Ms. Hall and I differ significantly in our points of view; but her statement is not unreasonable. Let me explain:

Given two propositions -- (a) Matt Walsh says he believes X, and (b) Matt Walsh says he is trying to make money from promoting his belief in X -- these two propositions are not mutually exclusive. They may, and often do, eventually come into conflict with one another; depending on one's beliefs for income tends to compromise one's willingness to re-examine those beliefs, because one risks losing the income if those beliefs change. But strictly speaking, the two propositions are not in conflict.

What Walsh does with them may bring them into conflict.

I am no fan of Walsh himself, his ideas or his actions. But I don't think we advance our own cause by short-sighted reasoning or misrepresentation of facts.