Public hearings begin and we reviewed the supposedly bombshell testimony of the democratic witnesses, I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the Ben Shapiro. Show dementia show sponsored by Express VPN. Why have you not gotten a vpn? Yet this is Express V, p, n dot com, slash been okay, we got it to get to today. I'll tell you a little bit later on in the show about how things went to Boston University last night. It was pretty interesting and I think, a lot of fun but, of course, begin with the news of the day, which is all the fallout from yesterday's bombshell. Testimony so which bombshell ok, so here is the way that the New York Times is covering this thing there headlines has behind the star. Witness Democrats take their impeachment case to the public ooh aah star

this is in their goal is to transform what might seem like an abstract debate over form, housing, high crimes and misdemeanors in the public mind, as Republicans argue, there is no case for impeachment. Peter Baker is the writer. This is William. Taylor was the witness. The Democrats had hoped Robert Muller would be, but was not the image at least double wides fatherly figure, with kevlar credibility expressing restrained but unmistakable disapproval of what he found when he turned over. The rock is objective media coverage. I get so much journalistic house Democrats let off their highly into earrings on Wednesday, but think you're projecting probity, a combat veteran from a career diplomat who narrated with the deep baritone voice, reminiscent of Walter Cronkite, what he saw as the corruption of american foreign policy to advance President Trump personal political interest. It was not clear the mines were changed Junior League with that right, I said that the question is whether any minds were changed or whether the test

only itself changed anything or offered anything that was bombshell anew, as opposed to he appeared to be a gray fox, this William Taylor, fellow patriotic stolid man. This was a hero of the republic because we've heard here, hero of the Republic routine before from the media, didn't change anything. A James call, hero of the republic Andrew Mccabe, hero of the republic, then, when The Republican. Now is William Taylor, hero of their public. Now, listen you look at his public service. The guy is in fact a hero of the republic for his public service, but that does not mean that he testified as to anything impeachable yesterday and yet the media are. Making this out to be really about the objects and that, in the end, really is sort of it betrays the agenda the agenda here, here is that this is all about the optics and not about anything new. Nothing new has actually happened here, that's the dirty little secret as through testimony yesterday and nothing. New no new ground was broken instead it was all the same ground that we've heard before sort of trod over repeatedly, and so in terms of substance, I don't think the american people

are going to hear anything new that changes their mind, but in terms of optics the Democrats are hoping if they bring out a bunch of grad. Voiced very somber speakers who have long histories in american foreign policy. Then this will somehow turn the american public against Trump. Well, if people cared about that Trump wouldn't be president, and let's face this thing, ok, Donald Trump was not elected, because people had a ton of respect for America's institutions, users. He was elected specifically because people did not have a ton of respect in America's institutions and putting not somebody with Walter. Cronkite voice isn't going to change any of that just on a purely political level. Ok, but the New York Times says it was not clear. Lines were changed. Certainly they were not inside the room and most likely not elsewhere. On Capitol Hill. By Republicans and Democrats, locked into their positions long ago are there any immediate signs that the hearing penetrated the general public, while major television broke into regular programming to carry it live. There is sense, riveted country, putting everything aside to watch all the Watergate case. Someone we talking about. And I love this line. This is my favorite line from the New York Times. It's just particular, but whether or not

we're watching history certainly was what the F is that supposed to mean history was watching what is it like seriously? What does that mean? History was watch history is watching everything. His reason watching you on the toilet like if my history is watching, knew mean that history is something that happens, and then people later read about it. That could be anything right. It could be. Any history was well I mean if history was watching that changes everything New York Times that you've changed every NG near to amazing over the course of five hours of relatively sober testimony interrupted by fewer partisan, Baryonyx that might have been expected. Mister Taylor, the top american DIP Matt in Ukraine and George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, according to the New York Times, laid out what they saw, the president's efforts to pressure a foreign power to provide damaging information about his democratic rivals. Mister Taylor was the star. Witness Democrats have sought for a long time. As opposed to Miller, who sort of mumbled and fumble and looked old like Mister Miller.

Taylor, seventy two is a septuagenarian Vietnam, veteran with a chiseled face and reassuring gray hair. I didn't realize that that gray, hair was reassuring. Love tell my wife about that. As I as I age here, my hair is reassuring. At some solid right away, reassuring gray. What is time like I, you know, I'm I'm feeling a nervous, thank God, man with gray, hair So reassured now a chisel face and reassuring gray hair after a lifetime of service to his country, but where Mister I'm done studying uncertain last summer when he testified about his council investigation into russian interference. Mister Taylor came across his cone confidence and in command will iteration calm, confident cool collected in command of the fact is he knew them with a more in sadness than anger? Tell he told lawmakers that in decades, public service under administrations of both parties. He had never seen any President war foreign policy for his own personal advantage. The way mister Trump tried to do, but Mister Taylor was careful to retain an official neutrality on what Congress should do with his testimony and lawmakers tried to goad him into taking more political stance. He

serenely and decline to take the bait okay so This was the tape from New York Times, and they take from the Washington Post was quite similar to take Washington Post as new testimony ties from more directly to Ukraine pressure campaign, at least a reporting after weeks, in which President Trump's top aides have figured as the major players in the Ukraine are to testimony first few hours of the public impeachment hearings, Wednesday thrust Trump himself back to center stage, ambassador to Ukraine. William Taylor told lawmakers about is unknown effort by the president to make sure you He was looking into his political opponents of phone converse He said Trump had with the top US diplomat asking about the status of the investigations. The phone conversations described by Taylor give Democrats a chance to renew questions about Trump's personal involvement in the effort to push Ukraine to invest. To get his political opponents, while the United States withheld security assistance and a sought after White House meeting well

about exactly what Taylor had to say on this in just one second, okay, but the the media are trying to claim basically that the testimony, even though didn't change things? It probably should change things, even though it made things it make things any differently than there wasn't anything new. That was something brand new we'll get to that in just one. Second, the truth or falsity of those statements. 'cause, here's reality on and I'm trying to be as objective as I can and you'll know. If I say that hearing is bad. I'll say that hearing is bad for Trump and if I think that a phone call was bad for Trump I'll say it's bad for Trump at least try to analyze these things is as objectively as I can't, even though I think that the Democrats have not proven their case. I don't think the yesterday was particularly bad for drug I really don't think it hurt him in any serious way. The media trying to send it that way. I do not think that that is accurate. That's why they're they're sort of calling back on the line of the New York Times. History was watching yeah. Well, it three can watch all the ones that it happened yet so come back in twenty years, and talk about how history watch don't even

who's going to win the next election we'll get to that in just one. Second, first, let's talk about the watch upon your wrist. Ok, so I have this brand new watch with this thing this is beautiful. Is it watch from it then TAROT bench I'll check. This thing out. It is spectacular, but it's a really nice watch and it will not cost you a fortune. This one is called the rogue is a chronograph, I'm kind of watch guy. I really do like watching that high end watches I like fashion watches. This is a really solid. Durable, beautiful watch really is well crafted. Hello then Cheryl watches dot com forward, slash appear to see my favorite picks and don't forget to use code Shapiro at checkout for fifteen percent off your entire order. I, like insure, watches so much by the way I just got one for my sister for her birthday. I gave one of my dad. You can great other watch is which is actually a pretty cool feature. In fact, in Cheryl sent me one that says, wait for it. Facts: don't care about your feelings on the back of the watch, which is awesome feature when you're getting a gift for somebody for the holidays or for a birthday and we're coming up. On the Christmas season. So it's a great time to get somebody a vincera watch from their small batch manufacturing process to their customer service. Then Cheryl does everything in house now

thing is actually outsourced then believes that watch is make a statement about you and they do. A nice watch is something that catches the eye. It starts conversations plus. You feel good. Every time you look down and you see what time it is Lotus watch. If you wear one cell, why not wear something nice? You really should check out VIN. Cheryl today, the deal is too good to pass up, go to VIN Cheryl. What dot com, that's v, I n c e r, o watches dot com forward, slash apparel and use code shipyard get fifteen per, it is v. I n c e r, o watches dot com forward, Slash Use code Shapiro to get fifteen percent of them a wide variety of styles right at these. This a little bit more sporty. The rogue that I'm learning they've got other types of watch that are a little bit less boring, but great for dinner. Even have some automatic watch is which is really cool. If not watch person, an automatic watch is one: that's not run off battery power, it actually just charges off of the movement of your wrist

they've got all sorts of varieties, all sorts of colors it got for men for women. It really is fantastic, go check them out right now and then Cheryl watches it dot. Com forward, Slash appear use coach appear to get fifteen percent off okay, so the Democrats thought they were. Gonna have a big day yesterday and it turned out not to be a big day for them. Yesterday, it started off with Adam Schiff. At the very opening saying this. This process is meant to be a punishment for criminal activity, not a punishment for political activity, but a lot of the testimony was based around the opposite idea that a bunch of people who were in the foreign policy establishment didn't like Trump's foreign policy, and they were angry at Trump's foreign policy and that's the real reason why they were going. Trump read the real reason they're going after Trump is because they disagreed with him withholding aid from Ukraine and they couldn't see why he was doing it, and so they were mad about that now. Does that mean that Trump was doing something that was corrupt or does it mean they just disagreed with him about the foreign policy here is Adam Schiff at the opening suggesting that impeachment

originally meant to be a punishment for criminal activity, which sort of cuts again he hasn't proved any criminal activity here are answers to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency, but the future of the presidency itself and what kind of conduct or misconduct the american people may come to expect from their commander in chief There are few actions as consequential as the impeachment of a president. Well, the founders did not intend that impeachment be employed for mere differences over policy. They also made impeachment of constitutional process. This at the Congress must utilize as necessary Okay. So again, he's saying this is not a political thing, it's a criminal thing, and yet they have yet to bring forth the elements. This area to prove any sort of criminal abuse of power shift. I do love. The shift is doing this, Here he pretends that reserving judgment. So yesterday usually said that he's reserving judgment and also in terms abuse of power is terrible. Which means he's not reserving judgment. Obviously, here's Adam Schiff suggesting that

is reserving judgment in all of this. That's right he's opening meaning where he's reserving like. Really, if you believe this I've got a bridge in Brooklyn, it's available for just a couple of and I can make this magic happen just for you right now. Here's Adam Schiff talking about reserving judgment, I'm reserving judgement and on the ultimate question So once the testimony is complete about what should follow from this, consequences? It is certainly the case that the founders were deeply concerned that a president I'd states one day, may be elected to office. That would put his or her interests above the country that would sacrifice our national security either to get a political, a personal favor, for only to some foreign influence, he's he's holding off on judgment that sound. That's the sound of a man holding off on judgment, flanked by a bunch of other people loading up on judgment in the Democrats are going to build from the traffic is so so wasn't. Adams in this thing already been pre set. We are

You know that that's why, when Devin Nunes, who is the republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee, is the the republican leader on the in the House Intelligence Committee when he says that this is just a low rent sequel to the Russia House that has credibility, given the fact that it does feel like a partisan hit by Democrats. No, it doesn't. The darn questions to be asked about. Trump's behavior. I've said this all along, but does this feel like a partisan? You bet your asset feels like a partisan exercise. Here is Devin Nunes, pointing this out Ambassador Taylor and Mister Kent. I like to welcome you here I'd like to congratulate you for passing the Democrats STAR Chamber, auditions held for the last week's in the basement of the capital. It seems you agreed witting or unwitting Lee to participate in a drama, but the main performance, a Russia hoax, has ended,

and you've been cast in the low rent, ukrainian sequel, okay, so yeah and that's an overstatement because again we don't know exactly what all the evidence is, but there is a widespread perception in the United States and I think that it's well based perception- and this is my a partisan effort than it is really an effort to curb the misuse of the power of the presidency. Ok, so then we get to the actual testimony, and here is the problem for the Democrats. The actual testimony didn't really change anything. It didn't really change anything so the only real bombshell yesterday is that Bill Taylor suggested that he heard some. From his staff tell him about a conversation that he over heard with President Trump. Trump was talking about investigations, and he didn't hear from side of the convo Apparently, he only heard the person on other side of the conversation and this bill Taylor's accounts of this magical magical conversation. So Taylor had suggested that

There was a previously unknown effort by the president to make sure Ukraine was looking into his political opponents phone conversation. He said Trump had with the top USA diplomat asking about the status of the investigations, but the diplomat was not bill. Taylor and herein lies the problem by Bill Taylor, their star is a man with reassuring gray hair. I mean that hair so reassuring. Yesterday he says: listen, I can't tell you what was in from said. I can tell you, I heard from people what the hell does that, like really, you can is what you heard from people. This would not make for good evidence in any criminal trial. I can tell you what I heard from people I can tell you what I've heard from people. You can tell me what you heard from people. We can all talk about, we heard from people and then we can all be reporters for TMZ like what does this mean? Here's Bill Taylor. I can tell you what I heard from people very important stuff that you heard from people mister over what I can do

here, for you today is tell you what I heard from people, and in this case that was what I heard from investor Solomon. He described conditions for the security systems and the White House meeting in in those terms that is required that were dependent upon conditioned on pursuing these investigations, and you heard that from Ambassador Sanlin himself correct, correct. Ok, so he can tell you what you heard from people, which is very exciting when he heard from people now. Does that it matters when they bring someone in right, because now they're going to say well either Taylor is lying or someone is lying or somebody's making mistakes somewhere in here so matters for someone, but does that go to Trump's state of mind, not arctic? early, because again, Taylor has never had a conversation with Trump, and yet you had Taylor drawing these fantastical conclusions about Trump. I mean the these. These very strong conclusions about his perception of what Trump was

Listen, you can speculate as much as he wants and he can draw any conclusion. He wants it's. A free country and I'm not saying that his conclude just implausible. All I'm saying is that his conclusion is based purely on conversations that he and with people who were not Donald Trump will get to that in just one second, first, let us talk about the status of your home right now. Is it everything went good at home? You just did the florist, the walls are nice and then you look around something. Looks a little dingy gets the window covering you haven't thought about them. Have you have you? Well, you should be thinking about them now, since I've mentioned it go check out, blinds com. Fifty million windows covered over thirty thousand five star customer reviews blinds com. There was number one online retailer for affordable quality custom window coverings, blinds dot com makes the whole experience fast and easy, plus every single organs free samples, free shipping, a free online design consultation, you just send them pictures of your of your home and they will send back custom recommendations from a professional for what will work with your color scheme. Furniture specific rooms, though even send you free samples to ensure

everything looks as good in person as it does on line, and then every order gets free shipping. Here's the best part of you accidentally miss measure where you picked the wrong color. If you screw blinds dot com will remake your blinds for free. They made it really easy for you go check, Right now, for a limited time, I listeners get twenty dollars off at Bly dot com when you use promo code Ben that is blinds dot com, promo code Ben for twenty. Star forward blind cellular shades, roller shades or blinds dot com, promo code. Then rules and restrictions do indeed apply. Ok, so here Bill Taylor Drunk very strong conclusion from the fact that he talked to two people to people here is Taylor saying well, you know Trump cares more about investigating by. And then you, Ukraine, how does he draw that conclusion? While he's talked to people and those people talk to people, and those people in turn have talked to other people who wants talk to somebody who knew drum. So your staff member here is the president asking about the investigations, meaning Brisbane the Bidens and two thousand and sixteen

and a master someone told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward. He did, and I think you said that, after the call when your staff asked best Rissanen what President Trump thought of Ukraine, his response was that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, is that right and Boris Ma- yes, Sir ok, so here is Taylor, talking about what Sumlin allegedly said to him, as I said, all allowing someone's testimony is going to matter. I'm not sure that Bill Taylor's testimony matters hell of a lot the person the Crosshairs now is someone ran in So I can believe that, because someone told me that okay, fine, we'll your third party, And then Taylor says the Giuliani wanted to get Biden that was his percent the Giuliani was after mine. He wasn't after investigating supposed corruption in twenty sixteen or crowdstrike. After looking into the situation in Ukraine during two thousand and sixteen and whether they were interfering in the election, no bill Taylor, note Giuliani who's from personal lawyer, who want to get Biden. Julia

promoting us national interests are policy in Ukraine Ambassador. I don't think so. Ma'am Mister cat, no, it was not. What interest do you believe he was promoting Mister Kent? I believe he was looking to dig up political dirt against a potential rival in the next election cycle. Ambassador Taylor. What interests are you believe he was promoting. I agree with Mister KEN ok. So again, that is their perception. An that does not really make much of a difference. I'm sure the demo I believe the same thing, I'm sure there are some people who again it's plausable, who believe Giuliani sole task in Ukraine was digging up dirt on Biden, but that would not explain why he was so concerned with, for example, the crowd strike server, which was in evidence, was conspiracy, theory, nor does it explain why he was concerned about ukrainian Interference in the twenty sixteen election 'cause. That has nothing to do with Biden right. So here's the question: why was

Giuliani spending time investigating those other things. If it was all really about the bidens ok, then there was George KEN, so George Kansas this under Secretary of State he's the man who you will see if you subscribe to show who you will see sitting next to Bill Taylor, he doesn't get the same sort of enormous media plot. It's the Taylor does right. Bow tie, which means that he doesn't have as much gravitas 'cause. Both I don't have as much gravitas as reassuring. Gray, obviously will canned heat. He basically suggested many of the same things that that Taylor did We made some claims that were also a little bit outlandish, I mean His testimony was a little bit more colorful, actually, which is I think the media is not covering it so much. She said a couple of things that cut in favor of President Trump, and he said a couple of things that cut against President Trump. The first thing that he said is He was asked about conditions being placed on ukrainian aid, and he said yes, Conditions have always been placed on ukrainian aid, which again is true and cut in favor of the idea that the President has plenary

or over placing conditions on ukrainian aid so long as it is not a specific design to go after a domestic political opponent. Here is George Kent. There are, and always have been conditionality placed on our sovereign loan guarantees for Ukraine. Conditions include anti corruption reforms as well as meeting larger stability goals and social safety nets. The international monetary fund does the same thing: Congress in the executive branch work together to put conditionality on some security assistance in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, Ok, that's true right. It is true. Joe Biden put obvious conditions on the ability of Ukraine to receive loan guarantees, for example the question here, whether it was legit or not. Some people say well Trump, withholding the aid. Therefore something bad happen. Well now it depends on the purpose for which he was withholding the aid, and I said yesterday, I've been saying for weeks at this requires us to discern President Trump's intent was this about two thousand and sixteen ukrainian corruption? Was this about his anger,

the media have decided that he won because of russian interference, and so he was concerned about ukrainian Interference in the election. Was it him going off on some tangential conspiracy theory about two thousand and sixteen or was it specifically about Biden? It was specifically about Biden, two thousand and twenty, that's impeachable. If any of the others that is not- and I said yes, a, I don't think the Trump had the requisite intent to go after Joe Biden, because that does not sound like trump. That's right a little bit I so I don't think from. Has the intent eat a hamburger? Obviously I am open when I say that, but I think that the problem for Trump is that it is difficult to discern what the man's intent is, because he doesn't tend to have large scale. Focused intent over long periods of time. He doesn't tend to have plans. He tends to have As I said yesterday on the show is sort of thought vomit when it comes to a lot of these issues. And in this is the problem the Democrats. Have you paint him as an idiot for years right? You say that he's a moron for years you say that he doesn't have the capacity to put together plans for years, and now you have swivel and you're saying that he has this very specific plan to get your butt, and not only does he have this plan to get Joe Biden, and he is

but Giuliani, he's told Giuliani to cover his tracks by asking about crowdstrike and ukrainian Interference in the twenty sixteen election, and he is also told Sumlin, that he wants investigations into ancillary matters not involved with buying just to cover his tracks that that's, how much trump does that sound like trump? Ok? Well, even George KEN's testimony. It seems to suggest more that Rudy Giuliani was mucking things up. That Trump had specific intent to get Joe Biden, even though he believes that Trump had specific intent to get Joe Biden here is George KEN Suggest, It was really Giuliani's interference that was screwing with the president's head over the course of twenty eighteen and two thousand and nineteen. I became increasingly aware of an effort by Rudy, Giuliani and others, including his associates left Parnas in Igor Frumin to run a campaign to smear Ambassador Jovanovich, another officials at the USA Embassy in Kyiv, the chief agitators on the ukrainian side of this effort, where some of those same corrupt former prosecutors I had encountered particularly Yuri Lutsenko and Viktor Shokin. They were now peddling false information in

to extract revenge against those who had exposed their misconduct. Ok, so if that is the case, there are peddling false information and that that was being Giuliani, who is peddling into Trump, is that specific intent to get Joe Biden really 'cause that again, that the whole thing comes down to Trump's intent? Did he intend to get Joe Biden or is that part of his bigger ball of random thoughts about Ukraine and his is general antipathy toward Ukraine, Karen get to more of George Tenet's testimony and then we'll get to the other issues, plus the performance of the various players in this drama, we'll get to all of that in just one second, first, let's talk about keeping your home, such as you may know. I am at now obsessive about safety. We just get all sorts of death threats. Unfortunately, I personally have been made the subject of the many death threats just the past couple of weeks alone. It is just a party all the time, it's a party. Well, that means that I am obsessed with security and that's one of the reasons I have. Ring at dot com ring, helps you stay connected to your home from anywhere. If there's a package delivery, surprise visitor you get alert, you're able to see, hear speak to them all from your phone if you're on the

build this season, whether it's across town or across the country you can check in anytime for some much needed holiday peace of mind. So I know exactly what's going on my property weather not I actually at my property, which is fantastic as a listener. You have holiday offer a ring. Welcome kit available right now with the ring video in a time pro. The ring welcome kit has everything you need to keep an eye on home, no matter what this holiday season brings. You don't have to be a high profile, public figure to worry about your safety at your house, and you should be worried about your safety or house for responsible human being, and you have kids, for example, or you just don't want people messing around your property, with ring you're, always home, just going to ring it dot. Com forward, slash that is ring, dot com, slash been additional terms, may apply, go check them out right now, company, I trusted my family which is my number one issue ring dot com. Slash span, go check them out right now, okay, so back to George Cans and his testimony. So then George can't get into the vagaries of these sort of very strong and Leon eight were pursuing, it does a couple of things. One of them is true, and one of them not so much so here is the one that the thing that he says that is true he's

There is no factual basis to the crowds right here. Right now, remember, if you go back to that June, twenty fifth phone call between President Trump and letters once you, the President of Ukraine, What you see is the Trump is demanding a few things are requesting. A few things requesting is probably more accurate from the transcript of the or the the the memo that that sort of summarize the transcript of the phone call. So the here here here quite a few things one. He wants an investigation into ukrainian corruption surrounding the twenty. Sixteen election two. He wants an investigation into crowd strike because he has this weird theory: Hillary Clinton. Server was actually not handed over to the FBI because it had been. By the Ukrainians, not by the Russians, and that crowd strike the firm that did the actual analysis is owned by ukrainian. Therefore, Hillary Clintons, actual server, is buried somewhere in a forest outside of Kiev. Ok, that there's not a lot of evidence particularly, and then there was talk

memories, man that- and so there are a few issues that got mentioned with regard to corruption in Ukraine and friends- request for investigations. So here's George Kent correctly pointing out there is no factual basis to the crowd strike theory. This, of course, is true, but it does not go to weather. Trump's. Believe Trump believes that were remember. Let's say, for example, let's say for a set for sake of argument. The crowd strike theory were true. Would it be in America's interest to know weather. In fact, the Ukrainians hacked Hillary Clinton's hard Drive and the Dnc Hard drive would that be in America's interest in oh? Yes, it certainly would well just because Trump believed bat bleep looney theory does not mean that he was out to get Joe Biden. In fact, it tends to support the idea that he was out to protect America's interest, as he wrongly perceive them with regard to crowd strike here, is George Kent knocking down the crowd strike theory when he talks about this crowd strike

in the server? What do you understand this to be a reference to? To be honest, I had not heard of crowd strike until I read this transcript on September 25th. Do you now understand what it relates to? I understand it has to do with the story that uh, there's a server with missing emails. I also understand that one of the owners of or of crowd strike is a russian American. I'm not aware of any ukrainian connection to company, ok and then can send something. So so all of that is true and then Kens is asked about ukrainian Interference in twenty sixteen election now he's got a problem, because the fact is that political reported as other outlets that there was a nexus between the Ukrainian Embassy in the Hillary Clinton campaign, and then a woman and Alexandra Chalupa had been visiting ukrainian embassy trying to dig up dirt on Home Anna Ford, ok, those are public reports from politico. Here is George KEN saying: there's no factual basis to claim that you create interfered in the twenty sixteen election. They may be true with regard

Ukraine and hacking into servers, but it is certainly not true with regard to their core. Nation with the Dnc and Hillary Clinton now, are you aware that this is all part of a Roger allegation that Ukraine interfered in the twenty sixteen election. Yes, that is my understanding and to your knowledge. Is there any factual basis to support the allegation that Ukraine interfered in the twenty? Sixteen, election to my knowledge, there is no factual basis. No ok! Well, ok, how 'bout political is knowledge? How much mainstream media reports, because there are those worked out there, so unless he is firmly rebooting. The political report, I'm not sure what he is Okay, so there you have the testimony. That is the summary of the testimony Taylor and Kent, basically saying that they knew think very strongly. Opinions and those opinions are very strong opinions and those very strong opinions- mean that Trump did a very, very bad thing. The only thing that we got new from either of the testimonies here is

Taylor, suggesting that he had an aide who over heard Gordon Sunlin at talking to Trump and talking about investigations, and how do you means we're going to exceed to Trump's request, so he should release the eight right that is the only thing that is new. That puts pressure on Gordon someone but again I'm wondering why it the bill. Taylor is testifying as to what his aid heard from someone as opposed to you know the aid coming forward and testify as to what he heard from someone, because now we are not talking about even a second hand, like Trump said, we don't even know from then on the other end of the line. All we know is that apparently coin bill, Taylor Trump talked to someone someone was at some sort of public restaurant, one of Taylors, age was at the same restaurant and over heard someone inside of the conversation, and then the aid went and talked to Bill Taylor So Bill Taylor is now three degrees removed from president from. I am more closely related to Kevin Bacon than that. You know again that doesn't mean that the account of the conversation is false It just means that it doesn't say anything about what troubles even saying on the other side of the conversation- and this is a point you're going to hear Republicans hammer home in just

one moment, because this really wasn't the republican counterattack was bringing forth these. Our witnesses. None of them that are ever had a conversation with Trump they removed from the actual policy making apparatus, and then it by the way is the complete right complaint is: we were removed from the policy making apparatus we're not part of these conversations. So if you can't have it both ways you're mad that you were not part of the conversations and therefore you're not privy to the information that people who are part of the conversations are ready to or you part of the conversation, but you don't have enough evidence to get trump. So one of those two things is true and both of them established that you. Not in fact star witnesses that you are in fact just the best the Democrats can offer right now, because the fact is that if you actually wanted to break what was going on in terms, you need to talk to one of three or four people, Rudy Giuliani, Gordon someone who will be called you need to make mulvaney jumble. That's about it! I'm not aware that anybody else was privy to the mind of President Trump and yet Democrats are and the media, I'm trying to build Taylor who again has never spoken to Trump and George KEN who has never spoken to try

you're going to get Republicans hammer home this point, and it is a very tough when we get to that in just one. Second. First, it's about the time of year, for enrollment, and that means that you are checking out. You are looking right now at your life insurance policies. Well good for you, you should, but if you think that life insurance that you got right now from your employer is actually going to cover your needs. Probably not. The fact is that most people need ten Times life insurance coverage they get through their jobs, and that means that your employer life insurance is leaving you underinsured. That's where policy genius can help policy genius is the easy way to shop for a life insurance plan that is not tide to your job. In 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 and the red tape. The life insurance you buy through policy. Genius also stays with you. It's not attached to your employer. So if God forbid you loser, We still have that life insurance policy, when you're looking at your workplace benefits this month, make sure to double check those life

sure it's options by the way, if you have other insurance needs, you should also check out policy genius because they do home insurance and auto insurance and disability insurance to one stop shop for insurance, basically had it over to a see genius com to get quotes and ally in minutes insure yourself that responsible human beings do policy genius the easy way to compare and buy life insurance check, themoutofpolicygenius dot com get those quotes and ally in minutes already going to get two more of this because there's plenty or to get two more analysis. The republican fight back the Democrats kind of blowing it we'll get to that in a second. If you're not already a subscriber, however you're really missing out, you need to subscribe head over to dailywire dot com, slash subscribe for as little as ten bucks a month, you get all of our articles and free access to all of our live broadcasts are full show library, select bonus. Content. Our exclusive daily wire app, which is, in fact a pretty great feature. If you haven't checked it out yet You choose the new all access plan you get all of that, the legendary leftist cheers tumblr and our brand new ask me anything style, discussion, feature that allows you to age, our hosts writers and special guests on a weekly basis, by the way. How popular is this leftist here stumble right here this

magnificent piece of aware how great is it it's so great that Elizabeth Warren is now copying it? She put out a mug that says on it, There's two years, there's only one problem with that: the sales of those mugs are powered by Spotify. I believe it's a yeah, it's it's Spotify right to Spotify happens to be about billion or so billion or two years Bye, sir bye mud to catch Elizabeth Warren's billionaire tears in or is it the money can go to a billionaire? It's pretty great cellphone there from from was born, so Shopify Shopify is, is the owner it pretty spectacular stuff? In any case, if you want the original, the greatest and most accurate go check out daily wire right now- and get the subscription and get the leftist here's tumblr stop depriving yourself come join the fun we're the largest fastest growing conservative, podcast and radio show in the nation and already so here's, the problem right. All of these witnesses I say Taylor can't these are people who are not first hand witnesses to events that actually matter right. There second hand witnesses to all of the

actual information that is flowing there. They are third and fourth and witnesses in some. Cases? And this is how you end up with a bizarre spectacle of one of the Democrats on the house. Intelligence committee name is Quigley Suggie. Listing that hearsay can be better evidence than direct evidence, which is just no it. No that's incorrect, sir. Here is representative Quigley. I think the american public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay hearsay. It can be much better evidence than as we have learned in painful instances, and it's certainly valid in this sense. No, no there's my quickly from Illinois being a horrible lawyer, apparently it is not right. Here is a is generally not better than direct evidence and when he talks about the exception, say except

The hearsay rule generally include things like party admissions and statements against interest, but it actually has to include you know, like the party themselves, not like a third party saying something or dying declaration which again comes directly from the party or past recollection recorded the. These are some of the exceptions. None of those apply here, we're talking we're not just talking about, like somebody said that Trump said they're talking about somebody said that Aides said that someone said that Trump said. No, that is, better than direct evidence. It certainly certainly is not Republicans hone in on this point, right to Republicans are, are going to hammer down on on all of this at least a phonic. Why should? Let's start with with my turner's represent my turner from, I believe Ohio. He says: listen

you keep talking about Trump's thought processes. You've never actually met the president or had contact with the president. Have you invest for Taylor? Is that you testified in your prior testimony that you have not had any contact with the President night states that correct that's correct, Sir Miss Taylor, Mister can't have you had any contact with President States. I have not so not only no conversations with the president I'd say it's about Ukraine. You've not had any contact with the president. Knighted states correct, that's correct! Ok, so you both know that this impeachment inquiry is about the president. Knighted states, don't you I mean the man that neither one of you have had any contact with your the first up witnesses. Final amazing that that that the first stop would be to people who have never had any contact with the president himself, I'm yes, this would be the operative point right, and this is the this is the reason why I've been saying all along that if the Democrats actually wish to get from, you need to bring in people who spoke directly to Trump or trump himself right. Those are the only options here instead of bringing

Bill Taylor, George KEN who've, never met the president and ever spoken to the president. Jim George the representative from Ohio. He made the exact same point. He said the star witnesses right? There highlighting you the star witnesses, you don't even know the person they are testifying about. Here's Jim Jordan going after the same point, so you were on the call. Were you present? You did listen to President Trump's golf has less he's call. I did not you never talk with cheap step of any. I never did you never met the president. That's correct! Yeah three meetings again was: let's get it didn't, come up and two of those they'd never heard about. As far as I know and preservation reason for President lets, you never made an announcement. This is this is what I can't believe in your their star, witness your their first witness hi you're the guy, based on this based on I mean I've, seen I've seen church prayer change that are easier to understand than this, and that is absolutely true. I mean you can even see where the even Bill Taylor looks a little bit like flustered by this, because, of course it's true, I mean

I know that his gray hair is reassuring, but it is also true that I has no actual inside information he's not privy to the thought process. That would make this bribery, as opposed to just a normal exercise, a foreign policy power in a way that the foreign policy that inform policy establishment doesn't like, or even even if it's an abnormal x size of foreign policy power that doesn't make an illegitimate as an impeachable form of foreign policy power exercise. Even if I think it's bad that doesn't make an impeachable bad policy based on photo by Rudy Giuliani. The make an and trying to bring out witnesses who have no actual window into Trump state of mind, is definitely a bizarre move. Right, Jordan really hammered this point home even more. He says. Let me just read you sort of

the chain of events here and you try to explain it to me. Maybe one more time, Bastard Taylor recalls that Mister Morrison told him bastard Taylor that I told Mister Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mister Yarmak on September. First, two thousand and nineteen and connect with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Solinski. We got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear, you're standing. That is that again. I think this is what the american people are going to take away. Jordan doing an excellent job of pointing this out or as Democrat, Democratically mob is office getting issue issue, but I think that's actually a fair point, which is that these people are in a chain of communication that isn't the actual chain of communication, the matter and they knowledges such your the thing both Taylor and can't basically knowledge. They were outside the actual chain, the the unofficial chain of information upon which was made upon, which Trump was make king. His decisions now, where republicans are on a little bit weaker ground, is when they tried to argue that if the Democrats prove their case, it still without being we'll see have a least a who is

an young congresswoman from New York- and she says you know there are a couple of key Democrats are ignoring here in those key facts make it's that this is utterly unimpeachable conduct. I think this no overstatement by LISA Panic for the millions of Americans viewing today. The two most important facts are the following number one: Ukraine received the eight number two. There was in fact no one, but education into Biden, then well. That is not enough right. Obviously, the accusation is that Trump was withhold the aid in order to achieve a particular farmhouse purpose. When that came to light, then he tried to back fill the problem right. That's that that's not enough and you're hearing, Republicans repeat Coins Republicans are deploying a few defenses. One is an obvious lawyer defense, which makes a lot of sense. You don't know Trump's intent, you don't know his state of mind, you don't know his motives and trying to say wish. Those motives through the testimony of somebody who, once heard of Trump One eight at the same restaurant from, is not going to it's not going to do it, and then you have the the Republican stronger defense. This one trump wants them to

lush, which is he never did anything wrong and that one, I think, is a lot harder to push and John Ratcliffe tried to do the same thing. He said to the Democrats will call out the impeachable offense like we're going to need to share the impeachable offense here in this impeachment hearing today, where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes. Where is the impeachable offense in that call, are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call. Shout it out. Anyone, ok, but it's not just in that call right. I mean that is also a bit This number is just trying to analyze this fairly. Nobody is claiming that the call itself is the impeachable offense there playing with the policy linked to the call for several months here was the impeachable was the impeachable claim again all the trump has to do like any good defense case, he doesn't have to prove that he is quote unquote innocent of any bad activity just to show that he didn't do anything criminal and the criminal activity at issue here is bribery which includes an intent and includes an intent.

Amazing. The Democrats will read intent out of the wall it is convenient to them and they were even ten into the when it is convenient to them? So Hillary Clinton takes classified information, puts it on her own personal home brew server in her bathroom and Jim Comi will say. No, no, that's not prosecutable, because she didn't have intent to expose that information. Too prying eyes sure she had intent to misuse classified information, but she never intend to expose that information to the Russians or to anybody else to prying eyes, and he read and intend to Ella that is not in the log into the wall, so that, based on president, I think that that is a bad practice. I think it's arguable at best. Ok and then Democrats will say: ok, hello. Yes, bribery requires intent, but we don't have to prove intent. We can just assume intent. Well, you can't. If you actually want to prove intent, you have to prove intent. Not President Trump reacted to all of the hearing. Yesterday he got bit personal with Adam Schiff. Of course he said that the Adam shift to a ringer because he's not capable of doing his own question, which of course, is sort of

by the way also brought in a ringer. So it's not not perfectly fair statement here is Trump going after shift. I did not watch. It I'm too busy to watch it. It's a witch hunt, it's a hoax, I'm too busy to watch it. So I'm sure I'll get a report. There's nothing there's I have not been brave, no there's nothing there. I see they using lawyers that our television lawyers they put some guys off television. You know, I'm not surprised to see it because you have kids, whose own questions trump. Just taking a chiffon chef. It's he sowed stuff right there from from president from what you'd come to expect now, the only had one it may come out of this is that right, the the only thing is new in any of this testimony is tailored testifying again and one of his aides over Gordon someone, the ambassador to the EU talking to Trump about investigations. Trump is asked about this and he says he remember any of that he doesn't remember any phone call reference by Taylor here. I know nothing. That first time, I've heard it the one We seen that Sandlin said was that he did speak to me for.

A brief moment, and I said no quid pro quo under any circumstances, and that's true. The other I've never heard this. In any event it more secondhand information, but I've never heard it conversation, but no, not at all, not even a little bit a the only thing, and I guess so startling that stayed with his testimony- that there was no quid pro quo. So Trump is saying. The only conversation I had with someone is one in which I explicitly told him that there was not a quid pro quo. Someone of course says he believes that there was in fact a quid pro quo. This could get Trump in trouble if some where to get up and say no, no, I actually there was a phone call and Taylor was right and we did talk. About the investigation, presumably Just had an remember that conversation right from could also did say it was the same. Conversation is one right said. No quid pro quo because you didn't hear my side of the conversation, but that is the only new news from this entire day, is that Taylor claimed there was another call, from says he doesn't remember another call, but will find out the truth about that

someone's going to testify. Okay, so is any of this devastating or bombshell is anything that said so far overstating bombshell tossed into the middle of impeachment, or is it basically just Democrats? on a tv show for people, and it's obvious which this is because you can see how the media are analyzing it. The New York Times, for example, called in their television to actually do an analysis of how this thing looked on tv. So we all know what this is. It's it's it's made for tv drama, James Poniewozik, who is their tv critic, wrote a piece for the New York Times called a tale of the regular channel. Thing on many channels. In the middle of the testimony of William B Taylor Junior, the top american diplomat in Ukraine that opened the house, impeachment hearings, Wednesday again game broke out on social media. He sounded like someone, didn't he his deep, assuring steady voice I did some people in Tom Brokaw. No, maybe it was Walter Cronkite Rock Kong, Cronkite, Edward R Murrow

and then all these comparisons were to old school news anchors, because I think what people were hearing in Mister Taylor's gravelly composure was the voice not so much of another person, but another time, a time of authoritative voice is that a wide audience found credible who's like a science fiction story in which someone turns on an old radio and here's a staticky broadcast from the past. Even the text of Mister Taylor's introduction at Crown Katie and rang. I am not here to take one side or the other. He said my sole purpose is to provide. I know them and that's the way it is but this was in fact two thousand and nineteen, where there is no unified audience willing to accept a single way that anything is and then he just goes on to talk about the optics of this whole thing, because it's just like Walter Cronkite so again the media are reviewing this thing from a television perspective, there's a whole column in the Washington Post by Robin, given their fashion critic, suggesting that Jim Jordan needs to put on a jacket and obviously the most important element of art,

times is whether whether Jim Jordan is wearing a jacket or not by the way Jim Jordan ever wears jacket, I mean, if you ever been in any of the hearings in, but I mean I've testified in front of Jim Jordan in Congress. He does not wear a jacket. This is not like something new, but she says, of course, represent Jim Jordan took his seat Wednesday morning at the opening of the public impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill wearing nothing, but his shirt sleeves, no suit jacket. That's how Jordan dresses it's his power move his sartorial chest thump all other members of the house. Intelligence committee turned up in suits and ties or other businesses hire, but not Jordan. Everyone else was willing. Offer at least a symbolic not to the chorus formality that old fashioned notion of civility. Jordan announced him was the man who is itching to rumble. He was the guy who came not to do as the constitution demand with measured deliberation but brawl. She could tell all this by the fact he wasn't wearing a suit jacket which he never wears. I Jim Jordan several times he has never worn a suit jacket,

As far as I'm aware, I don't even know that he owns a suit jacket. The man probably buys his suit jacket and his pants separately at Macy's. Like I don't know, he doesn't do that, but apparently according to Washington, but that's the big takeaway, the big takeaway from all of this bombshell, Jim Jordan, doesn't wear jack. Jordan has a reputation for barely wearing a suit jacket. The Washington Post, Twitter account is dedicated to get listeners he's the man on the days. He refuses to show witnesses the same respect they. Never. They inevitably showed him answer the circumstances. Typically men who are called to testify before Congress wear a suit. They recognize the seriousness of the situation and they do If I had even Mark Zuckerberg, will single handedly made hoodies and t shirts. The uniform of the modern mobile wears a suit, but median house on Minaj went to Capitol Hill to discuss student loan debt. He also wore a suit the extras in the audience, as the impeachment unfolds will bring suit jackets. The witnesses were into jackets, but Jordan in his. As representative of the american people, couldn't be bothered to suit up,

When Jordan was interviewed recently by Wall Street Journal reporter about, why does he wear jacket? He said quote: even sure. I know why, but of course that was disingenuous after a pause, he admitted he does wear a jacket when the rules require him to do so, as one is on. The floor and he wears a jacket when he aims to be respectful, such as when he's in the company of the president or in a visit to the White House. Presumably he doesn't consider sitting alongside his colleagues during a matter of national importance to be situation that deserves high regard. I remember that time when Barack Obama, in Jack in the oval office, and some people are like that's that's terrible that he didn't do. Ronald Reagan, was used to put on a jacket model. How dare you say about Barack Obama? How dare you now? Jim. Jordan doesn't wear a jacket, it's the end of the world by the I just to point out that just There was no devastating bomb shell testimony yesterday, listen to CBS talk about the devastating bomb shell testimony yesterday and there we have it

day. One of the first public hearings in terms of the committees, each man and Corey against President Donald Trump, are now in the history books. Some devastating testimony today from two of America's most respected diplomats, who have Sir clothes for public can and democratic presidents bomb shell, so testimony yeah, except that nothing new happened and that's the real story. Yesterday, okay time for a thing I like in a quick thing and that I hate so things that I like today, so I was watching old movies. While I was on my trip to boston- and I watched it, was you streaming on prime as under which I've never seen it sort of a classic movie from the 1970s, with a very, very young, John Travolta movies, actually, quite good, it's been parodied so much in movies like airplane. You forget that the movie is, pretty good. It also is a relic of a time and when you watch it, you realize that that time the nineteen

does he and terrible as it was in a wide variety of ways that our sensitive he's now would not. Allow will be like this. We made it. Wouldn't I mean rent John Travolta, his character, spoiler alert from a movie, that is, that is nearly fifty years old at this point, but spoiler alert John Travolta at one point: new attempts to nearly rate, but I've female character in the movie, and she ends up being friends with him at the end of the movie. That would certainly not be allowed in a movie today. It's very gritty movie and people forget how gritty the movie is, because it's about disco, but here is uh The preview for Saturday night fever very iconic stuff, John Travolta walking down the street and the play Bge's in in all of this sort of stuff, but the movie pretty good examination and sort of Brooklyn Life, Circa, one thousand nine hundred and seventy seven- and it's a good reminder that Cultural Sub, that sort cultural breakdown can happen in.

Virtually any community right. This is really a movie about cultural breakdown, about the evils of the sexual revolution. Intention point: conservative: when you come, right down to it. So if you don't that it's worth checking out again Movie Saturday Night Fever plus, it dancing is actually pretty good right. John Travolta actually could dance back in the day, alright time for a quick thing that I hate ok, so quick things that I hate well. First of all, I just it's sort of a thing that I like is. I showed up at university. Last name is great. Students came out, packed house is in the Boston athletic Arena, which is it was kind of neat setting and it was a lot of fun lot of protesters showed up outside, which is a more power to them. I said last night Can you show up in twenty degree, weather to actually process more power to you? 'cause I've been to so many schools where it is cold and protesters, say they're going to show up, and then they check it out, at least in, Boston. They have the power of their convictions. They were protesting meat, suggesting that I was racist because the name of this it was America wasn't built on slavery, was built on freedom. There's

Justin is going to make light of slavery, then spent forty five minutes explaining the role of slavery in America's history. It's great evil in the transition away from slavery, in America's defeat of slavery and defeat of Jim Crow segregation, and so it didn't go quite how the left thought it was going to, because the left has this weird picture of conservatives as people who deny american history, which of course, is not true. It is left that frequently denies american history. In fact, a darker version of american history that simply isn't true. There are a bunch of protesters for of all sides. There are some people who showed up from sort of the nationalist conservative side of the aisle, there are a few all writers who showed up as well. There are some people who there's at Trans gender protester there it was it was it was, it was fun, but this is sort of this helping should on campus right. It was an open conversation. Everybody had a good time, but that is not what is how bring on our college campuses now. It is very, very, very bad. Obviously if you allow this sort of things to go on the University of Florida has a student

president and the student body president is now apparently facing impeachment, for allowing Donald Trump Junior to speak on campus The book is number one in New York Times: bestsellers he's, obviously a public figure. All sorts of public figures get to speak on college campuses, particularly public college campuses. Like University of Florida, Now the student body president is facing impeachment. According to the New York Times a sitting is facing impeachment accused Collusion abusing his power support falls along political lines. The opposition is determined to remove him. That was, and he did nothing wrong, but this impeachment inquiry is taking place far from Washington, even though the football stadium, is the swamp looms. Nearby student represent It's at the University of Florida introduced a bill on Tuesday to impeach, Michael Murphy, the student body president. Using him of improperly using student fees to pay one of President Trump's sons to speak on campus it all began when Mister Murphy, a senior invited, Donald Trump Junior and Kimberly Guilfoyle, a former Fox NEWS host an advisor to the president's campaign to speak on campus and paid them fifty grand with university funds.

Some students say the payment, was a violation of the student Senate Code and possibly the law. The backlash intensified after the campus newspaper the independent Florida alligator published emails, showing that Murphy had spoken with a consultant for Trump's RE election campaign to set up the visit and then Mister Murphy had attended Trump's in duration, okay, does any of that mean it's a legitimate to invite a public figure like down from junior campus, not that I'm aware of by the way how many payments have been made to left wing speakers University of Florida. I was just more than a few. Students who drafted the impeachment bill personally handed Murphy a copy of it on Tuesday night. They argue in the bill and Murphy's uses June funds violates the student Senate Code, which forbids spending student fees to support a political party. Yes of the Donald Trump Junior isn't running for office So this has led to this sour split on campus. Joe Rodriguez, Junior and treasurer for the University of Florida College Republicans, he said that this move is quite a mirror image of the partisan politics at the national level.

He said he attended the never viewed as a campaign event the drive to Alice Mister Murphy. He said show that the opposition, we look for anything to remove the elected president. I think they have. No cigar in both cases, but again the the idea here is that, if you that the real problem, of course, is that they don't want from junior speaking on campus right- and that's that's really what this is about. Just like all these Boston University students in won't be speaking on campus. They don't want conservative speaking on campus, doesn't matter if it's trump does matter. If it's me, nobody anybody there does it matter what people say by the way like at all again, I spoke at Stanford last week and protesters shouted for to leave. I was ripping into, I mean it's unbelievable, so this is just the latest iteration of campus radicalism. It is stupid, it is ridiculous and it is. It is contrary to the the goal of the university in the first place. Thank you, bye the way, Boston University for making sure that the event could happen in safety and security Administration to find job over. There already

we'll be back in a little bit later today, with two additional hours of content plus check us out tonight over dailywire dot com. The reason you should well, if you subscribe and you get full access to our daily wire backstage, will be discussing impeachment and many other issues of the day. It should be a lot of fun and if you are a subscriber, then get to ask the questions and you all the goodies behind the paywall. So go do that right now. Otherwise, we'll see you here tomorrow, I'm Ben Shapiro. This is the Ben Shapiro, show

and if you enjoyed this episode, 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 to we're available on Apple podcast, Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts, also be sure to check out the other daily wear podcast, including the Andrew Clay, even show the Michael all show, and then that will show thanks for listening. The Ben Shapiro shows produced by Robert Sterling directed by MIKE Joyner executive producer, Jeremy, boring senior producer, Jonathan hey are supervising, producer is Mathis Glover and our technical producer is Austin. Stevens assistant director, Pobol Y Taos, Ski edited by Adam side of it audio, is mix they might call Romina, hair and makeup- is by just well Vera production assistant Nick. She him the Ben Shapiro Show is a daily wire production. Copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen on them at WAL Show were not just discussing. Politics were talking culture, faith

family. All of the things that are really important to you so come join. The conversation.