Piers Morgan Uncensored - “Want To See MAGA DEAD!” Mike Johnson, Eric Trump & Michael Knowles On Maxwell Pardon & More

Episode Date: October 8, 2025

ExpressVPN: Right now you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free. Just scan the QR code on the screen, or go to https://ExpressVPN.com/PIERS and get four extra months for free.The US government shutdown continues, as former FBI director James Comey is arraigned on criminal charges and Pam Bondi is lambasted by senators on everything from the Epstein Files to the deployment of National Guard troops in cities nationwide.Joining Piers Morgan to discuss the latest is The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles, Democratic Congressman from Michigan, Shri Thanedar and progressive YouTuber, Jack Cocchiarella. Plus, Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson drops in to give his take on the big issues.Then, Eric Trump joined Uncensored to give his views on everything from Charlie Kirk’s murder to Pete Hegseth’s ban on beards. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by:Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/PIERS to meet with a strategist today for FREEChapter: For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial 910-708-7584 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/morganDisclaimer: Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and standalone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don't directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all your options. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Either we can all sit together and sing kumbaya and nobody can enforce the law, or we're going to have violence. But that's not really the case. Donald Trump and his entire administration has made it clear that they'd be happy to see unrest come out of sending in the National Guard. The solution is empower the local law enforcement, give them the funds that they need. If he's President of the United States, he should be more unified in the way he speaks about people. You shouldn't say he hates his opponents. They debanked us. They de-platformed us.

wanted to see us in jail. They wanted to see us arrested. They want to see my father behind bars. They wanted me to be right next to him. They want to see our family bankrupt. They wanted to see the MAGA movement dead. Why have all the Epstein files not been released? And do you think they should be? Well, later on, Eric Trump gives me his outrageously uncensored views on everything from Charlie Kirk's murder to Pete Hector's ban on beards. And I'll be joined shortly by the House Speaker Mike Johnson. We'll begin with a volcanic eruption of debatable news stories. Former FBI director James Comey is being arraigned on criminal charges. Pam Bondi is lambasted by senators on everything from the Epstein files

to be deploying the National Guard troops in cities nationwide. The government shutdown continues causing air travel chaos. And Ruby Goldberg says that American football fans should black up for the Super Bowl to help undocumented migrants. Joining me to try and make sense of all this is Sri Tanada, Democratic Congressman from Michigan, host of the Michael Knowles Show on Daily Wire, Michael Knowles. and Jack Cottarello, the progressive commentator and YouTuber. Well, welcome to all of you. Michael Knowles, I started off with a very bold promise

that we would try and make sense of what I've just said. There's a lot going on here, a lot to unpack. Let me just start with one thing. I watched Pam Bondi yesterday, and there are some sort of fundamental principles at play here in various things this administration is doing, one of which is about the ability of the federal government to deploy federal troops into states that are not Washington, D.C.

Do you feel comfortable about them doing it? Let me just say straight off the top. I'm not sure how I feel about this, because to me, I get the overarching, I think, plan, which is visibility on the streets to deter criminals. But let's take a look at the clip, and then I'll come back to you. The word is, and I think it's been confirmed by the White House, they are going to transfer Texas National Guard units to the state of Illinois. What's the rationale for that?

Yeah, Chairman, as you shut down the government, you voted to shut down the government, and you're sitting here, our law enforcement officers aren't being paid. They're out there working to protect you. I wish you love Chicago as much as you hate President Trump. And currently, the National Guard are on the way to Chicago. If you're not going to protect your citizens, President Trump will. So again, the question, Michael, do you feel comfortable this is constitutional? Not only do I feel comfortable, I'm happy to see that the federal government is stepping in where the local and state governments have failed. This is one of the main things that the federal government is for.

The Insurrection Act has been invoked many times throughout American history by both parties. Eisenhower, Kennedy, it's been called in by, it's been requested, rather, by Democrat governors. And so that's really unsurprising. And what we're looking at here is issue compounding on issue, compounding on issue, because we've had this massive invasion of foreign nationals, many of whom are working with foreign terrorist organizations, the criminal cartels that control the southern border. We have crime spiraling out of control generally in places like Chicago, which in terms of the number of murders leads the country, something like 110,000 gang members in Chicago alone. And you're seeing an uptick in political violence, particularly from the left, reflected in multiple surveys and then obviously in the horrific insubes. that we've seen recently. Most recently, the leftist who was going to bomb the cathedral in Washington, D.C., but of course, going back to Charlie's assassination and others. So you're having a lot of disorder.

This is why we have the Insurrection Act. It's why we have the federal government, because I think people are debating between these two false options. Either we can all sit together and sing kumbaya and nobody can enforce the law, or we're going to have violence. But that's not really the case. The two options you have are you can have just, prudent state violence. that is to say, cops enforcing the law and putting the bad guys in jail, or you can have what you're seeing increasingly celebrated by the left, which is vigilante violence, which is unjust. And I want the just kind. I want an orderly society,

and I don't think we should just consign people who happen to live in failed blue cities to misery and rape and murder and all the rest of it. Okay. Sri Tanada, your response to that? Well, look, militarization of our cities is not the answer. Just yesterday, a mother who's in America for 30 years, she was going to a grocery store to buy some ingredients so she can make meat soup, meatball soup for her cares. And ISIS detained her. She is now behind in the ICE detention center.

I saw her daughter crying. These are not gang members. These are not hardened criminals. They're arresting 17-year-old high school cares, putting away American citizens four. five-year-old American citizens, kids who are suffering from leukemia in the ICE detention center losing their doctor's appointments. You can talk all about gang members. You know, nobody, everybody wants to. No, I wouldn't talk about that. Just to stop me there, but, you know, I want to talk specifically about the deployment of federal troops, not necessarily the wider,

separate issue of what ICE is doing with undocumented people in the United States. I've debated that a lot. We can touch on that in a moment, but just specifically on the deployment of federal troops in states, which are not D.C., where obviously the federal government can do that, the president has that power. There is this raging argument now about whether it is constitutional, whether it is lawful for the president of the United States to do what Trump is now rolling out in places like Chicago. What is your view of that? It's not only not legal. It's not only unconstitutional. But more importantly, it's not even good business because this costs so much putting federal troops in cities. Instead of that, if federal government can give their grants so that local police, law enforcement, can hire more people. Right now, they are severely understaffed.

They don't have the resources they need to keep our cities safe. Now, in a long-term process... But aren't you answering your question? I think you're making the point. Right. I mean, in a way, what you just said is the rationale for doing it, isn't it? I mean, they're under-resourced. They don't have enough people. They can't control the crime. Donald Trump is recognizing this, and he's doing something about it. And I'm curious about how many regular Americans who live in some of these very crime-ridden inner cities in America are really as opposed to it, as you sound like you are, because, you know, if you've got a lot of crime going around you and you know the police are woefully under-resor. why would you object to seeing some troops on the streets to just try and restore order and perhaps send a real message to criminals? See, putting military and reserves all over America, major American cities and militarization of our country is not the solution. The solution is empower the local law enforcement, give them the funds that they need.

It's the funding that needs to come so we can have a more. long-term, long-lasting solution to it. Congressman, are you familiar with the Insurrection Act? Yes, I am. Yes, I am. So what do you think that's for? You said that this was illegal. You said it was unconstitutional and illegal for the federal government to send National Guard into cities and states. What do you think the Insurrection Act is for? Well, look, this is a issue that the local government should be handling.

It is, this is an issue. But what is the answer? I don't think you understand the insurrection. Right. To Michael's... Well, let me just ask, I mean, Congressman, do you actually know what the Insurrection Act says? Yes, you know, but this is...

Well, hang on. What does it say? Well, look, what we saw happen in January 6th in the Congress, that's insurrection. No, no, that's not the question. The question is, are you familiar? Obviously, the government is citing the Insurrection Act as the empowerment to do what it's doing.

Are you familiar with what the Insurrection Act allowed? Look, this president has used all kinds of excuses to break the law. This president has used... No, no, but that is the law, Congressman. You say you're familiar with the Insurrection Act, but you don't seem to be able to describe what it does, and you're actually contradicting it. So what do you think the Insurrection Act does?

Look, look, the issue here is that we need our city safe. Americans want... Well, Congress, it's all due to say. That's not an answer to the question. Michael, can you lay out what you believe allows Donald Trump to act so unlawfully? Well, hang on. Jack, I'm going to come to you very shortly. But just to be clear, Congressman, it's a pretty simple question that Michael posed, which is the government are citing the Insurrection Act as the rationale and the legal tool

by which they can do what they're doing. You've said it's illegal and wrong, and they shouldn't be doing it. but you seem to be struggling to explain what the Insurrection Act actually is. And Michael, quite rightly, is saying, well, can you just tell us? Well, whatever it is, when the national guards are picking up trash and the national grants are watering the flowers, that is not an insurrection act. And that's not what this is meant to be. But do you know what it is the Act?

Yeah. What is it? Then there is an insurrection. The government has powers to use military, use reserve to address those situations. And this is clearly not the situation here. What we need to do is empower local law enforcement. Okay, Michael, your response to that.

Data brokers track everything you do online. They sell your personal data to advertisers, scammers, potential employers, insurance companies, and basically anyone who's willing to buy it. Many are now deliberately making it harder to opt out. That's why I use ExpressVPN. It hides your IP address and reroutes all. of your online traffic through secure, encrypted service, which stops data brokers and hackers

from tracking you. U.S. customers can also use Identity Defender, which requests the deletion of your data from their records, alerts you if your information is used, and even provides identity theft insurance. ExpressVPN is trusted by millions and works on laptops, phones, tablets, TVs and more. I use it and you should too. Right now get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free to scan the QR code on the screen. or go to expressvpn.com slash peers and get four extra months for free. That's expressvpn.com slash peers. Yeah, I think the congressman might be a little bit confused

because he said that the federal government is breaking the law by sending the National Guard in to restore order to the cities where crime is spiraled out of control, where there's obviously a violation of federal law with all of the illegal aliens running about. And that is actually what it's for. We have a federal government in order to step in when the local and state governments fail. And so this has been used many, many times, not merely to restore order if there's some violent revolution, but even, for instance, to desegregate schools.

You know, this has been used many, many times over the course of American history. There's nothing illegal about it. And in fact, what President Trump is doing right now is one of the clearest and most just uses of the Insurrection Act when you have cities that are failing that are, that in your own words, cannot enforce the law are under-resourced and are falling into disorder. So I think you've made a good argument for what President Trump is doing. Okay.

Luke what he's doing. Let me bring in Jack. I want to bring in Jack. He's been waiting patiently. I mean, Jack, you know, it seemed to me the congressman actually, maybe inadvertently, gave the explanation

for why Trump feels justified in using the Insurrection Act. Because if you agree that the law enforcement in these very crime-ridden cities, is failing and under-resourced, then why shouldn't the government use the Insurrection Act to put troops on the ground

and try and restore proper order? Well, because I don't think the intention is to restore proper order. Donald Trump and his entire administration has made it clear that they'd be happy to see unrest come out of sending in the National Guard. That's what they wanted out of their attack on L.A. That's what they wanted to happen in D.C.

Donald Trump sees this as an opportunity to intimidate people. It's come out directly, of the administration that they think it is a win if they go into Portland and nothing happens, but nothing is happening. It's people in T-Rex Halloween costumes who are getting maced for simply exercising their First Amendment right, which Michael, I thought you cared about. It doesn't really seem like that's the case. But they've also said that if there is an arrest. Hold on. Before you make that, you made an argument. Well, I think if you would allow me to finish my point,

I just said, I did just say you don't really like this. What's your evidence for? You don't like to hear people speak out, and now I'm delivering a point that you don't seem to like and you want to silence me. That's what this administration does. It's okay. I'm just asking for your evidence. Now, Jack, to be clear, you made a statement that the Trump administration actively wanted disorder, and Michael, I think, understands it be, because I would ask the same thing. It has been reported. Where is the evidence that they wanted disorder? It has been reported that this administration sees it as a win if unrest comes out of the deployment. came out of Axios, that they see it as a win if there is unrest because of these deployments.

Because they want to say, look at this hellscape in Portland, when all of the photos that I've seen are just like people in T-Rex costumes hanging out and going to the farmer's market. And if you really want to deploy the National Guard, Mike Johnson's district could certainly use it, these failing red states. If you want to talk about states that are failing, red states are failing, they need to be subsidized by California and New York, Massachusetts. It's these states, these Republican states that are being run into the ground, if you're talking about people who need aid and assistance, they're suckling off of California. It has nothing to do with crime-ridden, failing blue states. It's a non-issue. And this politics of subtraction, one second, Michael, this politics of subtraction where you think if you just take away and take away and take away and will eventually hit a bottom, it just doesn't actually exist as a real theory.

If you thought that law enforcement was the answer to this problem, Donald Trump wouldn't be cutting the budget of police across the country to the tune of billions of dollars. Like, that wouldn't be happening. So you don't really have to increase the law enforcement budget. First of all, that's not true, which just took place in his budget. That was the big beautiful bill. That was one of the key provisions of the big beautiful bill. That is absolutely untrue. So you don't even have this like cogent theory of policing or law enforcement that you want to see carried out.

is that the big beautiful bill did not increase enforcement funding at the federal level. Donald Trump has cut again in a... Congressman, could you please clarify for our confused liberal friend here? Yeah, we need to have a long-term solution to this and that is only by reinforcing our local law enforcement. That's what we need.

Congress, did the big beautiful bill increase federal law enforcement funding? Again, the point, Congressman is whether in the big beautiful bill there was an increase or a decrease in federal spending for law enforcement. Which one was it? Well, there was an increase, but look. Okay, so then again, I'll come back to Jack. So, Jack, you know, your fellow left winger on the panel

has just contradicted you and said, well, hang on, hang on, hang on, Jack, you've just heard there from a Democratic congressman that the big, beautiful bill actually increased federal spending on law enforcement, the opposite of what you just said. I think he's miss speaking. Donald Trump has done nothing to increase political.

He's mis-speaking. Donald Trump doesn't really care. I don't think he's in Congress. I think one person's mis-speaking here, and it may be you. It's not. There's nothing that Donald Trump has done to actually... One second. There's nothing that Donald Trump, the supposed back-the-blue guy, has done to support police in this country. He doesn't actually care. It's a gimmick. It's a game. Michael, I know you're familiar with that. It's fine. But Donald Trump doesn't care. If he did, he wouldn't have pardoned 1,500 cop-beating insurrectionists to go out and re-offend.

and reaffund. If you want to talk about crime in this country and who's being let loose on the streets, I think Donald Trump is allowing that to happen more than any other single person in this country. So I don't really know how you could make the case that this administration cares about policing, cares about crime, cares about law enforcement, when every action that they have publicly taken and celebrated is to the opposite of that argument, Michael. Yeah, I guess there are a few things that Democrat congressman and I agree on, but what Congress just did in President Trump's big, beautiful bill, would happen to be one of them,

and it's that he's increased federal law enforcement funding. So, you know, I don't know where your confusion comes from, but it's manifest. Well, I don't know how you're confused about Donald Trump's attacks on police officers across the country and his disregard for those who are attacked on January 6th. Jack, look, to be clear, he either increased federal spending in that bill on law enforcement, or he didn't.

And it does appear from Michael and from the Democratic congressman that you're just wrong. So do you want to take an opportunity to maybe walk that back? I do not. Well, you'd rather double down on a falsehood? I'd say I'd think that I'm willing to double down in the fact that Donald Trump has made it difficult

for police officers across this country to do their jobs and he doesn't actually care about them. Right, and would you be prepared to state your entire professional reputation on the fact that he slashed federal spending on law enforcement in the budget? Would I be willing to stake my entire reputation on the fact that Donald's...

Donald Trump has made it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs. You made a very sweeping statement. This is the problem, you see. It's very easy to say Donald Trump has slashed federal spending on law enforcement. But if it turns out, as is the case, that it was the opposite, and his increased spending in his big, beautiful bill, on federal spending on law enforcement, you should just have the good grace to go, I was wrong. Well, I think if Michael is saying that there is not enough police spending, and we need to send in,

We need to send in militarized these cities. But I think the point is clear here, and it's one that we need to argue, which is whether or not Donald Trump has done anything to actually aid law enforcement, or if he's done anything to tackle crime. If he increased spending, you would say that that is a good thing for the law enforcement, right? I would say that Donald Trump's plans aren't coherent and don't make some cogent argument. Michael certainly doesn't make some cogent argument of how Donald Trump,

who has let crime run free with his policy, and within his administration actually cares about responding to crime when those who have had the most success aren't the governors of red states, but are the mayors of blue cities that Michael wants to claim are crime-infested and being run into the ground. We have seen in D.C., we have seen in Chicago. We have seen in Baltimore. Drops of historic lows in crime, like lower than we've seen in decades now. And I don't know why you won't acknowledge that or maybe learn from some of those Democratic mayors. You can just admit you made a false claim on air. It's okay. people make false claims. We could just move on. You're doubling down on a easily disproven claim. When even the Democratic congressman says you're wrong.

Maybe that's what you've made you living to, doubling down on false claims. Let me speak for myself. What Donald Trump has done is this is all political. His pick cities that are democratic leaning. And, you know, these are many of the city, Chicago, the crime is actually declining. If you look at the numbers, in Detroit, for example, the crime is declining. is horrific. I had a son there at the university for a year. It is a dangerous city full of serious crime and a lot of murder.

But look, I'm going to bring somebody in now. Can I point out because you wanted to. Well, Jack, Jack? Because, Pierce, can I respond to the claim that I made? You referenced the speaker, Mike Johnson. I'm delighted to say I'm going to be joined now by the speaker, Mike Johnson. And we'll come back to the panel. Speaker Johnson, welcome your uncensored debut.

I finally got you. I'm sorry. long, peers. I'm a big fan. I always have been. You're a busy man, and it's great to have you. We've just been debating a couple of things there with the panel, which you can probably put some light on. Just for the record, in the big, beautiful bill, did the federal government propose to increase spending on law enforcement or decrease it? If you're stressed about back taxes, Miss the April deadline, or your books are a mess, well, don't wait. The IRS is crass. tracking down. Penalties add up fast, 5% per month, and up to 25% for not filing. Tax Network USA can help. They've assisted thousands of Americans from employees to business owners and people

who haven't filed for years. They have direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side. Tax Network USA knows how to win. He'll get a free consultation, and they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe. So don't wait for the next IRS letter. or visit tnusa.com slash peers that's tnusa.com slash peers for expert help on your taxes it probably was a slight increase i mean we put a lot of emphasis on returning to law and order and the rule of law the presidents demonstrated that with executive orders and everything he's done employing the national guard and these dangerous cities and republicans in congress are fiercely committed to that as well we're limited in

some respects in what we could do in the big, beautiful bill because it was a reconciliation bill and not to get too deep in the weeds on the nuances of the way the legislative process works. But when you're reconciling a budget and what you have to do is prove that you're going to basically reduce it. And so that's what allows it to meet the criteria to pass with only a simple bare majority in the Senate instead of the necessity of 60 votes. But that said, what we did was reprioritize a lot of the spending and you're going to see the effects of that. It's ridiculous to me that these big city mayors and these blue cities are resisting the help because I've been pointing to Exhibit A of Washington, D.C.,

and I tell all the press corps here when they challenge me on it, you're able to walk to your car safely this afternoon and not be in fear of having your purse snatched or your car jacked because President Trump is down the street at 1,600 Pennsylvania using his resources to make you safe. How can you even ask these questions? It's absurd to me. The argument, as you know, that comes back,

and one of the panelists cited you personally in your district, And they say there are a lot of red districts, states, counties, where there is a lot of crime. The idea that it's only a blue state issue is disingenuous and just playing partisan politics. What do you say to that? Well, look, the reality is that crime is a problem in a lot of places around the country. My hometown of Shreveport was cited by Gavin Newsom, who's trying to troll me and being disingenuous. The challenge in Shreport is that you have a district attorney who was funded by George Soros. you know, a Democrat who runs the show there.

And so it's not just the demographics of the city. It matters who's in charge, and it matters what policies they enforce. You have a lot of Democrats who are fiercely committed still, even though they don't want to see it publicly anymore, they really would like to defund the police. They want soft-on-crime policies. They want to continue the madness that has allowed the crime to rise to these record levels.

And we're not having any of that, and we have to stop it at any cost. There are a lot of people, as you know, who love calling Donald Trump a fashion. and people that support him fascists and people that work with him, fascists, including yourself. And one of the things they're citing, I've always thought this is a ludicrous thing, by the way, to use the fascist term. But one of the things that they cite is what is going on right now with the deployment of federal troops into states, which they believe is unconstitutional and the first obvious step to fascism. What do you say to that?

Well, I will tell you my analysis as a constitutional attorney. That's what I did for 20 years. I've litigated constitutional law cases in the courts before I got to Congress. This is not unconstitutional. The first responsibility of the government, including the federal government, is the safety of the people. There's national security perspectives with regard to how we face challenges internationally, but domestically as well. And the use of the National Guard in these scenarios, for example, has been very effective. In Washington, I've cited D.C. as a good example. The liberal Democrat and mayor here actually, as you saw, applauded the use of the National Guard. She's grateful, she said, in her own words, for the reinforcements because the Metropolitan Police was not large enough or didn't have sufficient resources to be able to tackle the problem.

Well, we've got crime under control. I mean, it dropped dramatically, like 85% in some categories here. And that's an effective thing. And the National Guard troops who are using, who are being deployed to do this are grateful and happy that they're able to provide this service. It's a win-win for everybody. So that's not a violation of the Constitution. It's the application of common sense. And some of these Democrat governors and mayors are using it for politics because they have

Trump derangement syndrome, and that literally drives their decisions, whether it's good for the people they serve or not. Yeah, I mean, I've warned my Democrat chums. Look, you don't want to get in a position running into midterms or indeed a general election where it looks like you're constantly railing against Donald Trump for being tough on crime because everyone knows there is a lot of crime in America, a lot of serious crime, a lot of murder, and, you know, equally serious offenses.

And actually a president who looks like he's taking that very seriously, that that's likely to be a vote winner, not a vote loser. But defying it and finding endless reasons why you would oppose more draconian action against criminals, you know, I don't think that ever plays well. No, it doesn't. And, you know, hat-tipped to the Democrat mayor of D.C. who read the room and realized her,

citizens are being well served, crime is reduced, people are happy, they're flourishing again, the capital city is shining like a city on a hill again, and she has to come out and acknowledge that that's a good thing, and it would be foolish for her to say otherwise. So we need other Democrats to put the politics aside, do the right thing for the people, regardless of who gets the credit for it. That's not what this is about. Is it the right thing for the people of America to go after James Comey, whose federal arraignment is today? You know, I was one of of many who felt the lawfare wage against Donald Trump went way too far, was very un-American, leading to a ludicrous conviction over an incredibly trivial matter,

parading and shaming an American president in that way I thought was ridiculous. But I would also say I feel uncomfortable, like a lot of people, about what appears to be a bit of a revenge act now going on against all of the Trump opponents, led by people like Comey. Do you feel comfortable about this? Well, I would push back on the premise. I don't agree that this is a revenge tour. I mean, look, I have a lot of opinions on this

because I rotated off of the House Judiciary Committee. When I became Speaker, I gave up my committee assignments. And I spent almost seven years on that committee, and we are the ones charged with the jurisdictional authority of oversight over the DOJ. And I watched what the way Comey led and how he, in my view, misled in many ways. But we talked a lot about here about the rule of law.

It is a matter of law and order. It is a matter of the rule of law that you have someone like Comey who raised his hand, and I think clearly, I think it's beyond refute that he lied to Congress under oath. Pertiary is a very big thing, and it's an even bigger thing when you're a top government official and a former director of the FBI or one of these big agencies. I mean, that's a big thing. We can't let it go unanswered. And so there's a certain responsibility that has had to prosecute that and make an example of people,

not because they were on the wrong side of President Trump at some point, but because they lied to Congress. We can't allow that to go forward. So I think it's appropriate here. And I think, you know, remember, it's not a Republican party, a group of party officials who brought the indictment. It's a grand jury.

I mean, you know, that's our system. They constituted a grand jury. They found reasonable, you know, they felt it was right to bring the indictment. And they made that decision. And so we'll have to see how it plays out now. Why have all the Epstein files not been released? and do you think they should be?

Well, they're in the process of being released, and this is very important point. The House Oversight Committee is on this, like White on Rice, as we sit down in Louisiana. You've got some of the biggest bulldogs in Congress, Republican and Democrat side, united in this quest to have maximum transparency. They're going through it methodically.

They're issuing subpoenas. They're being complied with by the Department of Justice, and anyone has these files. Look, I know there's a team deployed. There was a team in New York City over the last two weeks coming through the Epstein estate files and going through to find things that had not even been anticipated before. You have 34,000 pages that have already been released. There's more on the way. You've got pending subpoenas out to a number of, you know, well-known figures and public officials,

et cetera. I mean, they're digging in and moving it as aggressively as possible. So we're from maximum transparency. The one caveat is we have a responsibility and a duty to protect the innocent victims. By some estimates, there may be a thousand young women who were subjected, these horrific, unspeakable crimes, okay, at the hands of Epstein and his accomplices. And we want to make sure that their identities are protected. So they've got to be properly redacted in those files to make sure they don't suffer more harm. And I think that's something everybody agrees with, and we're trying to make sure it's done the right way. No man has been actually convicted and put in prison for any offense connected to the Epstein thing, despite, as you say, maybe a thousand,

thousand female victims here. Are you confident? Yeah. Well, it's an important point to make. We're in this investigation in the House Oversight Committee. Not only are they trying to bring justice for the victims, they're also trying to determine how justice has been denied for so long and who was responsible for that.

And that's a critical component of all this. Just one final point on that. Gillane Maxwell's attempt at an appeal has failed. Donald Trump was asked if you might pardon her. As you know, it's a very very important. contentious issue. He kind of battered it away and said, we'll take a look at it, which seems to suggest the door may be open. Would you want to see Gilein Maxwell pardoned, or would you want the opposite? I would never even consider it. I mean, she's a convicted human trafficker.

She was a party to this. She set it up by her own admission. She was involved in all this. There's no way she should ever leave prison. Let's move on to the government shutdown, because we did a bit of research. you'd expect nothing else, Speaker Johnson, I'm sure. Since 1976, the Republicans have triggered a shutdown seven major times. The Democrats, three or four, depending on how you categorize a full major shutdown. So you've basically been doing this twice as often as they have. Does that give you the high moral ground now to throw a probium over them for this?

shutdown? It's Medicare annual enrollment and people age 64 and above should prepare to be bombarded with hundreds of phone calls and texts from agents for simply pushing the Medicare plans which pay them the most. This is one message you won't want to skip. Most Medicare plans change every year and many just disappear. Even if you like your current Medicare plan, it's critical to look at the 2026 plans or you risk losing the coverage you need. That's why you need to know about Chapter. They're independent, they don't work for the government or big insurance, and unlike others, they compare every plan nationwide. Year after year, millions of Americans end up stuck on the wrong Medicare plan for their needs, which means they're overpaying or undercovered.

Chapter can review your options in less than 20 minutes. If you're on the right plan, they'll tell you. If you're not, they will help you switch. By doing this, Chapter has helped people to save an average of $1,100 a year. Click the link below to Talk to Chapter and take back control of your health care. Call Chapter Today at 9107087584. Well, yes, because listen, you can't look at those statistics in a vacuum. Every one of those circumstances is different. What's really critically important to point out right now is unlike many of those skirmishes in the past, when a CR was loaded up with partisan priorities from one of the parties in one of the chambers that was in charge, Right now you have unified Republican government, and we did not take this opportunity to do that.

What do I mean? Pears, we did not add a single Republican policy or priority or poison pill or gimmick or trick to this very clean, very simple CR. Why do we call it a clean CR? Pears, it literally is simply a continuation of exactly the current status quo and spending in policy, which, by the way, is Biden-era spending in policies? We're still operating enduring that. We're in the appropriations process to try to change it, but we ran out of time because the end of the fiscal year of September 30th,

so we just needed a simple seven-week stopgap funding measure. I could have loaded it up with a bunch of Republican stuff, but I didn't. And that's why the only choice the Democrats have right now in the Senate is to vote to open the government so that we can continue the partisan discussions. That's the difference between now and in the past. This is a totally clean, totally good faith effort.

And no one can tell you, otherwise about it. You're a man of faith, and you've invoked your faith since the very start of is shut down. Do you hope that your prayers get answered sooner rather than later? I do. I mean, I'm praying about that this morning before I came into work and did my press conference. This does an exact real harm on real American people, and they should not be pawns in a political game. It's disgusting to me. I mean, I kind of lost my temper at the press conference we'd hear about an hour ago, because I'm so aggravated by this. I can't. believe that they would pick a fight. I'm just going to say this very plainly, and I don't mean

this. I'm trying to practice as much Christian charity as I can on this job here, so it ain't easy every day, okay? But it's very simple what's going on here. Chuck Schumer did a 180-degree turn on this. He gave him passion speeches as recently as March of this year, why the CR, the same CR, by the way, had to be continued and all that. Why did he change his mind? Because he's afraid, he's going to get a challenge from his Marxist left in New York, because that's now in vogue in New York, apparently. They're going to put a Marxist in as the mayor of New York City. And he's terrified by that because he's yesterday's news. So he had to pick a fight against Trump and show a fight and show he's tough and show he's further left than everybody else. And that's

what this is. I mean, pure and simple. That's why he changed his tune. And there's no other way to see it. Everybody who's on the hill and is paying attention sees it clearly. And he needs to be called on it. We need this to come to an end. And yes, I'm praying that it ends quickly because we've got troops and young pregnant women and veteran services and all these other things we can talk about all day long. People are suffering because of these games. And I've had it. Talking of changing tunes, you came out strongly on the issue of Bad Bunny performing at the Super Bowl. Had you ever actually heard of Bad Bunny before last week? He didn't even know who the guy was, okay? And they had to be in the hallway. And they said, who you think would be suitable? I don't know. Lee Greenwood, man, I'm on the other

side. I, you know, I don't know. I don't think, it doesn't sound like a great choice to me. Look, what I'm concerned about what I said is a lot of young kids, people watch the Super Bowl, right? And you need to uplift positive things, American values, and not have this controversy. And it just seems unnecessary to me. You don't think maybe you're a little bit older, Matisse, to be telling young people they should be listening to on Super Bowl Day? My kids would probably say so, yeah.

I still like 80s music, okay? I mean, I confess. But, you know, you need somebody at the Super Bowl halftime, in my view, they can appeal to a broad audience of everybody and not leave out those of us who grew up in the Reagan era. You know what? I don't disagree. It's because it is a uniquely-feworthy.

family event, the Super Bowl. You know, when I've watched it in America with American families, everyone's there, your grandparents, the kids, everyone's there. You actually don't want people that are going to alienate half that room of your family before they even start performing. So we reach an appointment of agreement at the end there, Speaker Johnson. Always a good way to end an interview. Yes, and I would say you have the greatest accent in all of media.

It's not fair because you sound intelligent, whatever you say appears. It's really not fair to everybody else. You know, I was going to give a brilliant quote about my accent. It was an NBC executive. He said, you know, Pierce, to an American ear, the English accent always conveys an air of presumed higher intelligence. And then he paused and said, which may not actually exist. I'm with him.

But I will take it. Speaker Johnson, thank you very much indeed. Thanks, my friend. Good talk to you. Good to talk to you. All right, let's go back to our panel here. So, look, we've got some stats. So it's quite interesting, actually, Jack, because you had a little bit of wriggle room there

because the speaker wasn't quite as emphatic. No. But we've done some research while we were listening to that. The total net increase in law enforcement spending and the big, beautiful bill, is an estimated $170 billion across the full life cycle of the bill. This does include large allocations for ice and the border wall, but also $3 billion for the Bureau of Prisons

and almost a billion for federal law enforcement training centers. The bill was applauded by, among others, the National Fraternal Order of Police. So that does seem to be pretty unequivocal. But at the same time, I must also point out that so far the DOJ this year has taken away about to cut $500 million in grants the DOJ has. We've also seen about a billion dollars in grants that were to be distributed before Donald Trump's administration came in. The DOJ gutting those grant programs that support local police and,

violent crime reduction. So there's going to be another billion dollars next year. I think those numbers are important to point out. I don't know why the DOJ is reducing support for police. Cutting these grants doesn't really make a lot of sense for Donald Trump's argument. But I think that that needs to be put forward. I don't really want to go back over. I was told by Michael that there was no cuts at all. Okay. No, I don't want to go back over it. There was not. As Pierce just read and as the speaker just pointed out, the numbers went up, not down like you wrongly claimed. Yeah. That does seem to be the indisputed.

we'll take away. But let's move on. Michael, talk you... Well, hang on one second, Congressman. Michael, just talking of the DOJ, interesting comment there, very emphatic statement from the Speaker about Gillane Maxwell, which is, I think, notable and we'll make news, because Donald Trump left that

door open a bit, said, well, I don't really know much about this, which, of course, he obviously does, but I'm going to look into this and we'll take a look. He didn't rule it out as emphatically as Speaker Johnson just did. You know, a lot of pushback, I noticed, to Donald Trump, even potentially, leaving a door open to a potential pardon for Gilae Maxwell.

It appears the Speaker, certainly, was absolutely unequivocal. No. What is your view? Well, the pardon power rests with the President, not with the Speaker of the House. So ultimately, it will be President Trump's decision to make. I agree with Speaker Johnson in as much as the political cost of pardoning Gilae would be so high. It would pose an existential threat, I think, to the MAGA coalition. so most likely that will not happen.

But the pardon power does exist for a reason. One, to correct cases of injustices that happen along the way in the system. But two, just as a prudential matter, sometimes, you know, if you can gain a little leverage, if you can advance the cause of justice or an investigation, you might be willing to do that sort of thing. That said, I don't think there's really a big disagreement between Trump and Johnson in that Trump could do it, but the cost is so high, I don't see him paying it. Right.

Well, no matter what Johnson says, Trump will be. do what's good for Trump. And, you know, basically what I wanted to ask Speaker Johnson was, why is Congress only work 15 days in the last 45 days? Why isn't he convening Congress, you know, why is Congress on a paid vacation while federal employees are going without pay? Why isn't he swearing in the Arizona Congresswoman? That will be the 218th vote to release 15 fights. There's a tough question that Johnson need to be asked. Well, we run out of time, unfortunately. Next time, I'll get you to join in, and we can avoid any eliminations. But let me ask you, Jack, about this. This was an interview with Katie Porter,

who I know quite well, because I appeared on the Bill Marshall show a while ago, and it didn't go well for her. But she's the lead candidate to be the next governor of California. I have a home in California, so I have a vested interest in who wins this. And it was an extraordinary interview that she did. Let's watch a few of the highlights here. The question is, what do you say to the 40% of voters who voted for Trump? Oh, I'm happy to say that. It's the do you need them to win part that I don't understand. I'm happy to answer the question as you haven't written and I'll answer it. And we've also asked the other candidates, do you think you need any of those 40% of California voters to win? And you're saying, no, you don't. No, I'm saying I'm going to try to

win every vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is that... Well, to those voters, Okay, so you... I don't want to keep doing this. I'm going to call it. Thank you. You're not going to do the interview with us? Nope, not like this. I'm not.

Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask. Every other candidate has answered our follow-ups. I don't care. Well, that was with a very good reporter called Julie Watts. I think it was a CBS affiliate. I mean, Michael, let me start with you on this. I mean, it was excruciating to watch. But no real surprise.

You know, I saw the prickly side. of Katie Porter on the Bill Marsha when she got challenged about her well-viewed. It was not a great sight. Let's take a little look at a bit of that first, and then I'll come to you. We talked about people, you know, becoming, using things to kind of get likes and get clicks. That's not what she's doing. I mean, I've got no truck for riding games personally, but all I've seen to do is stand up for women's rights to fairness and equality.

She has to. She actually competed against Leah Thomas, and it was obviously unfair. Leah Thomas won one of the races in the NCAA championships by 50 seconds against a bunch of biological females who simply couldn't keep up. That cannot be right. It cannot be fair. And the audience then burst into raucous applause, which she found completely astonishing because it's a liberal crowd.

What's going on here, Michael? Why would you, if you're doing a television interview, why would you behave in such a graceless, rude, arrogant manner, do you think? she's behaving in an entitled way because she has enjoyed entitlement along with the Democrats for most of her political career. And I'm sure that she sat down and thought, this is CBS News, this is a mainstream news network. It's going to be a bunch of softballs. I'm not going to have to answer anything. And she gets mild pushback. I have to give a little credit to CBS here. CBS of the major news networks generally does a much, much better job than the other ones do. But this is very mild pushback.

And even that is so shocking to Katie Porter, if she had to endure one-one thousandth, the scrutiny that every Republican politician has to endure from the beginning of his career in the media, she wouldn't have made it past dog catcher of Palookaville. Yeah. But you're seeing a real sea change here. Yeah, Jack, I mean, you're shaking your head. But come on, man, that was embarrassing. Okay. So I don't even want to talk about the Katie Porter of it all. The idea that Republicans face scrutiny from the media, Donald Trump is so dimension.

Addled right now. He did a text interview with Jake Tapper. Now, I'm not really a fan of Jake Tapper. I think that's a pretty sad move to do a text interview. But do you really think that Donald Trump is on the other side of that phone? No, it's Stephen Miller. It's Russ Vaught. Actually, I do. I can tell you how I know it, because I text with Trump regularly. And it is him. I'm sure. I'm sure you do. No, no. It does be clear, Jack, Jack, it is him. It is him. And here's he. But the fact that Donald Trump has to do a text interview, we can't be serious right now. And he's the one attacking...

Jack, calm down. Caitlin Collins from CNN. He's in my old slot of CNN, actually. 9 p.m. I gave an interesting interview yesterday, and she was talking about the fact Trump never sleeps. When you're on Air Force One, you can't really sleep probably because he's up all the time wanting to talk to journalists. He gives more air time to Q&As with the press and the media

than any president ever. That's just a fact. Now, you may think he's got dementia, but I would argue the one that looked like he had dementia was the predecessor in the White House who never did Q&A's with the press, never did any hostile interviews with anybody because he didn't have the mental accusation to do it.

Trump, whatever you think of him, he's out there every day talking for an hour, two hours of the media. There's a big difference, though, between answering a question and responding to a question. And just because Donald Trump's word to say, it's the same thing.

Well, if you ask Donald, that's not even remotely true, If you ask Donald Trump whether or not he wants to pardon Galane Maxwell, and he says, well, I don't really know who that is and also have you seen my ballroom? That doesn't give you a real answer. He's responding. He can go on and talk about nonsense for an hour,

but that doesn't do anything to give you a real answer, to let you know what this administration is doing. He makes more news. It's not about news. It's not about he's the president of the United States. He should answer questions. Jack, he makes more news on a daily basis by answering questions.

than any other world leader. I mean, he does. Responding to questions. Pierce, if you asked me a question and I started ranting about a ballroom that I'm building and that had nothing to do with the question that you asked me,

I think you as a journalist would feel pretty unfulfilled. Well, just ironically, I just asked you about Katie Porter. He said, I don't want to talk about Katie Porter. Let's talk about Republicans. So you are a glistening example of exactly what you're talking about. And do you want me to be president of the United States?

Not really, no. But I didn't think, I don't think anyone came away from that interview saying maybe we should be more of these. Let me bring three. Let me bring three here. The art of the political interview, it's not that difficult, really. But when you behave like a complete ass, as Katie Porter did there, you're going to get the kind of mockery it deserves. That interview went a hundred thousand times bigger on the airwaves of the internet and social media because of the way she behaved. And it ever would have done if she'd just answer the questions. But Donald Trump's lies. Most of his answers are lies and not truth. Why are you talking about Donald Trump? Well, we're talking about politicians answering questions. You've just pulled a jack.

I've asked you one question, and you're talking about somebody completely different. That's what I mean. So, you know... You're talking about Donald Trump answering questions, but he does. I'm talking about Katie Porter. But it appears, are you going to hold us more accountable for wanting to discuss multiple topics than you are the president of the United States?

No, he's not on the panel, Jack. Where is the transparency? I'm glad that you asked Speaker Johnson about Epstein. Jack, you're new to uncensored. Here's how this works. I get a bunch of people in, right? Unusually, I get people who don't agree with each other, and we have a civilized or sometimes an uncivilized debate.

But what we do is we discuss topics. I throw it to each of you, and you give an answer to the topic. What you guys have been doing on the left side of this debate is you've been making a point, like, the trouble with the Republicans is, you ask you one thing like Trump, and they answer another. And then you both do exactly the same thing. Look, look, Katie Porter should have finished her interview.

There you go. But then Donald Trump should be more honest. Donald Trump should be more honest. Those two things can be completely true at the same time. But you should just, in terms of an interview with a politician, you just failed as well. Because all you had to say was that, right? How hard is it to just give a straight answer to a straight question?

When I do interviews where I'm the subject, people ask me questions. I just answer them. I don't care. Ask me whatever you want. I couldn't give a monkey's guz. And I was happy to get to the end of that point if Michael hadn't so rudely interrupted me. I don't know what that's been.

Well, you had a chance to answer it straight away. That was the point. No, I was saying, I didn't think it was a great interview. It certainly wasn't a great interview. I don't think that I'm breaking any news by saying that. Honestly, it was a master class in how not to conduct a political interview. But if I'm a Californian resident, and in fact, I am a California resident for a lot of the year. I've got a home there.

I watched that and think, why would you vote for somebody so entitled, so arrogant, so like, determined to belittle that journalist. If you were just doing a job, I mean, it was really actually ugly to watch. Yeah, I didn't think it was a great answer. I didn't think that that's a great response. I will say that the beginning of the question was asking, do you think that you need to win the 40% of Trump voters to win or convince some of them to win the governor's race?

And Katie Porter's response was, no, that's not how math works. and I think she gave a fine answer at first. When she was continued to be asked, she should have just said, no, I want to convince those voters. She didn't. I thought the question didn't really make a lot of sense, at least mathematically,

but no, there was no reason for her to blow up. I thought it made a lot of this. She was just making the point. Look, you've got 40% of the electorate there. Yeah, you should want to convince that. If you just write them off, that's not good politics. And it's a completely a valid point to me.

Michael, I want to play a clip from our old friend AOC, who's got to trouble for what she said about Stephen Miller. They are scrapping and grasping at straws because they have nothing else. Laugh at them. Stephen Miller is a clown. I've never seen that guy in real life, but he looks like he's like 4.10. And he looks like he is angry about the fact that he's 410. And he looks like he is so mad that he is 410 that he's taking that anger out at any.

other population possible. Well, there was a lot of pushback on this, and then she issued this apology. I want to express my love for the Short King community. I don't believe in body shaming. I am talking about how big or small someone is on the inside. Like, for example, I have no idea how tall Andrew Tate is. No idea at all. but that guy looks to me like 5-3, like 5-3-4.

Whereas... So, Michael, I mean, being obviously very heightist, a big no-no with the woke community. And she's obviously wrong about Stephen Miller. I stood next to him at a party, and he's a lot taller than 4'10. What did you make of this rather cringeworthy, double video? Well, the apology was,

particularly bad because it was utter nonsense. I know. When I said he looked like he was 410, I was talking about his heart. Yeah, okay. But then her first claim, she says, look, I've never met this guy, but I bet he's 410. So I think AOC is consulting exactly the same sources that our friend Jack over here is, namely her imagination. And as you point out, fears Stephen Miller is obviously much taller than that. But this psychobabble typifies all of the left-wing arguments. It's obviously fact-free, but notice she doesn't take on Stephen Miller's argument about immigration. She doesn't take on his argument about law enforcement. She just tries to impute to him some kind of nefarious psychological motives.

It's the same way when the left talks to us about abortion. They never deal with the actual bioethical issues. They just say we hate women or something like that. When we talk about law enforcement, say, they say we're racist. I don't know. And so it's all this psychobabble nonsense to avoid the real issues because the real issues favor Stephen Miller and the Republicans and not her. Well, Jack, you said about this.

Donald Trump, I'm not about this, but he said separately. Donald Trump doesn't want to negotiate and enter the shutdown because he's too dementia adult to understand it. Stephen Miller is running the White House and it's time to start calling it out. So your concern is that he's actually running the White House. No, I do think that Stephen Miller is in charge of most things. I think Russ Vaughn is in charge of most things happening at the White House right now. Again, Donald Trump, very focused on his ballroom.

But Michael, a little snowflakey of you. What day are we on of this AOC story, this non-story? I thought that the Wright liked comedy. I thought that we could make jokes again. Everyone's in their feelings. We saw Stephen Miller on Fox. He's like rubbing his eye. Virgin tears, he said that I was short and I'm bald too.

Stephen Miller. Is that what happened? That's not what I saw happen at all. Does he have more important things to concern himself with? His buddy Jesse Waters seems to think that he's a pretty swell guy. I don't know why he needs to listen to what AOC has to say and respond to it. That is all that Fox was talking about. But, yeah, Pierce, I do think that Stephen Miller is running things in the White House right now.

I don't really think that Donald Trump is all too concerned with anything. Project 2025 was laid out for him because Trump has no interest in negotiating or governing or doing anything that isn't putting billions of dollars in his pocket through a crypto scam. That is what Trump is ultimately interested in. So he'll have his goons, take care of the rest, and he'll do his Spotify playlist and I guess make the Rose Garden look uglier. And what, in between, he's just trying to forge peace in the Middle East. It's a busy old time for him. Michael, what I wind on the story that I think enraged you as much as it enrage me? Amazon airbrushing James Bond's gun out of thumbnails for the movies on Prime.

Let's take a look at this. I mean, they've just taken the guns off, and I've got to be honest, they've left Bond in these pictures looking, well, just a little bit effeminate. So it's like a double whammy. isn't it? What's going on here? Is he tickling himself now? Is Sean Connery giving himself a little pinch on the... So they have to take away the gun

because that's politically incorrect. They probably have to take away the womanizing, right? There's no way that's coach these days. I think they have to take away. You're not allowed to, you know, be violent. So the karate chopping and all that. You've got to take away the booze. That's no good.

If you were smoking pot, that'd be one thing. But you got to take away the booze. So I think basically you just have to take away James Bond. It's going to be the new sanitized version. Nothing works anymore. I think the only answer, Congressman, is to bring Don Lemon in as the new bond. Well, I'm getting all entertained. This is all very entertaining.

But, look, I'm concerned about the 4 million people who are losing health care. I'm looking at, you know, millions of people not able to cover, get their insulin, get treatment for their children. You know, right now, we need to get this government going. we need to, the two parties need to come together, negotiate, take care of the American people. I know this is all that. Congressman, would you agree to a clean CR? Because the Democrats obviously shut it down. They wanted to change the fight.

But would you agree to a clean CR to just keep the government going? What is what this victim complex of the rights? Not continuation of the same old. So you don't want to get those people insulin and all the, all the health care you talked? Just a clean CR, just keep it going, just like it was. It was working okay. You wouldn't agree to that. You're going to keep the government shut down.

Okay. We got to address that. We got to address that. We got to health care is a big huge issue. People's our premiums are going to double. Their co-pays are going to double, triple in some cases. In fact, the top 10 red states will have premiums tripling and quadrupling. Yes. Obama care was dreadful for health care premiums. I agree. I don't disagree. This is all important. But I do think we should focus right now on James Bond on his gun. Jack, should Amazon be neutralizing bond like this? What kind of message does that send the world?

I didn't even see this as a story. Should they be taken away his gun? I don't know. If the original poster works, maybe keep it. If this new one doesn't, maybe don't. I don't know. Pierce, I'm sure, on your show, you all beta test your thumbnails

and they're doing the A-B and seeing which one is better. We'll be doing some great ones with you. Don't worry. Oh, thank you very much, Pierce. I appreciate it. Make sure my hair doesn't look too bad. Well, you'll be pleased to know. Actually, Michael, Michael will be most pleased to know they have, after a backlash, Amazon have restored the guns. That is good, because when they took the gun away, that was the beta test.

I don't know what they've done. They've done something, but they haven't restored the guns. I don't know quite well they've done. It doesn't make any sense of that. They'll figure it out. They've done something anyway. We'll see if we can get the guns back. I mean, because James Bond without a gun, kind of pointless. Kind of, what's the point, really? I've got to leave you there. Panel, great debate. Thank you very much. Eric Trump is the executive vice president of the Trump organization,

a multi-billion dollar enterprise, which manages the president's sprawling business empire. That responsibility placed Eric Trump squarely in the sights of those who sought to block the president's comeback using the courts and the law. Eric is officially the most subpoenaed man in American history in his new book, Under Siege, tells the inside story of how political campaign

took his toll on the family who bear the most famous name in the world. And he joins me now. Eric, welcome back to Unsensitive. It's good to be on, Pierce. You know, it's an extraordinary book about an extraordinary period in modern times, really, which was the kind of war against your dad, against you and your family, seemingly a war designed with one motivation, which was to prevent him ever getting back to the White House. And, of course, we know how it ended.

You know, when he finished the book, what was your kind of overview about what you'd all been through? Well, I think, Pierce, the irony is your book would not have been able to be written, right? Woke is dead, had it not been for ours, right? Had it not been through the battle that we were, right? I called under siege for a very simple reason. They tried to impeach my father multiple times, right? They raided Mar-a-Lago. They wrote the dirty steel dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton.

You know, they made up the Russia lies. They deplatformed us off of Twitter and Instagram and Facebook, right? They took my father out the ballot in Maine in Colorado. They went after a Supreme Court justices. I became the most subpoenaed man ever. They raided Melania's closet and Barron's room. I mean, they weaponized every attorney general in the United States, every district attorney in far blue areas of the United States to go after my father.

91 indictments. We've gotten every single one of them overturned. They debanked us. They de-banked us. They wanted to see us in jail. They wanted to see us arrested. They want to see my father behind bars. They wanted me to be right next to him.

They want to see our family bankrupt. They wanted to see the MAGA movement dead. and then if that wasn't enough, and I spent a lot of time talking about that under siege, then they tried to kill my father and Butler, not the first time when they took off part of his ear,

but then they tried to kill him at his golf course in Palm Beach. And then, you know, a couple weeks, literally this book, Peers, came out three days before Charlie Kirk's assassination. They've done everything they could to take us out,

and we prevailed in the long run. They put every arrow in our back that they possibly could, but we won, and this is the inside account to that war. and that story and my fight and behind the scenes within our family, you know, of kind of those trials and tribulations.

You knew Charlie Kirk very well. I interviewed Charlie a few times. It was a hideous irony that there was somebody who purposefully went into the lion's den, if you like, of people who instinctively didn't like him, didn't agree with him, and invited open dialogue, invited respectful debate. and I've seen so many clips of him since, many of which are taken out of context, but where his general demeanour around people

that really hated him was to say, come on, let's have a proper debate here. You're entitled to your view, I'm entitled to mine, prove me wrong was his mantra, which should have been the kind of bedrock of any civilized democratic society. And yet for doing that, he gets a bullet in the neck and is assassinated.

What does that say about where we've done? got to in public discourse. Well, I think that's right. I mean, the First Amendment, which is freedom of speech, freedom of religion is a bedrock principle of the United States of America, right? By the way, I see a lot of the UK not doing well with that principle right now, and I know it bothers you, and it bothers a lot of people. It bothers a lot of people over here. But that's right. I mean, you had a guy called Charlie Kirk a fascist. That guy proceeded to dress up in all black and go 200 yards away on a rooftop with a sniper rifle and shoot Charlie Kirk in the neck.

yet they call as fascist, right? They call my father anti-Semitic, and yet, you know, my sister's, you know, orthodoxes, I think you probably know very well because you know Ivanka and you know Jared. They called my father a sexist, yet, isn't it ironic how his first campaign manager, Kelly Ann Conway, who you know very well,

was a woman and his, you know, second winning campaign manager, Susie Wiles, who you know very well, is also female. So it's kind of, you know, I mean, they've used identity politics every single day, and your book, Woke is Dead, is actually like, you know, It's exactly this.

They can't use it against us anymore because no one in America actually believes them. But it is the great irony. I mean, Charlie was out there talking to college campuses, young kids who were engaged in a political process, who are having fun, the best of the next generation. And yet you have people with sniper rifles standing on rooftops, literally shooting over their heads. And yet, you know, that's how they label us. And, you know, the leftists in this country are, they're dangerous. They've turned violent. They've lost the narrative.

They have lost the verbal war, and that's why they've tried to kill my father multiple times. That's why they would love to see me off of this stage because our voice has been something that they can't repute, that they can't fight against. They've literally, you know, hence the reason that, obviously, Kamala lost a popular vote, and hence the reason that Kamala lost every swing state,

every state in this country tacked to the right peers, right? I mean, you know, every single state in the country went my father's direction. We won places like Miami-Dade, which were typically liberal in this country, by 11%. It's the first time Miami-Dade's been won in 37 years in this nation. We won counties in California that could have never even been conceived of being won by a conservative before. You know, this nation has changed in a very, very big way over the last, you know, nine-month period of time. And our nation's better for it. Yeah, no question.

I mean, you very kindly mentioned my book of Congress. I've actually got a hot off-the-press copy of Woke is Dead. And, you know, it starts actually with several conversations. We'll put them next to each other, peers. Let's do a joint plug here, Eric, here we go. But it's interesting because I do actually start with a conversation I have with your dad after he wins. I rang him the following morning. I made a brief, but really quite profound conversation because it wasn't a remarkable turnaround of his life.

You know, in every sense, professional, personal, everything. And I sort of make the argument of the book that I go over all the most ridiculous woke excesses. and about the suppression of free speech, particularly on college campuses and so on. And I kind of conclude that part of the reason that I believe woke is dead is a mindset, the wokeism is dead, that your father's victory, in a way,

put the stamp on that, because he was able to stand there and say, just to be clear, biological men will not compete in women's sport. Okay? And the Democrats were not able to say that. And so, yes, the economy was a huge part of his victory. Yes, immigration was a huge part, the surrender of

the southern border under Biden and so on. But I do believe what they try to frame as culture wars and what the Democrats still lie to pretend wasn't that important in the election. But I think a lot of average Americans when, you know, whatever you think of Donald Trump, you know, maybe they didn't even like him, some of them, right? But they just thought, actually, he just speaks of common sense, right? This guy just knows what a woman is. He doesn't want to have America engaged in endless foreign wars. He wants us to pay less tax. He wants to have a strong southern border.

He wants to be tough on crime and so on. And you sort of go through a checklist. It was an interesting thing in The Economist magazine a couple of weeks ago. And it just said that in Britain, your dad's not that popular personally, but the Trumpism, in other words, what he stands for is increasingly popular, which I thought was really interesting, that you don't have to like him to understand that, obviously, I like him and you like him, but you don't have to like him to appreciate that his core principles,

his core policies are increasingly popular. Yeah, that's right. Frankly, you want a very tough person, you know, being the commander chief of the free world, right? I mean, I love my grandmother of death, and she'd probably make a terrible president in the United States, right? You want somebody that's tough and you want somebody with no BS, and that's exactly what he is. Listen, you've been friends with the family for a very long time. You and I go back 20 years on The Apprentice and lots of other places.

But you're right. I think you said that so beautifully. I actually think the culture wars were maybe even a bigger part of the victory. Listen, peers, you know, I'm a tall guy, right? I'm 6-5, way 2-15. You know, me swimming in collegiate female sports. Like that's not fair. And no one.

And no one. And I'd be on the campaign everywhere. I'd be in Pennsylvania where in America you've got a lot of steel country, coal country. You'd have these union workers that come up to me. If my grandfather knew I was voting for a Republican, they would shake their head. And I go, let me ask you a question. Would your grandfather, who worked literally, you know, the coal mines, You know, would they be okay with me swimming against females in college?

No, they would come in and they would shoot you. I mean, they would literally kill you if you swam against their daughters. And that's the exact point. The radical left has tacked so far left, right? Well, you know, my father, what does he want? He wants the greatest economy. He wants freedom of religion, freedom of speech. He wants the lowest taxes.

He wants to keep government out of people's ways. He wants zero wars. My father is fundamentally against wars. He wants to have the greatest army. So if we ever have to hit an adversary, you knock their damn heads off. But he doesn't want to go to war. I've seen him personally, Pierce, stop five or six wars that would have been raging around the world. And obviously, you see what he's trying to do with, you know, with what's happening in Israel and Palestine right now.

You know, my father just wants common sense. He wants a strong America. He wants a nonviolent world. And he wants the best for our country. And I'm incredibly proud of him. What's it like being Donald Trump's son, Eric, honestly? Yeah. He's a great man.

He's my best friend in the world. I love him. And I stood on that stage ever since we went down. that escalator. I stood on that stage every single day, and I fought by his side. And because of that, I took arrows that you couldn't possibly imagine. Pears, I think you know me well enough. I'm no BS, honest person, no drugs, no laptops from hell, no prostitution, no, you know, no finger painting like Hunter Biden, you know, I mean, honest, wake up early, run a great company, you know, have done so many great things in the UK, as you know, with our assets in Aberdeen and

Turnberry, built some of the great assets anywhere around the world, have done so with respect and dignity. And they came after us like I was a dog. And I remember in the book, I talk a little bit about this. We come out of a courtroom and my father goes, I don't know how. He just got indicted 34 times. It's since been totally overturned. He goes, I don't know how, but we're going to win this, honey. We're going to win this whole thing. He meant the court case. He meant the entire presidency. And I looked at him. I go, you know, pops, you know, it's either the White House or jail. Like, that's how far we've come as a country. It's either the White House or jail. They wanted to see us gone. They wanted to.

see us bankrupt. They wanted to see the Trump name off of every property in New York and around the world. They wanted us silence. That's why they gag ordered all of us so many times the court system. And yet, you know, people in this country, they didn't buy it. There's only so many times you can cry wolf. You know, in life, you see that a lot in the UK. There's only so many times you can cry wolf before people stand up and say enough of this nonsense, enough of this garbage, you know, and they voted so overwhelmingly for my father. So, you know, under siege is the siege. But, you know, the amazing part of the story is having the greatest siege of all time and persevering through it and winning and being able to fundamentally change who we are as a nation, what we stand for and kind of return the values of God and society and red, white and blue, back to the United States of America. What do you feel right now is his number one priority?

Yeah. Well, he's certainly spending a tremendous amount of time stopping the worst. I mean, I can't tell you how much time. he's spending, trying to mediate cultures that have hated each other for a thousand years, trying to bring people together. My father hates wars. He sees these kids in Ukraine and in Russia. They're in trenches. You can watch videos on YouTube as horrible as they are. They come across, you know, around a little corner in a trench. I have an eight-year-old son. I have a six-year-old daughter, right? The amount of time that goes into raising those kids and bathing them and teaching them and disciplining them and bring them to school. You see this kid come around a corner in a trench and, you know, his life is expunged in about, you know, an eighth of a second.

I mean, so needlessly, you're seeing that obviously all over the Middle East. You're seeing that all over the world. And he's spending a lot of time expungive wars. And then the other thing is standing up for America. He does not want America to get ripped off. He doesn't want to be paying for the wars of all other nations. He doesn't want to be the protectors of all other nations. He wants to have fair trade, and we've never had fair trade in this country. I mean, everybody's used America as the piggy bank, as you know better than anybody. So he wants to have the greatest economy in the world, and he wants to remain the number one superpower, and he wants the Western world, and clearly, peers, I include you in this, right, in the UK,

our greatest ally by far. He wants to have the Western world be the strongest it's ever been before, and he's working very hard on all that. On the critical side, you know, his opponent's saying. ever since he won back power, having indicated there'd be no revenge attacks, he's been on a relentless campaign of revenge against his political enemies, James Comey to others.

And when he stood up at Charlie Kirk's Memorial, after that incredibly moving speech, of course, by Charlie Kirk's widow, he was very honest. He said, look, I don't think I could be like that with my enemies. I hate them. And people say, if he's president of the United States, he should be more unified in the way he speaks about people. He shouldn't say he hates his opponents. He should try and bring people together.

He shouldn't be waging revenge against people like Comey and others. He should move above that. What do you say to that? They raided our home. They tried to destroy him. They appears, you know, just honestly, anybody just send that book to those people who make that argument. you can't. They took my father off the ballot in Colorado and in Maine. They tried to subvert democracy. I was the one, peers, that got the call from the FBI in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Eric, I hear you have a secret server in the basement of Trump Tower in New York City communicating directly with the Kremlin in Russia. We didn't know anybody in Russia. It was all made up lies. They made up a dossier that had my father apparently doing the most unthinkable, nasty, grotesque, crude things that you could imagine. for by Hillary Clinton and perpetrated by the FBI and the DOJ in this country. They tried to destroy him. They tried to imprison him. They tried to bankrupt him. They rigged more things than you can possibly imagine. And so when James Kobe very apparently goes and lies to Ted Cruz in a congressional hearing,

an FBI director who, by the way, was leaking memos to the New York Times. I mean, I want our FBI directors in this country to make sure planes aren't crashing into buildings, to make sure that, you know, the Western way of life is preserved and safe, right? And he's leaking memos to the New York Times. Then he apparently lies about it. It's very apparent to me that he lied about it. You know, and all of a sudden, you're weaponizing justice. You know, after they sent 30 FBI agents to raid his wife's closet, I don't want to hear it.

I don't want to hear it from these people. They are the most dishonest group of people that you've ever met in your entire life, who also, by the way, wanted him dead. And so, you know, I find that, you know, highly, highly ironic. Now as to the, you know, I couldn't, you know, when you mentioned the Charlie Kirk incident, you know, his wife said, listen, I forgive the guy who just shot my, you know, my husband in his neck. Everybody in the world saw blood spewing out of the front of his body. I don't know.

I'm probably with my father. I'm not sure if that happened to one of my kids or if that happened to Laura or if that happened to a family member. I'm not sure if I could forgive that person either. Maybe that's just a genetic trait. But I think a lot of people would have trouble forgiving a match. man who literally, you know, snipes somebody from a rooftop with a high power hunting rifle. We saw Elon Musk and your father briefly having a kind of reproachma after their big falling out. I mean, has there been any development on that? Do you think they'll be back working together,

or was that just to kind of, after the war, a little peace offering and they move on? I was right there. I was in that same picture that you probably saw. It was fun to see them back together. Listen, Elon represents the best of what we do as Americans better than anybody in the world, which is entrepreneurialism. And, you know, the fact that he's catching these rockets using, you know, these chopsticks. And, I mean, he's incredible at everything he does. We need 200 Elon Musk. I'm the biggest proponent of his and everything that he stands for. And, you know, there's no one who's more into the Doge initiative than Eric Trump, right, is how I run our company.

And is how, you know, any capitalist, you know, thanks. But, no, I think fundamentally they love and appreciate each other. and, you know, listen, there are two very big personalities, and you know how that is. I mean, you've been on the receiving end of that a couple of times years. I can probably count more. I can probably count with you and my father, I can probably count more than a couple of times,

but at the same time, you guys still love each other, right? Do you know what? It's really interesting. I was talking to something the other day, actually, about the Elon Musk thing. I said, you know, I've had spectacular fallings out with your dad. And normally because I've said, you know, I've criticized him or something,

and he doesn't like being criticized, but he doesn't hold the grudge for very long. You know, he does with some people, but actually most of the time I've noticed, if you just, you know, there'll be a moment when if you go back a long way with him, he's not a long grudge guy. No, I think that's right.

Yeah, he'll see you a month later and give you a big hug. And by the way, most of the time, he's actually the first person to crack a joke about the very grudge that you had. Yes. You know, three weeks earlier so. Now, listen, you know,

this place, this country needs Elon Musk, this world needs Elon Musk. The Western civilization certainly needs him. They also need a Donald Trump, and I think those guys are a formidable team, and I think they have massive admiration and respect for one another. Is the constant hint he puts out that he might run again in 2028? Is that just a massive wind-up of the libs?

Or is it something you think he might have a little dart at? So I started that peers. Somebody very close to me. Kane, they go, you got where the Trump 2028 hat. Just see the entire mainstream media in the country melt down, right? I did that. So I just took a picture. I put it on my head in my office. And it made it broke the internet. Elon was retweeting. Everybody was retweeting it. We sold like 50,000 hats in a period of like a couple hours, right? I mean people absolutely loved it. But the media started writing in, does this mean your father doesn't believe in the United States Constitution? Is he going to subvert the will of the founding fathers? And I'm literally just snapshoting these emails and I'm posting them on Instagram. I just thought it was funny that you could trigger a media so easily in this country, right? I mean, they know they know. They know. is a complete joke. But no, does my father plan to run again in 2028?

No, that's certainly not the intention. And he's even said that appears a million times. But again, it is funny when you can trigger them that way because they're just so on edge, right? And so sometimes you need to just, you know, you need to poke them a little bit. They deserve it. And that's exactly what I was doing

when I came up with that Trump 20208 hat. I mean, your father's so all consumed the Republican Party. It does beg the question, who carries that sword? going forward after him. A lot of names been put out of that. Obviously, J.D. Vance is a clear favorite. He's the vice president. He's, you know, very close with your father. They work very well together. But I look at somebody like you, right, is running the Trump organization. Whenever I interview you, I look at you and think, well, I could easily see you entering the political

arena. But when you read your book, you know, it's really a kind of lengthy explanation for why it would probably be the last thing in the world you'd want to put yourself through? Or is it a motivation to perhaps one day think, well, why not? It's probably more of a motivation to do it, right? It shows the evil can triumph over, you know, or good can triumph over evil. I mean, I think that's the greatest takeaway. And against unrelenting odds, you can win. I mean, we beat the deep state in this country, right? We beat wokeness in this country. We beat a media, mainstream media in this country. We made them irrelevant. The media in the United States today is, are relevant. No one trusts them. No one likes them. Independent voices are what's winning the day.

You've got a great independence voice. I know you're on, you know, Main Street, but you've got a great independent. And those independent voices are winning the day. There's a lot of people I can tell you, right, in the UK who probably don't like the book that you just wrote because they perfectly align with it. But guess what? You've developed an unbelievable voice. I've developed an unbelievable voice. My father has, Don has so many people. Charlie Kirk had that independent voice. I mean, go down, look at Joe Rogan, look at Joe Rogan or Patrick Bet David or any of these people. You know every single one of them, as do I. They have made NBC news.

They have made ABC News irrelevant. And I spent a lot of time in Understige talking about this. I mean, my wife, Laura's got the top show on Fox News on the weekends, right? It's 9 o'clock on Saturday. She's got better ratings than all the network shows. Every one of the network shows in prime time during the week. And this is cable news. people want independent voice,

people want the podcast, and it's making the very people who are literally the political operatives, who are the PR arm of the Democratic Party, it's making them irrelevant, and they can't stand it. What are the chances of the Trump air politically being a Trump?

Don't give me nightmares. Please don't give me nightmares right now. Listen, I think we've all developed an amazing voice. I never thought I was going to stand on political stage. I'm a builder. You've seen the projects that I've built, you've walked through Turnberry, you've walked through, you know, so many of our properties. You know what I do every day.

You know, at the same time, listen, we've been incredibly fortunate, done very, very well. You know, and at some point, you actually have to fight for the things that you believe in. My father didn't need this job. My father, hey, he could have done another five seasons of The Apprentice. You could have been there by his side. I could have been there by his side. We could have had a lot of fun doing it. He could have made a couple of billion dollars doing that.

He wouldn't have had to run against 16 candidates in a Republican primary, only to then run against Hillary Clinton. he wouldn't have been stuck in a courtroom every single day, right? He could have enjoyed Marlago and Trump Force One and me and kids. He could have, right? He wouldn't have had to deal with any of that stress. And yet, why did he do it? Because he wanted to save, you know, the United States, a country that literally had, you know, a degenerate president, you know, in Joe Biden. A guy who is somebody was using his auto pen to, you know, to make every decision in the United States government.

He couldn't stand to see our country and our Constitution, our family values. religion and everything else and wokeness absolutely go to hell. And so I think for all of us, if it ever got to that same spot again, he's created great fighters in the Republican Party and JD is one of them. But if you ever got that spot again, you know, there is a chance that one of us would throw our hat in the race and give them hell. It sounds like to me, Eric Trump, you're not entirely ruling out. That person might be you.

Again, don't give me nightmares, fears. I've got through absolute hell over the last 12 years. No, listen, I'm proud of what he's done. I'm proud of the voice we have all developed. You know, it's given us an armor that I never thought I'd have in life to this extent, right? Of just being able to tolerate absolute BS and nonsense. It created fighters out of all of us. And be careful you ask for in life.

He's created, I mean, my father has gotten rid of more rhinos, you know, Republicans in name only, as we call them in the U.S. than anybody before. And all of a sudden, you've got a party that strong. You've got a party, a movement that I think is going to be next to a number. possible to turn around the other way. And he's really rewritten modern politics and certainly, you know, the vision for the United States of America. Carmilla Harris says he hasn't got a mandate to be president, Eric.

Well, that's kind of funny because, you know, we won the popular vote. We beat her in every swing state. You know, we beat her in every state in the country, went to the right, meaning, you know, toward us. Plus in California, I mean, you know, I call her book, what was her book called? 107 days. I think it's 107 days of sobriety, right? I mean, most of her campaign speeches,

she couldn't get out basic words. I mean, you know, it was unbelievable. When she was giving her economic policy speeches and she's talking about, you know, she's trying to say, you know, gouging, and she's saying price gauging, and you're saying, okay, this is a person who's going to run a $33 trillion economy? I don't think so.

But no, it was one of the great political beatdowns in history. And after what they put us through, after the siege that I talk about in here, I couldn't be happier. And there was nothing that made me happier, peers, and seeing her certify the vote on my birthday of all things, January 6th, she had to just get up on, you know, and certify as VP the fact that Donald Trump had beaten her as president,

and it was a glorious day for me. There's just one problem, Eric, if you do run for president, and it's down to the, well, let me play a clip and get your reaction. It's down to this guy, Pete Higgson. No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We're going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards. Because it's like the broken windows theory of policing. It's like when you let the small stuff go, the big stuff eventually go.

If you do become commander-in-chief, Eric, the beard has to go, says Pete Hachey. I guess so. But Pierce, he actually has longer hair than I do. That's like the great irony. He's got phenomenal hair. I'm going to, Pete's a very good buddy of mine. I'm going to call him up and say, you know, listen, now that you run the military, You've got to shave it, buddy.

You've got to take the bick, and you've got to bick your head. But honestly, isn't it nice to see the guy, right, you know, who runs our military? Isn't it really nice to say, you know what, lose the gut? You know, learn how to do a pull-up, right? We no longer have Admiral Rachel Levine. I'm sure she found her way somehow into your book, you know, who is transgender, who is running health and human services in the United States of America. Give me a break. And you see Pete out there on the football field, and he's doing push-ups with the kids.

that's what you want. That's the mentality. I agree with them 100%. My brother was an army colonel. My brother-in-law was an army colonel, the British Army. I like the fact you've got a guy who's been there, done the hard yards in the U.S. military, and he wants to return the standards to the high levels that he went through when he was in it.

I see no problem with that. I think that it's good to see somebody who actually was a recent member of the armed forces. Who cares that much? Just look at one statistic, Pierce. A month before my father, took office under Joe Biden. They were begging people to take the job

and getting totally unqualified people because no one was actually applying. And then two months later, actually having a little testosterone and believing in the United States of America and saying, hey, we're going to stand behind you. We're going to build the greatest fighting force in the world. We're going to have the most lethal fighting force

in the world that's the United States of America. They have the highest military recruitment in history. That was a four-month transformational change. Four months to go from the world. worse to the best. And so he's doing a great job. And by the way, that benefits humanity. That benefits the UK. That benefits

our allies around the world. Having America be strong is just number one. And we're strong again. Eric, it's great to see you. We've just reminded me we've never played golf and I've just come back from Scotland where I came fifth in the Dunhill-Links proam.

I saw that. So, yeah. So I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. I was actually texting. I have the two best courses in Aberdeen. So anytime you want to play, I'll host two to you. Next time you're over, I'm coming up to take you on. And we'll do a little rider cup. I was texting with your father during the tournament,

so you can tell him if you wants to join in, I quite fancy a couple of trumps on my belt notch. I like that. We'll do a little rider cup, you know. Yes. Peers and person of your choice versus, you know, the president and Eric Trump. I like that.

We'll do it at Turnberry. I'll bring Rory McElroy. Don't bring Rory. We're going to conflict him out. By the way, final question on golf, talking of Under Siege, your view of the unruly behavior of some of the American fans at the Rider Cup? Yeah, listen, I don't love seeing golfers, have beers thrown at them, right? That's not, that's less than perfect. There's a gentleman's sport, and I'm not into that. I know Rory. By the way, he's a sweetheart. He's become a good friend of mine. He lives about, you know, two doors down for me. He's, he's right next to us. I see Rory all the time, and he's a wonderful guy. He loves Kai Trump, by the way, my niece. and has a great relationship, but now I don't like to see that stuff,

especially when it comes to the wives and, you know, etc. But hey, listen, I don't think your fans always win the day either, by the way, peers. Well, our fans may not, Eric. I see some of your sporting events. You guys aren't exactly nailing it. Now, we don't always rule the day either, but. I've got to say, compared to a football crowd,

I think they got it easy over there. And actually, I noticed that when the American fans stopped abusing the team Europe, we didn't play as well. So maybe they should have let them carry on. But anyway, the bottom line is we beat you, and I think that was the main takeaway. I'm sure you'd agree. Well done. Well done.

My father and I are going to beat you at Turn Barrier-Average every day next time we're there. You know what? I'm looking forward to it already. Bring your A-game. Eric Trump, best of luck with the book Under Siege. It's a cracking read. It's actually quite an unsettling read as well. It's a remarkable story, though.

And I'm glad you're still here to tell the tale, because there were many people who would love to see in the back of you. And it's good that you're here. Thank you very much for coming back on Unsensad. I appreciate it. Thanks, my friend. And I'll see you at Megan Kelly's event. I think we're doing it together in Miami.

It will be fun. We'll have a great time. Thank you forward to it. Take care. Take care of my friend. Pierce Morgan Unsensett is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.

Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensit 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.