The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 1375 - How The Trump Trial Has Backfired Spectacularly On The Democrats

Episode Date: May 24, 2024

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we haven't talked much about the Trump trial in New York, mostly because the whole thing is a ridiculous farce. But, at this point, it has backfired so magnificently on the Democrats that it's worth taking a few moments to review just how bad it's gotten for them. Also, tragedy strikes as Media Matters suffers massive layoffs. Leftists in media declare that Caitlin Clark benefits from "white privilege" in basketball. And, a man on Wheel of Fortune last night makes the worst mistake in the history of game shows.  Ep.1375   - - -    DailyWire+:   Get your BRAND NEW 2nd Generation Jeremy’s Razor here: https://amzn.to/3KfSEFc  Watch the 2nd Greatest Commercial Ever: https://bit.ly/4bvFmQO   Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj   - - -    Today’s Sponsors:   ExpressVPN - Get 3 Months FREE of ExpressVPN at http://www.ExpressVPN.com/Walsh   Tax Network USA - Seize control of your financial future! Call 1(800)245-6000 or visit http://www.TNUSA.com/Walsh   PragerU - Have your donation DOUBLED at http://www.PragerU.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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new elixir collection, featuring three perfum intense scents, inspired by a unique orchid accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch, solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. Today in the Matt Wall Show, we haven't talked much about the Trump trial in New York, mostly because the whole thing is a ridiculous farce.

But at this point, it has backfired so magnificently on the Democrats that it's worth taking a few moments to review just how bad it's gotten for them. Also, tragedy strikes as media matters suffers massive layoffs. Leftists and media declare that Caitlin Clark benefits from white privilege in basketball. And a man on wheel of fortune last night makes the worst mistake in the history of game shows. All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show. Online without ExpressVPN is like leaving your kids with the nearest stranger while you use the restroom. They're probably not a kidnapper or serial killer, but why would you ever take that risk? You also leave your data vulnerable whenever you connect to an unencrypted network in cafes, hotels, or airports.

Any hacker on the same network can steal your personal data, such as your password and financial details. Doesn't take much technical knowledge to hack somebody. All you need is some cheap hardware, smart 12-year-old could do it. Hackers can make up to $1,000 per person selling personal information on the dark web. ExpressVPN creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet so that hackers can't steal sensitive data. It'd take a hacker with a supercomputer over a billion years to get past ExpressVPN's encryption. Sounds complicated, but ExpressVPN is incredibly easy to use. All you need is to fire up the app and click one button to get protected.

Plus, it works on all your devices, including phones, laptops, tablets, and more so you can stay secure on the go. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvPN.com slash Walsh, ex-B-R-E-S-V-N-V-N-S-WLsch for an extra three-month-free, expressvvPN.com slash Walsh. Well, unlike the national news media, I have not spent a lot of time talking about the day-to-day happenings in the Donald Trump criminal trial in New York. And there's a few reasons for that. First of all, everybody, regardless of politics, already understands that the trial is a farce. It's a criminal proceeding over an alleged bookkeeping error that was supposedly made many

years ago, which harm no one. The idea that the leading presidential candidate should be imprisoned on this basis, even if these charges were somehow proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt is laughable. In the third world, they at least invent plausible sounding charges before they throw political dissidents and opposition leaders in jail. But in this case, we're left with falsifying business records in the first degree. I mean, it sounds like something Michael Scott would accuse one of his employees of doing. It's just a laughable on his face. The other problem with going into any great detail about this case is that it risks legitimizing the proceedings.

This is why CNN has panels of 25 guests every night breaking down all the, testimony and excruciating detail, they want people to think of this trial as serious and fair, something worth analyzing at a technical level, but it's not. And there's no reason whatsoever to accept the premise that this proceeding is anything more than a show trial brought by a partisan prosecutor in one of the most partisan jurisdictions in the country before a clearly unfavorable judge. But today I'm going to make an exception to my general approach to this trial. I'm going to talk about the trial because at this stage, it's important to highlight what an unmitigated disaster it's been for the Democratic party with less than six months to go until the election. It's actually comical, as you'll see in a

second. Now, at a minimum, from a purely political perspective, this trial and the decision to make this case the first Trump prosecution has backfired so spectacularly that it's been a clear net positive for Trump and his campaign. That's why Donald Trump was able to hold a massive Riley in the Bronx last night, not exactly a traditionally pro-Trump part of town. And right now, it's all but certain that this is the only trial, criminal child, that Trump will face before the election. So there's no real hope for Democrats to salvage their strategy of using lawfare to swing the vote. The collapse of the prosecution's case was sealed with the testimony of their star witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen.

It was always clear, as even the most partisan CNN panelists have admitted, that without Cohen, there's no case. He's the one claiming that Trump ordered him to pay hush money to a porn star to protect Trump's campaign, that Trump also tried to reimburse him through fake invoices for legal services. There are no cameras allowed in the courtroom because in New York judges do everything they can to imprison presidential candidates in secret. But fortunately, we do have transcripts of the proceedings that a handful of YouTube channels have conducted dramatic readings of Cohen's cross-examination by Trump's defense team.

And one of those channels is called Good Logic. It's run by a lawyer and it's known for its legal analysis. So they're the perfect channel for the job. And they understand how absurd Cohen's testimony is. So they have a hard time keeping a straight face. I'll go in chronological order throughout the testimony so that you can get a sense of how things escalated or rather spiraled out of control for the prosecution. And I'll start with Michael Cohen claiming that Trump's team had secretly reimbursed him in part for the hush money payment. And for context, Michael Cohen had previously testified that he made around $420,000 a year from the Trump organization.

That was his consistent pay year after year. But in this testimony, Cohen attempts to claim that one year, his $420,000 salary was actually a partial reimbursement for the hush money payment. Watch. And I believe your testimony is that the way that the $35,000 a month, the way that that number was kind of devout was $130,000 for the payment to Ms. Daniels, right? Correct. $50,000 from the Red Finch polling situation. Yes, sir. That's 180, right?

Correct. And then your testimony is that Mr. Weisselberg said, let's gross that up and double it, which brings you to 360. One second, I need to answer with a straight face. That's correct. Yeah, they just voluntarily said, they voluntarily said, let's just double how much money we're going to give you. Let's just do that.

That's correct. That's exactly what he said. I didn't have a gun to him or anything, and he voluntarily just said, I don't even suggest it. He just threw it at me. Yeah, yeah. Why we just double that? He paid 180. We're going to give you back 360 because that's how our business operates. That's correct.

And then Mr. Weisselberg said that you're getting another $60,000 bonus. Why not? Yes, sir. So it's 360 because we're doubling the 180. and then tacking on another 60. Now, the case is not clear. Everything after the reenactor started laughing wasn't the actual testimony. They couldn't even get through the transcript

because the claim they were reading was too absurd. Cohen's saying that the Trump organization didn't pay him $420,000 because that's what they always pay him. Instead, Cohen is claiming that during that particular year, the Trump team paid him $420,000 because they were giving him the hush money loan payment and then doubling it. And then adding a bonus because they were feeling generous.

I guess. In other words, Cohen is claiming that this secret arrangement, which allegedly involves funneling a lot of money to a porn star and then reimbursing Cohen, just so happens to add up to Cohen receiving the same pay he would normally receive anyway. In order to sell a story like that to the jury, a story that doesn't make a lot of sense, we need to have a very trustworthy, unimpeachable witness. But in the next few minutes, Cohen made it clear that he's not only untrustworthy. He's also done something far worse than anything Donald Trump is accused of doing. Watch. You never gave the $30,000 that was owed to the guy that owned Red Finch, did you? No, no, no, sir.

So you stole from the Trump Organization, right? Oh, yeah, yes, sir. Did you ever have to plead guilty to larceny? No, sir. Have you paid back the Trump organization the money that you stole from them? No, sir. So this is the prosecution's Star Witness admitting on the stand to willfully stealing tens of thousands of dollars from his employer and not paying it back. By any measure, that's a lot more

serious than falsifying a business record, allegedly. But newer prosecutors never had any interest in investigating Michael Cohen for that and said they gave him immunity to testify. That wasn't because Michael Cohen had any kind of credibility prior to this trial. Even before he admitted on the stand to stealing from his employer, Cohen previously lied to both Congress and the Justice Department. Additionally, Cohen had told numerous reporters in recorded calls on the record that Trump had nothing to do with the Hush Money payment. And he admitted that during this cross-examination as well, watch. You and Mr. Albestein went to visit Mr. Cromen, who's in jail here in New York City.

Yes, sir. And this is around the time or right after the time that the story of you making the payment had been released, right? I'm sorry. One more time, please? When you went to visit him in jail, it was right after the story had been leaked out that you made the payment to Stormy Daniels, correct? Yes, sir.

And do you remember saying that both of them, insisting, to both of them that President Trump knew nothing about it? I don't recall specifically saying that, but it would have been what I would have said at that time. Yes, sir. You spoke to, again, we talked about it a lot, but you spoke to Ms. Haberman about it and told her that President Trump didn't know about it, right?

Yes, sir. And you also, and you said that on the record, right? Yes, sir. You recorded conversations with multiple reporters where you told them you didn't know, correct? No, sir. Do you recall a conversation with a reporter named Suzanne Kianpour with the BBC? Yes, sir.

Do you recall recording a long conversation with her in early February about the payment? Yes, sir. And do you recall telling her that there is no way you had told President Trump about it at the time? Do you remember telling her that? Sounds correct, yes. So these are conversations that Cohen recorded sometime secretly in which he affirmed again and again that Trump had nothing to do with these payments. And Cohen apparently didn't only tell that story to reporters.

A defense witness, Robert Costello, also testified that Cohen told him in 2018 that Trump, quote-unquote, knew nothing about the $130,000 payment that he made to Stormy Daniels. Throughout the trial, Trump's defense team outlined why Cohen has a motive to change his story and lie about Donald Trump. One of the main reasons is that he was apparently upset that Trump didn't give him a job in the White House. and getting left on the sidelines like this seems to have caused some problems in the relationship. Earlier in the trial, Trump's lawyers played audio tapes of Cohen saying that the trial, quote, fills me with delight and that he felt, quote, giddy with hope and laughter, imagining both Trump and his family in prison. In court, in front of the jury, Cohen essentially said the same thing.

He admitted on cross-examination to saying that he wanted revenge against Donald Trump. Now, you also testified on Thursday that you were mad at. at President Trump. You blamed him at least in part for what happened to you, correct? That's correct. You said, and we played it for the jury, that revenge against President Trump is a dish that is served best cold. Best served cold, correct? Correct. And you meant it when you said it then, correct? You meant it when you said it then. Yes, sir. And you meant it when you said it just now. Yes, sir. So again, this is the man that the prosecution's case depends on.

Without his testimony, they have no chance of convicting Donald Trump, even if they managed to prove the existence of falsified records. Cohen's testimony is the link between Trump and those records, and there's no reason to believe anything Cohen says. In a sane jurisdiction, the judge would have issued a directed verdict by now. The case would be dismissed. The prosecutor would be sanctioned for attempting to imprison, the leading candidate for president

on the basis of testimony from a witness who's clearly been discredited, a witness who is, by his own testimony, a liar, a thief, who's out for revenge. But it's not clear what will happen next because this case is being tried in New York with a clearly pro-prosecution judge,

an electorate that overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden in the last election. Still, there are signs that there is some political diversity on the jury. During jury selection, eight jurors said that they read the New York Times, while one juror said that he gets his news from truth social. In a political show trial like this, that's as good a sign as any that there might be a hung jury here because it's hard to imagine a truth social user voting to convict Donald Trump.

At the same time, the judge is doing everything you can to encourage the jury to convict. Under New York law, in order to convict Donald Trump of felony falsification of business records, the jury needs to unanimously agree that Trump falsified documents in order to conceal a separate crime. But the judge recently ruled that the jury doesn't need to unanimously agree about what the separate crime is. And the prosecution hasn't suggested anything. As far as I can tell, it seems like the idea is to suggest that Trump was trying to conceal some kind of campaign finance violation, which is a notoriously confusing area of law. And that's why the defense wanted to put a campaign finance law expert on the stand. But the judge prevented the defense from doing that.

Instead, the judge allowed Michael Cohen to strongly imply that Trump had violated campaign finance law without explaining how. This was a predictable problem from the moment New York prosecutors unveiled their criminal complaint against Trump, which listed 34 felony counts, all of them saying that Trump had concealed some other crime. But the complaint never mentioned what the other crime was. Everyone assumed the prosecution would eventually get around to explaining that part. Well, they just rested their case. And still, they have no idea what the other crime is. It has not been explained, so the jury doesn't have to figure it out. For all the talk about how Donald Trump is a threat to the rule of law and democracy,

this trial is easily the single most lawless, vindictive, and undemocratic prosecution that's been brought in modern history. They're trying to imprison the man who could very well be the next president on the basis of a crime. They can't even define based on the testimony of a crime. witness who admits he's a liar who's out for revenge. If there's any upside, it's that prosecutors in New York have managed to thoroughly discredit not only themselves, but every other effort to imprison Donald Trump. So thanks to Alvin Bragg, now everyone can see these prosecutions for what they are. Now let's get to our five headlines. If you owe back taxes are still unfiled returns, that can really weigh on your mind, especially when the IRS has become more

determined than ever. Their chief data and analytics officer revealed that the IRS is focused on an enforcement project with an average return on investment of about $6 for every $1 spent. They're targeting individuals and businesses that currently owe back taxes or haven't yet filed their returns. Tax Network USA, the nation's leading tax relief firm, knows the tax code and will fight for you with a record of negotiating over a billion dollars in tax relief for their clients. Their team is knowledgeable in handling any type of tax issue. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, they can help.

Even if you don't have all your personal or business records from over the years, they can get you filed up to date. Facing the IRS without a professional is not a smart move. Contact Tax Network USA for the best strategic advice to help reduce or even eliminate your tax debt. Call today at 1-800-245-6,000 or visit their website at tnusa.com slash walsh. They'll give you a free private consultation on how you can settle your tax debt. That's tnusa.com slash walsh. We begin with some tragic news today.

Here's the report from Mediaites. Media Matters for America laid off over a dozen staffers on Thursday as former employees took to X to announce they were out of a job. Catherine Abu Ghazala, also known as Kat Abu, posted bad news. I've been laid off from media matters along with a dozen colleagues.

There's a reason far right billionaires attack media matters with armies of lawyers. They know how effective our work is and it terrifies them. parentheses, him. Abu appeared to be referring to Elon Musk who filed a defamation suit against the progressive media watchdog last November

over a report claiming that major corporate ads on X were being shown alongside white national's content. Media Matters President Angelo Carasone hit back at Musk's threat of a suit at the time, saying Elon Musk has spent the last few days making meritless legal threats, elevating bizarre conspiracy theories, and lobbying vicious personal attacks against his enemies online, even if he does not follow through with this threat to sue the volatility of actions reinforced why major brands are rightly skittish of partnering with X. So they're blaming Elon Musk for the fact that these layoffs are happening, even though, of course, they're the ones who defamed him with what is was was in fact a false story.

And then there's a bunch of other media matters employees who were tweeting about how they lost their jobs. So massive layoffs. Lots of conservatives are celebrating the layoffs. And if you can believe it, there are conservatives that are saying really uncharitable things about this story. They're even saying that they're happy that these employees were laid off. there are people saying that. They're saying that Media Matters employees are the worst people on earth and deserve to be unemployed. And they hope that they can never find another job.

I mean, there are people saying that. You know, they're saying that Media Matters only ever tries to cancel people and get people fired. That's their whole mission in life. And so they richly deserve for the same thing to happen to them. That's what's being saying, being said. I mean, I've heard just terrible things. I've heard people say that, you know, media matters is nothing more than a collection of utterly useless scumbags who contribute nothing of value to society. I've heard that.

Someone said to me that media matters is basically the human equivalent of like a colony of termites. You know, they're saying that media matters is, they're the tapeworms in the intestines of society. I've heard these things. People have said these things. I've heard them. And I'm not saying this because that would be dehumanizing language. I'm not saying it. I'm telling you what these people have said.

I mean, they're saying that Media Matters, you know, that Media Matters employees, I've heard someone say that media matters employees that they even had a cameo in the first Jurassic Park movie as that giant pile of dinosaurs. And again, this is what people have been saying. And, you know, I think they're terrible things. They're terrible things to say. they're popping champagne and celebrating the demise of Media Matters and the fact that all these people have lost their jobs. I'm not saying any of this, because I'll tell you why. I'm horrified by it. And shame on all the people that are saying these terrible things.

I would never celebrate this kind of misfortune being visited upon Media Matters. How could I? How could I celebrate the decimation of my own PR department? I mean, Media Matters has done so much work. I'll say thanklessly. They've done so much thankless, unpaid work on my behalf. And I feel ashamed of that, that I have never, I have thanked them, but I've never paid them a dime for any of this. And yet they promote me and they promote my work.

There's no organization on earth that's been more dedicated to marketing me and helping to grow my brand. They've done more than anyone for me. really have. I owe them a huge debt of gratitude. And I'm worried now that with the organization falling apart, that they won't be around to promote me anymore. And so that's a fear that I have. I mean, just to give you an idea of how dedicated they've been and how good they are at marketing me, I just went back just to review their most recent headlines about me. So here are some of the headlines, just for the last like a couple of weeks. Matt Walsh rants against Native American

reservations. You got conquered, okay? It happens. Daily Wire host defends using anti-black racial slur in a friendly way. Did I say that? Matt Walsh says a lot of undocumented immigrants are whiny little babies. Matt Walsh, should white men just build, maintain, and run their own airport? I'd be quite happy to use that airport personally. I think most people would actually. Matt Walsh, the people that are destroying the planet, the worst offenders that destroying the planet, are non-whites.

Matt Walsh calls for arming teachers in schools saying there's no magic button to prevent mass shootings in schools. In response to Caitlin Clark contract controversy, Daily Wire host says the WMBA shouldn't exist and nobody watches it. So these are just some of the most recent headlines. And you can see how adept media matters is at highlighting my best moments and my best points. They're very good at it. They've got a real ear for this sort of thing.

and they've been following my work for so long. They've been working so hard to promote me that I don't think anyone could ever truly replace them. And now what's going to happen? I mean, what's going to happen to me is what I'm saying. Like the real question here is whether these layoffs are going to mean fewer headlines about me. That's what I'm worried about.

And I think more people should be worried about it. And frankly, even though I'm gutted by this news and I feel very sorry for the Media Matters employees who lost their job. I will say I was a little taken aback by all of the former Media Matters employees who've been tweeting about getting laid off and making it all about them. And none of them, not a single one, have offered me any condolences or acknowledged how difficult this is for me.

Can you believe that? I haven't even gotten a personal message from any of them saying, hey, Matt, you know, we lost 12 employees. there might be fewer, there might be a little bit less, there might be fewer headlines about you and really, really sorry about that. You know, I hope that you'll be okay. What can I do for you? What can I do to make you feel better about this?

No one has said that to me, that media matters. Now, sure, I'm still earning a paycheck, and these people are now unemployed, and will have trouble finding new jobs because they have no skills or professional achievements to speak of. But, again, I'm the one facing the harrowing prospect, of having fewer headlines written about me in the future. And that is very difficult.

That's what I'm dealing with. Okay? So if you're in Media Matters and you lost your job today and you're waking up without a job, think about what I'm going through. All right? All right. New York Post reports, The View co-host Sunny Hostin

argued that white privilege and pretty privilege played a role in Indiana fever star Caitlin Clark's popularity during the ABC talk show on Wednesday, the co-hosts of The View were discussing former ESPN host Jamil Hill's argument that Clark owed much of her popularity to her race and sexuality. Hosten said earlier in the discussion that she had no issue with Clark bringing the WMBA some much-needed attention, but it seems that she in fact does. So let's go ahead and watch the video. You know, I've been a basketball fan since I can remember. I played basketball with my dad in Harlem when I was five years old.

I remember loving the game and the game not necessarily loving women back, right? At all. At all. And the WNBA started in 1996. First games played in 1997. It's 2024 and we're just really now talking about it. And so if Caitlin Clark is the vehicle that will bring this sport that I have loved so much and so long, to little five-year-old girls playing in Harlem, I say yes, Bravo.

I have no problem with that. Okay, let's pause there just for a moment because she says that women loved the game, but the game didn't love women back. Now, I honest to God have no idea what that's supposed to mean. How is a game supposed to love you? What do you mean the game doesn't love you? That is, I mean, no offense, but that's the most womanly complaint about sports that you could possibly have. I mean, next she's going to start nagging the game for not spending enough time with her and not being more emotionally honest with her.

No, it's not that the game didn't love women. It's the other way, of course. Not many women have loved the game. Okay, that's the whole issue here, which isn't really an issue. It doesn't need to be an issue. Like, I don't consider it a problem. If women don't like basketball, for the most part, fine. Who cares?

But that's the case. Only a very small percentage of women care about basketball. And by the way, most of the women who do care about basketball still just want to watch the NBA because the NBA is more interesting and it's more exciting because the players are approximately 5 billion percent better than the WNBA players. So that's what's going on here. That's the entire issue. But let's continue to this, continue with this very insightful analysis here. With that being said, I do think. that there is a thing called pretty privilege. There is a thing called white privilege.

There is a thing called tall privilege. And we have to acknowledge that. And so part of it is about race. Because if you think about the Brittany Griners of the world, you know, why did she have to go to play in Russia? Because they wouldn't pay her. Because they wouldn't pay her. Because they wouldn't pay.

Not because she was black, but because they didn't believe in the WMDA. This is part of my point. Yeah. Now, you know, Caitlin Clark is bringing this money, these sponsorships, we hope, into the league and other players will benefit from it. But I do think that she is more relatable to more people because she's white, because she's attractive.

And unfortunately, there still is that stigma against the LGBTQ plus community. 70% of the WMBA is black. A third of the players are in the LGBTQ plus community. Okay, so this is where we are now. She's claiming that Caitlin Clark has white privilege in basketball. Okay, she's claiming that people haven't wanted to watch basketball because there are too many black people. Now, of course, the problem with this theory is the existence of almost every professional sport in the country. Because most of them have a wildly disproportionate number of non-white people. and yet the big ones are still wildly successful.

So, yes, the WNBA has gotten terrible ratings and sold like five tickets total in the 25 years of its existence. And Sonny says that's because there are so many black people in it, I guess, in America's racist. Except that the NBA during that time has done extremely well, and it has the same amount, if not more, black people. So how do you explain that? How do you explain why the NBA does better than the WNBA? How does that fit into your racial picture here? If we're at the point where you're somehow finding anti-black racism in basketball of all places, then we've really reached the end of the race hustle.

We have reached its bottom. Now, I know that we can't actually reach the end. It will continue no matter what, untethered from reality. But still, this should be the end. When you find a way to make basketball racist against black people, then there's nothing more to be said. It's just you can't, that's it. There's nothing to discuss or debate anymore. Now, with all that said, I also have to echo something that's a, I think it was Jesse Kelly said this on Twitter.

It's an important point, which is that, okay, fine. what if white people are now, some anyway, are now more interested in women's basketball because it has a white star? Fine. So what? Why is that a problem? I don't even necessarily buy this argument, but, and I certainly don't buy the privilege, the way, you know, framing it as privilege is insane, but let's go with it for a minute. And then the next question is, who cares? like every other race is allowed to have more interest in something when they see themselves,

quote unquote, represented. And we take that for granted. We celebrate it. You know, the fact that Tiger Woods got more black people interested in golf, for instance, nobody sees that as a negative. Nobody's talked about how problematic that is. There's never been one conversation anywhere of people saying, well, I don't know. This is, is their black privilege in golf? because of Tiger Woods?

Like that's basically because it's the exact opposite, right? But that's basically, it's as absurd. Claiming that Caitlin Clark has white privilege in basketball is like saying that Tiger Woods had black privilege in golf.

But no one ever did say that and no one ever found anything problematic about a black person saying that you know, they became interested in golf because of Tiger Woods. Nobody has a problem with that. Yet if a white person uses the same logic has the same motivation for now becoming interested in women's basketball, it's a problem. Why? Why should it be? But you have to actually explain that, and you can't, which is why we can't accept that

premise. So, okay, it might be true that there is increased interest in Caitlin Clark because she's white in part. That's not white privilege. But that might be true in the same way that there was increased interest in Tiger Woods. And that's because it's unusual for a white woman in particular to be good at basketball. It's an un...

Or certainly to be that good, in comparison to the other women in the WMBA anyway. It's an unusual thing. It's unusual. So unusual things are stories. Unusual things are stories more than normal things are stories. When we see something that is the same thing we've seen a million times, it's not much of a story. Which is why there was never any story about, can you believe this white guy is really good at golf?

No one ever said that. There are plenty of white people that have been very good at it, but the fact that he's white was never, it's not a story. Because it's not unusual. It's normal. But when you have an unusual thing, it becomes a story. Who cares? And if there are white women out there who now care more about women's basketball because of Caitlin Clark, okay.

Isn't that the whole point of representation? Isn't that what we've been told relentlessly for years now? Haven't we been told that, you know, people need to see themselves represented in all of these different spaces? And I don't buy that. I don't think representation is it's fine. It's not something to pursue for its own sake. I don't think we need to look at an institution or a company or a sport or a genre of entertainment or whatever and say, well, there's not enough of this race and we need that race represented. So we don't need to do that. But if it just so happens that someone of a certain race ends up in a certain field where it's uncommon for them to be there. Fine. And that's just an important point because I think that most people will sort of take issue factually with some of the things that somebody like this person on the view said. The white privilege stuff, like that's kind of the low-hanging fruit. It's easy to dispute that because it's so ridiculous. But there won't be as many people who go to the next part and say, okay, well, even if you're right, who cares?

like why is that an issue but it's important for us to do that um we've been debating playing this it's not exactly newsworthy well it is newsworthy it's you know what never mind it's newsworthy it is it is newsworthy because it's the worst it's the worst wrong answer in the history of wheel of fortune okay this is it's going viral today and you know i'll be honest I see these kinds of like game show, you know, mess up videos sometimes and these bloopers, game show blooper reels that you see on social media all the time. And usually they're sold as, oh, this is the dumbest thing anyone's ever said. And like, you watch it.

You're like, oh, it's pretty dumb, but it wasn't that bad. But what people are saying is that this is the worst mistake anyone's ever made in the history of a little fortune. And in this case, I think it actually lives up to the billing. It's truly the worst wrong answer. Probably not just in Wheel of Fortune history, but in game show history, period. I think it lives up to that. I really do. I don't think I'm overselling this thing here if you haven't seen it.

You'll see why in a second. Let's play this. This is from Wheel of Fortune, I think, last Thursday night. This is what happened. Watch. Our first toss-up is worth $1,000. Category is phrase, and off we go. Right in the butt.

Yeah. That's it, I think, yeah. Let's go to answer. Blake gets $1,000. I mean, when you get that from your fellow, when you get a what from your fellow contestants, you know you're screwed up. That's, that doesn't usually happen. And so that, yeah, that's, how do you recover?

Now I want to go back and watch the whole episode. How does that guy, how do you recover? I think at that point you have to just put the little clicker thing down and leave. You got to say, all right, guys, that's it for me tonight. I'm heading out. That's, what am I going to do now? I can't do anything else. And the other thing, too, is that they, that, that, they're, I mean, we can't go into a lot of detail analyzing this,

but there were not enough letters to spell, write, R-I-G-H-T. So it would have to be like R-I-T-E, R-I-T, that kind of right. And so you put that together and it takes on even weirder connotations that I can't, well, we don't need to think much about it. In any case, this does bring up an important point, as I desperately grasp for some reason to justify having played that for you. But I think it doesn't bring out an important point when I think of what it is. And you know, but I've said this before. I like Will Fortune. I like Jeopardy.

I like game shows in general. It's just not worth it these days. It's not worth it to go on a game show these days. I wouldn't do it. I don't care how much money is at stake. I wouldn't do it because there's there might be money at stake. stake, but there's too much else at stake these days. You can't do it. Now, because think about it, back in the old days, pre-internet, pre-social media, back then it was different. You could, you know,

you could go on wheel of fortune, and you could give a wildly wrong answer about something. And then, and that's it. People might see it if they were watching, happened to be watching the show that that evening. But that's it. There isn't, there wouldn't be any place for that moment to live forever in infamy. There would be no way if someone in 1992 was watching Wheel of Fortune and they saw that. They laugh hysterically. Maybe they'd tell their friends about it. Maybe if they had the VHS go and they would record it. But other than that, there's no place for them to go and say, hey guys, did you all see this? If you guys weren't watching Wheel Fortune last night, check it out. Here is this moment of this guy humiliating himself. There wasn't any way to do that.

And so you could probably horrifically embarrass yourself and survive. And most of the people that you encounter for the rest of your life will have never seen that moment because it happened one time and never again. It may be reruns or something. But for the most part, there was that one time. Now, now it's a moment. immortalized. If you say something really stupid, it's immortalized. It does live forever. There's a place where it can go and it will just be there forever. And now, like, Bill, think about this. And I don't want to make this guy feel worse about himself than he already does. But I am going to make him feel worse about himself because, like, billions of people are going to see that over the next several years.

billions are going to see that moment. And so it's just not, it's just not worth it. It's not worth it. There are other ways to make. And on Wheel of Fortune, how much money do you earn anyway? You know, they still, I don't think they've increased their amounts. I haven't watched Wheel Fortune recently. But they're not keeping up with inflation.

So people are still walking away, winning like, you won $12,000. Oh, great. What does that buy you? Guys like one night, hotel stay, holiday inn, and dinner at five guys. Well, good. I'm glad that we had a chance to talk about that. America's youth is being taught that our nation is simply not worth fighting for. Prager You stands ready to fight for those who fought for us, but they can't do it without you.

We must never forget who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect these treasures, Americans' fallen heroes. The selfless efforts of those lost forever in battle are now often marginalized, even demonized, by our leftist education system, mainstream media, and popular culture. Prager You has important videos about Memorial Day and our armed forces. These videos were made to help educate the legacy of our military's fallen men and women on Memorial Day and all year long. They need you, our patriotic supporters, to help millions of young people learn about the importance of honoring their memory and being grateful for the precious gift of freedom they have given us. Go to Prageru.com and donate by May 31st and your tax-deductible gift will be matched, making your impact doubled.

You can also choose to dedicate your gift in honor or memory of a loved one. Thank you for standing with Prager You and standing by the memory of our beloved American heroes. Visit prageru.com today to have your donation doubled. Well, they said it couldn't be done. A new razor introduced on Amazon had no chance of becoming the number one seller in any category. That's what they're all saying. The whole world was saying that. But because of you, Jeremy's second generation precision five razor,

it's officially a number one bestseller on Amazon. Thanks to you, we're making it clear that there's a huge, demand for woke-free products for Jeremy's newest commercial highlighting second-gen Razors. A lot of experts encouraged Jeremy to be more diverse and inclusive. They even brought in a black Jeremy, which as a side note confuses me because if there's anyone that razors exclude most, it's not black people. It's bearded men like myself.

I'm really sad that they didn't choose me as the new Jeremy. I very much wanted to do that. I'm learning now. And as I read this, it would have been way more inclusive. Plus, it would have driven the McLaren better and been way more entertaining. with the flamethrower. But I digress. The point is, Jeremy's does not bend to the DEI experts. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, you should go watch the new commercial. Jeremy's Razors remains woke free while offering superior products. Get a hold of new Jeremy's

second-gen Razors for yourself by going to jeremy'sraisers.com today and start shaving like a man, not a manifesto. Now let's get to our daily cancellation. You might remember that about a year ago. There was a coordinated effort to attack Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for going on. on vacations with a couple of his wealthy conservative friends, the idea was that Clarence Thomas was being bribed and possibly breaking the law by not publicly disclosing these trips. And therefore, the Supreme Court is illegitimate and Democrats don't have to obey its rulings. That was the idea.

They figure that if they can't pack the court, then they can at least discredit the court in the eyes of the public. Now, the whole scandal kind of fizzled, though, after the Daily Wye reported that left-wing judges were doing the same thing. Sonia Sotomayor, for example, made millions of dollars from Random House, but she didn't recuse or sell from cases involving the company. And somehow Democrats didn't have any problem with that, though, which exposed their whole attack on Clarence Thomas as a politically motivated hit job, which of course is what it always

was. Now, at the time, it was clear that activists on the left would regroup and come up with another line of attack on the Supreme Court. And last week, they made their move. They launched the single most desperate smear campaign that they possibly could have come up with. It began with a story in the New York Times about an upside down flag outside of the home of Justice Samuel Alito. We mentioned this briefly on the show a few days ago.

Here's ABC's stern-sounding, no-nonsense evening news anchor to explain. We turn next tonight to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito under fire after an image of the American flag being flown upside down at his home for several days. This is the image of the flag outside his home, the image from the days after the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Tonight, Justice Alito blaming his wife. Here's Terry Moran. Tonight, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

embroiled in controversy after the New York Times published a photograph showing the American flag outside Alito's house flying upside down. The Times says the picture was taken in January 2021, just days after the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Some Trump supporters that day held aloft upside down American flags as a sign of their rejection of Joe Biden's election.

The U.S. flag code says the American flag should never be flown upside down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger. Alito's neighbor, Ia Carlson's, remembers seeing Alito's flag that way in 2021. In my mind, I just said, there's something wrong with the flag.

Today, she saw the story in the New York Times. And I said, oh my God, of course that, what it was, it was hanging upside down. Great neighbor, by the way. Good thing to do to your neighbor to go ratting them out to the media. And that makes a lot of sense. The neighbor saw the flag three years ago, but she couldn't figure out that it was upside down until she saw a picture of the flag in the New York Times. She just knew that something was off about the flag.

Couldn't recognize that it was upside down. And now she has the answer. Oh, it was upside down. Mystery solved. Now, it's not clear why this woman is speaking to a national news station instead of heading to an optometrist's office. It could be that she sees the entire world upside down, which would obviously inconvenience her life in many other ways. But we really don't know what this woman's issue is because ABC never pushes her to explain her confusion. ABC also doesn't explain why it took three years for somebody to send the photo of the upside down flag to the New York Times.

And most notably, ABC doesn't articulate any clear link between the upside down flag and January 6th. At the Wall Street Journal, Kim Strassel went looking for any references to upside down flags in January 6th coverage prior. to this Alito report in the New York Times, she searched a large database of news articles and didn't find a single reference. So why are we only learning now that January 6 is connected with upside down flags? And why are news organizations acting like

we should have known this all along? And that Samuel Alito should have known this. Now, obviously, with all these unanswered questions, this image was never going to sustain a scandal. And on top of that, Alito directly refuted all the allegations. he said his wife put up the flag, not him. And he said it was a response to something his neighbor did, not January 6th. So there was no kill shot here.

There was just an old photo of an upside down flag. Fortunately for Democrats who want to destroy the Supreme Court, though, there was another shoe to drop. Watch. Now, while that boycott was raging last August, according to a search of financial records by legal reporter Chris Geithner, Justice Alito sold a chunk of stock in Bud Light's parent company, Anheiser Bush. and he bought shares, of course, on the same day. Kid Rock was out shooting up Bud Light cases,

and Sam Alito was selling his Anheuser-Busch stock. Now, you could say, well, I don't know, maybe just a coincidence, if it weren't for everything else we know about Samolito. So it's not even clear what they're complaining about here or what we're supposed to take from this. Apparently, Samuel Lido was guilty of not wanting to lose money. He sold his Bud Light stock when the country,

company was in a tailspin. He actually sold it well after it began its steep decline. So there's clearly no insider trading going on here. And when he bought shares, of course, which was a, which was doing better. That's why he bought it. He bought it on the same day. I like how they emphasized that. He sold those stocks and bought these on the on the same day. Wow. Thanks for letting us know. We're supposed to conclude, according to the Rachel Maddow impersonator guy, that this could be more than a coincidence. Well, yeah, it's not a coincidence at all. It's not, there's a, does anyone, you're not supposed to, now, I'm no stock market expert, okay, but this is not how investing in stocks is supposed to go. It's not supposed to, you're not

supposed to just do things randomly with no reason behind it. That's not how it's supposed to work. And it's not how it worked here. There was a clear cause and effect. The company was tanking, so he sold the stock. Maybe he didn't think the stock would go back up. So he wanted to cut his losses. Maybe he didn't like the company's advertising. Maybe it's a bit of both.

Who cares? Why should we care exactly? Well, that's never explained. There's no conflict of interest that's even claimed here. There is no major Bud Light Supreme Court case that Samuel Lito ruled on. He didn't dump the stock right before ruling that Bud Light should be banned or whatever. So what's the problem? We're apparently told to fill in the blanks because no one really knows.

Now, at this point, if you were running the smear campaign, you might consider aborting the mission. It's clearly not working out as intended. It's not even making sense. But the other day, there was yet another volley in this campaign of unmitigated, flailing incoherence when we circled back once again to flag controversies. Only this time, the left tried to find something sinister in the fact that Alito's Beachhouse had a flag that people have been flying since the Revolutionary War. Watch.

The developing headline tonight involving Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Just days after images emerged showing an upside-down American flag flying outside his home for several days after January 6th. Tonight, the new report on a second flag, this time at his beach house.

Here's our Chief Justice correspondent, Pierre Thomas now. Just days after the nation saw an image of an upside-down flag outside of the home of Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito in the days after January 6, a symbol of the stop-to-steel movement, a new photo tonight raising yet more questions.

The New York Times publishing images of a pine tree flag outside of Alito's New Jersey Beach home last summer, with the words, appeal to heaven. Like the upside-down flag, the pine tree flag was carried by some pro-Trump supporters on January 6 as the Capitol was attacked. Tonight it's unclear who allegedly placed the flag and what kind of statement was being made.

The flag, which dates back to the Revolutionary War, has also been associated with Christian nationalism. I love the headline, Second Alito Flag Incident. Because you can, you know, this is what you can do. You take any innocuous, take something totally innocuous and just call it an incident. And then when it happens again, there's a second one.

So they could say, like, the second Alito shoe incident. Yes, on Monday, Samuel Alito was found wearing shoes, and on Tuesday, he wore shoes again. Coincidence? So this time around, the flag is right side up, but it's still a problem because they're saying the 1775 pine tree flag was flown by some January 6th protesters, so Alito is an insurrectionist and needs to be removed from the court. Never mind the fact that the pine tree flag is displayed right now in the Capitol outside the Speaker of the House's office. never mind that it was flown by frigates commissioned by George Washington. Never mind that it's been flown by thousands of people for centuries. None of that matters because the January 6th protesters waived it.

Therefore, it's been helplessly corrupted. So follow this logic to his conclusion. And what you'll find is that we have to ban pretty much everything else that the insurrectionists, quote-unquote, insurrectionist, waved or possessed. including the current American flag. That's obviously an insurrectionist symbol, because there were a lot of those in the crowd that day. Any Supreme Court justice with an American flag outside of his or her home should be disqualified immediately. That's the new rule, I guess. So what you have to do, before you wave any flag, you need to go and look, scour the footage from January 6th,

and take note of every type of flag that was present at that event. and then you can never fly that flag again. Now, it appears that that would be the current position of dozens of House Democrats. As the Washington Post reported this week, quote, nearly 50 House Democrats called on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Lido to recuse himself from January 6-related cases on Tuesday. The lawmakers asked Alito to decline to participate in deciding a pair of major cases the Supreme Court is slated to rule on in the coming weeks, whether Trump may be criminally prosecuted for his efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election, and whether

the Justice Department can use an obstruction. charge to prosecute more than 300 January 6th rioters. One of the leading congressmen who organized that letter is Hank Johnson, who famously warned that Guam could tip over and capsize because too many military personnel were on the island. So you know we're dealing with some intellectual heavy hitters here. Unfortunately for Democrats, in typical Hank Johnson fashion, that letter is not exactly subtle. It gives the game away.

The objective of this current smear campaign is to undermine and intimidate the Supreme court ahead of rulings that might help Donald Trump. They want to do everything they can to ensure that Trump isn't elected, so they're digging three-year-old photos up and spreading bizarre, incoherent lies and conspiracy theories about flags and bud light stock. Now, I began the show with a discussion of the Donald Trump trial and how obviously farcical it is. And I wanted to end with the attacks on Samuel Alito because they're similar in one very important way, which is that they're both absurd and totally self-discrediting. Yes, they're trying to imprison the leading presidential candidate because of an invented crime. And yes, they're trying to discredit the Supreme Court because

of a couple of flags that they don't even understand. To be sure, those are not signs of a functioning or healthy society, we can say. Now, at the same time, it's also a very good sign that these activists and politicians are so completely unbelievably clumsy and stupid. They're not anywhere near smart enough to pull off the coup that they're attempting, they've made that very clear. And as we head into the Memorial Day weekend, with less than six months until the election, that is some much-needed good news to celebrate. And that's why the Samuel Lido flag truthers and everybody else who's pretending to be terrified of flags that they don't remotely understand are all today canceled.

That'll do it for the show today. And this week, have a great weekend talk to you on Tuesday. Godspeed. Thank you.