Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Vs Candace Owens

Episode Date: June 12, 2024

Piers' next guest is a hugely influential YouTube commentator with an army of followers who says they were fired for speaking their mind but then came roaring back with an even bigger show. Candace Owens launched her new, independent show this week. She has previously described Piers as “dishonest”, a “snake” and “a toddler”. And in the true spirit of Uncensored,she joins us now... Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why did you leave The Daily Wire? A lot of attention has been focused on you constantly referencing Christ is king. To deliberately use that phrase was a deliberate act of provocation to people like Ben Shapiro. I want every single person in the world to declare Christ is king. Whether you believe them to be a Nazi, a white supremacist, a Jew, a Muslim, it is the phrase itself that I want declared. Who do you want to win the war, Ukraine or Russia? I don't want Zelensky to win. I don't want Putin to win.

I believe Zelensky is just as corrupt. I believe he is a criminal. What percentage of a population has to be killed before we can use the word genocide? It's a funny little thing. They won't tell you. What she said here, I would stake my entire professional reputation

on the fact that Bridget Macron is in fact a mac. With that statement, your entire professional reputation goes up in smoke. Burn, you got me. You go, girlfriend. I'll bet you. $100,000 right now, that it is established beyond any doubt

that she was born a woman. Do you accept a bet, Candace? Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, no. At worst, at worst, at best, pardon, Brigitte Macron, is a pervert. My next guest is a hugely influential YouTube commentator was an army of followers, a person who says they were five of spicking their mind,

but then came roaring back with an even bigger show. And no, it's not me. Candice Owens launched her new independent show this week. She's previously described me as disson. a snake and a toddler. But in the true spirit of uncensored, I'm delighted to say Candace joins me now for our first ever interview.

So finally, Candice Owens, we get to do an interview. I'm very happy to be here, Pierce. I promised. And honestly, credit to your producer because she just was like, I'm going to make it happen no matter what. So great to be here. I have a bunch of ruthless rot violers

of both genders who didn't let it go. And what did you want? Because you are a fascinating public figure. question about that. I think we're going to have a fascinating interview. I do want to go into some more detail before we start, though, to show the level of my, of my generosity in giving you this platform on my show, given some of the stuff you said about me. So April 2020, when I launched the show with my interview with Trump, it all kicked up, obviously, you said if my team was unethical and dishonest is the snake Pierce Morgan, we'd have a sensationly edited his clip of Trump to make it look

like he threw a tantrum and asked the cameras to be shut off when in reality the interview was over, and we simply wanted to chat off camera. I responded, I bow to your superior knowledge of being a snake, Candace. Tune in on Monday, you'll learn something about real interviews. You then said, peers is whatever he has to be on any given day for attention. He's not guided by any set of principles, which is why I say both sides need to stop platforming his sensationalism. In March of that year, I accused you of falling for Putin's propaganda. when he invaded Ukraine, and I called Putin the new Hitler.

You said you're such a toddler, Pierce, it's way too old to be seriously entering in a literally Hitler for analysis. Keep yourself contained to mean tweets about Meg and Harry, or the adults discuss foreign affairs, NATO, and Western hegemony. In March the same year, you wrote with a picture of finding freedom, the most historical thing Piers Morgan has ever read in January, 23rd. You said, I find Piers Morgan to be morally inconsistent, which breeds intellectual dishonesty.

I welcome a public discussion with him about systemic racism, a topic with which he's impassioned, although apparently not impassioned enough to speak with me about it. Why do you suppose that is? You added, we're all at edge of our seat waiting for an answer here, Peers Morgan. Well, okay. You should do that more often. I like when you read mean tweets about Peers Morgan.

That was great. I salute you for that. That was wonderful. Exactly. And the truth is, I actually do want to give you a platform. And I've no problem with that. I would obviously contest much of your characterization on me in some of those mean tweets, but that's fine. We can move on because there's a much more interesting story, I think, involving you, which has played out in the last few months, which everybody knows about.

So let's just talk about that. Why did you leave The Daily Wire? Well, unfortunately, I can't talk about the specific reasons that I left The Daily Wire, but what I can do is respond to whatever reasons we're given to the public. And obviously, no sooner did we agree to leave than Andrew Claven of the Daily Wire did an entire episode stating that the reasons that I was leaving was because I was anti-Semitic and I was engaging in a type of anti-Semitism that was hard to pin down. And that is why in my first episode of launching my independent podcast, I hit back pretty hard at him because, you know, I think it's pretty despicable, first and foremost, as a colleague who I had a great relationship with to have. engaged in that knowing that I was not at liberty to say anything. You know, I thought it was a very underhanded, disgusting tactic, and I responded in force. I want to play you what Ben Shapiro told me when I asked him about this on Unsensored.

One of the consequences of this war has been a lot of very high passions on both sides, a lot of angry disagreements. You and your company have been at the center of a very high profile one at the moment with Candice Owens, who's now left Daily Wire. Was she fired, or did she leave her for own volition? I'm not going to speak to this topic, Pierce. At all? At all. The only thing I will say is what I've said all along with regard to Candace or with regard to any of our other hosts. I am not in hiring and firing position with the Daily Wire. I'm a co-founder of the Daily Wire. I'm a co-owner of the Daily Wire. I'm not actually in management. And as far as the free speech situation, what I will say is that no company has the obligation to literally pay anyone.

The Daily Wire is a publisher. It is not a platform. Do you agree with that, Candace? Agree with which part. Well, okay, any of it. Well, I think that it's interesting, and I'd love to sit down with and debate Ben Shapiro on a number of topics, particularly cancel culture, because I know that he's made some comments in the past that he believes that publishers, platforms

should allow people to have different ideas. And so those particular comments to me sound in contrast to what he has said in the past, but I can't speak on behalf of him, obviously. I personally believe that media companies are healthier when you allow people to have different opinions and allow people to debate those opinions, Personally, I love to see a debate between two people,

and so I can only tell you what my perspective is and can't really speak for him. I mean, he made the point at the end there that any company, any private company, when it comes to free speech, is not compelled to pay people to work for them. I mean, would you accept that as a principle? Well, what I would say, again, is that it just kind of runs into what is wrong, I guess the question you could ask is, what is wrong if CNN fires somebody for having a different opinion? What then is wrong if Fox News fires somebody for having a different opinion? Your answer would have to be that it's not wrong and that companies are at will to curate whatever belief system that they want

and to not allow free speech. So, you know. Out of interest, is it true that you signed an NDA? That's why you can't really talk about this in detail? I cannot speak in detail about any of that stuff. You can't even confirm whether you've had an NDA. I am not free to speak about any topic pertaining to contracts signed or not signed. And so...

This is where it gets interesting for me, because you referenced Andrew Claven from the Daily Wire. I want to play a part of what he said, and then I'll come back to you. Yeah. while parted ways with Candace Owens. And part of it was things that she was saying that we felt were strongly anti-Semitic. And she was doing it in such a way that was kind of hard to pin down. So I was trying to show where these things happened.

So I'm bemused because I've been involved in a lot of contracts in my time. I've been an employer. I've been an employee and so on. I don't understand why somebody from a Daily Wire can be so explicit about the reasons you left. and yet you are not able to be as explicit to defend yourself or to counter what they're saying. Amen, Pierce. Amen.

I think that is probably a question that was on a lot of people's minds. And, you know, what can I say other than what was it that Kanye was saying about contracts? And, you know, I think it is, even if you believe that it is valid for that to happen, I think it is immoral to allow someone to attack someone and to not allow them to defend their name. And so for me, Andrew actually rose to a level of defamation when he started claiming that I had actually said things that I had never said. I mean, he blatantly lies. And I showed that on my platform when he pretended that I did an episode suggesting that Adolf Hitler burning books was a good thing. I wasn't even speaking about Adolf Hitler.

It's a nonsense to think that I would do that on my platform. And it's a trick also. It's meant to make people feel emotional. Like, oh, my gosh, I can't believe that she's supporting Adolf Hitler. And I thought it was nasty business. I thought it was extremely nasty business. And, you know, for me, peers, it's important for me to state. My name means a lot to me.

You know, my grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm, one of 12 children, you know, in the segregated South, Robert Owen, Sr., And for him to have worked the way that he worked and to have instilled the Christian values in me that he instilled in me growing up, the idea that I would allow someone to so flagrantly throw dirt on his name, it was never going to fly.

Did you ever say or do anything which to a Jewish ear could be construed as anti-Semitic? Well, let's be clear about all of these topics, whether we're talking about racism, sexism, antisemitism, everything can be construed to an ear when you're talking about a subjective ear

that I believe that this is racist. I mean, I could say, hey, peers, you even asking me questions. To me, it feels racist, right? A feeling and a fact are two different things. So what someone construes something is meaningless. Factually speaking, I have never said anything that is anti-Semitic

and had I have said something that was anti-Semitic, Andrew Claven would have simply showed the clip. Right. A lot of attention has been focused on you constantly referencing Christ is king. Many people believing that although those words in themselves, if you're a Christian as you are, would not be offensive, that to Jewish people, when they're being whipped up on social media as they were at the time by people who are genuine white supremacist

and pretty brazen anti-Semites, that being smart as you are, you would have known that, that to deliberately use that phrase repeatedly in that time, in that climate, was a deliberate act of provocation to people like Ben Shapiro,

who obviously are extremely high-profile Jewish people. Do you accept that? I'm sorry, which time frame are you talking about when you say at that time? Well, since the start of the Israel-Hamas war? Yeah, no. So that phrase, if you're talking about when it began to be a scandal, because I think everyone was quite confused when there was suddenly this narrative

that it could be construed as anti-Semitic, which is why it required so much explaining by people of when it became anti-Semitic. I posted a standalone Bible verse, this is just a pure fact, calling for peace. And at the end of the verse, I ended it and said, Christ is king last November. Andrew Claven references that. The reason why this even became a scandal is because of Andrew Claven.

Andrew Claven did an episode called Because Christ is really king. And then he accused me wrongly of spitting that phrase at a Jew. That simply never happened, as I showed in my first episode back. It just made that up out of thin air. I posted a standalone vibroverse and I wrote at the end of it, Christ is King. And then a Jew responded to me telling me to quit my job. So what happened sometimes is then time passes and people, try to rewrite history, but we're not going to do revisionist history here. I tweeted Christ

as king appropriately following a Bible verse when I was 38 weeks pregnant. And I stand by that proverb and I stand by my declaring Christ to be king as I have done many times in past because it's basic Christian doctrine. Two things about that. Why would you tweet that particular passage on the Bible ending Christ is king on 14th of November 2020? What was your motivation? Yeah, happy to answer that question. So if people remember what was happening at that time, Ben Shapiro was caught on a tape calling me faux sophisticated

and some other stuff, you know, a disgrace, I think, was the term. And again, I was 38 weeks pregnant about to give birth. And my husband just told me every media person in the world is contacting you globally asking you to give a comment, to say something, it's obviously a very traumatizing thing to go through in the moment when you're that pregnant and suddenly you're like, I just don't want to deal with this drama. I don't mean like trauma in the very leftist. I feel traumatized by this, but just it's a lot happening leading up to birth.

And my husband told me to read the Bible. He said, just read the Bible. You don't have to answer these media members. You don't have to give a comment. You don't have to say anything. These things are all fickle. It doesn't matter. Just to be clear on the chronology, because the video of Ben saying what he said,

I think her behaviour during this has been disgraced, without a doubt. I think her post-sophistication. Yeah, that came out on 15th of November, 2023, but you had posted what you posted on the 14th of November. That's not correct. Do you have your timeline wrong? It was the video came first. So you were responding directly to the video?

No, I'm trying to finish the story, but you just have your, just so you know chronologically you have it wrong. His insult came first. I think it was on the 12th, the insult came. Well, you made aware of the insult? because and then did it become public? I found out on Twitter with everybody else. It was just trending, you know.

And so just to go back into it, my husband told me to read the Bible and to realize that these things are fickle and that all of these journalists that were asking me to respond to them are doing it because all they want is clicks and money and they want you, they want to use you for a moment. That's not going to matter in the scheme of things in your life.

And so I wanted to respond to all of these media members by saying that I'm calling for peace, no, Christ is king of my heart. I don't need this right now. So that was it. When you appeared on Tucker Carlson number 16th of November, you said, I will say I'm not going to respond with the same ad homonym attack. But you also told him that day that was when you first saw the video.

I didn't tell him I first saw the video on Tucker Carlson. What do you? I don't understand your question. I told Tucker I saw the video on Tucker Carlson. No, no, that you had seen the video for the first time that morning. that I saw the video trending on Twitter, not the morning of Tucker's interview. Sorry, I don't know.

I'm just trying to work out the exact correct chronology. Yeah, I can help you. Yeah. So you saw the video on Twitter. On Twitter, yes. And then you put out the passage from the Bible as a reaction to seeing the video. Yes, like I said, maybe it was 24 hours later after that,

but everyone was contacting me for comment, I gave the media no comment. So if you look on all the articles, there was no comment given to me at that time. about anything because I decided that peace was the best strategy forward. Tucker was booked that day, but he had booked me six weeks in advance. That was just his luck that that whole incident took place. You know, they knew I was going on his show.

He books way out in advance. So it just happened to be his luck or misfortune, whichever way you look at it, that that was going on at the same time. So in the buildup to this, you'd already made it clear that you said on Twitter on November the 3rd, no government anywhere has a right to commit a genocide ever. There is no justification for a genocide. I can't believe this even needs to be said or is even considered the least bit controversial to state.

You didn't say what you were talking about in that tweet, but it was widely assumed to be Gaza and what Israel was doing in Gaza. Is that correct? Were you talking about Israel there? No. Actually, when I wrote that tweet, if you look right before that tweet, I had retweeted and liked something

from a journalist named Ashar Ali. He had shared a clip of a congressman, Brian Mass, who got up on. a platform and said that there's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian life. That is despicable genocidal language. And I am paraphrasing here, but Yashar Ali said, and he's pro-Israel, by the way, if I'm judging by what he puts online, he said, can we all just admit that this language is unacceptable? And I tweeted that no government in the world, and I was actually commenting on America,

genocide is always wrong. And so, by the way, even if I was talking about Israel or I was talking about Palestine, that statement should hold. There is no justification ever in the world for genocide. So I was very surprised to see that tweet go viral and people so angry about it.

I was actually overseas at the moment. I was in the UK. And so it seemed very strange to me that people would have a problem with it no matter what side you're on. But in that particular moment I was talking about Brian Mass and on my very next show,

I clarified that. And do you think, for the record, that what Israel's been doing constitutes genocide? Well, what I've been having trouble is all of the people that are pro-Israel and say it's not a genocide won't tell me what is a genocide. How many? What percentage of a population has to be killed before we can use the word genocide? It's a funny little thing.

They won't tell you. They won't tell you what constitutes genocide. So I would like a clear understanding of how many Palestinians have to die before we are allowed to terminate a genocide. All of the experts can't agree on what a genocide actually is, but they love to float around the word on virtually every other. other issue. You know, I had Rabbi Barclay on my show on one of my last shows and I was on a daily wire and I asked him that question pointedly, what is genocide? Let us know, experts, what percentage of the population of Palestinians has to be killed before we are allowed to say that is genocide? What I can tell you is I am completely uncomfortable and utterly against the amount of Palestinian

innocent lives that have been lost in this conflict, particularly children. And any person who is fearful of stating that the death of innocent children has been utterly, unacceptable is a coward. I mean, listen, I completely agree, but do you personally think it constitutes genocide, which is the deliberate... What I'm saying to you is, we, quite literally, I have pursued on my show,

what is the number? What is the official number? That's it. Somebody tell me, and I'll give you an answer. Nobody try it. Try it when you have... Well, it's not about a number. It's a lot.

What do you mean? What do you have a number? Here's my answer. Do they give you an answer? Well, no, because here's the point. It's not about specific number. It's about an intent. But it has to be.

Well, no, it's not. It's about an intent to eradicate a people. That's not true, peers, because in America, they say that Native Americans, it was a genocide committed by white men. This is what they say, right? Do you agree with that? I'm talking about the definition of a genocide is. But what I'm telling you is that that would be incorrect because the majority of Native Americans died from smallpox. It was accidental.

Some 90% of Native Americans who died from smallpox and it's considered a genocide. I'm telling you what the, what the, the, the, the, the, the, the, definition of genocides, which is not about a specific number in any circumstance. It's about an intent to target and eradicate a whole people based on their ethnicity. I'm disputing that by telling you that they legally say within America that Native Americans, a genocide was committed against Native Americans. Factually speaking, 90% of them, 90 and 93% of them died from smallpox. So it was actually an epidemic, right?

So is the definition shifting? because it is my understanding from Rabbi Barclay the definition of anti-Semitism shifts, so maybe the definition of genocide has shifted, but we are also taught that genocide in school. Let me read you the exact wording and see whether you think it applies to, well, let me read the exact way.

Definition of genocide from the Oxford English Dictionary, the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. So by that definition, do you believe that is what's happening to the Palestinian people and it's being perpetrated by Israel?

Well, I would say is that Israel has proven in the past that they can be very specific when they want to get somebody out, whether that's a hostage or any other certain military operation. And what I am seeing happening forgetting the specific language of a genocide

is something that I'm using my platform to speak out against because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me what the media calls me. I've had every headline. I do not believe that they are being careful in what they are doing. I think it has been a in almost it seems to me that the destruction

of the hospitals and the schools and of the UN buildings would you say peers that you believe that's unintentional? I do not believe Israel's waging genocide. I think that you believe but I'm asking you do you believe that I think I think the scale in the hospital is intentional. I can answer the question I have said repeatedly in the last few weeks and months that I think the proportion of of Israel's response is now unacceptable. And particularly since they decided to go into Rafa, a refugee camp that they set up to then target Hamas in the middle of a refugee camp, we are bound to kill so many innocent civilians in the process, I think is unacceptable.

But I'm just curious, given that you tweeted about genocide and no government ever has a right to do it, whether by your calculation from that definition, what Israel is doing is deliberately killing a large number of people from a particular national ethnic group with the aim of destroying that national group? Yeah, well, what I can say to you, again, because these definitions shift, I don't think we need to focus on the word because I'm telling you what I believe. And my belief is that they are not being careful whatsoever. My belief is that there has been too much loss of Palestinian life.

But that's different to genocide, doesn't it? Yeah, but that, okay, that's fine. We don't need to put, as I don't know why you're, like, obsessing over this one word. It doesn't matter. Well, because you tweeted about genocide. Just like you told me, the tweet is about Brian Mast. So you're harping on this issue. There's a lot more topics that we should talk about.

There are. I'm being very clear in how I feel about this issue. The Israeli government is not being careful in how they're dealing with this. That's fair enough. The amount of death has been completely unacceptable. When I tweeted that, that was back in November. So we're talking way more lives that have been lost.

And that tweet was about Brian Mast. So I get it. Here's my reason. I could have never imagined the amount of dead Palestinian children that I would see on my ex-feed, since then. It's horrific. It's heartbreaking to me as a mother.

It's horrific to me that the media seems almost complicit in the dehumanization of Palestinians. And I will not be on that side because at the end of the day, the hit pieces, the name-calling, the anti-Semitism, the psychopathic language that seems to be coming out of people means nothing. And I want to make sure everybody knows this, right? At the end of the day, you are going to have to account to God for the things that you allowed, for the things that you were complicit in and for the things that you did not have enough courage to state. Okay. The amount of death of Palestinian children

has been unacceptable, full stop. Okay. Veevina and Yahoo, in my view, should not be given an invitation to Congress. I think it's unacceptable. I agree. Unacceptable. And to be clear, for whatever the reason,

when it comes to the topic of Israel, it does seem that journalists are fearful to critique Israel. Well, I'm not at all. Why is that? Because I would say, Pierre, that you too. You too, you seem a little fearful to critique Israel and to want to always seem that you're coming across a little bit understanding of everything they're doing. What is it that makes journalists, corporate journalists, okay, let me respond. Fearful of saying, like, hey, you know, Israel has done a ton of things that have been very wrong. Yes, and I have said they're wrong. I think Netanyahu should go. I think half of that cabinet should go. because some of them have definitely been using genocidal language.

I think a lot of what Israel's been doing in the last few weeks is completely unacceptable. But ultimately, I also, from the start of this conflict, believe that Israel not only had a right to defend itself after the terror attack on October the 7th, but a fundamental duty to its people. And here's where I'm just curious about your tweeting through this procedure, this whole war, because on October the 7th, you didn't tweet anything.

You didn't tweet anything on October the 8th. And October the 9th you tweeted, You're so much world peace ever since we got the Orange Man out of office. So glad the adults are back in charge. A lot of people say, well, if you care this much about innocent people being killed, why didn't you say anything when 1,200 people were massacred to death in the most brutal barbaric manner in this awful terror attack by Hamas? And nearly 7,000 more were wounded, some of them catastrophically and irreparably.

Why did that not compel you to say anything? Well, first and foremost, Israel is a foreign country. So typically I talk about topics that have to do with America. Secondly, you're only quoting my Twitter feed. I'm also on Facebook. I'm also on Instagram. I also had a daily podcast in which I did respond directly about what happened and called the events horrific.

Multiple times, multiple times said what Hamas did was absolutely horrific. So you're using a snapshot of my Twitter feed where you're acknowledging that I didn't tweet for days to suggest that I didn't have anything to say about what had happened. Now, to be clear, I am a lot of my Twitter feed. consistent on all matters. I do not want America involved whatsoever in anything that is happening in Israel. I don't want my dollars sent over to Israel. We should not be supporting Israel. Obviously, Thomas Massey has done a lot of work showing how it doesn't even make economic sense that we have so much debt and yet we're sending money over to support Israel. And the biggest issue,

by the way, that I have with Israel and talking about them being above reproach is the fact that they are supplying the arms to murder Christians. In Armenia, the oldest Christian country in And yet nobody talks about that. For whatever reason, it seems to be the circumstance that when Jewish people die in Israel, it's wall-to-wall coverage. But when Christians die all over the world, nobody talks about it. Everyone wants to correlate everything to World War II. Everyone wants to talk about Adolf Hitler and the, and rightfully so, he was a horrific person. But nobody wants to talk about Henrique Agoda, right? Nobody wants to talk about the Bolsheviks. Nobody wants to talk about the Christian Holocaust. I am tired of the media, exhausted of the media,

not speaking about what is happening to Christians all around the world. And it is especially horrific, while at the exact same time that it is happening, the slaughter of Christians in Armenia, the arms being supplied by Israel, that the media turns the other way and says, okay, but what about what about what's happening in Israel? So you know what I'm asking for? Actual equality, okay? Because it seems like this is like a special category,

the special relationship that we have. I'm a Christian first, okay? And so my concerns are going to be with what's happening to Christians all around the world because it is us. We are the number one most persecuted religion in the world. And all Christians watching this need to realize the time is now to start speaking up because we have been silenced about the things that are happening to us for a very long time. And the media is very clearly not our friend. When there is wall-to-wall coverage of Christians being killed in Armenia, Christians being killed in Nigeria and the treatment of Christians in America and all. across the globe today, then you ask me if I will use my platform and I will use my voice

to speak about what's happening in Israel. How about that? Okay. I think that's a perfectly reasonable point to make. The final question I'll ask you on this issue of the Daily Wire centers around the Christ is king because it had long been a core slogan of people like Nick Fuentes and other, for one of a better phrase, white supremacist, white nash, whatever you want call them. The Daily Wire co-founder Jeremy Boring said on X, how is saying Christ is king anti-Semitic the same way anything becomes anti-Semitic when it's used for the purpose of expressing anti-Semitism. It's like asking how does a shovel become a murder weapon when it's used to murder someone. This isn't hard. A shovel is not innately a murder weapon. Saying Christ is king is not

innately anti-Semitic. It's all about how a thing is used. Saying Christ is king for an evil purpose, like using it as a weapon to express your hatred or distinctions. same for the Jews is a grave sin. God will not be mocked, invoking him in vain self-promotion or to troll Jews or to attack your political rivals is to carry forth his name in vain. What would your response be to that? My response would be that I am an unapologetic free market capitalist. I think Jeremy Boring as the co-CEO of the Daily Wire went to the market with his idea on Christ is King, and the market has a right to respond. They believe in what he's saying, and they think that what he is saying is true and is right, then they will support the Daily Wire,

and they will support their mission. If they believe that it is wrong, then they will stop supporting the Daily Wire. I can't speak on behalf of Jeremy Boring. You'd have to book him, and he can talk more about his belief that Christ is King can be used like a shovel to murder people. You know, what I would say for me is I don't agree with that.

And so if you find me saying Christ is King to be abhorrent, same thing. You don't have to support me. But let me tell you, I'm going to continue to declare that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings. Nick Fuentes, who is a Holocaust denier, supported you in what he said was your full-fledged war against the Jews. He said, this is the face of a total Jewish defeat.

We effing got your back, Candace, their filth. What would you say to that? I would never, ever, ever describe Jewish people as a whole as filth. I don't know what the context of that is. Is he referring to the Rabbi Barclay interview? But just to be clear, on my record here, I have had, wonderful relationships with Jewish people all throughout my life. Before I was at Daily Wire. I was at Prager Hugh. Dennis Prager, Marissa Strait, run that company.

Marisha Strait is a former IDF soldier. That woman treated me like gold. We never had any issues whatsoever. They were wonderful to me. So I genuinely don't know the context of where or why he said that, but I'm just acknowledging that he said the word filth and that I used the word filth to describe Rabbi Shmuli, who you have had on this show. And I just want to make it clear to everyone watching that Rabbi Shmuli is in fact a piece of filth. Right, but you would not support a full-fledged war against the Jews. No, no. Or any, by the way, I also would not support a full-fledged war against Muslims.

I'm not supporting a full-fledged war against Christians, and there are some full-fledged wars being launched against Christians as there has been. So, okay, so a reasonable question is, do you feel uncomfortable about having support from people like Nick Fuentes. I think it is an absolute nonsense for people. I have, on Twitter alone, 5.5 million followers. I think it's pointedly ridiculous

when people do this and they find a comment and they go, do you feel uncomfortable about the fact that this person said this? I've had the FBI working with me because there are people that read my tweets and believe that we are in a relationship. I had a person who literally left a mental facility because he thought every single one of my tweets

was a sign of love, and I was speaking in code to him. What I'm not going to do is respond to this tactic of pretending that I'm somehow responsible for the 20 million followers and that I should be knowing what they are saying on their private platforms or their personal platforms or their public platforms every minute of every day. It's a nonsense. You know it's nonsense right now,

peers, if I went into your comments and dug it up and said, do you support this and do it's just, let's just not do that. Hold me accountable for the things. Hold me accountable. Nick Fuentes is not just one of your 20 million followers. Nick Fuentes has millions of followers himself. Where does he have, no, no, no, stop. Where does he have millions of followers? On multiple platforms.

No, no, no, he's banned. He's banned from X now. This is very interesting to me because... He's banned from X now, yeah. It wasn't before. He does not have... No, no, he was actually... He does not have...

He was banned from YouTube. He was banned from X. He was banned from... What is the... He's literally been banned from... everywhere. So when you say something like that, I'm asking you which platform, you just made a statement, he has millions of followers. I think you're being hyperbolic. Which platform does Nick Fuentes have millions of followers on? Well, he doesn't now. He's been banned. No, no, no, where? Which

platform did he ever have millions of followers on? He is on X. He has not had millions of followers on. So which platform did he ever have millions of followers on? Well, how many followers is he are? Okay, so you don't even know the answer. So you're just being hyperbolic again. You're creating this argument that I am responsible. My point was on the matter. A specific number of followers. No, he's not just, he's got millions of followers. That's just not true. He has a follow.

Here's, it's just simply not true. Candace, he's a hard. And I answered your question. Again, you asked me a statement about what he said, and if I agreed with it. I told you, no, I would never want a war against the Jews. No, but my question was, asking what I think and ask me whether I want to respond to something, whether I agree with something. My question was, do you feel uncomfortable about him supporting you? He's a high profile person.

And he said that, do you feel comfortable, given the context of how you left the day? Why? And their beliefs. I want to be clear. Yeah. I do not know what is the context of what you just said to me. As I just said to you, if it was pertaining to Rabbi Shmuli, who I think is a piece of filth, who has gotten away with everything in the media, that I am grateful that people are

understanding that that man has harassed me for two years. And I am grateful that for any person that has supported me in responding to Rabbi Shmuli and his hag daughter, okay? If you are going to pointedly ask me if I am uncomfortable with the fact that Nick Fuentes also believes that Christ is king, I want every single person in the world to declare Christ is king. Whether you believe them to be a Nazi, a white supremacist, a Jew, a Muslim, it is the phrase itself that I want declared, okay? That's it. That's it. Okay? Let's turn to, I would say, a less contentious matter, but it's not really. It's Kanye West. I interviewed him at length towards the end of last year.

You've been pretty supportive of Yeh, formerly Kanur West, even after he tweeted, DeathCon, 3 on Jewish people. He posted, I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up, I'm going, DeathCon, 3 on Jewish people, and you wrote on the social media site Parlor, if you're an honest person, you do not think this tweet was anti-Semitic. I mean, I don't know why would you conclude, that because it seems to me it's a pretty brazen statement of anti-Semitism to go death

con three on Jewish people. How else could it possibly be mis how else could it be construed? Yeah, sure, I can tell you how else it can be construed because this is one of the things that's fascinating. First, I'd like to point to how interesting it is that the entire world came down on Kanye West, canceled him, took away his contracts, made his entire family come out and make statements against him when he tweeted that he was going to go deafcon three on. some Jewish people, I think is what he wrote verbatim. And now we fast forward to today when Israel was literally going deafcon three on Palestinians. He didn't say some. He said on Jewish people.

Okay, sure. And now we fast forward to today when Israel is literally going deaf con three on Palestinians and those same media members seem extremely cautious in their language. So the tweet is actual death, but the actual bombs being dropped for some reason, real violence is something that the media can get comfortable with. I'd like to point to that because now some time has passed. But to answer your question of how I could have said that statement, obviously you understand, yay, is my friend. And I understood what was happening in his life

and what had caused him to say that. He said when he woke up, he was going to go to DefCon 3 on Jewish people, who's talking about specific Jewish people in his life that he believed had been taking advantage of him. And he then produced, in whatever reason the media was not interested in covering it extensively, a tweet from one of those people, Harley Pastor Nick threatening to put him on a psych 5150 hold and to drug him so that his visits with his kids wouldn't be the same. How Harley Pastor Nick has not been chased out of Hollywood

after threatening to drug someone and take their kids away is the question that you should be asking. Now, I was privy not only to what Harley Pashtonik was saying to him, but also to what four other Jewish happened to be Jewish people were saying to him at that time. And I think what happened is that he snapped and he suddenly was wanted to aggressively attack those individuals and basically say that he was tired. But Candace, none of that changes the fact that what he tweeted was clearly anti-Semitic. When you'd say, I'm going deathcon three on Jewish people, that is a statement of anti-Semitism, interputably. The idea that you would be dishonest if you didn't see that for what it was, whatever the circumstances, whatever was going on behind the scenes, for a guy with his massive following,

can agree was indisputably massive at the time. For him to state that in public on a social media platform was a brazen act of disgusting anti-Semitism. And all right, I interviewed. Just to be clear, I didn't tweet on Parlor. I, on my podcast, gave a full statement saying that if we're being honest, you did not think that he was going to go kill some Jewish people. You didn't.

And I think that if we're being honest, well, you said if you're an honest person, you did not think this tweet was anti-Semitic. I did think it was anti-Semitic. I did think it was anti-Semitic. Everybody did. Okay. But you didn't. Why?

No, because I knew the backstory, so I had more information than the public had. Yeah, but the statement is unambiguous. The statement had no clarification. It was unambiguous. It was clear. Yeah, and then when he clarified, when he did try to clarify it,

nobody paid attention. So can I ask you why, did you try to book Harley-Pashnik after you saw what he tweeted to Kanye? No, I booked Kanye himself, and I interviewed him for two hours. Yeah, but were you interested? That was their act? when he showed the tweets of what Harley Pastor Nick said to him,

were you outraged by the idea that a Jewish man would threaten to drug someone so they couldn't see their family? Is that outrageous? Is that anti-black? Do you think that that's racist? Well, whatever the circumstances of that, that wasn't... No, no, no, no, no. Here, answer the question.

You're quick to say that a threat that you perceived, the language of him saying that he was going to go DefCon 3. And just to be clear, DefCon 3 is a defensive military position on some Jewish people or Jewish people as a whole. I don't remember the exact tweet. You just said that you felt that that was clear. clearly anti-Semitic. And now I'm asking you, is it clearly racist? What is it clearly when a Jewish man says to a black man, okay, that they're going to drug them out of their

minds, effectively MK Ultra them and your visits with your children will never be a same? Because if you're asking me between the two, which is worse, it's obviously what Harley-Pasternick wrote to Kanye West, which was not reported in the media. Because he didn't put that in the tweet. Okay, but Kanye tweeted it. I tweeted it publicly. What Harley-Passchian said. He did after the furori blew over his original tweet. Why didn't it trend? Why wasn't there the same outrage?

He didn't talk about one Jewish person. He talked about on Jewish people. I am asking you why you were not, why the public was not as outraged as when somebody threatens to drug someone out of their mind as a very serious real threat. It was the same person as he said was the person who first put him in the hospital the first time. You seem to be okay with it. You're just sort of like, well, of course I'm not okay with it.

His tweet was so much worse. You're talking about saying. taking away somebody's kids, putting them into a hospital and drugging them out of their mind. Where is your outrage? Well, I do not know the background to what you're saying. Why does it seem to be that that is always the circumstance? Like whenever a person speaks out about how they're being threatened. No, no, no, no.

For some reason, you don't want to, you're deflecting. Peter, this is very important. Let me finish this. Let me finish this. This seems to be a trend that I have recognized. I saw this with Rabbi truly. For two years, okay, this. This rabbi openly threatened me, my family, my livelihood. Him and his daughter did this for two years.

There was no outrage. None, zero. In fact, you booked Rabbi Shulay didn't even ask him about it. Did you threaten it? And then all of a sudden, I do nothing. And the full media is accusing me of anti-Semitism. Why does there seem to be this double standard that specific Jewish people, if they want to, can threaten the lives of black people.

specific black people. I'm giving myself as an example. And there's not the same response. Like, why wasn't Rabbi Shmuli trending for two years over what he said about me? To be honest with you, we're going to come to Rabbi Shmouli,

and I might share a lot of your views about Rabbi Shmooley. But the point that you seem to be wanting to move on from and deflect from it. I'm not moving on from it. Is it your response? Your response was to Kanye saying, when I wake up, I'm going death gone three on Jewish people.

peers, you've said this three times. I know because you don't want to ask the question. I've told you the reason why I said that is because I was aware of multiple people in his life that were doing something. There's no point in belaboring the point. I've answered your question. I'm simply asking you. You cannot accept it. I'm simply asking you when you say if you are an honest person, you did not think this tweet was anti-Semitic.

You're saying that I'm dishonest because I believe what he said was anti-Semitic. And I think that's ridiculous. Well, first off, just to start back at the beginning of this interview, I think you're dishonest for a lot of other reasons. So don't, please don't, you know, harp on this one tweet. But because you flip-flop on your positions the entire time. Like what? Like what?

Like what? Like what? But, I mean, everything. COVID, you flip-flopped on COVID. You flip-flopped on BLM. At one minute, you are supporting BLM. And then you're like, my son's, my son's out protesting. It's amazing.

And then when they're burning stuff down, I don't find you to be someone that actually takes meaningful risks and says what you believe. You kind of take both positions all the time. Well, actually, I'm not at that. I'm not an idealogue about any of it. So don't think, don't think, don't pretend that the first time I ever suggested you were dishonest with the conduct case. Right. So you want me to be an ideologue.

You want me to stick to one side on everything. No, I'm just saying that it seems like once the conversation cracks, and this is a lot of people in media, they don't take risks. They deliver the government talking points. And then they move once it kind of becomes okay to question the government. So COVID, this was the prevailing narrative. You were like, get the vaccine. Do, do, do, if you don't do the vaccine, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then all of a sudden, now we're finding out that, and you would have called someone like me, what, anti-vax, trying to kill someone, all of these things.

Well, I didn't get the vaccine. My family didn't get the vaccine. And now we're on the other side of this thing. And people are like, well, maybe I had it wrong. Maybe I have some regrets. What do you think I've expressed regrets over? Going with the mainstream narrative in the beginning. Hang on. Don't just keep talking.

What do you think I've expressed regret about with COVID? Well, let me ask you, are you still standing by all the stuff you said about people being idiots for not getting the vaccine? Yeah, the only thing I changed because the scientific advice changed, and I've accepted that if there was another health pandemic, I would not rush to accept scientific advice in real time as actually 100% irrefutable, never to change, because science evolves, and especially in a health emergency. The one thing I have said I changed my mind over, because the science advice changed, was that originally they advised that if you had the vaccine, then you could not transmit the virus.

And I was then very censorious towards people who simply refused to have the vaccine because I said, it's not about you, it's actually about your ability to transmit it and maybe infect more vulnerable people. And I thought it was selfish. Well, that's a pretty big change. Well, hang on, let me finish.

Let me finish. And I was very censorious, way too censorious. I've admitted that. Shouldn't have been so censorious. And when the science advice changed, and said, actually, there's now evidence that suggests, and in fact, it looks clear the evidence, that if you have the vaccine,

it makes little difference to your ability to transmit the virus or not. Then I changed my position. And when I was asked about that later, I said, absolutely. I should not have been so censorious to people who didn't have it, because at that point, it becomes personal choice. But if you ask me on the wider picture, do I think the COVID vaccines were a good thing?

Absolutely. Do I think they saved millions of lives? Absolutely. Do I think the deliberate attempt to discredit all science involved in the COVID pandemic is a dangerous, dangerous thing for society? Absolutely. Do I know lots of people who died from COVID who would potentially have been saved by a vaccine if it had been there when they caught the virus? Absolutely. So do not take my one clarification about the ability of a vaccine to prevent transmission as being some great mea culper that I think that's a huge mea culpa, that I think. appears. That's a huge mea culpa. It's a huge mea culpa. Because that means that you let people to go out and to get an experimental vaccine in their arm and encourage them not to listen to independent voices that were saying, hold on.

That's a huge mea copal. People died from the vaccine. So you're talking about people that died from not getting it. There have been scores of people who died from the vaccine. There have been scores of people like my grandfather who got the vaccine and then were dead within one year because it led to their dementia suddenly spreading or advancing rather. in a way, stop, stop, stop. I let you.

You do not know that that was down to the vaccine, do you? Okay. First and foremost, they have admitted so much. They lied about the six feet social distancing. That just came out two weeks ago. And you were on the side of all of these people. So don't pretend that that's a small mea coppa. People died from blood clots pertaining to the vaccines

that you were telling them to rush out and get, okay? People died from, hang on. Do you agree? All right. Let me ask you. Let me ask you. No, I let you talk about your me a coppel. Had they have paused and listened to independent voices who have, I think, probably a greater strength when it comes up to standing up to government initiatives, because we recognize that the government is not our friend.

And we recognize that the government is not trying to save our lives. Maybe those people would be alive. Maybe my friends who had miscarriages and my friends who were saying that it was impacting their menstruation until the government was ready to admit that seven months later. If you had listened to people that were telling you their own experiences, someone I know that went completely blind in one. because of some weird ocular clots. So don't pretend that's a small thing. None of which you know. I'm happy to accept that you've changed your mind.

Let me respond. But don't pretend it's a small thing. People died from the vaccine. Let me respond. And by the way, I want to be clear for people watching this. He's saying still get it. I'm saying still don't. Just so you can hear a different opinion.

Do not allow the government to put that in your arm. Okay. God's system works. The government is not fixing you in any regard. And do you feel the same way about the flu shot? Yes. Oh my gosh. I haven't gotten a flu shot since I was like, like 12. Okay. And things like polio and measles and all the other shots that we give kids.

Let's skip to the point. You might notice. I don't vax my children. They are not fax. We travel the world. My children are never sick. I am proudly, as you media terms it, anti-vax. I'm very aware of the psychological rules of coming up with names for people for making sensible decisions. I don't believe, oh, yeah, Big Pharma is not God. I understand. Big Pharma is very much, in my view, getting in the way of God's designs. So I fundamentally, listen, I absolutely respect your right to do what you want for your children. I did the complete opposite for mine. I believe that all vaccines carry risks.

By the way, paracetamol carries risks. Ibuprofen carries risk. Any medication, you will find instances of side effects and deaths. Every medication in the world that's ever been created. But do I think overall that COVID vaccines save millions of lives and were an incredible thing, done at warp speed in the middle of a desperate panic? pandemic that was killing thousands of people every day? Absolutely I do. So you and I will disagree about that. You're just simply wrong. Well, you and I disagree. We're never going to agree on it.

Okay. We don't have to agree on that. Here's the beauty. We don't have to agree about it. That's right. Right? But I wish that when you said you were being censorious, I wish that you would have allowed people who strongly disagreed to present their arguments at that time because I think that a lot of people who are now struggling with getting blood clots and things of that nature, there are lives could have been saved. I don't disagree with you. I had a lot of people around me dying from COVID. in the most hideous, horrendous circumstances, is the co-presenter of the show, the morning show I was doing,

her husband went into a coma and never really came out of it and sadly died a few months ago after four years. Had there been a vaccine when he got the virus in March in the first weight, he might well have lived. Yeah, I don't think the vaccine would...

I personally don't believe that the vaccine would have saved him, and it's an impossible metric to know. You don't think the COVID vaccine saved any lives? Because I genuinely do not believe that the COVID vaccine saved any lives. You see, I'm sorry, you're a smart person, Candice. You cannot believe that the COVID vaccines saved no lives. That is a ridiculous thing to say.

Just because you're saying ridiculous and just because you're using a little hyperbole doesn't make that real. Every single scientist in the world, there is not a scientist or doctor- You just said the science changes literally five minutes ago. Let me put a question to you, then you can answer it. every single scientist and doctor in the world that I'm aware of agrees the vaccines save lives. They may disagree about various points of government behavior during the pandemic. They may disagree about this particular vaccine of another one.

What none of them have said is what you've just said, which is it never saved any lives. None of them. I just want to be clear. Only you think you say no lives. Whenever you're claiming that there's 100% scientific consensus, you're lying. Whether you're talking about climate change, if you make a declaration that there's 100% scientific consensus on something, you're simply lying. And by the way, if people, well, let me let me. Well, you lied.

So I'm just going to correct your lie by pointing people to websites that can dispute this narrative. Okay. It's a fashionable one to say 100% of experts. Okay. Let me ask you a question. As soon as somebody tells you, there's 100% scientific consensus, they're lying to you. Let me ask you. Can you name me one professional doctor or scientist who genuinely by, you? believes like you that the COVID vaccines did not save a single life?

I can point you to many because there are anti-vax doctors. Can you name one? Yeah, yeah. Well, here's what I'm going to point to an entire website because this is actually important because RFK Jr. has been played a very large role in my awakening about vaccines and my decision not to back to my children. I recommend you go to a long list of doctors. Children's Health Defense.org.

That is his charity. And they have multiple doctors listed. You can also go to Dr. Greenmomom. website if you want a list of doctors who do not vacs your children because just so you know they are vaccinating your children because it is profit for them is it is a profit incentive for every child that is vaccinated i want to be clear i'm talking about america i can't speak to the uk laws and the u k policies but what we are living inside of is actually a corrupt medical drug cartel it is the aspirations of el chapo when they wanted to have a marriage with the government in order to drug people

we achieved that here in the west in in america uh cdc they are corrupt the fdb the fd Let me ask you. Let me ask you. Let me ask you. Let me ask you. And if you believe that they would mandate, you're asking me a question. I'm answering it. I'm down to where to go to it.

You're veering off into all sorts of other things. Let me just ask you on a more all-encompassing thing. Do you believe you're prone to promoting conspiracy theories? I believe that I am aware where the entire term of conspiracy theory came from. Do you know when that became fashionable? Tell me. No. So the first time that that was sort of entering into a lexicon, that was.

It was a CIA term, and this is also gets into, and you can look this up right now, Operation Mockingbird after JFK was killed and the government started employing journalists to just repeat what they said. Right. And I... What do you think happened to JFK? He was shot, I think. I think everyone knows that.

Yeah, but who by? I have no idea. I mean, do you support any conspiracy theory about the JFK shooting? I do know, do you? I don't know. You referenced it. I don't reference it. No, I was referencing it to tell you a historical point about Operation Mockingbird.

So back to my original question. And I think the term, hold on, can I just finish my thought? Do you promote conspiracy theories? You're giving me five seconds to respond. Well, no, you're not asking my question. To answer you about the conspiracy theory before you're asking me about JFK getting shot. You're giving me the history of conspiracy theories. What the media does, and I do believe that people watching the show are awake to this,

this is why I'm very confident in this discussion about what I am telling them is that they use this term conspiracy theory so that you don't question the narrative. And you just saw this with COVID everybody. You saw them calling everybody who said that the idea that the shot was going to stop you from being able to transmit COVID was a lie.

They were called conspiracy theorists. And then it was proven to be true. So if it wasn't happening so quickly that all of the conspiracy theories kept turning out to be true. None of this was my question. I wasn't talking about COVID. I simply said, asked you,

do you believe that you promote conspiracy theories? theories. No, I believe that I have the courage to actually talk about the truth. So let me ask you about this. The following is because I have said many things. Peers, let me finish a sentence. You've answered my question. You said no. You have me on your show and I'm answering and you just keep cutting me off. Well, you keep talking, hoping not to get a supplementary. Well, peers, if you want me to interview you, I'm happy to have you on my show.

I'd love that. But the point of you being somebody that's interviewing is you ask a question and you will allow your guests the time to answer. But let me ask you. Yeah, I would love to have you on. I want to ask you specifically about something you've been promoted. that I think is an outrageous conspiracy theory, very offensive, very wrong, and I think you've done it just for clout and clicks. Now you can respond,

but it's this question about the French first lady Brigitte Macron, who you keep saying is a man. You've produced zero evidence that she is a man. It's been deeply offensive to her, to her husband, President Macron, to all of her family. You keep promoting it to millions of people that follow you. And I simply ask,

Why? She's not a man. Yeah, sure. I'm happy to answer the question. I think Brigitte Macron is a trans woman. And I think the fact that when Brigitte Macron... Okay. Where's your evidence that she is? Well, Pierce, the thing is, I'm not allowed to speak after you ask me a question. So I don't really know what the purpose of this is anymore.

You just seem to kind of be saying your own thoughts. So I'm just going to be silent here and allow you to model off here. Where is your evidence that Brigitte Macron is transgender? Well, I did an entire series talking about where this came from. And first and foremost, you're pretending that I'm the one that promulgated this. In fact, it was three journalists in France that worked on the story for three years. And they teamed up with genealogists. And they came across, and it was absolutely fascinating.

I read the entire report and everybody watching this rather than listen to Peters Morgan, giving you a bunch of adjectives, ridiculous. It's awful. I can't believe that she's saying this. why don't you go pursue a primary source? Why don't you go find the articles that were written by the French journalists, because this did not come from me. This came from French journalists.

And while they were working, wait, let me finish a statement, peers. While they were working on this piece, the Macron's sent their secret service to interrupt this. This is not a normal thing that you do when somebody's about to publish a lie. You would just say it's ridiculous, publish it, and we'll dispute it. They sent the secret service to intimidate these journalists. They took their phones.

They held them. They wanted to know everyone who was working on the piece. And what they uncovered was absolutely fascinating. What they uncovered was the fact that Brigitte Macron, who alleges that the person

that they are saying is her is actually her brother, who's never been seen and who they never produced, that Brigitte Macron lived as a man for 30 years and then transitioned at the age of 30. So he's trying to tell you

this is crazy, this is wacky. Why don't you just go pursue a primary source? I'm not the primary source. It would be very easy to dispute this. All Brigitte Macron would have to do has produced a single photo of her in the first 30 years of her life,

or to go on a little walk with her brother, who she alleges that she is not. Actually, she refuses to do either. She's suing people. And the one photo that they keep producing is a photo of her daughter to phone. Let me get a word in, please. Brigitte Macron, as you know, has a libel trial against Natasha Ray, who made the claims that the French First Lady was born a man called Jean-Michel Trogner.

It's due to take place imminently. And we will get to the bottom of this. I'll bet you. Why don't we ever like a hundred thousand pound bet that it establishes beyond any doubt? To a charity of your choice and mine, $100,000, make it dollars, right now, that it is established beyond any doubt

that she was born a woman. Do you accept that bet? I just want to be very clear, if you are asking me after we have just seen these Trump trials that you and I are going to place... Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, no. Stop cutting me off after you ask me a question. It's really just...

It's just poor form. You accept the bet? I am answering your question, but I am allowed to answer your question, Pierce. After we have just seen these trials with Trump, if you're asking me to wage a bet on the basis of what happens in a trial and in a courtroom, the state versus some journalists, you are out of your mind if you think that would be the wager. So I'll do it to you this way. Pierce, you've got a team of journalists. Can you just simply find, she claims that the person that they found is actually.

her brother. Do you mind just finding me some photos of Brigitte Macron growing up for the first 30 years of her life? Could you find, and we can make it shorter. I'll give you the $100,000. Could you just find her brother, who she claims all the photos that they found of Jean-Michel Trugno, her brother? She says, that's actually my brother. Okay, great. Could you just find a photo? I make it easier. We don't have to wait for a trial to finish. Just find a photo. And produce it. You and I can do it live on Twitter. You're going to say, this is the photo that I have found of Brigitte Macron. And I'll say, oh, you're $100,000. So even though in February 2003, a French court convicted two women of libel for spreading the transphobic rumors, because

it was untrue, even though she's suing again against the people who originally made these claims, even if all this comes back and says it's complete lies, you just say, well, it's the legal system. So there's actually no way of ever disproving your... I don't need a legal system. I'm saying we don't need a legal system. There's no way of disproving your lie, is it? Pierce, Pierce, Pierce. We just need a photo. I just told you how to disprove it. Just a photo. Oh, yeah. I can imagine if they produce one.

you would say, well, it's a fake. It's a fake. No, no. What conspiracy theories do, Candace? Okay, so, Pierce, it's... Do you realize how extraordinary... The conspiracy theory is that it's plausible that a first lady of the French day is incapable of simply producing photos of her

for the first 30 years of her life where she allegedly had three kids? That's the conspiracy. You're saying all her children. It's so easy. It's such a dumb thing. It's so easy to debunk. Who had her children? If she was born a man, who had her kids?

who gave birth to? Their research from the genealogists and the journalist that worked on this for three years is that she actually fathered her children. She fathered her children. Even as you say that, you know it's complete nonsense. No, I actually think it's a complete nonsense to just not just present something as simple

as a photo of yourself for the first 30 years of your life. So no matter how many times, no matter how many adjectives you use here, it's a very easy thing. I have three kids. If you said to me, Candace, I believe you didn't live for the first 30 years. I would just give you 80,000 pictures of me and call you completely insane.

I wouldn't sue you because it's ridiculous. Why should Brigitte Macron have to do anything? Because it takes less time to show some photos of yourself and it does to sue journalists in courts and to have the secret service go after them. This is a problem, because I do think... When they're working... Here's a phone.

Here's a problem. Like she has nothing to hide. Yeah, but, Ms. Candace, here's the problem, you see. I think you are... And also, we know that Emmanuel Macron is also a gay man, according to the person who came out right when he was elected and said that he was sleeping with Macron in all those articles, which lends more plausibility.

And beyond the fact, whether you think she's a man or not, do you not think the story is weird of the age difference, like hitting on a 14-year-old little boy that you go to school? So there's perversion there. It's sick. The French people have been outraged by this. Yes, I do. Yes, so there's some weird perversion going on in that relationship.

We know Emmanuel Macron had affairs with men. Not a man. We know that we can't trace Brigitte Macron for the first. for 30 years of her life. Yeah. It seems pretty simple to just come out and say, like, there's something weird happening in that relationship. Candice, here's a problem. You see, I do think you're a smart person.

I do think you're a compelling talker. I understand why you have a big following. And you make a lot of interesting points about all sorts of issues, right? I do genuinely believe that. But when you set your store, you actually said here, I would stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Bridget Macron is in fact a man. You tweeted that in March. that's a problem

in that second with that statement your entire professional reputation goes up in smoke because it's a complete load of bullshit You have not disproven anything You have an entire You're just using adjectives here

All right Joe Biden's a woman Show me the proof he's not We are living in a post Show me the proof Joe Biden's not a woman Let me excuse me Show me the proof There's tons of Donald Trump is in transgender There's tons of photos of Joe Biden growing up

I think Donald Trump Was born a woman Show me the proof Okay there are tons of photos of Trump 20 years ago on Oprah, what are you saying? That's why I'm saying. It's this easy. It's a nonsense. You've just done it.

You've just done it to run right with a conspiracy theory. Okay, you can keep saying conspiracy theory. Just know that we're living in this post mainstream media world. So it's not going to discount my thought. People are not going to stop listening to me. In fact, what's going to happen on the basis of this interview is more people are going to go pursue the primary source and read the report of these three journalists that have been harassed by the state of right.

I hope they do. Stop cutting me off. Exactly. Because they cannot trust people like you to just keep calling everything. conspiracy theories. It's not, it's not, definitely, it's not going to impact my platform whatsoever. In fact, while you were pedaling conspiracy theories, whether that be BLM or COVID, I was the person that was telling them the opposite and those things turned out to be true. So what's actually happened is that I have built up a repertoire, someone that they can trust because they know

that I don't just say what the state wants me to say, and then I'm willing to question things. What I have said on my platform multiple times is I'm willing to say that this report has been disputed. It just simply hasn't been yet. All they keep doing is showing a picture of Tafan, Brigitte's daughter, and recolourized in black and white, and going, oh, no, this is her as a kid. And as a mother yourself. It's 30 years of living. Just show a photo of yourself. We don't need to be debating it.

Just show a photo of yourself. And as a mother yourself, you have no qualms about the hurt that you're causing her kids with this kind of clap trap. I mean, I roll. Please stop with the sensitivity. You are, you've decided that you want to lead a country, okay? Honesty is demanded.

More journalists should be prodding into the story internationally to see what's actually going to on here because at best you have a perverted story that in my in my view leads way too closely into pedophilia just a story of how they got together is weird you have an allegedly gay man the person who's had gay affairs with him has spoken out talked about the drugs that he has done with mccrone and you have these two people who are utterly demented leading the state of france so i'm not like you say people and go into but you're a mommy don't you care about don't you care can this about how how she's feeling no it's perverted at worst at worst at worst

at best, pardon, Brigitte Macron, is a pervert. Let's move to Sean Diddy Combs, because you seem to be under the belief that the reason he is not in jail, you said in March, is because he's a Fed-C-I-A asset. Kanye tried to tell everybody. Do you still believe that? Well, I was just reading the actual court documents

of what's being filed against him, and so I'm following the case. But do you believe he's a Fed CIA asset? Well, as I have said on my show, if what is in that case, which seemed very compelling because they had pictures and evidence and they were able to show when he shot someone and they told the particular person that cleans up

that you're supposed to call that's in the LAPD that allows him to shoot people in broad daylight allegedly. I'm just saying allegedly because this case is still moving through the system. Plus, obviously, you saw the video that circulated of him openly beating Cassie, his ex-girlfriend, and the fact that this man is doing all of these things, the person following the lawsuit produced photos of somebody that he had allegedly shot and gave a name of the person at the LAPD that cleaned it up

and showed that the media had covered it. Yeah, that would show, that would definitely lead me to believe that Diddy is being protected because most people can't shoot somebody in broad daylight and beat their wife at a hotel. But again, you have no evidence that he is a Fed or CIA asset. No, I'm not the one following the lawsuit. But you have no evidence, do you? I mean, when you stated it as fact, he's not in. What do you mean to say, I covered the lawsuit? What are you protecting right? It's an open

lawsuit that anybody can go read with the photos established. So I'm covering it. And I am putting two-and-you together and going this lawsuit, this lawsuit which has been filed with a ton of proof and evidence. Again, you're being disingenuous because actually you're stating it as fact. No, what I'm telling people. In the same way you say, I state my entire reputation, Bridget Macron's a man. You also stated this fact, nothing from a lawsuit. You just said he's not in jail, you tweeted, because he's a Fed CIA asset. can you try to tell everybody? Have you read the lawsuit?

Because it seems like you haven't, obviously. But that's your statement. No, no, no, no. Did you read the lawsuit? That's the first thing, because you're just, we can skip the hyperbole. Did you, did you read the lawsuit? I'm asking you to.

Okay, then we're not going to talk about this topic because you're pretending these statements. Are starting with me. I'm not talking about it in the lawsuit. I'm not talking about the lawsuit. I'm not talking about a lawsuit. Pictures and the proof. No, that it's all about the lawsuit.

You can't say I'm not talking about the lawsuit that had all the proof in it and then say you have no evidence. Just to be clear. Just to be clear, you just said that you wouldn't believe anything from the legal cases which established Brigitte Macron is not a man. But you're racing to believe this wild conspiracy theory about Diddy being a Fed CIA asset because you saw it in a lawsuit. Okay.

Do you see the slight inconsistency there? No, no, no. If you have not been following, it's very obvious because there's nobody that's following this lawsuit. So you believe what's in that lawsuit, but you don't believe. Okay. peers. Am I going to be able to answer your right? question, this lawsuit that was filed, okay, had pictures, pictorial evidence all throughout.

They also showed you a log of the 911 calls. It showed you what the media had reported on and what he actually saw. This was not like your average, like, you know, we're debating whether or not you said this in a lawsuit 20 years ago. Right. And it's my word versus your word. As I said, if you have not actually read the lawsuit and you're just going to do the thing where you call everything a conspiracy theory, I'm bored.

let's move on to the next topic. Okay. But everyone should read that lawsuit in its entirety. That's fine. Because it's absolutely fascinating. And it does. Okay. And also, of course, what's going on with Cassie, the lawsuit that she filed against him and then

dismissed the lawsuit. There is a lot going on with Ditty right now. And like I said, the majority of people who have a lawsuit are aware of this. So it's like, I mean, it's like talking about Jeffrey Epstein at this point. It's a very interesting lawsuit. And I am following it and reporting on it. but you seem to be doing this thing where when I report on things that are happening, you pretend like I am the primary source.

Like the journalist worked on this for three years. I'm not going to say what the journalist said are how they got to this conclusion. But Candace tweeted about it and how could she tweet it? Oh, this guy filed a lawsuit with pictures. I didn't actually read the lawsuit with the pictures, but I'm pretending that Candace's Twitter was the source for this lawsuit. I mean, it's kind of a nonsense here. Here's the difference between me and you.

I've actually been a reporter for many, many years. You never have. So when you say you report on these things, I can tell you, no journalist who's an actual reporter would read a legal filing and then do a tweet which states as fact in their own words, he's not in jail because he's a Fed CIA asset.

Can he try to tell him? That's not reporting on a lawsuit that is stating your own personal opinion. And if you don't know the difference, it's because you're not a reporter. I am. Well, now we've arrived at your professionality. I guess, Pierce,

Piers, tell me more. What school did you go to? Tell me more. I went to Harlow Journalism College in S6 in England. Well, then we better listen to you guys. You heard them. We got to trust the experts. And peers has been a reporter.

And he went to a journalistic law school. And therefore, whatever conclusions he makes are the professional and the correct ones. And you should definitely listen to peers, Morgan. I do know the difference between reporting on a lawsuit where you're one removed from the contents of a lawsuit and stating something as fact. But I don't think you do because you've never actually been in a report. reporter. That's my point. Ooh. Ooh. Burn. You got me.

You go, girlfriend. Let's talk about Ukraine. I don't understand why conservatives in America, a number of conservatives, not all. Why so many conservatives seem so determined to let Vladimir Putin rampage his way into sovereign democratic European countries and take them. And why that would be in America's national interest. Explain. Yeah. So it's pretty obvious that it's just a money laundering operation.

It's very obvious that we have been lied to about what's been going on in that region for a very long time. Ukraine has always notoriously been a laundromat for America. And I'm sure you may recall, since you seem to be an avid follower of my tweets, where I pointed out that even the New York Times was talking about how corrupt Zelensky was just a couple of years before the war. They were describing him as a corrupt olivarm. That wasn't my question. He's now suspended elections. He shut down churches.

He is conscripting young Christian men to their deaths in a region where Christian men... None of this was my question, can't. Any time. I'm just not answering it quickly enough for you, peers. So go ahead and help me off. Why do you want Putin to win? No, but you are pretending that it's because we want Putin to win.

Well, that's the consequence of not helping Ukraine. It's not about wanting Putin to win. It's about realizing that trying to tell us that this person is worse than this person is a nonsense. We do not support the war for a ton of reasons because it's money laundering, because it's killing Christians, and because we don't have to.

I understand. You've made it clear. So why do you want you to... It doesn't make you pro- Putin. No, it doesn't. Who do you want to win the war then? Pardon? Who do you want to win the war?

Ukraine or Russia? Well, I don't really view this regional issue. So it's a war, Candice. One of them is going to win. as something that I need to involve myself in and be rooting one way or the other. I don't want Zelensky to win. I don't want Putin to win.

I do not believe that Zelensky is less corrupt than Putin. Just to be clear. I think Zelensky... I believe Zelensky is just as corrupt. I believe he is a criminal. I'm watching videos of him dragging Christian men with crosses around their neck to their death. He sickens me.

He is the person that is taking billions of dollars away from us. It's magically all being lost. They just don't know where all this money is going to. I find him to be absolutely despicable. And that's my answer to your question. You would rather Putin win. You cannot like the answer, but I'm giving it to you. No, no, it's fine.

That's your honest opinion, it's fine. But by the absolute process of elimination, that means you want Putin to win then. No, I just don't want to be involved in their conflict. I hope they both lose. So America would no longer be involved. I hope it just stops. I hope they both lose.

Well, how do they both lose a war? Just put down your arms and say the war is over. That's never going to happen. It's a complete pilot's going. I'm just telling you, you're not going to make me feel that it's in either or and that I have to read. And if China invades Taiwan because he's a war criminal. And if Russia does win in Ukraine and China feels emboldened by America's failure to help it properly, that it then invades Taiwan, would you want to get involved in that?

Would you be happy for Taiwan to go under as well? Well, just to be clear, there's tons of reasons to think that America's weak. We don't need Ukraine and what's happening in Russia to believe that America's weak. but you're pretending that if this doesn't happen, then this might happen, which is ridiculous, because if you thought Americans... I think it's quite logical, actually, to think the China is watching this thinking,

you know what, maybe America's not up for the fight anymore, because even Americans... Well, I don't know, I think they could have probably deduced that from the way that we pulled out of Afghanistan. I agree with that. I agree with that. We are weak right now. The West is weak right now.

We're weak because we have men that are acting like women. We have journalists that don't have the strength to call out the truth, and they're calling everything a conspiracy theory. We have women who are no longer leading their households, women who are fearful of standing up for their children, the things that they know that are right or wrong for fear of being called the name.

And we need to return to a time where people are guided by faith and by God and not by governments in the media institutions. We are weak. The West is failing. The West is falling. And the only way that we're going to be able to change that is if we start looking through things through an appropriate lens, right?

The truth is that we lost, the minute we turned away from faith and the minute that we turned away from God. That is my belief. And I don't put faith in institutions. I just don't. So I'm done with a military industrial complex. I don't want to support Ukraine.

I don't want to support Israel. I don't want to support any of it. I want to support my family. And that is where everything begins. What would you have done? Okay, what would you have done in World War II when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? Well, Pierce, that's a very interesting, loaded question.

and we're going to have to get to it another day because I'm actually covering that next week on my show and I don't want to give anything away. Oh, a little tease. Two last people I want to talk to you about quickly. Taylor Swift is over here in the UK at the moment on her era's tour. I will be attending with my 12-year-old daughter

in a couple of weeks, one of her shows. I'm a big Swifty fan. I think she's a great role model, actually, a brilliant talent, amazing businesswoman, generating billions of dollars, conquering the world of entertainment. you think she's a toxic feminist. If you've seen what she's ever done in business

how she tries to manipulate her audits and get out of deals and contracts, she's totally insane. She's the most toxic feminist that's ever existed. Do you stand by that? Yes. No, you don't. Yes, I do. You think Taylor Swift is the most toxic feminist ever?

Well, do you want to talk about what she did to Scooter Braun? Because it was pretty horrific. I think he's awful, from my personal experience. awful. Awful little rat from my experience. First off, Taylor Swift is

cos playing a 15-year-old. She's 34 years old, shrewd business woman. She's the same age as me. We're born in the same year. She's going to be 35. She's going to be 35 in a couple of months. You're young, Candice.

So, yes, sure. But she's cosplaying a 15-year-old. So when Taylor Swift wants to get something done in the business world, what she does, that she jumps on Tumblr and she manipulates a bunch of 15-year-olds into believing, I wrote these songs on my floor. And in Scooter Braun,

the evil man is trying it, take them from me. The reality, her dad owned 15% of the company. Her dad, therefore, was aware that the business was being sold. Her dad signed the deal. If Taylor Swift wasn't the most famous woman in the entire world, she would just be wealthy because she comes from a very good background. She didn't get into some deal where she was taking advantage of. Her dad just didn't think she was going to be as big as she was. Scooter Braun simply bought a company and inherited her master's as a result of that. Her 15-year-old fans don't understand the way that contracts work. Well, she had the last last.

She went and did new versions of them. They threatened to kill. Stop. I'm not done. They threatened to kill Scooter Braun and his children. He publicly pleaded with her to please tell her fans to stop. He said, come to the table, let's talk. I please tell your fan. And she didn't do it. She didn't do it because she wanted out of her contract.

Right. So when you get to the level that you are willing to allow children to be harmed in order to get what you want, you are not a feminist icon. That's for me. But I want you and your daughter to enjoy the show. I hope you shake and post things on your Instagram. I'd love to see yours twerking about her 39 relationships. You want to see me twirking?

I'll twerk for you. But you're not going to turn me into a Taylor Swift fan because I think even the way she talks is manipulative. She said, talks like this to her fans, you're a 35-year-old woman. Stop talking like that. Maybe that's the way she talks. It was cute when she was 15.

I bobbed my head to her stuff when she was, you know, thinking about being 15 and all these breakups. But by the 38th breakup, I'm starting to wonder if it's her, Pierce. I'm starting to wonder if it's her. Who's your idea of a feminist icon in the music business? Feminist icon. I think feminism sucks, but a woman that is someone to look after, my grandma.

No, no, in the music business. Who's the one you mean? I think Hollywood's demonic, so I don't model myself after people in Hollywood. Just my grandma and all of the stay-at-home moms who give every bit of themselves every day to their children. Those are my icons. Those are my feminist icons.

Fair enough. Finally, Rabbi Smooley, we may find common ground here. Rabbi Smooley, your thoughts? Mentally unwell, disturbed, violent, and for whatever reason, the media allows him to do things repeatedly. I think it's weird that he was on Michael Jackson's list of people that he said were trying to ruin his life. And it becomes stranger for me because I had no idea who he was when he started threatening me in my entire livelihood. And by the way, I posted, what a success. I successfully harassed Candace that I was going to ruin her life and I did it. Why is a man like that allowed to behave in that way without anyone in his community calling him out for it? It's very strange.

Do you think the way he harasses you is better or worse than the way you harassed Brigitte Macron? What? Serious question. That was such a funny question. Are you out of your mind? I've done two episodes talking about Brazilian Macron. I've never, ever, ever threatened anyone's livelihood so that I was going to, like, ruin them and their lives

and going to chase them out. Like, he's, like, violent. Reporting on a story that journalists report on is not the same as threatening somebody's life or for two years with your hag daughter laughing in the background, threatening to take out, you know, front page news and have you labeled an anti-Semite

and have your life ruined. I mean, that's just like, that's a complete nonsense. I don't want anyone, Emmanuel Macron, the pervert that went after him when he was 14 years old that he ended up marrying. I don't want those people hurt at all. I never want to see people like that hurt. Finally, you and Ben Shapiro worked together. You were gone on very well then, obviously.

Then he fell out. You've left. A lot of talk about whether you two should get together for a big debate. If I was able to make that happen and moderate it, maybe a big uncensored special, the subsidiary rights to your channel and his, I probably wouldn't get away with that, but I'd try. Would you let that happen? Would you be prepared to publicly debate with no NDAs, all bets off, all information on the table,

so that people can finally get to the truth? Because at the moment, no one really feels they know what really happened there. 100%. We've reached out in the capacity to try to establish a debate. We've offered with a moderator. I believe he came back and said he didn't want a moderator, so I don't think that he publicly said he didn't want a moderator, so I don't think that he would be keen on that offer.

and then we offered, you know, to do this whenever. I am very open to have that debate. I think it's important to have this debate. When you see increasingly people that are being, you know, accused, I said I wanted to debate on anti-Semitism, the topic of Israel, this is obviously a hot topic. And I think that most people would consider Ben to be well-versed in that topic. Yeah.

And I'm, what's little old to me, like you said, I didn't go to your journalistic school of excellence. And I didn't, I've never even been a reporter. Who am I? Right? It should be easy. Exactly. Canis, we finally did it. We did an interview together. It went a lot longer than we anticipated, but I actually enjoyed it. I actually like arguing with people. I think you do too. And the truth is we don't actually have to agree with each other. In fact, why should we? You know, we don't agree about a number of things. We agree about a lot of other things, I'm sure. And actually, these kind of conversations, I think, are constructive. It's when people disappear off into their rabbit warrants with their tribes and sit there and don't want to. engage in people or have conversation or debate or argument, that's where the trouble starts.

I think these kind of conversations are healthy. I totally agree. People will walk away. They'll agree with you some. They'll agree with me some. They'll be outraged at you. They'll be outraged at me. And that's what I believe in. More speech, not less. Here, here. Candice, we end on a point of total agreement. Thank you for joining me, Anonsensit. Don't leave us along next time. Thank you.