybody can do that.
Your five-year-old child can jump out from behind the door and say boo and drive you up the wall.
And so I just don't, I just don't like that.
I like the subtlety.
So I felt they took one of my favorite stories.
And meanwhile, there is a great version of The Haunting of Hill House called The Haunting, 1963, not the remake, with Liam Neeson, 1963, a black and white version of The Haunting, which is just great.
So if you want a great ghost story for Halloween, The Haunting is another one.
So this year, this year, they're doing on Netflix The Haunting of Blime Manor.
And I have not watched this, so I'm not condemning it.
I've asked people about it.
Apparently, they put this based on Henry James' classic novella, what's it called?
The turn of the screw.
Sorry.
It's called The Turn of the Screw.
It's based on a classic, classic ghost story, The Turn of the Screw.
And apparently, they've made it all into this lesbian love story, and it doesn't have much to do with The Turn of the Screw and goes on and on.
But it's not bad.
I've heard.
This is what I've heard, but I haven't seen it.
However, once again, once again, there is a great version, a great version of Turn of the Screw called The Innocence, which was made in 1961, starring Deborah Carr.
Part of the script was written by Truman Capote and William Archibald, two really great writers, and some extra dialogue by the guy who writes Rumpole of the Bailey.
So it's really well written, really well active.
And it is known, like if you talk to directors who do horror, it's very subtle.
There are no boo scares.
Everything is very slow.
It's just a creepy, creepy story.
And if you talk to directors who do horror and you ask them what's the best ghost story ever made, almost every single one of them will say The Innocence.
And then they can't do it.
They can't imitate it.
They can't do it because the producers won't let them because they think the big money is in jumping out and scaring you, you know, and doing the boo scares and all this stuff.
So if you want to see subtle, great Halloween movies, look up The Haunting 1963 and look up The Innocence 1961.
Make sure you get the right ones because they've both been remade a hundred times, but they're really terrific, terrific ghost stories for Halloween.
All right, I'm going to stop there.
It is now the Clavenless weekend is upon you.
It will be a long one because I won't be back till Wednesday.
I worked an extra day this week and I'm working one day less next week.
So I will be back on Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday.
You're doomed.
You're finished.
I'm sorry.
What can I tell you?
Look at it this way.
You had a good run.
It's over.
You're cast into the exterior darkness.
There'll be great wailing, gnashing of teeth.
But on Wednesday, we will be back.
Andrew Clavin Show00:01:21
Survivors gather here for the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm Andrew Clayton.
Hey, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe.
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 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.
You know, The Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
I think there are enough of those already out there.
We talk about culture because culture drives politics and it drives everything else.
So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.