Piers Morgan Uncensored - “COWARDICE!” Piers Morgan Challenges Journalist Who Doxxed ‘Jane Doe’ | Cornell 7 Debate

Episode Date: October 6, 2026

Jessica Tarlov, best known as ‘the liberal one’ on Fox News’ flagship programme The Five, joins the show for a wide-ranging conversation about political disagreement, debate and her new book, I Disagree: Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends. Elsewhere, attention turns to the Cornell fraternity scandal polarising opinion across the US, and the latest developments in the Iran War - including the growing political risks for Donald Trump ahead of the midterms. Tarlov brings her trademark liberal perspective to some of America’s most divisive political and cultural debates, while explaining how it’s possible to disagree without turning every argument into a war. In tonight’s Uncensored, Piers Morgan is also joined by host of System Update, Glenn Greenwald, host of the Tara Palmeri Show, Tara Palmeri, former US deputy national security advisor, KT McFarland, and independent journalist Michael Tracey. (00:00:00) Introduction (00:01:11) Jessica Tarlov joins the show (00:02:06) Jessica on Trump constantly targeting her out for her opinions (00:04:44) Fracturing of relationships with friends and family over political opinions (00:11:15) The panel joins to debate the upcoming midterm elections in the U.S. (00:14:31) Donald Trump’s campaigns against wars in the Middle East backfiring (00:16:04) Is Trump a liability for candidates in the midterms? (00:19:14) Pete Hegseth’s ‘no beardos, no weirdos' comment (00:24:17) The timeline of the Iran war (00:26:47) Who is the new hope for the Democratic Party? (00:29:08) Michael Tracey joins to discuss the Cornell 7 and controversially outing Jane Doe (00:36:49) The panel talk about the Cornell 7 case (00:40:55) Tara Palmeri calls out Michael Tracey for revealing Jane Doe’s identity (00:42:12) Piers and Tara press Michael for admitting he made a mistake (00:47:30) Glenn Greenwald on why it's unfair for Jane Doe to remain anonymous (00:49:59) Michael Tracey brings in the 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (00:52:12) A duty of care for the victims Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Whether you agree with the fact that she's a Jane Doe or not, that's up to the judge. The way that she was outed is entirely unfair. It's not outing or doxing to report on material in the public interest. Tara would notice full well how these Jane Doe pretensions get manipulated. The moment you named the Jane Doe, you knew exactly what you're doing. You're not a fool. You knew you were doing something you shouldn't be doing. I mean, why wouldn't you apologize given you deleted it?

Because there's nothing to apologize for. Coming up, we'll debate the Cornell fraternity scandal, which is polarising the US and the grim case of a death row killer whose lethal injection failed twice, plus all the ladies on the Iran War, as it threatens to sink Trump in the midterms. We'll begin with an old face and a new book. Jessica Tarloff is a veteran of many uncensored debates,

and best known for her role as the liberal one on Fox News' flagship show The Five. She's written a new book. If you delete the last three lines, a word from a title, it sounds like it could have been written by me. I disagree. Winning Arguments Without Losing Friends by Jessica Tarlov is out now. And she joins me now.

And I'm on the senator, Jessica, welcome back. Thank you for having me. It's great to be here. I think you're a heroic figure in many ways, because I sometimes sit in your seat as the liberal member of that panel on the Five. It's a fantastic show. You all have great chemistry. But you're often the lone voice there,

standing up for a completely different opinion to your co-workers. and as you know, President Trump watches regularly the five and constantly goes after you. You've had all the greatest hits of insults, unattractively called you, untalented, a loser, none of which, of course, is actually true, but it's designed to silence and stifle you, and that hasn't happened either.

But how hard is it to operate in an environment where the most powerful man in the world is constantly ranting about you because he doesn't like what you're saying? Well, I don't think he's particularly conscious of the fact that he makes me into more and more of a protected class every time he continues to go after me. I don't know if Jesse or Greg Gutfeld wants to text him that to be like, dude, you're going in the opposite direction if you're going to continue with this stuff.

Does it make it more difficult? Of course. You know, there are very real implications to being targeted by someone that powerful and who also controls a cult-like force behind him. And you get the requisite death threats and security concerns. And I write about that in the book. And I think it's important to consider because we become so desensitized to the way that media operates where you think we're all just, you know, people in these little boxes and we're sitting in air-conditioned rooms, ranting on into our cameras. But there are people on the other side of all of this. And they're taking it very seriously. And they take

the kind of rhetoric that people use. And I certainly don't think that the left is immune to criticism for the type of rhetoric that has been used. I read about that in the book as well. But from President Trump, it carries a special kind of weight. And it's a very serious thing. And something that's been important for me, as I've spent almost 10 years now at Fox and almost five years co-hosting the five, is to really think about how one unpacks criticism, how you process it, how seriously you take it, especially when an online mob is attached. And one of the things that I've really come down on and is a leading

principle of I disagree is that too often we are being criticized on style and we feel like it's about our substance. But when it is about style, you've actually won on substance. And I think of that as the more quiet win. It's something that you have to internalize and be proud of, but know as well that if there are folks taking it in from the other side, that they recognize that as well. And I get a lot of feedback from folks that watch the five that clearly understand that.

You know, he doesn't say, I can't stand your unendurable voice when you're not saying something that has a lot of impact and is rooted in facts and data, which is very much my calling cards, stylistically on air. Yeah, you know, and one of the saddish things I think about modern society, fueled by social media and all the echo chamber stuff and so on, the toxicity that people have online, which they wouldn't have in person,

is a lot of people fall out with friends, they fall out with family. You read these stories about people not going to Thanksgiving with their family because they disagree about Trump or whatever it may be, which I just find quite heartbreaking in a way. And I always say to people, well, look at the five. There's an example of you sat there or Harold, whoever it is, me sometimes, vehemently disagreeing with the other panelists and yet you're all friends. And you can all walk away and be friendly before, during and after whilst, you know, having your opinions expressing them frankly and forcefully sometimes and having arguments sometimes. As you say, winning arguments without losing friends.

How have we got to a place, do you think, where, you know, you see a fracturing of actual friendships and family-related? over opinions about stuff? Well, I will say that when you are on the five, I get a lot of tweets that say, thank God, Peers is here because I am so sick of you. So they love you and Harold. My base of support is a little bit quieter on the timeline. They're just, you know, quietly taking in all the winds.

But I think we got here through a mix of factors. One, of course, the algorithms want us to live in silos and angry silos at that. much happier, you know, the Elon Musks of the world, the AI gods, Mark Zuckerberg, if we are essentially at Fistakuffs because that keeps us on our devices, you know, click, click, click, clicking away and much less being out there in the world touching grass, as the experts would say, and really spending time with one another. I have my podcast, Raging Moderates, with Scott Galloway, who talks about this all the time, especially how important it is for young men to get out of their rooms and off their video games and go out there and meet people

and ask someone on a date and deal with rejection in real life without certainly getting violent or turning to insoldom, which is something that plagues a lot of young men here, especially in American society. But there's another factor to it that I think is important and it really speaks to the pushback that I've been getting from some folks on the left about the book, more of the subtitle than I disagree. They love the disagreement. They're wondering about the keeping friends because here in the United States, politics is very much a moral issue for people. And they look at the actions that the Trump administration has taken in Trump 1.0, but especially in Trump

2.0. And they say, I don't necessarily need people like that who believe in those things in my life. And I never wanted to write something that was telling them that they had to do something that they didn't want to do. I wanted to help prepare them to have conversations if they so choose to engage. And I think that we need a real reset in the way that we do politics and in political communication in this country for accepting the free will aspect of it, but also the underlying principle that people generally speaking, when you get them talking, do have a lot of sadness that they've lost these relationships. And this again, the algorithm doesn't want you to think about this that way. But I listen to a lot of focus group tape, especially in these swing states

where elections matter a lot. And people on both sides of the aisle are bemoaning the fact that they don't have these folks that they care about a lot in their lives anymore. So I disagree is written as a survival guide, a manual for having these conversations, you know, the way that I frame my arguments and the way that honestly I treat my co-hosts and in such a manner that we can have these strong relationships despite the most virulent political disagreements. Yeah, well, I love the book and I love the title

and I love the subtitle. And I think it's an important book because I do think this is key to a successful society, whether it's U.S., UK. we have the same problem in UK. We had it over Brexit when we left the European Union. I just knew friends of mine falling out. And they never fell back in.

I'm like, guys, come on. You know, this is just, it's a political debate. You don't have to fall out over this. But also the pendulum swings, because I left, I was in the UK, 06 to 2012 and, you know, left right before this hit, a fever pitch and then obviously culminating in the decision. And people's feelings about Brexit swung very quickly after that. And part of politics and being in each other's lives

is also making room for people to change their mind. 100%. And not be afraid to do it and not be... Everyone, as you know, the social media mob comes when you do that and say, you're weak, you flip-flop, you're this. I'd much rather people were just intellectually honest. If facts change and your feelings change about something, just say it.

Just say, look, you know what? I was wrong. And you're a normal human being. Yes, I was wrong. I got it wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. It's actually powerful to own your mistakes and say, yeah, I've been persuaded. Something's changed.

It's changed my mind rather than just digging down deeper, deeper, deeper, deeper on something, which in your gut you know you don't agree with anymore. And that's what I think of a weakness is. And that's how they build a relationship with you. I mean, I think about this, you know, we got into these heated political discussions and folks say, well, how many minds are you changing? I'm not in it for changing minds. I want to open them.

Yeah. Just to the idea that there's an alternative point of view. worth considering. And part of that is owning mistakes. You know, the amount of crow I had to eat when Kamala Harris lost. Yeah. You know, three minutes straight of just, I miss this, I missed this, I miss this. You know, these people who I thought believed in the same party that I did showed me up and they showed all of us that we're not doing a good enough job, right? That our platform doesn't speak to people who are economically struggling enough or whatever it is. And then you're able to build this reservoir of goodwill from people who might not necessarily agree with you because you are

functioning as a normal sentient being. I mean, that should be rewarded in life. 100%. Well, anyway, I want people to go and read your book. I disagree. Winning arguments without losing friends is great. You're going to stay with us for our panel. Yes, we're going to panel. We're going to panel, yeah. Katie McFarlane, the former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor, Glenn Greenwald, the host of System Update, Tara Pomerri, the host of the Tara Pomerri show. So welcome to all of you. I'm actually going to start, Jess, with you about this sort of big picture question, really, as the midterm elections come,

they have the potential to be the most consequential midterm elections, potentially in modern American history, you could argue. Most people seem to have a general sense that the Republicans will probably lose the House, not be an unusual thing for a president in his second term for that to happen. But he could potentially, President Trump,

lose the Senate as well, which would render his... pretty much a lame duck. The only impediment, it seems to me, to potentially the Democrats pulling off full control of Congress is that the Democrats, rather like the Republicans, are ideologically quite split, it seems to me, about what they want the Democrats to be. And they're being dictated at the moment by the most probably high-profile, impressive, talking, eloquent, inspiring people on the left are people like Mayor Mamdani,

El-Said, AOC, and others, and, of course, on the right, they're saying, well, look, these are all people on the hard left. They're all basically socialists. And if you want a socialist America, this is a way to go. How problematic is that, do you think? I think it's far less problematic than the right had hoped that it would be. And a couple months ago, I think we'd have a very different assessment of the impact. But the truth on the ground is that the conditions under the Trump administration, are bad enough that people don't really care about the labels. And they're listening to what these folks who have either won their elections like

Mayor Mammad Dhani or Abdul al-Sayad in Michigan, you know, what they're talking about. And they're saying, oh, this guy thinks that I should have affordable health care. You know, this guy thinks that the economy is tilted towards the millionaires and the billionaires, the higher millionaires, not just the one or twos, but, you know, the ones with more money than you could have ever imagined having. And he talks like us. He's concerned about issues like us. And I will say that there are moderate candidates

that are talking in a very similar way. If you listen to John Ossoff in Georgia, who's running such a good race that the GOP is pulling money out of there. Roy Cooper in North Carolina, you know, not as buzzy necessarily as some of these folks on the left doesn't get the type of attention,

but is beloved. And again, the GOP pulling their money out of those states. That's how they show you where they're concerned and they're having to spend it in deep, deep red areas. Texas could bankrupt the GOP trying to get Ken Paxton across the line. And the fact that President Trump is spending his time

in Oklahoma and in Alabama, Ohio over the weekend, it signals that it should be a very good night for the Democrats despite how messy our big tent can be. Katie McFarron, welcome to Unsensit. It seems to me the big problem that Donald Trump has, is that he campaigned so effectively on not engaging in expensive, pointless Middle Eastern wars, in focusing on cost of living, bringing down inflation,

making it cheaper to exist in America. And then in February, he seems to throw all that out the window, attacks Iran, which has turned into an absolute mess, and has had a huge knock-on effect on the cost of living. And as you race towards the midterms, now, with the clock really ticking fast, no sign of this Iran war ending before the midterms, certainly. But people ultimately, who may have been not necessarily diehard Trumpers, but people that, you know, went over to him, a lot of independence went over to him,

a lot of young guys went over to him and so on in the general election. But they may be looking at this going, we feel a bit betrayed here. You were the guy supposed to be anti-this kind of war, and you were the guy supposed to be focusing on making it cheaper to exist, and you've done the complete opposite. Yeah, and I think that's a problem for the president because he doesn't make the case. He needs to go out to the American people and make the case.

I think there's a case to be made, but he's not making the case. And so then people are saying, well, what's this all about? Is that nuclear weapons for Iran? Is it about a regime change? Are we going to somehow put a pro-American government? What's going on? And that's why I think one of the important things as the president himself needs to make the case

and then hammer that case throughout. Glenn Greenwood, welcome back. Is Trump now a liability for a lot of these candidates in the midterms? You're seeing some distinctions themselves, but you're also seeing his endorsement still being quite effective as well. Where do you think that the Trump factor currently is?

I mean, the Republican Party has basically turned itself into nothing but a bipartisan. product of Donald Trump's views. None of the Republican elected officials with very few exceptions have the slightest bit of courage to dissent from what he's doing. I mean, they're trying a little bit. But for the most part, the Republican Party and Trump have been completely analogous. There's really no part of the Republican Party separate and apart from Trump's ideology. So when Trump's approval sinks, as it's been doing pretty much the whole second term, but particularly since the Iran war started and the economic secondary effects kicked in,

the Republicans are in huge danger. The one thing I would say is it's not like the Democrats suddenly got popular. It's just we're seeing this throughout the Democratic world. People hate the status quo. They hate the establishment. And when they're angry about their politics, as they are in the United States and in so many other places around the world, there was just a big election in Brazil last night. That was the story there. They blame the party that's in power, not because they suddenly got persuaded that the other party will do their lives any better, just because it's the way they vent their anger. And I think that's why the Democrats are poised to have a good night in November, not because suddenly they've improved themselves

or their ability to pitch themselves, but because people just don't like Trump for the reasons that you just stated. Toro Pomeri, welcome back to you. You know, it could be, like I said, very consequential because in a way, if Trump can somehow hang on to the Senate, for example, or run even the House quite close,

that could send a big signal of what may happen in 2028. Conversely, if he gets wiped out in the House and loses the Senate, it could have the opposite effect. In other words, there's a lot hanging, I think, on this midterm election. I would argue more than I can remember in my time covering them. Right. And I was just at the Republican Midterm Convention,

where I spoke to allies who are very close to Trump, and they described what's coming in November as a tsunami. They said that they think that they could lose the Senate, and it's time to lawyer up. And anyone who says anything other than that is delusely. because they know that they're going to be facing impeachment. There's going to be a lot of inquiry into Doge. I think Jared Kushner is probably going to need to consider some of these factors.

And the president himself, although they think that this could be a rally around the flag effect, that if the Democrats go too hard on Trump in the, you know, after the midterms and impeach him again, and they seem to be aimless or not able to actually get the 67 votes required in the Senate for, conviction, that it could backfire and that could potentially help them in 2028. But this is not good for anyone who is associated with Trump who thinks that they can lead the Republican Party in 2028. And I'm talking about J.D. Vance and potentially Marco Rubio. Yeah. Jessica, I want to play a clip, which is probably self-explanatory. Let's take a look. But it's worth saying again so that the fake news understands it. We are no longer the woke department.

or the weak department. Simple translation of that. No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals. Just warriors. Just tough, ready, committed troops. Now, Jessica, very macho stuff there from Pete Higgis, but my immediate response was what I posted back at it, which is to post a picture of this,

which is a man named Robert O'Higson. O'Neill with a massive beard, who was, of course, the Navy SEAL Team 6 hero who killed Osama bin Laden. In fact, most Navy SEALs I've ever seen have big scraggly beards. Does this kind of language, which obviously in a case of beards is absurd, but does this kind of language the macho chess beating stuff? You know, I can see it appealing to a lot of the Trump hardcore base. I don't think it appeals to a wider group of Americans, does it? No. Well, especially when you're engaged in a deeply unpopular war,

and as you are engaging in it, you're also firing 20% of our generals. You know, it would be one thing if everything was going peachy and this kind of rhetoric, which Pete has been using for a long time, and I know him, he was obviously a colleague with me at Fox, has been talking like this. It hits different, though, when you have such a tremendous amount of power, when you are laying off people, which according to Dan Driscoll when he resigned from leading the army and went and told President Trump that the actions that Secretary Heggsath are taking are going to make us less safe and enable, or I should say unable. Enable is not a word that enough of them. Excuse me.

unable to compete in modern warfare in the way that we need to, you know, cutting funding for drone units, telling the Ukrainians, no thank you. Actually, we don't need to, we don't need your plan, even though they have completely revolutionized the way that they do warfare so that they can compete with the Russians and, you know, showing up in Washington and saying, we can help if you're going to end up attacking the Iranians. This is how you can avoid spending to $3 million per $20,000 drone that they're going to launch at you. So no, I don't think that it appeals.

We didn't see the camera pan to the audience. But I imagine that a lot of them are thinking, we need a different kind of plan if we're going to be moving forward in the right direction. Yeah, Katie McFarland, you know, the thing about chest beating is you've got to actually deliver. And I think the problem with what I saw from Pete Higgs to say, I've known Pete a long time,

is that that kind of bellicose rhetoric, it works if you're perceived to be winning, right? But this war in Iran is obviously not gone the way they all expected. It's deeply unpopular with the American people. It was to start with, and it's got increasingly less popular as it's gone on. So I'm not really sure this kind of rhetoric when you couple it with a dramatic cut in generals

is particularly effective. Are you? I guess I would look at the midterms and where is this going? You know, if Trump loses the dire predictions, all right, if Trump loses the House, the Republicans lose the Senate, how does that affect the second two term, the second years of Trump's presidency? Not a lot. Now, there definitely will be efforts by the Democrats and the House and the Senate for impeachment, impeachment, impeachment. But what does Trump need the Senate for, for example, to really confirm new choices for cabinet offices?

that's not going to change. The people who are in the cabinet offices are going to remain. And a number of the things that are already baked in to the Trump recovery, particularly the economic things, you know, the investment in the United States,

the manufacturing increase, the tariffs, all of that stuff, Trump is going to be able to do whether he owns the midterms or he loses the midterms. So if you look sort of, and I keep thinking back in when I worked in the Reagan administration,

the things that had happened by the midterm, Reagan lost the midterms in 1982 because the economy hadn't yet turned around. And the people were still feeling the pain but hadn't fell out of the gain yet. If it's true, and I believe it is true, that the American economy is about to turn,

that it will become economic growth of potentially 5% economic growth, hundreds of thousands, millions of new jobs created, whether it's in the industry, whether it's manufacturing, all the new factories being built, that that will turn the economic ship of states so that by 2008, the Iran World War World War be done one way or the other. And if the United States is on an economic upswing and a boom like

Reagan had in the third and fourth year of Hiddish administration, that actually does very well for a Republican candidate in 2008. Right. Glenn Greenwald, I mean, look, Trump, having said it would last two to three weeks, the Iran war, then six to seven weeks, and now he's fallen back of, well, it's a lot less than the Vietnam War and so on. The timeline's clearly not what he hoped it would be. But, you know, in terms of war, even though he doesn't call it a war, it's still a relatively short period of time, seven months. And it could be that if the economy does turn around, I mean, the American economy's actually proven to be remarkably resilient, despite all this chaos, that if it does turn around, as Katie said, it could end up that the

Republican ticket in 2028 rises off the back of a thriving economy and wins again. I mean, of course, it's possible, but none of the metrics that we have available actually suggest that what happened. I think the reason is I actually agree with him. And Katie said that I think is so important and actually should really be disturbing. You know, she said like, hey, like what would really change if the American people went to the ballot box in November and had this outpouring of contempt and disapproval for Trump and elected a Democratic Senate in the House?

Not much, really. And she's right. Congress is basically like renounced all of it. it's constitutional responsibilities. They'll investigate. They can do those sorts of things. But Trump's out there saying, you know, once the midterm is over, I can't do it now because of the political ramifications. Americans are angry about this war. But once the midterms are over, I don't care anymore. I'm going to go and start this war and it's going to escalate severely. And who knows if he'll do that, but he probably could if he wanted to, even if Americans go to

the ballot box and say, we don't want these policies to continue. So we're having a change in the Congress because Congress won't do anything. They handcuff themselves completely. And I think in a lot of ways, what people are feeling is they go and they vote. I think a lot of people saw this with Obama in 2008, where they believed that Obama was going to radically transform Washington, got all excited, passionate people who never voted before, went and voted for Obama. Really, things change in a very incremental way, but nowhere near what they expected. A lot of people got disillusion with the Democrats. Democratic Party collapsed under Obama. And you're seeing the same with Trump. So it's just like feeling that democracy just doesn't matter anymore.

And there's a good reason why people feel that way because they keep voting differently and the policies that they just like kind of just continue. Yeah. I mean, Tara, I keep looking to see, well, who is the great Democrat hope? Who is the person that is

the new Bill Clinton, the new Barack Obama? That's where I come up a little short. You know, because I'm not convinced there's anybody there yet that would inspire me to get out and vote for them. Do you see that person? I don't personally see that person.

I don't think that any... Maybe John Alsophe, he's kind of the new shiny toy in the Democratic Party. He's a really great speaker. He's young. He's got the look. He comes from the South. They love Southern Democrats, right?

But I just think the rest of them have really... They have stories to tell that aren't that compelling. Gavin Newsom has the story of California, which has seen many... could argue has been through degradation. Then you can go into Pete Buttigieg, who was once running as an outsider, but is now an insider, having been the Transportation Secretary. Corey Booker has run many times before, but he was never really able to make it stick. And Kamala Harris, I mean, she's got the highest name ID, so she pulls above all of them. But is that really the way to go in 28? I just haven't

seen anyone emerge yet. If anyone, I think Assoff is an interesting profile, but the Democrats haven't really made a great case from themselves even in 2026. They're just not the Republicans. They're just not the party of Trump. Yeah, I agree. The best thing for them is that no one shows up to vote for Republicans. Yeah, and I do think they're falling into the trap of just over demonizing Trump all the time, and I think it's self-defeating. What people want to hear is, okay, we get it. You think is awful, what would you actually do? What would you do? Sell it to me in a compelling way that's going to inspire me to get out and think you are going to change the country.

I think that person who comes through who can have that ability, like Clinton did, like Obama did. I remember seeing Obama at the Beverly Willshow Hotel in 2008, and he turned up and it was like a rock star had come to town. It was like a rock star. And I just remember, wow, the thrill, the excitement, thousands of people turned. And he had something. He flashed that megawatt smile.

He talked and it was, you know, you just felt like this guy's the start. You saw that in 2004. Yeah. When he took the stage. I remember I was a teenager and I was like, wow, who's that? I actually stopped to listen to a political figure.

I agree. I've not seen that person yet. But there's plenty of time. Right, let's switch gears. We're going to talk about the Cornell 7, which is this story about the Cornell fraternity scandal, which is polarizing America. I'm going to start by talking to Michael.

Tracy, the independent journalist and commentator, who called outrage last week by revealing the name of the accuser. News Outlist did not verify this. He quickly deleted it, and he joins me. Now, Michael Tracy, first of all, talk me through your decision to do what you did. Well, the submission of the lawsuit on behalf of the anonymous Jane Doe has obviously engendered a huge amount of political hysteria, now serious criminal. repercussions potentially for the individuals who have been accused, and they were accused by name in that lawsuit, which was brought by a particular plaintiff's attorney, Thomas Gufra, who has an incredibly dubious track record of veracity. He just got done filing a bunch of lawsuits against Sean Diddy Combs,

alleging rape on behalf of his anonymized clients and was begging the judges who presided over those cases to keep those client's secret or hidden from public exposure, and he was rebuked over and over again, and eventually did have to produce the identifying information of those claimants because his arguments were deemed to be so meritless. And so clearly what he was doing in the Ditty case, and now again in this Jane Doe Cornell case, is seeking to use salacious allegations that then get fed into the media bloodstream to... develop leverage that can then be used to extract the maximum financial settlements from the well-endowed institutions and individuals that he's targeting in this lawsuit, like an Ivy League University

or the sorority that Jane Doe previously belonged to or the fraternity that she was allegedly gangraped at and the individual defendants on their own as well. So this is a recurring litigation tactic that is really an abuse on the court system. It's been demonstrably proven that there has been fraud perpetrated under the banner of a Jane Doe claimant who supposedly needs to be anonymized for some vague reason of safety or preventing emotional distress. And we also have a situation now where elected officials, such as Kathy Hochel, the governor of New York, is out calling for new statutes to be enacted in New York around rape or sexual assault to empower prosecutors to more easily throw people in prison for rape,

related offenses. So the public interest in identifying the litigant in this civil complaint that catalyzed this whole uproar, I think is pretty self-evident. It's just a matter of pure cowardice combined with dogma that the media refuses to do so. They're not bound by any judicial was the name. Was the name that you put on your social media? Was it the right name? Yeah, it was. I posted it on social media as well as my substack. So you talk about it. But you talk about cowardice, I would say that there's an argument you were morally cowardly in then deleting it. If you believe everything, you just to be laying out my opinion of what you did, if you're going to do that, and I don't think you should have done that,

because I think that she's entitled to anonymity and that should be respected. That's the legal process. Well, we'll come to that argument with the panel. But once you've done it, to then delete it, why not to stand by the courage of your convictions if you believe that? Well, I'll explain. So I made an independent discretionary decision. This was not influenced by any lawyers, sending me cease and desist letters, or any other factor other than my own independent discernment,

which was that I do not view Jane Doe as the primary, let's say, villain here, or the primary wrongdoer. I wish her no ill. I have expressly opposed that anyone harass her or demean her or send nasty... But you named her. A text to her. You named her. Right, for the reasons of public interest.

So my rationale was once the public interest you are immediately satisfied. But by naming her, you are putting her name out there to the world in a way that he was guaranteed given your position on this to bring all the things you say you didn't want to do to her on her head. Well, you know, peers, the federal judges have ruled in just the past couple of years

that the mere fact that the exposure or publication of a plaintiff's name could bring about some mean comments or cause people on social media to say critical things about them is no justification for a pseudonym to be afforded in perpetuity. Okay, so why deleting that?

So I deleted, here's... I'll tell you why exactly. Given that my ire in terms of how this fiasco has played out is aimed principally at the plaintiff's attorneys who run a racket Yeah, you said that, yeah. Person Thomas Gufra, who, you know,

got to the fishing expedition about Jeffrey Epstein. Right. So, meaning I wanted to aim my ire principally at them, and given the enormous, intense public attention around this case, I did not want to bring any further negativity around Jane Doe, to Jane Doe. So I feel about that once the principle I've been satisfied, right, that this fallacious command that we all abide

by this totally preposterous dictates, to maintain perfect adherence to the desired anonymity of a plaintiff's attorney who's demanding this on behalf of a client. Once that was punctured, I felt that I, in my own independent judgment, did not want to bring about any more negative attention heaped on Jane Doe.

Now, she is an adult, she's not a child, so it would have been justified to keep the name up. But I simply exercised judgment, given how this has dominated all of social media for the past, several days, and there's an insane amount of vitriol circulating, that that was my judgment, because it was not principally about her or impuging her or causing anybody to scrutinized her sexual proclivities.

It was about the legal and public policy dimension. I mean, I would say you could have made all your points about the lawyers without mentioning her name. Jessica Tarlov, well, look, you've heard Michael Tracy's explanation there. You know, my view of this whole story, just to remind viewers who are not completely over the details, but a former Cornell University student said she was drugged, heavily intoxicated

and sexually assaulted by seven fraternity members at an on-campus house in October 24. The Jane Doe filed a civil lawsuit in September 26th, so nearly two years later, against Cornell University leaders and the seven men stated in the school failed to protect her. Legal representation noted the fraternity group chats and messages encouraged members to join the assault during the night.

You know, I've looked, this is, let's be clear, It's an incredibly messy case, right? It's morally messy. It's legally messy. It goes right to the heart, really, I guess, of everything that came out after Me Too and Times Up on those campaigns about consent and how you give it and whether you're able to give it. You know, nobody, I don't think, comes out of this looking great. But what is your view about the Cornell 7 scandal? I mean, it's hard to say, because this is also.

your worst nightmare of what is going on on college campuses. I mean, my girls are years away from going off to college. But if you think, and it seems like at least based upon the evidence that we have so far, that at least the first threesome was consented to, and then the question of what happened after that when other men were invited into the room and there was, you know, the doing of drugs off of penises and, you know, And all of it, that this is just not what you would hope would be going on at college in the Greek system, et cetera. So obviously it goes to this question of consent and whether, you know, she was even in any sort of position to be able to do that.

But it has stuck out to me. And I understand, you know, the school looking at the cases that came out of UVA and Duke and being apprehensive about moving in the direction where, you know, you just side with the victim or the alleged victim at this point. but with what they even knew in 2024, it seems to me, and I am not a lawyer, but that there is no way that you shouldn't have pushed further if I was the DA in that case and that you had a lot more questions than you had answers and letting it fall by the wayside and then turn into this two-year trickle, which now it's gone up to the highest levels. and you have Kathy Hokel talking about this and Tish James, the New York AG being appointed, that that is a nightmare scenario for everybody involved here, especially those who were in charge in 2024 when this incident happened.

I feel just terrible, obviously, for Jane Doe. I hope that they can come to some conclusion and justice can be served in whichever way it should be, but putting her name on the internet, I echo your sentiments. There was a way to make that case that if you think these are bogus lawyers that are just chasing a paycheck

without exposing her to the deepest, darkest pits of the internet, which are cruel and unfeeling and, frankly, just straight up dangerous. Yeah. Tara Pomerri, you know, I don't think there's any innocent party in terms of complete innocence or being able to stand. stand up and say none of this is on me.

That's just my assessment of what I've been reading about this. But at the heart of it, you've got a very young woman who has clearly been treated appallingly by a large group of young men. Drink was involved, drugs was involved. She may have consented to, as Jessica said, the initial threesome and then more people joined in, and she may or may not have been able

because of what she'd taken to make a considered judgment about whether she was, wanted that. We just, I mean, I wasn't there, so we don't know. But what I've seen is the sort of political pylons are so predictable when this happens. I've seen a lot of people on the right immediately kind of exonerating the seven men. They've all been stitched up and, you know, this is terrible and blah, blah, blah. I've seen people on the left. I saw AOC's, I thought, woeful mischaracterization of this case, slanting completely with the young woman concerned. And it falls on political lines, which is, to me, the wrong way to come to look at this.

It shouldn't be political, right? It should just be, in a way, it's a kind of commentary on modern society, this story, isn't it? Yeah, I think so. I think that in a way, both sides have been really quick to jump to conclusions without knowing all of the details of the case. Like you said, neither of us were in the room. In fact, sometimes I think people have gone, you know, to a, all the way to the ends and then come up with facts to try to support their case, right,

on the left and on the right. But I still think that, you know, the way that she was outed is entirely unfair. And I'm surprised that Michael has not apologized because he clearly admits that that was not the correct thing to do by taking the name down. He harmed the client to attack the lawyer, an impressionable client. And whether you agree with the fact that she's a Jane Doe or not, that's up to the judge in this civil case to decide whether she will be a Jane Doe or not, not for you.

And you're literally doing the thing that you condemn, claiming before grand jury sees the case, you are the judge, the jury, and the executioner. You've decided before you even know the case, what happened. Tara, I'm not conceding that it was a case. Peers, peers. Can I just interject? Hang on, Glenn. I'll bring you in in one second. Let Michael respond to that. Okay.

Tara, you are completely wrong as usual. I am not conceding to any mistake whatsoever, because number one, the reporting was accurate. And number two, the principle which I just outlined in extensive detail is one that is extremely significant. Yeah, but Michael, when you delete something, you're admitting. I mean, I gave my rationale. Michael, if you're deleting it, if you're deleting it, if you're deleting it, If you're deleting it, you're clearly conceding you made a mistake in putting it up. Otherwise, you wouldn't delete it.

I'm not. I'm not conceding to mistake. I'm conceding to. You did it because you said it was for journalistic purposes. You did it because you said it was for journal. That's right. That's right. It's not a mistake, Tara.

It's not outing or doxing to report on material in the public interest. In journal. If you claim to be a journalist. I just explained because of the unique intensity of the public consternation around this issue, I didn't think it added anything additional to the public interest at that juncture. Michael, I would argue, hang on. Michael, I would argue. Michael, I would argue. Individually. Here's the problem.

Peers, I had already punctured what I told you. I understand, but Michael, you'd also. Yes, you had. Yes, you had. Plaintiffs lawyers. I understand. And also, I mean, Tara would know this full well how these Jane Doe pretensions get manipulated. But Michael. But Michael. She promotes a hoax of a gang rape involving Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump.

All right. But Michael. Johnson. She tells her followers on YouTube that there's stick to the topic. That's stick to the topic. It's one example of how. Michael, my only question for you is, Michael, my only question to you is, given that you did this because of the enraged reaction

from pretty much everyone to what you'd done, that's why you deleted it. It's not true, Pierce. Well, it sounds to me like that's why you deleted it. You don't believe my actually stated rationality. Why would I lie? I just think the moment you put, the moment you identify,

over and over again, if you follow the civil court system, Well, don't talk to me, Michael. Let's try and keep me civilized. The moment you named the Jane Doe, you knew exactly what you're doing. You're not a fool. You knew you were doing something you shouldn't be doing.

There was absolute outrage, and then you deleted it. So I think, actually, I think the Tara's question about whether you should apologize. I mean, why wouldn't you apologize given you've deleted it? Because there's nothing to apologize for, because it was reporting that advanced the public interest, given the hugely outsized concern and legal ramifications, and legislative ramifications of this salacious Jane Doe lawsuit.

By the way, which named explicitly and, quote, docks if we want to use that terminology, the address, the home addresses, the first names, the last names, the mothers of the seven defendants before they could get a chance to defend themselves. So because of these sleazy, loyally tactics under the cover and cloak of anonymity, the seven Cornell defendants who are the same age, roughly, as Jane Doe, were afforded no sensitivity. in terms of preventing any nasty public reaction to them being gang rapists?

I mean, can you accuse anyone of a more heinous crime? No, no, you make it... Tara, very quickly respond to that point, because it's not an unreasonable point. I want to know. You said this was a journalistic exercise, right? I mean, they're all adults in this situation, so why are the adults who were accused of the gang rape named,

but not the claimant, even though in the aftermath of the incident, the cheese has text messages saying that there was no illegal activity done, to her in terms of the sexual conduct that she participated in. And also that she told the initial boy who she liked, or young man, and had a sexual encounter with, that she wanted to meet up with him again, and she enjoyed the sexual encounter. So that's countervailing evidence.

Let Tara respond quickly, then I'm going to go to Glenn. First of all, her name is not evidence. We do need to know her identity, just like we know the identity of the people that her lawyers named. Let Tara respond, Michael. Let Tara respond quickly. Let her respond quickly. I go to, I'll go to Glenn.

First of all, her name is not evidence, and you claim that this was a journalistic exercise, right? Because you call yourself a journalist. If you were truly a journalist, then you would be trying to minimize harm. That is one of the things that we take an oath to do. So what evidence did we learn from this case by you releasing her name?

What was the journalistic purpose of this? What evidence did we learn by releasing her name? Are you listening to a single thing that I've said? I am listening to, and I still don't understand why you haven't apologized. The whole practice of speciously anonymizing litigants that make reputation-destroying claims in civil complaints about persons who are named, and then that gets pumped out into the public arena where the media reports on it credulously as though it were fact. So you caused more harm. You thought the way to handle this was to cause more harm.

That practice, Tara, is in the public interest and something that I will never apologize. Okay. Let me bring Lenny. You promote hoaxes. You promote hoaxes, Tara, that are gun under the same practice. Katie Johnson, Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, gang rape at the rest of the hospital. Let me bring in the other panel members. That's the thing I want to curtail Tara, which I know you are very, very familiar with.

Because you're such an amazing journalist. All right, let me bring in Glenn Greenwald. Glenn, look, passion's running high about this story. There's no question about that. You know, Michael, many people, doing me, think he was wrong to do what he did. And I think if you do believe what you believe in doing it, you should stick to your guns and keep it up, not delete it. are deleting it to me, you're admitting you made a mistake and should apologize for it.

He doesn't want to do that. We've offered him a chance. But this argument that these seven guys have all had their lives turned upside down. They've all been named. Families have all been involved and so on. Whereas the Jane Doe remains anonymous, even though it is, as I said at the start of it's a very complex

and messy story. Is that fair? No, it's totally unfair. Here I'm speaking as both a journalist and a lawyer, somebody worked as a lawyer, for more than a decade. And when this whole thing was triggered by the fact that somebody brought a civil lawsuit, a lawyer who's working on contingency, which means that if he wins money, he will stand to win millions of dollars. He's suing Cornell. He's suing the police department in the city, very deep pockets, insurance companies. This is multi-million dollars at stake.

And I hope it doesn't shock anybody, but oftentimes in civil litigation, people motivated by, money do lie. They lie as the plaintiff. They lie as the defendant. Lawyers can be unscrupulous, unethical. And to take this series of allegations and assume that they're true as a lot of people have been doing, why is it that these seven young people who are also students at Cornell are having their lives room, their names spread everywhere, their photos everywhere, prominent people like AOC going around and calling them gang rapists, not even allegedly, they are gang rapists who drugged and raped a woman for seven hours, why are their names publicly disclosed but not hers?

And the reason, journalistically, if theirs are going to be disclosed, hers should be too, is because we are now journalistically investigating this case. There are all kinds of debates, including the one we're having. So in order to know, in order to investigate this case, we have to know who the seven defendants are

so we can try and talk to people who know them, find out what they did and said. But also we have to know who she is. So there's no world, especially since we have to, had hoaxes like this before at Duke, where they tried to destroy the lives of these lacrosse players by falsely accused them of rape at the University of Junior where journalists did the same. Everyone who stood up and said, wait a minute, we need you process. We can't just ruin people's

lives based on allegations. And whoever said that was called, oh, you're defending rape and you're part of rape culture. No, it's journalistically irresponsible to allow her to name them, but not to know who she is if we're actually going to investigate. And I do think there's, and also a judge has no standing to tell the media they can't disclose it. He can control the parties before him, but he can't control journalists. You don't take orders from any government official if you're a real journalist, let alone a judge. So I do think there's a lot going on here that's very disturbing. It's like these seven defendants, it's like their lives don't matter. Just they're, they're sacrificed at the altar of a political cause. If I could just add here as briefly,

another principle that's important to uphold here, including by way of journalism, is something called the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. I'm not sure if you've ever read it, Tara, but it enshrines my right and your right and every American's right to confront our accuser if we're accused of heinous crimes. And what these sleazy plaintiff's

lawyers do is bypass that entitlement by pumping out these sensational claims of gang rape and so forth under the cover of anonymity that deprives the defendants and also the public from having

its presumptive access to the open and open transparency of the court system. So you might not care much about civil liberties, Tara, and you'd rather go around promoting hoaxes that have been promulgated under the cover of this exact same tactic, meaning Jane Doe or pseudonymous clients like the Katie Johnson lawsuit that you promoted, which accused Donald Trump

and Jeffrey Epstein of gang rape. And a 13-year-old that was proven to be a hoax, which I noticed you won't defend on the merits. But you have promoted that, Tara. But how is it proven to be a host? And that is exactly the type of journalistic tactic and in concert with these leasing war tactics that I oppose.

And what evidence do you have now from this new Cornell case? You don't know all of the details of the case. We're still finding them out. You've just decided. You decided to decide with the seven. And by the way, one of those seven men has said that he is fine with her being a Jane Doe

in this case for what it's worth. So, you know, there comes a certain risk with coming forward with these stories, okay? It's a very, very, very, very, extreme around a risk, which is why journalists have taken around the risk. Well, the risk, I would say, the risk, like in the UK, for example, I think it's 1% of rape cases that are brought to the courts end up being successful, right? So it's a very difficult thing for any woman who's actually been raped to go forward and then go through a trial with all the hell that's involved, and then most of the time

lose, right? And that is why so many people. many women don't actually take these things forward. However, if I'm one of the family members of one of these seven, young guys, you know, all drinking, all partying, I get it. I get that there is a duty of care to all these people. They're all very young. I've got four kids from, you know, 33 down to 14. This is every parent's nightmare that your child gets called up.

Just to be clear, I'm not siding with the defendants, Tara, as though I just made a rash, hasty judgment. to do that. Here's what I'm siding with. It is entirely invalid to go around declaring as so many pundits and politicians have done

that these seven Cornell defendants are guilty of some of the most, maybe the most heinous thing that anybody can be accused of, which is gang rape on the basis of a civil complaint that, as Glenn mentioned, is designed to extract giant settlement powers.

There's a huge financial incentive here. So I'm not siding with the defendants before doing an investigation. You made that point, yeah. Let me bring in just. from the grand jury. Katie Mofarland, you haven't had a chance to speak. Just quickly, what is your response to this?

Look, I'm not a politician. I'm not a journalist. I'm a foreign policy expert. I'm not a hack. And what bothers me about the whole thing is that what happens of the sense of moral compass? Is nobody in America have a moral compass anymore?

Whether it's the students, whether Jane Doe, or whether it's all of you discussing this. I think it's a real indictment of the United States and the position that we're in as a society, and maybe as a world, that we're not concerned with the moral rights and wrong.

We're not governed by the moral rights and wrong. We're more concerned about it. It was illegal. Can you get away with it? Whose fault is it? You know, the whole thing is just, as you said, Pierce, it's really messy. But my one takeaway is what has happened to us as human beings?

I think a lot of people... And what has happened to us as a society? Yeah, I think a lot of people looking at this and thinking, these are the brightest of the right in America on a university campus. the hell is going on. Anyway, we're going to leave it there. Very interesting debate. Thank you all very much indeed. And Jessica, best of luck with your excellent book. Thank you.

Pierce Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensit on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain. And we'll do it all for Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.