Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Donald Trump v USA

Episode Date: August 3, 2023

On tonight'd episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Rosanna Lockwood sits in for Piers and debates whether America will turn it's back on their former President Donald Trump. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I am Rosanna Lockwood coming up on uncensored tonight. Yet more criminal charges for Donald Trump, this time over the January 6th riots. The Trump spokesperson likened the new indictment to Nazi Germany in the 30s. So will Trump supporters turn their backs on the former commander-in-chief or rally behind him? We'll be debating that. More than 100 trans men, meanwhile, have entered a Miss Italy beauty pageants after organiser said trans women were not allowed to compete. Does this all make a mockery of pageants and ruin the competition for the remaining contestants? I'll talk to the organiser of that protest.

And fresh controversy looms in the Hollywood actors strike as millionaire a-listers go under the knife instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with colleagues on the picket line. I'll be talking to a surgeon who operates on the stars later on in the show. From the news building in London, this is Piersmore. Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood. Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored, with me Rosanna Lockwood in the chair. Tonight on this wet Wednesday in August, I'm afraid to say here in Britain anyway. Now, deja vu.

That's how I felt last night, hearing Donald Trump's been indicted again this time on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, tampering with a witness and conspiracy against the rights of citizens. Now, those are some really serious charges right there. It's a l'éjave even still, because we have seen this movie before, haven't we? The debates about whether we'll get a mugshot of Trump or whether he'll show up to court in handcuffs. In fact, I was in this seat for peers back in March

when the first Trump indictment was delivered on hush-punny money payments to Stormy Daniels. And we all then watched together a few days later as Trump's motorcade made its way through Manhattan to the courthouse. Now, back then, it felt momentous. But now, a few months later, an additional two indictments as well, the shock factor, I'd say it might be starting to wear off a little. There's just so much to keep track of a myriad of charges and legal cases. And that's exactly what the Trump campaign is playing off.

Casting all of this as a politically motivated witch hunt to keep the Republican contender from getting back into the White House. But I'm here tonight to remind you of the facts and tell you that you should still be shocked. Because since he was in office, this former president has amassed two impeachments, two arrests, two arrests. three indictments, 78 criminal counts overall in three different cases, that's three criminal trials to attend in the next 18 months. And the bulk of that has been as the first for any US president or indeed any leader of a democratic nation. Now, is that list we just showed you a result of a corrupt and biased federal government

conspiring against Trump, as this campaign says, a form of election interference? Using Trump's own social media network today, they claimed, quote, the lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union and other authoritarian dictatorial regimes. Or that list, is it that this man has been so lawless, so self-interested, so power-hungry and corrupt that he's made a mockery of the US Constitution? Now, I'm clearly not American. I can't vote, so I don't think my personal views about Trump, whether I like

or not, they're really not important in all this, but I do remember that day, January 6th, 2021, so clearly as a journalist, I was working on the other side of the world in a newsroom in Singapore, watching Trump loyalists rioting through the halls of power in Washington, D.C., desperately unwilling to accept the result of the 2020 presidential election and Trump's defeat. Now, here's how the special counsel, who announced yesterday's indictment, described January 6th. The attack on our nation's capital on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government,

the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. Now, despite all of this, Trump still leads national Republican polling by quite a majority. He's still a very popular man. He could still win that second run for the White House. And he is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. So for the rest of us, non-Americans, let's just watch and see over this next year. But let's just remind ourselves, this isn't deja vu. It's not a movie. It is real.

And the blast radius of these types of personalities and debates and events, they can have ripple effects across societies and borders. Well, joining me now to discuss all this is Trump's former lawyer and author of Get Trump, Professor Alan Dershowitz. Alan, thank you very much for making time. We speak to you every time there's an indictment, so we should have you on some sort of repeat system here. You're just the man to speak to as a former lawyer for Trump.

I just want to talk about the nature of this latest indictment. How serious is it and how likely is it to result in any kind of conviction? Well, first of all, I fundamentally disagree with Trump's supporters who were saying this is like Nazi Germany in the 1930s. No, not at all. It's like the United States in 2003, where we have the weaponization of the criminal justice system by both sides. We have Republicans today calling to the impeachment of President Trump on spurious grounds. And we have Democrats criminally prosecuting Trump, like in New York. on spurious grounds. This indictment is much more serious. It goes to the heart of democracy,

but it depends on the ability of the government to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump himself personally believed that he had lost the election fair and square. And people who know Trump say, look, he really believes he won the election. He was dead wrong. And there's no basis for it, in fact. But the First Amendment to our Constitution says there's no such thing as a false opinion or a false idea under the Constitution, the answer to false ideas is the marketplace of ideas, not criminal prosecution. It's going to be fascinating seeing how that plays out in court that very fight there at the heart of the right to free speech, as you say there, and also the right to think exactly what he thought. But I want that weaponization of the justice system you just

described by not just the left, but also the right, can you think that there have been any time in modern American history of that kind of precedent? Yeah, it happened, of course, during McCarthy period. And Senator McCarthy tried to weaponize the criminal justice system against people on the left, not only against alleged communists, but people who defended alleged communists. And some of the same things happening here. You'll notice that this indictment describes five of Trump's lawyers as co-conspirators. That really does threaten the Sixth Amendment, which provides for right of counsel. Lawyers are supposed to be creative when they challenge elections. challenged the 2000 election on behalf of the voters of Palm Beach County who were disenfranchised

by the butterfly ballot we lost, but nobody claimed that what we did wasn't any way improper. Challenging elections is part of our First Amendment right. But if you know you've lost the election and then you go and make allegations based on completely false statements, that's not protected by the First Amendment. So this is going to be a close case. My own view is that if an attorney general appointed by the president is going after the president's main rival, he better have a very, very, very strong case. In this case, I don't think meets that standard unless there's a smoking gun. If there is a smoking gun, if somebody will credibly testify that Trump said,

look, I know I lost the election, but I want to corruptly try to undo the real election, put myself in office improperly. Of course, that would be very different, but I think we all doubt that we're going to see that. probably convinced himself that he had won the election. And so subjectively, he had that state of mind. Objectively, he was dead wrong. We'll go into that state of mind thing shortly with another guest, but I just want to ask you on the co-conspirator point you picked up

and the importance that that testimony is going to bring if we do see it come to court. That seems to have been the difference when it comes to this indictment that these co-conspirators are listed. Does it mean that somebody within Trump's in a circle has flipped, basically? Well, we don't know, because they haven't named the co-conspirators We know five of them are lawyers, and one of them is a political consultant. There's been speculation that Rudy Giuliani and others may be ultimately indicted.

There's no proof that that means anybody is flipped, but they could flip. People do flip them all the time. When I represent criminal defendants, I tell them you have to worry not only about your friends, but about your brother and about your mother and about your child. When the people are facing life imprisonment or disbarment or long-term imprisonment, You never know what they're going to do. Look what happened to his former loyal lawyer, Cohen, who flipped completely but had some credibility issues.

So we're going to see that here as well. There'll probably be some flip witnesses, and we don't know exactly how that will play out. It's going to be fascinating. Alan, thank you ever so much for your time as ever. Now we're joined to further this discussion by documentary filmmaker Alex Holder, who actually obtained behind the scenes access to the Trump family

for his documentary unprecedented. Also join this conversation, author and investigative journalist David K. Johnston and pro-Trump pastor Mark Burns. Great to see all of your gentlemen this evening for us, but you are all coming into us from the United States. And Alex, I want to come to you first because the point Alan Gershowitz just made about Trump fully believing what he was saying with regards to the vote count in Georgia, and he fully believed that it was an erroneous election and that he won. Does that tally up with what you saw when you were following him around? But what I saw was a man unhinged, somebody who believes that he is going to always be a winner at all times. He can't comprehend the idea that he lost.

So what that means is that he needed to do various things to reconcile that belief. And so he absolutely knew things that he was doing were absolutely ridiculous, illegal and eventually led to the events of January 6. I mean, there is no January 6 without Donald Trump's consistent attack on the sanctity of the election.

And then, so on the one hand, he might believe that he won, but that's an unhinged view. Donald Trump isn't a six-year-old child. He's in his mid-70s. He knew exactly what he was doing. Everyone around him essentially was saying that he was wrong. There was absolutely no evidence to support any of his country.

claims his own attorney general made that clear only a few days before I met him in the White House. And yet he still maintained this position, regardless of the effects it would happen. So he knew what he was doing was absolutely wrong. But the problem with Trump is that he thinks that he's always right. Let's go to Mark for a bit of reaction to that, Mark.

I know you're very, very close to former President Trump. When you hear Alex describing the reality, some people see it, but Trump didn't see it at the time, factors they stood that he lost the election, but Trump believed that he won. How does that make you feel? How does that make you feel as a supporter of Trump? What's really important is for us to truly examine why is it that 50 plus percent of the American Republican Party and the supporters of President Trump still believe also that he too lost, won the election, that he actually won the election. But better than that,

We need to be discussing why is it that Joe Biden's DOJ has been used, and this latest indictment has been used as a distraction from the Joe Biden robbery scam. That's what really should be the topic. President Trump isn't guilty of the January 6th that he's been falsely accused of. I was there. I was a speaker. I was there on the ground. He's clearly not guilty.

But yet, this is the weaponization of the Department of Justice led by Joe Biden. and his cronies to attack the leading candidate for the Republican nomination. And according to the latest poll, if the elections were held today, ahead on match between Joe Biden, that President Trump would come out ahead. President Biden is clearly using this as a way to create a banana Republican out of the greatest nation in the world, we call the United States. Pastor Mark, both things are possible. There is possible corruption, obviously, within both sides here.

Both sides can be tried. It is Trump that has received the third indictment. And you talked there about the weaponization of the justice system. We were just hearing from Alan Dershowitz that he believes it's been weaponized on both sides. I will come back to you, but I want to crossover to David K. Johnston on this idea then, this weaponization. Do you think that it's pure what aboutism to say that this is a sort of construct to distract away from Biden issues? Oh, that's exactly what's going on here. First of all, under the law, you can't turn a deaf ear just as you can't turn a blind eye.

And when the Attorney General of the United States appointed by Donald Trump, when the White House counsel appointed by Donald Trump, and a whole lot of other people appointed by Donald Trump, tell him you lost the election, if he wants to engage in a fantasy belief, that's not a defense in a criminal case. The law about that is eminently clear. And all of the testimony that's going to be damaging to Donald Trump is going to come from Republicans who he either appointed or brought in to give him advice. Vice President Mike Pence is going to be the star witness in this case. Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's chief of staff, is going to be a witness in this case. There's not a single person who's a Democrat who's likely to be called as a witness in this case.

because the facts were all taking place in front of other Republicans. Does this, I'll come back to you, Alex, hearing this, feels like what we're going to be seeing argued about in court is almost the basis of what constitutes reality. And that's going to be very tough because Trump has set up a universe in which he has a reality, his support has followed that reality, and then there is a reality that others see, and some would argue that it's the liberals that see it or Biden sees it.

It's going to be an interesting case to watch as a doctor. documentarian, surely. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, the idea that we're debating reality is pretty Trumpian in a sense. I mean, your guest before the pastor just mentioned that he was there on the 6th of January. I mean, to say that he doesn't think the president at the time was responsible. I mean, did he not see what I saw, which is one of Trump's own supporters being crushed to death on the steps of the capital?

I mean, that's what the rhetoric led to. and then to start talking about Biden and, you know, that's not the point. The point here is that Donald Trump was utterly irresponsible and dangerous. You know, he is a benighted individual. And yes, you know, I mean, just to quote Bill Barr, he said that Trump was detached from reality. And of course, that's not a defense in any court proceedings. You know, he's a mid-70-year-old man that knew exactly what he was doing and yet didn't care. And then obviously all the evidence that came out in the January 6th committee hearings,

where he just kept going and was watching the events on January 6 on TV and refusing to intervene until the last minute. And even then, in a half-hearted manner, I mean, he said on the stage, we need to fight like hell. And then, you know, in the preceding months, he was maintaining that position as president. Let's give Pastor Mark a chance. a chance to respond to that because, yes, Pastor, you did say that you were there, January 6th. And Alex here is talking about dangerous rhetoric and where it leads to in terms of the actual sort of activity,

if we could call it that that we saw on January the 6th. And then what do you make of the rhetoric of likening the current justice system and the federal government to the Nazi party? Well, again, as I said earlier, you know, this is the weaponization of the Department of Justice, Joe Biden's weaponization of against the leader. candidate for president of the United States of America. What is a fantasy that we're not, we should, excuse me, what is not a fantasy is Hunter Biden's laptop. What's not a fantasy is the sitting president of the United States of America took bribes, right?

We approve, the evidence is coming out. We're talking about some rhetoric about, that could be misdescribed by the liberal left as Donald Trump leading a initiative to destroy January 6th, but the reality is, the fact is, Joe Biden is a criminal, and he is the sitting president of the United States of America. And we are talking about Donald Trump being indicted. Come on. Pastor. The fact is, we know that Joe Biden is a foreign agent of another government.

It's not a conspiracy. It's fact, right? And yet we're still talking about a candidate. The timing of it is ridiculous. The fact that this indictment is coming out as soon as we're getting close to the truth about Joe Biden, but yet people are going to sleep on the fact that Joe Biden's DOJ is leading this investigation.

Come on now. We've given you the platform to put across that point of view and to get it out there. And those are allegations and innocent until proven guilty on all sides in this at the moment. I do think the public can see, though, when asked about Trump and people immediately point at Biden, it does look like distraction.

Look, David, I want to give you the last word on this and talk about the future for Trump's presidency, but for the Republican Party, where could you see it going from here? Well, the Republican Party was warned 50 years ago that it had to get up with the times because the demographics in America were changing, and it hasn't changed.

Unfortunately, the Republicans who used to call themselves the party of law and order want to defund the FBI. They have come out against all sorts of law enforcement matters. They're supporting Donald Trump, a man who plied 12 and 13-year-old children with liquor, limousines, and hotel rooms because they had money to gamble in his casinos. And I'll bet the pastor doesn't know that in one of his books, Donald spends six pages denouncing Christians as fools, idiots, and schmucks says he has never once asked God for... What I do know is that Donald Trump is the greatest president that we've had to... our lifetime for Christians.

That I do know. I can't talk about what Donald Trump did yesterday. I can tell you what he did today. The Bible says he the son said free is free indeed. I can't speak about what he did years ago. I can talk about what he done today. Thank God there's a song called Amazing Grace. How sweet the sound that saves the wreck like me.

I once was lost, but now I'm found. Well, Donald was president. He declared that his life philosophy is revenge. one who's a Christian can have revenge to life philosophy. There's videotape of him saying in our lifetime. The fact that he's signed the executive order blocking the Johnson Amendment. The fact that he's going out to trade genders in the public school system. I've never cut anyone off on a show before, but I'm close to doing it. And I know you're just, you're taking every interest that you can get. But please let David finish this point. Okay. Thank you.

While he was president at the last national prayer breakfast, Donald Trump once again declared, that revenge is his philosophy, which no Christian believes. Donald Trump's conduct here is going to be either proven or not proven in a court of law. If Joe Biden has committed crimes, and so far there's zero evidence in this, exactly zero, just claims, then he should be also pursued, and I'm confident that he will be. But the issue on the floor now is the indictment of Donald Trump for his failed effort to overthrow the government of the United States. And the evidence against him is going to come from his own people.

It's going to be his own vice president among others who are going to testify to what he did. Thank you, gentlemen, all of you. It's been fascinating. Alex, just sitting there quietly documenting this. We do appreciate your insights as well and pastor as well as David. Thanks so much. Thank you. Unsented next tonight.

Wow. The battle for Miss Italy. We're going to be talking about that next as 100 trans men sign up to take part in the beauty pageant in protest at its organisers. Is this progress or is it just damaging for the women in the contest? We'll debate.

Welcome back to uncensored. Now, more than 100 transgender men have entered the Miss Italy pageant in protests after that pageant banned anyone not born female from competing. Are you following along here? Now, this does come after the Miss Netherlands contest crowned its first ever male-born winner, trans woman now,

with Miss Italy organizers saying they would not, quote, jump on the glittery bandwagon of trans activism. Now, on hearing those comments, Italian trans man, Frederico Barbarossa, sparked a viral online campaign by entering the Italy competition himself under what's called his dead name, which is the female name who's given a birth, Frederica.

So let's speak to Federico now, joining us live from Italy. Thank you very much for making time for us. And just talk to us a little bit about why, what motivated you to do this? So, you know, obviously I heard about the, you know, what the organiser said about that, you know, first that only people assigned female at birth

could take part in the contest. And then obviously I also heard that she made that statement with the purpose of excluding trans women, you know, in very explicit way. And so in that sense, I thought that's so dumb because, you know, I'm a sign female at birth, but they wouldn't, you know, dismiss my application because I'm short. They would dismiss my application because I'm a man. And so in that sense, I thought I'd start this protest because, you know, just to show how dumb this sort of like thinking is because, yeah, like I said,

they wouldn't have dismissed me because I'm sure they would have dismissed me because I'm a man. And so therefore, but then, you know, a trans woman is not a woman. So how does that work really, you know? So you did it knowing you were being cheeky, you were being playful, but you were also trying to make a point here that you disliked the way that trans issues were being sort of bought up and that restrictions were being put in place in pageants. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. I mean, it's just, I think it's just out of date and out of time.

this contest was born during fascism and then it was kind of rebranded afterwards in 1946 and the i mean obviously the roots might have changed a little bit but obviously there was a clear statement made this specific time and you know i don't particularly um agree with the values of pageants etc personally but then i think you know if they do at this word then they should be open to all women if they are meant for women you know That's interesting because I want to know whether you feel like you, by doing this and by galvanising a hundred other trans men to also do what you're doing, do you feel you've taken away from the female contestants in the pageant? No, I don't think so because, you know, my purpose was never to take up a space that was not my space. I never meant to actually take part in the contest. I was just, you know, I just meant to show a loophole in the system.

And the point is also, you know, so many other pageants, like we saw the Netherlands, is open to trans women. So if not women are participating, is it even a fair competition? That's what I'm asking. Well, I think you certainly made your point. Let's bring in somebody else who competes in these pageants. She's been listening in, former Love Island star and pageant queen. Sharon Gaffka, thank you for making time.

You were listening to Frederico just then, Sharon. What do you make of all this? I actually disagree with the decision made by the Miss Italy organisation. I think that there are lots of traditional beauty pageants out there that don't allow trans women. Miss Universe is one of those that do. And I think if the Miss Italy organiser doesn't agree with trans women competing a beauty pageant, she should be the national director of a competition that disallows trans women. I personally, having competed at Miss Universe Great Britain, four weeks ago,

welcome trans women. We had our first trans woman contestant at Miss Universe Great Whifton. The international competition allows it that Miss Universe organisation is owned by a trans woman. So if she's happy to work for a trans woman, then why isn't she happy to allow trans women to compete? That's fascinating about the ownership. Look, I want to ask you then, seeing as you are supportive of trans women taking part in conventional beauty pageants, what did you make of the funeral then, the kind of reaction to the Miss Netherlands winner the other week, which was a trans woman that was queen? Crown, rather.

So I haven't seen any of the backlash from Miss Netherlands directly. So I did make a comment basically explaining what I just said to you guys about the Miss Italy organisation, taking on the directorship of another pageant. And the backlash and the trolling and the nasty messages I got were not from other beauty pageant contestants, were not from other women, were actually from cisgendered men, telling me that by allowing trans women in my space, I'm wrong. when it's my space and my decision to allow trans women or not, and I do. So why is it men are telling me that I shouldn't allow that?

That's really interesting. In terms of the beauty pageant concept itself, we just heard from Frederico about what he thinks about it. When you think about it, do you think that, you know, if we're to compare this to the current debate and argument that it's being had about transgender people competing in sports, particularly trans women competing in athletic competitions, do you think there's a clear line here when it's different

because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, a trans woman and non-trans women. Do you think they can be judged the same in the same contest? I personally, I don't feel like I'm quite well qualified enough to talk about trans women in sport and whether they have a physical advantage or not, but there is no advantage in beauty pageants. You know, you have the same access to everything, and majority of Miss Universe national competitions are not based on your physical appearance. For example, Miss University of Great Britain is majority interview. and being a trans woman does not mean that you're a better speaker or a better person because you're a trans woman.

And this woman also does not make you a better candidate. It is literally down to the women that present themselves on the day. Sharon really clearly put. And Frederico, just before we wrap up this part of the conversation, I want to give you an opportunity to respond to what you've heard Sharon just say. Do you think, do you feel supported? Yeah, I definitely do feel supported. And it's great to hear someone that does pageant, you know, saying this.

And it was really interesting to say as well that many, comments came from gender men, which makes me immediately think if this whole thing about trans women is about, you know,

it just makes me think, you know, it's all about patriarchy and patriarchal values being held still here whilst the move, you know, the world moves forward and clearly someone likes to be stuck in the past so maybe, you know, they'll join us

from the middle age on a horse one day, but that's clearly, you know, not happening right now, but I hope I can be a little part of this and I hope I did something nice for my transistor without which I would be nowhere today. Frederico, Sharon, you've both been very generous with your insights and your thoughts this evening from right at the heart of the pageant industry.

Thanks so much. Thank you. Well, we don't have a cisgender man for once to comment on this, Esther, but we do have you. Esther Cracco, the voice of your own opinion. Listening to all of that. Why can't trans women have their own beauty pageants?

This is what most people I think take issue with. It's when there's a sense of entitlement, like we have the right. I don't really care about beauty pageants, generally speaking. I don't know many people that do. Obviously, there is the point that the lady made that your gender doesn't play a part of it. well, many beauty pageants have swimsuit parts of the competition as well. And there is a physical element there. I don't really want to get into the logistics of that.

But to say that your biology plays no role, come on. That's just disingenuous. Look, I don't see why, and I've advocated this from the beginning, for sports and with shelters and anything to do with trans individuals, why can't they have their own spaces? Is it the fact that, you know, being validated in a space that is clearly and exclusively for biological? woman is the issue, which then

draws into many, raises many questions. That's my only problem with it. Why can't you just have your own beauty pattern? Well, I think that raises a key point that maybe Sharon and Federico bought up. It's that validation. As you put it, so great food. But then that's where people take issue because you can't force someone to validate

your identity. You can't force someone to believe something that they don't want to believe. You know, for many people on this planet, a trans woman will never be a woman, period. And, you know, if we're talking about tolerance and respect, why doesn't the respect go the other way? Why do we now have to pretend if people don't believe that

that, you know, a trans woman is a woman and therefore seeing what is a biological man in a dress at a beauty pageant, are we just supposed to, like, you know, it's like the emperor has no clothes moment. Are we just supposed to pretend? How is that being respectful to people's opinions? It's good to have you here to present the other side of the debate

at a lack of a cisgendered man. I know even that term, Riles people up, yeah. But it has been a fascinated debate and stay with us, Esther. We'll come back to you as well. Unsensored next night. controversy looms in the Hollywood actor's strike. A-listers reportedly going under the knife

instead of standing in solidarity with their colleagues on the picket line. A Surgeon to the Stars joins us next. Welcome back to Uncensored. Now, if your favourite actor appears on screen looking a little fresh-faced when the Hollywood strike ends, it might not just be from a bit of R&R. Some of Hollywood's elites are apparently making the most of the unexpected free time they've they've got now to go under the knife. And that's potentially, instead of standing on the picket line in solidarity with their striking colleagues. The Screen Actors Guild called for industrial action

on July 13th. And some plastic surgeons in New York and LA have seen as much as a 30% increase in demand. They're saying with facelifts, eye lifts and brow lifts, all at the top of the list. For more on this supposed upsturge in stars, big time producers and directors going under the knife. I'm joined by the celebrity blog of Harris Hilton

and the Hollywood surgeon Ben Telley. Thank you guys for joining me on this story. And Dr. Talley, I'll come to you first because when I first heard about this today, I thought it seemed somewhat tangential that strikes would lead to cosmetic surgery, but then when I read your account, it seems almost directly correlated.

Yes, interestingly, it's not something you think about day-to-day and certainly not a strike leading to surgery, But this is something that the pattern has kind of been building since the pandemic occurred and shutdown occurred. And when the shutdown occurred, you saw just an outpour of executive directors, producers, writers, actors. And it went to sports figures, singers, and that kind of stuff, too, coming in to get surgery because they never had time to otherwise. And also what happened at the same time was that whole Zoom boom where people saw their tech necks. They're always down on their phone. and they started to notice the next.

So since that time, people have been waiting for one more pandemic or one more shutdown to happen, and it wasn't happening. And about four months ago, when the writers started talking about maybe doing a strike, the actors didn't know if they're going to be a part of it. Then it turned out that they looked historically and saw they do better together. And the second they saw that they might strike altogether is when we started to get calls from actor friends and friends of their friends and friends calling in, say, hey, do you mind seeing this person for me?

there might be a strike. This is the only time they have for a necklift. Can you please get them in? So we've seen a lot over here in L.A. My friends in the other states, hasn't changed too much, but over here in Beverly Hills, it's a pretty interesting phenomenon.

You're making me wonder if I've got TECNEC now. Suddenly I wasn't even worried. I thought I should be worried about. Perez, listening to that, obviously not taking away from those striking on the picket line, but are you surprised to hear that some people aren't and choosing cosmetic surgery instead? What I'm surprised about,

about is that we are still striking. Thankfully, the Producers Guild is sitting down at the table this Friday with the writers. And I hope the same happens with the actors. I am a member of SAG, the Screen Actors Guild. And while some members might be getting cosmetic procedure, the overwhelming majority are actually struggling to meet the requirement to get health insurance as a SAG member.

So this isn't about luxuries. This is about livelihood and surviving. In fact, so many big-name actors that were on huge shows for Netflix spoke out recently, not even about the residuals problem, but about how little they were paid while making their shows. And, of course, there's the big issue of AI and the future of technology when it comes to actors. So I just want to stress the seriousness and importance of this. Yeah, I was actually shocked looking at some of the figures today of actors that have come out and said they received almost just cents on the dollar for residuals. This means that when their show that they filmed years ago now gets franchised out onto Netflix or whatever, the royalties they're getting off at are absolutely minimal, shockingly low amounts.

And I think people attempted to think actors are just spoiled and everyone lives in luxury in L.A. But it's not the case, is it, Perez? No. And the requirement to get health insurance in Fagg is $26,000 a year. So there's a lot of working actors whose names you don't know who are going without health insurance. So that to me is a big issue that hopefully is addressed. And of course, the residuals issue as well and just respecting the talent. We've seen recently that actors promoting movies can result in hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office.

Look at Barbie. On the flip side, you saw the recent release of the film The Flash. and those stars, because the lead, Ezra Miller, was mired in controversy, none of those actors, for the most part, promoted the Flash film, and that was a major disappointment at the box office. The studios need actors and need to respect them. Dr. Talley, coming back to you, when you hear, and I know you've got friends in the industry,

and you're very much based over there as well, is there a clear delineation here between people acting in series that are franchises onto Netflix and those big A-listers or even B-listers that might be coming to you? Yeah, so absolutely. The A and B-list, the ones that are very, very well-off financially and don't worry about money at all, those are the ones getting surgery. The friends that I have that are doing the smaller TV shows, the writers, everybody else, they are pinching every penny they possibly can because they don't know how long the strike's

going to go on for and their livelihood really depends on it. So those people have actually stopped doing Botox fillers, the basic stuff, and said, you know what, I'm going to hold off on a couple months until I know exactly what's going to happen. So there's a huge disparity between the two. So the higher-end, I'd say higher net worth actors and people who are more comfortable, the ones that we've been seeing, the ones who are still struggling or not fully comfortable, they're not doing anything right now. Yeah, and I don't want to necessarily over-intellectualize this.

but being on screen, as I am for my job, and you guys get on screen as well, you know, it is sort of part of the job to look good. Otherwise, people do point out when you don't look good and things start to wrinkle a bit or sag and the rest of it. Could you argue then, Dr. Talley, that there is a sort of requirement for plastic surgery within acting? I mean, I might be sort of clutching at straws here.

No, no, you're not wrong. It's for everybody except for character actors. So there are character actors and age-based actors that we see. There are, I know 30-year-olds who play high school students. I know high school students who want to be older, but they don't really get the jobs. And you have character actors who need to look old. But apart from them, everybody else, they end up seeing the changes over time, and they lose the character that they had that they want to keep. So you'd have somebody, you know, as good looking as like Brad Pitt, he's known for his jawline. He's known for his

neck. He's known for these kind of things. And he's not so much known for the different other characteristic parts of him, unfortunately. And for someone like that, it would be a struggle, and you'd have to maintain that fit appearance or looking kind of young, looking like a chisel jawline and those kind of things. So there is a stress for them to remain the same to keep getting the roles that they want,

whereas there are other actors who kind of evolve with the age and go with a character, and you'd have someone like Eddie Almost Jr. or people like that who have that characteristic appearance that actually benefits them, so they don't want any plastic. surgery and they don't want to look any different than they used and they want to age. It's fascinating.

I want to end with Perrits because Peres, you built your empire on celebrity gossip, if I can call it, that news watching celebrities. Do you think culture has changed with regards to the way that people's appearance is critically analyzed? Do you think people are more accepting now celebrities getting plastic surgery? Well, they are more accepting, but I don't think culture has changed that much, to be honest. On the surface, they would like to say that, ooh, we're kinder, but people on social media are a lot of hypocrites, and they'll still leave really awful comments on pictures and videos

of celebrities. And that kind of criticism does lead many to get work done. And sometimes to really irreversible effects, you know, some celebrities get too much work done, and it's really hard to look like themselves. Indeed, they do, and they do get called out on it. Look, Perez, Dr. Talek, thank you very much for making time to talk on this. Thank you. My pleasure. Well, Unsensored next tonight.

Have you ever wanted to see a former Prime Minister abandoned in the middle of a jungle and made to humiliating tasks? Well, if ITV get their way, you might be in luck. My pack will be in here next. Discuss the Liz Trust, I'm a celebrity, rumors, and much more. Welcome back to Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood in the chair tonight. and still with me here in the studio, Talk TV contributor Esther Cracko,

and the associate editor of the Daily Mirror, Kevin McGuire, joining us just to talk a little lightness. And you know what? Let's start somewhere else first though with Lizzo. I say lightness. This is actually quite dark. Yeah, I know I was going to say. This is very dark.

And surprisingly, because Lizzo, of course, very popular performer. She's known for her body positivity. She's a very sort of liberal performer. where she has been accused of sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment through sexual, racial and religious harassment and several incidents between 2021 and 2023.

Now, as according to a lawsuit filed yesterday, I was surprised when I heard this. I fully believed her image. I'm a big supporter of her, have been up to this point, I think, because the allegations are really bad, Esther. Well, yes, but we have to remember where she's been.

being sued. This is the US, a very litigious culture. The second, you're famous and someone feels like they can get something off you, you're a target. I'm not saying that this person's allegations are not true, but at the end of the day, I find it very hard to believe that Lizzo was fat-shaming anybody. I mean, not only would it be highly inappropriate for obvious reasons. Also, it would be very inconsistent with the kind of message that she puts out there. She's all about body positivity and all of that. I mean, some of the allegations in there are pretty scathing. I'm not going to lie, but I don't believe them yet. I still hold to the innocent until proving guilty in Mantra.

You think it's all just drummed up to take Lozo down? No, I think it's inconsistent with what we see of her. That's what I'm saying. And I'm not surprised that this is happening in a country where they have a very intense litigious culture. Look, I've got an open mind on it. And I was surprised because of her image and everything she's said, but sometimes people aren't their public images.

I'm not saying that's the case with her. This has to be tested in court by lawyers. But there are three claims. I suspect it'll come down to what corroboration there is and she's got a big problem if they're found to be true because of that

image she's projected. If she just projected a scuzzy image and she was found to behave scuzzily, then it wouldn't be, who-hoo, look at that. But it's somebody who... When I read the fat-shaming one, I was like, no, no, I don't believe this. But some of the details in a, you know,

nightclub in... It's criticised a dance's recent weight and later berated then fired that dancer for recording a meeting. And then according to a lawsuit, also encouraging one dancer to touch a nude performer at a club in Amsterdam and subjected several dancers to an excruciating 12-hour audition after making false accusations they drank while working. So it sounds like there's going to be a few parties corroborating.

Well, yeah, I mean, this is a person that went to a basketball game with her entire bum out. You know, she wore those cut-out trousers. So clearly, I don't think she's the best, you know, I also just think there's a lesson in this about T, about T, about T, about treating the people around you at work well, regardless of the role that you hold, which we see time and again.

Well, you can punch up, but you can't punch down. As you can hit the record industry, executives, you know, the boss of whoever our company is, that's all right, that's fine, but don't, no, not the other people, not your dancers, not people on sound and light. Let's talk about lighter things. It is silly season and that's what we call it in news.

Anyway, in August when Parliament's in recess and there's not much political news going on, but there is some political gossip that Liz Truss could be set for the Ironer Celebrity Jungle if you can believe it. Now, the latest gossip was that Boris Johnson have been approached for this and had been offered, to where this report is from,

around a 700 grand to get into the jungle but declined it. Now this gossip saying the next target is former Prime Minister Liz Truss. Are the big-name politicians also being considered Dominic Rob, Sadja Javid or Quosikar. I refuse to believe it. I refuse to believe it because that would be so ludicrous on so many levels.

Matt Hancock was on it. But that's precisely the point. But that's also why the makers of the program, no, you get a politician, you pay big books, you'll get big viewing figures. But the thing is, I think we need to talk about the effects on society. With all due respect, being a politician is still a serious job, believe it or not. And I think you degrade your office when you do stuff like this.

I think reality TV shouldn't be on the agenda for any politician. I think it's completely ridiculous. What, humiliating politicians, aren't? Well, but that you're disresist. You're disrespecting the public. Anyway, she couldn't last more than a week. Well, yeah, there's that. There is the question whether she will outlast the time she was prime minister,

which was 40 watts it days. That's almost sad. Get a lettuce in instead. Get a lettuce in the jungle. Talk about humiliating politicians. We don't like to do it without causal on this show. But let's take a look at Richie Sunak's trousers, shall we? This photo doing the rounds.

Oh, our lower strap is covering the ankles. Let's see if we can show you that. The gap between the sock of the trousers is causing some consternation. and online circles. He's pulled them up at the hip. How can you pay three and a half grand on a suit and it doesn't fit you? Hold on.

And he's only five foot six. First of all, we have to consider the logistics here. We don't know all the proportions. We don't know all the dimensions. We don't know everything he's working with. Oh, below the belt. We don't know any of that. We are not his tailors.

Okay, so let's just assume to be gracious that he's pulled them up of it and that he's also a small man and therefore doesn't need more trousers. He's five foot six. He's perfectly formed, but he's tiny. I mean, he probably buys his clothes and the kenry in. Esther, I think he's been very generous in your analysis there.

And Kevin, thank you very much for joining us as well. That is it from me tonight. Anyway, we'll be back here tomorrow. Whatever you're up to, make sure it is uncensored. Good night.