Piers Morgan Uncensored - "You're a DISGRACE!" Don Lemon Arrested + Epstein Files | Brett Ratner Speaks!

Episode Date: February 2, 2026

More than 3 million pages, 180,000 images and 2,000 videos have been made public in the latest release of the Epstein Files. Lord Mandelson, already sacked as US ambassador over Epstein, is captured in his briefs and accused of taking cash from the sex offender. And the former Prince Andrew is pictured on his knees and faces new claims that Epstein sent a woman to sleep with him - on royal property. Emails from others including Richard Branson and Elon Musk have gained attention - and there is a lot more to come. Also; Don Lemon has been hailed a speech martyr, even receiving a standing ovation at the Grammys, after his arrest for gatecrashing a church service to film anti ICE protesters. Piers Morgan is joined by Ana Kasparian, Tara Palmeri, lawyer Mark Eiglarsh and Eric Bolling to discuss. Then; he speaks to Brett Ratner, director of ‘Melania’ - who also appeared in the Epstein Files - and producer Marc Beckman, who is a senior adviser to the First Lady. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Shen Yun: Visit https://ShenYun.com/PIERS to buy tickets and waive fees. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

I will not be silence. I look forward to my day in court. Did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law? No, he didn't. It's not even close, and I don't do politics. I do just legal. He broke into an ongoing church service. They need him as a useful idiot, took their push to open immigration at all costs. Do you think you're the devil himself?

No, but I do have a good mirror. What was really going on with Epstein? because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. Follow the damn money. It always works. What about just listening to the women? The picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women in it.

What is your response to that picture? More than 3 million pages, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos were made public in the latest release of the Epstein files. were a long way from the waves of high-profile prosecutions we were promised, but at the very least, a series of high-profile men are being publicly humbled by toe-curling details about the nature of their relationship with a convicted sex offender. Lord Mandelson, already sacked as US ambassador over Epstein, is captured in his underpants and accused of taking cash from the paedophile.

The former Prince Andrew is pictured on his knees and faces new claims that Epstein sent a woman to sleep with him on royal property. Richard Branson, offers friendly PR advisor with a single man's right to enjoy women. Anytime you're in the area, would love to see you, he writes, as long as you bring your harem. Elon Musk, who unleashed political havoc

by accusing Trump and others of being in the Epstein files, is himself in the Epstein files, asking to be invited to the wildest party on Epstein Island. There's also chilling footage of Epstein himself in a long interview with Steve Bannon. The devil himself said, I'm going to exchange some dollars for your child's life.

Do you think you're the devil himself? No, but I do have a good mirror. It's a serious question. I'm sorry. Do you think you're the devil itself? I don't know. Why would you say that? Because you have all the attributes.

You're incredibly smart. You remember the devil is somebody knows? The devil's brilliant. You read Milton's. You read Milton. It was paradise lost. No, the devil scares me. Well, there's a lot more to come

as journalists around the world pour through the three million pages of documents. The Trump administration has made so many mistakes of the Epstein files that some people will never be satisfied if they have the full story. Promising total transparency and then inventing endless reasons

to be anything but transparent was at best a strategic error. They may well have been solid reasons for it. That's an exercise in media management of public support. It was a huge mistake. And funny enough, that's exactly how I feel about a decision to charge Don Lemon. It seems very plausible that he technically broke the law and incriminated himself while embedded

with the ICE protesters who interrupted a church service. But what are they actually trying to achieve? President Trump broke the law in a Stormy Daniels case, but convicting him on what most people considered frivolous grounds ended up backfiring massively. A few weeks ago, Don Lemon was a middling podcaster who was only ever seen in clips of other people calling him a moron. Now he's a free speech martyr, showing up at the Grammys for a bigger standing ovation than bad bunny. If Don Lemon's convicted, you'll have to see a lot more of him, which nobody really asks for. And the moral of all these stories is a simple old adage. Just because you

can, it doesn't mean you should. Well, let's hear from my panel, Anna Kasparian, the host and executive producer at the Young Turks, Tara Parmary, host of the Tarah Parmary show. Mark Eiglars. who's a criminal defense attorney, and Megan Kelly contributor, and host of the Edge, Eric Bolly. Well, welcome to all of you. Mark Eglush, let's come to you, first of all,

about the pure legality of the Epstein files. I've seen Todd Blanche and other people representing the administration who've come out and said, look, it's all out there now. This is what we're going to release. There's 3 million documents, videos, images. We have determined

from our analysis that there is nothing in them that constitutes a crime. Therefore, we can't prosecute anybody. Now, it strikes me, that might be true. It might be in all these documents, there is no prima facet evidence of a crime. It doesn't mean crimes didn't take place. It just means there isn't the evidence they took place. What is your assessment? That is a distinction. We know crimes took place. We know there are people who harm children who are not being prosecuted. We know that. Anyone who's intellectually honest knows that occurred. But there's a whole another level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. And prosecutors are saying, look, association with Epstein, not enough.

Photos with him and around him, not enough. There's got to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and it falls way short of that. And I applaud them for that because you don't lower the bar just to get some people you think might have done something wrong. When you lower the bar to get these creeps, which I would love to see them get them,

then they're lowering the bar for you and God forbid you're accused of something. But why not just to an investigation? Yeah, why not just do an investigation? If you have a lead, you have tips, you've got survivors, victims of Jeffrey Epstein, who have lists of men that they've been trafficked to,

why wouldn't you follow up on it and actually investigate? Sure. Yeah, they should. And I'm assuming they made that announcement after they looked into it and they don't have additional information that takes you to the highest burden under the law. If they fell short and they're just going knee jerk, we don't have a couple of photos of somebody actually doing something, then yeah, they should be condemned for that. But I'm assuming that they did look into it.

And if there's not enough proof, then they shouldn't just go because maybe or maybe or probably someone did something. Wait a second, though. You're assuming that they did these follow-up investigations. I'm not assuming anything. Would those fault investigations be inside of the Epstein files? Wouldn't you see correspondence between? Hold on, hold on, no, don't put me like that.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you legal analysis to simply suggest if they haven't done a thorough investigation, shame on them, they should. If they're making that announcement, let's assume for a moment, not necessarily that it's truthful, that if they did do a thorough analysis and they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then that's it. You don't then lower the bar to go after someone you think might have done something absent the proof. That's all I'm saying. But let's just factor in

that there is an Epstein Files Transparency Act, right? And we are supposed to be seeing all of the files related to that. Wouldn't you assume that a follow-up investigation would be included in the Epstein Files Transparency Act? Because when I look through these files, I don't see an FAPE, that is actually doing any follow-up, calling, you know, the attorneys for the men that are accused. They don't appear to be doing anything to follow up on these. You don't know. Listen, with utmost respect, you may be right. We have the files.

We have the files. She knows. We have the files. We have the files. Where else would they be? There's only been an effort to cover everything up from the FBI. The FBI has like literally told us that there are no Epstein files. And then it turns out there are six million Epstein files of which we've only been.

only had access to 3 million, which are, of course, heavily redacted. You know, Epstein responded to an email that was redacted, and his response to that email was, loved the torture videos. Why did they redact the name of the individual who sent Epstein torture videos? Why can't we know who that person is and why hasn't that person been prosecuted?

What are the torture videos? There's a lot that's being uncovered in the Epstein files that make it clear that wrongdoing and criminality occurred, and there were no charges, and the FBI was part of the cover-up. Well, if they were, then shame on them and they should be held accountable. What I do take exception to is that they committed the worst thing that you can do, and that is include victims' names in documentation, and it should not have been done. There are over 40 victims whose names were not redacted, and the best they can say is oopsie.

To me, that is offensive and outrageous. You make sure to redact the names of the perverts that were sending torture videos, though. They made sure to redact that. Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the optimum day and optimum night all natural supplements. Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results. Optimum day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day. Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.

They have countless success stories, including from some very familiar faces. England legend Michael Owen, who lost £40,000. AFTV's Robbie. we lost more than £100. To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit Oxfordnatural.com slash peers.

And here's the best part. Use the code peers and get 70% off your first order. You're 70% off with the code peers. Well, I agree with Anna that you read some of this stuff and you're like, well, where's the rest of that thread? Who are they talking about? What are we getting here?

I want to play a clip from Donald Trump. This is on, I think, Air Force One as he flew to Florida on Saturday, responding to news that he's in these files. I didn't see it myself, but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the radical evidence. That Tara, it strikes me that with Donald Trump, having spoken multiple times to David Boyes, one of America's most, reputed criminal lawyers for the last 50 years. He represented Virginia Joufrey and many other victims and survivors. He has always been adamant to me

that from everything he'd seen, he did not believe that Donald Trump did anything criminal in relation to Epstein. However, he did say that he thought other men had and that they should be chased and prosecuted. So it could be, I mean, some of the more out, I think it's important for viewers,

for example, to understand that in these files, there's a lot of truly outrageous, shocking things, much of which was immediately looked at and dismissed as fantasy. And then there's other stuff, which is clearly well documented, it's coming from the mouths of the people who have been reported on, which is a different kettle of fish when it comes to how you report these things. I do think it's important to clarify that, because some of the stuff that's been in there about Trump is literally people, is ringing in, so you probably hate him who want to cause in trouble, saying outlandish things

which are not true. So that is also part of the mix here, isn't it? Yeah, I'm sure there are some tips in there that are, you know, anyone can call into the FBI and say things, right? As for David Boyes, I've been talking to survivors and a lot of them are really upset to see how closely connected he was with Jeffrey Epstein. If you look through the emails, actually, David Boyes and Jeffrey Epstein exchanged a lot of emails. And David, Boyes was Virginia Joufrey's attorney. So he knows for a fact that there were many other men that were involved in this case. As for President Trump, I mean, we know that there was one Jane Doe, Katie Johnson,

who filed a complaint three times against him ahead of the 2016 election. I think any of these tips that have been sent in, they should have been investigated. I don't see any phone calls to the president or his attorney, Alan Garten. There's only one email that includes, I think it's Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers for the victims trying to reach Alan Garten to speak to President Trump. But I don't see any interaction between the FBI and President Trump's attorneys, as they would be, I would assume would be part of the investigative process when you're going through all the tips that are against him. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that they were friends for a period of over a decade during the height of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. and many of the survivors remembered seeing him. It's, you know, what does...

But let me bring in Eric here, because I think it's interesting, the timeline on all this, because I've taken a position from the early days of this, that there are two types of deniability here. There's the plausible deniability, which is people who ceased contact with Epstein once he was convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor. And then there are the people that carried on consortium,

with him after that. And one of those is Elon Musk, who's gone on a kind of tear on his own social media platform X, you know, vehemently denying he ever accepted any invitation to go on to the Epstein Island or go to any of the parties, any of these things. And yet we're seeing emails in this dump of documents where he clearly would like to. He's asking which night is the wildest. He's planning to come. The fact that he didn't in the end seemingly go to any doesn't mean that he wasn't keen to. And this was years after Epstein's conviction. So I think Elon Musk has some difficult questions to answer that he's apparently very keen not to answer

as he tries to present himself as the knight in shining armor that wanted to blow a little on all this, which is why did you actually have this kind of relationship with everything? knowing he's a convicted pedophile. So, Pierce, I think they're what we're looking at right now, and I'm listening to Tara being outraged about Donald Trump, very conveniently not mentioning a former president, Bill Clinton, who, you know, may or may not be claiming he didn't have any involvement when they underage girls, yet there are pictures of him swimming in hot tubs with Jolene

Maxwell and some very young-looking ladies, not sure if they were underage or not. I wasn't asked about Clinton. I wasn't asked about the piece. He's not the president of the United States right now. May I just please? So the fact that he's a seated president is different from a former president is shocking. Here's my point. Not that you're being biased at all. My point is the media right now, people who consume media on the last, you know, three or four tidbits of information.

And what's happened is these guys, some of these guys. And I've been an advocate for getting all of the files out without redactions or as a few, you know, as, few possible redactions as for national security safety as possible. And I'm telling what I'm feeling is Elon Musk is saying, I wasn't there, had nothing to see. I had Alan Dershowitz on my show Friday, a couple of days ago. And he now is claiming there was no sexual trafficking. There was no underage girls. And I said, Alan, Bill Clinton's on the call logs. We have pictures of him at the island. And he said something like, yeah, but that doesn't make him guilty. No, it doesn't. But an investigation might. My point is, let's keep digging. Let's not let them change the narrative,

including Donald Trump, including Donald Trump. Don't let him say, I never did anything. I don't know. I would like to know what every one of these priests that were involved. No, I agree. I mean, Anna, it seems to me you've got to go with the evidences. The good thing about this latest dump is there's so much of it. Journalists around the world are pouring through it. obviously, it's taking a long time. But like I said, in relation to Elon Musk, for example, we can see a direct conflict between what he is saying publicly and what we are reading with our own eyes

about what he intended in terms of these parties and so on. And my sense about people that do that is, well, if they're not being completely honest about that, then are they being honest about other things? I don't know the answer, but it certainly starts to raise a lot of... I know the answer. The answer is no, they're not being honest about other things. Come on, Pierce. I mean, you're a smart man. You're not naive. I mean, even if they weren't implicated in the Epstein files, anyone who takes what the rich and powerful have to say at face value are being, I mean, unbearably naive. But look, I would just be wary of anyone who's attempting to make this very serious issue, a partisan issue, because make no mistake about it. People from both sides of the political aisle have been implicated in this. So I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, which is what was really going on with Epstein? Because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert.

He was an incredibly powerful man who was, by the way, in multiple instances in the files that were just released, talking about his work for Mossad, talking about his work for the Rothschilds. I mean, it just goes on and on. And so can we discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place and which government, that's a special ally of the United States, put them up to it? And do we really want to be allies with the country that kidnaps young girls for rape

just so they can have dirt on American politicians and control our foreign policy? That's the bigger underlying issue here that no one's talking about. I would bring Eric back in. I mean, Eric, I would say, I would say, Eric, also, just before you respond, I mean, the Bill Gates stuff is fascinating too, right?

Because there you've got a situation where they found a draft of an email that Epstein appears to have constructed for one of Gates's senior aides who fears he's going to get fired and it's basically a blackmail note. Now, we don't know if it ever got sent by the aid to Gates.

We do know that they came to some settlement, some arrangement, apparently. But in it, it makes all these scandalous allegations which would have been from his chief aide, you would have known to Bill Gates to presumably try and either leverage a payoff or to avoid being fired. He accuses them of getting an STD from a Russian prostitute, I think, at one stage, and then getting medicine to try and stop his then wife getting it and so on. They're all pretty tawdry, sleazy stuff. Now, again, we only know partly this,

because we don't know if that ever got sent or how true that material is, but is there, deeply embarrassing for Bill Gates. There's also, as Anna touched on there, there are much wider geopolitical dimensions to this, not least Vladimir Putin, who has a relationship clearly with Epstein. You know, what was going on here? The big question about Epstein

is where did all his huge amounts of money come from? Could it be, because we haven't really worked this out yet, could it be he was being paid by the Russians to compromise a lot of very high-profile American people? It could well be, right? Or British members of their family or British politicians. I will add Larry Summers in that mix, too, a very liberal darling on the left, former Harvard, former Obama Treasury Department,

former Harvard University professor, president, had to resign from AI based on what was in the AI board, what was in the Epstein files. I will add something. Anna said something very important. Where did all the money come from? How did he make all these connections? If you watched the Bannon interview within the released Epstein files, it struck me.

I never knew Jeffrey Epstein. I've known Bannon for 100 years. I've never known Jeffrey Epstein. He's not a smart man. He wasn't a smart man. He wasn't an intellectual by any means. He was a useful idiot to a bunch of groups. And I don't know who, and I think there in lies some of the most important information

that could come from an additional investigation, FBI, CIA, whoever, but dig into further where those funds came from. Not a smart man. Listen to his answers. It's almost pedestrian in nature, yet he somehow amassed $60 billion of worth and had the strings to pull at some of the most influential people on the planet.

You've seen their vibrant ads, illuminating billboards and train stations for many years. Now it's time you actually saw the show. Shen Yun is celebrating its 20th anniversary, a dazzling run, which has seen iconic performances, and iconic venues like the Kennedy Center, the London Coliseum and the Sydney Opera House. Each season tours to more than 200 cities worldwide. You'll see classical Chinese dance, a live orchestra,

and stunning animated backdrops which bring to life 5,000 years of Chinese civilization. World-class performers in flawless costumes tell a story of myths, legends, warriors, and heavenly realms all set to stunning music. It's been described as inspiring, uplifting and life-affirming. And if you're looking for an unforgettable gift for your family, I really recommend that you check it out. Visit shenium.com slash peers to waive all ticketing fees when you order. That's shenium.com slash peers.

And you know what's interesting. You didn't graduate from college. Well, Tara, what's interesting to me is in the UK, we're seeing very high-profile people dropping like dominoes as a consequence of these files. Lord Mandelson is finished. He's had the whip from the Labour Party removed last night. He's likely to lose his place in the House of Lords, and so he should.

He might well face criminal prosecution for corruption in public office, given the stories about the money that was coming from Epstein, in what appears to have been a trade for top secret information about forthcoming policy business initiatives by the UK government when Mandelson was in the government. So there's a lot of stuff going on with him. but he's finished. You know, the former Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten, Windsor,

he's finished. And it's a question really for him that the British Prime Minister now says he should put himself in front of the investigative authorities under oath and say what he actually knows. I think most British people agree with that. So you're seeing a lot of very famous people being dragged down by this in the UK. We're not seeing the same thing happen in the US. We're seeing a lot of names,

but we're not seeing any constant. so far. Do you think we're going to? No, I don't because I think at this point, we haven't seen, we still haven't even seen three million of the files of the six million and they could be withholding them for national interest purposes, which means that may, there will continue to be gaping holes in the various theories that everyone put forward about who was he working for. I've always believed that Jeffrey Epstein was doing, was conducting some sort of compromise for who, you know, we still don't know.

And I do think that the United States has multiple times. Right. And I do think the United States is still protecting Prince Andrew in these files. I think there's he's not mentioned. His relationship with Saudi Arabia isn't mentioned very frequently. There's so many connections across the world that we all know about people who have studied the Epstein story that we still won't be getting in the files. And because we don't have the kind of leadership within our administration, there's no independent

council leading this. We don't know what we don't know right now. and there are three million files being withheld. And I don't think that anyone will face consequences because they haven't. Right. I suspect we will, but it's going to take more time in America. Mark, you want to jump in? Yeah.

Okay. So anyone who had anything to do with his nefarious criminal conduct should be punished. I think that's all wonderful. That's what we all want. The problem also is, you know, when we say their name is in the Epstein file, that now has become associated with. so they must have then been on his plane or been to his island and then maybe participate in having sex with children. That's a real problem too. We got the pitchforks up. Yeah. And there are people

who were involved in construction projects who were simply meeting people through him. They went on some traveling with him but had nothing to do with going to his island. I don't like this big net being thrown out there and catching it, let me finish, and catching anyone who had mere association with him but had nothing to do with his abhorrent behavior. Okay, Mark, can I just tell you as someone who's covered this story and spoke into many, many, many survivors? It was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about.

There were always young girls around. He was a convicted felon and all of these high-network people continue to spend time with a sex offender. That's dangerous. Every single person who was ever around Epstein then knew that he was having sex with children. When you walked in his house?

Hang on, hang on. But Mark, Mark, every, everybody post 2009 knows he's a convicted people. 100%. We're talking before then. They can't pretend. They can't pretend they didn't know what he was. Well, of course. No, I'm not talking about that.

That's indefensible. I'm talking about people before then who were merely in some letter or reference now is part of the Epstein file. And then all of a sudden that means erroneously somehow that they were sleeping with children, get those who did. I want those who did to be punished. But those who are merely associated with him because the guy was a big networker

and a big business guy shouldn't be thrown to the walls. What is interesting, I mean, Richard Branson, well, Richard Branson, hang on, Tara. Richard Branson, for example, came out with a statement, was quite interesting. He said that after some initial interaction with Epstein, he then began to have some suspicions, got his team to look into Epstein,

discovered the conviction, discovered some other stuff, didn't like it, and ended all contact. Now, assuming that is right, I've known Richard a long time, I'm sure that's probably correct if he's saying that publicly, then that is what a lot of people should have done. But what is clear is a lot of people not only didn't do that, but a lot of them made statements, whether it's Andrew, whether it's Mandelson, whether it's others,

were they categorically denied having anything to do with him after his conviction, and now we know they were lying. And again, it comes back to what I said earlier. They deserve this. They deserve it. You're all right. But my point being, if they're lying about the timeline, then what else are they lying about would be my obvious question.

Let me just, I want to read what Elon Musk has said, just to be fair to him. He says, nobody's fought hard of the full release of the Epstein files and prosecutions of those who abused children more than I did, knowing full world of legacy media, far-left propagandists, and those who are actually doing. guilty, would one admit nothing, two, deny everything, three, make counter-accusations against me. I knew I'd be smeared relentlessly despite never having attendance his parties, or being on his Lollita Express plane, all set foot on his creepy island, or done anything wrong at all. Nevertheless, extreme pain of being accused of being the opposite of who I am was worth it.

The strong must protect those who cannot protect themselves, especially vulnerable children. I will gladly accept any amount of future pain to do more to protect kids, to give them a chance to grow up and have happy lives. And, Anna, again, what I would say back to Elon Musk is, okay, let's take you a face value. You know, only you know so far, but this flies completely in the face of the emails we're reading, which is that years after the conviction of Epstein for paedophilia, you are very, very keen to go to this island that you now scorn. And so the public statements are not consistent with the real-time correspondence that we're all seeing with our own eyes.

I mean, look, to Mark's point, so far, there's nothing in the Epstein files that would criminally implicate Elon Musk. Like, there isn't enough evidence to actually prosecute him for anything. But I agree with you in that in the court of public opinion, it's not a good look, as is the case with our Commerce Secretary Howard Ludnik, who said that he had cut off all communication with Epstein in the early 2000s. And then now we're learning that he was actually communicating with Epstein. and 2012. Again, that in and of itself is not enough to prosecute him of any criminality,

right? But at the same time, why are you lying to the American people? And more importantly, why were you so keen to your, you know, the word you like to use, why are you so keen to reach out to and have communication with Epstein after he had already been convicted? And yes, got that sweetheart deal as a result of Alan Dershowitz, you know, negotiating it. Why are you still willing to talk to this guy? And by the way, one other thing I want to, to mention about Dershowitz in particular, because anyone who mentions Dershowitz's relationship with Epstein, as I have done in the past, gets threatened by Dershowitz with a lawsuit. And I never retract my statements because I would love nothing more than to go through that

discovery process. But in the files that were just released, you know, there's a email that Norm Finkelstein sent out, essentially condemning Dershowitz because Jane Doe number three said this in sworn testimony. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein. So my question to everyone who has Dershowitz on

as if he's some sort of expert who should be taken seriously, who has an opinion that should be valued in any way, will you please stop having that disgusting man on your show? No, no, no, I agree, I won't. Hold on, okay, hold on him, I agree. I had him for 10 minutes. And I told him, Eric, point blank, you cannot rewrite history, Alan. We know way too much.

You can claim your innocent all you want, but you can't go and say, therefore, now all of a sudden, Bill Clinton never got involved in these things. No, no, he literally said to me on Eric, go back and take a look at it, that he said. He's the one who got that disgusting serial rapist's a sweetheart deal, and he lied about the Epstein files. He's a disgrace and it's a disgrace to what happened on your show. He went and refuted all. He refuted all minor sex trafficking on that. I was blown away.

So, Alan, who are you? Why are you doing this? Pierce, I was down with you and Alan once before where he claimed to know everything. He's still trying to stay in the media this way. I think he's feeling a little bit more confident. But I'm not going to not have him on, Anna. I want to continue to hold his feet to the fire, which I did. Watch the interview.

And if you think I wasn't hard enough on him, I'll eat it. But I think I was. Can I just one final thought, Pierce? we're having a lot of speculation on what happened, what didn't happen. There's an easy, it's not easy. There's a very effective way to find out what really happened. Follow the damn money. It always works.

Find out how he made his money. What about just listening to the women who have testified? What about the women who have testified? What about the survivors who have testified under oath? Why is their word not enough? Why do we have to follow the money to know what happened? No one said it's not enough. I actually think we need.

You know what? I think we listen to the women. We listen to the women. We follow the money trail. And we get people under oath, right? With a penalty of perjury. That tends to concentrate the mind, right? Okay, look, I want to pivot to the other big story of the weekend,

which is the arrest of Don Lemon, former CNN anchor, actually took over my office when I left CNN. So I've known Don a long time. You know, I thought about this quite long and hard. Let's take a look at, first of all, a bit of the scene that created the environment for his arrest. This is the original incident. This is a juxtaposition.

This shows you just how divided America is. When you look at the protesters here, and then you look at the people there are praying, and you know what is an interesting thing? If these two groups could just get together, they might figure out what to do. Instead, I don't know if the people here are interested in talking to the protesters, but perhaps they should come in, pray together, and talk

together. Last night, the DOJ sent a team of federal agents to arrest me in the middle of the night for something that I'd been doing for the last 30 years, and that is covering the news. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects that work for me and for countless of other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them, and I will not be silence. I look forward to my day in court. Thank you all. So let me start with Mark Eglash, again, from a legal perspective here. So, you know, I thought about this long and hard, heard all the different arguments, everyone coming out, a lot of them from partisan traps to very quickly either exonerate or convict him.

And I kind of reached the conclusion, as I do with most situations involving journalists in this situation, which is you shouldn't be criminalizing journalists doing their job. You may not like Don Lemon. You may not like the way he behaved that day. You may not like the way he's behaved since. But to go after a journalist who was clearly there reporting on what was happening, I think crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed whether you're on the left or the right. And it seemed to me a bit of tip for tap on what happened to some people who were kind of citizen journalists on January 6th who got put in prison. This is revenge. They're going after now people on the left for doing similar things and so on. I think it's a very slippery slope.

But Mark, from a pure legal perspective, did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law? No, he didn't. It's not even close. And I don't do politics. I do just legal. And the First Amendment gives wide latitude for journalists to do exactly what he did, cover an event. So those who say that he did interfere with people's ability to worship, there's a difference between incidental interference and intentional interference. One needs intentional interference to be found guilty of a criminal act. He wasn't there, it appears, from the facts to intentionally, that's not intentional? Hold on, I was just speaking. I wasn't through with my thoughts. He intentionally was there to gather facts,

But his intention falls way short factually of intending to be there to interfere with people's ability to worship. So again, if there's just incidental interference, that's not enough. And clearly the chilling effect is there too. The message goes out that anyone who's merely present at an event can be arrested. And that's real problematic. Mark, he was there to gather facts. he broke into an ongoing church service.

He busted in, that's not an accidental, oh, I didn't mean to break up your search. What facts was Don Lemon looking for, Mark? What facts was he looking to create a scene, to get the cameras rolling, to get his own face on the evening news, which he did. And I said when the minute it happened, they just propped up Don Lemon, not because they like his journalism, because they need him as a useful idiot to their push to open immigration at all costs. And by the way, Mark, I would argue with you that I think protecting people's right to worship is right up there, if not superseding the First Amendment, with the right for journalists to cover a story.

We don't disagree on that. The question is, again, everything is fact-sensitive. Was he covering this as a journalist? Was he reporting this on live stream, which I was told? If he was, the question is, do they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his purpose was to interfere with people's right to worship? Or whether he was there covering it as a journalist that may have interfered, incidentally, with people's right to worship.

And there in lines. Well, isn't the crucial, well, let me bring in Anna here. But I think the crucial distinction for me is you can certainly construct an argument. that the protesters had a pre-planned intention to disrupt people in their place of worship, right? So the question for me was then, is Don Lemon part of the protest group, or is he tangentially a journalist who knows it's going to happen, goes in and reports on what happens, but is not actually a member of the protest group doing the intervention? And that's where for me I felt from a legal perspective, I think it's hard to prove that he is not one removed from this.

He's not actually doing intervening. He's gone in and he's watching and he's observing and he's reporting. Yeah, I mean, look, first let me just say, I really appreciate your analysis on this mark, especially from a legal perspective. And I agree with you overall, Pierce. I think that, you know, the evidence that we've seen so far indicates that Don Lemon got a tip that this protest was going to happen. He wanted to cover it. Now, of course, he does have his own biases. There's no question about that. But the real question is, was he there to participate in said demonstration or was he there to document it? And obviously, this is going to play out in court. But the point that I agree with you most on is in regard to how counterproductive it was to

arrest him in the first place. Let me first note, though, that there was a second independent journalist who was also arrested as a result of covering what happened during this protest. I think that sets a really, really bad precedent when it comes to journalism. Regardless of what you think about Don Lemon or the independent journalist, you should be able to have journalists there to document what's going on. That is their job. But in regard to- And Tara, it seems to me, it seems to me, Tara, that all this happened out of this

is Don Lemon has got absolutely what he's been dreaming of ever since he got turfed out of. CNN, started his own business, is he's now a martyr. You know, I watched you with the Clive Davis. We've got a clip, I think, of him getting a standing ovation from the star-studied crowd at the pre-Grammys party that Clive Davis has every year. Take a look. I mean, Don Lemons had a long dream. He's had a dream to be at the Grammys or Grammy parties, and that happens.

He's the Martin Luther game of the Grammys. Listen, like, this is part. of the job of being a journalist. Like, it's one of the first things you do. You cover movements, you cover protests, you go where things happen. If you had, you know, if you had to go into a cave to interview the Taliban, should I be, you know, arrested because I'm in there with the Taliban. If I witness violence there, I'm not a co-conspirator. Eric, if you know anything about journalism, you would know that being present at an event does not mean you are as a journalist documenting it, does not make you- They weren't protesting. Tara, they weren't protesting. They were trying to worship.

by the way, and if you're going to hide behind that cloak of all you're saying that journalists, a journalist can break into anywhere they want trespass because under the guise of I'm doing a story, that's insanity. There has to be a line drawn. They broke into a ongoing church service. Those parishioners weren't protesting anything. They weren't supporting ICE. Did the pastor happen to have some sort of connection? Who cares? That doesn't. So any, under your theory, I, as a journalist, I have a, I have a White House pass, hard pass. I'm a journalist to cover Trump. I can go anywhere I want with that, break into any, I can break into a mosque and find out

how many Muslims there are illegal just because I have that pass. Of course not. I mean, if you were following law enforcement or you're following in a news event, I don't know the exact legality, but I know under the First Amendment are, there are many, we are covered under the First Amendment. And the second you create these lines, like what about these right-wing influencer journalists, whatever you want to call them,

that follow break-ins into Planned Parenthoods? Should they not be allowed to do that? They don't break in, Tara. They get arrested outside the Planned Parenthood. Let me offer some guidance. Let me offer some guidance. Let me wait on Eric's analogy real quick. Okay, just real quick, real quick.

Eric, like, let's say you are covering some sort of protest where a group of people break into a mosque as people are worshipping, you're there documenting it as a reporter, right? I would be livid if, let's say the Biden administration's DOJ decided to arrest you because at the end of the day, you work in media, you're documenting what's happening. Now, the individuals who took part in the actual demonstration did break a law. They did violate the right to practice your faith, to worship, and they should face consequences for that.

I mean, that's what you signed up, right? Let me give you this. Let me offer some guidance, guys. that under Pierce's definition of what happened or question about what happened, Don Lemon wasn't there to cover it. Don Lemon was the leader of that, whatever that breaking was.

No, he wasn't. He was covering it on the line. Let me jump in here. Let me jump in here. He was supported. Let me bring Mark in again. Let me bring Mark in. Let's change the facts.

Let's say that Lemon while he was there, chanted, he directed the protesters. He blocked Isle. he starts doing that, then he is participating. It's very different. Absent those facts, he's there covering, and I agree with Pierce on this one. Again, you don't want to have that chilling effect

when you have journalists going in to cover something and you get the wrong politics and then people get arrested. That's a real slippery slope and a real dangerous scenario. I would say you guys are opening up a very dangerous can of worms allowing or covering for, journalists and Tara points out that, yeah, there are right-wing little influencers who are dying

for the same opportunity that Don Lemon just presented himself with to become, you know, some sort of hero to your side. And if it entails joining protests or quote unquote covering protests, but you're right there with them and also getting cameras in the face of the people that they're protesting against, you know, you borderline. I mean, Tucker is always going to plan paradise. And he's, you know, they do that all the time. They're just not being arrested. But they literally do it all the time. Who do you think's covering the Planned Parenthood protests?

Again, Tara, the difference is inside the church that is a big difference. They go inside the Planned Parenthood, which is like a private property and they do this. And they don't get arrested. I don't see how it's any different. I think they're right. I mean, those people, you know, the O'Keefe who goes inside an abortion clinic in tapes, I have a problem with that too. Okay.

Well, I think the one thing I would say, just to conclude. this is people need to be intellectually consistent, right, in the way they view these things. And if you start getting tribal, where it's okay for your side, but not okay for the other side, to me, you become intellectually dishonest. We saw it all with the Jimmy Kittle saga a few months ago. We're seeing it again now. We've seen it over the ice agents. You've got to be consistent. It doesn't matter if it's your side or not. What is your view about people that do X, Y, Z? and then you've got to be consistent each time it's done by anybody.

Then I can respect you. The moment people chop and change because of their political persuasion, I lose all respect for it. But that was a great panel debate. Thank you all very much. Thanks, Pierce. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, finally, it's fair to say that before it's released this weekend, reviews for the new Melania documentary film from mainstream press were less than glowing, a cheeseball infomercial of staggering inertia. their variety, dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing, said the UK Guardian. Glossy, but curiously, impersonal, said the New York Times.

However, judging by the box office, the film has been a smash hit. Melania is officially the highest-grossing documentary of the last 10 years. And joining me now are Melania's director, Brad Retner, and producer Mark Beckham, who's also a senior advisor to the First Lady. Well, welcome to both of you. Welcome. Thanks for having us, Peter. It's a long time. It's been a long time. It certainly has. I've got to say, I watched the movie. I enjoyed the movie. I'm not an impartial viewer of the movie. I've known the First Lady 20 years since I first did Celebrity Apprentice and spent a lot of time around the Trumps. I've seen her many times over the years. I've always liked her. I think she has, in private, she's very warm. She's funny. She's smart. She's, I think, very self-aware. And I think in public, she's been remarkably.

I think, skilled in the way she'd been a first lady amid unbelievable pressure. You know, this is somebody who's had to watch her husband get shot at, nearly assassinated. People try to put him in jail. Obviously, all the scandal that swells around with Trump at any given moment, all the division and contention and so on. And yet, amid it all, has been this very calm rock

in the form of Melania, quite mysterious in many ways, if you don't know her. So I watched it and I enjoyed it. And I think that what's interesting to me is watching people review it who clearly have an agenda against the Trumps, they're trashing it, and conversely people who love for Trumps, all saying it's the greatest movie of all time. I don't think it's either.

I don't think even you would say it's the greatest movie of all time. But what's been your assessment of how this has played out? Well, it shows, I think, everyone that you can't really trust the critics we have something that's unprecedented. We have an A-cinema score. I don't know how many of mine... I don't think any of my movies that I've made in the past

have ever had an A-cinema score. So, you know, usually a good movie is a B-plus or an A-minus. So it shows you the separation between the critics and the audience, the true audience. I mean, to have... I think it's the largest spread.

I think the number on Rotten Tomatoes is maybe 10%. It fluctuates between 6 and 10% based on new reviews coming in. And then it's got a 98 or 99% audience favor. So it's a strength, it's an interesting case study, if anything, to say the least, about how far away the critics are. You know, film criticism when I grew up, was an art form. You know, even though there was a bad review on a movie, if you read it,

there was always an intellectual approach to it. And you still wanted to, you still were interested in seeing the movie, whether it had a good review or a bad review. And Rotten Tomatoes was kind of like the beginning of the destruction of the film business, in my opinion. Even though, interestingly enough, I had read somewhere that Rush Hour was the reason why Rotten Tomatoes was created. So I say that as the destruction of the film business, because now it's like if you have

a, if your tomatoes rotten, people aren't interested in seeing the movie. And I think this film will kind of be groundbreaking in the analysis of film critics versus audience interests. You know, Peers, if I may just jump in for a second. Just to make it simple, to put it in simple terms, the First Lady and Brett Ratner put together an enjoyable film. It's created in a very cinematic, highly rich, stylized way, great sound, great music. and it's a story that's never been told before. And this guy right here, Brett Ratner, was able to, I think, break ground and revolutionize the concept of documentary.

Never do we see the First Lady sitting there with an empty warehouse behind her as a talking head. Brett was able to go ahead and tell her story, this unprecedented story of an individual moving back into the White House as First Lady of the United States covering intimate moments with her family, her career, and her philanthropy in a way that's never been done before. I give this guy a ton of credit. He put it together in a way that's groundbreaking,

and that's why the rankings from the consumers are so high. It's enjoyable. But it is, Mark, it's a blue-red thing, isn't it? Where in the blue states, they're not going to see it, and they hate the trumps and so on. In the red states, they love the trumps, they're flocking to see it. A lot of women in particular are flocking to see it.

I can see why. You know, I've said to Melania before that to me, you know, she's right up there with Jackie Kennedy as one of the great fashion icons of all the first ladies. And if you don't agree with that, either you're blind or you're just blindly partisan because she clearly is. You've advised the first lady, I know, for a while. The thing that struck me was interesting was it's quite a big move for her to go public like this. You know, I once said to her, you know, you remind me a bit of the queen mother and the queen in the UK royal family. You always had a mantra, never complain, never explain, and rarely be heard speaking in public. And she went, I know that quote, and I like that quote, and I tried to follow that quote.

Yeah, here she is, sort of peeling back the curtain and saying, okay, this is a bit more of me than I've ever shown you. That's not something you do lightly. And it's way beyond fashion. For example, Brett was able to capture an initial meeting that triggered a series of events ultimately leading to the rescue of a human life in Gaza. And I can let Brett talk to that a little bit more. But there was so many moments in this 20-day period that Brett was able to capture with the First Lady that today continue to play themselves out, the work she's doing with the United Nations General Assembly for fostering the future. together. It's all, it's really an interesting thing. This is much more than a fashion explosion. There's a lot more important action that the First Lady takes and that Brett captured during this time period. Well, Brett, one of the moments for me that I found really poignant. And it just really cut, I think, to the reality that your public property when you're a First Lady,

as you are president. But you've also got to deal with real life private stuff. And there's a day in the 20 days where she starts the day at the memorial for Jimmy Carter, former president, obviously. And then that evening, she's in a cathedral, a church, lighting a candle for her mother who died a year ago that day. And her and her mother were very, very close. So a very emotional day for her personally and a very big, big day for her publicly. And they're both around grief and people dying and being in places of worship. And I thought you brought that together really powerfully because it showed me that's the reality of being in public life

is you've got to somehow juggle both things. Yeah, she says she talks about it in the film. You know, her day job is as the first lady, but she also has to be a mother, you know, a wife. She has so many obligations. It's interesting that you say this because, you know, as the director and the film crew, we have breaks in between, right?

We film and then we take breaks, but I'm there from the moment she wakes up in the morning till she goes to sleep. And on those breaks, when we're either eating or changing out of equipment, she's having high-level meetings in between. So her passion for her role as First Lady, I was saying to my producer,

I was saying, we should have a second crew just filming the meetings that she's having in between the filming. Because those are as important as the stuff that we're filming. And she's so passionate about being the First Lady and her service. And that was really, to me, incredibly impressive how seriously and how passionate she is, how seriously she takes this role as First Lady, which is, you know, unprecedented, obviously.

And really also the love between and the mutual respect and admiration between her and her husband. That's another thing that I was very proud of that the film, Well, that's really interesting. He has the utmost. Yeah, I want to bring market on that because I've known the Trump's, like I said, 20 years. So from soon after they got married in the early 2000s, and everybody else has always told me she hates him,

she's the ice maiden, it's a transactional thing, she doesn't want to be there, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I've always said, you really don't get these two. I said, when you actually are around them together, They're very easy together. They're seemingly very happy together. There's a real, I think, mutual understanding of each other, which is often lost on the public, perhaps because a lot of the public can't view Trump through a normal lens at all.

But, you know, what is your sense? You've obviously been around them as a couple. You know, my instinct is that warts and all, good, bad and ugly, they have a pretty good marriage. Pears, they've been together since the 1990s. I've been working with the first lady since before Barron was born over two decades. And I can tell you that she has a ton of respect for him. We talk about it in her best-selling book. I see it firsthand. It's her husband. They have an interesting life, right? He's a hardworking person and he's the president. So he's constantly working, constantly on the road. As is she. She's the hardest working person I have ever met.

We never take a day off. It doesn't matter if it's the weekend, a holiday, late at night. So the interaction between these two people is really like any other husband and wife. Brett captures it on the film. Those moments that people are curious about, they shine. And it's all there within those 20 days. It's really very natural. Brett, I want to turn to two elephants in the room.

We have an address. The first one's about the movie. Amazon acquired the rights for $40 million. apparently spent as much as that again on marketing. The total cost estimated around $75 million. Many say, look, this is just a vanity thing by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, to curry favor with the Trump administration, and so on. What is your response to that?

And could this movie actually make money, given the roaring start his hat? Well, first I'll respond to the first part, which is I can tell you for sure that the president had no idea that, and Mark can speak to that more, no idea that we were attempting to make a documentary. I don't know at what point did he discover it, but I know for a fact that he had no idea.

She and Mark is the only two people I discussed. I was sworn to secrecy, and we didn't want it to leak, obviously. And I know that he was not aware that we were even making the documentary up to the time that we got the offer from Amazon. So this is no quid pro quo. It's completely BS. It literally is just false. It's just not true.

And what was the other question? The economic feasibility. Oh, yeah. So, yeah, that's a thing that's really frustrating. I'm sorry. Well, couldn't make money because the truth is in the world today that we're living. It's all about streaming. We wanted, Malani and I decided, and it was really Melani's idea.

I can't even take credit for it, but I was so happy because, being a filmmaker, there's no better way to show a film, a piece of work of mine in a theater. You know, you hear Chris Nolan and all these big filmmakers talking about, we got to have a theatrical experience. They were fighting the streaming opportunities first and said, you've got to have this movie. So Melania wanted this movie to be made because I said to her, you know, I'm not a documentary filmmaker. I've never made a documentary. And she's like, that's exactly why I want you because you make movies for the big screen. So with that in mind, knowing that Amazon had purchase MGM. And yeah, it's fantastic that we've had a great fantastic box office. But at the end of

the day, the world is going to see this streaming globally. And we want the biggest audience to see this movie. So will it make money? I don't know how the economics within Amazon works, but I know if a lot of people around the world watch it, it will be successful. Pierce, just to jump on the record real quickly, I remember the day that Melania and I had the conversation. Melania came up with the creative concept. I am the only one that negotiated this deal on her behalf. I never had any interaction whatsoever with Jeff Bezos. President Trump was never involved. I'm the only one that had a part in that negotiation. As far as the feasibility on the economic side, I believe that they didn't pay enough. This film is catapulted right away into a

great opening weekend. It's the highest opening in documentary history over the past 14 years, and we're just catapulting now. It's only been available for three days worldwide. Think about the deal, peers. They have the theatrical release, then streaming of the film, and remember, we're going to be releasing a docu series during the summer, which Brett will unpack a richer story, and then those two elements, the film and the docu series, will carry through over the next three years. So to correct all of the... You know what it sounds like to me?

It sounds like to me you guys are... You guys in real time are gaming the negotiations for Melania the sequel. We undersold this one. Amazon MGM took advantage of us. Brett, I want to just switch gears quickly to the very serious and big stories of the news, the Epstein files. As you know, the picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women in it. What is your response to that picture? And what is your response to the wider scandal of the Epstein files? Oh, well, that particular picture, that picture in particular

happened around 20 years ago, 19, 20 to 21 years ago, because that is a photograph of my fiance who invited me to this event and that's where the picture was taken. I would never been in contact with Jeffrey Epson before that photo and I was never in contact with him after. So that's a picture of me and my fiance at some event. Wow. So who was the fiance if you don't want me asking you? You know, she doesn't want me sharing her name in the case, but that's my fiance, 100%. Was my fiance. But you're not still, I'm not going to say you're not still with that. He's not engaged. It's the world's longest engagement, 20 years.

20 years ago, I was engaged to her when that photo was taken. Right. Yes. And your position is you never met Epstein before or after that picture that night? No, never, never, never. What is your opinion of the Epstein file scandal? Is this more and more stuff cascades out, more and more people, very high-profile people,

dragged in. What is your view of this? I mean, it's horrible. You see, I've been somehow sucked in, you know, through an image. So, you know, there's so many stories about so many different people. It's hard to really follow and track what's truth and what's not truth. You can see where one photograph kind of puts me, you know, there with him, and then all the stories start to spin out. So I don't really know because I didn't know him. It wasn't really my world. You know, it's not really my world. I could tell you, and I'm not sitting here as his defense attorney, I can tell you that this guy has been in the trenches, making the film, promoting the film, and what's been top of mind for him has been building this number one highest opening for Melania. And I think that, you know, as far as that topic goes, I can understand why he might not have a bigger point of view.

You know what? I put the question to you about the picture. You've given a pretty emphatic answer. We'll leave it there. Brett and Mark, thank you both very much. Congrats on the success of the film. Of course. Thank you so much.

Thanks, peers. Happy to see you. Happy to see you healthy and out of the hospital. Thanks for having us. Yeah, thank you. Not as happy as I'm. The president rang me actually a couple days ago. We were discussing the perils of steps,

little steps that can cause enormous amounts of damage if you trip on them. But anyway, it's great to talk to you. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Piers Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me.

If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Unsensored Media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.