Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Dec. 5, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

49:50

Ep. 461 - The High Crime Of Orange Man Bad

Democrats hold the first day of impeachment hearings. Then, Trudeau trash talks Trump behind his back, trans activists in Washington accuse cops of killing their families, and finally the Mailbag! Can't get enough of The Michael Knowles Show? Enjoy ad-free shows, live discussions, and more by becoming an ALL ACCESS member TODAY at: https://dailywire.com/Knowles Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler and the House Judiciary Committee presided over the first day of official impeachment hearings yesterday, where expert witnesses made the incisive constitutional argument that orange man bad,
	orange man very bad, We will explain the expert constitutional experts and we will explain why they think the 2016 election should be overturned.
	Their arguments and the arguments against impeachment, all of them coming from an unexpected source.
	Then, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau trash talks President Trump behind his back.
	Trans activists in Washington accuse cops of killing their families.
	And finally, the mailbag.
	All that and more.
	I'm Michael Knowles and this is the Michael Knowles Show.
	For those of you who are not as expert in the constitution as all of those experts that the Democrats dragged before the impeachment hearings yesterday.
	I will just remind you that the president can be removed from office for treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors.
	And if the orange man is very bad, people miss that part.
	It's not taught as often in law schools anymore, but it is certainly the case.
	It's actually a more egregious crime than treason, bribery, or the high crimes and misdemeanors.
	Orange man being bad is the impeachable offense.
	And that is pretty clearly what the Democrats are going to impeach Donald Trump over.
	We will go through the circus that took place yesterday before the judiciary committee.
	We will go through the specious arguments of all of the democratic testimony.
	And we will go through the one expert who managed to pretty much shut down their case.
	But first I've got to thank our friends over at Brick House.
	You know that it is very important to eat your fruits and veggies, isn't it?
	Now me, if I were left to my own devices, my diet would consist of about 93% fatty Italian meats and about 7% provolone.
	But I'm going to go through the same thing.
	I'm going to go through the But thankfully, there is a way for me to get my veggies and my fruits through Brickhouse.
	Have you ever wondered why so many Americans are sick, unhealthy, and overweight?
	Between the food supply and a sedentary lifestyle, Americans are in worse shape than ever.
	So the team of on-staff physicians at Brickhouse Nutrition created...
	Field of Greens.
	Field of Greens.
	So easy to use.
	It's so easy to add fruits and vegetables to your daily routine without spending hours in the produce section or hiring a home chef or taking cheap supplements that aren't going to do you any good.
	Field of Greens is made with real USDA organic fruits and vegetables.
	It also helps boost your immunity by using antioxidants and it assists digestive health.
	With prebiotics and probiotics.
	It is like having a doctor and a nutritionist in your kitchen, but you don't need to think about anything.
	You just take one scoop.
	One scoop of Field of Greens delivers a full serving of fruits and vegetables.
	Just drop it in a cup of water, stir it, and you're done.
	Also, great for smoothies.
	That's how most of my friends like it.
	For me, I'm just like a purist.
	I want fruits and veggies.
	Put it in.
	I don't want to think about it.
	Bottom line, this is real food.
	This is not extracts.
	You will look and feel better.
	It's just so simple.
	You know, I want to simplify my life as much as possible.
	There are enough complications.
	If I need to think for more than two seconds about, oh, I didn't eat that vegetable and I got to have this and this, but no, none of that.
	Just one scoop, it's in, you're done.
	Go to BrickHouseKnowles.com.
	You know that's my nickname.
	Go to BrickHouseKnowles.com and get 15% off your first order just for trying it out with the promo code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. That is BrickHouseKnowles, my nickname,.com, promo code Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. All right, let's jump right in to the expert, super-duper expert testimony, beginning with Professor Pamela Carlin.
	One big mistake the Democrats made at these impeachment hearings.
	Obviously, they're going to call their people.
	They're going to call leftists.
	They're going to call Democrats.
	They're going to call people who hate Donald Trump.
	We just know that's going to happen.
	But it was a big mistake on their part to call experts who are so obviously biased, who are so obviously partisan, who come across as such hacks.
	The whole point of having experts show up to your impeachment hearings is to give this patina of credibility, of nonpartisanship, of, you know, we're just looking at the facts here, folks, and that's why we have to remove the president.
	They just couldn't do that.
	They picked, for their first witness...
	As partisan, as hacky, an expert as you could possibly imagine, Professor Pamela Carlin, Stanford Law professor, radical leftist and Democrat.
	She wrote a whole book about how awful the 2000 election was when Al Gore lost.
	She's an Obama appointee.
	She was under Obama, working for Obama and Eric Holder.
	A very corrupt Attorney General.
	She was the U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
	She's an outspoken LGBT activist.
	In Obama's DOJ, she was a key person to implement the redefinition of marriage.
	You look at her political donations, donates to a lot of Democrats.
	This is probably the worst part for her credibility.
	She called for the impeachment of Trump two years ago.
	So if what the Democrats are saying now is, we weren't going to impeach Trump, but now we have to because he made a long-distance phone call to Ukraine, or whatever the issue was with the Ukraine phone call.
	That doesn't hold up when you realize that this law professor and this Democratic activist was trying to impeach the guy two years ago.
	She actually said on camera, on a microphone, that when she walks by the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., she is so disgusted that she has to cross to the other side of the street.
	I was struck, you know, I came in from the airport yesterday and I got off the bus from Dulles down at Lanfant Plaza and I walked up to the hotel.
	And as I was walking past what used to be the old post office building and is now the Trump Hotel, which I had to cross the street, of course.
	Are you staying there?
	God, no.
	Never.
	Never.
	But as I was walking past it, I noticed there's a...
	No, never.
	Oh, it's so awful.
	I can't even bear to be on the sidewalk in front of the hotel.
	Hi, I'm going to be your nonpartisan expert witness.
	Okay, not a lot of credibility.
	She actually, as she's testifying, she said that she was so riled up for these impeachment hearings that she didn't even eat Thanksgiving.
	All she was doing was reading transcripts.
	She was so hungry, not for Turkey, but to oust the duly elected president of the United States.
	You know, I spent all of Thanksgiving vacation sitting there reading these transcripts.
	I didn't, you know, I ate like a turkey that came to us in the mail that was already cooked because I was spending my time doing this.
	I was so excited.
	Gobble, gobble.
	Give me all those Ukraine transcripts.
	So in her blind hatred of the president, she made a crucial error.
	Not just the Democrats' error in inviting her, but her error during her testimony.
	She let her zeal to impeach this guy, her absolute disdain for the president, come out and cause her to bring Donald Trump's 13-year-old son into the picture.
	Now, the left loves bringing children into politics.
	They do it all the time.
	They did it with the Parkland kids after the shooting at Parkland High School.
	They brought these traumatized kids in and put them on a pedestal, put them on a stage, gave them a lot of money, gave them a big spotlight.
	Obviously, they're doing that now with Greta Thunberg, the environmentalist child from Sweden.
	And they're putting her on a stage and they're giving her a lot of attention and they're foisting her right in front of the media.
	That's an awful thing.
	That is absolutely indefensible.
	But that's kind of their M.O. They don't just do it, though, for kids who want the spotlight.
	Barron Trump has very much shied away from the spotlight.
	He doesn't go on stage.
	He doesn't want to be in the media.
	And this woman, as she's describing why Trump is so awful, he's so awful because he thinks he's a king.
	He's so awful because he thinks he's a royal.
	She decides to bring his 13-year-old son into it.
	Big no-no.
	What comparisons, Professor Carlin, can we make between kings that the framers were afraid of and the President's conduct today?
	So kings could do no wrong because the king's word was law.
	And contrary to what President Trump has said, Article 2 does not give him the power to do anything he wants.
	And I'll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility.
	So while the president can name his son baron, he can't make him a baron.
	All right, folks, try the veal.
	Tip your waitress.
	I'll be here all week.
	See you later.
	The really egregious thing about that statement is not that she brought the president's 13-year-old son into the mix.
	She shouldn't have done that.
	It's just how totally lame that joke was.
	It was such a reach.
	It was such a stretch.
	If the pun's not going to work, just let it go.
	If the joke's not going to work, just let it go.
	You don't have to do that.
	Melania Trump did not like that line.
	Melania Trump comes out there.
	She tweets, quote, And she's absolutely right.
	And I will say, as somebody who goes on camera a lot...
	Pamela Carlin, you should be very embarrassed by how totally lame that pun was.
	If you're going to try to make a joke in public like that and you're going to workshop it and write it and be prepared to give it, it should be at least 400% funnier than it was.
	That was very, very lame and also inappropriate.
	And she felt it was obviously getting such blowback that she came out and apologized for her earlier remarks during the same testimony.
	I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son.
	It was wrong of me to do that.
	I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong, but I do regret having said that.
	Thank you, Professor.
	That's not an apology.
	That's not how you do an apology.
	When you do an apology, you don't say, hey, I'm really sorry that I did this.
	But really, that big jerk made me do it anyway.
	But anyway, I'm really sorry.
	It's like an abusive husband doesn't say, oh, I'm really sorry that I physically harmed you.
	I mean, you did burn the pot roast, so let's try to keep that in mind.
	And I wish you didn't burn the pot roast.
	But anyway, I'm really sorry.
	It's not an apology.
	But even more than that, This wasn't a line that she just came up with in the moment, right?
	It wasn't just some flippant thing that she said.
	She obviously had thought about this.
	It's such a weird, stretchy, lame pun.
	She obviously was workshopping this when she was preparing her testimony.
	She was probably workshopping it in the bathroom mirror in the morning.
	That's fine.
	People do that when they're speaking in public.
	But it wasn't some spur of the moment, I'm sorry, I got carried away.
	I don't know what I was thinking.
	She said it.
	I mean, she wrote it.
	She planned it.
	And then she got blowback and then she had to apologize.
	So, really bad.
	I think the worst part of the day for Democrats, in terms of their top witnesses, Was this woman.
	She just didn't make the case for impeachment terribly well.
	Nothing that we hadn't heard before.
	And I think she really damaged Democrats' credibility.
	But it did get a whole lot worse for them when Jonathan Turley, another law professor, came out and just absolutely wrecked the whole day.
	We will get to that in a second.
	First, I've got to thank our friends over at NetSuite.
	You know, when you're starting a business, when you're growing a business, it's very important to know your numbers.
	The problem that growing businesses have is that they've got this hodgepodge of business systems, right?
	It's true in almost every business.
	So you're starting up a business and you're using this software to manage your HR. You're using this software to manage your sales.
	You're using this, right?
	And they're not talking to each other.
	So you've got this hodgepodge of business systems and you just can't keep track of your numbers.
	That seriously prevents you from growing.
	That's where NetSuite comes in very handy.
	Introducing NetSuite by Oracle, the business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy-to-use cloud platform, giving you the visibility and control that you need to grow.
	With NetSuite, you save time, money, and unneeded headaches.
	By the way, time is money.
	All right, time is money, and unneeded headaches is money, too.
	By managing your sales, finance, accounting, orders, and HR instantly, NetSuite allows you to see your whole business, control your whole business right from your desktop or phone.
	That's why NetSuite is the world's number one cloud business system.
	Alright, you're starting a business, you're growing a business.
	It's very high stakes.
	Why would you handicap yourself?
	Why would you not go in with the very best?
	Right now, NetSuite is offering you valuable insights with a free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits at netsuite.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. That is netsuite.com slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S. These guys are the best in the business.
	Go over there right now.
	Download the free guide.
	You have nothing to lose.
	You have a lot to gain.
	Seven key strategies to grow your profits at netsuite.com.
	The next guy they call up...
	Is this professor Noah Feldman.
	Noah Feldman somehow was even more leftist than the last professor, Pamela Carlin, though he didn't step in it quite as much as she did.
	Feldman tried to play his partisanship a little bit closer to the vest.
	He's a Harvard Law professor, a big liberal.
	I mean, he's gotten all sorts of plaudits from the left-wing media and the left-wing public intellectual sphere.
	I think that's almost a contradiction in terms, but...
	His point, Noah Feldman's point, is that President Trump must cooperate with the congressional Democrats' impeachment probe.
	He must cooperate.
	If he's not cooperating, he's breaking the law.
	The job of the House is to investigate impeachment and to impeach.
	A president who says, as this president did say, I will not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with your process.
	He robs the House of Representatives of its basic constitutional power of impeachment.
	When you add to that the fact that the same president says, my Department of Justice cannot charge me with a crime, the president puts himself above the law when he says he will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry.
	I don't think it's possible to emphasize this strongly enough.
	A president who will not cooperate in an impeachment inquiry is putting himself above the law.
	Now, putting yourself above the law as president is the core of an impeachable offense, because if the president could not be impeached for that, he would in fact not be responsible to anybody.
	This is such BS with respect to Professor Feldman.
	This is such BS, but it's what not only the Democrats are trying to do in this impeachment inquiry or impeachment hearings now, it's what the left has been trying to do for a very long time.
	The president not just giving the Democrats and Congress everything that they want is not a violation of the law.
	It's not an impeachable offense.
	It's not putting himself above the law.
	What it's doing is saying that the president is not subservient to Congress, which is a very important aspect of our government.
	Our constitutional structure says that we have three co-equal branches of government.
	What the left has wanted to do for a long time is have the president be subservient to the legislature.
	They want the executives subservient to the legislature, just like you have in Britain, just like you have in a lot of governments around the world.
	You have parliamentary supremacy, that they get to control the executive.
	But that's not how it works here.
	We have three co-equal branches of government.
	This is an important aspect of this whole impeachment circus because what The way that that will all work, the way that you can have these two co-equal branches, the president and the legislature, is if there's some role for the judiciary.
	And what the left and the Democrats are trying to say is there's no role for the judiciary whatsoever in the impeachment inquiry.
	But there is.
	There's a major role.
	The Constitution set up a major role for the judiciary.
	That's why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial, should it get to that point, in the Senate.
	There is a role here for the judiciary and Professor Feldman doesn't want to accept that or admit that because it would complicate matters for the Democrats.
	We have an incredibly partisan impeachment going on right now.
	Only Democrats and, you know, a couple of their independent so-called supporters are No Republicans are pushing for this.
	The Republicans are uniformly opposing it.
	The president has absolutely no obligation to go along with this ridiculous partisan charade.
	Because if the Congress, if the Democrats are allowed to impeach the president over nothing, simply because they don't like the cut of his jib, they think he's a bad president, they want to oust him.
	You have, in that case, destroyed the separation of powers.
	You have destroyed the co-equal branches of government.
	You now have parliamentary supremacy, congressional supremacy, and an executive that is subservient to them.
	Feldman was pretty good at playing his partisanship close to his vest, even though he was making pretty bad arguments.
	But he kind of lost it a little bit when, in his zeal to present himself as an unbiased expert, he told a lie.
	He said that he was a skeptic of impeachment until he saw the transcript from the July 25th phone call with Ukraine.
	Then he knew that this president simply got to go.
	Except Representative Matt Gaetz pointed out that that just isn't true.
	Until this call on July 25th, I was an impeachment skeptic.
	The call changed my mind, sir, and for good reason.
	Thank you, I appreciate you.
	Right, except he didn't.
	So you hear him say that very clearly to Matt Gaetz.
	He says, I was an impeachment skeptic and then I changed my mind.
	Not true.
	Long before that July 25th phone call, Professor Feldman was writing op-eds in which he said, the president is committing impeachable offenses.
	It has no bearing on whether or not the Ukraine call was impeachable.
	It actually has no bearing on whether the earlier alleged offenses are impeachable.
	But what it is to say is that Noah Feldman has been pushing for impeachment for a long time.
	He's been pushing for impeachment before the July 25th phone call came out and he lied during his testimony.
	A blatant lie, a demonstrable lie.
	He lied...
	And lost what I would say is a lot of his credibility.
	Then you had the boring guy.
	We won't spend too much time on him.
	His name is Michael Gerhart.
	He's from UNC School of Law.
	Gerhart, same thing, orange man bad, got to impeach him.
	The record compiled thus far shows the president has committed several impeachable offenses, including bribery, abuse of power, and soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader to benefit himself personally, obstructing justice, and obstructing Congress.
	Our hearing today should serve as a reminder of one of the fundamental principles that drove the founders of our Constitution to break from England and to draft their own Constitution, the principle that in this country, no one is king.
	We have followed that principle since before the founding of the Constitution, and it is recognized around the world as a fixed, inspiring American ideal.
	Huh.
	I'm sorry.
	All right.
	Is he done?
	He's done speaking now?
	Okay, that's fine.
	So, same.
	Nothing terribly interesting here.
	And that's important because the purpose of these expert witnesses is not to get more facts.
	The Democrats have already made their decision.
	They're going to impeach him for whatever crime they can try to even pretend he committed.
	The purpose of these expert witnesses is to convince the public.
	And I think Gerhardt's testimony was important because it just showed they had nothing.
	It was wasted testimony.
	It's nothing that is really being talked about.
	I also want to correct Gerhardt and the first lady, Pamela Carlin.
	They talk about how the founders hated kings and Trump's not a king and the king is basically like a tin pot dictator.
	That just simply isn't true about kings.
	First of all, some of our founding fathers did want a king.
	Alexander Hamilton pretty much wanted to make George Washington a king.
	Kings were not just tin pot dictators in the Caribbean or something like that.
	There actually is quite a lot to monarchy and there are limits to monarchy.
	Anyway, it's just indicative of how much they are trying to oversimplify and misrepresent the facts of Not only about President Trump, but even about history and the Constitution.
	Fortunately, there was one law professor who gave testimony who, in a very measured way, without the hysterics, without the emotion, without yelling and screaming and bringing in Barron Trump about it...
	Very calmly wrecked all of the previous arguments.
	We will get to that professor in a second.
	We'll get to what it means for 2020, specifically Joe Biden.
	We'll get to a whole lot more.
	But first, you have got to be prepared.
	And I want to prepare you because you never know when a natural disaster or a political disaster, I think we have just been listening to a political disaster occur in real time.
	You never know when that's going to strike.
	That's why you got to be ready.
	Wise Company uses the finest ingredients and food preparation technology to ensure optimal freshness and flavor.
	Every single recipe is created by a team of chefs and is unique to Wise Company.
	It's really just a tremendous product.
	They combine both dehydrated and freeze-dried ingredients to get the best taste, texture, and nutritional value.
	The final recipes are packed into durable, long-lasting packages.
	They are designed to keep in moisture and to stop air seepage and to keep your food fresh, delicious, and ready to be eaten, even if stored up to 25 years.
	This is the key.
	Thank you.
	Is the Armageddon going to happen in your lifetime?
	Is the apocalypse, is everything going to melt down?
	Hopefully not.
	I hope that isn't the case.
	But why worry?
	Why have this level of stress?
	The great thing about Wise Foods, you just go, you get it, you put it in the pantry, you don't have to think about it.
	Hopefully everything's going to be okay, but when something terrible does happen, eventually, if it happens, you will be ready.
	You won't have to worry about it at all.
	You just pull out that food, They have these convenient four-serving pouch sizes that virtually eliminate waste.
	They actually have entrees that are ready when you just open it up in the pouch, pour in a little bit of water, and you are good to go.
	It makes being prepared so easy.
	This week, Wise has extended its Black Friday sales event.
	Go to wisefoodstorage.com to take advantage of these offers that only come around once a year, and they've extended it.
	In addition to that, if you text WISE, W-I-S-E, to 29691, you will be sent a $10 coupon code that can be used toward any item on their website.
	No exclusions.
	That is W-I-S-E to 29691.
	And as always, shipping is free for my listeners.
	Text WISE to 29691 for ongoing automated text offers from WISE Company.
	Message and data rates may apply.
	Visit wisefoodstorage.com for privacy and terms.
	Here he is, Jonathan Turley, destroying their arguments.
	What I would caution the committee is that these crimes have meaning.
	It gives me no joy to disagree with my colleagues here.
	And I really don't have a dog in this fight.
	But you can't accuse a president of bribery.
	And then when some of us note that the Supreme Court has rejected your type of boundless interpretation, say, well, it's just impeachment.
	We really don't have to prove the elements.
	That's a favorite mantra that is sort of close enough for jazz.
	This isn't improvisational jazz.
	Close enough is not good enough.
	If you're going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick, because you're trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States.
	Now, it's unfair to accuse someone of a crime, and when others say, well, those interpretations you're using to define the crime are not valid, and to say they don't have to be valid.
	Because this is impeachment.
	That has not been the standard historically.
	This is such a great point, and it shows you the goalposts constantly moving, right?
	They say, the President committed bribery.
	And you go out there and say, no, he really didn't.
	And you can look through the history of ratifying the Constitution.
	You can look through exactly what bribery meant at the time.
	You can look through what bribery means today.
	Nowhere does what President Trump did even come close to any recognizable definition of bribery.
	And the Democrats say, yes, so what?
	So what?
	We're the Congress.
	We can do whatever we want.
	Doesn't matter if he committed bribery.
	You say, okay, that's a legitimate argument to make.
	I mean, it's an illegitimate constitutional argument, but it's a legitimate political argument to make.
	That's fine.
	But then don't pretend you're impeaching him for bribery because you're not, and you're admitting that you're not.
	You're just moving the goalposts.
	By the way, Jonathan Turley, he's not some conservative Republican.
	The guy is a liberal law professor.
	He's a professor at GW. Politico called him a liberal law professor and civil libertarian.
	This guy called for the...
	The prosecution of Bush administration officials for war crimes, okay?
	He's no friend to Republicans.
	He voted against Trump in 2016.
	But even he knows this is bogus and it's totally out of line with historical precedent.
	Jonathan Turley testified during the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
	This guy knows a thing or two about the history of impeachment.
	And he says this is totally out of the historical line.
	My testimony lays out the criminal allegations in the previous impeachments.
	Those were not just proven crimes.
	They were accepted crimes.
	That is, even the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee agreed that Bill Clinton had committed perjury.
	That's on the record.
	And a federal judge later said it was perjury.
	Right.
	That's the history.
	By the way, we haven't used...
	We haven't used impeachment a whole lot, which is why we've got to be very, very careful about this.
	It's only the fourth time we've gone into this with a president.
	We had Andrew Johnson, then Richard Nixon, then Bill Clinton, now Trump.
	No president has ever been removed from office through impeachment because he was impeached and then convicted.
	It has not happened.
	We've got to be very, very careful about this.
	Turley then goes out there and gives the final best line of the whole day.
	He summed up what was really going on.
	They mentioned that President Trump has to be removed because of an abuse of power.
	Turley turns it around and he says there is an abuse of power going on.
	Your abuse of power.
	If you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power.
	It's your abuse of power.
	There it is.
	Your abuse of power, Congress.
	You are abusing your power, your power of impeachment here.
	There is no basis in reality.
	By the way, do you know who would back up Jonathan Turley on this point?
	On pretty much all the points he just made?
	Jerry Nadler.
	Jerry Nadler, the guy who's presiding over the whole Democratic impeachment process.
	Jerry Nadler would back him up, and he actually did back in the 90s when it was Bill Clinton who was being impeached.
	Here's Nadler.
	The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election.
	We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat.
	And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people And of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity.
	There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other.
	Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions.
	The American people have heard all the allegations against the president, and they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him.
	The people elected the president.
	They still support him.
	We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.
	Ding, ding, ding.
	You got it, Jerry.
	You bet.
	Absolutely right.
	I wish that Jerry Nadler...
	Was showing up to preside over the impeachment hearings because that Jerry Nadler had it completely right.
	And the current Jerry Nadler, like all the other hacks in his party trying to impeach him, are making absolutely opposite and specious arguments now.
	We will get to what this means for Joe Biden, big trouble.
	We will get to Justin Trudeau on a hot mic.
	We will even get to a transgender meltdown and the mailbag.
	But first, I got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
	By the way, this weekend...
	In theaters nationwide this Friday, you can go and check out Safe Spaces.
	Friday, December 6th, starring Adam Carolla and Dennis Prager.
	No Safe Spaces is in theaters.
	It's a terrific movie.
	I went to the premiere here in Hollywood.
	You've got to go check it out.
	Adam and Dennis take you on a wild ride to show you the effects of political correctness, identity politics, and cancel culture.
	The film takes you through the impact on college campuses, big tech, and Hollywood.
	No Safe Spaces argues that Free speech is important to a free society.
	It shows you how it's being threatened, what we can do to fight back.
	It is not your typical documentary.
	It is super fun.
	It's got animation.
	It's got recreations.
	It's got a lot of Adam's signature humor to help all of this truth be illuminated.
	It takes you behind the scenes at Shapiro's crazy UC Berkeley tour.
	And if that weren't enough, There's a little cameo from Jeremy Boring, God King, The Daily Wire in there.
	And most importantly of all, I am in the film.
	I am in the film.
	It's a little Easter egg.
	For one moment, you can see me.
	See if you can catch where I am in the movie.
	It is going to be really, really fun.
	So go check it out.
	It's going to be a lot of fun.
	No Safe Spaces rated PG-13 in theaters Friday, December 6th.
	The way that you can go check that out is nosafespaces.com for ticket information and theater locations.
	It's going to be a lot of fun.
	It's a really, really good film, so go check it out.
	You know what you get.
	$10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
	I think we actually just raised prices a little bit, so look, it's worth it, folks.
	We're giving you a whole lot of stuff.
	Me, Ben, Drew, Matt Walsh.
	We've got another kingdom on there, the third and final season.
	We've got the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Dailywire.com will be right back with a lot more.
	Democrats are really bungling this impeachment thing.
	Not just the testimony, but the fact that if this goes to a trial, Joe Biden is going to have to testify.
	Biden's already saying that he won't come to testify, but then they're trying to make the argument that Trump has to go testify, Trump has to cooperate, but Joe Biden, who is a key figure in the whole impeachment probe regarding Ukraine, he says that he won't testify.
	I think when they started impeachment, Democrats were convinced that Biden wasn't going to be their nominee.
	Trouble is, all of the people they thought were going to be their nominees have now fallen apart.
	So it looks like it very well could be Joe Biden.
	If he's the nominee, is this going to be a disaster for them?
	Because they're going to dredge up all of his dirt.
	They're going to dredge up...
	Hunter Biden.
	They're going to dredge up all the corruption that Joe engaged in.
	It could really seriously backfire for Democrats, which is why I think there's a chance they don't even impeach him.
	They don't let it get to that level.
	But it will be a lot of fun if they do.
	On the other side of liberal politics, up in America's hat over in Canada, Justin Trudeau was just caught on a hot mic making fun of the president.
	This doesn't seem like a huge deal, but it actually does tell you something about the world leaders and about Trump.
	Here he is.
	So he says, why is he late?
	Trudeau says he was late because he takes a 40-minute press conference.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	He's talking about Donald Trump.
	He takes a 40-minute press conference.
	I've watched his team's jaws just drop to the floor.
	Ha, ha, ha.
	Chatting with Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron.
	Trump comes out and naturally just slams Justin Trudeau for this.
	Did you have a video of Prime Minister Trudeau talking about you last night?
	Well, he's two-faced.
	Do you think that Germany is too naive?
	And honestly, with Trudeau, he's a nice guy.
	I find him to be a very nice guy.
	But, you know, the truth is that I called him out on the fact that he's not paying 2 percent.
	And I guess he's not very happy about it.
	I mean, you were there, a couple of you were there, and he's not paying 2%, and he should be paying 2%.
	It's Canada, they have money, and they should be paying 2%.
	So I called him out on that, and I'm sure he wasn't happy about it, but that's the way it is.
	Look, I'm representing the U.S., and he should be paying more than he's paying, and he understands that.
	So I can imagine he's not that happy, but that's the way it is.
	Two key aspects here.
	He calls Trudeau two-faced, and he says, look, it's the way it is.
	I represent the U.S. This is why people love Trump.
	This is why people love Trump.
	It's because every politician is two-faced, duplicitous, sniveling, stab you in the back, and Trump will stab you in the front.
	Trump is pretty direct.
	He doesn't hide his disdain for people.
	If they've crossed him.
	He doesn't play nice to their face and then behind their back go and attack them.
	He'll attack them right out in the open.
	Maybe people don't like when he's that combative, that mean, but they do like that he's blunt, that he's honest, that he'll tell you what he means, what you see is what you get.
	And he comes out there and he says, I represent the United States.
	Love me, hate me, I'm telling you where I stand.
	That is a breath of fresh air in politics, and it's manlier, and it's more virtuous.
	I know it's odd to use the word virtue when it comes to a thrice married lapsed Presbyterian, but It is.
	That is a real virtue.
	And the more sort of sniveling leftists try to unseat Trump, I think that that difference...
	It's going to be really, really clear.
	Before we get to the mailbag, I have to mention this crazy story in Olympia, Washington.
	Last month, the city council met and they were scolded, screamed at by transgender activists.
	Even though the city council was paying tribute to them on Trans Remembrance Day, the transgender activists were furious anyway for some reason.
	And one of the activists, a guy named Amy Hart, claimed that the police officers Shouldn't be in the room.
	The very fact that they had police officers there was an offense to transgender people because they, quote, kill trans families and make it unsafe to live.
	Here's the meltdown.
	And you are telling me you're going to light up City Hall to honor black and brown trans women?
	You're going to light up a City Hall that has police, and police are a part of the problem.
	They kill my families.
	They make it unsafe to live.
	I'm a tranny suffering in the conditions you create for us to not live in this city.
	I want to say that I am a person that values hearing out people's pain and talking to their hearts.
	And I feel like the people here at City Hall, they don't do that.
	You fuck with people's hearts.
	You create illusions.
	Point of order, I'm going to ask that you refrain.
	This is broadcast live out in people's homes with families, young families.
	Again, my point is, like, you didn't care what I just said, which proves my point.
	You're not listening to my frustration and pain having to deal with people like you who are worried about what I'm saying instead of, like, or how I'm saying it instead of what I'm saying.
	Obviously this is completely insane.
	They're saying that the cops are targeting transgender people and killing them and making it impossible to live.
	There's just no evidence of this whatsoever.
	This is not true.
	But I'm not going to make fun of these guys or attack them in any way because obviously they've got a couple problems.
	If you're a man who thinks that you're a woman, you've got some things kind of going on in your psychology that mean maybe it's not all quite right.
	Right?
	And how this would traditionally have been dealt with by society is with compassion, with empathy, and saying, okay, they're there.
	It's all right.
	You know, get it out.
	Maybe some therapy.
	Maybe whatever.
	Try to ameliorate the condition.
	Now, however, we treat this, the fantasy, we treat the delusion, we treat the insanity as though it were reality.
	That's the trouble.
	That's very disconcerting for everybody.
	It doesn't help them.
	Look, they've obviously got a lot of psychological turmoil here.
	You would too if you were a man who thought that you were a woman.
	But to indulge all of this means you don't make it any better.
	You just have the fantasies and the delusions become worse and worse and worse.
	And this is true not just on the human, the personal, psychological level.
	This is true socially and politically as well.
	Even when you get to a topic like impeachment, the more you indulge this madness, orange man bad, impeach him at all costs, which Democrats have been saying since before he even took office, That doesn't make things better.
	That doesn't pacify people.
	That doesn't unite people.
	It only gets worse and worse and worse.
	And you have to start believing crazier and crazier things.
	That there's no legal basis for impeachment.
	That the president committed bribery.
	Except even if he didn't commit bribery, it doesn't matter anyway.
	You just have to get crazier and crazier and crazier.
	People don't like that.
	People feel on edge.
	People feel anxious when you do that.
	We prefer order.
	Order is better.
	It makes everyone feel at ease.
	It's the reason why when you get online at a grocery store or something, people will wait in line for 35 minutes.
	But if someone cuts that line, everyone starts to lose their mind because that order is gone.
	There doesn't seem to be any reason, any sense, any logic.
	We are at risk of losing that as a society.
	We need to privilege.
	Reason, logic, order, a measured society, both at the personal level, like people who are screaming and having a fit here at a city council meeting, and at the political and social level.
	Maybe it doesn't mean you get exactly what you want.
	You get to fulfill your personal appetite or desire or your political appetite or desire, but in the long run, that is the only sort of society that we're all going to be able to live in comfortably.
	Let's get to the mailbag in our remaining moments from Alex.
	Dear Michael, history buff of the Daily Wire, a professor of mine recently gave me, gave a talk on the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
	The story cited is used as evidence that the Europeans purposefully spread smallpox among the Native Americans by giving them the blankets of smallpox victims.
	Do you know of any other stories like this, or is it an example of a gross overgeneralization by a left-wing historian?
	Any thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
	Thanks.
	You know, the stories of giving Native Americans smallpox blankets are exaggerated and they only happened in limited circumstances, but it did happen.
	I I mean, during Pontiac's rebellion, right after the French and Indian War, the British did give Native American belligerents smallpox blankets, and I believe it did work.
	I mean, you call it an early form of chemical warfare.
	That's true, but...
	What people leave out of that discussion is the warfare part of it.
	It's not like the Native Americans were sitting there, you know, eating corn on the cob and being very peaceable, and the British came in because they're mean and wanted to wipe them out.
	During Pontiac's rebellion, the Indians killed 2,000 civilians.
	2,000 civilians, men, women, and children.
	And they killed 400 soldiers.
	They were at war.
	And so the British fought back as they could.
	They gave them the diseased blankets and hoped that it would work.
	In some cases, it did work.
	The narrative that the left wants to present of indigenous peoples or any sort of peoples that Europeans engage with as totally peaceful, totally naive.
	They had no idea what war was.
	They had no idea what conflict was.
	It's historically ridiculous, but worse than that, it robs these people of their dignity.
	The Indians had dignity.
	They fought good wars.
	They fought pretty hard.
	They were able to kill 2,000 people in Pontiac's Rebellion.
	2,000 civilians and 400 soldiers.
	And then the British fought back against them.
	This was an actual conflict.
	And to say otherwise, ironically, it dehumanizes the indigenous people and the Native Americans, which is exactly what they accuse the conservatives and the British and the settlers of doing.
	Alright.
	From Brian.
	I would love to hear your thoughts on the Spanish-American War.
	Thanks.
	We could talk about this forever.
	Um...
	It's a very important war that nobody remembers.
	Nobody talks about the Spanish-American War or the War of 1812, a number of wars that get lost, Korean conflict.
	Spanish-American War was very, very important.
	The Spanish-American War set America on the course of empire.
	So we fight the war, we get territories from Spain, Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippines.
	All of a sudden, the U.S. has an empire, an empire that we didn't have before the Spanish-American War.
	Now...
	This had certain bad effects.
	I mean, I guess you could ask, would Fidel Castro have ever risen up in Cuba if Spain had maintained control over it?
	Well, Spain might have lost control at some point.
	How about all the corruption in Puerto Rico right now?
	How about the dictatorship in the Philippines?
	What would the effect be on America if America didn't pursue this imperial ambition?
	I think that's kind of all idle speculation.
	I don't think it's really worth paying attention to Rather than engage in historical what-ifs, just look for the significance.
	The Spanish-American War was incredibly significant, and a lot of our imperial ambitions here can be traced back to...
	A lot of our imperial circumstances can be traced back to that conflict.
	From Aidan, as the resident papist, how do you defend the ideas of purgatory, infant baptism, and the common wafer being used, or being the body of Christ, from the heretical god-king...
	Thanks for the humorous and somewhat informative show.
	Alright, well in our last moments here, you want me to defend the Catholic faith?
	Alright.
	Specifically against my boss who signs my checks.
	Okay, great idea.
	Thanks very much.
	We do it all...
	You know, we engage in religious discussions all the time here because...
	You've got the Protestant God King.
	You've got the lowercase g, lowercase k, by the way, important for this discussion.
	You've got the Anglican, Andrew Klavan.
	You've got the Orthodox Jew, Ben.
	And you have the Papist, me.
	And Matt Walsh, by the way, who's not in L.A., but we talked to him, too.
	Very quickly.
	Purgatory.
	You see purgatory scripturally in 2 Maccabees, where they pray for the dead.
	Why would you pray for the dead if it's already decided where they're going?
	Because there is some sort of purgatorial period in place.
	Matthew 5.
	Christ tells us, The judge will put you into prison until you have paid the last cent, meaning you can get out of this prison, whatever this prison is.
	Matthew 12.
	It describes forgiveness, both in this age and in the age to come.
	But if there's forgiveness in the age to come, that means that there is some sort of purgatory.
	You also see this kind of imagery in 1 Corinthians and in 1 Peter, in the image of the purifying fire.
	Not the punishing fire of hell, but the purifying fire of purgatory.
	Infant baptism.
	We see infant baptism actually a fair bit in Scripture.
	Matthew 19, Christ says, let the children come to me.
	Let the children come to me, not just the adults who can make a statement of faith.
	Luke 18 says, now they were bringing even infants to Christ.
	And then in Colossians, Paul says that baptism has replaced the circumcision.
	Circumcision occurs when you're a little baby.
	Baptism can too.
	And in Acts 16, you see whole households baptized, including the infants.
	It doesn't say whole households were baptized except for people under the age of 15 or something.
	Whole households entirely.
	So there's a lot of evidence for that.
	The Eucharist.
	The wafer as the body and blood of Christ.
	In Luke 22, Christ says, this is my body.
	The bread is my body.
	This is the institution of the Eucharist.
	John 6, Christ says, my body is true food, my flesh is true drink.
	This is a hard saying, by the way, because people run away from him when he says this.
	It's too hard.
	And he says, will you run away from me to Peter?
	And Peter says, To whom shall we go?
	Christ says, I am the bread of life.
	Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
	And of course in Matthew 26 he tells us to do it.
	Take, eat, this is my body.
	The language is so clear, so precise, such an admittedly hard saying that it would seem very clear.
	And then how do we know to interpret scripture in this way rather than in any of the zillion other ways you could?
	Usually the Protestant argument is sola scriptura, that scripture is formally sufficient to our salvation.
	And this is ironically not a scriptural idea.
	You can look in scripture and see that sola scriptura is not sufficient.
	You see it in 2 Thessalonians.
	So you hear, So right there the apostle says, Hold fast to what we've told you by letter, in scripture, in writing, but also what we've told you by word of mouth.
	And that gets to, of course, the institution of the church and the authority of the church, which we see at the Council of Jerusalem and many other places.
	I think that was a three-minute defense of the Catholic faith.
	If the God King doesn't fire me, I'll be back here on Monday.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	See you there.
	If you enjoyed this episode, and frankly, even if you didn't, don't forget to subscribe.
	And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe.
	We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts.
	Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Assistant Director Pavel Wydowski.
	Edited by Danny D'Amico.
	Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
	Nancy Pelosi says the Democrats are going to go ahead and draw up impeachment charges because of whatever the hell they've been talking about this time.
	But wait till you hear who their legal experts are and some of the stuff they believe.
	Seriously, you will not believe it.
	It's on The Andrew Klavan Show.

▲