Piers Morgan Uncensored - Mehdi Hasan vs Dan Crenshaw on DOGE + Tomi Lahren on Democrats Disarray

Episode Date: March 12, 2025

Two of the most confident and practiced debaters to have graced the Uncensored channel are undoubtedly journalist Mehdi Hasan and Congressman Dan Crenshaw. In terms of their political allegiances however, they couldn’t be more opposed. In this weighty and vital debate, Mehdi and Dan spar on three main topics; Donald Trump’s first weeks in office and the performance of DOGE, the continuing war between Russia and Ukraine and the arrest of pro-palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. Then, Piers Morgan turns to former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner and host of 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' on Outkick Tomi Lahren, for a discussion on the dire state of the Democratic Party. Although they disagree when it comes to the trans debate, Nina and Tomi agree that the Democrats are struggling to recover. Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Home Title Lock: Go to https://www.hometitlelock.com/piersmorgan and use promo code PIERS to get a FREE title history report so you can find out if you’re already a victim AND access to your Personal Title Expert —a $250 value— when you sign up! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I'm going to buy because it's a great product, as good as he gets. The president went out on the south lawn of the White House and turned the White House into a car dealership so he could help his top donor sell cars. This is Trump arrangement syndrome all over again. Ceasfire, Ukraine. Hopefully we'll be able to wipe out a deal. If we can't, we just keep going on and people are going to get killed. This is not the time to be litigating past histories about Putin, whether you're right or not. It was a joke. You know it was a joke. The entire world watched that in shock.

my all-time favorite member of Congress, Dan Crenshaw. I always thought he was a freak and a warmonger. Really? Yeah. Weird, yeah. You know, Tucker's a silver spoon-fed, trust-fund baby. Well, I like Tucker. I'm still, like, a baby trans. You know, I've only three years in. Once you've gone in on crazy, you might as well go all the way.

Well, like it or not, this is President Trump's world, and we're all just living in it. In the past 24 hours alone, Trump's boomerang terror threats of rattle markets and spark fresh warnings about a trade war and even a recession. his threats to annex America's northern neighbor of rattled Canadians and his maverick stance on Ukraine's war

has prompted President Zelensky to agree for an immediate 30-day ceasefire putting them all firmly back into Putin's call. The president even found time to turn the White House lawn into a car lot for Elon Musk Tesla, whose business has taken a pounding over his cost-cutting mission for the federal government. Anti-Must protesters have been vandalizing Tesla's

and leading calls for a boycott. Trump says he's not buying it, quite the opposite, in fact. Well, I'm going to buy your lease today. Well, I'm going to buy, because number one, it's a great product, as good as he gets. And number two, because this man has devoted his energy and his life to doing this. I think he's been treated very unfairly by a very small group of people. And I just want people to know that you can't be penalized of being a patriot. Well, many people are upset about this, of course.

Cable news is repeatedly showing an apparent gotcha photo of the president's script. revealing a Tesla price list and finance deals to buy one for $299 a month. It's worth pointing out that millions of people now know you can buy a Tesla for $299 a month, which might have been, of course, the whole point. Well, critics say the Trump-recking ball is sowing chaos and hardship.

Supporters say he's striking deals, selling wheels, and most importantly of all, delivering on his promises for peace. Well, join me to debate, all those are two men with very different opinions on the president's way of doing business. The CEO of Ziteya, Medi Hassan, and Republican Congressman for Texas,

Dan Crenshaw. Well, welcome to both of you. I've been looking forward to you to locking horns in a Pierce Morgan unscensored debate. So thank you for both agreeing to this. Medi, I mean, you've had 50 days of Donald Trump's presidency. How are you coping? How's your spleen? I don't know. I haven't checked my spleen. It's not great. I think those of us who warned

that Trump would be chaotic, Trump would be corrupt, Trump would be autocratic. I think even those of us who, warned that for much of last year have been surprised by just how corrupt, chaotic and autocratic he's been. I don't know if we're going to talk about what happened in New York on Sunday. That was pretty shocking with the detention and disappearance of a lawful permanent resident. Yeah, we will later. You had all the attacks on the press that you and I have discussed, you and I have discussed

before, the attacks on the press. This show is called Peers Unsensit. He's launched an open war on the media, on free speech. And of course, the economy now, again, I didn't predict that two months in, Trump himself would be refusing to rule out a recession. I knew he would harm the economy. But even Trump himself can't rule out a recession. So on multiple fronts, the economy, democracy, free press, it's pretty bad. Dan, your response to that? Well, if you're going to accuse somebody of corruption, you might want to give a little bit more detail, right? They, or a war on free speech. I mean, what does that mean? You know, these are just words that actually do have legal meaning, but you don't have any legal arguments.

so I don't know what you mean by corruption. There's really no evidence of that. Warren free speech, there's just no evidence of that. There was evidence of it from the last administration, that's for sure. So look, this is Trump-drangement syndrome all over again. Now, if we didn't have four years to look at where the Trump economy actually did quite well, Trump tax cuts proved to be a boom to the economy. And even after a pandemic, Trump's policies were getting the economy right back on

tracks so that when Biden took over, he was enjoying GDP growth as opposed to decline, despite Democrats all over the country trying to shut down the economy and leftists all over the world trying to shut down the economies. So it's definitely overstated the extent of these of these catastrophes by far. If you can say one thing about Donald Trump, he's going to make good on his campaign promises. So there should be no surprises here. about how he thinks some trade practices are unfair. He uses tariffs as a negotiation tool to get better deals for the United States,

whether that's trade deals or whether that's things he wants other countries do, like Mexico, for instance, getting the border and going after cartels, which they are doing. These things are working. So I think a lot of the sky is falling rhetoric is pretty unnecessary.

Yeah, I mean, Medi, I'm surprised at your surprise that Donald Trump is being Donald Trump, or that, as Dan just said, is largely delivering on what, exactly what he told the American people he wanted to do. And he won the election

very convincingly. So when you say he's being corrupt, what is the actual evidence of corruption? So let me deal with a few things there, because Dan brought up a few things, and it's funny that Dan's saying words like corrupt have legal meaning. Of course, they also have a meaning that everyone understands, and he knows this because

he and his party accused Joe Biden of corruption for years. Hold on, hold on, you had a long answer. No, I do mean corrupt. No, you don't. No, you don't because you and your party, you and your party, you and your party accused Joe Biden of many crimes, which you couldn't find any evidence of. You accused all sorts of you accused all sorts of things

about Hunter Biden and corruption, which palent insignificance with what the Trump family's been doing on the crypto front. There's actually a case against Hunter Biden. What are you talking about? I can give you an example of the convicted of the president of the president. Oh, now we like the DOJ. Well, no, surely the point.

Hang on, right. Look, now we like the DAJ. Hold on. If I could just say, hang on one second. Guys, I would say, I would ask you guys, I would ask you guys, I would ask you both. The DOJ also multiple. Can I just ask, if you talk over each other,

nobody can hear what either of you says, just to remind you. Well, I didn't interrupt down. No, I didn't want to say this. But he interrupted me three times in my first sentence. Okay, look, just allow each other to respond. Because you acknowledged, because you pointed at me. All you asked were, you were asked a simple question. What are the legal charges of corruption against Donald Trump?

Go. I didn't say anything about legal charges. The person who has legal, well, there are many legal charges. There are many legal charges against Donald Trump. He's using the DOJ to make them go away, as you know, in a corrupt fashion. Pierre showed us a clip at the top of the show. I don't think an American president has ever done what Donald Trump did yesterday. His top donor gave him hundreds of millions of dollars during the election.

The New York Times is reporting that he just gave another hundred million dollars to Trump political operations. And the president went out on the south lawn of the White House and turned the White House into a car dealership so he could help his top donor sell cars. I mean, that is astonishing on multiple levels. I've criticized Republican presidents in the past. I can't think of a single Republican president who's done something that's so corrupt and pathetic on Musk's behalf, by the way, but corrupt on Trump's behalf to do that

for a donor, to sell cars on the White House lawn to put out tweet saying, I'm buying a Tesla. Yeah, for your top donor, if Joe Biden had done it, you would be screaming from the rooftops, as with your party, you'd be filing articles of impeachment. So give us a rest on the kind of patronizing stuff about exact language. Corruption is at the core of this Trump White House.

Look at the crypto money. The guy is running. The guy just pardoned a crypto guy who the DOJ was investigating who's put money into the Trump family crypto scheme. We could go down the list of all the various corrupt things he's done. On free speech, by the way, he's called for multiple journalists to be fired. President shouldn't be calling for columnists. Do you support him calling for Eugene Robinson to be fired? Do you support him calling for MSNBC to lose its licenses because he doesn't like it?

I mean, this is absurd. No president has gone around and attacked journalists in the way that Donald. Trump and Elon Musk have attacked journalists. Well, actually, the biggest attack. Well, actually, before I go to Dan, before I go to Dan, hang on, Matt, he doesn't just keep talking. Before I go to Dan, actually, the president. I'm going to finish my point.

Elon Musk called, Elon Musk called for CBS journalists to be locked up in prison. Does Dan Crenchall support the locking up of my fellow journalists? All right, I'm going to come to Dan. I don't even remember Elon saying that, but political, first of all, political rhetoric is irrelevant. He said it, Dan. I don't remember. That's going to be your defense.

He said it. Well, he's ahead of your government right now. He's a top guy. He's a person who has the same rights to free speech as you do. Okay? Do you support him calling for the locking up of journalists? I said there's a war on free speech. You said there wasn't.

I cited a guy in your government who's called for the locking up of journalists. You wanted receipts. I asked you for what you mean by corruption. You gave no legal arguments. So for you, corruption just means. exactly what every president does, right, which is supporting their supporters. I'll give you an argument right now. I think, I think, I think, I think, yes, I would like a Department of Justice

that stopped pardoning people who have given money to Donald Trump and his family. American homeowners are at risk of a growing real estate scam, which the FBI calls house stealing. This is how it works. Criminals forge your signature on just one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee, and then file it with your local recorder's office. Like that, your home title is transferred out of your name. Scammers can then take out loans,

using your equity as collateral, or even sell the property behind your back. You won't even know it's happening until you start getting collection or foreclosure notices. When was the last time you check your home title? I own a home in the United States, and the answer for me is never until now. That's why I trust home title lock. Their million dollar triple lock protection helps keep your home and equity safe. Here's what you get. Immediate 24-7. monitoring of your property, urgent alerts if there are any changes, and if fraud does happen, their US-based restoration team will spend up to a million dollars to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost. I've teamed up with Home Title Lock to give you a free

title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim and get access to your personal title expert, a $250 value just for signing up. Go to HomeTitlelock.com and use the promo code peers, or just click on the link in the description. Make sure you check out the million-dollar triple-lock protection details when you get there. That's home titlelock.com, promo code peers, P-I-E-R-S, to get the protection and peace of mind that you deserve. Would you like to stop Joe Biden also preemptively pardoning so many people doing half his own family to prevent some inquiries into that? This idea is only Trump that would do that. Dan Crenshaw's here to defend Donald Trump.

You know, peers, and I have many criticisms of Joe Biden, and one of them is, yes, his family and Hunter Biden. But what Joe Biden did pales into insignificance with what Trump has done in two months. All right, well, let me ask him. Let me ask Dan. Dan, on the Elon Musk role, Elon Musk is an unvetted head of a government department. Okay, let me ask Dan, Dan, when you saw the scenes on the wirehouse lawn there,

did you feel entirely comfortable for the reasons that Medi said you've got someone who donated hundreds of millions of dollars obviously to Trump. He pretty much helped get him elected. He's now in there as an unelected guy with enormous power, it seems, over this Doge thing that he's doing, popular with some, unpopular of others.

But turning it in, as he said, to a Tesla sale room. Did you feel comfortable the White House of being used like that? I don't feel comfortable with it. I don't feel uncomfortable with it. First of all, let's say something. every single person in the administration is unelected, and they have a great deal of power.

The only person who's elected is President Trump. So everyone works for President Trump. I think there's a really strange sort of villainization of Elon Musk. Oh, he has too much power. He has whatever power the president decides to give him. First of all, let's say that. Also, there's a long history and precedent for presidents bringing in their supporters to the White House.

Joe Biden gives out medals, of freedom or whatever those things are called to various celebrities who have helped him, to various big donors like the Soros family who have helped him. How is this, is this any different? Now, you could argue you don't like it or do like it, but there's a ton of precedent for it. Every ambassador to say, let's talk about the ambassador in the United Kingdom, it is every single time, it is not somebody who's been at State Department for a long time. It is always somebody of the president's choosing. That's who it is. It is usually someone who is, friendly with the president. Does that make it corrupt? I don't know. It's not legally corrupt,

but that is what happens. It's normal for every president. And you're just making it, you, for some reason, see it through a different lens when Trump does the exact same things that Biden would do. And Medi, let me ask you about Elon Musk. I didn't complain about Elon Musk. Hold on. Can I respond? Well, Medi, I would ask you this. But Medi, do you have, intrinsically, Medi, do you have a problem with Elon Musk and the Doge campaign to eradicate federal government waste? superfluous spending. Do you have a problem intrinsically with the concept of what they're doing?

So this keeps happening now. Dan says something and then you add something, so I can't do with multiple things. I'm going to deal with Dan first. Dan says that this is all normal and we have precedent for it. Dan's being disingenuous. Elon Musk is running a government department. He is not vetted. He has not gone through Senate confirmation hearings like cabinet officials and ambassadors.

George Soros has never led any kind of government department. If he did, Republican heads would explode. He's never run anything in government. nor is Alexander Soros. Musk is literally standing next to the president. He is telling cabinet secretaries what to do. He's attending cabinet meetings. They're going to court. Dan's not telling you this, but there's literal court cases going on right now to determine the status of Elon Musk and Doge. And by the way, government lawyers are telling the judges he's not the head of Doge. Donald Trump stood in front of Congress and said he is the head of Doge. Maybe Dan can tell us today if Elon Musk,

who hasn't been vetted by Congress, is the head of Doge. What's so sad to see is members of Congress like Dan just completely abdicating their responsibilities as a co-equal branch. of government and deferring to both Donald Trump and Elon Musk. That's kind of embarrassing to see. And I haven't finished my point. I didn't interrupt you. So when I finished, you can come back in. I know it's two against one, so let me deal with Peers now. Peers are on Doge

itself. Yes, I have a problem. We're both throwing stuff up at the same terms. Let me deal with them. Yeah, pull me. It's fine. I'm used to it. Peers is asking me about Doge. Let me do with Doge. Doge is a joke of an outfit, right? Do we all want to get rid of waste in government? Of course I do. I did a long

monologue on my show about why we should deal with the Pentagon, which fails an audit every year and waste billions and trillions of dollars. I want to deal with corporate welfare. I want to deal with people who have conned the government. Of course we do. But that is not what Doge is doing, right? Doge is a joke, chaotic outfit. It claims to have found fraud, peers, not just waste, fraud.

And yet, Dan gave me a lecture on precise terms. Fraud? Has anyone been charged with fraud? That's a crime. Elon Musk has found no fraud. Because if you'd found fraud, people would be arrested or charged by the DOJ right now. We've seen no evidence of fraud. So that's been a lie from Musk.

As for waste, you know this, Piers. You've talked about it on the show. $8 billion they claim to have found. It was $8 million. They said they found quarter of a billion dollars of waste at the Social Security Administration. It was half a million dollars. They triple counted a $665 million contract.

The Wall Street Journal, that lefty bastion, has found so many mistakes and exaggerations in what they found. They've been absolutely harming the US government. They got rid of people who were looking after nuclear weapons and then tried to hire them back. They got rid of people who were trying to fight a boat, and then tried to hire them back.

They got rid of people who were trying to fight bird flu and then tried to hire them back. They fired veterans at the Department of Veterans Affairs who were manning the crisis line for veterans. Dan, as a veteran, served the country. Should be outraged. And then they tried to hire them back, too. The whole thing is a disaster and a joke.

Okay, Dan. I want to say one thing about the having automakers at the White House. In August of 2021, Joe Biden had a bunch of automakers celebrating electric vehicles at the White House. He left out one in particular because he's not a political ally. He left out Tesla, one of the biggest makers of EVs. So, again, this stuff happens. As far as, like, what Doge's role is, and then I want to get into what Congress's role is here.

So the president has been very clear. Cabinet secretaries are the ones who actually fire. Doge makes recommendations. That's how they have it set up. I realize that all of this is new, but it was what he ran on. It was what the American people wanted. We are asking questions, too, right? We also want to figure it out.

It's good. The courts are another co-equable branch of government that will have their complaints about it. Let's let this process play out. And let us all agree on the fact that there is a huge amount of waste and bloat in a lot of our bureaucracies. We talk about firing a couple thousand VA employees. Put that in the context, there's about 480,000 VA employees. Like, there's a lot. Okay, so we're talking about to fire another 80,000. They're about to fire another 80,000.

We'll see. We'll see. Look, I've used the VA in multiple cities. There is a lot of people who would, there's a lot of people who would, there's a lot of people who would be happy to see half their coworkers fired because they know they don't do anything. I've heard that from VA employees. This isn't that crazy of an idea. The sky is not falling. And then again, the secretaries still have the power. President Trump made that very clear just last week. So, like, we can all take a step back, realize, that this is what he ran on. This is what the American people wanted. This notion of Doge and government efficiency is indeed still popular with the American people. There are going to be problems associated with going this fast.

And you're going to have to fix those problems. That's okay. Can I respond? Well, quickly, because I'll just turn to other subjects, but quickly, yeah. Okay, so on Doge, very quickly then, on the Doge issues, I heard Dan say this before

that Elon Musk is not firing people, cabinet secretaries are. Well, that's news to cabinet secretaries because Sean Duffy had a recent cabinet blowup, called out Musk for trying to get rid of his air traffic controllers, and they had a row about it. So the transport secretary thinks Elon Musk is coming after his vital staff. Well, they're the ones who are feeling pressure for Musk.

Everyone's having to bow the knee to Musk. It's funny, I wrote down this headline from CNN from last week. Republicans push Musk to let Congress vote on Doge cuts. It's embarrassing to see Dan's party having to go cap in hand. Please, Mr. Billionaire, who's not elected to anything. Please let us vote on your agenda. And as for Doge being popular, The poll out today, as for the poll, hold on, you had your piece.

Let me on, because Pierce is rushing me on. The poll out today from CNN shows that Doge, Musk is super unpopular. He's more unpopular than Trump. He's more unpopular than Vance. This is not a popular agenda. And this is not what people voted for. People did not vote for the annexation of Canada. He didn't mention Canada on the election campaign trail.

And they did not vote for cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which Musk on Fox business said this week, that's the next big thing to eliminate. We're going to cut 600, 700 billion from Medicare and Social Security. No one voted for that. It will be a disaster for the Republicans if they let Musk do that. I mean, the thing I would say, Dan, that it would be slightly concerning me if I'm Donald Trump, is that the poll approval numbers for what's going on with Doge

are falling quite quickly and significantly. And, you know, Trump, he loves his polls. His own approval is taking a hit as well. At some stage, if those numbers continue to fall... He's the most unpopular president for 70 years. Well, if those numbers continue to fall, then Trump at some stage is going to stop it, isn't he? Yeah, he very well might.

And this is the only point I wanted to jump in and make about Congress's role in this as you berate me as if I'm the, as if I'm Doge spokesperson or Trump spokesperson. I don't have all the details. I'm a member of Congress. Quick civics lesson, co-equal branch of government. We make laws. We write laws. We send them to the president's desk for him to sign

and then implement those laws. There is only one person who is in charge of the executive branch, and that is the president. You know what Doge doesn't do? You know what they can't do? They can't look at my employees. They can't look at anybody in the legislative branch's employees, and they're not, because they can't.

They can look at the administration. Hold on. They can shut down government departments that Congress created. Are you okay with that? Are you okay with that, Congressman? They want to shut, for example, Trump must want to shut down the Department of Education. That's Congress. They want to shut down the Department of Education.

They're winding it down. Right. Well, they can change a lot within the Department of Education. You know, legally can they shut it down? No, it's been tried before. It doesn't work. Everybody can calm down. And if we want to talk about Department of Education,

like, what is the Department of Education? It has about 6,000 or 4,000 employees. It's really just a pass-through for grants and student loans. You know, one of the reasons conservatives talk about the Department of Education and wanting to shut it down over time is because it really has nothing to do with education. It's just a pass-through for grants and loans, which could easily be done by Treasury or some other departments. As was USAID. Well, Musk proudly said he fed USAID in the wood.

That was a congressional... Oh, come on. Musk himself said I fed it into a woodchipper. Let me... They canceled aid overnight. By the way, when you say the sky is... When you say the sky is not... I'm happy of you a humanitarian lesson, Dan.

Children are dying now from polio and malnutrition and malaria because USAID cut off aid overnight. No one voted for that. And when you tell me the sky's not falling in, that is actually not true. No one voted for those suffering as we speak in Uganda and Ukraine and Sudan. Let me explain you. So I don't know what you're talking about.

this guy's not falling in. It's the height of cruelty what your administration and your party has done to children in war zones and conflict zones across the world. What was done to USAID was disgusting. Okay. So first of all, when Congress authorizes USAID and appropriates for it,

there is a top line appropriation. It is always up to the administration to designate programs within that. We do not write in the whatever program for whatever ex-country. We do not write that into the legislation or appropriation. And when you go through some of these programs that the Biden administration had, you know, $70,000 for some transgender opera in Colombia, there is room for some skepticism about what USAID is doing.

Like, it's a silly example. How about the Gaza condoms that Trump and Musk lied about? It's a real thing. How about the Gaza condoms? Some of these. Your administration lied about Gaza condoms. Trump has not apologized for the administration. How many civics lessons do you need?

He's your president. I'm not part of the administration. Nice try, Dan. You're part of the Republican. I want to change, I want to change, come on. Let me do you vote. Come on. Don't talk over each other, please.

Let me change topic. Let me change topic. I want to change topic to, I want to change topic to Ukraine. Let's just play a clip here and then discuss this afterwards about Ukraine. Ceasefire. Ukraine. Just agreed to a little while ago. Now we have to go to Russia and hopefully President Putin will agree to that also. and we can get this show on the road.

I think it's a big difference between the last visit you saw at the Oval Office and the soap. That's a total ceasefire. Ukraine has agreed to it. And hopefully Russia will agree to it. We're going to meet with them later on today and tomorrow. And hopefully we'll be able to wipe out a deal. If we can't, we just keep going on and people are going to get killed.

So, Medi, here's another example I would say of where the Trump hysteria doesn't really help anything. Because after the overlawful, bus stop, which for about 45 minutes was perfectly reasonable discussion in front of the media. Then it all kicked off, and that was unfortunate. It should have happened behind the scenes. But in the general scheme of trying to bring a war to an end, I didn't get as upset about it as everybody seemed to. And I said that, predicted then, I think you'll find that Zelensky's back at the White House pretty quickly. And this is all part of Trump's plan to try and force a peace deal, which it clearly seems to be.

The onus is now on Russia, but do you accept that what we saw in the Oval Office and all the reaction that came out of it, this is terrible, it's this, this, this, this and this, then actually in the cold light of what we've now seen unfurl since then, was premature. No, I don't agree,

and it's interesting to use the word unfortunate, peers, I've told you this before in the past when you say you're not a conservative, you're not on the right. You use language that always minimizes what the right does. If Joe Biden had done it, if Kamala Harris had done it, you'd have been up in arms.

It was a joke. You know it was a joke. The entire world. watched that in shock. No president has ever behaved towards the allied leader in public like that, maybe in private. We know what our European allies thought of it. They thought it was a disaster. They didn't think it was just unfortunate. And look, if your argument is bring him to the table, there are other ways to bring him to the table. I'm someone who supported a ceasefire in Ukraine for a while. In fact, a year ago, two years ago, if we had this conversation, I would have probably been

the most doveish anti-war voice out of the three of us. Both of you would have been much more pro-Ukraine and hawkish against Russia than me. My problem is, while I want a ceasefire and a negotiator settlement. And I've said that since the beginning, even when I was doing my MSNBC show. I wanted it done by neutral mediators who have the best interest in peace. Donald Trump doesn't care about peace. He cares about, he wants to win a Nobel Peace Prize. It bothers him that Barack Obama got one.

He loved the fake ceasefire in Israel. He doesn't mind if he gets a fake ceasefire in Ukraine. My problem is the negotiator shouldn't be an American president who is so blatantly and viciously in the Russian camp. Piers, you cannot deny that he is not a neutral mediator. He only berates one side, not the other. He pushes Russian lies, right? If I had said the stuff, he said a year ago,

you and Dan Crenshaw would be attacking me as a Putin stooge. He said Zelensky is a dictator. Lied about that. Then he lied and said he didn't say Zelensky was a dictator. He said Zelensky had a 4% approval rating. That was another lie. He lied and said Ukraine started the war, an outrageous lie. Russia started the war with an illegal invasion.

He lied about how much money America has given Ukraine compared to Europe. He's lied and lied and lied and that is my problem. And my biggest problem, and Piers, surely you agree with me, is can Russia be trusted to maintain the sea? I'm glad the balls in Russia's court. But don't forget what caused that blow up in the White House. Zelensky, not rudely, but firmly, asked J.D. Vance, how do you know Russia's going to keep the ceasefire?

25 times Russia has violated previous ceasefires. Vance couldn't answer the question, so instead he personally berated and insulted and verbally abused the President of Ukraine. That's what it comes down to now. Can Russia be guaranteed to hold a ceasefire? And can Trump ever hold Russia accountable? The one leader in the world, he'll never ever criticize.

All right, Dan, a lot to unpack there. But I think what I've thought about this is that Trump's minerals plan seem to be quite a smart part of this equation to peace because it would calm down all those on the MAGA side who are outraged about the spending that's been going on in supporting Ukraine, who do not see the point of America doing this, you want America first and leave these foreign wars alone and so on. If you can have a deal based around accessing minerals that America can then use

and you can make it look like a transactional business relationship that costs Americans nothing, that's a better sell for Trump just politically with his base. I got it. I also think that Trump had a point. I'm interesting what you think is a military man, though, that whilst I accept what many says that it is all about security guarantees and that Zelensky's biggest fear might be actually what happens when Trump's no longer in office that Putin might not try anything on his watch,

but he might wait and Biden's time and do it then which he did, of course, with Biden when he invaded Ukraine. I'm just curious what you think about the idea that Trump had, which is if you've got American contractors all over Ukraine digging up minerals and they're there in big numbers and there's a business relationship there, is that enough of a deterrence to Putin

to then attack more of Ukraine because he would effectively be attacking areas that have a lot of American people on the ground? Yeah, I mean, look, the minerals deal in particular is a good idea for two reasons. One, it's a political backstop for President Trump, as you mentioned. Second, there's now an economic entanglement between the U.S. and Ukraine, which is an implicit security guarantee. Ukrainians agreed with this, by the way.

It was frustrating. And you look at what Rubio really put it well when it explained on maybe CBS or whatever interview it was, why the frustration with Zelensky. He had agreed, we were in Munich, we were in Munich Security Conference. I met with Zelensky at that time. He seemed to have no problems with the mineral agreement. He seemed to think it was a good idea.

Rubio had convinced him earlier maybe that day or the day before, and then he would go out talking about how he's not agreeing with it. So there was a frustration within the administration. The White House blow up, I mean, I watched it myself as well, and my take from it was, this is not the time to be litigating past histories about Putin, whether you're right or not. This isn't the moment for it.

It's time to have lunch, sign a deal, and get on our way to a peace deal. And so Medi's complaints seem to be purely stylistic. Okay, so you don't like Trump's style and how he got people to the table. But how else would you do it? I agree with the premise of a ceasefire. Like, you do have to engage in uncomfortable

flattery with the Russians. That is something Trump knows. It is how you wrangle them. And look, Zelensky has been pandered to by Europeans, by us for a while. Now, look, I think everything happened as it should happen along the timelines. I think we needed to probably do a lot more than Biden did, quicker and faster aid to defend Ukraine in the beginning. Three years later, Trump is right. It is time to actually start talking. And regardless of whether those talks, have worked in the past. Again, that was J.D. Vance's point in the White House. Why are we litigating that?

Let's talk about present and future. And that's a very American way of thinking, but it works. And it's not a very Eastern European way of thinking, right? They think in terms of the thousand years of history preceding them. This is the problem in the Middle East as well. Like, this is just, there's a different, there's a cultural mismatch there. And I think that's what you actually saw unfold in the White House.

Also, on your point, Dan. But what we seem to agree on the outcome here, we seem to all like the outcome. Yeah, I agree. And the other thing I would say, on your point about how to deal Putin. Well, many, hang on.

Hold on, we don't know what the outcome is. We don't know what the outcome is. No, okay, but we all agree. As of today, we seem to like it, right? I mean, the ball and booties for. We like the idea that Ukraine has signed up to a ceasefire, which is a way further forward than they were in the Oval Office when they didn't want to even speak to Putin. Hold on.

Hold on. Come on, guys. This is crazy that I'm having to be their kind of pro-Ukraine against the seemingly pro-Russia boys. The block on a ceasefire, are you saying that it was Ukraine for the last three years that's been the only block on a ceasefire? No, in fact, Boris said, Boris said, Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire. What are you saying that? What are you talking about? Why are you twisting your words?

The idea that... Nobody said that. Because you're saying that we're in a ceasefire position. Can I finish a sentence? We're saying, you're saying that Zelensky went to the table because Trump bullied him in public. And by the way, I'm loving this from you to coddle Trump. He's not even hearing. You're both so worried about his feelings. Trump, P.S. talking about unfortunate. Dan said, stylistic. Come on. I have memory of longer than a goldfish. Barack Obama talked about a reset with Russia. Your party, Dan, went nuts. All right. Can I just see...

call them a stooge of Russia. Many, if I may. Hold on. I just finish my sentence. I need to be able to actually put a question to you. You don't want to call it two against one. I haven't spoken about Russia for the last five minutes. You both have been speaking. Can I finish one point? Let me speak one point. It's not stylistic. It is Trump being objectively pro-Russia pushing Russian talking points. And if a Democrat did it, Dan Crenshaw and you, Pierce Morgan, would be all over them. A Democrat literally did it because Bill Clinton, I put a clip out that went viral last week, of me interviewing Bill Clinton in 2012,

and it went viral for a reason because he was talking about how he dealt with Vladimir Putin when they were both world leaders. And he said, what you have to do with Putin? You don't criticize him in public. He said, but behind the scenes, you have very tough conversations.

And interestingly, he said... So then why did Obama get so much? Hang on, let me finish. Stop interrupting many. You said you hate interruption. You're a buddy bastard. Stop interrupting. You interrupt me earlier.

You interrupted me earlier. Practice what you preach. Well, it's two against one. Can I finish, please, Medi? I'll wait. Thank you. And he simply said, and he simply said that behind the scenes, they're very tough conversations. And I said to him, could you trust Putin if he gave you his word on something? He went, absolutely, he never went back on his word, which I thought was interesting. And I've heard that from other leaders of what Putin says in public.

And what happens in public is one thing. what happens behind the scenes with him is another. We don't know what conversations Trump has had with Putin behind the scenes, but we do know he's following the same playbook in public. Because he tore them up. He's following the same playbook in public. If you may not interrupt me, please. We do know he's following the same playbook as Bill Clinton advocated in that clip.

And he was a Democrat president last time I checked. So there is a strategy they have for dealing with Putin, which may be more effective than simply doing what you'd like everyone to do, which is called Putin a monster. I'm happy to. I think he is a despicable tyrant. He's a dictator. I'm pretty sure you've called him a monster more than I have,

Pierce, for the last four years. I think he's an awful dictator. Well, you're giving a speech now, Pierce. I thought we're doing a debate here. You should know all about that many. Let me finish, and I'll come to you. He's a ruthless dictator, to be clear, who illegally invaded the sovereign democratic country.

But do I think that Donald Trump has more chance of forging peace here when that war is clearly at a point where it's just going to kill more and more people for very little territorial change. Yes, I do. Far more than Joe Biden ever even look like doing. Over to you, Medi. No, I don't have much to add other than to repeat my point,

which is, I'm not for war. I'm the most dovish person on the three of us on this panel. My point is a very simple political point, which maybe neither of you want to hear, which is that when Democrats in office, if they ever try and make peace or do deals with dictators, they get attacked by Dan's party and Fox for being soft on defense. We all know this is undeniable.

Washington, D.C., they're called soft. They're called sellouts. Obama was demonized for many reasons, including his Russia reset comments. All I'm saying is the Republicans come into office with Trump, not with any other one, not with Romney, but with Trump. And when Trump does it, they all flip and say, let's have peace with North Korea. Are you kidding me, if Joe Biden, if Joe Biden had said, if Joe Biden had said, if Joe Biden had said, I'm exchanging love letters with Kim Jong-un, the Republicans would have crucified him. Everyone here knows. All right. Let me explain that you the difference between rhetoric and actions.

So under Obama, in 2014, what did Russia do? Refresh my memory, since you have the memory longer than a goldfish. Oh, yeah, they invaded Ukraine. And did Obama give any weapons to Ukraine for self-defense? No. No. Trump did. And did your party attack him for that?

Hold on. But did your party attack him for that? Don't interrupt my point for me, Dad. No. Thanks, Dan, speak. Thanks, Dan, you just made my point for me. Let Dan speak, please. No, but you stop interrupting him.

Yeah, Republicans attack him for that. My party, wait, are you saying my party attacked Trump for giving Ukraine, Republicans, attacked Obama for, no, no, I said Republicans attacked Obama for not arming. Yes, exactly. You're making my point for me. So they attacked him for being soft on Russia. That's my point. So when Obama's soft on Russia, it's bad.

When Trump is soft on Russia, it's good. Do you see the hypocrisy here? No, there's no hypocrisy because we've attacked you multiple times. Trump actually has taken actions against Russia to include arming the Ukrainian. And if he hadn't done that, by the way, Ukraine would be Russia right now. He just cut off, he just cut off arm. He just cut off aid.

Sorry, Dan, come on, fuck gas studies. He literally, and people died. And how many children died? And how many people died? How many people died? You want to tell the viewers? You want to tell the viewers how many people died? Where they're not rocket attacks?

You know nothing about the on the ground on Ukraine. That had no effect on the on the ground in Ukraine. It had zero effect. But four days of supposedly cutting off aid at zero effects. I don't need to know about warfare to know that you're just missing from the viewers. He literally cut off arms and arms and I'm not done with my list of actions that Trump took. And he cut off arms and intel.

So Putin invaded Ukraine twice, both under Obama and Biden. Under Trump, Ukraine was given defense weapons that actually saved Ukraine from being totally taken over. Because there was those weapons that were used to destroy Russian tanks just outside Kiev. I saw them with my own eyes. It's true. What he's saying is true? Did you know about the actual on-the-ground truth in Ukraine? It's not too against one.

How many hundreds of Russian soldiers did Trump vaporize? in Syria. To say that Trump is some Putin puppet and soft on Putin is absolutely ridiculous. He knows how to negotiate. He ran on getting a deal. He was very clear about wanting a deal, which you seem to agree with. I don't understand how you can talk out of both sides of your mouth. This is what I mean by your complaints about it seem to be completely stylistic.

Like, how are you going to get Putin to the table by beating your chest? I mean, that is Trump's argument. And it's a sensible one. And he also has to get his allies in order. It's a very... So we've got the friends. Let me answer you. English, you are willing to put peacekeeping troops on the ground. We are going in the right direction here. But the Europeans are understanding.

I agree. We're literally losing allies on the rest, but okay. You're not losing allies. America's not losing any allies. We're not losing any allies. You're in denial. You're in denial. The British Prime Minister has made you all the last few days.

You've never met with senior advisors to McCrower. And by the way, all that's happening is that European countries are finally. All right. It was my show. European... I think every viewer can see the two of you. Medi, sometimes you can give you on my show when you do this. If I'm on yours, you can dictate it anyway you're like.

No, I love it. Yeah. Well, when you're on my mind, peers, I don't do two against one. I do. I do. I do on my own. I interview on my own. No, you do. All that's happened in the last week or so is that Europe has finally stepped up

and accepted more responsibility for defending itself properly and less reliance on America to constantly bail us out. Can I speak at any point? As a European, I am completely in favour of that, and that's almost entirely down to Donald Trump, who was right onto the NATO scam in his first term where European countries were not paying even their basic dues into NATO. Why should America step up as everyone's policeman backing them

with money, with military and everything else if the Europeans won't even pay their basic membership fees? He was right then, and he's right now about Europe stepping up. Medi. I'm allowed to speak yet? You may speak. Can I respond? Thank you very much.

It's funny because I said to a producer before. He's going to be neutral. He said, yes, very neutral. I am neutral. I am neutral. Yeah, okay, if you say so. I think the viewers can see that two people are shouting at me every time I speak. So, yeah, I think it's clear that two people are shouting at me every time I try to speak.

You made a big statement about interrupting. So we're just pointing out. When you interrupt everybody. Betty, let me know what I can speak, boys. I'll try. Let's see. You're being a baby. You're being a baby.

Stop being a baby. There you go. There's another interruption. Another interruption from Dan. Hey, Dad, I didn't, I'm not a baby. I'm happy to be here on my own. You need to be handheld by peers. That's fine.

Look, my point here about Russia is very simple. My point about Russia. Are you even aware of his military career? So far, so far three interruptions. Three interruptions. Let's keep going. Let's see, everyone's watching. Everyone is watching.

Let's see that I cannot make one point about Russia. Why don't you just speak? Let me start a fourth time. Let me start a fourth time and see if you both time and see if you both could actually let me speak. You haven't started anything. If you both shut up, maybe I will. All you do is insulters. Say something.

Anything. Hey, I love the Morgan Crenshaw dream team. No, it's not two against one at all. All right, so let me start for a fourth time. Russia thinks Trump is... Oh, wow. Okay, fifth time. Russia has openly said

that Trump is aligned with our vision, right? Russians are the ones saying they love Trump. The Russian media loves Trump. The Mueller report made it very clear that Putin always wanted Trump. to win in both elections. So let's not get lost in Trump. Trump called Putin a genius for invading Ukraine in 2022.

And yes, the invasion happened on Biden's watch. But Zelensky himself will tell you, you've both met Zelensky, I haven't. He'll tell you that thanks to Joe Biden, Russia wasn't able to completely destroy and wipe out Ukraine in a matter of months or weeks, as some people thought he would, including American generals wrongly. So it's absurd to say Joe Biden didn't support Ukraine for the last few years. Of course he did. And yes, we all want peace, but I don't trust Trump.

If I'm wrong, if I'm wrong, I'll come back on this show. And I'll say to you all, you guys were right. Trump got peace in Russia and Ukraine and it sustained and it was a durable real peace. And I will come back in a year or two years. And I will say now Trump will deliver peace in Ukraine. So we'll see. We'll have the same three years. Okay, good.

Okay. And let me finish my, let me finish the point that I've been waiting. Can I just finish the one point I waited five minutes? Yes. Why don't you make it? Well, I do have a disagreement because actually I do think Western allies are reassessing their view of the U.S. And I think it's absurd to say Europe did. I'm so fond up with this propaganda peers

that you as a European are pushing about. If you include support for refugees, European spent $300 billion on Ukraine. Even if you just do military and humanitarian aid, as Dan himself has accepted, it's equal, right? If you throw in refugees, they spent billions, this is absurd to say Europe hasn't spent money on Ukraine. And what's the territorial size of Europe against America?

The biggest Ukraine. Sorry, sorry, what's the population of Europe compared to America? I don't know. I don't know. Why don't you go away and work out? Tell me, Peter. Europe is many, many times the size of the United States, both geographically and in population.

So you think they should be parity? So what are you saying, then? Tear up the transatlantic alliance? They should they? No, but hold on. Hold on. The US wanted to bleed Russia in this war. This is what people on the left have been saying for a while. The US had national security interest.

They claimed Republican and Democrats told us, including Dan Crenshaw, in fighting Russia. So don't act like this is some humanitarian gesture, a charitable act by the US to Ukraine. Come on, grow up. That's not what happened in Ukraine. I'm going to try and grow up. Let's move on to the final. I'm going to try and grow up. Let's move on to the final topic, which is Mahmoud Halil, who's this prominent figure in Columbia University's pro-Palestinian student protest movement, been arrested and detained on Saturday after an executive order by President Trump ordered that terrorist sympathies should be deported. Now, Haleel is married to an American, but is in the US on a green card, and there is actual legal activity still ongoing, so we have to see how that all plays out.

Trump wrote on Truth Social, we know there are more students at Columbia and other universities across the country who've engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump administration will not tolerate it. Medea, your response? Yeah, so to go back to the start of the show

and Dan talked about Trump derangement syndrome, many people have accused me of Trump derangement syndrome because I've been warning about, as you know, on this show with you peers, you and I've argued about Trump fascism, Trump autocracy, authoritarianism, racism, I've been super worried about what Donald Trump might be. But even I was shocked by this.

I thought they would go after student visas, students, you know, the low-hanging fruit. I would have objected to that, but there would have been at least some argument there. To go after a lawful permanent resident in this way, no accusation of a crime, no charge of a crime. The way they did it was horrific. Then Trump comes out with weaponizing Judaism in a Hebrew with Shalom Mahmood. Again, accusing him of no crime saying he's anti-Semitic and anti-American, very McCarthy-like phrase. What does anti-American mean? Donald Trump, many would argue, is very anti-American.

So it's a very, very scary moment we're in those of us who believe in the rule of law who support immigrant rights. There are more green card holders in the U.S. than undocumented immigrants, 14 million who are now, I know many of them who are living in fear now about what they, you know, what's going to happen to them. Did they say something or do something that Trump doesn't like? I do find it ironic that the Republican Party, which obsessed for years over threats to free speech, over social media censorship, over COVID lockdowns, over the government coming for your guns, black helicopters, in the skies now seem to be totally fine with armed federal agents from the United States government turning up unannounced at the home of a U.S. citizen who is eight months pregnant to detain without charge her lawful permanent resident husband

and then disappear him simply because the president of the United States doesn't agree with his political views or the content of his speech. If that is not fascism, I don't know what is. Okay, Dan, your response. I'll help you out. I'll help you out. So let's read, what Khalil's statement. actually were. Quote, we are

Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization. Our Intifada is an internationalist one. We are fighting for nothing less than the liberation of all people. So these are, this is an incitement to violence. Very clearly so. That's a statement from a group he was part of. Yeah, yeah. So, okay, so here's

and here's the law. You're right, sorry, that is correct. Now here's the law that we're referencing. You said he broke no laws, but it's Section 8, U.S. Code 1227, being a representative of a political or social group that endorses or spouses terrorist activity is against the law and a violation of your of the social contract of having that visa that's the argument there there there there there there isn't some this isn't

some McCarthyism this isn't some vague issue how is it false i just read to you the actual that's i'll tell you what not true according to who i can tell you how it's false because according to the white house the white house went to the free press yesterday you should check your facts before you come on and defend the white house the white house went to the free press and and said, we're not accusing him of breaking any laws. So Congressman Dan Crenshaw is coming on TV, making wild accusations of law breaking based on a quote that's not from Mahmoud Khalil.

But they just... It's just referencing the law. They are... Well, hold on. You're wrong, Dan. First, accept that you're wrong. The White House said to the free press, Barry Weiss's right-wing free press,

this week, we are not accusing him of breaking any laws. In fact, if you want to understand the laws, you need to look at the Immigration National Act of 1952. They're actually taking him into deportation proceedings under Section 237 A4CI, which allows Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, to personally deport a migrant because he believes that migrant's presence has serious potential adverse consequences for U.S. foreign policy. That is the obscure act, which, by the way, was designed for Eastern European Jews

to get rid of them because they were deemed to be communists in the 1950s. That is what Rubio is using to get rid of a lawful permanent resident. Now, whether that's legal or not, Trump's late sister, Judge Marion Trump Barry, He said it was a violation of the First Amendment. We'll see if the Supreme Court gets involved. But the idea that we should live in a country where Marco Rubio or Anthony Blinken can remove a green card holder

because he doesn't like his views and they're against U.S. foreign policy, some nebulous aim. That's outrageous. And there was a time when the Republican Party would have been against that. You've added to my argument, I appreciate that.

Perhaps you should be defending the Trump administration instead of me. No, I'm pointing out to you, he hasn't committed any criminal rights. He hasn't broken any laws. He hasn't broken any laws. You added, you just referenced an additional law, which Rubio was saying. No, Dan, let me explain it to you again. That law gives Rubio the power to do it.

That doesn't mean Mehud Khalil has broken any laws. And I gave you another law. And I gave you, and I referenced, I referenced another law. And you're wrong. And you're wrong. And you're wrong. And you're wrong. And the White House disowned you, Dan.

And it would be used. Your White House, Dan, it's embarrassing for you. You just quoted Rubio. You just quoted Rubio referencing a law. Did you not? No, because you don't understand the law. So what do you mean they're not? The law gives.

Rubio, let me say it slowly then. Rubio has the power to remove someone he believes is against U.S. foreign policy. That is not someone who's broken the law. That just gives him an immigration power. Nobody is suggesting Mehud Khalil has broken the law. He hasn't been charged with breaking any line. He was disciplined to Louisiana. You say, you say he broke the law.

The White House says he did. Check with the White House on talking points before you come on TV. I can have my own opinion on the legal justification of removing this person. Rubio has legal justification. Okay, but the government disagrees with you. here to defend. You're saying, no, no, they're saying, unless the Supreme Court shoots it down. Which is that there's, what you're saying is

unconstitutional. I'm saying that's unconstitutional. Okay, despite the fact that there's... No, I didn't say that at all, actually. You just made that up. In our conversation, in our conversation, we referenced two laws that would justify that. You just made that up. You just made that up. I'm the only person who said Rubio, I didn't say that he hasn't, I said that Rubio has a legal power to remove him. You said he's broken laws, and I'm saying he's not being. I referenced a different one, yes.

I'm giving, I'm giving the audience. I'm giving the audience context. No, no, no, he's already detained. I'm not saying the administration charged. No, that's not context. I'm saying, I'm giving the audience, context of why these things are allowed to happen.

He hasn't. And that's outrageous. Wow. So you're okay with disappearing lawful permanent residence. Yes, is it really outrageous? To disappear a legal permanent resident because because Marco Rubio don't like his views. Should, okay, many, many,

affiliations. Hang on. Let's get the. Let me ask many a question then. Should people who are in the United States... Oh, yeah, let's poll the American people. Okay. That's how we make...

That's how we protect similarities. Do we, damn? We poll the American people. Medi, let me ask you a question. Should somebody who's in America on a green card be allowed to support a terror organization? Because according to all the paperwork you fill in when you apply for a green card,

if you do support one, you would not be given a green card. Hamas are a prescribed terror group in the United States. States. He has supported Hamas. Therefore, if the United States government wanted to... How do you know he supported Hamas? If they wanted to revoke his green card, they are perfectly within their rights to do so, as Dan has articulated. Not true. Piers, you don't... No, no, Dan has not articulated that at all. No law has been cited that says you can revoke his green card because of his speech. Peers, you don't know what you're talking about. You can't revoke a green card. Supporting a terror group. If you support a terror group, where's your evidence of that peers?

You would not get a green card. Where's your evidence of that, peers? It's US code 1227. Where's your evidence for that? Fuck me. Is this really going to be two against one? You're literally both talking at me at the same time. I'm not one of you speak at one time. I can't respond to two of you.

No, peers asked me a question. No, peers asked me a question, Dan. No, Dan. Peers asked me a question. I'm responding to Pierce. So if you can hold your point, peers asked me about withdrawing a green card. I'm telling you, peers,

there is no evidence he supports Hamas. If there was, they would have arrested him for it. They didn't charge him with supporting Hamas. The organization that he's not just prepared. The organization that he fronts actually described October the 7th as a victory. They described October the 7th as a victory. Pierce, and that's free speech in this country. Maybe you live in the UK, you don't know about the First Amendment or not.

It's offensive. Is it it's offensive? It's not a crime. If you say October the 7th is a victory, and I have not seen a quote from. Hold on. There's a quote. By the way, Pierce, it's been four days. And there's a one.

And it's not from him. Nice try, Dan, but the quote wasn't from him. It's four days. The US government and Fox News have had four days, have had four days to produce all sorts of stuff, video evidence, photographic evidence, quote. They've got nothing, which is why they're not charging him with a crime. Well, let's see. And they're saying he's aligned with Hamas. Pears, can I finish his sentence?

There's a, there's an investigation become public. You can't just say people. You don't do that. Should I say, peers, you're aligned with Hamas. Should we just throw around accusations? I mean, I don't front an organization that made a statement. That's the last time I checked what America says. No, just to be clear, I don't front.

organization. Unfortunately, peers, it's free... Sorry, just to finish my point, you asked me a question. I thought the show was called Unsensored. It is. You have to let me respond to your questions. If you ask me a question or Dan, let us respond. Don't just then talk over us.

It's quite straightforward. And I would say that I do not front an organisation, which has put out statements describing October the 7th as a victory. If you do, you are a supporter of Hamas. Which organization is that, here? If you support Hamas, you are supporting a terrorist organization. And as such, you will... would be in breach. Which organization put that statement out, Pierce?

The student group he claims, which organization put that statement out? The student group. What's it called? The student group. Whatever the CUAD. Wild accusation without evidence. It's not. It's not, it's in their statement. The CUAD is not called October the 7th victory. Yes, they have. You have. It's called. No, I don't think they have. They have, and I will show you, that's what they campaign for. And another quote from them. I actually know more about this group than you do, because they have Jewish members who have written for Zateo,

and they do support divestment, Dan. They want to divest from the genocide that you support and you fund. You fund the genocide in Gaza. They want to divest for them. You want to demonize and criminalize them. Quiet for a second. So peers brought up that they celebrated October 7th.

I would actually go out of something. You can celebrate October 7th. I'm not a green cold older, Dan. You can't disappear me as well. Will you be quiet? So I would agree that. You can celebrate October 7th, I think you're disgusting for it, but no, you can't be arrested.

You want everyone to be quiet. But when you say something like, we are Western is fighting for the eradication of Western civilization, you are crossing the line for free speech and the incitement of it. No, Dad. You're confused about the law. Are you kidding me? Incitement of violence. You've lost your mind if you think, say, you're saying, is a violent call.

Is it a crime? Yes. No, it's not. Yes, it's not. Oh, it's not. I don't agree with it, but. Yes, it is. Free speech in this country is a very broad definition.

You cannot arrest people. for speech grunts. And by the way, there's no incitement of a coming from the Republican Party which sends a mob to the capital to attack people like you. And all those people are punded. Dan, what does destruction mean? What is destruction mean? What is destruction mean?

Your party pardoned 1,500 domestic terrorists. My party didn't condemn that? I haven't heard you condemn Donald Trump. Yes, they did. They supported Donald Trump. They were in, what do you even talk? Okay, will you condemn it now? Will you condemn Donald Trump?

Yes. Will you condemn. Will you condemn Donald Trump pardoning? No, what do you? What are you? Why don't we move? Why don't we? Will you condemn that?

We've run out of time. No, no, no, no, no. We've run out of time. We've run out of time. Will you condemn it? Why don't we try to end on a point of a greed? Will you condemn? Why don't we try an end with something?

Why don't we try an end where you both agree about something, right? They actually did. Many. I'm bringing it to an end, but I want to try and end on a point you may both agree about, which is Dan's ongoing spat with. Tucker Carlson. Now this began when there was, you were caught off, you thought you were off camera, still on Mike saying he was the worst person. We've talked a lot on Twitter. If I ever meet him, I'm going to effing kill him. You then said, I think anyone's seriously watching and being

honest with themselves knows that was hyperbole. He said in private and no Tucker, nothing to worry about. I've absolutely no desire to harm him. And then Tucker went on a podcast with commentated Chris Joseph's on his podcast. And he said this about you, Dan. Tell us about my all-time favorite member of Congress, Dan Crenshaw. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he's a tough one. He's a hothead on Twitter now. He's out of control.

Yeah, he's, I don't understand why he's taking this stance a little bit. Because I think his personal life is out of control. Yeah, because he used to be like a right-wing darling. Like he was, you know, with the Navy SEALs, I think early, early on. Not with me. I always thought he was a freak and a warmonger. Really? Yeah.

Weirdo, yeah. He's a freak and a warmonger weirdo. but he's showing it now. Dan, your response to being a freak, a warmonger, and a weirdo? Yeah, well, this is typical for Tucker. Tucker has no actual substance, right? He's been attacking me since 2022 when he became obsessed with me. I live rent-free in that little mongrel's head.

And, yeah, you know, people ask me all the time, like, why does he hate you? And I'm like, you know, the fact that you can't answer that question is indicative of the fact that he has no actual substance. See, I can tell you why Medi disagrees with me. I can tell you why Medi doesn't like me. At least he, at least he has, you know, I disagree with them all, but at least he has things that he disagrees with me on. Tucker never actually says anything. It's just, it's just insults. He'll use my war wound to insult me. He's a, he's a weird, bad guy. I mean, people should, people should not be tricked by his, his supposed stance against the defense. insider elites, right? Because he literally is that. I mean, you know what's on the,

people should know what's on the Hunter Biden laptops. You know what's funny? Emails from Tucker Carlson to Hunter Biden, asking Hunter Biden for help to get Tucker's son into Georgetown. You know, Tucker's a silver spoon fed, trust fund baby, went to board, you know, boarding school guy. It's the epitome of the DC elites who pretends to fight against it in order to corner a market in the media. You know, he's begged us to go on his show since that time. We said, look, why don't you do it? How about a moderated debate? He said, oh, no, I'm not going to do that.

So, you know, he's not, I don't think he's a very serious person. I think he used to be. Don't see that anymore, right? It's like, I'm out of control on Twitter because every once in a while I respond partially to lies told about me. Yeah, I just don't take it lying down. Yeah, that's me. No, I apologize to no one for it. Well, the incredible thing about what you've just been saying is I saw Medi repeatedly nodding in agreement.

So we seem to have reached a point of agreement, Medi. I mean, I'll say two things. Very quickly. One is we heard Dan read out a quote from the CUAD, which I don't think is in sight of violence. And then I heard peers read out a quote from Dan that sounded pretty violent, even though he says he was joking. But on Tucker Carlson, I can't disagree with Dan's assessment.

One of the things that really drives me up the wall is this, and I know you had a very chummy sit down with him in Saudi Arabia, but he is the fake anti-establishment persona really does great with me. Well, I like Tucker, and I enjoy my ding-dong with him over in Saudi. It wasn't by any means a chummy sit-down. If you've watched the particularly one that he aired on his channel, he came after me very strongly about Ukraine,

and I gave it back with bells on, which is the part of debate. But we're all entitled to our views, both of Tucker and of Ukraine and of Donald Trump and of everything else. Except with Khalil, apparently. And one of the reasons I like you guys coming on unsensored is because you give me your uncensored views,

and I appreciate it. So thank you for agreeing to the debate. I enjoyed it very much. Four months on from. From their crushing defeat in the U.S. election, Democrats remain deeply divided on what went wrong and how they can effectively oppose President Trump. Former Obama advisor, Van Jones, has a blunt diagnosis.

Offending, most people in the country calling everybody sexist and racist and transphobic and every other name and then say, please follow us. That's not a good strategy, folks. Well, part of the problem is that a majority of voters rejected the whole ideology that goes with statements like this. And it's the same problem that women, face is if you don't know anything about our bodies, you don't know

how it works. So when you come in and you say, oh, you know, these men are men, you know, competing against women, you're assuming that the women are weak and just can't do anything yourself

right here. Have you seen female athletes? They know what they're doing. Oh, whoope. That's Whoopi Goldberg, explaining that his feminist to allow men to compete against women because men just don't understand women's bodies

while interviewing Dylan Mulvaney, who was a man until several years ago, on International Women's Day. Sometimes I think we're living literally in a parody life. It's going to be a long road back to the White House if the Democrats continue down these pathways. We're joining me now to discuss Democrat disarray and much more, Professor Nina Turner,

former Democrat state senator of Ohio, wearing spectacular shades, I might act. And the host of Tommy Lairn in his face, on Outkick Tommy Lerl. Well, welcome to both of you. Tommy, let me start with you. There's the whole idea of Dillon Mulvaney sitting there on the view with Whoopi Goldberg informing the nation that actually the whole problem with this biological men competing against women in sport is that people don't understand how strong women are, which is presumably why we separate sexes in the Olympics, for example. And maybe we should just let them all have

a free-for-all. Sometimes. I can't get my head around how grown adults could be this stupid. Yeah, and again, I think they're playing to a narrative and they have to stick to it because once you've gone in on crazy, you might as well go all the way. Like, there's no reverse on that wagon over there on the view. But I think the point that they were trying to make by having Dylan Mulvaney on, of course, during Women's History Month and International Women's Day, is that the best women are men. And I think that's the message from the feminist view.

And I think that's what the table is trying to tell us that, again, Women are great. Women are powerful. We celebrate women's history month, but we think men are better at being women than women are. And we also want them to be defeated in sports. We want them to have to look at dinglings in the locker room and the restroom because the LGBT Key Rainbow Mafia perspective is more important and trumps everything else so everyone else's feelings be damned. That's the message that I was getting from Whoopie and the ladies of the view. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the feminist movement, has been overtaken by the Republican conservative movement. It's not a fight that we wanted, but I guess it's a fight we'll take on. Nina, when even Gavin Newsom, who's probably the wokenest governor in the history of the United States, when even he concedes it is unfair to have people who are born biologically male and then identify as women competing in women's sports, do you now accept it's unfair? You said in 2022, trans women are women, trans men are men,

non-binary people are non-binary, fine, there were. But when it comes to reality, actually trans women are not women in sport. They're biological men with all the advantages physically that that gives them. That is the unfairness Gavin Newsom was talking about. So do you agree with Newsom or are you with Whoopi on this? Well, Pierce, I don't look to Newsome or Whoopie for my political advice. I'm a politician myself.

So I lean to. my own understanding. You know, as a humanitarian, we should just let people live. Now, when it comes to sports, and what I mean by that, the more we paint other people as the other and as the enemy, it's a slippery slope. Now, when it comes to sports, let's let the NCAA or local sports agencies make the decision. What I can't understand with so much at stake here in the United States of America, why we would focus on something like this, on the federal government level, let the local people decide. Now, if I want to use boxing as by way of example to lean into something that you were bringing up, we have weight classes in boxing. There's a reason why heavyweights don't fight lightweights or

feather. And what do you think would happen? Okay, but Nina, Nina, I'm glad you raised that. Because a heavy weight, I'm glad you raised that. I'm glad you raised that. So would you be happy if, say, Floyd Mayweather decided to fight a female boxer who weighed exactly the same? No, not at all. No. Well, hang on, hang on. You just cited the weight. divisions that they have, fine, but that's not what the debate is about. It's not about a heavyweight woman fighting a lightweight woman. It's about whether a heavyweight man should get in the ring now identifying as a woman and fight a heavyweight woman who's actually a woman. As we saw, by the way, in the Paris Olympics, where the winner of a gold medal in the women's boxing

was actually somebody who was banned from the world championships for testing positive reportedly, there's been no admission on the part of the athlete for ex-chromosomes, male chromosomes. And one of the competitors in an earlier round against this fighter quit after 40 seconds saying she'd never been hit that hard by a woman in her life. So there are real life and death scenarios

unfurling here, and you say liberty authorities, the authorities are failing. So my question for you is simply, do you agree it's intrinsically unfair? There are apparently 120,000 trans athletes now at high school level in America competing. Are you comfortable? Are you comfortable with them competing against women?

Yes or no. Pierce, now, are you bringing me in to just listen to you? Are you going to listen to what I'm saying? What I am saying, that we need to have a level of fairness, and I'm using boxing as the example on the way to try to get that fairness. not. A heavyweight man or woman should not be fighting a lightweight man or woman. That wasn't, but you said Floyd Mayweather shouldn't fight a woman at the same weight. We should not disadvantage. Okay. So Floyd Mayweather, let me ask you again. I don't think

you understood my question. Hang on. If Floyd Mayweather says, if Floyd Mayweather says, I'm now identifying as a woman, are you comfortable? Absolutely not. Hang on, hang on. Are you comfortable for him to get in a ring against a woman of the same weight? yes or no. Right. So your weight argument is complete bullshit. No, it's not. It's not.

You're missing my point. You're accepting biological men have an unfair advantage. You just answered my question. Yes, but you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. What I am saying is that I am not here to dehumanize anybody. Nor am I. So to the extent, to the extent that we are spending so much time on this, when 68,000 Americans die every year from not having health care,

when there are other more profound things we should do with. I get that people are concerned about this. And I recognize the fact that people are concerned about this. But can we deal with this in a way that does not dehumanize anybody? I do not want to see biological women disadvantaged in sports, which is why I gave the way. So you were banned trans women from competing in women's sports. Which is why I gave the weight class example in boxing.

But again, we're spending so much time on this and not dealing with other issues. Yeah, because I don't quite understand. Pierce, do you agree that the NCAA or sports agencies can deal with this? Do you believe that this is something that the United States federal government? No, I agree with Donald Trump. No, no. I think it's a federal. It's a federal government issue that affects the entire country.

country. Donald Trump is and Donald Trump is absolutely right. And you keep talking about the weight class thing. He has other issues. Let me go to Tommy because I don't think I'm understanding this. I don't understand what Nina say. On the one hand, she's citing the weight differential in boxing as an example of fairness. But when I said, would you put Floyd Mayweather in against a woman of the same weight? She was outraged and said, of course not. So the weight argument is not the point. The point is that men are physically superior, Tommy. I won't say superior, but different. Here's the problem. Here's the problem.

Here's the problem. Men are, here's the problem. There are so many on the left of this issue that are thinking purely with emotions. You don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. You don't want to dehumanize anybody. Of course, those on the LGBTQ side, their feelings are always,

and their humanity is always more important than women. Of course, because they sit higher on the oppression, totem pole that the left subscribes to. But I would say this. This is not an emotional issue. This is a scientific and a biological issue. Most people that think about this emotionally don't want to reckon with the fact that most men could kill most women with their bare hands. Unfortunately, that's the reality of our biology. So to say that somebody's feelings and they want to be in this locker room and they feel like they're a woman today and they want to compete and they should be able to compete is completely negating the fact that men are built different than women. are biologically and physically superior to women. And a lot of other areas, they are not, but biologically and physically they are. I would say most, you know, there are some Democrat men that probably could have the crap beat out of them by a conservative woman.

That might happen on occasion if you look at some of the Democrat men. But as a rule, men are just stronger. And I don't know why, again, to this point of this isn't the issue most people care about. Please spare me. Because for the last 10 years, the left has been telling us that the old. only thing we should care about is race and LGBT and sexuality and identity. They've been telling us those are the most important things. Oh, and climate change.

But now all of a sudden, when they're on the wrong side of the issue and it's a 90-10 issue, all of a sudden now egg prices are more important. I mean, please, let's just be consistent with our messaging. Nina, generally. Thank God I'm not. Thank God I'm not on the left. I am a progressive. So the bottom line is this.

people's feelings do matter. My point is I don't want to dehumanize anybody because there are real criminal threats where people attack, physically attack, people in the transgender community, especially black women. That's all wrong. So that's wrong, Pierce.

Listen, I've always supported trans. I've always supported trans people's rights to fairness and equality. I uphold any violence against trans people. I respect their right to the same rights That's the part I'm talking about. But what Tommy is talking about is totally to the extreme. The point is this.

What's extreme about what she said? Recognize the differences. The reason why I'm not using the term superior because women were created and men were created. I'm not going to say it is superior. Is there a strength difference? Absolutely. But I'm not using the word superior.

So again, thank God that I am not on the left. The reason why I'm bringing humanity into this is because there are some people who are predisposed as I think you would agree, Pierce, to attack people based on their identity or their sexuality. And that's what I don't like. There are. I don't like that. I also have to say, given you've identified as a progressive,

that some of the most hateful attack merchants in the world in the last few years had been on the progressive left. Would you accept that? Well, it's called being a human being. Human beings, whether they're conservative, progressive, Democrat, Republican, people have a propensity to be hateful. When I see... I mean, that's not unique to hate...

When I see people... When I see people's social media biographies and they have hashtag be kind and they identify as a progressive, I know they are vicious, horrible, hateful human beings who spend their entire life trying to cancel people and shame and humiliate them.

I do not. You know I don't subscribe to that. Literally, I could honestly write a check each time that I'm right about that and I'd be very rich. Well, I mean, even the person that you have on opposite of me has been hateful towards me on social media. So it is not, oh, absolutely. What does she say about you?

Absolutely. Please do share an example. What does she say? Calling me that chick and just going in on me for no reason. I've never met her just because we disagree politically does not mean that we have to be vicious. You're mad that I call you that chick? I'm very confused. I'd love if you cite the exact example.

But I don't know. You were, you were. But Pierce, you know what? Listen, hate, anybody can be hateful is really my point here. No one group has monopoly on being hateful. But the debate isn't about hate. It's about fairness and equality. I agree with you.

Absolutely. Listen, I agree with you. Trans people should not be subjected to any hate. To violence. I completely agree. Of course not. They should have the same rights to fairness and equality as everybody else, including all three of us here.

I agree. But the reality is, the reality is in issues like sport, they are themselves eroding women's rights to fairness, equality, and safety. And that's, I'm afraid. Well, let's have the conversation. I'm afraid. We've had the conversation, and Donald Trump's decided to act on it. Let me quickly ask you about the Van Jones.

It's not a federal issue. I want to quickly ask you about Van Jones saying the Democrats are screwed. Tommy, it does seem to me they are literally floundering at the moment. The behavior during Donald Trump's speech the other night was so abhorrent. Let's take a clip of what Van Jones said. Look, man. We're screwed. I mean, we don't know.

No, Democrats don't know what to do. This is a nightmare. You know, somebody like Donald Trump, we thought we'd at least have, you know, Hakeem Jeffries in the Speaker's chair to hold them back if we didn't have Kamlin there to do the right thing. Listen, the Democratic Party is going through a massive set of internal crises. You have a party that got trapped two ways.

One, defending a broken status quo that nobody likes because they thought the Don't think. Trump was going to make it worse. But when you're defending a status quo, you're going to lose. And then offending, most people in the country calling everybody sexist and racist and transphobic and every other name and then say, please follow us. That's not a good strategy, folks. Defending a broken status quo and offending most of the country, turns out it's not as popular as my party thought it was going to be. Tommy, if only Van had listened to you or those years, could have saved themselves a lot of hardship. Yeah, peers, the Democrat Party does

have a leader right now. I don't think you could identify one. Yes, it's Hakeem Jeffries. He could even get his own party in line to prevent them from acting like complete petulant children last week at the joint address not standing for a kid with cancer or Lake and Riley's family or a returned prisoner of war. They couldn't stand for that. Hakeem couldn't get them to not act ridiculous. So he's not the leader of the party. Kamala Harris, she's not the leader of the party. Gavin Newsom desperately wants to be the leader of something. But even he's not. is not. Pete Buttigieg, no one really takes him seriously. The Democrats do not have a leader. They do not have structure. And then because they lack anybody who's entertaining, they decide to put people like

Jasmine Crockett on every cable news show because at least she's entertaining, but she's not going to win anybody over. And then their response to being more moderate is to have Alyssa Slotkin, who is as boring and as milk toast as they come. So they really can't go any direction. If they go more moderate, it's boring. If they go to their natural sense of being. woke and crazy. It's Jasmine Crockett and AOC. Nobody in the middle of the country wants that. So they're screwed. They have nothing right now. All they can do is root for the failure of America and the failure of Donald Trump in hopes that somehow that will bring their party back from the dead. But I got news for him. I don't think that's going to happen.

Nina, the Democrats are screwed. Do you agree? Oh, absolutely. They are. I mean, the reason why we have President Donald Trump back in there again is because they missed the messaging should have been about the account. should have been about the hardships. The fact that 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, the fact that homelessness has risen over 18% from 2023 to 2024. You have to address people's pain, and you have to have a vision that provides provision for the people.

And so simply having the Democratic Party say that we are not Donald J. Trump, well, guess what? That did not work. So you know what? Democrats have to figure out they need to do it. a real autopsy. They need to look at the men and the women and the people in the mirror and accept the blame for what happened and figure out how to move forward. But just simply laying and wait, waiting on President Donald J. Trump to make a mistake, that is not going to

endear them to the voters that rejected them in 2024. But counter to that, though, Pierce. Also, what I don't want my Republican colleagues, family and friends to make a mistake in assuming that just because the American people rejected the Democratic Party does not necessarily mean they are totally in love with what the Republican Party is doing. Now, President Donald J. Trump ran on the fact that he was going to make the economy different and stronger. The American people are still, you know, worried about inflation as they well should be, and they are also still worried about their bottom line. And so both parties, can if they are out there, not only just navigating

how the American people are feeling can make the change. But absolutely, if the Democratic Party wants to stay on the course and just laying wait for failure by President Donald J. Trump, then that dog is not going to hunt. And they are in for a rude awakening. So I do not support. And the bottom line is Donald J. Trump's real genius is his unique ability to wind up the progressive left

and, in fact, all liberals and all Democrats, into such a relentless lava of hysteria that they can't think straight. And until they can get past that and actually come up with their own policies and their own charismatic leader, who actually has a vision for the country, Van Jones, my old colleague at CNN, is 100% right. They are completely screwed.

Thank you both for a very entertaining debate. I appreciate it. Here's Morgan Ossence that is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Peers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free.

Independent Unsensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.