Piers Morgan Uncensored - Jacob Rees Mogg vs Cenk Uygur & More | Plus Indiana Candidate Admits She 'Had Beers'

Episode Date: October 19, 2026

The Western world is facing a period of unprecedented upheaval, as old alliances fracture, political divisions deepen and conflict continues to reshape the global order. From President Donald Trump’s shifting approach to Russia and Ukraine to growing unrest in France, the familiar rules of international politics appear to be breaking down. Meanwhile, the divide between interventionism and isolationism is becoming one of the defining battles in Western politics. A recent debate between Tucker Carlson and former UK Conservative minister Jacob Rees-Mogg exposed the deep disagreements over whether Western intervention abroad has protected the world order or helped create today’s instability. Sign up to our newsletter and watch ad free: https://piersmorgan.tv Across the Atlantic, attention is turning to the future of American politics. With Donald Trump facing mounting political pressure and Democrats eyeing the midterm elections, the race to find the party’s next presidential standard-bearer is already taking shape. Gavin Newsom, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Kamala Harris are among the names in the conversation - but an unexpected challenger from rural Indiana, local Democratic candidate Jaime West, has captured international attention after a viral television interview. As political conventions crumble and unexpected voices emerge, who will shape the next chapter of Western politics? Joining Piers Morgan to examine the shifting global order are broadcaster and former UK Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, System Update host Glenn Greenwald, The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, and Cenk Uygur, founder and CEO of The Young Turks. Later, Democratic candidate for Fayette County Council in Indiana Jaime West and Ben Ferguson, co-host of The Verdict with Ted Cruz, join the panel to debate the future of American politics and the race to shape the Democratic Party’s next chapter. (00:00:00) Introduction  (00:04:07) Jacob Rees-Mogg on Tucker Carlson (00:07:52) Is Putin the new Hitler? (00:13:33) Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal and Cenk Uygur join  (00:17:57) Glenn Greenwald confronts Rees-Mogg over his voting record (00:24:12) “You have to be prepared for war if you want peace” (00:33:11) Israel, Gaza and proportionality (00:37:02) How 12-day war and Venezuela led Trump to Iran (00:44:41) France riots (00:50:36) Is Gaza a Holocaust?  (00:1:00:13) Piers and Cenk clash over Churchill (01:04:50) ‘Drunk’ viral Democrats candidate Jaime West joins Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Right now we're on the brink of a nuclear exchange, and the question is why? What I am arguing is that if we are prepared for war, war becomes less likely. If you allow Russia to take Ukraine, then it moves on to the next object. We invited Jacob on because he took on Tucker Carlson and held his own rate capability. We thought we tested by inviting three more massive American YouTubers to take him on. You said, I'm basically the opposite of a warmonger. Look at your voting record. You supported every war that the UK has been involved with.

Jacob, why won't you lift a finger to stop this horrible atrocity in gossip? Jacob, will you admit right here now that you're a giant liar and you have no principles? Let him, let him. Let the Looney Tune go on. I think he got mobbed. Maude got odd. Oh, shall we be respectful about genocide? We have guns, too.

I had a coarse light. I had a beer. The flames of chaos, war, and social. Unrest are licking at our doorsteps right now. A comfortable sense of inevitable progress has been shattered across the Western world. Barely a day now passes without a plot twist or an incident which feels certain to have grave implications. And the result is that old and even historic alliances are a breaking point. Politics is tilting on its axis.

This weekend, President Trump weighed the new sanctions on Russia that he decided into law several weeks ago. The White House appears to be pivoting to Vladimir Putin as his best bet for ending the the Ukraine war, even as its weapons still flow to Kiev. Most of America's traditional allies have recognized a Palestinian state and say they'd arrest the Israeli Prime Minister if he landed on their shores. The US President just endorsed Netanyahu for re-election. The Middle East is once again in a state of disorder and uncertainty because decisions made thousands of miles away.

In just 21 miles across the English Channel, France is facing a civil emergency. Several weeks of student protests, exploding into nationwide looting, rioting. and violence. On Saturday night, a 150-year-old town hall was torched in Limoge, an ornate spire, which survived two world wars and of all Nazi occupation, fell apart in flames as rioters cheered from the sidelines. What began as a protest by students of better education became an opportunity for violence by many angry young people, including organised far-left activists and disaffected young Muslims. But many US conservatives know exactly who they want to blame. Texas Senator Teg Cruz, We are witnessing Islamists right now burning Paris because Europe has committed cultural suicide.

We should look to France as foreshadowing for what America faces if we don't stop this here. We are fighting to save our nation. President Trump blamed out-of-control mass migration, adding this is about Islam wanted to take over a once-great country. Well, the facts simply don't support the case that one single ethnic group is to blame for the crisis in France. But they probably won't make any difference. The next president of France will very likely be Marine LePé. A veteran of the hard right who also happens to openly admire Vladimir Putin and loathe Ukraine. Well, in this new world of chaos and apparent decline, the old labels don't really stick.

Populism is thriving across the aisles. Right wing and left wing, liberal or conservative, doesn't begin to cover the way most people feel. And one of the biggest dividing lines is now intervention versus isolation. One side broadly believes that the Westman's fight to defend its world leadership. The other thing, so it's exactly what got us into this mess. This collision of world views was laid bare in a recent debate between Tucker Carlson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, who disagreed of whether the UK was right to enter the Second World War.

It was the classic good versus evil. Has the UK benefited from it? We did the right thing. Is it a better country than it was? To have defeated Hitler, yes. So the UK is a better country now. It's a healthier country now. We'd otherwise we'll be speaking German.

Who cares? There are a lot of people in Britain who can't speak English. So it would be nice to have at least a European language spoken in your country. No, I've seen no advantage of speaking German over any other language. We want to speak English. Thank you so much. Well, Sir Jacob Rees-Mont, to give him his correct full title, Broadcaster and former Conservative Minister, as part of tonight's panel. But joins me first for a little chat.

Jacob, welcome to Unsense him. Well, thank you very much for having me. You and I share one thing massively in common now. We've both gone toe to toe with Tucker Castle, the Enfant-Tarebe of American conservative YouTubeing. What was it like for you? You've gone viral in America.

They're all like, who's this Jacob guy? Very pot, isn't he? Obviously, we know who you are. But how did you find the experience? Have you been surprised by the extraordinary virality of what went on between you and Tucker? Well, it's a very interesting lesson

about the power of social media against traditional media. And I'm half aware of that lesson, but this was a reminder of it in its full force. I thought I was giving an interview to an American shock jog, and that nobody would be very interested in what I had to say in America because nobody had heard of me, and nobody would see it in England.

Sometimes I get these things wrong, because that wasn't precisely what happened. The clash point we just showed was one I had with it, which is Tucker has this bizarre notion that somehow we should have just let Hitler do what he likes and what were we doing, getting involved, and so on. Are you surprised? Because a lot of people on the Conservative right in America

and now do share that kind of view about it. And of course there are historic parallels going on today. I think it's a very surprising view, and it fails to think through the consequences properly. Taka was assuming that Hitler would take Poland and then stop. But we know very clearly that he wasn't going to stop, that he wanted domination of the whole of Europe. That would have left the UK either as essentially a satellite state

or potentially invaded once he'd got strong enough to do it. That would have had a profound effect on how we are living now, not just on our standard of living, but on our rights and on our liberties. And therefore, we had to stop Hitler carrying on. And America would have been better off coming in earlier rather than later. Indeed, if America had been arming in the 30s, and if we had been arming earlier in the 30s, then Hitler would not have gone on his adventures.

And that's the bit that's being missed now. Tucker was saying that I'm a warmonger. And the least warmongering person you could find, I just recognise the lesson of history that if you are very strong, people don't attack you and they don't attack your friends. And that's where we've been failing. In a funny way, we've got everything wrong in recent years,

that we have run down our military, but we've gone in for military adventures. The military adventures, we probably shouldn't have done, but the running down our military we also shouldn't have done. I completely concur. one of the other flashpoints you had with Tucker was over Ukraine and Russia, and there are clear parallels, it seems to me,

between what's happening there and the start of World War II. But let's take a look at what happened with you and Tucker. My only point is right now we're on the brink of a nuclear exchange, and the question is why? And I don't understand why it's in Britain's interest to be at war with Russia. What I am arguing is that if we are prepared for war, war becomes less likely. That's the whole basis of deterrence.

It's the whole reason. How about if you stop fighting the war, they will be less likely to nuke you. Oh, no, that's not true. If you don't support Ukraine, if you allow Russia to take Ukraine, then it moves on to the next object. Why is it up to the UK to decide whether or not Russia takes Ukraine? Because it's strongly in our national interest and indeed the United States. In what way? Because the one fundamental thing of the world order is the integrity of nation states.

It's interesting. I had President Zelensky sitting in your very seat last week, and he compared Vladimir Putin directly to Hitler, his argument being if he gets what he wants with Ukraine and he believes he wants to take the whole country, that he absolutely wouldn't stop there. The parallel being, as you discussed with Tucker, that if Hitler had taken Poland, this notion somehow he'd be satisfied and then would leave everything else alone was for the birds.

Do you see that parallel? Do you agree with it? I always am very cautious of making parallels to Hitler because Hitler is such a uniquely evil figure. It's much easier. You just make the parallel to the Soviet Union to the Romanovs, that it has been the tradition of Russia to gain territory, going back to the Romanovs coming in, whatever it was at the end of the 16th century, that year by year they took more land. The Soviet Union then did the same. And Putin looks at his country and realizes that he's lost a lot of land in his land in his, lifetime and he's trying to get some of it back. Well, he never wanted the Soviet Union broken up.

He's not broken up. No, of course not. As a KGB guy to his bootstraps, he didn't think they should break it up. And if he could restore some of it, he'd be very happy. And that's what he's been doing. He's done it in Georgia. He's done it in Crimea. He's trying to do it with Ukraine. And Poland has been fought over by Russia over centuries. So we shouldn't be surprised, and they used, of course, to have the Baltic states. We shouldn't be surprised by Russian adventurism. And this is where Tucker is wrong. because what has led to war so often is miscalculation of the aggressor. The aggressor doesn't recognize when the person on the other side will respond.

And that's why I think failing to be strong now makes, at some future point, a much more violent response likely. The Ukraine war is fascinating. I mean, my brother was an army colonel for many years, and he feared from the start of it, that notwithstanding what people feel about what's happened to Ukraine, The inevitability was that Russia would win. But here we are five years in nearly,

and Ukraine has proved remarkably resilient and is beginning to score some really big hit inside Russia. But notwithstanding that, there is this line really around the Donets where hundreds of thousands of young people are being slaughtered. I think it's nearly 50,000 Russians a month at the moment, less or fewer, Ukrainians, but still huge numbers.

And people are saying, like Tucker, who argue against this, you can't just let this sort of continue. Elon Musk is saying the same thing. And part of a thinking for why Trump is behaving the way he is with Putin, he just wants this over. Now, I've had a conversation with Trump privately

on the phone where he got, I mean, someone who's known him 20 years, I was surprised by how passionate he got about the slaughter of young people on the front line in Ukraine. So the few months ago. He was rattling off the numbers. He said, this can't go on. This is terrible, terrible slaughter. I did believe him. He sounded very sincere. So all these things could be true at the same time.

But the overarching problem I have with what Trump's doing is it looks like he's giving sucker now to Vladimir Putin, who has illegally invaded Ukraine, wants to take it over, won't stop there. And I never thought the day would come when a United States president would do this. I think it's so important to go back to first principles, because the apologists for Putin say, well, NATO shouldn't have expanded. And what do you say to that argument? NATO clearly, indisputably, did talk in a language that was guaranteed to irritate Putin. All of that becomes irrelevant once somebody invades sovereign territory.

Putin may have had grounds for complaint, but they don't justify invasion, that there is only really one absolute in the international structure, and that is the integrity of the nation state. If you take that away, there is no order of any kind. And so however wrong that was, or however right that was, is irrelevant once Putin has crossed that line of invasion. And then you're looking at the first principle of the integrity of the nation state. So that's why I think Putin can't be in the right,

regardless of European interference in elections and corruption in Ukraine, or any of those sorts of accusations, they become entirely secondary to this fundamental principle. What do we do about Putin then? What should America be doing? America should be giving all the support it can to Ukraine to win. And do you think Ukraine can win? Well, it depends what you mean by win.

Can it remove Russia from the 20% or so of its land that Russia currently occupies? Including the whole of the Crimea. I would have thought that is extremely unlikely. So Crimea I've always thought that's done. But the Dombas and Dernetsk area in particular, that is what Ukraine say, Zelensky repeated it to me. They don't want to seed an inch of that land,

even if the Russians are currently occupying it. Is it realistic that in some way of bringing this to an end, Russia gets nothing out of this? Very long-standing wars of this kind tend to end when one side or the other collapses, rather than neatly with a peace treaty, that both sides are so deeply entrenched at this stage, that it's hard to see how they can converse with each other.

It may be possible for America, to play a role in a peace treaty that does give Russia some land. But I can quite understand why Ukraine, after four, four and a half years of war doesn't want to agree to that. So I think what is realistic and what the Ukrainians will want may well not be the same thing. Well, let's bring in the rest of our panel now, because he's seen off Tucker Carson. We Brits all believe that.

Well done, Jacob. Tucker wouldn't agree. He always thinks he sees all our Brits off. Insurance operations today are fragmented. and policyholders expect more. That's why leading insurers run on Adion. From premium collection to claims payout, Adion supports the entire insurance value chain,

giving insurers full control over how money moves, a single platform to reduce fragmentation, complexity, and risk. Drive revenue, control claims cost, and power your next move with Adion. Learn more at adion.com. Semple three of the biggest beast in the Unstainedton Jungle, all of whom disagree with your views on just about everything.

Glenn Greenwald, host of System Update, Max Blumenthal, editor of the Grey Zone, and Czech, Yuga, founder and CEO of the Young Turks. You know, Chek is quite interesting, though, because I would have thought that naturally my views and Jacob's views historically would very rarely meet together. And yet we're in a weird time in the world now, where a lot of people who were positioned on the conservative right

now find themselves in agreement on many key issues as people on the left. It's not as easy to pigeonhole people, is it, as it used to be? Yeah, absolutely. And I was amused at that conversation you guys were just having about the most important rule in international order is the sovereignty of a nation state. I'm sure that Lebanon and Iran, let alone Gaza, would like to hear about that because Israel violates that more than anyone at all times.

And instead of stopping them, as your guest is saying here, what we've done is encourage them, enable their fascism. And that's why we have endless wars in the Middle East. So the left and the right are uniting around this idea of why are we fighting endless wars? Why are we fighting other people's wars? Why did we spend $8 trillion fighting all of Israel's neighbors? And the answer is simple. Actually, George H.W. Bush was right. When he liberated Kuwait and then said he would not go into Iraq, what the New World Order was

was just simply saying that sovereign nations shouldn't attack one another. But the nation that decided to violate that repeatedly dozens of times is Israel. And not only them, but they force us because they control our government completely. to attack Iraq, Iran, and just seven countries they wanted. So it's interesting that I see in American media and British media now. Oh, my God, I can't believe Russia invaded Ukraine. That's the worst thing in the whole world. And by the way, I agree with that.

And I don't agree with Tucker on the World War II revisionism, right? But at the same time, they have a completely hypocritical view when it comes to Israel. Oh, well, they're allowed to attack everyone. They're allowed to kill everyone. They're not allowed to take land. and in fact we should fund all that fascism and that war. And we're all sick of it. The left's sick of it, the right sick of it, the whole country's sick of it.

Three quarters of us don't want to be in this war in Iran. Yet we have no choice in the matter because our government is so thoroughly corrupt that they would never listen to the American people. They would much rather listen to Israeli politicians and billionaires than us, and that's a stone cold fact. And in 2028, they're going to see how sick of it we were, because one of us is going to win, and we're going to bring America back and we're going to free America.

Well, we may, Glenn Greenwald, in just over two weeks, see the immediate consequence of this in the midterm elections in America where the polling currently suggests a bit of a blue wave engulfing American politics with, I think Republicans almost giving up now on being able to save the House of Representatives, but growing sense amongst pollsters that the Senate is probably going to move to. If that does happen from a purely political perspective, does it really make any difference to what Trump may or may not do with Ukraine or indeed, as Chank was talking there, about Israel?

No, it doesn't make any difference. The Democratic Party is led by people who were actually more supportive of the U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine and Russia than even the Republicans were. it was Joe Biden's policy, the Democratic Party unanimously, supported our involvement in Ukraine by sending hundreds of billions of dollars that we could have used at home for the American people over to Kiev, where a lot of it vanished. And then on top of that, many of them are also supporters of the Iran War and also the war and the words in the Middle East more broadly. But I just want to say a couple of things of listening to this conversation.

You know, this idea that, oh, Putin is, you know, so clearly in the wrong because they crossed the one red line that you can't cross, which is invading a sovereign country. Both of you are citizens of the UK that did exactly that in 2003. You didn't do it to a neighboring country, which was filled with, you know, Easterners. I know you were against it. I know you were against it. I know. I led the British media campaign against the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I know, but Jacob and his father did not. But also, let me just say. So that's the one thing. It's kind of hard to be a citizen. Well, just to be clear, Jacobs now made actually quite an extraordinary concession. I think Peirz was right and brave, actually, to lead the opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I thought it was justified at the time on the self-defense grounds of weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be a dishonesty.

And it is clearly wrong. You can't invade countries because you don't like that leadership. You did the same thing Putin did, which is you didn't lead the army, but you supported it. But also, you said, I'm basically the opposite. sort of a warmonger. Look at your voting record. You supported every war that the UK hasn't been involved with. You supported bombing Libya and changing the regime there. You supported bombing Syria and taking out Assad. You voted for bombing Iraq against ISIS. You voted for bombing Syria again against ISIS. And you have this long record of foreign policy aggression that not only matches

Putin's, but far exceeds it. And that's why I really don't understand. I just want to say as well. That's clearly nonsense. I was not in favor of the invading countries. Did I misstate your voting record? Did I misstate your voting record? The voting record, I can't remember my voting record as well as you started it. The motion I voted for on Syria was not in favor of bombing Syria as it happens, which is why I voted for it. You should read the precise wording of the motion. It said that there would be another vote before there was any bombing of it, and it wasn't then bombed. I think extraterritorial activity can only be justified under very extreme circumstances. I think the first Iraq war was completely justified and remains justified with hindsight. The second Gulf War was done on a

dishonesty, and that was a terrible mistake. What about Libya? Libya wasn't threatening the UK, neither was Syria. And this is the thing, you know, if you look at what's going on, you know, you mentioned France and a bunch of other places, including the UK, where people are extremely angry at both political parties in the U.S. too. You know, peers, you mentioned the midterms. One of the reasons is people are sick of sending their money to other foreign wars that they feel have nothing to do with them. It's not just Trump. Obama in 2016 was confronted by Jeffrey Goldberg, the Nio-Con editor of the Atlantic, and he said, why didn't you do more to confront Russia in both Syria and Ukraine? And Obama said, are you crazy? Ukraine is not a vital interest to the U.S.

It never will be. It is a vital interest to Russia because that was the country that was used twice to invade them from the West, but it is not a vital interest in the U.S. Let me ask you, okay, but here's what I would say to that, is that I hear you talk about Ukraine like that. And I say, you're putting a lot of trust in Putin doing this for justifiable reasons, you know, provoked by NATO, this has got nothing to do with the rest of us. It's a matter for them to sort out and so on. Why put your faith in Putin not to behave exactly how many people fear he would behave, which is if he got, say he took the Donbass as part of any settlement, the idea he would stop there, having taken, got attacked Georgia, took Crimea, now gets

the dombas. The idea this contains Putin, when his clear history shows, he would just then go and want more. Why put faith in him to contain himself to that kind of thing? Putin has been the president of Russia for 25 years. American president who dealt with him, starting with Bill Clinton, then George W. Bush, then Obama, all said he's an incredibly rational actor. You make agreements with him, and he abides by those deals. That's not me saying that those are all three American presidents. Well, actually, I'll tell you what, why do you said that? While you said that, I'll get my team to find the clip of me interviewing Bill Clinton about Putin, who we had about a year-long crossover with, where he does

say that very point. And it is relevant and it is interesting. The question is whether he's still the same Vladimir Putin that Bill Clinton dealt with back in the 90s. That is, I think, much more question. And Barack Obama in the 2000 and in 2016 and Trump feels the same way. It's every American president, including George W. Bush, who said he looked in the eyes of Putin

and saw his soul and believes in him. But, you know, you can make kind of better calls about anything. So at some point, there is a moment of reckoning for every American president, which is you're not tangling with a non-nuclear power. But Pierce, this is what amazes me, honestly, is, you know, during the Cold War, I wouldn't know I wasn't alive

then, but I hear that the biggest fear that Americans had and that the Russians had was a risk of a nuclear war, which we came extremely close to it, at least on one occasion, through nothing more than misperception and miscommunication. And a lot of Americans think, and I totally agree, why are we risking a war with Russia? And, you know, British generals are talking openly about it, so are a lot of people in Europe? Over who rules the Donbass? This is not a vital interest, certainly not the United States. And you have Western Europe who that's falling apart financially. People are losing faith all over Western Europe. That's why they're turning to Marine Le Pen or Nigel Farage or other types of figures like that or maybe Jean-Luc Melanchon

on the left. You see this loss of faith. There's no safety net that Europe can continue to provide to its people. And now we're talking about spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build up a European military to prepare for war with Russia, the largest nuclear power on the country. this is all madness. And we have 25 years that demonstrates that. And I don't understand why people who supported foreign policy of militarism and ingression and invasion over the last 25 years are completely cavalier about that risk.

Let me ask Jacob to respond. Then I'll bring Maxim. Jacob, what's your response to that? Well, you have to be prepared for war if you want peace. That is the basic principle. And Putin has been a consistent aggressor. So maybe that previous presidents have dealt with him. nonetheless. He did this in Georgia. He did it in the Crimea. He then moved into Ukraine.

There is no reason to suppose that he would stop. And as regards America's interest in Ukraine, you mentioned what Obama had said about it. America did do a deal with Ukraine, to which Russia and the British were signatories, getting Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in return for its territorial integrity. Now, it seems to me that it's quite important that if the United States makes an agreement of that kind, it should give some heed to it. I accept that it was not an agreement to fight for Ukraine, but it was in the interests of America for Ukraine to be a non-nuclear state. And that's why it is in the US's continuing interest to maintain the integrity of Ukraine. Okay, Max, welcome back to Oncensor. What's your view of all this?

Well, my view is much of the discussion from Jacob's side has been a historical. He misrepresents the Budapest memorandum of 1994 and says that Ukraine was forced to give up its nuclear weapons. In fact, those nuclear weapons belonged to Russia. They weren't Ukrainians to give up. No, they belong to the Soviet Union, and it's important to differentiate. It's the same as the U.S. made in the Soviet Union and Russia, because the Soviet Union had a particular legal identity. If the U.S. gave up its nuclear weapons at the Incerlich Air Base in Turkey, that wasn't

Turkey giving up its nuclear weapons. That's not at all the same. If California has nuclear weapons and it's seceded from the Union, there would be Californians' nuclear weapons. You're simply wrong. Jacob falsely, Jacob is interrupting because he's falsely... I am, because you're making things up. Well, he's saying, to be fair, Max, hang on. Can I talk? Hang on, hang on, Max, hang on. Let's all, start talking over each other. To be clear, to be clear, he's... Jacob... Yeah, but Max, Jacob is... Georgia invaded South Osset.

Max, Max, let me say something. Max, let's try and keep this respectful. No, no, no, no, no. We need to have facts here. Okay. Jacob is saying, I want to talk about what's taking the book. Please. Let me talk.

Jacob is questioning your statement on a factual basis. He is saying you're factually wrong because... And he's wrong. Because the nuclear weapons belong to Soviet Union, not Russia, even though they're on Ukrainian land. And he says there is an important distinction about that. Under the memorandum, they belong to Russia. They were Russian nuclear weapons. Russia didn't exist as a sovereign state. It was the Soviet Union. It's the breakup of the Soviet Union that is essential.

If the United States broke up. President Mikhail Sakashvili invaded South Ossetia. That was why the Russian army entered. You never want to talk about context. We don't want to talk about the context of the United States support and EU supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Ukraine in 2014, shattering Ukraine sovereignty, the natification of Ukraine, the U.S. and the U.K., planting billions of dollars of weapons on Russia's borders. There was provocation. And what's really going on with this discussion now? We're years into this conflict, years into this proxy war where Ukraine has been turned into a proxy state, where the U.S., with U.K. and EU help, has fought a war for Israel on Iran that has totally failed. Peace through strength didn't work.

there is the contradictions are beginning to explode out into the open. Diesel costs are going up. British families are paying 10% of their income on energy costs. Germany has lost 500 million jobs since 2019. 20% percent... 500 million jobs in Germany. That's not its population is only 80 million. That's according to Reuters today. Can't have lost 500 million jobs. It's only got a population of 80 million. In proxy war. And due to, you train carrying out the war to attack on Germany, in Germany, as Jacob's point, Max, Max, Max, as Jacob's, Max, Max, Max, you've been

fat, Max, you've been fat-chaired. Can I make my argument? You said Germany's lost 500 million jobs. They only have a population, as Jacob's point of out of 80 million. 500,000, I misspoke, it's 500,000 jobs, which is a lot. 500,000 jobs that's in Reuters today. Let me play a clip to Cheng. This is the clip of me interviewing Bill Clinton, for CNN. This was in about 2000, 12, 13, something like that. But it's quite pertinent, I think. Let's take a listen. Mr. Putin, he's got all. He's very smart. You know better than most people.

Yeah, I do. What was he like behind closed doors away from, you know, the public utterances? Smart and remarkably, we had a really good, blunt relationship. How blunt? Brutely blunt. Ever like, in a fisty cuss? No, but I think, you know, I think the right strategy most of the time is, but it's frustrating to people in your line of work. You should be brutally honest with people in private.

And then if you want them to help you, try to avoid embarrassing them in public. Right. Now, sometimes they do things which make it impossible for you to keep quiet. But by and large, I found all the people I dealt with appreciated it if I told them. them the truth. How I honestly felt and what our interests were and what our objectives were. And they also appreciated it when I didn't

kick them around in public for as long as I couldn't kick them around. So that's my experience. If deputin ever renege on a personal agreement he made to you? He did not. So behind closed doors, he could be trusted. He kept his word in all the deals we made.

You know, Chang, I found that interesting. And that was interviewing Clinton 15 years after he ever had to deal with Putin. It was interesting because it gave an insight into what he's like to deal with, which may explain, to me it doesn't justify it, but it may explain the way Trump handles Putin, right? I mean, what do you make of that clip and the relevance it may or may not have to what's going on now? Yeah. You know, I might have a unique position here because I'm consistently against aggression. I was against the Russian aggression. I'm against the Israeli aggression. And it's

amazing because as you guys described Putin, if you take out the name Putin and put in the name Netanyahu, it's perfect. A guy who cannot be appeased, keeps attacking his neighbors. So I have no interest in defending Putin at all and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. My issue there appears is, yeah, he could be a rational actor, as Bill Clinton and all the presidents pointed out, and Glenn pointed out, but he could rationally want to take more land. And by the way, two things can be true at the same time. We could be guilty of pushing NATO up to his borders, which is unquestionably true. We did do that. And it was needlessly provocative.

It's also true that Russia shouldn't have invaded. But we've lost all semblance of law and order in the world because our governments are so hypocritical. They've become a joke. So they say, oh, I can't believe that Russia and Putin is doing this aggression. But, oh, we love it when Israel and then Yahoo does aggression over and over again. takes 70% of Gaza, has southern Lebanon, southern Syria, forces us into attacking Iran, apparently forces into attacking Iraq, Libya, Syria, et cetera. And then we talk about worrying about aggression?

No, no, we love aggression when it comes from us, when it comes from the Israelis. But then when Putin does it all of a sudden, aggression is the worst thing in the world. Okay, well, let me put that. And we didn't bother to try to be consistent about this. And then one more thing, Peter, that's really important. In the midst of all this, we're keep talking about Dombas and Tel Aviv and Tehran. Nobody's talking about Peky and San Antonio and Rhode Island. Nobody cares about America.

Because the heart of the problem is not any of these foreign actors. It's corruption. And there's another giant iceberg we're not talking about. Israel's not the only lobby that's corrupt. All the lobbies are corrupt, including the one we never mentioned, the defense contractors. The defense contractors have been pushing for war in Russia and Ukraine and in Israel in the Middle East. Wherever there is going to be war,

the defense contractors are going to make billions. And they bribe almost all of our politicians to the tune of millions of dollars. And by the way, also bribe our generals. The minute they retire either Israel or the defense contractors hire our generals. And all of our generals know that. So they all push for war so they could become millionaires afterwards. Okay. Jacob, on Israel, you know, you strongly defended the military campaign against Hamas.

I strongly defended from the start Israel's right to defend itself. In fact, I argued it had a moral duty to its citizens to defend itself from any further attacks of that nature, given the official Hamas spokesman was on record on camera saying, we're going to keep trying to do this. But my position changed markedly in the last year when I just got a sense, which I think is shared by a lot of people, that Israel's response had just become utterly disproportionate to what happened that day,

and that leveling 80% of Gaza, displacing millions of people, killing nearly 80,000 people, including Hamas terrorists, but also a huge number of children in particular, reported by independent studies to be maybe over 20,000 children, that this was disproportionate to what had happened. Have you had misgivings, notwithstanding your support for what Israel, did in responding to go after Hamas about the scale of what has happened since.

Well, my starting point is very similar to yours that the right to defend against Hamas and Hasbalah seems to me to be absolute and justifies incursions into foreign countries which they were using as bases for their attacks. That seems very straightforward in terms of the rights and wrongs. I share your concern about proportionality that any response has to be proportional.

It's very difficult to understand. understand the evidence fully because for a long time the information we were getting came actually from Hamas sources which weren't necessarily reliable. So it is trying to find out what proportionality is. When it comes to Iran, I think two things that may sound slightly contradictory. One is that it was a mistake to attack Iran. But secondly, once America had attacked Iran, it was in Britain's interest to support America because it's our most important relationship. But out of interest, why? Because we did. that over Iraq in 2003

and you've accepted now that I was right, along with all those who opposed it, because I didn't see that we had an absolute duty to support George W. Bush, and what I thought was an ill-judged, illegal invasion of a sovereign country, which had

nothing to do with 9-11, which was the kind of precept put up. In 2003, the argument put forward was the weapons of mass destruction, which weren't there. I think it is important to maintain a very close relationship with the United States, our own defense and security. But it shouldn't be blind military support, should it? Because I felt with the Iran attack, I didn't think we should,

here's what I thought, if you're an ally of the United States, as we are, and we rely on America so much as a country, and always have done, particularly in any military conflict we want to get engaged in. But if we are an ally, I felt we should have allowed them to use the bases. Yes. But I did not think we should feel a compulsion to join in the military action. I think you phrase it very nicely. I think that the correct attitude should be, exactly as in your interview with Bill Clinton, privately saying we think you should not be doing this, but publicly saying we will not do anything to obstruct you once you've decided to do it.

That's the reality of the balance of power between the UK and the US. I think Tony Blair deserves some credit for maintaining a relationship with the US, which would otherwise have been very difficult. But I think Kirstama was wrong not to allow the basis to be used. I certainly wouldn't have been in favor of committing British forces to what has been a bad idea. And this is where absolute principles are valuable, because was the intervention in Venezuela what made Trump think it was a good idea to do Iran? Because Venezuela worked and it worked quickly.

Well, you know, it might be, I mean, let me bring the others in here. I mean, Glenn, I think that history will look back at this. And this could be the chain of events which has played out here, which is. actually the more significant thing may have been the 12-day war a year ago, in which clearly the Americans went in with a remarkably clinical and apparently successful operation attacking Iran's nuclear capabilities in a way that they claimed, falsely it turned out, had put them back their nuclear program by decades,

but it was a very successful military operation. You may not agree with it, but it was successful all over 12 days. the Iranian response was pretty limited. And I'm sure that part of Trump's thinking this time around was, well, they didn't do much last time. Then you add Venezuela, the capture of Maduro, no casualties on the American side. Again, clinical, quick, successful. And then you have Netanyahu in the White House situation room earlier this year saying to Trump,

look, the 12-day war shows Iran has got no way of responding to you guys and to us. The Venezuela thing showed how easy it is. to decapitate a regime. We can take out the Iatollah now with his top people. Then the IRGC will collapse from within. Then the people will rise up. You can see a sequence of events here

where in Trump's head, he starts to really believe this narrative. And he's had a couple of goes at things, which have been very quick and effective and relatively simple militarily. And then we end up with Iran, which turns out to be a complete, I think, complete disaster.

And a disaster that's had enormous consequences in many ways, but not least for Trump politically, because his own supporters have come around to thinking, well, hang on, you said you weren't going to do any Middle Eastern wars. You said you were going to focus on America first and cost of living in America, and all the reverse has happened. You declared the biggest possible war imaginable in the Middle East with the most powerful entity in the Middle East, and the consequence has been massively rising energy prices because of the straight-year-full-moose. And that's had a knock-on effect directly on the ordinary lives of Americans, paying more,

the fuel pumps and everywhere else. And I think that's why he's going to get punished in the midterms. And ultimately, the party will be kicked out probably in 2028, albeit two years away. You know, that's my kind of, I think that's how history will recall this. What do you think? Well, first of all, Israel got hit very hard, even during that 12-day war. Iran bombed a lot of sites in Israel. The Israeli government made illegal to report it.

People who tried were arrested. But there was a lot of damage done to Israel. But let's just assume you're right, peers. And I actually accept your premises for the most part that he thought it was going to be as easy in Iran as it was in Venezuela. Still, if we just stop and think about this for a second, I really wish we in the West had a better capability to do this about what the moral implications are of what we're actually saying.

It was super easy to go into Venezuela. surprise. They're a small country. They've been suffocated economically by the United States and the West for decades now. Yes, the U.S. has a stronger military than Venezuela. We went into Venezuela, and despite the fact that it was a successful military operation, we went in to take over the country, to steal their oil reserves, to hold their government at gunpoint. And we tried to do the same thing in Iran. That's what Trump wanted to do in Iran, was have the leadership of Iran after we decapitated the senior leadership, basically be as servile to the U.S. as, as. as Venezuela is. And so here we are on the one hand saying, oh, Putin is evil man. How dare he go and invade the sovereignty of another country? When we constantly do it in the West, far more so than Putin ever has. And Venezuela and Iran to say nothing of Iraq and Libya and Syria and on and on are perfect examples, but we don't apply the same standards to ourselves. And I just want to make

one quick point. And I really don't mean this like in any way as a personal point about about Jacob or even you peers that Jacob said Americans didn't know who he was before he talked to Tucker. I actually have admired Jacobs as a fan of oratory, his kind of idiosyncratic means of expression. I enjoy listening to him and have for a long time. There's definitely an insult coming here. The Bart is coming. Nonetheless, I'm very explicit about this. It is.

Now there's the criticism coming. I just want to say it's not personal, which is one of the things that have happened in both the UK and the U.S. and the Westmore broadly is that we have a lot of extremely rich people. who like to go around looking at other countries and saying, oh, we have to focus on Ukraine and we have to go be very strong militarily and be prepared for war. And yet Jacob is kind of the perfect example of somebody who grew up in extreme wealth, never got near the military, never fought in all of these words that he's been championing, never himself was a leader in this idea that you have to be strong and be ready to go to war. He was never ready to go to war.

And when you're extremely wealthy and you kind of sit at the top of society, it's very easy to say, let's look over there at Ukraine. There are really interesting things going on in there. Or let's go look at what's happening in Libya or Syria. And meanwhile, the people in your country who weren't born into extreme wealth, and a lot of whom end up going to the military, often for economic reasons, are suffering in their lives. And they keep hearing these conversations about places on the other side of the world.

And this is why I truly believe parties that hate the establishment, that vessel, contempt, and a vowed to destroy the establishment on both the left and the right have been rising and rising in so many countries around the world because the establishment is filled with a bunch of coddled, very wealthy people who simply not only don't have experiences in common with the ordinary person, but have contempt for their concerns. And that's why they love to spend all this money elsewhere.

Well, let's have said Jacob respond to that. Okay, I accept. True. I have not personally been in the military, though my father did his national service and my grandfather was in the first war, and my eldest son has just joined, having gone to university, joined the OTC.

So the family are certainly, to some degree involved and have been involved. So I think to say there's a complete disconnect is wrong. I also think this idea of contempt for people is fundamentally wrong and fails to understand the British political system. I don't think anyone can be a member of parliament for 14 years and see constituents every single week.

in constituency surgeries, bringing their problems, their concerns, their issues, and trying to put them right without having a very good feeling for what people think and a genuine concern for them. I would say my constituency work was the most important work I did as a member of Parliament. So I don't accept this characterization. I'm also not as rich as I think you feel I am, regrettably. I wish I were, but my father lived off a journalist's salary, and that's what I grew up with, and journalists, even in the 1970s and 80s weren't enormously well paid. What are you down to, Jake? You'd be it last, like, 20 million or?

No, I don't have any particular money. I mean, I might have done if I hadn't gone into politics, but politics is not... You were raised by your nanny. You talked about that. I've heard you talk about them before you were raised by a nanny. Yes. You're not exactly working class. That doesn't indicate super rich.

I mean, I'm not Elon Musk in minor form. None of us is. I'm not saying I'm not comfortably off, but I'm definitely not super rich. I'm not as rich as peers. I reckon you've got more money on your walls in your art than I've earned in my lifetime, but that's a matter of a debate. It's not mine. Well, okay.

Max, let's just pivot slightly to events in France, because we're seeing a lot of activity there, genuine protest by students protesting about state of education and others, which would be mainly peaceful. And then by night you've seen, not just in Paris, but in other cities, a bunch of thugs come out and loot and set fire at things and cause criminal damage. Now, it's interesting to me to watch this,

because I went to an arson game, my football team. We played Paris Saint-Germain in Paris two years ago. And we lost. That's right. Paris-Sang-Germain won. Should have been an occasion for celebration. And yet the moment that darkness fell, all these same characters came out.

and hit the streets and began smashing everything up, rioting with police, looting, setting fire to things and so on. And that had nothing to do with anything other than there was a football match and there were a bunch of Brits on the streets and they thought they came out and have a punch up. So I'm very cynical about the sort of the purity of the ideology of the so-called protesters that we're seeing in France because I think a lot of them are just thugs.

And I'm not even sure it's an immigration issue. most of them seem to me to have been born in Paris, which is a very multicultural city, and they're just thugs who you just want to steal stuff. Now, that was based on my experience two years ago at a football match. I had nothing to do with anything happening now, except it was the same characters,

dressed in the same way, doing the same criminal stuff. Yeah, I mean, I'm cynical about black block style, nihilistic violence. I have a general idea of what's happening in France. I produced a documentary over 10 years ago about the situation. I'm not surprised it's happening.

Let me try to tie this into the broader discussion, debate between Jacob and Tucker, because we're not just seeing it in France. We're seeing it in Albania. And, you know, we're not seeing anyone cheer on this violence as we did in Iran in January, as I heard from so many guests on this show. This is threatening violence.

It's foreboding. It speaks to a crisis of legitimacy in a European leader. in European elite, which seeks to freeze wages, strip away welfare and social benefits, and create a war economy. This is a case that we heard advanced by the British Army Chief Roli Walker. He wants to increase the Army budget by three or the military budget by 3%, and strip away social welfare benefits. We heard that from Jacob, too, in his debate with Tucker. The crisis of legitimacy can only be resolved through a war economy, a state of emergency,

stripping away the rights of citizens, stripping away what's left of the wealth of the public, and directing it not to what Jacob called stupid welfare, stupid welfare benefits, but to the ultimate welfare queen in the world who just came to the European Commission and asked for $78 billion more from Europe to fight a war that he can't win

while he is actually not holding elections and has banned all opposition. I'm referring to Vladimir Zelensky. So in order to get this war, economy going, the European public, and specifically the British public, needs to be heavily propagandized and told that Putin is Hitler. Putin is Hitler as though he's killed 26 million people, as though he's putting Jews and dissidents in Roma people in concentration camps, in order to get the British public, where 10%, only 10%, according to a UGov poll last year of youth, say they would

actually fight for Britain, to get them to want to fight a country that does not actually threaten them. And when this war economy starts and when the war actually starts and they start tempting nuclear annihilation, it's going to be the poor and working-class children who go and fight for Latvia and Estonia against Putin. It's not going to be the children of the wealthy elites. And that's a sacrifice that Jacob is willing to make. Jacob? Well, it's simply not true. If you look at the First World War from my old school, a whole five-year cohort were killed.

so 1, 280, I think, Etonians were killed. That's equivalent to a full five years. As I said, my eldest son, who's the only one of military age, has already signed up to the ATC. In this country, I have a very strong tradition. If ever we go to war, that everybody goes to war. And that's certainly true in the Second World War and the First World War and indeed in the Falklands. So I think that's simply not true and a misunderstanding. I'd also go further on welfare.

Our welfare bill, our state expenditure, is too high regardless. We're spending about 45% of GDP, and we have tax revenues that never go much above 38% of GDP. That is a 7% gap. That is a problem that needs to be dealt with regardless of whether there's any funding for war. And a thought on France, the French education system spends 87 billion euros a year, of which 24 billion euros goes on pensions. Now, states have taken on commitments that they simply cannot afford. There needs to be a fundamental financial restructure. How about war?

Britain afford $28 billion. Within the context of this, we're talking about military expenditure, going up from 2.6% of GDP to 3.6% of GDP. This is a drop in the ocean. You're trying to make the whole change about preparedness for war, about defense. But that's because so many of the contracts come back to Britain and come back to the U.S. and get the elite wealthier. Zelensky himself admitted that 70% of the aid that's sent to Ukraine

goes back into contracts to the wealthy elite who are building McMansions in northern Virginia from Lockheemarton, Raytheon and all the defense companies. It's about stripping away the public wealth by creating a war economy and moving the wealth upward.

I think this is like this is slightly crazy conspiracy theory. And if you wanted to stop Hitler, if you wanted to stop the Holocaust of our time, you would be staging a military intervention on behalf of the people of Gaza who have experienced that. Holocaust at the hands of a genocidal government, but instead, you're supporting that.

By your argument, hang on, Max, by your argument. Anyways, Israel is a model for Europe. But if you're making an analogy there that somehow Netanyahu's a new Hitler, there are nearly 80,000 dead in Gaza in the entire war. We all agree that's roughly the number, right? As you said, you can't call anybody the new Hitler or anything like it if they haven't killed 12 million people. So you're kind of killing your own argument.

You can call what happened in Gaza a Holocaust. I watched so many facts. Can you, though? Is it a Holocaust? Because a Holocaust, by modern understanding of a Holocaust, it's the murder of 6 million Jews systematically in World War II. Right? We've not seen that in Gaza.

No, that's not the definition of a Holocaust. We've seen an apportioned response to a terror attack. But if you toss around the word like Holocaust... A Holocaust is a great genocide in which we watch people to be burned But by your own argument, by your own argument, defending Putin against the charges that he's killed mass of the people, I find it jarring. But, but, hang on, Max, I find it jarring. You race to defend Putin for the relatively small number of people he's killed.

And here you are saying that Netanyahu's killed fewer people than Putin has. He's the genocidal monster. Your show manufactured consent early on for the Holocaust of Aris. time in Gaza, which spiritually perpetuates the memory of the Holocaust in which Netanyahu Why has Putin not waged the Holocaust in Ukraine? And so I'm pointing out. Well, hang on, Max, Max, Max, it's very important this. Max, don't just keep talking about I ask you a question.

It's very important you answer this question so that I understand what you're getting at. Why, by your own Yarsite then, is what Netanyahu has done in Gaza is a Holocaust? Why is what Putin's done in Ukraine, not a Holocaust, given his case? killed a lot more Ukrainians? He hasn't. No, he hasn't. No, he hasn't. And far less children and civilians have been killed in Ukraine, especially per capita percentage-wise, that have been killed in Gaza. With raw numbers. Ukraine has a population 40 times the size of Gaza,

and four times more civilians in Gaza were killed by Israel than have been killed in Ukraine. No, because you keep, because these things are you racing to defend what Putin's done, but you race to attack. I'm calling for you. I'm calling for you. If you're going to draw comparisons? Why can't we just... Why won't the UK stop what Israel's doing? Jacob, why want you lift a finger to stop this horrible atrocity in Gaza?

Well, the UK has the ability to stop what is going on there. And that's the hypocrisy that speaks to the crisis of legitimacy of the Canadian elite. There are two very different questions, actually. The one in relation to Ukraine is whether it is a legitimate action by Russia, to which the answer seems to me clearly not, that it invaded sovereign territory. that had been agreed between Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom and Ukraine. And then in Gaza, you've got a question of proportionality that Israel clearly had a right after the 7th of October, 23, to defend itself. The question now is whether that is proportionate, but that is a very different question from whether it has any moral basis at all.

And I would go back to what I said to peers earlier. Once one brings Hitler into it, one debases the argument altogether, that it's not a comparison that can ever be made. activities were unique evil and a unique horror. These are different types of wars. That doesn't make them right. It doesn't justify them, but it is a different context. And banding around the word holocaust is frankly just silly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me bring in Chang. Chang? Okay. Okay. So there's just nonstop excuses for Israel's aggression. Look, war is also surrounded by something we're not talking about, which is propaganda. So first, let's get the definitions right. A Holocaust is not just killing six million Jews.

It has nothing to do with a race or religion. It's about trying in terms of who is targeted, right? It has to do with targeting and trying to wipe out an ethnicity at all. A genocide is attacking an ethnicity in whole or in part. That's why what happened is Sir Benitez as a genocide. The Armenian genocide is considered a genocide, but not a Holocaust, because the Armenians in other parts of the Ottoman Empire were not touched. And by the way, that's the same argument that the Israelis make.

We didn't murder all Palestinians. No, that would be a Holocaust. What you're doing is a genocide, like the Turks did, like the Serbs did, and the Japanese did, and so many others. So now when you talk about the through line here, what is the connective tissue? So some people in their propaganda say, oh, we are so worried about Russian aggression. And then you talk about Israeli aggression and how they said, well, they were attacked. Well, really? So do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves? Because they've been brutally occupied and oppressed for now six decades.

So since everyone in the West, at least the people in power, not the voters, have a completely Israeli perspective. They're like, oh, no, Israel is allowed to oppress the Palestinians, is allowed to murder the Palestinians, is allowed to do 80 times of October 7th. They're just Palestinians. We don't care about them at all. And then, by the way, Israel is allowed to do aggression against Lebanon, against Syria, against Iran. The U.S. is allowed to do aggression against Iraq, against Iran, all nations that didn't attack us. So our hypocrisy is super obvious once you get past the propaganda. Why do we have that propaganda?

Because Glenn is right. The elites love war. The defense contractors and the oil companies make money off of it. Israel gets to use the American military and our boys and girls die for Israel. all of our money, literally trillions of dollars in war for Israel, because the elites wanted, the donor class wants it, the media wants it. The American people do not wanted. I mean, look, the Iran war is a crystal clear example.

So is the Ukraine War. Okay, I can go again. I just want to say. And we don't want to do it anymore, but you pricks who are elites, keep forcing us into wars to serve the billionaires who do want the wars, and you don't mind that we die in those wars. and we get bankrupted in those wars. Okay.

That's the connective tissue that the entire media is trying to obfuscate because the media works for the elites. Okay, Cheng, you managed to get through 55 minutes of a debate without shouting. We nearly lost it there. You managed to rain...

I was shocked. You range yourself back in. I'm calmly telling you what the American people can't stand anymore. I had the other... Elite pricks like this telling us how we have to go to war at first principles and absolute principles. What absolute principles? Jacob, what absolute principle.

You don't have to call him. Will you admit right here now that you're a giant liar and you have no principles at all? Only principle you want is war, war, war, war, every time, war. And 90% of time for Israel. But no, I have first principles. What's your first principle? Endless war for Israel, right?

Let the record show. Let the record show. I mind the aggression of the Russians. I mind all war. But Jacob says, no, I love war. But, ooh, poo. Putin did something. Oh, guess what? My first principle, more war, right? Thank you, Chang. Every time more war. Thank you, Chang. Let me just say for the record that you know I'm right.

We invited, we invited, you know I'm 100% right. We invited Jacob on because he took on Tucker Carlson and held his own very capability. We thought we tested him by inviting three more massive American influence, YouTubers, big media figures to take him on. He's held his own again. And you know what, and you know what, Jake, you know what, Jakey? You know what, Chek, unlike Glenn and Max, unlike Glenn and Max, we've maintained a modicum of respectful dialogue with Jacob, who's been, as he always is, the epitome of all fashion. Of all fashion British politeness. Can we be respectful about the billionaires? And in fact, I'm so respectful about getting us off here. One of you, have you been respectful to the Palestinians?

Have you been respectful to the dead 23,000? One of the panel has sadly resorted, a sadly resorted, a sadly resorted to intemperate insults. Only respectful to the elites, only respectful to the Israelis, never respectful to the dead children. You will look back on this, Chink, and you'll wonder

why did you, at the last minute, drag yourself from the glorious victory of having been polite and respectful for the debate into becoming a shrieking, insulting mania? I don't view that to be a victory. And you might reflect that you let yourself down. No, no, no, no, no, no. You see, that's, wait a minute, peers, you've been really fair.

I found it cathartic. I've defended you a lot. You found a cathartic. Okay. Yeah. To listen to that. You're not right about peers. One thing you're not right about.

And I got this great message the other days. A woman sent this message in saying, if my children are in the harm's way, I'd want somebody to be just as angry as Jenk. Right. And just as livid and passionate to make sure we stop murdering children. That is not a thing you should be polite about and civil about. It's about time that we stop. But actually, here's the problem with that argument.

That is a first principle of all of America agrees to. Here's the problem with that argument. So Winston Churchill basically galvanized this great nation to defeat the Nazis by doing the complete opposite. He was like Jacob. He was an eloquent man who didn't resort to childish, purell insults, who didn't lose his shit every two minutes. He was a man who had a large whiskey and got the job done. Oh, really? Whilst most disposing great British oratory.

better than you, Pierce. And I just think you'll look back on the last five minutes of this, Chang, I think, I lost my shit. No, no, no, no, no, peers, you're totally incorrect. You are factually and empirically incorrect. The most famous speech of Winston Churchill is, we shall fight on the beaches and we shall

fight everywhere. Have you heard it? Have you heard it? We shall fight everywhere. Have you heard it? And he was insistent that we fight against evil, that it does Holocaust and that does genocide. You know what he didn't do? But I hear from American media, we should love genocide. We should love genocide. I agree with Churchill.

We shall fight them on the future. I'm very glad you make... I'm very glad you shall fight them everywhere where they do damage and genocide and murder with our money. Cheng, I'm very glad you mentioned that speech, the greatest of Churchill's life. Because if anybody now goes and Googles that speech, you will see he delivered it in completely the opposite way

to the way you seem to remember. He delivered it calmly. He delivered it calmly. And what he didn't say is Hitler is a prick. He didn't need to. He defeated it. him with the power of great old-fashioned British polite oratory. And I'm going to get Jacob to give you a lesson after all this in the art of British politeness.

Because you can have a debate with somebody without resorting to childish insults. And I'm going to end this debate. Should we have been civil to Hitler? I don't want to mute you, but I will meet you. I'm going to end the debate with a little clip. This is when I interviewed Donald Trump in the Churchill war rooms in London a few years ago. presented him with a Churchill hat, hoping it would rub off him. Let's take a look.

He was a great man, and he was a man that reacted so well under the gun, under fire, under pressure. And there aren't many people like that. I respect that greatly. Is he a hero of yours? I think so, yeah. I mean, I never like to have heroes. I like to respect people. But certainly he would be right up there.

He would be somebody that you would most respect. He would certainly be a hero. He would like to present you. with a Churchill hat. I never knew you had that kind of sensibility. That is sort of beautiful. Are you allowed to do this? He didn't do that. He didn't do that, and he definitely didn't do that, right?

I know that. Wow. You want to try it? I'll try it, you know. Let me try this on here. Please try it on. I'd be great. It's a little big. Well, we can get that. That's fantastic.

Let me see how that looks. I think Churchill looks. So Winston Trump. I think Winston looked much better. You know what? Churchill would say, he'd say, Donald, he should support freedom and democracy and get on the side of the Ukrainians

and stop flirting with an evil dictator. But we will leave it there. Gentlemen, I appreciate the debate. And Chink, go and have some chill pills, just calm down a bit. And go and watch that speech by Churchill. You'll say he delivered it in a very different way. He delivered it like Jacob would.

Anyway, I appreciate you all joining me. And Jacob, now you've taken on three of these great figures from American media. Next time, we're going to be doing it. to get nine of them. And we're going to try and work out how many collectively is needed for America to defeat Jacob Rees-Mogg in a debate. Thank you for joining me. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. Well, don't forget, this week, we're proudly launching the uncensored club, ad-free episodes, extra content, early access, Q&As and everything else you've asked for.

There's a massive founding member's discount available now, as is this interview with our sensitive favorite Dave Smith, which our members will get first. I'm not voting for a socialist. I'm not voting for a woke demonstration. I'm not voting for a woke and I'm not voting for a neocan. If there was a ballot and on the ballot is Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, at a certain point, I don't want to get into an argument about which one is worse than the other. I want to just, I want to reject the entire system. Don't launch a war of choice sold on lies on behalf of a foreign country and then lose the war.

Now, I'm not defending anything Putin or Assad did. They were both very bad guys. But if you had to be tracked on a desert island for a calendar year, with one of the following. Who would you choose? Adam Sognick, Douglas Murray, or Natasha House doors? Did she do that? That's such a... With President Trump's approval rating in seemingly terminal decline and the Democrats expected to sweep the board in the midterms,

one major question remains. Who will actually lead the Democratic Party into the next presidential election? A crowded field of potential candidates are jostling to profit from the Republican retreat, but no single charismatic talisman has seized the initiative. Having Newsom is saddled with a baggage of a dire record in California. AOC can fire up the base, but she terrifies the moderates. Mamdani can't run because he's born in Uganda.

Carmala Harris is, what she's, Kamala Harris. If social media was a voting bloc, the nomination would shortly be going to a surprise challenger from a small county in rural Indiana. Jamie West is starting small. She's a Democratic candidate for Fayette County Council's District 4, but tens of millions of people across the world saw her interview with local television last week. Parking is expensive. Driving is expensive. Going and have to face your elected leaders face-to-face is scary alone. I need help, you know? And that's my opening statement. I'm a fighter and you ought to vote for me. But is the one decision that I would make that might not be popular. Right. That may be unpopular with some voters.

But is in the best interest of the county. Republicans. I wouldn't let them. I mean, I don't even talk to him. I don't like them. There are good Republicans out there. But then there's these maggas. Who are just racist and aren't very intelligent at all. Say just a few last words to the voters. We have guns too. Well, joining me now is Jamie West, a Democratic candidate for Fayette County Council, Indiana, alongside it will be the co-host of The Verdict with Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson. Well, welcome to both of you. Jamie West, your clips, as you know from that interview, went viral very quickly around the world. A lot of people, I'm going to be completely straight with you, a lot of people assumed you might have had a drink before you did that interview, did you?

I had a course light. I had a beer. One beer? I mean, maybe a couple. How many beers? I was nervous, okay? I get it. I was going to run with the full Republicans. We've all had a drink when we're nervous, but just to be clear, it's kind of kept... Jamie, here's your chance to be completely honest and transparent. How many beers did you have? All right. Three. Three beers. Okay, well,

it's trebled in the last 30 seconds. So do you... What do you mean? Say, man, I had three beers, okay? Okay, so do you accept you may have been a little intoxicated? Not that intoxicated, but I do know what I'm talking about. Okay. Have you had any beers before this interview? No.

You're completely sober? Yep. Okay. Well, look, you said some very inflammatory things about Republicans. You wanted to fire them all. You call them racist and dumb and said we have guns too. Is there anything you said whilst under the influence of your beers that you now, with the benefit of hindsight,

maybe wish you hadn't said? No. I say it all the time. I'm not friends with them. I don't like them. Okay. They voted for all of this that's happening to our country. We have a constitutional crisis. We have an illegal war going on.

I mean, my next door neighbor just graduated high school just finished the crucible for the Marines. Now I'm afraid he's going to go in this illegal war and die. I mean, I have every right to be angry instead of every American. But you've got a Republican

on the panel against you today, Ben Ferguson. Would you say that he's racist and dumb? I don't know. I never met the guy. He is a Republican, though. So do you instinct to be... I'm a Republican. I wouldn't get to work for you. Actually, my husband is a Republican. He's conservative. He's a libertarian.

Have you fired him yet? No. We don't talk about politics. But I've got his vote. Okay, Ben Ferguson. I mean, amazing, right? I've seen some candidates in my time. Jamie West is certainly unusual.

I think we can all agree on that. She's admitted that she was loaded with beer the other night and the clips that went viral. What's your view of Miss West? I got to tell you, Ms. West, I actually have to give you credit for one thing. I am now a huge advocate for candidates drinking before debates because then we might actually find out what they believe in.

Like, I can see the glass half full or your big glass almost half full. I also want to know, like, what size Coors lights do they do you drink? It's got to be like 36 to 64 answers. Like, is it a keg stand? And then you answer a political question. I will say this. I appreciate your honesty. I do think it is a bad moment when, and this is what doesn't help this country,

is that when we have a society now where it's like, If you're a Republican, I want to fire you without ever knowing you, talking to you, understanding what you do. I know some amazing civil servants, especially at the local level. If you're a trash collector is a great example, should you be fired because you're Republican? If you're a police officer, you said that you'd fire them all. So, I mean, that's a dangerous precedent that every single time somebody gets elected at a local level, the way you're describing it, you want to clean house of every civil servant, the dog collector, trash collector, the people that go out there and deal with down power lines, the people that cut trees and grass and do the groundskeeping, the janitors, I mean, what janitor deserves

to be fired because they may have voted for Donald Trump or another Republican or just registers a Republican? That is dangerous what they do in dictatorship countries. Jamie? I think you're taking that little bit out of context. You don't understand what's happening to Indiana. Indiana. No, but you said fire them all. Regardless the issue that you said, what is, they asked you the question. I watched your interview. They asked you very clearly, like, what is your hot take? And you said, fire all of them. I don't like them. I don't even talk to them. I don't think they were, I don't think a lot of Americans understand that our politicians, we pay their salary. Therefore, we are their bosses. We are our politicians'

bosses. Those are the ones that I meant to fire, not the janitors, not the United Steelworkers, Not the factory workers, not the groceries, not the butchers. The politicians whose salaries we pay because we're their bosses. That's not what you said. I think now you're running for office, you're realizing, oh, that was probably a really dumb thing to say, seven or eight or 92 ounces deep of Coors light. Like, that's my real take on this. Take it as you want.

I said what I said. Fire the Republican politician. You want me to, okay? Okay, so now it's just for politicians. Okay, so if your husband, who you says the Republican, was elected official, you'd fire him. Yeah. He's not doing a good job.

But you'd stay married to him. So he's a threat to society, but not in your house. In my county, Fayette County, Indiana, which is named after Marquis de Lafayette, go France. I love the revolution that you're all. Yeah. I plead.

for you. And Jamie, when you said, Jamie, when you said, we have guns too, I mean, how many guns do you have? I own none. My husband does, though. How many has he got? A lot. How many? I don't know. I don't, I never made, he's probably got seven or eight. You don't talk about that either. So your husband has eight guns. So would you use, would you use his guns or what are you getting at? I wouldn't use any guns. Right. You did say we have guns too. I'm a sign holder. I don't. Right. What did you mean by We Have Guns, too? Well, when

you get all these threats by MAGA, for the last 10 years, MAGA has been sending me messages. They threaten me to my face. I mean, they threaten to blow my head off. I mean, do they not understand the Democrat? Just to be clear, on that, Jamie. Well, hang on, hang on, just to be clear,

you said that the sheriff's nephew tried to blow your head off. The sheriff who heads the, The sheriff who heads of Fayette County Sheriff's Office, Zach Jones, was told this and said, I don't know Jamie West. She obviously doesn't know me. I have five nieces and zero nephews. I don't know what she's talking about.

I'm certain she has no idea what she's talking about either. So the sheriff's office said that Zach Jones has no nephews. Did you not read the Congressal News Examiner? Union County. This was the Union County. who's right next door to me, sheriff's nephew. They called him to verify. And he said, yeah, I do have nephews.

Okay. Because I didn't specify a county. Like, I just got to know. If someone's straight and blow your head off and kill you, is there a police report? Did you file a police report on this? Is there any documentation that ever happened or was there a bunch of clothes light? It was after a no king's protest. The sheriff sat there with us the whole time.

I grew up with him. And, you know, we're sharing stories about how we all grew up together and whatnot. And he's sitting over there listening to people drive by threatening us. He knows it happened. I didn't go and report it to him because I took a picture of his truck. I mean, what am I supposed to do? What are you supposed to do? Go to the police?

You get used to it. You're sitting with the police. I tell them. Can I ask you, Jamie? Jamie, let me ask you. Jamie, let me ask you, what reaction have you had? add to your now infamous interview last week. What's it been like for you?

Oh, my gosh. I've been getting all of these reporters wanting interviews. And you're, besides my local newspaper, you're the first and only one. Thank you. I have accepted it, honestly. Why? What have I done to deserve the scoop?

Because it's hard to trust American media right now because of our current administration. So you went British. Yep. So you don't trust the liberal media in America that hates Trump? I do somewhat. The one that he's been trying to take over, I mean, Stephen Colbert, I mean, out of curiosity, if ABC or NBC or CBS called you, would you do that interview?

Because they hate Donald Trump. They all have tried to get a hold of me. CNN, Fox News, NBC. You're just the man here. Was it the, be honest, Jamie. Was it my British accent? Be honest. Was it the English accent?

It was. It was the accent. It was the accent, man. Yeah. Jamie, you did say, you did say, Jamie. You've found better. Well, Jamie did say about Republicans. I don't talk to them.

I don't like them. I don't like them being around me. This doesn't sit very easily with the fact you're married to one who lives with you. I mean, you sleep with the Republican. Well, we're not technically married. We've been together about 14 years.

I hate to be personal, but do you have sex with your husband? Come in law. Well, do you have sex with your husband? Every now and then. You do? So you literally have sex with the Republican? He's a libertarian, a conservative. He's actually a libertarian.

Who does he vote for? He didn't vote for Trump. He's never voted for Trump. So he's not really a Republican? If there's a libertarian on this? running for office, he will vote for them. You said there are good Republicans out there. Can you name one?

The Union County Sheriff is one of them. Yeah. And there are some in my county, my county clerk, you know, because we are mostly rural Republicans. They're all Republicans. I'm the only dem running for county council. Do you think you're going to win, Jamie, or not? Do you think this publicity storm is going to help you?

A lot of people said that they've been voting for me and a lot of people wishing that they lived in Connersville just so they could vote for me. What are your kids think of this? Are they old enough to know what's going on? Oh, yeah. Are they proud of mom? I don't know, man.

Somewhat? Some, like, I just wish you would lay low. But what am I going to do? I've been fighting this fight for 10 years, man. I've been going to the state house to beg the Republican politicians who have been in control of Indiana for 20 years not to take away our public funding

our public schools or emergency services that we need. I mean, you look into the numbers. I have the numbers right here. Hold on. You said in an interview that if they didn't do what you wanted to do that the fire department was going to go away and then the fire department came out and said

there's no issue with the fire department funding. Like they even said that you're making it off. No, no, no, no. They said that they don't know what's happening because honestly the Republicans don't know what's happening because the Senate bill won. Passed in 2025. They don't know what's happening. The property tax bill. Everybody thought that their property taxes were going to get lowered.

No. That was only for the day, all the data centers they want to build around here. They're the ones that are not paying the property taxes, the richest companies in the world. Jeremy, let me ask you. Jamie, if people are watching this who are. while in your local county, and I'm sure the clips will get there, particularly your bombshell beer confession.

If they watch these clips, just give a direct appeal to the people of your county right now. Why should they vote for you? Tell them. Because I'm a fighter. I will go to the statehouse and fight for you. None of our, like, local politicians went up there and told them, like, Senate Bill 1 is going to kill our schools

and our libraries and our emergency services, none of them are, of the whole water valley. None of them. Is it a delayed kill? It passed in 2025. It hasn't happened yet, so when does it kick in? It started to happen in 2026. Okay, so it's a secret kill all the schools. All the numbers right here.

Would you like me to read them off the? I mean, Fayette County, it's going to be losing. Pull out a keg. Let's have a pint as they stay over in the U.K. We'll go over the numbers. peers the only thing missing from this interview right now is someone rocking out going tonight it's saturday night live like that's the only thing missing right now dude i asked for mike pence i wanted to talk to my kids i always wanted to do somebody like peers i don't know who the hell you are jamie jamy can i ask you james james james would you agree jami that it's incumbent on politicians at all levels including at local county level

that if you want to represent people, you should always be completely honest. Do you agree with that? Yeah. So let me just ask you a straight question, and I want an honest answer. Did you have a sneaky beer before this interview tonight? No.

Not even one? I did not. Not even one. Really? Yeah, really. Jamie? I don't know what's in my Indiana coffee mug? It's coffee.

Yeah? If you became a politician, would you, would you, carry on drinking beer, or would you give it up, do you think? I don't know. Why don't you ask Pete Hagsitz, who is drinking whiskey as he's running an illegal war? Why don't you ask him that? I don't think he is drinking whiskey.

Pretty sure. Pete's not drinking, and he made that very clear. I think he's got a severe alcohol problem or something, man. Anybody who would let an illegal war go on. Jamie, let me ask you. I'm calling the kettle black. Jamie, you've been talking to Ben Ferguson for a while. now you've got to know him he's a Republican. Do you like him?

Do you like him? I don't know the guy. Well, you've been chatting to him for 20 minutes. Do you like him? I'd have no duels with you. Could you imagine us all having a beer together? Come on over. I mean, there's a cat on back.

There's a cat got out back. You know what, Jamie? I reckon having a beer at your place would be great fun, particularly if your Republican husband's around. I think there would be a kind of. comical evening and highly enjoyable. I grew up in a pub, so I love beer. So if you've got plenty of beer,

and it sounds like you have, why don't we all just rock around your place and have a party? There you go. Come on over, man. I mean, what do you say? I think we'll leave it there. A perfect way to leave you. Jamie, I appreciate you giving me the scoop.

Thank you very much indeed. And for staying sober for the interview. So two ticks in the box there. And for the invitation. to come and have a few beers at your place. Thank you very much. Ben, always good to see you. Good to see you.

I think after a few beers, she'd warm to you. You might be the first Republican she'd actually like. He's a very likable guy, Jamie. Very likable. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Guys, thank you both very much. That was highly entertaining.

Good to see you. Good. Have a good one, Pierce. Have a good one, Ben. See you. Take care, Jamie. All the best. Cheers.

For a long time now, we've been racking our brains about how we can bring you even more uncensored without making our small team work 24 hours a day instead of the current 23. And with that lofty goal in mind, we are thrilled to announce the uncensored club. It's the new home of extra content which only you get to see. You might have I pray. What in the hairy depths of Harry Hell is going on? He was not intrinsically nasty. Can he put a curse on you?

I can't put it on my brother. It's a very good man. Plus our three episodes and exclusive insights, as well as priority access to AMAs, live events and big interviews. You got me. You can support the show that you love most or get the whole lot. We know that you watch and listen to all of our shows for all sorts of different reasons, and we've made sure there is something here for everybody. The answer's a mission has always been to inform, educate, irritate and entertain by giving you every side of every story. Real, honest opinions you might not find any.

anywhere else. You may disagree with my views. Some of our guests and our hosts do too. But that's the point. We're independent and nobody tells us what to say. That sounds like you or join the club.