Ep. 1445 - Did the Government Shield Diddy Like Epstein?
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Sean Combs, aka P. Diddy, has finally been arrested for alleged sex crimes, among other offenses. Is this another Epstein situation? If so, will Combs meet the same fate? Also a sheriff in Florida threatens public shaming of delinquent children. Is that the right approach? Kamala Harris is asked about reparations. Her answer is not an answer at all. Plus, my new film "Am I Racist?" is being criticized by some on the Right who believe we used unethical methods to make our film. I'll respond to those claims today.
Ep.1445
- - -
DailyWire+:
TODAY is the LAST DAY to join the Fight for 47 with 47% Off NEW Annual DailyWire+ Memberships using code FIGHT! https://dailywire.com/subscribe
From the white guys who brought you “What is a Woman?” comes Matt Walsh’s next question: “Am I Racist?” | IN THEATERS NOW! Get tickets: https://www.amiracist.com
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University: https://www.gcu.edu/
Lumen - Get 15% off your purchase! https://lumen.me/WALSH
Responsible Man - Be the man America needs you to be. Shop Responsible Man, and get an exclusive discount with code WALSH at https://responsibleman.com/
- - -
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
P. Diddy, has been finally arrested for alleged sex crimes, among other offenses.
Is this another Epstein situation?
If so, will Combs meet the same fate?
Also, a sheriff in Florida threatens public shaming of delinquent children.
Is that the right approach?
Kamala Harris is asked about reparations.
Her answer is not really an answer at all.
Plus, my new film, Am I Racist?, is being criticized by some on the right who believe that we used unethical methods to make our film.
I'll respond to those claims today.
All of that and more today on the Matt Walsh Show.
(upbeat music)
Well, this is it, the final day for you to take advantage of our presidential deal.
47% off new annual Daily Wire Plus memberships.
The most crucial election of our lifetime is just 48 days away.
You need the truth now more than ever, and this is where you get it.
Join the fight now.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code FIGHT for 47% off your new annual membership.
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 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.
Some of the most revealing moments from the sordid saga of Jeffrey Epstein came when government officials were asked direct questions and then ducked them without any real explanation.
Case in point, five years ago, the Labor Secretary at the time, Alex Acosta, was speaking to reporters about his handling of the first Epstein criminal case from 2008 when Acosta was a U.S.
attorney in Florida.
This was the press conference right before Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary.
For roughly an hour, Acosta tried to explain why his office had offered an extremely lenient plea deal to Epstein, one that offered immunity to his co-conspirators and barely required Epstein to spend any time in a jail cell.
Acosta was generally responsive to most questions during this press conference.
In fact, at one point, he waved off his assistant who wanted to end the press conference early.
But there was one question that Alex Acosta very clearly did not want to answer.
A concerned reporting in the Daily Beast that in a discussion with Trump administration officials before his appointment as Labor Secretary, Acosta had said that Epstein, quote, belonged to intelligence.
In other words, Acosta had reportedly suggested to the Trump team that when he was the U.S.
attorney, he was told by senior U.S.
government officials to go easy on Epstein so that he could stay out of jail.
Presumably the idea was that Epstein could then continue connecting various powerful figures to his sex trafficking ring.
And that would, in turn, benefit U.S.
intelligence agencies in some way.
Maybe they might want to blackmail Epstein's associates or collect information about them, for example.
So here's how Alex Acosta answered, or rather didn't answer, a reporter's question about the Daily Beast's reporting launch.
Mr. Secretary, were you ever made aware at any point Your handling of this case, if Mr. Epstein was an intelligence asset of some sort?
So there has been reporting to that effect.
And let me say, there's been reporting to a lot of effects in this case, not just now, but over the years.
And again, I would You know, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact.
This was a case that was brought by our office.
It was brought based on the facts.
And I look at that reporting and others, I can't address it directly because of our guidelines.
But I can tell you that a lot of reporting is just going down rabbit holes.
A few more questions.
Now, that wasn't exactly a denial.
Instead of saying, no, I was not told to go easy on Epstein because he belonged to intelligence, Alex Acosta said that department policy prevented him from offering any kind of response.
It's not hard to conclude that Acosta was hiding something.
It's especially true since, according to public documents in Epstein's plea deal, it stated that Epstein had agreed to provide, quote, information to the FBI.
So the government's handling of Epstein's case raised the obvious question of how many other deviants, like Epstein, might enjoy protection from the government in one way or another.
How many other sex traffickers have been operating with impunity because the government is deliberately looking the other way?
That's an especially important question to be asking after what happened yesterday involving Sean Combs, aka Diddy, aka Puff Daddy, aka P. Diddy.
The U.S.
Attorney in the Southern District of New York held a press conference announcing a series of criminal charges against Combs, including racketeering and sex trafficking.
And by the U.S.
Attorney's own admission, these alleged offenses have been occurring for a very long time and often involve something that Combs called, quote-unquote, freak-offs.
Watch.
The indictment alleges that Combs abused and exploited women and other people for years and in a variety of ways.
As alleged, Combs used force, threats of force, and coercion to cause victims to engage in extended sexual performances with male commercial sex workers, some of whom he transported or caused to be transported over state lines.
Combs allegedly planned and controlled the sex performances, which he called freak-offs, and he often electronically recorded them.
The freak-offs sometimes lasted days at a time, involved multiple commercial sex workers, and often involved a variety of narcotics, such as ketamine, ecstasy, and GHB, which Combs distributed to the victims to keep them obedient and compliant.
In addition to the violence, the indictment alleges that Combs threatened and coerced victims to get them to participate in the freak-offs.
He used the embarrassing and sensitive recordings he made of the freak-offs as collateral against the victims.
As part of this investigation, in March of this year, special agents from HSI executed search warrants at Combs' residences in Miami and Los Angeles.
They also executed a warrant for Combs' electronic devices.
During those searches, agents seized evidence of the crimes charged in this indictment.
They seized firearms and ammunition, including three defaced AR-15s and a large-capacity drum magazine.
They also seized evidence of the freak-offs.
So according to the U.S.
Attorney, there's overwhelming evidence that these illegal freak-offs occurred, such as text messages, videos, and more than a thousand bottles of baby oil and lubricants.
As soon as the Feds executed the search warrants earlier this year on two of Combs' mansions, the evidence was all there.
And according to the indictment that was unsealed yesterday, there's also a lot of evidence that Sean Combs has been committing serious crimes for the past decade, right out in the open.
Quote, physical abuse by Sean Combs was recurrent and widely known.
On numerous occasions, from at least in or about 2009 and continuing for years, Combs assaulted women by, among other things, striking, punching, dragging, throwing objects at, and kicking them.
So that's from the grand jury indictment.
What's not stated in the grand jury indictment is why this widely known conduct was ignored for so long.
Why wasn't Sean Combs charged criminally for any of this conduct at any point until yesterday?
Why was he allowed to allegedly commit crimes that were, quote, recurrent and widely known since 2009?
As it happens, that was the very first question that the U.S.
attorney received at yesterday's press conference, and here's how he responded.
The indictment describes aggressive, open, violent, hedonistic abuse that you say was recurrent and widely known Why did it take law enforcement so long to intervene?
How many women were victimized by Sean Combs and how many others were involved?
Look, our investigation is ongoing.
We are committed to bringing justice to everyone who's been victimized by the defendant.
I can't tell you why it took so long.
I think the better focus is on the fact that we are here today and we are committed to making sure that justice is done.
Next question.
So, like Alex Acosta, he has no answer whatsoever.
And he says that, you know, it doesn't even matter now.
But it definitely does matter.
I mean, this is the single most important question that he was asked during the entire press conference.
How exactly can people have any confidence in government or federal prosecutors if, by their own admission, it takes them well over a decade to bring charges when someone is allegedly committing crimes that are recurrent and widely known?
And also, by the way, heinous and disgusting.
Why exactly shouldn't we believe that P. Diddy was being protected for some reason, just like Jeffrey Epstein was apparently protected?
Until he wasn't anymore.
At this point, the burden of proof is not on us to answer that question.
The burden of proof is on the government.
It certainly looks as though there was ample reason to at least investigate Combs going back a long time.
There's so much creepy and inappropriate footage involving Sean Combs that you could spend all day going through it.
But here, for example, is a video of Combs with Justin Bieber, if you haven't seen this, who at the time was just 15 years old, while Sean Combs was obviously a very much a grown adult man.
And just watch this.
Here it is.
Justin, he's in, you ever seen the movie 48 Hours?
Right now he's having 48 hours with Diddy, him and his boy.
They're having the times of their lives, like, you know, where we hanging out and what we doing.
We can't really disclose.
But it's definitely a 15-year-old's dream.
I have been given custody of him.
He signed to Usher.
I signed to Usher.
I had legal guardianship of Usher when he did his first album.
I did Usher's first album.
I don't have legal guardianship of him, but for the next 48 hours, he's with me.
And we're going to go full, buck full crazy.
We're going crazy.
He's going full crazy with a 15 year old child.
Now, what kind of adult records a video like that with a child?
And says that what he's doing with Justin Bieber, he can't disclose.
Talking about having custody of him, like he had custody of Usher.
This would be disturbing even if there were no other videos like it, but there's a lot of videos like it.
Here's another.
Watch as Sean Combs tells Kevin Hart that he used to wrestle with Usher when Usher was 10 years old.
Then he says something else that sounds inappropriate and Kevin Hart reacts as you would expect.
Watch.
That's my brother right here from day one.
We used to wake up and... I mean, damn, pause, but like, that's how... I mean, I mean, back in the days when he was like 10 and I was a little bit older, his older brother, we used to fight over the frosted flakes.
You know what I'm saying?
Before pause was invented.
You know what I'm saying?
But it's my brother for real.
We used to actually wrestle off of the frosted flakes because he used to always get up early.
Yo, what the **** did Puff just say?
Nobody's going to acknowledge this but me.
Puff just said we used to wrestle over the frosted flakes and we're streaming live.
That was stupid.
Listen, that was stupid.
By the way, Combs is, I think, 10 years older than Usher, so when Usher was 10, he was 20, so he was a 20-year-old man wrestling with a 10-year-old over Frosted Flakes.
These kind of videos have been all over the internet for a very long time.
Did anyone in the government follow up on any of this?
Did they ask anyone any questions about any of it?
Did they apply for any kind of search warrant to look closer at Sean Combs' text messages or to look for incriminating evidence on his properties?
If not, why not?
And for that matter, why wasn't Combs charged after this video surfaced from a hotel in 2016, which appears to show him violently assaulting a woman on camera?
Watch.
Disturbing new video appears to support some of the accusations of abuse against music mogul Sean Diddy Combs.
We want to warn you that this video you're about to see is extremely graphic.
The surveillance footage that was captured inside of a Los Angeles hotel in 2016 allegedly shows Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura in a hallway.
A now-settled lawsuit filed by Ventura claimed that she was trying to leave the hotel after a drunken Combs punched her.
The video appears to show Combs chasing her down the hall, throwing her to the ground, and then repeatedly kicking her.
So far, there's been no comment from Combs or his attorney.
So how exactly did that footage stay hidden for so long?
Long enough that the statute of limitations ran out and local prosecutors couldn't bring charges anymore?
That's the kind of question that a lot of people in the entertainment industry have been asking for a very long time.
When there are multiple videos where you appear to be committing a crime, or engaging in very bizarre and disturbing conduct, or indicating that there is a crime going on behind the scenes, then, you know, under normal circumstances, you'd expect some kind of follow-up.
But there wasn't any follow-up.
For his part, Kanye West repeatedly called Sean Combs a fed, both in interviews and in text messages, probably because there didn't appear to be any other rational explanation for how he could get away with all of this stuff for more than a decade.
I mean, longer than that.
How can anyone engage in conduct like this without suffering any consequences for it for so long?
One theory is that, like Epstein, Sean Combs was very well connected with powerful people in Washington.
In April 2020, for example, Kamala Harris tweeted out this message, quote, Thank you, Diddy, for hosting this town hall last night.
There's a lot at stake for our communities right now, and it's critical we bring to the forefront how coronavirus is perpetuating racial inequality and health disparities.
So Combs was helping to push Democrats' messaging that COVID was racist.
This is during the summer of 2020, when calling everything racist was the Democrats' official campaign strategy.
Meanwhile, other prominent entertainers, people like Jimmy Kimmel, Suggested that Sean Combs could serve as president.
After all, you know, he's not morally bankrupt like Donald Trump, right?
Watch.
Maybe you could be president.
Do you ever think about anything like that?
No.
Really?
Never?
No.
Why?
I wouldn't make a good president.
You don't think you'd be good?
I wouldn't really pass any of the things that you have to pass.
But I guess Trump did it.
Yeah, no.
No.
You would be a boy scout by comparison.
Yeah, yeah.
Nah, I like doing what I'm doing.
You like doing, yeah, yeah.
There's no fun in that, is there?
I don't know if I could be responsible for the whole country.
You know what, I think that at this point, almost anybody would be doing a better job.
What about you?
And I wouldn't do a better job, but I think, you know what, if you agreed to run for president, I would be happy to be your running mate.
Let's put it that way, alright?
Now, one of the main takeaways from this is just the fact that the entertainment industry is full of extravagantly degenerate scumbags.
I mean, these are people engaging in debauchery and opulence once reserved for the most corrupt Roman emperors.
And now you've got people like Sean Combs, who produced some low IQ gangster rap in the 90s and found himself in the position of a corrupt Roman emperor.
This is why so much of, by the way, so much of what the entertainment industry produces is garbage, because it's made by morally reprobate parasites.
Now, these aren't flawed artistic geniuses like we've had in the past, but vacuous airheads who figured out how to sell trash to an audience often even more vapid than they are.
I mean, Jimmy Kimmel probably knew Sean Combs was a piece of garbage when he did this interview, but Jimmy Kimmel's also garbage, along with pretty much everyone else in the industry, so we get clips like that one.
Meanwhile, you know, the Me Too movement Came along back in 2018 or whenever that was.
Cancelled some guys for some bad dates.
Aziz Ansari and those kinds of guys.
Somehow missed Sean Combs entirely.
Somehow he flew onto the radar for more than a decade.
Even though, according to yesterday's indictment, he wasn't particularly good at hiding what he was doing.
If those details are true, Sean Combs is an Epstein-level monster, if not worse, potentially.
And yet, no one did anything about it.
So the question now is whether Sean Combs will meet the same fate as Epstein.
Combs was just denied bail even though his defense team offered to put up a $50 million bond secured by his various properties.
That's a sign that he'll be staying in jail at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn for a very long time.
So, as with Epstein, the government is now bringing down the hammer on Combs abruptly and without any real explanation of why they're doing it now but didn't do it before.
And if Epstein is any indication, we probably will never get an explanation.
All we can say with certainty is that a lot of people in Sean Combs' orbit are probably very nervous right now.
And in turn, that should make Sean Combs himself very nervous.
Five years after the mysterious death of Jeffrey Epstein, we're no closer to getting a full explanation of his crimes or who he was associated with exactly.
Instead, with the arrest of Sean Combs and the sudden disclosure of his freak-offs, among other things, There's reason to think that yet another massive coverup is already underway.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
(upbeat music)
All right, let's talk about your metabolism.
You know, that thing that determines whether you're burning fat or just storing it.
Now, I'm not one for fad diets or miracle cures, but I am interested in real solutions that actually work.
And that's why I want to tell you about Lumen.
Lumen is not some gimmicky weight loss scheme.
It's a serious tool for understanding and improving your metabolic health.
Let me tell you, in today's world of processed foods and sedentary lifestyles, we could use a little help in that department.
Here's how it works.
You breathe into this device first thing in the morning, and it tells you if you're burning fat or carbs.
It's that simple.
But it doesn't stop there.
Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for the day based on your measurements.
You can even use it before and after workouts and meals to know exactly what's going into your body in real time.
Now, why does this matter?
Because your metabolism is your body's engine.
It's how you turn food into fuel and When your metabolic health is optimal, you get a bunch of benefits.
Easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, even better sleep.
Who doesn't want that?
And for the ladies out there, Lumen even tracks your cycle and adjusts for menopause.
Gives you recommendations to keep your metabolism healthy throughout those hormonal shifts, so you can keep your energy up and fight off those cravings.
Because apparently, your hormones affect more than just your mood.
Who knew?
So, if you want to take the next step in improving your health, go to lumen.me slash Walsh to get 15% off your Lumen.
That's L-U-M-E-N.me slash Walsh for 15% off your purchase.
Thank you, Lumen, for sponsoring this episode.
So I want to start with this.
A sheriff in Florida, Sheriff Mike Chitwood, is pretty fed up.
His agency has wasted apparently thousands of dollars investigating threats at school, most of which have turned out to be hoaxes.
But, you know, a lot of these threats are coming in.
Kids that are threatening violence.
He seems to be at the end of his rope with the hoax threats and all other kinds of threats.
And here's what he said he's going to do about it.
Watch.
You know, this is absolutely out of control and it ends now.
54 and counting tips came in to Fortify Florida last night.
Okay?
That means investigators in the school district have been running around the clock To investigate these tips, which are all turning out to be false.
So far, it's cost $21,000 to do these investigations.
We have two in custody.
We have an investigation looking at one other individual.
So far this year, there have been 207 threats who have come in.
We've arrested seven people for written threats to kill.
One student, if you remember, tried to bring a loaded firearm into a mainland football game.
We've had 11 weapons on our campuses this year.
So, what we're going to start doing Monday is, since parents, you don't want to raise your kids, I'm going to start raising them.
Every time we make an arrest, your kid's photo is going to be put out there.
And if I can do it, I'm going to perp walk your kid.
So that everybody can see what your kid's up to.
The second point of this is, if I can in any way find out that a parent knew what was going on, and wasn't doing anything, Your a** is getting perp walked with him!
The purpose of Fortify Florida is to send in tips that we're going to investigate because you believe something is going to happen.
To keep sending in these tips over and over and over again and think it's a big joke and nothing's going to happen to it, starting Monday we're going to have a billboard, we're going to have a poster out.
I'm going to show you every kid that's been arrested and where they go to school and then from there on out we're going to publicly shame them and their parents.
So parents, Do your job.
Don't let Sheriff Chipwood raise your kids.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Go talk to the families who have lost a loved one in a school shooting.
These little knuckleheads think it's funny.
Go talk to those parents.
So he's upset and understandably And you can understand where he's coming from.
I mean, as a general rule, I'm not in favor of perp walking and publicly shaming kids.
Because they're kids and they do dumb things.
Obviously, there needs to be consequences.
Making a threat at school is more than a dumb thing.
I mean, it is a dumb thing to do, but it's more than that.
And there need to be very serious consequences for that.
But generally, I would say it doesn't need to be public.
And, you know, because you also don't want this... a kid even does something terrible when he's 12 or 13 or something, that's still a kid with very much a not fully developed brain, and you don't want that to follow him for the rest of his life, even as an adult.
That's usually my stance, but in some of these schools and in some communities, the situation has gotten so bad.
It's so out of control that like you have to resort to methods that you would prefer to not have to use.
And so I get that.
And so in this case, I think the sheriff's doing the right thing because it's like, well, what are we going to do with this?
It's, it's, it's, as he said, it's completely out of control.
And so, unfortunately, we have to ramp things up here and maybe that will get through.
Maybe that will make a difference.
And look, I'll say this too.
I'm pretty hard on the school system.
I'm pretty hard on school staff and teachers when they deserve to be criticized, which they often do deserve to be criticized.
But I also recognize what an impossible situation they're in, especially the good ones.
And there are plenty of good ones, you know, good Staff and teachers in these schools.
And they're dealing with the same thing the sheriff is dealing with here, which is kids who have not been raised.
Like the sheriff says, parents are making him raise their kids.
And if not him, then there's a whole bunch of kids that are basically being raised by the school system because the parents are Relying on the school system to do that because they're not raising their own kids.
They're not.
And what does it mean to raise your kid?
I mean, raising your kid is not just providing the essentials, shelter, food, clothing.
I mean, that's that's the first step, right?
That's like the bare minimum of what you need to be doing as the parent.
But that's not the raising part.
That's keeping your kid alive.
Raising is Intellectual and moral formation.
It is helping your child become a civilized person in society.
That's what raising is.
That's the hard part.
And there are plenty of parents who are just simply not doing that.
Now, I don't think that's all parents or even most parents.
I also think parents get a bad rap sometimes in our society.
We get blamed, I mean, as a parent myself, I think we get blamed too often for things that are going wrong, but there are plenty of parents who are just simply not doing that job, and not even trying to do it.
And then these kids end up at the school, it's like Lord of the Flies, they're completely out of control, and you can talk to any teacher, we'll tell you the horror stories.
And if you are a teacher, you already know them.
But being in this environment with kids that have no discipline, no maturity, Not even civilized people.
And now you've got a whole group of them and you've got them for six, seven hours a day and it creates just total chaos.
And eventually you have to resort to, um, Measures that otherwise you would prefer not to.
And I think that's what's happening here.
Kamala Harris was interviewed by the Black Journalist Association, or whatever it's called.
This is the same group that Trump infamously sat down with.
And we remember how that went.
We remember how they treated Trump.
So let's compare that to the kinds of questions that Kamala got from these journalists.
And this first question is, About her joy.
Kamala Harris is a very joyful person, and let's hear that.
Why is joy important to you to insert into this election, and what do you make of Republicans using that as a way to suggest that you're not a serious candidate?
Well, sometimes I think, and I'll say to whoever the young people are who are watching this, there are some times when your adversaries will try and turn your strength into a weakness.
Don't you let them.
Don't you let them.
I find joy in the American people.
I find joy in optimism.
I find her so difficult to listen to.
She's so fake.
So phony.
I find joy in the American people.
Oh, shut up.
And these journalists.
Total hacks, obviously, but this was shocking even by their standards.
Madam Vice President, why are you so joyful and wonderful?
I've noticed that you're full of joy and your opponent, meanwhile, is Hitler.
Care to comment?
What are your thoughts on that?
Where is this joy, by the way?
What joy are they talking about?
We're constantly hearing from the left about all their joy and how much joy they have.
Where is it?
We never see it.
Where's the evidence of this joy?
What joy are you talking about?
I don't see that.
What I see from you is relentless demonization of your ideological enemies, constant self-victimization.
Life is so hard, it's terrible.
America is racist.
That's all we're getting from you.
So where does the joy come in?
But, you know, these are the same people that would point to the joy of quote-unquote Elliot Page.
And meanwhile, you're looking and you just see nothing but pure misery.
And yet we're supposed to see that as joy.
So similar situation here.
She also was asked about reparations.
And let's hear what she has to say about that.
Last month you eulogized Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
Jackson Lee's signature bill, one of a few, was H.R.
40, which would create a commission to study the history of U.S.
slavery and study the issue of reparations.
She introduced H.R.
40 every session of Congress, taking up the mantle from Congressman John Conyers.
This is a bill that you have co-sponsored as a U.S.
senator.
Yet, this has, despite the fact that this has been, similar commissions have been created on the state level and on the local level, is yet to pass in Congress, let alone come out of committee.
Congresswoman Jackson Lee, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and other advocates have called for President Biden to take executive action to create this commission.
Would you, as president, Take executive action to create this commission, or do you believe that it should happen in Congress?
Well, first of all, I just, as you mentioned, Sheila Jackson, she was an extraordinary leader who we just recently lost.
And, um, and she was a friend and, um, a real champion for so many issues.
So I feel compelled to say that about her on the issue of, um, What we need to do going forward, look, first of all, we just need to speak truth about history in spite of the fact that some people are trying to erase history and try and teach our children otherwise.
We need to speak truth about the generational impact of our history in terms of the generational impact of slavery, the generational impact of redlining, of Jim Crow law.
I could go on and on and on.
These are facts that have had impact.
And we need to speak truth about it.
And we need to speak truth about it in a way that is about deriving solutions.
And frankly, I think that we, you know, and part of that is studying it to figure out exactly what we need to do.
But part of what we can do right now is, for example, what I'm talking about in terms of building an opportunity economy.
There's no answer there.
And, uh, she, she, she doesn't answer the question.
It goes on and on.
It goes on for another minute or two.
And, uh, there's no answer to the question.
She, uh, rambles on.
And the answer is that she does support reparations.
Like that's the actual answer.
She has been clear about that in the past, but she's not going to come out and say that now, uh, because she knows how unpopular it is.
Rightfully so.
So we're not going to get the actual support for reparations from her right now.
And instead we get this whole bit about how we have to be honest about our history and teach our real history.
Because of course, that's coming from this idea that somehow we're not talking enough about slavery and kids aren't being taught about slavery in school.
This is the fantasy world that these people live in, right?
On the left, this is the fantasy world they're living in, where somehow kids are not being taught about slavery and there are people out there who want to stop those kinds of conversations from happening.
That's like one of the only facts about American history that the average student even knows.
The average student knows like three things about slavery, about American history, and slavery is two of them.
So how much more can we talk about it?
I mean, we've talked about it about as much as you possibly can.
There's as much focus on it in school as there could possibly be.
And as you know, I've said many times, I actually think there should be more conversation about slavery.
I just want to expand it.
We've covered American slavery.
Okay, that's part of our history.
Yeah, we should teach it.
Kids should learn about it.
I'd like to expand it and talk about the reality of slavery all across the globe.
The fact that slavery was a reality all across the globe to begin with is something that we should be talking about.
And that's not whataboutism or An effort to minimize the horrors of the kind of slavery we had in this country, but more just the historical reality.
And if you want to understand anything about human civilization, like these are things you have to know.
The fact that slavery was an institution all across the world for thousands of years is one of those crucial facts about human civilization and the development of human civilization that you just have to know if you want to understand anything about human civilization and thus, therefore yourself, understand anything about yourself.
So, that's what I'd like to see.
But all of that, of course, is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there should be reparations, which she's not going to say right now, but yes, she does support it.
All right, this is a video that I've had here kind of on deck for a couple of days, haven't gotten to.
I'm going to play it now.
Dave Portnoy, of course, a bar stool, posted a video a few days ago in support of a ballot measure to legalize weed in Florida.
And this got a fair amount of attention.
And here he is making the argument for the legalization of weed in Florida and everywhere else.
Watch.
Listen, it's Sunday afternoon, football on TV, pizza on the way.
In Massachusetts, smoking a little weed, just enjoying my day.
Florida, you can't do this.
In my Miami house, you can't do this.
Why?
Freedom.
It's about freedom.
Half the states allow this.
Legal marijuana.
Florida.
I want to be able to watch football, eat pizza, and smoke.
We're all adults here.
21 plus.
Make your own decisions.
It's on the ballot.
Vote yes on three.
Legalize recreational weed.
Come on, where are we, Florida?
Wake up!
Wake up!
Don't tell other people what to do in their own house.
We're grown adults.
It's safe.
It's legal.
Over half the states in the country have it.
Why don't we in Florida?
I'm a Florida resident.
I want to be able to smoke in my house, watching football, eating pizza like a human.
I can do it in Massachusetts.
Make it legal on ballot day.
Vote yes on 3 in Florida.
Thank you.
So this is a common argument, of course.
It's about freedom.
We've heard that a million times.
And I think as I've said before about legalizing marijuana, I used to support it.
I wasn't passionately in favor of it.
I don't smoke weed myself.
So I don't, it's not a personal, I don't care about it personally.
So I was never, I wasn't some kind of pro weed advocate or activist out there, you know, marching with a picket sign.
But I used to take kind of a libertarian view that if people want to smoke, they should be able to.
And, you know, we let people drink alcohol and, and all that kind of thing.
That used to be my view.
And then I changed my mind.
And the reason I changed my mind is because new information came in.
Right?
You get new information, and your opinion changes.
At least it should.
That's the way this is supposed to work.
The new information, the new data, is from the places that have actually legalized it.
So, we went from talking about legalization in theory, talking about it in the abstract, To having hard, tangible examples of legalization in America, in reality.
So we don't need to talk about it in theory anymore.
And if you're an advocate for legalizing marijuana, you have to deal with the actuality of it.
This is what you wanted, and you got it in many places across the country.
And so now let's go back to those places and see how it worked out.
This is the thing that the pro-weed advocates Guys like Dave Portnoy, this is a thing they won't do.
They're not doing this.
Have you noticed that?
Like, you wanted this, you got it.
Why are you not going back to celebrate your achievements?
Like, go back to these communities that have legalized it and show us how great it's been.
Why aren't you doing that? It's a simple follow-up.
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Right?
Hey, they did this thing that I wanted them to do.
How are things now?
The answer is that things are terrible.
I mean, marijuana legalization has been a catastrophe everywhere in the country that it's been tried.
We know that now.
We can see it with our own eyes.
It has not improved any of these communities.
It has made them worse.
You can see it.
Stop telling people to deny what they can see with their own eyes.
You're in these communities.
You can smell it.
You can see it and smell it.
Just go to any of these cities that have legalized it and walk around and see what it's like.
And if you were in these cities before they legalized it, you can compare the two and you can see it with your own eyes.
And I'm really tired of people telling us to deny what we can see with our own eyes.
And so when I do that, I'm willing to say, wow, okay, I guess I got that one wrong.
I can remember traveling, you know, I've traveled a lot for work and I've traveled a fair amount the last 10 years.
And I can remember traveling to some of these cities shortly after marijuana was legalized, and just walking around like, this place, this is awful.
I mean, it just stinks everywhere.
People are just stoned walking around.
Everything about this place is worse now.
And that's what made me say, okay, well, turns out this was a bad idea.
I mean, I'm willing to admit that.
So let's flip this around and pose the question this way.
I'd ask Dave Portnoy, or anyone in his position, this.
Can you give an example, just one example, of a state or city where life improved after legalization?
Can you give us a success story?
Can you show us the tangible, measurable benefits?
Where are they?
Show us a place where It was not legalized, and then it was, and now things are better.
Which things are better?
Give us examples.
And if you can't do that, then obviously this was a bad idea.
I mean, if you pass a law or put a policy in place that has zero benefit to the well-being of the community, and in fact makes it worse in a lot of very obvious ways, it's a bad policy.
We shouldn't be doing that.
And if your only response is for freedom, I should be able to do what I want.
No.
You shouldn't be able to do what you want if it makes everyone's life worse.
If it's a thing that is destroying the community, no, you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Actually.
Your ability to do whatever the hell you want is not the top priority of the country.
And it shouldn't be.
And any country that makes that the top priority will die, will be destroyed.
So I just thought, you know, I want to eat pizza and smoke weed.
It's like, that's your argument?
That's just a really weak... Okay, you want to do it.
I don't give a s*** what you want to do.
I mean, who cares?
You want to do it.
Who gives a s*** what you want to do?
I understand you want to, fine, but will it destroy the community if we legalize this or not?
And if the answer is yes, then I guess you can't do what you want to do with this thing.
You can still do a lot of other things you want to do.
But you can't do everything you want to do.
That's not how it works in adult life.
So, this is what frustrates me about it.
And, you know, anytime I make this point, I'm accused of being some kind of anti-weed puritan.
When even though, as I'm saying, I had the libertarians, I'm admitting, I mean, I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true.
I would not invent scenarios for me being wrong about things if I wasn't.
I'm not going to tell you that I'm saying I was on the other side of this, and anyone who's followed me for long enough has heard me advocating in the past.
Again, not that often or that passionately, but still.
And so I was on that side, and I'm sorry.
I'm looking at the results, and they suck.
The results suck.
They're terrible results.
So we should not be doing this.
I don't know.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Let's talk about something that matters.
Being a real man in a world that's trying to destroy masculinity, the radical left wants you to believe that being a man is somehow wrong.
We should all be weak, passive, androgynous.
Here's the truth.
Society needs strong men now more than ever.
That's where Responsible Man comes in.
Responsible Man, a daily wire ventures company, has created the Emerson Multivitamin, not for soy boys or woke millennials, but for men to understand their duty to their families and their country.
This isn't some feel-good supplement pushed by corporations pandering to the latest trends.
The Emerson Multivitamin is packed with 33 key ingredients that actually work, supporting your immune system, sharpening your mind, and keeping your body strong.
It's fuel for men who are ready to stand up against the tide of degeneracy sweeping our nation.
Unlike so many products these days, it's made right here in America.
No outsourcing, no compromise, just honest quality from a company that shares our values.
Right now, you can take advantage of their full sale and get 30% off your first order, plus an additional $9 off your first order.
Just go to ResponsibleMan.com, use code WALSH.
That's ResponsibleMan.com, code WALSH for 30% off.
Remember, a strong America needs strong men.
Be the man your family and your country needs you to be.
ResponsibleMan.com, slash WALSH.
Our 47% off deal for new Daily Wire memberships ends today, with the most crucial election of our lifetime just 47 days away.
You can't afford to miss this.
The mainstream media's silence on the unprecedented second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump proves why you need the truth now more than ever.
They don't want you to know what's really happening.
At the Daily Wire, we're delivering the breaking news and full stories the left-wing media ignores.
We give you the facts America desperately needs and deserves.
Don't miss out on the truth.
This is the last day of our presidential deal.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Use code FIGHT for 47% off your new Daily Wire Plus memberships before it's gone.
It's dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Code FIGHT.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Most of the outrage over my new film, Am I Racist?, has come predictably from the left,
but they aren't the only ones who found reason to complain.
We've also been scrutinized from the right, specifically from some on the Christian right, For the methods we use to make the film.
And I'll give two prominent examples.
First, Andrew T. Walker, who's a theology professor and commentator, tweeted this in response to the film, quote, I just saw Matt Walsh's Am I Racist?
Entertaining and definitely illuminating on the absurd ideological struggle sessions our culture has gone through and our overcorrection on race.
Still, much of the film was accomplished through deception.
I'm not a fan of that tactic.
Outside of legally declared war, deception is enormously difficult to justify, especially deceptions that do not involve immediate questions of life and death.
Or deceptions willfully brought about and not occurring as a result of someone else's actions.
Walsh's right to capture and name the absurdity, the method to do so, is highly questioned.
Now, following up on this critique, Denny Burke wrote an op-ed for a Christian news site called World with this title.
Is owning the libs a justification for lying?
Matt Walsh's tactics in making his film raise questions.
Here's a bit of that piece.
The film lampoons diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and features Walsh posing as a DEI expert to expose and ridicule actual DEI experts in a Borat-style subterfuge that engages DEI proponents who are unaware that Walsh is not who he says he is.
A day before the film hit theaters, one of the duped DEI experts released a statement about her part in the film.
Robin DiAngelo claimed that Walsh lied to get her to take part in the film.
Walsh says he didn't actually lie to her, but simply told her that he was making a documentary about anti-racism, adding that D'Angelo was well paid for her appearance.
I wasn't there for the conversation between D'Angelo and Walsh, so I obviously am not privy to what was actually said to procure participation.
Did Walsh outright lie, or did he simply give part of the truth without giving all of it?
According to Walsh, it was the latter.
According to D'Angelo, it was the former.
I'll leave it to others to sort out.
Now, I do want to pause here to make a not insignificant point.
He admits that he doesn't know if I lied or not, and yet he essentially accuses me of lying in the title of the piece.
The whole editorial is written around the assumption that I did lie.
So if you don't even know if I lied, which you admit that you don't, are you not promoting a potential falsehood in the very article where you lecture me for my alleged falsehoods?
We'll return to that in a moment, but reading on.
Let me just say up front, exposing and lampooning D.I.
lunacy is a good cause.
I want to see the demise of this woke ideology as much as Walsh does.
But still, is it okay to use lies in service of the truth?
Christians who take scripture seriously understand that we have a duty to tell the truth.
Nothing could be clearer from scripture than our obligation to speak the truth.
Over the centuries, Christians have fought long and hard about what our moral obligation is if speaking the truth conflicts with another moral duty.
I happen to hold a view known as non-contradicting absolutism, which says that moral norms only come into apparent conflict, but never into actual conflict.
If we understood the situation and our duties correctly, we would see that there is a way of escape no matter the situation.
This means that our obligation to tell the truth cannot be set aside merely to own the libs, or even for the noble purpose of taking down the DEI regime.
I say three cheers for those fighting the good fight, but let's honor the truth when we do.
Let me start by filling in the rather crucial blank space in Denny Burke and Andrew Walker's analysis.
Did I directly lie to these people?
No.
I don't think that's an accurate term to describe.
What I did, I did give my name as Steven in the opening seminar scene, but intentionally said it in a way so that it'd be clear that I wasn't telling the truth.
It's acting.
I'm playing a character.
That's, that's part of the comedy of the scene.
The joke is that they obviously won't believe it.
Um, I can't even believe I have to explain this.
Like I, I, and I don't want to have to explain the joke.
Cause once you do that, you know, it isn't that funny, but I've heard even, uh, When I'm asked a second time my name and I go, it's Stephen, you know, I'm stuttering over it and there are people responding to that as if I really got, like I, I accidentally got tripped up and then I, and then, oh no, I was exposed.
No, that's, that was the, I, it's funny that I was stumbling over my own name when they, like, that's the point.
That's the joke.
It's a film.
I'm acting in that.
I'm not really, You know, that was the point of it.
Even the wig I wear for the rest of the movie is comically and deliberately unconvincing.
Now, it turns out that it did convince a lot of people, but that is also part of the joke.
So, I don't want to spend this whole conversation, though, quibbling over what qualifies as deception.
So, purely for the sake of argument, I will accept their framing.
Let's call it deception.
For now.
If I agree with that premise, which I don't, but if I do, I could still defend it.
After all, deception is used.
By undercover journalists all the time.
That's the only way we know about Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts, for example.
Deception is used by undercover cops.
It's used to catch pedophiles and murderers and drug traffickers.
It's not difficult to think of dozens of examples where deception, up to and including outright lying, is used in ways that are rarely found objectionable.
Indeed, to take the position that deception is always wrong, which is what at least Burke seems to be arguing, is to say that undercover police work and undercover journalism and all those other dozens of examples simply should not be done.
And if that's your view, fine, but I mean, I think it's absurd on its face.
Should we just never use undercover work to catch pedophiles?
Like, should we just say that, well, if the only way we can catch them is by lying to them, then I guess we're not gonna, they're gonna go out and abuse more children.
Really?
I mean, would anybody take that position?
It's wrong to lie to pedophiles to stop them from abusing kids?
I don't think most people would take that position, and I certainly don't.
And the reason that I don't is that, in my view, not everyone has a right to be told the truth.
Okay?
Not everyone has a right to the truth.
If somebody broke into my house late at night, and I confront them in the living room, and he asks me whether I'm alone in the house, I am under no moral obligation to tell him that, well, in fact, my wife and children are sleeping right upstairs.
Now, this is an extreme case, obviously, but it's enough to make the point.
That man who has intruded into my home has no right to be told the truth.
He is demanding information he has no right to.
So, sure, I could refuse to say one way or another.
If I wanted to avoid lying, I could say, well, I'm not going to give you that information.
But saying I won't tell you if my kids are home is the same thing as admitting that they are, so I would lie.
My obligation to protect my family far, far, far outweighs his right to be told the truth.
So if we can agree in this extreme case And it is extreme, but I think everyone would agree on this extreme case, or most people would.
Then we've at least established that deception and lies are not absolutely wrong.
Now, they may be usually wrong most of the time, but they're not absolutely always wrong.
Now, granted, the methods we used in our film were not used in a life or death emergency.
We also are not undercover cops.
We're not even really undercover journalists in the sense that Dave Daleiden was when he exposed Planned Parenthood.
We were making a piece of entertainment.
Yes.
But that entertainment had a point, and the point was to expose an insidious agenda and the people who push it.
Specifically, in this film, in our first film, we were looking to expose and humiliate the so-called expert class, our self-assigned moral superiors who impose their insane, morally perverse doctrines on us from on high.
If we had to use deception to do it, and again, I use that term only for the sake of argument, then my question to the critics is this, how else are we supposed to do it?
How else can these people be exposed?
Now, yeah, you can make your arguments, you can present your opinions, you can explain why you think these people are full of it.
That doesn't expose them.
Not in the way that Robin DiAngelo was exposed, or the Professor from What is a Woman, or any of the other unwitting co-stars in our film.
They cannot be exposed unless they are out in the open.
They must come down from their perch and make themselves vulnerable.
But these people will never do that intentionally.
They exercise this profound influence and control over the culture and our lives, and they do it from a distance, insulated, protected.
So what then?
Either we throw up our hands and we let them hide behind all these layers of intellectual protection, which they've set up for themselves, or we use more innovative and perhaps even ruthless techniques to lure them out from behind that wall that they're hiding behind.
That's the basic idea behind our film.
We coax them out into the open.
We set up the scenario where they can embarrass and bury themselves.
And then, yes, we laugh at them.
Is it nice?
No, it's not nice.
Is it necessary?
I believe so.
Is it moral?
I'm confident that it is.
Is it funny?
Hell yes, it is funny.
Now, I want to say one other thing.
I'm not offended by the criticism.
In fact, I appreciate anyone who watches the film and shares their thoughts about it, whether good, bad, or in between.
Films are meant to be discussed, and good films will give you plenty of fodder for discussion.
So I welcome all of that.
But I can't help but note a certain strain of Christianity, one that does not seem to be confined to any particular branch or denomination, that is always standing by, ready to nitpick and find a reason to be spiritually troubled by any Christian who leaves the realm of theory and argument and discussion and actually tries to go out and do something.
So say what you want about me and our movies.
I know I'm not everybody's cup of tea.
I know the movies are not.
But we are trying to actually fight this culture war.
That's what inspired me to get into filmmaking to begin with.
It's a creative outlet that I find truly fulfilling in a way that nothing in my professional life ever has been.
But it's also a way to change the culture.
Actively change it.
Change it by creating it.
I'm tired of talking about it all the time.
Criticizing has its place and its use, I suppose.
I do it all the time, but I want to do more than that.
I mean, it sounds quite cliché to say that I want to make a difference.
So sorry for the cliché, but yeah, I want to make a difference.
An actual difference.
And there is no way to do that without opening yourself to criticism from your own side.
And if I've learned anything these past few years, it's that.
Anyone on our side who tries to do anything, aside from just talking about this stuff, will get picked apart by their own side.
And I know that the justification is always, well, hey, iron sharpens iron, and we're just trying to make you better.
Like, okay, but fine.
It doesn't seem like that always.
It actually seems sometimes that there are people on our side who they just really don't want you to do anything.
Like all they want to do is just talk constantly.
Talk and give my opinion and analyze and criticize.
They just don't, they take exception when anyone tries to like stand up and say, okay, here's, I want to do something different here.
I'm going to try to go out and do something.
This is also why Christian or conservative entertainment has been generally so abysmal for so long.
Because anytime one of us tries to do anything remotely interesting or provocative, there are always people on our side lined up and ready to explain why it's problematic and unbiblical and so on.
The best way to avoid those complaints is to be boring and safe and to steadfastly avoid pushing any boundaries whatsoever.
And this is how we on the right have approached art for a long time.
It's why most of it has been so woefully bland.
It's why very little of it has made any lasting impact on the culture.
I mean, can you make a list of like five pieces of conservative art or entertainment that have impacted the culture in the last 20 years?
Can you even name five?
Can you name three?
Culture is shaped by art.
Or misshaped, as the case may be.
There is no culture war.
We cannot even claim to be fighting it if we are not producing any art of our own.
Or if what we produce is only intended to be a pleasant distraction for our own side, like a kind of ideological elevator music.
If we want to make films and shows and music that actually moves the culture, then the stuff we make must be challenging in some way.
We cannot be totally allergic to anything that seems provocative.
It needs to stir the audience in some way, elicit something out of them, bring something out, or else what's the point?
Now, I know that a movie like Am I a Racist, this is not Rembrandt, I'm not saying it's some kind of staggering work of artistic genius, but it is a film, and film is an art form.
Which is a long way of saying that we approached the film the way we did, and used the methods we did, for the sake of getting the message across and exposing the grifters, yes, but also as an artistic choice.
And I understand that that justification will be very unconvincing to the kinds of people who make this criticism to begin with.
They'll say, well, artistic, that's the only reason.
And it's not the only reason, but it is one of the reasons.
But the fact that that justification will seem so ridiculous to people on our side is part of the problem.
Because, look, frankly, if everyone in the film had known exactly what was going on, It would not have been as good of a movie.
It would not have been a good movie at all.
It would have been me as myself having straightforward conversations with people who already agree with me, because they're the only ones who would have participated.
Or else it would be me having a series of debates as predictable and ultimately pointless as the debates you see on cable news every day.
It would have been one long, elaborate podcast episode.
It would have been a boring, bad, lame movie.
I wanted to make a good movie.
And making a good movie was, I freely admit, our first priority.
Even more than the message.
Even more than landing a blow in the culture war.
We wanted to make a good movie.
Right?
That was our first priority.
Number one is it has to be good.
Go get good footage, good movie.
That's the most important thing here.
And if making a good movie is not your first priority, then you shouldn't be making them.
This has been the baseline problem for conservative art for as long as I've been alive.
It's been made by people who, often though not always, don't care that much about the art itself.
The first priority for them is not the art form.
And you can tell in the final product.
So, we're trying to help change that.
And, If that changes, then so does the culture.
And that is why the Christian critics of my new film are today cancelled.
I do still welcome the criticism, but I just have to end the segment that way, because those are the rules, and that's how this segment ends.
So, what can I do?
Anyway, that'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Growing up, I never thought much about race.
It never really seemed to matter that much, at least not to me.
Am I racist?
I would really appreciate it if you left.
I'm trying to learn.
I'm on this journey.
If I'm going to sort this out, I need to go deeper undercover.
Joining us now is Matt, certified DEI expert.
Here's my certifications.
What you're doing is you're stretching out of your whiteness.
There's more for you in this field.
Is America inherently racist?
The word inherent is challenging there.
I'm gonna rename the George Washington Monument to the George Floyd Monument.
America is racist to its bones.
So inherently.
Yeah, this country is a piece of...
White.
Folks.
Trash.
White supremacy.
White woman.
White boy.
Is there a black person around here?
There's a black person right here.
Does he not exist?
Hi Robin.
Hi.
What's your name?
I'm Matt.
I just had to ask who you are because you have to be careful.
