Ep. 1384 - Hunter Biden Was Convicted Today, But Not For The Reasons The Media Claims
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Hunter Biden has been found guilty in federal court. This is supposed to be evidence that Joe Biden is playing it fair, but it actually shows the opposite. I'll explain. Also, new polls show that a majority of Americans favor mass deportations of illegal immigrants. A manager at Big Lots is fired after committing the sin of trying to stop someone from stealing. A Hollywood actor takes out a poorly written full-page ad calling on awards voters to give awards to non-whites. And, the desperate campaign to find some sort of scandal for Justice Samuel Alito continues, and is more desperate than ever. All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
Ep.1384
- - -
DailyWire+:
Watch the full season of Judged by Matt Walsh only on DailyWire+: https://bit.ly/3TNB3sD
Father’s Day Deal: Get 15% off your Jeremy’s Razor: https://bit.ly/49kXXgI
Get 25% off your DailyWire+ Membership here: https://bit.ly/4akO7wC
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/WALSH
Ramp - Now get $250 when you join Ramp. Go to http://www.ramp.com/WALSH
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Hunter Biden has been found guilty in federal court.
This is supposed to be evidence that Joe Biden is playing it fair, but it actually shows the opposite.
I'll explain.
Also, new polls show that a majority of Americans favor mass deportations of illegal immigrants.
A manager at Big Lots is fired after committing the sin of trying to stop somebody from stealing.
A Hollywood actor takes out a poorly written full-page ad calling on award voters to give awards to non-whites.
And the desperate campaign to find some sort of scandal for Justice Samuel Alito continues, and it is more desperate than ever.
and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
[MUSIC]
Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
This year, the IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
And these are challenging times.
Your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
Upon signing up, Tax Network USA will immediately contact the IRS to secure a protection order ensuring that aggressive collection activities such as garnishments, levies, or property seizures are halted, providing you with peace of mind and financial security.
If you haven't filed in a while, need amended returns, or are missing records, Tax Network USA And their expert tax preparers will update all your filings, eliminating the risk of IRS enforcement.
Tax Network USA will evaluate your financials and create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt, putting it behind you for good.
Don't wait any longer.
Call my friends at Tax Network USA today for a complimentary consultation.
Call 1-800-245-6000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
or visit tnusa.com/walsh.
That's 1-800-245-6000, or visit tnusa.com/walsh today.
Today, a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware, found that the president's son, Hunter Biden,
violated the law when he lied about his drug use on a firearms form to obtain a revolver, speed loader,
and ammunition from a gun store in October of 2016.
Now, it was not an especially close case.
Evidence showed, among many other things, that Biden was texting his drug dealer the same day he bought the gun.
Never a smart move.
But the upshot is that Hunter Biden becomes the first son of a United States president to become a felon in the history of the country.
So we're making a lot of this kind of history recently.
And for much of the national news media, Hunter Biden's trial and conviction is proof that the justice system is fair and impartial.
In fact, it makes Joe Biden look good that his son just got convicted of felonies.
That's kind of the spin here.
And therefore, we should conclude that Donald Trump's prosecutions are legitimate.
It's fine to imprison the leading presidential frontrunner on a novel and untested legal theory, they say, because the current president's son could potentially go to jail for crimes he obviously committed.
A columnist for the Daily Beast, for example, wrote that, quote, Hunter Biden's trial shows that Trump's principal assertion that he's being unfairly targeted by Joe Biden doesn't hold water.
CNN, meanwhile, reported that, quote, Hunter Biden's trial shows America's justice system isn't so rigged after all.
Now, in order to come to a conclusion like this, you have to ignore the circumstances of how this trial came about, as well as the many crimes that Hunter Biden has not been charged with, and thanks to the DOJ, will never be charged with.
Under Joe Biden, the federal government very simply did not want to bring this case.
And when their hand was forced by two IRS whistleblowers, the federal government did everything they possibly could to protect Joe Biden and to sabotage the more serious foreign corruption and tax evasion charges that he could have been charged with.
As the New York Times reported last year, the lead prosecutor on the case, David Weiss, quote, appeared willing to forego any prosecution on Mr. Biden at all, and his office came close to agreeing to end the investigation without requiring a guilty plea on any charges.
But the correspondence reveals that his position relayed to his staff changed in the spring around the time that a pair of IRS officials on the case accused the Justice Department of hamstringing the investigation.
Now, one of those whistleblowers, Gary Shapley, alleged in an affidavit that, quote, "The criminal
tax investigation of Hunter Biden, led by the United States Attorney's Office for the District
of Delaware, has been handled differently than any investigation I've ever been a part of for the
past 14 years of my IRS service. At every stage, decisions were made that had the effect of
benefiting the subject." Shapley also stated that, quote, "Investigators assigned to this investigation
were obstructed from seeing all the..."
all the available evidence, it is unknown if all the evidence in Hunter's laptop was
reviewed by agents or by prosecutors.
The testimony of Shapley and another whistleblower caused major unexpected problems for Joe Biden's
DOJ.
Their plan to bury the Hunter Biden case entirely was no longer viable.
First of all, the whistleblowers revealed that Merrick Garland may have lied when he told Congress that the DOJ wasn't interfering in the Hunter Biden investigation.
That had to be resolved immediately.
And secondly, and more importantly, the whistleblowers helped establish a direct link between Hunter Biden's criminal activity and Joe Biden's actions.
So here's one recent interview for Example Watch.
The IRS agents say they began finding evidence that gave them strong reason to want to look into Joe Biden.
We not only investigate tax crimes, we investigate financial crimes, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, international money laundering.
There's all sorts of things that we have in our tool belt to investigate cases.
So in this case, we had leads.
The press and many people actually in both political parties say things such as, There's no evidence tying Joe Biden to Hunter Biden's businesses or any improper activities.
When you hear that, what do you think?
I think it's blatantly false.
So confronted with statements like this from whistleblowers, the DOJ had no choice but to bring some kind of charge against Hunter Biden.
They had to do something, so they settled on a plan.
They would bring a prosecution and then immediately seek out a plea deal.
And this deal, as the DOJ envisioned, would grant Hunter Biden immunity for prosecution for unrelated felonies that he may have committed, including potential violations of FERA, or the Foreign Agents Registration Act, relating to his overseas business operations.
That's the law that was essentially Never prosecuted until the DOJ decided to use it to target Trump aides, including Paul Manafort.
In exchange for accepting this plea deal, granting him total immunity, Hunter Biden would suffer no actual punishment whatsoever.
And the deal was too over the top, though, which is why it collapsed late last year when a federal judge refused to sign off on it.
The DOJ admitted in court that they couldn't think of a similar sweetheart deal ever being offered in the history of federal prosecutions.
Ever.
To anybody.
So the DOJ was back at square one.
But not entirely.
Because their strategy to absolve Hunter Biden completely may have failed, but their plan to insulate Joe Biden from scrutiny appears to have succeeded.
As Shapley stated in his affidavit, The sabotage investigative process in the Hunter Biden quote meant no charges would ever be brought in the District of Columbia where the statute of limitations on the 2014 and 2015 tax charges would eventually expire.
The year in question included foreign income from Ukrainian oil company Burisma and a scheme to evade his income taxes through a partnership with a convicted felon.
There were also potential FARA issues relating to 2014 and 2015.
The purposeful exclusion of the 2014 and 2015 years sanitized the most substantive criminal conduct and concealed material facts.
In other words, the government let the statute of limitations on the most serious potential charges, the ones involving Hunter Biden's time working at a high-paying, no-show job at a Ukrainian oil company, expire on purpose.
That was the whole plan.
And those potential charges aren't simply significant because of their impact on Hunter Biden.
They're significant because, as you may remember, Joe Biden once publicly bragged about getting Ukraine's top prosecutor fired.
This was the prosecutor who, coincidentally enough, was investigating Burisma at the time.
Watch.
I remember going over, convincing our team, or others, too, convincing us that we should be providing for Loan guarantees.
And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev, and I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee.
And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn't.
So they said they were walking out to the press conference and said, no, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority.
You're not the president.
The president said, I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting a billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting a billion.
I'm going to be leaving here.
I think it was what, six hours.
I look, I said, I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.
Oh, son of a.
So that is Joe Biden admitting that when he was Vice President, the U.S.
threatened to withhold funding to Ukraine until Ukraine fired its own top prosecutor.
Now, you could choose to believe that Joe Biden is just really passionate about ending corruption in Eastern Europe or whatever.
Or it might be that Joe Biden wanted to take the heat off the corruption that his own family was engaging in.
You could choose which one of those seems more likely.
We'll probably never have the evidence of any such corruption now though because as Shapley said,
"There's no mechanism available to collect the tax owed by Hunter Biden for 2014 other than in a
voluntary fashion." And it seems that he is not going to voluntarily submit that, surprisingly
enough.
So this is the ultimate goal of the Hunter Biden prosecution.
The DOJ is not concerned about this gun case, obviously.
Their real objective has been to slow roll their work as much as possible so that the more serious charges expire.
And it's very clear, as the whistleblower said, that there's a viable reason to investigate not only Hunter Biden for potential fare violations, but also his father as well.
Congressional Republicans, for example, have released a July 2017 WhatsApp message in which Hunter Biden appears to threaten a Chinese business associate by mentioning his father.
"I'm sitting here with my father and we would like to understand why the commitment made
has not been fulfilled."
That's what Hunter Biden wrote according to the documents.
"Tell the director that I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now
means tonight.
And Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang, or
the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person
he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge, that you will regret not following
my direction."
I'm sitting here waiting for the call with my father.
So that's a conversation that strongly suggests that Joe Biden was directly involved with his son's foreign business dealings with a Chinese private equity fund closely tied to the Chinese Communist Party, that he'd leverage his influence to secure payouts.
I mean, he's doing it.
You can see in the text message, you can see that this is what's being done.
These are the kinds of investigative threads that the DOJ has been working to bury since they obtained Hunter Biden's laptop all the way back in December of 2019, as part of an investigation dating back to 2018.
And these investigations haven't taken so long because they're especially complicated.
They've gone on for so long because the federal government has been trying to run out the clock.
That's been the strategy.
They have not been very, you know, coy about it either.
It's pretty obvious.
First, they denied that the laptop was even real.
Then they slow-walked the investigation into its contents.
And when two IRS whistleblowers disrupted their plan, they selected the pettiest charges imaginable so that they can obscure the real crimes that they desperately don't want to investigate.
So, Hunter Biden, yes, was convicted today, but for one reason only.
So that Joe Biden won't ever be investigated.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
That's why I am so excited to introduce you to RAMP.
If you're a finance professional looking for a better way to maximize productivity and cut wasteful spending, then RAMP could be for you.
RAMP is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket.
With RAMP, You can issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions.
You can also stop wasting time at the end of every month by automating your expense reporting.
RAMP's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time, so you don't have to.
You'll never have to chase down a receipt again, and your employees will no longer spend hours submitting expense reports.
The time you'll save each month on employee expenses will allow you to close your books eight times faster, RAMP is so easy to use.
Gets started in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000.
And now, get $250 when you join RAMP.
Just go to ramp.com slash Walsh.
R-A-M-P dot com slash Walsh.
That's ramp.com slash Walsh.
Cards issued by Sutton Bank and Celtic Bank.
Members FDIC.
Terms and conditions apply.
Okay, so we have this from the Daily Wire.
It says around 6 in 10 registered voters, including one-third of Democrats, would favor the U.S.
government deporting all illegal immigrants, according to a new poll.
The CBS News YouGov poll published on Sunday found that 62% of registered voters support a new national program The poll surveyed 1,615 registered voters across the U.S.
and oversampled people in battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
largest deportation operation in American history, if he's reelected.
A majority of those surveyed also support giving local law enforcement the power
to identify illegal immigrants living in the US.
The poll surveyed 1,615 registered voters across the US and oversampled people in battleground states,
Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
This is significant, obviously, politically, and you should know that this 60% figure,
it's pretty consistent now.
It's not just, it's not just this poll.
For instance, there was a poll a few weeks ago from Reuters that had similar results.
And of course, you know, when Reuters did the poll, that was not the headline of the Reuters poll.
So apparently in that poll, half of respondents said that they don't want to put immigrants into detention facilities while they await deportation.
And yet, so this just kind of shows how confused some voters are, and also why a lot of people voting should not be voting.
So they don't want to put them in detention facilities, and yet that same poll found that 56% I do think that most or all illegal immigrants should be deported, and it was 60% on the other poll, so, you know, we're at it, like, 60% seems to be a pretty reliable figure.
And broken down more specifically in the Reuters poll, 36% said they supported putting illegal immigrants in detention facilities, which means that the rest either weren't sure or didn't support it.
But 20% more than the 36% said that they want to have all the illegal immigrants deported.
So only 36% said we can put them in detention facilities while they await deportation, but 56% said that we should deport them.
How do you make sense of that?
I mean, if you want mass deportation, and that's what you have a majority of Americans now, they want mass deportation.
They want to deport all the illegal immigrants.
Correctly, that's what they want to do.
But if you want to do that, it kind of requires the use of detention facilities.
Because, like, what else are you going to do?
Are you going to ask the illegal immigrants to volunteer to come and get on the bus at a certain time?
Are you going to send out, like, an RSVP, make an Eventbrite page or something?
This is the event for deportation.
You've got to come to the bus.
Obviously, you can't do that.
You have to — the whole point, the whole reason we have these detention facilities that we make such a big deal about is you have to collect these people and keep them somewhere while we facilitate the deporting down to where they came from.
So, how do you make sense of that?
I think that this shows that a certain percentage of Americans, not surprisingly, don't quite understand the issue.
They're confused about what detention facilities are.
Especially when, I think this poll called them camps.
So, I'd be interested in a poll like that.
Like, how many Americans support detention camps?
Versus how many support detention facilities.
I'm guessing that significantly more Americans are okay with detention facilities, but not camps.
Because you use the word camp, and it sounds scary.
And they think, oh, camps are bad.
That's scary.
We don't want to do that.
So they may be confused, but the basic point here is that in both polls, a sizable majority want mass deportation.
You know, they might be squeamish about the way that it's done, but they want it done.
And they can be squeamish.
That's fine.
That's what leadership is for.
That's why we're supposed to have leaders in this country.
Because a good, strong leader comes in and says, okay, you guys want this done.
We've got people here who don't belong here.
And they are, in fact, taking your jobs, and they are, in fact, some of them bringing crime and all these things and drugs into your communities.
So you don't want them here.
They don't belong here.
They're not here legally.
We've got to get rid of them, which is to say we have to, if get rid of them is too strong a word for you, we have to facilitate their entrance back into their home countries, is what we have to do.
But doing that, that's kind of an ugly thing.
There's no pretty way of doing it.
There's no real nice way.
Like, there's no nice way to make somebody do something they don't want to do.
And when you've got illegal immigrants in the country and you have to make them leave, that's why they're here.
They don't want to leave.
And so we're making them leave.
Against their will.
They don't want to.
They want to stay here.
That's why they're here.
And there's just, there's no nice or especially pleasant way of making people do things they don't want to do.
Does that mean that we should never make people do things they don't want to do?
Well, no, of course it doesn't mean that.
Like, every prisoner who's ever gone to prison did not want to go to prison.
You had to make him go.
Not a pretty thing.
Prison's not a pretty place.
Deportation, the bus that you load the illegal immigrants on and bring them home, like, that's probably not a pretty place to be.
These facilities.
Are also probably not the most wonderful places in the world.
It's not the kind of place that you'd want to stay.
Like, you wouldn't choose that over going to a Holiday Inn.
Maybe you'd choose it over a Motel 6, though.
So, this is why you need a leader to say, well, this is what needs to be done.
We all know it's the right thing.
But it's an ugly and kind of uncomfortable thing to do.
You're all squeamish about it.
That's fine.
So I will do it.
I will do the thing that is hard and difficult and kind of ugly.
I will do it because it's the right thing.
That's what leadership is all about.
And that's a message that resonates, as we've seen.
I mean, of course, Trump has said things along these lines many times, but I think this particular phrasing is almost exactly like this.
Like acknowledging that cleaning up the problem, we have a problem of mass illegal immigration.
We've got tens of millions here who are not here legally and therefore don't belong here legally.
Cleaning that up will not be a pretty picture.
And we can even, as I've acknowledged many times, on an emotional level, On a personal level, you can understand why they come here.
If I lived in Mexico and I thought that I could just come here without having to wait in line and do all the rigmarole with getting a legal citizenship, if I thought that I could just come here and bring my family here, I would do it.
So I understand that.
So it's nothing personal.
Nothing personal, but you come here, you broke the law, you're not supposed to be here.
So we deport you because we have laws here.
We have to enforce them.
It's just simple as that.
And I think that's clearly, even from the polling, that's a message that resonates.
Okay, here's a manager at Big Lots in Rochester, New York, I believe this is, who we've seen a lot of stories like this, including at Big Lots in particular.
But this is a manager who was fired for the crime of not wanting people to steal from the Big Lots store where he was the manager.
Let's watch this.
What I saw was he Took a swing, like a punch at her.
That's what Pat Geider says he saw inside the Big Lutz store that he used to manage at Eroticoid.
And that's why he followed the shoplifter out of the store.
I let people who shoplift leave the store every day.
Every day.
We just put it in the system that they ask us to do.
This was an assault.
This wasn't shoplifting.
This was an assault.
Despite 20 years with the company and a positive review in March, the company did not see it the way Geider did.
And two weeks after the incident, Geider says he was called to his district manager's office and fired.
Do you think you did the right thing?
I think I did the right and just thing.
The right and just thing.
This is not the first retail store manager fired over a shoplifting incident.
It's not even the first Big Lots manager fired over shoplifting.
Just Google it and you'll find the story of the manager at the store in California.
I tried to call Big Lots, but there is no phone number to reach the CEO or the communications chief.
I emailed the company on Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday evening, and again Friday morning.
I asked, why was Pat Geider fired?
What is the company policy?
Is following a shoplifter a fireable offense?
And what training do managers get for shoplifters?
The company has not replied.
But this poster in the Big Lots lunchroom says, never leave the store to pursue, detain, or identify a customer.
So I did not put myself in jeopardy.
I did not put any shoppers in jeopardy.
I went with Guider back to his old store.
He said he and police found the shopping cart in front of the Dunkin Donuts, but lost the shoplifter.
Police say the assistant manager declined medical care.
Now, Guider and his wife are trying to figure out how to get health insurance.
They still have two boys in college, and at 62, Guider's not sure how easy it will be to find another job.
The good thing is, we have a huge faith in God.
Huge faith in God.
And everything will work out.
It's just, it's going to be difficult.
It's going to be difficult.
So that's good.
This is a guy who's worked at Big Lots for 20 years.
He's working customer service.
And he apparently cares about his job and he cares about the company that he works for.
So we've got to make sure to get rid of him.
We've got to get rid of all those types.
That's what we need.
We need to have one fewer of those types.
Working customer service who actually cares about his job and cares about the company he works for and cares about their bottom line and all of that.
So let's weed out all of those so that we can make sure that this trend continues and that eventually we end up in a scenario where we're headed now, where every single person who works in customer service is just Hates their job.
Hates the company they work for.
Hates the customers.
Doesn't care about anything.
Doesn't care about anybody.
We want to make sure that everybody that works at customer service is like that.
So let's get rid of the Pat Guiders of the world.
And that's what we're headed to.
He says that the thief took a swing at one of the assistant managers.
Presumably, I assume because that person was also trying to stop him from stealing.
He doesn't say that, but we can assume.
And then the guy flees the store.
He's followed by the manager, Pat Guider, who then is promptly fired by the company despite having worked there for 20 years.
As you heard, Guider says that he acted—it was the right and just thing, and he emphasizes that, that it was right and just for him to intervene the way he did.
Is that true?
Like, obviously, no question.
It was— For him to go after the guy who not only is stealing— Like, even if he was just stealing, that would be enough reason, morally, to try to track him down, chase him down, to stop him from doing it.
But the fact that he assaulted or attempted to assault someone is all the more reason.
So, he acted rightly and justly.
No question about it.
But the sad truth is that we now live in a world where we have to ask Whether it's right to do the right and just thing.
So, right being used in two different contexts here.
Morally right, yes.
But is that the correct course of action?
Is that the most prudent?
Is it prudent?
Put it that way.
Is it prudent to do the right and just thing in these kinds of circumstances?
Because before you act, you know, before you do anything, before you make any decision, you have to ask yourself, is there any chance that this action will have any kind of positive outcome?
And if, before you take an action, you do that inventory and you say, no, there's really no chance that this has any positive outcome, then, like, most of the time, the prudent choice is to not do it.
And we've reached a stage in our cultural decay where the right action often has just no chance of producing any kind of good result.
This is not me victim-blaming, by the way, Pat Geider.
Again, he did a courageous and moral thing.
Wish him nothing but the best.
But we're at a point in society where we have to say, like, can we recommend anyone to do that?
I mean, in this particular case, okay, so you chase the guy out.
And then what?
Because even if you can somehow get him to stop, if you call 911, they probably aren't going to come.
And in this case, I guess they did at some point.
But there's a good chance that they won't even come, especially depending on what jurisdiction you're in.
And if they do come, they probably aren't going to arrest the guy.
And he's probably not going to still be there.
He's going to have left by then.
If they do arrest him, He is certainly going to be released the same day, or at best, the next day that he's arrested.
And even if that happens, he's not going to prison.
He should, but he's not.
The guy who did that.
So, he's not going to be taken off the street.
Which means the possibility of you doing the right thing, the possibility of that having any sort of actual meaningfully positive outcome is basically null.
It's a negligible chance at best.
That's the way it is.
It shouldn't be that way.
I wish it wasn't that way, but that's the way it is.
So, then you have to ask yourself, what about the possibility of a negative outcome?
You're trying to do the right thing.
And it is morally the right thing to try to stop somebody from stealing.
But as we've seen, the chance of that working, of that having any positive outcome, is basically, it's like, it's almost impossible.
So what's the possibility of a negative outcome?
Well, those possibilities are endless.
I mean, you probably at least get fired.
That's what happened to this guy.
And that's like, best case.
It's so crazy now that we actually have to say he's lucky that he only got fired.
Because if, and that's if you are not successful in apprehending this person, then probably best case you get fired.
But if you do somehow apprehend the person, then you probably are going to have criminal charges yourself.
And if he fights you and you fight back, even though we all know that like he started it because he committed a crime, you're trying to stop him, If he resists you or tries to take a swing at you or something and you defend yourself, obviously that's just more criminal charges that should be put on him, not on you, in a sane world.
But we don't live in a sane world.
So, if he gets hurt or something in the struggle, then you're probably looking at prison time.
So, this is the scenario.
You follow that guy.
The chance that you go to prison Is higher than the chance that he goes to prison.
Much higher.
And so, although we would say it is morally right for an employee in that situation to respond the way he did, I wouldn't recommend it.
You know, when my kids get a little bit older, and they are old enough to have jobs and that sort of thing, and they're working retail, I would tell them.
You see someone stealing, don't chase them down.
Your life is going to be destroyed when you've got a company with these insane policies?
And you're going to put your life on the line for the sake of this company that will just turn around and fire you anyway for it?
For your trouble?
No.
don't do that. It's the morally right thing, but it's not the prudent thing.
Yeah.
And then you end up sort of a martyr in a sense, but like, what good does that do you in the end?
And this is what happens when, as we've talked about many times, when you live in a society that goes out of its way to disincentivize people from doing the right thing.
It wasn't always that way.
It used to be you were incentivized to do the right thing.
And even when you're incentivized to do the right thing, it still takes courage to do.
Because, like, if we lived in a – let's say we lived in a – let's go back and replay the hypothetical.
Let's say we lived in a sane – just a basically sane – not a perfect society, but a sane one.
Well, in that scenario, you see somebody stealing, you chase them down.
There's still risk.
Like, you are taking on risk.
It takes guts to do that, because there's a physical risk to you.
You don't know the guy could have a gun.
You don't know what could happen.
So you are putting yourself on the line.
But in that scenario, I would say, yeah, you should.
You should do the right thing there.
I would even tell my son, if he was working a job, and I would say, you should do the right thing.
There's a risk involved, but you should do the right thing.
Because in a sane society, the only risk you're taking is how that bad guy responds to you.
But in an insane society, there's this extra risk, which is that this system is totally against you.
And so that even if that guy, even if you survive the altercation with the guy, the system's going to come around and punish you for it.
Punish you for your bravery.
And it just gets to a point where they go out of their way to disincentivize you from doing the right thing.
And so it's like, you have no choice as a normal person but to say, okay, well then, all right, then I guess this guy's just going to steal.
Alright, Daily Wire has this story.
Activist and actor John Leguizamo took out a full-page ad in the New York Times on Sunday, urging Emmy Award voters to nominate non-white artists.
Revolutionary stuff from this guy.
The 63-year-old explained the move in an ex-post.
I know everyone is exhausted about inclusion, but not us who are not included.
So that's why I took this ad out to the New York Times.
White peoples are only 58.9% of the population, but overrepresented in top positions across the board.
They are the decision makers in tech, banking, corporations, medicine, and streamers, and Hollywood.
He continued, America is better when it is inclusive.
It is more profitable.
It is more creative.
Let's not give up.
I'm still woke, are you?
And then he goes on to that.
So that's the tweet.
And then he goes on to the full page ad.
Please let this be the year we finally embrace change.
The year we truly find equity and see artists of color represented across not just one category, but all categories.
I know you're tired of hearing words like inclusivity and diversity treading water while you try to understand how to put actions behind these sentiments.
Look no further, it's simple.
He went on, there are hundreds of prolific non-white artists who deserve to be considered for awards this year, not because they're simply black, brown, indigenous, or Asian, but because they're truly great, exceptional artists who have achieved that greatness with a foot on their neck for far too long.
Okay.
First of all, maybe this is all that really needs to be said about this because I think responding to the point or whatever he's, you know, if we can call this a point, responding to it is probably unnecessary.
Although, you know, I'll still respond to the point because saying unnecessary things is kind of my bag, I guess.
It's my brand.
But just pulling up the screenshot of the actual ad in the New York Times.
So this is a full-page ad in the New York Times that he took out.
Like physical newspaper.
So literally tens of people are going to read this thing.
Tens and tens of people are going to read this thing.
Easily upwards of 50 people.
I've heard 60 people by some estimates will read this.
And yet you have typos and grammatical errors in the full page ad.
Really it starts with the tweet where he says, white peoples.
But then he says, I know you're tired of hearing words like inclusivity and diversity dash Shredding water while you try to understand how to put action behind these sentiments.
Okay, that's not a sentence.
What is that?
It's not a sentence, I can tell you that.
And what about this?
There are hundreds of prolific non-white artists who deserve to be considered for awards this year.
Award with a capital A, by the way.
Not because they're simply … black, brown, indigenous, or Asian, but because they are truly great … exceptional artists who achieved that greatness with a foot on their neck for far too long.
So what is that?
Like to abuse the ellipsis, and I've never quite figured that out, but once you get over the age of 60, you know, the dot-dot-dot move, you do it all the time.
It's a boomer thing.
My dad ends like every email with a dot-dot-dot, and it always has an ominous tone, even if it's not supposed to.
But this is a little bit overboard, like, there are truly great dot-dot-dot exceptional artists, even in your own head.
How would you say that sentence out loud?
I can't even say that he's writing phonetically because I don't know phonetically what is that supposed to sound like.
And I don't mean to harp on it but it just blows my mind that you could put a full page ad out and you don't get anyone to do even five seconds of proofreading.
And actually this is all related in a way.
Because John Leguizamo put out this flagrantly racist ad Openly calling for non-white people to get awards.
He doesn't even bother with the usual, um, you know, what do they usually say?
Diverse people.
You know, we don't want to make sure that diverse people get awards this year.
Doesn't even bother with that.
That's usually the euphemism.
He just comes out and flat out says, non-white.
Black, brown, or Asian.
Or indigenous.
Hispanics are, I guess, out of luck.
He is a Hispanic.
I guess they're brown.
They count as brown.
Asians don't count as brown.
Well, okay.
Because we say black, brown, white, but for Asian, you're not allowed to say the color anymore, you know, because they used to say yellow.
You can't even say that anymore, but that's what they used to say.
So that's a really interesting thing.
So Asians, like, that's the one ethnicity where you're not allowed to use as shorthand a color that's not—and you can say, well, the color, you know, Asian people are not yellow.
And that's true, but white people aren't really white.
Like, my skin is not literally white.
It's close, so I could be kind of pale, but it's not actually white.
So anyway, that's a whole other thing.
There are all these weird rules about, you know, you can say people of color, but you can't say colored people.
You can refer to black, brown, and white, but when you go to Asian, you have to just say Asian because you can't say the color that is approximately, you know, close to the skin color.
All that stuff makes no sense.
Anyway, he says that He claims that non-white entertainers have had a foot on their neck and the idea that it's hard for non-whites to succeed in entertainment, which is a claim obviously disproven by just everything we see from Hollywood, but also John Leguizamo himself is proof that there is no pro-white bias in Hollywood.
If anybody asked me, I'll put it this way, if anybody said to me, Give me one piece of evidence, like the single most compelling piece of evidence, that proves that Hollywood is not bigoted against non-white people.
If somebody posed that challenge to me, I would say, Exhibit A, I give you John Liguizamo.
Because if there was a conspiracy against non-whites in Hollywood, how the hell did this guy manage to have a career?
The fact that John Leguizamo has had a career in Hollywood for like four decades, if it proves anything, it proves that obviously they're not conspiring against brown people in Hollywood.
And I'm not saying, look, I'm not being a hater here.
I'm not saying he's terrible, John Leguizamo.
He's just kind of, you know, he's John Leguizamo.
Nobody's watching a movie because John Leguizamo is in it.
Right?
Like if someone tells you about a movie, they say it's good, and you're like, oh, who's in it?
And they go, well, John Leguizamo?
You're not going to say, oh, I got to see that.
You're going to say, OK, yeah, but who else?
Like, of course, yeah, he's in it.
But who else is in it?
Who really is in it?
Give me a real person.
But you're also not going to not watch a movie because he's in it.
He just shows up.
And you say, oh, that's John Leguizamo.
And then you don't think about it.
So his career is exactly what it should be.
On the theory that there is no pro-white bias in Hollywood.
On his merits, he is exactly where he should be.
If there's no racial bias against non-whites, and you look at a guy like John Leguizamo, and you say, okay, well, his career should be, like, right about here, and he should be doing these kinds of movies, and then you look, and you're like, okay, yeah, that's what he's doing.
And yet, he's one of the main ones out there these days, you know, making this claim about racism against non-whites.
And it's not hard to see why.
It's because he has had a, you know, by Hollywood star standards, he's had a relatively mediocre career.
He's looking for an explanation for that, and he's settled on this as the explanation.
Grand Canyon University is a private Christian university located in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona.
GCU believes that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
They believe in equal opportunities and that the American Dream is driven by purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote your flourishing,
which will create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
Whether you're pursuing a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, Grand Canyon University's online,
on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your degree.
GCU has over 330 academic programs.
As of September, 2023, GCU will meet you where you are, provide a path to help you fulfill your unique academic,
personal, and professional goals.
Find your purpose today at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable.
Visit gcu.edu, that's gcu.edu.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, as a recent high-profile case has shown us,
our judicial system is in shambles.
With judges more interested in politics than in actual justice, fortunately for the American people, I'm here.
The final episode of Judged by Matt Walsh, season one, is now streaming exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
As I reflect on season one of what will undoubtedly be remembered as the greatest courtroom series ever, I took immense pride in delivering fair and just verdicts to some of the most trivial cases to ever grace the legal system.
I've changed lives.
I've entertained the masses, I guess, although that was never, of course, the point.
Check out a sneak peek of the final episode of Judged by Matt Walsh.
Here it is.
Coming up on Judged.
You are over the age of 11.
You're big into Halloween.
What does that mean exactly?
I have a very large display, animatronics.
Kids enjoy it.
My kids enjoy it.
So you're trying to lure the kids in the neighborhood to your house?
For candy.
For candy?
Does that make it better?
That does not make it better at all.
I went to console one of the dogs, and I said, who's a big boy?
And I rubbed his belly, and I assumed— The question was not directed at you.
Or was it?
Was it you fat shaming the bailiff?
It's the finale of Judged by Matt Wall, streaming now exclusively on DailyWire+.
And remember, if you don't like it, well, there's probably something wrong with you.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
So on the show over the past few weeks and mostly during this segment,
we've documented the desperate effort to smear Justice Samuel Alito.
Of course, the media has been doing this to Clarence Thomas for decades since his confirmation hearing.
We know what happened to Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
Gorsuch will get his turn next, we can assume, but for now, Alito is up at bat.
But the media's anti-Alito campaign has run into a significant roadblock.
They want to find a scandal that, you know, that they can blow up and try to turn into a major national crisis.
The problem is that apparently Samuel Alito is the most normal, straight-edge, boringly honest and upright figure maybe in the history of American public life.
Like, that's the only conclusion that we can draw.
Because the entire media apparatus has been digging frantically through this man's life and past to find something—anything—problematic.
And so far, they have come up empty.
Like, so empty, in fact, that they've been forced to make a scandal out of two banal, utterly trifling incidents involving flags hanging outside of the Aledo residency.
So it would seem that the edgiest, most provocative thing that Alito has ever done is fly an upside-down flag outside of his home one time.
Something that apparently he didn't even actually do, his wife did.
So the fact that they have to use the flag stuff as somehow evidence of his corruption just goes to show how squeaky clean, and for the media, I think disappointingly non-corrupt, this guy really is.
But they haven't stopped.
Flaggate didn't really land with the general public.
Flaggate the sequel, they tried to do it again.
Flaggate reloaded.
That didn't land either.
Now they've moved on to the next fake Aledo scandal, and as you'll see, it is the fakest one yet.
Yesterday, Rolling Stone first published in a lengthy and breathless article secretly recorded by someone, they have secretly recorded comments made by Alito at a recent dinner.
A left-wing activist named Lauren Windsor attended the Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner on June 3rd, posing apparently as a conservative, and she struck up a conversation with Alito.
Asked him a lot of very leading questions, trying to get him to say something anything incriminating, or at least vaguely controversial.
The secret recording of this exchange has been, as you would expect, trumpeted as definitive proof that Alito is a dangerous right-wing radical.
Headlines have called the recording shocking.
There have been renewed calls for Alito's impeachment.
Now the only problem, which is not a problem as far as the media is concerned, is that it's all once again nonsense.
Justice Alito, even in what he believed to be a private conversation with an ideological ally, still proves to be frustratingly professional, polite, and composed.
Much to the chagrin of the activist who went through all that trouble to record him, you know, this man still absolutely refused to give so much as, like, not even one spicy take about anything.
Now, that hasn't stopped her or the media from pretending that Alito has been somehow exposed, but there's only so much you can do to dress this up as a scandal.
And I'll show you what I mean.
The left-wing rag The New Republic tried its best, though.
Here's their headline.
Samuel Alito caught on tape revealing his true guiding force.
Well, that sounds pretty ominous.
Caught on tape reveals his true guiding force?
What could that mean?
What is his guiding force?
The mind conjures all sorts of nightmarish possibilities.
Well, let's read on.
Quoting from the article.
A secret tape has exposed some of Justice Samuel Alito's privately held beliefs, including
endorsing a "fight to return our country to a place of godliness"
with the stark understanding that "one side or the other is going to win."
Now, I'm going to pause there for a moment and I'll read a little bit more of the article,
but you should know that that's it.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
That's all she could get this guy to say.
One side or the other is going to win, and the country should return to godliness.
On a secret tape being surreptitiously recorded, speaking to someone that he thought was a friend, and those two statements are the most provocative things he could be induced to say.
And now the poor media has to pretend that the two blandest, least controversial statements ever made by anyone ever in history are somehow earth-shattering.
Reading on, quote, "Alito's comments were recorded by advocacy journalist Lauren Windsor during the
Supreme Court Historical Society's annual dinner on June 3rd, an opportunity leveraged by many
right-wing activists to cozy up to members of the nation's highest judiciary. A
A copy of the tape, which documented the incredible candor with which Alito forewent any illusion of neutrality, was provided to Rolling Stone.
Leading Alito on, the liberal documentarian is heard approaching the justice about a disbelief that American polarization can come to an end by way of negotiating with the political left.
Instead, Windsor posits that it's more a matter of conservatives winning.
Quote, I think you're probably right, Alito replies.
On one side or the other, one side or the other is going to win.
I don't know.
I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised.
They really can't be compromised, so it's not like you're going to split the difference.
Alito then agreed with Windsor's assessment that the country needed to return to a, quote, place of godliness.
That's it.
That's the end.
It turns out that Alito didn't even say that the country needed to return to godliness.
The woman said it, and he agreed.
So, breaking news, Samuel Alito is not an atheist.
The scandal here, apparently, is that Samuel Alito did not confess to being a secret atheist.
Like, what was he supposed to say when someone says, oh, the country needs to return to a place of godliness?
You want him to say, no, it shouldn't?
You want him, as a Christian, to say, no, I don't—no, I think godlessness is better.
It's evidently the position of the media that Supreme Court justices are required to be atheists, but Alito is not.
In fact, Alito, in a truly horrifying turn of events, apparently has the same view as the Founding Fathers, because they also believe that America should be rooted in godliness.
That was the headline of the Declaration of Independence, you may recall.
It's written on our money.
It's in the Pledge of Allegiance.
It's our official national motto.
So Samuel Alito agrees with our national motto.
That's what they're trying to make a scandal out of.
But it's not just that.
We can't forget.
Alito also said that the two ideological sides in America might be able to live and work together peacefully, but their views are fundamentally incompatible and therefore they won't be able to reach a satisfying compromise.
He didn't even take a side, which, by the way, he could have.
Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions.
They're not required to be mindless automotons.
It wouldn't even be a scandal if he actually gave his political opinion in what he thought was a private conversation off the clock.
He's allowed to do that.
But he didn't even do that.
Instead, he just made a very basic, obviously correct observation about the state of political discourse in America.
It's also an observation often made by people on both sides of the spectrum.
Breaking news!
Samuel Alito says thing that everyone on all sides agrees with.
Indeed, Alito is so scandal-free that at this point, like, I'm getting annoyed by it.
Part of me wishes the guy would actually do or say something problematic just so that this whole story would be more interesting to talk about.
But that doesn't appear likely to happen.
Instead, we're doomed to this endless news cycle where the real headline every time is that Samuel Alito is an upright and honest guy.
Which, of course, in the end, is the whole reason the left hates him.
And it's why the anti-Alito campaign is, once again, and more than ever, cancelled.
