Piers Morgan Uncensored - “EPIC Win!“ Trump 1 Billion BBC Lawsuit + Tucker Carlson vs Ben Shapiro on Fuentes

Episode Date: November 10, 2025

ExpressVPN: Right now you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free. Just scan the QR code on the screen, or go to https://ExpressVPN.com/PIERS and get four extra months for free. President Trump wasted no time in celebrating the resignation of the BBC’s two top executives, after documents leaked to The Telegraph showed it twisted his words in a major documentary aired just before the presidential election. The President is now reportedly considering suing the broadcaster - how can that happen at a taxpayer-funded media group which is sworn to meticulous impartiality? Also; there’s an almighty split playing out in MAGA media; sparked by Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes. On one side are people like Dave Smith, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, who believe in platforming everyone and letting viewers decide. On the other is Ben Shapiro and those who believe conservatives have a moral purpose and risk surrendering to extremists in the way progressives did to the ultra-woke. And meanwhile Democrats are having their own battle for the future of their movement after Zohran Mamdani’s socialist populism propelled him to victory in the race to be New York City’s mayor. Is he the template for Democratic revival? Or a radical red herring who’s dragging them even further away from national success? Piers Morgan is joined by The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian, founder of Outkick! Clay Travis, PragerU’s Shabbos Kestenbaum, former Obama aide and Mamdani surrogate in New York, Michael Blake and host of The News Agents and former BBC North America Editor, Jon Sopel. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Brooklyn Bedding: Enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you! Visit https://Brooklynbedding.com for 30% off & use promo code PIERS! Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're going to walk down to the capital, and I'll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. The way they spliced his quotes together in order to make it appear as though he was saying something that he didn't say was wrong. I think the problem that the legacy media has got, it's not an institutional left-wing bias. It's a bit boring. It bothers me to no end that someone who is so obviously a commiser. A million, a charlatan, was somehow able to fool more than a million New Yorkers into thinking that his populist agenda will ever succeed.

Benjamin Netanyahu is a disgusting war criminal. I think Zeran Mamdani standing up and saying that was actually very appealing to New Yorkers. You're a fan of Stalin's. I was an admirer. For me, the line is whether or not the individual spewing the disgusting, anti-Semitic, bigoted, racist rhetoric has an audience or influence of his own. I don't think anybody should be criticized for anyone they choose to interview on their own show. Should we, you know, should I have someone like Fuentes.

President Trump wasted no time in celebrating a resignation of the BBC's two top executives after documents leaked to the telegraph newspaper showed it twisted his words in a major documentary aired just before the presidential election. These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of an election, he wrote. What a terrible thing for democracy. Well, Trump's critics, of course, are saying the exact same thing about him. In their eyes, is yet another major media organization bending the knee under pressure from the White House. But this case seems fairly simple.

The BBC's most prestigious and long-running documentary show spiced together clips to make it look as though Trump told the January 6 rioters to fight like hell and not to protest peacefully. How on earth can that happen at a taxpayer-funded media group, which is sworn to meticulous impartiality. Well, the answer can only be institutionalized bias in the legacy media, a subject on which almost every US Conservative agrees. Right now, it feels like they don't agree on much else. There's no mighty split playing out in MAGA media,

sparked by Tucker Carlson's interview with the anti-Semite streamer Nick Fuentes. On one side of people like Dave Smith, Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson, who say platform everyone, let the crowd decide. On the other is Ben Shapiro and those who believe that, conservatives have a moral purpose and risk surrendering to extremists in the way that progressives did to the ultra-woke. Both have recently appeared, as I have, at Megan Kelly's live tour. I'll tell you what doesn't change Nick Flentes' view. Tucker Carlson with his arm around, Nick Flintes, grinning for the camera while Nick Flentes tweets out America first

and then triumphantly goes on the air the next day to explain that he has essentially used Tucker Carlson as a vehicle for manipulating other people. Okay, that's what Nick Fuentes is saying. Not me. Nick Fuentes. So what do you say to those people? Why don't you raise any of that? You know, do your own interview the way that you want to do it.

You're not my editor. Buzz off. I mean, I don't know. You want to go yell at Nick Fuentes? I'll give you a cell. Call him and go sit and yell at him and feel virtuous or whatever. That's up to you. I got the same thing with Putin.

Why aren't you yelling at him? Okay. Why? So I can show that I'm a good person? I care about what my wife thinks, my children think, and God thinks. And that's it. I don't need to prove that I'm a good person to you. And while all of this is raging in the backgrounds,

Democrats are having their own battle for the soul and the future of their movement. Zoram Mamdani, socialist populism propelled him to victory in the race to be New York City's mayor. Is he the template for Democratic Revival or a radical red herring who's dragging them even further away from national success? Well, plenty to discuss with my panel. But first, I'm joined by John Sopal. He's the host of the news agents and the former a BBC's North America editor, who knows all too well what Trump thinks of his previous employer. John, welcome to Unsensitive. Thank you, Pierce. Good to be with you.

So look, no one knows better than you, I guess, about the complexities of working for the BBC with Donald Trump as president. You had to do that for a number of years. First of all, you know, my kind of overview about this is that the BBC here dropped a massive own goal. They basically invited exactly what's come. They said, you know, the way that they spliced up, or the independent film company, October Films, appeared to have spliced up the Trump speech in a way that was misleading. They're basically saying to Trump, come and get us.

I mean, am I overstretching things when I say that? No, I think it was stupid. I think it was moronic. I think it was the sort of error that someone wouldn't even make having just left journalism college. you cannot misrepresent what people say. But is it a misrepresentation? Or did Donald Trump, I mean, look, let's be honest.

Donald Trump had tweeted in December, you know, there's going to be a big protest in D.C. Come along, it's going to be wild. And the January of the 6th Commission said that incited the riots that took place. A number of the people who appeared in court said they were doing it because Donald Trump had, that's what he thought, that's what they thought he wanted them to do. Was the BBC wrong to spot?

together two bits that overcooked what Donald Trump said. Absolutely they were. It was foolish and I cannot for the life of me fathom why the BBC didn't just, as soon as this was pointed out to them, say, whoa, sorry, that was a terrible thing to have done. We shouldn't have done it. And I'm still scratching my head over why the corporation has dragged its feet for over a week since this was in the news.

Tom Mangold, who worked at Panorama for 26 years, as an investigative journalist. He said this to Sky News yesterday. I can't understand how it happened. I mean, changing somebody's speech by deliberately mis-editing is the worst crime imaginable in BBC news. You just don't do it.

This film was made by an independent company called October Films, but the BBC carries total responsibility for what was in the film and the way in which it was edited. I mean, you're not the only one, John, scratching your head. Yeah. I mean, I was going to say, I mean, you talk about scratching your head.

It's kind of inexplicable that nobody at Panorama, which, you know, for American viewers, Panorama is the flagship news show, really, at the BBC. It's renowned globally for not doing the kind of thing that's happened here. What do you think? I mean, the bizarre thing to me is it's led to the downfall of Tim Davy and Deborah Turner. So two of the very top executive. that the BBC have resigned over this. But neither of them, unless you correct me,

I don't think either of them would have been directly involved in what's happened here. What I haven't seen is any admission of culpability by October films, nor have I seen anybody at Panorama hold their hand up and say, actually, we're the ones you should be resigning here. I just can't quite get my head around who's falling on the block and who isn't. Yeah, look, so when I was in Washington, all through the Trump's first term,

There were watchwords for our reporting, which was, be careful, be very careful. But once you've been very careful and you've got all your facts assembled, be bold. That's what journalism should be like. You don't do things that open you up to criticism in the way that panorama has. Now, my understanding is that on Tuesday of last week, the BBC News executives had kind of got together and said, Christ, we've got a bit of a mess here. We need to apologise for it. And for whatever reason, and there are some dark, murky reasons, and there are some more kind of benign reasons, but stupid, they decided not to apologize until the chairman of the BBC went before the committee for, you know, a parliamentary committee and issued a statement today this lunchtime.

And you think, well, hang on, if you have got a vacuum like that, Donald Trump, as sure as eggs is eggs, is going to fill it. And by God he has. And now the DG, the Director General is gone, headed news is gone, and he's threatening to sue the BBC for a cool billion dollars. Yeah, I mean, you know, Trump's been waging a sort of revenge tour war on mainstream media in the United States. He's now turning his turrets on the BBC,

and it may be that that pressure was being expressed behind the scenes. He's certainly been very gleeful in, I think, the downfall of these executives. What was interesting to me was this all came about because the Daily Telegraph got, a leak of a memo by somebody called Prescott who had been charged with examining BBC allegations of bias and so on. It wasn't just about this point. Also, he concluded the BBC's coverage of the 2024 election was more critical of Trump than of his opponent, Kamala Harris. He said that he found evidence that the BBC had been one-sided in its coverage of

transgender issues, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity. And we just saw this farcical situation for me of a presenter called Maxine Croxel who had rolled her eyes when she was told to read the phrase pregnant people on air, which I think 99% of women in the world would have found very difficult reading because obviously only women get pregnant. And has now had, because of 20 complaints, you know, finding against her. So that plays in, I think, to what many people will see as a bias. anti-Israel bias in BBC Arabic, broader issues in Gaza coverage,

all research stories on racism and so on. Now, the BBC is a massive organisation. So it's not entirely surprising that it's not perfect. But when you look at the scale of all this, John, you were there many, many years at the BBC, is there as many people like Nigel Farage and Trump and others and Boris Johnson are trying to make the case for? Is there an institutional issue here?

about the way the BBC is run. There's nothing more important than good sleep, and it's probably time you're upgraded yours as I have with our sponsor, Brooklyn Bedding. Brooklyn mattresses deliver top-tier quality on its pricing and true American craftsmanship. They've won awards, and they are one of the very few brands, to be endorsed by the American Chiropractic Association.

My Aurora Lux mattress was handcrafted in their Arizona factory and delivered directly to my door. You can start with their sleep quiz to find your perfect match in just minutes, And they offer a 120-night comfort trial. If you don't love it, they'll help you to return it or swap it hassle-free. Go to Brooklynbending.com and use my promo code Peers, that's P-I-E-R-S, for up to 30% off site-wide. This offer is not available anywhere else.

Go to Brooklynbending.com and use promo code Peers for 30% off. And make sure you mention Peers Morgan Unsensored at brooklynbending.com, promo code Peers. Look, I don't want to give the BBC a free pass. I think there are some structural problems. I think it can be kind of, you know, very liberal. I think there was a degree on the trans issue that the BBC was captured by a lobby. A lot of organisations were and just gave uncritical coverage to trans issues. And you end up in the fast-core situation where Martin Croxel is hauled over the coals

for correcting the phrase pregnant person to pregnant woman. So, look, there are bits of it that are wrong. But the BBC is also inundated with complaints from pro-Palestinian groups, that it's too pro-Israeli. And so the BBC is under fire the whole time. I think where the BBC has an institutional problem is that it's sometimes too slow to say, we screwed that up. You know, like months ago, people would have been aware of the splicing together of these two clips from the Trump speech on January the 6th. And they're thinking, okay, heads down, guys. Let's see if we can ride this one out.

Let's see if we don't get into trouble. What the BBC should be doing is celebrating brilliant journalism, when there is brilliant journalism. They've broken some great stories in the past year. But equally, when you've screwed up, put your hands up and say, we need to investigate why. The other thing I'd say on an institutional level, they put out a documentary, which they've now pulled on Gaza,

where one of the commentators was a kid, who was the son of a Hamas official, and they never made that clear. Now, not a single head has rolled, as far as I know, over that. Now, Piers, when you were editor of the Daily Mirror back in the day, if one of your senior people screwed up, you'd show them the door. And somehow, you know, no one ever is held accountable until it becomes so rotten and so fetid

that you end up with the Director General, the head of the organisation, and the chief executive of BBC News, both going on the same evening. Yeah, it is extraordinary the way it's played out, and we've seen this time and again with recent BBC scandals. It's often the way they've handled it so cack-handedly that's caused more damage than the original offence.

John, stay with me. I'm going to bring in other panel members now, Anna Kasperean, the executive producer and host at the Young Turks, Clay Travis, founder of Outkick, Shabos Kestenbaum, he's the commentator with Prejou, and Michael Blake. former Obama aide and Mamdani surrogate in New York. So welcome to all of you.

Clay Travis, this was really, like I said, an absolute home run for Donald Trump. The BBC, one of his favourite places to whack, who he's always believed to be biased against him, basically caught with their pants down, being transparently biased against him, and now he's on an absolutely triumphant victory lap, including threatening to sue them for a billion dollars. What do you make of this? Yes, it's a huge win for Trump, and I think there's a couple of different ways to analyze this Pierce.

First of all, I've been arguing forever, it feels like, if we just had incompetence in media, wouldn't there be some stories where Donald Trump, I don't know, save nine kittens from drowning in the Potomac River that ends up not being true, but it goes mega-viral? Everything the mainstream legacy media gets wrong about Trump, it always cuts against him. In other words, it always hurts him. That's not negligence. That's what we call bias. And that ties into the second part here. He's already been able to sue ABC. He's been able to sue CBS.

He sued every news organization out there. And I do think he's gotten fairly consequential results. Use 60 minutes for an example. They're now posting the whole part of all interviews as opposed to just editing them. I think that's actually a win for all voters out there. But Pierce, to go after a foreign news organization, who's going to stand up for the BBC in America? This is such an epic win for him. But again, it also reiterates all the failures. It's why Trump has won twice.

It's why he is, I believe, right now if you look, and I'm sure we're going to talk about it, the Democrats bending the knee on their 40-day shutdown, why I think he continues to be at the absolute apex of his political power. because not only are his opponents dishonest. They're also, frankly, morons because they do things like this, which are easy to catch and which everybody can determine is 100% biased against him.

This is a huge win for Trump. Yeah, Anna Gersperian, I mean, look, I've worked at the BBC, not as an employee, but as a contributor many times. I've got a lot of time for people at the BBC. I think they try very hard to be an impartial news organization. But this is really bad. for the BBC because it allows Donald Trump to exploit it in the way that obviously he does better

than almost anyone in the history of modern politics and media. And, you know, only last night, he, I suspect, realizing the big story is going to be this has granted sweeping pardons to a number of longtime allies tied to an alleged failed bid to overturn the 2020s election. Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. He's taken the opportunity to do something that may have got him a lot of criticism, but he's kind of being lost in the wash because the narrative around the world at the moment is BBC misled the world about Donald Trump.

Well, let me just be clear about BBC and how what they did was just flatly wrong. You don't have to be a fan of Donald Trump's to acknowledge that the way they spliced his quotes together in order to make it appear as though he was saying something that he didn't say was wrong. And when any news organization does something like that, they lose credibility. And I think that's precisely the reason why these legacy media outlets, both in the UK and, quite frankly, especially here in the United States, are losing their audiences. They're losing their readership, if we're talking about print journalism. And independent media is really thriving.

But of course, there are also downsides to some forms of independent. media because there's oftentimes no editorial review of the work that gets put out. But I think in general, the public, both in the UK and the United States, trust independent sources far more than they do legacy media or corporate media. At the same time, while the conversation in the UK might be about how Trump is a victim of this biased form of journalism, if you want to call it that, in the United States right now, Most of the focus is on the issue of affordability. The fact that inflation has actually gone up a little bit under Trump, the last report from, you know, our government indicates that it's up to 3.0%.

He's starting to get a little desperate, so he's starting to propose tariff dividends to the tune of $2,000. So right now I'm really happy to see that Americans are hyper-focused on affordability, which is substantive, which is important. But make no mistake, the media bias issue is that. not working in the left's favor. So if the BBC thought that they could get away with this, obviously they didn't. They need to report the facts accurately. Yeah. And, you know, Shabos, I've often joked to my BBC friends, and I have many BBC friends who've worked there before or currently worked there, that you could shoot a harpoon around the BBC newsroom at any given moment, and you would be very, very, very hard pushed to hit a conservative voter, right? So I think

there's going to be a sort of acknowledgement that the BBC here. historically has been always staff pretty much. I mean, John, if you want to contradict me, by all means contradict me, but I think it would be fair to say most BBC employees skew liberal. And I think, Shaboff, this has been part of the problem, is that inevitably, if you have a group of people who skew that way themselves, and I'm basing that only on how they are with me privately, then there's always this temptation to skew the coverage in a way that is very antithical to what the BBC stands for. But like I said, say this here has given Trump a brilliant opportunity to do what he loves most,

which is whack the mainstream media, play the victim, and also sort of get himself, as Anna said, get himself off the wrap of too much forensic attention on what are some big hot political issues on him right now. Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the optimum day and optimum night all natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results. Optimum day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day.

Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep. They have countless success stories, including from some very familiar faces. England legend Michael Owen, who lost £40. AFTV's Robbie, we lost more than £100. To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers. And here's the best part. Use the code peers and get 70% off.

first order. You're 70% off with the code peers. I think you nailed it and you'll be happy to know that. Anne and I very much agree on this issue. The BBC splicing Donald Trump, the president of the United States into saying something he didn't actually say is something you literally see from the Kremlin. It's literally something you see from North Korea. It's something you would have seen in the Soviet Union. And the problems facing the BBC are the same problems facing institutions of higher learning in the United States. Where Harvard for Harvard University, for example, 97% of the faculty identify as as liberal. And even if you are liberal, that is very dangerous for the health of a society

and for the health of a democracy. It's fascinating that mainstream media outlets and institutions of our learning, they care about racial identity, sexual orientation, but the one type of diversity that they don't actually care about is intellectual identity, intellectual diversity. And that will be the death knell for so many of these once reputable institutions. And I think Elon Musk said it the best when he said, you are the media now. I mean, there's a direct correlation, I think, in the rise in popularity of your show, Pierce Morgan Uncensored. And And the decrease in both trust and popularity of mainstream media outlets like the BBC is because they consistently lie. It is because it has been proven that they are consistently biased.

You know, the BBC had to retract on average two stories a week on Israel, Gaza, which is more than 220 stories total. This is not an institution that either the American people or the people of Britain will actually trust anymore. Okay, Michael, I will come to you in a moment, but I want to get John's reaction to that, yeah. Yeah, look, I think the BBC is flawed in an awful lot of ways. The funny thing is that if you work at the corporation, I think that there is a guilt of being liberal. And so the papers they look at in the UK most avidly are the Daily Mail, at the Daily Telegraph, those that are to the right

and thinking, what should we be doing? Because we get things wrong, because we are this or that. I don't think that there's institutionally a kind of, oh, we've got to do whatever is liberal. I just think that there is, look, I think that people care massively about getting things right. I think the problem that the legacy media has got,

it's not an institutional left-wing bias. It's a bit boring. And I don't dare, I say this quietly because it's difficult to say out loud. But they'll say, you know, on a news report, on the one hand this, on the other hand, that only time will tell John Soaple, BBC News, Washington. No one wants to listen to that.

They want to hear, well-informed judgment. And I think that the kind of BBC and conventional media sacrifices so much ground by being bland and vanilla and being frightened of their own shadows. Yeah, and the problem, John, actually, is that I've felt for a while the BBC business model is broken and it's a generational thing. You know, my kids, for example, my sons are 32, 28, 24. I don't think any of them are going to voluntarily pay a license fee, which is, for American viewers, you have to pay, like, nearly $200 to have the BBC delivered to your home. And if you don't, you can go to prison, right?

So it's a kind of state-mandated thing. If you have the BBC and you watch it, you can be literally, I mean, look at Anna's shaking. This is true, right? People have literally been threatened with prison. And someone that have gone to prison for not paying the license fee. The idea that anyone under 40 who are used to paying what they want, want to pay for streamers like Amazon, Netflix, and so on, that they're going to do that, I think is for the birds. So I do feel, John, that the BBC business model is unsustainable.

And this doesn't help them because, you know, ultimately, unlike everybody else, the BBC is funded by the British taxpayer. And that gives them a unique place in British public life, a unique responsibility. And I just feel like this is, what we're seeing is the beginning of the end, not at the BBC, but of the BBC's... entitlement to charge the British public, nearly $200, for the pleasure of enjoying their stuff, without it being a voluntary thing? Look, the BBC has a guaranteed income of £3 billion, $3.5, $4 billion a year. Which media organisation in today's cutthroat competitive world wouldn't die to have that

sort of guaranteed income. But what is happening now? And look, you know, I used to, when I was the BBC's North America editor, I'd appear on our main nightly news. The average age of those watching our nightly news are over 60. Young people, like you say, peers, I don't know whether my kids pay the license fee or not, but I mean, you know, I need to check that. But of course, what you've got now is you had Boris Johnson, the former prime minister this week coming out and saying, as a result of this row, I am no longer going to pay the license fee. Screw the consequences. Well, of course, if Boris Johnson is enabling those sort of people to think that he can do it, then an awful lot of people are going

to stop paying the license fee. And then the BBC is going to be in a situation where it's got to have all these services offering radio and television and online and podcast, whatever else, and a declining revenue because people are voting with their feet and saying, you know what, I'm not paying anymore. So I think the model, as it's currently configured, you know, is bad for the BBC. And what's happened in the past week is just to put a British phrase on it, bloody awful. Yeah, I think that's perfect summary. Michael Blake, thank you of your patience in waiting. You're a former Obama raid, you're at Mamdani surrogate, New York.

You're running the Congress in the Bronx. Obviously, a very exciting time for anyone connected to Mamdani. He's come along like a kind of socialist version of Trump. He's very charismatic, very dynamic. He brings people with him. he's a populist in a way, but on the socialist side. It's a big moment, it feels to me, for left-wing politics in America as to which way they're going to go.

And a lot may hinge on how Mandani does in New York. If he fails to deliver on all of his big, grandiose promises, which I have to say, I fear he will, then that could become a sword of Damocles against the Democrats going into 2028. Conversely, if he's able to really, tackle affordability in a meaningful way that looks like it's worked in New York, that could well be the way that the Democrats win power in 2028 nationally. What is your view? Well, first, to the previous

conversation, given my role with next level sports, I would also agree that there is no acceptable form of editing out factual information. And quite frankly, if they were just let the whole thing play, we wouldn't be having the conversation right now because Donald Trump clearly said rhetoric that was reprehensible and unacceptable. There was no reason to make those edits in that regard. People are speaking in seeking the truth. As relates to Zoran, our mayor-elect, you know, I ran in the mayoral primary and Zoran and I cross-endorsed each other, and largely because we talked about a cost of living and affordability being the number one issue. When people are wondering right now, when one in four New Yorkers are wondering around poverty and paying

of their bills. That is far more important than anything else that is happening here. I served in the assembly for six years and prior to that work with President Obama. And to your point, Pierce, yes, there will be people that are quite frankly hoping that not everything is accomplished. But let me tell you, there is no elected official that can accomplish every single thing that they have stated. And so there has to be the element of saying, how do we address and make progress on these opportunities around cost of living and affordability, which he will. When you think about what has to happen around groceries, when you think about transportation, when you think about changing the model of what is happening in our communities, he will be able to have success around

that. And when we think about what's happening collectively, whether it be internationally and or domestic, everyone is wondering right now, will you be real with me, direct with me, about the challenges that we're facing and fight for me? And when you think about last night, what we saw with the Senate and the frustration of Senate Democrats caving, quite frankly, why? Why would you have the energy that just achieved was achieved last Tuesday and not continue to fight? It is actually more expensive for your medical bills and what happens around ACA than it will be for SNAP. And it is inhumane that Senate Democrats are working with Republicans to effectively say you have to choose between meals or Medicare. So when you think about what's happening here in New York with Mayor Alec Mamdani and the winds that happened across the country,

the reason why there's such momentum where Pierce, he received more than a million vote. is that people are listening to how he is addressing cost of living. Why am I running for Congress in the Bronx? Because we are still the poorest congressional district in America. This is all intertwined in how you fight for the court issue of affordability, and that's why he will be successful. ExpressVPN is the simple way to protect your privacy online. In the U.S., internet providers record your online activity

and can sell your data. In many countries, they've even legally required to store your information for years. Along with millions of others, I use ExpressVPN to stop the tracking. It hides your IP address and it routes all your activity through encrypted servers to keep advertisers and scammers from accessing your data. You can choose the level of protection you need. The basic plan is just $3.49 a month, less than 12 cents a day. Right now, you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN

if you go to ExpressVPN.com slash peers to scan the QR code on the screen or go to expressvpn.com slash peers to get four additional months of service. That's expressvpn.com slash peers. Yeah, the big problem, it seems to me, Clay Travis, is the word affordability works both ways. I don't think that Mamdani is going to be able to afford to do all the things he's promised voters he will do. Socialism has never worked on any sustained period anywhere in the world.

I don't really see how it's going to start working in New York. And many people think he's not just a socialist, but a communist talking about wanting to take control of productivity and all that kind of stuff. It'll be fascinating. I don't dispute for a moment. He's not a very charismatic, very capable guy

who is a very skilled young politician. I don't dispute any of those things. I just dispute his ability to afford to tackle affordability. I would say a couple of things. I mean, Zora Mondani is someone who, his ridiculous posturing is really, unfathomable. This is someone who has said that he has really no thoughts on whether Hamas should disarm, but also believes that Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be arrested. This is someone who says,

yeah, I talk about affordability. I don't care about the Middle East when he has literally stated that Palestine is the center of his politics. Forget about anti-Semitism and forget about Israel. His policies, if even a tenth of them, were implemented on New York City, would be so wildly destructive. This is someone who believes that we need to have a $30 minimum wage in New York City, which would kill small businesses. This is someone who believes that in the financial capital of the world, there should not be billionaires, which is ludicrous, because in order for any of his policies to actually succeed, whether it's free buses, free health care, free grocery stores, you actually need billionaires and millionaires in this city to pay for all of those things.

This is someone who has literally said that we should tax white neighborhoods. This is someone who believes that government-run grocery stores is not only a good idea, but actually we should be building more of them, which is ludicrous because there are people living in this country today who came from Cuba and Venezuela in boats because of things like government-run grocery stores. Policies, would be so wildly destructive. And it bothers me to no end that someone who is so obviously a chameleon, a charlatan, whose previous experience was a failed rapper, the self-proclaimed son of a nepo baby,

was somehow able to fool more than a million New Yorkers into thinking that his populist agenda will ever succeed, which is why you have one of his surrogates today already stating, he's probably not going to be able to implement any of these policies. Because, of course, he won't. And if I could just say it with 30 more seconds, Michael, I'm actually, I live in the district that you are running in. Richie Torres is my congressman.

And it's interesting because I watch your campaign release video when you talk about Richie Torres is interested in funding the genocide and APEC and all this. It's funny because New York State Assemblyman Simcha Eichenstein, he said that just a few months ago, you called him and you begged him to endorse him. And you specifically said that you were the most pro-Israel candidate in the race with a record to reflect it.

But of course, now that Zora-Mam-Dani won, you're kind of changing your tune, which is the exact same reason that last night you deleted it on all of your Twitter accounts. You deleted any references to the fact that you've spoken at APAC, you've received money from APAC, you support Israel. And I got to say, the fact that you make Richie Torres out as a congressman who only cares about Israel, in the last year, Richie Torres has proposed the Women's Health Protection Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Bipartisan Background

Checks Act, the Health Care Affordability Act, the Bodega Act, the Food Desert Act. And in fact, I don't know if the camera will be able to see this, but just this morning, Richie Torres is meeting with business leaders in the Bronx today to talk about SNAP and how disastrous the government shutdown has been. Meanwhile, you, Michael Blake, are yelling at one of his constituents on TV. Having a government shutdown is disastrous to the people in our district. But you're actually stating that, no, the Democrats should not open the government and that people in my district, in our district, who rely on food stamps, they should not receive it because Democrats need to continue to have this government shutdown. So let me be the first of many constituents who say that I will not be voting

for you. And I cannot wait for you. for you to receive less than 1% of the vote, which is exactly what you received when you ran for mayor of New York. Michael, just one question that I would like to ask you after what we just heard. Is it true you've been deleting all references, as Shabos said in the last 24 hours

to any pro-Israel sentiments and work you've done for pro-Israel organizations? That is inaccurate. Let's walk through the facts that we just stated. What has been deleted were previous experiences trips that happened with AFAC, because I stated that there has been a journey that I had been on from the initial time of visiting, because I've been to Israel twice, and it was not anti-Israel, pro-Israel, specific to that, and it was not in the last 24 hours. Second, I actually received

more than 200,000 votes in the mayor election. What has been referenced was the first choice election, so to that point, that data was inaccurate. Third, what was repeatedly stated was, was I never said that Zarmam Dying the mayor-elect would not be able to achieve everything. I said that there is no elected official who can achieve everything. Fourth, I have repeatedly stated that having a criticism around where APAC as an organization currently stands, where to your comment, Richie Torres by itself, has acknowledged that he has spoken about what is happening 236% more than he has around poverty, that you can be against APAC as an organization and not be anti-Israel. And we cannot conflate the two.

I am an ordained Reverend who has been to Israel twice. Michael, but Michael, just to jump in, why did you delete all references to you appearing with APEC? Because there's been a complete shift in where it thinks. When we think about where APEC has gone, there's a substantial shift on where APEC has been and where it is going from here. And I think when we talk about the journey that we're all on, I've been very clear on that. Okay. Okay. John, I know you've got to leave us. Thank you very much indeed for your contribution.

I couldn't think of a better person, actually, than the BBC's four. former North American. And I had to say, when I used to watch you in the way you covered and reported Trump and handled him, I thought it was an absolute template in how somebody from the BBC should do, what is a difficult job? So I miss you doing that, actually.

But great to have you on the uncensored. Thank you very much. And I enjoyed you. Great pleasure, Pierce. Very much. Thanks, John. Let me come back to Clay. We've got you back, Clay.

I want to play you a clip from Fox News anchor, Tommy Layron, warning Republican voters to wake up after the results we saw last week. He makes a good point there, but I will say this. I think that it's always a bad idea when Republicans get too cocky. I think we've done this before. We've seen this movie before. The red waves that were always supposed to crash that never happened. So whereas I do agree that these elections aren't necessarily a bellwether. We talked about it last weekend. New Jersey, we wanted to win. We made some gains. Didn't win it. Virginia, yeah, we maybe didn't have the best

candidate. We lost it. New York City, they elected a socialist. You played yourself. But I do think Republicans would be wise to maybe have a wake-up call here and realize that we can't take anything for granted. What do you think of that, Claire? I mean, look, you can't dispute that the Democrats collectively had a very good week, all that Mamdani may be a socialist, but the other big winners for the Democrats last week were actually quite moderate. Does that send you a little alarm bell? A little bit. Look, Tommy works with me at Outkick. She's super smart and very talented in breaking down everything. And really what you have to go to here is the reality, Pierce,

600,000 people didn't show up in Virginia, 600,000 people didn't show up in New Jersey that voted for Donald Trump in 2024 just one year ago. Now, I know it's an off-year election, and generally speaking, you're not going to have the same turnout. But if those same people had turned up, Trump actually got more votes than the government. of Virginia and more votes than the governor of New Jersey. Why did those people not show up?

And I think one of the things that we have learned and should be ominous in 2026 is the people who hate Trump, they show up to vote for dog catcher. They show up to vote for their local community council. They show up to vote for school boards. The people who love Trump show up when Trump is on the ballot. And that is one of the things that I think the Republican Party has to think about in 26 and 28, because mark my words, they're going to quickly pivot in 2027 peers from Donald Trump is Hitler. He's the worst person who's ever existed in the history of the world to the Republican party is never going to have anyone as talented as President Trump. He is a unicorn political genius. And so they are never going to be able to bring out the voters that he did. And that until we see

what happens in 26 and 28 is, I think, the best argument that the Democrat Party has. And in fact, Pierce, shamelessly, I know you got a book. I encourage everybody to go by that. This book also came out, and it's all about how young men in America move towards Trump, sports fans move towards Trump, but how do Republicans keep them going forward and what does the future look like? The other thing Tommy has said, and I think she's right, women, women, women, women, young women in particular, are voting Democrat at record levels. How do you start to break into that monolithic Democrat party base? Trump with white men, black men, Asian men, Hispanic men is doing great. In fact, look at those returns.

The Republicans still won. in Virginia and New Jersey men, but women voted in overwhelming majorities against them. We've got to change that. All right. I just want to say something to which is that Mam Darnie, I can't work out whether he is a blessing or a curse for the left.

For the reasons I said earlier, that he could turn out to be a brilliantly inspiring leader of New York, transform the city. Many people don't think he can, including me, but he could do, in which case, obviously he becomes a blessing, But he can't run for president. He wasn't born in the United States. But what he stands for could then be something that somebody like AOC

or someone like that could run with. Or conversely, if it all goes to Helen a handcart in New York and he gets exposed as a very young, very inexperienced guy who talked a great game who couldn't deliver it, that could become a massive stick to beat the Democrats with, you know, in 2026 and probably 2028. What do you feel about Mam Darnie? Because he is, you know, he's the superstar of America.

in politics right now after Trump. I think what was so appealing about Zoran Mamdani was the fact that he really stood out as a young, charismatic anti-establishment candidate, and he got incredibly lucky in that the field running against him was

let me just be generous and say pathetic. I mean, Andrew Cuomo was his main political opponent, and Cuomo has just a devastating record when you consider the fact that he made the decision to send elderly individuals who had COVID back to nursing homes where they then spread it and killed

elderly people in nursing homes. Of course, Zeranamani got lucky in regard to all of the other subpart individuals who ran against him. At the same time, I don't know if his policies are going to work, right? I'm excited to see what the outcome will be. What I just found particularly disgusting about how the news media in the United States covered that particular election is that most of the focus was on something he has no jurisdiction over whatsoever, and that's foreign policy. I don't care about what his views are in regard to what's happening in the Middle East. I'm going to venture to say New Yorkers didn't care that much until it became a political issue, and media just kept asking him about his thoughts on Israel.

And let me just say to Shabos, I'm trying to be. a little better today and not yell at you. But I will say this. I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment in regard to Zeran Mamdani saying that he would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu is a disgusting war criminal who currently has a warrant out for his arrest from the international criminal court.

I think Zeran Mamdani standing up and saying that was actually very appealing to New Yorkers because it shows that he does not believe in a two-tier justice system where some individuals deserve, you know, punishment, but others, including literal war criminals who have engaged in mass slaughter, get to show up to the United States and get away with it. Yeah, I mean, Shabels, what was fascinating to me was...

Well, hang on, Michael. Just on a stat point, Pierce. Michael, hang on a second. Yeah, hang on. I sort of come to Shabos about one point, which is it was extraordinary that so many young Jews in New York voted for Mamdani,

who was simultaneously being brand, a kind of Hamas, supporter and so on, which I thought was actually a mischaracterization of what he said on the record. But it was extraordinary and notable that more Jews under, I think it was the age of 35, voted for Mamdani than voted for Cuomo. How did that happen? Why did that happen? Yeah, I think it's easy to explain.

But first of all, let me say, I appreciate Anna, you're not yelling at me. And I spend a lot of time in L.A. now. So next time we're in the same city, let's get a drink. Here's Morgan will sponsor it. I'll say two things. I love this. If you look at the Jews who voted for Zoroamandhi, these are Jews who are overwhelmingly have zero affiliation with the Jewish day school,

have zero affiliation with the Jewish synagogue, can't speak Hebrew, can't point to Israel on a map, can't identify one of the commandments outside of Tikun Olam, which out of 613 Jewish commandments, it's not one of them. These are Jews who really have very little Jewish education, but they have a lot of radical far-left ideologies, and then they use their Judaism, and they use their Jewish identity as sort of a scam.

cape coat to advance their political agenda, which is why, for example, when a canvasser came to my door in the Bronx and said, you know, I'm a Jew for Mahdani and I'm voting for Zora Mamdani because of my Jewish identity, and you, sir, should be voting for Zora Mamdani because of your Jewish identity. I said, okay, well, if that's true, if your Jewish identity, is so central to your political identity, then you should be able to answer a very basic question on said Jewish identity, and I asked her what this week's Torah portion is, which was only two weeks after the holiday of Simchus Torah, where we finished reading the entire Torah, so she should be able to know, and of course, she didn't. So Jews historically, you can go all the way back to the Hebrew

Bible. Jews historically, in small numbers, but nevertheless significant numbers, have voted for things that are not in their best interest. And the Hebrew Bible is called the Air of Rob, the mixed multitude. In fact, in Nazi Germany, there was an association called, a small association of German Jews, which was the Jewish division of the Nazi Party. All right. Let me just pivot slightly to Clay Travis again. We'll come to you, Michael. Don't want. Clay, I've got to ask you, who side are you on in the big issue? ripping apart the Republicans. Are you with Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens? Are you with Ben Shapiro, Matt Waters? I mean, it seems like the entire online conservative movement is ripping each other

to pieces. Where do you sit with this? Well, first of all, I'm a big proponent. As you remember, peers, I'm currently banned on CNN for saying, I only believe in two things completely, the First Amendment and boobs, which was eight years ago. So I still, I'm not kidding about this, and banned from CNN for saying that. So look, I think disagreement is actually healthy, and I think conflict is good. It's one reason I like your show. If people make good arguments on one side

and the other arguments, and then we have a conflict, we end up in a better place. I actually, in that particular issue, look, I think Israel has the right to defend itself. I think that unfortunately there is an anti-Semitism that has risen on the right and has also risen on the left.

It's why I've argued for a long time, peers, we don't have so much of a political spectrum left and right as we do a big circle. And it is kind of interesting sometimes when leftists and rightists on extremes end up agreeing that Israel is awful and evil. I don't believe that, right? I think Israel is imperfect as every country

that has ever been founded in the history of the world. But if Israel put down its weapons, that wouldn't exist in a week. If every other country put down their weapons, we would have peace in the Middle East. So in the context of October 7th, as we have continued since then, we have the right Israel does, I believe, to defend itself.

And I say that with not looking at it from a particular religious bent, but just on who has human rights in Israel in the Middle East, it's gay people have rights in Israel. They don't have anywhere else. If you believe in human rights, you have to believe in Israel.

They can't get married, but sure. Okay, I want to ask Anna on this point. You know, the whole sort of crux of the argument is whether Tucker Carlson should have platformed Nick Fuentes. I have not chosen to platform Fuentes. I think he's a despicable human being who will simply use it to make himself even more notorious and richer. And I think you've got to have a line with some of these people. He disputes obvious anti-Semitic horror story stuff. And I don't think he should be given a platform.

However, Tucker said, I'm entitled to. He is, and he did. Many think he got used and wasn't critical enough or whatever. But what do you feel, Anna, about that? Where is that line? Ben Shapiro says, no, you've got to have a moral purpose. You shouldn't be platforming people like that. Should we, you know, should I have someone like Fuentes on?

Should there be lines about who we do and don't platform? For me, the line is whether or not the individual spewing the disgusting, anti-Semitic, bigoted, racist rhetoric has an audience or influence of his own. And whether people want to believe it or like it or not, the fact of the matter is Nick Fuentes has grown a massive audience. Some of his live streams on Rumble attract hundreds of thousands of viewers, sometimes as many as 400,000.

So I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here in regard to who's platforming who. And Tucker Carlson, of course, has become a target because he has his own massive platform. He's tremendously influential. And, you know, I'm sympathetic to the arguments that Tucker Carlson could have handled that exchange a lot better, right? He could have maybe come a little harder against Nick Fuentes. But anyone who listened to that interview and said that he didn't push back against Fuentes at all is lying. He did push back against Fuentes.

And he focused on the fundamental distinction between the two of them. while Fuentes believes that there is an organized jury that is responsible for U.S. foreign policy, and that has led to, basically, it's the Jews' fault, right? That's the argument that he makes. Whereas Tucker Carlson is very careful and precise in the way he critiques the nation state of Israel and how it has not been beneficial for the United States taxpayer to have our foreign policy be so incredibly supportive and deferential to the Israeli government, regardless of what they engage in, regardless of the political makeup of that government. And so to me, that's the important distinction here.

There are those who are legitimate anti-Semites who are hateful and they blame the Jews in general. I've got no interest in them. And then there are the Tucker Carlson's who's been, I believe, inaccurately labeled as an anti-Semite because he's been so vociferous in his criticism of Israel. We should be able to be critical of Israel without that type of ridiculous, you know, slander and libel being slapped in our faces like that. Now, in regard to whether or not he should have platformed him, again, I think that the right is kind of making the same mistake that the left did for so many years, which is thinking that if you just ignore certain things, it'll go away. It's not going to go away. Nick Fuentes is ascendant right now. And the real question is, why is he ascendant, given what he has said on the record?

And what is the best way to engage without promoting that type of hateful ideology? And I think that's what Tucker Carlson is attempting to do. He has admitted to Megan Kelly that there are definitely things he wished he did differently in that interview. But the way that there's been this organized effort to totally destroy him because he had that conversation, I'm sorry. I know that there are multiple outlets, both legacy media and independent media, that have interviewed and done softball interviews of literal war criminal, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has slaughtered, literally slaughtered innocence in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon. And there hasn't been any pushback, okay, from anyone in regard to those interviews taking place. You want to know why? Because he's a prime minister of a foreign country, regardless of how disgusting he is, he's going to be interviewed. And the question is, how are those interviews going to be handled? Is he going to be asked difficult questions or softball questions? He only grants the interviews to the softball questions, by the way. Clay, I know you have to, I know Clay has to go. I know Clay has to go. So I want to just give you, Clay, just final quick response

to that before we let you go. Look, I don't think anybody should be criticized for anyone they choose to interview on their own shows. And I also have the same position as you within that context, peers. I wouldn't, and we haven't. We've got the biggest radio show in the country. I wouldn't put him on our program. But I also understand why Tucker decides to have conversations. And I would rather people have those conversations in public, even if I disagree with them, I would want the broadest possible context. I just don't think there's much to be gained from his arguments on my show.

I imagine the same thing that you would say about that show. And then I think there's also a distinction on Netanyahu. I mean, he is the head of a state. I think everybody should interview Benjamin Netanyahu. Pierce, I bet if Kim Jong-un called you up and said, hey, we want to do a North Korea sit-down. You would do a sit-down with North Korea's leader, not because you agree with him or think that he has been treating the people of

North Korea well, but just because that is a valid argument that he should be able to make to his larger context. You should talk to the leaders of states, whether it's Putin, whether it's Kim Jong-un, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's. Donald Trump, whether it's a flat. Whoever it is, right? So I think there's a pretty big distinction between that and. Is that he only gets interviewed by people who are willing to fillate him live on air.

That's the problem with Netanyahu. I totally agree with you. First of all, that's a very different show. Yeah, yeah. But that's what we've been seeing. I think that in my opinion, Benjamin Netanyahu is not a war criminal. He should be able to travel to the United States. and frankly, anywhere in Europe.

There's a very different, huge difference having toured the sites between what happened at Nova and what happened in the cabozzes in Israel and what the response that Israel put in place to Hamas after they kidnapped 250 terrorists. To me, that equivocation is not morally remotely justified.

And so I think that's a, frankly, crazy. Slaughter tens of thousands of innocent kids. Okay, let me bring in it. Let me bring in my kids. No, we've got in. Let me bring him, Clay, I'm going to say goodbye to you, Clay. Thank you very much indeed for joining us. I know you have to go.

Thank you, peers. We bring Michael in. Great boys. Good to see it. Bulls by Clay Travis. Buy in a two-for-one with woke is dead. And you won't go wrong in life. Okay, Michael, you've been listening to all that.

What's your view? I mean, I, for example, I have a big problem with Elon Musk allowing Alex Jones back on X when he decided to change his mind about that because Alex Jones weaponizes lies to make himself very rich. That's why he had a billion dollar defamation against him from the Sandy families. You know, I think people that do that kind of thing, where they're weaponizing lies or genuine hate and anti-Semitism. You know, I think you've got to be very careful about platforming people, but that is their business model. It is. So let's talk through the different elements of the conversation. First, Mayor Lecimdani is going to be successful. It is a reason why

more than a million people voted for him because he addressed cost of living and he did not allow the rhetoric that was trying to demonize him to separate. confuse people from that. To the conversation that was also raised earlier of stating that the Jewish voters that supported him can't identify Israel on a map and don't have Jewish education is totally offensive. And I can't even understand what I was even stated earlier. It's another reason why he won. For stats purposes, just for context, even in the Assembly District in the Bronx, where it was indicated that he would not be successful, Mamdani won that district as well. Let's be very clear.

You can be anti-APEC and anti-BB and not be anti-Israel. You would not say to me right now that if I criticize the U.S. government and Donald Trump that I'm anti-American, I am able to speak up because it is part of a democracy and you recognize the changes that are happening. Yes, you can say and should be able to say that Hamas had a brutal, inhumane attack that they did on the people of Israel, and at the same time that a genocide is happening against the people that are there on the Palestinian side. You can say both. As someone who has baptized people in the Jordan River, as someone who has prayed at the Western Wall, who is someone who is an ordained Reverend myself, who understands that Jesus was a Jewish man of color and a refugee in a foreign land, I absolutely have the ability

to recognize the journey that one is on. And when we think about what is at stake right here, people saw through the noise. They were able to say here in New York City that what is what is top of mind for me? I am wondering how do I pay my milk? and my groceries and my bread. And what is being told to me and said to me that he is this, Zormemadhi is not anti-Semite. Pull stop, he is not. And so someone being critical of a government

does not make you as such. But I do think we are in a moment in time where people are wanting to understand the journey that you have been on. And so what is being asked and raised earlier, I know it was said tongue in cheek around the dynamic of candidates. I was a pretty good candidate in Merrill Primary.

That's why they said it was the breakout star, but I understand the point that was being made earlier about the other candidates itself. The dynamic that exists here is that people want to know, are you going to address what's happening in my life? And that is why he won. That is why Democrats won last Tuesday.

And that is the shift that is happening on the ground in places like the Bronx, in places like New Jersey and Virginia, where you can understand all at the same time. Okay, Shabels, final vote to you. Sure. It's interesting. Michael Blake said he was the breakout star of the New York City mayor campaign. I'm currently on the New York City Board of Elections website. This is how many votes you got.

You got 0.4% 4,366 votes on the first round. In the first round, say the fourth facts. I'm about to. I'm about to, but you're interrupting. So hang on. On the second round, he got 4,389 votes. And then on the third round, he was disqualified. So, Michael, I live in that district that you're working for. Again, this is this is you're literally. You're literally. You're literally lying about stats on a national TV interview. You have to let me finish, buddy. You're literally lying about a stat. Buddy, buddy, if you're going to yell at your own...

I'm saying, well, my name is Michael, it's not buddy. The rank choice, what happens, as you are aware, rank, rank choice voting was first through five votes. I am talking, I am talking. But you just stated an inaccurate stat. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So again, all I'm trying to state, all of Michael Blake's viewers, all of Michael's, You are showing you, you, go on the New York City board of election website right now. That's the point.

Yes. The second, when you go on to board of election website, you will see the total votes that someone received. Thank you. You have to let me finish. Again, this is not going to go well for your congressional campaign. If you can't even let your constituents continue to make a point, you can respond. Just have to let me make the point first. So first of all, you're not going to win. You know you're not going to win,

which is why you called Simcha Eichen just months before the primary election, begging him to endorse. Also is inaccurate. Again, you can respond. You just have to let me finish. Okay. I know you're new to this, but you have to let me finish. I think we're getting into the weeds a bit here, Shaboff.

So let me just make my general point, and then I'll be done. To Anna, and again, I'm glad Anna and I were having a civil discourse over here. I have to push back. I think it's a bit gaslighting to suggest that Zormandani was not campaigning on things pertaining to the Middle East. This is someone who three years ago, the Democratic Socialist of America Convention, literally said that Palestine was the center of his political identity. This is someone who a week after October 7th was arrested in the streets for protesting traffic, protesting the genocide in Gaza.

This is someone who took pictures with an unindicted co-computer of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. This is someone who made a rap, praising the Holy Land Five, which were convicted for providing support for terrorism. So, look, I hope Zormomani succeeds because he succeeds in. All of this stuff has been debunked, but okay. We as New Yorkers also succeed. It's been debunked. It's been debunked. He initially made a rap, phrasing the Holy Land Five.

He literally campaigned with Hassan Pico, who said it deserved 9-11. I'm going to leave it there before everyone starts shouting at each other, which just when we'd all got to be back on a more friendly even keel. Well, they interrupted, man. Yeah, Shabbas, come on. By the way, he did condemn. Hassan. Shabbas, sorry. I'm not doing that on purpose.

I appreciate it. And I'm glad, listen, I'm glad he condemned Hassan, but at the same time, Hassan was at his election victory party. So I'm glad he condemned, but actions speak louder than worse. Okay, we're going to leave it there on a point of agreement. Thank you all very much. Thanks. I'm going to start by making an apology. Tennis star Novak Djokovic.

He had a hearing overnight to decide whether he will stay and play the Australian Open. The world number one has been booted out of Australia. Deportation marks the end of his Australian open homes. If I want to go to America, I have to take a test and show my vaccination state. That's it. So he shouldn't be allowed to play, right? It stops you from dying. I mean, that's the whole point of the vaccine.

He's also a role model who will have definitely deterred a lot of people who perhaps should have the chat. What you said, it speaks volumes about the person that you are. I'm just saying I'm not like that. It's part of you also thinking, I'm not sure I can compete against these guys at this level now. To your point, yes, I do have more doubts that I can win slams particularly against these two guys. I just stared at the wall for 20 or 30 minutes. minutes and I, that's the first time I felt really empty. I just want to regain the love and, you know, passion for the sport because I lost it.

Have you one day played your son at tennis in a... I mean, that's a dream. In a professional game. You wouldn't let him win, would you? I would kick his... On Sinner, is there a cloud over him about the drugs thing? That cloud will follow him as the cloud of... COVID will follow me.

Should ask him. I only interviewed goats. I expected worse. This is not against you and this, you're kind of like intelligently hiding.