Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Donald Trump's Fibbing, Justin Welby, California Payout

Episode Date: May 11, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers delves into how we deal with Donald Trump's constant fibbing from a Presidential candidate. Also Piers looks into with Justin Welby overstepped the mark when aired opinion on the Illegal Migration Bill. Piers looks into how California are paying residents compensation for historic sins. 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

On Pierce Morgan, uncensored tonight, Donald Trump returns to center stage on primetime with a fusillade of fake news. How should we handle his gigantic fibbing without gagging a frontrunner to be president? We'll debate that with media titan Jeremy Bowen. Dutch British McAnterbury enters the bare pit of British politics by slamming the government's immigration bill. Did he overstep the mark? We'll debate that too. Thus, California considers paying black residents up to $1.2 million each in compensation for his. historic sins. Is that justice or is it just divisive?

Live from the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Uncensored. Donald Trump is right back where he likes to be. He's leading cable news. It's generating headlines across the planet and he's smack bang in the middle of a storm of his own making and one that's of course all about him. Viewers tuning into CNN's infamous, already infamous town hall last night could have been forgiven for thinking it was a rerun from 2016. This was Trump, the showman, shooting from a hit with insults, falsehoods, and outrageous diversions at a friendly audience,

full of Republicans that like him, met with laughter and applause, however inappropriate that may have been. Firmly in his crosshairs was E. Jean Carroll, a woman that a civil jury had just decided this week had been sexually abused by Trump in the 1980s and been defamed by him as a liar. I never met her. I have no idea who's. she is. I had a picture taken

years ago with her and her husband. Nice guy, John Johnson, he was a newscaster, a very nice man. She called him an ape. Happens to be African-American. Called him an ape. The judge wouldn't allow us to put that in. Her dog, or her cat, was named

vagina. Well, it was textbook Trump, wasn't it? For every criticism, there was a baseless insult aimed at somebody else. Grilled on hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, he responded simply by attacking the hosts from CNN, Caitlin Collins. Why you held onto those documents

when you knew the federal government was seeking them and then had given you a subpoena to return them? Are you ready? Are you ready? Can I talk? Yeah, what's the answer? Can you mind? Do you mind? I would like for you to answer the question. Okay, it's very simple to answer. That's why I asked it. It's very simple to... You're a nasty person, I'll tell you.

This is how Trump dominated the election cycle, of course, when he propelled himself to that stunning victory in the first place in 2016. Rosie O'Donnell was a fat pig, he said, Hillary Clinton was crooked and so on and so on. Everyone was a loser apart from him. ISIS were losers. CNN was sick losers with very bad ratings.

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg was a loser who has money but can't debate. Hillary Clinton was the worst and biggest loser of all time. Every time Trump spoke or tweeted, you reshape the news agenda around himself. Let's be honest, a lot of the time it was entertaining and sometimes laugh out loud funny. A lot has changed since 2016.

It doesn't feel entertaining or funny anymore. There's a lot of murky water now under the Trump Bridge. He helped inside a riot at the Capitol, but people died. Last night, said he might pardon some of the rioters. He's been criminally indicted over hush money to the porn star Stormy Daniels. He's been proven in a civil court to have sexually abused a magazine writer. He could yet face charges for trying to find votes to overturn defeat an election, which he still claims is rigged.

And that's why this all feels very different to 2015. 16. Yes, Trump is the front-runner to be the Republican nominee. Yes, 74 million people did vote for him in 2020. Yes, he could well be the next president of the United States again. But he's also a misinformation machine, spewing fake news across the planet faster than anyone can keep up with it. And if America is going to get to grips with the second coming of Donald Trump, it's going to have to figure out how to handle his incessant lies. Well, joining me now as the BBC's International Editor here and host of the hit new podcast. front lines of journalism, Jeremy Bowen, Donald Trump's former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, and the Fox News contributor, Liz Peaks. So welcome to all of you, a stellar panel. Jeremy, let me start with you. You've got this brilliant podcast series. I know it's brilliant, because I'm in it. And I really enjoyed doing it,

by the way. You said you were there to be Hannibal Lecter. I'll rather that's why it's setting up to be. And a very nice meal I had, too, roast Bowen. What do we do about, before you answer that, I want to play a clip. This is from... the podcast actually. It's from a clip from an interview you did with Bashar al-Assad, the president of Syria. And the reason it's relevant is that you categorize this clip as the big lie. And you're interviewing him about his use of barrel bombs. And it's the way that he responds to you in the

interview, which is, I think, very pertinent to Trump. And you remember doing this interview. Let's just listen to this. I wouldn't deny that included under the category of bombs are these barrel bombs, which are indiscriminate weapons. No, there's no indiscriminate weapons. It was a lie, a big one. There's no barrel bomb. And I seized on it gratefully. How all have been lying, surely?

How? How surely? Why are you sure? I thought his lie was backfiring on him, especially when he tried to turn it into a joke. I haven't heard of army using barrels or maybe cooking. And then I realized that he had a story. strategy for the interview. It just wasn't the one I'd expected. Large barrels full of explosives and projectiles, which are dropped from helicopters and explode

with devastating effect. There's been a lot of testimony about these things. No, there's no discriminant weapons. We don't have barrels. Again, it's like talking about cooking pots. So we don't have cooking pots. I mean, in a way, that sort of chuckle at the end, again, that's a kind of trump way of dealing with these things. Laugh it off, distract, whatever you can do. But interesting that the big line. was then, the big lie we now see with Trump, of course, with the denial of losing the election. How do we handle it as a global media? How do you handle Trump? Caitlin Collins is an incredibly skilled correspondent, but even she got kind of overwhelmed by the sheer volume of lies that speed up.

Well, it's difficult with Trump because he's like a machine. He spews the whole thing out. When I was talking to Assad, I knew that I was on very solid ground because I had actually seen the aftermath of barrel bomb attacks myself. I interviewed the eyewitnesses when the buildings behind them were still burning, so I knew that they were happening to start with. Also, I think if you're doing an interview like that, you'll know this very well. You know, you war game it a little bit. You'd think, well, he might say this, so I'll say this, and I'll get ready for it. But I think what you have to do is stick to your guns, but it's quite difficult because when politicians are using lies, or leaders, using lies as a technique, then

they often come in layers. There might be an underlying fake premise underneath it, then a lot of details, some of which might have a bit of truth in, some of which might not. So what I'm doing, and I'm thinking to myself, well, do I try and go for the underlying premise? Do I try and go for what's on top of that? Or I just simply say, you're not telling the truth.

Anthony Scaramucci, you had to rep Trump for how many days was it, 11? Well, thank you for getting it right, Pierce. You once said 10. I did. And you hurt my feelings. Do you know what I felt watching it, Anthony, last night? It was gripping to watch, obviously. Everything about Trump in a live television environment is gripping.

But I thought the big strategic error that CNN made as a network was to have a large baying crowd of Republican voters, most of whom seemed very big fans of Donald Trump, who would then cheer and laugh, in my opinion, completely inappropriate moments, like when he was attacking the woman who's just won the second. abuse case against it. Yeah. Well, a couple

of quick things. Number one, let's go to CNN for a second. They're obviously trying to change strategy and to gain a different set of viewers than they had during the Zucker era. I'm just wondering if that was the right strategy going with Donald Trump, because it felt very

2016 and it felt very repetitive to the 2016 cadence. And you and I both know that 2024 in America, America is a vastly different place demographically than it was in 2016. So I question CNN strategy there. But letting him be on the air I actually like. A lot of people are mad at me for that.

I don't want Mr. Trump to be president again. But I am a big believer in free speech. I have been attacked and pilloried by the press. So I think I have standing to say this. It's very, very important if you've got a guy like Trump who's going to be in the mix in 2024 and possibly president again. It's very important for the American people to hear from them. And then I think it's up to the media and people like myself and others

to explain the lie and see if we can find candidates that can appeal to his base and strip them away from Mr. Trump, which you and I both know will be very hard because he is a avatar for their anger. Well, he is. And let's be clear, Donald Trump remains very popular with his base. There's no question of that. The poll numbers at the moment show him streaks ahead of anybody else in the race to be a Republican nominee. And if it's a shootout between him and Joe Biden to be president, he's got a very good chance, according to all the polls. The problem a lot of people have, and I'm one of them, and I've known Donald Trump a long, long time.

But watching him last night, I saw a guy often in complete denial about reality, not least with his persistent claim that he won the 2020 election without producing any proper evidence to prove this. What did you make of it? Yeah, well, when everyone talks about Donald Trump lying, I think you have to take a step back and realize he believes he won in 2020. He's not lying. I mean, obviously all the facts are against that. All of us who supported him at one time or another have called on him to denounce that lie

and admit that he was defeated, but he won't do it and maybe he can't do it. That's part now of his presentation. I agree with Anthony. I think part of the problem last night was that you had a very partisan audience. People were indeed happy to see him. They were cheering him on, et cetera. But honestly, the reaction from the liberal media in our country has been so over the top. They want him never to be shown on television. What are they so afraid of? Do they really think that most of the country tuning in last night are going to be swayed that they're going to become Trump voters? If they're so sure that everything, he says is wrong and blasphemous and abominable, why are they so afraid of him? I think it's ridiculous. I think that's a very good point. I mean, I believe in freedom of speech,

as Anthony said. I'm sure Jeremy would echo that. You know, there is a danger of someone like Trump. If you push him away into the shadows, it almost empowers him. Like almost everything negative would normally disempower somebody. It seems to work for him. I want to play a clip. This is from when I interviewed Donald Trump a year ago

to launch this show, actually. it was a perfectly cordial interview for a long time until it got round to me telling you what I thought of the 2020 election claim. Here's what I was said to you. I believe it was a free and fair election and that you lost. You don't really believe that.

That's my belief. Well, then you're a fool. However, maybe I am a fool. Maybe I'm the fool in this conversation. And you're a fool and you haven't studied it. Now, Jeremy, I watched Caitlin Collins last time. I felt for her because she is a very good correspondent I'm becoming a good anchor.

But I've been in that shoes when Trump will just turn on you, call you an idiot, call you this, call you that. It's hard for any journalist, actually. You see, you can't get into name-calling. You can't say, no, I think you're an idiotic. I think you're a liar. Yeah, and you've got a big crowd,

bane with him. And that's not why you're there, because what she did was, she stuck to her guns, and because they had all these Trump fans in the audience, when they came up to ask questions themselves, they were very easy stuff. And she was there to try and put a,

bit of steel into the whole thing. But yeah, it's very exposed. But was it a mistake for CNN to give him that time? I mean, he is the front runner to be a Republican nominee. He's the front runner to be a Republican nominee. America is a democracy. If you believe in free speech, you've got to hear what people say, even if you

don't like it. That's the whole thing. And because it's a democracy, in the end, the American people have a choice. Right. Antis Garamucci. Can Trump win a general election? He can clearly win the Republican nomination the way things are going, but our independents going to watch him trashing a woman who's just won a $5 million lawsuit against him

for sexually abusing it? Are they going to watch that and think I'm going to vote for in a general election? Well, unfortunately, peers, a lot goes into it. You have to tell me what happens in the last four weeks leading up to the 2024 election day because this stuff gets decided last minute. And so the short answer is yes, he can win. I would like to think that the demography of the country has moved away from him, and I think it'll be impossible. Certainly, I can say this. My friends on the Democratic side and the Biden people want to run against Trump, they have done the numbers, and they think his polling with independence is absolutely

atrocious. And just quickly, he's got two, possibly three more indictments coming. He's got the J6 indictment. He's got the Georgia indictment and the document indictment. That's death by a thousand paper cuts for independence. So I'd like to say no, but I think the answer is maybe. Right. I mean, Liz P, all of this is completely unprecedented.

No president's ever been indicted. No president's ever had a $5 million lawsuit over abusing a woman being upheld by a jury. No one's facing all these potential further indictments. And yet, and yet, Trump's poll numbers keep going up amid this slew of scandal. Does it turn him into an almost unstoppable train? And is it, in other words, a self-harming strategy, really, by the Democrats to keep pushing all this stuff against Trump? Well, no, I don't think so. And here's why. I think in 2020, Joe Biden very successfully ran from his basement. All he did was run against Donald Trump, really. And I think his strategy this time round is to do the same thing. He can't hide because COVID gave him that excuse. He no longer has that excuse. But this time round, he's a time round, he's a time round. He can just let Trump make all the headlines.

And the headlines are going to be, as you point out, presumably pretty negative. There are going to be a lot of indictments, a lot of investigations. Meanwhile, let's consider what happened today. Today was a horrible day for Joe Biden. Title 42 ends tonight at midnight. And there clearly is no plan to stop the tens of thousands of people that are massed at the southern border about to come into our country. We have no plan forward on resolving the debt ceiling problem. But what are we all talking about?

We're talking about Donald Trump. And by the way, also, Representative Komer is launching all these accusations about the Biden family, nefarious activities in Ukraine and China and elsewhere. So, you know what, I think all this is working very well for Joe Biden because we're all talking about Donald Trump. We're not talking about Joe Biden. You know what? You might be right, but you could also take a view.

It's working very well for Donald Trump. In a way, it would not work well for any other politician in the history. of planet Earth. Great to talk to you. List Pick, thank you very much. Anthony, always great to catch up with you. Jeremy, you're staying because I'm about to interview after the break, a Russian politician in Vladimir Putin's party. He's also a big TV staff for Russian state television.

He insists Vladimir Putin is winning the war in Ukraine, and I'm going to have that debate with him and then get Jeremy's reaction to it. It's after the first. Welcome back to Piers Morgan on Sensor. Jeremy Bowen is still with me. Donald Trump is notorious for his whoppers. We just established, but the godfather missed him for his work. information really resides in the Kremlin, speaking at a bare-bones military parade in Moscow

this week's, supposedly to celebrate victory featuring one solitary tank. Vladimir Putin accused the West of unleashing war on Russia. Of course, the opposite is true. And the war that he began, expecting victory over Ukraine in just days, has been a disaster for his country. Russia's military is beset by infighting. The head of Putin's Wagner mercenary group is brazenly questioning his dictator. What will the country do, our children, grandchildren, who are the future of Russia? And how can we win this war if, by chance, and I'm just speculating here, it turns out that this grandfather is a complete moron.

Extraordinary broadside there against Vladimir Putin. Well, today the UK confirmed it sent long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine as it prepares a massive counter-offensive. So is Putin losing the war and his grip on power? I'm joined by Yvgeny Popop, an MP for Putin's United Russia Party, and host of the Russian 60 Minutes political news program. Mr. Poppov, thank you very much indeed for joining me. Why is Russia losing this war? Let me correct you, Pearson.

Thank you for giving me your floor. I'm not a member of any party in Russia. I am in a faction of parliamentary in Russian Duma of United Russia. And of course, I'm for Vladimir Putin. especially right now. Russia is not losing the war. Of course, we can see your plans to offense, to make an offense to our territory,

to our troops, to some Russian cities inside my country, but we're going to fight for our security guarantees, for Russian people on Donbass. Because you told a lot of stories today, but you didn't tell the main story. Seven people have been injured in Horlevka in Donbass. One people was killed by a Ukrainian bomb in Donetsk today. Many people have been injured in Herson territory.

But you only see and you only cover one side. Well, hang on. Hang on. Let me stop you there. The real story, if you want the real story, is that Russia illegally invaded Ukraine, a democratic sovereign country, which is now a democracy, illegally invaded it over a year ago, assumed it would just run it over in a few days,

met extraordinary resistance from the Ukrainian people, and I spent the next year in a bit, committing war crimes, acts of utter barbarism against the Ukrainian people, deliberately targeting civilians, targeting maternity hospitals, shelling people in streets, committing mass murder all over Ukraine.

That's the real story. That's the real story for you because you live in the myths, dear peers. Because I sought your reporter and journalist because we used to live in New York at the same time and I will remember you on CNN and you've been great journalist, great interviewer. But let me ask you, let me answer your questions.

If you're talking me about real situation, but I can tell you about real situation. How about Georgia? Yesterday, we listed ban on direct flights between Georgia and Russia. What was the United States respond? They told Belisi the real democratic government of sovereign countries. that they can't fly to Russia. Georgians can't fly to Russia. We canceled visa regime with Georgia.

What the United States told us, not to us. With respect, you're not talking about what I just explained to you is the real story. Why did Russia illegally invade Ukraine? Why is Russia committing endless war crimes in Ukraine? Why is Russia kidnapping tens of thousands of Ukrainian children and taking them out of the country? Why are you as a country doing all these things? Why is Vladimir Putin behaving like a brazen dictator who thinks he can just seize countries and kill anyone that gets in his way?

They're the questions I want you to answer. Do you have any answer? What question you want me to respond first? Why did you illegally invade Ukraine? We didn't invade Ukraine. I can tell you a long story. You didn't bother with a long story. You clearly invaded Ukraine.

The war crimes of Ukrainian government. I can tell you a lot of stories which I have been seen by my own eyes on Donbass, how Ukrainian army still killing many Russians on

Donbass territory. The Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian people led by President Zelensky, are defending themselves against what has resembled on occasion genocidal behaviour by Russia. I don't use that phrase lightly. I went to Bukka, for example, in Kiev

and saw for myself the scene of the massacre that occurred there. I talked to people who had lost relatives in that massacre. That was a war crime. And Vladimir Putin and others involved in this are going to be held account to it. But I simply ask you again, why did Russia illegally invade Ukraine? And now that it's been going on for nearly a year and a half,

and it was supposed to last three days, when are you going to accept this has been a total fiasco, a disaster for Russia? We saw the pathetic scene at the victory parade of one tank, which presumably is all you've got left to show off on your victory parade. When are you going to stop the killing and the murder? You're like Tucker Carlson. This is your mono program.

It's not a monologue. I'm just telling you some cold, hard facts. This is not a fact? I don't know facts because I have heard your questions. Because this story has began many years before our invasion to Ukraine. Or when you invade the Crimea, you mean? You should study history. I know when you invaded Crimea, yeah.

You illegally invaded Crimea in 2014, and then you illegally invaded Ukraine last year. I'm fairly up to speed on the history of what you've been doing. I've been in John Bassi, I've been in Crimea. I've seen everything by my own eyes, you know? And I can tell you about every moment of this conflict from 2004, from first... Yeah, but you don't think the Russia invaded Ukraine, therefore you're living in a totally deluded world, which doesn't exist. Because obviously Russia invaded Ukraine. Everybody saw, the whole world saw it.

But you called it a special operation, and the special operation. turned out to be a complete disaster, didn't it? And now you're losing, and even the Wagner mercenary group are calling Putin a moron. Can I answer you? Yeah. Can I respond? If you can.

I don't think it's funny, Mr Popov. You might. I don't think the slaughter and the maiming of thousands and thousands of innocent civilians in Ukraine is funny. Sorry, I don't. I can say any war. as Russian people, as my state, can say a word.

We can't explain what happens. Because you live in the myths, you live in Western stereotypes. You should respond on your war crimes. You should give arrest warrants to Tollular, to George Bush for Iraq. You should give arrest warrant for Obama for Israel. Hang on. For what it's worth, I led the campaign in Britain with the Daily Mirror newspaper against the Iraq war. I felt that was, well, hang on. Let me finish. I thought that was an illegal invasion of a sovereign country, not dissimilar to what we've been seeing in Ukraine from Russia. And I'm not afraid, Mr Popov, to admit that I think my country behaved illegally with that invasion. Are you prepared to admit that your country illegally, illegal?

You're going to send your Prime Minister to behind the purse? You didn't do that. Are you prepared to admit your country illegally invaded Ukraine? That's completely false and that's not true. Okay. Mr. Popov, if you can't, honestly, if you're going to deny the obvious, then we're going to have to leave it there. I appreciate you joining me.

Thank you very much indeed. Jeremy, this level, lived illusion where you can have a Russian politician who just will not even admit they invaded a country when we all watched it happen. What do we do with that? Well, I think from their point of view, what thereafter is the consistency of their line. They don't want leaks in the front that they've put out. And he's a big supporter of Putin. So he's echoing what Putin says. And he knows he can't convince you. So I think that

when they talk like that, they're talking to their own audience but they're also, the fact is, around the world, China, India, the global south, a lot of people are more likely to agree with him than with you. I read somewhere, a third of the world has sympathy with, if not fullsome support for what Russia has done in you. Because they look at what the West has done and you talked about Iraq

and they've thought, and they think, well, where's the difference? I mean, that is a opinion that's held. I would say the differences in this country, people like me on television, journalists, we're able to say freely if we believe that that invasion of... We have a democracy and we have a free press, and over there it's an autocracy. And it comes out, you know, Putin sets the line, they follow it. So I think all you can do when you talk to these people is what you do,

you've got to stick to your guns and try and put the other case, Donald Trump said in this CNN thing yesterday that he thought he would solve the Ukraine war in one day if he wins the white. Let's take a listen to this. Let me just put it nice away. If I'm president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours. He's mad. I mean, it's preposterous. Maybe what he's saying is I will turn off the tap that keeps the Ukrainians going of money and weapons and then they'll lose.

that will settle it. And that, of course, would be a great victory for Putin if it happened that way. How do you see it ending this Ukraine war? Well, I think that this is pretty important because if someone like Trump does, if Trump himself beats Biden and goes into the White House, then I think the money tap will get turned off

or really, really throttled back. And actually, the Ukrainians really need this Western support if they're going to win. Russia has a population four times theirs. So I think that if they don't make breakthroughs this year, then it's going to be a long, long conflict. It'll last certainly as long as Putin's in the Kremlin. I can't let you go without mentioning another long, long conflict.

The BBC's internal battle with free speech and what you're all allowed to say and not say is presented. So the whole Guarrenica thing, he's a good friend of mine, full disclosure. and I've followed it with great inches. You and I've talked about this before. It's an interesting one. It's complicated. I've sort of come to conclusion. I'm interested in what you think of my conclusion on this.

Which is that if you're news and current affairs at the BBC, you keep your gobshot about your opinions, if you are anything else, if you are Alan Sugar, if you're Gary Lineker, even if you're David Attenborough, frankly, anyone outside of news current affairs should just be allowed to tweet and say what they like. Is that a mad idea? think the flaw in the rules, and clearly they've accepted there is some kind of a flaw

because there's an inquiry and assessment going on about it, was that whether or not it is possible or desirable to apply full-fat impartiality to people like Gary. Should it be? People. Well, shouldn't be. Does it matter what he says about stuff? I think it, I think it, the more you talk about it, the more it matters. I think that if you just go on about it, maybe it doesn't.

The point is, that was the rule. I've worked for BBC in my whole life, and I follow that rule. It's like stick of rock, you know, it's inside me. But you have to be in part. Yeah, yeah, of course I do, because I'm the international after the BBC. I think that clearly there is something to discuss when it comes to freelance contributors, like Gary Linnaker, Alan Sugar or whoever, and what they need to do,

and if this is what they're doing, is clarify, I think. Yeah. Jeremy, great to see it. The podcast series is brilliant. I know it's running on the radio this week and next week, but it's also available on BBC Sounds now? BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts. How many parts? There are 10.

10 parts. And how many am I in? Great. You're at least a couple. Jeremy, great to see you. Thank you very much for doing you. One of the great media figures of this country, a national treasure. Have you been honoured yet or not? I have had the

I've got the I've got a medal from the Royal Scottish Geographic Society No MBE, no OVE? No, nothing like that That is ridiculous If you're watching You can sponsor me Well if a new king is watching

And I think he probably is with his queen Big fans of the show Can we correct this please Honour this great man I like the uniform that Rory Stewart got to wear to the coronation I want one of those Great to see you

Well, Unscensored next tonight, the Archbiltraperty of Canterbury has attacked the government's migration plans, saying they risk great damage to the UK's reputation. Is he right? Should he be saying any of this stuff if he's the Archbishop of Caterbury? We'll debate that next. Welcome back to Piersmore and Unsensit, the Archbishop of Canterbury delivered a meticulous coronation service at Westminsterrabia on Saturday. Faultless. Perfect.

This week, he's been preaching about politics instead. Justin Welbis sits in the House of Laws, claims the UK's illegal immigration bill, which includes sending migrants to Rwanda, is morally unlawful. unacceptable. Rishi Sunak has staked his premiership on stopping the boats, more than 5,000 people across the channel to reach the UK this year so far. So it's a big problem. Of course we cannot take everyone and nor should we. But this bill has no sense at all of the long term and of the global nature of the challenge that the world faces. It ignores the reality that migration must be engaged with. source as well as in the channel. It is isolationist. It is morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with the crisis alone and cut our

international aid. A little bit of a different tone to what he had in the Abbey. So was it a fair intervention should the Archbishop be saying this kind of stuff about government policy? And Richard Tice's other observation would be I didn't hear him come up with an alternative plan. In other words, you can say you're morally outraged by what the government's doing, but he hasn't really offered an alternative. And this is what these people always do. They say it's unacceptable, but they never

have a solution. But you see, these people, do you mean all our politicians of candid? Let me tell you what's morally unacceptable. For an unelected bishop, right, to try and defy the elected will of the British people, which is to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. I think it was absolutely outrageous what he is. But he is supposed to be our moral

guideer as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury in this country that is part of his remit and he is in the House of Laws which may be not which I would like to abolish right but currently he is so isn't that part of his job? No but part of his job is to recognise the difference between the the wishes of the people when they're elected representatives which for the last 13 years has been to reduce immigration and to reduce illegal immigration. This Rwanda thing all right all right Isabel this Rwanda thing it looks to me like a complete fiasco.

Nothing's happening. Nobody's gone to Rwanda. It turns out even if we start sending people there, it'll be tiny numbers. Meanwhile, the boats keep coming. Rishi Sunnah said to me, it's one of his five big pledges. I'll cut the boats back. Nothing's working. No, you sound surprised.

But, I mean, I said the minute they unveiled the Rwanda plan that it would be a fiasco. But I tell you what I think the Archbishop of Canterbury's number one job is, and that is to look after his congregations, to protect the Church of England as an institution, to look after his flock and to build it up. And I've just been looking at congregation numbers since he took over. And it directly tracks when he took over.

So since 2013 when he came in, congregations have actually plummeted. I mean, fallen by something like a third in recent years. Now, part of that is to do with pandemic. But there I have a problem with him too, because I don't think he provided any leadership, moral or otherwise during the past. He effectively abandoned his floor. So, Paula, I think the bigger picture here is,

should he just keep out of this stuff? I mean, he's got, as is it more rightly said, he represents all the congregations of the church in the country, many of whom will be conservatives and many will be on the left. Is it really his place to be politically divisive like this and take a side? Of course it's his place to do so,

and he was doing his job when he stood up in the House of Lords. But remember... Because what do you think his job is then? Well, his job is, of course, to speak up when he sees that things are inappropriate, when he sees things that are morally wrong. Even if it's specific government policies? It's a specific government policy that impacts on society,

both here and on the international platform, and that's what he was referencing. And remember, this is not just about the archbishop. This is about Lord Danit, and this was about the 90 other members of the House of Lords who wanted to stand up and have their voices heard. And can I just say that in terms of, you know, an unelected person. We've got Rishi Sunak in power at the moment.

He's an elected MP on a manifesto which is to reduce immigration. And what we're talking about, when we talk about reducing immigration, we had 45,000 come across on the boats. We had 500,000, over 500,000 in terms of net migration. Correct. In breach of their manifest. Why are we not talking about that? Well, we are. We are.

We are and we will be. Why are we not talking about the fact that the shortage occupation list has been extended this year? Now, we know why that is. It's because we need immigration. We need it. And what is happening is that we are shouting at the most vulnerable people. Oh, come on. Hang on.

Wait, wait. Wait. Paula, Paula, they are illegal. They are legally. They are legally. There are no options available. Paula. It's not free.

It recently transpired that about 35% of these poor vulnerable people were young Albanian economic migrants coming over to try it on, trying to enter illegal. and they were not from war-torn countries or vulnerable. They were young, healthy guys who wanted to come here and make money. That's not the way you've categorised here. That's not all the boat people, but there's a lot for coming in.

First of all, let's not call them boat people. They're people seeking asylum whose transportation happens to be to boat. You are demonising. You are demonising. They've come from France, which is a safe country. I want to answer Piers's question. There's two things that I want to say in relation. to that. The first thing, obviously, is that just because you can point to one, that

does that mean that it covers the rest, if you tell me that there's 35%. If a third of all the people coming in, if a third of all the people coming in on the boats are from Albania and their young men, I have a problem with that. Now, now, but I do want to fix the procedure. But I agree, and I do want this country, I agree, and I think the Rwanda plan is nonsense, and I do want us to have a humane asylum and refugee program. Talk about Robert De Niro for a minute. How old were you when you had your last child, Richard Isles? In my mid-30s.

Right. I was 47 when I had my daughter, after three much older lads. Robert De Niro is 79. And he's just becoming a father of the seventh time or something? I mean, is he insane? I can't imagine anything worse, frankly, Piers. Can you imagine? I'll be glad to get to 79.

I won't be looking to increase the population of the earth. And ladies, do you look at him more admiringly for carrying on it this way? Or is this ludicrous? I think it's extraordinarily selfish. Cats are so used to bang them out until he's 80s, isn't they? I think he's being extraordinarily selfish. It's about love, Isabelle. It's about love.

And let me tell you, a child knows, but not love. It's about love. It's about love. It's about love. I think if he actually looked after that baby for very long, it would probably be the end of him at that age. So, are we all agreed? You think it's for love, do you? It's for love.

It's for love. It's all right. Paul, you said some bonkers things on this show. That is probably the most bonkers. Thank you, Pat. Good to see you all. Unsensett said next tonight, California lawmakers consider reparations

to black Californians' compensation for decades of state sanctioned discrimination. Is it justice or is it just divisive? We'll debate that after the break. Welcome back to Pizs Morgan, Unsensit, the California Reparations Task Force this week voted to approve recommendations on how the state can compensate black residents

for historic discrimination, Governor Gavin Newsom, has praised the tariff falls but appears to be cooling. on its advice, perhaps because it could cost $1.2 million per person. This debate is everywhere right now. The British monarchy has faced repeated calls for reparations for historic links to the slave trade. Well, BBC journalist Laura Trevelyan recently quit a job

to campaign for reparations, having donated £100,000 herself to Grenada, where her family historically owned slaves. So is this a form of historic justice, or is it just divisible? I'm joined by a member of the California Reparations Task Force, Jovan Scott Lewis and Fox News contributor and civil rights lawyer, Leo Terrell. Welcome to both of you. Jovan, let me ask you about this, because on the face of it, I've talked about this quite a lot recently, I don't understand how the pain from historic sins gets eased by bunging a lot of cash to people now,

almost all of whom will have not suffered the original pain. So explain to me. Sure, thank you for having me. What we're doing in California is we are dealing with some of the more recent experiences of discrimination, beginning with the period of Jim Crow here in the state of California. So what we call these are really the lingering effects of slavery. And so we're not providing reparations or recommending reparations for slavery itself, but for the ongoing institutional and state-based harms that the African-American community has faced.

But it's not only African-Americans. I mean, look, slavery was an evil, evil thing. Nobody denies that. But it's not just African Americans who have suffered historic sins and ills against them. Where do you take the logic of this argument? Does everybody, does every community in the world who has been mistreated historically, are they all worthy of financial payment? And if so, how is the world going to pay all this stuff,

given we're already suffering a global financial crisis? Right, that's a fair question. What we're doing in California is we have effectively calculated the economic losses that the black community faced as a result of state policies. And so we're effectively tracing the capital that this community lost over the past, you know, century and a half of discriminatory state policies, and the argument is that we're building a reparations proposal around those direct losses. In addition to that, we have, you know, dozens of policies and programs that are helping to

effectively end the kind of discriminatory cycle that African Americans have faced in the state. Who's going to pay the bill? Well, thankfully, that's not the task force's job to figure out. You know, our job was to create a methodology for compensation, for calculating those harms, and we're passing along to the state legislature. I think the state has a variety of options of how to pay for this. The state, if it decides to pay for it, again, we are recommending compensation. We have come up with calculations for how compensations can be arrived at.

The state has a variety of, I think, instruments and approaches to how to stretch out a payment if they decide to do so. All right. Let me bring in Leo Terrell. You'd be waiting patiently. Your response to this, Leo? Well, you've done a great job of asking the right questions. First of all, they cannot prove any form of direct damage at all.

I challenge them as a lawyer. As a civil rights lawyer, peers, here's the situation. They talk about institutionalized racism. Where is it? You got black mayors in this state. They talk about systemic racism. Where is it? Where's the white boogeyman that they're talking about?

They cannot prove that people of color, black folks, deserve $1.2 million. Does Kamala Harris need it? Does London Breed, the mayor of San Francisco? Does Karen Bass, Barbara Lee, who's a congresswoman? They can't show this. What's the real reason behind this, Pierce? I'll tell you what it is. In 2020, during the summer of riots, you had a governor named Gavin Newsom who wants to pander

to black Americans in California in order to run for president. And I will submit to you that if such a bill was even contemplated, there would be a challenge to it because it violates equal protection clause, it's unconstitutional, and it's racist. And I would be the first, as a civil rights attorney,

to challenge such a law. Last point, Gavin Newsom came out a couple of days ago, Pierce, and said he is not inclined to support reparation in a cash payment. All right. made some fiery points back there. So Jovan, I guess my

overview has been about this issue. Are we now in this country, for example, going to seek some form of payment from descendants of the Romans and the Vikings for their marauding around Britain? And if not, why not? In other words, what's the difference really

ideologically behind what you're striving to achieve for the African American community for historic issues and that? And me saying, well, I'm sure some of my ancestors were mistreated by Romans and Vikings. I'd like a large check, please. Sure.

And that's a fair question. And, you know, counter to your other guests' claim, we have established the exact record of harm. What we're talking about is that an African-American community, as recent as 1973, here where I live in South Berkeley, was demolished. A commercial district was demolished to build a train station. You're talking about African-American communities that were demolished. to build highway systems. So the record of harm is clear.

It is direct. And I really do welcome your other guests to view the interim report that we released last summer, which is a 500-page detailed report of the specific and direct harms that African-Americans in the state have faced at the hands of state policy.

And that's what we're... But I would say this, Joe, there are other communities, the gay community of the world, right? Have all had discrimination from the state. Right? You could argue. And you could argue,

That's caused a lot of pain and harm. So do members of the gay community globally, are they entitled to take your lead and say, right, we were discriminated against by states. We want money for it. In other words, where do you end? Sure, where you end is with state responsibility. And so if those are the communities

and any communities can establish an actual record of state harm that is intentional. And what I'm saying is that these harms were intentional. We're talking about redlining, where black communities were directly targeted by state dispossession. We are talking about an exact record that has been established

and so if any community can establish a similar record, then I encourage them to make a claim. This is what we're talking about. This is not about a cultural issue. This is about a record of harms that the state should be responsible for. I understand, and you've expressed yourself in a very civil way, and I appreciate you

for joining the show. And also to you, Leo Terrell. Thank you very much indeed to both of you. Well, that's it from me. Whatever you're up to, just keep it uncensored. It's more fun that way. Good night. Thank you.