Ep. 1585 - The Trump Admin Arrests Dangerous, Power-Hungry Judge & The Media Has A Total Meltdown

Today on the Matt Wall Show, we'll dive deeper into the case of the judge who was arrested for helping an illegal immigrant evade arrest.

The more you look at the case and the media's reaction to it, the more insane it gets.

Also, a new study finds that the abortion pill is significantly more dangerous than we were originally told.

The media have suddenly started talking about Joe Biden's mental decline three months after he left office.

And a disgraced doctor who gave chemical castration drugs to children attacks me.

I'll respond to her as politely and charitably

as you would expect.

All of that and more today DW100 to join now. Made in America means something to us.
When you invest $700 billion annually in American companies and the 13 million workers and families they support, you're invested in the success of Main Street. Over the last eight years alone, America's private equity investors have contributed $5 trillion to the U.S.
economy. That's money powering growth in manufacturing, tech, energy, and innovation.
From strengthening supply chains to helping America lead in artificial intelligence, that kind of investment shapes our future. And it starts with private equity backing American ambition.
Because investing in our people, our business, and our community isn't just good for the economy, it's good for the country. Learn more about how private equity keeps American small business growing and thriving at investmentcouncil.org, paid for by the American Investment Council.
A few years ago in a small courthouse in Cincinnati, Ohio, something unprecedented and unthinkable happened, something that's never happened before in all of recorded human history. A judge was sentenced to prison for committing a crime.
Up until this moment, which took place in the summer of 2019, no judge had ever done anything illegal for any reason, and in any context, you can go back to biblical times if you want to, no judge had ever gone to jail. And that makes sense, of course, because judges are the ones who adjudicate legal problems, so it would make no sense for a judge to cause a legal problem in the first place.
That would just be completely backwards. It would be like a postal worker going postal or a chiropractor breaking someone's neck or a firefighter deciding to commit arson.
These are things that by definition are physically impossible. And yet in Cincinnati, of all places, it happened.
Somehow in defiance of the laws of physics, a judge named Tracy Hunter was convicted of the crime of corruption. And as you'd expect, especially if you're a student of history, it was a shocking moment for everybody involved.
There were gasps, both inside and outside the building. Judge Tracy Hunter herself made it clear that she wouldn't stand for the decision, as in she literally would not stand for it, which meant that a bailiff had to drag her out of the courthouse and place her in a cell.
If only for the entertainment value of the footage. Let's play that again quickly.
After a judge sentenced another judge to jail time, chaos erupted in an Ohio courtroom. And taking the defendant into custody wasn't so easy as a court officer had to drag her out.
So there it is, documented video evidence that as of 2019, it is indeed possible for judges to be arrested, convicted and sentenced. After thousands of years of uninterrupted good conduct by judges, Tracy Hunter blew it all up.
But at least she kept her dignity throughout the entire process. So, you know, that's the important thing.
Now, actually, to be more precise, Tracy Hunter was not the only judge in the history of the world to commit a crime. In fact, she wasn't even the only judge to commit a crime in the year 2019.
In April of that year, a Massachusetts state court judge named Shelly Richmond Joseph helped an illegal alien evade an ICE officer who was waiting to arrest him in the lobby of the courthouse. The judge eventually turned off the court's microphones, but before the audio was cut, she could be heard working out a plan with the defense attorney to help the illegal alien escape out of a back room in the courthouse.
Essentially, the judge allowed the criminal to go down to the lockup, supposedly to retrieve some property. But really, the point was to keep him out of the lobby where the ICE officer was.
And then when the illegal alien was down in the lockup, a court officer let him out the back door. It wasn't exactly a subtle plan.
Federal authorities immediately understood what had happened, and they charged both the judge and the court officer with obstruction. This is all relatively recent history.
So to recap, in order to be shocked by the news that a judge had been accused of a crime, you'd have to be extremely confused about two very important facts. First, you'd have to be ignorant of the fact that judges are actually human beings and are not granted magical powers of immunity simply by virtue of their job.
They do not have a James Bond style license to kill or anything like that. And secondly, in order to think that judges can't commit a crime, you'd also have to ignore the fact that judges actually commit crimes all the time.
So you'd have to stack astronomical ignorance on top of astronomical ignorance. Either that, or you'd have to be so shameless that you don't mind pretending to be monumentally uninformed and unintelligent.
And for most people, being this dumb is a lot of work, in other words. But for the mainstream press and their allies in the Democrat Party, it's basically second nature at this point.
Shameless and ignorance are the defining features of their existence. And that's why, for the past several days, we've been treated to nonstop outrage over the recent arrest of a county judge in Milwaukee named Hannah Dugan.

And the way this story is being presented, you think that it's the outrage of the century.

Dugan's arrest, according to Rachel Maddow, is tantamount to a declaration of war by the White House against the judicial branch.

It's the end of the separation of powers in this country, if not the end of our republic itself. Watch.
Well, today, a whole new level. Today, the FBI arrested a county judge in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
According to the FBI, this judge knew that Trump's immigration agents were outside her courtroom waiting to arrest a man who was before her court. They say she sent the immigration agents away from her hearing room and then escorted the man and his lawyer out of the courtroom through a private exit.
For that, the Trump administration has arrested her and charged her with two felonies. She herself arrested, brought before a federal court and then released today on her own recognizance.
Her attorney says that the judge intends to defend herself vigorously. He says she looks forward to being exonerated.
But if this feels like an insane and reckless escalation from the Trump administration arresting a judge, I will tell you, you are not alone. It sure felt like that to lots of people in Wisconsin today.
People who showed up outside the federal courthouse in Milwaukee after the judge was arrested. More than 100 people out there today on no notice on a Friday in the middle of the day to emergency spontaneously show up and protest the arrest of this judge in Milwaukee.
Just instant reaction to this bright new line that's been crossed by Trump. It's being treated as a crisis by members of Congress, too.
This was Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin today. He said, every American should be deeply troubled by this massive escalation.
This is an unmistakable descent further into authoritarian chaos. So it's an unmistakable descent into authoritarian chaos, the congressman says.
It's a whole new level, according to Rachel Maddow. Just look at the 100 people who spontaneously decided to protest on a moment's notice or no notice, she says, at the courthouse without any payment or any connection to a shady Democrat-run nonprofit of any kind.
Don't ask any questions about how, well, if they didn't have any notice, how did a hundred people show up? They all had their signs ready to go with no notice at all. How does that work? But you know, don't, don't question that at all.
This is how, you know, how serious and unprecedented this development is. People are just spontaneously, you know, materializing with signs ready-made outside the courouse with no notice.
Serious stuff. Now, we've talked a little bit about this case before yesterday, but here are some of the details that Rachel Maddow glosses over.
This is a write up from Fox, which for some reason uses the term undocumented to describe illegal aliens. Quote, federal agents from ICE, FBI, CVP and DEA attempted to arrest Eduardo Flores Ruiz, an undocumented Mexican national following his scheduled criminal court appearance before Dugan on April 18th to face three misdemeanor battery charges for allegedly beating two people.
Dugan demanded that the officers proceed to the chief's judge's office. And after his hearing ended, escorted Flores Ruiz and his attorney nearly beating a victim to death by punching him around 30 times.
One of his victims had to be hospitalized. He also punched a woman who tried to interrupt the fight, knocking her to the ground.
Eduardo had already been deported once in 2013, but apparently he came back into the country. So already we have a situation where witnesses in this case might be hesitant to testify.
They're understandably terrified of this criminal. And the judge, rather than protecting the victims, does everything she can to ensure that the attacker is released.

The specifics, as alleged in the federal complaint, are actually worse than you might have heard.

So let's put this image up on the screen, which is from the complaint.

Quote, members of the arrest team reported the following events after Judge Dugan learned

of their presence and left the bench.

Judge Dugan approached members of the arrest team in the public hallway.

Witnesses uniformly reported that Judge Dugan was visibly upset and had a confrontational, angry demeanor. She then tells the deportation officer that he needs to leave the building, at which point the officer says that he's there to make an arrest.
And then, quote, Judge Dugan asked if deportation officer A had a judicial warrant and deportation officer A responded, no, I have an administrative warrant. Judge Dugan stated that deportation officer A needed a judicial warrant.
Then the deportation officer says that she's wrong and that he has the right to arrest someone in a public building with a valid immigration warrant. In response, the judge orders the entire arrest team to report to the chief judge's office.
And by the time the chief judge tells the officers that it's fine to arrest the guy in the courthouse, Dugan has apparently accelerated Ruiz's hearing so that it was adjourned while the officers were talking to the chief judge. And by the way, it was adjourned without the prosecutor's knowledge.
They just weren't invited to the sidebar where the judge made that decision. In any event, during this process, Ruiz was not in the gallery for reasons that weren't clear to anyone at the time.
He was instead sitting in the jury box for his hearing. So let's read on.
According to the complaint, when Ruiz was leaving the building with her attorney, the judge said, wait, come with me. Quote, despite having been advised of the administrative warrant for the arrest of Ruiz, Judge Dugan then escorted Ruiz and his counsel out of the courtroom through the jury door, which leads to a non-public area of the courthouse.
These events were also unusual for two reasons. First, the courtroom deputy had previously heard Judge Dugan direct people not to sit in the jury box because it was exclusively for the jury's use.
Second, according to the courtroom deputy, only deputies, juries, court staff, and custody defendants being escorted by deputies use the back jury door. Defense attorneys and defendants who were not in custody never use the jury door.
Close quote. Now, to be clear, this judge did not issue any kind of lawful order or ruling as part of her judicial responsibilities.
That's not why she was just arrested. Instead, she tipped off a criminal who was about to be arrested and helped him hide from authorities.
And if the allegations in this complaint are true, then no matter who you are, that's a crime. And it's not like a close call either.
We're not talking about, you know, digging through this judge's business records, let's say, going back eight years, cobbling together some brand new theory for why she belongs in prison because she overpaid her taxes based on some arbitrary retroactive determination that we're making today. This is nothing like the Trump trial, in other words.
Judge Dugan is accused of committing a very straightforward crime, one that's been illegal for a very long time, and which if anyone else did it, they'd be arrested. And yet, the very same people who insisted that nobody is above the law, just a year ago, are now saying with a straight face that it's a constitutional crisis to arrest a judge for breaking the law.
I mean, they had no problem with prosecuting the leading presidential candidate for fake crimes, but prosecuting this random judge for them is a bridge too far. They're losing their minds over it.
One account, the Brooklyn dad on X was particularly unhinged quote for the people celebrating the weaponized arrest of judge Hannah Dugan by the Trump administration, because she broke the law. Just remember that it also used to be against the law to hide folks like Anne Frank.
What side of history are you on? Close quote. Now, I'm not cherry picking one insane online reaction here.
This is how a lot of mainstream personalities on the left view this issue. They're essentially admitting that the judge committed a crime because there's no way to deny it.
If she did what she's accused of doing, that's a crime. You can't deny it.
There's no defense of it legally. But at the same time, they're saying that, you know, yeah, it was a crime, but it was justified.
Here, for example, was David Brooks of the New York Times the other day. Watch.
Well, obviously, they're trying to send a note of intimidation, not only to her, but to all judges and maybe to all Americans. But I don't yet know the specific details of this case, whether she escorted the guy out the jury door or whether she's let him.
So that's all, Mark. I don't want to comment on this specific case.
But especially on the issue of immigration, there are a lot of people who are appalled by what the administration is doing. And there will be times for civil disobedience.
And to me, let's say she did escort this guy out the door. If federal enforcement agencies come to your courtroom and you help a guy escape, that is two things.
One, it strikes me as maybe something illegal. But it also strikes me as something heroic.
And in times of trouble, then people are sometimes called to do civil disobedience. And in my view, when people do civil disobedience, they have to pay the price.
That's part of the heroism of it, frankly. And so you can both think that she shouldn't have legally done this and that morally protecting somebody against, maybe not even in this case, but in other cases, frankly, a predatory enforcement agency.
Predatory enforcement agency. It's heroic.
It's heroic to help an illegal alien who's not supposed to be in this country, who is accused of beating two people, one of them nearly to death, putting them in a hospital. It's heroic to help this person evade law enforcement.
We're comparing him to Anne Frank. Now, he doesn't want to comment on the specific case, probably because he knows the facts completely disprove everything he's saying to make him sound like a lunatic, which is what he is.
Reality happens to demolish the narrative he's trying to create. Therefore, he says, let's just ignore reality.
Let's pretend the guy's not accused of beating up a woman. Let's pretend the judge didn't deliberately help him evade arrest.
Let's focus instead on a fictional world in which judges are being rounded up and sent to the gulag because they make rulings the president doesn't like. And that's preposterous for about a million reasons, of course.
But I do have to admit that if Judge Dugan does end up in a gulag, it'd be a fitting punishment. And not just because of this whole situation with the illegal alien who's beating up women.
This is apparently a sign from the door of Dugan's courthouse, according to Fox. Let's put that up on the screen.
It says that if any person feels unsafe about showing up to the courthouse, that person can request a Zoom hearing instead. Quote, if any attorney, witness coordinator, or other court official knows or believes that a person feels unsafe coming to the courthouse, please notify the clerk to request appearance via Zoom.
Now, as you may know, you know, I was a highly credentialed and well-respected judge for some time. You may have seen my work in a recent Daily Wire series.
And if you saw that series, you know that a lot of things happened in my fake courtroom that were embarrassing and frankly demeaning to the very concept of law and order, civil liberties, and fundamental human decency and human rights, and yet nothing that occurred during that show can compare to this notice that Judge Dugan put on the door of her courtroom, which again is an actual courtroom. She's openly treating the courthouses like a therapy session for violent thugs and gang members, many of whom have no right to be in this country in the first place.
As it happens, a lot of judges in this country think like this. It's not just Judge Dugan.
Here's NBC News, quote, Dugan's arrest came one day after federal authorities arrested a former New Mexico judge, Joel Cano, and his wife on charges related to the Cano's reported harboring of an undocumented immigrant with alleged ties to the notorious gang Tren de Aragua.

Federal agencies had received a trip, a tip in January that Christian Ortega, an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela, whom authorities suspected of being a gang member, and others were staying on the Cano's property. Ortega was charged in a separate federal case in New Mexico with possessing a firearm as an illegal alien.
Cano, who had served on the bench since 2011, submitted his resignation letter March 3rd, days after Homeland Security raided his home.

Now, normally, you know, this gang has to take over apartment buildings by force, which is what

they famously did in Colorado. But in this case, a judge allegedly just let one of these gang members

live in his home, along with a bunch of other criminal aliens. And if these allegations are true, there's really no way to spin it.
He facilitated a foreign invasion in a very direct and deliberate way, just like Judge Dugan. He's accused of aiding and abetting people who want to destroy this country from within.
And as we all know, many more judges are like this. These two judges have just been incredibly obvious about what they're doing, but the smart judges are using their rulings to undermine this country, which is why, as I've said many times before, many of these rulings should simply be ignored.
But even the ignoring these rulings won't stop the underlying problem, which is that this country is being invaded in more ways than one. And it's not just the court system that's compromised.
Congress has begun to fall as well, as we've seen from representatives like Ilhan Omar, who openly advocate foreign interests over Americas. And this week, another congressman joined in the revolution.
His name is Sri Thanedar, and he apparently represents Michigan, even though no one's ever heard of him. His biography says that he moved to this country in the 1970s after growing up in India, where he was born.
And here's a video that he just put out. And as you watch this, keep in mind that this man is 70 years old.
So we're talking about a lot of plastic surgery here. And on top of that, understand that, you know, he has a lot of support in his own party.
Watch. This is Congressman Shreetanidar.
Donald Trump has already done real damage to our democracy. But defying a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, that has to be the final straw.
It's time we impeach Donald J. Trump.
The court said the wrongfully deported Kilmer Garcia must be allowed

to return and receive due process. Trump ignored it.
He ignored the Constitution. He ignored the very checks and balances that keep our democracy intact.
This isn't an isolated incident. It's part of a dangerous deliberate pattern.
That's why today I introduced a

resolution. This isn't an isolated incident.
It's part of a dangerous deliberate pattern. That's why today I introduced a resolution to impeach Donald J.
Trump, outlining seven articles of impeachment. In this country, we have presidents, not kings.
That's not just misconduct.

It's impeachable misconduct.

This isn't leadership, it's tyranny. If we let this stand, we are saying the president is above the law.
So there's that theme of no one is above the law again. They're very selective about when they deploy that particular cliche.
But the bigger issue isn't the hypocrisy. It's that this guy can barely speak English, and yet he's one of our elected representatives.

despite living in this country for decades uh it's still hard to understand what he's even saying and and if that doesn't seem completely insane to you just imagine the absurdity imagine the

just the the the ridiculousness of a white guy with a thick southern accent moving to India and then trying to impeach their president. Or imagine if I moved to India with my flannel shirt and started lecturing them on how to run their country.
I mean, how do you think that would go over? Now, of course, that would never happen. India wouldn't be crazy enough to allow it.
The moment I started telling them that they should remove their president, they just deport me on the spot. In fact, they probably wouldn't even let me into the country in the first place.
This is a type of madness you can only find here. Multiple branches of government from Congress to the courts are working in tandem to undermine our national sovereignty, and they're doing it right out in the open.

Contrary to what the corporate press is saying, what's remarkable about the situation isn't

that the Trump administration has just arrested two corrupt Democrats in positions of power.

What's remarkable is that at this point, the Trump administration has only arrested two

of them when it's obvious that there's a lot more to go.

Now let's get to our five headlines. Let me tell you about something that doesn't get enough attention, your liver.
The powerhouse organ is crushing it 24-7, handling over 500 different bodily functions. It's a hard job, and sometimes your liver just needs a little bit of support.
That's where Dose for Your Liver comes in. It's not some weak supplement.
This is hard-hitting, science-backed support for your body's most crucial filter. The results speak for themselves.
Clinical trials showed over 86% of people got major improvements in their liver enzyme levels. Want to know what makes the difference? Well, one shot of Dose packs the same punch as 17 shots of turmeric juice.
It's designed for peak performance, supporting energy levels, digestion, and overall liver function.

No BS ingredients either.

It's clean, it's sugar-free, and engineered to deliver results.

Start giving your liver the support it deserves.

Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to Dosedaily.co slash Walsh or entering Walsh at checkout.

That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot C-O slash Walsh for 30% off your first month subscription. Okay, two related stories to kick us off, both of them unfortunately depressing and troubling.
So the first one, Breitbart reports, while the abortion pill is touted as safe and effective, shocking new data suggests complications are 22 times higher than previously reported. A study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center released on Monday found that 10.93 percent, about 11 percent of women who had my my my my my my my my my my my my my stone, I suppose my my my stone abortions.
Abortions, the first drug used in a two drug medication abortion regimen experienced severe complications, including sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event. Within 45 days following the abortion, this percentage is significantly higher than the less than 0.5 percent in clinical trials reported on the FDA approved drug label.
Then you can go to Breitbart and see the whole report, which is also being reported now in other outlets. The most important point is that the number of adverse reactions to so-called medical abortions, as they call them, are more than 20 times higher than what we have been told.
And that's what the report says. And that should not be a surprise.
I mean, it's not a surprise because, first of all, the abortion industry lies about everything. And I really do mean everything.
So whatever figure they quote, whatever number they give, whatever data they provide or tout, you can assume that it's not true. Or at best, it's only a partial truth.
It's only part of the story. You could just assume that they're lying because they lie about everything.
These people, I mean, they kill babies for a living. So of course they lie about everything.
And, you know, second, abortion is not actually a medical procedure. It's not a treatment of a disease because pregnancy is not a disease.
Pregnancy is natural. It's healthy.
It's what a woman's body is supposed to do.

So anytime you're taking a drug to interfere,

in this case violently interfere,

with a healthy bodily process,

there are going to be consequences.

And unfortunately, doctors these days are doing a lot of treatments, quote-unquote, like this.

Treatments that are meant to interfere

with the normal functions of the human body.

Gender transitions are another example.

Birth control is the most common, the most prevalent example.

And birth control is where this shift really began, I think you could argue.

Certainly, the shift began where medicine was no longer about treating actual diseases,

but instead it becomes about interfering with what the body is supposed to actually be doing. Medicine is supposed to cure or treat your body when it's doing what it's not supposed to do.
But this is medicine, quote unquote, that cures a body from doing what it is supposed to do. And yes, there will be side effects.
In fact, you can hardly call them side effects because the treatments are meant to cause damage. They're meant to disrupt the healthy processes in the body.
So it's not a side effect. It's just the effect.
It's what is intended. Which is why we also need to stipulate with this story that, yes, abortion drugs are very dangerous for women and they do harm women in many cases.
But more importantly, abortion drugs harm babies in 100 percent of all cases. Abortion drugs, you know, they should be banned for what they do to babies, which is why when you see stories like this and.
And, you know, there are some conservatives that are that are you know highlighting this this study which we should highlight it it's what i'm doing but then you'll hear that well you know see this is why we need to have regulations on these drugs this is why these drugs need to be banned uh because they cause harm to women in 11 of cases well yeah that's bad but also again they cause babies in 100% of cases. So that's what they're meant to do, and that's what they always do.
And that just compounds the tragedy. I mean, really think about the tragedy of a woman dying from the side effects of an abortion, which does happen, whether it's an abortion pill or a surgical abortion.
The tragedy of it is that her last act on earth was to kill her own child. She died for the sake of killing her child.
It's like this satanic inversion of maternal heroism because the heroic mother sacrifices her life to save her children. In this case, though, the mother sacrifices her life to kill her children.
So it really is a tragedy in so many ways. Which brings us to this other very disturbing and depressing story.
But I'm going to read a little bit of this, since we're kind of on the subject. This is from the New York Post.
A twisted Nebraska teen was handed a decades-long sentence on Thursday for fatally slashing her newborn son's throat just moments after secretly giving birth in her childhood bedroom, according to reports. Chloe Copland Anderson, 18, will spend the next 35 to 60 years behind bars after pleading no contest to second-degree murder from the heartless killings.
And then it goes into detail about the actual crime, which we don't need to dwell on. But awful, as I said, awful story.
It does bring us to an inevitable point. I can't help but ask the question.
And the question is this. What exactly is the difference between what this girl did and abortion? Why is she going to prison? Why is she going to prison if millions of women who did something just as barbaric don't go? I mean you you could be upset about the question, but can you answer it? What's actually the difference? What is the inherent moral difference between the two? I'd really like to know.
Because here's the fact, if this girl had killed the baby just 30 seconds earlier, and if she had hired an abortionist to do it for her, rather

than taking matters into her own hands, then she wouldn't be going to prison.

Not only would she not be going to prison, but she would be celebrated for exercising

her right to choose.

Her act of murder would be legitimized as reproductive health care.

Democrat presidential candidates would talk about her case favorably.

They'd bring her up on stage. You'd give her an award.
So crushing a baby's skull 30 seconds before birth is health care, but slitting his throat 30 seconds after birth is first-degree murder? You're going to go to prison for 40 years for it? How does that make any sense? What's the moral distinction here? Don't complain about the question. Answer it.
What is the moral distinction? I mean, by pro-abortion logic, at worst, this girl is guilty of practicing medicine without a license. I mean, at worst, that's what she's done.
By their logic. So, we all know this is arbitrary.
We all know it makes no sense. We all know.
I mean, we all know that, right? we all know the is arbitrary we all know it makes no sense but we all know i mean we all know that right we all know the distinction between like what this girl did is is this has happened millions of times in this country and um and there there is no you can't there's no moral difference because to say there's a difference you'd have to say that there's a difference in the, like the baby that she slaughtered moments after birth. If she had done it 30 seconds earlier, it's the same baby, okay? It's the same effect, which is killing the child, and it's the same person.
The only thing different with the person, the baby, is that it has changed locations. Right? But it's the same person.
So it doesn't make any sense. And so why keep up the charade? Why aren't Democrats rallying around this girl? Why aren't they embracing her as a pioneer for reproductive rights? What she did is morally identical to what any woman does when she goes to a clinic for an abortion.
So, I mean, if there's any difference, arguably, you could say that what this girl did, if anything, is at least more honest. It's a more honest and straightforward version of what every woman

does in a clinic. It's the same thing.
It's just, this is not hiding behind euphemism, let's say. So why aren't they coming to her defense? Well, the answer is that in their minds, this girl committed a different kind of crime.

They don't care about the baby, obviously. They're not outraged about that.
But she broke the illusion. This is why Democrats have not, with a few exceptions, they generally have not started advocating for post-birth abortion.
And I don't think that they really ever will. I know that's one of the things that pro-lifers have been predicting for a long time, that we're going to get to a point where post-birth abortions are, they already happen, we know that, but where they're accepted, where in the mainstream, they're accepted and talked about.
And I don't, I could be wrong, but I don't think that will happen because it breaks the illusion. You know, that's why Democrats won't rail around it.
It breaks the illusion. You can't hide anymore from what you're doing because it's out in the open.
I mean, literally out in the open. There's no hiding it.
You're killing a baby, which of course is what an abortion does. But the whole game here is to hide behind euphemisms, to be able to cloak it in this kind of medical jargon.
And if they were to ever like admit that what this girl did is really no difference in kind from what anyone does in an abortion clinic, if they were to ever do that, they would be kind of given the game away.

So I don't I don't expect that to happen.

All right. So the media recently had been has been debating among themselves the topic of Joe Biden's mental decline now that it doesn't matter anymore, now that it's a moot point, now that admitting that Biden has dementia costs you nothing, now's the time when the media starts talking about it.
But of course, they still can't be honest about it or certainly not honest about their own role in covering up his mental decline. But there's been a lot of conversation about it in the last week or two even.

So on that note, here is Chuck Todd.

Listen.

This is not a media failure.

This is a failure of the Democratic Party.

And I just sort of the virtue signaling that some people have done to try to say

that the media missed this story.

They didn't miss this story.

David Ignatius wrote, I just refuse to accept this this stupid premise because it's a right-wing manufactured right-wing premise in order to to stain the media the media's got plenty of things to attack them for and there are msnbc and cnn and and pundits that absolutely carried water for joe biden but that they're not journalists they They're former strategists that carried water for Joe Biden. The journalist, David Ignatius,

wrote a very high profile column in October of 23 saying, is he really running again? This

doesn't seem like a good idea. People like me were promoting Dean Phillips's campaign because

he was running a campaign that made a lot of coverage. So you know it it's not like this this isn't wmds where the white house worked with the mainstream media to manufacture a story that did not exist that was a press failure massive press failure this was not that.
This is an attempt by some to virtue signal.

And it's this horrible sort of pitting different news organizations against each other when

ultimately the people at fault are Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jill Biden, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris,

every elected member of Congress. Okay, so he says it's not a media failure.
It's a failure

of the Democratic Party. But of course, you know that first of all, he says it's not a media failure.

It's a failure of the Democratic Party.

But of course, you know,

that first of all,

it's a distinction without a difference.

And everything else he says is just nonsense.

He's trying to pretend that, you know,

the media, the journalists, news anchors

didn't just ignore the story of Biden's decline.

They didn't just ignore it.

Actually, they aggressively buried it. They scolded anyone who talked about it.
They flat out denied it right up until they couldn't deny it anymore. So this is a rewriting of history that's going on.
It's nonsense. It's insulting to our intelligence.
And keep something in mind. Why is the media so broken up about this? Why are they obsessing over this topic now, long after everyone else has moved on?

They're now litigating the issue of Joe Biden's mental fitness in office three months after he leaves.

The rest of us, we're not talking about this anymore. This was a topic that doesn't matter now.
It's a moot point.

So why are they obsessing about it? Well, it's not because they have a guilty conscience about lying to the public. No, it's because they know they screwed up their chance for a Democrat to win the presidency.
That's why they're so, these members of the media are so, like, emotional about it. They know that if they had shivved Biden a year or two earlier, probably two years earlier, if they'd started talking about his obvious mental decline and asked questions about it two years earlier, then there would have been a real primary and maybe they would have gotten a real candidate, not Kamala.
And then maybe they would have had a chance to win. Now, I still think they would have lost.
I don't know that anyone would have been able to beat Trump, especially after the assassination attempt. But their only chance was to take Biden out politically much earlier than they did.
So that's what this whole come to Jesus moment is obviously about, which isn't really a come to Jesus moment because they're not accepting any responsibility or accountability. but the recriminations, the accusations, the finger pointing and so on, it's all about the fact that they screwed up their shot at the White House.
And when I say they, I mean the Democrat Party, because again, the media and the Democrat Party obviously are the same organism. And we all know this.
And we also know that if that debate, if the debate, you know, the infamous debate between Trump and Biden, if it hadn't happened when it did, if the Biden camp hadn't made the politically disastrous decision to accept Trump's early debate challenge. one of the greatest political blunders in American history.
And if so, if they had waited, if the debates had not happened until after the conventions, which is usually when they happen, then the media never would have admitted that Biden had lost his mind. Because at that point, it would have been too late.
It would have been really too late. And if somehow Biden had stayed in and then somehow won, which would have been almost impossible, but let's just say if that had happened, then the media would right now still be telling us that Biden is at the top of his game.

Everything is fine.

Anyone who says differently is a conspiracy theorist.

Chuck Todd would be ranting about how, you know, anyone who claims that Joe Biden is anything but spry and chipper and totally with it is a right wing conspiracy theorist and is guilty of ageism.

That's what Chuck Todd would be saying.

That's what Jake Tapper would be saying.

This little book that Jake Tapper, I guess,

has co-authored about Joe Biden's mental decline,

that book would not exist.

These people were prepared to keep the ruse going

for another four years.

They were going to keep this thing going

until Joe Biden is 86, or until he died, whichever came first. And probably the latter would come first.
That's what they were prepared to do. And, you know, so that's what makes all this so ridiculous.
All right. here's another thing that we're gonna, we're gonna talk about because, you know, this is my show and I can talk about what I want.
So there's a, cause I've been thinking about this and there's a very viral tweet that, uh, that, you know, was posted a couple of days ago. I don't know if you've seen it, but it has like 280 million views.
Okay, 280 million.

Last night, I checked yesterday.

So it's more than that now, probably 300 million.

It's from an account called Dream Chasin Mike.

And the tweet, which has sparked intense debate and controversy that lots of people chimed in on.

It says this.

I think 100 N-words could beat one gorilla. Everybody just got to be dedicated to the shit.
So that's it. That's the tweet.
That's the post. Got 280 million views, 9,000 comments.
A man who claims that 100 men, men of any race, I assume is what he meant, could beat one gorilla in like a fight. And I've thought a lot about this.
I've contemplated, I've deliberated, I've done hours of research over the past day or two. That's not even a joke, actually.
I actually have. I've looked into this quite a bit, you know, learning a lot about gorillas.
I've learned a lot of gorilla facts just thinking about this. Most people are mocking this man for making this claim.
Most people are claiming that he's insane for thinking that 100 men could beat one gorilla. But I'm on his side.
I think he's right. In a hand-to-hand fight to the death between 100 men and one gorilla, I'm putting my money on the men.
I am. Now, there's a lot we don't know here.

OK, I mean, a lot has not been stipulated. There's been there's for example, his his scenario doesn't even actually stipulate that these are unarmed men.
So, I mean, if they if they can use weapons or they can use a gun, then it's over in 10 seconds. But let's just assume it's unarmed.
And then the 100 men, like what kind of men are they? Are they men men or are they, you know, Democrats?

Is this 100 David Hoggs that we're talking about? If that's the case, I would not bet on 100 David Hoggs to beat a spider monkey, much less a gorilla. If it was a tree squirrel and 100 David Hoggs, I'd put my money on the squirrel.
But if we're talking about just normal average men, men who weigh more than 82 pounds, then I'll take the humans in that matchup. I really will.
And here's why. You've got to assess our advantages and our disadvantages, right? And we do have disadvantages.
The average male silverback is going to weigh about 400 pounds. They're typically about 20 times stronger than the average man or 200 times stronger than David Hogg.
They can deadlift 1,700 pounds. They have a bite strength of about 1,300 PSI.
Like I said, I've done the research on this. A pit bull has a bite strength of 300 PSI.
So a pit bull can latch on. You can't get them off.
A gorilla will just chomp right through your bones and take your limb clean off. A human's bite force is 162 PSI.
So you can't go bite for bite with this gorilla. Gorilla's skin is like 12 inches thick.
So you can't even break the skin, much less break bones.

So those are all the disadvantages. But what do humans have going for them? Well, first of all,

in this scenario, we have numbers. That's the first thing.
Second, we have endurance. Gorillas

get tired very quickly. They tire out.
They've got a lot of force. They've got a lot of anger,

but they tire out. They're like Amy Schumer running up a flight of steps.
So they're

Thank you. we have endurance.
Gorillas get tired very quickly. Okay.
They tire out. Like they've got a lot of force.
They got a lot of anger, but they tire out. They're like, you know, they're like Amy Schumer running up a flight of steps.
So they're going to get tired very quickly. And third, this is important.
We have our wits. We have our minds.
Okay. And this is the thing that I've thought about when I've, you know, this is really what it comes down to.
We have our superior strategic capabilities. So how do we do this? How do we bring down the gorilla? Well, here's how, okay? First of all, you don't try to, I think when people imagine this fight, they're imagining a hundred guys like pouncing on the gorilla all at once.
You don't do that. You're not going to do that.
Logistically, that's not possible. Plus you're going to sustain heavy losses.
The first like 10 waves of guys are getting ripped in half. So if that's the plan and I'm there, I'm, I'm in the back of the line.
I'm not, I'm, you know, someone's got to volunteer to be in the first, to be at the, at the front of this line. Cause I'm not going to be in the trenches on this fight.
I'll be in the back. I'll be cheering you on.
I'll be moral support, but I'm not going to be in the front. So that's not the way to do it.
Here's what you got to do. You got to spread out.
You spread out. You form a wide circle around this gorilla and a wide circle.
Play keep away. And he's not going to know who to attack first.
Remember, the gorillas, they're stupid. They're smart compared to animals, but they're dumb compared to us.
At least they're dumb compared to some of us. and uh so they're they're not gonna know they're gonna get frustrated he's not gonna know who to attack first is what I'm saying.
And so you just play keep away. And the gorilla, he's going to charge at someone.
You just try to evade him. He's going to charge at someone else back and forth, back and forth, play keep away, stay spread out, frustrate him, make him tired.
Do this for hours, hours. And finally, when he's so exhausted that he can barely move, you know, that's when, well, that's when the plan gets a little bit hazy, I'll be honest, because I have it.
I figured out step one, okay, defeating a gorilla, step one, spread out, make him tired. Step three is, uh, he's dead.
Step two, I haven't quite, it's, there's a, it's a little bit, it's a little vague, but I think really what, you know, at that point, you need, you know, five or six guys, not everybody, to jump on him first. I'd go for the eyes, gouge his eyes, try to blind him.
And then when he's blind, now you've got a tired blind gorilla, and that's when it's just a freak. Everybody jump on him and just pulverize him, beat him to death.
And this is good. It gets dark.
I mean, when you really start to think about it now, I'm just like, it's, it's, it gets a little dark, it gets a little dark. So, um, now I'm just waiting for YouTube to demonetize me for inciting violence against the primate community.
Um, but that's, uh, so, but I think that's basically how you would do it. Uh, but it could be done.
It could be done because gorillas look, let's face it, gorillas are not even the most, they're not the most, you know, intimidating in the animal. I think a lot of people overestimate gorillas, frankly.
Like, I know I'm talking a lot of guff about gorillas from the safety of this room right now. If I was in a cage with one, it would be a little bit different.
But I can say I think they get a little overestimated. Now, if we're talking about, if it's 100 men versus a hippo,

now hippos are actually the most dangerous land mammal on earth.

Those things are 9,000 pounds.

They can run 20 miles an hour.

They have a bite strength of like 2,000 PSI.

That's different.

I wouldn't bet on 100 guys versus a hippo, but against a gorilla, I would.

So now that's settled. Glad we could spend way too much time on that.
As Doge continues to surgically cut the fat from decades of bloated government spending and corruption, Pure Talk, the cell phone company I use for business, is cutting the fat from wireless industry. That's right.
Pure Talk says, I don't think so, to $100 a month cell phone plans. That's just wasteful.
It's irresponsible. And instead, they're offering America's most dependable 5G network at America's most sensible prices.
Listen to this. Unlimited talk text and 15 gigs of data plus mobile hotspot for just $35 a month.
And the best part, right now, you get a free one-year membership to Daily Wire Plus. And with Pure Talk's U.S.
customer service team, you can switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes. You don't need Doge to cut the fat from your wireless bill.
You need Pure Talk. You know, in uncertain economic times, everybody could use a little extra saving in their day-to-day, and Pure Talk helps you do just that.
So go to puretalk.com slash Walsh. Switch to Pure Talk at puretalk.com slash Walsh and get a free year of Daily Wire Plus with a qualifying plan.
Pure Talk, wireless by Americans for Americans. Well, the countdown is on.
The Daily Wire is celebrating President Donald Trump's historic first 100 days back in office with a 100 hour flash sale on annual memberships. 100 hours only and the clock is already ticking.
Donald Trump is laying a new foundation for America, but it's up to people like you and me to help build the future of this country. Go to dailywire.com and use code DW100 to join the fight.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation. For our daily cancellation today, we turn to a woman named Helen Weberle, who calls herself a doctor.
On her profile on X, she also describes herself as the hormone expert and an international trans rights advocate. Her advocacy for trans rights includes distributing puberty blockers and hormones to adults and children alike through GenderGP, which is an online gender clinic based in Singapore.
From its base in Singapore, this organization, which Helen co-founded, distributes chemical castration drugs to minors across the world. And we'll have more about that organization and the services it offers in a few minutes.
But Helen is very upset at me this week because of a video where I am debating a trans-identified male at one of my college talks a couple of years ago. I don't know why Helen is suddenly reacting to this video now, but she is.
So before we get to her response, here's a quick clip of the footage that has made poor Helen so upset. Watch.
You've asserted that no one would ever see me as a woman, that nobody would ever see or could see a transgender person as a woman. And yet, I have dozens of friends from diverse backgrounds.

Women from the reservation, a woman from Japan, several immigrant women.

I have my co-workers, I have my boss, my VP, my CEO, all respecting me as a woman, my family, my long-term friends who are actually here with me. All of these people assure me, like, I'm a woman.
They'll tell me, girl, like, there is no way you are a man. They see me as a woman.
So the question. Okay.
How can you assert that nobody would ever see me as a woman when my material experience tells me you're wrong? Okay. It's interesting that that's the part of my talk you chose to ask a question about because that's not in my talk at all.
I don't believe I said that no one would ever see you as a woman. I mean, it's possible, I suppose, that you could fool someone.
Now, you brought this up, so I have to tell you that you brought this up. You've put your identity on the table for conversation, and so I'm going to say you wouldn't fool me at all.
I mean, I see a man 100%, and I think that most people would. Now, the fact that you have people in your life who are saying to you, oh, you're totally a woman, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
No one in my life has ever once said to me, you're totally a man, Matt. You know, if a friend of mine called me on the phone and said, Listen, Matt, I want you to know you're really a man.

I would think that there was something wrong with him.

I would say, Why are you saying that at all?

It doesn't make any sense.

So the fact that this is a conversation to begin with tells me it only proves the point that I'm trying to make, that your identity, even in your own mind, is up for something that you need to be assured of. So, yeah, very compelling arguments from that individual.
The exchange actually goes on for seven or eight minutes uh i can't play the whole thing but uh that's the argument the argument is well how can you say i'm not a woman when i have a friend who's an immigrant and says that i want that was you know to be honest with you that's like i said that was from two years ago and um i haven't even done a college talk in uh in a while now people have asked me like when are you gonna get back out there start doing these talks again and i haven't done i don't it's been i don't think i've i've done not very many over the last couple of years and uh this to be honest with you this is kind of why like it's it's too easy i mean this is the it's just people just setting themselves up with the weakest possible arguments.

It's so easy.

And yeah, it provides a lot of fodder for a lib getting owned.

But to me, after you've done it enough, you just get the worst possible arguments

framed in the weakest imaginable ways over and over again. I start to get frustrated with them because of how easy it is.
You make it so easy for me to dunk on you right now. Like, give me a challenge.
So anyway, that's neither here nor there. But that's the part that I just played there that seems to have especially upset our friend Helen, who on Monday shot back with a video that she captioned this way.
This broadcast from Matt Walsh is one of the most revolting displays of public humiliation I've seen in a long time. Denying a woman her identity for claps and clicks is disgusting.
You're hurting real people for sport. This needs to stop.
And here is the video from Helen Walsh, Matt. Dr.
Helen Weverly here. I just wanted to send you this brief message to tell you that I think that that piece of broadcasting is the most disgusting thing that I have seen in a very long time.
To publicly deny that woman her own identity, to publicly humiliate her for your benefit, for Your shares and likes and clicks and applause is absolutely revolting.

OK, well, hello, Helen. Unfortunately, I can't call you a doctor because you lost your medical license last summer.

Also, the National Health Service issued a safety alert warning doctors against working with your clinic,

saying that it presents an ongoing safety risk.

Even the Ministry of Health in Singapore, where you're based, has told you to stop providing services to people in Singapore. So for all intents and purposes, you're as much of a doctor as I am.
Actually, less, I would argue, because it's better to never have a medical license than to have one and lose it. And you say that the clip of me talking to that dude is the most disgusting thing you've seen in a long time.
Well, the most disgusting thing I've seen, or at least the most embarrassing thing I've seen recently, is your entire failed career. All that to say, Helen, I prefer to call people what they are, not what they want to be.
And that's why I call you a deranged, disgraced quack who pretends to be a doctor. And it's why I called that man a man.
Now, you say that I publicly humiliated a woman. The problem with that claim is, number one, again, he's not a woman.
Number two, he came to my event and chose to stand up on camera and ask a question. He presented himself and his personal experience as support for his side of the argument.
He entered it into evidence. He chose to make it the focal point of the conversation.
I didn't choose that. He did.
And this is a game that your side constantly plays. You use anecdotes from your private life as ammunition in a debate, even though personal anecdotes prove nothing.
You know, they're irrelevant and unverifiable. The claim that the guy's friends all think he's a woman does nothing at all to prove that he actually is a woman.
And even if it did prove that he's a woman, which it doesn't, I have no way of verifying the claim or even knowing if it's true. And then on top of it all, the person who brings up the anecdote from his personal life then becomes offended when you start talking about his personal life.
This is the scam. The rule you want us to play by is that your side is allowed to use personal experience or lived experience, as you would say, as a cudgel to beat your opponents over the head.
But your opponents are not allowed to question, critique, or even discuss the point that you have of your own volition introduced into the conversation. Now, you also say that I denied that woman her identity.
Well, for the third time, not a woman. Also, what do you mean by denied? How could I have denied him his identity? So you're not claiming that I denied his identity, which would mean that I am refusing to acknowledge his identity.
No, you're saying that I am denying it to him. I am depriving him of his identity somehow.
Well, how does that work, Helen? How could I possibly take his identity away? How did I end up in a position to grant or revoke that guy's identity? How did that power end up in my hands? I never claimed to have it. I didn't ask for it.
I don't want it. But here's the problem.
If your identity is real, if it is objectively true, then it cannot be denied. If that man was actually a woman, I wouldn't be able to take his identity away even if I wanted to.
If that was actually a woman and I stood there and called her a man, then all that would happen is that I end up embarrassing myself. I'm humiliated in that scenario, not the woman.
If your identity is true, it does not need to be affirmed or confirmed. You don't need to be reminded of it.
You don't need and wouldn't want anyone in your life to reinforce it for you. As I said to the guy, I have never had a single person in my entire life affirm my manhood.
Nobody's ever told me that they see me as a man. I've never wondered if anyone sees me that way.
I've never asked anyone about it. If they did vocally affirm my manhood, I would think that they were insane.
Not because they're wrong, but because, you know, to point at me and call me a man, it's like pointing at a wall and saying, hey, this is a wall. It doesn't need to be said.
It's the kind of thing so obvious that you have to be crazy to bother pointing it out. So if I do have the power to deny his female identity, it's only because he has no female identity.
But then again, this isn't really about power. You aren't saying that I have the power to deny him his identity.

At least that's not what you're trying to say.

What you're trying to say is that I have the responsibility,

I have the obligation to participate in the charade of his false identity.

You're actually accusing me of failing to play along and read the script that you have written.

And as far as that goes, you're right.

I'm not playing along.

I don't accept the obligation that you're trying to saddle me with.

I and read the script that you have written. And as far as that goes, you're right.
I'm not playing along. I don't accept the obligation that you're trying to saddle me with.
I reject it outright. As you've probably noticed, most of the world rejects it.
Even most of the Western world has finally woken from its stupor and no longer has any interest in playing this game anymore. We're done with the charade.
Some of us have always been done with it. Now, I understand that that's scary for you, Helen.

The trans agenda is crumbling.

Gender ideology has been exposed.

The so-called medical experts like yourself who pushed this madness have been permanently disgraced.

Your career is in shambles.

Your organization is discredited.

You are a laughingstock.

Everybody knows you're a fraud and a fake and a clown. Your entire worldview is a sham.
You've lost the argument. You've lost respect.
You've even lost your medical license. But you can't turn back now, can you, Helen? You can't admit that everything you said was a lie.
You can't admit that you knowingly harmed countless children by giving them castration drugs. No one believes the lie, but you also can't admit the truth.
So you're stuck in limbo. The ship is sinking, but you've tied yourself to the mast.
And you secretly hope that somebody will rescue you, but we can't. Because you've done this to yourself.
And you know something? Even if we could rescue you, we wouldn't because you deserve to sink. You deserve to suffer because of what you've done to children.
And so we'll all stand on the shoreline and watch. And then when the last bit of the ship disappears below the surface, we will walk away and forget that you ever existed.
All that to say, no, I'm not sorry.

And I take back nothing that I said. And also, you are, of course, just like your medical license canceled.
That'll do it for the show today. Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.