Piers Morgan Uncensored - "That Man Is GUILTY!" Anthony Fauci SILENCE + Trump Vows Iran Revenge After Netanyahu Meeting

Episode Date: July 29, 2026

President Trump hosted Volodymyr Zelensky and Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House as tensions with Iran continue to escalate, raising fresh questions about the prospect of a wider regional conflict. The discussions come after Trump publicly rejected Netanyahu's claims about Iran's nuclear activity, while Ukraine's role in US strategic planning appears to be growing. The latest developments follow Iran's missile strike on a US base in Jordan, with Washington now weighing its response. Meanwhile, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr Anthony Fauci faces renewed political scrutiny, despite receiving a presidential pardon, as an extraordinary Senate hearing fuels speculation over whether Republicans could still pursue legal action. On tonight's Uncensored, Piers Morgan is joined by counselor to the US president, Peter Navarro, followed by a panel of senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Jonathan Conricus, former CIA officer & author of the new book: “The Ultimate Guide to CIA Skills, Tactics, and Techniques”, John Kiriakou, host of the Scott Horton Show, Scott Horton, and chief strategist of the Middle East Forum, Jim Hanson, to discuss. 00:00 Introduction 03:03 Piers is joined by his panel to discuss Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. 07:50 Piers asks Jonathan Conricus about Trump trying to get out of this war 10:45 America’s war aims and enriching uranium in Iran and Saudi Arabia 14:05 America’s exit strategy 19:50 Piers challenges Johnathan Cornicus on Israel’s declining popularity around the world 24:10 The International media ban in Gaza 58:06 How will this war end? 22:45 The panel clashes over qualifying Israel’s activity in Gaza as a genocide 31:26 When and how does the war in Iran end? 33:15 Anthony Fauci takes the Fifth Amendment 33:55 POLYMARKET: Who will be arrested before 2027? (https://polymarket.com/event/who-will-be-arrested-before-2027) 34:05 Peter Navarro joins Piers to discuss Anthony Fauci invoking the fifth at senate hearing 35:14 Navarro on Fauci’s diaries 42:42 Piers challenges Navarro’s claims Fauci killed people and created the virus 48:42 Navarro gives his view on the vaccine rollout 52:00 Piers asks Navarro if he gives Fauci any credit for due to the fast moving nature of the pandemic Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your question. I think we would have found out today whether he created the virus and killed people if he hadn't taken the fifth. How'd that meeting go? It was great. It was one of the best meetings that we've had. That might be the only thing he's ever said that I believe. They would happily kill every American. What's your strategy for victory? They would happily give you as well.

If there's one thing that this war has done in a very short period of time, it has united Iranians inside the country. Zelensky and Netanyahu traveled to D.C. for the funeral of Senator Lindsay Graham, at least officially. In reality, they were both here to see President Trump. And the unofficial summit provided an historic snapshot of a world in turmoil, which is convulsing in ways that nobody can predict. This last year, the Ukrainian president was humiliated by Trump over a war he said he'd end in 24 hours. This five months ago, the Israeli Prime Minister was hailed a hero as he led the US into a war that was supposed to last three weeks.

Now Zelenskyy's on the rise. The US needs Ukraine's help to fight Iran. Netanyahu, on the other hand, landed in a country where almost half of the people in a new poll think he should be arrested for war crimes. He came prepared with one of his dodgy dossiers, new satellite footage of nuclear facilities, rebuilt near Iran's Pickax Mountain. This time, Trump, well, he was having none of it. Well, I don't need Beebe to tell me that. BB's telling me that because he wants me to stay involved. I mean, I don't necessarily. We have the finest because of the Space Force.

We have the greatest cameras in the world focused on. We know exactly what's going on. But now I heard Beebe announced that. I said, why did you just tell it to me? Why do you have to announce it to the world? I know exactly what's going on at Pickax. It's not a big problem. Well, the Israeli Prime Minister is fighting for his political life.

He needs to convince his own people that he's the only one who can keep Trump on side. Watch his response to how that's going and judge for yourself whether you believe him. How'd that meeting go? It was great. It was one of the best meetings that we've had. And I always hate to disappoint our would-be critics who were trying to find, you know, cracks in our alliance. And what they find, like today, is a wall of granite, you know, because the president is so clear.

I mean, he's so, we have a common commitment. We don't want to see this fanatic regime in Tehran have nuclear weapons to threaten every American and to threaten the peace of the world. Well, whatever your views on the Iran war, there is nobody less qualified on planet Earth to be talking about world peace. Iran fired missiles at a U.S. base in Jordan overnight.

The world awaits Trump's response to that. Peace no longer looks like an option. Well, Jonathan Conrickus, the senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, John Kiriaku, the former CIA officer and author of the new book, The Ultimate Guide to CIA of Skills, Tactics and Techniques. Scott Horton, host of a Scott Horton show, and Jim Hanson, the chief strategist, Middle East Forum.

Well, welcome to all of you. Scott Horton, it looks pretty clear the longer this war goes on, but it's become the very thing that Donald Trump always said he hated most, which is a protracted war in the Middle East, costing a huge amount of money, costing American lives. And it seems to have no end in sight. Netanyahu's now in Washington, but Trump's rhetoric seems to suggest that the wool is being pulled off his eyes,

if you like, in relation to the veracity of what Netanyahu is saying about the war. and where it is and what can be achieved. Do you think we're heading inexorably to a moment where Trump parts company completely with the Israelis on this? Oh, I wish. I hate to say, Pierce, that in that clip of Netanyahu that you played there, that might be the only thing

he's ever said that I believe that he and Trump are good friends and they get along just fine and they agree completely on what they're doing. And, you know, Trump's very marginal complaints about the way that Netanyahu approaches public relations are essentially meaningless here. You know, Netanyahu is a psychopath,

but he ain't schizophrenic. He understands the facts of life just as well as Donald Trump does. As we can all read in the Wall Street Journal, it was the commander of CENTCOM and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that told Trump late last week, don't do this escalation, which he'd been planning this major escalation.

They told him, don't do it because we can't contain it. We're going to have more dead Americans. They got more outerceptors than we've got interceptors, Mr. President. So stop. And Netanyahu understands that exact same math as relayed to him by his American liaisons, including the president, that they have no options here. That's why they called it off over the weekend. That's why Trump called the war off back last April.

And so the problem, the only real problem is the politics of it. How does Trump back out of a war that he already lost and make it look? somewhat okay and be forgiven and I'm here to go back to endorse what Joe Kent said at the very beginning which is just cut and run just turn around and leave we've got nothing to lose and that shifts the entire burden of dealing with the rest of Eurasia onto Iran about how they're going to handle the Persian Gulf from now on it really doesn't matter to the American people it doesn't even really matter to the American Empire whether we lose dominance in that Gulf we

the American Empire was perfectly healthy before Jimmy Carter declared his doctrine in 1980. It would be just fine without it now. But the problem is if we want a comprehensive negotiated solution, that's just too many boxes that have to be checked. It can't be done. Trump is not willing to concede even after he signed that MOU. He's not willing to seal the deal and finish it because it's too much of a personal humiliation for him and his politics. agree with Joe Kent that the easier answer is to just forget it. Just say, you know what, forget that whole thing ever happened. That was the old me. This is the new me. And just go on. And honestly,

what would it cost the American people to finally have peace? Yeah, I mean, Jonathan Cornuc, you're shaking ahead there. I've got to say, I completely agree. If I was advising Donald Trump right now, I would say from the American national interest, get the hell out of this before it gets immeasurably worse. That the problem, as it has it has been evident to everyone from the start of this is that the Iranians very quickly worked out that all they've got to do is control the Strait of Hormuz and fire off missiles and rockets at their neighboring Gulf states, and they can hold the entire global energy market literally over a barrel. And they keep doing that with impunity. You know, I woke up this morning to

Donald Trump saying he's going to unleash fucking shit or hell or whatever it was, his normal, very inflammatory, abusive language. And it's like, well, the Iranians have been hearing this for four or five months. So what are you going to do? Right? You keep threatening to annihilate them one day, deal with them the next. There's this daily, ridiculous dialogue almost with himself. And I know Trump well, and I'm seeing a guy who wants to get out of this desperately,

can't work out a way to do it that saves face. And actually, Scott's right. Don't worry about saving face. Just get the hell out of it. Your thoughts? Yeah, my obviously, not surprisingly, my thoughts differ. I think that it would be very damaging for American standing. I think it would be damaging for what was referenced as the American Empire.

I think that weakness in one area is quickly seen and understood by enemies all around the world. And if you're weak in one area, you are deemed to be weak in another area as well. And I know this from, you know, from the local micro environment of the Middle East, where we fight various enemies. If we are perceived as weak by one of our enemies, then the others will perceive us as weak as well, even if we aren't. The case of Hamas versus Hezbollah, we were weak and unprepared to fight. And, you know, we had these whole paradigms of thought that were very defeatist and sounded very similar to the point that were made in just a few minutes. minutes ago, and the enemies heard that, saw that, took notice, and they used it against us. And then the other enemies started, well, maybe we'll have a go at Israel as well, and Chisbalah went,

and the Iranians went, and many others. The point here is that, yes, of course, wars are horrible. People die in wars. I have fought. I don't know who else on the panel has been in uniform and put themselves in harm's way, but I have fought from my country, and Israelis continue to fight for their country, not asking anybody to fight for us, unlike many other American allies who ask for Americans to be deployed in their countries. We don't. And with the current situation here, I think that it would be

actually humiliating for the US to do such a childish and immature and, you know, Barbie-like kind of thing to say, well, enough and I'm just going home. Let's forget about it. Have you ever heard of a leader say such a thing without thinking about the serious long-term consequences for the projection of false deterrence. Think what will the Chinese say? Well, of course, the Chinese will have levers of influence over the U.S. as well, whether it's energy, chips, manufacturing, rare earth minerals, and many other things. It'll hurt to confront the Chinese as well. It'll hurt to confront the Russians as well. So what? If you believe in something, if you listen to your enemy and the Iranian regime is an enemy of the United States of America, they would happily kill

every American leftist liberal. They would happily kill you as well if they had the opportunity to sue. What is your strategy? My strategy as an Israeli. That's a very important question, Jonathan. No, no, no, I'll tell you what it is. A, what is victory? Because if victory is supposedly preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon,

I would say it is far more likely. Well, hang on, that's what Donald Trump has said. That's what Donald Trump has said, right? So let me just remind you what the President of the United States has said is the stated mission, right? It's to stop them developing a weapon. Now, last, well, hang on, Jonathan, hang on, hang on. Last time I checked, they still have control of all their enriched uranium. They are, if we are to believe that just eight months after the 12-day war,

where we supposedly put them back decades in their nuclear program, they were two weeks away from developing one and potentially. using it immediately, then presumably that threat still applies. Now you've got the American saying to the Saudi Arabians, you can have a nuclear weapon if you join the Abraham Accords. If you're Iran... You can have enrichment. What is stopping here?

No, no. Nuclear energy and enrichment, not weapons. It's the same argument about Iran. Iran says that's what they want the enriched uranium for. It isn't. And you guys have to see that to mean... You can't compare the Saudis to the Iranian region. It is.

It isn't. It is the same argument. Let's be serious. My point is this, Jonathan. My point is there. Wait a minute. Let me make my point. My point is if you're the Iranian regime and you see all this going on and you know that four and a half months into this war, you still have the regime intact. The Iatollah's been replaced by his son.

The IRGC are in full control. Your people aren't rising up. And you can control the Australia for Moose. and you're causing devastating damage to the neighboring Gulf states by firing off missiles directly impacting their business model going forward. If you're aware of all these facts and you've got all your enriched uranium and the President of the United States is saying to the Saudi Arabians, you can basically have what the Iranians have.

Why on earth would you have any incentive to end this? So I'll briefly just say this. The Iranian, there's a 90% inflation in Iran. Their currency is plummeting. they don't have money. There's growing unrest on Iranian streets, which isn't reported in Western media because they don't allow to be reported. And the only thing that I think, you know, should have been done better by the president in the management of this war isn't the fact that he launched a war together. I think that is exactly what the president of the United States should

have done. The only thing that I regret is that he had very odd bedfellows, whether it's Turkey, Qatar or Pakistan that I think have given him very poor advice. And that is a shame because if he hadn't called off various plans that were in motion, then I think we could have been in a different situation. If we'd listen to other countries like the Emirates, like Israel, like Jordan, like other countries, and not to basically Muslim Brotherhood. I'm not hearing anything about what could do about Turkey. Then I think the situation could have been much better.

and up and the situation would have been much better, and the Iranian regime would have been brought to their knees. And finally, about victory. Not at all, sir. Not at all. What I'm saying is without losing our ships to the bottom of the Gulf. What I'm saying is that victory against the Iranian regime. All right, let's get to it.

I've got a strategy. All right. You want a strategy? We tried negotiation. We tried negotiation. President Trump did the right thing. The right thing was tried to find a way to end this with the least amount of kinetic energy and damage that you could put forth. Okay, it didn't work.

The enemy gets a vote. They figured out that their asymmetric threats to both the Strait of Hormuz and now the Babo Mondeb are enough to shut down the global economy and oil in a way that we could not sustain. And for a short time, they could. So now he has to deal with both U.S. elections and what happens next. But the real problem is the Islamic Republic of Iran. And it's time to quit tap dancing around the fact that it is well past its expiration date. And it's time to tell the world they need to move on. The Iranian people and the rest of the world deserve something better.

So what we need is Operation Epic Finale. And we need to do it like the end of that fireworks display on the 4th of July here at D.C. Where we barraged everything. Kill as many of the IRGC leaders because they're the prime. as you can, and CIA and Assad know where a lot of them are, crush them hard immediately, and then say, we're going to take a break until the U.S. midterms are over. You can get your stuff together and surrender, or after the midterms, we move into a phase where we start degrading them and creating the conditions inside Iran for the people of Iran

to choose their own government. Call for a national referendum where international observers come in and let the people decide whether they want to continue this revolution that has caused nothing but death and destruction for them for all these years, and replace that with something that turns them back into a prosperous and decent nation and member of the community of nations. That's a plan. I don't know you. With all due respect, sir, isn't that exactly how this war started by killing all the IRGC, kill Nia Tolla, telling the people to rise up? And we said we're not doing regime change. We're going to negotiate. happen? No, the difference is you call an end to any of this. We can make a deal with an

apocalyptic death cult that believes they need an Armageddon-like event to bring the return of the 13th time you're saying is make them surrender through power, right? No, I'm saying make them surrender, beat them down as far as we can, then take a break, then bring back the blockade, bring back international pressure. Jim, all you respect. Jim, Jim, Jim. That's what's happening right now. Jim, here's the problem. Jim, Jim, Jim, hang on, hang on, Scott. Jim, all due respect, this is exactly what's been going on for the last four and a half months. I mean, let me bring in John Kerryak, welcome back to uncensored, but it seems to me the Americans and Israelis through the kitchen sink, trying to blow up the IRGC and the Iranian leadership. Then they tried to block aid and they've done all these things.

None of it's worked. And guess what? You can't deal with the Iranians. Well, I could have told them that before they started. The great big elephant in the room here turned out, well, well, you have to deal with them. Obama, over two years, got a deal that the Republicans condemned as terrible, but actually has turned out to be probably better at the moment than any of the deals that Trump's put in front of the Iranians. So we are back further back than we were before a deal that was at least ostensibly holding in place in some form with a very dangerous, horrible race. I don't dispute that for a minute. But John Kiriakku, you know, my problem with this is, and again, full respect to Jim,

and I love having him on the show, as I do, all my guests. But the bottom line is Americans have tried everything here, and none of it's worked. And last time I looked, the Americans have a missile problem, right? They're running out of defensive missiles against the Iranian ballistic missiles. I was told on very good authority last week that the Iranians still have at least 50% of their ballistic missile capability left and they're regenerating as they go. I was told this by somebody who would know. The Americans clearly have a defensive missile issue and the neighboring Gulf states, some of them are in big trouble. You look at the smaller ones like Kuwait and Bahrain and others.

They are getting really, really jittery about what may happen in those smaller states. And I don't blame them. So my argument, John, is I've heard. hurdle with rhetoric, none of it's worked. No, none of this works. And this is an ongoing problem that we've seen stretch over the course of decades. I saw it at the CIA. It's easy to invade a country. It's easy to kill the leadership.

But it's almost impossible to come up with an exit strategy that works. And we never think these things through. There's never an exit strategy. We always think that we're going to be greeted as liberators. And we're never greeted as liberators. were greeted as invaders and occupiers. If there's one thing that this war has done in a very short period of time, it has united Iranians inside the country against the United States, Israel, and the Gulf countries.

No, it hasn't. The Iranians have to do to win this. You don't know that and it hasn't. That's it. That's all they have to do to win. You don't know that and it hasn't. And you can look at the amount of executions by the Iranian regime, including yesterday and the day before yesterday.

public hanging, you can see how united. According to the US sources. The only thing that they are united against is against the horrible regime that oppresses them. And the fact that you are doing their work and strengthening the propaganda. So, Jonathan, if that's a case, Jonathan, if that's the case,

why is it that Israel has never been more unpopular, particularly in America, where two-thirds of Americans now have a negative view of Israel, 50% of Americans, nearly, what Netanyahu arrested on American soil. So you can talk about the Iranians and how everyone's United against them and so on. Actually, what is happening?

And I say there's somebody who likes Israel, likes Israelis, hates to see this happening, but your country is becoming increasingly a global pariah because of the actions of its government. And that government is being driven by absolute psychopaths like Bengavir and Smoddrich. And the more those guys do, and the appalling scenes we're seeing on the West Bank, for example, appalling scenes, right, which you should be the first to condemn. And I've always thought you try and be fair-minded when it's deserved the criticism. So here's your chance to be fair-minded. Are you happy? Was what happening in the West Bank? Let's first address what you said first about, you know, the Israel's standing in the world, which brings me great sadness. as someone who has been in media for a while, not as long as you and maybe some of the other panelists,

but I can smell an influence operation a mile away. And what I give credit to is our enemies, the Palestinian Authority, and a few others, Qatar, lots of Qatari money, Russians and Iran, for a very successful information campaign against Israel. They have been more successful information-wise than what we have been on the battle. field. And we have taken out Chisbalah. We've taken out Hamas. We have dealt significant blows to the Iranian regime. We have

I didn't interrupt you. We have taken out, we have taken out significant of our enemies on the ground. But unfortunately, the Jewish country, what the Jewish state faces is an unprecedented,

unequality. It's unique in the world. The amount of attention, scrutiny, But what the Jewish state, as you put it, yeah, but Jonathan, Jonathan, what Israel, the Jewish state, as you call it, what Israel through its action, through its government's actions, and I say that very precisely, through this current government's actions, it is that that's made Israel an increasing pariah.

No, it isn't, not the way the media. No, it isn't. I don't get told, I don't, I, or how is somebody like me, for example, who for many months after October the 7th ran, into all sorts of abuse from the pro-Palestinian side because I defended Israel's right to defend itself. But I kept asking, as I did that, what is a proportionate response?

And you lost me when the response reached nearly 80,000 deaths in Gaza. Then we saw the attacks on southern Lebanon, on Iran, on this and that. You're in perpetual state of warfare, and the rest of the world's watching them is going, you keep saying you're the victims here, but you keep attacking places and killing endless civilians. And you keep saying, well, we don't mean to. We're only after the bad guys.

But in the process of killing the bad guys, you are killing tens and tens of thousands of innocent people. And the rest of the world is watching this going, enough. Now, Jonathan, that is not PR. No one's paying me to say this. It is what I'm seeing with my own eyes. Okay. Give me a chance to respond to that

because you really laid out so many things that are, at least that have two sentences, to speak about it. I suggest that you read the substack of a British former army officer called Andrew Fox. I know he's maybe been on the show once and been in touch with the show. He just wrote a piece about the whole genocide libel falling to pieces, and he took each and every one of the components of the lies against Israel, specifically regarding Gaza. I don't, won't go into all of the details, but I suggest that you read it and that you inform yourself. And if you ask, how have you fallen? Because you have also been influenced by this massive media operation against Israel.

It is a media operation that I think the other country has faced. If you want me to be better informed. If you want me to be better, hang on, Jonathan. If you want me to, if you, hang on, Scott, if you want me to be better informed, Jonathan, then let let the international journalist into Gaza to do their job and find out for themselves. them do it. There's a reason Netanyahu doesn't want it to happen and is prohibiting journalists from going in there. There's lots of reporting from Gaza. There's lots of reporting from Gaza. There is no independent free reporting in Gaza. Yes, there is. Zero. Yes, there is. You banned all international media. Voitors. Which journalist has gone in freely with our IDF amendment.

Washington Post and AFP all have correspondents on the ground reporting from Gaza. Yes, All of these are reporting from Gaza daily. They have been reporting since October 7. What you say is factually incorrect. So there is no ban. Just to be clear. Wow. Wow.

Hang on. You yourself in previous interviews on this show have admitted there is a ban on international media and it should be stopped. Now you are pretending since October the 7th. They've all been there. Which one is it? I'll tell you very clearly. CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, AP, and AFP, and Reuters all have staff on the ground,

and they have been reporting. Gazan reporters who work for those agencies. And of course, El Jazeera as well. I forgot the Qatari Muslim-Broad-Bashin machine. But what hasn't been allowed... I thought, sorry, I thought that the narrative coming out of Gaza with Gazan journalists was they were all pro Hamas. That's why 200 plus have been killed.

And they're all pro Hamas, therefore, they're not actual journalists. Now your position is that the Gazan journalists are free independent journalists and not Hamas. Is that your position? And secondly, there remains in place, as you know, Jonathan, a ban on all international media going into Gaza, non-Gazan journalists from outside going in to do their job. So when you say to me, I should be better informed, I would love to be better informed. Let the journalists go in and do their job.

You said about journalists. 267 journalists, according to international NGOs, have been reported killed, cited by various organizations that they were only journalists. Out of those, more than 125 have already been recognized by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad as their own fighters. Now, where's the reporting on that? Where's the outrage of media organization? Where's the reporting on that? Where is the reporting of that? It's in the same.

Beers, Pears. They'll do the report. You'll give you a little information. Information about was there a genocide? I was talking about the voluntary emigration of the entire population of the Gaza Strip. That's the genocide, the guy's sitting here to nine to your face. Voluntary immigration with a bayonet in the back.

Women and. women and children so they can steal their land. Which genocide? The population is growing, for Christ sake. The Gaza population is growing. Was there a genocide in Fallujah? Let me bring in. Let's talk about a direct comparison here. Don't all guys, guys, guys, guys, time out. Don't all talk at once. We can't hear you. Let me bring Jim back in here. Jim, look, I, I, they're gone. You want to say something?

Was there a genocide in Fallujah when the United States military was clearing that city in Iraq? Was there one in Al Anbar when the same things were happening? But the amount of civilians killed per enemy combatant killed is lower in Gaza than it was when the United States was doing that. It's the ridiculous. How do you know, Jim? Those are facts. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Go ahead. Jim. Jim. Respectfully, Jim. How many civilians have died in Gaza?

Because we can't get that number. Nobody knows for sure because we're taking health ministry. But take that. Take the Gaza health ministry. The ratio. So how do you know, how do you know, Jim the ratio is the best 10 months? Nobody knows. I'm giving you the ratio is the best. Take the worst case scenario. Take the lies from the Gaza Health Ministry and do the math from there on how many military aged males were killed versus how many civilians. And compare that to every other existence of urban combat, of which we have direct comparisons. We can do the math and it's been done. What it says is that. You were people who were killed in Gaza.

Let me bring in, okay, let me bring in John. John, your response to that? The most moral army in the world. We're ignoring the fact here that the internationally recognized definition of genocide includes the forced removal of people. You don't have to execute people for it to be a genocide. Forcibly removing a civilian population is a legal definition of genocide. And that's been announced, not just by Benjamin Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben-Gabir, but by Donald Trump himself.

Remember, he was going to, he was going to make Gaza into the next Monte Carlo, no, better than Monte Carlo. That's genocide. That's goalposted. What you're doing now is keeping people out of the hands of the United Nations. That's moving them out of the way and keeping them safer so that Hamas won't use them as human shields. You call that genocide? around to you and extremely true the gossans don't even have the right to the territory they got it as a gift from

Israel why don't you see how you guys govern gaza for your people Hamas took control they turned it in your terrorist thing and we've seen what happens why would Israel tolerate that there's no reason for them to tolerate that my husband hang on hang on hang on don't talk of once agree with him i want to agree about Hamas Hamas is a terrible Islamist terrorist group. I'm not sitting here defending their side of the story here at all. However, it's so important to know, as I'm sure you must know,

from great reporting from right-wing media like Richard Sale and UPI dating back to the 1980s, that the Israelis deliberately helped create Hamas and voiced Hamas on the people of Palestine. I have an article about it called Netanyahu's support for Hamas backfired. And it's about how Netanyahu, according to his own government ministers, was pressuring Qatar to pay Hamas, to keep Hamas enthroned in Gaza just so they can say to Americans, you don't expect us to deal with these terrorists, do you? And as Netanyahu said repeatedly, and we have them on video saying repeatedly, don't worry, I control the height of the flame. In other words, yes, to divide and conquer the Palestinian people, Israel foists Hamas on the past. Palestinians, but don't worry, they're not going to do Hamas on themselves. And then Netanyahu kept them going.

I would agree that he kept him going. And it was a bad idea. Cutting the grass. Bad idea. All of the liberal, bad policy. Let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, you know what would be refreshing. You know what guys? Guys, hang on, we run out of, we're up. Jonathan, we run out of time. I want to ask each of you to give a one line answer to this. And I mean it, don't go on a rank. We haven't got time.

I have to cut it off. A one-line answer, and the question is very straightforward. When will this war in Iran end and how does it end? Jonathan, one line. It ends with the fall of the Iranian regime, with stability in the Middle East, with freedom for the Iranian people, and with peace between Iranians and Israelis. I don't know when, but I know that that will be the ultimate end of it. Okay. John?

It ends on the last day of the Donald Trump presidency, with nothing having changed. Scott? It's already over. All that remains is the details. There might be fits and starts until the final deal, but they already called their own bluff in launching this idiot war, and they've already lost it. And Jim, finally you. It ends when the people of Iran remove the Islamic Republic and replace it with a government representative of their nation. needs and the world community should unite behind that idea, not a U.S. invasion, a force of will

by all the free people of the world. Okay. I'm going to leave it there. Thank you all for a fascinating debate. I really appreciate it. Thank you. In a moment, we'll get to the dramatic developments in the Iran War, as Zelensky and Netanyahu both visit the White House and the president weighs up a major escalation. But we begin with the extraordinary hearings that's been taking in place today in the Senate. Although it pains me to do so, because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress

under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions. Thank you. Dr. Fauci was given at presidential pardon by President Biden, but many Republicans remain convinced that they can prosecute him. The probability of him being arrested this year has spiked from 4.5% to 13% on Polly Market. Is there a plan that we don't know about?

Peter Navarro is a counselor to the President of the United States, and he joins me now. Peter Navarro, welcome to Unsense him. Pears, I called that shot this morning. I was on C-SPAN doing an interview just before the hearing, and I said that, that Fauci would invoke the fifth. And the problem that Fauci has is that his public statements are so at odds with his diary that that man is guilty of crimes. And he doesn't want to dig the hole any deeper.

So I appreciate you having me on. I was the White House policy coordinator for the Defense Production Act during the Pan- What does that mean? I was the guy helping you to get masks and gloves and ventilators and swabs and all sorts of stuff. And what's interesting is if you read Fauci's diary peers, my name appears almost 60 times. And Fauci attacks me continually in his diary.

But what's interesting is the diary will show that on all the all five of the things that he and I disagreed with. And I was the only guy in that White House besides the president who got in Fauci's face. I was absolutely right. He was absolutely wrong. And Americans died because of the adulation that Fauci had from the American people and the inability to stop his runaway train. Watching him invoke the fifth, you know, that's a long fall down from St. Fowler.

Well, it's a fascinating day because, of course, Fauci was given this pardon, and that was up to the day that President Biden left office. The pardon covered the whole period before then. But it wouldn't have protected him if he committed perjury during the hearings today. He's clearly taken advice from his lawyers, as he said. Now, he's framing it as the Senator Rand Paul is obsessed with trying to prosecute me, and therefore purely for legal reasons, I cannot cooperate today. I'm pleading the fifth.

Now that we've seen the diaries, which in itself is fascinating, the fact that we've even got to read these, because apparently he just did this on a government computer, therefore it's a matter of public record and so on, which just go to his judgment, I have to say. It's clear from the diaries, Peter Navarro, that Fauci comes over as a guy with a very big ego. You could say he's a narcissist.

He loves being a celebrity. He boasts openly about how famous he is, the most famous person in the world. He name checks endless celebrities from Barbara Streisand to Julia Roberts and so on. He loves meeting media people. So that's all indisputable. But for those who've not poured through all the diaries in the way that you will have done,

what to you are the most damning contradictions between things he puts in the diaries and what he was saying in public at the time? And this is why I'm so happy to be on your show peers, because the media has really dropped the ball on this. The left wing has ignored the story. The right of center media have focused on the narcissistic qualities of Fauci. But at the end of the day, the one big question is this. We know for a fact that Fauci funded research at the Wuhan lab, where the vice.

where the virus almost certainly escaped from. We know that it was funded through the EcoHealth Alliance. We know that gain of function research was funded through that project, and gain of function research is what was used in Wuhan to take a harmless bat virus, change a gain in function so it could be transmitted to humans, And we know that the reason why that was done in a Dr. Frankenstein way was to create this virus so that Fauci and company could create a vaccine in the contingency in case we got that virus. I mean, it's like insane. So the short answer to your question is if Fauci does not take the fifth, he is going to have to admit that he funded gain of research.

gain of function research. And it's something that he ducked and lied about in earlier hearings that he could have been prosecuted for. He was asked that, and he basically spun it away from that. So that's the smoking gun. And then once you establish that he funded the gain of research that created the virus that killed millions worldwide, then you begin to probe why he did it, whether he made money on the side with the vaccine people, and all sorts of things like that. That is where he is most vulnerable.

And Rand Paul has been trying to get that out of him. This place is special for me. I'm on what we call Pebble Beach at the White House. 50 yards away, peers, the first time I met Fauci was in the situation room. He, I went head to head with him. I was saying we got a band travel from China. He took the opposite position. I won that on behalf of President Trump,

but then he would claim publicly that he always supported the ban. The diary contradicts that. In April, just down the way, in a fox tent, and also on Meet the Press, I said that it was a near certainty that that virus was from the lab, not from nature. What the diary shows with Fauci is this. publicly, Fauci said it was from nature. Privately, he acknowledged that it was likely from the lab. That's a huge contradiction.

Moreover, he orchestrated a cover using puppet researchers to propagate this from nature theory when the researchers themselves didn't even believe it. So that's an issue. On the lockdowns, again, I was here on the TV cameras saying that the lockdowns, saying that the lockdowns would likely kill more people than no lockdown because of things like suicide, depression, alcoholism, depriving people from getting adequate medical tests and things like that. And he was adamant about locking you and I up, taking away the right for people to gather together or go see, for example, my mother in her 90s when she was locked up in an assisted living place. So I was right about that.

He was wrong. And then the mask thing, I was out getting masks. But the kind of masks that I was getting and building factories on were the N95. Those are the ones that for first responders, if you actually put them on, they help. These other kind of masks I said from the get go, no, no, no, no. But Fauci was like, he was like, you wear a mask, right? You got to wear a mask. So I think the point here, peers, is that if you like, if you want to wear a mask, you're not, you

look at Tony Fauci as a man, he is essentially, as Bernie Madoff is to investing, Fouchy is the science. He has gone from famous to what should be infamous. And by the way, Barry the lead here, this is now a key issue in the Senate and House races coming into November because every one of those Democrats at that hearing supported Tony Fauci unequivocally. How could How can they do that after reading the diary? Okay, so let me just rain back a little bit here. The findings from the diaries, which I think are pertinent to what you've just been talking about. He talks about an entry in 26 January 2020, so right at the start of this, he says, now we know the market was not the source.

It was the amplifier. Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans. So that's significant because of the timing of that entry. First of February 2020, he says there was not total agreement. You got to go back a little bit. Yeah. You got to go a little back because there's another entry where he was. Let me just finish.

I'll come back to you, Peter. I'll come back to you. So in February 2020, 1st of February, so this is like a week later, there was not total agreement regarding how the pandemic started. He noted that while two scientists believed it was natural, nine other officials felt that deliberate insertion was possible, and they could not let this go. Weighing the possibilities in later entries,

he refined his position, writing he was almost certain that the virus evolved naturally from a species jump. And then in relation to keeping an open mind, he added he maintained an open mind about a potential lad leak, but cautioned that just because two alternatives are possible, that doesn't mean they are equally probable. Now, what people will say in Fauci's defense is this is a guy who spent 50 years of his life,

in public health in the United States. He was a primary designer of the president's emergency plan for AIDS relief, which indisputably saved millions of lives. He uncovered how HIV destroys the human immune system and helped develop life-saving treatments. He guided the U.S. response to threats involving Ebola, Zika, the West Nile virus, and then COVID-19. This is not a man who's gone through his five decades of life

as a public health official. I would argue from his history deliberately trying to kill people. And yet you went on Fox this week and said this. Let me play a clip. For all the damages they did to their families and killing people and things like that, I mean, I don't think a pardon would prevent a class action suit against Fauci personally. He needs to be held accountable. I mean, think about it, Maria.

The guy's sitting in a mansion with millions of dollars. A lot of people in this country think this guy's a hero. He was Dr. Frankenstein of the modern era. This is indisputable fact right now. He created that virus using gain of function research. He did it for the express purpose. He thought it was like a good idea. Let's create the virus in case something happens in the future.

So then we can create a vaccine. So if something happens in the future, we can deal with it. I mean, how did that work out? out, Anthony, you idiot. You need to come clean, Fauci. I mean, Fauci, you need to come clean, okay? Quit hiding behind your money and your laurels and your PBS documentaries.

Come clean because you killed people. Now, my response to that, Peter, would be, you're making, well, hang on one second. Let me ask you a question. You're making a number of assertions there, not least that he somehow did all this deliberately, and it ended up killing millions of people. Now, you know, there's no actual evidence for this.

It's a supposition. You accept that. When you say deliberately, let me say what I think, without doubt, and the diary proves this, what he did deliberately. What he did deliberately, peers, is he conducted an experiment. The experiment was this. Let's take a bat virus. that can't go to humans, make it go transmissible to humans. Why do we want to do that? Because it could happen in the future. This is his thinking, because it could. And therefore,

if we do that, then we can develop a vaccine against it so that if it happens in the future, we'll already have the vaccine. That's indisputable. That's what happens. So he deliberately funded that research because of this experiment. He had good intentions. Let's say he had good intentions. He wanted to create a suite of vaccines for a future which may or may not have happened. And what he didn't do, peers, and this is where he's culpable, he didn't assume there could be a leak. He assumed you could conduct that experiment without any leaks. And it happened. And again, Again, the diary is my best friend in terms of proving it. When the virus first comes out, he convenes all these scientists.

They tell him there's a good chance it came from the lab. He seems honest at the time wanting to think more about that. But then later on in the diary, we see him scrambling to figure out whether his agency had anything to do with funding the gain of research, gain of function research. And as soon as he finds that out, it's like, whoa, baby, it's time for the cover up. And then, I mean, Pierce, the biggest problem here is when you convene a bunch of scientists to write a paper that goes into respected journalism simply to make a from nature theory in order to cover up your culpability. Remember, Pierce, we didn't know at any time during the whole pandemic that he had engaged in that research. at the Wuhan lob. If I had known that during the pandemic,

I would have been the first to call him out, and he would have been gone. Okay. Let's just turn quickly to the vaccines themselves. Sure. Do you think the vaccines were a good thing? Do you believe they saved many lives? Do you think the speed that they were created was a good, positive thing?

I was involved with this at the very beginning. I think that that president, President Trump and we in the administration did the exact right thing in terms of seeking to develop at warp speed of vaccine. Where it went wrong was two things. One is the vaccine companies, particularly Pfizer, held crucial data from us that indicated the kind of side effects that could be associated with the vaccine, the heart problems and the the like. So we and Fauci was part of that whole vaccine complex. So your answer is we did exactly what we should have, but Fauci and the vaccine companies didn't provide us with the appropriate data than to warn the people. The second thing is that vaccine never, ever should have been used on children or healthy people, college age and in their 20s and things like that.

Never, ever. It was a super mistake. And that's one that got taken over by the whole ideology of the vaccine. Because it would have been much better to let healthy people get the virus, develop the antibodies, and eventually we would develop herd immunity a lot faster. So that's a complex story. Okay, but this whole idea. I get it.

I get it. And it is complex. And, you know, one of the things I feel most incensed about actually, in terms of the advisories that were given by the scientists, because I believed it, was when they said that if you had the vaccine, you couldn't transmit the virus. That was an enormous thing for the science world to tell the world. And Fauci was one of them that said this.

And of course, I've said this, hang on, Peter, hang on Peter. And I expressed regret many times for the fact I became very censorious to people who then refused to have the vaccine because I believed that they were risking other people's lives by not having it. Now, they then changed the science completely. They then said a few months later, actually, we can now say that it makes no difference whether you've had the vaccine or not as to whether you can transmit the virus. And at that point, to me, everything changed because then whether you have the vaccine or not should be obviously a personal decision, because your decision will not impact on potentially other people's lives. So there were a number of things like that,

Like the use of masks, we were told originally you had to, you know, they were going to be no good. Then everyone had to do them. And then as you said, certain types of masks were better than others and so on. Now, again, playing devil's advocate here, if you're Fauci and like all the health officials around the world, you're hit by this sudden pandemic, which is clearly killing a lot of people very quickly. I remember the scenes in Lombardi in Italy where you had just devastating speed of deaths ripping through families. And you have to make quick decisions. Do you allow for the fact that because, you know, let's remember President Trump on his last day in office in 2021 gave an award of presidential commendation to Fauci and his team for the speed of Operation Warp Speed? So he was proud of what they did with the vaccines.

But do you give him any slack Fauci? Notwithstanding how this all originated, and I think you raised some very important questions and he should be answering them. And by taking the fifth, he will fuel the sentiment many people have that he's hiding something. So I accept that. But do you accept in a fast-moving pandemic, it is impossible to make all the right calls? And the stuff you're talking about now, you know, yes, some people said it at the time, but I remember at the time it being very fast-moving, very chaotic. No one was sure if the vaccines should or not go to kids or not.

You know, I met a guy from the AstraZeneca program in Oxford, for example, who told me that this was a, we got away with this one. He said, if it was the black death again, for example, if it was a black death again, then I think it was 30% of the deaths were kids in that case. So do you give him just finally any slack for the speed of the pandemic and the ever-changing information that came their way? No, and let me give you two reasons. First of all, as I said earlier, we did not get from Fauci and the vaccine companies the data. They hid the data on the damage and harm it could do the people. And Fauci himself should have understood, as I did as a layperson, that it's not a one-size-fits-all.

The vaccine only should have been used and risked upon people with comorbidities, primarily senior citizens, full stop. But the best answer to your question, peers, is hydroxychloroquine. I would guess not knowing your views on this, that you think hydroxychloroquine is a quack medicine. But let me tell you this. This is one of the many fights I had with Tony Fauci. Hydroxychloroquine, we now know going forward with all the studies, is number one, it's a very safe medicine. Number two, it's particularly effective for prophylaxis, which helps first responders.

And number three, it has a decent benefit in the first seven days of an infection. So I had a million tablets of hydroxy sitting in warehouses ready to be dispensed to the American people. And I take this to the bank peers. If I had been able to do that, thousands of Americans would be alive. Now, where does Fauci come into this? And this is where the blame is. In March of 2020, Fauci in his diary, several diary entries, is on record saying that hydroxychloroquine is very, very safe. He wanted it distributed immediately. He wanted remdesivir to go through trials, not the other way around. And he was all for it. The politics changed radically when President Trump, said, hey, let's try hydroxychloric when there was like a, this just mass insanity in the left-wing media, Fauci flipped with that, and he was part of the pressure on the FDA to prevent this administration and me specifically from able to being able to do what I did. So when you asked me, do I give any slack

to Tony Fauci, I say, absolutely not. There were just, I mean, he, there's a good case. I think I think we would have found out today whether he created the virus and killed people if he hadn't taken the fifth. And if I had been Rand Paul and the Justice Department, I would have given him immunity, good pun there, just to get the truth out of him. If you gave him like testimony, immunity, he would have had to answer those questions. You know what, Peter? You know what, Peter, that's a really good point. Because actually, it would have been, it would be in the American public interest to get the real answers expressed honestly. And if the barrier to doing that is that Fauci doesn't want to incriminate himself, then remove that barrier and get the information out of that. I agree. Peter Navarro, I appreciate you coming on, Sensor. Thank you very much.

Such a thoughtful conversation. I appreciate it, Pierce. Thanks for me be on it. Piers Morgan Unscensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain.

And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it without you.