All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 19, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:54
20230119_piers-morgan-uncensored-baldwin-charged-in-rust-sh
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Alec Baldwin Charged With Manslaughter 00:15:17
Tonight, Piers Morgan uncensored Hollywood superstar Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter after fatally shooting a cinematographer on his movie set.
We'll have live reaction from America on Baldwin's legal fight and for what may be left of his career.
Thus defeating wokeness with debate.
Comedian Konstantin Kissin became a global sensation this week after taking on the Oxford Union students.
He joins me live on his fight for free speech.
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well good evening from London and welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored breaking news in the last couple of hours.
15 months ago, Alec Baldwin shot dead a female cinematographer on the set of Rust, a movie he was starring in and producing.
The death of Helena Hutchins is one of the most appalling tragedies in Hollywood history.
Now there was no doubt that it was an accident, but Helena Hutchins died, leaving behind a grief-stricken husband and a young child.
And the person holding the gun that fired a bullet that killed her was Alec Baldwin.
It was him that did that.
He fired the bullet into his co-worker's body and snuffed out her life.
Nobody else's hands were anywhere near the gun.
But since that tragic day, Baldwin's been the epitome of Hollywood arrogance.
He's embarked on a woeful self-pitying PR tour that felt cynically designed to make people feel he was just as much of a victim as the woman he killed.
He's repeatedly spewed indignant denial of any responsibility to his millions of followers on social media and in a succession of television interviews.
Here's what he told ABC News.
Do you feel guilt?
No, no.
I feel that there is, I feel that, that someone is responsible for what happened and I can't say who that is, but I know it's not me.
No guilt at all, even though he was literally holding the gun that fired the bullet that killed this woman.
Not a shred of personal responsibility, accountability or guilt.
Here he is addressing his fans.
I wanted to take a moment to say thank you to all of the people who sent me such kind words and, you know, best wishes and strength and hope and prayers and so forth and thoughts and lots of encouragement and lots of really, really great sentiments from so many people.
I got hundreds, hundreds of emails from friends and family and colleagues and people that I some I hadn't heard from in quite a while to send me strength and good wishes and so forth and I'm very grateful for that.
I want to say thank you to everybody and online on Instagram many people commenting.
Sorry, you haven't just won an Oscar.
It's all that speech sounded like, doesn't it?
An Oscar redemption speech.
No, this is real life.
It's not a film.
A young woman was killed.
Well today Santa Fe prosecutors announced that he, Alec Baldwin and the film's armourer, a young woman called Hannah Gruterz-Reid, will be charged with involuntary manslaughter, both face up to 18 months in jail if they're convicted.
But Baldwin, true to form, issued a statement through his attorney, striking a familiar tone.
This decision distorts Helena Hutchinson's tragic death, represents a terrible miscarriage of justice, his lawyer said.
Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun or anywhere on the movie set.
We will fight these charges and we will win.
Well, we'll see about that.
Because that's not what the prosecutor thinks.
Here's what the prosecutor said.
We've talked to many actors, A-list and otherwise, that have said that they always check their guns or they have someone check it in front of them.
So it's not, an actor doesn't get a free pass just because they're an actor.
And that's what's so important is that we're saying here in New Mexico, everyone's equal under the law.
Everyone has to follow their duties and do what's right and take that safety into account so that this doesn't ever happen again.
Well, that's right.
That's what I hear from actors too.
They all check.
If they're firing a firearm in any capacity on a movie set, they all check just for their own sake, they don't mind anybody else's, that there's no live ammunition or anything wrong with this weapon that they're using.
Alec Baldwin's done a lot of talking, a lot of self-protective talking, a lot of spinning, a lot of denial of any accountability or responsibility.
Well, his next words on this matter will be in a court of law.
Well, let's discuss Baldwin's legal fight.
We've got some American legal experts coming shortly, but I want to talk first of all to lawyer Paul LaRone-Adrian, talk to the international editor Isabel Oakshot and talk to view presenter Richard Tys.
Look, this is a very emotive story, Richard.
But at its heart, I think you've got classic Hollywood response to a real story.
You've got a kind of almost fictional response.
Like he's in a movie, Alec Baldwin.
And all that really matters is that he comes through triumphant in some way, i.e. without any blame for any of this.
And yet at the heart of it is a real woman really killed.
Absolutely, but there are two separate things.
There's his shocking, appalling, totally inexcusable response, as you've just explained there.
But the reality is this is a tragic, tragic accident.
And as I understand, you never have live ammunition on a set.
So why on earth would he expect that there would be?
I think what it shows, though, is this is classic America.
Someone's always to blame.
You've got to sue someone.
You've got to put them in jail.
I think that's the wrong approach.
It's a tragic accident.
Learn from it.
Make sure, for heaven's sake, it never, never happens again.
But why go through all of this process?
I just think that's, I think his response has been completely insensitive.
But what do you achieve by what you achieve, what you achieve is for the poor woman's husband and their young child.
What you achieve is accountability for the death of this woman.
I mean, to me, sorry, she was killed because there was a complete breakdown of safety on the set.
And Alec Baldwin wasn't just the star of the movie.
He was also a co-producer of the movie and has producer responsibilities for what is going on.
So that feels to me like the charge is the wrong one.
I think you were...
No, no, because involuntary manslaughter means that you kill somebody, but you didn't deliberately mean to.
I think you were unduly harsh on him.
Really?
I accept that his PR skills leave something to be desired.
I think his responses there are pretty woeful and undoubtedly a part of the reason he is where he is now facing these charges.
But at the end of the day, you've got an actor on a set.
He must have been in this position a thousand times before.
He had no reason to expect that gun was loaded.
Someone handed him a loaded gun.
He was entitled to assume that it was for the film that it wasn't loaded with ammunition.
And accidentally...
Do you make assumptions when you're dealing with what is happening?
Well, I'm not on Addiction.
How many film sets have you been on?
That, you know, day in, day out.
I don't know.
We're sitting here when you're doing it.
We know from the prosecutor's statement that we just listened to that actually on film sets, there is a procedure and that most actors in that situation do make a final check themselves.
But also in most film sets, there's never ever live ammunition anywhere near the film.
But again, why would he?
He is a producer with responsibility for that as well.
Let's go to Joseph Tully, who's a criminal defense lawyer in America, won a number of high-profile gun cases himself in the past.
Mr. Tully, what do you think of this?
Because, you know, clearly emotions are running high about it.
But what is the cold, hard legal reality of where Alec Baldwin finds himself?
So the cold, hard legal reality is that you can't be convicted of a crime or you shouldn't be convicted of a crime unless there's some kind of criminal culpability.
So if this was an accident, then he should be found not guilty.
If there was negligence that amounts to criminal negligence, then he would be found guilty of something.
However, I... regardless of what people think of Hollywood actors and their attitude towards others as his PR skills, you know, we've seen from his PR skills, I don't think that there's criminal liability here.
I mean, it's an interesting call that because the prosecutor was very strong in her wording today and said, nobody's above the law, clearly wanting to distance the whole sort of Hollywood aspect of this from what has happened here.
Santa Fe, of course, a place where a lot of people know how to use guns.
Gun ownership is very prevalent there.
So a jury, I suspect, may be quite actually quite tough, I think, on a bunch of Hollywood actors being indiscriminately irresponsible around guns, which clearly happened here.
The real question becomes, how responsible was he personally for not being aware that this gun had a bull in it?
I don't for a moment imagine he knew.
So let's part that to one side.
I don't think anybody thinks that.
But as a co-producer of the show, which had already had a number of safety issues, including several days before this incident that had been raised with people actually leaving the set in protest at the lack of safety, he's responsible as a co-producer for the general safety on that set, I would argue.
And secondly, every actor I've talked to who's been involved in a gun scene like this in a movie or a TV show has said to me that they always, always will check themselves as a fail safe at the end, just in case.
And he clearly didn't do that either.
Well, he did ask about the gun and he was told that it was a cold gun, meaning that the gun was not.
But he didn't check it physically himself.
Correct, yes.
So he relied on someone else who handed him the gun and was informed that it was a cold gun.
So does it, the question is, does that amount to criminal negligence, not physically checking himself when he relied on somebody else who is a professional whose job it is to ensure that accidents do not happen?
Well, except that, sorry to jump in, but except that the armorer in this case, who's also been charged, was 24 years old, an absolute rookie doing this kind of thing on a movie set.
And again, it comes back to his dual role of star, but also co-producer.
I would argue there's almost a charge of negligence in putting a rookie armorer in charge of this situation, which then led to the death of this woman.
That is maybe the best argument that the prosecution will have.
If he didn't do a background check, if he overlooked several instances of her being negligent on set or producing a dangerous happenstance, then I think then we go more towards him being liable.
However, if he hired somebody, rookie or not, who had their credentials and had demonstrated professionalism on the set, then I think that moves him away from criminal liability.
Okay, Joseph Totali, thank you very much indeed.
I'm going to bring in court TV host Julie Grant now, also in the United States.
Julie, you've covered a lot of court cases, self-evidently, but what do you make of this and how much jeopardy is Ali Baldwin now in?
He is in big, big trouble, Piers.
Thank you so much for having me on your show.
It's a real honor and a pleasure to be with you.
He is looking at a world of problems with these charges.
This has been an investigation that took so much time.
I want to show you something, Pierce.
I have in my hand just a portion of the investigation report.
It's 551 pages.
We know they were investigating since October of 2021 when poor Helena Hutchins was killed.
And this is just a fraction of that investigative report.
So this has been quite thorough.
A very weighty decision made by these prosecutors in Santa Fe, New Mexico to not only announce charges forthcoming against Alec Baldwin, but also against the armorer and prop master, Hannah Gutierrez-Reid.
I am certainly not surprised at these charges, Piers.
What is it to you, when you've been through all this, what is it to you that rings out, which maybe is a view shared by the prosecutor?
What is it that rings out, you think, which points to negligence by Alec Baldwin?
You hit the nail on the head just now by using that word, Piers.
The word negligence.
That's what's so key, because I think what's hard for most people to wrap their minds around when you hear about this is we all know it was tragic.
We know there's been nobody more upset than Alec Baldwin and Hannah Gutierrez-Reid.
Her attorney just issued a statement a short time ago saying how upset she's been since this happened.
Nobody wanted anyone to be killed.
So I think what's hard to understand is that in America, you can face criminal charges even if you don't have bad intent.
With the charges that these two are going to be facing, there's no malice involved.
There's no evil mind or depraved heart.
No, this is just somebody acting negligently without using due caution and circumspection, doing what a reasonable person would not have done under those circumstances.
So with something that was accidental, something that's so unfortunate and so tragic, there can still be criminal liability attached, Piers.
Yeah, and I think there should be.
I have found Alec Baldwin's PR tool sickening.
Absolutely sickening.
He should have shut his mouth and waited for the legal process to come out instead.
We've had these endless attempts to distance himself from any responsibility whatsoever.
He feels no guilt.
I would feel pretty guilty if I pointed a gun at someone and killed them.
Even if it was an accident, I'd feel guilty.
I'd feel like, wow, I just killed somebody.
But there's nothing, not a shred of that.
It's all been self-protective.
It's all been about protecting the brand of Alec Baldwin.
And I've watched it all on Instagram with his wife doing the same thing, you know, portraying him as a tormented family man going through hell on their endless expensive holidays and so on.
Well, fine.
I don't want to see it.
I don't want to hear it.
I just want to see the legal process play out and find out exactly, and I think we will do now, exactly how responsible Alec Baldwin was, not just as an actor who didn't check his own gun before firing it at somebody and pointing it in a woman's head, but also as a co-producer of a set that appeared to be a total safety shambles.
And at the moment, he's saying, nothing to do with me, Gov, which I think is completely unsustainable.
Listen, Julie, thank you very much.
Great to have you on the show, as always.
It's been a pleasure talking with you, Piers.
You are right.
Once again, you said many poignant things just now.
Thank you for having me.
Thanks, Julie.
Nice to talk to you.
Quick, quick reaction from you, Paul, before we go to the break.
I just wanted to answer both Isabel and Richards' question.
What were we going to get for this?
What are they hoping to achieve?
And the simple answer is justice.
Right.
It's justice.
You know, we have accidents in the workplace all the time.
That doesn't mean that they should just be dealt with as a shrug of the shoulders and it's not going to be.
I agree with you.
Legal Team Worried About DA Charges 00:14:42
And I think the problem here for us British viewers, as it were, observing this, is the word manslaughter.
I think the word negligent and negligent.
It's involuntary manslaughter.
It's more than that.
Involuntary manslaughter means you didn't deliberately set out to kill somebody, but they died as a result of your negligent actions, right?
That's really what it means.
Remember, Piers, I think a difficulty that Alec Baldwin is going to have is also in terms of recklessness.
Was he reckless?
And that's a real difficult hurdle I think they're going to face in the middle.
Yes, okay.
Let's take a short break.
We're going to come back with more reaction to this, including from Judge Janine Pirow from Fox News, The Five.
She'll have strong views on this because I've heard her express them before.
Stay with us.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Sands.
Since sort of come tonight, the British comedian, whose evisceration of woke culture, sent the Oxford Union into surprising ratchets and went viral globally.
Constantine Kissing joins me live later in the program.
Let's get some more reaction now from Hollywood to this extraordinary news that Alec Baldwin is to be charged with involuntary manslaughter after the death of one of the cinematographers on his movie set of Rust.
I'm joined now by the veteran Hollywood reporter, Janine Wolfe.
Janine, this is a story that's gripped Hollywood now for 18 months or so.
What do you make of this announcement today that he's going to face charges?
And how likely do you think it is that he'll be convicted?
These charges were shocking to everybody.
No one expected them to come down that hard on Alec.
But I think what we've got here, what makes this all confusing, is there's a big mixture between movie rules and movie procedures and the law.
So we think it's an accident.
Nobody thinks that Alec Baldwin set out to harm this talented cinematographer.
On the other hand, the district attorney says, yeah, but you didn't follow the law and the chain of command was loose and we have to place blame.
Yeah, I think that's what it comes down to.
I think that's where if I was his legal team, I'd be pretty concerned about what that DA was saying today and what has been put out there publicly about why he's facing these charges, because it seems to me there's a wider remit of general negligence on the set and he was a co-producer as well as actor.
All right, so a lot of stories have come out that it wasn't the most disciplined set.
And you can always find, go back and figure out what went wrong.
But the thing is that what you hear here is nobody is above the law and they're repeating that over and over again.
And what they're saying is Alec Baldwin may be a big movie star, but that's not how we judge things here.
And that's really unfair, in legal terms, prejudicial against him.
The point is, as producer and as actor, you know, one, Alec may be trying to step back from those responsibilities.
But on the other hand, nobody sees this as anything but a horrible, horrific accident.
Well, it is, but unfortunately, at the end of that accident, somebody died, and there's got to be accountability for what led to that death.
And that is what we're now going to get from this courtroom.
Janine, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
I appreciate it.
Well, let's go now to Laura Pellegrini.
She's a film director and producer in America.
She's worked on war movies and so on with lots of guns on set.
So, Laura, let me ask you this.
In terms of the procedure that goes on on sets when there are guns and they're supposed to be firing blanks and so on, what is the procedure?
I mean, it's quite clear Ms. DA thinks that actually the procedure broke down and was neglected and that led to what happened.
But what's your take of this?
You know, it's a great question.
And my co-director, Stefano Dufrey, and I have worked on multiple sets where we've had to handle, help actors handle firearms.
And essentially, what should have happened is that you have a prop master, and the prop master is responsible for firearms on set if they're used.
Then the prop master, excuse me, works close-handedly with the firearms person.
And they're the professional that's tasked with the responsibility of the gun to make sure that it's a cold gun, not a hot gun.
And there's a certain line of command after that.
Then, once the gun is cleared, it's then handed over to the first assistant director.
And the first assistant director has the responsibility of declaring that it's a cold gun before they then hand off the gun to the actor.
So there's clearly a shift in the sequence of command that happened on set.
And I think we're still trying to determine what went wrong in the breakdown of that communication.
What I'm told, and the DA also suggested this from other actors, is that they always themselves would make a final check just to be sure.
And Alec Baldwin clearly hasn't done that here physically himself with the gun.
Right.
And it's a good point that you bring up.
And also, I'm trying to, you know, be a little bit more, I guess, sympathetic toward Alec Baldwin's perspective in that he was co-producer as well as actor on set.
So as co-producer, he wasn't tasked necessarily with managing all aspects of production.
He has other producers to help him with that.
But like I said, there was a breakdown of communication also during rehearsal, because as we know, this happened during a rehearsal.
There should be no guns on set.
You shouldn't even be rehearsing with a gun because then that increases your liability of an accident happening.
By the way, I might be being rather stupid here, Laura, but what is a hot gun doing anywhere near a movie set anyway?
Why do you need a hot gun, period?
It shouldn't be anywhere near a movie set.
You know, certainly on the sets that Stefano and I work on, we just worked on a World War II film and there were no hot guns to be found.
There were no live rounds on set, no ammunition, none of that.
But bottom line is, especially during a rehearsal when you're not required to even be carrying a gun for the scene, I know that they wanted to frame it up and he was working with Helena to get the frame right.
But there's certain things that you can achieve in post to make that happen.
There's certain effects that you can rely more on post-production to create a gun effect and work with CGI to make that happen.
There shouldn't have been anything like that on set.
I mean, my sort of gut feeling about Alec Baldwin with this is what's really got my goat about the way he's responded is the singular lack of any willingness to admit any fault to himself.
Everyone else is to blame apart from him.
And I think that has probably wound up this DA as much as anything else.
And in a way, this PR campaign may have been the most self-defeating thing he could possibly have done.
I'm sure, I'm sure.
I think, you know, Alec, I believe he did himself a disservice in saying that he didn't pull the trigger on the gun, because then how could there have been any projectile or any bullet that reached Helena and, you know, the director of the film?
It wouldn't be possible.
So there were certain things that he said, I believe, that might have been a disservice to that.
But, you know, bottom line is, this is a senseless tragedy that could have been easily avoided had certain protocols been issued and reinforced on set.
Okay, Laura, thank you very much indeed.
Laura Pellegrini there, who's worked with a lot of guns on movie sets in the Vision quite like this.
PR expert Mike Paul joins me now from America.
Mike Paul, look, where is Alec Baldwin's career in all this?
He's now facing serious criminal charges.
We know he pulled the trigger that killed this poor woman on this set.
Has he got a career after this?
That's an excellent question.
Also, a career that includes talent and producing has another major question, which is, are you insurable?
Look, we also need to remember that only a few days before this accident situation happened, of which he has allegations against him, that there was a beef between union workers seeking to be replaced by non-union workers.
And the issue was major safety issues that was happening on that set.
Alex also put out a video only a few days before the shooting trying to show that he had support for the union members who had some serious allegations.
I think that's going to be a narrative that's going to be added to this trial.
Look for it.
Look for the narrative to not be Alex and not be some of the information that we know to date.
There's going to be a lot more detail as to what was the attitude, the facts that were happening before the shooting, which could be a major factor as to whether the allegations are going to stick with Alec, both as talent and producer, as we move forward.
Was it a massive PR own goal to go on this tour of self-pity, distancing himself from any responsibility, do you think?
One of the things that is so important to look at from this perspective is a bigger question, which is, is Alec the type of person who listens to good advice?
He certainly got advice that he should not be doing that.
He did it.
He certainly got advice that he needs to have his own security detail.
He doesn't have it.
He has his wife at times doing it for him, which is just nuts to me.
He has a large family.
He does not listen to good advice.
That's going to be a major factor in this trial.
We've seen that as a major factor in previous trials too, including the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial.
She wasn't a good listener.
Let's see if Alec is going to finally have some humble tea and start listening to those experts who he's hiring to.
Well, it may be, I think that ship a sail from him.
In my experience of Ali Baldwin, he's an arrogant hothead, and he responded exactly how I would have predicted him to respond, which is to lash out and blame everyone but.
Look for any good prosecutor and look for a good prosecutor to utilize exactly what you just said against Alec because he is very soft skinned and he can easily turn to anger.
My Paul, thank you very much indeed.
I appreciate it.
Well, I'm joined now by Judge Janine Pira from the Five on Fox News, this Smash It Show.
Judge, I don't know about you.
I'm absolutely raging about Ali Baldwin generally at the best of times.
I just felt that his extraordinary self-pitying tool to try and distance himself from accountability on this, it may actually have backfired and led to this DA wanting to nail him.
You know, Piers, I just interviewed the DA on the case, and I don't think there's anything that motivated her other than the evidence in this case.
But as it relates to what you said in your comment, I agree with you.
The fact that this guy, Alec Baldwin, thinks he's so important that he's going to go out there and tell the world that he didn't do anything, that he never pulled the trigger, would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger.
That is, and, you know, I ran the DA's office.
I was the DA, I mean, for, you know, three decades, that that is what any DA looks for in terms of evidence.
It is an inconsistent statement that the DA made clear is contradicted by the FBI forensic evidence.
When you've got a cult, 45, single action, you do not, it does not go off unless you put your finger on that trigger.
It is a single action firearm.
And his arrogance, and you'll see on the five today my interview of them.
And I think that the most interesting answer that the DA gave me had to do with the fact when I asked her, you know, did Baldwin cooperate with you?
And she was very, very hesitant in her description.
And I referenced there when she wanted his phone, when it first came out that he directed his assistant to get rid of the archives of messages.
So we've got a guy who's arrogant, he's condescending, but that's not the basis for the charge.
The basis for the charge, Piers, is that he took a weapon, he pointed a weapon at a human being, and he pulled the trigger.
And he did so to a mother in the prime of her life, and she lost her life.
Now, I don't care if you're on a movie set or on the Avenue of the Americas outside where I am right now.
You do not do that.
And the fact that he's charged only with involuntary manslaughter is consistent with the law.
But there is an upward sentencing there if they determine, and this is up to the jury, that the use of the gun was a part of it.
So he faces up to six and a half years.
Wow, I didn't know that.
And Santa Fe, you're going to get a jury that will be familiar with guns.
Many of them will own guns themselves, will have a view about gun safety.
And they'll have a view about gun safety generally.
What is clear from this set was that the safety was a shambles.
You had people already walking off set in protest at the lack of safety.
You've got a very young armorer who was just 24 years old, very inexperienced.
But my question, which remains the most perplexing thing, what were they doing with a hot gun anyway in terms of potentially having one?
Why would you have to ask, is it hot or cold?
How can that even be a question?
And why would any live ammunition be anywhere near a movie set?
And that's precisely the issue, Piers, and you understand that.
That any movie set that has live ammo on the set is negligent as far as I'm concerned, per se.
But don't take my word for it.
The truth is, and I asked the DA about this in my interview, the truth is that not only was it an unsafe set, there were live rounds that went off, and the armorer who's charged is Hannah Guitaris-Reed, who's 24 years old, who never should have applied for the job because she herself admitted she didn't have the experience, but her father was famous and therefore Baldwin said, you know, I'll save money here.
And the DA was very clear.
The DA said money was more important than safety on this set.
But when a live round went off and she knew it and workers were walking off the set, they said it was unsafe.
At that point, you have to be an idiot to not understand that you've got guns, live ammunition, live rounds going off, and you're pointing a gun and pulling a trigger.
Safety Ignored For Money On Set 00:07:56
Come on.
Either an idiot or you have to be an arrogant Hollywood movie star with a hot head, which is what we know Alec Baldwin is.
Judge, thank you so much for taking the time.
I know you're flat out today, including on the five.
You'll be thrilled to hear I'll be joining you on the five in a month's time again.
It's one of the joys of my life working with you on that occasionally.
And ours as well, Piers.
We look forward to it.
Take care, Judge.
Thank you very much for taking the time.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Well, coming up next, I'm joined by the British comedian whose evisceration of woke culture ignited the Oxford Union.
And actually, he almost won over most of the students.
And it went viral around the world.
Konstantin Kissing joins me next.
Well, note of a rare victory for free speech.
Comedian and author Konstantin Kissing went viral after taking on woke culture in an Oxford Union speech.
Let's have a look at some of the highlights.
This country is responsible for 2% of global carbon emissions, which means that if Britain was to sink into the sea right now, it would make absolutely no difference to the issue of climate change.
You know why?
Because the future of the climate is going to be decided in Asia and in Latin America by poor people who couldn't give a about saving the planet.
There is only one thing we can do in this country to stop climate change, and that is to make scientific and technological breakthroughs that will create the clean energy that is not only clean, but also cheap.
And the only thing that wokeness has to offer in exchange is to brainwash bright young minds like you to believe that you are victims, to believe that you have no agency, to believe that what you must do to improve the world is to complain.
is to protest, is to throw soup on paintings.
We know that the way to improve the world is to work, is to create, it is to build.
And the problem with woke culture is that it's trained too many young minds like yours to forget about that.
Yes.
The slow hand clap.
That's what every comedian works for, Piers.
Let me do it after.
I've done no social union.
Tough crowd normally, but you actually won a lot of them over.
They were quite respectful.
And I think you were probably a bit surprised by the response.
It's gone viral, global, all over America as well, because it really resonated with people, I think, rather like me, where, you know, I'm not right wing.
I'm not left wing.
I'm kind of slightly center, I guess, politically about stuff, liberal more than not.
But I find this ultra-woke mentality so illiberal that it borders on the very fascism they profess to hate most.
So to see you go into the lion's den a bit with all these woke students.
And actually, what I thought was impressive about it, Constantine, was the way you didn't demonize them.
And maybe that is the way to progress and get this woke nonsense dealt with properly, is that you don't demonize them, you actually show them a better way.
I think so.
And like you, I identify as politically non-binary, Piers.
And so that's the angle I was approaching from.
And look, the fact is, both you and I know that when we were 18, 20, we were idiots as well.
And we were very cocky and sure of ourselves.
And we thought we knew the answers to everything.
What we didn't have was the internet to brainwash us.
And we didn't have this very powerful ideology, actually.
Wokeness is an ideology and there's some very strong concepts behind it.
But that all aside, I found that I had a very interesting encounter because you once have seen this, but we had to wait quite a long time before the debate started.
And I actually was talking to one of the students in the bar and she couldn't believe that I even thought the woke people existed.
Like to her, this was unicorns.
But she came up to me after the debate and asked for a selfie.
And that's kind of what I thought really summed up the whole experience.
We've got to remember, these are young people in a mind, they're open to persuasion.
We've got to make better arguments.
And I think antagonizing people, and we've all been there, you and I and everything else, you know, my journey with my show, Trigonometry, it's been an evolution too.
I haven't started out like this necessarily, but what I've come to now, and maybe it's being a father of a young child now as well, I'm starting to see that, you know, these are kids and we have a responsibility to persuade them, to convince them with rational argument.
And look, when you're speaking to bright people like the ones at Oxford, you've got a chance.
I mean, one of the worst aspects of wokery is the way that people now feel too afraid to express opinions.
And it's becoming a real thing where people, you know, I had Dame Joan Collins on here, didn't want to say what she thought a woman was.
And she's one of my favorite people in the world, Joan, and obviously knows what she believes a woman is, but didn't want to raise her head over a parapet just to be shot down by the trans lobby or whatever lobby it may be at any given moment.
There's this mob mentality.
If you don't agree with me, you must be cancelled immediately.
Shame, vilified, J.K. Rowling, whoever it may be.
How have we got to this place?
What's fueling it?
How do we deal with it?
Well, first of all, I know that you're shocked by it.
And I think a lot of people in the West are shocked, but actually as someone who grew up in the Soviet Union, this is very familiar.
I mean, this is exactly what we had.
And that's one of the reasons I'm in this country is my grandfather said the wrong thing and was forced into exile.
So this is actually, if you think about human history, pretty standard.
We just didn't expect it to be happening in the 21st century.
And I think technology is a big part of it.
Social media allows people to mob other people.
It fuels also tribalism.
It fuels this sort of righteous indignation that people, the victimhood.
And people get...
Don't forget there's also real.
Oh, there's real power.
And the power actually manifests itself from the mob going to corporate world and demanding that they fire people and get rid of people who don't agree with their view.
Exactly.
And I think a lot of people, particularly, and you know, this isn't an attack, but, you know, if you don't have a lot of meaning in your own life, this is a way to get some meaning because you tap this thing on your phone or on your keyboard and suddenly a famous person's getting cancelled.
I think that's a big part of it.
But as I say, and as you frankly point out, I think the solution here is to be reasonable, to talk to people, to try and persuade them, while also, of course, we've got to stand up and not allow these cancellations to happen.
And that means that, you know, TV producers and big corporations, they have to step up as well.
I mean, I was forced out of my last job for disbelieving mega market, which seems preposterous now, given the nonsense that comes out of her mouth.
But that showed me that when the mob attack the corporate world, the corporate world will often bow to the mob because actually they're just terrified of the consequences, terrified of losing advertising revenue, sponsors and so on.
That's the way they do it.
It's very well marshalled and well organized, albeit there are quite a small number of people.
They're just well organized.
Yeah, and they're able to create the illusion that there is lots of them because on social media you can get a lot of traction with not a lot.
But I think you're right.
And I think the fact is that we're building an alternative ecosystem now.
Shows like mine on YouTube and there's going to be companies that are making products that don't care if you're woke or not, advertisers that are not interested in the stuff.
And I actually said this on Twitter today.
I think the future isn't woke or anti-woke.
The future is post-woke.
We've just got to move past this.
Well, the trouble is the word has become toxic.
Originally, woke meant that you were just more alert to racial and social injustice.
Well, we would all sign up to that.
Anyone with a brain and a conscience would say, yeah, I can sign up to it.
But it's been hijacked by the ultra-wokeys, who basically are a former fascist.
Who are using this for their own ends.
And I think that's why both all of us have actually just got to move past it and go, this is a period in human history which was pretty stupid.
Let's move on.
Let's see how we can work together.
But Piers, we've got to change the way that we have political conversations in this country because that's where this polarization is coming from.
And we carry on down this path.
It's very dangerous.
Well, that's so tribal as well and toxic and hyper-partisan, fueled again by social media.
People don't want to admit anything wrong with their side.
Staggering Lies From The Congressman 00:06:30
And it's so refreshing when occasionally you hear one of them do it.
You know, you think, wow, there's someone prepared to criticize their own side as if it's somehow a football team and you can't admit to giving away a booking or something.
Why?
How do we get to that place in a democracy?
The whole point of democracy is that actually we have a debate and we reach consensus.
Well, right.
And that's what I quite often do as my audience grows and expands.
I go out of my way to annoy some of them to just kind of position myself correctly because I don't want to be playing to any eco chamber.
I'm trying to just be honest about what I think.
Trigonometry, you're going to go gangbusters on the back of this viral clip.
I mean, are you surprised by how it's taken off?
I mean, it's going to sound arrogant, but I'm not.
I felt pretty good on the night, particularly, you know.
No notes, I noticed.
Well, yeah, I'm pretty clear on what I think about it now.
You know, we spent five years on trigonometry interviewing all sorts of fascinating people.
You know, the Douglas Murrays, the Jordan Petersons, lots of people on the left trying to understand what's going on.
Because, you know, the story of us is it's two comedians didn't really know what was going on.
But what we felt was in comedy, there was a lot of hypersensitivity and outright censorship going on.
We couldn't understand where it was coming from.
So we thought, let's talk to people who are smarter than us, who can explain what's going on.
And now I'm pretty clear on what I think.
Well, you've been trying to get me on trigonometry for a while.
When you come in.
I will now publicly agree.
And we're going to do it at our mutual friends restaurant in Portico in Kensington.
Saturday, I'll be there.
Let's put the world to rights.
Constantine.
Congratulations on a brilliant speech and I'll see you there.
Well next tonight, New York Republican George Santos, a congressman, has denied being a drag queen 15 years ago.
But why would anyone believe him?
You may not have heard of this guy, but he's probably the biggest liar in the history of global politics.
And I'm going to show you how.
Just breaking news and I'm torn with this one because Tottenham Hotspur are beating Manchester City 2-0, which is great for Arsenal, except we hate Other.
So a bit of mixed feeling.
My dad's a scrolls fans.
I suppose I can on this one occasion say, all right, Dell, I'm happy for you.
Well, welcome back.
Now, look, we're familiar with political fibers in the UK.
Boris Johnson lied more often than he tried, but New York Republican Congressman George Santos might just be the biggest liar in the history of global politics.
Today he angrily denied a bizarre but plausible claim, if you know much about Mr. Santos, that he competed as a drag queen in a Brazilian beauty pageant.
The reason people don't believe him is that Pinocchio Santos has a rap sheet of whoppers, which is quite staggering.
He claimed, for example, to have gone to various schools, none of which he actually went to.
He said he graduated in the top 1% of his class in 2010 with a degree in economics and finance.
He didn't.
He said he worked at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
He didn't.
His lies then got more serious.
In July 2021, he said that in the 9-11 attacks, his mother had died and said she'd be working in her office in the South Tower.
His mother died from cancer in 2016.
There's no evidence she ever worked at the World Trade Center.
He claimed his grandparents survived the Holocaust of persecution during World War II.
They didn't.
He said he's Jewish.
He's not.
He said he lost four employees in the horrific Pulse nightclub mass shooting in 2016.
He didn't.
It's honestly staggering how many lies this guy's told.
And yet tonight, he remains a serving, sitting US congressman.
And for that, George Santos, you are my douche of the day.
Let's go back to the pack, Paula Richard and Isabel.
I mean, he is, honestly, the number of lies is about twice as long as that.
That's just an edited version of a column I wrote for the New York Post.
But I thought, even though many people in the UK may not have heard of him, when you hear that, you're just like, what?
How's this guy a congressman?
It's absolutely jaw-dropping.
Even Donald Trump's like, wow, this guy's got a problem with truth.
It's extraordinary.
And what lies did he tell to get elected, apart from those?
Well, apparently, so he's in one of the New York third district.
And the reason he got elected was they were so desperate to get rid of the Democrats.
And part of it is Queen's, which is Trump's old home borough.
And they basically, he had Trumpian policies.
He believes the 2020 election was stolen and so on.
So he sort of won the Trump vote, if you like.
But it's just staggering that he could lie that brazenly about absolutely everything, including 9-11.
But it'll also be...
That's an emotive issue in America.
And he's sitting there in Congress.
It's unbelievable, but it's also a real test, actually, for the House of Representatives, because they do have a mechanism to remove...
What is it?
Very rarely used.
It's Article 1, Section 5.
I think I've got that right.
Get you.
You get me, hey?
I've been doing my research.
And if two-thirds of the House vote to expel him, then he's been expelled.
Right.
But it's hardly ever.
And here's the problem, Paula.
In America, as in Britain, the partisan nature of politics is so toxic now and so absolutely embedded that there'll be no will of the Republicans to take a chance on doing this.
So they won't even put it forward.
And this is the thing, and this is what worries me the most about this story, and I know that we're making light of it and laughing about it.
It's actually not funny.
It's sort of grotesque.
Because it's just unbelievable.
In terms of the voters as well, what are they seeing, the voters?
They are seeing the fact that this man who hasn't lied for the first time in a couple of weeks or in the last few months or in the last few years, he didn't even support him.
He didn't even call himself George Santos until recently.
He's had a number of people.
He went by various pseudonyms.
I mean, the guy is not even who he says he is.
And all this time.
It's at this time being supported by the Republican Party.
But it doesn't have no.
It does show the contrast with British politics because I can't think of a politician here being able to get away with one of those things.
Well, Boris has tried, let's be honest.
Let's just turn to wokery.
Really?
To what?
Wokery.
I don't understand that.
Well, you do understand it.
No, I genuinely don't.
You're going to have to define it for me.
I wrote a book about it, and the truth is that the woke culture began in the 60s, actually, in American black music was where it originated.
And it meant having a greater awareness of social and racial injustice.
I sign up to that.
I think we all would.
Exactly.
Wokery today has become a new form of left-wing fascism.
No.
It hasn't.
No.
What has happened today is that I hate using this term left-wing and right-wing, but if you force me to, the right side of the argument has decided that they are going to grab hold of a word that is synonymous with kindness and patience and thoughtfulness.
Oh, come off it, Paula.
Thank God.
Choosing Between Diehard Arsenal Fans 00:02:26
They're going to grab hold of that.
But what if a better phrase?
Wake up.
And attempt to use kind or tolerant or patient.
Anything about those people.
The people who now put the argument, we will have a decent debate.
Paula, Paula.
The minute you put the word woke in, the people you're talking about who call themselves proudly woke in their social media bios and have hashtag be car.
They're not kind.
They're the least tolerant, least kind, least patient, most vile, intransigent, canceled culture merchants you would ever meet.
And yet they have been gawked to call themselves liberals.
Reference the argument to them.
Reference the specific argument to them.
It is not about being woke because you have just explained.
And for some viewers, for the first time, what woke means, and they will be surprised at this.
We've got to move to this.
We've all signed up for the first time.
All right, so there's a more important thing than this, which is this.
Sakir Starmer was asked a big question today, Labour leader.
Here's the question.
Here's the answer.
You're an Arsenal fan.
I'm going to give you the names of two diehard Arsenal fans, and you've got to choose who you'd rather sit next to.
Piers Morgan or Jeremy Corbyn?
Piers Morgan.
That was quick.
That was quick.
That was very quick.
Yeah, the current Labour leader would rather sit next to me at an Arsenal game than the ex-leader of the party that he replaced.
I think he knows you've got 8 million followers on Twitter.
Well, and if you're that big a fan of me, Sakir, when are you coming on Piers Morgan Uncensored?
Because it's been eight months and we haven't seen you yet.
So come on, goona to goona, come and sit down here and be interviewed by me.
Great to see you, Pat.
What do you make of that?
I mean, he could have just played the easy card and said, of course, Jeremy Corbyn.
He didn't.
He went Morgan.
Oh, he wanted to be provocative.
I mean, without question.
I think he was just telling the truth.
I'd rather sit next to you than Jeremy Corbyn.
You actually have sat next to me at an Arsenal game, haven't you?
Almost.
But it is, of course.
In the very smart seat.
In the very smart seat.
I found you in the most expensive seat.
I didn't pay.
Was that not Kier Starmer saying goodbye once and for all to the Jeremy Corbyn supporters?
I think it was, actually.
I actually think it was.
And on Sunday, Arsenal have a massive game against Manchester United.
He, of course, cruelly ditched my friend Chris Giannar Ronaldo, who tonight scored two goals in Saudi Arabia.
He beat Leonor Messi's goal tally for the night.
He got man of the match.
That's my man, Arsenal and my team.
Come Sunday, we're going to win.
We're going to go 11 points clear.
Good night.
Keep it uncensored.
Have a great weekend.
Because we are.
Come on our soul.
Come on,
Export Selection