Matt Walsh

But the second point on the politico

article itself, okay?

Obviously, if somebody says something publicly and they've decided to announce it to the world, well, then that's fair game for anyone to disagree and anyone to say anything they want about it.

But with that in particular, I think that in almost every case,

If you are speaking in private, you're having a private conversation, and then somebody with obviously sinister intentions comes along and takes that private conversation and makes it public, in almost every case, my position is, and this has always been my position, I don't care, I'm not even paying attention to it.

Okay, I am not going to dignify that.

I'm not gonna go along with it.

I'm not gonna give you what you want.

I'm not going to reward that strategy.

And by the way, that's a principled stand on my part.

It's like a self-preservation thing.

I don't want people doing that to me.

I don't want people going through and revealing my private conversations, not because I'm saying those kinds of things, but because these are private conversations.

Now, there are exceptions to that.

One exception is if you're running for political office and you want to be the top law enforcement official in a state, and you've said privately that you think that half of your state should die.

Well, that's one of those exceptions.

And I think probably in general, if you're running for political office,

That's an exception.

There are things that become fair game that otherwise wouldn't be.

But outside of those exceptions, I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that we should give these people anything that they want or that we need to start now condemning things that were said in private in conversations that had nothing to do with us.