Piers Morgan examines Matthew McConaughey's emotional White House speech featuring Maitai Rodriguez's restored sneakers, debating its efficacy against entrenched gun laws with Tommy Lehron, Gerardo Rivera, and Jerry Springer. The episode shifts to Imran Khan detailing assassination fears from powerful Pakistani families and his regret over meeting Vladimir Putin post-Ukraine invasion, before concluding with a panel dissecting Boris Johnson's survival amid "Party Gate" accusations and moral criticisms from Lord Geoffrey Archibald and Bonnie Greer. Ultimately, the discussion highlights how personal tragedy, geopolitical miscalculations, and political scandals converge to challenge democratic institutions globally. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Red Flag Laws and Rights00:15:09
Appears Morgan Uncensor coming up tonight.
These are the same green converss on her feet that turned out to be the only clear evidence that could identify her after the shooting.
How about that?
The moment of truce.
Matthew McConaughey visits the United States on gun violence.
Is this finally America's trigger for change?
And he's out but batting back.
A world-class sportsman turned world leader.
He ousted Imran Khan's gripping interview on Putin, Boris Johnson, and assassination threats.
When I entered politics, I actually had conquered my fear of dying.
If I were advising President Putin, I would not have gone there.
Prime Minister having a drinks get together after work would not even have made news here.
I want to start tonight with an image that I can't get out of my head.
It's this pair of green Converse sneakers, a hand-drawn heart on the right toe.
They belonged to Maitai Rodriguez, a nine-year-old girl who was gunned down in the Uvalde school massacre.
18 other children and two teachers were killed alongside her.
Well, last night, the actor Matthew McConaughey, who was born in Uvalde, spoke at the White House and gave a speech that I believe will be a seminal moment in America's gun violence debate.
He asked his wife Camilla to bring those shoes to the briefing room.
Camilla's got these shoes.
Can you show these shoes, please?
Wore these every day.
Green Converse with a heart on the right toe.
These are the same green converse on her feet that turned out to be the only clear evidence that could identify her after the shooting.
How about that?
I have a 10-year-old daughter.
She wears sneakers.
She loves to draw.
I can't even begin to comprehend the scale of a horror like this.
Nobody should.
It's not normal.
It's not okay.
And it's clear that McConaughey can't comprehend it either.
He was visibly stung as he described meeting a cosmetologist who worked with the bodies of the tiny victims.
This is difficult, but we have to watch it.
That's the task of making the victims appear as peaceful and natural as possible for their open casket viewings.
These bodies were very different.
They needed much more than makeup to be presentable.
They needed extensive restoration.
Why?
Due to the exceptionally large exit wounds of an AR-15 rifle.
Most of the bodies so mutilated that only DNA test or green converse could identify.
Many children were left not only dead, but hollow.
It's gut-wrenching, isn't it?
And once you have that appalling imagery in your head, there's no escaping it, and nor should there be.
I don't think there's been a more powerful or harrowing speech at the White House briefing room, maybe ever.
And it was about so much more than just raw emotion.
McConaughey wasn't there to take sides or to lecture responsible gun owners to disarm or to preach from a lofty Hollywood platform about the ignorance of one side or the other.
He didn't take sides.
He even spoke about Ovalde being the place where he'd learned to be a responsible gun owner himself.
Now, this was an appeal to all Americans, whatever their views about guns.
You know what?
Every one of these parents wanted what they asked us for.
They want to make their loss of life matter.
Look, we heard from so many people, right?
Families of the deceased, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, Texas Rangers, hunters, Border Patrol, and responsible gun owners who won't give up their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
And you know what they all said?
We want secure and safe schools, and we want gun laws that won't make it so easy for the bad guys to get these damn guns.
I mean, who wouldn't want that?
It's just common sense.
What Matthew McConaughey has done is changed the tone of the gun debate from toxic, charged, partisan muzzling to a more respectful rhetoric intended to unify Americans, to bring about change that could potentially save countless innocent lives.
But why has it taken an actor to do this?
Well, he wasn't really speaking as an actor, nor as a politician.
He was speaking as a father, as a man from Uvalde, a town whose grief has become the world's pain.
And to me, his speech felt like a turning point.
At least I hope it is.
We've got a chance right now to reach for and to grasp a higher ground above our political affiliations.
We start by making the loss of these lives matter.
They have to.
Otherwise, where are we?
If you can't make lives matter when 19 children are gunned down at school, well, when can you?
And if not now, then when?
Well, joining me now as Fox Nation host Tommy Lehron, journalist and lawyer Gerardo Rivera, and former Democrat mayor and TV legend Jerry Springer.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Three people with, I guess, slightly different perspectives on all this.
Tommy, I know your position, very pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment.
You've been quite critical of McConaughey today.
Gerardo, I know that you think it was, like me, a brilliant speech, and you're a conservative who says that, which is significant.
And Jerry, you and I have discussed guns many times over the years.
We worked together, and you're on the Democrat side of this.
Before we get into the debate, there was a very interesting clip I found from when I interviewed Matthew McConaughey for Good Morning Britain about 18 months ago about what he saw as the real fundamental problem about democratic debate right now.
Listen to this.
The extreme left and the extreme right completely illegitimize the other side.
Or they exaggerate that side's stance into an irrational state that makes no sense.
And that's not fair when either side does that.
Haraldo, I want to start with you, because I thought he really hit the nail on the head there, that all these debates now, guns, abortion, whatever it is, you get the extremities on both sides who scream the loudest.
They abuse each other.
They mock each other.
There's no consensus anymore.
The sides don't come together and reach points of agreement.
And what I thought was so striking about McConaughey's speech yesterday was he didn't seek to be incendiary.
He wasn't really lecturing either side about their behavior.
He just wanted to try and bring people together to try and bring some kind of sensible move to try and stop this kind of thing happening.
I thought, Piers, that it was the most brilliant, heartfelt speech I had ever heard about gun control, gun legislation, responsible gun ownership, however you want to characterize it.
I think that people who seek to belittle him as an actor or product of Hollywood, you know, brush over the fact that he was a dad with children.
He is a dad with children.
That is his birth town.
It was very clear that it ripped his heart out as it should to all of us.
It was just gut-wrenching.
It's just one of those things, Piers, that my frustration about this is I don't think any of it matters.
I don't think that Matthew McConaughey's speech, I don't think anyone is listening.
Those who are listening are already convinced.
You know, the Second Amendment looms like this, you know, this arbitrary, monstrous kind of edict that you must allow even crazy people to have weapons.
I feel awful about what happened.
Everyone in the United States, everyone across the world, as you suggest, in the UK and elsewhere, just feels that this has been a savage, savage event.
I just, despite Matthew McGonaghy's eloquence, and believe me, I really do believe this is the best speech ever on this topic, I fear nothing will happen, Pierre.
I mean, that's incredibly dispiriting to hear that.
Tommy, I want to play another clip that Matthew McConaughey said.
This is where he presented what he felt were the things that needed to be done.
So let's listen to this.
We need to restore our family values.
We need to restore our American values.
And we need responsible gun ownership, responsible gun ownership.
We need background checks.
We need to raise the minimum age to purchase an AR-15 rifle to 21.
We need a waiting period for those rifles.
We need red flag laws and consequences for those who abuse them.
Tommy, what part of that doesn't make complete sense?
And in particular, in light of what happened at Avalde?
Well, I will say I do agree with him on restoring family values and American values.
And I think a lot of this discussion and the tragedies that have happened in our country, both in Uvalde and elsewhere across our inner cities, every single weekend where we see violence running rampant in a culture of lawlessness, I think restoring American values, family values, and changing our culture is incredibly important.
And I'm glad that he mentioned that and brought it up.
And I'd like to say I do give him a lot of credit for his speech.
I'm not saying that his speech was bad.
I'm not saying it offended me.
I'm just saying this.
Our constitutional rights do not come from Matthew McConaughey, any other actor, any other athlete, anybody.
If he wants to run for office and be elected and change our laws and policies, I would encourage him to go for it.
But I will say this.
When we start unraveling gun control and gun rights, there is a discussion that can be had, Piers.
And I'm not somebody that is so staunch in my beliefs of the Second Amendment that I don't believe there's any room for a conversation.
I do believe that there are.
I don't believe that there's a problem with increased background checks.
However, when we start talking about red flag laws, this is where we have to really unravel this and have a discussion because there's a lot in the Second Amendment community, a lot of folks that are very worried that someone will be able to infringe upon our right to gun ownership based on a he said, she said, saying, oh, this person's crazy, that person's crazy, seeking a vendetta that will infringe on someone's constitutional.
What about the specific point, Tommy?
What about the specific...
What about the specific?
I'm not disputing you don't raise valid points about red flag laws.
It have to be run properly.
But on this simple point, that he was three years too young, this shooter at Uvalde, to buy a beer.
But he could buy a semi-automatic rifle with no training.
What possible logic is there that you shouldn't just raise, as McConaughey says, the age limit as a bare minimum to 21 for kids and make it the same age as for buying a beer?
Well, I have to ask you this, Pierre.
Anytime we're discussing raising the age for things or changing policy, we need to ask, is the government really the solution here?
Would this person who shot his grandmother in the face and then went on to shoot children in a massacre, would it matter if he was 18 or if he was 21?
Are those that have mental illness, those that seek to destroy and kill and terrorize?
Do they care if they're 18, 19?
Okay, but tell me, okay.
Let me ask you this then.
Why have any laws?
Against anything.
If your belief is that criminals will do it anyway, why have laws against murder, armed robbery, anything?
I mean, the whole point of law, isn't it, is that you try, you're not going to eliminate it.
McConaughey said, we're not going to get rid of the problem.
What you hope to do by making further restrictions is you reduce, hopefully, the level of gun violence, which as you know, America isn't just number one in the world for this kind of thing.
It has more gun violence than the next 21 wealthiest countries in the world combined.
So there's clearly a problem.
I think McConaughey is just trying to work out what can we all agree on.
And I just don't think anyone, I've not met anyone in America, frankly, who thinks it makes any sense that he couldn't buy a beer for another three years, but he could buy a semi-automatic rifle.
I hear the argument, well, he's old enough to be in the military.
Well, yeah, my brother was a British Army colonel, just retired.
And, you know, he, when he was 18, went into the military.
But he received strict training regularly about his firearms, constantly updated training.
A civilian doesn't need to do that.
They can just wander down, pass a cursory background check, and buy a military-style semi-automatic rifle.
It's that that I think is crazy.
Jerry, I want to bring you in on this because you've always had a view about this, which I think I've shared.
I accept completely, by the way, that as a Brit, it's not for me to change American laws.
But do you think, Jerry, coming from the world of entertainment, as you did now, but previously politics, do you think Matthew McConaughey and this extraordinary speech could actually affect change?
Well, certainly it'll have some impact.
But the fact is, the American people are virtually all or pretty close to all in agreement on the major idea of some kind of gun control.
Most Americans absolutely believe that we ought to have background checks, that there ought to be red flag laws.
In fact, most Americans believe that we ought to ban assault weapons.
So it's not the problem that the American people don't want the change.
The problem is in a number of issues, we have a system whereby the government doesn't necessarily represent the will of the voters.
It's a structural problem in the government.
So you can have a few United States senators that can simply block any reasonable legislation.
If you just let it up to a vote of the American people, do you think for a second the idea of background checks wouldn't pass?
Do you think for a second we wouldn't be banning assault weapons?
I mean, talk about an issue that doesn't have another side.
Other than killing people is one thing.
And two, possibly because you're a collector, what in the world does anyone outside of the military need an assault weapon for?
We don't let people have hand grenades.
We don't let people have rocket launchers.
It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Assault Weapons Regulations Debate00:04:10
Every single right in the Constitution is permitted to be regulated if there is a legitimate governmental purpose.
So for example, in the Constitution, we have the right, Americans have the right to travel.
We have the right to get on airplanes and go places.
When 9-11 happened, we had regulations of that right to travel.
When we got on a plane now, we have to have our luggage inspected.
We have to empty our pockets.
We go through metal detectors.
When you have free speech, which is the First Amendment, there are regulations on that.
Yelling fire in the theater, or at four o'clock in the morning, going with a loudspeaker during a residential neighborhood and preaching your gospel.
No, the police can come and say, I'm sorry, you're not allowed to be using your microphone at four o'clock in the morning in a residential neighborhood.
We can have regulations.
This is a form of.
I think that's absolutely correct.
I mean, Geraldo, I suppose it seems to me this only gets resolved if the people that Matthew McConaughey, I think he includes himself, responsible gun owners in America reach an agreement that they are prepared to bring in new restrictions without that.
And I think that's where McConaughey was very clever.
He didn't try and demonize gun owners.
He didn't call for any gun bans.
What he said was: it's incumbent on responsible gun owners to look in the mirror, to find humility, to find knowledge, to find wisdom, and to find a way through this because the world is watching.
You know, I remember covering Sandy Hook and thinking, well, nothing will be the same again, as it wasn't after 9-11, as Jerry said.
And yet, nothing changed.
And here we are, 10 years later, and you have almost an exact replica of what happened at Sandy Hook.
We do.
First of all, I'd like to say hi to Mayor Springer, my former colleague in the daytime talk arena.
Jerry, great to be on the show with you.
Tommy, I see you much more often.
You know, Piers, I wish that I had a more optimistic message.
I wish that, as in most of human nature, what you said was true, that the consensus wants this, and therefore ultimately this will happen.
This is not that situation, as you personally experienced, Piers, in your U.S. tenure.
This is a lobby that is absolutely intransigent.
There is no movement whatsoever.
For example, ever since the Parkland massacre in Florida, I had happened to have dinner with President and Mrs. Trump, a private dinner, just the family.
It was actually the president and his sons, Laura, at the Mar-a-Lago.
And the president had just left the hospital, Parkland Hospital, and he had seen the damage caused by that military-style assault weapon, how it had evaporated entire limbs and heads and eviscerated these people, how it was, he had never seen anything like it.
He was deeply shaken and he was moved.
So I proposed to him, I said, Mr. President, Nicholas Cruz, the shooter in this case, at 19 years old, how can it be that he can't have a beer, as you said, Piers, and he can buy this weapon?
How can that be that he can access that?
The same thing in Sandy Hook with Adam Lanza.
The same thing recently in Buffalo and of course in Uvalde, where you have these teenagers that are absolutely restricted in U.S. law from alcohol consumption by driving a truck or anything like that, but yet they can buy these weapons.
I propose to the president a juvenile assault weapons ban, a juvenile assault weapon.
We can do this.
We can get the age from 18 to 21.
I'm not banning anything.
I'm not taking any of your assault weapons.
I have this modest step, logical step.
If you can't drink a beer, you can't buy an assault weapon.
Let's just do that.
And I swear to God, I have seen the iron doors close to the corner.
Well, I hope, like I said, I hope that's not the case.
I just want to end this debate with just playing one more clip.
This is Dr. Roy Guerrero.
Ukraine War Hypocrisy Risks00:13:25
He was the pediatrician who actually witnessed and had to treat some of the young bodies.
And he said this.
Two children whose bodies had been pulverized by bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been ripped apart, that the only clue as their identities was a blood-spidered cartoon clothes still clinging to them.
I don't know how anyone can listen to stuff like that about kids in classrooms when they should be nurturing their lives, being taught, educating, moving on, and not actually want to do something.
So I just hope people listen to that speech by McConaughey, listen to the testimony today of the young kids who smeared themselves with their friends' blood in the classrooms so that they could pretend to be dead.
Listen to these people who had to treat these bodies and then look at that pair of sneakers and understand that the mother of that little girl, Maite, they could only recognize that little girl from her sneakers.
And if that doesn't affect change, I really don't know what ever will.
Thank you to my panel.
I really appreciate it.
And I think I want to carry on this debate in the spirit that Matthew McConaughey wants to do it, which is not to demonize anyone on any of the sides here, just to somehow try and affect some change.
So thank you to Jerry, Gerardo, and Tommy.
I much appreciate it.
Well, on Season next, ousted Pakistan Prime Minister and former Playboy cricketer Imran Khan on politics, Putin and survival.
I have no fear of dying.
From your point of view in Britain, of what I know, I understand that you expect from your leadership the standards you expect them to lead by example.
Welcome back to Petersburg and our sensor.
We're now in an interview with a giant of world sport, even bigger giant of world politics.
Imran Khan was one of the finest cricketers on the planet over 10 years as captain of Pakistan.
He became the nation's hero and then later, sensationally, its prime minister.
But he was deposed after losing an acrimonious confidence vote in April.
So I began by asking for his verdict on the British Prime Minister, who, of course, has just about survived his.
I keep telling our people in Pakistan that this would not even have made news here.
You know, in time of COVID-19, a prime minister having a drinks get-together after work would not even have made news here because we also, like the rest of the world, we also had to cope with COVID-19 and all the restrictions.
So, you know, here people can't understand what's going on, but I understand, and I, in one way, this is one thing which I feel that the reason why British parliamentary system works, whereas apart from non-Anglo-Saxon countries, it doesn't work because of the very high level of moral standards you expect from your leadership.
So, unfortunately, it doesn't work in other countries where they do not have the level of moral standards that you expect from your parliamentarians.
Right, I mean, I think that the issue here really is not about partying, it's about the hypocrisy and double standard of a prime minister who himself was fined by the police for breaking his own lockdown rules.
And over 80 of his own Downing Street staff were also fined by the police.
And it's the brazen double standard of a group of people that were ordering the British public not to even go and see dying relatives dying from COVID in hospital.
They couldn't do that.
And at the same time, the people making those very draconian rules were brazenly breaking them themselves.
I think that's the issue.
What stood out in Britain was that high level, I repeat, of moral standards you expect from your leadership.
In Pakistan, the vote of no confidence against me, which took place, the whole country knew that the going rate to buy my parliamentarians was a million dollars.
So, I mean, if you compare the two, that's why, you know, in my opinion, and I keep telling them of my experience in British of parliament, that unless we raise our level of morality to what you have in Britain, parliamentary democracy will not work.
If all it takes is to buy 20 of your members of parliament to switch sides and a government falls.
In fact, the whole concept of democracy or parliamentary democracy then gets challenged.
So, you know, from your point of view in Britain, of what I know, I understand that you expect from your leadership the standards, you expect them to lead by example.
It's been very volatile since you were deposed.
You vowed to come back and fight again.
You think you're going to win with a bigger majority, I believe.
But one issue that's come up in the last few days is there appears to be a serious threat of assassination against you.
And I have to say, the last leader of Pakistan I spoke to was Benazir Bhutto.
And it wasn't long after I met her that she was indeed assassinated.
So this is a very serious risk that you all face, I think, when you lead a country like Pakistan.
What do you know about these threats?
How seriously are you taking them?
Well, Piers, what happened was that this was clearly a conspiracy.
And, you know, I've spoken about the conspiracy because I came to know about it about six months before I actually, before this vote of no confidence took place.
And all the time I thought it wouldn't succeed.
You know, for some reason I thought that it's not possible that the conspiracy was to replace me by the guys who for 30 years had been in power, the two families, and there were massive corruption cases against them.
60% of the cabinet that has replaced me is on bail or billions of rupees of corruption cases.
So my mind just wouldn't accept that would it be possible to replace our government, which had finally recovered from all the two years of crises and was on the way up.
I just didn't think it would be replaced by these criminals.
So those who sort of planned this whole thing are a bit worried now because they don't want me back.
They didn't take me out to get me back in again.
So that's when I found out that they had planned this final solution.
You were known, Imran, on the cricket field, you were known as completely fearless.
No opponent ever put fear into you.
But when you're a political leader and you're in the situation that you're in now, where there's a genuine threat against you of assassination, do you feel fear?
You know, Piers, well, when I entered politics, I actually had conquered my fear of dying.
Otherwise, I would not have entered politics because I came in to stand up against the entire status quo.
I came to fight corruption.
Today, the entire political spectrum, 16 parties on one side, and I'm on the other side.
And because this was the status quo, which has 60 years of the last 62 years, half has been ruled by the military and half by these two families.
So I came to fight these two families.
And this is really what I've done.
And they have made so much money out of this that they obviously, clearly someone like me is a threat.
And that's why this foreign-backed conspiracy involving local players took place.
Now, I know that they would try to...
My life has had various threats over a period of time.
But this time, I found out about this conspiracy, so I went public.
The reason, I have no fear of dying, but it was important to let those guys who were planning, to let them know that I know.
It was actually, in a way, a form of protection.
Well, An says the next Imran Khan on meeting with Vladimir Putin, just hours after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Does he now regret doing that?
I promise you, I had no idea.
I do not believe what Putin has done of trying to find a military solution in Ukraine.
If I were advising President Putin, I would not have gone there.
Russian forces began mercilessly shelling Ukraine on February 24th, the day that President Putin launched his full-scale invasion.
But hours later, Imran Khan shook his hand and sat down the talks in the Kremlin.
How does he justify that?
Does he now regret it?
I promise you, I had no idea.
I arrived a night before.
I was only there for one night.
Next morning, when I wake up, I discover that this Ukraine adventure had started.
Now, it was, we discussed amongst ourselves, we realized that there was very poor timing, but at the same time, we realized that we really, it was extremely important for the 220 million people of Pakistan that we actually get these.
I mean, I understand that.
I completely understand that you didn't know before you made the trip.
I guess the criticism, which may be legitimate, is that once you knew what he'd done, to then stay there and still go through with the meetings that you had planned, sent the world a message that you were not that upset by what he was doing in Ukraine.
Countries like us, you know, who have huge populations and we have, what, 100 million people who are vulnerable right now.
So we should actually make policies, have relationship with everyone, but make policies that benefit our people.
I understand that.
That's like what India is doing.
I understand that, Imran.
What I would say back to that is we talked earlier about the higher morality standards in the UK when it comes to holding leaders to account.
I simply would say I don't criticize you for having planned a trip to Moscow, but I think there is legitimate criticism that once you knew what he had done, illegally invaded a sovereign democratic country.
Did your moral instinct not tell you that it would be wrong to stay there, that you should have just got straight out of there?
Piers, I am against all military operations.
I marched with those two million people in London against the Iraq war.
I constantly was against the Afghanistan war, that there was no military solution.
I do not believe what Putin has done of trying to find a military solution in Ukraine.
I always believe these are miscalculations.
They cause a lot of hardship.
And I did give a statement when I was in Moscow that military is not the military actions are not a solution.
Unfortunately, we were left at it at the time was either we then and by the way the meeting was more or less an hour before when we discovered that they had invaded Ukraine.
It was a question of one hour in between to decide whether we abandoned the trip or have the meeting with Putin.
And so eventually we decided that look at this stage we will fall between two stools.
With Russia we will break all relationship leaving at this juncture and at the same time you know is it going to make any difference if we if Pakistan decides to sort of show condemn Russian invasion by leaving there are you in a position now to see what Putin has done in Ukraine and emphatically publicly denounce it?
Any conflict and especially where you go and any conflict creates bloodshed.
But just like in Iraq, in Afghanistan, God knows how many people died there.
And similarly in Ukraine, going into Ukraine, the sort of what we are seeing right now, I'm sure that if President Putin realized what was happening right now, he wouldn't have started this.
But do you personally condemn the war in Ukraine now, knowing what you've seen in the last three months?
Piers, let me just say one thing.
I am basically anti-against all operations.
So if you want to ask me a question, do I condemn what is happening in what happened in Iraq?
I thought it was wrong, and I would condemn that.
Afghanistan, U.S. going in and then staying, okay, once they got decimated al-Qaeda in the first year, what was the purpose of staying there for the next 19 years?
So it was a useless war.
And yes, if I were advising President Putin, I would not have gone there.
And yes, a war that creates bloodshed, which it is, and collateral damage and civilians.
Failed Wars in Iraq Afghanistan00:07:48
Yes.
Let me ask you about Afghanistan, because from the moment the Americans led the rather dramatic and chaotic and many think disastrous overnight pull-out from Afghanistan and its forces, it seems the Taliban have basically wrestled back control of the country at record speed and are now going back to running the country how the Taliban did before, notably with severe oppression of women in Afghanistan.
What is your view of that?
Because you've been broadly supportive, I think, of the Taliban being able to run the country again, but are you supportive of the way they treat women there?
Let the people of Afghanistan decide which way they will go.
They're strong people.
Afghan women are strong.
In my opinion, given a chance, you will see them asserting their rights.
But the last thing we should do is try to interfere in people with the Afghan government.
They're very proud people.
I know from experience that any hint of outside interference in their any country interfering in their way of life, they're very defensive about it.
I want to take you back to the late 70s, the early 80s, to the genteel world of cricket, where you were a champion cricketer, you were a handsome playboy on the British social scene with a number of girlfriends to make all of us jealous.
Life was a lot easier for you then, a lot more fun, a lot more carefree.
You've become a very powerful, very divisive in some ways political figure now in Pakistan.
Do you ever have any regrets?
Do you ever wish you hadn't gone down the political path?
For me, you know, life is not about...
I feel that, you know, people who find the easy way of life, easy way of life for me, a purposeless existence means nothing to me.
I have everything I've ever wanted in life.
So for me, the challenge is to actually go back, make Pakistan a welfare state, and rule of law.
Critical thing is what you're seeing in Britain is basically rule of law, which is one thing I learned most of all when I went to England as an 18-year-old.
Imran Khan, it's great to talk to you again.
It's been, well, nearly 50 years since I last talked to you.
Last time I was steaming in at you in the Nets at Hove County Cricket Grounds.
So it's great to catch up with you again.
And I wish you all the very best.
Thank you very much.
My pleasure.
Extraordinary character, Imran Khan, one of the great ever sportsmen that Pakistan's produced, and now this extraordinary political figure.
And we're uncensored next.
I'll be joined by my stellar panel, the Piers Pack, we're going to call them.
They may not even want to be called that, but they're going to be called that, whether they like it or not.
That's coming up.
Yeah, the production team had a lot of fun doing that, you same bolt promo.
You know the idea.
It's like all exciting and fast-moving when it's about him.
And when it cuts back to Piers Morgan Uncensored me, it all screeches to a grinding, slow, tortoise-like halt.
You get the joke, right?
Anyway, I'm delighted to be joined now by the Piers Pack, as we've called them.
The author and playwright Bonnie Greer, General Secretary for the Free Speech Union, Toby Young, former politician and author, Lord Geoffrey Archibald.
Great to speak to all of you.
Lord Archibald, I want to start with you because I was watching actually the camera on you as you were listening to Imran Khan, because you're, like me, a massive cricket fan.
I think you were struck by two things.
One, the way he said he wished that Pakistan had a political standards system as sophisticated as ours.
And secondly, when I asked him directly, do you wish you'd never go into politics?
I could see you nodding furiously as if you were sort of there at the start of all that thought process.
Well, that would be taking it higher than is accurate.
But he asked to see me 50 years ago.
He came to the House of Commons for lunch and he told me he was going to go into politics.
And I thought, blimey, that takes a lot of courage.
And what people forget, and your interview was interesting in that way, is what people forget the years he fought to become Prime Minister.
And he failed and he failed and he failed and he failed and he finally made it.
And I'm very proud to have even known him because, as you rightly say, he's one of the greatest or rounders the game has ever known.
But he had the courage to risk his life in politics.
And still is risking his life.
You know, these assassinations threats are real.
I remember meeting Benizir Bhutto at a party and having a great time chatting to her and thought she was incredibly impressive.
And the next thing she was assassinated.
Bright lady.
And the second point he made, Piers, and was trying to get over, and I accepted it totally, was yes, of course, if you hold a party and break the law you have put forward.
That's very bad, of course it is.
But what he's saying, and he was trying to get over to you, Piers, is you try someone saying, well, I'll give you a million dollars if you fix this building permit.
I'll give you a million dollars if you vote against Imran Khan.
I mean, it's in a different league.
And I think what he was trying to say to you, Piers, yes, what you think is bad, is not quite what we think is bad.
No, I completely got that point.
Yeah.
Bonnie, we had a very animated debate a little earlier in the show about guns in America.
What did you make of the Matthew McConaughey speech?
Because I thought it was pretty spellbinding, actually.
Well, Pierce, let me just say something to you because I've always wanted to say it to you.
Let me just say it.
I really appreciate the stance you took on gun control when you were in America and had your show.
I thought it was incredibly brave.
You were on late night television and you just said what you had to say.
So I've always wanted to say this to you.
I've got other things I want to say to you, but that's what I've definitely wanted to say.
Well, thank you.
I mean, here's what I would say back to that.
Thank you for saying that.
But when I watched McConaughey yesterday, I wished actually I'd borrowed more of his approach.
No, You did the right thing because you were in a country where you were a foreigner.
Okay, and you never hid that.
You never hid who you were when you had your vote.
No, but it's not down to a brick to tell Americans.
Yeah, exactly.
So you were close to the wind anyway in saying it.
So you did it perfectly.
But didn't you feel with McConaughey?
The way he didn't set out to demonize gun owners or even call for gun batteries.
What he said was, these are the things we can do, which surely we can all agree.
Well, let's take on board the fact that he's an incredibly good actor.
So he knows how to control a room.
He knows how to work a room.
He's a gun owner.
So he's not going to sit there and say, don't have any guns like me.
That made it more powerful to me than he had to do.
Exactly.
So he depaced himself.
He gave the killer a blow.
But it's not going to make any difference.
And that's my point.
Well, that's what haralled us and it's incredibly...
No difference.
I don't know.
I hope it does something.
I hope they can move.
I felt like with drink driving, it was a group of mothers who rose up.
I think they were called MAD, M-A-D-D, and they rose up and they slowly got traction.
Smoking.
You know, there was a traction to get to.
Can I say something?
I want to say to you two and to the audience.
All the amendments to the Constitution are granted by the government.
That's how people believe them to be.
The Second Amendment is not granted by the government.
The Second Amendment is affirmed by the government.
In other words, people believe that God gave them the right to have a gun.
Now, we can sit back there and go, oh, please, but people do.
They take it.
And that's what it is.
Boris Johnson Political Comeback00:04:31
I understand.
Toby, let's talk about Boris Johnson.
You, like me, have known him for more than three decades.
He has the ability of a particularly slick eel to wriggle off any hook.
Just when you think he's done, he wriggles off yet again.
Are you surprised about what's happened this week?
And do you think it's the beginning of the end?
Or do you think he may just carry on?
Well, over the course of those 30 years, I've never lost money betting on Boris Johnson.
People have written him off before, and they've always been wrong.
He's a very easy person to underestimate.
I remember people laughing when he became a Conservative MP, thinking he's never going to amount to anything in politics.
He just doesn't have the temperament, and now he's the prime minister.
I think this, I'm more nervous now about putting my money on Boris than at any other time in the past.
But I think he does have a few things which mean that it may be premature to write him off.
I mean, I think, unlike Theresa May, he has a hard core of supporters, mainly Brexiteers, who are concerned about the risk of replacing him, more so than they were.
And not an obvious alternative.
There's no obvious alternative.
And why did the rebels shoot their bolt on Monday when they could have waited until afterwards?
Well, I would have waited until the by-election.
Well, the reason for that is because they're a disorganized rabble.
So he has that going for him, too.
Correct.
Lord Archer, you were the deputy party chairman of the Conservatives.
What do you make of Party Gate?
What do you make of Boris?
Should he continue as leader, or is he now so damaged it could actually bring the party into a crashing defeat in the next election?
Could I just put one point to Toby before I answer that, and I apologise.
Toby, don't you think it's possible that some of Boris' own supporters put in letters to the 1922 committee because they wanted the vote before the novelist talking there, Jeffrey?
You're compiling the script of your next book.
But I like to think that's the problem.
The problem with that, Jeffrey, it's perfectly plausible and certainly not beyond the Machiavellian machinations of Conservative MPs.
But the problem is, had it been manufactured, if the vote was manufactured by Boris's faction, then why was the result not more favourable to Boris?
I mean, it's provoked this crisis.
He didn't win a larger percentage of his MPs than Theresa May.
So it feels like if that was their plan, it's not.
Now, Lord Archer, I know you've got to go.
You're Boris.
Wait, wait.
Toby, Toby.
I went to Prime Minister's questions today and I assumed the leader of the opposition would kill.
And he didn't.
He actually got killed.
Would be on the floor.
He got killed.
And frankly, he got killed.
I totally agree.
It was actually a very bad performance.
Very bad.
Lord Archer, your book's called Over My Dead Body appropriately, which seems to be Boris Johnson's view of all this.
Thank you.
I know you've got to go.
So thank you for joining us.
Greatly appreciated.
You're looking great, Nick, as always.
Look forward to reading the book.
82 years old.
You look amazing, honestly.
Bringing Bonnie quickly on Boris Johnson.
People say, look, this guy's a serial liar.
He's a cheat.
He's a fraud.
He's all these things.
And yet he just carries on.
You know, Boris is like Donald Trump.
And I know I don't want to go there, but let me just explain what I mean.
Boris and Trump both understand something about human beings.
We like to be entertained.
Boris is very entertaining.
Boris is like that cartoon, that Warner Brothers cartoon, The Roadrunner.
He always gets out.
He has an audience of people who want to see him escape.
Boris knows this.
Also, he has no moral bottom.
So there's no morals there.
There's nothing there that gets in your way of thinking, you know, this is a bad guy.
This is a good guy.
He's a morals vacuum.
So you can have that and you can have the sort of fun of watching Boris stick it to whoever you want to stick it.
He's in total entertainment.
But the problem is, Piers, is that he is lowering, and I don't, he's hurting the moral fabric of this country.
It's a very serious situation.
And I think a lot of conservatives, at least the ones who follow me on Twitter, these people are nervous because what Boris is doing is calling up this idea of the standards of this country.
He's just trashing.
I agree, but he's still there and they probably can't get rid of him now for quite a while.
Thank you to my Stella Piers Pack panel.
That's all from me.
Tomorrow night, Usain Bolt will be live and unleashed on Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Whatever you're doing tonight, keep it uncensored.