Ep. 1407 - Secret Service Director Resigns But The Cover-Up Continues
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the director of the Secret Service has finally resigned, a week after her incompetence (or worse) nearly got Donald Trump killed. But the manner and timing of her resignation only make the cover-up even more obvious. I'll explain. Also, Joe Biden has been completely out of the public eye for a week. He ghosted the nation and dropped out of the race on Twitter. He was finally seen for the first time, briefly, today. What's going on? And it only took a day for Kamala Harris to essentially lock up the nomination. Whatever happened to her going out and "earning and winning" nomination? And a new documentary claims that Abraham Lincoln was gay. Is there any evidence to support that wild assertion?
Ep.1407
- - -
DailyWire+:
LAST CHANCE! Get 47% off annual memberships now with code FIGHT: http://dailywire.com/subscribe
Get 10% off your tickets to “Sound of Hope: The Story of Possum Trot” at http://angel.com/MATT
Shop my merch collection here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Balance of Nature - Get 35% off Your Order + FREE Fiber & Spice Supplements. Use promo code WALSH at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/
Hillsdale College - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/walsh
Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)958-1000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh
- - -
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, the Director of the Secret Service has finally resigned, a week after her incompetence, or worse, nearly got Donald Trump killed.
But the manner and timing of her resignation only makes the cover-up even more obvious.
I'll explain.
Also, Joe Biden has been completely out of the public eye for a week.
He ghosted the nation and dropped out of the race on Twitter.
Finally seen for the first time briefly today, what exactly is going on?
We'll talk about that.
It only took a day for Kamala Harris to essentially lock up the nomination.
Whatever happened to her going out and earning and winning the nomination?
And a new documentary claims that Abraham Lincoln was gay.
Is there any evidence to support that wild assertion?
We'll talk about that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
has finally called it quits, but the left's assault on America is far from over.
The election is pivotal, and you need the truth now more than ever.
That's where we come in.
The Daily Wire gives you the uncensored truth every day.
We can't do it without you.
Go to dailywire.com right now and use code FIGHT for 47% off your annual membership.
Join us as we fight the left and build the future.
Being a husband, father, and host of my own show means life never slows down.
Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and vegetables every day.
That sounds miserable and time-consuming.
Sometimes I just want an egg sausage with muffin, and I want to be able to have that too.
But with Bouts of Nature, fruits and vegetables, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure that you get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables every day with 31 different whole fruit and vegetable ingredients.
Bouts of Nature takes fruits and vegetables, they freeze-dry them, turn them into a powder, and then put them into a capsule You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, and then your body knows what to do with them.
Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code WALSH for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer, plus get a free bottle of fiber and spice.
That's balanceofnature.com, promo code WALSH.
Even by the non-existent standards of America's bloated and now leaderless federal bureaucracy, it's hard to believe that former Pepsi executive Kimberly Cheadle held onto her job for as long as she did.
Cheadle is the director of the Secret Service, or was, the agency that allowed a 20-year-old assassin to shoot the leading presidential candidate in the head just 10 days ago.
Or again, she was the director.
It was just announced this morning that she is resigning from her position, finally.
It took a while, despite the fact that both parties, and Cheadle herself, I readily admit that the best case scenario here is that the Secret Service displayed stratospheric levels of incompetence, an aptitude so profound that it very nearly changed the course of world history.
And yet, Cheadle remained in office, even after that.
In fact, Cheadle's boss at DHS said that he has 100% confidence in her.
And on top of that, Cheadle hasn't fired or even disciplined a single employee of the Secret Service.
At a minimum, we are witnessing a staggering level of bureaucratic dysfunction.
And after Cheadle's testimony yesterday at the House Oversight Committee, there's reason to think that we're seeing something even more sinister than that.
Cheadle should have resigned the day after Trump was nearly killed, but the way that she resigned, a week later, And the timing, really, only lends more credence to the idea that there's a cover-up going on.
I mean, it's now happening, really, in plain as day, in plain sight.
And I'll explain why.
Let's begin with what happened on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Throughout several hours of testimony, Cheadle acted more like a criminal with something to hide than the head of a government agency who has a legal duty to comply with a congressional subpoena.
Cheadle refused to answer even basic questions about the attempt on Donald Trump's life in Butler, Pennsylvania.
These are questions that any competent investigator would have been able to answer within 24 hours of the shooting.
These are questions that, in some cases, Cheadle said she knew the answer to, but she still refused to provide an answer to the committee.
Again and again, Cheadle stonewalled.
It was almost as if she wanted to avoid providing any information that could possibly be contradicted later if the official narrative should happen to change.
Short of outright admitting that the assassination attempt was an inside job, Kimberly Cheadle could not possibly have done more to validate the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding what happened in Butler.
If the DOJ cared even slightly about the appearance of fairness and impartial justice, they would immediately charge Kimberly Cheadle with evading her subpoena.
I mean, Steve Bannon's in jail for supposedly failing to comply with the subpoena after all, and that's precisely what Kimberly Cheadle did yesterday.
And we know that because she admitted it.
So listen to this exchange between Cheadle and Congresswoman Lisa McClain of Michigan.
First, McClain gets Cheadle to acknowledge that she's spoken to the FBI about their investigation into the assassination.
And then the Congresswoman asks Cheadle whether the FBI has determined how many shell casings were found on the roof next to the shooter's dead body.
I want you to watch this exchange.
Here it is.
Did they share with you how many shell casings were on the roof?
They have shared with me the evidence they've collected.
Did they share with you how many shell casing were on the roof?
Yes.
Okay, how many were there?
I would refer to the FBI for their investigation.
How many were there?
And their information that they need to share in their investigation.
So they've shared the information with you, you just don't want to share the information with us, correct?
We have concurrent investigations that are going on.
So they have shared this information with you.
You know the answer to the question.
You just refuse to answer the question from the member of Congress who has subpoenaed you to be here.
Is there a different answer to that question?
I was always willing to come here and testify before this oversight hearing.
Beautiful.
Then let's do that.
Let's for once have your actions match your words.
So you've been in communication with the FBI.
You know the answers and you refuse to tell us the answers.
So I will ask you again.
You know how many shell casings were on that roof.
What is the answer to that question?
I think it's pertinent to talk... What is the answer to that question?
I think it's pertinent to talk to you about the information that the Secret Service has and that the Secret Service knows related to the event on that day.
I'm asking you an answer to the question.
If you're supposed to be in charge, if the buck stops with you, how come you can't share the answers?
What are you covering up?
What are you hiding, my friend?
So this is one of the most basic questions of the entire investigation.
It should have been disclosed to the public in a press conference within a day of the shooting.
How many shell casings were on the roof with the shooter?
There's just no conceivable, legitimate reason why the government would want to hide this information.
I mean, again, no legitimate reason why they would want to hide it.
But here we are, nine days later, and the head of the Secret Service won't tell us.
And she admits that she knows the truth, but she's defying aggressional subpoena and refusing to talk about it anyway.
And I think it's obvious that the number of shell casings on the roof is a critical piece of information, because it would clearly give us insight into how many times the shooter fired from that particular rooftop.
And if the number of shell casings doesn't match the number of shots that we can hear from footage of the rally, then there's a major problem with the official narrative.
It could mean that the crime scene was tampered with, or it could mean that there was more than one shooter beyond the one who's already been identified.
And if those possibilities sound outlandish, well, take a look at Sheetal's response to this question from Congressman Andy Biggs.
He asked her point-blank whether the shooter was acting alone.
Watch.
Your agency has a no-fail mission, and on Saturday, July 13th, your agency spectacularly failed.
The failure resulted in the death of Corey Compratore and serious injury to two other rally attendees, David Dutch and James Copenhaver, besides the injuries to President Trump.
It is unfathomable that a 20-year-old on the radar of Secret Service and local law enforcement before President Trump went on stage was able to climb onto the roof of a building with a rifle and fire off multiple rounds before he was neutralized.
Was Mr. Crooks acting alone?
Again, I would have to refer you to the FBI's investigation.
Was he just a lone gunman?
I would have to refer you to the FBI's investigation for motive.
So again, this should not be a difficult question to answer.
And she could say, yes, it seems he was acting alone.
She could just say that.
I mean, if he was alone, as far as they know, she could say, yeah, as far as we know, he was alone.
Or she could say, we think he had help.
Or she could say she's genuinely not sure at this point, which would be hard to believe, but she could say that.
Instead, she refuses to provide any kind of answer whatsoever.
She says she has no information she can provide and that the congressman should talk to the FBI.
And of course, the FBI won't answer the question either.
This is the kind of bureaucratic runaround you'd expect to get when you try to cancel your phone plan.
And it's how the federal government is handling the investigation into the most serious attempt on the life of a presidential candidate and former president in decades.
Again, it's hard to conceive of any innocent reason why she would decline to answer these questions if the answers line up with the official narrative.
It shouldn't take anywhere near this long to have some answers to these questions, even if those answers are tentative.
Think about how quickly, just for comparison's sake, think about how quickly the police charged Jennifer and James Crumbly with involuntary manslaughter.
Those were the parents who allowed their son to access their handgun, which he then used to commit a school shooting.
And they were charged with a crime in less than a week.
Why haven't police charged the parents of the Trump assassin, would-be assassin, with a crime?
Have the authorities been looking at anyone else to charge who might have helped him?
Why don't we have any answers to these questions?
Even if they think someone might have helped him, but they don't know who, they could say that.
Right now we're learning more from investigators on social media than we are from the Secret Service.
Yesterday, for example, the Oversight Project, part of the Heritage Foundation, took a look at databases of mobile advertising data and they found that, quote, somebody who regularly visited the shooter's home and work also visited a building in Washington, D.C.
located in Gallery Place.
This is in the same vicinity of an FBI office on June 6, 2023.
Who is that person who links the shooter's home to an area in Washington, D.C.
near a mall and an FBI field office?
We have no idea.
Could be nothing.
Could be significant.
But the more the Secret Service stonewalls on basic questions, the more people are entitled to come up with their own theories and conduct their own investigation.
That piece of reporting from the Heritage Foundation, whether it pans out or not, is more believable than anything Kimberly Cheadle said yesterday.
She spent 95% of the time dodging every question she was asked.
In fact, at several points, Cheadle simply lied under oath.
She didn't just filibuster or give the typical bureaucratic runaround.
She actually lied.
For example, listen to her answer when she was asked about the Secret Service's DEI hiring policies.
Watch.
One of your goals in the strategic plan is to champion diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
You've accomplished the accessibility part.
What standards, do you keep the same standards for all applicants and all, does every Secret Service agent meet the same qualifications or do you have different standards for different people?
Yes, sir.
Everyone who moves through the application process has to meet the same standards to become a special agent.
So she says, everyone who moves through the application process has to meet the same standards to become a special agent.
That's what the Secret Service director, former director, said under oath.
And it is not remotely true.
It's verifiably false.
Anybody with Google can verify that it's not true.
Female trainees in the Secret Service have drastically lower fitness standards than male trainees.
For example, the Secret Service considers it excellent if a 29-year-old male applicant can complete 55 or more push-ups.
They'll get maximum points on their fitness test, which is critical for getting the job, but a 29-year-old female applicant receives the same excellent score if she can complete just 40 push-ups.
Now, 40 and 55, I think, are not the same numbers, so this is not the same standard.
The cutoff for a good score for a 29-year-old male is 46 push-ups, while a woman can achieve a good score with just 26 push-ups.
We could have another conversation about the fact that 46 push-ups for a man is considered good.
I mean, that's enough of a problem, but the fact is that it's not the same standard.
In other words, the Director of the Secret Service lied under oath.
There's just no way that she's not aware of her agency's hiring standards.
To the extent Kimberly Cheadle has done anything during her tenure, she's been pushing DEI hiring.
She stated publicly that she wants 30% of the agency to be female.
And she understands that one way to achieve that result is to have lower standards for women.
But when she's asked about this under oath, she just denies it outright.
Because she knows that no one's going to come after her for perjury, but that's exactly what she just did there.
Now, I can go through the rest of Sheetal's testimony, which isn't any better than what I've already shown you.
At one point, Sheetal admits that she still hasn't even visited the shooting in Butler, the site of the shooting.
That's how little she cares.
She also refused to explain why nobody was guarding the roof where the shooter was positioned, saying only that there was some kind of overwatch on the roof, which clearly didn't work.
She'd also admitted that somehow she doesn't have a timeline of events from that day.
This was one of the moments during her testimony when people in the room burst out laughing at how absurd it was, which is never a good sign if you're testifying in front of Congress and people start laughing at you.
It means things are not going well.
Watch.
Why was Crooks able to fly a drone over the entire area the day of the rally and the day of his assassination attempt?
To my knowledge, he did not fly the drone over the entire area.
How did he fly a drone over the area, period?
Any part of the area?
Again, I would have to go back and check the timeline of when that took place and when the event... Why didn't you bring the timeline with you today to answer our questions?
I don't have all of the answers on the timelines based on the criminal investigation.
Were you not prepared today to answer our questions?
I am prepared to answer the questions based on the information and wanted to be able to provide... Do you have a timeline that you... Do you have a timeline at all from any of the day?
I have a timeline that does not have specifics.
That's shocking.
That is absolutely unacceptable.
That means you are a failure at your job.
So I have a timeline that does not have specifics.
I mean, isn't the whole point of a timeline to have specifics?
What does a timeline with no specifics look like?
It's like saying you have a math book without numbers.
Like, what is in it, then, in that case?
So, whatever is the case, she just showed up and winged it, basically, according to her.
It's like watching an actor who was told to play the head of the Secret Service for a day.
If you found some random woman off the street and told her to stonewall Congress about the assassination attempt, how would the results be any different than this?
Separately, Cheadle said that she didn't sign off on the security plan for the event because she doesn't sign off for the security plans at any events.
When asked for the name of the person who did sign off on the security plan for the Butler rally, she wouldn't say.
In fact, she implied that many people signed off on those plans, so no one single person can be blamed.
It's just a classic bureaucratic cover-up.
A lot of people were involved, and therefore, no person can be blamed for this.
Cheadle also refused to talk about all the times that the Secret Service turned down the Trump campaign's requests for additional security, and on and on and on.
But there's one more clip that's very important to show.
It's AOC going after Kimberly Cheadle.
Online, a lot of people on the right are praising AOC for this performance, but along with Mike Cernovich, I think it reveals something a lot more troubling than it actually maybe first appears.
Watch.
So the notion of a report coming out in 60 days when the threat environment is so high in the United States, irrespective of party, is not acceptable.
And I think it's very important to understand that.
This is not theater.
This is not about jockeying.
This is about the safety of some of the most highly targeted And valued targets internationally and domestically in the United States of America.
So the idea that a report will be finalized in 60 days, let alone prior to any actionable decisions that would be made, is simply not acceptable.
It has been 10 days since an assassination attempt on a former president of the United States, regardless of party.
No, AOC was not the only Democrat to rip into Cheeto like this.
Several Democrats did the same thing.
And there's a couple possible interpretations for that.
One is that the security failures were so bad that Democrats are putting aside politics for the first time in modern history.
They're just as outraged as Trump supporters about it.
But the other interpretation is that whenever AOC agrees with the entire Republican caucus, we should take a step back and think about what's going on.
Maybe Kimberly Cheadle was sent out there to testify in order to serve as a sacrificial lamb.
Maybe the point of this hearing was for both Republicans and Democrats to beat her up like a piñata, and then when she inevitably resigns, which she has, members of both parties will feel like justice has been done, and more importantly, the public will think that justice has been done and the problem has been solved.
A replaceable cog in the bureaucratic machine has been removed.
And the implication would be, no need to look higher.
No need to investigate any other connections the shooter may have had with the government.
Problem's taken care of.
It's all good.
And that seems to be exactly what happened here.
So they knew they were going to force her to resign.
Like, that was already a done deal.
But they had her testify to Congress first.
I mean, she resigned hours after testifying to Congress.
And how do you explain the timing there?
And why did they just have her testify in front of Congress if they know that she's not going to be leading the agency anymore?
And also, if supposedly she didn't even sign off on the plans, but somebody else did, then why is she the only one testifying?
Well, the answer is pretty clear.
Because they wanted her to stonewall, absorb all the blame, That's why she was there.
It was just to be yelled at.
And then leave.
And now they can put somebody else in charge of the agency who will not have to answer any of those questions.
But that can't be the end of it.
For a lack of a better word, these are very strange times right now in this country.
It's not even clear who's running the federal government at this moment.
We don't know who has the authority to fire Kimberly Cheadle.
The President of the United States is technically her boss, but he hasn't been seen in public for several days.
He allegedly just phoned into a rally for Kamala Harris, but no one could see his face.
And after weeks of insisting he's not dropping out of the race, now he's suddenly issuing full-throated endorsements for his running mates.
Meanwhile, the President's brother is suggesting Biden doesn't have long to live.
The press is pretending this is all completely normal.
But none of this is normal.
We still don't understand what just happened to Joe Biden, and from Kimberly Cheadle's testimony, it looks like we may never know what happened in Butler, either.
At the very least, the government won't tell us.
It's hard to think of a stronger argument for completely dismantling the federal government bureaucracy, if and when Donald Trump gets back into office.
Even assuming they're not actively trying to sabotage this country, which is quite an assumption at this point, then at the very least, these bureaucrats are so incompetent that they're destroying any faith that Americans have in the proper functioning of their government.
Mediocre men and women like Kimberly Cheadle are leading pretty much every federal agency in this country.
And just like Joe Biden, these bureaucrats cannot be reasoned with.
They cannot be shamed.
They won't go anywhere unless they're forced to.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
[MUSIC]
Time is one of our most precious commodities.
Don't waste the precious little time you have with mind-numbing TV shows or the latest TikTok dance trends.
Instead, use that time to learn something new and inspiring with Hillsdale College.
Hillsdale College offers more than 40 free online courses on subjects like the works of C.S.
Lewis, the rise and fall of the Roman Republic, and History of the Christian Church.
If you're not sure where to start, check out The Great American Story, A Land of Hope.
In this course, you'll hear from Hillsdale College professors as they explore the history of America as a land of hope founded on high principles.
This course presents the great triumphs and achievements of our nation's past, as well as the shortcomings and failures.
It offers a broad and unbiased study of our nation's history.
The course is self-paced so that you can start whenever and wherever.
Start your free course, The Great American Story, A Land of Hope, today.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll.
There's no cost.
It's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash walsh to enroll.
hillsdale.edu slash walsh.
So at this point as I speak, we still have not heard from Joe Biden.
Well, we heard from him.
We heard him, allegedly, when he called into his campaign headquarters or Kamala's Campaign headquarters now.
We haven't seen him on camera, speaking to camera.
He hasn't addressed the nation.
And the fact that he called and was heard on camera but not seen just makes the whole thing more bizarre and gives more fuel to the fire of what the media describes as conspiracy theories, but are really just logical attempts for people to make sense of this utterly strange situation.
And it just makes it all the more strange, especially given that Harris, during that conversation with With allegedly Biden on the phone.
We'll play this clip here, but it sounds like she almost refers to the call as a recording.
Listen.
It is so good to hear our president's voice.
Joe, I know you're still on the call and we've been talking every day.
You probably, you guys heard it from Doug's voice.
We love Joe and Jill.
We really do.
They truly are like family to us.
I'm sure you love them so much.
You love them so much that you shivved them in the back and tossed them out of the moving train.
But it sounds like she's about to say recording and then she says call.
So, that doesn't really allay any concerns and still doesn't explain why we haven't seen them.
Now, the latest is that Joe Biden was just recently, just moments ago, seen on camera for the first time since Wednesday.
He didn't address the cameras, he didn't talk, but he was seen boarding Air Force One, I believe.
And supposedly he's going to address the nation tomorrow.
A week since we last saw him.
Because we last saw him after he'd been diagnosed with COVID.
The last image of him till today was him slowly descending the stairs of Air Force One.
And the last time that we heard and saw him was when he was strongly denying, repeatedly, that he would drop out of the race.
And then he drops out of public eye, steps down from the race through a tweet, and that's it.
Now, a lot of people have been claiming or conjecturing that Biden is in dire straits health-wise, that he's in the middle of some kind of serious medical crisis.
There have been theories that he's dying or that he's even already dead.
Reports are circulating on social media claiming to cite insider sources who say they're confirming that Biden Is either in the middle of a medical crisis or had one very recently.
So there's all kinds of things swirling out there.
Now, I don't know what's true or what isn't.
I have no information one way or another.
I have no insider info.
Nobody talks to me.
Which, by the way, is one of the reasons why it's always funny to me when... I mean, this is a side note, but...
When I'm sometimes accused of being a media elitist or whatever, you know?
And when people say that about me, I'm always like, are you...
I have no contact with anyone in power.
I have no friends in high places at all.
I spend all of my free time at home with my kids.
I don't talk to anyone at all.
So anytime there's something like this going on and you get all these people in media on both sides that are citing their sources and they're talking to people inside supposedly.
I'm not, I don't know.
No one is reaching out to me to tell me anything.
Ever.
So, the point is, I don't know what's going on, but I am highly skeptical of the theory that Biden is on death's door, or that he's having any kind of real serious health crisis, and I'll tell you why.
Actually, it's very simple.
And I have a theory about why we haven't seen him in a week, or haven't heard from him.
Haven't seen and heard him in a week.
But it's different.
But the reason why I don't think that there's something medical going on is that if Biden is really in the middle of a medical crisis, it would benefit the Democrats greatly to tell us that.
They don't gain anything by covering this up.
That's the big problem with the cover-up theories about Biden having a medical problem.
It's like, why would they cover that up?
I mean, what would they gain from that?
In fact, if Biden were to have a heart attack, I mean, you know, just to, not that we want that to happen, but let's say Biden were to have a heart attack and drop dead today, that's, I mean, from a purely political perspective, that bails the Democrats out in a lot of ways.
So there'd be no reason for them to do anything but tell us immediately.
So, you know, if he's having a medical crisis, it gives the Democrats a legitimate reason to push him to the side.
It legitimizes the coup.
It mitigates any claim that they're subverting the will of the voters.
Because if they can say, look, he's medically incapacitated, we have to move on to somebody else, then who could, I mean, who could have an issue with that?
It engenders sympathy for Biden in a way that would take some of the wind out of Trump's sails with his recent harrowing crisis that he was in.
And most importantly, it allows them to install Kamala Harris as the president for a few months, which would help her significantly and maybe decisively.
Because if Harris becomes president, first of all, it automatically makes her an historic figure, right, quote-unquote historic figure, as the first female president.
It just, by default, it does that.
It allows the media to spin up a narrative about the heroic woman who stepped up when her male boss was down for the count.
You know, it's a great story for them.
They would love that story.
And it really reinforces the guilt trip That the media will put on the voters anyway, but now there's going to be a guilt trip regardless.
If you were to dare to not vote for Kamala Harris, they're going to call you racist and sexist.
But if she's already president, you know, and then you don't vote for her, well, that's even more of a guilt trip because then they're going to say, hey, are you really going to fire the first female president after only five months on the job?
Are you really going to do that?
I mean, shouldn't you give the first female president at least one term before you kick her to the curb?
Really?
You're not going to give all the male presidents?
They got a whole term to figure it out.
But this first female president, you're going to kick her out in five months, really?
Now, maybe to you and I that would not be a very persuasive argument, but it would be powerful emotional blackmail for a lot of people.
It just would be.
And so, the whole thing.
If there's a medical crisis, it would be a major, major benefit for the Dems.
And that's why I just don't buy into the theory that they're covering up a medical crisis, because they have no incentive to do that.
They benefit from letting us know about it, not from covering it up.
So, here's what I think is really happening.
Here's my theory.
I think what is happening is this.
Biden is in relatively fine physical shape.
Okay, he's not incapacitated physically.
Now, mentally he's not in good shape, but physically he's fine.
He's basically healthy.
They pushed him out of the race against his will.
It was a coup.
And now they're not allowing him to address the public because they don't trust him to stay on script.
That's it, okay?
Here's the bind that they're in.
If Biden goes in front of news cameras and gives even the slightest hint that he was coerced into doing this, if he shows the faintest glimmer of bitterness, everything falls apart for the Dems.
Because now they have been exposed as liars and manipulators, and they've chased a sitting president out of his re-election campaign.
Harris suddenly goes from the girl boss hero to the conniving who schemed against the man who gave her a chance and elevated her.
It would be a disaster.
I mean, it would just be a total—it's the end.
It's just—everything falls apart at that point.
That's why Biden hasn't been seen.
It's why he wasn't on camera.
He could have been on camera on Sunday when he stepped down.
He could have done that.
That's what should have happened, obviously.
He should have addressed the nation, explained what was going on, explained why he wasn't running for re-election.
He could have done that.
He could have physically done it.
But they wouldn't let him.
Because especially on Sunday, after they just completed this coup, this takeover, they were not going to take the guy who they just kicked out and put him on live television, especially a guy who's already known for wandering off script and who can't be trusted in general to stay on script, but you're going to take him when he's angry and bitter and resentful and he hates everybody, he feels betrayed, and you're going to put him on camera?
They're not going to do that.
I think what happened is that they basically quarantined him, not because of COVID, but because of this, kept him away from everybody, and trying to give him some time to calm down.
And in the meantime, they're working out their bribe.
This has been the discussion behind the scenes, I guarantee you, for the last several days, and it hasn't even really been with Joe.
Jill and Hunter, mainly.
Because what they're saying is, okay, what are you guys going to give us?
Because you need us to keep our mouths shut.
You need us to play ball on this thing.
And if we don't publicly, then we could take this whole thing down.
Okay, if we want to go kamikaze on this, we can.
And so they're figuring out their bribes for Jill and Hunter.
And they're going to throw whatever bone they have to Joe.
And...
And they're going to cross their fingers and put him on camera tomorrow because they know they have to eventually.
But that's what's been happening.
I mean, if you want a more interesting conspiracy theory, if any, like, not only was he not deathly ill with COVID, but if you want a more interesting conspiracy theory, if anything, you might theorize that he never had COVID, but was told that he did.
I mean, there's, I have no evidence for that, but I mean, that to me, it's more credible to believe, rather than to believe that he was deathly ill with COVID or with anything else, it's more credible that he never even had COVID, and his doctors told him that he did, so that they could shuffle him off to Rehoboth, put him in quarantine, give him a reason why, oh no, you can't go out in front of cameras, you know, you can't do that.
And then, while he's off in quarantine, they drop the news that he's, that he's gonna step down, because that's the other thing, is that, This was a decision that was made for him really abruptly.
You know, the reason why, right before going into quarantine, the reason he was out saying that he's going to keep running, and the reason why there was this abrupt change is because, you know, on Wednesday of last week, he thought he was still running.
And they brought the hammer down over the weekend, and they had him, you know, they had him stashed somewhere while they did it.
So this will be a very interesting address to the nation tomorrow.
It's going to have to be live.
I mean, I don't think they can't get away with a pre-recorded address at this point.
So they're going to have to put them on camera and I, you know, probably he'll just go with the program, but that is what they're worried about.
All right.
Staying on politics here.
A majority of pledged Democratic convention delegates have endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, who said Monday in her first campaign remarks as a presidential candidate that she knows how to take on Republican Donald Trump.
Harris has been quickly consolidating support around her day-old bid for the Democratic nomination for president, with seemingly all of her major potential rivals rallying around her less than 24 hours after Joe Biden announced he was bowing out.
Okay, so Harris has locked up a majority of the delegates.
She has all the donors.
She has all the endorsements.
All of her potential challengers have kissed the ring.
So she's the nominee.
You know, barring some unforeseen event, which you certainly can't bar, as we have learned.
But barring that, she's the nominee.
You may remember all the way back to yesterday, when Harris was claiming that she would do everything she could to earn the nomination.
Well, turns out that process took about 12 hours.
When she said that she'd fight for the nomination, she meant that she would wait 12 hours and then announce herself the presumptive nominee, which is what happened.
And now after a long campaign of half a day, she has it all sewed up.
The whole thing's a farce, of course.
It was a coronation from the very beginning.
Nobody of any note on the Democrat side had the balls to say anything about it or challenge it in any way.
No one was going to throw their hat in the ring.
It wasn't going to happen.
But I suppose the good news now is that Republicans know that it's going to be Harris.
They can play the game.
They can game plan now accordingly.
And I think it's going to take a smart game plan to beat her.
Like I said, the overconfidence on the right right now is very concerning.
Because we can make all the jokes about Harris that we want, and I've made plenty of them.
I'll continue to make them because it's fun to mock her.
She deserves it.
But it is going to be a challenge, and if you think that Trump is just going to stroll easily into the White House now, then I think you're delusional.
It's going to be a fight no matter what, and it could be a very difficult fight if the Democrats are smart enough to play this right, because they have a chance to rebrand Harris as she moves into the spotlight.
This is—and there's been moments like this now on both sides, where you have this A historic thing that happens, and if you play it right, you can use it as a reset button.
And Kamala Harris, more than anyone in politics, needs a reset button.
So this is a time to set the narrative for both Republicans and Democrats.
The whole race has changed, and so there's going to be a new narrative.
And one side or the other is going to decide.
what the narrative is. That's the way it goes. And whoever sets it successfully will probably win.
There are some concerning indications that the Democrats are concocting what might be
ineffective strategies.
So I'll play this one moment from Harris's address to her campaign staff yesterday.
Here's a line, and you're going to hear this line 70,000 times, so, you know, get used to it.
But between now and November, you're going to hear it over and over and over again.
Especially because one thing we know about Kamala Harris is that when she stumbles on a line that she likes, she will, even if nobody else likes it, but if she likes it, we're going to hear it every time she speaks.
And this is going to be one of those.
But it's also potentially an effective line, and I'll explain why, but here it is, watch.
So in the days and weeks ahead, I, together with you, will do everything in my power to unite our Democratic Party, To unite our nation and to win this election.
You know, as many of you know, before I was elected as Vice President, before I was elected as United States Senator, I was the elected Attorney General, as I've mentioned, of California.
Before that, I was a courtroom prosecutor.
In those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds.
[laughter]
[cheering]
Predators who abused women.
Fraudsters who ripped off consumers.
Cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain.
So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump's type.
OK.
I know Donald Trump's type.
You're going to hear that, as I said a million times.
She's going to say it in the debate.
Call it right now.
That line is going to be said at the debate.
And conservatives are scoffing at this line, but scoffing's not going to be enough.
And I think conservatives are scoffing at it because they're saying, oh yeah, like, this is what you guys have been trying to do.
You've been trying to paint Trump as a criminal and it hasn't landed.
Not only has it not landed, but it has backfired fantastically against you.
And so I think that's why many on the right are seeing that and saying, okay, yeah, go run with that.
Yes, it's absurd to compare Trump to any of those types of criminals.
It's absurd to claim that Trump is a criminal at all.
He was convicted, yes, but in a political show trial.
He's not really a criminal.
He didn't actually break the law.
And that's the truth.
But, of course, the truth doesn't matter in politics.
All that matters is what people believe the truth to be.
But I think that this kind of That angle presents a challenge and I'll explain what it is.
And it's not even really about bringing up the fact that Trump's been convicted, you know, convicted of a quote-unquote crime.
That's not even, like, when I hear that, there's a part of me that says, uh-oh.
And it's not because she's bringing up the Trump stuff.
That's got nothing to do with it.
Here's what it is.
There are two versions of Kamala Harris.
The first version Is the courtroom prosecutor who was attacked for being too zealous in prosecuting supposed non-violent drug offenses, you know, the tough-as-nails prosecutor who's going after the bad guys.
Again, is that the reality?
Is that really who she was?
No, but that's the version.
That's one brand that they could try to go with.
The second version, the second brand, is the bleeding-heart liberal who bailed out BLM protesters.
Rioters, rather.
Rioters.
But, now, the best case is that she runs as the second version.
Right?
Running as the defender of rioters and criminals and looters.
That's best case.
That's what we want.
Go ahead and run that campaign.
But if she runs as the first, And that line you just heard is the first version talking.
Then it's a challenge.
Because then what will happen is that Democrats Rather than, in the midst of this crime-infested society we live in, and people are fed up, just sick to death of living in communities that are unsafe, and they can't bring their kids out in public and all that kind of stuff, rather than Democrats doing what they've done for so long, which is to, like, tell us that we should like that, or deny that it's happening, or tell us that we should feel more sorry for the criminals,
Rather than doing that, what you just heard there, just one little snippet, but that would represent the Democrats trying to go the other way and trying to outflank the Republicans on crime, to the right, right?
So, if Harris pretends to be the tough-as-nails prosecutor who fought for justice and locked up bad guys, that would be her running to the right on crime, which is where the American public is.
Because people are sick of the crime epidemic.
They are, as I said, they're tired of living in communities that are unsafe.
Now, if Harris did try to move right on crime, or right, I don't know, I'm all, I don't even know where my right and left anymore.
If she did try to move to the right on crime, it shouldn't be a major problem.
Because it could be countered really easily.
Right?
So when I say it's kind of a, if they're thinking this and you think, uh-oh, you know, this might be a problem, it's not because there's anything about that move that's really difficult to counter.
You should be able to counter it easily.
Because first of all, point out the fact that she took the side of violent rioters, you could point that out, bailed them out, funded them.
You could also argue that her version of law and order is lawfare against her political opponents, which is true.
So, basically, your response to that, when she tries to present herself as this prosecutorial gladiator, you know, taking on the bad guys, your response is, that's not true.
You're full of it.
And, you know, the people that you were really taking on were your political opponents, who you tried to lock in jail for your own political gain.
So, that could be the response.
But, here's my fear.
My fear, and I hope that I'm wrong about this, my fear is that Republicans will respond to this challenge of Harris going to the right on crime by going to the left.
That's my fear.
Republicans will see Kamala Harris suddenly doing the law and order thing And they will respond by thinking, oh, well, that gives us an opportunity to outflank you on the left.
And that would be a fatal error.
I mean, it would be one of the worst unforced errors that I've ever seen in politics.
And I hope it doesn't happen.
But I've seen rumblings of it.
Like, I've seen, you know, there are people And nobody really of note that I've seen yet, although maybe they have and I haven't seen it, but I've seen conservative accounts on Twitter, for example, tweeting that, oh, well, Kamala Harris, she, what about all those nonviolent young black men that you locked in prison?
Like that kind of thing?
This is my great fear, is that the Republicans decide that that is the good response.
That, okay, so you're not going to be the bleeding heart liberal on crime?
Then we will.
And now we're going to be the ones saying that actually the justice system is rigged against black people.
It is racist.
And now we're the ones standing up for you.
Again, I hope I'm wrong.
I hope that's not the move.
It would be disastrous.
Absolutely disastrous.
Because the Democrats, no matter what they try to do, they are very vulnerable on the crime issue.
It is an easy issue for Republicans.
It is an easy win.
And they can do whatever they want.
They can go left, they can go right.
What they can't escape is their own history, their own very recent history, what they have said and, more importantly, done.
They can't escape that unless you let them escape it.
So let's please not do that.
And the last thing I'll say about this is Tulsi Gabbard had a moment in the Democrat primaries Where she hit Kamala Harris on this, on the locking up nonviolent drug offenders and that sort of thing.
And that's another one.
I've seen that.
I've seen Republicans sharing that clip and saying, oh, remember when Harris got totally owned by Tulsi Gabbard on this issue?
Yeah, that worked as an attack by Tulsi Gabbard against Kamala Harris.
It worked at the time.
Okay, that was before a summer of race riots, and more importantly, it was in a Democrat primary.
Okay, so if you are taking, if you're taking a tax that worked in a Democrat primary and trying them as a Republican in a general election, then you don't know the first thing about politics.
So might it work then?
In that context, for that person to be attacking that other person in that way, in that specific context, it will not work here.
And you shouldn't even try, and you shouldn't need to.
Are you still struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
The IRS is escalating collections by adding 20,000 new agents and sending millions of demand letters.
Handling this alone can be a huge mistake and cost you thousands of dollars.
In these challenging times, your best offense is with Tax Network USA.
With over 14 years of experience, the experts at Tax Network USA have saved clients millions of back taxes.
Regardless of the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage.
Tax Network USA offers three key services, protection, compliance, and settlement.
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.
If you haven't filed in a while, if you need amended returns, or if you're missing records, Tax Network USA's expert tax preparers will update all of your filings to eliminate the risk of IRS enforcement.
Then they'll create a settlement strategy to reduce or eliminate your tax debt.
The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world.
And now that tax season is over, collection season has begun.
Tax Network USA can even help with state tax issues as well.
For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1-800-958-1000 or visit their website at TNUSA.com slash Walsh.
That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Walsh today.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
Get the help you need with Tax Network USA.
Sleepy Joe's thrown in the towel and the left is scrambling.
But while they're in panic mode, we're bringing together the most trusted voices in conservative media to break it all down for you.
Tonight at 7 p.m., The Daily Wire's Backstage is live.
Join me along with Ben Shapiro, Michael Knowles, Andrew Klavan, and Jeremy Boring as we discuss who the left is going to prop up next, what dirty tricks they have up their sleeves, and how we're going to keep America from falling off the cliff.
Don't miss Backstage live tonight at 7 p.m.
Eastern on Daily Wire+.
It's free.
It's live.
It's going to be legendary.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, we are cancelling everybody involved in this.
Page Six reports, quote, Was Abraham Lincoln the original log cabin Republican?
We here tell that a new documentary of Honest Abe posits that the 16th president was gay.
Promo copy for the new project, Lover of Men, The Untold History of Abraham Lincoln, reads, quote, As told by preeminent Lincoln scholars and never-before-seen photographs and letters, the film details Lincoln's romantic relationships with men.
The movie delves into the history of human sexual fluidity and focuses on the profound differences between sexual mores of the 19th century and those we hold today.
The film fills in an important missing piece of American history and challenges the audience to consider why we hold such a limited view of human sexuality.
Directed by Sean Peterson, the film explores Lincoln's deep ties with daring, dashing guys and includes interviews with historians from Harvard, Columbia, Brown, Wesley, and Rutgers.
One expert sums it up, Lincoln probably slept in the same bed with more men than he did with women.
Okay, so we're back to the favorite pastime of modern historians, that is, going back in time and recruiting dead people into the LGBT ranks.
It's like the practice of posthumous baptism, except in this case, the baptism is meant to make the dead person gay rather than Mormon.
It was inevitable that this obsession with making everyone living and dead gay would eventually include U.S.
presidents.
Of course, we might ask, If you want to argue that a president was a closeted homosexual, why would you start with Lincoln when Barack Obama is sitting right there?
I guess I'll have to wait another 150 years before they get around to that one.
For now, they're focused on old Honest Abe, who they say was not so honest about his sexual orientation.
Here's a clip of the trailer.
He is considered a sacred figure by both Republicans and Democrats.
He led the nation through its greatest crisis.
He's on our currency.
We build monuments to him.
He's the greatest president the United States has ever had.
Today, the big question that people are asking is, was Abraham Lincoln gay?
In the 19th century, for many men, their closest relationships were other men, and same for women.
Men would live with another man when they're single, and often did, in shared beds.
Lincoln probably slept in the same bed with men more than he did with women.
One of the things that fascinates scholars is his bedding down with Joshua Speed for four years.
There is love between those two men.
When you put together all of the evidence, it's really startling.
Lincoln has a type.
Dashing.
Daring.
We have this notion that if you have an attraction like that... That's enough.
Just to get this out of the way, there is, of course, no evidence that Abraham Lincoln was gay.
He could have been.
I mean, we can't say for sure that he wasn't.
He's been dead for a century and a half.
It's very hard to prove a negative about a historical figure or even a currently living figure.
So we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he wasn't gay, just as we can't prove that he wasn't, as some historians have argued, a vampire slayer.
I mean, he could have been that.
But it's not up to us to prove that he wasn't something.
It's up to those claiming that he was something to prove that he was that thing.
They must produce the evidence, and yet they have no evidence.
Now, interestingly enough, an article in the Daily Beast, of all places, the Daily Beast debunks this Lincoln was gay narrative.
This is from a few years ago, because modern historians have been trying to wrap a rainbow flag around Lincoln for a while now.
The Daily Beast interviewed the historian whose study of Lincoln in 1982 inadvertently started the rumors that Lincoln was gay.
But the guy behind that study, Charles Strozier, says that his work is being misinterpreted, reading now, quote, According to Charles Strozier, the psychoanalyst, history professor, and author, Lincoln was straight.
But Lincoln was by no means a hyper-straight lady-killer, as some scholars suggest in reaction to the fact that Lincoln shared a bed with his best friend Joshua Speed for nearly four years.
Whoever said that Lincoln was a lady-killer?
Have we ever heard of a ladies' man?
I mean, we could see the guy.
It probably wasn't that.
Anyway, Strozier's 1982 study of Honest Abe, Lincoln's Quest for Union, contained a chapter on the Lincoln-Speed friendship that started not in the whispers, but the shouts, that Lincoln was gay.
The loudest voice belonged to Larry Kramer, author, AIDS activist, and founder of ACT UP.
In his massive novel, The American People, Volume 1, Kramer channels his version of Speed's voice, recalling Speed's nights with Lincoln this way.
And then we then get a quote from Kramer's novel, which is graphic and gross.
This guy apparently wrote pornographic fan fiction imagining Lincoln as a gay man.
We don't need to read the totally imagined details.
But the Daily Beast article continues, quote, This was a time, Strozier writes, when young men could be—indeed, were assumed to be—close, bonded, and intimate, even sleeping together without being sexual partners.
Still, it was Speed's therapeutic and redemptive friendship that got Lincoln through one of the life-threatening depressions that plagued his early adulthood.
Joshua Speed was an intelligence-sensitive and business-savvy son of a wealthy Kentucky slave-owning family.
In 1837, Speed was running a dry goods store in Springfield.
When Lincoln, then 28 years old and a member of the State Assembly, walked into Speed's shop, Lincoln had come to town to set up law office, but he was heavily in debt and needed a place to flop.
Speed's offer to Lincoln was, no pun intended, straightforward.
Quote, I have a very large room and a very large double bed in it, which you are perfectly welcome to share with me if you choose.
Needless to say, Speed's proposition meant something different in 1837 than it would today.
So, this is what the whole case is based on, the fact that Lincoln shared a bed with a man who was also his close friend.
But, as Strozier goes on to explain, and as any real historian familiar with the customs of the time will tell you, there was nothing strange or sexual about any of this back in those days.
Men slept in beds together.
Family members slept in beds together.
In fact, even today, we in wealthy Western society are rather unique, and I would say pretty fortunate, that we all get our own beds.
Okay?
That was not always the case.
It's not the case even today in many parts of the world.
In fact, back in the 19th century, even stopping for the night at an inn might mean sharing a bed with another member of the same sex.
That would seem very strange today, but it wasn't at the time.
Like, I admit that I would be quite upset if I checked into my room at the Hilton and found some dude already occupying my bed, but this is not the 1800s.
Expectations are very different.
But the case for Lincoln's gayness isn't just that he shared beds with other men, which was incredibly common back in those days.
The other piece of evidence is that Lincoln was very close friends with other men, in particular this guy Joshua Speed, as we heard mentioned.
But Lincoln's friendship with men is evidence of nothing but the fact that Lincoln had friends.
To interpret his close male relationships in a sexual light is, among other things, anachronistic.
You are once again foisting modern attitudes onto people who lived generations ago.
It was not unusual, at the time, for men to have close, intimate, non-sexual relationships with each other.
It was not unusual for a man to, as Lincoln did, write a letter to another man expressing his platonic affection for him.
Now, again, it is different now.
I confess that if a buddy of mine wrote me a lengthy email pouring out his heart and telling me that he loves me and stuff, I would find it quite weird and unsettling.
Like, dude, take it easy.
I mean, if a friend came over for a beer and sat down next to me on the couch and said, hey man, I just want you to know that I love you and your relationship is really important to me, I would find it extremely awkward.
I would not have an eloquent response.
It would be something like, uh, cool.
Thanks, man.
So anyway, did you watch the game last night?
It wouldn't even matter what game.
Any game.
I just want to change the subject, basically, would be the goal there.
But this is only because actual intimacy, non-sexual intimacy, right, between men no longer exists in Western culture.
Male friendship in general is dying, and the kinds of friendships that men had in Lincoln's time are completely dead.
Which, on balance, we would have to say is not a good thing, the fact that male friendships are dying.
And there are many reasons for it.
Partly it's the fact that all of the spaces where men used to gather and meet have been abolished or invaded by women, which is the same as abolishing them.
And partly it's the fault of the kinds of people who made this ridiculous documentary.
The effort to sexualize male friendships And to interpret all intimacy between members of the same sex as automatically sexual has had a very destructive effect.
It's not the right-wing purveyors of so-called toxic masculinity, quote-unquote, who've decided that it's gay for men to be friends.
I mean, all of Western society used to be run according to what we now consider conservative principles.
We used to live in a culture with traditional ideas about masculinity, femininity, gender roles.
And back then, in that context, in Lincoln's time, with a culture rooted in those ideas, men were able to form close bonds with each other.
It's only when the leftists took over that suddenly male friendships became gay.
Like, that's their doing.
And it's entirely deliberate.
Like, they made it weird.
They made everything weird.
Quite intentionally.
And that is why the people trying to gayify Abraham Lincoln Are today canceled.
