Piers Morgan Uncensored - ‘MAGA Cult Is OVER!’ AIPAC Michigan Defeat & Tucker’s New Party + Nick Shirley & Rand Paul

Episode Date: August 6, 2026

Abdul El-Sayed's victory in Michigan's Democratic Senate primary is being hailed as a major breakthrough for the party's progressive wing after he defeated a heavily funded opponent backed by pro-Israel groups, including AIPAC. The upset is expected to fuel an already fierce debate over the future direction of the Democratic Party ahead of the US midterm elections. As progressives celebrate the result, Republicans are casting the race as a warning about the growing influence of socialism and the far left, arguing that candidates like El-Sayed represent a dramatic shift in Democratic politics. With Republicans facing mounting criticism over the economic impact of an increasingly unpopular Iran War, questions are growing over whether those attacks will resonate with voters - or whether President Trump risks being undone by the same anti-establishment politics that helped propel him to power. Piers Morgan is joined by Republican Senator Rand Paul, OutKick founder Clay Travis, conservative commentator Carrie Prejean Boller, Democratic strategist and Endless Urgency host Mike Nellis, Palestinian-American commentator Omar Baddar, and independent journalist and conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley to discuss where American politics is heading. Piers Morgan is proudly independent and sponsored by: QUO: Try for free PLUS get 20% off your first 6 months when you go to www.quo.com/PIERS Check out the Republican candidate odds on Polymarket US: https://app.polymarket.us/S8ac/PIERS50 (00:00) Introduction (04:00) Senator Rand Paul (29:47) Fauci’s right to plead the Fifth (33:58) Victory of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan (37:23) The split on the MAGA conservative right (45:25) Democratic Socialists  (52:28) Sophie Cunningham and trans women in sport (01:01:51) Nick Shirley discusses his trip to Ceuta Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Just looking at what has happened last night, it really is difficult to overstate how significant that is. What we're seeing right now is a cataclysmic shift in American politics altogether and American political discourse. It feels like we are coming out of an abusive relationship. That's just how I feel. But I think someone like Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massey, Joe Kent, Marjorie Taylor Green, those are the people that we're leaning towards. I know that the MAGA media movement is going to work overtime to try to make this representative of every single Democrat in the country right now, which is super, unfair, but it's just going to be what it is. That's why Thanksgiving resonates, because if you want to cancel Thanksgiving, I can't trust you on anything else. That's why these things matter. A Democratic primary in Michigan wouldn't ordinarily make international news, but there's nothing

ordinary about the victory of Abdul al-Said. The progressive candidate for the U.S. Senate overcame $30 million APAC onslaught and a wall of opposition from the supposed Democrat leaders. In his apparent battle for the future of the Democrats, the anti-establishment, anti-war, anti-Israel wing, looks like it's currently winning big. For Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey and Joe Kent are betting they can do the same thing on the right, as Joe Kent told me on Monday. But while the progressive base wants El-Said's victory to be a David and Goliath story, trans-Republicans say it will not have a happy ending. I think it's crazy because they're going to ruin our country. I don't know if they want to. I think either they're very naive or they actually want to ruin the country.

No matter where you look, go back a thousand years with different names, anybody doing what they're doing and what they're espousing. Everything turns out to ashes and junk and filth. You know, one thing I said the other day for the first time ever, never thought of it. But you go to these cities that are taken over by the socialists and the communists. They're always filthy dirty. They're disgusting. They're always dirty and, you know, I'm a clean person and people I know are clean.

They like to have, and you are. I know you very well. You're very clean. But aside from crime, aside from all of the other problems, no jobs, no anything, no money, they're always filthy, disgusting, dirty. And that's what you'll get. Well, hygienic or not, the Republicans are stuck with the least popular war in U.S. history and all of its associated impact on American wallets.

Their response so far has been to play the greatest hits all at the same time. Cancel Thanksgiving. They want to cancel Christmas. Look, these communists hate America. They hate capitalism. El-Sayyad is also Islamist, as is Mandami. And look, you see the green-red convergence where the communist and the Islamists, they want Sharia law, they hate Jews, they hate Christians, they hate capitalism, they hate America. All of this is coming together in a way that is really, really a toxic, toxic stew.

Well, that's the line, and they're sticking to it, the influential think tank boss, Mark Dubowitz, said today that Islamists and communists have found common cause. Israel will survive, our republic may not. Congressman Brandon Gill warned a civilizational suicide. Democrats tried and failed to stoke a frenzy about fascism in the last presidential election. Running on Save Our Country from communism feels like the same thing.

Well, defending a status quo that people are unhappy, with by warning it could get even worse is rarely a winning formula. We saw that in the UK with Brexit. The US saw it twice with President Trump. And unless something big changes soon, he's about to be defeated by his own game. Well, at a moment, we'll debate all this for my panel. But first, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has confirmed it will vote this week on whether to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress.

Its chair, Senator Rand Paul, joins me now. Welcome back to Uncensored. Thanks for having me. I got into a ferocious debate about Anthony Fauci and you at a dinner party the other night. And it was with people who were incensed about what they saw as the witch hunt against him. And I got to say, I found myself putting up kind of a fight, but not a full fight for you. Because I said, look, whatever you think of Anthony Fauci, the reality is him sitting there, grim-faced, pleading the fifth over a hundred times in questions about a public health emergency, the COVID pandemic, was a terrible look. If you were of the view that he has something to hide, I think, notwithstanding his constitutional rights to plead the fifth, you would have felt that your concerns would.

justified by his refusal to be transparent. Tell me what your view was about what he did that day. I think that the problem for so many people, maybe the people at the dinner party, is that they can't be beyond this sort of partisan divide. Democrats decided that they respect authority and experts and the science, and if you question that, that you're making, so it all became about that instead of what are the facts that we're discussing here. The number one fact is this. Is it a good idea to fund research, gain of function research in foreign countries or even here at home? And what does that debate involve? I didn't realize this until I got started on this, but the debate begins back in like 2009. So Anthony Fauci chose to fund research in the Netherlands

where they took the bird flu and they, through eight point mutations, made it more transmissible through the air from mammal to mammal. The one thing that saves the world from bird flu right now is that animal viruses tend to only rarely infect humans, but then they don't go human to human very well. So designing or adapting a bird flu to make it easily transmissible human to human is a death wish for the world because it has about a 50% mortality. It'd be like taking Ebola in the lab and doing it. So there's a real debate here. It's a serious debate. Should have nothing really to do with partisanship over whether we should fund this dangerous research. And really, the beginning of the debate had no partisanship in it. It was partisan in the sense

that there was division, but it wasn't based on party. So there's a Stanford researcher who's one of the most esteemed in the world named David Rowman. It's been in this field for 20 years. He has written about that research that Anthony Fauci approved in 2010, and he said the research should have never been funded, and he said it should have never even been published, but because it became a roadmap for the development of biological weapons, and that so many people know how to do this in the world that's dangerous just putting this out. But it's a mistake that Anthony Fauci made not in the heat of the battle 10 years before the battle even ensued on the pandemic.

Anthony Fauci also said that even if a scientist should be bitten during one of these experiments and a pandemic should occur, that the knowledge is worth the risk. Well, I think that should be open to debate. A million Americans died from COVID. Some say 15 million people died worldwide. I think there should be a debate. Should governments be funding research? Is the knowledge worth the risk?

I really don't think it is. I think in the end, the deaths, the overwhelming amount of deaths, and on the side of the ledger saying, did this help mankind? There's been no vaccine developed from gain of function research. There's been no pharmaceutical developed from it. And in some ways, it's a curiosity run amok, but a curiosity that hasn't led to any cures,

but in this case, led to a pandemic. In terms of Anthony Fauci taking the fifth, a lot of his supporters have said, look, he's perfectly entitled to. It's his constitutional right. Yes, he had a pardon from President Biden, which took him up to the day Biden left office. But clearly, his legal team were concerned,

you imagine that he may be tripped into potentially incriminating himself in some way and they weren't prepared to take that risk because they believed it was a hostile environment where people were going to try and deliberately do that to him that's the argument for the defence you know in terms of your your strategy here would it have been in America's better national interest if you had given him full immunity if you said look let's let's Let's park the possibility you plead the fifth. You were the figurehead for the biggest public health crisis of our lifetime. We're going to give you complete immunity.

Just come and tell the absolute truth. Would that, with hindsight, have been a better strategy? Typically, when people are offered immunity, the people that have aided and abetted a crime at a lower level are offered immunity to tell the truth about people who are giving the orders. So I think in this case, there are some people that should be, offered immunity or could be. David Marenz was prolific about how he could transfer records. He was a 20-year assistant to Anthony Fauci, a confidant, involved in a lot of the top

echelon works. But he told people explicitly and repeatedly how to destroy records, how to avoid FOIA. He said the FOIA lady told him that if you replaced the S in people's names with dollar signs, that you could foil the FOIA request because it wouldn't, it is a literal It won't pull up misspellings. So he did all of this to evade. He said, if there are messages you need to get to Tony, I can take these messages, I can take them verbally, I can take them handwritten, I can take them by carrier pigeon.

Okay, I made that part up. But he said he could take messages around the government channels to evade the rules of government. I think he's somebody who, if he were willing to testify that Anthony Fauci instructed him on these matters would be something that I think somebody ought to consider granting him immunity because he could get further to the truth. I would have, I guess, a softer opinion of Anthony Fauci if he would come forward and say, I am sorry, I made some mistakes. I made a mistake,

particularly on gain of function research in a closed system, not known for openness, a totalitarian government. See, when he was asked whether or not he had ever visited the labs in China or whether they had ever been inspected, he knew of no oversight of the labs. And to my knowledge, the labs have never been inspected for safety, but many, many scientists came forward and said, this shouldn't have been done in a BSL2. The ranking goes from one to four, with four being the safest. Some of these experiments were done in a two. And he knew they were going on. From his diary in January of 2020, he says, we know they're doing gain of function research. My scientists say the virus looks manipulated. All this is adding up to a really scary situation where we think this

has been pre-adapted for humans. But then to the public, he said nothing to see here. Privately, he said it doesn't look like it came from the wet market. The earliest sick people had no association with the wet market. He knew this in January of 2020, but he was on at least two dozen national program saying, it's the wet market, it's the wet market. We have a video compilation of how many times he said it was the wet market. So that level of dishonesty doesn't deserve a reward.

It deserves the truth. I don't think he's capable of telling the truth, but I think if you offered immunity to some of the people who work for him, you might get closer to the truth. Running a business means you want to be available all the time, because if you do miss that call or that text, your competition, we'll pick it up. Today's show is sponsored by Quo, that's QUO, who's developed the perfect solution for preventing any missed opportunities.

It's a business phone system, which keeps all of your allocated work calls, texts, and voicemails in one place. That means anybody on your team can pick up the conversation, see the full history and respond fast, even when you can't. More than 90,000 businesses already rely on Quo to remain reachable and the professional at all times. You can keep your existing number and set it up within minutes. There's even an AI agent which can reply on book appointments when the whole team is offline. That never happens here. Money's on the line.

Say hello with Quo. Try it for free and get 20% off your first six months when you go to QUO.com. slash peers. That's quo.com slash peers. Obviously, the most fascinating new revelation came in the form of his own diaries, which you managed to get into the public domain. Just first of all, on that, a lot of people, Bill Maher and others, have been very critical of you exposing Anthony Fauci's private diaries. What do you say specifically to that criticism?

You know, if you want a diary to be private, I'd put it under your pillow. I wouldn't write it on a government computer. You remember Bill, I think it was Bill Packwood or Bob Packwood. He was a senator who got accused of problems with ladies. And he wrote a big long diary, and they used the diary against him. And they went to court, and they said, well, can you use this? And they said, well, he wrote it on his Senate computer. So if you use government electronics and computers to write stuff,

becomes fair game. My understanding this was on a government server and it was gotten through email request. Everything we did was through court order, through subpoena. He didn't give anything voluntarily. And so, yes, this was given up, but it really shows the level of hypocrisy and dishonesty of how he would say one thing privately and then he would say something different, completely the opposite public. And people say, oh, give him the credit of the doubt. It's just a judgment call. Well, you're not an honest broker of the truth. if you have a conflict of interest. His conflict was that if there's two possibilities,

it came from the lab or it came from nature. But if it came from the lab and he funded the lab, some responsibility attaches to him. So he has an incentive to say, not the lab, nothing to see here, came from nature. And most people in the media who lauded him, they never acknowledged that he had a conflict of interest. Yeah, look, I'm one of the people who lauded him at the time

because I believed, you know, what I saw was what he was was, I have to say when I read the diaries, what came over was a guy with a massive ego, probably not helpful in the public health arena, I mean, bordering on outright narcissism, clearly loved celebrity status and fame. There's no question of that. I was particularly disturbed, actually, by the fact that it revealed that he sort of pressurized members of his staff to put him forward for awards, which carried enormous financial benefit of the fact. over seven figures, a million dollars in one case, and he kept the money. I was trying to think that back in the UK, if one of our public health officials in the pandemic

had been caught doing just that, I think there would have been massive public outrage. So this idea that Fauci somehow is above all reproach, I think, is absurd. But notwithstanding that, the argument, again, that I had with people the other night was centred around, did I really believe the... that Anthony Fauci was a criminal. In other words, did he deliberately do things that cross the line with the law? Or was he somebody who spent 50 years in public health?

It's clearly a bona fide world-class scientist who worked on many things, AIDS and others very successfully, who in a fast-moving pandemic, tried to do the best he could. And let's put aside the gain of function issue. I think you have a completely valid point on that. But in relation to the other advice. For example, the wearing of masks, the efficacy of wearing of masks, the lockdowns,

particularly in my case, I would say one that I berate myself for, was when they announced that you couldn't transmit the virus if you had the vaccine. And I was very censorious then about people who didn't take it because I felt they were imperiling the lives of other people. Then they changed that advice months later and said, actually, it makes no difference whether in terms of the transmission, whether you've had the jab or not, and then made people like me look completely ridiculous for believing them. But again, putting aside my personal regret over that, which is sincere, this overall thing, Senator Paul, of whether you believe he's actually a sort of premeditated criminal with these kind of actions, or whether he made a series of

mistakes, which always happen in a fast-moving public health emergency. If you're asking whether he's good or evil, that's sort of a different question. And I don't know that I attribute evil intentions to him, but lying to Congress is a felony and destroying records is a felony. Those are the two main avenues. Now, whether or not, like, I think the debate is good about all of these different things to try to prevent illness and what are the mitigations, what should we wear a mask, should we be six feet apart? And they're important debates, but there's even a more fundamental debate. What is good public health? And I guess to my mind, if I had been the public health doctor, I would try to persuade you to do things. I wouldn't force you to do

things. I would say you're an adult and you get to decide what you put in your body and you make these choices. This is why I would argue in this instance. So let's start at the basic and the vaccine. People think I'm against the vaccine. It's just not true. If you ask me, I'm 63. Would I take the COVID vaccine in the spring of 2020 had I not had the disease? I'd probably say, well, you know, the risks of the disease in 2020 were pretty good. Maybe I'm a pretty healthy 63-year-old. Probably wouldn't die, but I probably would have taken the vaccine. Now, I didn't take the vaccine because I had COVID in either late February or early March,

and there was no vaccine yet, and I believed in natural immunity. But then that leads to another question is, let's just be honest to people. But then if you ask me in 2021, the disease was still pretty bad, would I give it to my 5-year-old or my 10-year-old or my 15-year-old? I looked at the data carefully, and I think that the risks of a heart inflammation exceed the risk of significant illness for a young, healthy person, and I would just make the judgment that the risk exceeded the benefits. They say people like me were destroying public trust, but I think it's the opposite.

When you tell people blindly and with religious faith that everyone's, should be vaccinated from six months on. See, most of Europe got rid of that pretty quickly. Europe, I think, is 12 years and older now. We insisted because we have the faith here, we've got the religion, that it should be at six months. But what you do is you turn off people in the middle they're like trying to decide to take a measles vaccine. They're like, if they're lying to me about COVID, maybe they're lying to me about the measles vaccine. And so they have created this doubt by not allowing nuance, not allowing individual decision. But public health should be about persuasion.

On the masks, here's what I would have told people with the mask. And it probably took me a while to get exactly there, but this is what I would say if we had to do it over again. Cloth mask, cut up parts of your t-shirt, don't work and you shouldn't use them. So any cloth masks are of no demonstrable benefit for influenza and COVID, for respiratory viruses, they don't work.

The only studies we have with cloth masks actually show that they did worse than placebo. Now the reason why that's, and I wouldn't mandate that you do or don't wear them, but that's what I would tell you is advice, because what Anthony Fauci did is he'd wear two or three masks. He'd have a Washington Nationals emblem on there, which I guess was helped to ward off the disease as well.

But he would then say to people, this is good for your protection. But if you're 75 years old and you're overweight and you have diabetes and your wife has the same problems and she's got COVID, and you're gonna go in to help her to feed her. If you wear a cloth mask, you're now engaging in risky behavior with the wrong red vice. Now, what I would say about N95 is, I think N95 worn for short periods of time

where you take them off and wash your hands immediately and you're not exposed for a long period of time, like taking care of a sick relative or spouse, I'd wear the N95, I'd probably wear gloves. I'd do like the doctors do, like I do. You'd come out of the room, you'd take it off. You'd wash your hands and if you can afford it, you get a new new mask the next time too. But wearing it on the Appalachian Trail is not an evidence of science. It's an evidence of delusion. And so you got all these people that were out, right around their car by themselves with masks on. It led to this mass delusion, but it wasn't science. It was bad advice. So those of us who saw that as complete insanity and stupidity, then we begin to doubt all the things that the other side says. So it led to

worse and worse problems. And I would be the first to say that if you disagreed with me and you wanted to wear an N95 all the time, so be it. That is your business. I would just give the best advice that I think I have, and it would be to persuade people and be a little bit of a calming influence, too. All the people who got it, I would have celebrated. A lot of these people who worked in a meat processing factory have a high school degree, and they don't have the ability to parse the science, but we told them to wear more masks after they had got and recovered. We should have been saying, hallelujah, you're not going to infect your family. You got to work every day, you got a tough job, but hallelujah, you survive COVID and you are not going to die from it.

Could you get it again? Maybe in six months or a year you might get it again, but you're not going to die from it because you already have a significant amount of immunity to the base sequences of the virus. I know four people who died from COVID. One was the husband of a a work colleague of mine on a morning TV show in the UK. And he died a terrible death over a three, four year period after being in a coma for most of it. And I got COVID pretty badly after I'd had the vaccine, but I do believe the vaccine, I personally believe it helped probably save me.

I was about the same age as this guy who died, who sadly he got infected before the vaccines came out. So look, there's obviously a lot of debate to be had here. But you wouldn't dispute, just finally, that these vaccines save lives. I mean, a lot of people on the sort of very suspicious side of this try and say, well, they didn't save any lies. They were completely pointless.

You're not in that position, I presume. I think people in the risk category, they did save lives. And in order to determine whether they still do, this is a question I have. So the virus in 2020 was very dangerous, still pretty dangerous in 2021. Gradually, the virus has become less potent. and the immunity that we all have has risen from vaccine and from natural infection.

But the question I have now, and this is a question that I think puts science before profit, is that if you want me to take a booster or you want somebody to take a booster, I need to know the booster because it doesn't prevent transmission, the main endpoint that they say it lowers hospitalization and death. I think that was accurate in 2020, 2021, but I'm not so sure you can prove it anymore because almost nobody's going to the hospital and dying now. So if you want to prove that a vaccine actually reduces hospitalization and death, it's going to be very difficult. You're going to have to have enormous numbers to power the equation to prove something that is very, very rare to begin with. But it gets to a public policy.

Our public policy or government is to take a booster every six months. This is what the science community is telling you. If it's true, I'm fine with the truth, but no one has studied it again. So I would say we should study now, once again, whether or not the booster helps you. If it is, by all means, take it. Probably the best advice I would give for a booster is if you are at risk, if you have significant risk factors, take the booster. I also think it makes a difference if you've been vaccinated and gotten it naturally

because you can have more extensive immunity from the natural infection. I'm not encouraging that everybody needed to get it naturally, but when you do get it naturally, you are immune to more receptors on the exterior of the virus as it infects a cell, but also as the cell ruptures, there are nuclear contents that come out that you also develop immune reaction. So you have a more extension, broad immune response when you've had it. That's not an argument for everybody just to get it, but the thing is, is whether we wanted to get it or not, we all did. And the whole world probably has had this infection. And then at some point, we have to transition to what happened.

In 1887, a coronavirus came, caused a bad pandemic, and it's now one of the four common colds. COVID in all likelihood is very close, if not there. And at some point, someone just needs to study it and start giving people advice. And then maybe we don't have to waste time on taking a vaccine anymore for it. But if it works, I'm all for saying it works, too. But nobody knows now, because the question has not been studied for the booster, whether the booster still reduces hospitalization and death. Yeah, I agree with all that.

Senator Ramp, Paul, you know, another part of my dinner party argument was that you are some kind of weird obsessive about Fauci, and that's what's driving this. I have to say, I've been watching you for a long time on this. I think you've been asking completely pertinent and important questions, and we all deserve answers, because the next time there's a public health crisis or a pandemic, we've got to have trust in public officials.

And the only way you get that is to examine in the way that you've been very rigorously doing exactly what happened with the COVID-19 pandemic. So personally, I'm very grateful for the work that you've done. Thank you very much for joining me. Thank you. We're telling that to my panel, Clay Travis, the founder of Outkick, Mike Nellis, Democratic strategist and host of Endless Urgency, Carrie Prejean Boller, the conservative commentator, and Omar Bada, the Palestinian-American commentator. Well, welcome to all of you. get quickly a reaction, Clay Travis, to that interview with Senator Rand Paul, because it is an incredibly inflammatory story. The COVID pandemic and Anthony Fauci as the frontman for it in the

United States. Is the public interest going to be served by continuing to go after Fauci, who has obviously a pardon from Biden, whether people like it or not, he does, and ultimately trying to put this guy in prison? Or can we accept that maybe he made a number of mistakes in a fast-moving pandemic? And that actually that's the lesson from this, which is we need to be more careful. I mean, we could do an entire show on this.

I thought your interview with Rand Paul was good, Pierce. I think Senator Paul has been heroic in his pursuit of the truth as it pertains to COVID. On Fauci, I think if you compare his top, and his taking of the Fifth Amendment 111 times, I think it was during that congressional testimony last week. I think he believed that he was going to be the hero of COVID. That's what drove him to keep that diary. That's why he obsessively was keeping track of all the celebrities who were impressed by him.

And I think the ultimate result is that he's going to be the villain of COVID. because there were so many things, particularly in 2021, with Joe Biden, that were utterly indefensible that he defended. And I do think he belongs in prison for the rest of his life, because I think he clearly committed perjury, lied under oath. I think all of this was directly connected to the fact that he knew that he had helped to create that virus through American tax dollars and the gain of function research that had occurred in China. and everything was about trying to make it appear that this had been a virus that naturally arose through animals. And I think if you want to go back in time and rewrite this, which I think is very important because one day we may have another pandemic.

And I think the American public will not trust anything, anyone in a position of power tells them, even if it's a far more dangerous virus. I think what really began to puncture all of this peers, and I'm sure you remember this, I bet you talked about it back. in the day was actually when John Stewart went on Stephen Colbert show and ridicule through humor any of the beliefs that were out there. I thought that was the beginning of sort of the House of Cards collapsing around Dr. Fauci. I do think for a historical purpose, I'm a history major, I think the story of COVID is important to tell. I think a lot of people are embarrassed by the fact that they were telling us peers, hey, you have to have a mask on to walk into a restaurant, but as soon as you set down, you can take it off and eat.

The fact that we had flight attendants walking around telling people they couldn't drink for too long or chew for too long. I think a lot of people who supported all of that. Beers, in New York City, you were supposed to sit in a circle outdoors in a park. If you walked onto an elevator, you were supposed to stand in the corner

and face the wall. A lot of people were mindless and they did everything that people in positions of power told them. And I think the experts were wrong about virtually everything, certainly from about May and June of 2020 on. And I do think that we need to have a historical reckoning here. Okay. Mike Nellis, welcome back to Unsensored.

I mean, look, Anthony Fauci, as I said to Rand Paul, is completely entitled constitutionally to plead the fifth. You know, Donald Trump has done it many times as well. Many public figures have done it, okay? But Mike Nellis, you said this after the Senate hearing. Fauci's right to plead the fifth. If the entire hearing is a sham, Republicans have spent years obsessing over him. They leaked his journal entries a few days ago, and they've been promising to find a reason to throw him in prison

because they've lost their God and mind. This whole thing is a joke and should not be treated with any seriousness. Now, I would take issue with that because I don't think it is a joke. I do think it's something that's very serious. I think there is a clear link between Anthony Fauci and the gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute. of virology. That is now established. It's beyond any argument. And I think he has important questions to answer. I also think, as we just heard from Clay, there were a number of suppositions

put out by the experts during the pandemic, which I, to my regret, actually, went along with as a journalist, when I should have been, I think, more rigorous, because they kept changing their position on things like the efficacy of masks or transmission if you had the jab and so on and so on. So it taught me a lesson as a journalist to be more skeptical in the moment of these things. And to those who were, who I was being censorious to, I've apologized and will continue to do so. But the reason, I mean, take the journals, for example, Fauci wrote this on a government computer. That's how they got the permission from the courts to put it in the public domain. And no one can persuade me that the contents of Fauci's journal, which contained directly contradictory statements,

to stuff he was saying in the public domain at the same time is not in the public interest. Why would you think that none of this is important? Well, it's not that I don't think that it's important, Pierce. I agree with you. And I agree with what Clay said a few moments ago. There were a lot of mistakes that were made in the pandemics. There were a lot of things that we were told to do that were really stupid. And I will never forget washing my groceries and feeling really stupid after having them delivered.

And in hindsight, I feel even dumber that I ever did that. And I think there's a lot of things that we need to do in a public reckoning would be good here. However, I do think that what Rand Paul here has done and what the MAGA movement has done makes this entire thing a sham. When you spend five or six years claiming that you're going to throw somebody in prison, when you spend years spreading disinformation about the COVID vaccine and what Anthony Fauci did or didn't do. Of course he's going to plead the fifth. They essentially promised that it was going to be a perjury trap. They created the conditions where he isn't going to show up and do anything else other than protect himself. You asked him a very good question, which is why not just give Anthony Fauci immunity?

Because the actual thing that needs to happen here is we should learn how we can make sure that this never happens again. It was a massive, massive, unprecedented crisis. There were a million mistakes made by Dr. Fauci, by everybody else, up to it, including Donald Trump, who at one point told his own supporters to drink bleach to make sure that they don't get the pandemic, which was ridiculous. And I believe one guy died doing it like the next day or a couple days later. So there's a whole public reckoning that we should have. But at the end of the day, Rand Paul and a lot of other people have decided to make this political because they want to fire up the MAGA base in the middle of an election season.

We're doing this less than 100 days out from the election at a time when the Republicans are desperate to talk about literally anything other than the economy, this stupid war in Iran that Donald Trump doesn't know how to win, everything else that's going on in the massive corruption. I would like to see Rand Paul have that same energy that he brought to a sham hearing with Dr. Fauci for where the hell Mitch McConnell is, his partner in Kentucky. You don't know where he is, doesn't seem to care. Doesn't seem to care about Max Miller, doesn't seem to care about the Epstein files,

doesn't seem to care about anything else that actually has the minds of the American people right now that's looking forward. So people are tired of this. I would love a real conversation about this, but nothing about this is real. It's just all politics. Okay.

I don't want to spend any more time on COVID for the purposes of this panel, because we've only got about 25 minutes less. So let me just talk to you, Omar, if I may, about this extraordinary win by Abdul, El-Said in Michigan, which is a clear, as you've put in your post, a defeat for APAC. You said the billionaire special interest class that casually buys elections in America got together and spent an unprecedented $62 million to smear El-Said outspending him 10 to 1

and mobilized the entire Democratic Party establishment to sink him and he still won. And that is indisputable. That is what happened. Do you think he can actually become senator, though? Because the sort of big picture view here is that you're getting a real rise of this progressive hard left, one of a better phrase, socialist progressive hard left, but that it can't be an electoral winner on the national stage

and that actually the Democrats may be pushing themselves into a trap here which suits the Republicans come a general election. Do you share that concern? You know, peers, just looking at what has happened last night, it really is difficult to overstate how significant that is. What we're seeing right now is a cataclysmic shift in American politics altogether in American political discourse. That you have, it is standard that the billionaire class and A-PAC and others

essentially bully people and get election outcomes that they choose. It is very common that the billionaire class and super PACs and so on can actually, if they decide to put a target on somebody's back, make sure that they end their political career and get their outcome. And the fact that they have come together in a way that is so overwhelmingly concentrated, I mean, they wanted to make sure that they went all out in this case to defeat Abdul Tseid and they were not able to. That is very, very significant.

It's a sign that voters are fed up with politics as usual. It is a sign that people are now awake. They don't want to put up anymore with their money being spent on a genocide instead of serving them, because that is effectively what Abdul's message was all along. It wasn't anything particularly radical, you know, when you hear about left or whatever. It is really basic common sense policies that he was advocating for. He wants health care for people in Michigan. He wants better access to education, better services for people, and doesn't want American money to be spent on a stupid war abroad in Iran and supporting a genocide against the people

of Gaza. That's basic elementary common sense and people are not going to put up with the fact that this is what American policy has been for a long time. Now, when you think about the general election against a Republican. Essentially what you have is a campaign of substance by Abdul-Said, and you have, on the other hand, essentially a campaign of smears by Mike Rogers. So I don't know what the ultimate outcome is going to be. Nobody knows, obviously. But that is effectively what we have. You have Mike Rogers recently at an interview. Being asked about his position on the Iran war, says his constituents have not raised it, so he doesn't really know where he stands on it, asked about tariffs is the same thing, asked about Trump's corrupt slush fund, where Trump wants

to give American taxpayers money to the people who rioted on January 6th to overturn a legitimate election in which Trump has been defeated. And also, Mike Rogers doesn't know what his position is on that. So you have somebody who's completely lacking in substance, and all he goes for is essentially accusing Abdul Sade of being a communist. It's a smear. It is utterly baseless. It doesn't mean anything. And what we're going to find out come to the general election is whether a general campaign of Smears is going to work or whether the people of Michigan are going to be focused on substance, we are going to find out together in a couple of months. Okay, Carrie Pridjean Bola, welcome back to Uncensored. At the same time that you've got this

real split in the Democratic Party, the Democrat Party, you also have the same thing happening on the sort of MAGA conservative right. And, you know, tonight Tucker Carlson has teased. He's going to reveal his plans for what is a, at the very least, a new movement. And could even potentially be a new party. You know, at Joe Kent on my show on Monday, who was part of his picture with Marjorie Taylor Green and Thomas Massey and others, where it looks like they are creating something new anyway. We don't know quite what that will look like.

You posted on 3rd of August, Maga was a scam, the billionaire pretending to care about the forgotten man and woman. Trump has become a slave to a foreign terrorist state who hates Christ. he chose Epstein over America. So would you be tempted to join, I mean, say Tucker announces a new party. Do you think the mood is right now for a new party? Do you think that, as many people see it,

that Trump's betrayal of the MAGA ethos has led to this inevitable split on the conservative, right? And there is an opportunity for somebody very charismatic, a lot of followers like Tucker to come forward and lead something new. Yeah, you know, for far too long, I think we've been told us MAGA conservatives that we've been in a cult. And I sort of feel like I am leaving this cult because as soon as you think for yourself and have common sense and question the narrative, you're ostracized. Look at Tucker Carlson. Look at Thomas Massey. Look at Marjorie Taylor Green. Look at Candace Owens. Look at myself.

You know, as soon as you go against the cult leader, which I think Trump is the cult leader, then you all of us, a sudden are ostracized from the party. And so I think we as MAGA conservatives, we still are conservatives. We still hold firm to our principles, but we are no longer a part of this cult where, you know, it just, it just feels that way. And so we are skeptical, I think, you know, it feels like we are coming out of an abusive relationship. That's just how I feel. And so we are skeptical on jumping into a new relationship with someone new. But I think someone like Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massey, Joe Kent, Marjorie Taylor Green, those are the people that we're leaning towards. Those are the people that we are seeing, oh, you guys were cancelled, you guys were

barred. So sign me up. I'm willing to support that. Okay. Clay Travis, when Tucker left Fox News, you posted Tucker Carlson is a stud talent. He has a ton of incredible options. It will be fascinating to see which he takes. Now, if he starts a third party and runs against President Trump, for example, or whoever the Republican candidate is in 2028, would you still see him as a stud talent? Yeah, I think he is a unique, strong media talent. I think you, Tucker, I think there are a lot of people you can point, Megan Kelly, who have proven that you don't have to be a member of a big organization to have a tremendous impact. I mean, the way that I always described it is, I think we've moved from an era where the name on the front of the jersey matters far less than the name on the back of the

jersey. And certainly I like to think without kick and potentially what I'm going to do going forward, there's a lot of opportunities out there in the new media marketplace. Look, if Tucker decides to run for president or Thomas Massey runs for president or Marjorie Taylor Green runs for president, I think it's going to be very difficult to get past Jamie. Vance or Marco Rubio or whatever the overall Ron DeSantis. I think there are a lot of people out there, Ted Cruz, that are going to toss their hat in for the 2028 race. And I think that's good. Look, I'm a marketplace of ideas guy. Make your case, put your ideas out there. People thought when Donald Trump came down the escalator in 2015 that he was that he was an insane man and

that he had absolutely no future at all in the Republican Party. And he has remade it in many ways. We'll see to what extent the Trump impromateur is continuing to have a major impact going into 2028. But I think everybody who believes they have the right vision for America on the Democrat-Republican side, on the independent side. I think they should all toss their hats in the ring. Let's have a big, fertile debate without any incumbent president in office. And let's see who the best man or best woman is. So I think Tucker, like I said, super talent. I think he's made, I would argue, I don't know, I don't see his finances, but I think he certainly hasn't been canceled.

I mean, he's probably making more money now. I would think that he was making when he was doing his Fox News show. And I know your business is thriving. I think there's a lot of new media opportunities out there. And if that translates into the political universe, foreign, more power to him. Can I just jump in here real quick? I think there's one thing that will have a great impact on how this goes. It's just that Donald Trump himself

still carries very significant weight within the MAGA movement, obviously. When you look at even something as unpopular as the Iran war, there's a significant portion of MAGA that still is behind the president. I think the real question on how all this turns out is when Trump is done, when the cover-up of the Epstein files,

if that continues to be a scandal into the next election, and if the war on Iran ends up being the absolutely catastrophic disaster, it's looking like it's going to be right now, does that diminish Trump's, appeal and influence over the Republican Party. And I think that is going to be an absolutely deciding factor in whether the wing that is

anti-Trump right now emerging within the Republican Party actually gets somewhere, or whether Trump is going to continue carrying significant weight and bury anybody who opposes him in the Republican Party. I think that's a really interesting point. I mean, the ladies, Polly Market on Republican presidential nominee has J.D. Vance, his vice president, 46%. Marco Rubio, 27.8%. Ron DeSantis, 3%.

Tucker Carlson, 2.4%. But I think you're right, Omar. I said from the start of the Iran war, this could be an absolute legacy changer for Trump and for Trumpism in a bad way. And the longer it's going on, the more unfortunately, I feel that may be the case for him. Let me mention something here on the Tucker front,

sorry that I should have mentioned. His relationship with J.D. Vance has been incredibly strong. J.D. Vance got the VP nod, largely because Tucker advocated for him. I do think the interpersonal relationship between the two of those guys plays a great, a significant role in what Tucker may decide to do going forward because I still think his relationship with J.D. is very strong. Sorry to interject there, but I do think that plays very significantly. No, no, I agree. I agree. What makes you think that their relationship is still

strong? Look, Tucker praising anyone's relationship that you're not involved in, I think is always a challenge, right as we've all seen with marriages and everything else from everything that i have seen i believe that tucker's son is one of jd vans's top advisors still in the white house he's no longer with him no he's not there no you're wrong you're wrong i okay well i apologize for not being entirely on top of the staff if you believe that they don't like each other and they're not getting along that would be different than what i believe to be true but maybe you're right i don't i'm obviously no i was just asking what evidence you have i was just asking what evidence you have that they have a Well, let's see, you know what?

I don't think, the truth is, I don't think we don't really know. So the last I heard was that they're still very, very cordial with each other. We shall see whether that cordiality extends past Tucker's announcement tonight. Because obviously, you're very difficult for JD Vance to still remain publicly very cordial with somebody if he's running a rival party to the Republicans. We shall see. Mike Nellis, coming back to the Democrat split here, the Democratic Socialists, the problem with them is that a lot of them sound completely nuts to, I would say, the mainstream American

electorate. I'll give an example of the Democratic Socialist in former Wisconsin, Francesca Hong. Now on Monday, she defended a social media post urging the country to cancel Thanksgiving when she paid on CNN with Caitlin Collins. Take a look. I'm a chef and one of the first meals that I made that was for the community when I was 16 was a Thanksgiving meal. Now, I always I always think my hospitality background in owning a restaurant for seven, eight years, that bringing folks around the table to share conversation and build community is always a good thing. But Thanksgiving is also a time that's incredibly painful for many people in our communities. And so I think there, I wanted to make sure that people understood that there are multiple views, but views can evolve. Now, Mike Nellis, you know, I had Brianna Taylor Joy on the other day,

who finally, after I had to batter her down into giving me an answer after about six minutes, finally admitted she wants to abolish the Pentagon, prisons and the police. And the problem with this stuff is that I think the average American looks at that clip. They listen to Brianna Taylor Joy. They look at these things and they think these people are crazy. And we're going to come at the end to the whole issue of transgender. women in sport again and the Sophie Cunningham debacle and so on. They look at this stuff and they say these people aren't in the real world.

You know, we don't want to cancel Thanksgiving. We don't want to get rid of prisons, the police and the Pentagon. Boom, overnight. Because it was obviously caused total chaos and anarchy and so on. And we do think actually it's wrong that biological men are competing in women's sport. Now, notwithstanding your own views about any of those things, Do you understand the problem here that as you have the Democratic socialist rise, which is indisputable, whether it's Mamdani or whether it's El Saeed or whatever, you look at it and the wider public, I think, are going to be very reticent about voting for these types of candidates on a national stage, which could come back, therefore, and really haunt and damage the Democrat chances of national victory? Yeah, I don't think you're wrong about that.

I actually think you did a favor to Francesca Hong by not playing the question that Caitlin Collins asked because she was specifically just like, do you believe that we should cancel Thanksgiving? And the answer should just be no. It should just be a really simple thing you should be able to say. And at a bare minimum, you should be able to pivot to how expensive everything is to put food on the table for Thanksgiving, which is what somebody who is savvy at this like Zora Mamdani would have done to explain something he may have tweeted five or six years ago.

Francesca Hong has not been able to do that, and I think that's going to hurt her. Now, I would say she's different in the sense that Abdul-Said and Mamdani and many others, some of whom are DSA, some of who aren't, have been able to kind of walk away from the wackier shit that DSA wants to do, which would be like abolishing jail. I don't think I've ever met a single regular human being who thinks we probably shouldn't have a prison for people like murderers and rapists and stuff like that. So it's crazy. I would encourage, you know, my brothers and sisters in DSA, who I think make a lot of good points on economic populism and the way that the system is overrun by corporate. super PAC spending to get away from some of that weird stuff because it does hurt the rest of us. At the same time, I know that the MAGA media movement is going to work overtime to try to make this representative of every single Democrat in the country right now, which is super unfair, but it's

just going to be what it is. They've spent the last two decades calling everybody a communist jihadist. I think everybody remembers that clip of John McCain talking to that older woman during the 2008 presidential where she says that Obama is a terrible person. He's like, no, ma'am, he's a good human being. But the only reason that she believed that Barack Obama was a communist jihadist was because Sarah Palin had been flying around the country on behalf of John McCain saying that he was. So Republicans have been doing this for decades now. They're kind of like the boy who cried woof. I don't think people are going to believe them. It also then presents an opportunity for Democratic candidates to distance themselves, particularly in battleground states.

And on these issues, like it shouldn't be hard for you to say, I don't want to cancel Thanksgiving. I don't want to abolish the police. I don't want to abolish prisons. should be able to say that really easy and then get back to the issues. To that point, there's been a lot of talk of like Abdul-Said and whether or not he's too progressive to win in Michigan now that he's won this primary. I think he's going to do okay and he's going to beat Mike Rogers. And a big part of the reason he will is because he's got a very simple tagline

that summarized his entire campaign, which is money out of politics, money in your pocket. It's a very simple, basic thing that people understand. He knows what he's against and he knows what he's for. Same thing we saw with Mondani. I think he's going to do okay. Francesca Hong, she's got work to do to figure out where she's. he's going to do in a general election. All of that is right, but I also think

that there is a bit of unevenness though in the way we talk about this in our discourse is that of course some people on the left say silly things, canceling Thanksgiving or whatever else. But by contrast, the stuff that Republicans get away with and the policies, the real concrete corruption that Trump is putting on full display day in and day out, the fact that this does not get a fraction of the attention

that some silly comment about Thanksgiving gets, I think is really a disservice in a way, that we have a media discourse that is obsessed with gotcha, moments and silly moments and things that seem like they might be appealing and infuriate people's feelings, that is the Republican agenda, is effectively to focus on meaningful stuff that doesn't really mean, that doesn't actually reflect. Yeah, but your trouble is, Omar.

While giving MAGA a pass on the manifest that he's implementing. Right. But the problem with that, with that is that actually, I know, because I wanted to CNN for four years, I know you could fire a harpoon around the newsrooms of most mainstream newsrooms and not hit a conservative voter. This remains one of the big problems, I think, with mainstream media and why so many young people in particular have basically given up on it, right? The average age of cable news watches in America is now over 70. There's a real disconnect here because I think almost everything Trump does gets enormous attention in mainstream media. They're obsessed with him because it drives ratings and most of them don't like him.

So I take issue with that premise that somehow the Republicans get away with it. most of the coverage on cable news is remains Trump bashing. And, you know, it's interesting, can I actually push back on that real quick. Well, hang on. Well, hang on. I want to ask you a specific question because the one thing you didn't mention in the things that would be easy to just say no to, right? Or agree with. You know, in this big Sophie Cunningham story, for example, she writes a ESPN feature saying she doesn't agree with allowing transgender girls and women to compete in women's sports.

and all hell breaks loose with this. And I don't understand why. And perhaps you can explain to me what is wrong with what she said, because she's right. Okay, I'll answer that, but I want to address the previous point here because one of these things about, even candidates like Trump,

like Trump vexes the Republican Party establishment, now he is the Republican Party establishment, but vex them at the time. He vexes the Democratic Party establishment, so does DSA. A big part of the reason that these candidates are rising and doing better is because the system isn't working for people, so they're willing to take bigger risks. Like a system that will elect Donald Trump, who I don't believe on any level, is qualified

to be president of the United States who has already proven himself to be so corrupt even before his second term is a system that's crying out for help. So the establishment in both political parties need to start offering and being able to deliver real solutions. Otherwise, they're going to keep getting their asses handed to them in these primaries. They just keep looking around and they choose to blame the voters. They choose to blame everybody else instead of looking in the mirror and figuring out what they're doing. Now on the Sophie Cunningham stuff, I haven't read the op-ed that she put out. I'll tell you the same thing I've told me a thousand times about how I feel about this issue. I think it should be up to local school districts. It should be up to local communities to

figure out what's best for them. I simply do not believe the federal government should be telling people who should be playing women's volleyball. I just don't think that's the role. But what do you think? I'm old enough. I see the two conservatives on the panel who are shaking the heads. I'm old enough to remember when they didn't believe in big government when they thought that local communities should be making those decisions. Now you guys are like, no, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second. Hang on. Wait, wait, wait, wait, everybody, everybody, wait a minute.

Let me ask Mike a very simple. Let me ask Mike a very simple question. Do you personally believe it is fair for transgender women to compete in women's sport? Yes or no? I don't, I don't care. Same thing I've told you before. I simply don't care. And I want communities to figure it out.

And what I get more about is like, do you not care about slavery? Do you not care about slavery either? Slavery is not the same thing as transgender athletes. you look like a dipshit when you say stuff like that. Okay, but you're acting like a coward. You're acting like a coward. I'm telling you I don't care about. Do you have a daughter?

Do you have a daughter? I have a daughter. And I haven't, I have a niece. Yeah, okay. Okay, do you want your niece competing against my son? Wait, wait a second. Do you want your niece competing against my son? My son will dominate your niece.

Do you want that? Yes or no? I don't care. Yes or no. You don't care? I don't care. Why don't you care? Why don't you care out of interest?

interest. No, you're a coward. You just don't want to answer the question. I care about whether or not kids are safe. I care about what I can't. Oh, Mike, let me ask Mike. Let me ask Mike a question. Mike, another simple question.

Mike, did you care when athletes were caught cheating with drugs that gave them performance enhancement? Did you care about that? Like in the Olympics? Like, yeah, sure. Yeah. In the Olympics. You did care.

So you do care. So just to be clear. That's professional athletics. You do, hang on, hang on, hang on. So you do care when athletes have an unfair advantage. You care. Here's the thing, Pierce. Yeah, sure.

But I want to point this out. You opened this segment by talking about how Republicans are going to go back to the well to talk about the same stuff. Mike, you either care or you don't about unfair advantage. This is another one of those things that they do or it becomes a culture war issue that they can distract because they don't want to talk about the economy. It's a very simple question. They want to talk about the war.

You care? You care? No, no. Mike, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Answer the question. Answer the question. Hang on, hang on. Hang, no, the truth. Wait a minute, please. The truth is, Mike, what you've revealed is, I'm afraid, total hypocrisy. You care about an unfair advantage in the Olympics, or Barry Bonds, or wherever it may be, you know, Lance Armstrong. You care about that unfair advantage, but you don't care when a biological male who has indisputable physical advantage,

over a biological female is allowed to compete. It's incredibly different when we're talking about major league baseball. We're talking about intermural volleyball for, you know, like teenage girls. It's the same principle. Same principle. This is not the most important issue in the country. You guys bring it up every single time might come on. No, no, but you only care, but you only care when it's drugs, you don't care when it's the transition because you dare not speak your mind about that.

Because you know it's unfair because you don't believe in unfair advantage. Clay Travis, let me bring you on this, because you posted an open challenge to the WNBA. So I want to have a boys high school team versus the WMBA, Las Vegas Aces. I'll put $10 million on the line. The boys are going to win. We're going to put it on pay-per-view. Now, obviously, you're right. We know this because the women's soccer team, National Women's Soccer Team, Mega Rapino,

who wants to pack the women's team with trans women, only after she retired. I noticed she said that. But they got beaten by a Dallas, I think, under 15's team, about 7-1 or something, right? Obviously, now, I don't say that because I want to diminish women's sport. I just think you've got to keep them apart for that reason. Men are bigger, they're stronger, they're faster. They have bigger lung capacity. That is why in the Olympics, Mike, they separate the sexes, right?

And if they didn't, how many medals... I'm talking about the role of the federal government. What the government should be doing. Yeah, but you think it's fine. No, he just asking your opinion. You think it's fine. You're telling people who... who can or cannot play women's volleyball.

I think that's weird. And I think it's a waste of course. Stop talking. Stop talking. OK. Let me just hang on. Hang on. I'm just making the point.

That is why we separate the sexes to prevent unfair advantage. You do care about most of the time unless it's trans women. No, you didn't. Clay Travis. Clay Travis, I do think Mike's problem over this is indicative of the general problem around the one left, right? They just can't say what is a basic fact. Yes, 100%.

And Pierce, I'm going to have to jump out so I don't want people to think I'm dodging this debate because I would love to do it. My radio show starts in like three minutes. But here is the reality. Mike won't say it and he's actually emblematic of many people on the left because if they say that men are not women, the entire trans house of cards collapses. There's a difference when we all grew up. People dressed up in a new material or are we just playing the hits between them? Be quiet. They didn't argue that they were actually women.

If you want to dress up as a man and pretend to be a woman or you want to dress up as a woman and pretend to be a man, that's fine. That's your life. As soon as you enter into sport, you're requiring me to lie. And here is why this matters. They won't just say let's end it, right? If you're playing 12 you and a 16 year old shows up, every parent knows that's unfair. I've coached every sport, my boys. if anybody shows up who's out of age, you would end it.

This is table stakes. I think it also ties in here in a big way. Once you lie to me about this, I can't trust you on anything else, right? I can't trust you on tax policy. I can't trust you on mid-east because you've already lied to me about a basic biological fact in peers. That's why I think it resonates. That's why Thanksgiving resonates because if you want to cancel Thanksgiving, I can't trust you on anything else.

That's why these things matter just on a baseline level. They cut through the noise. That's why I put 10 million on the table, peers. All these high school boys teams are reaching out to play. The WNBA won't respond. The aces won't respond because they would get smoked. And this all started because WNBA coaches said they would welcome men identifying as women into the WNBA. I said, I want my own WNBA franchise peers.

We're going to call it the Nashville balls, our slogan, one love, two balls, greatest sports dynasty of all time, only trans players, men identifying as women. It would make the Jordan era dynasty look like to be even. I think Mike should put 10 million on the women. I don't have 10 million. I got to go on the show starting right now. Pierce, love the show. We're going to leave it.

We're going to leave the whole debate there. Thank you, Clay. one final thought to this for my panel. Thank you guys. Very quickly. Yeah, just one final thought before we end this, if I'm even still on right now, is just I hope that everybody understands

that what the conservatives are doing is use this as a wedge issue so they don't have to talk about the economy or the war. That's what they want. Same shit they did in 2024. But you know what, Mike, this is the problem, though. All you have to do when people say, should we get rid of Thanksgiving is no. When they say, should we get rid of the Pentagon,

police and prisons, you say no. When they say, should we let biological men get beaten when Ms. you just say no. And when you don't say no to that, everyone thinks you're nuts. I'm going to leave you there. Thank you all. The government shouldn't be telling the leaks what to do. Like the government should tell the WMBA who can play women's basketball. Like that's ridiculous. Do you think men should be competing with the program? Yes or no. Not in the WN. I'm going to leave you there, guys. Thank you all very much. You're a coward. Thank you very much. Okay.

Well, finally, investigative journalist and YouTuber Nick Shirley traveled to Sayuta to document the border crisis when unprecedented 60,000 migrants searched from Morocco into the tiny Spanish exclave. However, his trip quickly turned dangerous. Look, now we got people throwing clothes. No, no, no, no. I then headed to the center of the town with the citizen Vigilante, Manzilla.

However, within minutes, we were chased out. So now people here to feel safe, they're walking around with their dogs because Muslims do not like dogs. Let's get the camera. Get a camera. Watch out. Watch out. Watch out. Watch out. Watch out. Now we got people throwing stuff at us.

Well, Nick Shirley joins me now. Nick Shirley, welcome to Uncensored. You traveled to Sayuta, which most people who are talking about this haven't done. What do you think was really going on here? Well, I think right there you had a time when a lot of people felt like that the border was open. And they literally just ran right through that border. And the people I spoke to the Moroccan migrants even said, the Moroccan authorities let them go through.

And then from that point, somehow the Spain military, like if you watch the videos, they quite literally opened up that border, some of those gates and people just flooded into the country. You said in a recent interview, you were asked why you thought so many working-age men wanted to get into Europe. You said they want Islam to be everywhere. That's why they're coming to our country.

no assimilation, they don't learn their language. This has been happening for years and years in Europe. This is a religious war. Would you categorize what you saw down in Sayuta as an example of that? Yeah, I would say there's definitely, it's interesting. I've heard a lot of people talk about, but when a man comes and he flees a country, he brings his family. When he goes alone, he's going to war.

And a lot of those individuals, they're 21 to 28 years old. They don't bring their wives. They don't bring a woman with them. And when I asked them, why not? They said because Islam says they stay at home. That's what they told me. Right. I mean, that doesn't necessarily mean

the 60,000 people that poured over that border are going for reasons connected to their religion. It may explain why some of them left family members at home. But isn't it more likely, Nick Shirley, that actually the vast majority just want a better economic life for themselves? That is certainly the case with most people, for example, who come into the UK illegally,

is it turns out most of them are young men who want a better life for themselves. It's not really driven by any particular ideology, including, you know, Islam. Well, the key word you give there is illegally. They're breaking the law. They come here illegally, and then what happens? They usually get put on our welfare systems,

and that takes money from the people who are living in the country legally. And that's a problem. You know, I completely agree with that. I'm just saying that the categorization that you've laid down, that you think that it's all about Islam, that these people want to come in, they don't want to assimilate,

they don't want to learn the language, they want to basically, I guess, take over with their own form of culture and religion. I'm just not sure that this is what we're seeing here with this situation in Sayuta. You know, you posted on Instagram as well, thousands of kids left completely stranded at the Spain-Morocco border. Do you think politicians realize when they open the borders,

thousands of kids who will get raped, trafficked, traffic to never see their parents again? The kids and teenagers all love Spain Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez for opening the border, but where will they go now? Now, you know, on that, a lot of people will say, God, that's outrageous, appalling. Yeah, of course it's disgraceful. But according to local data, report about Daily Telegraph,

there are between 826 and 862 unaccompanied migrant children and currently stranded in Sayyta. Now, that's a lot of kids, don't get me wrong. But it's not thousands and thousands, as you said. So is there a danger that we exaggerate this when there is a real problem that needs to be addressed, but it isn't as bad as people are making out? No, it's bad.

Like the video footage I showed you, there's thousands of kids, and that's just in one part of that small little town. So there is quite literally thousands of kids that came across that border as well. with the adults. And it's very sad, like open borders, like it's actually very inhumane. Because like I said right there, a lot of kids will get raped, they'll get traffic, they'll never see their parents again. And that's due to these politicians who open up these borders. And it's just a sad reality that takes place. A lot of people will get kidnapped

essentially. They'll never see their parents again. Who knows what happens when they get inside those trafficking networks, what will happen to them. Almost all of the 60,000 migrants who came in in this huge surge from Morocco into Soda, they've all been returned. So what do you feel the situation is on the ground now? Well, I was just there about two days ago, and there were still thousands of people there. And it was very interesting just to be driving around that town.

You would look up in the mountain, and then all of a sudden you'd see a pack of people up there. You'd be interviewing. I'd be interviewing a lady, and all of a sudden, two people would come out from the mountain. And so there's like thousands upon thousands of people. I don't have a clicker to count each and every single person, And yet there's still thousands of people.

I don't know what it's like today, because I'm not there right now, but I'd imagine there's still a few thousand there. A lot of people had the mission to get into mainland Europe. So it'll be interesting to see how many of them actually make it into mainland. But I think the fact that just in one day, around 60,000 people were able to storm a border

and come into a country, like that should be very concerning for Spain, to think that in one day that is possible. And they show that it's possible. that happened. Yeah, you know what? It's completely outrageous. I couldn't quite believe what I was watching. And you've got people like Elon Musk who I think do exaggerate the situation in Europe, certainly he does about England, I think. But when you look at scenes like that, it's hard not to argue with language like invasion. 60,000 people did invade that border. There's no question.

Now, the fact most of got returned pretty quickly is good, but it doesn't change the fact it happened in the first place. And I do think border control around Europe, around the world, actually, is a very, very big deal right now, and it's got to be taken more seriously. Nick Shelley, I appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much. Thank you, Pierce. Pears Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue. 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.