Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Oct. 21, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

50:45

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

A Democrat congresswoman allegedly had a sexual relationship with a young female staffer. The story was buried as soon as it broke. Also, we'll discuss Mitt Romney's alter ego, menstruating men, and why Francis Ford Coppola thinks Marvel movies are "despicable." Date: 10-21-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Look, I've got to say something in defense of Mitt Romney here.
	He's catching a lot of flack because it's been revealed, of course, that he had that fake Twitter account.
	In fact, the only reason we know about that, I guess, is because he told on himself.
	He admitted that he has a fake account, and then people were able to find out which account it is based on context clues.
	And it turns out that he's got this fake account and the fake account's name is Pierre Delecto,
	which is just a delectable name for a fake account, if I do say so myself.
	And his account, his alter ego, Pierre Delecto, would often compliment and defend Mitt Romney.
	And so people are making fun of him for that.
	But I've got to come to Romney's defense, much like Pierre Delecto would do, and say that I don't blame Romney for having fake accounts.
	I have fake accounts myself.
	I have many fake accounts.
	But the only difference is that my fake accounts have turned against me, and now they all insult me and troll me, just like everybody else.
	Single tear goes down.
	The cheek.
	At least my point is at least Romney's alter ego is loyal to him.
	And that's got to count for something.
	I think that speaks to a man's character when your alter egos, because think about it.
	I, you know, it, it, think about how, how sort of close quarters you are with your alter ego.
	You're sharing a brain and it can be really difficult to, to maintain a good working relationship.
	And the fact that he has is, uh, is, is I think speaks to it, by the way, remember, Trump has an alter ego.
	His alter ego is John Barron.
	And so John Barron used to, back in the old days in New York, he used to call up the media with flattering stories about Donald Trump.
	Now, I'll tell you though, so now this debate has started about who's better.
	Which one do you prefer?
	Pierre Delecto or John Barron?
	And I gotta say, they both have their plus sides.
	They both have their weaknesses and their flaws.
	Just like any other alter ego would have.
	But I tend to prefer John Barron just because I like how John Barron morphed forward.
	You know, he's gonna call you on the phone.
	And he's going to get in front of it.
	John Barron, he's not just playing defense all the time.
	He's on offense.
	So what Pierre Delecto would do is he's just going to defend Mitt Romney against attack, whereas John Barron, he's going to go and say, I'm going to plant good stories about my friend Donald.
	And so I prefer that.
	Here's what I really want to see, though.
	I want to see a televised debate between Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, John Barron and Pierre Delecto.
	That's what we need to see.
	So somebody get on that.
	That is pay-per-view material right there.
	If pay-per-view even existed anymore, it truly doesn't.
	All right, much to discuss today, beginning with a sex scandal.
	A pretty, let's say, remarkable sex scandal in many ways.
	A sex scandal involving a prominent politician, Um, one, one, one that even has accompanying photographs.
	Okay.
	Yet.
	So it's got all the makings for a big splash type story.
	Um, but, uh, you probably haven't heard about him.
	The media has already successfully buried it, which tells you that this was a Democrat, of course, obviously.
	But anytime there's a sex scandal involving a politician and you hadn't heard about it, you know, the story broke a week ago and you're just hearing about it now, or a few days ago, then you automatically know that it's a Democrat.
	But there are other reasons why this scandal is being conspicuously ignored, and I want to talk about that in just a moment.
	But first, a word from policy genius.
	You know, Halloween is on the way, which means it's time to break out the rubber spiders, the fake cobwebs, the jack-o'-lanterns.
	We've got all that stuff in our house right now, especially with my kids.
	There are fake spiders and everything everywhere, which I saw someone on Twitter point out the irony that, you know, you clear out The real cobwebs so that you can put the fake cobwebs up in their place.
	I don't know.
	It's just something that we do as human beings in modern society.
	But if you've got a family, you might be dealing with something a little bit scarier right now, which is shopping for life insurance.
	If the idea of looking for life insurance intimidates you, which I know it can for me, Then you gotta try PolicyGenius.com.
	PolicyGenius is the easy way to shop for life insurance online in minutes.
	You can compare quotes from top insurers to find your best price.
	Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork, all the red tape, and that's, for me, that's the main thing.
	It's kind of intimidating when you think about something like life insurance, all of the paperwork and everything, all the hoops you gotta jump through.
	Well, you go to PolicyGenius, and they're gonna make it really easy for you.
	This October, take the scariness out of buying life insurance with PolicyGenius.
	Go to PolicyGenius.com, get quotes, and apply in minutes.
	You can do the whole thing on your phone right now.
	PolicyGenius, the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
	All right, Representative Katie Hill, Congresswoman from California, of course, Democrat, Influential.
	Prominent.
	Serves on two important committees, the Oversight Committee and Armed and Service.
	Armed and Service.
	So that's three committees.
	She's on the Oversight, the Armed, and then the Service Committee.
	Anyway, Armed Service Committee and the Oversight Committee.
	According to Red State, which originally reported this based on... They're doing this based on information they were provided through text messages and photographs, so they've got the goods.
	And what they're reporting is that Representative Hill was allegedly involved in a sexual relationship with a 22-year-old female staffer.
	And then, she was allegedly in an affair with another person that worked for her.
	This time, a man.
	Plus, she was married the whole time.
	Okay, so this is, yes, this is something like out of a soap opera, but real life, allegedly.
	So let's take a look at this.
	I'm going to read some key portions from the report in Red State.
	Here's what Red State says.
	Photographs and text messages obtained by Red State show that Representative Hill was involved in a long-term sexual relationship with a female campaign staffer.
	The woman, whose name is not being released, was hired by Hill in late 2017 and quickly became involved in a thruple, thruple, Relationship with Hill and her estranged husband, Kenny Heslep.
	Heslep and the staffer recording text messages provided to Red State believe the polyamorous arrangement to be a long-term committed relationship.
	The trio took multiple vacations together, including to Alaska, where this photograph was taken, and then they provide a photograph.
	Hill broke it off eventually, and there are text messages showing this back and forth between her and the staffer, where Hill admits that at least part of her reason for breaking it off is that it's a politically dangerous thing for her to be doing.
	Then, which it turns out it actually wasn't because the media is not paying attention and doesn't care.
	And then that's around the time when her husband found out that Hill had also allegedly been in an affair with her finance director.
	I guess at the same time?
	So she was really getting around, allegedly.
	She was sleeping with everybody at the office, allegedly.
	And, um, and then that's, that's when the husband broke it off.
	So I guess the husband is saying, Hey, I know you were involved in a sexual relationship with, with this other person at work.
	That was fine.
	But then, uh, but then a second person, no, that crosses the line.
	That's that's over the line.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	We want to, you want to be sexually involved with, with, uh, two people.
	Fine.
	Three.
	No.
	Allegedly.
	That's what that's.
	The way that that worked out.
	Now, as I said, there are text messages, some of which are published by Red State.
	You can go check those out.
	There are also photos.
	One which I won't put up on the screen for you, but it's online, where it appears to be Hill naked and brushing the hair of a young female whose hair, whose face is blurred out.
	Presumably it is the staffer in question.
	Very weird, very creepy.
	So, a few things here.
	First, is any of this relevant to the public?
	Does it matter?
	Or is it all just gossip?
	Now, I would say it does matter.
	Certainly, here's the stipulation.
	According to the standards applied to other public figures and politicians, usually Republicans, it does matter.
	And here's why.
	First of all, Katie Hill was allegedly involved with somebody who was a subordinate, a staffer just fresh out of college.
	Now, the Me Too movement has always insisted, unless I'm hallucinating, I'm pretty sure the Me Too movement has been saying for years now that a power dynamic like that is tantamount to assault.
	That's not really my standard.
	I didn't come up with that.
	That's what the Me Too movement has been saying.
	That when you've got a power dynamic...
	Where it's a subordinate with their boss, and I think if you add in political power that the boss has on top of the just normal power that someone above someone else in a working environment would have, then as the logic goes, the subordinate can't really consent because they're not going to feel totally free to operate in the relationship the way that they would if the person was equal to them in power.
	Now, personally, I'm not sure that I agree with this idea all the time.
	I think that it sort of depends.
	But we're not talking about my opinion here.
	We're talking about the standard that is normally applied.
	We're talking about the logic that has been the driving force for the Me Too movement.
	Keep in mind that many of the Me Too stories were not cases of forcible rape.
	Some of them were, but many of them weren't.
	A lot of the times it was, you know, these were powerful men having what appeared to be ostensibly consensual encounters with women.
	But the women did not feel, they say, free to refuse because of the power these men had over them in the industry.
	And so the men were exploiting that power.
	And again, according to the Me Too movement, that's basically rape.
	It's basically sexual assault.
	Well, how is this any different?
	If that's the standard, how is this any different?
	It isn't.
	And the picture of Hill brushing the hair naked, I mean, it's just, it's creepy.
	And it shows exactly this kind of dynamic where, you know, Hill sitting naked in a chair, the girl sitting on the floor having her hair brushed.
	It shows this very weird, creepy power dynamic.
	On top of all that, her female lover was being paid by campaign funds, so there's all kinds of issues being raised there, and that also makes it a public concern.
	And in addition, she was, as I said, on two important committees, so yet she's having affairs with all these people who she works with, and there are pictures, and that sets her up for blackmail, makes her vulnerable to manipulation and coercion, which makes it a potential national security issue.
	And yet, predictably, despite those three factors, which make this, according to normal standards, make this a relevant story, and would, you would think, make this a big story.
	Yet, predictably, the story is getting no play.
	I mean, none at all.
	Even less than I thought.
	When I saw this story on Friday, I knew, of course, that it's not going to make it into the headlines on CNN.
	It won't even be reported by CNN or NBC or anything.
	But it's getting even less play than I thought.
	Even in conservative media, people are leaving this thing alone.
	No one's talking about it.
	Aside from Red State and a couple other I saw a report on Breitbart.
	I think the Washington Examiner had it.
	But other than that, it's been radio silence.
	It's been buried.
	Why is that?
	Well, obviously because Hill is a Democrat.
	That's one of the reasons.
	That's a big factor.
	But even more so, I think, it's because she's a woman.
	And women can get away with this kind of stuff all day long.
	Women are simply not held to the same standard as men when it comes to sexual improprieties.
	You're just, you're not gonna see, ever, The kind of outrage, when it's a woman who is the sexual aggressor or the person who's in the exploitative position, in the position of power or whatever, when it comes to any kind of sex scandal thing, when the woman is the culprit, it's just never, ever going to engender the kind of outrage it does with men.
	Ever.
	Perfect example would be all of these stories about female teachers.
	I've talked about it many times, but no one cares.
	All these stories of female teachers.
	You want to talk about exploiting your power over someone?
	Well, that's really clear-cut.
	You're an adult.
	You're a teacher.
	This is a kid.
	And you are exploiting that position to get your sexual thrills with a minor.
	That's wrong.
	That's criminal.
	And when it's happening all over the place, all the time, in public school, you'd think we'd be treating it like an epidemic and talking about it.
	Nobody cares.
	We just say, you know, whatever.
	So women get away with this stuff.
	Can you imagine?
	Now, I know you don't want to really imagine it, so try to imagine the hypothetical without actually imagining the picture itself.
	But think about if there was a picture of a male congressman naked and brushing the hair of a young female staffer.
	Can you just think about that for a second?
	And here's the thing.
	It could be a Democrat.
	I don't even think it even... Now, obviously, if it was a Republican, it'd be getting even more attention.
	But even if it was a Democrat, I think it would still be getting certainly more attention than this story is.
	That image, that photo, would be this iconic thing that everybody sees and would be referred back to 10 years from now.
	People would still remember it.
	Yet it's a woman, so nobody cares.
	Also, the fact that it's a homosexual thing, I think, helps her.
	So Hill has three things going for her that make this untouchable, even if her staffers... So the story's untouchable, but as far as Hill's concerned, apparently, allegedly, her staffers are not untouchable.
	So she's a woman, she's apparently bisexual, and she's a Democrat.
	And this sets up a dynamic where she can literally do anything she wants Especially in the area of sex.
	Just whatever.
	It doesn't matter.
	She could do what she wants.
	No one is ever going to say anything.
	She'll get away with it.
	It's just completely outrageous.
	And here's the thing.
	Either it's true that it's inappropriate and wrong and even potentially assault For a person in a position of power to be involved in a sexual relationship with someone who's underneath them, not literally, but you know, either that's wrong, inappropriate, potentially assault, or it's not.
	And so, we just can't do this.
	You make an exception for Katie Hills, eh, you know, whatever.
	Then, okay, well then you've waved your hand and said whatever to all of these cases.
	You can't circle back around the next time there's a story about a man doing something like this and say, oh, look, it's the patriarchy, it's sexism, it's, hey, women are under attack.
	You just can't do that.
	I mean, you can do it physically, no one's gonna stop you, but you can't expect to be taken seriously.
	When it becomes entirely clear, and this has been my impression for a while now, a lot of people's impression, The Me Too movement is more of an anti-male thing.
	It's an ideological, it's about smashing the patriarchy and all this nonsense.
	It's not really about protecting women or about, it's certainly not about making, you know, taking a stand against sexual assault.
	It's not about that because it's, and we know that because it's so damn selective.
	And what the Me Too movement has done, they've just waved their magic wand and granted clemency to all women.
	Women, doesn't matter.
	All of you, completely absolved.
	It doesn't count, doesn't matter, you can do whatever you want.
	This is only about men.
	Alright.
	Kind of an awkward transition here, I'm afraid, but a brand of menstrual products Well, I guess there really is no non-awkward, seamless transition from any subject to talking about menstrual products, but here we are.
	A brand of menstrual products, the brand Always, which is a good name for a brand of menstrual products, I suppose.
	They always work.
	Right?
	Better than a brand called Occasionally or something.
	I have to stop riffing on menstrual products and just get to it.
	The point is this brand has on its packaging the Venus symbol and it's the circle with a cross beneath it.
	This is a symbol that universally means woman.
	Which makes sense to have on your packaging, right?
	If it's a menstrual thing, because it's a menstrual product, so you've got a symbol that represents people who menstruate.
	Makes a lot of sense, you would think.
	Well, trans activists were not happy about it, because they came in, the trans activists did, and they made the point that sometimes men menstruate.
	Just like sometimes polar bears fly, sometimes squirrels do calculus, these things happen.
	Anything's happen.
	There are no rules.
	Science is a myth.
	And that's how it is.
	Um, and Procter and Gamble, which owns the brand always and is a big, massive, huge, scary corporation.
	They, they own approximately every brand at the grocery store.
	Um, but they caved to the complaints of these, of these gender confused individuals and said, okay, we'll take the symbol off.
	And they did.
	Because an enormous multinational corporation was bullied into agreeing that sometimes men get periods.
	Now, there was a lot of talk of menstruating men this weekend, unfortunately, because period day also happened.
	There was the holiday period day, which is a thing.
	I don't know if you celebrate it, but I guess we're supposed to celebrate periods or something.
	Yet, the trans activists came barging in yet again, as they always do, and made the point that actually this should be about them.
	Because that's always their point, isn't it?
	With anything.
	Their point is, hey, you know what, guys?
	This shit's really about me, isn't it?
	No matter what we're doing, no matter what we're talking about, what the issue is, they come in, barreling in through the door, hey, wait a second!
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait!
	Let's make this about me.
	And they said that, so Twitter was filled with a bunch of people saying, hey, if we're doing period day, remember, men can get periods.
	Now let me give you an example of one such tweet that I responded to because I happened across.
	This is just one example of someone, just to give you an idea of what people were saying.
	It says, hashtag national period day.
	The person said, remember that trans women can get periods.
	Yes, trans women.
	When speaking on the subject of periods, don't limit the conversation to cis women only because our trans sisters are experiencing the same and it's wrong to cut them out.
	Now this is important.
	I wanted to read that to you because you need to realize we're talking here about And I know this can get confusing sometimes, because all this gender stuff on the left is madness, none of it makes any sense, it's all nonsense, so it's easy to lose track, but I want you to appreciate how insane this is.
	When someone on the left says, men can get periods, They could be talking about biological females who identify as men.
	And yes, that's true that those people can get periods because they aren't really men.
	And that fact, that's kind of the thing that reveals that to you.
	That's the giveaway, is the fact that they're having a period, which means they aren't men.
	If you find yourself in a situation where you're having a period, it means you're not a man.
	It at least means that.
	So that will clarify that situation for you.
	And your second clue that you're not a man is literally everything else about you.
	Literally everything.
	But, just to be clear, the left is also claiming that men, biological males, actual men, can have periods.
	That's what this tweet and a lot of people, that's what they're saying.
	When they say trans women can get periods, what they mean is biological males can menstruate.
	That is the claim.
	And this is a claim that is basically mainstream now on the left.
	At least in the case that now maybe there are a lot of leftists who won't go out of their way to go out and announce this.
	They're not going to go screaming it into a bullhorn.
	Biological males can menstruate.
	They're not going to be screaming that into the bullhorn.
	But they're also not going to deny it.
	They're not going to argue it.
	Biological males can menstruate.
	Now I happen to get into a back and forth with this particular person on Twitter who wrote this, and they defended their assertion by saying, and I'm not kidding, they said that biological males can menstruate because sometimes they get bloated and they have stomach cramps.
	Not joking.
	That was the argument.
	Proving that biological males can menstruate by saying, oh, wait, what are you saying that you're saying that biological males don't get stomach cramps?
	Which is like saying that a dog is essentially the same as a tuna because both can swim.
	Oh, you say a dog isn't a fish?
	Well, here's a picture of my dog swimming in our backyard pool.
	Checkmate, science denier!
	It's...
	But what do you do?
	When it gets to this point where you have people sincerely claiming that biological males can menstruate, there's no argument you can present.
	Because any argument that you do present is going to be grounded in reality.
	And what the left is now saying is, reality doesn't matter.
	It simply makes no difference what the actual reality is.
	So, what can you do?
	Well, I'll tell you one thing we can't do, is just ignore this.
	Because, or treat it as a sideshow, or as an irrelevant issue.
	The left is, they are waging a war on reality itself.
	That's why when I go to colleges and I give talks, one of the talks I give is the war on reality.
	This is a war on reality.
	That's why this matters.
	It's not just... Now, if this was 20 years ago, okay, and you had someone saying biological males can menstruate, then yeah, you could laugh that off and say, oh, okay, the person's crazy.
	It's still crazy, but this is something that the left is... They are trying to establish a culture where that kind of claim is accepted.
	As perfectly true and normal.
	So they're trying to break down reality itself.
	Is it worth fighting back against that?
	Yeah, I would say so.
	Because if we don't have reality, if words don't mean anything, if there's no reality, if science doesn't mean anything, then where do we go next?
	What's the point of having any discussion?
	How do we have any discussion if we don't have these reference points based in reality?
	All right, I love this.
	I gotta mention it.
	A few weeks ago, the greatest living director, Martin Scorsese, a guy who's pushing, what is he, 80?
	Over 80 now?
	I don't know.
	But he's still making cinematic classics.
	He's been at it for 30 years or more.
	40 years.
	And nobody in Hollywood has a batting average like this guy.
	It really is remarkable.
	A few weeks ago, he came out and said that Marvel movies are bad, basically.
	He said they don't count as cinema.
	He said they're more like theme park rides.
	They're not really movies.
	It's not real cinema.
	And he's right about that.
	It brought all the Marvel fans out to explain how Martin Scorsese doesn't know what he's talking about.
	He's out of touch.
	You know, they've got this movie, The Irishman, coming out with De Niro and Pacino and Pesci and basically all, every great actor that's ever been in a mob movie is going to be in this movie, The Irishman, that's coming out.
	It's got a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes.
	It's his best reviewed movie ever.
	And this is a guy who's made nothing but classics, almost.
	He's had a few misses here and there.
	But you had Marvel fans saying, that guy doesn't know anything.
	What does he know?
	You know, he's only made almost nothing but cinematic masterpieces in his career.
	What does he know about cinema?
	So, now, I actually thought, I thought that Martin Scorsese was giving Marvel too much credit, because to say they're theme parks makes them sound at least somewhat fun.
	In reality, they're not even that.
	They're commercials.
	Marvel movies, if you're going to a Marvel movie, you should understand, you are sitting through a two and a half hour commercial.
	They are toy commercials.
	They exist, for the most part, to sell merchandise.
	And they also exist to propagate themselves.
	They exist so that another one can exist, and they're not ever trying to really tell a story or finish a story or do anything.
	The main goal is to sell merchandise with the movies, and so how do we do that?
	Well, we need to keep making more and more and more movies, which means the story can never end, there can never be resolution, there can never be a real climax or anything like that in the movie.
	It's not like a three-act thing, a typical structure of a story, it's just one act that never, ever, ever, ever ends.
	Well, this weekend Francis Ford Coppola, the man behind the greatest film of all time, The Godfather, I'm sure I don't have to tell you, He agreed with Scorsese, no big surprise, only he took it further.
	He said, as he was doing a press conference or something, he said, when Martin Scorsese says that the Marvel pictures are not cinema, he's right, because we expect to learn something from cinema.
	We expect to gain something, some enlightenment, some knowledge, some information, some inspiration.
	I don't know that anyone gets anything out of seeing the same movie over and over again.
	Martin was kind when he said it's not cinema.
	He didn't say it's despicable, which I say it is.
	Despicable!
	Francis Ford Coppola said that Marvel movies are despicable.
	I could not agree more.
	These movies are despicable because they are actually the most cynical movies you'll ever watch.
	Don't let the bright colors and the wise cracks and all that stuff fool you.
	The loud noises and the special effects.
	These are very extremely cynical movies.
	Because it's the movie studio saying, we don't care about the audience, we don't respect your intelligence, we don't respect you, we don't respect the fact that you're spending money on these tickets and so therefore deserve some sort of actual cinematic experience that's somewhat meaningful.
	No, we don't care about that.
	We're just going to keep shoving the same tired, bland, played out goop down your gullets Because we know you'll swallow it, and you'll pay the money, and you'll come back again.
	That's what the movie studio is saying.
	And you've got all these people that line up for the movies and say, yes, yes, please sir, can I have another?
	It is despicable.
	Now, I don't mean to appeal to authority here, but come on, you've got the greatest living director, and now the director of the greatest film of all time, both saying that these movies are trash.
	So, before you disagree, ask yourself, Do you know more about cinema than the greatest living film director and the director of the greatest movie ever?
	Do you think you know more than they do?
	So before you disagree, it's how I like Marvel movies.
	Maybe there's... Who knows?
	Like, maybe these guys know a thing or two.
	Maybe they might be onto something.
	Maybe it's worth considering.
	You know, if If Joe Montana and Tom Brady were sitting at a bar, talking football, and talking about what they consider to be the worst football team in the league, would you feel comfortable coming into that conversation and saying, hey boys, hold on, you don't know what you're talking about.
	No, that team is actually good.
	Let me explain why.
	I mean, look, they're not infallible.
	They could be wrong.
	But these are guys who are the best experts you're going to find in this particular field, and in this case, football.
	You've got the two best quarterbacks ever.
	If they agree on some football-related topic, they're probably right.
	Maybe not definitely, but probably.
	All I'm saying is if Scorsese and Coppola agree, On a movie-related topic, I'm not going to disagree, because I think they probably know what they're talking about.
	But you don't even need to take their word for it anyway, because it should be obvious.
	I've been saying this.
	I'm no movie expert.
	I've been saying this way before Scorsese and Coppola chimed in, that these movies are just garbage.
	They really are.
	We should demand more.
	We should have higher standards.
	And please don't say, oh, well, sometimes it's fun to just turn your brain off and not every movie needs to be thought-provoking.
	OK, yeah, sure, right.
	But that's not an excuse.
	Not every movie has to be really deep and thought-provoking.
	That's true.
	Honestly, I think most movies should be.
	I think that should be sort of the default state of a movie, because it is art.
	And there should be a real substantive point to it.
	But yeah, not every movie has to be that way.
	Fine.
	But if you're going to go the more lighthearted, not even lighthearted, because something could be lighthearted, but still have some depth to it.
	So if you're going to go the shallower route, something that's pretty shallow, it could still have creativity.
	It could still have wit.
	There could still be a real story being told.
	The movie could still exist for some reason other than simply to sell merchandise and to propagate itself like some sort of disease.
	So even in that case...
	There are movies I could think of that aren't particularly thoughtful but were still enjoyable to watch and still had some creativity to them and some wit and some uniqueness.
	And you could tell that they exist mainly because the people involved in the movie wanted to tell this story.
	It might not be the most important story in the world, but it's a story and they wanted to tell it.
	So great.
	But when you have movies where... I guess this is my point.
	That's the main reason A movie should exist.
	Now obviously it's got to make money and especially the people in the movie studios, the producers and everything, that's going to be their main concern.
	Fine.
	I get that.
	That's the reality.
	But the directors and the actors, the main reason and the person who wrote the script and all that, I think it should be clear from watching it that what motivated them was the desire to tell this story.
	That's what makes Martin Scorsese Such a brilliant, all-time great director.
	Yeah, he likes making money.
	Definitely.
	Of course he does.
	But you also know when he puts a movie out, this is a story he really wanted to tell.
	And so the movie Silence came out a few years ago.
	It's like three hours long, this long, ponderous movie about Portuguese missionaries in 16th century Japan.
	And it wasn't a big blockbuster success, but he spent many years developing this movie because it's just a story he wanted to tell.
	I don't think with a Marvel movie, when Iron Man 15 comes out, I just don't think that anyone involved is really saying, oh, we've got to tell this 15th story about Iron Man, where he once again saves the day against some intergalactic guy who shows up.
	I don't think anyone is saying that.
	I think everyone, I think it's rote and routine and it's like, all right, let's jump on the horse again and make another billion bucks.
	All right, so I'm going to go through some emails and these are exclusively emails from people challenging me on a number of subjects that I talked about on the show.
	Of course, I read and respond to other emails too.
	I always enjoy emails that compliment me as well.
	Maybe I'll pull up Pierre Delecto.
	Maybe I should start writing them to myself.
	If you won't do it, then I'll do it.
	Dammit.
	Anyway, but I also appreciate the back and forth with people who listen and write an email trying to pick apart my arguments.
	It keeps me sharp, relatively.
	At least as sharp as I can get.
	So this is from Chad, says, Hi Matt, I'm a police officer in Texas.
	I enjoy your show.
	Let me begin by saying an open structure call is treated as a burglary.
	If possible, we've tried to contain the structure on all sides.
	You were correct when you said you don't have all the information.
	I think it's very difficult for you to make a cut and dry decision as to what should happen.
	I can only imagine that the guy was headed to the rear of the building and saw a person at the window with a gun.
	I'm not going to say he's right or wrong because I don't know all the facts and you shouldn't either.
	My own personal feeling is that the charge of murder is a stretch.
	Being as he didn't set out to kill someone, I think manslaughter is more appropriate.
	The other problem society faces is a lack of qualified applicants.
	Because of that, people are being hired that are probably not qualified due to a lax in hiring requirements.
	That may be due to it not being worth it to be a police officer.
	That may be due to media coverage or the fact that people are okay with cops being killed because, quote, that's what they signed up for.
	I hate when people say that because it cheapens our lives.
	Nobody says that about the military.
	Nobody signs up to die.
	Okay, Chad.
	First, as to this particular case, I agree that the charge of murder might be a stretch, might be a bit ambitious.
	Though, honestly, I thought that with the Geiger case, too, and she was convicted, so who knows?
	But I feel very confident saying, based on what we know, I don't know what's going to happen in court or whatever.
	I'm not going to make any predictions there.
	The officer was very much in the wrong, and I think we know that because these facts are not in dispute.
	He shot an innocent woman, a law-abiding woman, in her home through the window at 2 o'clock in the morning.
	Those are the basic facts of the case.
	Now, if some other information comes out that says, oh, no, actually, she was a wanted murderer and she was breaking into someone's home, that's not going to happen.
	So basically, we would need to find out that this entire story, as it's being reported, is completely false and wrong, and every single aspect of it is fake.
	I don't think that's the case, especially when the police department itself is not saying that.
	They're the ones who came out and said, this was wrong, this was wrong, you shouldn't have shot.
	So I think we can be pretty confident.
	In the basics of the case, and so I think we could say that it was wrong, at least.
	Now, as for the that's what they signed up for thing, I did make that argument, but not in reference to cops being killed.
	I'm not saying I'm okay with cops being killed, and I certainly would never dismissively wave off the death of police officers with a statement like that.
	I hope you would know that.
	There are people who do that.
	I wouldn't do that.
	I'm not a psycho, okay?
	That would be crazy.
	That wasn't my point and would never be my point.
	And I agree that the anti-cop stuff in the media is overboard and often dangerous.
	And all this talk about police officers, you know, hunting down black people and murdering them, that talk is wrong and once again dangerous.
	And I've said that many times.
	I have made that point myself many times.
	I said again on Friday that I think the racial angle in a lot of these cases is overplayed, certainly in this case.
	I don't think there's any reason to assume that there was any real racial angle to that, even if the cop was white and the victim was black.
	My only point with, that's what they signed up for, was just when it comes to a certain amount of reasonable risk.
	So I was specifically and only taking issue with this attitude that you encounter from some people That basically excuses almost any cop shooting if they can find some technicality, some way in which the person who was shot may have been, by some very low percentage chance, a risk.
	I gave the example of Daniel Shaver in Arizona.
	I think it's one of the classic examples, tragic examples.
	The man shot and killed by cops while crawling on the ground in a hotel hallway, begging for his life.
	He was shot and killed by three cops standing over him ten feet away, five feet away, with their guns trained directly on him.
	Now, he went and reached for his waistband because his pants were falling down and he was trying to pull them up.
	It was just an instinctive thing.
	That's when they shot and killed him.
	Technically, yes.
	He moved his arm, and so technically, maybe, yeah, you're allowed to kill him.
	And so that's why these cops didn't end up going to jail, even though I think they should have.
	I am taking issue with that particular attitude, where you're saying that, well, technically, you know, there's like a 0.05% chance that this guy's actually a risk to you, given the advantage you have over him, given the fact that he is clearly making every attempt to submit, and he could not be more submissive.
	But there's still that small, tiny chance when he makes that slight movement of his hand, and so there are some people who say, well, yeah, you know what, just, you can shoot him.
	And, okay.
	Better safe than sorry.
	In that kind of scenario, I find that sort of logic to be deeply troubling.
	My point is that the safety of police officers is of tantamount importance.
	Also, period, end of the sentence, also, the safety of innocent civilians is also of tantamount importance.
	And so we should not be putting the lives of police officers over that of innocent community members.
	But we shouldn't be putting the community members over the police officers.
	I'm saying it's like equal footing here.
	So police officers' lives are very valuable.
	The life of the woman who was killed in her home at 2 a.m.
	while she was playing video games with her nephew, her life was valuable too.
	And that police officer's life was not any more valuable than hers.
	And hers wasn't any more than him.
	That's my point.
	I mean, would you really take issue with that?
	But if we're gonna say that in some way, technically, maybe that shooting was justified, then I don't see how you could do that without, even if you don't say it, I don't see how you could make that argument without essentially implying that her life is not quite as valuable and important as his.
	Because, yeah, maybe, technically, somehow, in some obscure, minor, very small chance, she could have posed a threat to him, so just kill him just to be safe.
	That's my problem.
	This attitude of, well, kill the civilian just to be safe, just in case.
	And I know that no one is putting it exactly like that, but when you defend things like the Daniel Shaver killing, or when you potentially defend things like this woman who was shot in her home at 2 a.m.
	while playing video games with her nephew, Even if you're not saying, kill them just to be safe, that is kind of what you're saying.
	Now, when I say you, I don't mean necessarily you specifically.
	I'm talking the universal you.
	So that's my problem.
	I, and I think when, and I got a lot of emails on this.
	This is my one representative email that I thought was reasonably written and posed, so I wanted to engage with it.
	Yes, as I said, it is not true that there is an epidemic of cops going around killing innocent people.
	That is not the case.
	The majority of cops are good people, and they're good at their job.
	And they're just like the majority of anyone.
	The majority of people in any profession, with the exception maybe of drug lords,
	the majority of people in any profession are, they're just trying to do their job.
	And they're not all gonna be saints, they're not all gonna be anything,
	but they're trying to do their jobs, and they're trying to do it well.
	I think that's the case for most people.
	And that's the case for most cops.
	So, yes.
	However, when a civilian is gunned down unjustly
	by an agent of the state, I don't care if it happens once a year,
	or 10 times a year, or a million times a year, whatever, the exact frequency is not the point.
	That's not the point.
	When it happens, whenever it happens, that is a huge injustice.
	That is the exact opposite of what is supposed to be happening.
	That is the exact opposite of the relationship that is supposed to be present between a citizen and an agent of the state.
	And so when that happens, we need to look at it.
	We need to analyze it.
	We need to be outraged by it.
	Because that person's life does matter.
	And we need to look at what could have possibly led to that.
	And I think that sometimes, yeah, you are going to look at, you know, are there general sort of attitudes present in relation to law enforcement that might provide an environment where these kinds of shootings will happen?
	And I would say that maybe there is sometimes.
	So like I said, you know, I appreciate the emails, but some of the emails I got were so over the top, you know, given the arguments that I made, which were pretty mild.
	You know, if you listen to my, and I know this wasn't you, but I'm talking to other people that sent emails.
	If you listen to what I said and came away with, I'm anti-police or I hate police, which is a lot of the emails I got, then you just were not paying attention at all because there's no way for an honest person who was paying attention to interpret it that way.
	Just no possible way.
	I mean, come on.
	Or I have to assume that you really don't care about the lives of these people who are killed unjustly by police.
	Again, not you, but the other emails.
	I'd have to assume that.
	That's the impression I get.
	I'm not even reading those emails because they piss me off so much.
	I don't even know what I would say on camera in response to them.
	But there are some people who send emails and it really seems like they don't give a crap.
	For them, it's just about the cop.
	The other person doesn't matter.
	I despise that attitude, just like I despise people on the other side who don't care about the lives of police officers.
	I despise both attitudes.
	I think they're both horrible.
	All right.
	Let's see.
	Okay, I spent more time on that than I thought.
	We'll do one more.
	This is from Henry, says, Hi Matt, I just listened to your podcast where you made the claim that every person is a human and vice versa, although I agree with your stance on abortion and I agree that a baby in the womb is both a person and a human.
	I would have to disagree with that statement.
	I've taught Bible studies on the Trinity in the past and when I make the statement that the Trinity consists of three co-equal and co-eternal persons, I always have to clarify that I'm not saying the Trinity consists of three humans.
	Each member of the Trinity is a person because he is personal and has the attribute of personhood.
	I understand this is not what you were talking about, so please forgive me if I'm being too technical.
	I'm pretty sure, Henry, I'd have to go back and listen to it.
	I'm pretty sure I said that every human is a person, and that this distinction between human and person is ad hoc.
	It is an artificial, invented distinction, invented specifically to justify abortion, because there is no other time where a pro-abortion person would draw a distinction between human and person.
	So, every human is a person.
	That's my point.
	I don't think I said, and if I did then I was not phrasing it correctly, I don't think I said that every person is a human because I agree with you that's not true.
	That's not necessarily the case.
	There are ways of understanding person that would not necessarily pertain to humans.
	Though the word human always pertains to people, the word people doesn't always pertain to humans.
	So kind of like every bourbon is a whiskey, but not every whiskey is a bourbon, so every human is a person, not every person is a human.
	You gave one example.
	Another one I would give is, you know, in a sci-fi scenario, if intelligent life ever landed on this planet in their UFOs and moved in and started living with us, a la Men in Black or something, I think we would have to say that they are People, they are persons, they should be legally granted as conscious, sentient, highly developed beings, they should be granted all the rights of people, but they're not human.
	So, and there are other examples, I mean, corporations legally count as people, which, you know, that's a separate topic, but the point is, legally, Whether we're talking legally, philosophically, morally, there could be scenarios, conceivable scenarios, where a non-human is a person.
	Right, yes.
	Okay, I phrased that right.
	I'm confusing myself.
	But there is no scenario, there is no moral or philosophically justifiable scenario, where a human could be treated like not a person.
	Though, of course, legally, that is a distinction we draw, which has enabled the murder of 60 million persons through abortion.
	All right, we'll leave it there.
	Thanks, everybody, for watching.
	Godspeed.
	If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe as well.
	We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
	Also, be sure to check out the other DeliWire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knoll Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
	Thanks for listening.
	The Matt Wall Show is produced by Robert Sterling, associate producer Alexia Garcia del Rio, executive producer Jeremy Boring, senior producer Jonathan Hay, our supervising producer is Mathis Glover, and our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Donovan Fowler, audio is mixed by Mike Coromina.
	The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

▲