Piers Morgan Uncensored - “You’re Being a Complete D*CK!” Piers Morgan vs Don Lemon + Steven Crowder & Joe Walsh

Episode Date: September 18, 2025

Charlie Kirk used new media to devastating effect in his mission to mobilise young people for his conservative movement. He understood the power of a viral moment to cut through a complex argument and the great appetite for proper debate, just two of many things we all love about our digital culture. There’s plenty of things many of us find repellent, too, such as witch hunts, vile smears we’d not dream of using in real life, and rage baiting. Many prominent figures on the right have accused former CNN anchor Don Lemon of doing exactly that this week, ironically for making the very same claim about them. He speaks to Piers Morgan - but first, Uncensored welcomes Steven Crowder, who recently found himself in hot water over his comments related to Kirk, and former Republican congressman and presenter of The Social Contract, Joe Walsh. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Ground News: Go to https://groundnews.com/PIERS for 40% off the Vantage subscription and find the truth mainstream media doesn't want you to see. Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/PIERS to meet with a strategist today for FREE Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pears, I think that's completely disingenuous. And I think anyone watching that... What are you talking about? And so if you will let me, if you will allow me, please stop interrupting me. Okay, I'm... Did you invite me here to interrupt me? Are you going to let me... I think you're being a complete dick, if I'm honest with it?

I do. Well, that's very kind and respectful of you. It wasn't intended to be kind or respectful. I don't like the hominem attacks. The assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked a bitter and reductive blame game between right and left, turbocharged by inflammatory calls for vengeance on the fringes of one side and callous celebrations on the other. Neither side wants to find common cause. Both hold the other side accountable for the federal climate which led to Kirk's appalling murder.

Viral clips appear to show people on either side doing anything other than taking the temperature down. Stephen Crowder's call for violence is one such example for which he's now issued disqualification. People may take some clips and tell you that Stephen Crowder is irresponsible. he advocated violence. That's right. I am. I want to be crystal clear about that. I am advocating for lawful violence defensively

that has been abandoned for years and I want it to replace where grace was afforded before. In a moment, we'll be joined by Joe Walsh to debate these issues, but first I'm joined by Stephen Crowder for what will hopefully be a clarification on his clarification. Stephen, welcome back to Unsensored. As you know, a lot of people believed you were advocating for a violent response.

You've clarified that now. And people are saying, you know, is that a sincere clarification or have you just calmed down? It wasn't a clarification. It was a repeat. And I stand by it. I am advocating for lawful. Maybe, let me clarify, ruthless violence in defense of us and our own. And if you give me one and a half minutes, I can make it extra crystal clear if we need to.

What you're seeing with Charlie Kirk is what got through. Charlie Kirk lived under a cloud just as I have. It's the reason that I stopped doing change my minds, where there were 12 felonious assaults, attempts at battery and attempts on my life, and I know quite a few, and many I don't, of Charlie Kirk. I want to be clear. I want those on the left to speak freely and to be able to host their events with minimal security as they do now for the rest of their lives.

Just as surely I want them to be deathly terrified of showing up and acting with the increasing violence. as they have at our events. And that goes both ways. Hey, if there's a spat of right-wing violence that's spreading across this country, treat those people the same way that we treat yours. But you won't find it.

And let me just address a couple of things here. What I think leads to violence, they'll try and blame it on Donald Trump. They'll give us a bunch of reasons. Let me be really clear here. Joe Walsh will say that this is an overreaction. He said that yesterday. He doesn't understand why this is a big deal.

That's untrue. He will say that statistically more violence comes from the right. That's provably untrue. He has been stating for days that the shooter was, in fact, not a leftist, and we didn't know that's provably untrue. He will create a false equivalency between Charlie Kirk and the murder of the Hortmans in Minnesota. That's provably untrue. And finally, he will place blame as the left and the spineless right does for all of this on

Donald Trump, conservatives, rising figures, and the rhetoric for temperatures in this country. That is provably untrue. Donald Trump ran on law and order and won because of leftist violence. All of this, let me finish with this. All of this is by design so that the left and spineless right can make this conversation about conservatives responding to the cold-blooded terroristic assassination and gleeful celebration thereafter of a young man who did nothing more than sit down at a table and allow anyone to speak their opinion. And I know what it's like because I was in that spot. I started it and Charlie cited it as inspiration. If I could change one thing and I do believe that I'm partially responsible for this. I failed people. I've had to do a lot of soul searching.

When I did change my mind and started in 2016, the idea was, hey, calling the left on their bluff, civil dialogue with anyone to the tune of billions of plays and hundreds of hours, and it got increasingly violent. And what I didn't tell people, I told people out there, go do this on your own campus, have these conversations. I advocated for it. And Charlie took it to another level. He was unbelievable at it. What I didn't do, I didn't tell people about the threats because I didn't want copycats. I didn't tell them about terrorists from Yemen through Sweden showing up in East Grand Rapids. I didn't tell them about concrete milkshakes. I didn't tell them about my tires getting flashed about people trying to fire bomb my car. And maybe if I would have picked up the phone,

maybe if I would have used this megaphone to tell people it's real life out there. And the left wants you dead. Maybe Charlie would have had a fighting chance. Maybe I could have done more. Right now, I'll tell you this. I see a lot of people out there, peers. See a lot of people out talking about picking up that microphone. And I hope people do because the alternative is but I want people to know that wherever that microphone is and whoever thinks about picking it up, you are in the crosshairs. People say bring down the temperature. Okay, how about we bring down the temperature to doing something like, I don't know, sitting down at a table and allowing anyone with a thought or opinion to discuss it rationally? Would that bring down the temperature?

Because they took his life anyway. I know you knew Charlie Kirk well, I feel your passion, I feel your anger, I feel your hurt. It's a painful time. I think everybody on the conservative right in America, it's a very painful time. And I feel that. But in the interest of fair play, which Charlie Kirk would want, we have got the former Republican congressman and the host of a social contract, Joe Walsh, joining the debate, exactly what Charlie would encourage, I think,

which is, Joe, you've just heard a very impassioned statement there. from Stephen Crowder. What's your response? Oh, I get it and I feel it, and I appreciate Stephen Crowder expressing how he feels. I really do, and I don't know what my fight is. I don't have a fight with Stephen Crowder. Stephen, good to see you. There was a lot you said about me there in the intro. I don't remember, because I'm getting older. I wish I'd written down some of it. I did my best for the past week, because I knew Charlie as well. Not to say that this guy was a right wing.

He came from a Godfaring gunton, Utah family. He was definitely right, like some on the left did. I didn't know who he was until we had the facts and the evidence. And it's clear, Pearson, Stephen, that this was a 20. And I told you he was on the left from the bullet engravings that we received from a leak. And you said we were wrong. And people on the left said we were wrong. And that matters because the shooter was still out there and so was the Kirk family.

I'm trying to save lives. Stephen. You're going to save lives, Joe? Maybe, no, maybe some people did. I don't know when I ever said you were wrong anywhere. You said, we don't know. We don't know. We know he's from a white family in Utah, and you retweeted people.

No, no, no. And you went on and said, this guy is not a left-wing extremist. He is. Okay. Go ahead. He did say that. My friend. From the moment Charlie Kirk was assassinated, I said, we don't know who did it.

And once we found out who did it, we don't know why he did it. So let's all wait to figure out why he did it. But we did know. But we did know. Yesterday, Stephen. And I remember he's saying that he sold his soul to Trump before the body was cold and criticizing his life. Stephen, Stephen, let me finish, brother, please. And then we find out in no uncertain terms, by the way, Pierce, which I think all of us could have guessed.

This was a political assassination. This 22-year-old young man hated Charlie Kirk. and so he picked up that gun and he shot him. Clearly, and as you've said, Pierce, it's clear that of late he had become radicalized with leftist ideology. There, now we know it. This will go down in history

as an act of left-wing political violence. Yes. I mean, I would say, Stephen, that is an honest statement there from Joe. It's not. Yeah, but is he honest on your side, Stephen? Be honest. Is he honest to say there is not?

no problem with violence on the political right, because there has been historically a lot of violence associated with the far right in America. That, again, is just a demonstrable fact. To pretend there's never been any is to be disingenuous, isn't it? Demodial fact by what? No, it's not to be disingenuous. It's absolutely correct. And I understand, because I've seen Joe and people of his ilk retweeting these out there, it either comes from Cato Institute, or it comes from a recent economist article. Something very, I can tell you how all of those numbers are wrong. Remember the man in Portland? Remember, Aaron Danielson, who was shot dead point blank by an ANF member, Michael Reinall, who said,

we got a Trump supporter, bang, bang, dead. That wasn't listed as political violence. Look at that chart. The year 2020, the summer of love, no political violence from the left. I could go through the methodology, and I have, and I have brilliant researchers who have. It is demonstrably untrue. No one is saying there is no violence on the right. What I am saying is that people on the right have to have armed security, flack jackets, an entire strategy when they go out, and those on the left don't. That is verifiably true. What is dishonest is to say we didn't know.

You know what else wouldn't have been included in these crime stats? And anyone want to make this argument? You're talking to the wrong guy. The Covenant High School shooting. Audrey Hale. Cato said we included it because it was borderline, even though the police said they didn't think it was politically motivated. If not for the undercover journalism unit of a comedy show right here,

no one would have known that motivation. We found it. We leaked it. We processed it. We verified it. and we were met with resistance and threats of lawsuits from the local police department, the mayor, and the FBI. They said it was a lie on the outset, just like they said the engravings on the bullet casings

were a lie on the outset. The left lies. They label you fascist. They label you a totalitarian. And how do you deal with those people? Well, you don't do it at the ballot box. We all know that. It's not just how the news is told, but what's left out, which concerns me.

I'm when a friend of the business recommended I try ground news, I gave it a go. Quite honestly, I was impressed. It does something brilliant which most news platforms are afraid to do. It's an app and a website that lines up coverage of the same story from across the spectrum, left, right, international, and lays it all out side by side. That kind of transparency is increasingly rare and is vital. Ground news helps you to dig in and find the facts by showing you who owns each outlet, what their biases and which stories are being buried. Has an especially revealing blind spot feed, which services stories being reported almost exclusively by only one side of the political divide. I want to hear every side before making up my mind. Ground

News makes that possible and easy. It's independent, funded by subscribers and not corporate interests, just like my show. And it's a tool that puts the power back in your hands. Go to groundnews.com slash peers to claim your 40% discount to the unlimited access Vantage plan and see what everyone else is missing. That's Ground News. dot com slash peers. Every position that the right holds has been presented as violence, including silence, by the way. I know there's a poster behind Joe Walsh right next to his No King's poster. In other words, if you're pro-life, it's violence against women.

If you're against men and women's sports, it's violence against trans, it's genocide, it's erasing them. If you're against Juneteenth as a holiday, it's violence. You're pro First Amendment violence because you're inciting violence. You're pro-second Amendment, violence because you believe people should be able to commit gun violence. And then if we remain silent, that's also violence. and so people deal with the right with violence. Here's my challenge.

Find me one. One example of a Charlie Kirk on the left. Not an elected official. I'll allow any speaker, any comedian. This century, one example of somebody who was murdered, assassinated, hemorrhaged out in front of his family in cold blood, and gleefully celebrated thereafter. And the polls show that a majority, a majority,

according to UGov recently, of Democrats, think it's somewhat too acceptable. 38%. 78% of Republicans said not acceptable at all. Okay, let Joe respond. What I'm saying is that Charlie Kirk was hunted. He was hunted. We are being hunted. And I don't want to see any more dead friends. Violence, absolutely. Lawful, ruthless, defensive violence. Okay, Joe. I'll just, I'll just be brief again. The data is pretty clear. And historically, it's been pretty clear that there's political violence on the right and the left in this country for years. And I could argue and I would argue, but I won't hear that there's historically been more political violence coming from the right. But suffice to say, I think you and I, Pierce, would agree. There's a, there's a history of, there's a, hey, Stephen, let me finish, man, please. Please argue it. You can't just make a vague claim and not substantiate it.

Pierce, you and I would agree for the sake of this conversation that political violence is in fact, is in fact a both sides. problem. Stephen, you would acknowledge, I think, that there is political violence on, and there has been political violence on the right as well. So why don't we all just condemn it all? That's what we all should do. Yeah, no, I don't, I don't agree with the premise. And I'm having to agree with a nebulous premise because you presented no facts. The very source that you cite, and by the way, I'll make all of my publicly available. Hold on, I'm finishing now. Let's do it like grownups. You can cite your sources online. George Floyd riots.

George Floyd riots, not included. Gerald Brooks Walk a show? Not included. Antifa, not included. Man shot dead for voting Trump, not included. Those numbers are not to be trusted, and neither is someone parroting it. I'll answer your question if you answer one of mine after. Go ahead, please.

Melissa Hortman, the Democratic State Legislator in Minnesota three months ago, gunned down by an anti-abortion Trump supporter. Yes or no? wrong. How do I know? Because Vance Bolter, the man who did it, wrote in his letter that it had nothing to do with Trump or being pro-life, he blamed Tim Walls. And here's what you also don't see. Did you see anyone at the Hortman's funerals or vigils spitting on them or pantomimbing being shot in the neck? Did you see anyone celebrating the death of them gleefully? Did you see so many professors doing so showing children a snub, really? Point me to one. Yes. Point me to one person spitting at their vigil. Let me guess. You're going to go to Mike Lee? Senator, Utah Senator likely not the attack. How? Donald Trump, Donald Trump.

He did not the attack. But I would, I would, okay, let me jump in. Anyone spit at the vigil. Let me jump in. Stephen, let me give you an example. Pierce, I don't. Hang on, go ahead, please. Hang on, I would give an example where the Wright behaved very badly, and that was over the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband.

I saw the gleeful responses after that from the right, the memes, the mockery. and so on. I thought that was very distasteful. Would you agree to him? If you want to argue an equivalency between a man getting hit with a hammer in his underwear, and a man bleeding out in front of his child going ahead. I'm not saying they're equivocal. I'm just saying it's an example where I felt people on the right showed a complete lack of humanity towards the man who'd been attacked because he happened to be married to Nancy Pelosi,

a political opponent. And so it's not like this never, it's not like this has never happened. I don't agree. I don't think it's even remotely proportional. let me ask a question here. This is why I'm giving this message, and this is why I hope people listen and protect their own. Joe Walsh, you're there, since I answered your question, you're there, Utah, in the crowd. It's not a mouser. It's not a 30-out-6. But it's a man winding up a milkshake for Charlie Kirk. We don't know if it's strawberry, chocolate, vanilla, acid, or concrete.

Do you stop them? Do you hurt them? That hesitation tells me that you are not amongst us and cowards are dangerous having their ranks. Stephen, Stephen, because it's not a hypothetical. Let me answer your question. Do you stop them? Do you hurt them? I don't understand your question. I'm sorry. Honestly, I don't. Someone winding up a milkshake to launch at Charlie Kirk.

You don't know if it's strawberry, chocolate, vanilla, acid, or concrete. You see them before anyone else does. Do you stop him and hurt them? Yes. I certainly stop him. I do all I can to stop him, yes. Good. There's a start.

That's what I'm advocating. every single person out there because we have been living with this shadow over us. And I know, look, here's a thing, too, Joe. I understand your rhetoric. I understand where you're coming from. And I know that you met Charlie

when he was 16, as I understand it, right? He was very, very young. And I understand that maybe you were somewhat of a mentor figure. It's because of the failure of Republicans like you that me and Charlie Kirk exist, who are willing to take back the territory that has been conceded, and we are willing to pay with our lives.

We shouldn't have to be. academia, media, the press, big tech, shouldn't be dominated by the left exclusively all the time. Charlie Kirk shouldn't be out there alone sitting in that chair taking on all comers. He shouldn't be inspired by people like me who are comedians. He should have been inspired by people like you. Instead, he was inspired to go the other way. Maybe that's why he said he sold his soul for Donald Trump before the body was cold. Still want to do the no true Scotsman holier than now thing?

And Stephen, I'm assuming you would do this. same, correct, if somebody were throwing a chocolate milkshake at a right, at a left-wing speaker, correct? No, the reason I bring it up is because we didn't. We didn't, and I've had them launched at me. Would you, Stephen? And the reason, would you? No, I didn't. I didn't. And now I would. Because now I would. Yes. Have I answered a question? Yes. Now I would. And I advocate that everybody is the same. By any means necessary. So, Stephen, Stephen, common ground. You and I, two Americans would both stop any politically violent attack on any public figure or speaker that we saw. You and I agree to that. And you and I, I hope, would both agree that we should condemn all political violence.

End of story. I am condemning, of course, all political violence. It is coming from one side, and the prescription is ruthless, aggressive, defensive, lawful violence on anyone who traw... If someone behaves in a way, for example, I've been sucker punched, I've been collar dragged, I've had attempts on my life. I have been doxed. If anyone behaves in a way where if they behave that way, at a town hall, at a restaurant, you with your family would result in their severe ass beating. They deserve it at a political rally.

They deserve it at a private function and a public speaking engagement. And the right has not been doing that because we've been taking the high road and the left has acted with impunity. That's why you see professors. It's not just that they're showing children a snuff film on repeat in order to create a generation of psychopaths, by the way. That's how you do it. It's that so many professors are doing it because they don't fear any ramifications.

You can't find that on the right. Find me one example, one example of a Charlie Kirk, not an elected official, a person who did nothing more than express his opinion and allow anyone else to do the same who lost his life. And I also think in relation to that, that I saw Charlie Kirk's producer today getting quite emotional as he talked about the difference, for example, between the reaction to the murder of George Floyd, which I thought was done. despicable, and the murder of Charlie Kirk, which was despicable, is that one precipitated nationwide rioting and lawlessness as people was so enraged they took to the streets, and the other took to people going to church. Also, call me when Charlie Kirk died with a speaker, he mowed the woman with his toddler now. Let me, let me, exploit hurt people.

I thought it was an interesting observation, Joe, in terms of the difference. No, no, no. And I appreciate that, Pierce. sneak in one more thing before Stephen goes off. Also, the assassination of Democratic Melissa Hortman in Minnesota by an anti-abortion Trump supporter, you didn't see violence after that. And the other thing, you did not see after a, let me finish, Stephen, let me finish, brother. The man who blend Tim Walls, truth matters, truth, dishonesty foments violence, Joe. After a Democrat was assassinated in Minnesota, you also did not see the Democratic Party in the left declaring a war on the right saying that they did it.

They did it. The evildoers did it. This is a battle between good and evil. You didn't hear any of that when a Democrat was assassinated. We should condemn both, Pierce, condemn anybody celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder. Condem it. And we should also condemn any of. Anyone using Charlie Kirk's murder to call for some declare some war on half of the country, and this is a battle between good and evil. Both of those reactions are dangerous and despicable. Final word to Stephen. Stephen, final word to you. Even, you got the final word, man.

Wrong. I think using Charlie Kirk is saying that he sold his soul to Trump before the body is even cold. I agree with Charlie Kirk's reaction to George Floyd because the media lied. Lies, foment dishonesty. And I'm not calling for a civil war. I made it very clear. I want the left to be able to continue to speak without security, as they often do. I just want them to be deathly afraid to try what they've been doing with the right for a very long,

forever more going forward. But if we talk about this, hey, there's one time that there weren't rights. Yeah, what about all the times that there were and they weren't registered as violent crime? Charlie Kirk didn't hurt anybody. George Floyd did. Charlie Kirk is very, very different from George Floyd. Dishonesty is what ferments. I'll leave you with this, is what ferments violence.

And you know what? When you say war of good and evil, show me one time where the people who are actually evil are willing to paint a war of good and evil. Because you know what, if it ever comes to that, God forbid, maybe the people advocating for abortion up until and including birth and genital mutilation for children, including hiding them from their parents in the state of Minnesota. Maybe they could look around it themselves and say, hey, if this is a war of good and evil, maybe we're the bad guys. Okay. I'm going to leave it there. Thank you both very much. I appreciate it. Thanks, guys. If you're stressed about back taxes, miss the April deadline, or your books are a mess,

well, don't wait. The IRS is cracking 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. Call 800-958-1000 or visit t-nusa.com

slash peers. That's tnusa.com slash peers for expert help on your taxes. Charlie Kurt used news new media to devastating effect on his mission to mobilize young people of his conservative movement. He understood the power of a viral moment to cut through a complex argument and the great appetite for proper debate. There's two of many things we all love about our digital culture. There's plenty of things many of us find repellent about it too. Witch hunts, vile smears, we not dream of using in real life, and the business of saying things purely to generate attention through rage.

Many prominent figures on the right have accused Don Lemon of doing exactly that this week, ironically, for making the very same claim about them. The thing that is so obvious about it, and I think there's so disgusting, is that you don't really care. You don't really care about Charlie Kirk. What you care is that this is a moment that you can use for clicks to boost your podcast or your streaming show or your radio show

or your television show or your news show or your MAGA bona fides with the MAGA group or your political stripes that you can improve it where you can have a moment where you're crying in front of the cameras, you gather all the reporters at the Capitol, and you go, and it's your fault, and it's your fault, and it's the left and whatever. Well, Don Lemon is, of course, a former CNN anchor like me, who now hosts the Don Lemon Show,

to which appear frequently in many popular podcasts. And he joins me now. Don, how are you? I'm doing very well. How are you? Good to see you, Peter. We were both... Introduction, but it's great to see you. We were both greatly lamented ex-CNN anchors. we shared an office. You took my old office,

so I feel like we've got a lot in history together. Your reaction to Charlie Kirk's murder has stirred up a lot of anger on people on the right, particularly the clip we just heard where you talk about they're not really caring about what happened to him and just reacting for clicks, crying for clicks and so on. I've interviewed quite a few people who are on the conservative right.

You knew Charlie Kirk. Well, I've not detected any of that myself. I do think that they were genuinely utterly horrified by what happened. Do you not think that what you said there was insensitive? No, I don't. I'm surprised because I was actually taking up for Charlie Kirk. I was taking up for him as someone who died a horrible, untimely death and that there are people who are out here trying to capitalize off of his death.

I don't think it's that much different than what, you know, his friend, who is his confirmed friend, can't. is saying about folks who are using it for political and and and for career expediency. There are those who are doing it and there are those who are not. And if you are not, then I don't think anyone who's not doing it took any offense to it. You know there's an old saying here in America, hit dog will holler. So the ones, the folks who I felt a certain kind of way and that I touched with that statement or those statements, then perhaps they should take a look at themselves. And by the way, as you know, peers, you have been a victim of this.

Many of us have been a victim to this. You take a clip, you do a short clip that is out of context, and then you make it into something that you wanted to be rather than what I said. I don't see many people on the right at all of me saying, running clips of me saying, I think, you know, it was horrible what happened to Charlie Kirk. It should never have happened. I feel terrible for his wife and his kids. The kids are fatherless. The, she does not have a, husband right now. I don't believe in political violence at all, whether it comes from the right or the left. No one played those clips. What they did was take someone like me that they can demonize, they feel that I'm on the left. As you know, peers, we work together. I'm not on the

left. I am not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I'm not on the right either. I have my own mind and I make up my my mind and I decide on issues based on what I believe in and based on facts, not a certain political ideology. Well, you're, I mean, you know, I would say that you're clearly a lot more left than right, surely. I mean, I've never heard you espouse a conservative sentiment. I am a lot more fact-based than I am anything. And so I don't believe you are free to think that I'm on the left. And perhaps in this time that we're in now with the Trump administration and with MAGA,

perhaps facts are on the left. And if you deem that being on the left, then so be it. I don't see myself as being a political figure or a figure who's on the left. It's interesting your characterizes. about facts because, you know, I would argue that one of the reasons Trump got reelected against all the odds, if you think about what happened after January 6th and everything else, the fact that he got reelected, I always felt was three-pronged, right? One was immigration.

I think Biden completely dropped the ball with immigration, particularly on the southern border, second of the economy. And thirdly, the whole woke issue, the whole woke culture. And in particular, I would say, the issue, for example, of transatlanticism. athletes in women's sport, which is to me, if you're talking about facts, it is something that most Americans looked at and went, you know what, this is ridiculous. How can you deny biological reality? How can you go against scientific fact? So many would argue that it was the Democrats who lost track of facts and moved into a slightly strange, surreal place where they were

trying to deny stuff, which most Americans went, well, that's ridiculous. Look, I would not qualify it the way that you're qualifying it. I do believe that you have a point about the Democratic Party not understanding the moment that we're in, that America's in right now. As far as trans athletes, I think that was, although I understand to certain people, it is a big deal. It is such a minute, a small percentage of the population and the the trans athletes that are actually in schools and that are competing in, you know, in competitions. It's so minor.

It affects so few Americans. I'm shocked that it was used to the level that it was in the election and to great success. And so I must commend the Republicans on an issue that wasn't really an issue for most Americans that they made it into something that helped to catapult this president into office. But you see, I've heard a lot of Democrats using that argument.

And I said to them, you know, one of the most effective... I'm not saying you're a Democrat. I'm just saying I've heard a lot of Democrats say it. And my argument to them has been, yeah, but I don't, you know, the New York Times reported that the they-them ad that Trump put out, which gathered momentum and then became used more and more and more, was one of the most effective... I think it was extremely successful.

It was one of the most successful modern political adverse. Because it cut to the point. I think, again, about common sense that most Americans actually, you know, maybe they don't have it in their top five things they care about. I would absolutely accept that. But when you actually ask them, do you think this is fair? Do you think it's right? Do you think it's equal?

Do you think it's good that women's rights would be eroded? They actually then do get quite exercised about it. Hello and welcome. We'll be giving us some breaking news. Woke is dead. The war on common sense is officially over. canceled celebrities are emerging from Twitter jail. Virtory signaling has been outlawed under punishment of mass ridicule, and we are finally free to call a spade a spade. So what was the cause of

death? How did the silence majority finally win? And what exactly is going to take its place? Woke is dead is my definitive story on the rise and fall of Woke, as well as the common sense heroes and PC villains who have dominated news and culture across 10 years of madness. It's also my personal roadmap back to a less divided world. A world where we can agree to disagree, where debate triumphs of the censorship and where common sense is king. You will be shocked by how much you agree with me. Look, Pierce, I'm not here to argue over trans rights. I don't think it cut to necessarily cut to the argument of common sense. I think they found, simply found an issue that they could capitalize on based on fear or, you know, some perceived religious,

value or what have you. So I, you know, I'm not going to sit here and demonize trans people, trans women or trans men, because I just don't think that that is fair and, and that is productive in this moment. I'm not going to go back and litigate why Donald Trump won and on the, you know, the issue on trans. We simply disagree on that. I think it affects so few people. I think it was something that was blown out of proportion. And I, while, you know, there may be some people who were affected by it. And if they are, I'm sorry that that happens, but I happen or happens, but I just don't think that that was an issue that focuses on... So when you see, for example, in the Paris Olympics, when you saw Imman Khalif, an Algerian boxer who had been banned

from the World Championships for testing positive for male chromosomes, when you saw a young female Italian boxer quit after 40 seconds because she'd never been hit that hard and genuinely feared for her life. And Imam Khalif goes on to win gold medal at the Olympics. Does that not ring an alarm bell for you, Don? I mean, do you not think that the reason we separate sexes in the Olympics is because males have an advantage? I mean, why would you not think that's important? Do you want to tell you the truth? Yeah. Let me tell you about, peers, I'll tell you the truth about this. I heard about this story, but it's not something that I focus on. I'm not watching the Olympics like that. Maybe I'm different. I'm just not, I'm not that interested in watching everything.

I like to watch the swimming. I like to watch the gym, the gym nest. I'm not interested in boxing or any of that because I think it's a brutal sport anyway. So for me, it's just not that interesting. I'm sorry that anybody was hit that hard, but if you put yourself in the arena to be hit and someone hits you hard, then whose fault is that? Well, you expect to be hit by other women, not men. Well, I don't know that. I don't know who she expected to be hit by. I'm sure she saw, I'm sure whoever was in that competition, understood who they were going into the ring with. And if you put yourself in that competition in the middle of a ring where punches are being thrown, then you can expect to get hit hard whether it is a man or a woman. And that's all I have to say about that. So you would have no objection to men fighting women in a boxing ring.

I did not say that. I just said that's all I have to say about that. But isn't that the implication of what you're saying? No, I've said in many different ways, that's all I have to say about it. that. Right. I'm just trying to clarify what you just said about the boxing. Are you saying it's okay for men? I think I've been very clear. That's all I have to say. I think I've been very clear to you. That's all I have to say about it. If you don't play the tape back if you don't

understand. No, I'm just startled by what I think I just heard, which is you seem to think it's okay for men to hit women in a boxing ring. Is that what you said? Clarified you didn't. I didn't say. I don't think it's okay for men to hit women anywhere. So why would it be okay in a boxing ring? Well, again, I didn't say it's okay in a boxing ring. I just said that's all I have to say about it. I don't think it's okay for men to hit women. So then it sounds like you agree with me that biological men should not be competing against women in a boxing ring. Pears, no matter how hard you get tried to, I told you, that's it.

It's not a gotcha question. I'm not agreeing with you. It's not a gotcha question. I'm not saying it's a gotcha question. I'm just saying that I am done with this particular conversation. I don't think that it is productive. I've said what I said, and I'm not changing it. I don't agree with you. That's it.

But if you were doing your old show at CNN, you would have listened to your own response and gone, what exactly did he mean by that? I probably would have said, okay, that's what you said, and then I would move on. Okay, we'll move on. You've criticized the MAGA right for turning Charlie Kirk into a martyr.

You said, if a black man on the left went around saying what Kirk said, the right wouldn't consider him a hero. It's an interesting point. Let's take a listen. saying white women do not have brain processing power and are stealing jobs from black men, the right would fucking lose their minds. Mark Lamont Hill, Rowland, Michael Eric Dice. Let's say these brothers are Bacari sellers or someone like that.

If they went around saying some shit like that, they would be canceled immediately. they would be fired. People would scrub them from their whatever business that they work for. Or if they said, when I get on a plane and I see a white pilot, I'm like, damn, we're going to, you know, I'm worried. It's interesting because I've seen that blow up a lot

in the last few days. So I went back and actually watched exactly what Charlie came out. Where are you watching all this? I haven't seen any of this blowup that you're talking about. Oh yeah, it's been everywhere. Everyone's been showing clips of Charlie Kirk all week on social media. I have not seen. I have not seen it.

I guess maybe I'm just not on social media. What's interesting is when you watch it all in context, it's a discussion that is prompted by the fact that Joy Reid, who you know well, had admitted she only got into Harvard because of DEI. So he said it all in the context of her revealing that, which I think changes the impact of what he was saying. He wasn't just coming out with this. He was saying, there's Joy Reid admitting that she only got.

not into Harvard because of DEI. What's your question? So my question is you've cited that example of him just unilaterally saying black women don't have the brain processing power and so on. But when you actually watch the whole clip in context, that's not what he said. You're making my point about the clip before, and which is the same point about the clip now that you played of me, where the context is explained, which is he was talking about not only Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee and Katanji Brown Jackson, and it wasn't DEI that they were referring to. They were having discussions about affirmative action and about qualified people, qualified women of color, who were offered opportunities or given opportunities that they may not have been given if it were not for affirmative action,

and nothing to do with diversity, equity, and inclusion. And so what he said, and I watched the clip, he said that what they were admitting to is that they were somehow a DEI hire and so on and about brain processing power. I would suggest that you go back and listen to the clip that he, that clip in context of what he was saying. He clearly said what he said, and I guess because of political ideology or because of bias, people are trying to interpret it and make it into something else.

That is not what he said, okay? He was very clear about the brain processing or lack of brain. processing power for black women or for those black women. With Charlie Kirk's death, a lot of people on the left have come out gleefully celebrating what happened. A lot of people have been posting stuff on social media, very happy. And they've turned out to be teachers, professors, you know, doctors, nurses. I mean, people in extraordinary positions of power over other human beings.

What should happen to those people? Well, I think that we should look at every circumstances. It should be taken on their, the circumstances should be taken on their own merit, and what should happen to them should be taken, you know, an individual merit. We should look at each of them. Now, I don't believe that anyone should be celebrating anybody's death at all, ever. And I don't think anyone should be celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. We know, and you know, peers, that freedom of speech does come with consequences.

And there are limits, there are limitations to freedom of speech. And if you work for a private company, they have the right to fire you or discipline you for whatever it is that they want. And if you break the rules, their codes of conduct, then you have to suffer the circumstances. So look, I 100% unequivocally believe that no one should be celebrating anything. And if any of those people broke the rules of their employer, their codes of conduct, then they should be disciplined or fired if it warrants it. Do you agree? But I don't believe in canceling people. Right.

I think there's a lot of cancellation. going on on the right right now, and I'm not comfortable with it. I wasn't comfortable with it on the left either. Right. Do you feel you were a victim of cancel culture at CNN? Probably. I don't think, I look at everything as an opportunity. Probably, yes. I'm sure that I was a victim of cancel culture, but I would say mostly on the right for cancel culture. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, this is what led to you leaving CNN. Let's take a look at the clip. She says people, you know, politicians or something are not in their prime.

Nikki Haley is in her prime. Sorry. A woman is considered to be in her prime in her 20s and 30s and maybe 40s. What do you talk? Wait. That's not according to me. Prime for what? It depends. I mean, it's just like prime.

If you look it up, if you Google, when is a woman in her prime, it'll say 20s, 30s, and 40s. I don't necessarily. Oh, I got it another decade. And that's thing I agree with that. So I think she has to be careful about saying that. When you watch that, Don, I happen to be watching, that live. And I was like, whoa, what did you say? Do you, I mean, if you had a do-over, would you say that again? I mean, what led you to say that? Okay, peers, let me just say this.

I'm going to answer your question, but just so the audience knows, and I hope you don't cut this out, when I ask you what subjects you wanted to talk about, you know what you said to me? You said, I want to talk to you about freedom of speech in America and the response to Charlie Kirk's death. Yeah. Not once did you mention that we were going to talk about CNN or whatever. And had I known that, I probably wouldn't accept this interview. You have invited me on many times, and I tell you, peers, I know you. I would come on your show, but I don't do panels. And so when you said, I'm not going to be involved in a panel, I agree to come on your show. But I thought you would also stick by the subjects that you told me

that you were going to talk about. Just to be clear, Don, don't, just to be clear. You and I haven't, well, don't, just to be clear, you and I haven't had any conversation about your appearance here. You're talking about my team talking to you? Yeah, no. And I. saw you peers in a restaurant and I said hey Pierre is good to see you I would come on your show but I don't do panels right and I said the same thing to your bookers. There's only one of you don't. And so when I asked

you and right okay and so yes and I said that's why I agree to do it but when you asked me or when your your team asked me what subjects and I asked them two or three times I have the text messages what do you want to cover not once with CNN mentioned so I don't appreciate being ambush

but let me answer your question since you hang on one second. Okay, don't hang on one second. Let's just be crystal clear about what's just happened. You brought up the subject of cancel culture. I asked you, did you feel your departure from CNN was an example of that? And you answered the question. And I think it's perfectly reasonable. And I answer the question. Perfectly reasonable in that, if you said to me, I don't want to talk about it. Fine. I'm not so sorry. You said what you're going to say. That is completely disingenuous. Don, we don't want to get. I don't like arguing like this.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you. Pierce, I think that's completely disingenuous. And I think anyone watching that. What are you talking about? And so if you will let me, if you will allow me, please, please stop interrupting me. Okay. I'm, did you invite me here to interrupt me? Are you going to let me answer to the question? I think you're being a complete dick, if I'm honest with you. Okay. I do. Well, that's very kind and respectful of you. It wasn't intended to be kind or respectful. I don't like the hominem attacks. I could respond in kind, but I won't because I think that I am. I think that I'm above that. I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't, the victim car when you yourself mentioned cancel culture.

Because peers, oh my gosh, okay, hold on, let me just say, let me do this. What are you going to do? Read out my team's messages to you. It should be embarrassing. Yeah, I can read out the team messages to you because I just think it's completely unfair. And you know that. I'm prepared to answer your question and then I'm going to move on. I told you I'm prepared to talk about Charlie Kirk's death, the response to it, and cancel culture. and freedom of the press,

and freedom of speech. You were prepared to talk about cancel culture or you were? Unless you... No. I'm not prepared to talk about cancel culture. But that has... Oh my God, Pierce, could you stop interrupting me?

Not really. You're kind of exhausting me. It's ridiculous. Why would you react this way? Obviously, if you mentioned cancel culture, obviously it's rational and logical that I would ask you whether you felt what happened.

happened to you at CNN was that? I played the clip and then you throw a easy for it. I've given you a moment. Enough. I've given you your moment. I don't want a moment. It's going to go viral. So please enough. Yes, you do. Otherwise you wouldn't do. Otherwise you would be a respectful journalist and host and you would let me talk. I don't think you'll take lectures of being respectful journalists. Because you want a moment. Oh my gosh, Peters. I won't. I can't even hear because there's a delay and you keep talking. And I mean, what do you want me to do? Like rip the earpiece out in the mic and run off so you have a moment. No, I don't care. You do it in your life. Are you just going to keep, are you just going to keep pilloring me with questions and badgered me and cutting me off the quiet answer? I don't understand any of it. Why have you done this weird reaction? I simply asked you about whether you felt your departure from CNN was in your eyes an example of cancel culture. I played the clip. And I then said, when you watch it back, do you really understand what you were saying?

This is why I don't do this. But you're embarrassing yourself, peers. I see, you might be embarrassing yourself, Don't. Oh my God. Okay. Yeah. You might be. Have you thought of that? Okay. You're a journalist. You don't want to talk about a story, a massive story that involved you? Pierce, can we move on? You can let me answer the question and then we can talk about the things that you invited me on. Why don't you just answer the question to start with?

And we've gotten so far away from what you wanted me to answer that we're off into La La La Land. So let me just let me say something about that. The clip that you played had nothing to do with me leaving CNN, okay? And unless you know something that I don't know about me leaving CNN, then you should tell me about it, it had nothing to do. I worked there for months after that. So that had nothing to do with it. And so, you know, I forget the other thing that you were asking me about in that clip. I asked you, when you watched the clip back, if you could explain what was going through your mind,

that's all. Thank you. I think the key phrases in that clip, if you want to be honest, and I want you to listen to it is that I'm not saying that I believe that. That's not according to me. What I'm speaking for, what I was speaking for there is how society treats women. And someone like Nikki Haley should know women have been discriminated against for centuries. She should be more careful than to say something that discriminates against older people.

That's it. And so people took that out of context. No one puts in the, whenever they write about it that I said, I'm not saying that. I don't believe that. I said that very clearly there. So that is not the reason that I was let go from CNN. And so, again, unless you know something, then, you know, go ahead and start. As you know, it was widely reported that was.

So what was the reason? Don't believe everything you read. What was the reason? I don't know. You don't know? No. But it all happened after that incident. You know that.

Yeah. Well, Peers, everything happens after something. I don't understand what your point is. My point is, I think, it's quite newsworthy. If you say it had nothing to do with that, then it'll raise the obvious question. I don't think it's newsworthy, peers. That was three years ago.

Right. It's not newsworthy. News means something that's new. This isn't new. Right. That was three years ago. That's been all litigated. If you want to find out about it,

you are free to be able to read the interviews that I read. you're free to read the statement that if you, I mean, perhaps your folks should pull up the statement when I left CNN, and that can explain to you what happened. So this is nothing new. You just told me you've no idea why you were let go. I moved on. I'm doing something completely different. And so that's that. Rob, you just said you've no idea why they got rid of you? I did. So how do you know it wasn't to do with the clip we just played? I just said that. I just said. I just answered your question. Now, what else? What else do you want to talk about? What do you want to talk about, Don? The subjects that you invited me on to discuss, Piers. I thought that included free speech and everything around that. I know that I know you're loving this viral moment.

I just think that you're embarrassing yourself in this moment. I don't think you understand what me at all? I don't have nothing against you at all. Never have had. I was perfectly... Pierce, you think I don't understand you? Pears, I worked with you for years. I know more about you probably than most people who are watching this program

and most people, a lot of the people who are working with you. Right. I worked with your staff. I inherited, hang on, I inherited your staff at CNN. I know way more about you than I would care to know. I know way more about how you do business and how you approach journalism than I care to know. I have not been on anyone else's show. I don't want to be on anybody's show.

I don't want to do panel shows. I don't want to argue with people about things that are inconsequential. What we should be talking about right now is how to keep what happened to Charlie Kirk from happening to anybody else. That's where the conversation should be. but instead you're trying to get a moment, you're trying to make some news out of something, but go ahead, have your fun. But we should be discussing something

that is productive to the American people instead of something, instead of you, going into the garbage and trying to find something that will, you know, give you a moment or that you will, you know, get a click out of it or more viewers for your program. You sound very bitter, Dom. Beers, are you kidding me?

No. Bitter. I'm like, I'm the happiest go-lucky person ever. I'm just exposing your hypocrisy and how you lied to me about what you wanted to discuss. I've never talked to you about this interview at all. You don't, then you don't have conversations with your producers?

So your producers lied to me or you don't, you're not that involved. You've been admitted. You're not that. You're not that involved. We're not that involved in the editorial process of your own show where they don't convey to you.

By your own admission. You know what, Don't. The guest is going, what the guest is going to talk. You know what Don't? You obviously expected some... Are you not that involved in the editorial process of your own show that you don't know that period? You've already admitted that one of the subjects was free speech.

And yet here you are getting enraged about me exercising my right to free speech to ask you a few questions. Peers, I'm not enraged. I'm not enraged at all. I think this is kind of funny. I'm not enraged at all. I mean, it's kind of exactly what the... You know, I thought like, hey, I don't want to go on the Peers Morgan show because of the spectacle of it. all. And so that's confirmation of that. But I'm glad you got this moment. This is a moment for me as well

that's going to play out on social media. It's going to be good for me too. So go for it. What moment do you think we've got? Beers. Come on. Come on. I don't know what you mean. Come on. Let's do something that's more productive than this. Well, look, you know, honestly, when you do this, when you say that I'm into journalism, you do this or like, it's not journalism, you've taken a, big, big, big, high moral ground about... Hang on. Hang on. I'll ask a question. I am taking a moral high ground. Pierce, you should know better than anyone where this conversation

should be going, especially since you understand what happened at CNN with you. With gun control in the United States. That was a big thing for you when you were at CNN. And I'm not sure what happened if that was part of the reason that you were let go. But, you know, hey, Pierce, this is Don Lemon. I know you. I've worked with you. I know a lot about you. So let's just move on and be adults. And so let's talk about, I think, something that would be important to you, and that is sensible gun legislation in the United States that would have perhaps prevented the untimely and sad death of Charlie Kirk. Can we do that? How would it have prevented it happening?

Why don't you tell me? Because you are an expert on the subject, at least you were when you were working at CNN, you were very pro gun legislation, and I believe, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, pro, you know, gun control. Yeah, I don't understand how you stop a deranged young man who the investigators say has become radicalized to the left from taking his grandfather's old rifle and using it to fire one bullet that kills Charlie Kirk. If you can think of a legislation that would stop that. I think you just answered that. You said your grandfather's, your grandfather's, your grandfather's old rifle. So look, perhaps it should have been in a safer place. Would you know where it was?

There should be rules. Hang on. There should be rules as it relates to people, young people in the house who can have possession of guns. There are a whole lot of things that we can talk about as it relates to sensible gun control and rules and laws around guns. And so, you know, I don't know the circumstances in his home. I just, I do know that it was a conservative MAGA family, a gun-loving family. And so perhaps if we didn't have more guns than people in the United States and our gun laws weren't so lax, perhaps we could prevent a whole lot of these deaths. You know, you're in the UK all over Europe, all over different continents and different countries in the world. Everybody has mental health issues. Everyone has problems. But you know

what they don't have? As easy access to guns as Americans do, and as many guns as Americans, do. And so that is the only difference in this. And so to me and to most sensible people in this country and all over the world, it would, it seems to us and me that perhaps if we got a handle on that, we could, we too could be like England. We too could be like Ireland. We too could be like Italy. We too could be like even countries that are not a part of Europe. We too could be that way. And do you think that one of the reasons why this shooter killed Charlie Kirk was because he didn't like his opinions?

If what law enforcement said about if the text messages or if that all comes out in evidence and they are true, then yeah, I think he's given his reasons. I think he gave the reasons. He didn't like what Charlie Kirk stood for. He didn't like what he said. I don't believe that's a reason to him. kill anybody or shoot anyone.

But if this is true, he is admitted to that. Okay. And finally, Don, we started this, just to be fair. You said you don't like the way that the MAGA crowd have reacted to Charlie Kirk because they're doing it just for clicks and stuff about somebody's death. And yet my team... Some of them. I said some of them.

I said some of them, not all of them. Which ones in particular are you thinking of? Well, if you go back and watch the Don Lemon show on YouTube, or if you watch Don Lemon on social media, you will find I mention certain people and you can find it there. So you object to click-baity headlines about people and death?

Do I object to what? Click-baiting headlines about people and death. Not necessarily. I think that's part of our culture. I think it's part of our culture and I think it's... Is it something you ever do?

It is a byproduct, please, of our siloed media. And I think people, perhaps sometimes do it to get attention, whether it's right or whether it's wrong, but sometimes people do it to break through, whether that's right or wrong. It's just simply what it is. That's a matter of that. Do you ever do it? I don't think I do it to any more so than anyone else. I don't think I do it any more so than the Peers Morgan show or any other show that is based on YouTube. I'm going to curious because two weeks ago,

you'll tell you have to do something that you have to do something that I'm not done talking at I'm not done talking to peers. I didn't finish my statement. I say sometimes you have to do things to get people's attention so that they can click on something and to see if it is important or not and they can make up their own decision about if they want to continue on with the content or not. Go on. That's the whole point of clip, but yeah. You had a headline two weeks ago. Hot takes. Could Donald Trump be dying? Yeah, a lot of folks did. I think you probably did a show on that as well. No, I didn't. And because people were asking, if you look at even in some of the mainstream media, people were asking, Donald Trump's administration was not transparent about how sick he was during COVID. And so what leads people to believe that Donald Trump's administration is going to be transparent about what's happening with him now, about what's happening with his hands, about what's happening with his ankles, about what's happening with his health.

He is the leader of the free world. People have the right, especially Americans, to know the health of their president. He wasn't dying. You knew he wasn't dying. He's obviously not dying. And he were doing it for Clickmate, which is a very thing. I didn't say he was dying. Could Donald Trump be dying because people are asking if he's dying? That's it.

Got it. Got it. I don't see that there's anything wrong with that. No. Don Lemon. Thank you very much. Do you? We run out of time, Don. You know what it's like in the news business.

Yeah. Thank you, Pierce. Thanks for coming on UnsenSense. Pierce Morgan Unsensored 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.