Piers Morgan Uncensored - ‘Deliberately Killing Kids!’ Netanyahu Leaves Trump With ‘NO Endgame’ | With Mehdi Hasan

Episode Date: July 14, 2025

Benjamin Netanyahu ended his major US trip without achieving Donald Trump’s main objective for arranging it, which was ending the war in Gaza. And as the Israeli PM boarded his flight back home, the New York Times published a damning and detailed investigation into the extraordinary extent to which the war has been prolonged for his political benefit, including reports that Smotrich derailed a proposal to end the conflict and return all Israeli hostages as far back as April 2024. And just yesterday at least 10 people, including six children, were killed by an Israeli airstrike as they queued for water, with the IDF claiming it made a “technical error.” Joining Piers Morgan to discuss all this are investigative journalists and producers of ‘The Bibi Files’ Alex Gibney and Raviv Drunker, as well as founder and editor-in-chief of Zeteo News, Mehdi Hasan, and attorney Alan Dershowitz. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Birch Gold: Text PIERS to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No one forced Israel to drop 2,000 pound bombs on crowded refugee places. No one forced Israel to bomb hospitals. No one forced Israel to sniper shoot children. Hamas don't want a state. They want there not to be a Jewish state. Which soldier? Which soldier was prosecuted for dropping a grenade on a child. You're lying on national TV.

Piers Morgan can come back on the next episode and tell everyone that you're not telling the truth. Benjamin Netanyahu ended his major. a US trip without achieving Trump's main objective for arranging it. That was ending the war in Gaza. As the Israeli Prime Minister brought his flight back to Israel, the New York Times published a damning and detailed investigation into the extraordinary extent to which the war has been prolonged for his political benefit. Israel's spokesmen, ministers and supporters repeatedly tell me on the show that the likes of Smodrich and Ben-Givir cabinet members, whose language on the Palestinian people is overtly genocidal, are not relevant. The non-the-war cabinet, they say. They're not

influential. But the many revelations of New York Times is reporting, Cuba detailed the Smodrich derailed a proposal to end the war and return all Israeli hostages as far back as April 2024. And the Bengavir intervened to sabotage the deal to further normalize relations with Saudi Arabia because it was contingent on getting out of Gaza. It paints a grim picture of a power crazed Prime Minister who made a Faustian pact with fanatics to defer justice in his own corruption trial. Tens of thousands more Palestinians and several Israeli hostages have died as a result.

Just yesterday, at least 10 people, including six children, were killed by an Israeli airstrike as they queued for water. The IDF said it made a technical error. Well, in a moment to debate all this, founder and editor-in-chief of Zatea News, Medea San, and the author of The Preventive State, the challenge of preventing serious harms while preserving essential liberties,

the attorney Alan Dershowitz. But first, let's talk to investigative journalists and producers of Oscar-N-N-Money documentary, the BB files. Zraviz Drucker and Alex Gibme. Well, welcome to both of you. It's quite a shocking revelation for me, a lot of the stuff in the New York Times report,

but probably not to you guys because you're arguably the world authorities on BB Netanyahu and the reality behind the man, the prime minister, and what has been going on in Israel in the last two decades. So let me just start with

what your thoughts are about him, right now. The New York Times, and I'll start with you, Ravi, if I may, the New York Times makes it pretty crystal clear that Netanyahu has been held ransom for power by Ben Gavira Smodrich, these far right guys on the government there, and that there's no incentive for him to end the warfare, because actually the moment he does, accountability starts, both for the mistakes that were made in October but the seventh, also on the personal level, he's got the corruption charges and so on. From your understanding of Netanyahu,

how accurate is all this? Look, the New York Times story was not something new to the Israeli public. Most of the Israeli public completely aware of the fact that Netanyahu his first and first white motivation is political wanting to survive, and in order to survive, he needs those guys,

and he needs those base of ultra-white voters to support him all the time. And this goes by prolong the war in Gaza. And the second argument is that Netanyahu, in the beginning of the war, didn't took any measures to the day after. Who will govern Gaza instead of Hamas, according to Netanyahu?

He did nothing. He told us all the time, first we need to win the war and then we will take care of it. So guess what? Now we are supposed to be in the day after, but there is no one to govern Gaza. So now he tells us, what do you want me to do? To withdraw from Gaza and keep the Hamas there.

So now we have two very bad options, and those two bad options leading to the survival of Netanyahu. Yeah, I mean, Alice Gibney, you know, I watched the BB files, and I think I'm in it actually at one stage, for an interview I did with Netanyahu actually for CNN when I went to Jerusalem. And what was clear to me from that interview? I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm going to take that back.

It was another bit of, I'm sorry, let me correct that, chaps, I'm sorry. I got it confused with something else. Alice, give me, let me just broaden this to where we think we are with this war in Gaza. A lot of reports suggesting there is going to be a ceasefire. It didn't happen during Netanyahu's trip to see President Trump. Trump, but people are anticipating there will be a ceasefire. It will involve the release of many of the remaining hostages, and it will involve the release of many Palestinian prisoners. But ultimately, it's going to come down to who controls the Gaza Strip after all this.

It seems to me, when you listen to Smodrich and Bengavir, that these guys have a plan to get rid of all Palestinians in their eyes to cleanse the Gaza Strip of Palestinians. Do you think that is the objective now? It seems like. I mean, I don't know. I can only go by what they're saying, that is to say, Ben-Gabir and Smotrick.

But I think, just to echo what Raviv said a moment ago, I think the most appalling thing here is that you have a man, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been pursuing policies purely for his political, mostly for his political survival. And as such, has never given any thought to an end game.

And now the endgame is being pursued by people who have a very vicious endgame in mind, which is to say the elimination or the eradication from Israeli territory of the Palestinian people. So that's a serious, serious, serious issue. Yeah. And Raviv, who can stop Netanyahu now? Can Donald Trump, even if you wanted to, stop Netanyahu? Is there anybody internally? I interviewed Natalia Bennett last week. It's clear that he's beginning to flex his muscles

about a potential run against him. But according to the latest polls, it is more likely than not that if his Lakud party, Netanyahu's party, was to stand in an election now, it would probably be successful and he wouldn't be reliant on Ben-Givir and Smodrich anymore for power.

Is that your assessment? And if that is true, then where does that leave us? First of all, according to the polls in the last year and a half since the war broke. And Netanyahu cannot govern again and cannot re-elect. It's only polls, but this is what the polls

shows. He lost 14 seats according to the polls, 15 seats. Who can stop him? Of course President Trump can stop him, but we saw in the war with Iran that Tanyau knows how to play Trump. And he can even

function and operate when Trump says no or weak no or orange light or all kinds of things like that. So Netanyahu is very clever in understanding Trump, in understanding how Trump operate, how much patience he has to topics. But above all, what's going on right now is that to Israel, there is a strategic damage that it will take us years, maybe decades, to fix.

What happens now in Gaza will taint our name, our image, our person as a human being, for years to come, maybe more than this. And Alex, one of my big bug bears about this has been the refusal to allow international journalists to go into Gaza to verify the endless, horrific stories which are coming out. And there seems to be a familiar pattern, particularly in relation in the last few months

to the number of people being shot who are lining up for food. And we're now over, I think, five, six hundred civilians have been killed in this way. And the explanation given by the IDF varies from, we'll launch an inquiry, to we were firing warning shots to somebody made a threatening move and so on. But some of the footage I've seen on social media looks very clearly as if the Palestinians who are queuing the food are getting deliberately shot at. Well, look, I mean, the fact that no independent journalists are being permitted into Gaza, with some rare exceptions for sort of embeds, which are very heavily controlled, is a disgrace. And I think it goes to a kind of a playbook that has been followed in the case of Gaza, which is to try to control the narrative.

they're not doing a very good job internationally because I think the whole world is horrified is what's going on. But they don't get much credibility when they say, well, you know, Hamas is controlling the narrative when they're not letting anybody else in. The whole point, I mean, Netanyahu's obsession is to control or manage the media. But this has gone way beyond that into a kind of an authoritarian playbook, which is, I think, appalling to the rest of the world. Yeah, and Ravi, do you think that when journalists finally get in there, that the world is going to be very shocked by what they uncover about the reality of what has happened in Gaza?

The ups and downs of the economy can be stressful and worrying. One of the smartest ways to protect your savings is with diversification, and you can start by talking to the experts at Birch Gold Group. Gold's value has surged 40% in the past 12 months, driven by record-breaking central bank purchases. Even with global instability, demand for gold continues to grow. Birch gold makes it easy. You can own gold to store at home,

or you can convert an IRA or a 401k, into a tax shelter gold IRA. Just text my name, peers, to the number 9-8-9-98, and Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold. There's an obligation, only useful information, with an A-plus rating, with the Better Business Bureau, and tens of thousands of happy customers, Burge Gold lets you take control of your savings today.

Text the word peers as P-I-E-R-S to 9-8-9-8. I'm afraid they will, and this is, I believe, the fear of all of us. It's the ultimate failure by all of us, Israeli journalists and maybe the rest of the world that we couldn't get in and we couldn't get the verified information. To be honest, a lot of times we saw information coming out of Gaza that turns out to be inaccurate. And the fact that it happened a few times,

it caused all of us to be skeptical in every clip and every testimony, which I guess most of them are true and accurate, but we just simply don't know. And the fact that the journalists are there are part of the Hamas apparatus a lot of time, probably because they have no choice. You cannot operate there if you will not have kind of connection

with the Hamas. So for me, as an Israel, jury, I don't know if I can trust them or not, if I can trust the reporting or not. And there is nobody else that we can go to him and ask him what will happen. Alex, there's a clip in the BB files which shows leaked footage of Netanyahu being interrogated by police. Let's take a look at that. Nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of being hanged. With Netanyahu, nothing concentrated.

concentrates his mind more than the sound of the prison gate slammed behind his back. In our lives of the shalev, in the issues of the so everything that he has done over the last thing that he has done over the last five years was so focused on that sound of the gate potentially slammed behind his back. You know, Alex, I was in that office. I interviewed him for CNN in Jerusalem many years ago, probably 10 years ago, maybe more. And I remember two things. One, that map behind him, behind the desk, where his little party piece would be he'd take his hand and he put it on all major Arab countries around Israel, and then he'd take his thumb very deliberately and put it on

Israel, and he said, now do you see the problem? And that was an image thing. And then the other thing he had was a picture to the right, as we looked at that map. On the right wall, there was a picture of his brother, who of course was a captain in the Israeli armed forces who died at the raid of Entebbe, who was the only soldier who died that day. And he actually began to tear up as he told me the story about his brother, which just showed me how intensely personal a lot of this is for Netanyahu. Is that your assessment?

I was also told that his father, who I didn't meet, was then still alive. He was about 102 years old, I think, but he was very hard lying as well. Was this your reading of Netanyahu? Well, I mean, I think it is personal for him. But I mean, at this point, I don't know that that's relevant, except to the extent that he now believes that Le Ta Sengue, the state is me. It's become so personal to him that he believes that he embodies everything having to do with the Israeli state.

And criticism of him is criticism of the Israeli state and indeed is anti-Semitic. So I think that personal connection with the cause of Israel is not something that's taken the world to a very good place. Yeah, and Ravi, lots of other revelations in there. One that was striking to me is that he sees himself as a kind of king, that he's leading Israel as a dynastic ruler, and that that may have been what led him down the corruption path. He had a big love, as you show, of luxurious presence given to by billionaires. And you kind of conclude that he's fundamentally corrupt,

that he accepted luxury gifts totaling hundreds of thousands of pounds. Do you believe if he actually gets to this trial, this corruption trial, which obviously he keeps delaying by perpetuating war, if he does get to that trial, do you think he's going to be convicted? Is there any doubt he'll be convicted? First of all, he showed to all of us that you can kill a tribe by just not getting to the end of it. I mean, this process is already nine years old.

The tribe is five years old, and we didn't get to the end of Netafi. Testimonyu's testimony, which will take for the least six more months. So I don't know if any of us will get to live when this verdict will finally come. And I will tell you this, I think more than corruption, it's like the sense of entitlement. I mean, Netanyahu, and especially his wife, really believes that this is nothing. I mean, if I was outside, not the prime minister, I could have earned millions of dollars. I'm doing you a favor, the citizens of Israel, by working for you. And now you are telling me that I got this champagne butter, or cigars, or tears staying, or this kind.

This is nothing compared to the work they do for you. Alex, the New York Times repeated the accusation that Netanyahu was personally behind the propping up of Hamas by convincing the Qataris to, send over a billion dollars in aid to Gaza, the sense being that he was trying to play divide and rule with the Palestinian Authority. And obviously, this was spectacularly unsuccessful. And also that he ignored intelligence warnings about Hamas in the run-up to October the 7th. A lot of the polls I've seen in Israel show widespread support for going after Hamas, but also show a widespread support for Netanyahu being held accountable for the failures. that allowed October the 7th to happen in the first place.

So on those two points, from all your knowledge, how culpable will it eventually be established that Netanyahu was both in kind of enabling Hamas and then not understanding what they were up to and missing and dropping the ball when it came to this huge terror attack? Well, I would go back to something that Reeve said earlier. I mean, a lot of this that you're talking about, while it was all revealed in the New York Times,

has been a subject of great debate and longstanding common knowledge in Israel. That, you know, because the goal of Ben Gavir and Smotrick was to expand settlements in the West Bank. And so the goal was to undermine the Palestinian Authority. And as he says, as Netanyahu says in the film, he knew how to keep the flames at a certain level.

He prided himself in being able to manipulate Hamas. Well, that didn't work out so well for him in terms of what happened to the Israeli people on October 7th. But I think now he's eluding responsibility for his failures in that by engaging in permanent war in the Middle East and not just in Gaza, but on multiple fronts. I mean, this is, you know, I've done many stories about corruption. And this film that I produced about this man goes to one of the. the highest levels of corruption I think I've ever seen because it allows him to have a kind of disregard for human life, which is really draw-tribling.

Yeah, I mean, Ravav, it just seems, I supported Israel's right to defend itself after the October 7th attacks for a long time and got widely attacked for doing that. But I felt any country had a right to defend itself from that kind of attack and to stop it happening again. But this has gone way beyond self-defense. And when you couple it with the public statements

of people like Smodrich, about cleansing Gaza of the Palestinians. It does seem that there has been a much wider agenda here, which they're now trying to prosecute, which is to actually try and take control of the West Bank of Gaza and potentially expel all Palestinians, which would be, I mean, to me, a straightforward example of ethnic cleansing

and therefore war crimes. Look, Israel is a nation in a post-trauma situation. And take the 9-11. and double it or multiply it. And a lot of the bad things in our character as a nation went out because of this horror of the October 7, the revenge, the unempathy to anyone else. We don't care.

We don't, I mean, the hell with them. And this is the world usually of leadership. Say, okay, we are angry. We are right to be angry. We are right to defend ourselves, but we need to take it to a positive direction, to lead us to a better future. And instead of that, the extreme part of our government take Netanyahu as a hostage in the direction of exactly what you said. Instead of trying to secure Israel, there are just a complicated Israel in a never-ending war, in some kind of Vietnam, but not 10,000. kilometers from our land, but just our neighbors.

And this is just madness. And we just need to hope that the election will come, and this government will go away, and somebody else would come with a more rational solution. There are no good solution to this problem, but at least not the things that they are promoting now, that is just crazy. Alex, the BB files had a real impact,

and if people haven't watched it, I'd urge them to do so. Put your crystal ball in front of you. Where are we going to be in two years' time, do you think? That is a very tough thing to figure out. And it's the kind of thing that keeps us all awake at night because there doesn't appear to be a plan for the future. And that, to me, is the scariest thing of all. Chaos is not on ahead to it.

Yeah. I've said this for a long time. I don't know what the plan is. I don't think there is one. And then when you see what Modrich has been saying, maybe as many suspected and feared, that has always been the plan. And it may not be that they plan to include

an attack like October the 7th, but they've exploited it now to actually go through with the plan that many of the far right in that government intended all along. Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for joining me. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Join me in our Census Studio is Medi Hassan, the founder and editor-in-chief at Zateo, and from the United States, attorney and author of the new book, The Preventative State, the Preventative State, I'm sorry, Alan Dershowitz. Alan, welcome to you in the United States. Devastating article in the New York Times about Benjamin Netanyahu and his motivation for continuing the war in Gaza, the influence of these far-right headbangers, as many see them, Smodrichs of Ben-Govir, the wider agenda, which has been to expand the settlements in the West Bank and to take control of Gaza.

And that Netanyahu is ultimately putting his own self-interest before the interests of Israel. What is your response to it? I mean, I presume you read it, but what's your response? Well, first, we have to remember who invented Ben Gavir and Smotridge, and that was the Palestinian leaders by rejecting the Clinton-Barrac offer in 2001 and the Omerd offer in 2007, which would have given the Palestinians, a complete state on the West Bank and in the Gaza, 96% of the West Bank, 4% of Israel, they turned it down. And as a result of that, they created, encouraged the development of the right wing in Israel. I have no brief at all for Ben-Gavir and Smortridge. I've met them both. I don't like them. I think they are undercutting peace. But they don't

speak for Israelis. The Israelis want peace. The Israelis wanted a two-state solution. in 2000, 2001. Bill Clinton said over and over again, they could have had it. And once you turn down a two-state solution the way they did in 2001, don't expect you'll be offered it again. You're going to move a country away from peace if you reject it. And then if you do October 7th, you're going to strengthen the right wing. It's just inevitable. And so the fault, the large fault for why the Israelis have moved to electing people like Smetridge and Ben-Givir, lies completely with Hamas and the Palestinian leaders. I'm not saying the Palestinian people deserve this,

but they certainly have to look at their own leadership and say, my God, if we had accepted two states in 1948, 1967, 2001, 2007, look where we would be today instead of where they are. Medi, your response? Israelis have no agency, apparently, according to Alan Dershowitz. Everything is the fault of the Palestinians. So many falsehoods in there. Palestinian state offered in 1967.

That's when Israel began its illegal occupation of the West Bank in Gaza. And even if we buy this nonsense that Clinton and Barack offer... How about 1948? I didn't interrupt you when you were speaking. Can I say my point? You've said all your falsehood.

Now I'm going to debunk them. You said that Clinton and Barack offered a state. Not true. At Camp David, both sides turned down the deal. Shlomo Ben Ami, who was the foreign minister, said I wouldn't have taken that deal at Camp David, the Israeli foreign minister. Then Taba came along,

and Taba fell apart because Barack went to the polls and lost the elections. But Barack lost the elections. He was a lame-de-up. Prime Minister Sharon came in. So you can rewrite history all you want. No one believes that's the case. But even if you were telling the truth, which you're not, let's talk about today. Benjamin Netanyahu brags that he's blocked a two-state solution. The guy who you volunteered to be a lawyer for in front of the International Criminal Court wanted war crime suspect

has openly bragged that I blocked a two-state solution. His words, I blocked a two-state solution. So you can rewrite history all you want. The present day is proof that you're talking nonsense. This Israeli government, this far-right government, has no interest in peace with the Palestinians, only interested in ethnic cleansing, and the best part of listening to you speak about agency. Everything you said could be said about Hamas and the Palestinians. The Palestinians would say Hamas is a result of Israelis not giving us our freedom. Hamas is a result of Israelis besieging and boycotting Gaza for decades on then.

Hamas is a result of Israeli leadership coming and killing our leaders and imprisoning our leaders. So the same arguments you use to defend genocidal fascists in the Israeli government could be used to defend Hamas. And the point I would make, Alan, and you can respond to what many just said. In a moment, but the point I would make about Netanyahu, bringing it back to him, is that he didn't have to form a government with Smodrich and Bengavir. He knew what they were like.

He knew they were far more to the right than he instinctively was. I don't believe he felt that they represented the wishes of the Israeli people, but I think he also is power mad, and I think that he realized the only way he could get power back was if he did a deal with the devil, the devil in this case being Smodrich and Bengiwerever. And the interesting thing now politically is whether he is building up and it's slow momentum, but there's a bit of momentum from where he was, but whether Le Kud could now win an election without these far right guys. So my question for you would be, I don't think we should give Netanyahu a pass because he got into bed with these guys very willingly. It was his way of getting power and staying out of prison.

In other words, you say Natadyau is a politician in addition to being a slu. He wanted to win the election because he thought winning the election would be best for Israel, best for his people, and best for world peace. And so he was prepared to make the kinds of compromises that every coalition government makes. I was actually in Israel when he was forming his government, and I met with Smetridge. I met with Ben-Givir. I urged Netanyahu not to include them in the coalition, but he wouldn't have been prime minister. Who knows what would have happened if that hadn't happened.

But remember as well, too. You talk about that the Palestinians were never offered a state. The UN offered them a state in 1948, 1947, the Peer Commission, 1938, the Palestinians don't know how to take yes for an answer. And Bill Clinton put it very well. He said Hamas, and he spoke really about the Palestinians, don't want a state. They want there not to be a Jewish state. Palestinianism, the focus on the Palestinians, as distinguished from focused on many other groups, in the world that deserves data. The focus on Palestinianism is destruction. Bill Clinton says

Hamas does not want to state. It just wants to kill Jews and kill Israelis. Now, how do we move forward from this? What we move forward from this is Hamas accepts the Israeli peace offer, which they have now rejected. Let's get the hostages back. Let's make peace. Let's have a process which could conceivably lead to a two-state solution. Look, I don't blame Natano for saying you can't have a two-state solution. Now, you can't have a state where on its border, you have Hamas running Gaza, where they've sworn to do October 7th again and again and again and again and again. You can't have that kind of a state. So we all hope the goal is a two-state solution. The goal is to get rid of Ben-Givir and Smuthrish. But the Palestinians have to come to the bargaining table

legitimately, end the war, return the hostage. And then we can move forward. Okay, before I let Medi respond to that, and he will. My response to that would be, for the same reason that you can't let Hamas have power going forward because they are wedded to the destruction of Israel, in the same way, you could argue now, I think pretty clearly that the Israeli government, the current one, is wedded to the total destruction of Gaza. And in fact, in Smodridge, out of his own mouth came a plan to cleanse the strip completely of Palestinians. So there's not much difference here in terms of the intent or rhetoric, certainly from people like Smodrich.

And then it comes down to, well, what influence do they have? And everyone tries to downplay it. But the New York Times makes it crystal clear that big deals have been on the table. And Smodrich has refused to countenance them and threatened to bring down the government if it goes ahead. Well, there is a big difference between Hamas, which murders innocent people and babies and children, and Israel, which defends its same. against such actions. But Israel is killing so many...

But Alan, Alan, we've had this conversation. That's because... Israel's losing... I know, but Israel's losing people like me, right? And it has to... And many like me who had a lot of support for Israel's right to defend itself. That's because...

I agree with that. Because of the sheer volume of innocent children in particular that are being slaughtered on a daily basis. Now, you know, it's an arguable point with everything the IDF is doing. is intentional or not. They say none of it's intentional. But they are killing a staggering number of children

in the process of going after her man. Let's just remember one point. One of the greatest days in American history is June 6, 1944, the greatest generation. They killed so many more civilians in the process of ending Nazism. Another great day was VJ Day. I was old enough to remember it.

They killed 100,000 or more civilians. The Israel is due to do it. far, far less than the United States and Great Britain did. When your people are endangered, when your children are murdered and your women are raped, then you do engage in actions. And particularly, remember, in England and in the United States, the enemy wasn't hiding among civilians. Whereas Hamas brags about the fact that it's civilians are martyrs.

We want them to die. The goal, the tactic of Hamas, is let's get Israel to kill as many civilians. as possible, 50,000, 60,000, and then we can get Pierce Morgan to turn against them. That's their goal. They are targeting you and you're accepting it because that's their goal. And I don't blame you. Good people support Hamas or at least oppose Israel because they don't understand that all these deaths are the result. No, I'm not saying that. I say good people do. Some people do, the people march in New York, or oppose Israel because they don't fully understand the tactic of Hamas to kill as many innocent civilians. I want to go to Medi. I want to go to Medi.

Alan, I fully understand the tactic of Hamas. What I don't understand. What I don't understand are the current tactics of the Israeli government, which seem to be not a lot better. Medi, your response? I mean, I don't know what to respond. So much was said and so much nonsense there was said about violence and killings by someone, as I say, who's volunteered to defend Netanyahu at the International Criminal Court where he's been indicted with the former Israeli Defense Minister for war crimes. I'm proud of that. And crimes against you. Of course you're proud

of it because you don't value Palestinian life. Let's just deal with some things you said. Number one, you talked about deals and negotiations. Gershon Baskin, who is the only Israeli negotiated to have ever successfully negotiated with Hamas, keep saying, he said it just the other day, go check his Twitter feed, that he has

communication from Hamas, saying, we have offered the Israeli government a full C-Syssey We will leave government. We will not govern Gaza. We will return all the hostages in return for a permanent ceasefire. Israel doesn't want a permanent ceasefire because Smotrich and others want 60 days and then they go back to the killing when the hostage is released. He's offered a permanent end to the war. Israel doesn't want a permanent end to the war. That's what Baskin is saying. I do. I do. I would like that. You talk about killing of kids. I mean, Israeli military does intentionally kill children. Deliberate. Deliberate. Deliberate. Let's read 972.

Israeli publication interviewed seven. Israeli soldiers and officers peers who returned from Gaza. Just last week, in several cases, the soldier said, Israeli troops deliberately targeted children. There was a boy who entered the zone. He didn't do anything. Other soldiers claimed to have seen him standing, talking to people. That's it. And they dropped a grenade from a drone. In another incident, soldiers tried to kill a child, riding a bicycle. And they get prosecuted for it. So they have not been prosecuted. Alan, don't lie on television where people can fact. None of them have been. Yes, they have been. Which soldier was prosecuted? Which soldier was prosecuted for dropping a grenade on a child? There are dozens of them who are. You're lying on national

TV, Peas Morgan can come back down the next episode and tell everyone that you're not telling the truth. You'll see dozens of them have been prosecuted. Not a single Israeli soldier has been prosecuted for deliberately killing a Palestinian child. That is a lie. Demonstrable lie. Everyone wants you right now.

Well, hang on. What's a guy? I'm sorry, hang on. Hang on. Just to be clear, Alan, what Medi is saying is that no Israeli soldier has been prosecuted for deliberately killing a Palestinian child

since this war began. Is your information different? to that? Absolutely different. I know for a fact, because I was involved in the negotiations with the International Criminal Court, and I arranged for Khan to come to Israel and see the evidence of what has been done, how people have been prosecuted, how the Israeli legal system has been responsive. So I have all the data and all the information. Name them. Come back on the show and name those soldiers. Come back on this show, Alan, and name those soldiers. I challenge you. Now, I'll finish my point.

You interrupted me. I'm happy to do that. Hold on. You interrupt me. I never have. You've interrupted me. You've interrupted me twice now on this show. No, I didn't interrupt you. You did, actually. You interrupted a full-lid. I didn't ask. I didn't ask you out of the question. Well, let me finish my point. Actually, my second point, Piers, was to you. I dealt with the Gershan Baskin and the deliberate killing of kids. They just killed six kids queuing up for water. I was about to talk yesterday. They killed nine kids cueing up for nutritional supplements. Stop interrupting Anna and everyone can see you do it. It's under investigation. Stop interrupting out and otherwise I'll do it to you and you really won't like it. Piers, let me make my point to you that I'm trying to make. You mentioned the New York Times. I'm glad you've mentioned the New York Times. I'm glad you've mentioned the New York Times. several times. The New York Times piece, the long piece, has a lot in there. Two important points for you, peers. I've been coming on the show for over a year talking to you about Gaza. Last April and July, the New York Times reports that Netanyahu's own generals told him.

There's no military strategy left. There's nothing more we can do. Stop this war. Netanyahu when I was on this show and you were telling me, of course they're just defending themselves. What else should they be doing? At that time, when I was on this show, peers, generals were telling Netanyahu there's no war left to be had. They also make it very clear in this piece that the government would have fallen apart had Netanyahu not prolonged the war because he wanted to avoid prosecution. And I'm sorry that we needed the New York Times to say that because I was saying that on this show to you, Piers,

many people were saying that this war is about Netanyahu trying to avoid prison. This is about Netanyahu trying to avoid prison. I know Alan is an expert on criminals. He's defended some of the worst criminals in the world. Lawyers do defend criminals. Well, he defends some of the worst people. Well, lawyers.

No one forced them to defend these people. And also some of the best people. No one forced them to go vomiting to defend Benjamin. Nelson can't make aspersions against lawyers. I can't actually, I can't say you don't need. You can. You don't need to. It's not very credible to do that.

Really? Lawyers do their job. Hold on, Biz. Somebody forced Alan Dershowitz to defend it. He said he's proud to do it. No one forced him to do it. Which criminal should he defend? I'm proud to do it.

I'm proud to do it. He's a criminal lawyer. I was proud to represent. I was proud to represent. I was proud to represent. You defend the worst. I was proud of the world. I was proud of the world.

I was proud to defend Bill Clinton. And I was proud to defend Ted Kennedy. I've defended people on also. I've also defended Palestinians who were charged with offenses in Israel. I've also defended Palestinian students at Harvard who wanted to put up a Palestinian flag

and Harvard would elect them. And I defended them. You know what, Medi, I do think it's a very lame... No, I've been involved in his corruption trial too. I've always felt a lot of people try this with Alan Dershowitz. There are lots of things you can argue with Alan about what he believes. But when people go ad hominem about him being a lawyer

They're defending bad people. Well, I'm going to respond now since the both company. Most criminal lawyers I've ever met, at some stage, defend pretty dodgy people. Pierce, I want you. It's their job. Literally their job. We're looking at our cameras. Look at your camera and say honestly that you would say to Saddam Hussein's law,

a Slobodan Milosevic's law, a Vladimir Putin's law, a Vladimir Putin's law. You wouldn't say a word about people who choose in the West to go defend those people? Yes, you would. It's just you give Netanyahu a pass. I see him in the same league as Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, Slobid on Milosevich. If a Westerner chooses to go defend these people,

no one forced him to you. I'm going to, yeah, question their moralism. Do they have a right to defend? Of course they have a right to a defence. Then they should have a right. Hang on, that they should have a right to have a lawyer defending them. Of course.

You understand that. Understood. That's how the legal system works. So if a British... Hold on, Pearce. If a British lawyer volunteered to go defend Putin, you wouldn't have any... You wouldn't have any moralismos on them.

Don't lie, Piers. You know you would. So just to be clear, who should Alan be defending? Give me some criminal names. People in New York. People wherever he lives. Why does he have to go defend Netanyo? Give me some names.

Hold on. Hold on. Hold, but why do you have to go defend that? No. I do have. I think it's a crazy... I do have a case is promo. I look at vile people and I wonder,

why would you volunteer to go defend that person? Because they're lawyers. Anyway, let's move on some more substantive part of this. I mean, Alan, this incident that many referenced, the strike on a water distribution point at a Gaza refugee camp that killed 10 people, including six children, wounded 17 more. The IDF said it intended to hit an Islamic jihad militant,

but a technical error caused the missile. to miss its target. But, you know, having technical errors that wipe out six kids in a refugee camp at this stage of this war. Terrible. And these stories are coming every day now. How does this end? War is hell, and these kinds of accidents happen all the time. Many Israelis have been killed by Israeli friendly fire. Many, including a relative of mine, who was killed by friendly fire. Accidents happen. Israelis immediately announced that they would investigate, and if warranted, it might have been a pure accident, but if warranted, they'll be prosecution. Israel prosecutes its own criminals, and it does it all the time. And, of course, Moss rewards them.

The Palestinian Authority pays terrorists to kill, pay for slay. There's an enormous difference. The United States government had many cases of accidental killings during every war we fought. And the difference between a democracy and a tyranny is that in a democracy, you investigate. But Adam, Adam, before I go back to many, just on a profound level, I ask you this question. In what way is it remotely proportionate that Israel has now killed anything between 70, 100,000 people on the Palestinian side, of which, you know, let's say a quarter, maybe a third are Hamas terrorists. We don't know.

But let's say that is the proportion of that number that have been killed, which means maybe 60,000 civilians have been killed. In what way is that remotely proportionate to an attack that killed 1,200 people, of which I think 800 were civilians and wounded many more? It's not. It's so disproportionate now that what? concerns me about this, if I'm an Israeli, a moderate Israeli, so not a far-right Israeli or an extremist or any of these things, I'm just an average Israeli citizen watching what my government

is doing in Gaza now and seeing the fury that is building around the world to this daily slaughter, you know, this is terrible for Israel. It's terrible for Israel's reputation. I think it's dangerous. I agree. It's dangerous for Jewish people. I think that the, you know, the, you know, The rising tide of anti-Semitism was despicable when it happened in the aftermath of October the 7th. It highlighted a cancer in the world that people would react to that attack by being openly anti-Semitic towards Jewish people. But now a lot of that anti-Semitism, I'm sure, is being fueled by what is happening in Gaza. And I think, so I feel for Jewish people too. So I just, you know, to me, none of just makes me sense now.

You agree? Well, of course it doesn't make, yes. And that's why Hamas is. winning. Hamas is succeeding. Hamas set out to turn the world against Israel. And they realize that if they murdered 1,200 people, kidnap people, there would be a reaction. And then they went further. And they hid themselves beneath mosques and schools. And they generated the kind of killing that results in good people like you changing your mind about Israel. That's Hamas's strategy. Hamas is winning. Hamas prevailed on October 7. And it's going to repeat it over and over

I think Israel is losing in the court of public opinion. That's my point. I agree with you. That's my point. But then the strategy is losing. Israel, well, what's the alternative? The alternative is to let, no, of course, let's stop the war, and Israel is offered to do it. Just today, Israel put an offer on the table that has been rejected.

The point that I want to make, a point, let me just finish my point. The point I want to make is Hamas had a strategy. We know there are captured documents that say. that is get Israel to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible, and it will turn Pierce Morgan against Israel because he's a good and decent person, and the good and decent people in the world on college campuses will turn against Israel. That's Hamas's strategy. We can't let it prevail because if we do, they'll do it over and over and over again. Just to be clear, I haven't turned against Israel. I've turned against the current... I'm... I want to be very specific, because

People love to throw around these phrases. I agree with you. I apologize. I agree. I have become increasingly critical of the Israeli government strategy in Gaza. That's my specific position. That's their goal. That's their goal.

I agree with you. Or Jewish people. When people can flee to it, I think it's really disingenuous. All right, Medi. I agree with you. I agree with you. I apologize for any implication to the opposite. But that has been a strategy.

It's prevailing. And we can't let that strategy succeed. That is always the terrorist strategy. It was a strategy of Al-Qaeda. It was a strategy of ISIS. That's right. That's right. And the United States overreacted, too. Let me get Manny's response.

So a lot was said there again. Let me try and respond. This insane to suggest that Israel has accidentally killed 17,000 children. Anyone who says that should be laughed off television, whether they're a professor of law or not. 17,000 people were not killed accidentally. The children who were killed in a waterline were not killed accidentally. Children lining up nine who were killed last Thursday for nutritional supplements, as UNICEF says,

outrageously for UNICEF aid were not killed accidentally. Children who were shot in the head by snipers were not killed accidentally. I have friends of mine doctors who have gone out to Gaza and have come back and said, we saw kids, kids were brought in the hospital with sniper shots, bullets to the head, to the chest. Multiple American doctors have said that for Osidwa, Mark Pellmata, Irfan Galaria, go Google it. People don't believe me. So it's nonsense. Israel is killing kids deliberately, has done so for the last 21, to whatever so months.

You can't push this bullshit line anymore about people were hiding under hospitals. Do you disagree? We've seen it on tape. We've seen kids killed in cold blood on tape. You've seen it? Do you disagree with what Alan said that this was Hamas's deliberate strategy?

I don't know what Hamas's deliberate strategy was. Well, we know. And if it was, by the way, let me finish the question. They created a vast tunnel network in which they hid but left the civilian population to be snorted.

So in other words, That's undeniable. It's perfectly, it's perfectly rational to agree with what Alan said about the Hamas strategy. Yeah, but hold on. What's interesting is, as you pointed this out, why do it then? If we all know that's the strategy, no one forced Israel to go kill 100,000 people, just like, you know, Vietnam, the US, we burn the village to save it. No one forced Israel to drop 2,000 pound bombs on crowded refugee places. No one forced Israel to bomb hospitals. No one forced Israel to sniper shoot children. No one forced Israel to, uh, to, uh, to kill women holding up white flags as we saw on tape with our own lying eyes.

No one forced Israel to do any of that, which is why Kareem Khan, the chief prosecutor, which is why the ICC judges all said, Netanyahu and Gallant need to face. A corrupt, a prosecutor. A corrupt prosecutor. A corrupt prosecutor. A corrupt prosecutor. A corrupt prosecutor. I know this propaganda is coming foul.

Theodore Myron, who is a former chair of the International Tribunal on Yugoslavia, former Rwanda tribunal judge, former legal advisor to the Israeli foreign ministry, former Israeli ambassador. Theodore Maron, 94 years old, descended by Holocaust survivors. He advised on that indictment and said, yes, Netanyahu should be indicted on basis of all the evidence I've seen. He knows far more about war crimes than you do. And let me finish my other point. Piers, you keep saying, yes, he does, actually.

I know him. You haven't chaired an international tribunal on war crimes in Yugoslavia. He did. I've written books about it. I've written a new book about it. He actually prosecuted war criminals. And he's not corrupt. He's a Holocaust survivor.

He's a 94-year-old Israeli. He doesn't mean he knows more about war crimes. I know him. I know him. Yes, he does, actually. Somebody who's prosecuted war crimes, Pierce, does. And let me finish my other point, because both of you always interrupt me. Piers, one point you've said earlier about Israeli civilians, members of the public, you said moderate Israelis. You said earlier Smotrich Ben-Givir don't represent Israelis.

I wish that were true. I wish it was. But the Israelis society... Well, you're going to cite that poll with 80%. I'm going to cite multiple polls, right? That one is a bit of an outline. Well, the Penn State. There are multiple polls, Piers.

I can cite to you three or four, my colleague, Deannaaboodo, has written about it for Zateo. there is a Penn State poll that shows 82% of Israeli Jews say they support ethnic cleansing in Gaza. 47% of them said they support killing every man, woman and child in every city that's taken back from Gaza a la the Bible punishments of the Old Testament. So Israeli society is super pro the war,

super pro getting rid of Palestinians from Israel. So unfortunately, we can't lay all this at Netanyahu's door and just say, it's all the fault of Netanyahu. If we got rid of Netanyahu, things would be fine. Actually, the Israeli opposition is super genocidal. Israeli parliament's trying to get rid of the only Palestinian, leading Palestinian member right now. The Israeli public is a penalty.

And what percentage of Hamas are supported by the Palestinian people? Quite a lot right now because they see them as resistance. I'm glad you're... Hold on. Hang on. Hang on. So in other words, you see the same problems on the other side. I do see some problem. Let me make this point.

Hold on. No, it's not because... You never let me finish a sentence. One side is the occupier. Responding to what you say. One side is the occupier. The other side is occupied. One side is the people fighting for their freedom. One side is the people denying the freedom. They all get in the occupation.

But let me finish a point. It's very interesting that you mentioned about, you know, different attitudes. All I've heard on this show since it began today is poor Israelis, poor Israelis. Think about the Israelis. Alan has said multiple times now if your people were killed and if your women were raped, then you would respond like this. Well, the Palestinians would say the same because that's what happened to them. Alan said, war is hell.

If somebody came on the show, Pierce, and said to you after October the 7th, Alan, stop interrupting, Alan, let me speak. You spoke in the most on the show. When was there a 7-Eleven? Pierce, 7-Eleven. Piers, 7-Eleven is the name of the store. 7-11. Pierce, if somebody came on the show off October 7th and said to you,

well, 1,500 people were killed in Israel, war is hell. Would you be okay with that answer? You wouldn't be. So let's not tolerate it from supporters of Israel, please. Let's be consistent in our morality. Okay. I want to win. Because that was a deliberate. So is your favorite man, Netanyahu's killing of children. I think the problem, the problem,

Alan, with where Israel's got itself with the government and the IDF at the moment, is that it appears to most people outside of the IDF. and the Israeli government, that there are a huge amount of children who are being killed on a daily basis,

and this argument that none of it's deliberate gets increasingly tenuous. We can see it. We can see it appears with our own eyes. I want to end, because we run out of time. But it's true. But it's true.

Yes, our eyes align to us, Alan. I want to end down by asking you about... Let me make one point. Yeah, very quickly, because I want to just finish on one other point, but go on. Sure, but one point. What conceivable benefit would Israel ever get by killing civilian children?

They would do everything to avoid doing that. They don't want to do it. They're only doing it. They're bombing a hospital. They bombing a hospital because the entire... They brag about it, Alan. You can come on here and gaslight the Western public. But Israeli politicians say with their own mouths.

They say it with their own mouths. We've all heard them. We've all seen them say it. Not just Smotrich Ben-Givir, but Netanyahu. The heritage minister, the social equality minister. The deputy speaker of parliament used to burn down the government. I will give, I will give a thousand dollars. I will give a thousand dollar contribution to Hamas.

If you can find a quote directly from Natanyahu saying that we deliberately kill children. Why not everyone else? Why not everyone else in his government? No, you quoted. Look at that, Alan. Look how scared you were. You won't give the quote for the entire Israeli government, will you? But go on, Alan, will you say it for these Israeli government?

I'll take your bet right now if you say it's for the Israeli government. I don't think you can find a single person in the Israel. I don't think you can find a single person in the Israeli government, even Smirch, and even Ben-Gavir, who will get on this show and say, we deliberately kill children because we hate Palestinian children, and we want them to die. That's just not true. They do it because they use them as human-field.

We will destroy Gaza. Hamas wants these children to die. Amas wants these children to die. Yes, but you know what? I don't think the Israeli government, cares about the number of Palestinian children is killing. I really don't. Because if they did, if they did,

they would now stop this war. That's my opinion. I want to end on something else. They want to stop the war. I don't think they're trying hard enough. But look, we can disagree about that. I just want to play a clip. This is Tucker Carlson talking about the Epstein scandal. Let's take a look at this.

And I think the real answer is Jeffrey Epstein was working on behalf of Intel services, probably not American. and we have every right to ask on whose behalf was he working. Where did all the money come from? And no one has ever gotten to the bottom of that because no one has ever tried.

And moreover, it's extremely obvious to anyone who watches that this guy had direct connections to a foreign government. Now, no one's allowed to say that that foreign government is Israel because we have been somehow cowed into thinking that that's naughty. There is nothing wrong with San Francisco. There is nothing hateful about saying that.

There's nothing anti-Semitic about saying. There's nothing even anti-Israel about saying that. Okay. Anand, it's got a lot of pick up this in talking about cause. I was Epstein's lawyer. I was Epstein's lawyer. I tried desperately to get him a good deal when he was first arrested. I went to the prosecution with everything we had.

I asked Epstein over and over again, what can you tell me? Did you work for the government? Did you do anything for the government? If he had done anything for the government, first person, person he would have told would be me, and I would have gone to the government and say, well, you can't prosecute this guy. You have to let him off the hook. He's worked for the government. There isn't one iota of proof or truth to the claim that he worked for the Israeli government. Jeffrey Epstein visited me in Israel when I was there as a visiting scholar.

It was the first time he had ever been to Israel. He asked me to put together a group of smart people to have lunch. I included Aaron, Barack, Yitzhak Zahmir, a few people. He didn't know anybody in Israel. He has never had any connection. He has never had any with Israeli intelligence, and Tucker Carlson just made it up completely out of whole point. There is nothing to it whatsoever. What you said has been corroborated by Neftali Bennett, the former Prime Minister, who said today, well, corroborated in the sense of this defense has been corroborated. He said that Epstein had nothing to do with the Mossad ever, and never in his knowledge,

ever did any work for the Israeli government. Now, this is still being investigated. We shall see. But no one's, as Alan rightly says, no one's established this. yet as a fact. To the contrary. Adam, before I go to Medi for a final response to this, you've been quite vocal since the Trump administration shut down the Epstein case.

You've been quite vocal that you know specific names of people that in your estimation should be prosecuted. So my question for you is, why don't you just put them out in the public domain? I can't because I'm under court order. The courts, two courts in federal courts in New York, have imposed gag orders on this. I don't know anybody necessarily should be prosecuted.

I know the names of people who were allegedly clients or allegedly had sex, and those names are being suppressed because the lawyers went to court and got, oh, probably just a handful, maybe even fewer, but we know that there are some, and we know that some of the names that are being suppressed not only are names of people who are accused, but also information about the accusers, because some of the accusations are clearly false accusations. And so what I've said from day one is we want every single thing disclosed. Nothing redacted, everything open so that the public can judge the validity of the accusations,

the name of the accusers, the names of the accused, and put it all forward so that the court of public opinion has all the information. There is no such thing as a client list. There is a redacted FBI form that has the names of several. people and they have been redacted and they should be unredacted. That's what I said. That sounds very similar to a client list to me. No, it's an accusation. No, it's not a list. A list would be something that Epstein put together. This is a list of people who were accused by somebody and by others of having improper conduct and those names have been suppressed. That's not a list. That's a list of accusations. They may all be false as far as we know. And if you're going to turn out

the names of the people accused, you also ought to provide all the information about the accusers. And in all your time, before I go to Medi for the final word of this, in all your time around Epstein and Ms. Case and all your knowledge, has anything to link President Trump,

Donald Trump, to anything in your eyes ought to be further investigated? Absolutely not. They knew each other. They were part of the Palm Beach Circle. They were at each other's homes. And then, apparently, Trump banned Epstein from Marilago, but there's never been an allegation that Trump did anything wrong,

and I've never seen any evidence to suggest that period. The same thing is true of Bill Clinton. There were all kinds of allegations that he was on the plane, that he was on the island. That has never been proved. It's easy to make these accusations. I wrote a book a few years ago called guilt by accusation, where today in America and around the world, if you're accused, you're deemed to be guilty. But many of the people who were accused were not guilty.

In my own case, I was accused, and the woman then admitted that she may have, may have falsely, may have, in fact, misidentified me for somebody else. And my case ended as a result of that. And other cases might end the same way if all the information came out. That's why I always wanted all the information to come out so that innocent people will be exculpated and guilty people. Listen, I agree. And I think what's fascinating, Medi, is that this has been shut down. without all that information being put out, which I just think purely on the face of that, that is wrong.

But what we're also seeing is a political fallout, which is gathering real momentum, and is quite dangerous for Donald Trump, I think, which a lot of the MAGA base are genuinely enraged that they've been effectively taken to the water edge of the oasis in thinking they're going to get all the answers and the accountability, and now they're going to get nothing. Yeah, well said.

This is the first Trump scandal I know of, where the opposition to Trump is being left. by his base, not by liberals, not by the left. Democrats have been very late to this story. It's his own people who are pissed at him. And as you say, look, there's only two options here. One is Trump and his crew lied to these people, made fools of them, brought them to the water's edges.

He tried to get votes off of a child abuse scandal, cynically, and then said, oh, there's nothing there. There is no file, even though Pam Bondi said it's sitting on my desk in February. Or there's the other scary scenario that Donald Trump, the President of the United States, is implicated in a child sex abuse scandal, which, of course, Elon Musk, his top donor has said. He says Donald Trump's name is in the Epstein, No lesser figure than his top donor and former government ally has said that.

So that's a pretty big scandal. Then you've got Alex Acosta, who was Trump's Labor Secretary. He's the guy who signed off on the sweetheart deal that Alan Dershowitz negotiated for Epstein in 2008. Acosta says, I was told to lay off Epstein because he's with the intelligence services. Those are the words of Alex Acosta, apparently. He wasn't told by me. So interestingly, whether he worked for the CIA or whether he worked for Mossad. Of course, he had ties to Israel.

He was best friends with Ehud Barak. He lived in Israel, he invested in Israeli companies. He had ties to Israel. I'm not saying he's in Mossad, but he definitely had ties to Israel. Later. And the administration should come out and clarify. The administration should clarify. Last point I'd make is this.

We talked about Alan being a lawyer for Epstein, and he can choose who he wants to represent. But more than just being a lawyer, Alan was a friend of Epstein's and a friend of Gilein Maxwell and went to the mansion and went on the plane. I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing, but I'm questioning Alan's judgment on this and many other issues.

So the president of Harvard was a friend, professors were friends, Bill Gates was a friend. Jeffrey absolutely attracted a great many people. He used to have these senators. Nobody knew he was doing anything wrong. Nobody knew he was doing anything wrong. Once people found out he was accused of doing things wrong,

they terminated their relationship with him as I did. You can't blame somebody for being friendly with somebody. You got him a great deal. I represented him as a lawyer. He didn't think it was a good deal. He refused to pay me my feet because he thought I had gotten him a terrible deal because he ended up in prison and having to sign in as a sex offender.

So he didn't think it was a great deal. I thought it was a pretty good deal. That's my job as a lawyer. I'll always try to get the best deal for my clients no matter what. Okay, we've got to leave it there. And unfortunately, the screen is breaking up again. It's a good moment to leave it.

I appreciate you both very much. Joining me on Uncensor. Thank you. Thank you. Here's Morgan, Anuncensor, it is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. You enjoy our show. We ask only one simple thing.

Hit subscribe on YouTube. follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Uncensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.