The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 701 - The Truth About Ashli Babbitt And Our Two Tiered Justice System

00:00:00.000 Today on The Matt Walsh Show, the DOJ has announced that the officer who shot Ashley

00:00:03.900 Babbitt will not be charged with a crime. In fact, they won't even tell us his name or give

00:00:07.700 us any other information about him or what happened. Today, we're going to take a close

00:00:11.840 look at this case, try to figure out what did happen, why did the woman die, and whether or

00:00:16.040 not it was justified. Also, five headlines, including the Biden administration, has its

00:00:19.780 feet held to the fire during the White House press briefing over its abortion policies. That

00:00:23.920 doesn't happen every day. And CNN brings a trans athlete on the air to explain why men 0.92

00:00:28.900 actually don't have an advantage over women in sports. Plus, Biden's UN ambassador hates 1.00

00:00:34.280 America, it turns out. Perhaps a bit of a conflict of interest there. We'll talk about that and

00:00:38.140 so much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.

00:00:46.660 Less than a day after armed robbery suspect Dante Wright was shot by police, the name of

00:00:52.440 the police officer who pulled the trigger was publicly released. Shortly after that, her

00:00:56.560 address was leaked as well. Now her home is currently surrounded by concrete barricades,

00:01:02.560 metal fencing, and armed police guards in order to stop the violent mob from burning it to the

00:01:06.940 ground and perhaps killing anyone who happens to be inside the house. This is the way it goes with

00:01:11.440 every high-profile police shooting. The name of the police officer is quickly released. Soon,

00:01:16.040 all of their other personal details follow. And then oftentimes, as happened with the officer in this

00:01:20.640 case, they're charged with a crime. Well, I shouldn't say that it works this way with every high-profile

00:01:25.900 police shooting. There is one quite notable exception. It was announced yesterday by the

00:01:30.340 DOJ that the officer who shot Ashley Babbitt, one of the pro-Trump protesters at the Capitol on

00:01:34.620 January 6th, will not be charged in her death. The statement from the DOJ refers to this man only as

00:01:40.860 the U.S. Capitol Police officer because his name was never made public. We don't know his name. Four

00:01:45.940 months later, and we know absolutely nothing about the federal officer who shot an unarmed woman

00:01:51.720 in the Capitol. Compare that to nearly any police shooting that BLM gets upset about, where we're

00:01:57.640 told nearly every personal detail about the officer within hours of the shooting. Before we even

00:02:04.060 consider the specific details of the shooting, which we will, which left Ashley Babbitt dead, what few

00:02:10.880 details we have as officials refuse to tell us much of anything, really, it's already unthinkable and

00:02:16.520 outrageous that this dichotomy exists. There are two systems in this country, two tiers of justice,

00:02:22.520 one for the politically favored, one for the rest of us. If you're shot by police and BLM appoints you 0.74

00:02:28.200 a martyr for their cause, the name of the officer will be made public. He'll likely be charged with a

00:02:33.520 crime unless the shooting was so incontrovertibly above board that prosecutors can't come up with a

00:02:37.560 crime that would theoretically cover it. Meanwhile, protesters will wreak havoc in the streets and be

00:02:42.440 allowed to do it and the media will canonize you. That's how it goes in that case. But if you're

00:02:47.980 shot by police and BLM decides that your death doesn't matter or even that you deserved what you

00:02:52.560 got, then the officer's name will never be given to the public. The media will quickly move on from

00:02:57.220 the story. The protesters will sit on their hands and the officer will be quickly cleared of all

00:03:01.360 wrongdoing without any real explanation either. Whatever you think of the Ashley Babbitt shooting,

00:03:08.400 whether you believe it to be justified or not, and I'm not sure how you could be sure that it is

00:03:12.300 justified, given that the powers that be haven't even bothered to justify it. But whatever the

00:03:18.380 case may be for you, you should not be okay with this state of affairs. That you should at least agree

00:03:26.060 that we should know the officer's name just as we know the names of the officers in every other

00:03:31.340 high-profile incident. This is not merely about being fair or having the same standard for everyone,

00:03:38.140 though it is partially about that. It's also about understanding the true motivations of the

00:03:43.020 police officer who fired the shot. This was obviously a politically charged situation.

00:03:49.160 Most of the rioters and protesters were right-wing Trump supporters.

00:03:53.380 Many officers were there that day. Not one of them, save this one, felt that it was necessary to start

00:04:00.760 shooting. Is it possible that this officer had ideological and political conflicts of interest?

00:04:07.500 That he was pushed to take a step that no other officer took due to his political hatred for the

00:04:11.960 people there? I have no idea. That's the point. None of us know. Could be, couldn't be. These are the

00:04:19.800 kinds of questions we should ask. These are the kinds of questions the government would answer if we

00:04:23.960 truly lived in a free country where everybody is equal under the law. Now, it's possible that this man who shot her

00:04:29.800 is an honest and straightforward guy, as honest as they come, his motives of as pure as the driven snow,

00:04:35.720 but they aren't giving us any information about him. And so we're left only to speculate

00:04:41.220 about what his motivations might be. Here's what we are being told. And this is about the sum of it,

00:04:48.440 really. From the DOJ statement yesterday, I'll read it to you. Not the whole thing, but this is the

00:04:52.480 relevant portion. It says, the focus of the criminal investigation was to determine whether federal

00:04:56.960 prosecutors could prove that the officer violated any federal laws. In order to establish a violation

00:05:02.640 of this statute, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer acted willfully

00:05:06.760 to deprive Ms. Babbitt of a right protected by the constitution or other law. Here, the fourth

00:05:12.680 amendment right not to be subjected to an unreasonable seizure. Prosecutors would have to prove not only

00:05:17.620 that the officer used force that was constitutionally unreasonable, but the officer did so willfully,

00:05:22.840 which the Supreme Court has interpreted to mean that the officer acted with a bad purpose to

00:05:26.700 disregard the law. As this requirement has been interpreted by the courts, evidence that an

00:05:31.000 officer acted out of fear, mistake, panic, misperception, negligence, or even poor judgment

00:05:35.000 cannot establish the high level of intent required under section 242. The investigation revealed no

00:05:40.580 evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer willfully committed a violation.

00:05:45.200 Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that at the time of the officer

00:05:48.760 fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt. The officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary

00:05:52.840 to do so in self-defense or in defense of the members of Congress and others evacuating the House

00:05:56.300 chamber. Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt's family,

00:06:01.680 the U.S. Attorney's Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation

00:06:05.660 into this matter. And that's it. That's the end of it, as far as they're concerned.

00:06:13.180 The people who've been screaming about police brutality for years and accusing cops of being

00:06:17.900 homicidal lunatics are also perfectly satisfied with that. In this one case, they're satisfied 0.86

00:06:23.560 with that. In this one specific case, they're suddenly okay with an unarmed woman being shot

00:06:28.420 without any given explanation. Did you notice that? They don't actually tell us why he did it.

00:06:36.140 They give a range of possible reasons and don't tell us what the reason was. They say, well,

00:06:42.120 it could have been out of fear. It could even be out of negligence. It could have been because

00:06:45.020 he feared it. Who knows? Well, which is it? What did he say was his reason?

00:06:53.980 We have zero transparency from the government in this case. And not only is BLM okay with that,

00:07:02.120 but if the BLM accounts on social media are any indication, they're downright happy that the woman

00:07:06.960 is dead. But what about those of us who have integrity and who actually care about things

00:07:12.460 like truth and justice? You know, we in that minority. Though, of course, those of us who care

00:07:18.500 about truth and justice, we may never scream for justice while we run out of a burned out foot

00:07:22.220 locker with an armful of shoeboxes, but we still care about it. In fact, it's because we care about

00:07:26.560 justice that we wouldn't do that. Those of us in that category, what should we think about this?

00:07:33.840 Well, again, it's hard to know what to think because we're being told so little about it.

00:07:38.360 But all we have is the video taken by somebody in the crowd. There is no doubt all kinds of

00:07:42.920 additional footage out there. Security camera footage, body cam footage. I mean, it's a federal

00:07:48.940 government building and there's police officers all over the place. They no doubt have tons of

00:07:54.200 footage, but we haven't seen any of it. All we have is this. And this is disturbing, of course,

00:08:00.420 because we're watching a woman die, but I think it's important for us to watch it. So, 0.94

00:08:03.000 because this is all we have to go on. And let's watch it again now.

00:08:07.500 So, that's it. That's all there is. There are a couple other angles of

00:08:37.140 the shooting taken by people in the crowd, but that's it. We can see that Babbitt was unarmed

00:08:45.120 and climbing through a door into a hallway with armed police officers. We can also see that there

00:08:50.440 were heavily armed and armored police officers coming up the stairs behind her. She was literally

00:08:55.080 surrounded on all sides by armed police officers. One of the officers fired the shot. Again, the only

00:09:02.820 officer on the scene that day who apparently felt it necessary to take that step. Can we justify this

00:09:09.460 shooting given the circumstances? Well, if we can, if we can, the argument in the unnamed cop's favor

00:09:17.100 would have to go something like this. Ashley Babbitt was trespassing with an unruly mob in a government 1.00

00:09:22.980 building. She was given multiple warnings to leave the area. The warnings may or may not have been

00:09:27.200 verbal, but the hallway was locked and barricaded and there were police officers guarding it with guns.

00:09:31.300 She knew she was not supposed to keep going, but she did. The officer didn't know what her

00:09:35.420 intentions were and made the best decision he could in that high pressure situation.

00:09:39.820 That's what the argument in defense of the shooting would sound like. And I have heard that exact

00:09:43.740 argument from many people, including again, the same people who would in every other situation

00:09:48.000 reject that same argument. Personally, I am not convinced by that argument at all. I think it's

00:09:56.380 extraordinarily weak. Yes, she was trespassing. Yes, it was very reckless to climb through that

00:10:02.860 door. No, I cannot defend that decision or tell you what in the world could have possibly been going

00:10:08.060 through her mind when she started to do that. But even so, this is a five foot, two inch, 110 pound,

00:10:16.520 middle-aged, unarmed woman. She was shot by a large male officer. Are you telling me he couldn't have easily

00:10:24.060 taken her to the ground? Easily through some other means. We know that she posed no physical risk to him

00:10:32.820 whatsoever. Okay, unless she's some sort of ninja or something, she posed no physical risk to him. We know that.

00:10:41.800 Can we really believe that he believed that she did? She posed such a risk that he had to go right

00:10:49.880 to the gunshot? Couldn't do anything else? And whatever he believed, is it not exceedingly clear

00:10:58.240 that he could have used any number of non-lethal means to halt her progress? Here's another important

00:11:05.940 question. Did he personally, verbally warn her that he was going to shoot? Yeah, there were all kinds of

00:11:14.180 visual cues that she wasn't supposed to climb through the door. But did he actually yell to her

00:11:19.200 and say, stop or I will shoot you? If he did and she kept coming, then that might change things in his 0.64

00:11:26.800 favor. It certainly makes him look a little better. But if he didn't, if he didn't say anything and

00:11:32.900 simply executed her on the spot, then this looks even more like a straight up murder of an unarmed

00:11:39.580 citizen and military veteran by a federal law enforcement officer. Now, we could answer that

00:11:46.020 question, by the way, about what the officer did or didn't say if more footage was released, or even if

00:11:50.860 they would just tell us. They know, okay, the Department of Justice, Capitol Police, the politicians,

00:11:57.780 even the media, I guarantee you all of them know who that guy is and what exactly happened.

00:12:03.880 They're not telling us. And the fact that they haven't told us, if he gave her a warning and

00:12:10.140 said, stop or I'll shoot you, and she kept coming, you'd think they'd probably tell us that. 0.88

00:12:16.600 The fact that they're not telling us that and not telling us anything else,

00:12:19.760 that would seem to basically answer the question. No, there was no warning. That's my guess.

00:12:24.860 And we're left only to guess. My guess is very educated guess, reasonable guess. There was no

00:12:31.340 warning from him verbally. He just shot her. To my mind, shooting an unarmed person who poses no 0.82

00:12:41.720 reasonable lethal threat to you without warning is murder. Now, here's what we can say, though.

00:12:50.460 If this shooting was justified, then a great many of the high-profile shootings that BLM has rioted over

00:12:59.160 were also justified. Any logically consistent argument you can make that would validate Babbitt's

00:13:05.500 killing would also validate the killing of many BLM martyrs all in one fell swoop. That much we know. 0.88

00:13:12.820 She was in the process of committing a crime. Okay, well, so was George Floyd. So was Michael Brown.

00:13:16.560 In the vast majority of these high-profile cases, a crime was being committed. That's why the cops

00:13:20.340 were there. She was given warnings. Well, we don't know if she was or not, but we know that Jacob

00:13:24.960 Blake was. I mean, he had guns pointed at him and they were screaming at him over and over again in

00:13:30.640 his face, stop, stop, stop. And he didn't stop until they finally pulled the trigger. She was unarmed,

00:13:36.880 but could have still theoretically posed a lethal threat. Well, BLM has protested the killing of even

00:13:41.900 armed suspects like Dion K. in DC was running towards officers with his gun drawn.

00:13:49.420 They protested that. Many others were not armed, but were still presenting themselves as clear

00:13:55.060 physical threats like Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta, who got into a fight with officers and stole one

00:13:59.300 of their tasers. She should have known better. Okay, well, should Dante Wright not have known better

00:14:05.500 than to push away the officers, resist arrest and climb back into his vehicle?

00:14:08.540 Well, if Ashley Babbitt brought her death on herself, if she is to blame, if she is not the

00:14:17.160 victim, but the perpetrator who reaped the consequences of her own actions, which seems to

00:14:21.340 be the opinion of most people out there, certainly on the left, but even a lot of people on the right,

00:14:27.080 then the same applies to every name I just listed and then some. Oh, but she was an insurrectionist 1.00

00:14:34.620 trying to take over a government building, you say. Well, if that's what makes the difference,

00:14:40.280 if we're saying that what gives cops a license to start spraying bullets is that, then that would

00:14:46.860 put a great many BLM and Antifa rioters directly in the line of fire. Though in their case, you know,

00:14:53.300 they've been allowed to wage assaults on federal buildings for months on end, sometimes even take

00:14:57.780 over government buildings at police stations and burn them to the ground without a single shot being

00:15:01.920 fired at them ever. But that brings us back to where we started. Justice in two tiers. A system

00:15:11.060 that favors some and not others. Ashley Babbitt falls on the losing side of that coin. And no matter 0.94

00:15:17.820 what they might say or excuses they might offer in the minds of BLM and the media and our government,

00:15:23.640 that is why her death is not an outrage or a crime. Let's get now to our five headlines.

00:15:31.920 All right. Um, let me, I just have to say this at the, to begin with, and I don't, I don't often do

00:15:42.980 this. Uh, very rarely have I done this, but I have to issue a retraction and a bit of an editorial

00:15:49.780 correction in the, in the, if you listened to the show yesterday, which you better have

00:15:53.140 in the daily cancellation, we talked about the, uh, made up gibberish language of the left and how

00:15:59.520 it gets more and more absurd with the pronouns. And now they have neo pronouns for people who

00:16:03.540 identify as hot dog buns and clouds and skyscrapers and horses. Um, and you know, I, I gave a little

00:16:09.640 bit of my own personal background and my own, my own history of trauma saying that when I grew up,

00:16:14.360 I had four sisters in the house and my two older sisters, um, had their own, it wasn't pronouns,

00:16:19.920 but they had their own gibberish languages. They would make up and then speak to each other in

00:16:24.000 front of me in this made up language to torment me because I never knew what they were saying.

00:16:28.820 And that's what I, that's the claim I made. I did get a text message from my younger sister,

00:16:33.320 one of my younger sisters last night who listened to the show and wanted me to know that it wasn't

00:16:38.360 my older sisters who had the made up language. It was her and our youngest sister who had it.

00:16:42.680 So I had, I got that wrong. And she clarified to me that, um, these are my two younger sisters.

00:16:48.580 They are the ones who had the made up language and they called it. I didn't know this. They called

00:16:52.060 it the, I think she said it in the text. They called it the a annoying language because every 0.91

00:16:57.020 made up word ended in a, and, um, they just used it to annoy everybody in the house. So

00:17:01.400 I have to issue that retraction because the thing is, if I upset my family and they boycott the show,

00:17:08.120 I lose half my audience and I can't allow that to happen. All right, let's start here. We're

00:17:13.840 going to start with, with maybe the best question I've ever heard asked best line of questioning

00:17:19.800 I've ever heard, um, at a white house press conference. And that's not saying a lot because

00:17:26.160 very rarely are there worthwhile questions that are asked. I mean, most of what's said at a white 1.00

00:17:31.900 house press conference, the questions that are asked aren't even really questions, right?

00:17:35.000 They're just softballs teeing up, um, at least if it's a democratic administration, softballs

00:17:41.020 teeing up the, uh, spokesperson to say whatever they want to say. But in this case, I thought

00:17:45.680 this was, uh, this was really good. This is apparently EWTN reporter Owen Jensen. Somehow

00:17:52.260 they've allowed EWTN, that's a Catholic news organization. They've allowed them in the building

00:17:56.380 probably not for long now. And, uh, let's, let's take a listen.

00:18:00.600 So today, as you well know, the Biden administration and HHS started the reversal of the Trump

00:18:06.900 administration's ban on abortion referrals at title 10 family planning clinics. So my first

00:18:12.800 question, why does the Biden administration insist that pro-life Americans pay for abortions

00:18:20.200 and violate their conscience? Well, first, that's not an accurate depiction of what happened. So let

00:18:25.780 me, and I know we want to be accurate around here, uh, none of the funds appropriated under this title

00:18:31.020 shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning that is written into the

00:18:36.180 public health service act. And it specifically states that indirect subsidies, money that's

00:18:42.440 fungible that can't be traced. We know that come on. That is not how it works. That is the law. So

00:18:47.840 I'm stating what the law is and how it is implemented legally by these organizations. And the reason I

00:18:53.280 though, since you gave me the opportunity, uh, the reason why the president took these steps is

00:18:58.080 because, uh, he believes that, uh, advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who

00:19:03.980 have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and

00:19:09.620 inequality can be helped by these actions. And by focusing on advancing equity in the title 10

00:19:15.720 program, we can create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been historically

00:19:19.940 underserved, which benefits everyone. That's how these fundings are used in communities.

00:19:24.740 You talk about equity, if I may interrupt, how is it equity? How is it fighting systemic racism when

00:19:30.620 abortion, we all know disproportionately affects minority children? Again, funding cannot be used

00:19:36.580 from this for abortion, but access to healthcare, uh, access to healthcare and communities and

00:19:42.260 communities that have been marginalized, underserved, adversely affected by persistent poverty is always

00:19:47.500 going to be something the president fights for. Okay. I think I've answered your question, Alex.

00:19:52.620 No, she didn't really answer it, but, but so two great points being raised, questions being asked,

00:19:57.740 um, by the reporter there. And one is about the funding now, now, now she says, oh yeah, well,

00:20:05.180 they're funding, but it's, it's not going, you know, it's going to, uh, healthcare clinics and facilities

00:20:12.300 that provide abortions, but it's, but the funding can't go to the abortion. And the rejoinder from

00:20:20.480 the reporter is correct. That money is fungible. So anytime you hear that, you know, that it's bogus

00:20:26.980 and we've been hearing this as a justification for the federal funding of Planned Parenthood

00:20:31.360 for decades. Now, you know, we get half a billion dollars a year to, uh, Planned Parenthood, um, as

00:20:38.380 they murder hundreds of thousands of babies a year. And of course we, we continue to hand over these

00:20:46.200 bags full of money. We, we make these, uh, these, these sugar daddy payments, the government, the

00:20:51.740 taxpayer, the sugar daddy for Planned Parenthood. We continue to do that even after we had a Republican

00:20:56.600 administration, we had a Republican Congress and a Republican administration for two years.

00:21:01.360 They didn't do, they didn't do a damn thing about it. But anyway, the, the, the justification

00:21:06.880 is that, yeah, we give half a billion, but it doesn't go to the abortions. Okay. But money

00:21:11.340 is fungible. That's the point. So it doesn't even really make sense to say, yeah, if we, if

00:21:18.200 you use the money to fund this aspect of their operation, then that frees them up to put other

00:21:25.700 money towards the abortion aspect. So by funding one part of it, you are effectively funding

00:21:30.940 the other. And then the second line of questioning about if you, if you care about equity and

00:21:37.920 equality, uh, and all of that, and you want to protect minority communities, well, we know

00:21:44.600 that abortion, when we say abortion disproportionately affects minority communities, what that means

00:21:48.460 is that minority babies are being killed at a disproportionate rate. And if not for abortion,

00:21:55.260 there would be many millions more minority people in the, the, the, uh, in the, uh, the country

00:22:02.700 today. So it's, it's hard to see that as a positive for any minority community or any community

00:22:10.880 community at all that they've successfully exterminated so many of their own children.

00:22:15.240 All right, let's move to, uh, number two, CNN had a segment with a trans athlete. They call this

00:22:24.360 person, I think on, on the screen, what do they say here? Yeah. Trans female. Okay. So they call this

00:22:29.800 person a trans female athlete, which I assume means it's a male who identifies as a woman, but you see

00:22:36.720 how sex and gender have once again become interchangeable after they spent the last, I don't know, 40 or 50

00:22:41.940 years telling us that sex and gender are two different things and they're not interchangeable.

00:22:46.080 You know, being a woman is not exactly the same thing as being a female and a person can be a 0.97

00:22:50.420 female that doesn't necessarily make them a woman. That's what they said for the last 40 or 50 years. 1.00

00:22:54.680 And now over the last couple of years, what they, they've gone back and, uh, and said, nevermind,

00:22:59.520 actually it's the same. I know we screamed at you for 50 years that it's two different things,

00:23:04.760 but turns out now basically it's interchangeable woman, female, same thing, sex, gender, same thing.

00:23:11.940 So, but that's the least of the problems I think with this segment. And, um, let's,

00:23:16.200 let's just listen to this madness. The simplistic version is that those born male have a natural

00:23:22.940 physiological advantage that also includes differing levels of testosterone. You know,

00:23:29.140 the argument, your response to that is what? Yeah, it's a, it's a nonsense argument. So 0.81

00:23:35.340 depends on how much time you want to let me get into the weeds because I can literally spend hours on

00:23:40.620 this. How about 30, how about 30 seconds? Yeah. So the first thing is, um, testosterone,

00:23:46.880 your natural internally produced and dodges testosterone has zero impact on your athletic

00:23:52.480 performance. And we know that, but we didn't know that until 2013 because everyone just assumed that,

00:23:59.460 well, testosterone is why men are bigger, stronger, faster. But when we finally studied it,

00:24:04.420 there's no relationship between just natural testosterone and performance. So why is testosterone

00:24:10.060 banned? Well, every body produces a different amount. And when you add to it through exogenous

00:24:15.980 means doping, there is a performance advantage. But when you take a body's natural amount and you drop

00:24:22.180 below it, there tends to be a performance disadvantage. For example, in, uh, one study,

00:24:28.420 they found in this elite set of male athletes, some men below the women's average for testosterone

00:24:36.940 were competing at no competitive disadvantage with men that had 40 times as much testosterone.

00:24:44.160 Right. Uh, the first problem here, maybe the biggest problem are the glasses there.

00:24:49.320 Who goes on, on television wearing glasses like that? Now, I know you might point out that I have made

00:24:55.960 some interesting fashion choices with what I choose to wear when I'm on, uh, in front of the

00:25:00.060 camera, but come on, give me a break. That's a rainbow, rainbow glasses. But this is what you,

00:25:09.520 what you're seeing there is the left doing what the left does. Um, and that is distracting from the

00:25:16.600 main point. And what they're going to do is really on any issue, especially where they know they have an

00:25:21.700 indefensible position, which is every issue, uh, particularly when it comes to gender, they're 0.98

00:25:27.080 going to home in on one specific argument and what they say in that area will be false,

00:25:35.680 but it's also going to be almost entirely beside the point. But then the, the strategy is that the

00:25:44.460 other side on the right, we get sucked into having this argument over this basically irrelevant detail

00:25:51.260 because what they're saying there is so wrong. And we can't, we feel like we can't leapfrog over

00:25:56.460 that. We have to, you know, argue over that. So the claim that testosterone doesn't give 0.97

00:26:02.060 athletes an advantage is obviously ridiculous, but it's almost beside the point. We could even,

00:26:09.760 it's not about testosterone is just one, one minor advantage in comparison to all the other

00:26:17.620 advantages that men have. They don't even talk about any of those other advantages.

00:26:26.840 Now it's all about testosterone. And so they're going to pull out all the studies and they're

00:26:31.100 going to say this study over here said this about testosterone. They're going to start using a lot

00:26:36.060 of complicated sounding words like exogenistic and all these kinds of words to make it sound like

00:26:42.420 they're, um, they have the science supporting them and they're, they're taking a very nuanced and

00:26:47.340 intelligent position. And this is all what they're actually claiming is that men don't have any innate

00:26:59.300 biological advantage in sports. It is so insane. There is, there is, it is as crazy as claiming that the

00:27:11.120 earth is flat. I know a lot of positions get compared to that. Oh, these are like flat earthers. No,

00:27:16.120 this is actual flat eartherism. This is as crazy as that. It is that divorced from reality.

00:27:24.420 Obviously men have an advantage in sports. That's why you take any sport and you find that the, that the 0.71

00:27:32.820 best men are always better than the best women in most sports, I should say, you want to make, 1.00

00:27:40.660 you want to talk about gymnastics or those, it might be different, but when it comes to the traditional

00:27:47.180 competitive sports, racing, you know, basketball, football, those kinds of sports, wrestling, boxing,

00:27:54.800 one-on-one where it's all about strength and stamina, pure athleticism, men are always the best men are

00:28:03.720 always substantially better than the best women. And in fact, men, a few notches down are going to be 0.58

00:28:09.940 substantially better than the best women. That's why you take any D3, uh, basketball team from college 1.00

00:28:19.240 and you put them against the best WNBA players. We all know they would dominate. The score would be 85 to 0.56

00:28:27.420 zero. We all know that. Go to any state, look at the, uh, the, the track and field, um, statistics and

00:28:40.840 records in any state in the union, anyone. And what you're going to find is that all of the fastest time

00:28:49.220 belong to men, always, always everywhere. And for all time. Why is that? Because men have

00:28:58.780 dozens and dozens of physical advantages and it's, and testosterone isn't even the beginning of it.

00:29:07.820 You're talking about muscle structure, bone structure, everything down, you know, even things

00:29:13.180 like women having wider hips. I mean, things like that. Every, every part of us as, as, as men is

00:29:24.380 going to be going to be different from women. We, as, as a man, you are male down to your very bones, 1.00

00:29:33.740 literally, and women are women down to their bones. 1.00

00:29:36.280 And all through that, you find differences. And in so many of these cases, the differences give

00:29:46.480 advantages to men in most competitive sports.

00:29:49.800 All right. Um, let's take a look at, uh, okay, we got to play this. The UN, our UN ambassador,

00:29:59.440 Linda Thomas Greenfield is, I feel is her name. Uh, she, because she's a Democrat and she was

00:30:05.240 appointed by a Democrat. Of course, she hates our country, hates it deeply and made that clear in a,

00:30:10.320 in a recent address. Let's listen to what she had to say.

00:30:12.440 I've seen for myself how the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding

00:30:20.420 documents and principles. But I also shared these stories to offer up an insight, a simple truth I've

00:30:27.540 learned over the years. Racism is not the problem of the person who experiences it. Those of us who

00:30:34.480 experience racism cannot and should not internalize it, despite the impact it can have on our everyday

00:30:40.820 lives. Racism is the problem of the racist. And it is the problem of the society that produces the

00:30:48.940 racist. And in today's world, that's every society. In America, that, that takes many forms. It's the

00:30:56.340 white supremacy that led to the senseless killing of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so 0.93

00:31:03.100 many other black Americans.

00:31:04.620 Yeah. Racism led to the death of George Floyd. Of course, we, you know, we, we get that, that claim

00:31:10.460 from everyone on the left. It's, they've never even tried to give any evidence for it. They never do.

00:31:17.960 In what way you have evidence that Derek Chauvin is racist and that he killed George Floyd on purpose

00:31:24.240 due to his racial animus. Really? If you have that evidence, Hey, uh, Linda Greenfield, if you've got

00:31:31.720 that evidence, you better give it, it's probably too late now, but, uh, you better hand that over

00:31:36.360 to the appropriate authorities. Cause they, the, the prosecutors prosecuting Derek Chauvin right now,

00:31:43.700 they don't have that evidence. They haven't produced it. They produced a shred of evidence

00:31:48.220 that any of this had anything to do with race. That would be a bombshell if they had it. I mean,

00:31:53.060 if they could produce something, I don't know what, what that would be, but something indicating

00:31:58.380 this was racially motivated. That changes the complexion of everything. No pun intended, 0.60

00:32:04.480 but there's no evidence of that. So, um, no big deal. Just our UN ambassador, you know,

00:32:11.920 smearing cops is racist, smearing the entire country is racist. Of course, if that is your view,

00:32:19.380 you're not fit to hold any public office. You're especially not fit to be the UN ambassador.

00:32:26.720 You cannot lead people that you hate. You cannot lead something that you hate. You can't lead an

00:32:37.940 organization that you hate. You know, if you work for a company and you hate that company,

00:32:43.040 and then you're made, you're put in a position of authority in that company, it's going to be bad

00:32:46.740 news because you're in a position of authority in a company that you hate. Same goes for a country.

00:32:53.860 Hey, if you're leading a country that you despise, like Linda Thomas-Greenfield despises it,

00:33:03.920 um, nothing good's going to happen.

00:33:09.280 That's why, why do you think it's one of the reasons why you look at any city run by a Democrat,

00:33:14.140 all of the cities that are in shambles across the country, every single one, all of them run by 1.00

00:33:17.980 Democrats. A lot of reasons for that. One of the reasons though, is that they hate their cities. 0.68

00:33:23.900 They hate the people in the cities. They hate the country that the city is, uh, is, is located in.

00:33:30.700 They hate it all. They hate the history of the city.

00:33:32.600 And that really comes through, right?

00:33:38.860 Like anything else, if you're, if you're in charge of taking care of something and you,

00:33:42.460 and you either don't care about it or actively hate it,

00:33:45.320 bad things are going to happen. Although she did say, I have to say, uh, listening to that clip

00:33:52.100 again, I noticed one thing that she said that I actually agree with and then, but she moved on

00:33:58.020 from it. And I don't think she understands the implications of what she said, but, but she said

00:34:01.080 the, that, uh, she was talking about racism and she said, it's a, it's in every society.

00:34:07.180 Well, you know, yes, actually you're right about that.

00:34:13.620 Racism is, um, comes from like any other form of hatred or anything else. It comes from flaws in

00:34:21.180 human nature. And which means, doesn't mean that every person is racist. It just means that

00:34:25.620 you're going to find that any kind of hatred, whether it's racial hatred, any other form of hatred,

00:34:31.080 you're going to find elements of that in any society. She's right about that.

00:34:38.100 But what that means is that if you go to Africa, um, you're going to find a hell of a lot of racism.

00:34:45.640 Okay. You go to Asia, hell of a lot of race. You go to India, a lot of racism, the middle East,

00:34:51.800 a lot of racism.

00:34:52.520 It is a, it is a problem that you find across the globe. And in fact,

00:34:59.540 in a lot of non-Western countries, it's a lot worse than it is here. A lot and a lot more socially

00:35:06.960 accepted. So that part I agree with. But, um, as I said, if, if, if people on the left were to stop

00:35:15.380 and consider the implications of that and what that actually means, then maybe they would hate

00:35:20.000 America a little bit less, but, uh, all right, we're going to get to our reading the comments

00:35:24.140 in just, well, no, we're going to get there now. Actually, we'll just move right to reading the

00:35:27.520 comments. Um, Joan says, sadly, all the victims of these violent criminals are completely ignored.

00:35:34.080 Where's the Me Too movement standing up for these women? Yeah. The Me Too movement, just like BLM, 1.00

00:35:40.100 many of these movements on the left. Um, of course they don't, Me Too movement pretends to be standing

00:35:44.940 for women's rights and speaking out specifically for, for victims, women, female victims of

00:35:50.740 violent crime and harassment. And they don't, they don't care about that. Just like BLM is a big grift.

00:35:58.620 People at the top are making lots of money. We know the, the, one of the founders of BLM just bought,

00:36:03.580 what is it? Four different houses, all in white neighborhoods, of course. Uh, the grifters in charge of, 0.53

00:36:09.220 now Me Too has not been as profitable a grift as BLM is, but still pretty profitable.

00:36:17.080 They don't care. If they did, yeah, they'd be speaking up and saying, what about the women here? 1.00

00:36:21.180 How do they feel? Can we at least hear from them? And, and if they don't want to come forward,

00:36:28.320 and here's the thing, a lot, they would, they might very, very likely decline the opportunity to come

00:36:34.340 forward and speak. But if they do, it's only because they're afraid of what would happen to

00:36:39.700 them if they were to come out. The, the woman that George Floyd, um, point, put at gunpoint after, 0.99

00:36:49.360 after forcing his way into her house, it, that woman, whoever she is, probably is not going to 0.88

00:36:57.120 want to come out and say how she feels about George Floyd and how it makes her feel to walk by murals

00:37:03.360 with this guy's face every day. But the reason that she wouldn't want to say it, I would guess

00:37:08.540 is because it would put her life in danger. What does that tell us? That's all the more reason why

00:37:15.860 you would think Me Too would speak up on their behalf if they care, but they don't. Um, KVG says,

00:37:22.620 two things can be true at once. Dante was a bad human being and the cop screwed up. Sure. I don't 0.68

00:37:29.200 think anyone, we, the cop admits pretty much on the spot when you listen to the video that it was

00:37:35.360 an accident. And so an accident is a mistake, a screw up. You know, there's, I don't think anyone

00:37:41.980 is denying that. Um, absolutely degenerate kind of ironic username, given the comment here says,

00:37:51.900 children are too wholesome for this world. Matt, your daughter is adorable. Yeah. You know what?

00:37:56.800 They really are. It's kind of heartbreaking as a parent. They don't tell you this part about

00:38:00.240 parenting. Do you? This is one thing that this undercurrent of pain, um, that comes, it's sort of

00:38:05.340 this, it's a, it's a kind of a sweet loving pain, but it is pain that you feel as a parent, seeing your

00:38:10.560 children in their innocence and knowing that it won't last, knowing that one day they'll be as jaded and

00:38:17.520 corrupted as you are. I have moments like this all the time with my kids. I had a moment like this,

00:38:22.640 actually this morning with my son, because I went into the room to say bye to him before I left for

00:38:25.660 work. And he had this magazine that, that, uh, that, uh, his mom bought from the store with pictures

00:38:30.660 of King Kong and Godzilla. You know, it's just like one of those movie magazines. And, um, he had selected

00:38:38.100 a bunch of pages and mark them that he wanted to sit with. When I got home from work, he said he wanted

00:38:44.580 to sit with me and look at these, these specific pages. And so he told me when I got home from work,

00:38:49.160 there's just a bunch of awesome pictures he needs me to see. And he's looking forward to that. And of

00:38:53.500 course I said, Oh buddy, that's awesome. You know, I can't wait. But I also had this pang of sadness

00:38:57.600 again, like, man, this kid is so innocent and sweet that this is what he's, this is what he's doing

00:39:03.280 with his day is he's looking at pictures of Godzilla and King Kong and looking forward to watch,

00:39:06.960 looking at the magazine with daddy. Um, but you know, it won't last. That's the thing. That's the

00:39:13.000 sadness. That's where it comes in. It was a sappy moment. We don't get those very often on this show.

00:39:18.620 I feel like I have to move to something else. Here we go. Um, another comment says, this is my

00:39:23.500 first time commenting. So I, I will inevitably be banned for not commenting earlier. No, you're

00:39:29.420 banned for thinking that I would ban you for something so petty. That's why you're banned,

00:39:33.040 but you are banned for the record. Another comment says, Matt, I was unsure of your show back when you

00:39:38.100 were streaming in your car. Now you're my favorite show on daily wire. You pull no punches,

00:39:41.740 keep up the great work. Oh, so you were unsure just because I was in my car, elitist. You think

00:39:46.760 I didn't have anything worthwhile to say only because I was a maniac screaming at my car dashboard.

00:39:51.420 Really? You know what that gets you, gets you banned. Of course. And finally, Jackson says,

00:39:58.880 congratulations on 700 episodes. I didn't even realize I read these comments and, uh, I, that's how

00:40:04.800 I realized I was at 700 episodes, big milestone. I didn't plan any celebration. Um,

00:40:11.200 here, I will joyously throw these pens in the air in celebration. Here's my celebration for 700

00:40:17.140 episodes. Are you ready? That was pretty exciting. Good. All right. Now a quick word from ExpressVPN.

00:40:28.580 Listen, we know that everyone should have the right to express themselves freely, but we know also,

00:40:32.680 sadly, that big tech, uh, has opted for silencing people and censorship. Uh, and we know that this is,

00:40:39.460 a lot of this is politically motivated. And what does that mean? It means we have to fight back

00:40:43.360 and to fight back against big techs control the internet. I use ExpressVPN. You ever wondered

00:40:48.440 how free to access tech giants make all their money? They make billions of it. Well, they do it

00:40:53.100 by tracking your searches, your video history, everything you click on. And by building a profile

00:40:57.320 of you, uh, they then sell off your sensitive data. And that's how they're making money off of you

00:41:02.280 without your consent, without your knowing it. When you use the ExpressVPN app on your computer or phone,

00:41:06.780 you, you, uh, you make anonymous much of your online presence by hiding your IP address. That

00:41:12.000 means your activity is more difficult to trace, more difficult to sell to advertisers. What's more

00:41:16.320 ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and crittens and

00:41:21.660 cyber criminals. You know, the big tech hates you. So don't just let, let them profit off of you in

00:41:26.960 this way. Take action, get ExpressVPN, revoke big tech's right to your data, secure your internet with

00:41:32.860 the VPN that I trust for online protection. Visit expressvpn.com slash Walsh. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com

00:41:40.280 slash Walsh to get three months free with my exclusive link. That's again, expressvpn.com slash Walsh

00:41:47.060 right now and learn more. Also it's a episode five already. We can't get enough of Candace Owens or her 1.00

00:41:54.200 new show. And, uh, every episode has been great and getting better each, each week this week. Uh, I think

00:42:00.860 it's going to be the best of all because she's going to be hosting comedian and podcaster, Adam

00:42:04.220 Carolla. You can tune in. Uh, you don't want to miss this conversation. And if you want to tune

00:42:08.440 in, of course you become a Daily Wire member, you can watch that way. Or, uh, you can also get

00:42:13.120 Candace Owens in your Twitter feed, uh, Apple, Spotify, wherever you listen to your podcasts.

00:42:16.980 So if you need some Candace Owens in your podcast feed, uh, look no further, head over to Apple

00:42:22.000 Podcasts or Spotify and subscribe today. Be sure to leave a five-star review. If you like what you hear,

00:42:26.240 now let's get to our daily cancellation. Today for what I think will be a brief and

00:42:32.760 relatively painless cancellation, we turned to an article in the Washington Post, an article in

00:42:36.420 which your, your humble, your humble podcast host, yours truly is personally featured.

00:42:40.360 The headline is United pledged to diversify its pilot pipeline. Outrage from conservative

00:42:45.900 pundits was swift. Now I should tell you that I didn't know about this article or that I was

00:42:50.240 mentioned it until I, it was posted to Twitter by a guy named Torrin Ellis who tagged me in his tweet. 0.96

00:42:55.760 Ellis tweeted, quote, here are three propped up mediocre white men that should kick rocks, 0.92

00:43:03.040 Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson, and Pierce Morgan for attempting to devalue DNI. I think DNI stands for 0.97

00:43:08.720 diversity and inclusion. Needless to say, if I called Ellis a quote, mediocre black man, 1.00

00:43:15.900 he would cry racist. And only, you know, that's because he's allowed to use language like that. 0.99

00:43:20.740 Uh, but I'm not, the rules are very clear. Ellis, by the way, is a diversity and inclusion

00:43:25.740 strategist by trade. I'm still not sure what a diversity and inclusion strategist does exactly.

00:43:32.060 I guess a company hires you and then you give them arbitrary quotas to fill.

00:43:36.240 Like you say, well, let's see, uh, this company needs nine more black people, two Asians, 12 women. 0.64

00:43:41.560 Tell you what, let's spice it up in a bit and get a, get a non-binary lesbian Vietnamese pirate on 1.00

00:43:46.480 staff as well. That'll be $95,000. Thank you. The process may not work exactly like that,

00:43:52.760 but I think that's the general idea. In any case, all that to say, this is how I discovered that I

00:43:56.240 was outraged, that I was outraged at United. You see, I'm quite often included in these articles

00:44:01.060 about conservative outrage and conservative backlash. The strategy from the media is pretty

00:44:06.060 obvious. It always follows the same pattern. Someone on the left or some company on the left,

00:44:10.120 in this case, does something crazy and stupid. The media knows that it can't defend the crazy, 1.00

00:44:16.000 stupid thing on its own merits. So instead they go in through the back door attempting to indirectly 1.00

00:44:20.480 defend it by pretending that only we bigoted, hateful, insane, conservative pundits are opposed 1.00

00:44:25.000 to this crazy, stupid thing. For the record, much of the time, outrage is not the right word for how 1.00

00:44:32.880 I feel about these crazy, stupid things. Sometimes it is. Okay. I am indeed outraged, for example, 1.00

00:44:38.000 about the children being indoctrinated into left-wing gender theory and then drugged and mutilated.

00:44:43.260 I've been included in conservative outrage articles about that. And accurately so

00:44:47.420 the physical and sexual abuse of children does outrage me. You might even say that I'm a full-blown

00:44:54.260 snowflake when it comes to child abuse. I am very upset about it and angry. That much I admit. It

00:44:59.560 offends me. It does. As for United deciding to recruit based on race and gender rather than merit,

00:45:05.840 I'm not outraged. If I was a passenger on the first plane that crashes because it's piloted by

00:45:12.580 someone who was hired to fill a quota, then yeah, I'd be outraged about that. But I'm not going to

00:45:17.580 be on that plane because I'm not going to fly United because I prefer not to die if I can help it.

00:45:23.240 Nonetheless, I was included in the outrage pundit brigade without my consent. Here's the

00:45:27.480 relevant portion of the article. It says,

00:45:29.420 Criticism of the plan suggested United was prioritizing the wrong qualities and in many

00:45:34.980 cases overlooked the fact that pilots would still have to undergo extensive training

00:45:38.260 to be eligible for a job. Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh penned an opinion piece titled

00:45:43.460 United offers passengers exciting opportunity to die in diverse and equitable plane crash.

00:45:49.240 Fox News host Tucker Carlson tackled the issue the day after United's announcement,

00:45:52.380 accusing the airline of prioritizing identity politics over safety. Quoting him, it says,

00:45:57.360 so if hiring on the basis of irrelevant criteria will over time get people killed and it will,

00:46:01.000 why are they demanding it? Because they don't care. They're ideologues. They're suffering from an

00:46:04.900 incurable brain disease called wokeness. And Piers Morgan, who resigned from Good Morning America

00:46:09.360 last month after criticizing Megan, Duchess of Sussex, wrote in the Daily Mail that white male

00:46:14.520 pilots were being discriminated against by the airline's plan. Okay. Now, I wouldn't call my

00:46:19.060 headline quoted there as outraged. I did think it was pretty clever, though, and I'm grateful for the

00:46:23.660 shout out. But what I really want to focus on for a moment is a quote earlier in the article

00:46:29.680 from the spokesman for United Airlines. And as far as I know, this is the first time they've come out

00:46:35.620 and given a longer explanation of this plan and defense of it. And so, in fairness, I'll read that

00:46:42.180 to you. Here's what the spokesman said. He said, our commitment to diversity is about recruiting from

00:46:47.460 the deepest pool possible of exceptional and qualified candidates who want to pursue a career

00:46:51.360 as a commercial airline pilot, particularly those who otherwise may not have attempted to do so due to a

00:46:55.800 variety of factors, primarily financial barriers. We believe that we're going to be a better, stronger

00:47:00.740 airline because of this. And we also understand that our pilot group needs to better reflect the

00:47:05.680 communities that we serve. Now, this, of course, is nonsense. The point is that United didn't just say

00:47:15.380 that they want to make sure everyone has a fair shot at being a pilot. They didn't just say

00:47:19.960 that they're going to go into underserved communities and recruit. Nobody would object

00:47:26.140 to that plan. Most of us probably assumed they were already doing stuff like that.

00:47:30.960 If they weren't, it's an easy thing to start doing. The problem is that they set a quota, a goal.

00:47:38.800 They have an actual percentage in mind for the number of women and minorities that will be in their

00:47:43.700 training pipeline. 50% is the number they want. So here again is the question. If all they want to do

00:47:50.920 is find the most qualified people and are expanding their search to that end, how can they know ahead

00:47:56.880 of time that 50% of the most qualified people will be women and minorities? They might hope that it's 50%, 1.00

00:48:04.180 but how do they know that it will be? They obviously can't know that. And it's almost certainly

00:48:10.280 not going to work out like that. If then they fulfill their 50% goal, it will be because they

00:48:16.640 put other considerations above considerations of merit and skill. This is another equality of

00:48:22.960 outcome versus equality of opportunity situation. Everybody agrees with equality of opportunity.

00:48:31.820 We're turning something controversial, which doesn't need to be controversial. If you simply said,

00:48:37.300 all people of all races, nations, and creeds and sexes should have the opportunity to be a pilot or

00:48:42.080 a firefighter or an actor or whatever other arbitrarily selected occupation, if that's all

00:48:47.360 you said, nobody would disagree. We could all shake hands and be friends. Probably not shake hands given

00:48:54.100 the lingering COVID paranoia, but we could all elbow bump and be friends. That is a non-controversial opinion

00:48:59.500 and a worthy goal, and it's not a problem. But when you say that a certain preordained percentage of the

00:49:06.520 people who actually earn these jobs and titles should be a certain race or sex, then you have left 0.99

00:49:13.260 this non-controversial opinion and worthy goal and fallen into a pit where everything is dumb and

00:49:20.480 nothing makes sense and planes crash because the pilot was incompetent but filled a quota and the media 0.51

00:49:25.640 pretends that only conservative pundits are upset about it. And so for that reason, the Washington

00:49:33.340 post, of course, is canceled. And the diversity and strategists from before, I forget his name

00:49:38.000 already, all canceled. And we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for watching. Thanks for listening.

00:49:42.960 Have a great day. Godspeed.

00:49:44.660 Well, if you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the

00:49:53.440 word, please give us a five-star review. Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're

00:49:57.840 available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to

00:50:02.440 check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show,

00:50:06.360 The Andrew Klavan Show. Thanks for listening.

00:50:08.060 The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring. Our supervising

00:50:13.400 producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling. Our technical director is Austin Stevens,

00:50:18.180 production manager Pavel Vadosky. The show is edited by Sasha Tolmachov. Our audio is mixed by Mike

00:50:23.680 Coromina. Hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva. And our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.

00:50:29.260 The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.

00:50:32.580 CNN admits on a hidden camera that it hyped COVID for ratings. BLM NYC lambasts BLM's founder for

00:50:39.820 embezzling lots of money without giving them a cut. And ice cream melts over white supremacy. 0.99

00:50:45.140 Check it out on The Michael Knowles Show.

The Matt Walsh Show - April 15, 2021

Ep. 701 - The Truth About Ashli Babbitt And Our Two Tiered Justice System

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript