The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 346 - The Democrats' Money Laundering Operation

00:00:00.000 I just saw this article in The Atlantic. It was published this week, written by Annie Lowry,

00:00:04.820 and it has the title, Cancel Billionaires. And it's a call, well, it's calling to cancel

00:00:10.480 billionaires. Get rid of billionaires is the exact phrase used in the article.

00:00:15.840 I'm not sure if we're talking about get rid of rich people like French Revolution style,

00:00:21.460 or get rid of them just by stealing their money, or maybe a little bit of both. But the point is,

00:00:24.880 there shouldn't be any billionaires. That's the point. Billionaires are a policy failure.

00:00:31.360 That's the way the left often puts it these days. I just have one question. When I read this kind of

00:00:37.880 stuff, I'm taking Annie Lowry, for example. Do you think that if I offered her a billion dollars, 0.97

00:00:46.440 she would turn it down? If she had a long lost rich uncle who died and was going to bequeath

00:00:56.300 a million dollars, a billion dollars to her, even a million, do you think she'd turn it down?

00:01:03.460 All of these people who whine about the rich, would any of them turn down a billion dollars,

00:01:09.260 or a million dollars, or any money? I'm guessing probably 0.0% of them would. Why? Well, because

00:01:19.440 the main thing they hate about rich people is that they personally are not one. So every time you hear

00:01:26.140 someone going on about the rich, realize that what they're really saying, how you could really

00:01:31.800 translate it, what they're really saying is, I am upset that I am not rich. That's my issue.

00:01:37.400 It is a, the whining about the rich is very thinly veiled envy. It is envy dressed up to look like

00:01:44.560 moral righteousness. And that's really all it is. And we should always keep that in mind.

00:01:48.320 All right. Much to discuss this afternoon. Planned Parenthood has announced that it's

00:01:53.000 going to spend $45 million. Speaking of millions of dollars, Planned Parenthood has announced it's

00:01:58.920 going to spend $45 million to help the Democrats win the election. That's an interesting plan for a

00:02:05.320 tax funded company. So we're going to talk about that. Also, Matt Lauer is the subject of a brutal

00:02:10.800 rape allegation. But I think there may be reason to possibly be skeptical. We'll discuss it.

00:02:17.780 There's also a conspiracy theory percolating right now around the story of, you know, the police

00:02:22.760 officer who was convicted of murder for walking into someone else's apartment and shooting them,

00:02:27.800 claimed it was an intruder. She thought it was an intruder. She was in the wrong apartment,

00:02:30.760 whatever. Well, there's a conspiracy theory now around that whole story. And we're going to take

00:02:36.780 a look at that also and more. But first, a word from Harry's. You know, humans have been shaving 0.98

00:02:42.260 for thousands of years. I don't know if you knew that. And the secret to a great shave really hasn't

00:02:47.340 changed much that entire time. The ancient Greeks, they shaved. They didn't have flex balls or heated 0.65

00:02:53.380 handles or any of that fancy stuff. And you don't need it either. That's why Harry's doesn't overcharge

00:02:59.880 you to add gimmicky features to their razors, all that stuff, the bells and whistles. They don't

00:03:04.100 bother with that. They focus on delivering what actually matters, which is sharp, durable blades

00:03:08.700 at a fair price. Now, I use Harry's myself, and I love it for the great prices, the smooth shave,

00:03:17.220 the way the blades stay very sharp. That's the main thing. You don't need, you know, you got these

00:03:21.300 things now where it's like 10 blades in the swivel and it's heated and all this. All you need just

00:03:26.620 needs to be sharp. If it's sharp, you're fine. That's the main thing. And yes, I do shave. It is

00:03:31.220 a stereotype and a myth that bearded men don't shave. I have to. I have to use razors. Otherwise,

00:03:37.440 I'd have hair coming out of my eyeballs right now if I didn't shave at all. So Harry's is a return to

00:03:43.420 the essential, which is quality, durable blades at a fair price. Just $2 per blade. That's it.

00:03:48.140 They've cut out the middleman. And what they're doing is they're just bringing the blades right to you.

00:03:53.960 Listeners of my show can redeem their Harry's trial set at harrys.com slash mattwalsh. You'll

00:03:59.500 get a weighted ergonomic handle for a firm blade. You'll get a five blade razor with a lubricating

00:04:04.840 strip and trimmer blade. You'll get rich lathering shave gel with aloe to keep your skin hydrated,

00:04:11.000 which is an important part of this. And a travel blade, a travel blade cover that is to keep your

00:04:15.780 razor dry and easy to grab on the go. All you have to do is go to harrys.com slash mattwalsh

00:04:22.800 to start shaving better today. All right. Reading now from the Hill, Planned Parenthood's

00:04:29.340 super PAC announced a $45 million electoral campaign on Wednesday to defeat President Trump

00:04:36.880 and Republicans in key Senate races. The investment will fund a, quote, large scale grassroots organization

00:04:42.960 and canvas digital television, radio, and mail programs. Kelly Robinson, executive director of

00:04:50.160 Planned Parenthood Votes, in an interview with the Hill, said the stakes are higher than ever,

00:04:53.620 and we're going out more powerfully than ever with the largest investment we've ever made.

00:04:58.120 The campaign will focus on Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire,

00:05:02.400 North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Those states are must wins for Trump, but Republican

00:05:06.660 senators are also fighting to keep their seats in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, in races that

00:05:12.300 will determine which party controls the Senate after 2020. The campaign, which could exceed $45 million,

00:05:18.100 will tell voters there is a coordinated attack among Republicans and state legislators and so on and

00:05:26.920 so forth. Robinson said, we know we're going to have a critical role mobilizing those folks to win

00:05:31.900 back the Senate and expand the path to 270 to win back the presidency. Win back the presidency. 0.57

00:05:40.100 Notice the language used there. Planned Parenthood wants to win back the presidency.

00:05:45.220 Well, because they know that, well, how would you say, well, how is Planned Parenthood going to win

00:05:50.800 the presidency? Well, because they know that if the Democrats have the presidency, then they have it

00:05:56.160 because they own the Democrat party. But this is very interesting. $45 million on an explicitly

00:06:03.880 political campaign. $45 million to elect Democrats. That's what they're trying to do. And they're open

00:06:11.260 about it, right? And that would be fine because I think if companies want to do that, they can't

00:06:18.580 except for the fact that this is a tax-funded organization. They get $500 million a year from

00:06:27.220 the taxpayers. And now they want to turn around and take that money that was taken from the taxpayers

00:06:32.860 and spend it to advance a political agenda that will specifically help Democrats. Now,

00:06:39.500 it's a great deal for Democrats, as Planned Parenthood is nothing more than really a slush

00:06:44.340 fund for them. Well, a Democrat slush fund that also kills babies, which the Democrats are fans of 0.58

00:06:50.000 also. That is, killing babies. They're obviously big fans of that. It's their favorite thing in the 1.00

00:06:54.580 world, killing babies. But this arrangement is a great deal if you can get it. Again, 0.98

00:07:02.880 they take money from taxpayers, give it to Planned Parenthood, and then Planned Parenthood turns around

00:07:09.120 and gives the money back to them through campaign contributions and attack ads against their

00:07:13.900 opponents and so on. It is essentially money laundering. Planned Parenthood is like the car wash

00:07:20.080 in Breaking Bad, money laundering operation, except instead of washing cars, it kills babies.

00:07:26.320 Now, let's remember all of the hand-wringing that goes on whenever the possibility of defunding

00:07:34.380 Planned Parenthood is brought up. In fact, I found this online. Here's a video that Planned Parenthood

00:07:41.100 put out a few months ago talking about the danger of defunding them and all the bad things that will

00:07:48.920 happen if we do. Watch this. Planned Parenthood provides care for patients across the country,

00:07:55.440 no matter their zip code, their income, their race, their immigration status, their sexual orientation

00:08:00.920 or gender identity, no matter what. In Washington, some politicians are trying to defund Planned Parenthood,

00:08:08.620 but what does that really mean? Millions of people come to Planned Parenthood for healthcare

00:08:13.460 services like birth control, STD tests, cancer screenings, and sex education. And Planned

00:08:21.960 Parenthood proudly provides safe and legal abortion, a medical procedure federal health

00:08:27.120 programs won't pay for except in extremely rare circumstances. The care that patients get at

00:08:32.520 Planned Parenthood prevents an estimated 579,000 unintended pregnancies each year and saves lives

00:08:39.460 through early detection of cancer. Actually, can we stop there for just one second? Because I just

00:08:44.120 noticed this. And let's freeze frame right here, because how symbolically appropriate is this?

00:08:52.120 This is great. Notice how the women in this graphic, they have no eyes. They have no ears, 1.00

00:08:59.060 no eyes, no nose. They just have a mouth. That's all they have. Isn't that kind of interesting?

00:09:03.560 Because that really is how Planned Parenthood wants women to be when they come in. That's how 1.00

00:09:08.200 Planned Parenthood sees women. That is how they want women to essentially act when they come in. 1.00

00:09:15.260 They want women to be blind, kept in the dark, not able to see clearly. Don't look at the ultrasound. 1.00

00:09:21.460 Don't look at your other options. Don't look at the literature that the pro-life people out front

00:09:28.340 tried to hand you on your way. And don't look at any of that stuff. Keep your eyes closed.

00:09:31.940 We'll lead you back in this back room here and we'll kill your baby. Don't look at anything else. 1.00

00:09:36.640 They want their women to be eyeless, blind. And so that is some stunning symbolism in that graphic. 0.99

00:09:44.860 Anyway, continue.

00:09:46.520 So when politicians talk about defunding Planned Parenthood, they're not talking about striking a line in the federal budget.

00:09:53.520 They're talking about blocking millions of women, men, and young people from getting essential and life-saving care.

00:09:59.200 Here's what their plan would cost Americans. An estimated one in five women in America have been to a Planned Parenthood in their lifetime.

00:10:08.180 Nearly half of all Planned Parenthood patients are people of color.

00:10:12.200 For many people, Planned Parenthood is the only place they can get care in their community.

00:10:16.920 In fact, more than half of Planned Parenthood health centers are in rural or underserved communities.

00:10:21.560 Defunding Planned Parenthood would be disastrous for our nation's health.

00:10:26.200 And the people who would be hurt most would be those already struggling to get by.

00:10:31.040 Blocking women from life-saving care. Defunding would be disastrous for women's health. 0.97

00:10:37.540 Think of all the poor women who will not have access to health care because of this. 0.96

00:10:41.280 This is what they tell us. That's the argument. That's what they say.

00:10:43.340 And yet they've got 45 million bucks to throw around on political campaigns.

00:10:48.800 So they tell us, if you stop giving us money, women will die. 1.00

00:10:52.460 And they also tell us, hey, we've got 45 million dollars to go and burn on campaign ads.

00:10:57.880 There seems to be a contradiction here.

00:11:01.340 In fact, it was just last year.

00:11:05.520 There was a very small sort of partial defunding of Planned Parenthood that happened where the company was deprived of about, I think, 50 million.

00:11:15.100 I think it was 50 million dollars.

00:11:17.760 50 million dollars of tax money isn't going to Planned Parenthood anymore.

00:11:22.260 Now, they're still getting about 500 million dollars.

00:11:24.780 So that 50 million dollars is nothing. It's a drop in the bucket.

00:11:27.020 But they told us that even taking that 50 million away is disastrous and it's going to kill women and they're not going to be.

00:11:36.080 So you take away 50 million, they won't be able to function without the 50 million.

00:11:41.320 Yet they have 50 million that they're going to spend on campaign ads.

00:11:47.720 So it's it would, again, appear to be a contradiction.

00:11:50.160 And this is this is the thing, even if Planned Parenthood didn't murder 300000 children a year, it would still be an outrage to give them tax money, considering how politically active they are.

00:12:02.460 Now, of course, if they didn't murder babies, they wouldn't need to be politically active because they you know, their their their political activism is all about protecting their bottom line. 1.00

00:12:12.280 And because they're worried that they'll be stopped from killing babies and making all the money they make off of that. 0.98

00:12:18.860 But they didn't kill babies to begin with and they wouldn't need to be politically active. 0.99

00:12:21.340 But putting all that aside, it is it is obviously corruption, blatant, naked corruption for a tax funded institution to donate to political causes.

00:12:37.040 And all I'll say is this, if you are OK with this, then I don't and it doesn't matter how you feel about abortion.

00:12:48.380 If you're OK with this, a company that gets 500 million dollars a year in tax money, turning around and donating millions to political campaigns, if you're fine with that, that I don't want to hear you whining about the influence of money in politics or corporate greed or corporate corruption or anything else, because this is the number one example of all of that.

00:13:12.360 Of course, of course, we should note that Republicans had a chance to cut off this pipeline and to put an end to this Democrat money laundering operation.

00:13:27.000 They had a chance to do it. They could have done it.

00:13:29.520 They for two years, they had the presidency and they had the House and the Senate and they could have done it. 1.00

00:13:34.200 And they didn't because Republican Party is filled, of course, with idiots and cowards. 1.00

00:13:39.820 All right. Well, moving on. 1.00

00:13:43.100 I hate to have to call this out, but, you know, the hippies are at it again out in the street protesting the climate.

00:13:51.440 And as you know, I love playing these videos for you.

00:13:54.280 Nothing better than hippie videos as far as I'm concerned.

00:13:56.840 But this one, this one really upset me. Watch this.

00:14:12.360 We tried not to have to.

00:14:25.620 Okay.

00:14:27.840 Thank you.

00:14:29.100 Thank you.

00:14:29.980 Thank you.

00:14:30.940 Thank you.

00:14:31.520 All I'm going to say is, look, if you're going to copy my morning workout routine,

00:14:51.980 at least give me credit, okay? You damned plagiarist. That's all. Okay, so there's this 0.99

00:14:59.940 book coming out, a book by Ronan Farrow, the guy who broke the Weinstein story and has broken a

00:15:08.920 bunch of the Me Too stories, and he's got a book coming out, and it talks about that story,

00:15:18.440 but it also contains new allegations, including an explosive one about Matt Lauer. We know that

00:15:24.200 Matt Lauer got fired from NBC for, you know, it was never clear exactly what he did. It was just

00:15:30.600 sort of inappropriate conduct, and he was kind of a creep and that sort of thing. But the book

00:15:38.260 goes into details about what exactly Matt Lauer actually did, and that includes rape.

00:15:47.260 The allegation is from Brooke Nevels, a former employee of NBC. Now, she had an affair with

00:15:52.480 Matt Lauer, which I guess we knew about that, and both her and Lauer admit that there was a long-term,

00:15:59.060 months-long relationship between the two, sexual relationship. But Nevels says now in the book

00:16:05.440 that at the beginning of the relationship, I guess I believe there was their first sexual encounter

00:16:12.660 was a violent rape. She says that they were at a hotel because they were covering the Olympics,

00:16:17.560 um, and, uh, and, uh, she, she came up to Lauer's hotel room. She was invited to Lauer's hotel room.

00:16:26.360 She came, and, uh, apparently Matt Lauer answered the door in his underwear. He was wearing boxers,

00:16:31.580 and, and she came in, and, um, and then, uh, she says he forced himself on her and raped her. 0.70

00:16:37.060 Um, now, it seems most people have taken this allegation, as people tend to do these days,

00:16:44.440 they've taken this allegation and the others in Pharaoh's book as gospel, um, as fact, unquestioned,

00:16:50.220 there you go. And maybe it is a fact. Uh, I'm, you know, I, I'm certainly no Matt Lauer fan. I

00:16:56.440 didn't like the guy even before any of this stuff. I, I always thought he was a creep. He always came

00:16:59.860 off to me as creepy even before any of this. Um, when he got caught up in the, in the Me Too thing,

00:17:06.860 I was not surprised in the least. I was very much expecting that. That's always been my impression

00:17:11.700 of him. But that doesn't mean he's a rapist, of course. He could be. I don't know. Maybe. But I think

00:17:20.300 there are two giant red flags here that we, we should point to, uh, we should point out that I think

00:17:25.660 a lot of people are overlooking. The first red flag, and this is a big one, doesn't mean in and

00:17:33.420 of itself that the allegation is false, but when a rape allegation is used to sell a book, that to me

00:17:42.340 is reason for skepticism. When just in general, in fact, forget about rape allegation. Anytime an

00:17:52.000 explosive detail or rumor or gossip or anything like that, anytime there's a juicy, juicy little

00:17:58.840 tidbit about, uh, uh, you know, damaging damning about someone and it's, it's put in a book and

00:18:05.540 it's used to promote the book, then that's, that's a reason to be skeptical. It doesn't mean it's not

00:18:11.440 true. It's just, you have to ask yourself, um, if this actually happened, is this the way that we'd

00:18:18.000 be hearing about it? Does it make sense that this detail has been sort of saved up to be used in a

00:18:26.740 promotional way to sell a book that, um, you have to ask yourself that now. So at the, at the very

00:18:33.740 least, this is a very cynical thing in my mind, the fact that Ronan Farrow is using this, if it did

00:18:41.240 happen using a rape to, to, to, because this is going to sell a lot of books. The book would have

00:18:46.540 been a bestseller anyway, but now a lot of people are going to hear about this because it's in the

00:18:50.520 news and they're going to, they're going to, and it's, it's impossible to believe that that wasn't

00:18:55.140 part of the calculation. Um, and so at the very least we have something cynical doesn't mean it's

00:19:01.300 not true, but it's a reason to be skeptical. And then the second, the second red flag, as far as I

00:19:05.760 can tell, is that, um, is that she admits that she continued the relationship with Matt Lauer,

00:19:12.180 um, after the alleged rape took place, which again, maybe that's how it happened. It's,

00:19:21.000 I can't say it didn't happen that way, but it does seem strange if you were brutally raped by someone 0.90

00:19:28.620 that you would then continue in a sexual relationship with them for months consensually. 0.73

00:19:34.960 Um, maybe, I don't know, seems strange. So I think there's reason for skepticism.

00:19:42.180 And this shows again, why the believe women slogan is, is flawed. Um, or a slogan like this,

00:19:50.560 the national, uh, the national women's law center put out a tweet after the Lauer news broke,

00:19:55.960 probably mainly in reference to it. Uh, and here's the tweet. Now, first of all, this thing on Twitter

00:20:01.360 where people repeat a phrase over and over as if that makes it more convincing. Now I'm, I'm not a fan

00:20:08.020 of that personally. I don't think anyone's going to read a statement and go, Hmm, well, I'm not really

00:20:12.360 sure about that. And then see that it's been repeated nine times and say, Oh, okay. Well,

00:20:15.900 I mean, if they repeated it nine times, it must be correct. Um, but the point is that listen to

00:20:21.100 survivors as is being insisted here is a bad motto. It's a bad approach because the whole point is

00:20:29.860 we don't know if somebody is a survivor just because they say they are, you know, we, we have

00:20:38.580 to look first at the evidence to determine if someone is a survivor. And then if it seems like

00:20:44.880 they are, then yeah, we listen, but that's the whole question. What this slogan really means to

00:20:51.040 say, what it really seems to mean is, um, assume all accusers are survivors and then listen to them

00:20:57.720 or assume all women who call themselves survivors are in fact survivors. And that is a very, very bad

00:21:05.440 precedent, a precedent that in fact undermines our entire judicial system. Our entire approach

00:21:11.760 to criminal justice is contradicted by destroyed by this believe women nonsense.

00:21:18.840 This is one of the fundamental principles of our judicial system is that no, you don't just

00:21:26.740 believe someone because they accuse another person. The fact that an accusation is made is not in and of

00:21:33.240 itself conclusive evidence that the accused thing actually happened. Obviously. So no, we don't,

00:21:43.240 we don't, uh, we don't believe women. Um, uh, we don't believe men. We look at evidence and we believe

00:21:52.580 credible allegations. That's what we believe. Doesn't matter if it's a woman making it or a man

00:21:58.040 making it. It makes no difference. The fact that a woman is the one making the allegation, that doesn't 0.99

00:22:03.540 make it more credible. It doesn't make it less credible. It's just, it's an allegation. You have to

00:22:06.980 look at it. Maybe there's more evidence for this Matt Lauer thing. I don't know. But, uh, what we

00:22:13.300 have now, as far as I could tell is an accusation in a book used to sell a book. And that's what we

00:22:19.400 have. Not enough to assume that it's true. Okay. I wanted to talk about this because, um,

00:22:29.020 it's just, it's a really good example of how conspiracy theories develop and, uh, and why

00:22:35.140 conspiracy theories are almost always BS. So you remember the trial of Amber Geiger. She was the,

00:22:42.260 the Dallas cop who, um, shot and killed a man in his apartment says that she was confused about,

00:22:49.840 she went to the wrong apartment, thought it was her apartment. There was a guy in there. I thought

00:22:53.220 it was an intruder shot and killed him. And, uh, and, and now she's going to prison for 10 years. 1.00

00:22:58.180 She was convicted of murder, which by the way, I totally agree that she needs to go to prison for 1.00

00:23:04.840 that. Um, I thought the murder, I'm a little surprised that she was convicted on the murder 0.99

00:23:09.880 charge. I thought it'd be more of a manslaughter thing. Uh, because I don't think anyone thinks

00:23:14.420 that this was premeditated. Like she went into, cause she really just wanted to kill the guy.

00:23:18.560 I think her story about how she was in the wrong apartment, thought it was hers probably is true. 1.00

00:23:24.280 But the fact that she killed someone, the fact that an innocent man is dead. And, uh, even if you

00:23:30.700 didn't do it on purpose, you, you, you still have to pay the price for that. That's what I would

00:23:34.320 think usually would be manslaughter, but in any case, um, so she's going to prison. 0.81

00:23:41.760 Joshua Brown is a man who lived in the same apartment complex. He testified against Geiger

00:23:46.860 at the trial. Um, and his testimony is part of what sent her to jail. Although I would imagine that,

00:23:54.500 uh, even without his testimony, she'd probably still be going to jail because the fact is there's,

00:24:00.780 there's no denying it. She didn't even deny it. She did walk into this guy's apartment and kill him.

00:24:04.320 So in some ways, uh, I, you know, it's, it's even without the testimony, you think he probably

00:24:09.220 still, she's probably still going to jail, but then it just so happens that, um, after the trial,

00:24:14.360 after the conviction, a few days later, Brown ended up dead in what police say is a botched drug

00:24:19.800 deal. Now botched drug deals happen all the time. There's nothing, nothing unusual about that.

00:24:26.300 People are killed in botched drug deals. Unfortunately, all the time, nothing unusual about that

00:24:30.440 either. The only unusual thing is that coincidentally, this guy had just testified

00:24:35.040 against a police officer in a high profile case. That's what made it unusual. So the conspiracy

00:24:41.320 theories start, um, with a lot of people on the internet and even some people in the media

00:24:45.860 speculating that he was killed by police because he was a witness. Uh, and now they're, they're coming

00:24:52.240 up with this story to cover it up. Some people are being coy about it saying, well, I don't know

00:24:57.200 what happened, but the official story seems to be a little fishy. I don't know. Um, and then you

00:25:02.820 have, for example, stuff like this, uh, this article in the route titled nobody is buying ballot Dallas

00:25:08.760 PD's BS story about Joshua Brown's death. And then the article basically comes out and just flat out

00:25:17.200 accuses the Dallas police department of killing, uh, Joshua Brown. The article says when news broke that

00:25:25.020 Brown was gunned down in the parking lot of his apartment complex, as he exited his vehicle,

00:25:29.320 many speculated that he had been snuffed out by the police or by the order of police. Uh, he did

00:25:34.740 after all testify against a cop and participate in the trial that ultimately sent her to prison.

00:25:38.920 And then it goes on to, to essentially endorse that view. This is just a perfect example. As I said,

00:25:46.360 of how conspiracy theories work, there is no evidence at all, none that police killed this man.

00:25:56.160 No evidence. Um, what you have here is a coincidence. A guy testified, he was in the news for that and

00:26:06.660 now he's dead. That's a coincidence. Now, just because a coincidence, a coincidence has happened,

00:26:14.320 that doesn't mean that you get to concoct this whole story around it. Um,

00:26:21.780 you know, and nevermind the story makes no sense. Brown already testified. Geiger is already convicted.

00:26:32.820 So if you're, if you're going to kill a guy to stop him from testifying, you'd probably do it before 0.97

00:26:38.180 he testifies. And before the person has already been convicted, I would think, you know, if you're 0.81

00:26:45.220 going to testify against the mob in, in some trial, they're going to kill you beforehand so that you

00:26:51.480 don't testify. Once you've already testified and the testimony is out there, it's, it's a done deal.

00:26:56.560 It's over now. Uh, so then maybe you say, well, it could have been vengeance. Maybe it was,

00:27:03.540 it was, uh, it was revenge against this guy, which again, even though that makes no sense,

00:27:09.740 it already, it, it, it, there's no evidence. There's no reason to speculate that that is just

00:27:15.320 a story you came up with in your head. That's all. That's all that is. Um, but the story also

00:27:22.460 doesn't make sense because again, if the Dallas PD, if there is this murderous cabal within the

00:27:28.780 Dallas police department, um, and they are willing to, and capable of murdering a guy and covering it

00:27:35.840 up, like, like is being alleged here, then again, they would have done it before he testified.

00:27:43.220 They would have waited until afterwards. That's not how these things work.

00:27:49.560 The, the fact that this man was able to get up there and give his testimony, um, unmolested,

00:27:56.680 then that's pretty good at indication that there isn't any murderous conspiracy going on

00:28:02.480 to kill off the witnesses. Uh, and, and besides, why would they even do that?

00:28:10.960 Geiger killed an innocent man. Nobody disputes the fact that she did. She doesn't even dispute it.

00:28:16.500 Um, the Dallas police department, they weren't coming out and, and, and, you know, going out of

00:28:21.340 their way to defend her. Why do they care if she goes to jail? You think they really care?

00:28:26.680 If anything, they probably hate her more than everyone else does because on top of the fact

00:28:31.200 that she killed a guy, she also brought all this bad PR to the Dallas, the police department. So

00:28:35.160 it doesn't even make any sense on that level. Um, it's just, it's utterly, completely, totally

00:28:41.780 ridiculous, but this is how conspiracy theories work where you don't need evidence. You don't even

00:28:47.840 need a story that makes sense because we don't have either of those things in this case.

00:28:52.340 All you need is a coincidence. And that's how, that's where most conspiracy theories come

00:29:00.360 from. You need some kind of, you need two events to sort of coincide that will allow you

00:29:07.980 to come in and construct an entire mythology around it. That's all you need. Or you don't

00:29:15.800 even need a coincidence. You just need something somewhat unusual. You need an, an unusual thing

00:29:23.460 to occur. And then that's, and then you're off to the races, um, because you can go in

00:29:27.940 and make up your story. Uh, it's of course, in a totally illogical, illegitimate way to, to

00:29:35.600 operate, but this is what people do. And it's not exclusive to the right. It's not exclusive

00:29:40.200 to the left. This is just a human, it's something in human nature. It's a, it's a flaw that we all

00:29:45.840 have where we tend to do this. All right. Um, let's go to emails, Matt wall show at gmail.com

00:29:55.000 Matt wall show at gmail.com. This is from Ben says, hi, Matt. I don't know. Uh, I don't know

00:30:00.820 enough people in my daily life who have seen the Joker movie. So I've decided to take my opinions to

00:30:04.640 email in the hopes that someone else will either agree with me or tell me how wrong I am about my

00:30:08.900 perspective. This will be a slight spoiler, but you can read ahead and decide if you think there's

00:30:13.480 enough to actually constitute a spoiler in here. However, I'll try to be vague. One of the things

00:30:17.620 that struck me, so spoiler alert. Okay. One of the things that struck me while watching the movie

00:30:22.840 and most of why I believe the left leaning media have tried to get, get out ahead of the film with

00:30:27.480 their scathing reviews is that the villains in the movie are clearly leftist. The character of the

00:30:33.240 Joker himself is not political. He says as much himself, but his followers, the people who are

00:30:37.500 inspired by him are overtly leftist. They carried signs that said resist and wealthy equals fascist.

00:30:44.160 And watching the movie, it was almost impossible to, for me to ignore the connection to groups like

00:30:48.140 Antifa and those who provide them cover in the media. It's easy to think the movie inspires violence

00:30:53.840 when you actually agree with many of the things the villains in movie are fighting for. If you think

00:30:57.700 wealthy people are fascists and you regularly cover for groups like Antifa, then of course the Joker

00:31:02.840 and those who support him seem like the protagonists. On the other hand, if you watch the movie with a

00:31:06.940 clear moral lens, you can see that the violence is depicted tragically, not celebrated.

00:31:13.660 Okay. So that's, I've heard this point before. That's an interesting take on why the media was so

00:31:19.000 against this movie and still is. I guess what you're saying is, for those of us who are not Antifa

00:31:27.100 apologists, it's easy for us to watch this and tell that this violence is not being condoned or

00:31:34.240 promoted. These are the bad guys, obviously. But if you naturally sympathize with that side of

00:31:41.800 things, then to you, it's going to seem like encouragement. So yeah, I guess there might,

00:31:45.520 there might be something to that. Um, although I still, I, I tend to think that the media's,

00:31:52.020 uh, narrative about the Joker and their, uh, obsession with it was also somewhat random.

00:32:00.960 It just kind of naturally developed at first where they came up with this narrative and it was

00:32:07.020 getting a lot of clicks. And so they just ran with it. I think that's the main thing.

00:32:12.340 Joker was a movie. A lot of people were interested in a cultural pop culture phenomenon. And the media

00:32:18.260 came up with a narrative that was getting the clicks and, and they went with it. I think that's

00:32:22.560 probably the main explanation. This is from QB says, hi, Matt on Twitter. You said the newest

00:32:28.220 Walsh has finally joined us. And when my daughter was born, I believe that, uh, that premises matter

00:32:33.920 a lot when it comes to politics. Obviously the premise I have a problem with is the premise that

00:32:38.840 babies are only valuable after birth. Your daughter, daughter already, uh, was already with you before

00:32:44.120 birth. So I wanted to ask if pro-life people should stop using this kind of language. And like I do

00:32:49.440 refuse to celebrate birthdays. I think all of this glamorizing of birth only feeds into the devaluing

00:32:55.480 of pre-born babies. What do you think? There's a logic to your point. I've heard this from other

00:33:01.240 people. Um, I think refusing to celebrate birthdays probably takes it further than you need to. Uh,

00:33:11.920 I think what you call the glamorizing of birth, I think that only tends to highlight, uh, to underline

00:33:20.320 the significance of, of human life and how beautiful to talk, to talk about how, how amazing

00:33:26.480 and miraculous and beautiful the birth of a new child is. I think that helps the pro-life cause. I

00:33:31.800 don't think it undermines it at all. Um, however, you're right when we, you know, the way we, the ways

00:33:37.600 we, that we talk about, uh, a new child or even, even what I did. I'm, you know, a lot of us do this

00:33:43.120 when I, when my, uh, wife was pregnant, I would say something like, oh, I've got three kids and

00:33:48.980 another on the way when really, no, I've got four kids. It's just one happens to be located inside my

00:33:54.820 wife's womb at the moment. And, and I think you're right. And I, I, I became more now, obviously when

00:34:01.200 I say that, and when, when any pro-lifer says it, we don't mean it literally. We do obviously recognize

00:34:06.240 that our child exists now and is a person is a human and all of that. It's just a, it's just a kind

00:34:12.220 of a figure of speech. It's a colloquialism. Um, but with this pregnancy, I did become more aware

00:34:19.480 of that because I think you're right, that we should be careful with our language. We don't,

00:34:23.900 we don't have to be hypersensitive about it, but the language does, does matter. Um,

00:34:31.180 especially when it comes to something like abortion, because for the left, their entire position

00:34:37.000 revolves around depends on the manipulation of language, which makes it important for us to

00:34:42.960 be cognizant of that. Um, which I guess I, I tried to be with this pregnancy. I probably was,

00:34:49.340 I obviously didn't quite totally succeed. All right. Let's go to Christine says, hi, Matt. How have you

00:34:56.120 ever heard of the trolley problem? Here's how Wikipedia summarizes the dilemma. You see a run,

00:35:02.440 a runaway trolley moving toward five tied up or otherwise incapacitated people lying on the main

00:35:08.540 track. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the

00:35:14.040 trolley will be redirected onto a side track and the five people on the main track will be saved.

00:35:18.560 However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options. One, do nothing

00:35:24.540 and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. Two, pull the lever diverting the

00:35:29.300 trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person, which is the more ethical option or more

00:35:34.420 simply, what is the right thing to do? So Matt, what say you? First of all, thank you for this email.

00:35:40.400 I love, I love these hypothetical moral dilemmas. I find them very fun to talk about. Uh, and I have

00:35:47.920 heard of the trolley problem before. I think, um, this one's kind of an easy one, I think. And I think

00:35:53.680 most people intuitively just kind of get it. And first of all, the, so at the end of the, of this

00:35:59.640 hypothetical, there's, there's the question, which is the more ethical option or more simply, what is

00:36:04.880 the right thing to do? I think those two questions conflate that that's a, that's not a legitimate

00:36:11.300 conflation there because those are actually two separate questions. Um, and the real question,

00:36:19.200 the right question is what is the more ethical option? Because as for the second question,

00:36:24.000 what's the right thing to do? I think that, that insinuates that one of the options is the wrong

00:36:29.660 thing to do would be morally wrong. And I think in a situation like this, whether you pull the lever or

00:36:35.580 you don't, in either case, I don't think you've committed a moral wrong, but I do think that there's

00:36:42.680 a more ethically, there's a, there's a, there is a better ethical option. Um, and that would be to

00:36:48.960 pull the lever. Um, and this is where the principle of double effect comes in. And the principle of double

00:36:57.000 effect says that you can commit a positive action, which is meant to bring about a positive result.

00:37:06.400 Even if you know that there is a likely side effect of that action, which will be negative.

00:37:13.900 Uh, so in this case you pull the lever, that's a positive action. You're trying to save the five

00:37:20.020 people. Um, and that is the, the, the intended effect is to save the five people. Unfortunately,

00:37:25.500 the side effect is that probably that one, the other guy on the other track is, is a goner. That

00:37:30.020 wasn't your intention. That wasn't, that's not the, the, um, the direct result you're, you're going

00:37:36.280 for. Um, you're not intending to kill the person, but that is probably going to be one of the things

00:37:42.580 that happens as a result of the action, but it's, it's okay. So that that's, that's the principle of

00:37:47.080 double effect. Now it's not the same thing as ends justify the means. So in fact, I was reading a

00:37:53.360 book recently that talks about the trolley problem. I can't remember the book, but they, in the

00:37:59.980 book, the author poses a wrinkle says, okay, now, now imagine that let's say, you know,

00:38:06.340 same situation, trolley's coming down five people on one track, one on the other. Um,

00:38:12.700 uh, or even let's say, forget about the other track. The trolley's coming down. You got five

00:38:18.060 people on the track. There's nowhere else for the trolley to go. There's no lever. You're standing

00:38:22.300 up on like a bridge or something watching this happening. You don't have a leather to lever to pull,

00:38:26.960 but you do have a very fat man standing next to you on the bridge. So would it be okay to,

00:38:32.220 to shove the fat man onto the track to stop the, the, uh, the, the trolley, which would kill the 0.89

00:38:39.200 fat man, but save the five people. Now, I think we all recognize that in that case, no, you can't

00:38:45.860 shove the guy onto the track. And we, we all kind of intuitively recognize that though. When you think

00:38:52.640 about it, it is a very fine distinction because whether you're pulling the lever where let's say

00:38:57.760 the fat man's tied on the, on the other track and you pull the lever and he dies, what really is the

00:39:03.060 difference between pulling the lever and sending the train in his direction or just of throwing him

00:39:08.240 on the track to begin with? Well, the distinction is, um, you know, one is principle of double effect

00:39:14.400 and one is ends justify the means because in one case you are directly killing this guy by throwing

00:39:21.380 him on the track. And the side effect of that evil action of killing someone is that you save five

00:39:28.140 other people that is ends justify the means. And that doesn't work. So, um, I hope I answered your

00:39:37.380 question. I think that's, that's the answer, but there isn't another interesting, uh, thing here,

00:39:44.100 which is we all, as I said, intuitively recognize most of us, I think would answer this question in

00:39:53.280 the same way. And we would say, yeah, you can pull the lever, but no, obviously you can't throw

00:39:58.580 somebody on the track to save the five. We all intuitively recognize that even if we can't exactly

00:40:04.320 explain why we would say, most of us would say, yeah, of course you can't throw the fat guy, but yeah,

00:40:10.240 you can pull the lever. I think a lot of us probably can't, even if we don't know the phrase principle

00:40:15.300 of double effect and justify the means, even if we can't go into detail explaining it, we all just

00:40:19.880 instinctively recognize and we can sort through what is really a complicated ethical dilemma and we could

00:40:27.240 just do it automatically, which is a really interesting thing. And I, and I think that fact

00:40:32.500 poses a serious problem for people who try to explain human morality on strictly evolutionary

00:40:40.960 terms, because it's not just that we have, as some people would claim, evolved the ability for moral

00:40:49.360 reasoning. It's not just that it is that we have this capacity. It's not even really reasoning. We have

00:40:55.320 this capacity to automatically recognize intuitively within ourselves the correct moral action.

00:41:02.800 without even working it out in our heads.

00:41:06.980 I think that is very difficult to explain on evolutionary terms, but anyway, that's not what

00:41:12.500 you, uh, what you asked. So I'll stop rambling. Thanks for the question. Thanks everybody for

00:41:17.120 watching and listening. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want

00:41:24.700 to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.

00:41:28.440 We're available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to check out

00:41:33.920 the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles show, and the Andrew

00:41:38.300 Klavan show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Wall show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer,

00:41:43.480 Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer, Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer

00:41:49.800 is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Donovan Fowler. Audio is

00:41:55.960 mixed by Mike Coromina. The Matt Wall show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:42:01.160 If you want to delve the depths of leftist madness, head on over to the Michael Knowles show,

00:42:05.980 where we examine what's really going on beneath the surface of our politics and bask in the simple

00:42:11.460 joys of being right.

The Matt Walsh Show - October 10, 2019

Ep. 346 - The Democrats' Money Laundering Operation

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript