« The Ben Shapiro Show

Ep. 777 - Nancy, Barr The Door

2019-05-09 | 🔗

Democrats in the Judiciary Committee hold the attorney general in contempt and declare a Constitutional crisis! Date: 5-09-2019

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Democrats in the Judiciary Committee hold the attorney general in contempt and they declare a constitutional crisis, I'm Ben Shapiro. This is, and Shapiro Show and men for being in the middle of a constitutional crisis. It's kind of a nice day, okay outside nobody's killing each other in the streets and some allow civil war happening. I'm not hearing the zombie screaming or anything so pretty pretty calm. Placid constitutional crisis will get to the massive constitutional crisis once you know, I'd seen in just a second, but first it spread
the time of year. One seeds grow into flowers and you grow up financially. At least your family needs protection. If something happens to you, that means you need life insurance. Thankfully, policy genius makes it easy to get that financial security without the growing pains policy genius is the easy way to buy life insurance online. In just two minutes, you can compare, quotes from top insurers and find your best price. Once you apply. The policy genius team will handle all the paperwork in the red tape as well: no commissions, no hidden fees, just financial protection and peace of mind, no strings attached and policy genius doesn't just simplify life insurance. They also do home insurance, auto insurance, disability insurance. So the next time you stop to smell the roses. Pull out your phone head on over to play
policygenius dot com policy. Genius spring is here: kick it off by nipping life insurance in the bud, be irresponsible, human being adult you don't want to leave your family, be wrapped and without any source of monetary revenue. If you should kick the bucket so make sure that you go over the policy genius right now check, it only takes a couple of minutes to get competing rates and then buy yourself, some life insurance and make sure your family is taking care of policygenius dot com, go check it out right now: Policygenius, dot, com, ok, so the big story of the day, the Democrats moving forward with their contempt charges against attorney in general, William BAR now. One of the problems with this contempt charge is that it's really really stupid. So, as David French, the legal analyst at National Review pointed out,
yesterday on our radio show David French pointed out. William Barr originally had no obligation to turn over any of the mole report. He decided to turn over virtually all of the mother report. In fact, when I say virtually all of the model report Jack Crow over at National Review reports that top Democrats now have access to all, but two full and seven partial lines of Miller's obstruction report. He says, as congressional Democrats prepare to hold attorney general, William Barr in contempt over his suppose. A lack of transparency, it's worth remembering, is made available to top Democrats. The entirety of volume, two of the mother report safer to full and seven partial lines which were redacted to protect grand jury secrecy in keeping with federal law in order to provide it. Lawmakers are greater transparency into special counsel. Robert Muller is investigation that, apart We just is placed a less redacted version of his report in a secure room on Capitol Hill and granted. Uh
access to that room to congressional leaders of both parties, as well as the chairman, an ranking members of intelligence and judiciary committees in the House and Senate. As of this writing, not one of these six Democrats granted access to what amounts to ninety nine point: nine percent of volume. Two of the model report which details the presidents behave. As it relates to obstruction of justice, have taken the opportunity to examine it. So just to get this straight, they have now made available to top Democrat the in priority of the mellow report, with the exception of two full full lines in four hundred pages, two full lines and seven partial lines. Not one Democrat has done this and they can. They have the option to do so. If they had, they could have viewed the entirity of mothers, obstruction case against Trump, except for seven reductions, two of which are applied to footnotes in response to bars. Offer congressional democrats have said. The full report should be made available to all lawmakers why they only look at what's there now the reason they won't look at what it's there is because if they look at what's there, then they will have to admit that there
really isn't much. Additionally, that is there that is damaging to the President of the United States. Undoubtedly they say the full report should be made available to all lawmakers. They've argued the outcome will become less likely of top congressman view, the less redacted versions, in other words, if they go and see the less redacted version, they're afraid the argument will be taken away from them. That bar is being non transparent. Well, that's because bar is actually not being non transparent, he's being quite transparent here Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee told John Mccormick every member Congress ought to be able to see that version. I think if I were to go you less in the case, but democratic leaders are not asking for that version which retains the grand jury reactions, they're asking for a fully unredacted report and all of the millions pages of underlying documentary evidence which relate to twenty two go in criminal investigations. Now, as I mentioned yesterday, it is against the law for William Barr to actually comply with the subpoena request federal rule of criminal procedure. Sixty
prevent the disclosure of grand jury, information, federal rule of criminal procedure. Six e is not unclear about this. In fact, it's quite clear about this. It says that you are not allowed to reveal all of this stuff. You cannot do that because, if you do, you could be exposing to both criticism and censure people on the basis of non eh. Theories that are often put out their grand jury. Testimony according to rule 6e secrecy must be the rule of the What's once a grand jury is summoned, you are not allowed to put out the information that is said in the grand jury summons. You can't do that. So this is ridiculous. Basically, the Democrats, the Congress created rule Sixty K, rule sixty is a congress. Congressionally created rule
The fact that Democrats are now saying that William BAR should be held in contempt. Four obeying the law is pretty insane. According to rule six e, no obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person, except in accordance with rule six e to be unless these rules provide. Otherwise the following persons must not disclose that are occuring before the grand jury, a grand juror, an interpreter Accor Report or an operator of a recording device. A person who transcribes recorded testimony an attorney for the government not allowed to disclose Matter, occurring before the grand jury disclose measure of a grand jury matter, maybe only to an attorney for the government for use in performing the attorneys Judy. Any government personnel that an attorney for the government can.
It is necessary to assist in performing that attorney's duty to enforce federal criminal law, which does not apply to Congress or a person authorized by a different section of statute which does not apply to Congress. There's no question that bars. Interpretation of this rule is correct. Nonetheless, Democrats are attempting to hold him in contempt for what exactly, as I said yesterday, the assistance, attorney General Stephen Boyd. He says, as we've repeatedly explained, the attorney general could not comply with your subpoena in its current form, without violating the law, court rules and court orders and without threatening the independence of the Department of Justice is prosecutorial functions. White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said face with german Nadler's blatant abuse of power and at the attorney general's request, the president has no option. No other option then make a protective assertion of executive privilege, and so there are two issues here: one is by right to reject material. The answer is yes, two is whether executive privilege applies here. The answer there is
We know the answer there is that executive privilege doesn't really apply formally in law and it's more of a delay tactic, because bar is right about the federal rules but executive privilege likely does not apply here. As we discussed yesterday, there are two types of executive privilege, deliberative process, privilege and communications privilege, both types of privilege to create a presumption of privilege for the president that presumption can be overruled by a court and it's awkward to fit any of this into the privilege box. That's particularly true since William Barr has openly said adjusted that executive privilege was not declared by the president. So if executive privilege wasn't declared over any of the mole report before it's hard to then put that Genie back in the bottle and suggest that exec privilege can be declared? I mean William Barr said this this back in April, when he first gave his four page synopsis. Here
William are saying the President has not declared checking of privilege of all the stuff. Now I guess he's saying that he's going to go back in now declare retroactive executive privilege, I'm not sure that that works. The decision, whether to assert executive privilege over any portion of the report rested with the president of the United States. Significant portions of the report contain material over which the president could have asserted privilege.
And he would have been well within his rights to do so. Following my march twenty ninth letter, the office of the White House counsel, requested the opportunity to review the redacted version of the report. Following that review, the president confirmed that, in the interest of transparency and full disclosure to the american people, he would not assert privilege over the special counsel's report. No material has been redacted based on executive privilege, okay self yeah. The fact that that William Barr did not declare executive privilege before means it's very difficult for him to clear, executive privilege now, but that's a different question from whether he is doing
something that is illegal or obstructive. The answer there is no, he is trying to protect himself from violating federal criminal law. The Democrats, of course, have jumped in this. They manufactured this entire crisis. They couldn't get what they wanted from the molar report, so now they're trying to create a presumption of new obstruction. So the model report does not actually result in criminal prosecution of the President of the United States for obstruction of justice, and so Democrats are trying to now suggest. Well, there's no obstruction occurring. Is nonsense, but this is what Democrats are going to push forward with Nancy Poulos. He says you know what we have to hold William BAR in contempt for what well, because he had and given us the material that he's given us that I can look at in conjunction with federal law. Here's Nancy Pelosi making this foolish and dishonest case. Yes, I think that the attorney general should be held in contempt. This contempt is about the withholding of Muller Report in an unredacted way. We all agree that certain things should be redone,
but they were in the course of accommodations and bomb the administration just said: if you don't, you know we're going to make this executive privilege more on the seventh. Then you ever want to know yes should be held in contempt, okay, so this, of course, is a completely manufactured crisis. Nonetheless, Democrats are looking for a manufactured crisis, so they can suggest that Trump is breaking all the institutional rules. They have this theory. Their theory is that Trump was gonna. Come into government with a wrecking bar basically, and then he was going to destroy the use going to destroy all the institutions of government that has not happened. Meanwhile, Democrats have declared that the Senate of the United States should be abolished. The supreme Court should be packed that we
did change all the voter id laws that the electoral college should be abolished and that they should be able to override any congressional action with an executive order. Effectively. Democrats have declared all of these things, but it's Donald Trump was a threat to the institutional integrity of the United States. So to build that case, they want to say that right now, Trump is engaged in some sort of usurpation of authority that threatens the constitutional structure was, will see in a second. This is sheer an absolute. Contents will we'll get to that, but first we need to talk about how you hire better. Yet the reality is that you're always trying to make your hiring better
and the only way to do that release use a broker, hiring used to be hard, multiple job sites, stacks of resumes, confusing review process today hiring can be easy. You only have to go to one place to get it done. Ziprecruiter, dot, com, slash Daily Wire Ziprecruiter, send your job to over one hundred of the web's leading job boards, but they don't stop there with a powerful matching technology, zip rigorous against thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then invites them to apply to your job as applications come in Ziprecruiter analyzes, each one and spotlights the top candidates. So you never miss a great match zipper. Her is so effective when four out of five employers, who posed as a broker, get a quality candidate through the site within the very first day right now, my listeners
try as a broker for free at this exclusive web address, zip, recruiter, dot com, slash daily wire, that is, it recruiter at dot com, slash a daily wired g, a I L Y W. I r e ziprecruiter dot com, slash a daily wears. A broker is indeed the smartest way to hire, go check them out as a broker dot com, slash daily, where you tried out for free okay, so Democrats have declared constitutional crisis. Jerry Naylor, who I am old enough to remember when Jerry Nadler was saying that it was not a constitutional crisis when Bill Clinton was overtly obstructing justice. Also, this is the same. Jerry Taylor who so you actually walked out, wanna contempt. Vote on Eric holder, who, it turned out, had not actually turned over all the documents that William Barr has and was not paying federal rules of criminal law, the way that William Barr is, but here
is Jerry. Nadler said no. No. This is a constitutional crisis. The head of the House Judiciary Committee. We kind of have a government where all the information is in the executive branch, where the american people and the Congress are stonewalled. This information that they to to make decisions and to know what's going on its attack on the on the ability of the american people to know what the executive branch is doing and to have responsible government? It is an attack on the essence of our democracy, and we must oppose this with every fiber of our being. We've talked for a long time, approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it. Okay, this is an absurdity on top of an absurdity. He's standing there saying that they don't have the information that they're being blocked from the information I will not go see the information that has been revealed to them. The entire Miller report has been made public even parts that are rejected. The vast majority of those reactions are available to Jerry Nadler personally and he's standing there. Claiming that he's been.
Block from seeing relevant information. It's just nonsense, but this is what Democrats are going to push there and all day on CNN, this being parroted constitutional crisis, constitutional crisis, Sheila Jackson, Lee saying the President is taking a wrecking ball to the constitution of the United States, Sheila Jackson Lee. I can only conclude that the president now seeks to take a wrecking ball through the constitution of the United States. America, okay, jot a representative giant Paul, says this is one of the most serious constitutional moment we've ever faced ever ever. One was here is cut really I'm with the some pretty serious constitutional moments like after trying to pack the Supreme Court or maybe like a civil war in the United States, or even Rock Obama, attempting to simply go around the law to shape his immigration. Views by DR so this one most serious constitutional moments in american history, because they have access to report that they
you're lying and say they don't have access to. I really think that this is one of the most serious, if not the most serious constitutional moment that we have faced. We are at a deeply disturbing moment in our country's history. The difference between dictatorship in a democracy is at a democracy, has checks and balances. If you take away the entire authority and say one branch is not going to respect the authority of the other, then I think we every American should be deeply concerned that last state is simply hilarious. She says, if you take away the checks and balances by saying that one branch doesn't have to respect the other branch, then we won't have checks and balances anymore, know a check and a balance is the executive also checking and balancing the legislature? Let's talk about checks and balances for a second, so in federalist, fifty one, the founders focused on the fact that checks and balances meant there would be gridlock in meant the government would be messy. It meant
Ambition. Ambition would check ambition, Federalist fifty one, probably most famous of the Federalist papers, because it has one of the great expressions of of governmental philosophy in human history is a ambition. This is Hamilton and Madison ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interests of the man must be connected with the constitutional right to the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary if angels, the government, neither external or internal government, would be necessary in framing a government which is to be by men over men. The great difficulty lies in this. You must first enable the government to control the government, the governed and in the next place, obliged to control it. So in other words, if people were inherently good, you don't need government. If people were inherently bad, there would be no way to control them, but because people are capable of both good and bad, you need people to check each other, and that is why there are
and balances. What we are watching here is the proper exercise of those checks and balances. Federalist. Fifty one talked about the fact that the legislature is extraordinarily powerful, but that needs to be checked by the abilities of the executive. They say that you need a powerful executive, an executive, powerful enough to be able to check the legislature. The legislature has its own independent investigative powers so when they say that all of the information in grand jury proceedings pursued by the Can branch should be open in violation of the federal rules of criminal law to the Congress? What they're really doing is manufacturing a crisis then declaring the President Trump is a dictator for exercising his normal powers. They'll get executive privilege is not properly applied here, but the fact that this is even an issue in the first place is truly. They kill us, hey, Adam Schiff is going around saying yeah a guy who spent two years proclaiming that he had secret information showing the President Trump was actually a russian stooge that damned Bleier Adam Schiff.
Here's it hear the going around saying. Well, you know now we're going to prosecute people because of this constitutional crisis. Okay, you go ahead and do that and then the executive branch will do anything about it, because let's say that Congress held William Barton and contents. The only way for that to result in a conviction is for the executive branch to prosecute William Barr. Yes, is the head of the Department of Justice, William Barr, so that is the thing. That's not going to happen if Congress once they can impeach him. They impeach, William Barr, for following the law and giving Congress all the information that he can legally give them That is an absurdity piled on top of a certainty: here's Adam Schiff and truly dishonest human being. If the administration continues this across the board refusal to comply with any legal process from the Congress, any oversight by the Congress, then we have no choice that we're going to have to prosecute this through a contempt we're moving forward and our own committee, because we have a separate basis.
For getting all the counter intelligence information in the report. The underlying documents but they're equally stonewalling us so no that is none of that is true is hilarious that the media will continue to parrot this nonsense. President Trump is exactly right here when he says that the fake news will say that Trump wants to break constitution is exactly right here. The did a rally last night in Florida, here's one of the things that he said, those people back there. I call them the takers take they are a bunch of fakers. There's no question about, but you know so in six years there are business folks watch to the B headlines tomorrow headlines tomorrow, Donald Trump Break Constitution; okay, so that he is right. That's what the media do now. I will point out in Nancy Pelosi who is saying that we have to hold William Barr in contempt. Here's what nanny
People OC said when Eric holder, the former attorney general, was held in contempt for failing to turn over one thousand three hundred pages of subpoena documents on file in various and there's no internal investigation, made public to Congress at that time. Here is Nancy Pelosi. Just a few years ago, talking about the vote to hold attorney general holder in contempt. What we have seen is a shameful display of abuse of power by the Republicans in the House of Representatives. Instead of bringing job creating creating of legislation to the floor, the transportation bill are, they are holding the attorney general of the United States in contempt of Congress for doing his job. These very same people are holding in the content, Are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote? Okay, that's that's what's happening here is that they are going after Eric holder to suppress the vote or something I mean is it doesn't answer blows? He said years ago about Congress
holding an attorney general in contempt. Now she wants to William Byron contempt for doing nothing. It's amazing. Here's Jay Carney, the former spokesman for the White House under Barack Obama, saying that the attempt to hold Eric holder in contempt was just political theater. I think speaker of the house is made his position pretty clear on this it's highly political in nature. What you're hearing from me is the are the views of the president and the White House administration that this is a political theater. It is a rich enough, unnecessary distraction from the work that and we should be doing, for the american people on the economy and jobs and yeah. I think many Americans, most Americans will view it that way. Okay, so again, it's hilarious to watch as the Democrats shift their stance on this dramatically in order to go after a guy who is significantly less guilty of anything that Eric holder, the press,
It self described wing man was at the time speaking of crimes. The Democrats are willing to ignore representative Kim Jeffries of New York. He came out yesterday and he said that the big problem in this hole in this whole thing one of the big problems- is that President Trump has embarrassed Peter struck and LISA page. Those were the Paramore FBI. Agent who were manipulating the process in both the Hillary investigation and the Trump investigation? Not according to me, according to the inspector general of the Doj, Michael Horowitz, here's representative Jeffrey saying you know we really should let struck in page off the hook. So, let's get this straight according to Hakeem, Jeffries and folks, like him, Democrat Peter, struck and LISA page who openly texted each other about insurance plans against Trump becoming president
and about how terrible trump was well investigating trump. Those people just made mistakes and trump is mean for embarrassing them, but William Barr who's handed over. All the materials he can legally hand over he's a bad guy. We shouldn't page many of my colleagues on the other side, real, actually perpetrated a witch hunt, as it relates to securing more than eight hundred thousand documents from this very same department of Justice without regard to the reputational interests of Americans who have served this country, you aren't concerned with the reputational interests of Peter struck and LISA page which, in fact, you embarrassed those two ok, so we made mistakes, but you embarrassed oh wow, you embarrass them so terrible. I mean it's very bad. To embarrass Peter, struck and LISA page who are affectively fired under under Audi circumstance and then condemned by the ig, that's bad, but Eric holder, but but
rather William Barr should be held in contempt, pretty amazing stuff in a second we'll get to the latest. Attempts to railroad president Trump to kind of box him into a corner with more scandal, Inven
situations we'll get to that in a second first, we're never going to agree on everything, but I think we can all agree that we could use more sleep getting a great night. Sleep is easier, more affordable than you think you don't need a new, expensive, mattress or sleeping pills. You just need to change your sheets. That's why you should check out bollandbranch everything. Bowling branch makes from bedding blankets made from pure one hundred percent organic cotton. It means they start out supersoft they get even softer overtime. You buy directly from them, so you're, essentially paying wholesale prices. I know you think you can just get sheets off the shelf and the thread count will tell you everything. You need to know not true. What you need are luxury sheets, that don't cost luxury prices, and this is where Bolin Branch it comes in the sheets can cost up to one thousand dollars in the store sheets. Like this bowling branch sheets, just a couple one hundred dollars, everyone who tries bowling branch sheets loves them. That's why they have thousands of five star views. Really, I didn't think I'd feel the difference, and then I tried bowling branch sheets an I really do, they're so comfortable. Three former US presidents, sleep on
branch treats shipping is free. You can try them for thirty nights, you don't love them so in the back for a refund, but you're not going to want to in fact they're so good. I got rid of all the other shoe to my house in only Hubble and branch. At this point to get you started right now. My listeners get fifty bucks off your first set of sheets at ball and branch dot com promo code then go to book bowl and branch dot com. Today, thank must have a first edition, says: b, O L, l and branch dot com, promo code, bend, bowline branch, dot, com, promo code, then okay. So meanwhile, the the attempts to go after President Trump for or scandals continues, even though there's really not a lot of evidence of scandal. So, for example, New York Times today is going after President Trump over his tax returns again this time, based on the New York Times, reports suggesting he lost a lot of money in the 1980s and early 1990s. The editorial board says President Trump. Is the american people a fuller account of his financial dealings, including the release of his recent tax returns, because politicians should keep their promises because the public deserves to know whether his policies are lining his pockets and because the int
Angry of our system of government requires everyone, particularly the president, told Laidlaw. Here's the question, the IRS audits people they do if they think President Trump is committing a crime, wouldn't the I errors be looking into auditing him and he says he's under on it. Maybe he's lying, but the IRS has the capacity to prosecute tax fraud. As a private citizen is still tax fraud. Has there been any indication that Trump has committed a crime it will that we keep hearing rumors of crime, but the IRS audits people all the time and then works with the Department of Justice to prosecute people on a regular basis. Apparently, in your times just once his tax returns to humiliate him, we all know really why President Trump is not releasing his tax returns. Ok, the real reason president Trump is not releasing. His tax returns is because those tax returns are going to say that he's not as rich as he says he is That's why it's the reason why he was embarrassed by that store a little bit earlier this week that he lost like a one million dollars in the he's in early 90s.
He's the only one I think who cares about this may be. The New York Times cares about it too. I had always assumed he was not worth nearly as much money as he said that he was I always thought he was lying about his level of wealth. That's what he does he's a showman he's a bloviator he's been doing it on tv for years, he's a guy who gets himself posed on the cover of playboy. Like that's what Donald Trump is. This is part of the package: either love the package or you hate the package or your indifference of the package and you care about the policies. But the New York Times trying to gin up some sort of scandal by declaring a scandal when there is none, is pretty amazing. Remember that Harry Reid did the same thing to Mitt. Romney suggested that Mitt Romney had committed some sort of tax fraud that he never paid any taxes and then it turned out. Mitt Romney had paid a higher effective tax rate and a lot of Americans and was giving a full ten percent of everything he made like millions and millions of dollars, but this is a typical tactic at this point they say. Well, you know Mr Trump might hold money in foreign tax havens. Those investments would be listed. What, if Trump deducted the interest payments on a loan from his taxable income,
should be required to disclose information about the source and amount of alone. It's another. Just speculating about what exactly is in his tax returns now I think his tax returns should be released. I like more information about our politicians. I think that's a good thing, but the attempt to speculate about what is in the tax returns. I don't really see the moral difference between this and the push back. When Barack Obama was president suggesting that Obama's reluctance to release his birth certificate meant, he was born in Kenya, and speculation on the base of lack of information is now actually information. It's just speculation and very often it's stupid speculation. One thing I think we can fairly clearly say is: there is no evidence that Trump is committed, a tax crime.
It said that, like yours, in your tent, is the editorial board of the New York Times. The returns also could help to clarify whether Mr Trump continues to cheat on his taxes. We have an entire service is called the Internal Revenue service that does this sort of stuff. It's for a pretty incredible, but I guess that they they're sort of relegated to trying to dig up crimes, because the model report did not give Democrats precisely what they wanted. Meanwhile, the Senate Intelligence Committee's Subpoena Donald Trump Junior according to the Associated Press, the Senate Intelligence Committee has subpoenaed Trump by calling him in to answer questions. About his two thousand and seventeen testimony to the panel as part of its probe into russian election interference, that's according to two people, familiar with the subpoena who discussed it on condition of anonymity. Unclear from Junior will comply with subpoena? A person close to the president's eldest son said Wednesday, his continued to cooperate, producing documents and answering written questions. The person called the new request, a public relations stunt and critic,
size in North Carolina republican Senator Richard Burr for calling Donald Trump Junior in. The committee had renewed interest in talking to Trump Junior after Michael Cohen, testified earlier, Jericho and had told the House Committee. In February he briefed Trump Junior, approximately ten times about a plan to build a Trump tower in Moscow before the presidential election. From a lawyerly perspective, Trump Junior would be a fool to appear in front of the committee again after all of this, Nonetheless, the idea that this is some sort of nefarious action by Richard Burr, I find hard to believe the Senate. Intel committee has been in getting russian election interference for the last two years, they're trying to call in a bunch of witness witnesses, they wind up their own investigation over the next several months? The subpoena does put bird at odds with some of his republican colleagues would like this to be over after the molar report. Rand Paul took a shot at Senator Burr after
subpoena was reported tweeting. Apparently the republican chair of the Senate, Intel Committee didn't get the memo from the majority leader that this case was closed. I really doubt that that Trump Junior complied with the subpoena if they hold him in contempt. He probably figures. Ok, whatever who exactly cares? Meanwhile, Democrats are neglecting the fact that Trump is still trump and that if they want to be trump they're going to have to run against candidate trump now, this would be an epic time for a good trump bad from episode. I know we haven't had good trump at Trump Episode, really since campaign two thousand and sixteen, but as we enter campaign, two thousand and twenty we're going to have to revive the good Trump bad Trump access through which we see the president of the United States. We even had a theme song going back a few years for good trump bad from which we will have to dig up and use in the future should tell my producers to do it earlier. In any case, today's episode of good Trump bad Trump Trump did a rally in Florida, and at that rally he
some good things, and at that rally he said some not good things, and we will talk about those things coming up in just one second, first running a small business is a lot of work. It takes time and money. You want all the time and money you have to sort of growing your business. But what happens when legal heard pop up along the way. Legalzoom is there to help nearly two million Americans have used Legalzoom to start their businesses with LL, CS, incorporation and more, but even after your business is set up. Legalzoom can still help you out things like lease agreements, changing tax laws, contract reviews. All of these are part of running your own business, precisely the kinds of costly hurdles that can take time away from growing your business. That's why Legalzoom created their business legal plan and get advice for running your business from vetted independence, attorneys and tax professionals available in all fifty states. I know legal, it's a giant pain in the rear, but this is why Legalzoom is so important. The best part of this you won't get charged by the hour, because Legalzoom is not a law firm make your time only work for you check out Legalzoom's business legal plan at Legalzoom, dot com right now get special savings when you enter Ben at checkout, Legalzoom is where life meets
Legalzoom, dot com, Legalzoom myself. For years as a lawyer, I am constantly looking for ways to save money on legal cost. Legalzoom is one way to do it, go check out their business legal plan right now at Legalzoom dot com and enter code Ben at checkout for special savings. Okay, we're going to get to good from bad from in just a second plus raising spectacle as students in Cala Rado walk out of what turns into a propaganda rally on behalf of gun control after school. Shooting answer all that stuff in just a second first you're going to have to go over to dailywire dot com and subscribe over today there dot com, nine hundred and ninety nine a month means you get a subscription. That means two additional hours of me every day and that we have all sorts of fantastic guests, or on every single day and two additional Hours of my analysis, as the news develops over the course of the day, so basically this shows like in all day show, and you get constant access to but when you go to dailywire dot com plus we have our Sunday specials available on Saturday plus we have daily wear backstage. We can ask questions plus we have the conversation where you can ask me personally questions plus some
times now increasingly rare occasions, but sometimes we answer questions during the breaks of the radio show all three minutes of those breaks, so you get all sorts of goodies when you become a subscriber. Also, you help us insure ourselves against the vicissitudes of many of our social media. Betters you get all that stuff when you become a daily wire subscriber and when you spend ninety nine dollars a year, you get this the very greatest in beverage vessels behold its glory, but leftist ears, hot or cold tumblr, and get that to show to all of your leftist friends and then you get to collect their tears in a constant. Never ending supply go check. All of that out right now. Please subscribe it Youtube and Itunes
as well. We always appreciate it. We're the largest fastest growing concern a podcast and radio show in the nation uhhuh already. So let's talk about this in this Trump rally last night, so at the Trump rally last night he showed his strength. He showed his weakness. Trump is a man in full, so the President of the United States, he made a good point when it comes to you. Illegal immigration is unlock when it comes to illegal immigration. There's someone who takes it seriously, namely Maine, and then there are Democrats who do not the Democrats don't want to all. I do that's a pretty clear contrast. So now we need Democrats in Congress to work with us to pass an acceptable bill. We're getting close, it's pretty tough dealing with, but they don't want to build a wall but we're building the wall. They don't want to do a lot of other things. Ok, now, with a crisis on the border that even the Democrats are big
but now is the crisis on the border and knowledge openly by the New York Times. Editorial board Trump has a leg to stand on right here, and the fact that Democrats continued to to stymie him when it comes to enforcement of the border is definitely a point against them, and Trump is correct by the way that, among the Democrats, there are certain candidates are not exactly going to be imposing to art to two people with whom they negotiate. Peabody judge is the one that that Trump decides to pick on right here. Now. That is not a rip on Mayor PETE's military experience, which indeed is more than I've done more than Trump is done more than most people have done, but it is to pick on his persona, which is that he is going to concede to foreign adversaries when it comes to negotiate, because his worldview is in line with that. Here is trump on booty judge whose image is sort of as a european style european Style leader judge, who edge edge, they say edge edge,
he's got a great chance says it'll, be great he'll, be great, representing us against president. She of China that'll be great that'll, be great. Want to be in that room. I want to watch that one okay from socialized obviously he's a tough negotiator and he has apparently been holding trying to speak to the fire yeah in the Trump contact like that. There there's something in Trump. Has an unerring instinct for sticking the knife in the change in people's armor right. He he just he does it is. It is what he is is great at, and that is why he is a dangerous candidate in a binary race. President Trump has a he's. He's like an insult medium is like trying the end insult comic dog right, he's really good at tearing people down. So all of that is good from when it comes to campaigning and then there's bad from and might might estimates producers for bad from have already found
the song I referenced earlier, the good from bad from jungle. Let's play it sure sure which one will begin well. The answer is both, so you got President Trump on the trail in Florida, promoting immigration plan, and then we got president from doing that is the problem of being an insult comic, sometimes you're so eager to play to the crowd that you end up giving credence and credibility to people who do not deserve it. So here's the president last night talking about border patrol and talking border patrol has to treat people humanely and then somebody says something bad and then President Trump turns it into a joke. Sort of this is not good. Now again, there are a lot of
people today we're going to point out the media are overplaying their hand on this one. That is true. They are overplaying their hand on this. One with that said, is this good? No, it's not here is the president of the United States last night badly criticized for using the word invasion. It's an invasion and it's also an invasion of drugs coming in from Mexico. Ok! But how do you stop these people? You can't there That's only in the panhandle. You can get away with that state. Ok! So what happened is how do you stop these people and somebody shouted you shoot them and then Trump jokes? Well only in the Panhandle. Could you get away with that? Well right before that? It's not in that clip right before that. He says: don't forget we don't let them and we can't let them use weapons. He talks about border agents. We can't other countries. Do we can't? I would never do that, but how do
stop these people and then somebody shouted shoot them, and then he and then he made a joke that you can only say that in the Panhandle you know he said in the Panhandle now here is the This is another sort of classic example of how President Trump in his effort to joke or in his effort to avoid in a in an effort to please the crowd in front of him end up getting giving credibility to bad positions. It does this fairly frequently like he's speaking to a crowd of cops, I think a couple of years ago, when he started talk, about. You know it be great. If you could just rough these people obviously can't, but it be great. If it were me, I would just let your rough rough, these guys up in the back of a van as effectively what he said, and he was joking because he's trying to please the crowd and people said correctly. You're the president of the United States, you shouldn't be praising people for roughing people up right. Do you? You are not an insult comic and factor the president of the United States. Will this one falls under the words of the president of the United States Matter, even though we all sort of discount them, because we know who he is so many. Of course I play
in this up all the way suggesting the President Trump actually is in favor of shooting immigrants, even though he specifically said that he would not do that. He doesn't like that, and then he made a joke to somebody, because this is what he does. He text jokes, so this one falls under bad right now. I know there are a lot of trump fans say. Well, it's not bad trump. That's just people who are I don't be too serious people who are deciding to take him to literally again I hold him the same standard out hold any other president. I understand I don't take him seriously when he does these sorts of things. I would a Barack Obama or George W Bush, because that's not who he is as a personality is a good that the President of the United States is turning, should should illegal immigrants into a joke in line on the campaign trail. No, it's not even if he is explicitly saying that he is against the doing that, and this sort of falls under the same category to a certain extent, is sort of the Charlottesville. Second take right original
Donald trumps. Take on Charlottesville was that he condemns everybody. You said there is. There is all sorts of bad stuff happening on all sides. Those his original take any didn't, specifically single out what you promised and then he is revised. Take he said I can I'm fully the NEO Nazis. I condemn fully the white supremacist, but there were people who are marching who are good people because they were good people on both sides unnecessary. Pandering to the crowd. A mistake is that's the problem of good from bad from so Trump, please, the crowd in front of him, sometimes at the expense of the crowd beyond the camera, and this is going to give Democrats some room to run when he really did not have to do so. So this is the this is what Democrat Democrats have some material to work with when it comes to President Trump. Obviously, the fact that they're focusing on scandal suggests they don't think that he's quite as vulnerable as they say that he that, as they say, they believe he is,
which is kind of amazing, it's kind of amazing art. Meanwhile, in a in a terrible story, obviously over last couple days, there's a school shooting that happened in Highlands, Ranch Colorado according to the New York Times last month, is the twentieth anniversary of the Columbine High school shooting approach. Stem school highlands, ranch joined, hundreds of schools near Denver, enclosing temporarily mid to cure any concerns. Brown Tuesday afternoon, the stem the school's worst fears were realized when nine of its students were shot. One fatally to fellow students were being held, as suspect. We know to individuals walked into the stem school that deep inside the school engage students in two separate locations according to share of Tony Spurlock of the Ellis County at six hundred and forty five p dot m about five hours after the shooting, the Douglas County Sheriff's office, released a statement confirming and one of the nine have been shot in eighteen year, old man had died late Tuesday night, the sheriff's office identified one of the suspect, but that would provide no further information about him. I don't mention the name of mass shooters on the show
is what we still have interviews to conduct and we want to make sure we have the most accurate information. So obviously another horrific mass shooting at a school apparently hand guns were used in the shooting, and apparently the person responsible at least one of the two suspects responsible is a person who leaned politically left. The reason I mention this is because the media always making about the politics of the suspect, as opposed to the full of the suspect. Apparently he this person and set on social media that he hated Christians specifically for their teachings on homosexuality, and apparently he hated President Trump as well. He shared video of Seth Meyers. I doubt we are we're. Gonna get a lot of talk about Seth Meyers inciting violence, I'm, but apparently this is what this this human piece of debris dead and now, all of this broke out into the open yesterday, not just because of the shooting, but because of the reaction to the shooting. So the reaction to the shooting was pretty amazing. Naturally left immediately made it about gun control, because
whenever there is a mass shooting that is carried not by a white supremacist, then it's about gun control. So if a white supremacist commits mass shooting it's about the evils of conservatism, which is conflated with white supremacy in the left mind and when it is a school shooting committed by somebody who is not a white supremacist and it's not about ideology or incitement at all, then it becomes about guns. Well, at this resulted in last night was there is a candle light vigil and one of the people who showed up to the candle light vigil. Was an activist for moms demand, action and democratic, Congressman democratic, Senator, Michael Bennett and democratic congressman, Jason, Crow addressed the crowd and they started calling for gun control and many of the kids walked out. There is one of the
Then, who was speaking? She was from mom's demands, action and calling for gun control. We became paralyzed by the NRA. We did not hold our elected officials accountable, as they were, loosening the sensible gun regulations that we're keeping us safe. Instead, we chose to burden our youth with the responsibility of saving their own, five, we forced all of you to learn in an environment. That's more closely resembling a prison than a school. None of this is right. We robbed you of your innocence. She did all of this. This this woman from moms demand action and a bunch of the student said no you're not going to use our grief as a platform for your political agenda, and so they walked. So here is, and some video and audio of them, walking out the auditorium as you'll hear they. These
start chancing mental health, because apparently this person had mental health history. There's all the students leading this thing. Listen we're not doing this good for the students good for the students, because this sort of stuff is used as a platform. All too often not to look not to look at the actual problems in in the specific shooting, but to look at problems that the left would like to place on the shoulders of a fact pattern that doesn't actually obtain. And one of the students said what happened at stem is awful, but it's not a statistic. We can't be used as a reason gun control where people not a statement. Speaking of the loan fatality eighteen year old, Kendrick Castillo, who apparently was a hero who charged one of the gunmen and Do not, and we want to convert to be more. We want all of you to join us in that morning, but that was not allowed here. We all walked out. We were not kicked out. The video
was organized by team enough wood for the student branch of Gun Control Group, the Brady campaign, the kids chance, a mental health health and they yelled at the media, because the media frankly deserve it. The students return, some of them took the microphone saying. Their grief is being used for political purposes, good for them good for them, because I say The media always have narratives. They want to draw from these shootings, and invariably those narratives are near. They have been pushing in the absence of the shooting, if there's a shooting that handguns, it turns into a discussion about banning assault weapons and, if there's a shooting, that's really about the mental health of the suspect and turns into a discussion about gun control, and if it's a shooting that is about it, that is about white supremacism, then they talk about the ideology. And not the guns. So it's always a shifting. It's always a shifting mode. It always shifting mode, and it's pretty great- of the students to have the intellectual wherewithal and the intestinal fortitude to walk out of something like this and say.
If we're going to have it, let's hold a vigil if we're going to be in solidarity, let's be in solidarity, but I'm not going to allow politicians to carve us up based on political political considerations. Nicholas Kristof was doing exactly that in the pages of the New York Times today is a piece today titled we have two dead young heroes. It's time to stand up to guns. He politicians, fearful of the National Rifle Association of allowed the gun lobby, run amok so that America now has more guns than people, but there is still true heroism out there in the face of gun violence, students who rush shoot, Is the risk of their own lives? Let's all and more, in student in Kendrick, Castillo, eighteen, just days away from graduate that stem academy according to another stew, Kendrick lunged at him, he shot Kendrick, giving all of us enough time to get underneath our desks to get safe and run across the room to escape at least three boys in the class, one of them Brendan B, who hopes to become a marine tackled and disarm the gunmen Raval as well to the police officers who arrived within two minutes of the shooting, the courage of those students,
goes last week's bravery of Riley Howell, a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Riley, twenty one charged them in there and continued, even as he was shot twice as he tackled the gunman who shot a third time in the head and killed, but he ended the shooting Riley does it was get was just really given a hero's funeral. Presumably the same will happen with Kendra but their parents. In one martyrs they wanted children grandchildren. Children is appalling that we, as a society, have abandoned american kids. That we must to save their classmates? So this is the this is again just the General gun control argument. No, no attempt to get in touch with the families by the way of these heroes and ask how they felt about gun control, where the students were under fire and ask how they felt
about gun control, or even to look at the actual studies on gun control and see whether gun control would be effective in stopping mass shootings like this. The generalized answer is now. Nonetheless, the left pushes for this sort of stuff- and you know as somebody who, in the last several weeks has been the victim of at least at some death threats, bad enough that end with an F b. I arrests. All I can say is that our proper, so Lucien was you up security and for me to carry a gun as much as I legally can, and I think that there should be more armed officers in the schools but good for again good on the students for doing the right thing and and not caving to the media, push by the way. It is a media, push that says that that some of the students were yelling at the media. Maybe they were yelling at the media because you got bolts like Chris Cuomo, who are who are basically using their platforms, as quote unquote, objective journalist to push gun control
here is Chris Cuomo on CNN being very objective in very journalism ic here he is these conversations you've. How many of you heard how many families like that we're going to have an argument for you tonight that shouldn't have to be made twenty years after Columbine, and we all know it- we've got a face, the reality, that's what these moments call for. If nothing else can't run you gotta be like Riley, you gotta be like Kendrick. You got one of the problem got to run the problem. He would run at the problems. Obviously, to do exactly what Chris Cuomo says. You should do politically at the federal level. By the way, we should recall Columbine that he's mentioning there. Nineteen ninety nine you know is in place of that time. The federal assault, weapons bans nineteen, ninety four to the four didn't stop combine. So, there's that, okay time for some things I like and then some time for it then time for some things that I hate so things at the I like, so this the thing that I quasi like there is
A film on Netflix called extremely wicked shockingly evil and vile Zac Effron stars as TED Bundy. The only issue with this film really is that it's not about TED Bundy, so is it like it? If you heard it was a movie about TED Bundy figure that what would be is about the sociopath, it is so Siapa. The of TED Bundy is actual crimes the items of the crimes, how the police tracked him down, and all of that it is not about any of those things. Virtually the entire movie begins with TED Bundy, basically begins with TED Bundy's arrest, and the movie isn't really about TED Bundy, that TED Bundy's girlfriend. Who is the one who initially called the police on him and then was convinced by TED Bundy that he wasn't really guilty of all these things? The movie, if you have the proper, expect in the movie: it's good. The movie is really not about him. The movie is really about how, if you want to be misled by the people around you, you certainly can
If you take it from that angle, movies good, if you take it as some sort of Bio, PIC of TED Bundy or some sort of serious look at TED Bundy's crimes that it obviously is not Zac Efron is very good in the park by the way he's a really underrated actor here here is the here's, the preview, gentlemen of the jury. You have been witness to with the unspeakable horrors of the defendants, heinous crimes, you've seen ghastly, injuries smashed in faces, broken jaw pause. Well, the defendant, please rise for years. I've carried this guilt, but I'm to blame for everything. If only I hadn't, trustee promise never begins, spend enough.
Yes he has in it did. Did you did wrong with the previous? The preview makes it sound like it's actually going to be about TED Bundy's crimes. The movie is not about TED Bundy crimes about how people around him, except TED Bundys crimes. So that is that's an interesting movie, but it's not really being pitched well. So I think you're going to see people disappointed in what actually is a pretty good movie. Ok time for some things that I hate. Okay, things that I hate to a bunch of things that I hate that are just insanely stupid. So do you the first thing that is inside only stupid today, there's an article in vice about how medical textbooks overwhelmingly use pictures of young white men. Ok now my wife is many people know is a doctor. In fact, you can buy a teacher
with that slogan, on it from our daily wire store over at Amazon. But the fact is that doctors do not rely on the pictures in the textbooks when it comes to diagnosing illness. They look at the bodies in front of them and in fact, doctors work with bodies in front of them all the time they work in medical school with cadavers. Those cadavers are rarely of young White slim fit males because those people don't die all that often usually it's an older person or person who is fatter, a person with a health problem, and then I remember my wife coming home and telling me about all of this mean got a car through them. That's your actual experience of the bodies, not the pictures in the text. Books, textbooks are just supposed to show you where things are basically a quite device. This is very, very bad and they say that it's these pictures in the text, books that are leading to racial bias in medical care or alter
end of late. That's not really what is happening here: the editors of human anatomy, the textbook with parity, our lane, merry engine patch a hole and both women, the textbook with the worst ratio, was edited solely by men. What we need now is gender parity in the editing of medical textbooks, because we have to show bodies that are diverse. Why? Because, apparently, doctors are too stupid to understand the bodies in reverse, according to the vice, article in some cases showing a female body. Make sense of the content is specifically about female health. According to this new study in in cases where there is no reason to show one sex over another men are more likely to be depicted as
normal body this lines up with previous research from nineteen. Ninety two that found that, even when it comes to medical imagery around reproduction, men outnumbered women in text books, two point five to one yeah. Well, there's no difference between this part of the medical anatomy. Why do you care whether a man is being shown or woman? If, if there is, if you're, looking up where the appendix is it's in the same place in men and women? So why does it matter? Why are you so concerned about this man? If you, if you're pissed, off the medical textbooks, let me suggest that you you need to you need to get a life. I mean really need to get a life, but speaking of gender parity, the the kind of in house joke at the New York time,
among opinion columnist, is far hot. Manju has a piece called the next president should not be a man. This is according to pollsters and political reporters, a dispiriting dynamic has taken hold in the early stages of the democratic presidential. Primary voters are discounting female candidates as unelectable or, alternatively, you provide us a bunch of crappy candidates. Maybe it's that maybe said Elizabeth warning warnings on charming Kamel Harris is a woke, schooled and Kirsten. Gillibrand is a joke. Maybe it's that, but according to far had meant you, it is the innate sexism of the american people, Dave Weigel, the Washington Post says something similar just to understand by Tomentum. You've got to have some of the conversations I had yesterday middle aged women explaining the twenty. Sixteen showed that voters will elect a female president. So you've got to be strategic or, alternatively, you could have running not crappy candidate, Farhad Manjoo says emotionally such reticence makes sense. Hillary Clintons lost to a cartoon misogynists left in during wound three years may the memory feels like a flashing danger, sign a warning that how
over some much someway wanted. This country is simply not ready to elect a woman. Is president again, maybe they're not ready to elect your woman. Is Prez is Nikki Haley were on the republican ticket. Today she would be the odds on favorite to win the presidency, Farhad Manjoo, say Democrats for your own sake and the sake of our nation. I beseech you drive away such useless thoughts over looking a qualified woman because you expect misogynist to have a problem with her is the very definition of patriarchy. You are abdicating the voting booth to the enemies of equality and are perpetuating the dynamic that is given us forty five male presidents in a row, actually, the dynamic that gave us forty five male presidents in a row was that it was only men voting for the vast majority of american history or at least half of american history. He says: that's not all in the twenty twenty cycles. Something else is at play today: doubting a candidate electability because she's, a woman isn't just unfair. It's exactly backward this year. It's the men who electability you should doubt so. Apparently you must select a woman.
Gender politics are at the core of all politics. So, as far high man, you really can feminism should turn reflects a bias on its head. The women were running this year are broadly qualified to occupy the White House really center porn has been in the Senate for basically one term Kamala Harris has been there for five minutes. Kristen Gellibrand again is a joke. Since they've won, statewide races, they've survived brutal primaries. They would bounced novel and path breaking public policy ideas. Yes, so novel so path breaking I mean, like the actual typical democratic party agenda for the last fifty years or radical leftism. He says common sense tells us selecting a woman is present would deal a smashing symbolic blow to the patriarchy. I am so tired of this. So tired of this symbolic blows impair your right. You know having to strip a secretary of state, it was a
black woman and Kinda LISA Rice. I remember when they didn't care about that. They only cared that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state having a vice president. Vice presidential candidate, who is woman in Sarah Palin, was mocked by the left. Elizabeth Dole ran for president in two thousand, as a Republican less in care about. That seems they only care about quote unquote misogyny when it's a democratic woman. They want to see elected final thing that I hate. So this is just hilarious. Chris Hughes, who is the roommate of marks? sucker and made hundreds of millions of dollars, because he was Mark Zuckerberg's roommate, you locked into a bunch of money, He was an early investor in Facebook as Mark Zuckerberg's roommate in college. He did nothing to earn money by the way other than being early investor good on him. He then bought the new Republican. Preceded proceeded to run it directly into the ground. Now he wants Facebook, get up so the company that made him all the money and that he doesn't run, he wants it broken up now after it made him all his money. How convenient,
he's ruined one company. Why not run another? Now, I'm not an advocate of breaking up Facebook. I don't think that it's an actual monopoly. It doesn't have market, it doesn't have any sort of regulatory capture involved. I'm in favor of determining whether Facebook is in fact a publisher or a platform. It's not. The same thing is using antitrust law in inappropriate ways. I think antitrust law quote unquote. Breaking up. Monopolies is far too often over applied for more on that. You can read a book by Robert Bork about antitrust and it's called the antitrust paradox from 1970s. It is still relevant Chris Hughes. This fool writes the last time I saw Mark Zuckerberg was in the summer of two thousand and seventeen several months before the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. We met at Facebook's, Menlo Park, ca office and drove to his house in a quiet, leafy neighborhood. We spend an hour or two together, while his toddler daughter cruise around. We talk politics mostly a little about Facebook, a bit about our families when the shadows grew long. I had to head out I hug his wife, Priscilla and said goodbye to mark since then marks personal reputation and the reputation of
We have taken a nosedive. It's been fifteen years since I cofounded Facebook at harvard- and I haven't worked at the company in a decade, but I feel a sense of anger and responsibility. Oh or alternatively, you really did nothing at Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg ran the whole thing, and then he made a lot of money off his back and now you're being ungrateful and want to break it up for virtue signaling purposes, and he talks about his beautiful relationship with talk about it yeah by the way I want to break a marks. Company mark is a good kind. Person says Chris Use, but I'm angry that is focused on growth, led him to sacrifice security incivility for clicks, I'm disappointed in myself and the early phase. Book team for not thinking more about how the news feed algorithm could change our culture influence elections in empower nationalist leaders right. This is really what what he wants is to restrict the ability to disseminate speech on Facebook. Just like all good little leftist Chris use would like to see Facebook become repository of his ideas and his ideas alone.
The government says Chris Use must hold mark accountable. Forty two long lawmakers have marveled at Facebook's explosive growth and overlook their responsibility to ensure that Americans are protected and markets are competitive. Facebook's offered to a point of privacy. Czar is not enough. Neither is a five billion dollar fine. He says we may need to rain, and now it's time to break up Facebook, we already have the tools. We need to check the domination of Facebook, etc, etc, etc. Now I know there are a bunch of people on the right who don't like Facebook, and so they are happy to do anything that they can do to break up Facebook or hurt Facebook. I I am not anti Facebook, I'm anti how Facebook has applied its own standards and that's why I think that we should determine whether in fact, zuckerburg wants to be an editor in chief, the way I'm at daily wire or whether he wants to be the head of a platform. But the fact that Chris uses saying this. I think it's
good indicator. We should not do that and by the way, maybe we should open up. Chris used a liability. I mean he was apparently a very important person at the company in his formative stages. So if they're really bad, maybe he had something to do with that. It's I'm so tired of the virtue signaling from people who make money off people who didn't again Chris Hughes locked into the stuff you getting hit right and left for this, and he should be. Then he was literally the guy who's randomly assigned to Zuckerberg freshman dorm Facebook, CO founder well. We will be back here a little bit later for two additional hours of the Ben Shapiro show so stick around for that or will see you here tomorrow, I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the Show- and this is the Ben Shapiro- show executive producer, Jeremy, boring senior producer, Jonathan hey are supervising, producer is Mathis Glover and our technical producer is Austin. Stevens edited by Adam silence. Audio was mixed by my car Meena and make up So I just went over a production assistant Nick Sheehan, the Ben Shapiro Show is a daily wire production, copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen
hey everybody's Andrew Klavan, host of the Andrew Klavan Show. So now now the Democrats are going to put on a show. It's the impeachment and constitutional crisis show, except without a real impeachment or a real constitution crisis, because they need to show to replace the reality. They've lost. That's on the Andrew Klavan Show I'm Andrew Klavan.
Transcript generated on 2019-10-12.