All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Feb. 21, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:27
20230221_piers-morgan-uncensored-david-boies-exclusive
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored 00:02:04
Welcome to Piers Morgan Tonight, which is in New York City, uncensored, of course.
David Boyce is the superstar US lawyer who took down Jeffrey Epstein and Ghilane Maxwell.
Prince Andrew paid millions in a settlement to avoid facing him in court.
He talks to me exclusively.
President Biden visits Poland and goads Putin in a major speech on America's backing for Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Russia severs a nuclear treaty with the US.
One year on from a deadly invasion, is the war now escalating beyond the West control.
And Roald Dahl's legendary books are ransacked by so-called sensitivity readers who say they're, of course, offensive.
I have some thoughts.
Live from New York, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well, good evening, live from New York City.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
First, they came for women.
They're now individuals with a surface.
Then they came for mothers and fathers.
They're now birthing and non-birthing parents.
Then they came for culture, banning Jane Austen novels to decolonize universities, slapping triggle warnings on Shakespeare.
And because we just accepted all this, because we're a bunch of sheep, the children were obviously going to be next.
For all of the people, products, books, brands, movies, meals, songs, ideas, and dead historical figures who have been outlawed by the cancelled culture vultures, I never thought they'd be feasting on this.
I don't want any.
Thank you.
Eat it!
You're blowing up!
I feel funny!
I'm not surprised.
Eating as much as an elephant eats.
What are you at?
Getting terribly fat?
What do you think will come of that?
I don't like the look of it.
All of that is now completely offensive, apparently.
Roald Dahl Books Now Offensive 00:02:16
Now, Roald Dahl's books and characters are many things.
They're mischievous, they're funny, they're adventurous, they're grisly, they're witty, sometimes they're even scary.
But are they actually offensive?
Well, puffing books, Roald Dahl's publishers think so.
They hired so-called sensitivity readers.
Does your skin crawl as much as mine does when you hear that phrase?
Sensitivity readers.
To ransack the great Roald Dahl's legendary books.
A man who sold 300 million copies of those books, but they thought they could actually do them better.
The Thorpolis have taken a meat cleaver to some of the best-loved children's stories of all time.
Literally hundreds and hundreds of words and phrases have been cut or completely rewritten.
Now, as always, the idea was to make them less offensive.
And as ever, they weren't offensive to start with.
The offensive thing is their removal.
And as ever, the result is now, of course, more offensive to every sensible human being on the planet than anything Dahl himself wrote in his books.
In James on the Giant Peach, for example, the cloud men are now cloud people, presumably to avoid upsetting non-binary clouds.
The umper lumpers in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory were described by Dahl as small men, but now they're simply small people, just in case any of the small men wanted to become small women or small on binaries.
In Fantastic Mr. Fox, a line describing track is probably my favourite, describing tractors as black has been deleted because apparently it's just mentioning the colour of an object like a like a tractor is now racially charged.
In The Witches, a chambermaid is now a cleaner.
There's a disclaimer explaining that while the witches are bald, there's nothing wrong with being bald.
Augustus Gloop, Willie Wonka's fabled glutton, can't be described as fat.
Several other fat characters, ranging from a fat brown mouse to fat Aunt Sponge, are also spared.
It's appalling body shaming in the new editions.
But you can say enormous, apparently, as if somehow being enormous or being called enormous is less offensive than just being called fat.
Appalling Body Shaming in New Editions 00:04:33
Well, Matilda's Miss Trunchball no longer has a great horsey face, even though her face does resemble a horse.
Now it's just a face, presumably to avoid upsetting any horses that might watch this or read it.
The mothers and fathers of the school children are now just parents, not mothers and fathers.
That's offensive.
In the Twits, what a perfect name, by the way, for all of this.
Mrs. Twit isn't ugly and beastly anymore.
She's just beastly.
Because every woman would be quite happy being called a beast.
Just don't call them ugly.
A description of a double chin has been removed to protect the double chin community.
A note at the bottom of the opening pages of the books now says this.
This book was written many years ago, and so we regularly review the language to ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today.
But it's not been enjoyed by all.
In fact, it's been absolutely reviled by all on all sides, actually, because most people actually have common sense.
They think all this is complete nonsense, cultural vandalism, an attempt to rewrite history in a way that actually does it a disservice.
It's no different, actually, to the cultural purges enforced by communists and fascists throughout history.
This could be China under Mao, couldn't it?
It's insidious the way that these wokeys are gradually airbrushing the world and redrawing it in their own image with their own worldview.
And if you dare stand up to them, you must be cancelled after they've shamed and vilified and abused you.
The aim is to make you hesitate before you use perfectly normal words through fear of causing offense.
And if you do that, it means their worldview's already been imposed upon you.
It means they've already won.
Well, joining me to discuss all this and other things.
Former Conservative MP and author Louise Mensch and former US Navy SEAL and the man who led the operation that took out Osama bin Laden.
In fact, he killed Osama bin Laden.
And for that, we should always be extremely grateful to this man, Rob O'Neill.
Great to see you both.
Thanks for having us.
Thank you.
Even as I read all that, Rob, does your heart sink like mine about what the hell has happened to this world?
Yeah, we live in such a good place that we can have unserious people making up fake problems for us to get outraged.
Right.
My initial thought there was, how was Grandpa Joe not offensive?
He's bedridden until he gets some free candy and then all of a sudden he can jump around and talk about how great it is.
Right.
I mean Louise, when you have a problem about calling a tractor black, even if the tractor is black, because somebody might be offended that it's racially insensitive, I honestly think it's almost like a parody.
Yes, and it does more harm than good.
Are you saying that being black is a bad thing?
Right.
And you have to change it.
I mean, I don't want to read about Varuka low-sodium substitutes.
Right.
It's Varuka's salt.
Augustus Gloop, he apparently can't be fat, but he can be called enormous.
Which is worse?
Well, as a woman, would you rather be called fat or enormous?
Which you're neither.
Obviously, I'd rather call it a slim and beautiful, but perhaps that would be offensive to some people.
Look, call a spade a spade.
Warts and all, you can't put Roald Dahl's name on these books and then change his words because that's not what he wrote.
And if these people think that people can't take it, maybe they should ask the markets if they can take it.
Right.
I mean, Rob, this is not just about Roald Dahl.
It's about everything in art and culture.
You know, we're seeing great works of art, statues ripped down.
We're seeing, you know, even the founding fathers, the statues of them being desecrated and stuff.
an attempt to kind of bring today's really quite draconian morality rules and take them back in time and rewrite what they should have been at the time.
It's like book burning one word at a time.
Yes.
And you know what they say about the road to hell?
It's a pave of good intentions.
And I could sort of understand, I mean, I can totally understand how you want to avoid bullying and name-calling, but something like this, I mean, those are words that are out there, and just because you stick your head in the sand doesn't mean they don't exist.
The only time that happens is when you swim in the ocean at night, if you can't see a shark, it can't see you and they're not there.
That's about it.
I was going to ask you, because news just broke before we came on earth that Cambridge University in the UK has, the students' union just voted to make all the food at the university vegan.
I have one question for you.
You were on, I think, three of the most famous missions.
They've all been made in the movies.
Lone Survivor, Captain Phillips, Zero Dart 30.
Did any of the Navy SEALs that you went on these missions with, were any of them vegan?
No, there was no vegans there.
Prince Andrew Traumatic Situation Mystery 00:14:44
There were a lot of guys in good shape.
And even on the Captain Phillips mission, when the snipers were taking the shot, I was in what's called the Chiefs' Mess having, because we were going to do something else.
What were you eating?
I was drinking coffee and eating probably a hamburger because all they had was a bunch of meat.
Not that there's anything wrong with being vegan, but I don't think people that are, you know, there's certain things you can enjoy online.
Food's one of them.
I don't think we have a lot of vegans in the SEAL team.
I would go, Louise, I would now go and put all my money on Oxford University to win the boat race for the next 50 years because you're going to have a bunch of guys in the male boat race for Oxford.
You're going to have a bunch of guys eating a lot of meat to power themselves up and a bunch of snowflakes from Cambridge eating leaves.
Well, look, as an Oxford girl myself, I would always say back the dark blues, but luckily for Cambridge, these people don't in fact control all the catering in all the colleges.
So I would imagine that some of those rowers are going to get around this ban and get themselves some eggs and bacon anyway.
But let's take a little break.
I want to come back and I'm talking exclusively with Virginia Dufresla.
Now, she, of course, was the young woman who accused Prince Andrew of sexually abusing her and he ended up paying her millions of dollars.
This is an extraordinary interview with her hot US lawyer, a guy who's covered some of the biggest cases in the last six decades.
What he says about Prince Andrew is well worth listening to because there are big repercussions.
So stay with us with David Boyes after the break.
Welcome back to Piers Working Uncensored live from New York City.
David Boyes is widely regarded as the greatest and most formidable deposition taker in American law.
He's brought down some of the most powerful people in the world.
Well, few are bigger than Prince Andrew and his multi-million pound settlement with a woman who accused him of sexual abuse when she was just 17.
Virginia Duffray agreed to a one-year ganging order as part of our settlement.
That year is now up.
No, no, no, we'll bring you my exclusive interview with her lawyer, David Boyce.
It's the first time he's been able to go an interview because of that one-year rule.
But first, let's take a look at the scandal that rocked the royal family.
Virginia Roberts has made allegations against you.
She says she went on to have sex with you in a house in Belgravia.
I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady.
Prince Andrew agreed to a settlement with Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Duffray.
And I'm joined now by David Boisel.
Thank you very much indeed for joining me.
You're one of America's greatest lawyers.
I mean, I don't say that lightly.
And I realize that in the general scheme of things, probably this case actually isn't that big a deal for you.
Certainly not as big a deal as it has been for us back in the UK.
I think that's probably right.
Although it's still a pretty big deal.
And it gets a lot of attention because it involves a senior member of our royal family, obviously.
It's been a year since Prince Andrew settled his civil case with Virginia Geffray, your client.
At the time that it was settled, he had until that point repeatedly said, I'm going to clear my name, I'm going to go all the way, I'm going to go to court, and I'm going to have my day, and I'm going to clear my name.
And then at the last minute, he caved and paid a large check.
Were you surprised?
No.
This was never a case where I think he could have afforded to go to trial.
This was a case where I think the evidence was too strong.
And it was going to be very difficult for him to give a deposition.
It settled right on the eve of the time when the court had ordered his deposition to be taken.
And I think it was a deposition that would have been extremely difficult for him.
Well, certainly with you, because you're known as one of the masterful deposers in legal history.
You deposed Ghillain Maxwell.
Had you got Prince Andrew in front of you, I mean, we watched the news night, BBC interview was toe-curling enough.
But you think that did that give you all the ammunition you needed, do you think?
Well, it gave a lot of ammunition, but it also said that this is a person who is not going to want to sit for a deposition.
Why?
Well, because, I mean, that was a relatively short interview, and while there were some tough questions, it was generally a very respectful interview.
This was going to be a deposition where he was going to have to sit for seven hours, and he was going to have to ask and answer any question that was relevant to the case.
He had said so many things, and his advisors had said so many things to the press on his behalf that he was going to have a lot of difficulty, I think, reconciling those things with the factual evidence, testimony that people had given, not just my client, but other people.
He's been going around briefing people who then briefed the media in the UK, that he only settled this to make the problem go away in terms of PR optics to protect the Queen and so on.
That he's never met this woman, none of it was true, blah, blah, blah.
Well, it's interesting.
He hasn't said anything to the press about this.
And nobody who is one of his advisors or one of his attorneys has said anything, at least for the record.
What we have is these innuendos from the shadows saying he only did this because it's, but nobody will own up to actually trying to come forward and say that, because the fact of the matter is it's not true.
And I don't think anybody is prepared to put their name to those kind of interpretations.
Did you have any doubt that Andrew was guilty?
Unless you're there, you know, unless you're there witnessing it or unless you've got a videotape, you never know personally what happened.
All you can do is look at the evidence.
And the evidence was very strong.
What to you was the most damning part of the evidence?
It's hard.
There's so much.
Part of it was the photograph.
I mean, the photograph made clear that he could not say he'd never met her.
And again, it's so often people, when they start to lie, go so far and they make statements that are demonstrably untrue.
I mean, he could have said, yes, I met her.
Yes, I danced with her.
But no, there was never any sex.
That's something that may be hard to disprove.
When he says, I've never met her, and you've got that photograph.
And you've got a photograph that Maxwell herself says she thinks is real.
Well, funny enough, she came out on Talk TV in this interview from her prison. several weeks ago and said she now thinks the photograph is faked.
I don't believe it's real, she said.
There's never been an original.
Further, there's no photograph.
I've only ever seen a photocopy of it.
Now, the Mail Sunday newspaper then did a big investigation on the back of her claim and actually got to the original photographer.
And there seemed to be no doubt this was an original photograph.
Right.
Did you have any doubt that that?
I never had any doubt.
I mean, for one thing, the photograph looked real.
The second thing, nobody, when they first saw the photograph, said, this isn't real, it didn't happen.
If somebody shows you a photograph of something that you know didn't happen, you say, that can't be right, because it didn't happen.
No one ever said that.
It was only afterwards they began to think, well, maybe we can make a claim that it's not real or something like that.
But the event clearly happened because if the event hadn't happened from the moment that photograph became public, people would have said, it can't be so because it didn't happen.
Andrew, again, this is what we read in briefings to the media, so we're not entirely sure how much is directly from him, but seems to be inferring that he may now contest the settlement, and he's using as a reason the settlement between Virginia Duffray and Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer.
Obviously, you've been involved in all this, but is there any bearing on the two cases in that sense?
Not, not in any significant way.
Of course, Alan Dershowitz, as part of the settlement, admitted that Virginia Duffray was honest in her accusations, that she actually believed it was him.
So that to some extent strengthens, I mean, if Alan Dershowitz, who was one of Epstein's closest friends, his lawyer for many years, was a spokesman for Epstein with the press, if he is admitting that Virginia honestly believes what she was saying, even about him, I think that strengthens her.
But there would be some who would say, yes, okay, but she also got it wrong.
And if Prince Andrew was to say she got it wrong with me too, is there any way for him back into this, having settled in the way he did?
Well, first of all, she didn't say she got it wrong.
What she said was that under all the circumstances, it's possible it might have been a case of mistaken identity.
There's no doubt that there was abuse here.
And it was a long time ago.
She was very young.
It was a very traumatic situation.
And I think it was inevitable to admit that there might have been a case of mistaken identity.
But the evidence, the evidence there was what is important, not the question of whether she thinks it's possible that there was a mistaken identity.
And as far as Prince Andrew is concerned, we've got the photograph.
And with all your experience of these things, if you established that Prince Andrew was lying about the photograph, that he had met her, he had put his arm around her, it was with Guillain Maxwell at her home, would that in itself have been enough, do you think, to get a conviction?
I think it probably would have been because you have her testimony and you have his complete denial.
So the question is, is he credible or not?
And once the jury concludes that he's not credible about having never met her, I think the jury probably concludes he's not credible about claiming that he did not have sex with her.
And did you think that's why in the end he settled?
Well, I think it was partly that.
But I also think that he recognized, and I think his lawyers recognized, that it would be a disaster for him to appear for a deposition.
I mean, remember, as you say, I deposed Ghulaine Maxwell, and she was indicted for perjury as a result of that.
that deposition.
And I think he would have been taking a terrible criminal risk to appear for a deposition where he'd have to answer these questions under oath.
And if he did not answer those questions truthfully under oath, he could then expose himself to real criminal liability.
So the risk of criminal liability over perjury alone could have ended up being one of the more serious things he would face.
I think that's right.
You see, if you lie to an interviewer, you may embarrass yourself.
If you lie in a deposition, you could go to jail.
The Maxwell family released this bizarre photograph of two adults in a bath wearing masks of Prince Andrew and Virginia Duffray, claiming it proves conclusively the bath was too small for any sort of sex frolicking.
When I saw this on the front page of the telegraph, I was like, actually, it proves to me they can.
Exactly right.
I saw that and I said people have had sex in a lot smaller places.
Right.
And I think it seemed to be proving the complete opposite of what did they fool you.
It was just, it was incomprehensible to me.
One of the things that has been a mystery to me throughout this is with Prince Andrew, with Ghislaine Maxwell, with Alan Dershowitz, why they say the kinds of things they do publicly.
Right.
When it just, it doesn't help them.
It just undercuts their credibility.
And that interview that Prince Andrew gave, the interview just that Ghislaine Maxwell gives from a jail sentence while her case is being appealed.
Why in the world would you want to further damage your credibility at that point?
Do you think she was just lying through her back teeth in that interview?
I think she's a very troubled person.
I think she's in a very troubling situation.
I think she never thought that she would find herself in jail.
And I think it's very hard to know why she says the kinds of things she says now.
But I think she's under a tremendous emotional pressure.
I think she's a very damaged person.
She's done a lot of horrible things.
But I think it's hard on a human level not to have a certain empathy for the pain I'm sure she's going through right now.
Is there any legal way that Andrew can get back into this process again, having settled in the way that he did?
All he has to do is ask.
He can if he wants to.
Well, he can't unless we let him.
Who would have to let him?
Virginia would have to let him come back and reopen it.
But if he wants to reopen it, he's got my telephone number.
Well, that's your message.
His lawyer's got my telephone number.
Right.
Do you think he's going to make that call?
I do not.
Why?
Because he knows that if he comes back, he's going to be subject to exactly the same scrutiny, exactly the same deposition, exactly the same trial that caused him to settle in the first place.
And the allegations over which he settled were serious.
I mean, some of the sex that he was allegedly having with Virginia Guffray were in states where it was unlawful.
She was underage.
Epstein Maxwell Not Fully Held Accountable 00:05:52
There's no doubt that He could have been prosecuted criminally if prosecutors had either had jurisdiction over him or wanted to.
I think one of the things that was disappointing to us in the United States was how lightly the British prosecutorial authorities treated this.
You think that because he was Prince Andrew, a member of the royal family, he got an easier ride than he should have done.
I don't know whether it was because he was a member of the royal family or whether he just was wealthy, could afford good lawyers.
Our justice system in the United States as well as in the United Kingdom greatly favors people who are well represented.
So I think that if he'd been an ordinary chap who had done what he did, I think the prosecutors would have looked at him differently.
Do you think he'd have been charged criminally?
I don't want to say that because I think you've got to look at what the evidence is.
But you've seen all the evidence.
Well, I haven't seen enough evidence to know about criminal charges.
But it would have been a distinct possibility.
I think it would be a distinct possibility.
Extraordinary.
They're also, listen, Epstein died in prison.
Right.
Took his life or otherwise, as some people think.
But many other people who were on that island with him, presumably up to all sorts of stuff, they've all remained secret because a lot of the files have remained secret.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think one of the troubling things about this is Maxwell and Epstein couldn't have done what they did for as long as they did on the scale that they did it without the support and collaboration of many other people.
And I think one of the very troubling things about what has happened here is that although it is good to see Maxwell and Epstein held to account, there are many, many other people who have not been held to account.
And I think that the U.S. Attorney Berman deserves a lot of credit for what he did.
But the subsequent prosecutions, I think, have left a lot to be desired.
You're also involved in many other high-profile cases, one of which is Sam McMan-Fried, the FCX guy.
You're actually representing a high-profile class action suit against him, but also against the celebrity endorsers, including the quarterback Tom Brady, his wife at the time, Giselle Bunchen, comedian Larry David, the NBA star Stephen Curry, tennis star Naomi Osaka.
It's interesting, I wrote a comment about this for the New York Post saying, well, what about these celebrity endorsers?
Why are they not being made accountable?
Exactly.
No, exactly right.
I mean, so many of our clients say we invested because X, say Tom Brady, somebody, was endorsing this.
And we knew he wouldn't endorse something that wasn't real.
It gave FTX a credibility that FTX would never have had otherwise.
And it gave credibility to the average person on the street.
People were not Wall Street speculators, investors, but people, some of them put their 401k money into these investments.
And the stories that we have from our clients put $80,000 in or $130,000 in.
Maybe not a large amount in the larger scheme of things, but it was their life savings.
And do you think these celebrities should be personally liable then for some of this?
I think they need to take responsibility, and I think they need to have some liability.
They weren't the core.
But they put their name to someone else.
They put their name to be a gigantic.
They put their names, they put their names to it, and they misled people.
David, I could talk to you for hours because you've had such an amazing and varied life.
But thank you very much.
Thank you.
It's good to talk to you.
I really appreciate it.
Good to talk to you.
Good to see you.
Well, back with my pack, Louise mentioned Robert Neal.
I mean, Rob, of all the things I'd least want to do, it would be going to a deposition with that guy looking at me, right?
This avuncular guy, charming, razor-sharp, respectful, polite, and basically taking you down.
In the most respectful way possible, too.
He's letting everyone know he holds all the cards.
Yes, I've got him where I want him.
He knows the deal.
He settled for a reason, and the reason is he's guilty.
And if he wants to come back, it's going to be, he didn't settle because the bad press the royal family would get us because I'm busted.
Well, that was clear, I think, wasn't it, Louise, from what David Buys was saying.
You know, Ghillane Maxwell perjured herself in her deposition with David Buies.
Clearly, Andrew was getting advice that if you replicate anything like what you did with Emily Maitlis, this guy is going to have you for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Yeah, look, Prince Andrew could give your blockbuster interviewee, George Santos, a run for his money.
He is one of the biggest lawyers on the planet.
He is, his friendship with Andrew, with Epstein, is the most damaging thing to happen to the royal family since the Duchess of Windsor shook hands with Hitler.
And what he needs to do is go away and stay away.
He needs to stop having his friends and little PR firms sending releases to the press, trying to get back into the royal family.
It will never happen.
I mean, the most preposterous thing, Rob, was they released the Maxwell family.
What they thought was a supportive image for Andrew, which was this bath picture with two people wearing masks replicating Prince Andrew and Virginia Duffray, as if to show that they couldn't have done anything sexual in that bath.
The picture proved the complete opposite.
The picture was ridiculous.
That's actually the first time I've seen it.
Biden Boosts Ukrainian Forces Morale 00:15:01
Right.
I mean, at least they're wearing masks or they were practicing something protected, but the rest that's going on there, it's absolutely incriminated somewhere.
So bizarre that you would think that, look at this, this proves they couldn't have been doing it.
What are you talking about?
The last time he did something like that, he was saying that it couldn't be him because he doesn't sweat because of his combat actions in the Falklands.
I mean, when you just give over.
Have you ever heard people in combat who can't sweat?
No, I sweat every time.
I had people ask me what's it like to have no fear in combat.
I said, I have no idea because I was afraid every single time, and that's okay.
Exactly.
But Andrew apparently doesn't sweat.
We'll add that to the list along with the vegan Cambridge University students of things that the SEALs just don't get involved with.
Well, coming next tonight, almost a year on from Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and the Russian dictator suspended an arms control treaty with the US.
As tensions escalate, is there a way out?
What does victory for Ukraine look like?
We'll debate that.
Welcome back to Peters Walking Uncensored live in New York City.
President Biden was in Poland today following a surprise visit to Kyiv, shoring up NATO support for Ukraine, marking almost a year from Vladimir Putin's bloody invasion.
U.S. President gave a rousing speech in praise of freedom.
Kiev stands strong.
Kiev stands proud.
It stands tall.
And most important, it stands free.
The democracies of the world have grown stronger, not weaker.
But the autocrats of the world have grown weaker, not stronger.
Our support for Ukraine will not waver.
NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire.
Democracies of the world will stand guard over freedom today, tomorrow, and forever.
Powerful stuff from the President.
In a moment, I'll speak to the former Assistant Secretary of State, General Mark Kimmett.
But first, joining me is former U.S. Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta.
Welcome to both of you.
Leopanetta, I actually thought that was a powerful speech by President Biden.
What was your view of it?
I think this has been a very historic trip by the President at a historic time.
And the message he delivered was exactly the right message, which is that this is a pivotal war that involves not only Ukraine fighting for its democracy, in many ways, Ukraine is fighting for the future of democracies in the 21st century.
And it is about freedom.
So I think the president really hit the nail on the head in terms of trying to make clear how important this conflict is and why we've got to stick with it.
Right, General Kimmett, the big question is what happens next?
What does victory look like?
Can Ukraine win?
If so, how do they win?
And how do the Russians, and Vladimir Putin in particular, accept failure and loss?
President Zelensky has laid out his war aims, his definition of victory, and that is to retake the entire Donbass, retake Crimea, and no longer have Russian troops on the ground.
That's a pretty big stretch.
I think we will see some pretty good military operations come spring.
But any expectation in my mind that the Russians would either capitulate or President Putin would capitulate, I don't think that that's in the cards right now.
Right.
I mean, Leon Panetta, this is the big question, isn't it?
You're not dealing with a normal leader in Vladimir Putin.
He's basically trying to restore imperial power to the old Soviet Union.
You know, my fear about this is if he does prevail in Ukraine, he's not going to stop there.
He wants to get Russia back to where he sees it in the days of the Tsars and sees himself as a kind of modern-day Tsar.
How do you deal with an enemy like that?
Well, you know, we understand that Putin is going to continue to double down.
But the fact is that the only message that Putin understands is force.
And so it's really important for the Ukraine to continue their initiative, continue to put pressure on the Russians, continue to try to stop any offensive by the Russians.
The more that Ukraine can maintain the initiative, the more we can push Putin to making one of two decisions, whether he's going to ultimately accept defeat in Ukraine or whether he's willing to negotiate.
But the key to that is continued force against Putin.
General Kimmett, how worrying is it, these slight jungle drums beating that China might get more directly involved in helping Russia?
What does that mean for global geopolitics?
Well, were that true and was it a serious event happening?
I think we would be returning to the pre-1975 Henry Kissinger visit to China, which split apart the Sino-Soviet access.
I don't think it will happen.
It has been fairly clear that China is trying to play a role, but I don't think it would be to the point where we would necessarily have that pre-75 alignment.
And even if we did, it would be a completely different alignment than it was prior to 1975.
I just can't see that happening.
Leopanetta, is there any scenario here, do you think, where Ukraine cede territory that's been taken in the last year?
When I was over there interviewing President Zelensky last summer, I spoke to a lot of Ukrainians and they were, to a man and woman, absolutely resolute.
They didn't want Zelensky to give an inch of land to Putin.
Well, one never is in a good shape trying to argue with the Secretary of Defense, but what I would say is that we could actually end up with the third option, which is that of a frozen conflict where this battle of exhaustion comes to the point where neither side can make a significant gain.
And so it just breaks down the way it broke down into a frozen conflict in Kashmir, between North and South Korea, between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
In my mind, that may be the most likely scenario that we see.
And Leo Panetta, what do you think?
I mean, if you were, look, you've been very experienced here in these kind of situations.
What do you think?
Is there a scenario where America, for example, might put pressure on Ukraine ultimately to cede some of this territory, or is that unthinkable now?
Well, I think the worst scenario is the one that was pointed out, where there's a long stalemate and this war is prolonged, because I think that kind of, you know, long war of attrition is going to wear thin on the United States, our NATO allies, and on the Ukraine itself.
So I think it's really important, particularly in these next few months, to make sure that Ukraine is receiving the arms that it needs, is receiving the support that it needs, and can continue the initiative to push the Russians back.
That's the best scenario for us in the short term.
How long it'll take, whether it'll ultimately produce some kind of negotiated settlement, I think the only way to get there is by making sure the Ukraine continues to have the initiative in fighting the Russians.
Secretary Paneda and General Kimmit, thank you both very much indeed.
Greatly appreciate your input today.
Let's get some reaction to that.
Rob.
Thank you.
No one knows better than you the sharp end of military conflict.
What's your take on this?
As we head to the first anniversary at the end of this week, what's your take on where we are with Ukraine?
I think the winner right here is China because they've been watching the Soviet Union and the United States and the Russians now fight for decades.
And they've been studying us the entire time.
And then the big question is, what is the end game?
Because we haven't been able to win a war since 1945.
What's our end game here?
We were at a point, I remember, in the invasion of Afghanistan, a couple weeks after TF-160 put the special forces guys in, there were admirals showing up with starched uniforms in plastic.
Like, do we really know what we're doing here?
Do we really need, what is winning and losing?
And at what point do we supply defensive weapons and we start giving them Abrams tanks?
And Bradley's an anti-we don't need to get in a tank battle.
They don't need a tank battle with the anti-tank weapons that we've given them.
But at what point does, you know, Putin, who grew up realizing what fighting a caged rat was.
He's caged like that.
And at some point, someone does have, they're throwing the word nuclear around way too much and tactical nuclear to make it sound better.
It's not a good thing.
You've got to have an endgame.
And this is a photo op for the president.
This is a problem, isn't it, Louise?
Because what is the end game with a nuclear power that has 6,000 nuclear weapons?
Yes, but I don't think there's any realistic prospect that Vladimir Putin would go and actually use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine because America has told him very clearly, sent the head of the CIA over exactly what will happen if they do.
Russia likes to portray this as a war against NATO, but it's not a war against NATO.
And the reason that we know that is that you don't see the stars and stripes flying over the Kremlin because that's what would happen if they actually went to war against us.
I think what President Biden was doing here was trying to boost morale at a crucial juncture for the Ukrainian forces when they are being ground down a little bit because all of these tanks from Britain, from Germany, eventually from America that are going to be delivered and that will make a big difference, they aren't here yet.
So Ukraine has to hold out for those new weapon systems to start arriving, including the Patriot missile defenses that will stop all this Ukrainian infrastructure being taken down.
There's a couple more weeks before they can get to the battlefield.
And I think Joe Biden just went there to shore up morale to death.
I've got to say, I'm glad he did.
I think that you cannot let Putin take Ukraine.
No way.
And there's no way Ukraine can win without America's support.
And it's very important they continue to give it whilst, I think, maintaining a slight distance of not getting more directly involved.
And that seems to be the sensible strategy.
But it's difficult against someone like Putin.
We'll be back with the pack after the break because coming next to Congressman dubbed the world's biggest liar sat down with me last night.
It's gone pretty viral all this, particularly his confession.
I'll sort of beat it out of him eventually, but the confession that he is a terrible liar.
Just a terrible liar, a self-confessed terrible liar, who's sitting in the US Congress.
We'll debate that after the break.
Back to Peter's organisation here in New York.
Well, last night I interviewed Congressman George Santos, who made a rather dramatic confession.
Let's take a look.
I've been a terrible liar.
I mean, would you be prepared to say that?
Sure.
Like I said, well, I've been a terrible liar on those subjects.
Rob, I know you're an American.
How do you feel about a serving U.S. congressman who just admits I've been a terrible liar and has basically lied about absolutely everything?
He's lied about everything.
And you can almost tell that's the only thing he's telling the truth about is that he's lying.
And he's admitting it right there, but it's almost one of those things where like, I'm at the point now in life where it's like, oh, there's liars in the Capitol.
You're kidding.
Right.
I mean, that's an interesting point, Louise, isn't it?
Have we got to the point now, because of people like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, other leaders who've become very popular and skirt with the truth regularly, if not tell just downright whoppers, does it mean that someone like Santos actually may not be finished?
Oh, God, I hope that's wrong, but I fear that it might be right.
Sometimes people just having chutzpah and being out there and saying, yes, I'm a liar, so what, seems to work reasonably well.
I'm an American too, and my friend Andy is actually a constituent of Mr. Santos.
What does he think?
There's a lot of, there's just despair, and the people that are most upset about it are the Republicans, because they're the ones that actually voted for him, as opposed to Democrat.
They feel tricked.
And I think they really want Republican leadership to do something about it and to get him out.
Somebody asked me, when he said, I'm a terrible liar, they didn't mean that he lies in a terribly large way, i.e. all the time, or that he's a very bad liar.
And I think he asks both.
He tells a lot of whoppers, but he's terrible at telling them.
So he gets caught on all of them.
I mean, that was extraordinary.
He's terrible on every level.
The only one that he wouldn't give up to you was about his mother in the World Trade Center.
And that's because, and that's because she's dead.
And she can't contradict him.
And also, I don't believe a word of it.
I don't believe she was working there.
Of course not.
He says, but not only was that false, but he says, my mum told me that.
Well, his mother is dead.
And his mother cannot defend herself and say, I never told him any such thing.
Rob, obviously, you're the man who killed Osama bin Laden.
So 9-11 is a very special, important thing for you.
And I know you've met lots of the families.
If it turns out he has lied about his mother surviving on 9-11 and all the rest of it, what would you think of it?
I mean, if he's lying about that, it's just a terrible thing.
But like you said, he's a horrible liar in every sense of the word.
But I think that the thing about being on Capitol Hill, because the Republican leadership will say they don't like it, but now they got him.
And he has to vote.
They'd rather have the votes for the party than have you.
Yeah, that's where we are, I think, with politics generally.
They would rather just hold their nose and put up with him and hope it blows over and he can keep the seat, right?
Well, the real scandal is what did they know and when did they know it?
Did they know all this stuff before he was elected and just keep quiet because they have a very thin majority and they didn't want to lose that vote, like Rob says.
Let's take a quick look at the South Park destruction of Megan and Harry just because it's so funny.
It has been several months now since our beloved queen has died.
Our Canadians are finding it hard to go on.
Our Canadians, that is, except for our first guest, the Prince and his wife.
Deflate Royal Family Scandal Arguments 00:01:54
Thanks for having us on the show.
Now, there are rumors they might be suing because they sue everybody or everything, normally, especially if it's true, or if people are being intrusive, because they want to save it for themselves so they can intrude on their own lives.
Rob, do you care about these two?
Not really, but I'm married, so I have to pay attention to a little bit.
So I read some of the stuff online just to see about it.
With something like this, though, it's one of those things where you should just deflate the argument.
Okay, it's funny.
I made South Park.
That's cool.
We're doing well financially.
Other places.
I think if Harry sees this, which he might if someone sends him a clip, he'll probably have to laugh.
He'll have seen it all.
But he can't.
The thing about these two, Louise, they can't laugh at themselves.
They don't have that valve at all.
So I think being a global laughingstock, as they've been made by South Park, they won't take it the way Rob suggests of a badge of honor.
They'll be absolutely seething.
Well, I think it said everything, didn't it?
That the cover of that book said, wow.
Because that is exactly the impression that we've got from Harry Sussex.
The hypocrisy of bleating all the time about wanting privacy and then doing Netflix series, books, blah, blah, blah.
It's so ridiculous.
Absolutely.
And I think everybody is fed up with their hypocrisy.
Now, they sell a lot of books.
Because let's face it, we all like a bit of gossip, but they have chucked away whatever credibility they had with both hands.
Interesting to see if they turn up at the coronation.
I hope they're not there.
I don't want to see them.
So do I.
I really do.
You can't trash the monarchy and then rock up to the royal events and have all the good stuff.
Thank you to my pat.
Great to see you.
Great to see you too.
Great to see you.
And great to see you, Louise.
Thank you very much indeed for coming in.
Well, that's it from me tonight.
But I'm back tomorrow with an hour-long special with the host of one of the world's most successful podcasts, Ben Shapiro.
He'll be here live and uncensored.
And he's a fascinating character, probably one of the most talked about polemists and commentators in American politics right now.
So Ben Shapiro, live tomorrow for the hour, and he'll be uncensored.
Night.
Export Selection