All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 5, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
46:32
20230405_piers-morgan-uncensored-harrys-us-visa-what-is-a-w
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Harry's Visa and Drug Admissions 00:13:18
Lovely to see you this evening tonight, Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood.
This is what we're going to be talking about.
Could Prince Harry's US visa be under threat over admissions of drug taking, cocaine, cannabis, magic mushrooms?
He told all in his book, but did he tell the officials?
Was he given special treatment?
And if he was, how on earth is that fair?
The government could rewrite the law to define what makes a woman, barring trans women from single-sex spaces like female hospital wards and sports events.
We'll be discussing where that could leave an already very heated, very toxic row.
Plus, Melania Trump was loyally by her husband Donald's side throughout his presidency, but she was glaringly absent from his court hearing yesterday.
Where is she and what must she be making of all of this?
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored with Rosanna Lockwood.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored with me, Rosanna Lockwood.
My question to you this evening, where is the honour?
Where is the decorum?
It's what I found myself asking today after those pictures of former US presidents sat in court pleading not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records about extramarital affairs.
Now, whatever you think about this particular prosecution, the behaviour, the affairs, the scheming, as it was called, which was outlined in the charge seat, it paints a picture, doesn't it?
And of course, of course, I'm not saying he's the first.
He is not the first leader to be caught up in impropriety whilst in the Oval Office.
I know that.
It doesn't matter whether you're right or left, but I think it's forever fascinating how politicians sleep at night over the deafening knocks of the skeletons in their closets and how they can pretend everything is okay, knowing the truth always out.
Now, you can call me an equal opportunity critic of poor behaviour on this.
In royal circles, meanwhile, the question of decorum continues as well.
Renewed calls for Prince Harry's US visa application to be released to see if he declared his prior drug use, which he himself mentioned no less than 12 times in his own book.
Now, those pushing for the release of his application argue he shouldn't be above US laws either.
No human is perfect.
I'm not saying that.
I'm certainly not.
But is it too much to hope that positions of power and influence should be held by people of integrity?
Perhaps that's why we've seen the invitation today to the coronation next month sent out by King Charles and Queen Camilla.
Now, this did surprise some.
The couple now dropping the title of Queen Consort and going full queen on this invitation, the culmination of remarkable journey for Camilla, who without doubt has proven herself to be hardworking and graceful in her role.
All of this begging the question, how forgiving can the public be?
And what are the qualities needed to win in the court of opinion?
Perhaps, perhaps it's Glitzy Newark award ceremonies like the one Megan Markle is attending next month to be recognised as a quote global role model by one of her close friends.
People forget how hard women like you and so many others before you fought for us to just be where we are right now.
Well, it's just, I mean, when you, if you don't vote, you don't exist.
I mean, you know, it is the only place where we're all equal.
Or perhaps it takes more than that.
Let's find out, shall we?
Or at least try and have a go.
Joining me is the royal editor of the London Evening Standard.
Very nice to have you this evening.
Although the author of Our King, Robert Johnson, and journalist and author of the case for cancel culture, Ernest Owens.
Look, thank you both very much for joining us on this discussion.
We laid out the claims there about Harry and about his US citizenship.
It just is a story that won't go away.
Is Harry, should he be treated differently from any other citizen?
Absolutely not.
I mean, I recently applied for an eye visa to go and work, do some work in America.
They're covering the Royal Tour.
They were very specific on the form, and you had to fill it out.
And if you didn't fill it out correctly, I dare say it would have been thrown back in my face.
He should be treated.
He wants to be a normal citizen of America.
He's made that clear.
He's married to an American citizen.
And if you don't fill the forms out correctly, you should be in hot water.
I think that's fair.
You think it's fair, but do you think it's, and we keep mentioning this at the moment, a politicized issue.
I'm going to come across to Ernest on this, Ernest, because we've seen a lot of politicised, or as people claimed, issues in the last 24 hours state side.
But on this, what do you make of the claim that Harry is being used as something of a political porn here?
I'm just going to give the context to our viewers because this request for his documents to be released by the Heritage Foundation is called Conservative Think Tank.
Harry, of course, has quite close Democrat connections.
So is he being used as a porn?
Absolutely.
I think that there's a lot of unnecessary presumption being driven by conservatives over there in the UK.
And I think that honestly, they're being disrespectful to our customs.
You know, who's to say that he did not go through the process correctly?
Why are there so many assumptions based on things that are written in his book?
I just think that it's really a bunch of people politicizing a bunch of do-about-nothing.
You know, Prince Harry does not pose a threat to the United States.
I don't think anyone would assume that he shouldn't be able to answer based on what, what, what is he doing?
He's not a terrorist.
He doesn't pose any criminal record that would suggest that he would be in endangerment in America.
So I just think the entire conversation is just really a bunch of rubbish, to be honest.
I don't want to oversimplify it, Ernest, but I do get the impression that quite a lot of Americans do enjoy the British royal family.
Is it not nice to some extent to have Prince Harry, even if he's not quite in the royal family anymore over there in the States?
You know, absolutely.
I think that he has really embraced American culture.
He is very modern.
He's progressive.
And he really represents the kind of spirit that a lot of particularly millennials and Gen Zers look for in a public figure such as him.
So I think he fits in quite well.
And he has fit in quite well.
I mean, you have big Hollywood moguls like Tyler Perry letting him stay at his mansion.
You know, he's one of us in a certain sense.
Robert, you want to respond on that?
Well, I hear what I was saying, but you know, I think that what's important here is transparency.
And it's not a right-wing organization trying to talk about these things.
He's openly said he's taking Class A drugs and a number of all these drugs.
He may well have said that I've done it in the past with his form, but I'm not doing it now.
And if that's the case, that's fine.
Look, we've got the President of the United States who is in court at the moment for not so much all the sort of awful things that have been going on in his life, but for actually forcifying documents and he's having an answer to it.
So if there's nothing to hide, just show the document.
We say thanks a lot.
I've got to say it's quite a sort of compelling argument when you line it up against Trump.
But then US officials, apparently, they can decide to waive any kind of discrepancy on the form.
Well, I respect the US officials.
I mean, if US officials are saying there is not a case to answer here, then you've got to respect them.
The same as if an American who, a famous American who was applying for citizenship in the United Kingdom, admitted to taking drugs and then got accepted, then we'd have to respect the British government too.
Look, I just want to ask you about some comments that we had today from Sarah Ferguson, quite an interesting character, of course, in the great royal scheme of things.
But when we talk about keeping one foot in and one foot out of the royal family, she said in an interview, you can't really do that.
And she obviously has made her position very clear.
And she's sort of carved it out quite cleverly, I think, in terms of trying to be a normal person.
She's obviously kept her title.
She's still got a voice.
It seems to be the type of thing that you would think Meghan and Harry would want to go for, but they haven't plowed that path.
Well, I mean, I know Sarah, the reality is Sarah's a very sensible person.
The reality is, too, is that she never got remarried.
And that's why she kept the title, Duchess of York.
No other reason.
If she'd grown remarried, she'd have been Sarah, whoever.
As for one foot in, one foot out.
I think that's true.
I don't think you can be half in.
The Queen made that quite clear.
But actually, it's quite interesting what's happened with Sarah.
She was invited to Christmas with the Royals with their two daughters by the King and Queen.
And Sandra went along with Andrew was there too, because it was a private family gathering.
My feeling on all these things is that you can't have it both ways.
So what I do find odd about Aaron and Megan, although I wish them well, and I really think that it's great what he wants for the life he has.
I've known him since you were a little boy.
I covered the story for 33 years.
What I would say is in the spirit of America, there's no need to have the Duke and Duchess of Sussex title.
You just be Mr. and Mrs. Mountain Batten Windsor.
And there's no need to call your kids Prince and Princess because if you're an American, that's sort of going against 1776, isn't it?
That's a really interesting point, Ernest.
And we did ask your opinion on having the royals over there.
But as Robert laid out, is it within the spirit of America, shouldn't they be behaving like ordinary citizens?
What's your thought?
I mean, they're not ordinary citizens.
So that's just intellectually dishonest to try to hook them to a standard that neither the society with which they're living in, nor the public, nor any of you all on this set would actually do.
That's just intellectually dishonest.
And it's actually quite frankly impossible.
So we're not going to act as though all of a sudden they can just shed a title.
And so with the publicity or all of it will die.
It will not die.
They are high profile individuals.
At the end of the day, the United States government thought that the visa was fine.
I think all of this interrogation is a waste of time.
I think that they're quite fine where they are.
And I think, you know, it's so many more important things going on in the world than battering about a visa.
Like, come on, he's fine.
He's okay.
I don't think anyone in this country thinks he's in endangerment.
And it happens in other countries as well.
And I just think that to continue to belabor this argument, he said drugs 12 times.
Okay, win.
It doesn't have anything to do with now.
They're just battering him.
Get over it.
Come on.
You could ask us to get over it, but it's not going away.
It's a lot of form, isn't it?
Surely.
Well, there is the point, as Robert's making, of the legal documents here.
I sort of see Ernest's point as well of the belaboring to death as well.
Now, Megan Markle under increased scrutiny because she's going to receive an award at this event in New York next month given to her by a prominent feminist who is also a good friend of hers as it transpires.
And her critics asking, is she deserving of that award?
Now, when I look at sort of the work that she's done and she's carried out, she has spoken out about women.
She has done that sort of thing.
But her critics saying, look, she doesn't really do that much.
Well, I mean, on this one, I actually, I feel that she does deserve it.
Prior to marrying Prince Harry, she was quite, she was out there on this area.
She's been ever since you're little girls, she's been speaking out about feminism, writing letters about adverts that go wrong.
So yeah, I don't know.
What I would say is as a person that runs a charity dinner myself, you've always got to sell the tickets.
And Megan Markle's a famous person.
They're also going to get a royal thrown in because Harry will turn up.
And these $15,000 ticket tables will sell because she's there.
And that's a good thing, because if it empowers women and it empowers their voice, that has to be a good thing.
That was my thought, Robert, exactly when I saw it.
$1,500 a ticket, yeah, $15,000 for the table.
And of course, putting Megan Markle on the ticket does mean that they get to sell it.
However, when it comes to Megan Markle and how she is discussed in the United States, Ernest, I'll come to you on this because Robert brought up the point of kindness early.
He's known the couple for a very long time.
Piers Morgan's not in a seat tonight.
He's been kind enough to give me the seat for a few days whilst he's on holiday.
I might take a slightly different view of things.
I'm also a woman of around Megan's age, not too far off.
But when it comes to the way that she is criticized, that she is looked at for this award that she's going to be receiving next month, do you think she's deserving this award?
Do you think somebody else who's done more should be getting it?
Look, I think she deserves the award.
To be honest, you know, awards within themselves from organizations are always, you know, strategic and political in their own right.
You know, there is a level of merit.
But at the end of the day, you know, I think anyone who is humble that understands the system understands that in certain cases, does the means justify it?
The reason why they're having the awards is to support a cause.
It's a charity effort.
And so the reason why people are going there is really to support the mission.
And so I think in deciding this, as someone who's an organization, I'm a president of a journalism organization in Philadelphia.
And, you know, when we pick honorees, we pick people that, you know, we do believe deserve recognition, but we also think about the impact.
And so what you can't deny is that Megan Markle has impact and she's going to have the site the impact that's going to fill those seats and raise a lot of money for a cause that everyone should be behind.
Toxic Debate on Trans Rights 00:12:38
So I think it's not about her.
I mean, I personally will support anyone who wants to buy a table.
And I think that if she'll have a single, I'll come.
You buy the table, I'll buy one ticket.
I'm not buying $15,000.
I'm not going to get a $50,000 table, but I might get a ticket with you.
$1,500 a piece.
How about that?
Gentlemen, I think we've had a slightly different nature of debate this evening than normal.
I hope Piers' viewers aren't disappointed that we've kind of found some reconciliation on buying a table to Megan Markle's charity event next month.
No, neither of us said we would.
Okay, you didn't say you would.
We're journalists, we like to go free.
It's been fantastic having cover it.
It's been fantastic having you both.
Thanks so much for your insights.
Coming up next on Piers Morgan Understanding: does the law need to be changed to exclude trans women from some female-only spaces?
Will it only heighten this already toxic debate?
We're discussing that next.
Welcome back to the show.
What is a woman?
Can you believe we're asking it?
But the question has perhaps worryingly dominated political debate in the last few years.
It's certainly a question that can be used to entrap politicians around the globe.
Leaders, we've seen them squirming from head to toe.
Let's just say some answer the question with ease, others really don't.
To be honest, Sean, that question's come slightly out of left field for me.
People define themselves, people define their own genders.
Trans women are women, but in the prison context, there is no automatic right for a trans woman.
There are contexts where a trans woman is not a woman.
No, there is circumstances in which a trans woman will be housed in the male prison estate.
I'm not.
I don't think we can conduct this debate with, you know.
Sorry, I've got to listen to you.
No, I just.
Yeah, of course I know what woman is, adult, human, female.
Well, this week, Britain's Prime Minister Rishi Sunat, you just saw him at the end there when he was speaking to Piers Morgan a few weeks ago.
He has pledged to change the Equality Act here in the UK to introduce legal protections for biological women in same-sex spaces with the move perhaps banning trans women from accessing single-sex spaces.
Is it fair?
That's our question coming up now.
Joining me is transgender teacher and journalist Debbie Hayton and Frida Wallace from the Manchester LGBT Foundation.
Great to have you both with us on this important issue.
You know what?
Seeing that New Zealand leader there saying this question is coming out of left field, that strikes me because it's really not left field at the moment.
This is absolutely mainstream debate.
And let's just start with the very obvious change that's being proposed by the Conservative government here in the UK at the moment.
Debbie, I'll come to you first.
Is it a sensible move?
I do think it's a sensible move.
Trans people have been let down badly in the same way that women have been let down badly by badly worded laws that have increasingly been based on feelings.
And that's no basis of anybody's rights.
Trying to base those laws on feelings has led to uncertainty, it's led to confusion and a lack of confidence in the law.
We need to get back to reality.
Let's pose that then to Frida about the feelings point because what's at the core of this is changing the legal definition, legal protections for people depending on their biological sex is what's proposed rather than legal sex.
So what do you make of Debbie's point there?
Do you think this is a sensible move?
No, it's not about feelings.
It's about social reality and the way people conduct themselves in social lives.
You know, like I, you know, no, nobody cares how I identify.
They just accept me as I am.
You know, in my social life and my real life, the female friends I know, the cis female friends I know, don't have a problem.
This is just it's a it's political maneuvering really and it's completely unworkable.
I've had like distressed emails today from trans women, young trans people actually, that they're worried that they're not going to be able to live their lives.
They're not going to be able to go into the toilets that they always would have.
But it's just a ridiculous scenario.
It's not going to happen.
I would like to reassure trans people out there that this is completely unworkable because to police this, you would have to check people.
You know, are you going to check whether somebody's male or female in a public space?
It's just not workable.
It's not realistic.
I see your point there about the realisticness of it, the common sense side of it, how it's actually going to be enforced.
But do you accept, Frida, the reason this is being brought up and the reason the government is pushing hard for it is because there have been a couple of cases and I appreciate they're small of bad actors that are kind of messing it up for the rest and it's made women feel unsafe.
We don't base laws based on bad actors that mess it up for the rest.
There were seven women convicted just today of sex crimes.
You know, it's got nothing to do with whether you're trans or not, whether you're a perpetrator of heinous crimes.
They always try and make out that trans women are some kind of threat.
You'll hear people like Helen Joyce completely misinterpreting this all the time.
It's just not how reality works, I'm afraid.
And it's like, I was hoping that Kelly J. Keene was going to be on this show tonight because she is somebody that is like complete, a totally ridiculous person that's followed around the world by the far right.
And it's like, this is the level of ridiculousness this debate has got to now.
And it's, you know, it's just.
She was invited.
She wasn't able to be here.
So she isn't able to get to the bottom of the face.
Yeah, because she's chickened out because she's not.
She's being called a ridiculous person.
Well, she is.
You know, she's somebody that travelled 11,000 miles to get covered in soup and then came back and claimed it was some kind of victory.
On this point, because and I will come back to you very shortly, Debbie, but I just want to come back to Frida on this because the way this conversation is going, you brought up some real concrete examples there of emails you've received today, real life examples of trans women who are being impacted by this decision.
But then starting to slam people by calling them ridiculous, isn't this the kind of route that we go down where this debate becomes so toxic, so aggressive, and it actually undoes the cause?
I don't think so.
I think when you're actually followed by the, like if you're followed by an organisation called Arts of Hulk, who Tommy Robinson founded, you're followed by those kind of people, you deserve to have everything thrown at you, including soup.
Sorry, that's just how it is.
I do appreciate there is toxicity on both sides of the debate.
Debbie, coming back to you in terms of the way that we have, it feels like reached a tipping point in this issue.
Whereas a few years ago, we've come light years from, you know, people being accused of being TERFs.
Obviously, that is a real and concrete concern.
But also people wanting to speak up about their own delicate issues surrounding rights and women's rights as well.
So talk to me about what you're seeing, where we are along that tipping point when it comes to trans rights, but also defending the rights of women.
Well, we were in a position where trans rights were, as I said, dependent on feelings.
We made an assertion and everybody just believed us.
Now the boot seems to be on the other foot.
Women are asserting their feelings and rightly so.
But feelings are not a basis of law.
We need to come back to reality.
We need to respect women and women's spaces.
If we claim to identify with women, then we should respect their spaces.
We shouldn't go and take their spaces from them.
And talking about young trans people, I just regret the false promises that have been made.
Young people have been told that they can change sex or they can be the opposite sex.
I can tell you as a science teacher, it's just not true.
And the problem is that young people have been made promises that nobody can keep.
And it's not a basis to go forward.
We need to come back to reality.
We need to come back to science.
And we need to base laws on what we can measure and what we can see, which is biological sex.
And just staying with you for a second, Debbie, because I want to ask if you think you see any issues with this proposed government change to the Equality Act, because there are some interesting points.
One being brought up by the equality watchdog to the government saying this change to the act could actually make it easier for trans men to bring pay discrimination cases because they'll be judged on their biological sex, which was woman.
It's definitely tricky ground to tread.
Do you see any kind of complications coming along if it is enforced?
Well, we need a proper debate.
We need to listen to each other and we need to talk.
But by moving laws back to what is objective and what is concrete and what is real, is a basis to be moving forwards.
And you're quite right to point out about trans men.
There's also the issue about, as it stands, trans men find it very difficult to exert their rights under a pregnancy and maternity because of the way the law is written.
And it's because of issues like this that we need to come back and we need to just analyse what the law is actually there for and how we can best apply it.
I'm glad you brought up the issue of trans men there as well or in their cause because this law would apply to both trans men and trans women when it comes to this idea of biological sex points and the legal protections of those.
Frida, back to you if I can, because Debbie was making the point there that as a trans woman, she would like to be on the side of women and understand where they're coming in at this debate.
So talk to me from the point of view of your organisation and the activism you do, where women fit into that.
Well, we include all women from all walks of life.
And there are so many diverse types of women.
And it's like, I just don't understand what Debbie is waffling on about.
She represents an organisation called the LGB Alliance that actually don't like Debbie at all.
They pretend to.
An investigation by Ben Hunt of Vice magazine revealed them to have been like in tampering with the EHRC.
The actual laws that, you know, that you're talking about now, it's a it's total corruption that's going on, and it plays into the hands of people like Lee Anderson, who's already saying that he'll use this issue for the next election.
Sans people are being used as a political football.
And Debbie, I mean, does Debbie identify as a woman?
Is she Mr. Debbie?
I don't know how she conducts herself in social life, but it's not realistic, is it, in any sense, for Debbie to identify as a woman and then say she shouldn't be allowed in female spaces?
Frida, I mean, I'm taking issue with the way some of the personal attacks are being directed, Debbie, but I'm going to allow Debbie to respond.
Can I just say that I don't represent the LGB Alliance at all?
That's just not true.
And I go about my life as Debbie.
This is not an issue.
I don't identify as a woman.
You know, women are female.
So are you Mr. Debbie?
I'm Dr. Debbie.
So you're Mr. Debbie.
You're not Mrs. Debbie Hayton.
No, I'm Dr. Debbie Hayden.
So Doctor isn't a sex delineation, is it?
So who are you?
No, I'm not Debbie.
Are you Mr. Debbie Hayton?
Why is this an issue?
Why is this an issue?
Because it's important, because this is the delineation we have in society.
If you're going to start calling yourself Mr. Debbie, you're going to have a lot of problems there accessing female spaces or even male spaces.
I don't access female spaces, Frida.
It'd be wrong for us to do that.
But what you do, those are for women.
You're a ridiculous person.
You don't represent anything, Debbie.
Be realistic.
I want to end this conversation here because I don't actually think it's very nice.
The personal attacks that we've had on Debbie this evening.
I want to thank you, Debbie, for sharing your experience with us.
I'm not taking either side in the debate, but Frida, when we take into context what is being done to try and fight for trans rights at the moment and for the rights of women, it's the toxicity of this type of debate that seems to be holding everything back.
But I want to thank you both for your insights this evening.
Melania Trump Missing from Family 00:11:35
We're going to wrap things up there, Frida and Debbie.
Thanks so much.
Coming up next here on Piers Morgan Uncensored is all the drama and chaos surrounding Donald Trump's arrest.
One key figure's been missing, Melania.
Where is the former president's long-suffering wife and all this?
We'll see if we can find out next.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Thanks for bearing with me whilst Piers is on holiday.
Roseanna Locke will be back in the studio for you for the next few days.
Now, we are back to talking about former President Donald Trump, because when he became president, he revelled in surrounding himself with a coterie of hangers-on, advisors, and secret service.
But entering the courthouse yesterday, look at him here.
He struck a lonely figure.
No one to even open a door for him.
Bet he didn't like that.
In times like these, most of us would turn to family.
But one person noticeably absent from his side yesterday, his long-standing and some might say long-suffering wife, Melania Trump.
Since leaving the White House, the former First Lady has barely been seen in public or with her husband.
And last night, the Donald raised a few eyebrows after he made a glaring omission in his speech.
Let's take a look.
I have a son here who's done a great job, and I have another son here who's done a great job.
And Ivanka and Baron will be great someday.
He's tall.
He is tall and he's smart.
But I have a great family and they've done a fantastic job.
Donald, you forgot to mention your wife.
Always, always mention the wife.
So is the Trump marriage rock solid or is it on the rocks?
There's a question swirling around today.
Joining me to discuss all this, Fox News contributor and outkick host Tommy Larin and by Manhattan Criminal Attorney and former apprentice contestant Stacey Schneider.
Tommy and Stacey, thanks so much for joining us on this potentially not the most important issue of what is currently going down in your justice system at the moment, but it has been something that's caught attention.
We thought we'd get you two smart women on to talk about another smart woman, Melania Trump, I would argue.
Tommy, let this come to you first.
Should she have been there?
Do you understand why she wasn't?
Well, I'm a country music fan, so we know that you're supposed to stand by your man.
But listen, this is understandable.
Let's talk about the charges against him.
Although I think that they are BS, it revolves around hush money payments to a porn star.
So I think Melania, rightfully so, maybe has some sour grapes over this.
And can you really blame her?
But I think this really goes back to, I think Melania is much more of a private person.
I think Donald Trump, of course, he loves the limelight.
He loves the spotlight.
He wants to be in front of people talking to the American people.
And I think Melania, quite frankly, is probably sick of the drama.
She probably wants to stay home at Mar-a-Lago and enjoy her life.
And if we're all being honest, maybe she doesn't want Donald Trump to run again in 2024.
Maybe she wants to have a quieter life.
I don't think this means that there is trouble in their marriage.
I just think that Melania, she'd rather sit on the side, maybe on this one.
I think you're going to see her hitting the campaign trail just as you did in the last two elections.
But, you know, rightfully so.
Maybe she wanted to sit this one out considering the context of the situation.
Stacey, that seems like a fair argument to me.
I mean, if you knew that your husband was about to be publicly humiliated for multiple extramarital relationships, allegations of children born out of wedlock, wouldn't be that comfortable being in the courtroom.
It wouldn't be comfortable, but it's really not good for Donald Trump that she's not there.
And especially as this case proceeds, there's a row in the courtroom, the front row, the first row, where family is expected to sit and support the defendant who's now indicted.
And it's especially important when this case goes to trial, and Donald Trump has said he's taking it all the way and going to trial on it, that his wife or his family is sitting in that row supporting him.
The jury looks to see who's there to support the defendant.
It softens the defendant.
And it's not good for him that his marriage is in this state.
But like Tommy said, I don't blame her.
I think political wives are no longer coming up and standing at those press conferences and getting next to their husband while they're at the microphone, disavowing whatever they've been accused of.
The times have changed.
I don't blame Melania.
I'll come back to Tommy shortly, but Stacey, I just wanted to ask you how you felt about Melania when she was first lady.
Do you think she was a good representative for your country?
I mean, I obviously know of Melania.
I'm a born and bred New Yorker.
I was on the show.
I think Melania was probably the least likely first lady I've ever seen.
Some of the things that came out about her after the fact, like when she went to visit the children on the border who were in cages and some of the statements that came out or got leaked out in the tapes, her reaction to Christmas at the White House, I thought that was very surprising.
I think she gets a lot more credit than I would have expected her to have gotten.
And I think she's getting the credit just because she's the wife of Donald Trump and people support Donald Trump.
I appreciate you giving your views there.
Tommy, coming to you then, do you think it's sort of silence is golden when it comes to Melania?
She's not been the most vocal, the most outspoken first lady.
She did do a few sort of causes and a few photo ops and things like that.
But do you think she played a smart move by just being very quiet and now very absent?
That's her personality.
But I'd like to go back to her getting more credit than she deserves.
I mean, you've got to be kidding me here.
Every other first lady has been put up on a pedestal on the cover of Vogue, and you have an actual model who was completely snubbed and looked over.
So I completely disagree with that, that she got more credit.
She got far less credit than she deserves.
She's a smart woman.
She doesn't like the attention.
She doesn't like the spotlight.
She has that ability to maybe not put herself in the spotlight.
That is every bit her right.
But again, because this case is such a sham anyway, going back to this point about how the jury is going to look and see if she's there, this case is such a nothing burger and such a waste of time.
I don't think that's even going to factor in.
This is a witch hunt against Donald Trump.
I think his family supports him, whether it's in front of the public eye or not.
I think he has the support of the entire Trump family and millions of Americans, by the way.
I have one comment about that.
I don't think it's really that important whether or not our first lady makes the cover of Vogue or doesn't.
That kind of disrespect, I don't really consider that to be much to make anything about.
It's a little bit embarrassing, actually.
But I'll tell you something about the case.
Now, the indictment.
I originally felt yesterday when the indictment was released and I read the bare bones indictment and all of the legal pundits have been talking about it's so bare bones, there's nothing there, there are no surprises.
Well, I feel differently now about it.
I am surprised.
I read the DA's statement of facts, which were released, and those are the facts that are backing up the reasons why they feel they can meet the elements of this crime, which is 34 counts, felony counts of falsification of a business record.
I was pleased, I have to say, pleasantly surprised, not because I don't want to see someone convicted of something they didn't do, but because if he did do what they're accusing him of, they actually dotted their I's and crossed their T's very well.
And that's laid out in the statement of facts.
There are actually, there's evidence listed in there that we weren't really made aware of.
Even yesterday, when the district attorney got up and had made a press conference and basically stated what his case was, it sounded weak.
It sounded not good.
It sounded like, you know, sort of a frivolous prosecution.
But if you look at the statement of facts and you see that there are phone calls, there are business ledgers, there are checks, there are things being issued in and out of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.
There are conduct that affects a business's, his businesses, the Trump organization, which is located in the state of New York.
I think this is going to be more than people think it is when the truth starts coming out.
Yeah, I appreciate you laying that out, Stacey, because I had a similar feeling, Tommy, actually, when I read through the statement of facts last night.
And I want to get your reaction to it because I understand your position on this is very watertight in terms of supporting Trump.
Saying it's a politically motivated witch hunt.
But when you read through these 34 counts as they were laid out, you know, the catch and kill scheme, as it was called, to try and stop information, suppress information by American Media Inc., you've got multiple allegations of women's information being suppressed.
How do you read that and feel okay with it?
Listen, we're talking about a Manhattan DA that downgraded 52% of felonies to misdemeanors, and he's going after Donald Trump for what amounts to a clerical error and a trumped-up NDA to a porn star.
You have got to be kidding me.
How do you explain that and the spending of federal money on that?
Our taxpayer dollars to do this when New Yorkers are wandering around the streets of that city worried about their safety and their personal safety and their family safety.
This is an absolute sham.
This is weaponization, political persecution, not prosecution, and Trump will prevail as he always does.
Look, you've both laid out your sides here and you've been both very, very clear about that.
I just want to round off this conversation because I feel like the political witch hunt side of things, whether it is or not, has been done to death the last day.
And we got you both on to talk about the Trump family as it is.
So, Ivanka Trump, just finally, somebody who sort of seemed to take a bit of a step back, did get a mention in Trump's speech there.
Do we expect to see more of Ivanka in coming weeks and months?
Do you think, Stacey?
No, I think she's going to lay low and remain laying low down in Florida.
You know, don't forget, she grew up in New York.
All her friends were here.
You know, sort of the scuttlebutt here is nobody wants to talk to her anymore.
They don't like what went on when she was in the White House.
They don't like that she was quiet when people felt she should have spoken up, especially since she had taken on this so-called senior role in the White House without very much experience in any governmental affairs.
So I think she's trying to compensate and bring her brand back a little bit because she's really been ousted from a lot of social circles where she grew up.
And I don't think she wants to touch this issue.
I think she and her husband want to move on and get into something else and not be pulled into the orbit of the circus.
Tommy, is that a fair characterization?
Well, I disagree that she left New York because she's embarrassed.
A lot of people left New York and because it's a hellhole to live in.
A lot of people move to Florida because they have a great governor and a lot of freedom.
So that's beside the point.
But I will say this: I think Ivanka has other aspirations.
Maybe she doesn't want to be in the White House again.
Maybe she doesn't want to be in the political arena.
That's every bit her right.
It doesn't mean she doesn't support her dad.
It just means maybe this isn't the role that she wants anymore.
Nicola Sturgeon Shocked by Allegations 00:04:19
I think we're looking far too much into this.
I think the Trump family is behind Donald Trump.
Whether, like I said, whether they want to be out in the lights like Eric and Don, whether they want to be more in the shadows like Ivanka and Melania, I don't think this means much.
Look, I wish we had time to get Stacey's response to your point about New York and your comments on New Yorkers there, but I'm sure we can guess what they'd be.
New York, one of the best cities in the world.
Florida, a very nice place too.
Thank you both so much, Tommy and Stacey, for joining us.
Next tonight, the gender pay gap in British workplaces, eight in ten firms still paying women less than men.
We'll discuss that after the break.
Welcome back to Piers Morgan Uncensored Me, Rosanna Lockwood, Sydney of Appears for a couple of days.
He's on holiday.
Thanks for joining us.
In the studio, we do have Piers' Regulars, Paula Ron Adrian, and Richard Ty.
So wonderful to have you both with us to chew through some stories of the day.
And I opened the show by talking about sort of proprietary propriety and decorum and class, basically bemoaning where has it gone, given that we're seeing a former U.S. president sat in court facing 34 counts.
And then this morning, the SNP, unbelievable to wake up to this news.
Peter Murrill, Nicholas Sturgeon's husband being arrested.
We must say he has just been released without charge.
And we do need to talk about this carefully.
It's an ongoing investigation into the party's finances.
But let's begin, Richard, by just getting your reaction to the news this morning.
The sight of police tents appearing outside the surgeon home is just shocking.
I mean, truly shocking for such a high-profile, long-standing, many people would say, whether you agree with her politics or not, very successful politician.
Truly shocking.
The question then is: what happens from now?
You've got the investigation on one side, but more importantly for Scotland, what does it mean for the SNP?
What does it mean for independence?
My hunch, Rosanna, is this is a massive opportunity for the other Independence Party, Alba and Alex Hammond.
I suspect he's literally licking his lips at the SNP's problems, their potential demise, because if you are a genuine Scottish nationalist, rather than look at a unionist party, surely you're going to look at the other Independence Party.
This isn't, again, I'm going to be so careful, but, you know, around the Trump situation, very, very different, of course, but politically motivated, which hunt, that's how the narrative has been taken by the Trump campaign in order to define that.
Do you think this risks being politicised in itself?
Oh, so, what do you think?
I don't think it can.
And I think to answer your question, what was most shocking?
We know that the investigation was ongoing.
We've known since at least last year, July, that there's been this investigation and what the investigation surrounded.
But to suddenly have it turn up on the doorstep of Nicola Sturgeon in the way that it did, that was the shock.
And on top of that, you may not remember, but at her press conference, forgive me, when she was resigning, she was actually asked the question and she refused to answer.
And I mean, there have been these rumours circulating for months and months and months.
I mean, I had my own experience with the SNP back in December 19, sorry, in May 19, and I ended up suing a newly elected Scottish MEP for calling me, you know, some pretty obscene things live on air.
And there were question marks then about when they had to settle out of court and make a donation to charity.
And the question, where did the money come from?
So there's all sorts of allegations.
This has been rumbling, this has been reported on for months and months, if not years, and suddenly it's absolutely exploded into the public consciousness.
And I can tell you, you know, to add to the shock, for the police, they would have been investigating this thoroughly.
Okay, this isn't something that they would have just thought about and just said over some cups of tea, let's go and knock on Nicola's door tomorrow.
This is something that would have been planned and would have been purposeful.
And that is why it's caused such a shock, I think, around the political arena.
Yeah, the images of the police fans outside of the headquarters, outside of the home.
Secrecy in Pay Data Scandal 00:03:50
Like you said, Paula, it doesn't just happen overnight.
And what does it do to Scottish voters' trust in the party that has led Scotland for 15, 16 years or so?
And do they then say, well, I can't trust them, therefore I can't trust the whole concept of independence?
Or do they say, I'm going to look at the other Independence Party?
Absolutely fascinating, but truly, truly shocking.
The ramifications, I think you're right there.
They're going to ripple on for some time yet.
Let's ripple on this conversation before we find ourselves in legal hot water.
Our lawyer standing by Paula, luckily in the studio, to make sure that we don't ready to protect.
But we did promise to be a little discussion about the gender pay gap because this study, eight out of ten companies, pay men more than women.
This is data recorded by the BBC.
Fascinating stuff.
Things really aren't moving on.
Paula, you and I had a conversation in the makeup chairs just last week about the gender pay gap, about sexism in our industries and where we feel it.
Nico to you, I have felt it in gender pay gap throughout my broadcasting career.
Talk to us about your experience and the legal point of view.
Well, the biggest issue is secrecy.
So I couldn't tell you.
I could give you some broad statistics, but I couldn't tell you specifically.
And of course, the broad stats will tell you that men, male barristers, are paid more than female barristers.
And you wouldn't be surprised to hear that.
And you wouldn't be surprised to hear that the lowest paid are black female barristers.
Now, I bet you, Richard, don't have a conversation with peers in the makeup chairs about the gender pay gap.
That is a good conversation.
And doesn't that sum up with the issue here?
I'm making an assumption, but I might.
I've had a discussion with peers.
I mean, you know, peers have paid more than me, so that's the sort of discussion we're in now.
It's just a different approach.
Leave that there.
Look, I think it is extraordinary.
It is five or six years.
But actually, the BBC data, they haven't really released the full... you know, a full sort of data set, so we can really drill into it.
It's more than just the pay gap, though.
It's about actually what's the balance between men and women at work?
Has that shifted at all?
Because that's obviously was a key part of the objectives of some of this.
Some might say at 9%, I mean, that's getting quite close to the point where you can barely measure it.
So, yeah, I think there's lots of questions about this and a huge amount of effort.
I mean, I've sat on boards of companies, of charities, where this has been looked at incredibly seriously, really conscientiously.
And some may say it's incredibly disappointed.
It hasn't made any difference.
And so how do we make a difference?
Because it's one thing to discuss it, isn't it?
One thing for us to chat in the makeup chair.
But how do we change this?
And we need to be radical, don't we?
We need to say that men's payments.
Yes, that men's pay needs to be publicised.
Well, that was going to be my question, Richard, because I hear your point on progress, great work sitting on the boards as well.
But is transparency the answer?
Because of course, when the BBC found itself in the gender pay gap hot water a few years ago, they ended up publishing the salaries of top 10.
But the truth is actually in listed companies and indeed in private companies, lots of paid of directors.
That is publicised.
It's publicised specifically for board directors.
It's publicised in band for senior management.
So there is already lots and lots of reporting.
I think in a sense, all I would say is in my experience, in the last five plus years on boards of directors, there's been a massive focus on this in board papers and things.
So in a sense, I'm probably slightly surprised it hasn't seen some form of shift.
But I really want to see the whole data set before really forming a comprehensive judgment.
I wonder if the BBC have been perhaps just a little bit selective on the information that they're...
You wouldn't accuse them of that.
On this network, look, before we finish up the show, I want to bring us back to the theme of class and decorum, if we may end it there.
Selecting Royal Family Members 00:00:47
I want you to select the member of the royal family.
Now, this isn't me being trite.
It's because I'm talking about Sarah Ferguson earlier.
She gave an interview where she was talking about having one foot in, one foot at the Royal Family and the importance of kindness.
So she wins my award today for class and decorum, even though she's not really in the royal family anymore.
Taula, who for you, classes member?
Well, I want to say dead or alive.
Dead would be the queen mother.
Yep.
And alive, I would have to say, I'd probably say Prince Edward, actually, and Sophie.
Richard, quickly.
I am actually with the Queen Consort, who I'm still calling the consort.
I can't quite get to the Queen yet.
I'm sure we'll do.
That is it from us.
Sorry we have to wrap up there.
Whatever you're doing tonight, make sure it is uncensored.
Good night.
Thank you, Scott.
Export Selection