Piers Morgan Uncensored - “Flinging S*** at Each Other!” MAGA’s Israel War With Benny Johnson & Steve Crowder

Episode Date: November 20, 2025

With division increasing over the Epstein files saga and the Middle East conflict, leading conservatives are trading blows and jostling for influence. They want to define - or maybe preserve - ‘America First’ for the post-Trump era. One side accuses the other of cancel culture and censorship in defense of Israel. The other says that Israel Derangement Syndrome has opened the door to antisemites and extremists. Axios is now reporting that Senator Ted Cruz is preparing a 2028 presidential bid that will "lean into his feud with Tucker Carlson", who is of course a very close ally of the expected frontrunner Vice President JD Vance. Once again, it's 'MAGA vs MIGA', and it's hard to see how those two sides can be united. To try and make sense of it all, Piers Morgan is joined by influential voices Benny Johnson and Steven Crowder, plus CPAC chairman Matt Schlapp and Texas Congressman and former US Navy Seal Rep. Dan Crenshaw. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Superpower: flips the script on preventive health. Visit https://Superpower.com today! Angel Studios: Uncover the truth behind COVID-19 in Thank You, Dr. Fauci—stream now and join the Angel Guild at https://Angel.com/PIERS OneSkin: Get 15% off OneSkin with the code PIERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

MAGA versus MIGA. Let's go. Nick Fuentes, of course, should have a platform if he's not breaking the law. He's on record saying he loves Hitler. What does he mean? The blugs are fucking idiots. If you're not an anti-Semite, why so much animosity towards Israel? We do need to ask what radicalized them. Doug Cross and Candice Owens, who are these people? They're attention seekers. They're their click chasers. American politicians feel like they have to be the world's daddy.

And that's not why we elected you, damn it. What's going on with my boys? And in some kids. cases, gals the words of a perplexed president as he gazed over the enormous schisms in his Maga Empire caused by the Epstein files. He could just as well have used them again to describe the situation today leading conservatives, the trading blows and jostling for influence. They want to define or maybe preserve America first for the post-Trump era. One side accuses the other of cancel culture and censorship in defense of Israel. The other says that Israel derangement syndrome has opened the door to anti-Semites and extremists. And when you look

for it, the same dividing lines run through everything from the panic of a bombing Iran to suspicions over why the Epstein files are covered up. And they are set to run all the way through the contest to succeed Trump. Axios is now reporting the Senator Ted Cruz is preparing a 2028 presidential bid that will lean into his feud with Tucker Carlson, who is, of course, a very close ally of the expected frontrunner of Vice President J.D. Vance. Once again, it's Maga versus Megger, and it's hard to see how these two sides can be united. To make We're going to do things a bit differently and speak directly for some of the influential people with different views on what comes next. Joining me first is Benny Johnson, host of the Benny show.

Benny, welcome back to Unsensitive. Well done, Pears. MAGA versus Miga. Let's go. Yeah, I'm sure you can sell some merch on that. I'm sure you can sell some swag. You know, I could sell it to everybody that way. I can cover all bases.

Turning to the conservative right in America, it's kind of fascinating to watch what's been going. on. How big a deal is this kind of schism that's been developing? And what do you fundamentally put it down to? Oh, I just love this question. And I've come prepared peers for this with a prop here. And I hope that your cameras can pick this up. And I wish I had time to print it off. But there we go. You can see here the fragments of both political ideologies. You can see exactly what peers was talking about with woke. Now, the blue obviously is the left, the entire landscape of acceptable thought on the left, as charted out by very reputable and very good data scientists. The left is this teeny little blue dot right there.

teeny, teeny little blue dot. That's what the left is. That's the arena of acceptable opinions and thought. Fiers was just talking about how illiberal actually the Democrat Party is and how illiberal and how non-progressive. It's actually regressive. Oh, I'm going to butcher my child and turn them into a girl. That's regressive, man.

That's sick, you know? Like, that's not progressive. That's like Stone Age. That's like Aztec stuff. I mean, it's sick. But anyway, this is the right. What a nightmare. And, okay, I'll put the prop down now.

That's the right. I was going to print it off for your peers. I thought I'd save some trees here, you know? Maybe we'll bring in the environmentalist wing, you know, into the right. What I'm showing you here is that the eye. ideology of the right is insane right now. And I love it. It is a very, very messy Thanksgiving dinner

with our aunts who have all been divorced three times, they've been hitting the box of wine, and they are ready to battle. And it's a lot of fun. It's entertaining. You can put some of the videos up on World Star of the aunts fighting, but we're all still under the same roof.

We're all still family at the end of the day. And this is a coalition that has been created by Charlie Kirk. In no small part, he's one of the driving forces of J.D. Vance and Donald Trump, R.FK. Jr. in Donald Trump, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. This is a world that is wildly different than like a Steve Bannon in Donald Trump, right?

And that's what you had in the first administration. This is a huge party with a lot of competing interests and a lot of people that care about making sure that their agendas get done. And I'm one of them, by the way. I have little pet projects. that I really want to see done. And Charlie really wanted to see these kind of things done, like the destruction of the college cartel

and the destruction of wokeness. The point is, here, Pears, is that the reason why it's messy is by design. It's good. These are the good, these are, iron sharpens iron, the scripture says. It's important to train and it's important to spar. And it's, and it just came from UFC. I mean, those guys, the fighters need to have other fighters

hit them in the face a couple times. and when they're training. They've got to prepare for this. That battle is good on our side. Here's the thing that is bad about it, because I know that's going to be your next question, so let me just speech it to it. The thing that's bad about it is disintegrationism

when people blackpill and say, I'm done, you know, I'm done, I'm cashing out on politics. It's all rigged. It's all broken. It's too messy, whatever. It's too mean. People use naughty words.

No, man. Don't leave the family. It is a fun Thanksgiving dinner. The food's flying. The box of wine is pouring, but in the end, we are all still family. We all still won. This coalition of extreme diversity, the only time peers all say diversity is our strength. I don't agree with it any other time, but right here, diversity is our strength,

is in the 2024 election, President Trump not only won, but he won all seven swing states. He won the popular vote. He won 90% of American counties. 90% of American landmass voted for President Trump. That is a winning coalition. It's a coalition I want to keep together. I don't want the disintegrationist, and I'll leave you with this thought, peers.

The way that you fix it is America First. That's the movement. That's very interesting. To which I would say, Marjorie Taylor Green, obviously, has had a big split with Donald Trump. She believes he is now betraying the ethos of America first. Many on the MAGA side say,

look, Donald Trump promised full transparency on the Epstein files and then reneged on that promise. He promised no more engagement in futile foreign wars. Now he's gearing up for one potentially in Venezuela. He promised that he would bring the prices down and end the raging inflation, but inflation has continued to go up. Prices are still very high.

There's an affordability crisis. I know you feel strongly about that. There's a number of things in the making of America first pledge box, which Trump is not delivering on. What do you say to people like Marjorie who say that? And Marjorie did go on CNN and apologize for that, and I think she's going to try and make good with President Trump. But you're, of course, right about this.

And it's the constructive criticism that makes it such a messy Thanksgiving. Listen, if you love your friend, are you just going to watch them, like, go home and beat his wife? You know, like, no, you're going to try and stop it. You know, you're going to try and like prevent something bad from happening. And I believe that, and I can tell you this from inside of the administration and the people that I talk with, that there has been an almost intoxicating effect that happens when you assume the most powerful position on earth. Donald Trump is often called the president of the world. Multiple world leaders have called him that. I don't want to call him that, but that's what world leaders have called him because the office itself is so unbelievably powerful.

peers and you have military bases all over and many, every second there's another world leader calling you for something. And I think there's a reality distortion field in D.C. that has been very pernicious in our politics in America for the last 50 years, for sure, since the Second World War, where American politicians feel like they have to be the world's police and they feel like they have to be the world's daddy. And that's not why we elected you, damn it. You know, we elected you to be daddy here to care for your children, which are American. And I think that that's how a lot of administrations, Trumps and many others, have gotten sort of derailed and have soured with the American people because they do

focus so much abroad. And it's like this lack of an ability to focus domestically here on a country that has a ton of problems, like a lot of real problems for real Americans. And they're the stakeholders in this nation. They're the ones who elect you. You should have allegiance to absolutely no one else other than this nation and its voters, and you should care for them like your own children. That's your job. That's why we pay you, and that it's actually your moral duty, in fact, as a leader in this nation. Would you include, Benny, would you include, would you include Trump and the Trump administration and indeed every American administration in modern times, the kind of slavish support for Israel? And the reason I ask that question is because if you

look at the split on the conservative right, you can pretty well draw a lot. You can pretty well draw a line between the likes of Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens, and others, Marjorie Tilly Green to a degree, and others who have been critical of the Israeli government strategy, for example, in the war on Hamas and those who have steadfastly defended everything Israel has done. There is a running line there developing between the two, and Israel does seem to be a common theme between the split. Totally. I've always been blunt about health. It's one thing you can't about your way out of, like all of you.

I've had first-hand experience of vague doctor visits, which leave you guessing. Sometimes you need a lot more reassurance, and that's why superpower resonates for me. Superpower flips the script on preventative health. One simple lab test covers 60 labs, scanning over 100 biomarkers for heart, liver, thyroid, hormones, metabolism, vitamins. It spots inflammation deficiencies, even causes of fatigue. No waiting rooms. your home. You get a tailored action plan in their app with a dedicated medical team guiding you. It's athlete-level insights at an accessible price, down from $499 to just $199.

Superpower tracks your progress over time, building a lifetime picture. Head to Superpower.com to learn more and lock in the special $199 price while it lasts. After you sign up, they'll ask how you heard about them, so please make sure to mention me and support this show. Your biology decoded. Your blueprint activated with superpowers. Peers, I'm exhausted, man. You know, I'm tired. I got like four little kids.

I got a lot of taxing this business to run, this media company to run. I got a lot of taxing time on my energy. I am so tired of having this Israel debate. I'm so sick of it. And what's happened is they've done a hat game, a shell game, where they've swapped out Ukraine for Israel. And I don't know what the hell is our problem

in this country, with our obsession with getting involved in other people's business. You know, George Washington, who I think most people, would tend to say is our best president. Sorry what he did to you, Brits, peers. I know you'll never forgive him for it. Actually, I blame King George III. He was such an

imbecile. Truly, well, that guy was your own Joe Biden. That was your Joe Biden. Pierce. In England. The two of them would have got along. George Washington, his final words, to the American people. His final words, his last speech before he went off into the sunset,

something Barack Obama refuses to do. But he went off into the sunset and lived out his days. He said, don't get embroiled in foreign entanglements. That's how we lose this place. That's how we destroy our country. These countries have problems of their own. They have blood feuds. I'm talking about Israel and Ukraine here, by the way. Bloodfews that go back thousands of years before there was in America. And how the hell we're supposed to go in and solve? this where people we're supposed to like come in and like somehow be the solution to something that it goes back to abraham or or back to the feudal times like in the roman empire if you're looking at ukraine this fanatic obsession i was enraged by the way when somebody put up a

ukraine flag in my neighborhood yeah i live here in florida that should be illegal actually but like somebody put up these ukraine flags like i would see them popping up over my all over my neighborhood. You go to D.C., dude, you're more likely to find a pride flag or a Ukraine flag or an Israel flag than you are to find an American flag. What the hell is that, Peers? You know, it's self-loathing. It's this, I think what it really is, if I were to diagnose it, and I'm, you know, I'm no good at this. I would have the most empty therapy couch on earth if I opened up a therapy practice, because people would be like, that guy's got enough problems of his own. But if I were to diagnose it, peers, here's what I'd say.

People know that their country is broken, and they know that this place needs so much work, and that is going to be tough work really hard to fix this place. And instead of doing that tough work, they're going to project onto some other country. And we're going to sit here in woke scold about Israel or Palestine, Hamas, Ukraine, the Dornesk, you know, whatever, Crimea, Russia. instead of fixing ourselves, it is so much easier to look at someone else and be like, they're a fat ass,

they're such a slob, they need to go to the gym, you know, well, you're sitting there 150 pounds overweight on the couch. It's so much easier to sit there and like do the work, like say someone else needs to do work instead of working on yourself. And so that's why I'm disgusted, frankly,

by our obsession to just swap out the next country. Trust me, it'll be Taiwan next, okay? And then it'll be, you know, Papa New Guinea, you know, whatever, right? It's going to be, we're going to find some other obsession of some other little country that we're going to spend our time and our treasure on, and people are sick of it. I got to tell you, peers, people are just sick of it. They're done.

Nick Fuentes has posted on X, funny how Republicans began the party of censorship and canceled culture, the moment that Americans started criticizing Israel, any Republican that engages in these tactics of behalf of Israel should be removed from office. It's un-American. 2026, we will be watching. I mean, his influence is rising. Many people are horrified by that because of his obvious anti-Semitism over the years,

his adoration of Adolf Hitler and so on. But you can't deny that he has a rising influence. And when he says that, for example, there'll be many people who may agree with it about the fact that you cannot criticize Israel and people that are trying to have an open mind about what's happened, for example, in the war and have been critical of the Israeli government,

myself included, have been immediately branded anti-Semitic, which I think is absurd. But talk to me about Fuentes for a moment. What is your view of Fuentes? What do you think? By the way, that's insane, okay? So, I just want to take this to its logical fallacy peers. I have spent a considerable portion

of the last few years on your show. Criticizing Joe Biden and the Democrat Party. And I believe that they deserved a enormous amount of criticism. I personally believe that Joe Biden was the worst president of my lifetime and will go down in history as somebody who was so severely destructive

to our land and our nation. So I'm criticizing Joe Biden in the way he's running the government. Does that mean I hate Americans? Right. What an insane thing to say. Yeah. We've criticized the UK government.

You've disagreed with me. You said this and that and the mayor of London and all this stuff and the horrible things that are happening in the UK. Does that mean I hate the British people? Like, of course not, actually. Like, no, you're invited to the cookout anytime, Pierce. Anytime. Well, I oppose, you know, when I was a new... You're jolly old elf.

Well, when I was a newspaper editor over here of the Daily Mirror, which was the Labor-supporting newspaper, I very vociferously, front page after front page, opposed the Iraq War. before, during and after, even when it put me at loggerheads with Tony Blair, who was the Labor Prime Minister. We were supposed to be the pro-Labor newspaper, and I went the other way on that war, because I thought it was completely unjustified. But again, to your point, the idea that by opposing what my government was doing, that in any way reflected my view of the people of my country, is completely ridiculous. And the idea that you can't criticize the Netanyahu government, which has some absolute headbangers on it, by the way,

like Smodrich and Ben-Givir. The idea you can't cast a critical eye of some of their decision-making without people assuming that you hate Israelis or Jews. It's just, to me, completely absurd. Well, yes, and our taxpayer dollars are going to fund it. So, in fact, we have a moral obligation. We have a moral duty as Americans

to ensure that where our taxpayer dollars go, there are not horrific things being done with them. We have a moral obligation as Americans to demand all of the Epstein evidence. I want to know that we're not paying for a pederist ring. I want to know that the American taxpayer dollars are not going to fund and support

and to protect people that were involved in the world's most evil pederist ring that we know of right now. Like, I have a right, damn it, as an American, to know that. So give us, so yes, give us the files, obviously. you know, and there were a lot of Israeli leaders by Ahou Barack was one of them, some Mossad agents. We're now learning a lot of deals that Epstein was doing with the nation of Israel.

Yes, of course you can criticize that. Yes, obviously. That doesn't make you anti-Semitic to say that Jeffrey Epstein negotiating a bunch of security deals on behalf of the nation state of Israel seems extremely suspect. What is your view, Benny, of Nick Fuentes, given his right? influencing influence and given he's sort of become central to the debate about where the rights should go in America. What is your view of him? Yeah, so we're in this country, I know there's other countries that have different opinions, but in this country, we are given by

God a right to free speech, thought, and association. We're also given by God the ability to peacefully disagree with each other. And I know that you've offered to interview Nick Fuentes? Well, I've been thinking about it. I mean, I had a view before not to. And then I watched the interview that Tucker did with him. And I just thought, if I was to do one, I'd probably do it a different way to the way Tucker did.

My only argument, I totally subscribe to Tucker's view. He can interview who the hell he likes and do it how the hell he likes. I was just struck that he was a bit tougher with me, Tucker, than he was with Fentis. So I would certainly go harder with Fentis. But I do think this argument of not platforming people with very, very, very small number of exceptions. I do think, generally speaking, you should platform people

and then it's down to you to interview them in a way that adds to public discourse and doesn't look like it's just part of their PR machine. That would be my argument. Angel Studios are back with a new must-see documentary. It's called Thank You, Dr Fauci, and you're going to hear a lot more about it over the next few months, award-winning filmmaker.

Jenna First thinks into the origins of COVID-19, a possible bio, arms race with China, and claims about history's biggest public health cover-up. It's not a right-wing film or a left-wing film. It's a film about transparency, which is something we should all care about. First, pulls over documents and interrogate scientists, intelligence professionals, and whistleblowers.

It's being described as Oppenheimer Meets Outbreak. And if you've ever wondered what really happens behind closed doors, you don't want to see it. Angel Studios is powered by his guild members, voting on real stories. You can find out more at angel.com. slash peers. Become a member. Stream, thank you, Dr. Fauci,

and be part of a conversation demanding truth and accountability. It's a pressure release valve in society. And that's how it's always gone. And that's how the good ideas rise to the top and the bad ideas fall to the bottom of the barrel. And inside of societies that don't have that pressure release valve, you don't want to see, in fact,

you do see the darkness and the evil that arises in those societies when it's like, Shut up, shut up, shut up, we'll put you in jail for thinking that. Right? That's actually the way to guarantee that things become more radical. We've built in freedom of speech. We have something called the Bill of Rights here in America. I know this is going to be very painful for you.

A lot of them were based, frankly, on John Locke and a great British thinkers, Magnicarta, and so on. but, you know, freedom of speech is right up there at the very tip top. And so I believe, you know, so no, no, I don't believe in cancellation. No, I do not.

Or deplatforming. Yeah, no, I'm with you. I'm with you on that. And actually, I wish we had your First Amendment in my country, and it would stop as arresting comedians at airports with five-armed police officers for making jokes that some people found inappropriate. Donald Trump just said this. Donald Trump just said this. Pears, he was asked about that,

Nick Fuentes and Tucker. And Trump's like, wait a second, I thought we had free speech in this country. Tucker does things, I agree with him. Tucker does things I disagree with him. Like, what is that? That's human life. That's the way that the world works.

And if I may add just one final thing, peers, to this conversation, because I think it's critical in this moment where you don't want to go in all of this. And we just witnessed two months ago, precisely what happens, when you stop having debates and when people pick up guns.

Yeah. And they do truly ugly and evil things. You know, Charlie Kirk is sitting there on a college campus wanting to debate. Yeah. Is he going to debate a groiper? Is he going to debate some trans activists, you know, that peas in a kitty litter box, you know?

Like, who knows? It could be anyone. But he's there and he's asking people that disagree with him. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Charlie's game. He asked people who disagreed with him to come to the first. front of the line.

Yes. So that he could lower the temperature. And a lot of the, it never devolved into screaming. It never devolved into Charlie throwing the mic, you know, and hitting him in a head. It never,

that never happened. In fact, many times, like the vast majority of these, and I went to these events, the individuals who disagreed with Charlie at the very least felt respected. Yeah. Like they got a chance to say their peace.

I totally agree. And they probably felt, they probably felt good walking away. Even if they got roasted by Charlie, they probably felt good. because they're like, yo, I got to, like, say my thing. And then most of them were wrong in their thing, you know, or I disagree with their thing.

That's my right, by the way, as an American. But what you can't have in this country is like the ultimate cancellation, which is I'll shoot you and kill you, right, for what you believe. I was just going to murder you, right, for what you believe. And you get that by not having debate. Yeah, and actually, as I've been saying, as I've promoted my book,

this is the weird thing about the progressive woke left is that in the end they began to behave like the very fascists they professed to hate most and it couldn't be a pure of personification of that than what happened to Charlie Kirk where he was literally shot dead for his speech that is what happens in a genuine fascist state

and yet it's the progressive left that was cheering that on the number of people I saw on TikTok afterwards doctors, teachers, professors I'm just insane, celebrating his death. It's like, what the fuck is wrong with you? And then you remember, these are people identifying as liberals. You're not liberals. You're fascists.

If you celebrate a man's murder for his speech, you are a fascist. Let me just be sorry, I'm going to bigfoot you on your own program, peers. I'm known for doing this. Well done. On your woke book, man, woke is dead. You've been on a barn burner, bro. It's a critical book at this time. I think it has to do with some of what we're going to talk about.

today, frankly. No, well, thank you. I appreciate that. I mean, what you're really seeing is a changing of the guard, right, when it comes to power politics. Yeah. And so woke is truly dead. Is it going to be replaced by some type of Frankenstein's monster of left-wing communism?

Who knows? Is it even worse? Or is it going to be replaced by MAGA? You know, what's really interesting about the woke ideology and the way I do believe that fundamentally it's dead is just a lot of the people who still espouse it haven't got the memo yet, but the the vast majority of the general public around the world have had enough of it. But what was interesting was, you know, people, if you look at people like me or Bill Maher or Joe Rogan or Elon Musk or RFK,

there's a lot of people who wouldn't have identified as conservative right at all. In fact, if you'd asked us a few years, it would have identified as liberals, right? But have absolutely nothing in common with an ideology which fundamentally, to me, is the opposite of liberalism. So that was what made it interesting to me, is it became something where you and I could have regular debates, for example, where we would agree about whatever the particular issue was because it normally involved in the last few years completely insane behavior by the progressive left. Yes. And now you got something on me peers and I just can't stand it. You can say, I wrote the book. Shut up, Benny. I wrote the book on it. Shut up, Benny. I wrote the book on it. And you can say that. And that's just a, I don't know what happens. in England, but that's a deal, that's a deal killer over here in America. If you can say that

at family dinner, boy, you're cooked. You're done. I appreciate it finally getting one over you. That's right. I thought I was the one who killed woke, peers. You were definitely party to it. Don't you worry. We can share the Assassin's Blade about an ideology that was so disastrous. Benny, great, as always. Thank you very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it. God bless you, Peers. I'm just so happy to have gotten up one F-bomb. I will pin this on my wall as like a career highlight to get the F-bomb.

The only bomb that I want to have America be dropping around the world will be Pierce-Morgan F-bombs. Benny, good to talk to you. All the best. Godspeed. Godspeed, man. Well, join me now is Stephen Crowder, the host of Loudor with Crowder. Steve, great to have you on our sense.

I imagine you probably were nodding away, certainly for the last bit of that. conversation I had with Benny Johnson. But there are real issues going on with the conservative right in America. And it seems to be the timing of all this is not unconnected to the fact that we're seem to be heading into midterm year. And then after that, into general election mayhem for two more years. It is the beginning of the end of Donald Trump as president of the United States, assuming he doesn't try and uproot everything and run for a third term, which I don't think he will. And what you might be seeing now is a kind of battle for the heart and soul of where

the conservative right in America goes post-Trump. Now, am I right? Am I wrong? What's your view? Well, thanks for having me. I think you're right. And I think, look, and I know I just saw the last the tail end of Benny. We all know that we have the first amendment. We all know that we have freedom of speech in the country. I don't think that's what we're discussing here. Like you said, we're discussing the future of this country. And there are some riffs on the right, but I want to be clear, there's far more of some civil fracturing on the left than on the right. The through line isn't really just someone's extreme or someone's old guard. The through line is clickbait.

The through line is you have a lot of people who have taken both sides of every issue so that they're kind of can't be attacked and your position is indefensible. What I would like to focus on as a prescription for people at home where they know how they can filter through people in these commentators out there and maybe people they can trust. It's five points. I think one. people need to ask themselves, if we agree, the woke left is a threat. Because this is very important.

They're still out there. They just killed one of our friends. And in doing these change my minds on campus just two weeks ago at Oklahoma University, had to be escorted in an armed vehicle three times because of threats, close calls. They're basically on their deathbed, figuratively, figuratively, everyone, just to be clear. And instead of finishing it, the right right now is deciding to infight. So number one, people need to look at this commentator, whoever it is, whether it's Ben Shapiro or Nick Fuentes, whether it's someone at Daily Wire or Tucker Carlson, and say, this,

commentator, this host, what have they done to fight the left? We have clear examples with Scott Pressler with people like Charlie Kirk, people who have actually made a difference. What kind of coalition can they build without compromising fundamentals? Let me explain to give you a really clear answer. Israel. I don't think it's as big of a wedge issue with the half that elects presidents as people think. My position, set it to Ben Shapiro over a decade ago. Defund all sides of that war. Okay, we shouldn't be sending money to Israel, nor should be sending it to Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon. Here's a thing. That's a very reasonable position that many Americans hold, and even my Jewish friends, have no problem with it. Can the people out there, these commentators, build a coalition with that? If not, they're not actually looking to build a future for the country. Let's take H-1B as an example. Ben Shapiro out there defending it. I cannot imagine how anyone could defend this at this point when 80% of the program is antithetical to the reason of the program because they're being put into junior positions. We need to do away with it. Can the people, the old guard? Can they build a coalition with that? And finally, will the people show up to defend their viewpoint in hostile territory. I can tell you this, I've extended an

invitation to Ben Shapiro, to Mark Levin, to Tucker Carlson, to Candace Owens, to Nick Fuentes. And I've heard every kind of response out there except I accept those words. So I don't know what happened to the anyone any time. I would platform Mao if he was alive today. Doesn't mean I would agree with him. If Xi Jinping said, hey, you know what I want to have a chat? I'd make really clear why I line up. Sure, we have freedom of speech. But we do have. have to decide where we want to move forward as a country. And if we get rid of Donald Trump, who's very flawed, who's made some missteps, we can talk about that.

Who are we going to replace them with? Because now people are going after JD Vance. Do we just want to serve leftist masters? Because I will tell you this, I'm an extremist on that. I think that modern-day leftism is a death cult. And if you're serving them by fracturing the right, and you're just going to die. And I don't want to do that.

I don't want to die. I think there's still some wins to be had. Do you think Marjorie Taylor Green is a traitor, as Donald Trump has called it? Today's show is sponsored by One Skin, which could help all of us look even younger. One Skin is redefining skin care with cult favorites like OS1 body, face and eye, build around their patented OS1 peptide, which is clinically proven to target senescent cells, a key driver of skin aging. Back by five clinical studies, One Skin products improve skin texture, firmness and elasticity over time.

They have more than 10,000 five-star reviews, born from over 10 years of longevity, research. search, One Skin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the cells that cause the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthier skin and hair now and as you age. For a limited time, try One Skin with 15% off

using code Peers as P-I-E-R-S at OneSkin.com. That's 15% off OneSkin.com with code Peers. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them, so please support our show and tell them that we sent you. Well, that's exactly what Marjorie Taylor Green am I talking to?

Am I talking to the one who said, you know, we can't deport people because it would hurt my construction company? Or am I talking to the Marjorie... And I disagree with that. I think it's antithetical to Maga. Or am I talking to the Marjorie Taylor Green who said, we need to do away with H-1Bs, which, by the way, I agree with. The only common thread I can see between them is that you're very unlikely to have Indian H-1Bs in your construction company because they're physically feeble people. So, which Marjorie Taylor Green am I talking with? which Tucker Carlson am I talking with? Which Ben Shapiro am I talking with?

The one who said lockdowns are bad or the one who said that anyone not getting a vaccine is an idiot. The through line here is not extreme points of view. The through line is people pursuing clicks at the cost of the future of this country. And I will platform anyone so that I can answer these questions

as far as their views because I don't know them. For example, Nick Fuentes, you talked about his interview with Tucker. Now, I want to be clear. Him saying, I love Stalin. he could have meant, I'm fascinated with Stalin. There's nothing wrong with that. Because you know who else is? This guy.

I've been doing a deep dive on Stalin and Trotsky and this sort of infighting that was taking place between them. By the way, spoiler alert, I can summarize it, two assholes fighting. There's nothing wrong with being fascinated, and I'm not saying Tucker should follow up because it's despicable, because it's ridiculous, because I'm curious.

And sometimes I'm wondering where the curiosity goes when you have someone throw down some wolf bait like that. Will you love Stalin? What do you mean? You mean you're fascinated, how he was able to manipulate people? You mean all the people that he killed? You mean studying him to make sure we avoid it in the future? Or do you mean that he had some cool threads and smoked some cool pipes?

I don't know the answer because a lot of these people out there, both the old guard Republicans who rightfully people have a problem with them and this sort of new group of people. They're not actually communicating. And they'll say that they'll have these conversations. But in my experience, they very rarely will. And I have a track record of wanting to make that happen. So again, I extend the invitation. And I hope that you do too, Pierce.

I hope you have Nick on and then send him my way next. I actually am moving to inviting him on. Because I think this comes a point where you can't ignore somebody's rising influence. He is getting talked about so much right now that he's exuding an influence over people. You know, I had the same argument really with someone like Andrew Tate, who I've had on a few times. I think it's important when someone has a big, big following and are saying whatever they want to say, unchallenged, that they come onto somewhere like here, where I don't come at things from a partisan political ideology.

And I challenge everybody, right? And I think that's actually a valuable exercise in public discourse. We don't live in the old days where people only had mainstream media outlets to do this stuff. You know, people online now can have exponentially higher audiences like Fuentes. And as their influence rises, so, in my opinion, does the legitimacy of talking to them and finding out what they really believe in. You know, I don't know. I agree with you.

When he's on record of saying he loves Hitler, what does he mean? If he genuinely loves Adolf Hitler, the bloke's a fucking idiot, right? But if he's talking about, as you put it, as you framed it, about what he may have been intimate, I don't know. But I've been interested in having that conversation.

In the same way that when I have Tate on, I agree with some things, Tate says, but I hammer him over his obvious misogyny. I think the two, you know, someone can be right and wrong. about two things, right? Even Churchill, my great hero, wasn't right about everything. If I was interviewing him, I would find some things to criticize Winston Churchill about, right? It doesn't mean to say I think he's a bad guy. I think he's an absolute hero, my all-time hero. However, everybody is flawed,

right? Right. Yeah, and plus if you were interviewing Churchill, he'd probably be drunk. And you'd go, oh, well, I guess that's true. No one is perfect. But I will say, yeah, look, we need to be able to have these conversations, but this litmus, these do matter. What have they done to do? defeat the left? What have they done to fight the left? Can they build a coalition? Something else that I think is pretty important. Can these people, whether it's Ben Shapiro, whether it's the people who say they're funded by Qatar, those other people say, you're a Zionist shill, can they take opinions at face value? Can they take a disagreement without resorting to, you're paid by Israel? I can say this, not one dime from a foreign nation. I own everything

about this company. I've been here since 2009 with a blue bed sheet when there was no money out there. If people say you're paid by X, in my experience, those are are usually the folks with something to hide, something else too. I would call and I would ask you to do this. Everyone out there, be transparent with your references, with your sourcing. We provide a bibliography every day. I know it's a lot more work. But you'll have a lot of people who say, I claim this and take my word for it.

We don't do that. So if you put people through this filter, and then you have to ask, what's the end game for this country? If we want to do away with Donald Trump, because by the way, 600,000 Chinese students, why? Uncapped H-1Bs, why? It's assonite. Pam Bondi with the Epstein files.

There's a reason that I'm not a fan of hers. There's a reason I never covered her confirmation, namely she's an idiot. But she has no idea what she's doing. These are legitimate grievances. But then to go after J.D. Vance and say, we're going to throw away our MAGA hat. Here's the thing. You can do that online. It's not going to be the half of this country that elects presidents.

These people, though, Pierce, I do need to tell you, people like Nick Fuentes, they have a legitimate grievance. There was some gatekeeping going on. And I've experienced this, too, by the way. It wasn't over the Israel thing. But you have some conservatives who are cozy with big tech, where they're fully monetized, their views are permissible. And people like Nick Fuentes, they're deplatformed. I'm at Rumble.

I obviously would have poll at Rumble. I've been there for a long time. I have been painstakingly clear. Nick Fuentes, of course, should have a platform if he's not breaking the law. That's the difference between some of the old school conservatives who say free speech, but behind the scenes, they glad hand a little bit. And if these people are radical, and I don't know that they are. That's why I'd like to have a conversation with them.

We do need to ask what radicalized them. That's a valid, if we believe that they're radical. But I think they have some legitimate grievances. And you have one side saying, these people are despicable, these people are offensive. Those are victim bitch words. Don't use those words. And then you have people trolling saying, I love Stalin. I don't think that anyone who's right-wing or conservative loves Stalin, but I'd like to follow up.

I think it's interesting. Yeah, you know, I agree with a lot of what you just said. Is Donald Trump betraying his campaign promised to make America great in the way he said he would? I mean, Marjorie Taylor Green ticked off a number of things. You've had some issues yourself, clearly. Is he betraying Maga, do you think? Well, I don't think he's betraying. I think he's made some missteps, and I wonder who's in his ear.

Again, which Marjorie Taylor Green am I dealing with? Tucker Carlson. Well, which Tucker am I talking to? Am I talking to Crossfire Bowtie Libertarian, legalized black tar heroin, Tucker? Or am I talking to Tucker Carlson, who dresses like Curious George Goes Fly Fishing Mr. Populist? I don't know. These people have taken both sides on every issue. I do think that the Chinese exchange student, or sorry not exchange student, students, 600,000, that's a mistake, H-1Bs.

I don't want to see a bunch of people replacing Americans at lower wages. It's certainly not when the bulk of them are coming from India, because I don't want us to look like India number two. And I think the problem that we've seen too is you have one side who've said that race has nothing to do with it. And then you have people saying race has everything to do with it. These people are wrong. Race and culture and the country, especially when you're dealing with a country of origin, when you're dealing with third world slave wage labor, it is relevant. It's a conversation that needs to be had. And when you silence it, you peak that curiosity gap.

I think Trump is wrong on that. I also, again, my issue is a lot of people who are pissed off about it now. we're all in on Elon. I always said Elon has done some great stuff. Buying Twitter, turning it to X. That's great. He's always had the policy of uncapping H-1Bs. That's not America first. I'm just wondering why it's an issue now and with Marjorie Taylor Green when only a week ago she was and we can't deport people because of my construction company. Which one am I talking to? That does matter. People can change their minds. But going back and forth in the span of a week and then refusing to have the conversations with people who will legitimately

test them. That's always concerning to me. And like I've said, the invitation has been extended to everyone. So far, no takers. I'm basic bitch pumpkin spice latte conservative, really. It's not that extreme. Who is the next standard

bearer for the Republican party, do you think, in America? Well, obviously, the natural sequence would be J.D. Vance. And I think he's been very impressive as of late. I think you still have people like DeSantis waiting in the wings. you know, Charles Krauthammer, when I was at Fox News, he was there.

And I've always said of Charles Crowdhammer, one of the most brilliant political minds of our time. He was, if he was only right, 50% of the time, me on the couch with a bag of potato chips, don't really have a shot. But I think anyone who places the needs of Americans first, and that doesn't mean, by the way, that we have to follow lockstep. But I do think Israel is a legitimate issue where people have legitimate grievances. I don't think that Israel's security is tied to that of the United States. That being said, we should defund all of it, right? And people in the comments, let me know. this is reasonable, defund all of it, but I would personally have no problem if the IDF gave

every member of Hamas a dynamite suppository. Because I believe that Islam, radical Islam, is a far greater threat to the West and Christian civilization than Israel. Doesn't mean that either one of them are perfect, are angels. I think people like J.D. Vance, people who've made it clear that they'll place the needs and the wants of the American people first. I think anyone who is in that vein probably has a shot. And as a matter of fact, I don't even think it's an option I don't even think it's an option for someone like a Jet Bush or someone saying, you know what, we really, really need to be strong allies with Israel. I just think that's kind of out the window and that's not anti-Semitic.

I think it's a legitimate conversation that needed to be had. And I'm okay with it. I just would like to have it with everybody. Yeah, I totally agree. I was having this conversation with Benny earlier. The idea if you criticize a country's government that somehow that means you hate that country's people is such a facile argument. You know, it's not anti-Semitic to think a lot of what the Israeli government's been doing in the last year, especially, has been misguided and probably self-harming and made life more difficult for Jewish people around the world, actually, is what I think about what's happened.

It doesn't mean I don't support Israel's right to defend itself from terrorists. I did and continue to support that right. It's how you do that is open to legitimate, exactly the same way I had the problem with my government and the American. government over Iraq back in 2003. I was not satisfied that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or had anything to do with 9-11. A lot of people felt he was made the scapego

for what happened there. Doesn't mean he wasn't a bad guy. He was a bad guy. But there had nothing to do with 9-11 and that war, in my view, should never have happened. And the damage was consequential afterwards. But again, the idea that I could oppose my government doing that and hate the British people, ridiculous or hate the American people, because of something the American government's done under any administration.

It is such a facile argument, and yet it's being used quite deliberately by many on the pro-Israeli side to silence legitimate debate. Right. I think I'd also find it funny that you said you were not satisfied with the war in Iraq, like you got a lukewarm DoorDash order. I think it's quite a bit worse than that. By the way, I just got a rock in my pad tie.

Last night, a rock with my Uber Eats. So just look for those. That actually happened. I chipped the tooth. There's not even a, thanks AI, there's not even a box to check for that. But no, I agree with you. And I would say this, this is a controversial position. The reason that it can't work is because there's no reasoning with most of these,

and by these people, I mean Islamists. Once Muslim reach a majority of a country where they get control of the government, we see it revert to something horrible as far as human rights. Keep in mind, there are about 200 million Muslims on earth right now, according to Pew Research, who believe that violence is often, or at least somewhat acceptable, against apostates, against infidels. So for people to not acknowledge that

means that it'll dictate your approach to international policy. And I still believe that Islamic encroachment and their prescription is a threat to the West. All of these are legitimate conversations. Now, I also know this. They're also behind the scenes

targeted harassment campaigns that go on. That's probably why you were afraid to have Nick Fuentes. Or not afraid, hesitant to have Nick Fuenteson. I don't care about that at all. Okay. Well, people get docksed, people get swatted. And that's not Nick's fault. That's the fault of the audience.

And I can tell you this, he would send the Groyper army out long time ago to pursue Charlie Kirk, to pursue Ben Shapiro and dictate the Q&A sessions and make it all about the Jews. So people felt like he wasn't acting in good faith. But if he was genuinely pushed to the corner by people like Ben Shapiro and folks at the Daily Wire saying YouTube, you have to de-platform this guy, he has a legitimate grievance, and you're going to radicalize that person. Here's where we are now. Do we have these conversations? Do we acknowledge that the left is out there, that they just killed one of our friends and they would kill any one of our friends? and they would kill any one of us if given the chance. And that doesn't mean everyone who votes Democrat.

That means those in charge of the leftist coalition. Yes, do we want a future for this country? Conservatism now, or right-wing, doesn't just mean conservative values or principles. It means conserving this country. And that means conserving this country from both internal threats and external threats. And you can expand that to mean mass immigration from countries that don't share our values, that it will make us feel like strangers in our own hometowns. That's the legitimate grievance that you see from these people

and silencing them isn't going to make it go away. And I don't even agree with them on a whole lot of these issues. But as far as Marjorie Taylor-Green, I'd have her on too, again. I don't know what her position is. Yeah, what's really ironic about this is that the Democrats are polling at record lows and clearly have absolutely... They suck so much, Pierce. They have no idea which way to turn.

Their sort of new superstar is basically a brazen socialist, if not a communist in Mamdani, and you just think they don't know what they're doing. And right at that moment, you see the right beginning to splinter when actually if they could reach the kind of coherent unity that you're talking about, you've got to think there's a very good chance

they win the next election too, but not if they're broken in two, which is the way some people seem to be wanted to take it. It's a very odd piece of timing given how vulnerable the other team is. No, you're absolutely right. Just sort of distill it. The left is like, hey,

And you can bleep this. We want chicks with dicks meddling at the Olympics. We want them on the podium. We want kids transitioning. We want never-ending funding for Snap, where you have $9 billion a year being spent on Coca-Cola. Over 60% of these people have no business being on Snap. If you can't cut Fanta from Snap, you can't cut anything, they are lowest ever, like you said, in their polling. And then people on the right going, you must be paid by the Jews to point that out. Or you must be paid by Qatar. It's like, are we, are we adults? let's all have this conversation. But I do, again, my big issue is the facade of anyone, any time, as far as debate and conversation, but they don't live it. They don't follow it. So I'd like to hear one name come out of their mouth, and that's mine, and I would welcome them and respectfully host them, but I don't know why that doesn't happen. I know that they'll go on sometimes shows that give them softballs.

I cannot imagine a world in which any guest, any guest. If it was you, Pierce, and you said, I love Stalin, I would go, wait a second, Pierce, let's explore that, Right? Like maybe I'm your therapist or something. That's pretty interesting. You know, he killed a whole lot of people. I just wonder where the curiosity went at the time when we should be winning. And yes, Donald Trump has stepped on a few rakes. I don't know what he's doing. I don't know who's in his ear. But here's the one thing, too, I really want to drive home.

We have something with President Trump that we've never had. And that's a feedback mechanism, right? Kind of like I was talking about DoorDash earlier. Donald Trump, President Trump, listens, meaning the conservative side can voice their opposition to his policies, and he will adapt. And instead, we're focused on Ford. flinging shit at each other. Yeah, I couldn't agree more.

It's fascinating. Stephen Crowder, great to have you back on Centson. Thank you very much. Bring me in when you're president of the BBC. Thank you, sir. Well, joining me now is Matt Schlapp, the chairman of CPAC. Welcome to you, Matt.

I mean, I've had some fascinating conversations with Benny Johnson, with Stephen Crowder, and with others about where the conservative right is going. You're right in the middle of all this. What do you feel is, happening? Feel. Interesting word that a conservative doesn't really ponder very much.

I'll be honest with you. My feelings are fraught. I'm anxious. I don't like these public squabbles. I'm looking at the Democratic Party embracing Marxism and completely crazy public policy and candidates. And I think the Democrats that I know in Washington, D.C., are really worried about what's going with their party, but yet publicly.

it seems like the focus is on these splits in this Trump coalition. And, you know, in candor, I am very worried about the splits. How much of that has been self-induced? And I would give as an example, the Epstein files and the way it's been handled. You know, I mean, whatever emerges from these files, there's no doubt that the Trump administration before the election and in the immediate aftermath were encouraging everyone, that they were going to release everything,

fully transparent and so on, and then suddenly the shutters come down. Now it looks like they've been forced into doing a U-turn, and now we're going to have the files released and so on. That has been raised a lot of people on the MAGA right. They really feel let down by that. So I think there have been things the Trump administration has done, where their own team feel let down by it.

It's just hard for me to fathom, Pierce, because I'm old. A couple of years, I'll be 60 years old. I got white hair. I've been doing this my whole life. The conservative movement has never, and I say never in my lifetime. And I love Ronald Reagan and I work for President Bush, has never had a president who was willing to go everywhere on everything and make all the right people really upset. I always say all the right people are sweating in Washington.

It's a great, glorious thing to behold, and it's been going on for a year. Now, within the course of that year, believe it or not, I'm a cheerleader for President Trump because he's earned it, but there are things I disagree with. There are times that I would do things differently than him. But after this near decade of him being this champion on all the policies that I care about, am I going to look for the needle in the haystack, the thing to be upset with him about? That's the mentality. I can't quite understand. I understand that for a politician or for someone in the media. you know, you're looking for attention

and you're looking for hits and there's no better way to get more attention, I suppose, than saying Donald Trump is letting us down. But like, logically, how could that really even be a theme? I can't think of a policy area where, you know,

Ted Williams is, you know, for Americans peers, Ted Williams is like the greatest baseball slugger of all times. That was 400. You know, what is Donald Trump batting, you know, and that's not good enough?

I just, I can't understand it. I guess what his critics would say, they'd say, look, this is somebody who pledged not to engage in any more foreign wars, but has committed more funding to Ukraine in their war against Russia, has committed endless funding to Israel in the war against Hamas.

Bomb Iran is now threatening military attack on Venezuela. They think that's inconsistent. They look at the, inflation situation a year in. And they say a lot of food prices and so on are higher than they were at the start of the year. They feel let down by that. Epstein files went from transparency to low transparency to now potentially transparency. So there are a few things there where I can understand why critics have looked at that and gone,

well, they said one thing and have done another. Notwithstanding, there are many other things that Trump has done, which are, in my view, not only successful, but haven't got the credit that they deserve, like pretty well closing the southern border after the poorest nature of that border in the Biden administration and so on. So there aren't many things, I think, you can say Trump has done a good job, but there are other things where I can see why people are constructing an argument, particularly some of the MAGA base, where they say that's not what we voted for.

So I would say the southern border is most prominent achievement. it's also the one area where Joe Biden was so irresponsible because it was in Joe Biden's hands to open or close that border. He opened it wide up and let millions and millions and millions of people into my country. And so Donald Trump has great legal authority to close that border. And he's done a masterful job in Christy Noem and Tom Homan and the whole team. Now, when it comes to bringing peace to Europe or to the Middle East, much more tricky question, right? You're trying to figure out a way to weave and get it done.

I think the president has done a great job in bringing, ending wars all over the globe. These are two incredibly tricky problems. When it comes to Ukraine, I think the real question is he's making Europe pay for it. He's making Europe start to donate to NATO according to the treaties that they've signed. I mean, this is part of the Trump doctrine, which is, if I'm to say it in a more guttural sense, is America's not going to be the world's sucker anymore. We're not going to pay all the bills. It's not our young men and women in uniform who are going to be.

going to trudge all around the world and do the job of other countries. That being said, America's the most important superpower, and we're in a hell of a battle with China, and we must win that battle, starts with technology, and Donald Trump understands that he wants America to be big and feared. He never said he wasn't going to use the military. He just simply said that, much like Ronald Reagan, we want you to fear us and fear our military, and there'll be times when it's used, but we're not looking to go to war with everybody we hate. Matter of fact, President Trump has told me, and he's told others, he likes the fact that some of these dictators and evil guys overseas feel like Trump might be crazy or trigger-happy, because maybe it'll make them realize

that America's serious when they say they're going to defend these things. And I have to say on the whole Hamas thing, Pierce, I just don't get it. I mean, the radicalized Muslims are bent on the destruction of Israel and America. Who's the big Satan? Who's the second? biggest Satan, it doesn't really matter to me. It's just that is their cause, and we could be naive and act like that's not the case. I think that would be a very irresponsible thing to do. Would you host Nick Fuentes at CPAC? You know, not only have we not hosted him, we've kicked him out of CPAC. He's, you know, year after year tried to use CPAC as a bit of a publicity stunt, and we want

nothing to do with it. That being said, I am, I like this, what I hear from some of my colleagues, that, you know, we're not, we're not the people that shut people down and say, you're not left to be. Well, that's why I ask the question, really, is that as his influence is clearly rising, and as he's getting talked about more and more, is part of the debate, does the argument to not allow him a platform start to get reduced? I mean, is there, is there a potential, of people on the right who for years have been quite rightly railing against what they see as the woke ideology tendency to cancel culture and de-platforming and so on, everybody on the right they didn't like. Is there a danger that by suppressing somebody like Fuentes, the rights start behaving in the same way? You know, we look at all these questions every year. We have our big conference every year. Then we have other events. And, you know, we're always asking ourselves that question.

I mean, I've had Van Jones and some really far left people on the stage, but they weren't on because they were left-wingers. They were on because we were working together on some public policy. You know, if somebody who's a provocateur online actually got serious and wanted to work on some kind of public policy, I mean, I think I'd take a meeting with almost anybody to discuss almost anything. But there also are, there are lines that are crossed, right? And my feeling is when it comes to equations of bigotry and hatred, that it's fair to say, you know what, we're not going there this year. It doesn't mean that they don't have the right to speak. I don't really have that much power in the scheme of things.

We're not a big media company. I'm not saying they should be canceled. I'm not saying they should never get a job. I don't want their family to be harmed. But, you know, does what their message really fit into the CPEC message? I think it's a very fair question for us to ask. when it comes to Nick Buentes, we don't feel like there's been enough harmony to be able to have them on stage. And I will say specifically, I don't understand the anima.

If you're not an anti-Semite, why so much animosity towards Israel? I mean, there doesn't seem to be this animosity towards other countries that we have substantial disagreements with or some minor disagreement. So it's a very fair challenge for people to say, you know, is it just a strategic question or do you have a problem with there being a, a Jewish state. I don't have a problem with there being a Jewish state. It's a bit of a unique thing, obviously, but I don't have a problem with that because we tried it the other way. And the pogroms and the persecution are diabolical and historic. And the civilization at the time and the countries of that time said, we have to give the Jewish people their own state. And for whatever reason, I see it woven in the Bible, but there's other reasons as well.

The Jewish state views America as its most important strategic ally, and I think that is a good thing, not a bad thing. Yeah, I mean, I just don't think, for example, somebody like me who supported Israel's right to defend itself after October the 7th, but then became increasingly critical of the way that Israel was prosecuting the war against Hamas. I don't understand why that means I suddenly become anti-Semitic. I wasn't accused of being anti-Semitic when I supported Israel's right to defend itself. And I do think that has been an ugly side of the debate on that particular war.

You should be free to criticize governments and their decisions without being branded somebody who hates the people of that country. Well, first of all, you'd be very welcome on the CPAC stage, Pierce. And I think that one of the things we have to do is we get closer to our big conference is thinking about a way to talk about this in a constructive manner. I think Stephen, I heard a bit of that conversation. And, you know, I think it is true, which is you have a lot of young men who feel very unattached to success in America. They don't feel like they're treated in the same legal way that there's a two-tiered system of justice, and they are increasingly following more strident voices.

And I think one of the things we ought to do is instead of calling each other names, I don't know what that accomplishes. And by the way, I'm not the guy who gets to determine who's anti-Semitic or not. I mean, I can have my own opinions. But I think what you just said, if you have a real disagreement with Prime Minister Netanyahu, you have a real disagreement with Israeli public policy. And you express that publicly. You have every right to do that.

And I think disagreeing with the leaders of Israel, I don't think that makes you anti-Semitic. I think when you get into the range where people start to hurl that invective is when you seem to just have a hostility towards Israel, right? Or when you're always against them on everything, or you talk about your hatred for their policy constantly. And I think when it comes to October 7th, the only thing I will say is that that was a, you know, a historically evil, malign attack. I've watched, I went to the street, near the Gaza Strip with some of the survivors of the attack. And I watched all these videos that have been pulled together. And, you know, we can't kind of sugarcoat the fact that there is a radicalized Muslim effort to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. And they have to live

with that reality. And I think as Americans, we have to understand we have to live with that reality, too, because they want to wipe us off the face of the earth. Now, having said that, there still have to be protocols and a humanitarian approach to how you handle that conflict. And I work for President Bush. One of the things that we decided to do is that we would wipe them from the face of the earth. And I think looking back on it all these many years ago, we were a little too cocky with that approach. And I think it should remind all of us that there's a humility to the idea that, yeah, you want to stand up and defend America, but can we use our military to just indiscriminately take people in and out of power,

set up governments and regimes? And, you know, with a disastrous pull out of Afghanistan of Joe Biden, that's just a, it's such a black mark on our history that we didn't use our military in a way that Ronald Reagan, I think, would have been proud of, which was to use it sparingly, to be humble with it. When we use it, we use it ferociously, but we can't get ourselves into these never-ending conflicts. And I think that is where I think the people who are criticizing our close association with Israel,

they're afraid we're going to start fighting their wars for them. I think it's a misnomer. I think it's a false charge. I think Israel has to fight its wars. And I think Israel has done one hell of a job of executing on those wars. Matt Schlapp, great to have you back on our sense. So thank you very much. Thank you, Pierce.

Well, my next guest has found himself at the sharp end of the country. contrasting views of what America first means and what MAGA represents for his views on the apparent collapse in the MAGA coalition. I'm joined by Texas Congressman and former US Navy SEAL, Dan Crenshaw. Dan, welcome back to uncensored. Good to see you. What is going on with the MAGA movement? Is it fragmenting irrevocably? Are you seeing Ben Shapiro and the likes of Ben on one side, the Tucker Carson, Candice, those, and the others splitting the whole MAGA thing in two in a way it can never be repaired? I think that's giving one side way too much credit. I mean, there's a lot of adults talking in the room and there's a toddler or two screaming in the corner, begging for attention.

That's really what the split is. I mean, like, it appears you know that I've been fighting this for a long time. I'm really happy that a lot of other people are now fighting the same battle, but it really is against a very small faction. You named a couple, Tucker Carlson, Candice Owens. who are these people? There's no ideological split, really. I mean, yes, Tucker does believe in some things that regular conservatives definitely do not. I mean, he's on the record very recently,

even talking about his economic policies, agreeing more with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders more than conservatives. You know, if you go down the list. But what he really is and what Candace really is are, or contrarians. That's what they are. They're attention seekers.

They're their click chasers. And they also know something. They know, they vote. known that especially since he got fired from Fox that he could corner a certain market. The Groyper's you know that Nick Fuentes group the alt-rights the Q&ON honors those are names you haven't heard in a while but remember those people never went anywhere and they needed a home and so I think Tucker knew that just from a from a business media perspective and I think a lot of influencers know that and peddle this kind of stuff so I would not call this a split

a split implies that it's this 50-50 split and that is just I just I just don't think that's the case at all when you look at the members who are actually elected when you look at President Trump's policies and statements. What is, I think, is fermenting the idea of a growing unrest amongst, even the most die-hard MAGA Trump supporters, is the whole issue of transparency,

whether it relates to the Epstein files, whether it relates to the attempted assassin, Thomas Crooks of Donald Trump, whether it relates to JFK files, all the other things, all the things, all the things, which they said they were going to be fully transparent about. You know, the shooting of Charlie Kirk

is another one that's fueling a lot of conspiracy theories because of the lack of information. Should this administration be a lot more transparent their being? And why aren't they being what they said they would be? I'm not sure I agree with the premise there. On every single one of those examples, I think they've been pretty transparent.

And, you know, I mean, this week, even President Trump said, Go ahead, yeah, release the Epstein files, vote for them. But he could have done that at any stage, is the point. He could have, but there was some very legitimate legal reasons to be worried about that as far as retracting names and such. And the reason I voted for it was, you know, for the sake of transparency, because the people want it. But if I wanted to take just an objective legal look at that, you don't just generally open, just release a bunch of case files on ongoing investigations.

So it's a little bit more complicated than that. But on every other one of those examples, whether it's Charlie Kirk's assassin, or Trump's attempt to assassins, I'm not really sure what questions are left on answered. I understand that a lot of people are creating conspiracies. Well, on Thomas Crook, and creating this idea of conspiracies, but like,

since when does the public get to know every single detail of an investigation? Well, it's not really that. I would say, okay, but I would say back at you, on Thomas Crooks, for example, the narrative that was coming out was there was no digital footprint whatsoever about this young guy who suddenly decided to shoot the president of the United States.

And yet that turns, out to be completely untrue, but we only know that through, ironically, Tucker Carlson and a very thorough investigation he ran a few days ago, and Miranda Devine with the New York Post, then following up with more revelations, all of which seem highly, highly relevant to this person's state of mind, to their increasingly violent thoughts, to the fact that on social media, there were people calling out and red flagging him in real time because of the more extreme views he was espousing, and so on. None of that was being made available to the public.

And yet you had Cash Patel, Dan Margino and others who were saying, look, the FBI is going to be completely up front about all this stuff. Well, it doesn't seem that way to the public. Why is the media the ones... You don't have to ask the FBI about that, but not me. I didn't run the investigation and I don't look at those details even. And I, again, it is not normal for investigators to be releasing every single detail of an investigation to the public.

And there's a lot of good reasons for that. There's protection of sources and methods, the way we get that information. It's protection of victims, other people associated with them. There's a lot of reasons. It's not normal to release every detail of an investigation and let the court of public opinion then decide what to do. That's how you get into this mess with conspiracies

that are led by people like Tucker and Candace. That's how you get Candace Owens. What I would say is basically defaming, and destroying the memory of her former friend, Charlie Kirk, by putting out of these insane conspiracies about how he was killed. Just insane. And, you know, that's how you get there by putting information out irresponsibly. And so, again, you'd have to ask Dan Bongino exactly why he didn't release X, Y, and Z.

I cannot tell you that. I don't know. But I do think the problem of... I can give you a general concept here about... how investigations were. I'm familiar with how they would work, but I also think if the shooter's dead, for example, you're not going to

have a live trial of somebody who's no longer alive, right? So the risk of... Right, but what... Okay, well, let me just lay out this possibility. Again, I'm not part of the investigation. I have no idea, but, you know, I was in the military, we'd do this kind of thing for a living, we'd think through these kind of things.

What if he did have accomplices? What if there was somebody behind it? Why would I want the entire public, and therefore, the people one of the accomplices and perhaps others associated with that crime to also know that I'm onto them. Okay, so there's something called operational security that we refer to as in the military. They probably have a similar word for it in law enforcement.

Look, it's not insane. It is not against the norms of transparency to say we're going to keep many aspects of this investigation. But I tell you why I think that's a slightly naive view about this one. When it's as high profile as an attempted assassination of a president of the United States, when you allow a narrative to develop, as they clearly did deliberately, that there was no digital footprint,

raising all sorts of questions about why would a young person have no social media presence whatsoever? And you allow that to be the accepted narrative for a long period of time. And then it's the media that informed the public by splurging out all this extraordinary, ordinary stuff about the shooter's digital footprint. You know, it looks like you've been suppressing information, which, you know, I take your point about accomplice is fine. I just give you a bunch of good reasons why you would do that, though. And the fact that it's a high-profile case is all the more reason to be more careful about it.

And again, look, peers, I love you. But you're asking a congressman who has no part in this investigation about details of an investigation and the decisions made about that investigation. You got to have somebody from the FBI. No, no, I'm not holding you to account for what they've done. I'm just saying that I do think it's a legitimate criticism. And it's been shared by Democrats and Republicans. And the administration is not being transparent enough on these things.

And that is fueling conspiracy. This is one of the most transparent administrations, the transparent administrations, the first one and the second one, that I think the American public has ever seen. I mean, that is objectively true. You've got to give you that. I'm not sure that they talk a good game on it. But I think the MST files. You mentioned JFK's files.

They did release those, right? You mentioned, I mean, we know a lot about these cases probably more than just about most criminal cases. What I'm really not sure where this is coming from, this belief that there's an anti-transparent trend. Well, they won't take the Epstein files. We'll take the Epstein files, right? On the Epstein files, clearly in the run-up to the election,

the word from all of the Trump side was we're going to release all the Epstein files. when they got into power that carried on what they were saying. Pam Bondi then had this bizarre press conference where all these influences turn up and get given binders which have virtually nothing in them.

That was a weird moment. Then you have Elon Musk saying Trump's in the Epstein files, suddenly the whole thing gets shut down. You know, you talk about conspiracy theories. This is exactly why they start to rage because if, you know, I had people from the administration on my show

saying, we're going to release everything, and we're going to do it very quickly. And then to suddenly see the whole thing shut down. And now what you've seen from public pressure, from the right and left, in a rare moment of American national unity, you've seen Congress responding and being pressured, actually, into saying, we've got to release all this. So I do think there is a real issue there about how transparent they've been about the Epstein files. It's an unusual sequence of events that doesn't really make much sense.

Well, maybe it was a promise they regretted making. and then realize once they got there that there are legal issues with just releasing all the details of an investigation. But in a case like Epstein, there's a reason I voted for it, like I said. I mean, sometimes there's an overwhelming public demand for something and as a representative you have to respond to that.

And so we did. Again, I don't know where we're... I don't even know what we're quibbling about, to be honest. Well, I think I was only quibbling with your assessment that you didn't think there'd been issues with transparency. I do think that's been one of the... kill these heels with the administration. It's been lost to successes.

It's very minor, and you definitely can't point to another administration that's been more transparent about all of this. But obviously, the Biden administration, if it were released in. Well, they certainly were not the standard bearer. I'll give you that. Where do you see the, coming to 2028, assuming Donald Trump doesn't try and run for a third term, which I don't think you will,

J.D. Vance is clearly in the driving seat, but he's very attached to the MAGA movement. Do you think it will be a MAGA candidate that ends up being the nominee. And do you think that that is a winning ticket to have somebody who is very aligned to the MAGA movement? Well, Donald Trump is MAGA.

So anyone who wins the primary in 2028 is going to be aligned with Donald Trump. I think he will remain popular within the Republican Party through 2028. You know, going back to the earlier parts of our conversation, this sort of fight that we're having with a few outsiders. That is a battle for what it means to be MAGA.

But I don't think anyone's going to say, no, I'm not MAGA and try to win the primary. I think everyone's going to say that they are MAGA. What does MAGA make America great again? That's a great statement. Why would anyone be against that? And it associates yourself with Donald Trump and his policies. Now, that's going to be important.

And I happen to like Donald Trump's policies quite a bit. I think I like Donald Trump's policies a lot more than some of his most fervent followers who claim to be the super mag, the ultra magas, right? And so does that make me more maga? Maybe I'm the most maga.

Maybe you should run that. Have you thought of running? No. Why not? This is, no. This has been fun enough as it is. Who would your right now, who would your preferred nominee be?

I would, it's way too early to make a statement like that. Understanding politics better than I did, you know, seven years ago before when I first started, better not even bother getting involved in a primary. So, but we're a long ways off from that. Look, the things we have to worry about as Republicans right now are, look, we've got to get this budget done. We're working on health care deals. We've got to work on our keeping the house. so that we can actually push our agenda through

for four years under Trump and move things forward for the American people. That's really the only thing that's on our minds right now. Dan Crenshaw, always great to have you on Our Sensor. Thank you very much indeed. Pierce Morgan Unsensort is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing.

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