Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Win for Cancel Culture? Budget Review, Alec Baldwin Prosecutor Steps Aside

Episode Date: March 15, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Piers debates if this is the tipping point for cancel culture, after Fiona Bruce steps down from Question Time post-Lineker saga. Piers looks into the Budget announcement and discusses whether the Tories to late to recover before the election. Piers delves into how and why the special prosecutor in the Alec Baldwin case has had to step aside. 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

Tonight, I'll Piz, walking on censor, Gary Denick and our Fiona Bruce have their 15 minutes of shame at the hands of the pitchfork self-righteous mob. But this is a tipping point for cancelled culture, we'll debate. And the grown-ups are back in charge, seemingly with a budget that didn't tank the pound, blow up mortgage rates or crash the markets, that's how low the bar is. But is it too late for the Tories to recover their reputation in time for the election? Plus, the prosecutor who vowed to take down Ali Baldwin steps aside in a rare boost of the disgrace star. But will he still end up behind bars? Live from London, this is Pearce Morgan uncensored.

Well, good evening from London. Actually, good evening from a gridlocked London. It's taking me one hour and 45 minutes to travel four miles from West London to another part of West London because of all the strikes. 600,000 workers. apparently we're out today. When does this end? When does the misery for all those who aren't striking who don't want barrel loads more cash in the middle of a cost of living crisis?

When does this stop? When can normal people get back to work and go to work, knowing it won't take them three days to get home? I just ask the question, because it's incredibly annoying. If the strikers think that we're all ending our day after days like this, thinking, you know what you must do? Go out and support the strikers. They're living in Klau Kuckoo Land. Anyway, that's off my chest. It's been a torrid week for those who insist that cancel culture either doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

First, Gary Nenika was mobbed and then suspended for his opinions about the government's migrant policy. Next, Fiona Bruce was denounced as an apologist for domestic violence over this. For a change, I'm not... I'm not blaming Boris Johnson or Stanley Johnson. Actually, Ken, he was a wife, Peter Stanley Johnson. on record.

Okay, let me just interview. I'm not disputing what you're saying, but just so everyone knows what this is referring to, so Stanley Johnson's wife spoke to a journalist, Tom Baer, and she said that Stanley Johnson had broken her nose and she had ended up in hospital as a result. Stanley Johnson has not commented publicly on that.

Friends of his have said it did happen, it was a one-off. Yes, but it did happen. Well, that was it. Fiona Bruce was directed to read a prepared statement for legal reasons. I think happens all the time, by the way, in live television. I'll occasionally have something I have to read, which is just part of what you do as a live news presenter. If you think someone's going to make

an inflammatory statement, you have something which can counter it. It's called being fair, being reasonable about these things. Fiona Bruce didn't pass judgment. She didn't give a personal opinion. She read a BBC statement of context on legal advice that she was directed to do. But the righteous mob don't care about the nuances of these things. as a parliament said that she was disgraceful. Petitions, circular, demanding she'd be fired. Outrage keyboard warriors described her as sickening. This is Fiona Bruce were talking about. And Refuge, the domestic violence charity that Fiona Bruce had represented with distinction for 25 years dropped her like a rock. With both Fiona Bruce and Gary Lennoxia, the reaction

was hysterical, but entirely predictable. Ridiculous overreactions to words and opinions have become the norm in our society. Step out of line, one word out of line, you'll be vilified, shamed, and censored until there are consequences, until you get cancelled, ruined. As Lenny Caprued, it doesn't matter if your left wing, right wing, white, black, old, young, rich or poor. And as Jeremy Clarkson proved in the aftermath of his ham-fisted joke about Mega Markle doesn't make any difference if you issue a groveling series of apologies, the mob doesn't care. And nor to the people who get the apologies. and Harry loved it.

In that case, apologize for everything else you've ever said and written, was their response. My question is simply this. Do we actually want to live in this kind of world? A world in which everybody has to walk around with their buttocks clenched in terror

of being castigated for something they've said or written, of losing their job, their livelihood, their reputation. A world where Fiona Bruce, and trust me on this, one of the nicest and most respected people in the news business on British television, is absurdly condemned as some kind of wicked pariah. We used to talk about 15 minutes of fame.

That was the Andy Warhol thing. Now everyone gets their 15 minutes of shame, and the lucky ones survive it. Many don't. And I make no apology for loudly and repeatedly calling out this madness for what it is. Well, joining me now has talked to be contributor, Esther Cracko, writer and commentator Larissa Kennedy

and domestic abuse survivor Rachel Williams. So let me start with you, Rachel Williams. I was led to believe by the howling mob that anyone who'd suffered domestic abuse who watched question time was traumatised by what happened that they watched what Fiona Bruce said and felt instant trauma

over what they themselves had gone through. Did you feel that? I did not, Piers. And I can honestly agree with you that Fiona Bruce is a great advocate for the cause. I was fortunate to meet Fiona Bruce at Buckingham Palace last year and she gave me a big hug.

And I could tell she was really supported of the cause. And I think she's just been absolutely crucified on social media and in the press for repeating a comment that somebody else had made. Right. And the truth is, from a legal perspective, if you're a journalist, you have the allegations that were made by Stanley Johnson's ex-wife, which appeared in this book. And he's never responded publicly. he's just given his version through friends,

and that's what she was summarising as a right of reply, because what else could she possibly do? And for that, she had to give up a 25-year role as an ambassador for refuge, which I think shames refuge, frankly. Let me go now to Larissa Kennedy. Larissa, do you really feel that Fiona Bruce had to be treated this way?

I think when we were talking about how people are being treated, Fiona Bruce herself chose to step down from this role, given the response from both beneficiaries of refuge and from other people who have experienced domestic violence, but also other forms of gender violence, who felt hurt by the comment. And that's not to say that this is some sort of cancelling or whatever we want to call it.

It's rather to say that, you know, I take pride in this role, but I also mean that when coming with pride comes responsibility. What did she do wrong? What did she do wrong? What did she be wrong? Okay, let's unpack it. Even if you believe that her, everything that she said was absolutely correct in the fact that she had to allow a right of reply, I think no one would have had an issue up until the point in the sentence at which she said, it was a one-off. Because the framing itself implies some sort of diminishing of the form of time. She didn't. Hang on that point, on that point, Larissa, hang on. On that point, Larissa, hang on. Look, Fiona Bruce didn't say it was a one-off.

She said this is what... She said, that is what Friends of Stanley Johnson have said by way of response, which, by the way, is entirely true. Hang on, hang on, you don't want to hear this. Let me finish. That's what Friends of Stanley Johnson have told people, and that's been the only response he's given.

She was accurately giving the other side of this. She wasn't saying that is true, or that is my opinion. she was simply giving a legal right to reply because that's what we do in this business. Which I was about to acknowledge and say that actually I think the fault lies with the person who wrote that and who gave it to her to say

because in fact not acknowledging that there would be backlash from stating it in that way is ridiculous. I don't know how anyone can work in this business and not understand that for someone to say one off sounds as though you're calling anyone of form of violence when it comes to gender violence

and domestic abuse, none avoid it. Okay, well, okay, again, again, if I hit you in my car, are you going to say, oh, but it was one off? I broke my arm, but it was one off. He broke someone. Hang on, hang on, hang on. Let me unpack what you just said. Here's the point.

I don't know the answer, nor does Fiona Bruce. We don't know how many times Stanley Johnson may or may not have hit his wife. All we know is what she has said, and he's not. responded publicly, other than to tell people off the record through friends, it was a one-off. That might be true. We don't know. It's a journalist's job to try and find out. But short of actually having hard evidence to corroborate that, she did what I think any news journalists would do in that situation and simply gave the other side from his point of view and said that he's told people it was a one-off. That is the situation that we know about.

Now, that may be lies, and he might have been a repeat offender, and certainly his wife said that, but we don't know that for a fact. Why should we act as judge and jury against Stanley Johnson in that circumstance? I'm curious. We shouldn't, but the phrase one-off implies some sort of judgment there. Because, as you say... But it wasn't Fiona Bruce that said it. If someone had...

If I had hit you with my car, and I hadn't made a public state enough, statement about it. And someone else had said, oh, but it's only a one-off. Would you feel comfortable that the implication is that I'm not someone who goes around hitting people in my car.

And that's a far less serious form of abuse that we're talking about, and far less emotive in many cases. It's about being cautious with language. And this isn't about canceling. It's about saying, I'm going to take a step back from this, have a little thing about how I approach this in future.

That isn't what happened. That isn't what happened. What happened is at refuge, who should work. Let me finish. Refuge who she'd worked for for 25 years. And we've just heard from Rachel that Fiona meant this. This was a cause important to her. That she dedicated 25 years of her life to promoting a charity that combated domestic violence.

Nobody would want to do less to trivialize this issue than Fiona Bruch. She's proved that over 25 years. And she read out a short statement on legal advice, simply giving the other side from what Stanley Johnson had told people was his position about what his wife had said. And for that, she's had to leave refuge as an ambassador and they dumped her to the walls in a statement which I thought was shatteringly cowardly and pathetic.

Let me go to Esther. Here's my problem with this. It's the glee with which everyone seemed to want to take down Fiona Bruce. Yeah. I mean, they make it impossible for people to exist in public life. Anyone who knows what a public journalist's job is, knows that they have to give the other side of the story,

but remain impartial with it. As best you know it. Exactly. And she didn't pass any judgment. She didn't say this is right or wrong. The person that she was speaking to called him a wife-beatle-law on it. Nobody said anything in defence of Stanley Johnson, not in defence of him, but somehow she reading a legal statement, which actually protects the BBC from libelous lawsuits. Somehow that makes her the enemy.

And I think these people don't understand. They make it very difficult for anyone to exist in public life because they hold people to ridiculous standards. I think if you're going to take down Fiona Bruce over something like this, nobody is safe from this mob. Absolutely. Nobody is safe. And then that's when people feel more incentivised

to be in syndrome because they said, if I can't get away from it, I might as well just play that game. And then you raise tensions because people feel the need to just play fire with fire. But there is a kind of glee, isn't there? We saw it with Gary Lennox as well from people on the right. And if it had been, if Leninca had been supporting, it had been a right-wing commentator presenting sport

who decided, say he's Matt Lettisier, right, giving the other side, I think it would have been all the people to defend. defending, Limca, would have been paying for his blood. So it works both ways, this mob mentality. But Linneker, the glee with which conservative MPs and conservative pundits and so on were trying to destroy his career.

They'd have a hard time doing that. It was sort of painful to watch. In a democratic society, I felt, painful to watch someone being so self-righteously condemned for his opinion. When all he was trying to do, albeit, I think, in a misguided way, the way he phrased this. All he was trying to do was stand up for refugees.

That was his crime. All that Fiona Bruce was trying to do was get some balance in the middle of a debate because that's her job as the moderator of question time. Just to make sure there's always a right of reply if someone's not there to a serious allegation that's made. We're in a situation now where the children are in charge. There are no adults in the room.

So whenever someone feels offended or they feel slighted or they don't agree with someone, they happen to have the loudest voice. And we have to go in the direction that they want to go and the inmates are running the asylum. I don't agree with what Gary Lineca said, but in the spirit of free speech, which conservatives ironically champion,

I don't believe he should have lost his job or even should have been taken off air. And with Fiona Bruce, this is even more ridiculous because there was no offence given, quite frankly. These people are making it impossible for rational spaces where people can speak freely to exist, and that's going to have a detrimental effect on society. Right, and I think, Rachel, just coming back to you,

I do think that the person that should be held accountable is surely Stanley Johnson, right? When he gives interviews again now, he should be vigorously pressed on this by journalists about exactly what the truth is. And he should be made to say his version of events on the record and be rightly challenged. I mean, that to me seems to be who should be targeted in this way, not Fiona Bruce. I absolutely agree with you, Piers. Because what has happened now, we've taken the focus off the perpetrator, you know, whether it was a one-off or not, as Fiona said. and she would have known, she knows about domestic abuse and perpetrators,

and it's not just a one-off. So what has happened now in the media, we've taken the focus off the perpetrator, as per usual, and focusing on something else, which is Fiona. And like I said, I support Fiona, and I know she would not have said that through her own opinion. That is just something she had to say. And also, can I just say as well, you know, you said about the government, shame on, like Fiona. No, shame on the government when they don't sort their, magistrates and judges aid in court

when I had to go to a victim last week because she'd been strangled by her perpetrator so ferociously her neck was black but yet he walked from court because the magistrate knew nothing really about domestic abuse and violence and give him a 12-month custodious sentence suspended for two years. So shame on the government there.

Well I'm equally as angry as you about that as I was about the poor boy that we interviewed yesterday who was wrongly tarnished as being a rapist by a total fantasist. And she ends up getting an eight-year sentence for ruining so many lives. He would have got 22 years, his lawyers had told him, had he been found guilty of all the charges against him. Larissa, this wider issue of cancelled culture, there is a feeling that the woke left, and I think you identify as one,

but you can correct me, if you like, that the woke left take a sort of weird glee in canceling people, whose views you don't share. Do you think that's right and do you think it's healthy for democracy? Absolutely not. I don't understand where this idea that pencil culture is somehow aligned with the left exists

when so many leftists are supportive of transformative justice, which is all about taking time for education, for relearning, for unlearning things, and then coming back into things. And that's why when we're saying that, Fiona Bruce has taken a step back. Maybe she took a minute to think, why have I received so much backlash?

Who may I have harmed or perhaps not? No, she got told by refuge. She couldn't be an ambassador anymore. That's what happened. Sorry, on what grounds are you saying that, Pears? I know that for a fact. You know that, sorry, can you bring a source or something?

No, don't need to. I'm just telling you, it's true. This isn't all about your personal opinion. So what's the point telling you my source? No, I'm not telling my source, but I can tell you, that's what happened. That is what happened. Okay, so per peers, that's what happened.

But per the public reports in the news about what happened, Fiona Bruce has decided to take a step back. Yeah, let me tell you, Larissa, I'm not going to teach you how to suck journalistic eggs at this formative stage of your burgeoning career. However, every time a public figure involved in a scandal says they've suddenly decided to take a step back, it's very rarely their idea. It's usually somebody else's idea.

Okay, and if you'd like to be less patronising, that would be far preferred, given that we're actually in this segment. I apologise for being patronising. As I was saying, I think this is an opportunity for learning and growth. Yeah, so I think it could be a positive thing. It's not about taking it

with glee, it's about seeing the bright side of this. I would love to see the bright side. Good to talk to, Larissa. Thank you very much indeed. Rachel, thank you very much. Esther, you're staying with us. You'll be back a little later, I think. Coming next to night, is this a budget from a government that's finally competent, but of the Conservative

has cocked it up too many times for us to forgive them. We'll debate that next. Well, the UK economy looks like it's finally seeing the tiniest fragment of life. The Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has delivered his annual budget, trying to undo the colossal collateral damage caused by Lettis Liz and her disastrous Chancellor Quarteng's mini budget from hell. Well, the good news is the UK may avoid recession this year. We've got tall today, but we're still lagging way behind our international peers

and were the only major economy predicted to shrink in 2023. Should Labor worry, though, that we're finally seeing a vaguely competent conservative government and prime minister and chancellor, or has too much damage being done for the tourists to recover in time for an election, which is still nearly two years away? Well, Jordan Meaghan I've talked to these business corresponders.

Rosanna Lockwood, the Daily Mirror's Associate editor, Kevin McGuire, and Esther Cracko, has remained with me. Okay, well, welcome, Rosanna to Piers Morgan, your debut. You're apparently the business brains of this operation, so off you go. That's a terrifying thought, isn't it? I saw Keg Clark earlier on a rival network that it should not be mentioned. But he was quite interesting in the kind of summary of this.

He thought it was actually comforting to finally see a slightly boring, quite safe, but well-received budget, which didn't scare the children and settled things down and nothing's collapsed as a result. And he said, the bar's low, but it was nice to see that from his party. That's exactly what I would have pointed out. We're coming off an extremely low base here when you consider that the doldrums, the UK economy, has been in. Now, I don't want to be any kind of British declineist,

but we're in a sort of state of managed decline, and we have been for some time. You know, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt standing there in the Commons today, patting themselves on the bank, saying, look, we're not even going to enter into recession this year, but we're actually looking just at stagnation instead. And as you said there, worst performer out of the G7 countries.

Growth also is something that we need to address in a very desperate way. What are the top lines of this budget which you think are really going to have any kind of substantive difference? You know what? I'd prefer to think of it in the politics point of view because the next election is going to be fought

on families and childcare. So this headline grabbing 30 hours free a week for childcare, the devil is in the detail on that one. It sounds good. It sounds good. It sounds good. It sounds great. It's Labour territory, but it's staggered.

it's coming in over the course of a few years and it only benefits certain amount of people right now. You know, devil's always in the detail with these things. But it's given Labor something to think about. They've come out conservatives today. And some say it lurching ever more towards this kind of welfare state that you wouldn't expect to see.

Other than that, it was very straight down the middle conservative budget. Well, I hate the question for you. Is it actually a conservative budget? I've seen some conservative pundits immediately reacting saying, look, this is a Gordon Brown budget. It's not conservatism we're seeing. here, but can they be old-fashioned conservatives, given the financial state of the country in our economy? Which is in great part due to the conservative government that has been in power

for the last decade or so. So yes, they have painted themselves into a corner, and they are having to make decisions that you might see more towards the centre, even to the left in some places, and that is going to be a struggle with their backbenchers, with their Tory backbenchers as well to sell. Okay, Esther, do you think it's a conservative? Absolutely not. You know, I've made the point that the conservatives since Cameron have been varying shades of social democrats. There's no such thing as any... Could they be anything else given a pandemic and a war raging in Ukraine? Because I was making the point, like the childcare sort of allowances that they've increased.

I was like, why would you go... Why are you going to pay someone a stranger to take care of a child when you can actually just pay the mother to stay at home with her child? That's a very fundamentally, at least on a sort of theoretical level, just not conservative at all. And so many people are making the point that how is this a conservative budget where they're sticking to raising corporation tax? Yeah, but we've tried the Liz Trust's quasi-quarteng route of slashing taxes. Christmas has come early. Here you go, everyone.

Boom. Everything collapsed. She had no way of trying to pay for it. So my point being, Kevin, you can't actually implement what you would say are old-fashioned, cut the taxes, you know, all this kind of thing, which an old-fashioned conservative would probably want to see happen. Because we tried this dramatically and it was a spectacular disaster. Yeah, but they haven't done it for a long time.

Remember, David Cameron put VAT up to a record 20%? 12 billion quids, straight off. Are they socialists in disguise? No, I just think they're incompetent now. They haven't got a plan. Hang on. You say it's a great budget. It's makeshift and a bond with mediocre

growth. I'm not saying it's a great budget, but what I'm saying is it had a whiff of competency. I think you're overstated. I think Jeremy Hunt and Rishie Sunak, love them or hate them, doesn't matter what party you're on, I like the fact they just seem vaguely competent. After what happened with Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss and Quarting

and all that nonsense, I feel slightly reassured that there may be some grown-ups in the room. That they're not really as bad as the last lot. Yes. Yes. But they were vandals and wreckers. I know. They torched the house. But give them credit for not being that. If you look now and we'll see over... Force yourself. We'll see over the next few days,

you will see that income tax is going to go up $29 billion over the period because rates are going to be frozen. You will see spending on health and education, both big areas, problems, are going to go down. You will see childcare, which I think was, and I thought was the most promising development, isn't properly funded, and one coming until 2029 at the earliest fully. So some kids who are now nine months supposed to be going to get childcare, there'll be the back end of primacy. Did you like anything about it? No, I thought...

Was there anything to like? Wasn't there something good on pubs? I'm sure you like that. What was the pubs thing? 11p, 11p off a pint. Well, there we are. Well, how have you about it? I will welcome that.

Are you happy about it? I will wholeheartedly toast that. Breaking. Kevin McGuire, happy with Tory budget, because he gets to get a cheaper pint. So, Rosanna, let me ask you this question. Well, let you of this matter, if the jungle drums about banks going under starts to really get a grip, and we head back to 2008-9. Is that possible? Look, anything is possible, peers, but be wary of conflating what's happening in international financial markets with the domestic UK politics. It's currently the banking situation.

I know our viewers might have even heard about Credit Suisse today. That is a major concern, but we're not yet in 2008 crisis. But if they go under Credit Suisse, could that have a domino effect? It has the effect of having contagion risk to psychology in the market. So if people start pulling their investments out of banks in Europe and banks in the UK, then it could. But there have been systems put in place since the 2008 financial crash. That means banks are what we call well capitalized. you've got better systems and pace, better regulation.

As far as we know it, the Bank of England, last we heard from them on Monday, where the English banks are in a good and stable position. So if we play this clip back in two months' time, it won't be under the blooper of the year section. I hope not. I called Russia wrong, so I hope I'm not calling it. So you're the kind of reverse Nostradamus? Right, yeah. Kevin, are you worried about it?

You worried about this fragility in the banking system again? You've got to be, because look. Economies are connected internationally. And we know one of the reasons Britain got high inflation had a lot of problems, Putin's invasion of Ukraine after COVID. I can see that. For instance, one of the reasons Britain is now about to avoid recession, which is good news in the budget, two-thirds of the reasons...

You've actually really rather enjoyed this budget. No, I haven't. But two-thirds are... You like that. You like the pub stuff. Two-thirds of the reasons are international, including energy prices dropping pretty rapidly. Right, but that politically... So this could actually play into Rishi Sunax's hands.

He's still got nearly two years if he needs it, right? To call him election. That's a long time in politics. This trust lasted 44 days, right? Yes, if they were able to see it, say the war gets resolved in some way, I think it's a big if. But if it did, energy prices come right back down. Inflation really eases.

And you start to see real green shoots. Rishy Soutenak, Jeremy Hunt, if they ride that wave of optimism coming out of all this and say we've helped steer us off the rocks into calmer waters, it's not a bad electoral proposition. If I was Keist-Darm, I was thinking of this today, he hasn't really sold his vision of what he thinks Britain should be. Well, he doesn't have one.

He hasn't. He's got to paint in very vivid primary culture from what he will do. And his nightmare, actually, is competency from the new administration. And trust, and that's the biggest issue. If Rishi Sunak, because he's the most trusted in the markets, that's clear clear. He's given us his five-point pledge, which he made to me in person and down the streets. He come back at the end of the year, he could actually make a lot of them.

Exactly. And it doesn't help Kirstama that his personality is like fire would. Let's watch the Rishi clip. We've got to hold him to this. By the end of the year, when, hopefully, we can come back and do this again, and you can give me my report card on those five things, I am confident that we will have delivered on them. and the country at that point will be able to say, hang on,

this guy said he was going to do these things, and he's done them. And that's what I want to be judged by, because I think politicians say lots of things, and the country's probably quite frankly sick and tired of it, right? But what they want is someone to just do the things that they say, and that's what I'm going to do. Yes, actually, that old trick of having a leader who actually says what he means

and does what he says he's going to do. That would be truly amazing. Hang on, he set his own homework, and he's marking his own homework. That is true. In inflation was going to more than half. Are you saying I've been played? Yeah, well, you know.

Is that a final word, giving you're a debutante? Kier Starrma has promised to make the UK the strongest before me economy in the G7 if Labour come into power, so try holding him to that. That is a very bold boast. Well, thank you very much indeed. I think you're leaving us. It's your brain's business, and that's the end of the business.

Next time we'll promote you to other matters. You two are coming back, I think. Well, next to night, the special prosecutor. who bound to take down Alec Baldwin, has stepped aside in a rare boost for the disgraced star. But is he still facing jail? Has he been convicted in the court of public opinion? We'll debate that.

You've got to be must-see television, that. It's an extraordinary story. Can you turn back? Time, can you arrest the aging process? Should we? I'll be mucking around with science and biology. I don't know. It's going to be fascinating. Whatever since Helena Hutchins was shot and killed

on the set of rust, the movie in October 2021, the producer, star of the film, Alec Baldwin, has maintained an arrogant refusal to accept any responsibility for what happened. She left behind a husband and a young child. Baldwin still seemed to see himself as the real victim of this tragedy. Here he is during a cynical PR round a couple of months ago after the shooting. Do you feel guilt? No, no.

I feel that there is, I feel that someone is responsible for what happened, and I can't say who that is, but I know it's not me. Well, he's pretty not guilty to involuntary manslaughter has now scored a win in the case after the special prosecutor has just resigned following a challenge from Baldwin's lawyers which will be how to discuss all this is Fox News host and lawyer Geraldo Rivera. Heraldon, great to see you you know, every time I see

Ali Baldwin just repeatedly stare down a camera or look at an interviewer and say, I feel no guilt for what happened. I'm like, really? You literally pointed a gun that a woman's, I mean, accidentally yes, you pointed a gun at a woman's head and you pulled a trigger and you killed her. How can you not, at the very least, feel guilt for that? Well, I agree with you. Certainly arrogance is at play, but also desperation, peers.

Here's a man on top of the world. Admittedly, he wasn't starring in the biggest roles, but he was a busy actor. He was well-known. He was on everyone's A-list. And then suddenly now he's a killer. So he's doing everything he possibly can. He's mounted a very vigorous defense, and now, as you alluded to it, the special prosecutor

has been removed from the case. It has little to do with Alec Baldwin's case per se, but it has everything to do with the state constitution in New Mexico, where you're not permitted to be a prosecutor in the judiciary at the same time you are a member of the state legislature as Andrea Reeb is. So it was that technicality that his ferocious defense team, which is seizing on anything and everything in their quest to keep him out of jail, seized on. And what's interesting is in her statement, she still reiterated that in her eyes,

she wants the prosecution to focus on the evidence and the facts, which clearly show a complete disregard for basic safety protocols that led to the death of Helena Hutchins. So she's making her feelings again, as she has done repeatedly, pretty clear where she thinks responsibility lies. And that includes Ali Baldwin. They tried the prosecutors to present an image that has both fairness and strength. The old adage, no one is about the law. They're going to prosecute the king and the pauper with equal vigor if they violated the law.

The problem is, oftentimes in celebrity cases in the United States, they go a special energy to get the bad guy, to get the famous guy, knowing that it's going to be not only on the legal page of the newspaper, but also the entertainment section. So in this case, for instance, going after enhanced circumstances in the involuntary manslaughter, which would have guaranteed, required, really, by law, jail time. Yeah. 18 months of jail time.

They got the enhanced circumstance thrown out because it was, it was, it was, you know, too arduous a charge in this particular instance. But Alec Baldwin still, if convicted, faces up to that year and a half behind bars. And I think the state's case is very strong. Loaded guns don't fire themselves. Accident, of course, it was an accident. But still, when you point of a loaded gun at someone and you pulled the trigger, there is criminal culpability, even if you are, Alec Baldwin.

Well, you know, we had a case in Britain. only last week where a woman was walking along a sidewalk, a pavement, and another woman came along and rushed past her, and she pushed her away. She was on a bicycle, this other lady, pushed her away, and she fell in front of a vehicle and died. And the woman that did the pushing of somebody who was on the sidewalk on a bike and going a bit fast, the woman who did that got three years in prison.

And I did think at the moment I read that, well, what about Ali Baldwin? You know, it's not entirely dissimilar. And yet one person here is three years in prison. Will he, he as a Hollywood star, just get away with him? Terrible. I think that, I mean, in my personal opinion, I don't know all the facts in the bicycle pushing case, but that does seem a very severe punishment, maybe above and beyond the pale.

And I'm not sure what role publicity played in the imposition of such a severe sentence for what was clearly an accident, unless they were, some evidence that the woman was ticked off as she was doing the shoving. You know what she didn't have, Geraldo? In the case of Alec Baldwin. You know what she didn't have Alec Baldwin's massive, highly expensive legal team? It's probably what it came down to. I thought you were going to say she didn't have me defending her.

Well, all that. In the case of... In the case of Alec Baldwin, he claims he did not pull the trigger of this antique weapon. It was forcical. The FBI, the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms people, the federal experts, all tested this gun six ways to Sunday, and all came to the same conclusion. It could not have been fired but for the fact that it was cocked and someone pulled the trigger. So he claims he didn't pull the trigger. Who did? You know, the Western gods of the New Mexico plains?

You know, I think that Alec Baldwin is still in very serious legal jeopardy. However, he's fighting tooth and nail, and I think that I personally believe he will be convicted, and he will at least get jail time suspended at the very least. But I think that his desperation has more to do, I think, with his career, with the civil liability that he faces. You know, he's not out of the woods even if he is acquitted. No, I agree. Well, talking of desperation, there's the ongoing saga of our old friends Harry and Men.

and you and I have argued about these two quite a lot, who are apparently are making their minds up whether to attend the coronation. We have a little VT to play first. They're so racist, they wanted to know how brown the baby's gonna be. I'm like, that's not racist. Because even black people want to know.

It has been several months now since our beloved queen has died. Our Canadians are finding it hard to go on. All Canadians, that is, except for our first guests, the prince and his wife. We want privacy. We want privacy. It was reported that the organizers of King Charles' coronation have officially invited Megan Marco. And this is nice, at a starting salary of $19 an hour.

Just complaining. I was like, didn't she hit the light-skinned lottery? Now, Araldo, you and I know, when America turns that way and turns you into a laughing stop, The game's up, isn't it? Well, I really do believe, I mean, I may be, you know, a minority of one here, but I do believe that Harry still has considerable goodwill, certainly in my mind for the fact that he's a war hero

and he was a longtime spare. I even felt sympathy, I must add, you know, to minimize my own statement, for Prince Andrew, who was a hero in the Falklands War. So Harry and Andrew both, you know, certifiable heroes, you know, great patriots who were extremely flawed and did things that are terrible. I mean, Andrew's case, I don't have to relitigate Jeffrey Epstein. But in Harry's case, the whole Nazi uniform and some of the other whining that has happened, I still believe, though, he's charming, he's handsome, he's young, he has a lovely wife. As soon as the prince and princess begin their, you know, the children begin their own publicity tour, I think hearts will melt. You know what, Arana.

I'll let you get away with about 20 seconds of this guff. But I've got to tell you, eventually the scales are going to fall from your eyes. Eventually, it's going to take about another five appearances. But eventually, I will get you to confess on Pierce Morgan, uncensored, that you finally turned and actually, Pierce, you were right. There are a pair of little waste rolls who want their royal cake and eat it. You will. I'll crack you. We'll see. We'll see, Piers.

I still want to give them the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt. Rather like with Alec Baldwin and the trigger, there is no doubt, Haraldo, but great to have you on the show. Thank you very much. You too, Fierce. My pleasure. Great, ma'am. Haralded Rivera. Well, next to night, Donald Trump's publishing 150 letters he's received over the years from the great and good.

He reckons that they'll show that Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Diana were among the others who, quotes, kissed his ass. Really? We'll discuss that next. Still laughing about that. I'm joined by Talk to the TV contributors Esther Crackoo. And, well, they're still here. I'm not joined by them. Kevin and Esther, stay with me. All right, let's talk about some stuff.

Donald Trump has apparently kept all the letters, sycophantic letters from people, many of whom turned on him once he ran for president. So he's doing it to make a point, really, about look at you lot, including Oprah Winfrey, paying homage to him and so on. But it includes apparently the letters from Queen and from Princess Diana. And he says that all of them kiss my ass, is apparently the quote, Esther. I can't imagine that includes Her Majesty the Queen. Most certainly not. He is the pettiest man alive. It's quite funny, though.

I mean, it is funny. If these people like Oprah and others who've really turned on him, it's quite funny that he's now just going to publish, here are the sycophantic letters. I mean, I'm just hoping some of mine aren't in. I'm trying to get the interviews, but it is quite funny. Absolutely. I mean, Trump was an urban figure of admiration. He's a Jay-Z song, for goodness sake.

All these people that complain about him being a horrible racist, they used to rap about him. However, I think there should be limits to the shamelessness. Because to say that the Queen and Princess Diana wiped his mouth. There are no limits to Trump's shamelessness, which is why, Kevin, I just, you can't rule him out of winning again. You can't. No, you can't.

No, I don't want to win again. You can't say he won't. Interesting poll tonight, actually, of independence in America, who apparently in a matchup of Trump v. Biden, Biden would win with independence, but in a matchup of Ronda Santis, the governor of Florida, this rising Republican star, he would beat Biden. And that's a really interesting poll.

Yeah, Biden's not going to be easy to beat because he's the incumbent. But he's not good. He will be 82 years old. He would. I think Biden would beat Trump. And I can see that, but I think DeSantis is a much more difficult opponent for it. For one thing, Desantis is alive. You don't have to open the fridge and wheel them out and plug in the wires.

It's slightly exaggerate. I'm sorry. We'll see. Oscar's glamour, Esther, a very glamorous young lady, always on this show. But I've noticed, you know, you have standards that you keep up to, right? These standards seem to drop as fast as the clothing at the Oscars. with a series of female celebrities rocking up at the Vanity Fair Party,

basically wearing underwear with a kind of skimpy, see-through top. I know who you're referring to. We've got them all here, right? I mean, it was just more and more of them rocked up, basically naked, with a couple of bars of clothing over them. This is not what the Oscars are supposed to be about.

Where's the glamour in this? This is like a bunch of strippers. We're living in an attention-seater generation. By the way, no problem with strippers, but not at the Oscars. But this is the point, because everyone's trying to shock. Attention is the name of the game. Everyone wants that hot take on social media.

So everyone tries to do the most shocking thing. But the least shocking thing is being naked, because that's what they all do now. Well, look, Kevin, look at the Oscars back in the, in the... It's 50s, right? Yeah. I mean, look, it's a completely different vibe. Yeah, I'm trying to think, which I prefer, actually, in America. Kevin, but of course, I can't...

God's sake, man. But the truth is, they just want to get noticed, don't they? Yeah, exactly. And if they went to... But the great thing about the old stars is they didn't feel that desperate first to be noticed, right? They didn't need it. Now it's all like, look at my naked flesh. Because they had something else to offer.

Look at my talent and my glamour and my beauty. They had something else to offer. They were talented actresses with a certain standard. Now these actresses, singers, whatever, they all stripers first. They all have to show how good their bodies are before they do anything. So what is Emily Radichowski doing there anyway? How does she qualify

to be anywhere near an Oscars party or the Oscars? You've got to fill the seats. You've got to get people. It turns up with more clothes than she normally wears, i.e. not very many. But what's he doing this? I mean, Kim Kardashian or something. Ridiculous. One thing I did feel exercised about.

A man called Paul Solvino, who you'll all know he was Paulie in Goodfellas, right? Take a clip to remind us. I got nowhere else to go, Paulie. You're all I've got, and I really, really need your help. I really do. Take this.

Now I've got to turn my back. One of the great roles in one of the all-time great movies, and he had so many other roles in great movies, completely ignored in the in-memorium section. And his daughter, who's an Oscar-winning actress, Mira Savino, tweeted, is baffling beyond belief. My beloved father was just left out. The Oscars forgot about Paul Solvino.

The rest of us never will. And I won't, because I got to know him quite well. And he's a delightful man. And actually, when we launched this show nearly a year ago, we asked him to supply a video. We haven't played this before. And he sent this. Pierce I heard you got a new show

I'm happy for you you've got a chance you see that big brain again now listen I hear somebody may not watch it you tell me who it is I'll get him whacked fantastic I'm happy for you

great actor great character great character great character great actor and I actually believed him I think he would have done but just if Mira and all the family

and Dee and his partner Just we didn't forget him. He was one of the greats, and he should have been mentioned in the memoriam. And I feel very angry on your behalf that he got overlooked in that way. It's wrong, isn't it? Some of that stature dies. It's a really bad error, particularly when the Oscars themselves are under so much scrutiny and people, what's the point of it? And when they go on for three and a half hours, you couldn't find 10 seconds to show a picture of Paul Solvino, one of the stars of Goodfellas, really?

They're too busy virtue signalling. Yes. They are. They literally are, aren't they? And the two busy-legging people like Hugh Grant in the building when he shouldn't be allowed anyone near it either. You could allow Hugh Grant in and have a proper tribute. He was in a film, yeah, exactly.

It's not a choice. Like I said, he should be banned from every award ceremony ever again. If you turn up and then that graceless on the red car bet, that's it. Done. He's a good actor though, isn't it? Is he? He always plays Hugh Grant. Yeah, he's the same role, isn't he? He always plays smugged, hoche, English fraud, right? Which is what he is.

Look at it. Look at it. of them about. You're not clearly pressing company, however. No, no, I'm certainly not. Because I'd like to remind you, I'm Irish. Yeah.

Close. So tomorrow, I'm interviewing Brian Johnson, who's this guy who wants to reverse the aging process. What do you think of that? You know what? I don't know why we're so scared of aging. I think aging is a beautiful thing.

Well, it's all right for you. Because you're young spring chicken. It's an outrage. The problem is. Everything starts to fall apart. You're nearer the birth and the coffin, all you? I mean, that's it.

I'm serious. I don't understand this generation. Would you like to reverse it, Kevin, or even stop the aging process? I'm still 36, actually, in my head. Are you sure? Yeah, but my body's not. My theory is everybody looks in a mirror and sees somebody about 30 to 35. You never see someone aging past that. To yourself, weird.

You'll find it if you ever get it. Thank you, Pack. Good to see you. Keep it uncensored. Tomorrow night, Brian Johnson. Don't want to miss that. Good night.