Piers Morgan Uncensored - Candace Owens, Cenk Uygur & Jonathan Conricus On Israel, US Election & More

Episode Date: September 18, 2024

The world is once again reeling from a smorgasbord of explosive news; from a second attempt on Donald Trump’s life, to a literally explosive operation by Israel to blow up the pagers of Hezbollah members. Fortunately, Piers Morgan has assembled exactly the right panel of people to comb through it all. Piers is joined by host of 'The Candace Owens Show' Candace Owens, founder of 'The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur, founder of 'Blackwater' and ex-Navy SEAL Erik Prince, former counter sniper and Florida Republican Congressman Cory Mills and former IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus. Their discussion is as contentious as regular viewers would expect... Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bottom line is Israel is starting a much larger regional war and I guarantee you. Hold on. I guarantee you that Jonathan is going to come on here. You're not going to talk over me. I guarantee you Jonathan comes out here and says America must pay for it. America must die for Israel. That's what he's going to say. Hank, you're going to have to learn how to control yourself.

I know it's very difficult for you. We just had a very long time to speak and we were quiet. I promise you can do that. As I was saying, The outcome of the U.S. presidential election will have massive implications for America and for the world. The candidates could not be further divided on issues like immigration, the economy, and the role America should play in restoring peace. Make no mistake, this election is transformatively significant. It might be one of the most significant, in fact, in our lifetimes.

But it's not existential. Kamala Harris is not an actual communist. Donald Trump is not an actual fascist. And no matter what happens in the next four months, a new president will be sworn into office in January next year. Just one day after a second attempt to assassinate Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton said this. And I don't understand why it's so difficult for the press to have a consistent narrative about how dangerous Trump is. You know, the late great journalist, Terry Evans, you know, one time said that, you know, journalists should, you know, really. try to achieve objectivity, and by that he said, I mean, they should cover the object. Well, the object in this case is Donald Trump, his demagoguery, his danger to our country and the

world, and stick with it. That narrative is dubious, and the timing was appalling. The media can be accused in many ill deeds, but failing to have a consistent narrative about Donald Trump is not one of This montage has now been viewed more than 30 million times in the aftermath of the latest attempted shooting. Excuse the poor quality, but the point is obvious. I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country, and maybe there will be. People need to start taking to the streets.

This is a dictator. You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there is unrest in our lives. Enemies of the state. Show me where it says that protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful. Do something about your dad's immigration practices, you feckless. If they go low, we kick. How do you resist the temptation to run up and wring her neck?

The biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized right, to the right? Well, the full version goes on and on and on. Of course, it's not difficult to find examples of Donald Trump saying outrageous things too. But there's no real value in me highlighting them because they play on the biggest TV news shows all day every day. you will have already seen them. Everybody has. And right now it's Democrats pushing the narrative that Trump, and only Trump, is to blame for the simmering

and, in some cases, exploding tensions in American politics. Those tensions have almost got him killed, not once but twice in just two months. Surely enough is now enough. There are many unanswered questions about Donald Trump's security. There's a very live debate about who is to blame for this dangerously federal atmosphere and what should be done about it.

There are questions too about an all out war in the Middle East after Israel seemingly ignored the United States to launch an audacious attack on Hezbollah. Twelve people are dead, including a child. Almost 3,000 were injured after pages used by Hezbollah were remotely detonated inside Lebanon. Now even more blasts are hitting Beirut, with reports of an explosion at a funeral,

hundreds injured by exploding walkie-talkies. We'll discuss it all with tonight's panel. I'm joined by the host of the Candice Owens show on Spotify and Rumble, Candice Owens, the founder of the Young Turks, Czech Yuga, and former Navy SEAL, author and founder of military contractor Blackwater, Eric Prince. Well, welcome to all of you. Check Yuga, there's a lot going on.

I mean, the new cycle right now feels slightly insane. You know, you've got Donald Trump nearly assassinated again, twice in two months now. You've got apparently Israel launching this extraordinary attack across the whole of Lebanon on thousands of Hezbollah terrorists and, of course, wounding and potentially killing as well civilians in the process. So there's a lot to unpack here. What do you make of it? Okay, first of all, on Donald Trump, what do you want me to do?

The guy did a coup attempt. He had fake electors, not even his own electors. You have your own slate of electors. He didn't use them because they said, this is unconstitutional and illegal. You lost the election. And he said, all right, they can get in fake electors. Let's do a coup attempt here.

Let's have them bummush the Capitol. And then that'll create enough confusion that we can bring it back to the states and the Republicans will cheat for us. They even wrote it in a book. Then he said we should terminate the Constitution because he lost the election. So what do you want me to do, peers? The guy hates democracy. He's a dictator or want to be.

So, okay, should you shoot at him? Of course not. Any action that is physical like that or violent is a surrender in the intellectual field of debate and ideas. So it's a terrible idea, it's immoral, etc. But I'm not going to let up on Donald Trump for one

second rhetorically, because he is a monster, and he tried to terminate our Constitution. He tried to steal an election. I've never seen anyone so despicable in American politics. And by the way, there's another reason why I'm angry at him, because I'm a populist, and he took populism

and he perverted it to just turning into his own personal con. He's such a slimy con man. I loathe him. Everyone should vote against him. He's one of the worst people I have ever seen in politics. And I'm not going to let him terminate the Constitution or destroy this democracy. You see, what I find extraordinary, Chang, is you haven't even given it a beat since he nearly had his brains blown out on Sunday on a golf course, which came two months after. Did he give a beat? Did he ever give a beat when he constantly talks about violence? Hey, if someone takes out somebody from where this stretcher, I'll pay their legal bills.

Attack people. Oh, my political opponents, I'm going to jail them. I'm going to attack them. Well, hang on. Hang on. To be clear, you're trying to equate him making a joke about maybe slapping or punching someone in a crowd who's abusing him with someone. Can I make a joke about slapping Trump across the face?

Hang on. Can I make that joke? Can I make that joke? Hang on, somebody actually shooting him on a rally stage and then very nearly shooting him on a golf course with AK-47. Do you not see the difference? So, Pears, those are terrible actions. So what am I...

I'm asking you a literal question. What do you want me to just go... Could you give it a beat? Oh, okay, now Donald Trump's a good... Hold on, let me finish the question. On a human level. On a human level. Donald Trump's a good guy.

Donald Trump loves democracy. Donald Trump... No, Donald Trump's still the same monster he was yesterday. So I hate that people are shooting at him. It's so dumb. It's so dumb. It's immoral. It's wrong.

I can't condemn it any stronger. Why would you be surprised? I'm not going to tell you that Donald Trump is a decent man when he's a grotesque human being. Jake, why would you be surprised that people are taking drastic action, unhinged people with unhinged brains who are listening to constant rhetoric for people? You didn't answer the question. What do you want me to do? You want me to politically surrender, right? I'm asking you a question. Do you not consider for a moment that within 48 hours you're still saying monster, demagogue, dictator, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Because that's who he is. Yes, but this is affecting. So you want me to lie?

Because here's, tell me this. Do you want me to lie? Let me finish. Let me finish. The shooter at the golf course, specifically in his recent social media posts, parrity Kamala Harris saying that he was effectively an existential threat to democracy in America. You're doing the same. Does nothing make you pause?

You're insane. You're insane. Trump does it 2,000 times worse. So because you think he does. You should do it too. Democrats shouldn't, your great idea is Democrats shouldn't campaign against your beloved Donald Trump because some moron mentally unstable guy took a shot at him. Okay, or two of them did.

You know what? I can protect Donald Trump, ban assault weapons. That'll protect Donald Trump way more than any of, oh, say nice things about him. Now that some lunatic took some shots at him. Here, let me be super clear. If you're on the left, I know the right winger's love their guns and Second Amendment remedy, and they've been riled it up to do violence nonstop. But if you're on the left and you do any violence, you're not one of us.

You're a stupid person who does nothing but make a worthy cause look immoral with your insanity. Never do violence. Is that clear enough? Or maybe, maybe when they constantly hear on the airways people like you and Hillary Clinton and others constantly depicting Trump as an existential threat to democracy and America. Pierce, you're totally guilty. You're guilty. Maybe. You're guilty.

Maybe. Because you support Donald Trump. And Donald Trump has done 2,000 times worse and you know it. Maybe. You won't even run it on this show. Okay. You won't even run it on this show because Donald Trump, what he says, is so much worse than anything a Democrat has ever said about him.

So you won't even run it on this show. So that's it. Are you telling Donald Trump? You better shut up. You better not say any of those gross things that you always say. You know that he joked about smashing Nancy Pelosi's. husband's head in with a hammer. Whatever's lunatic fans try to murder Nancy Pelosi's husband.

And he's like, ha ha, it's so funny. Here's the problem. When he tried to murder his vice president, he then turned around and said he deserved it. Here's a psych. He's a psycho. Here's the problem. You have no idea what I've said about Trump when he's done these things. If you had, you wouldn't accuse me of not talking about them because I always do.

Because I always do. Are you telling him to shut up? I want to bring in Candace Owens here. Candice, look, we're 48 hours after the latest assassination attempt, and I'm listening to another liberal, who I respect, I've had Shankar a lot on the show, absolutely losing his mind about how despicable Donald Trump is and what a threat he is and a danger and so on and so on.

Exactly the kind of rhetoric that Trump has said he believes is fueling these people to try and kill him. What do you make of where we are with this? What I make of all of this is that if you are going to legitimately tell people that someone is a monster, that somebody is a dictator, that somebody is literally Adolf Hitler, if you're going to tell people that this person is a constant threat, why wouldn't somebody try to eliminate that threat? That would actually be a sensible thing for somebody to do if they believe the rhetoric that is coming out of people's mouths. Now, if this had happened and it was flipped, including you, Candace. You're all guilty. You're all guilty. You've done 10,000. You're going to have to control yourself.

Tank, you're going to have to learn how to control yourself. I know it's very difficult for you. But you just had a very long time to speak, and we were quiet. I promise you can do that. You need to sit on your hands, then you should do that. As I was saying, if this situation had been reversed and I had just watched somebody try to shoot Kamala Harris, I would be definitively saying how wrong it was.

I would be saying to people that despite the fact that I do not want her to be president, of course, she is not so much of a threat. that she needs to be shot. They don't stop this rhetoric because they do not want these assassination attempts to stop on Donald Trump. And I want to be very clear.

The circumstance that we find ourselves in in the West is one of remarkable privilege. And when you're in times of remarkable privilege, it creates actually an issue of having a lot of weak men, right? Weak men are the ones that are going out here proclaiming that Donald Trump is a threat,

proclaiming that Donald Trump is somebody that is a dictator because they've never had real conflict in their lives. And you're about to see that example right now, of a difference in the demeanor between someone like Chank and Eric Prince, who I greatly respect, and with somebody who has seen real conflict and understands what real threat is, right? He understands real threat. Chank is somebody that grew up, obviously, with a silver spoon in his mouth.

He's never had to fight for anything in his life and has never had to put his life before somebody else's. So it's very easy for him to behave like this, to behave, demonstrate like a, like a toddler who is throwing his toys out of the pram when he doesn't get what he wants. And so he heightens his rhetoric and says, why am I not getting what I want? This man's a dictator. This man's a threat. And he's not being realistic.

And it's embarrassing to our country, whether it's a person on the right or the left. Chang, Chang, I promise you are capable of people. He wants to terminate the Constitution. So you like that? As somebody else speaks. Let me bring in Eric. Eric, you are a former Navy SEAL.

And a patient. And a very patient former Navy SEAL, yes. You know, when I look at what's happened here, there are lots of strands to what's going on. and we'll come to the security aspect around Trump, which I find pretty scary, actually, that twice people have, with extraordinary ease, got into positions to assassinate him

in the space of eight weeks, which I just find quite remarkable and shocking and shameful, and a disgrace that the Secret Service has allowed that to happen. But before we get to that, this whole... They saved his life. Well, they didn't save his life. They put him as a position with his life, nearly got taken. That's the truth.

I mean, because they didn't even check... The guy didn't even get off. They didn't even check the perimeter of the golf course before he was exposed for four hours on that course eight weeks after he was shot. It is unbelievable that anyone from the Secret Service would claim anything but a dismal failure of their preparation to protect the president, in my opinion. But we'll come to that. Eric, what do you make of this debate, which is raging right now in this debate now about the rhetoric. and the responsibility of people who were on the airwaves who were in public life to dial down the rhetoric.

Look, like the video clip you opened with, there's an enormous amount of apocalyptic language spoken by the left, saying he must be eliminated, he is Hitler, and that unleashes every left wing crazy to authenticate themselves by saying, I'm going to be the hero. This guy, this Ruth guy on Sunday,

who is there for 12 hours, stalking Donald Trump, with a high-powered rifle with a scope, with ballistic plates up against the fence, and what did he have up there? A GoPro. Why? He was trophy hunting. He wanted to be the savior of the left to say, I'm the one that killed Donald J. Trump. Trophy hunting, saying, were people like you responding to words that you're putting out there.

Why else would he have a GoPro? No, no. He wanted to get famous. You're totally right about that, Eric. And I hate that. but the way that this whole thing has been framed as if the right wing doesn't do rhetoric that is 10,000 times more dangerous and violent over and over again. Trump's fans sent pipe bombs to every one of his enemies.

Trump fan hit Nancy Pelosi's husband in the head with a hammer, and Trump never even denounced it. How sick is that? He never even denounced it. He laughs about it. So if we were using the Trump standard, we'd laugh about him getting shot at, but I'm not as disgusting as Donald Trump is. Nancy Pelosi's husband had an interlude with some bizarre gay lover.

He wasn't on the right. Oh, my God, I'm on here with lunatics. I'm on here with lunatics and conspiracy fears. I can't believe he just said that. And you're saying that the guy who smashed ballposes head in wasn't on the right? Is that what Candace Owens the lunatic just said? Okay, just so you know, if I come on here with, somebody else, lunatic, you shouldn't be behaving like one in the process.

When you say these right-wingers are all nuts, do you understand the irony given you just spent the last 10 minutes literally ranting? Yeah, yeah, I do, Pierce. So I am loud and aggressive because that's what the Democrats and the left-wing need to stand up to lunatic bullies like this. Candace Owens just said that the attacker of Paul Pelosi was not a right-winger when he is a Donald Trump fan and a deep right-winger. And Eric Prince, the lunatic had said that he was a gay lover. of Paul Pelosi, a conspiracy theory so unhinged that I, how am I supposed to respond to it? You can't have a rational discussion with people who don't believe in facts and logic. Pears, are you agreeing with these two lunatics that he was not a right-winger and that he was

some sort of gay lover of Paul Pelosi? Eric Prince as a lunatic. He served our country. You should have a little more respect and decent. Yeah, no, he's a mercenary and a disgusting guy, by the way. How many people got, did you get killed innocent people in Iraq, Eric? How many people did you have mowed down in Iraq, Eric? You know, going back to your topic, Pierce, perhaps it's time to bring back

19th century behavior, which maybe we had a more civil society then. If people are going to throw all kinds of bombastic language, they do so because they do it without consequence. In the 19th century in the UK, people would call them out for a duel. It doesn't have to be to the death. It could be swords. It could be pugal stick. maybe that would make for a more polite society.

I don't know. I'm ready to go there. You see that? Piers, you see that? Who's the first to threaten violence? Of course, Eric, from the right wing. Whereas I denounce violence. I denounce it strongly and loudly, and you'll hurt it with your own ears. But, Chang, what I don't think you appreciate

is how ranting incendiary rhetoric of the kind you've unleashed so far in this debate yourself can, with an impressionable, unhinged person who believes everything you're saying about Trump, as Candice said, why wouldn't that person think to themselves, yeah, we've got to get rid of him. We've got to stop him. Okay.

So my question for you is, if you can't even dial it down within 48 hours of a second assassination attempt on Trump's life, when can you? So, peers, now let's have an intelligent conversation. Hold on about where are the lines? Where are the lines? So, wait, he asked me your question.

Where are the lines? when you say when Trump says these incendiary things that are that encourage violence including laughing at smashing the head in of a political opponent's husband that that's what? Is that fine? Or he's bad to how long does he have

to pause saying violent things? Listen, I've criticized Trump for lots of his incendiary language over the years. But as far as I... So how long this should he stop? So far as I know, he's ever called one of his opponents Adolf Hitler and yet the left constantly Yeah, he did. Constantly. I don't know

about Hitler, but first of all, but peers, you make it look like... Here's my point. If the left constantly say, as they do, he's the new Hitler, who by the way, murdered 12 million people with his Nazis, including 6 million Jews in a holocaust, if you keep saying

that often enough, as the left do in America, eventually an unhinged mind is going to think, I've got to stop the new Hitler. That's my point. So, first of all, I've never called him Hitler. But I love Sandra Day O'Connor's quote about, it was about Bush and Cheney at the time, about fascism. She said, we've got to

be careful of these beginnings so that we don't get those endings. So what I'm worried about is a guy who says that he loves dictators and writes love letters to them. And then he loves it when everybody has to stand up and applaud and no one can disagree with the leader of the country. He loves it. He thought we should terminate the Constitution. When they said to him, hey, they're trying to murder your fans are trying to murder your own vice president. He told Mark Meadows his chief of staff, he deserves it.

I have to tell people the reality about Donald Trump. So, peers, what do you want me to do? That is not a reality. That is not a reality. A 48-hour break, a 72-hour break. Or maybe do you want me to take a month and a half of a break of criticizing Donald Trump? Well, you know, it was interesting watching CNN yesterday.

You are such a radical. You are such a radical. For example, where CNN finally conceded on air that actually when Kamala Harris repeated this trope about Trump that he called for a blood they said there would be a blood bath if he lost the election. Everyone knows

that's untrue. That's not what he said. He talked about a bloodbath in the automobile industry. CNN finally admitted that on air, but Kamala Harris repeated that in a way that implied he said there would be a literal bloodbath. So when it comes to rhetoric, yes, Donald Trump

has a lot of incendiary things that come out of his mouth and I wish he didn't. But so does the left, Jane, and your utter refusal to accept that anyone on the left can be even remotely responsible for creating an atmosphere where two people now tried to kill Trump, I think he's very disingenuous. Pears, let me be clear. So number one, on the bloodbath comment, on the day of and ever since, we played the whole clip on the young Turks and told everybody he did not mean violence. He talked about an economic bloodbath. Why did Carmilla Harris pretend that he did? We were honest about it. We've never called him Hitler.

And so, but peers, I can't sit here and not tell you that he didn't try to end our democracy because he did. So I'm asking you now for like the fourth time. He gave him a way. I'm going to get the other two to respond to this. But let's want to bring in just very quickly, the Republican Congressman Corey Mills. Corey Mills, thank you very much indeed for joining me. We're having a very heated debate, ironically, about the heated debate. ironically about the heated debate raging around America,

which may or may not have played a part of these two assassination attempts. There's an irony there. Well, there's not an irony. I've been listening to the complete instability, and I'll remind Chank and others that we should go back to Henry II, who actually sat with his knights

and said, is there no one who can rid me of this meddlesome priest? His knights took that rhetoric to mean that they should go and murder the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby actually resulting in. and an assassination of an individual. So I think that Eric is correct and Candace is correct, that Chang should just probably sit on his hands for a moment and just listen to what hate and vitriol he is spewing

and why things have continued to ratchet up. I think that we all need to look at political violence and a condemnation and also take a response to say that this isn't something that we want to continue by taking down the pressure and the heat, which is boiling within America, and start looking at things with, of understanding that civil discourse is acceptable,

that political discourse is acceptable, but ratcheting up to violence and this type of rhetorical type of threats is just not to be accepted here in America. Yeah, I completely agree. And on this separate issue of Trump security, I was staggered to see the acting director of the Secret Service,

who's replaced the one who resigned after the rally shooting, basically doing a kind of victory lap on television, where he claimed everything they had done was fantastic. It all worked perfectly because one of his agents spotted the barrel of a rifle poking out of a bush and fired him that direction. Didn't hit the shooter, but scared him away. But I'm sorry, why was no one from the Secret Service thinking it would be a good idea to even check the perimeter of the golf course, given that people know where Trump plays?

They knew he was in Florida. They knew he was likely to be playing golf at that course. and the guy went and positioned himself for 12 hours right where the media go to get a clean photographic shot of Trump. I mean, it's just almost, it's beyond parody of this. Well, Pierce, if I could just go ahead and say that this is the second time that a perimeter and security bubble failure has existed. You look at the 150 yards shot by Thomas Crooks.

You now look at this attempted plot to assassinate the president within 500 yards. This is why I've argued for a long time that there's three critical failures within the U.S. Secret Service and has nothing to do with funding. This has to do with the fact that, one, we have prioritized DEI over meritocracy, and two, the ability to conduct an actual threat assessment on a principle, that being the former President Donald Trump, and then looking at your threat mitigation strategy, should not be dictated and determined by the title or the position you carry,

but by the actual threat itself and what assets and resources are required to mitigate that threat. So the reality is, while they're touting that this is a great, success, as Eric can tell you, and look, I'm a United States Army combat veteran. I'd served in the 82nd. I've worked overseas on different protection details. I can tell you that the best way to mitigate a threat is to forecast it to prevent it from occurring in the first place, not to play reactionary. And so extending out a perimeter bubble, guaranteeing the threat assessment and matrix of, you know, I guess security mitigation and guaranteeing asset resources should be the first priority, but we have poor leadership in the Secret Service. We have DEI

prioritization, and we have a failed strategy on how we actually allocate assets. I mean, I've known Trump, nearly 20 years, as a friend, and I am genuinely concerned about his safety. I genuinely fear that between now and the election, he could actually, someone could get successful, that these assassination attempts are coming, you know, with alarming regularity. Two in eight weeks? I mean, it's crazy. Well, that's exactly right, not to mention the fact that you can't go ahead and assess the threat under President Trump to that of, say, a former president like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. We have to look at the fact that President Trump is not only one of the most

loved individuals, but he's also one of the most hated and not just by the threats we've seen domestically, but that of the Fed well, which is declared by Iran, after the successful counterterrorism of Qasem Soleimani and also Aboumetich. on Mahendis, the fact that he was successful in the elimination of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS or Daesh. And so we have to start looking at the fact that while they can continue to try and claim that the incident that resulted on J-6 was an incitement of violence through dangerous rhetoric, why can't we assume that the incitement of violence that resulted in the attempted assassination on January 13th or recently isn't of the same caliber and why can't we treat it the same?

And so, look, I've had multiple discussions with Eric. Eric's a longtime friend. He's a patriot, former Navy SEAL combat veteran. The things that Chank was saying about him couldn't be further from the truth because I think Eric's one of the best. But I'll tell you, I think at this point, until we can get new leadership in the Secret Service, we actually need to be thinking about private security on the internal bubble of the president, utilizing former soft guys and pushing out the secret service assets in the bubble to do clearance and prevent this type of incident from happening in the future.

Yeah, I mean, something's got to happen. Congressman, thank you very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it. Thank you, Pierce. Let me bring back the panel. Candice, I do genuinely feel very apprehensive about what is happening and what may happen. And I dread to think what would happen in America if somebody did actually assassinate Donald Trump, as they are repeatedly trying to do. Yes, I mean, I was completely underwhelming. by the immediate reactions, even from Kamala Harris, you know, just that simple tweet,

and violence has no place, which felt like it was copy and paste it from a PR firm. You know, there was no shock. There was no, this is absolutely wrong. There was no expressment of true frustration and disappointment or even the recognition that that could be her, right? Like, if you're trying to be a person that wants to be the President of the United States, this could potentially be you one day, so you should be outraged. I didn't sense that outrage from her. And rather, what you have correctly attest to is they just kept going on with the rhetoric, the very next day, which to me is signaling to their followers that this is okay. We're getting closer and we're getting closer and we are fine with this. We're not going to turn down the

rhetoric because you guys are responding correctly. One of the things that's really frustrating, I think, for a lot of people, is to watch the way the media is constantly allowed to detach themselves from the consequences of what they say, which is to say that somebody shoots up and tries to shoot a president and the media is like, well, I was just calling him Hitler, but I never said to anyone that they should go shoot someone. like I said earlier, what do you expect an individual to do when you are saying Adolf Hitler is taking the stage, when you are saying that we are going to completely lose democracy, which is so far from reality. It's embarrassing for Chang to say that because we don't have to imagine Trump is

president. He already was for four years. People were living very well. The economy was doing very well. And so this rhetoric may have made sense in 2016. It doesn't make sense now in 2024. And so it's frustrating to see that. And I think what is good, though, is to allow people around the world to get this insight into what's happening in America because you hear the left constantly purporting to be the side of peace, right? Then you watch someone like Chang, right? And then you listen to people that are on the right, the awful people on the right, you listen to Eric Prince, you listen to me, and you're able to really comprehend who are the radicals in American society. Because you can scream peace, you can scream, oh, we love is love all day, but you hear their rhetoric within 24 hours

after a former president was almost shot, and they never dial it down. I mean, these people, I want and encourage violence all the time. You see, here's the problem. If this was Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, who had had two attempts on their life in eight weeks, the idea that you would not, if anyone on the Republican side,

use the kind of enraged, ranting rhetoric you've deployed in this debate today within 24 hours of it happening, that you would go completely, nuts at the Republicans for doing that. So my thing for you is you seem to think that the justification for all your rhetoric is that, well, Donald Trump does it. And that's kind of like the old school playground thing.

Well, they did that so I can do it. Where's your own moral line? Where's your line that says, we're going to be better than that? If you genuinely believe that is wrong, that incendiary rhetoric is wrong. Why do you deploy it? So peers, no. The framing of this entire conversation is insane.

So if somebody was just watching this conversation, they would think that I ordered an attack on the Capitol or that the left wing did. No, Donald Trump had a violent mob attack or a capital. And then you make it seem like the left has the violence problem. And then I strongly and very loudly condemned any violence. Shooting at Donald Trump is the worst thing in the world. I can't be any clearer about it. Any assassination attempt, any violence, any of the physicality. Hold on.

You don't condemn any of the incendiary rhetoric. Let me finish my point. I condemn it as forcefully as I possibly can. And then what do the two right-wingers do? They neither one of them condemned to attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband. Instead, they came up with crazy conspiracy theories. And what does that do? It encourages their fans.

Oh, yeah, well, it's not a big deal to attack our political opponents. It's not a big deal to attack the Capitol. It's not a big deal to send pipe. bombs to Donald Trump's political opponents. So they encourage this kind of violence 24-7, and on January 6th, we saw it in spectacular fashion. And then you're trying to reframe the debate as criticism of Donald Trump, legitimate political criticism of Donald Trump, is somehow the thing that's causing political violence in this

country? No, it is 98% right-wing political violence. The 2% where it's the left-wing, I hate it, I despise it, I condemn it. can't be any clearer than that. And yet, Check, the only attempts on candidates' lives have both been against the same guy who's the Republican nominee. So look, they're lunatics in this world. So those two guys are total lunatics. The first guy wasn't even a left winger. This guy is totally unhinged from reality. Voted for Trump in 2016. But it isn't about him being right wing or left wing. The point is that these guys are unhinged. So I don't want anyone taking shots at Democrats,

Republicans. But you're not prepared to change the way you speak about Trump, which he believes is feeding and fueling it. You never answer my question. So do you want me to do a unilateral political surrender for the rest of the election because some lunatic took a shot at Trump? No, but you know what? You could take your little beat, a little bit longer than 24 hours, perhaps, to consider

whether the language from the left may have contributed to these attacks. Let me bring Eric here just being again waiting patiently. I mean, Eric, it seems to me. America is in a dangerous place right now. This is not a game. You've experienced actual warfare, and we're now seeing people taking weapons of war to rallies, to golf courses,

to try and settle their differences with people by shooting them. And in this case, it's Donald Trump that they want to kill. This is not a good place. If your point of this panel was to explore the spectrum of political rhetoric, I think your guests in the middle box,

you know, Repsips a locator, the thing speaks for itself. To call the, you know, January 6th such an insurrection, it would be the first insurrection in human history where people showed up unarmed. And if people are feeling nervous about the survival of their constitution, about their vote, people show up to a lot of rallies and they should certainly be able to show up

and not expect to see attacks. There was just another guy. There was an explosive found at a rally in New York today. Well, I'll stop you there on that, actually, because that's now been discounted. They've actually said there were no explosives found. So since we've started this, that's been now discounted.

Good. But twice in eight weeks, with what, six weeks left ago in the election. I really hope it's the last we've seen of political violence because it certainly has no place for the republic to survive. Let me bring back Candice. I want to just talk about Kamala Harris for a bit and the politics of all this because there's no doubt she's had a little bit of a bounce now from, you know, taking over from Biden, from the DNC, from the debate win where I think she won that debate with Trump by sort of feeding his narcissistic streak when he fell for it.

But at the same time, she's giving very few interviews. And the latest one she gave, we're going to show a little bit of it now, to me was just a load of incomprehensible word salad nothingness. Let's take a look. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Women and children. We have seen with horror the images coming out of Gaza. And we have to take that seriously.

And we have to agree that not only must we end this war, but we have to have a goal of a two-state solution, because there must be stability and peace in that reason, inasmuch as what we do in our goal, is to ensure that Israelis have security and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. You see, Candice, I know there was another one at the weekend where she was talking about the economy and saying that, you know, she grew up with people who were proud of their lawns

and all this kind of thing. And in the debate, when she was challenged specifically about any policy stuff, doesn't really say anything. You know, she didn't say anything there about this Israel-Hamas war, which is going to have any meaningful difference to what happens. It's all this kind of, as she would put it, her desire for joy

for everyone to get along, everyone to be peaceful and happy, and everyone to be prosperous. We all want that. But the more she talks about these things, the less impressed I am by what comes out of her mouth. What do you make of Kamala Harris the candidate? You know, I truly think that the reason that they stage an effective coup on Joe Biden was simply because, obviously, he had been in such mental decline

that they couldn't hide it anymore, and they at least needed a candidate that could remember the lines. and going into the debate, and obviously we're still waiting for more to come out, but we do have that ABC whistleblower who said that she was given the questions ahead of time, which would mean that she was given the time frame to remember the answers, and she's good for that. Like, she can remember the answers as if she's performing a high school play, and that's exactly what she did.

But when it comes down to it, the reason why she is giving such few interviews far in between is because she is not actually able to give comprehensive answers. She doesn't actually know what her policies are, which is why she flip-flops often on what her policies are. Her policies are essentially whatever she's told to say. On the issue of Israel and Palestine, it is a vulnerable area for her. She does not want to lose the Muslim vote in America. So she's trying to just say things that sound nice, present a bunch of niceties and sound kind,

essentially going, we only have a few weeks to the election. As long as I sound like I want there to be peace, we won't lose the Muslim vote in people that are passionate about this hot button issue. So to me, I see her as a little more than an actress, somebody that is more effective than, obviously, Joe Biden, who couldn't do that anymore for them. But everything that you're seeing with her is performative. And I am happy that there are groups that recognize that now, like particularly black men do not seem to be falling for this whatsoever. And people are calling into question why it is that she keeps flip-flopping on so many of her policies. I don't think there's much going on upstairs with her.

And she's especially weak when it comes to speaking about economics. And you can see that. You even saw that during the debate. Yeah, I mean, Cheng, you know, I understand you don't want Trump to win, so obviously you're going to want the other side to win. But you cannot be impressed by what Kamala Harris actually says when she gets around talking about policy. It's a lot of hot air, isn't it? Yeah, so mostly yes. Okay, but let me be clear about a couple of things.

So you know I'm honest. So that answer on Israel is terrible. That's basically her saying, I'll do everything Israel to. tells me to do. And by the way, she's taking over $5 million from APAC. Biden's taking over $11 million from APAC. Also, Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, his top donor is APAC. So anything that comes out of Republican or Democratic mouths on Israel is just paid for. Donald Trump, his top donor is Miriam Adelson and is reporting in Israel that he might let Israel annex the West Bank in order to please his donor. So our politics is totally utterly corrupt.

policy. I like some of the economic populist things that she put out there. I like some of it a lot, actually. The problem with Democrats is that they don't often deliver. This is stuff that they do for campaigning. Then they deliver about 5 to 10 percent of it. And then the press bullies you into saying that it was miraculous historic achievements. The problem with the Republicans is they go 100 percent in the wrong direction. And here I was getting all ready to agree with the panel overall because I don't like that answer by Kamala Harris. But But here comes Candace Owens to make up another conspiracy theory about an ABC whistleblower, which is hilarious and ridiculous.

It's been debunked thoroughly. It's just a randow writing rod-like pretending. Hang on. Hang on. Has it been debunked thoroughly? Because I've been watching, well, hang on. I've been watching ABC's responses, and I don't call that a thorough debunking at all. It looks to me like they're being very careful with the way they're wording stuff.

And Bill Ackman's been on this, who's no fool. He's been doing a lot of tweeting about this, saying there's something weird about this. This affidavit was apparently signed two days before the debate and so on. Now, it may turn out to be a load of baloney, but the response by ABC and Disney so far changed has not been very commanding. So, Pierce, here we again. Here we go again. You know who out of Donna Brazil for actually leaking questions to a Democrat, Hillary Clinton? Young Turks did.

We found it in WikiLeaks. And when we originally exposed... So why would you be surprised if it happened again? Right. So mainstream media said, oh, you guys are crazy, you guys are cooks. No, we proved it. You know what the difference between that story and this story is? We had evidence.

There's no evidence here at all. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh when he would say to his listeners, I have a fax. I have a fax here. Anybody can send you a fax, brother. Anybody can put up a fake document online. You have to show that the guy was actually from ABC. Well, this is not a conspiracy theory.

Chank hasn't just, I don't know where he's gone, it's like a scene out of Star Trek. While we get Chink back, we'll bring Eric in for a final word from him before we let you go, Eric. Carmela Harris, it just seems to me at the moment she's profiting just by default that she's not Joe Biden. She's not a guy in his 80s

who'd lost his marbles and clearly had the early onset of dementia. And that because of that, because she's 20 years younger and a little bit more with it and can string a sentence together, She's getting a little bit of bounce from that. But I do feel the more I listen to her and actually think, what is she saying, the more mystified I am about how she would run America.

That's a frightening question. When you look at her debate performance compared to even the interview she did a few days later with the local Pennsylvania affiliate, let's just say the quality of delivery of answer plummeted. So the jury's out on the question of that whistleblower yet, but just look at the significant deterioration of her performance. I don't know. Yeah, she is the perfect shell puppet for a administrative deep state that specializes in, you know, the bureaucratic imperative is to grow government, is to enrich itself and to gain power. And that certainly seems what the Democrat Party is all about, being the party of warfare and more taxes and more regulation and certainly regulating free speech. Eric Prince, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

We're going to let you go now, but thank you very much. I appreciate your contribution to that part of the debate. We're going to move now to this other huge story in the last 24 hours, the blasts currently rocking the Lebanon. I'm joined in the studio by the former IDF spokesman Jonathan Conrickis. We'll still have Candice Owens with, and hopefully we'll get Cheng Ugar back from wherever he was beamed just now. No conspiracy theories here. We think he just lost connection. Jonathan, presumably Israel did this.

Presumably, yes. I would say that is very reasonable to assess. And it is one of the more outlandish things I've ever seen executed. I mean, just purely from an operational point of view, staggeringly successful, they seem to have infiltrated these new devices that were being handed to Hezbollah at the instigation of their leadership because they thought mobile phones ironically were more dangerous, more susceptible to this. So they had these pages which all simultaneously were triggered and went off and people have died, many people have been wounded and so on. Today is carried on in another phase.

You're even seeing apparently solar panels on people's homes have been apparently exploding. you're also seeing other electronic devices exploding with people. It appears to have been very targeted, but as with all these things, a lot of innocent people are getting caught up in it too. You know, there are conversations that you and I have made, and I'm sure that we will have, about innocent people getting caught up in the unfortunate situation of war and warfare, where Israel is defending itself against terrorist armies,

Iranian proxies around it, which I think we should mention, have been attacking Israel for almost a year, firing rockets at our civilians and abducting our people. And I think that most of the time we could have a debate about how many are wounded. In this case, I don't think that you have any better example in modern warfare of a more surgical and precise attack against combatants and combatants only. And frankly, I find it amazingly. I've been answering people on X for the last few hours since I tweeted about it, claiming that this was not a surgical

and not an attack that affected civilians. And I think it's ridiculous. Well, because you are saying civilians caught up in it. They are getting hit. Relatively speaking to the amount of enemy combatants. But it would be illegal if civilians were getting booby-trap in this operation. That is actually illegal.

You can't booby-trap devices where civilians may get killed or wounded. So that's exactly the thing. The devices, as you said, they were bought by Chisbalah and they were delivered to Chisbalah personnel and not just rank and file people. They were delivered to

Chisbalah personnel who needed to be on call and have access to information that is pushed from headquarters and there are people of military importance. In legal speak, that's military necessity. These are people that are... What would you have said if they'd done it to Israel? If they would have done it,

if they would have targeted military personnel, fair game. Really? Of course. When you target... And if Israeli civilians were caught up in it, women and children as well? That isn't really the case. You know, there's one reported unfortunate casualty, and I really don't think that is the heart of the matter. When you look at more than 300, we're told, so far.

When you look at more than 3,000 Chisbalah operatives that have been affected, there's reports of a lot of IRGC officers in eastern Syria as well, still unconfirmed, so I'm holding on that. But when you look about the total number, the amount of Chisbalah personnel killed or wounded, and the adverse effects of one or two people that sadly were also close enough, apparently not been verified by anybody,

but claimed by Chisbalah. And I think we should say that as well. This hasn't been verified by anybody who isn't Chisbalah. And at the end of the day, this is as surgical as you can get in warfare. I dare you to give me another example of 3,000 enemy combatants affected and two civilians affected.

Well, I've got to be honest, I've never seen anything quite like this. It's a stunning thing to who, who have watched go off. We see these videos simultaneously erupting all over Lebanon. Is it safe to assume this is a Mossad operation? Given how sophisticated it is? I mean, what Israeli security agencies have been doing

is enhancing their ability to operate together. Interoperability across organizations, so you would have military intel. There's a cyber unit in the very famous unit 8200 that does offensive cyber. And then there are Mossad capabilities. and one would assume that these have been working together, affecting, if reports are correct, the supply chain of Chisbalah,

directly understanding exactly as you said. Chisbalah gave these machines out to their operatives because they were concerned about Israel listening to their cell phones and taking information. These don't explode, right? But a beeper full of explosives could. Let me bring Candice Owens in now, and we got checked back, I think.

Sorry about that check, and I don't know what happened. I think you disappeared and sparked a whole new conspiracy theory that we had had you zapped off camera. But that is not true. You're alive and well and back with us. Candice, your reaction to this extraordinary operation seemingly led by Mossad, ordered by Netanyahu yesterday, ongoing today, right across Lebanon.

You know, two children are reported to have been killed in this operation, who were clearly civilians and not Hezbollah terrorists. that's reported by the Lebanese Health Authority, which is not Hezbollah. What is your response to this? Is it, as Jonathan just said, fair game? If primarily the people who were targeted,

almost all of them appear to have been Hezbollah? Well, I think a question that I immediately want to ask him, and I'm grateful to have the opportunity to, is that if you're able to delineate how surgical and precise these operations can be with the intelligence that you have, why are there 40,000 dead innocent women and children and civilians in Gaza? Because that's a question that I've always had.

You know, we keep hearing the excuse that behind every one of these victims is a Hamas soldier, but there's not 40,000 dead Hamas soldiers. And if the excuse is that there's a tunnel under there, I mean, just me thinking logically through engineering, you would only have to hit a tunnel at a couple of points to render it ineffective. So I'm just interested in why you guys can perform surgical procedures, but seemingly not in Gaza, where it looks like just an absolute war zone and buildings and hospitals and children and women are dead. Well, on that point, it's going to response from Jonathan.

It's a fair question. It's a very fair question, and I appreciate it, and I'd like to make a comparison. I'm sure that you know you follow events and you're very interested in what happens in Israel and with what our enemies are doing, and I see that. But I'm sure that you know that until this cyber operation that Israel reportedly did,

Israel was able to kill more than 500 Chisbalah operatives in Lebanon throughout Lebanon. Now, I haven't seen you tweet about it any of the other people who usually support the other side, but if you take a look at how many civilians were killed in Lebanon as a result, as an unfortunate byproduct of Israeli strikes, and if you compare that to the situation in Gaza, I think that what you will find is it's the same IDF, the same operating procedures that we have in Gaza, only that here in Lebanon, until now,

the situation is that Chisbalah has so far distinguished itself from civilian population, and they haven't been fighting from within cities. And as such, when the IDF has deployed lethal weapons against them, then terrorists have been killed and not civilians. And it's not because it's a different IDF. It's because, as you said, you use the word excuses, I would call it a reason and the sad reality of Hamas.

using Gaza population as their human shields, which I think is deplorable. And if you claim to be a defender of Palestinians and Arabs and other people, and you have that in your heart. And I think that your criticism should be pointed first and foremost towards Hamas and all of the other cowards who are using Palestinians as their human shields, who are afraid to fight out in the open, who are firing rockets from schools and who are using mosques as their launchpads against Israel, that I think is despicable and that should be condemned,

not the fact that we are going in there to fight them after they attacked us on October the 7th. I didn't issue a condemnation. I didn't issue a condemnation. I asked you a question and you just delivered me the same talking points that we always hear and you didn't actually provide me an answer. If you are able to go to a foreign country,

you guys have control over the Gaza Strip, right? It's a part of Israel. No, it isn't. If you are able to go into a country like Lebanon where you don't have control, where you can't just shut off their water, where you can't be monitoring people's actions in the same way, within the same proximity to Israel, why are you unable to similarly perform a surgical operation

to locate where exactly those Hamas soldiers are? And by the way, do you have a number for how many Hamas soldiers have been killed in the Gaza Strip? Right. So, I mean, you either weren't listening or maybe I wasn't clear. Can you answer to how many Hamas soldiers have been killed? Yeah, I heard your question, Candace. I heard your question. Maybe you weren't listening or I wasn't clear.

I'm usually clear when I speak, but I'll repeat it. We've been able to, Israel has been able to take out more than 500 Chisbalah operatives and with absolutely minimal collateral damage in Lebanon. Why is that the case, which is different from the situation in Gaza? Because Chisbalah hasn't been hiding amongst civilians yet. Hamas is. And that is why, unfortunately, Palestinian civilians in Gaza have also been. killed in significant numbers and many have been wounded. If I were you, I wouldn't use Hamas

information. How many Hamas soldiers have been killed in the Gaza Strip? I wouldn't rely on Hamas statistics and to claim for them to be true. I'm asking you. I'm not asking Hamas. How many Hamas soldiers have been killed in the Gaza Strip? Yeah, I'll answer and it's nice that we're having an interview and Pierce is getting a few minutes off. According to the information that I have and this is working numbers, I don't think that there are final numbers and I think it will take a lot of time before a definite number of dead Hamas terrorist is given. But the best assessment that I am aware of is between 16 and 18,000 Hamas operatives that have been killed in combat in Gaza. Oh, let's bring in Cheng. Why are you laughing?

Because that's an outrageous, ludicrous number. Even the IDF doesn't make up numbers like that. Once they said 13,000, then they went back to 9,000. And this gentleman right here just made up 16 to 18,000. So do you, Jonathan, do you concede that Israel has dictatorial control over Gaza and the West Bank, that it's a different situation than a sovereign nation that could have military or different barracks or can separate folks? It's like saying in occupied France, well, why was the resistance hiding among the civilian population? So of course we had to kill all the French who were protecting the resistance. So the problem is that another country, Israel, has dictatorial control.

over Gaza and West Bank. I mean, you've got to acknowledge that, right? I mean, you're not claiming that Gaza's free. You guys just destroyed 95% of it. I think that the only thing ridiculous. I think we're focusing too much on the Israel-Hamas war, which we've done a lot on this show, as you know, with you guys, right? I would rather, Chek, just get your reaction to the specific operation,

which appears to have been conducted at Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel's instructions, and carried out, primarily led by Mossad, from an operational point of view, obviously a stunning success. But is it valid? Is it fair game, as Jonathan said, given the way that Hezbollah has been attacking Israel now for years? Yeah, so the most important part of this peers is why did Israel act now? Because, look, you could say, oh, Saddam Hussein was a bad guy,

so we should have gone into Iraq. No, I don't think so. You can say Hezbollah are terrorists, but then Israel has killed 30 times the civilians that Hamas has, let alone Hezbollah. So is the Israeli government, the IDF, and Netanyahu terrorists? But that's not the question here. They've been targeting Israel for years. Yeah, yeah. Israel's been targeting Lebanon.

Israel bombed Beirut, they bombed Tehran. They bomb all their neighbors. But hold on. Why now, Pierce? Specifically, do you accept the Hezbollah? has persistently targeted Israel with endless rockets. Do you accept that? Oh, they've launched rockets, no question.

And I'm sure you guys concede that Israel has dictatorial control over Gaza and the West Bank. But don't go back to that. So is it fair game, as Jonathan said, if it was Hezbollah terrorists who were specifically targeted through their pages, is that fair game, given the state of the warfare between Hezbollah and Israel? Look, look, I can answer that question, but we've got to get to the more important question. Well, answer that question first. Hold on, I'll answer it. I'll answer it. So did they check that the 2,800 people and the children near them and the other civilians near them that they were all, quote, quote, terrorist before they decided to murder all of them. Now, luckily, only 12 died, but 2,800 were injured. No, they didn't check. And by the way, buyer beware of Israeli products.

Apparently, they have bombs in them. Okay, so do you suggest we send them a warning? You know, remind me of when the BBC asked me if we should have warned the Hamas terrorists who were keeping our four hostages before we went in to save them, why didn't we warn them before? Because civilians were killed in the combat. You are just as ridiculous in your pontification and in your acrobatics to try to smear Israel. You're really unable to say black is black and white is white. And look how low peers has to go.

in order to get you to say something against Hezbollah? How low does he have to go in order to justify Israel defending itself? No, Jonathan, it's easy. It's easy. I call out Hamas and Hezbollah all the time. I wish they would never fire any rockets. I wish there would be no violence. Right. You on the other hand are totally okay with killing 30 times the number,

which is percussed. You're okay with killing 30 times the number of civilians that Hamas did. Obviously, that's terrorism on a mass scale that Israel does. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. Not when we are doing everything in order not to kill. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it doesn't turn it to be true. Israel is defending itself against a jihadi enemy, an enemy that has said we are not going to stop until we kill all the Jews.

I wouldn't want you or anybody else to be in that situation, but that is the situation that Israel is in. We have to defend ourselves against people who say our only goal in life is to eradicate Israel and kill all the Jews who live there and build a Sharia based state in Palestine. Those are their words. I don't know how you think that you could defend yourself against it, but being nice isn't one of them. You live in La La Land where you say

the Palestinians might prevent an Israeli state. Well, Israel exists. But you prevent a Palestinian state, take away all their freedom, you take away all their rights, you kill them wantonly. Anytime you want you, you destroy all of Gaza and you pretend not to be the

terrorist. So let me ask you something. Is the IDF, the most incompetent military in the history of the world, that they just accidentally killed over 30,000 civilians, including over 25,000 women and children in Gaza? Are they buffoons who just cannot ever get the right target? Oh, we got a couple of Hamas guys, oops, we killed a stadium full of women and children. Listen, the only buffoon here is someone who would be sitting here and doing the apologetics of Hamas. And I say that with a little respect. For you to be saying that, without having lived in Israel, without having dealt with terrorists that are going after our families and women and children, without even understanding what Hamas is.

You compare Hamas to French resistance fighters, seriously? You compare Hamas, a jihadi terrorist genocidal organization. It's an analogy. Because you say that they should be able to kill the French resistance fighters. By even thinking that you can compare French resistance against Nazi Germany to Hamas. that are willing to burn and butcher and rape and kill Israeli civilians. I'm not talking about the Hamas terrorists. I'm talking about the civilians you've butchered.

I want to bring in Canada. A stadium full of dead winning children. And you say that their lives don't count, right? They said, no, no, he didn't say that life didn't count. I've never lived in Gaza. I've never lived in a adult. I want to bring in Candace to ask the same question I asked, Chank, which hasn't really answered in a clear, simple manner,

which I think is a very easy question to answer. Hezbollah, are wedded to constantly attacking Israel. They are an enemy of Israel as Hamasar. So is it, as Jonathan said, fair game for Israel to have conducted this operation, which appears to have been almost, and I use that phrase very advisedly, almost exclusively against Hezbollah terrorists? If the operation was targeted almost exclusively at Hezbollah operatives

and it was surgical, I think every state has a right when it's being attacked to launch an attack back at the operatives that are attacking them. That's a very easy answer for me. And I take, by the way, Jonathan, great exception to you painting me as some like broad defender of Middle Eastern. You said the Palestinian people, I just defend innocent life. And so whether it's October 7th and Israeli children being killed and Israeli children being taken away, I used by platform to say how wrong it was and people were pulling down the signs.

And I'm also feeling just as strongly about the Palestinian women and children. And I don't like when people try to conflate human. humanity as some political position that's against the Jews or against the Palestinians. At the end of the day, the preservation of life is what needs to come first. And I don't feel, if you did this in Lebanon, great, I'm happy for that. I don't think that has been your priority in Gaza. And I use my platform to say how wrong I think what's happening is there. But that's not a condemnation against Jews or the Jewish people. It's a condemnation against Netanyahu's government, which I think has become somewhat radicalized and I think that's a fair critique given the fact that you have so many Israelis that are

taking to the street protesting him as well as the families of the people who are hostages who have been protesting him and speaking out as well as some of the most prominent Jews in America like Ari Emanuel who is a Zionist who has said that he thinks what BB Netanyahu is doing is selfish so I think it's important to separate what is fair critique and an understandable emotion that people are having seeing so many dead Palestinian children on their screens every day on X and on Instagram, and I know, peers, you are also being tagged in these photos of Mother's mourning and screaming. It's wrong. Yeah.

No, I agree. Jonathan, specifically for you is a breaking story that the Israeli defense minister, Yoav Gallant, has declared the start of a new phase, his words, of war, as the IDF turns attention to the Northern Front with Lebanon. Now, that's a massive escalation in what is already a deeply turbulent situation. Can Israel conduct wars on all these different fronts? Yeah, I will of course answer that. And I'll reflect on what you said before, Candens.

I appreciate your words. And I agree with you on protecting human life, dignity of human beings. I think that we're in total agreement. And if you used to a platform for good, human, humane purposes, I commend it. And that's great. And full stop, and I'll leave it at that. Regarding the current situation in Lebanon. Just before coming on, I saw that tweet,

and I think what Defense Minister Galant is doing is messaging to the U.S. and to Tehran and to Beirut that Israel is getting closer and that the level of frustration within Israel with the current unsustainable situation of more than 70,000 Israeli civilians that have been pushed out of their homes, and tens of Israeli communities in northern Israel that are now ghost towns because Chisbalah has been attacking them directly,

and these areas are unsafe to live in. And for 11 months, and I'm sure that many people don't know it because it's not really reported a lot in international media, but Israeli civilians have been targeted by Hamas for about a year, and people are saying enough for how long are we going to have to live in temporary housing in other places of Israel? and when will the Israeli government make sure that it is safe to live in sovereign Israel? And I think that's a very basic, very legitimate claim of a civilian population that says, enough, we want to go back to our homes, we haven't done anything to deserve this. And I think that there's been a long process of building this up.

And to answer the question, yes, Israel can. It'll be tough. It will be, I think, very, very difficult and it will be a horrible war. If Israel and Hezbollah go all out against each other, Chisbalah is a very powerful Iranian proxy with tens of thousands of rockets, with the ability and intention to hit and kill thousands of Israeli civilians. And of course, Israel will not be taking that sitting down, and Israel will retaliate.

And I'm not going to be surprised to see you and perhaps other people, first condemning Israel for defending itself, and then maybe thinking why Israel is doing it. What has happening is that Chisbalah has fired more than 5,000 rockets at Israel in the past months alone. They have gone a bit unnoticed by international media, and perhaps Israel now is saying, enough is enough, and we're going to defend ourselves. And if Chisbalah didn't get the message the first time with the beepers, maybe they'll be getting it today with the walkie-talkies. And if they don't get those two messages and understand that they have transgressed and are aggressing against Israeli civilians, much, then maybe perhaps more needs to happen. I as an Israeli hope that we won't need to go to

that situation because I know that it will be bad, there will be bloodshed, it will be carnage in Israel and in Lebanon. It is still avoidable, and those who need to stop firing, our Hezbollah, who have been firing at Israel for the last 11 months, without anybody really condemning it or doing anything about it. Okay. Thank you, Jonathan. Chenk, I'll give you the final word on this part of the debate. And then I'm going to say, by to you and Jonathan and Candice, you're going to stay on just for a little bit of a chat after it's just me and you. So just check your response to what Jonathan does said there. Clearly, this is a massive escalation already.

Nobody's quite sure how Hezbollah is going to respond. But as Jonathan said, they are equipped to, if they go all out, to have a proper massive major war with Israel, which would have enormous repercussions for the whole region. What is your thought about that prospect? Yeah, so first of all, there is a correct path here. Take the ceasefire, stop the occupation, two states, and let both Israel and the Palestinians live in peace and freedom. None of this is related to Hezbollah.

Sorry to interrupt, but none of this is related to Hezbollah. It's 100% related to Hezbole. You pretend like Hezbollah is doing it out of thin blue air. Can I answer? Chisbalah has nothing to do with Palestinians. They are Lebanese. They are Shiaiite Lebanese. They have nothing to do with Palestinians.

They have nothing to do with Palestinians. There's not a single Palestinian in Hezbollah. So for you to tie it to Hamas is ridiculous. No, you're being whitewashing. It's the old tired propaganda against Israel. You have to be honest and address the situation. Chisbalah has nothing to do with Palestinians. Okay, Hezbollah is doing it because of the occupation.

Are you so stupid you don't understand that? None of Chizbalah's business. Nothing to do with Chizbalah. Oh, yeah. All the Muslims. Watch us. Who appointed Chisbalah, other than their Iranian masters, to have anything to say about Israel and Palestinians? What have Lebanese got to do with it?

You don't want peace. I know. Of course we do. But what does Chisbalah? What does Chisbalah have to do with it? Chisbalah doesn't have a say. It's not their business. It's Israel and Palestinians.

If you were to say, take a ceasefire with Hamas, I would say that's a valid topic to discuss. What does Chizbalah have to do with Palestinians? Absolutely nothing. The only thing that they have in common is that they are funded by Iran. You think Hezbo is attacking Israel out of thin blue air? Do you actually genuinely believe that Hezbollah is attacking Israel for no reason at all, just because they don't like Jews? No, they're attacking you because of the occupation.

Are you so incredibly ignorant that you don't understand that simple concept? The only ignorant person here is you, my esteemed colleague to the panel, to be parroting Iranian talking points and beaten propaganda from Palestinians and Iranians. Anyone who's opposed to Israel's terrorists. Israel can't even make a coherent claim. Israel can murder anyone they like, but they're not terrorists. I know. I know.

What has Chizbalah got to do with Palestinians? Nothing except that they have the same benefactor. That's an outrageous statement. Iran that is providing them weapons. Nothing else. No logical connection, no religious collection, no territorial connection. Nothing. Only empty talking points from people like you and from Iran.

Iranian parrots. That's it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I know, I know. Poor, poor victim, Israel. Or they just have been humiliated and oppressed and occupied for 57 long years, 5.5 million Muslims, and their outreach to find out that other Muslims might not love that idea. So this, look, Pierce, this is the most important part of this. Right now, the reason I brought up the ceasefire is you could take the ceasefire, and I guarantee you that Hezbollah stops the rocket attacks.

That's because that's what they've, not only they've said, our experts say every single expert in the world says. But instead of taking the ceasefire, what Nanyahu has decided is in order to protect his own political career and he's deeply unpopular in Israel and faces corruption charges, but if he signs a ceasefire, the right-wing radicals in his government will leave the government, and Nanyahu will go to election and lose.

So he's worried about his own political career. he has decided to go to war instead. Instead of signing a peace deal, he bombed Hezbollah. Now, you could say, hey, I like that he bombed Hezbo. You could say that Hezbollah is dirty terrorists, and you could say that everyone who ever opposed Israel is terrorists, and you can say all the things that you want to say. But the bottom line is Israel is starting a much larger regional war,

and I guarantee you, hold on. I guarantee you that Jonathan is going to come on here. You're not going to talk over me. I guarantee you, Jonathan comes on here and says, America must pay for it. America must die for Israel. That's what he's going to say. You can scream until tomorrow you don't impress me, even a millimeter.

Chizbalah attacked Israel. Okay, then we can both talk at the same time. Okay, let's talk at the same time. We did not attack Shizbalah. On the 8th of October, we were quiet in our homes. He wants you to attack all Muslims and pay for it. By the way, have you ever heard of the Radwan force? Do you know what they're designed to do?

They're designed to invade into Israel and do exactly. what Hamas did on October the 7th. That is the main reason why Israel cannot live with his... You are starting a war. Gentlemen, I've got to leave it there. You are starting a war. Well, I think a war has been being waged

actually for quite some time, and we'll see how this now plays out. But clearly, clearly, don't two sides this. I think if you are a terror group, it persistently fires rockets at a country, you are eventually, you are at war with them, right? I mean, you may not

think you are, but you are. I don't want to fight it. I don't, I don't want America to fight it, and I don't want America to pay for it. John, and do you agree? You said, hey, if you're not Palestinian or Israeli, you should have, Hezbo should have nothing new with it. Iran, no other country should have anything new with it. Great, then you're on your own. Don't ask for another dollar. Give us a $26 billion back. Why are you using our money to start giant wars in the Middle East? We already had one in Iraq. We hated it, don't want it. And you're demanding that we pay for Israel's war in the Middle East. No deal. And if you're only knew, if you're If you only knew, if you only had an idea of how much Israel does great for U.S. foreign policy and how much Israel serves American interests in the region, you wouldn't say what you've been saying if you really cared about America.

I've got to leave it there. Israel does nothing for America other than take our money. Only defend it, yes. You both made your points very forcefully, and I appreciate you both being on the program. I'm going to say goodbye to Chank and to Jonathan. Thank you both very much indeed. I appreciate it. Well, Candice, you're going to stick around because some interesting stuff has gone on since we last spoke. Let's start, first of all, with your week-long suspension from YouTube, which apparently related to a 22 interview with Kanye West, now known as Yey, obviously, in which he said Jewish people control the media. YouTube suspended you, they demonetized your account, which has 2.4 million subscribers.

What do you think has happened here? Well, I think I can only listen to people when they tell you what they've done. There have been radical Zionist accounts on X, who have explicitly written a step-by-step guide of how to mass report my videos on YouTube with the express interest in getting my account demonetized. And so it's completely wild to me that after I present that evidence to the public, You had the mainstream media say, Candace blames radical Zionists. And I say, no, they took credit.

Like when I got suspended, they said, we did this. And they were applauding the effort as well as Rabbi Shmuli. You know, I do think that there has been, as I said on the show, and we had that discussion with Rabbi Shmuli, if we want to call it a discussion, Rabbi Shmooley screamed for a while that there is a contingent of Zionists that have grown increasingly radical. And their perspective is that rather than having to dialogue, they seek out censorship. and they seek out the efforts like financial terrorism in order to get you to acquiesce to their narratives. No sooner did I say that than this swarm of radical Zionists began mass reporting my accounts. I had absolutely no strikes. And I went from having zero strikes and zero warnings to having three, four in a row that arrived into my inbox.

And then my account was completely locked out. So it was quite incredible to see it. And I do think that part of it was because of our sit down with Rabbi Shmuli. which performed very well and people saw throughout the world what it was that I was dealing with in terms of having people lie on me and lie on what I said

simply because I care about innocent life in Gaza. And what has happened now? Are you back on YouTube? Is it up and running again? Are you re-monetized or what's the situation? No, I won't be remonitized. They say I can apply for monetization after 90 days. And fortunately, because of how radical

what happened was, a lot of people signed up and donated to my locals page just to kind of keep us going, which is okay. I'm okay with it because I just have the heart that as long as you are doing something that is righteous and I believe that defending innocent life is, I'm more than willing to deal with those consequences. If that's my cross to bear, we have been in communication with the YouTube team. We presented all of the evidence that it was a targeted account, showed the person who said that they were mass reporting it and also showed that we had before we uploaded the episodes in question, we had submitted a form to have YouTube pre-review the episodes, which is insane.

So we asked YouTube to pre-review to tell us that it was okay. And they did this with the Tristan Tate episode, which is one of the episodes that they used to demonetize us, came back, they said thumbs up. This episode is totally fine for advertisers. There's nothing wrong with it. And then completely reversed the decision and ended up giving us a strike for it. So this is nothing, like I said, other than a form of financial terrorism. And it's obviously wrong. But I'm not. I think it's good for the world to see kind of what happens when you stand up to this radical Zionist cell that I think not only exists in America, but throughout the world. The other thing this happened since we last spoke is that there's been a result in the court case in which two French women falsely claim that Bridget Macron was transgender. They've been found guilty of slander, Natasha Ray and Amandane Roy.

they broadcast these unsubstantiated rumors. You yourself have made the same claims, also that she had this brother who didn't exist and that perhaps she was this brother, etc., etc. He has also the brother been awarded $5,000 in damages. The defenders wanted to pay $8,000 euros in damages to Mrs. Macro. Do you accept as a result of this result of this court case that you're just wrong about this?

This was a complete media. red herring and I'm glad you brought this up because the last video that they took down was my interview with the journalist that broke the story that Brigitte McCrone was born a man. That journalist who broke the story was not Abundeen Roy or Natasha Ray who were named in that defamation suit. He has never been sued and he wrote a six-part series with all of the documentation proving that Brigitte McCrone lived as a man for 30 years. What they did was quite clever because it gave the media the tools to pretend that there was a defamation suit. What was at the nucleus of that suit was not whether or not Brigitte McCrone was a man or a woman, but rather that woman, Natasha

Ray, went on to a YouTube channel with Amundeen Roy, the second woman, and spoke about the six-part series that Xavier did and wrongly said, and this was a spamatory, that one of the documents that came out of Amiens City Hall was forged. It was not a forged document. It was actually the real birth certificate that she assumed it was forged because they refused to release it and then they finally released it after two years. For saying that that was forged, they brought a suit against her for defamation. Again, at the root of that suit was not the question of whether or not Brigitte Macron lived as a man, but rather whether or not the birth certificate of Jean-Michel Trugnogne was a forgery in which it was not until Brigitte Macron launches a lawsuit against Xavier

Pussard, who is the journalist who wrote explicitly a six-part series about her living as a man, with more proof than I have ever seen in any story that I ever won. In fact, Xavier Prussard should win a Pulitzer. If life is fair, he should be winning awards for the work, but he did the three-year work. Otherwise, the media is just giving you a red herring and relying on the fact that most people can't read French

or speak French, and so they can't look at the lawsuit themselves. Candice, I like having an uncensored. You're certainly uncensored. On this, I could not disagree with you more. Brigitte Macron is a woman. There's born a woman. lived as a woman, has married Emmanuel Macron, and that's the truth.

But you and I will disagree about that. But thank you for coming back on our census. Thank you so much for having me.