The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 353 - Media Forgets To Notice Alleged Dem Sex Scandal

00:00:00.000 Look, I've got to say something in defense of Mitt Romney here. He's catching a lot of flack

00:00:05.080 because it's been revealed, of course, that he had that fake Twitter account. In fact,

00:00:10.800 the only reason we know about that, I guess, is because he told on himself. He admitted that he

00:00:14.340 has a fake account, and then people were able to find out which account it is based on context

00:00:20.360 clues. And it turns out that he's got this fake account, and the fake account's name is Pierre

00:00:25.700 Delecto, which is just a delectable name for a fake account, if I do say so myself.

00:00:32.960 And his account, his alter ego, Pierre Delecto, would often compliment and defend Mitt Romney.

00:00:40.840 And so people are making fun of him for that. But I've got to come to Romney's defense,

00:00:45.000 much like Pierre Delecto would do, and say that I don't blame Romney for having fake accounts.

00:00:49.700 I have fake accounts myself. I have many fake accounts. But the only difference is

00:00:52.940 that my fake accounts have turned against me, and now they all insult me and troll me,

00:00:58.980 just like everybody else. Single tear goes down the cheek. At least my point is, at least Romney's

00:01:05.780 alter ego is loyal to him. And that's got to count for something. I think that speaks to a man's

00:01:09.880 character when you're alter egos. Because think about it. Think about how close quarters you are

00:01:17.940 with your alter ego. You're sharing a brain. And it can be really difficult to maintain a good

00:01:24.520 working relationship. And the fact that he has, I think, speaks to it. By the way, remember,

00:01:31.580 Trump has an alter ego. His alter ego is John Barron. And so John Barron used to,

00:01:38.480 back in the old days in New York, he used to call up the media with flattering stories about Donald Trump.

00:01:43.420 Now, I'll tell you, though, so now this debate has started about who's better. Which one do you

00:01:51.320 prefer, Pierre D'Electo or John Barron? And I got to say, they both have their plus sides.

00:01:56.860 They both have their weaknesses and their flaws, just like any other alter ego would have.

00:02:02.420 But I tend to prefer John Barron just because I like how John Barron, more forward, you know,

00:02:08.960 he's going to call you on the phone. And he's going to get in front of it. And he's, it's John

00:02:15.560 Barron, he's not just playing defense all the time. He's on offense. So what Pierre D'Electo would do is

00:02:21.020 he's just going to defend Mitt Romney against attack. Whereas John Barron, he's going to go and say,

00:02:26.120 I'm going to plant good stories about my friend Donald. And so I prefer that. Here's what I really

00:02:34.300 want to see, though. I want to see a televised debate between Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, John

00:02:42.120 Barron, and Pierre D'Electo. That's what that's what we need to see. So somebody get on that. That

00:02:48.380 is pay-per-view material right there. If pay-per-view even existed anymore, it truly doesn't. All right.

00:02:55.540 Much to discuss today, beginning with a sex scandal, a pretty, let's say, remarkable sex

00:03:05.160 scandal in many ways, a sex scandal involving a prominent politician, one that even has accompanying

00:03:14.280 photographs, okay? So it's got all the makings for a big splash type story, but you probably

00:03:24.200 haven't heard about it. The media has already successfully buried it, which tells you that

00:03:28.820 this was a Democrat, of course, obviously. But anytime there's a sex scandal involving a politician

00:03:34.100 and you hadn't heard about it, you know, the story broke a week ago and you're just hearing about it

00:03:41.500 now or a few days ago, then you automatically know that it's a Democrat. But there are other reasons why

00:03:49.060 this scandal is being conspicuously ignored. And I want to talk about that in just a moment. But first,

00:03:53.660 a word from Policy Genius, you know, Halloween is on the way, which means it's time to break out

00:04:00.580 the rubber spiders, the fake cobwebs, the jack-o'-lanterns. We've got all that stuff in our

00:04:06.340 house right now, especially with my kids or fake spiders and everything everywhere, which I saw

00:04:12.220 someone on Twitter point out the irony that, you know, you clear out the real cobwebs so that you can

00:04:20.140 put the fake cobwebs up in their place. I don't know. It's just something that we do as human beings

00:04:24.820 in modern society. But if you've got a family, you might be dealing with something a little bit

00:04:29.260 scarier right now, which is shopping for life insurance. If the idea of looking for life insurance

00:04:34.140 intimidates you, which I know it can for me, then you've got to try PolicyGenius.com. Policy Genius

00:04:42.060 is the easy way to shop for life insurance online in minutes. You can compare quotes from top insurers

00:04:46.980 to find your best price. Once you apply, the Policy Genius team will handle all the paperwork,

00:04:52.380 all the red tape. And that's, for me, that's the main thing. It's kind of intimidating when you think

00:04:57.740 about something like life insurance, all of the paperwork and everything, all the hoops you've got

00:05:02.480 to jump through, well, you go to Policy Genius, and they're going to make it really easy for you.

00:05:06.940 This October, take the scariness out of buying life insurance with Policy Genius. Go to

00:05:10.920 PolicyGenius.com, get quotes, and apply in minutes. You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.

00:05:16.600 Policy Genius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance. All right. Representative Katie Hill,

00:05:27.360 Congresswoman from California, of course, Democrat, influential, prominent, serves on two

00:05:39.860 important committees, the Oversight Committee and Armed and Service. Armed and Service. So that's

00:05:47.300 three committees. She's on the Oversight, the Armed, and then the Service Committee. Anyway,

00:05:52.000 Armed Service Committee and the Oversight Committee. According to Red State, which originally reported

00:05:57.560 this based on, they're doing this based on information they were provided through text messages

00:06:02.680 and photographs. So they've got the goods. And what they're reporting is that Representative Hill

00:06:09.320 was allegedly involved in a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old female staffer. And then she was

00:06:16.840 allegedly in an affair with another person that worked for her, this time a man. Plus, she was married the

00:06:23.480 whole time. Okay. So this is, yes, this is something like out of a soap opera, but real life,

00:06:28.460 allegedly. So let's take a look at this. I'm going to read some key portions from the report in Red

00:06:33.600 State. Here's what Red State says. Photographs and text messages obtained by Red State show that

00:06:39.320 Representative Hill was involved in a long-term sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer.

00:06:44.060 The woman, whose name is not being released, was hired by Hill in late 2017 and quickly became

00:06:48.500 involved in a thruple, thruple relationship with Hill and her estranged husband, Kenny Heslep.

00:06:54.920 But Heslep and the staffer, according to text messages provided to Red State,

00:07:00.720 believe the polyamorous arrangement to be a long-term committed relationship. The trio took

00:07:05.100 multiple vacations together, including to Alaska, where this photograph was taken, and then they

00:07:09.680 provide a photograph. Hill broke it off eventually. And there are text messages showing this back and

00:07:18.440 forth between her and the staffer, where Hill admits that at least part of her reason for breaking it

00:07:24.100 off is that it's a politically dangerous thing for her to be doing. Which it turns out it actually 1.00

00:07:30.880 wasn't because the media is not paying attention and doesn't care. And then that's around the time

00:07:37.300 when her husband found out that Hill had also allegedly been in an affair with her finance

00:07:41.720 director, I guess at the same time. So she was really getting around, allegedly. She was sleeping

00:07:49.820 with everybody at the office, allegedly. And then that's when the husband broke it off. So I guess

00:07:56.480 the husband is saying, hey, I know you were involved in a sexual relationship with this other person at

00:08:02.260 work. That was fine. But then a second person, no, that crosses the line. That's over the line.

00:08:07.880 Okay. You know, we want to, you want to be sexually involved with, with two people. Fine. Three. No.

00:08:18.500 Allegedly, that's what, that's the way that that worked out. Now, as I said, there are text messages,

00:08:25.360 some of which are published by red state. You can go check those out. There are also photos.

00:08:30.120 Um, one, which I won't put up on the screen for you, but it's online where it appears to be Hill

00:08:37.160 naked and brushing the hair of a young female whose hair, whose face is blurred out. Um,

00:08:45.960 presumably it is the, the staffer in question. Very weird, very creepy. So a few things here.

00:08:53.960 Uh, first is any of this relevant to the public? Does it matter? Or, or is it all just gossip?

00:09:05.280 Now I would say it does matter. Um, certainly here, here's, here's the stipulation.

00:09:13.440 According to the standards applied to other public figures and politicians, usually Republicans,

00:09:19.860 it does matter. And here's why. First of all, Katie was, was, uh, Katie Hill was allegedly involved

00:09:25.640 with somebody who was a subordinate, a staffer just fresh out of college. Now the Me Too movement

00:09:32.280 has always insisted, unless I'm hallucinating, I'm pretty sure the Me Too movement has been saying

00:09:36.900 for years now that a power dynamic like that is tantamount to assault. That's not really my standard.

00:09:44.460 That's, I didn't come up with that. That's what the Me Too movement has been saying.

00:09:47.220 That when you've, when you've got a power dynamic, um, where it's a subordinate with, uh, with their,

00:09:54.660 with their boss. And I think if you add in political power that the boss has on top of the just normal

00:09:59.920 empower, uh, uh, power that, that, that someone above someone else in a working environment would

00:10:05.220 have, then, then as the logic goes, the subordinate can't really consent because they're not going to

00:10:11.180 feel totally free to operate in the relationship the way that they would, if, if the person

00:10:17.200 was equal to them in power. Now, personally, I'm not sure that I agree with this idea all the time.

00:10:24.140 I think that it sort of depends, but, uh, but we're not talking about my opinion here. We're

00:10:29.920 talking about the standard that is normally applied. We're talking about the logic that has been the

00:10:35.020 driving force for the Me Too movement. Keep in mind that many of the Me Too stories were not cases

00:10:40.960 of forcible rape. Some of them were, but, uh, but many of them weren't. A lot of the times it was,

00:10:47.480 it was, you know, these were powerful men having, having what appeared to be ostensibly consensual

00:10:53.560 encounters with women, but the women did not feel, they say, free to, uh, to refuse because of the

00:11:01.480 power these men had over them in, in the industry. And so the men were exploiting that power. And again,

00:11:07.860 according to the Me Too movement, that's basically rape. It's basically sexual assault. 0.57

00:11:12.800 Well, how is this any different? If that's the standard, how is this any different? It isn't.

00:11:17.660 And the picture of, of Hill brushing the hair naked, I mean, it's just, it's creepy. And it,

00:11:24.140 it shows exactly this kind of dynamic where, where, um, you know, Hill sitting naked in a chair,

00:11:31.860 the girl sitting on the floor, having her hair brushed, it shows this very weird, creepy power

00:11:39.520 dynamic. On top of all that, her female lover was being paid by campaign funds. So there's all kinds

00:11:46.180 of issues being raised there. And that also makes it a public concern. And in addition, she was, as I

00:11:51.480 said, on two important committees. So yet she's having affairs with, with, with all these people who she

00:11:57.940 works with. And, uh, and there are pictures and that sets her up for blackmail, makes her vulnerable 1.00

00:12:04.480 to manipulation and coercion, which makes it a potential national security issue. And yet

00:12:11.300 predictably, despite those three factors, which, which make this a, according to normal standards,

00:12:20.000 make this a relevant story. And would you would think make this a big story yet predictably,

00:12:28.480 the story is getting no play. I mean, none at all, even less than I thought when I saw this story on

00:12:34.940 Friday, I, I knew of course, that it's not going to make it into the headlines on CNN. It won't even

00:12:40.240 be reported by CNN or NBC, right? But, um, I it's getting even less play than I thought, even in

00:12:46.940 conservative media, people are leaving this thing alone. It's just, it's just, no one's talking

00:12:53.020 about it. Um, aside from red state and a couple other websites. I saw, I saw a report on, on, uh,

00:13:00.380 Breitbart. I think the Washington Examiner had it, but other than that, it's been, it's been radio

00:13:06.100 silence. Uh, it's been buried. Why is that? Well, um, obviously because Hill is a Democrat, that's one of

00:13:13.200 the reasons that's a big factor, but even more so, I think it's because she's a woman, uh, and women 1.00

00:13:19.300 can get away with this kind of stuff all day long. Women are simply not held to the same standard as 1.00

00:13:26.620 men when it comes to sexual improprieties. You're just, you're not going to see ever the kind of

00:13:36.400 outrage when it's a woman who is the sexual aggressor or the, you know, the person who's in 0.99

00:13:42.960 the exploitative position in the, in the position of power or whatever, when it comes to any kind of

00:13:47.820 sex scandal thing, when, when the woman is the, is the, the culprit, it's just never, ever going to 0.52

00:13:55.500 engender the kind of outrage it does with men ever. Perfect example would be all of these stories about

00:14:01.360 female teachers. I've talked about it many times, but, but no one cares. All these stories of

00:14:06.180 female teachers, you want to talk about exploiting your power over someone. Well, that's really 1.00

00:14:10.240 clear cut. You're an adult, you're a teacher. This is a kid and you are, you are exploiting that

00:14:15.960 position to get your sexual thrills with a minor. Um, that's, that's, that's wrong. That's criminal. 0.89

00:14:24.680 That's saying. And when it's happening all over the place all the time in public school, you think it

00:14:29.240 would be, we'd be treating it like an epidemic and talking about nobody cares. We just, we just say that,

00:14:34.100 you know, whatever. So women get away with this stuff. Can you imagine, just imagine, now I know 1.00

00:14:42.540 you don't want to really imagine it. So try to just, just try to, try to imagine the hypothetical

00:14:47.620 without actually imagining the picture itself. But, but think about if there was a picture of a,

00:14:52.600 of a male congressman, uh, naked and brushing the hair of a young female staffer. Can you just think

00:15:03.100 about that for a second? And here's the thing, it could be a Democrat. I don't even think it even

00:15:08.680 now, obviously if it was a Republican, it'd be getting even more attention. But, uh, even if it

00:15:13.420 was a Democrat, I think it would still be getting certainly more attention than this story is

00:15:20.000 that image, that photo would be this iconic thing that everybody sees and would be referred back to

00:15:30.020 10 years from now. People would still remember it. Um, yet it's a woman, so nobody cares. Also the 1.00

00:15:36.340 fact that it's a homosexual thing, I think helps her. Uh, so, so Hill has three things going for her 1.00

00:15:41.080 that, that make this untouchable. Uh, even her, if her staffers, so the story's untouchable, but as far

00:15:46.320 as Hill's concerned, apparently, allegedly her staffers are not untouchable. Um, she's a, so she's a

00:15:52.620 woman, she's apparently bisexual and she's a Democrat. And this sets up a dynamic where she 0.99

00:15:59.680 can literally do anything she wants, especially in the area of sex, just whatever. It doesn't matter.

00:16:07.560 She could do what she wants. No one is ever going to say anything. She'll get away with it. Um,

00:16:12.380 it's just, it's just completely outrageous. And here's the thing, you know, either, either it's

00:16:23.960 true that it's inappropriate and wrong and even potentially assault for a person in position of

00:16:32.760 power to be involved in a sexual relationship with someone who's, who's underneath them, uh, not

00:16:38.220 literally, but, uh, you know, either that's wrong and appropriate, potentially assault or it's not.

00:16:45.860 And so you can't, well, you, you, we just can't do this. You make an exception for Katie Hills. 0.86

00:16:50.680 Ah, you know, whatever. Then, okay, well then you've waved your head and your hand and said,

00:16:57.200 whatever to, to all of these cases. You can't circle back around the next time there's a story

00:17:04.400 about a man doing something like this and say, Oh, look, it's the patriarchy. It's sexism. It's a

00:17:08.980 women are under attack. You just can't do that. I mean, you can do it physically. No one's going

00:17:13.860 to stop you, but you can't expect to be taken seriously when it's entire, when it becomes entirely

00:17:20.680 clear. And this has been, this has been my, my impression for a while now, a lot of people's

00:17:26.520 impression. The me too movement is more of an anti-male thing. It's, it's an ideological, it's about,

00:17:32.620 it's about smashing the patriarchy and all this nonsense. It's not really about protecting women

00:17:37.440 or about, it's certainly not about making, you know, taking a stand against sexual assault.

00:17:41.740 It's not about that because it's, and we know that because it's so damn selective

00:17:46.100 and it, and what the me too movement has done, they've just waved their magic wand and granted

00:17:53.780 clemency to all women. Women doesn't matter. You're all of you completely, uh, absolved. 1.00

00:18:01.880 It doesn't, it doesn't count. It doesn't matter. You can do whatever you want. This is only about

00:18:05.880 men. All right. Um, kind of a, an awkward transition here, I'm afraid, but a brand of

00:18:15.840 menstrual products. Well, I guess there really is no, there's no non-awkward seamless transition 0.87

00:18:21.940 from any subject to talking about menstrual products, but here we are a brand of menstrual

00:18:26.820 products. Um, the brand always, which is a good name for a brand of menstrual products. I suppose

00:18:32.640 they always work right. Better than a brand like called occasionally or something. I have to stop

00:18:38.700 riffing on menstrual products and just get to it. The point is this brand, uh, has on its packaging,

00:18:43.220 the Venus symbol, and it's the circle with a cross beneath it. This is a symbol that universally means

00:18:48.700 woman, which makes sense to have on your packaging, right? If you're, if it's a menstrual thing, 0.95

00:18:54.460 because, because, uh, it's a menstrual product. So you've got a symbol that represents people who

00:18:58.380 menstruate makes a lot of sense. You would think, well, trans activists, uh, were not happy about it

00:19:04.200 because, um, they, they came in, the trans activists did, and they made the point that sometimes

00:19:12.340 men menstruate just like sometimes polar bears fly. Sometimes squirrels do calculus. These things

00:19:20.180 happen. Anything's happened. There are, there are no rules. Science is a myth. And that's how it is.

00:19:27.920 Um, and Procter and Gamble, which owns the brand always, and is a big, massive, huge, scary

00:19:35.200 corporation. They, they own approximately every brand at the grocery store. Um, but they caved to

00:19:42.800 the complaints of these, of these gender confused individuals and said, okay, we'll take the symbol off.

00:19:47.960 And they did because an enormous multinational corporation was bullied into agreeing that

00:19:56.260 sometimes men get periods. Now there was a lot of talk of, of menstruating, um, men this weekend,

00:20:03.900 unfortunately, because period day also happened. There was the holiday period day, which is a thing.

00:20:11.000 I don't know if you, if you celebrate it, but I guess it's, we're supposed to celebrate periods or

00:20:15.540 something. Yet, um, the trans activists came barging in yet again, as they always do and made 1.00

00:20:21.580 the point that, that, that actually this should be about them because that's always their point.

00:20:25.820 Isn't it with anything? Their point is, Hey, you know what guys, this shit's really about me, isn't 0.98

00:20:29.960 it? No matter what we're doing, no matter what we're talking about, what the issue is, they come in 0.99

00:20:34.660 barreling in through the door. Hey, wait a second. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

00:20:38.020 Let's make this about me. And, uh, and they said that, uh, so Twitter was filled with a bunch of

00:20:45.400 people saying, Hey, if we're, if we're doing period day, remember men can get periods.

00:20:50.660 Now, let me give you an example of, uh, of one such tweet tweet, um, that I responded to,

00:20:57.020 because I happen to happen across this is just one example of someone just to give you an idea of

00:21:01.280 what people were saying. It says, um, hashtag national period day. Remember that

00:21:08.020 um, it says, uh, the person said, remember that trans women can get periods. Yes. Trans women

00:21:13.160 when speaking on the subject of periods, don't live, limit the conversation to cis women only,

00:21:18.440 um, uh, to cis women only because our trans sisters are experiencing the same and it's wrong to cut them

00:21:24.820 out. Now, this is important. I wanted to read that to you because you need to realize we're taught,

00:21:31.520 we're talking here about, and I know this can get confusing sometimes because all this gender stuff,

00:21:38.020 on the left is madness. None of it makes any sense. It's all nonsense. So it's easy to lose

00:21:42.160 track, but I want you to appreciate how insane this is. When someone on the left says men can get

00:21:48.500 periods, they could be talking about biological females who identify as men. And yes, that's true 0.99

00:21:57.140 that those people can get periods because they aren't really men. And that, and that fact,

00:22:02.780 that's kind of the thing that reveals that to you. That's, that's the giveaway is the fact that

00:22:10.360 they're having a period, which means they aren't men. If you find yourself in a situation where you're

00:22:16.580 having a period, it means you're not a man. It at least means that. So you could, that will clarify

00:22:25.460 that situation for you. Um, and your second clue that you're not a man is literally everything else

00:22:33.860 about you. Literally everything. But just to be clear, the left is also claiming that men,

00:22:46.420 biological males, actual men can have periods. That's what this tweet and a lot of people,

00:22:53.540 that's what they're saying. When they say trans women can get periods, what they mean is 1.00

00:22:58.400 biological males can menstruate. That is the claim. And this is a claim that is, is basically

00:23:09.140 mainstream now on the left, at least in the case that now maybe there are a lot of leftists who

00:23:14.140 won't go out of their way to go out and announce this. They're not going to go screaming it into a

00:23:18.500 bullhorn. Biological males can menstruate. They're not going to be screaming that into the bullhorn, 0.91

00:23:22.480 but, um, uh, uh, but they're also not going to deny it. They're not going to argue it.

00:23:32.780 Biological males can menstruate. Now I happened to get into a back and forth with this particular

00:23:38.060 person on Twitter who wrote this and they defended their assertion by saying, and I'm not kidding.

00:23:44.580 They said that, um, that, that biological males can menstruate because sometimes they get bloated and

00:23:51.680 they have stomach cramps. Not joking. That was the argument proving that biological males can

00:23:59.220 menstruate by saying, Oh, wait, what are you saying that you're saying that biological males don't get

00:24:04.560 stomach cramps, which is like saying that a dog is essentially the same as a tuna because both can swim.

00:24:14.060 Oh, you say a dog isn't a fish. Well, here's a picture of my dog swimming in our backyard pool.

00:24:19.920 Checkmate science denier.

00:24:24.960 Uh, it's, but what do you do? What, when it gets to this point where you have people sincerely claiming

00:24:35.240 the biological males can menstruate, um, what, what do you, what can, there's no argument you can present

00:24:43.840 because any argument that you do present is going to be grounded in reality. And what the left is now

00:24:53.840 saying is reality doesn't matter. It simply makes no difference what the actual reality is.

00:25:04.640 So what can you do? Uh, well, I'll tell you one thing we can't do is just ignore this

00:25:12.020 because, or, or treat it as a, as a sideshow or as an irrelevant issue.

00:25:18.400 The left is, they are, they are waging a war on reality itself. When I, that's why when I go to

00:25:27.600 colleges and I give talks, one of the talks I give is the war on reality. This is a war on reality.

00:25:32.260 That's why this matters. It's not just now, if this was 20 years ago, okay. And you had someone

00:25:37.680 saying biological males can menstruate, then yeah, you could, you could laugh that off and say, oh,

00:25:41.480 okay. Person's crazy. Uh, it's still crazy, but this is something that, 0.92

00:25:48.400 the left is at, they are trying to establish a culture where that kind of claim is accepted

00:25:54.860 as a, as perfectly true and normal. So they're going to, they're trying to break down reality

00:26:03.320 itself. Is that, is it worth fighting back against that? Yeah, I would say so. Because if we don't have

00:26:10.340 reality, if words don't mean anything, if there's no reality, if science doesn't mean anything, then I,

00:26:16.140 where do we go next? What's, what's the point of having any discussion? How do we have any

00:26:20.560 discussion if we don't have these reference points based in reality? Um, all right. I love this. I

00:26:31.280 gotta, I gotta mention it a few weeks ago. Uh, the greatest living director, Martin Scorsese,

00:26:36.600 a guy who's pushing, what is he? 80 over 80 now. I don't know, but he's still making cinematic

00:26:42.980 classics. He's been doing, he's been at it for 30 years or more, 40 years. Um, and, uh, and nobody

00:26:50.680 in Hollywood has a batting average like this guy. It really is remarkable. A few weeks ago, he came

00:26:55.240 out and said that Marvel movies are, are bad. Basically said they don't count as cinema. He

00:26:59.340 said they're, they're more like theme park rides. They're not really movies. Um, it's not real cinema.

00:27:04.300 And he's right about that. And, you know, it brought all the Marvel fans out to explain how

00:27:10.220 Martin Scorsese doesn't know what he's talking about. He's out of touch. You know, he, they've

00:27:15.460 got this movie, the Irishman coming out with the De Niro and Pacino and Pesci and basically all

00:27:20.480 every great actor that's ever been in a mob movie is going to be in this movie, the Irishman

00:27:23.960 that's coming out. It's got a 100% of Rotten Tomatoes. It's his, it's his best reviewed movie

00:27:28.520 ever. And this is a guy who's made nothing but classics almost. He's had a few misses

00:27:34.540 here and there. Um, but you had Marvel, Marvel fans saying, nah, that guy doesn't know anything.

00:27:39.580 What does he know? You know, he's, he's only made almost nothing but cinematic masterpieces

00:27:45.440 in his career. What does he know about cinema? So, uh, now I actually thought, I thought that,

00:27:51.520 that Martin Scorsese was giving Marvel too much credit because to say their theme parks makes

00:27:57.700 them sound at least somewhat fun in, in, in reality, they're not even that they're more,

00:28:03.140 they're commercials. Um, Marvel movies, if you're going to a Marvel movie, you should understand

00:28:07.080 you are sitting through a two and a half hour commercial. They're, they are toy commercials.

00:28:12.700 They exist for the most part to sell merchandise and they also exist to propagate themselves.

00:28:18.500 Uh, they exist so that another one can exist and that that's, they're not ever trying to really

00:28:23.840 tell a story or finish a story or do anything. It's just, we want to, the main goal is to sell

00:28:29.600 merchandise with the movies. And so how do we do that? Well, we need to keep making more and more

00:28:33.920 and more movies, which means the story can never end. There can never be resolution. There can never

00:28:37.700 be a real climax or anything like that in the movie. Um, uh, uh, it's just, it's not like a three

00:28:45.100 act thing. It's a typical, typical structure of a story. It's just one act that never, ever, ever,

00:28:51.340 ever ends. Um, well this weekend, Francis Ford Coppola, the man behind the greatest film of all

00:29:00.240 time, the Godfather, sure. I don't have to tell you he agreed with Scorsese. No big surprise. Only

00:29:05.960 he took it further. He said, um, in a, as he was doing a press conference or something, he said,

00:29:10.380 when Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, he's right because we expect to

00:29:15.420 learn something from cinema. We expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge,

00:29:18.700 some information, some inspiration. Um, I don't know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the

00:29:23.980 same movie over and over again. Martin was kind when he said, it's not cinema. He didn't say it's

00:29:29.220 despicable, which I say it is despicable. Francis Ford Coppola said that Marvel movies are despicable.

00:29:38.320 I could not agree more. These movies are, they are despicable because they are actually the most

00:29:43.680 cynical movies you'll ever watch. Don't let the bright colors and the wise cracks and all that

00:29:48.820 stuff fool you. Uh, loud noises and the special effects. These are very extremely cynical movies.

00:29:55.480 Um, because it's the movie studio saying, we don't care about the audience. We don't respect your

00:30:01.200 intelligence. We don't respect you. We're just gonna, we don't, we don't respect the fact that

00:30:05.540 you're spending money on these tickets. And, uh, and, and so therefore deserve some sort of

00:30:10.140 actual cinematic experience. That's somewhat meaningful. No, we don't care about that.

00:30:15.560 We're just going to keep shoving the same tired, bland, played out goop down your gullets because

00:30:21.960 we know you'll swallow it and you'll pay the money and you'll come back again. That's what the movie

00:30:26.200 studio is saying. And you've got all these people that line up for the movies and say, yes, yes,

00:30:30.280 please, sir. Can I have another? It is despicable. Now I don't mean to appeal to authority here, but,

00:30:37.040 but, but, but come on, you've got the greatest living director and now the director of the 0.95

00:30:41.700 greatest film of all time, both saying that these movies are trash. So before you disagree, 0.50

00:30:47.460 ask yourself, do you know more about cinema than the greatest living film director and the director

00:30:54.140 of the greatest movie ever? Do you think you know more than they do? So before you disagree,

00:30:59.500 I like Marvel movies. Maybe there's, who knows? Like maybe these guys know a thing or two. Maybe they,

00:31:05.780 they might be onto something. Maybe it's worth considering, you know, if, if, if, if, if Joe Montana

00:31:15.560 and Tom Brady were sitting at a bar talking football and, and talking about what they consider

00:31:24.580 to be the worst football team in the league, would you feel comfortable coming into that conversation

00:31:32.060 and saying, Hey boys, hold on. You don't know what you're talking about. No, that, that team is

00:31:36.480 actually good. Let me explain why. I mean, it's look, they're not, they're not infallible. They

00:31:41.460 could be wrong, but these are guys who are the best experts you're going to find in this particular

00:31:49.640 field. And if this case football, you've got the two best quarterbacks ever. If they agree on some

00:31:56.520 football related topic, they're probably right. Maybe not definitely, but probably all I'm saying

00:32:03.440 is if Scorsese and Coppola agree on a movie related topic, I'm, I'm not going to disagree

00:32:10.440 because I think they, they probably know what they're talking about, but you don't even need

00:32:14.740 to take their word for it anyway, because, um, because it's, it's, it should be obvious. You know,

00:32:21.720 I, I, I've been saying this, I'm no movie expert. I've been saying this way before Scorsese and

00:32:26.000 Coppola chimed in that these movies are, it's just, they're garbage. They really are. We should 1.00

00:32:33.160 demand more. We should have higher standards and it's not, and please don't say, Oh, well,

00:32:38.720 sometimes it's fun to just turn your brain off and not every movie needs to be, uh, needs to be

00:32:42.560 thought provoking. Okay. Yeah, sure. Right. But, um, that's not an excuse. It, it, even if,

00:32:51.100 yeah, not every movie has to be really deep and thought provoking. That's true. Um, I think it's,

00:32:57.120 I think I honestly, I think most movies should be, I think that should be sort of the default state of

00:33:01.660 a movie because it is art and, uh, and there should be a real substantive point to it, but yeah,

00:33:08.360 not every movie has to be that way. Fine. Um, but if you're going to go the more lighthearted,

00:33:18.300 not even lighthearted, cause something could be lighthearted, but still have some depth to it. So

00:33:22.900 if you're going to go the shallower route, something that's pretty shallow, it could still

00:33:27.440 have creativity. It still have wit. Um, there could still be a real story being told.

00:33:34.460 The movie could still exist for some reason other than simply to, to sell merchandise and to propagate

00:33:41.580 itself, uh, like some sort of disease. So even in that case, there are movies I, you know, there,

00:33:49.440 there are movies I could think of that, that aren't particularly thoughtful, but, um, were still

00:33:54.840 enjoyable to watch and still had some creativity to them and some wit and some, you know, uniqueness.

00:34:00.360 And, and, and you could tell that they, you know, they exist mainly because the people involved in

00:34:05.780 the movie wanted to tell this story might not be the most important story in the world, but it's a

00:34:09.620 story and they wanted to tell it. So great. But when you have movies where that, that's the,

00:34:15.080 I guess this is my point. That's the main reason a movie should exist. Now, obviously it's got to

00:34:21.040 make money and, and, and especially the people in the movie studios, the producers and everything,

00:34:25.420 that's going to be the, their main concern. Fine. I get that. That's the reality,

00:34:29.100 but the P the directors and the actors, I mean, the main reason and the person who wrote the script

00:34:36.600 and all that, I think it should be clear from watching it that what motivated them was the

00:34:44.040 desire to tell this story. That's what makes Martin Scorsese such a brilliant, all-time great

00:34:51.520 director is that, yeah, he likes making money. Definitely. That's, of course he does. But you

00:34:58.060 also know when he puts a movie out, this is a story he really wanted to tell. Um, and so if he,

00:35:06.840 you know, so he might, he's got the movie silence that came out a few years ago. It's like three

00:35:11.380 hours long, this long ponderous movie about, uh, about Portuguese, uh, missionaries in, in 16th

00:35:19.880 century Japan. Um, and it wasn't a big blockbuster success, but he spent many years developing this

00:35:25.840 movie because it's just a story he wanted to tell. I just, I don't think with a Marvel movie,

00:35:31.820 you know, with when, when Iron Man 15 comes out, I just don't think that anyone involved

00:35:37.720 is really saying, Oh, we got to tell this, this 15th story about Iron Man where he saves the day

00:35:42.680 again, against some, once again, saves the day against some intergalactic, uh, guy who shows up

00:35:47.820 and go, whatever, you know, I don't think anyone is saying that. I think everyone, I think it's

00:35:53.840 wrote and routine and it's like, all right, let's, let's, let's jump on the, uh, the horse again

00:35:58.680 and, and, and make another billion bucks. All right. So I'm going to go through some emails

00:36:06.000 and, uh, these are exclusively emails from people challenging me on a number of subject

00:36:13.080 subjects that I talked about on the show. Of course I read and respond to other emails too.

00:36:17.840 Uh, I always enjoy emails that compliment me as well. Uh, maybe I'll pull up Pierre

00:36:23.720 Delecto. Maybe I should start writing them to myself. If you won't do it, then I'll do it.

00:36:27.640 Damn it. Anyway. Um, but, but I also appreciate the back and forth with people who listen 1.00

00:36:34.160 and write an email trying to pick apart my arguments. Uh, it, I, I, it keeps me sharp

00:36:39.940 relatively as least as sharp as I can get. So this is from Chad says, hi, madam police officer in Texas.

00:36:45.400 I enjoy your show. Let me begin by saying an open structure call is treated as a burglary. If

00:36:50.080 possible, we've tried to contain the structure on all sides. You were correct. When you said you

00:36:53.640 don't have all the information, I think it's very difficult for you to make a cut and dry decision

00:36:56.940 as to what should happen. I can only imagine that the guy was headed to the rear of the building and

00:37:01.940 saw a person at the window with a gun. I'm not going to say he's right or wrong because I don't

00:37:05.680 know all the facts and you shouldn't either. My own personal feeling is that the charge of murder

00:37:09.860 is a stretch being as he didn't set out to kill someone. I think manslaughter is more appropriate.

00:37:15.100 The other problem society faces is a lack of qualified applicants because of that people are being

00:37:18.880 hired. They're probably not qualified to do a, uh, to do to a lacks in hiring requirements.

00:37:23.220 That may be due to it not being worth it to be a police officer. That may be due to media coverage

00:37:28.300 or the fact that people are okay with cops being killed because quote, that's what they signed up

00:37:32.220 for. I hate when people say that because it cheapens our lives. Nobody says that about the

00:37:36.440 military. Nobody signs up to die. Okay, Chad, first as to this particular case, I agree that the charge

00:37:42.240 of murder might be a stretch, might be a bit ambitious though. Honestly, I thought that with the

00:37:47.140 Geiger case too, and she was convicted. So who knows? Um, uh, and, and, but I, I feel very confident

00:37:53.320 saying based on what we know, I don't know what's going to happen in court or whatever. I'm not going

00:37:57.240 to make any predictions there, but the officer was very much in the wrong. And I think we know that

00:38:02.500 because these facts are not in dispute. He shot an innocent woman, a law abiding woman in her home

00:38:09.320 through the window at two o'clock in the morning. Those are the basics facts of the case. Now, if

00:38:16.000 some other information comes out that says, Oh no, actually she was a wanted murderer and she was

00:38:21.720 breaking into someone's home and you know, that's not going to happen. So that basically we would need

00:38:25.960 to find out that this entire story as it's being reported is completely false and wrong. And every

00:38:30.380 single aspect of it is fake. I don't think that's the case, especially when the police department itself

00:38:36.640 is not saying that they're the ones who came out and said, this was wrong, this wrong, this was wrong.

00:38:41.320 He shouldn't have shot. So I think we can be pretty confident, um, in the basics of the case.

00:38:46.720 And, and so I think we could say that it was wrong at least now, as for the, that's what they signed up

00:38:53.100 for thing. I did make that argument, but not in reference to cops being killed. I'm not saying I'm

00:38:58.000 okay with cops being killed. And I certainly would never dismissively wave off the death of police

00:39:03.100 officers with a statement like that. I hope you would know that I, there, there, there are people

00:39:07.260 who do that. I wouldn't do that. I'm not, I'm not a, I'm not a psycho. Okay. Um, that would be crazy.

00:39:14.480 That wasn't my point. It would never be my point. And I agree that the anti-cop stuff in the media

00:39:19.700 is overboard and often dangerous. Um, and all this talk about police officers, you know, hunting down

00:39:26.180 black people and murdering them, uh, that talk is wrong. And once again, dangerous. And I've said 0.99

00:39:30.880 that many times, I have made that point myself many times. Um, I said again on Friday that I think

00:39:37.020 the racial angle in a lot of these cases is overplayed. Certainly in this case, I don't think

00:39:41.180 there's any reason to assume that there was any real racial angle to that. Even if the cop was white

00:39:46.100 and the victim was black, my only point with that's what they signed up for was just when it comes 0.99

00:39:50.960 to a certain amount of reasonable risk. So I was specifically and only taking issue with this

00:39:58.380 attitude that you encounter from some people that basically excuses almost any cop shooting.

00:40:05.800 If they can find some technicality, some way in which the person who was shot may have been by some

00:40:13.000 very low percentage chance, a risk. I gave the example of Daniel Shaver in Arizona. I think it's one

00:40:18.420 of the classic examples, tragic examples. The man shot and killed by cops while crawling on the

00:40:22.720 ground in a hotel hallway, begging for his life. He was shot and killed by three cops standing over

00:40:28.200 him 10 feet away, five feet away with their cup, with their guns trained directly on him. Now he went

00:40:33.540 and reached for his waistband because his pants were falling down. He was trying to pull them up. It was

00:40:36.880 just an instinctive thing. That's when they shot and killed him. Technically, yes, he moved his arm. 0.86

00:40:42.560 And so technically maybe, yeah, you're allowed to kill him. And so that's why these cops didn't end up

00:40:47.660 going to jail, even though I think they should have. I am taking issue with that particular attitude

00:40:53.140 where you're saying that, um, well, technically, you know, there's like a 0.05% chance that this guy's

00:41:01.060 actually a risk to you given, given the advantage you have over him, given the fact that he is clearly

00:41:06.440 making every attempt to submit and he's, he could not be more submissive. Um, uh, but there's still that

00:41:13.180 small tiny chance when he makes that slight movement of his hand. And so there are some

00:41:17.840 people who say, well, yeah, you know what, just, you can shoot him and, and okay, uh, better safe 0.97

00:41:23.220 than sorry. In that kind of scenario, I find that sort of logic to be deeply troubling. My point is

00:41:31.620 that the, the, the safety of police officers is of tantamount importance. Also, you know,

00:41:39.300 period end of the sentence. Also the safety of innocent civilians is also of tantamount importance.

00:41:48.580 And so we should not be putting the lives of police officers over that of innocent community

00:41:56.500 members, but we shouldn't be putting the community members over the police officers. So, you know,

00:42:00.460 I'm, I'm saying it's like equal footing here. So police officers' lives are very valuable.

00:42:04.700 The, the life of the woman who was killed in her home at 2 AM while she was playing video games with

00:42:10.340 her, with her nephew, her life was valuable too. And that police officer's life was not any more

00:42:15.260 valuable than hers and hers wasn't any more than him. That's my point. I mean, would you really take

00:42:19.880 issue with that? But if we're going to say that in some way, technically, maybe that police, that

00:42:26.260 shooting was, was justified, then I don't see how you could do that without, without, even if you don't

00:42:30.380 say it, I don't see how you could make that argument without essentially implying that her life is not

00:42:35.320 quite as valuable and important as his. Because yeah, maybe technically somehow in some obscure

00:42:42.020 minor, very small chance, she could have posed a threat to him. So just kill him just to be safe. 1.00

00:42:47.100 I get, that's the, that's my problem. This attitude of, well, kill the civilian just to be safe, 1.00

00:42:52.720 just in case. And I, and I know that no one is putting it exactly like that, but when you defend

00:42:58.360 things like the Daniel Shaver killing, or when you potentially defend things like this woman who

00:43:03.140 was shot in her home at 2 a.m. while playing video games with her nephew, even if you're not saying

00:43:07.300 kill them just to be safe, that is kind of what you're saying. And, and I'm, now when I say you,

00:43:14.200 I don't mean necessarily you specifically, I'm talking the universal you. Um, so that's what,

00:43:22.240 that's my, that's my problem. I, I, and I think when, um, you know,

00:43:28.360 right. And I got a lot of emails on this. So this, this is my one representative email that

00:43:34.180 I thought was reasonably written and posed. So I wanted to engage with it. But, um,

00:43:39.660 yes, as I said, there is, it is not true that there is an epidemic of cops going around killing

00:43:49.520 innocent people. That is, that is not the case. The majority of cops are good people and they're good

00:43:57.200 at their job and they're, and they're just, just like the majority of anyone, the majority of people

00:44:02.600 in any profession with the exception maybe of, of, you know, drug lords. Um, the majority of people

00:44:08.880 in any profession are, you know, they're just trying to do their job and, uh, and they're, they're not

00:44:13.260 all going to be saints. They're not all going to be anything, but, but they're trying to do their jobs

00:44:17.860 and they're trying to do it. Well, I think that's the case for most people. And that's the case for most

00:44:22.180 cops. So yes. However, um, when a civilian is gunned down unjustly by an agent of the state,

00:44:31.700 I don't care if it happens once a year or 10 times a year or a million times a year, whatever the,

00:44:38.240 the exact frequency, uh, is not the point when it happens, when it, whenever it happens,

00:44:46.240 that is a huge injustice. That is the exact opposite of what is supposed to be happening.

00:44:54.940 That is the exact opposite of the relationship that is supposed to be present between a citizen

00:45:01.700 and an agent of the state. And so when that happens, we need to look at it. We need to analyze it.

00:45:07.120 We need to be outraged by it because that person's life does matter. And, um, and, and we need to look

00:45:15.780 at what, what could have possibly led to that. And I think that sometimes, yeah, you are going to look

00:45:21.840 at, you know, are there general sort of attitudes present in relation to law enforcement on law

00:45:31.260 enforcement that might, um, provide a, an environment where, where these kinds of shootings

00:45:39.540 will happen. And I would say that maybe there is sometimes. So like I said, you know, I, I appreciate

00:45:46.940 the emails, but some of the emails I got were so over the top, you know, given the arguments that

00:45:52.180 I made, which were pretty mild, you know, if you listen to my, and I know this wasn't you,

00:45:57.980 but I'm talking to other people that sent emails. If you listen to, to my, what I said and came away

00:46:02.740 with, I'm anti-police or I hate police, which is a lot of the emails I got, then you just were not

00:46:08.060 paying attention at all because there's no way for an honest person who was paying attention to

00:46:12.340 interpret it that way. Just no possible way. I mean, come on. Or I have to assume that you

00:46:20.560 really don't care about the lives of these people who are killed unjustly by police. Not again, not

00:46:25.060 you, but other, the other emails I'd have to assume that that's the impression I got. I'm not even

00:46:32.840 reading those emails because they, they piss me off so much. I don't even know what I would say

00:46:37.640 on camera in response to them, but I, there are some people sent emails and it really seems like 0.97

00:46:42.260 they don't give a crap for them. It's just about the cop. The other person doesn't matter. 0.94

00:46:50.340 I despise that attitude. Just like I despise people on the other side who don't care about

00:46:55.500 the lives of police officers. I despise both attitudes. I think they're both horrible.

00:47:01.480 All right. Um, let's see. Okay. I spent more time on that than I thought. We'll do one more. 0.74

00:47:10.560 This is from Henry says, hi, Matt. I just listened to your podcast where you made the claim that every

00:47:15.980 person is a human and vice versa. Although I agree with your stance on abortion and I agree that a 0.97

00:47:19.920 baby in the womb is both a person and a human. I would have to disagree with that statement.

00:47:23.920 I've taught Bible studies on the Trinity in the past. And when I make the statement that the Trinity

00:47:27.580 consists of three co-equal and co-eternal persons, I always have to clarify that I'm not saying the

00:47:32.800 Trinity consists of three humans. Each member of the Trinity is a person because he is personal

00:47:36.920 and has the attribute of personhood. I understand this is not what you were talking about. So please

00:47:41.400 forgive me if I'm being too technical. Uh, I'm pretty sure Henry, I'd have to go back and listen

00:47:45.080 to it. I'm pretty sure I said that every human is a person and, uh, that this distinction between

00:47:49.940 human and person is ad hoc. It is an artificial invented distinction invented specifically to

00:47:55.880 justify abortion because there is no other time where a pro-abortion person would draw a distinction

00:48:00.920 between human and person. Uh, so every human is a person. That's my point. I didn't, I don't think

00:48:08.680 I said, and if I did, then I was, I was not phrasing it correctly. I don't think I said that every person

00:48:14.800 is a human because I agree with you. That's not true. That's not necessarily the case. There are ways

00:48:19.920 of understanding person that would not necessarily pertain to humans, though the word human always

00:48:25.380 pertains to people. The word people doesn't always pertain to humans. So kind of like every bourbon is a

00:48:30.380 whiskey, but not every whiskey is a bourbon. So every human is a person. Not every person is a

00:48:34.320 human. Um, you gave one example. Another one I would give is, uh, is, you know, in a sci-fi scenario,

00:48:40.780 if intelligent life ever landed on this planet and their UFOs and moved in and started living with us

00:48:46.120 all men in black or something, you, I think we would have to say that they are people. Um, they are

00:48:54.660 persons. They should be legally granted as, as, as conscious, sentient, uh, highly developed,

00:49:01.000 uh, uh, beings. They should be granted all the rights of people, but they're not human. Um,

00:49:10.400 so, and, and there are other examples. I mean, corporations, uh, legally count as, as people,

00:49:16.640 which, you know, that's a separate topic, but the point is legally, whether we're talking legally,

00:49:22.780 philosophically, morally, there could be scenarios, conceivable scenarios where a non-human is a

00:49:32.060 person or where, right. Yes. Okay. I phrased that right. I'm confusing myself, but there is no

00:49:40.220 scenario. There is no moral or philosophically justifiable scenario where a human could be

00:49:47.200 treated like not a person though. Of course, legally that is a distinction we draw, which has

00:49:56.200 enabled the murder of 60 million persons through abortion. All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks 0.66

00:50:02.140 everybody for watching. Godspeed. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you

00:50:10.160 want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe

00:50:13.680 as well. We're available on Apple podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Also be sure to

00:50:19.160 check out the other Gelly Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro show, Michael Knowles show, and the

00:50:23.680 Andrew Klavan show. Thanks for listening. The Matt Walsh show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate

00:50:28.500 producer, Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer, Jeremy Boring, senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our

00:50:34.520 supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Donovan Fowler.

00:50:40.400 Audio is mixed by Mike Coromina. The Matt Walsh show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:50:46.920 If you want to delve the depths of leftist madness, head on over to the Michael Knowles show,

00:50:51.580 where we examine what's really going on beneath the surface of our politics and bask in the simple

00:50:57.060 joys of being right.

The Matt Walsh Show - October 21, 2019

Ep. 353 - Media Forgets To Notice Alleged Dem Sex Scandal

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript