All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Jan. 17, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:30
20240117_piers-morgan-uncensored-trump-calls-for-unity-roya
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Piers Morgan Censored in NYC 00:04:11
Tonight, Piers Morgan are censored in New York City.
A big breaking news story tonight, an unprecedented double royal health crisis as both the King and the Princess of Wales were admitted to hospital, both say it's planned, but they both cancel public engagements at short notice.
We'll have all the latest.
The UK government looks set to survive another test for what I think is its crackpot plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda.
But with a border crisis on both sides of the Atlantic, could immigration bring down two governments and elections this year?
We'll debate that.
And Trump's at the stump with a rare call for unity.
Can he really ditch his election underlying diatribes and win back the presidency?
I'll talk to MAGA Maestro Carrie Lake and the tough talking governor who still says it has to be Nikki Haley.
Live from New York, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from New York City and welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
There are two massive elections this year in which immigration will be a decisive factor.
Here in the United States is an escalating crisis at the southern border.
More than 300,000 people were processed in December alone.
A new record.
Tens of thousands of migrants are being pushed around the country by bus and by plane.
Border towns have declared a state of emergency.
In the United Kingdom, net migration is higher than at any time in recorded history.
And the government is struggling to meet its core pledge to stop illegal immigrants crossing the English Channel in small boats.
The big difference here is that voters believe the Conservative Republicans can fix it.
Immigration was a number one issue in the Iowa caucus where voters just propelled Donald Trump to an historic landslide victory and he talked tough on immigration.
Back at home, the Conservative Party has presided over the collapse of our immigration system and it continues to tear itself apart over a single gimmick policy which I don't think will ever make any noticeable difference at all.
Tonight it looks like the government will survive its test for its crackpot plan to send a handful of illegal immigrants to Rwanda, but it will then move on to the House of Lords and inevitably end up back in the courts and so on.
The bottom line is whatever happens, I don't think it's going to work.
It's certainly not in time to help Rishi Sunak.
Tens of thousands of people are crossing the Channel illegally every year.
They enter a broken and chaotic system, knee-capped by chronic backlogs, sending a tiny number of people to East Africa at a cost of nearly £170,000 a person.
Never seemed to me a practical or humane solution.
So why the repeated self-inflicted chaos?
We've seen rebellions, resignations and legal ramifications galore, but more journalists and ministers have flown to Rwanda than actual migrants.
Prime Minister Sarushi Sunat looks like one of those cartoon characters repeatedly stepping on a rake as the handle whacks him in the face.
Well Sunak made a smart deal with the Albanian Premier to send illegal Albanian migrants back home.
They were mostly young economic male migrants looking for a better life.
The number of Albanians crossing the Channel has now fallen by 90% and as a consequence, the number of people coming over on these small boats failed by nearly a third.
That is the kind of pragmatic, intelligent solution I expect from a sharp, business-minded Prime Minister.
We need more of that, Mr. Sunak, and less of these gimmicks.
The statesman-like thing to do, I think, would be for Rishi Sunat to say, you know what, this isn't going to work.
It's just not going to work certainly in the timeframe I need it to.
And we're going to get on right now of fixing the mess.
Now, the Labour Party doesn't have any better ideas.
They're just cashing in on the chaos.
Day 643, perhaps, of the Rwanda psychodrama that the Conservative Party continues to inflict on our weary and baffled nation.
And so vast quantities of political capital and untold amounts of government time, resources and energy have been squandered on a policy that at most might possibly one day enable the transfer of a few hundred asylum seekers to Rwanda.
Royal Health Crisis Procedures 00:08:39
Well, the poisonous paradox in Britain is that the Conservatives have talked up in immigration as a crisis while simultaneously jacking up legal migration to cover gaps in the workforce.
And that bluff is now being decisively called.
And on both sides of the Atlantic, it's not a case of xenophobia, racism, or voters being anti-immigration.
Both countries are almost uniquely welcoming to migrants.
We need their skills, their labour, their ideas.
Our doors should be open to people fleeing wars, especially when there are wars that we may have started.
And the evidence says that we are, but it has to be sustainable.
If you don't have a border, you don't have a country.
And voters this year will punish leaders who get this vital issue wrong.
Well, we'll get into that debate in a moment.
But first, that breaking news today on a double royal health crisis.
Buckingham Palace announcing that King Charles, our new monarch, will undergo surgery for an enlarged prostate next week, postponing all his public engagements.
While Catherine, the Princess of Wales, has already undergone abdominal surgery yesterday.
The princess hasn't been seen in public since Christmas.
She'll now remain in hospital for up to two weeks, we're told, and has cancelled all public duties until at least Easter in April.
Well, Jordan and I discuss all this is talk to these royal editor Sarah Houston, who's in London.
And in the studio with me here in New York is Fox News contributor, Dr. Mark Siegel.
Welcome to both of you.
Sarah, let's get to the royal story aspect of this.
I can't remember the last time there were two announcements like this, back to back, both supposedly for planned procedures, but it all seemed a bit rushed out to me.
What's your take on this?
Yeah, and I suppose it depends what they mean by planned, doesn't it, Piers?
We're told that the Princess of Wales wasn't rushed into hospital.
This isn't something that occurred over the course of the weekend and has then led to her being hospitalised this week, but we don't know for how long it has been planned.
In the King's case, he started to feel symptoms.
He then saw a doctor earlier on this week and he received his diagnosis today.
And that led to the announcement from Buckingham Palace that he was going to undergo a procedure next week.
Now, it's not ideal, is it, for them to have to make two major announcements about the most senior member of the royal family and the second most senior female member of the royal family within an hour and a half of each other.
Now, Buckingham Palace stressing that what the king is to undergo next week is very much routine.
It is something that many, many men of his age will undergo.
And he will undergo it for a short period of time.
He'll have a short period of recuperation where engagements will be cancelled.
But because of his symptoms, he's actually had to cancel engagements that were due to take place tomorrow and Friday.
A much more serious case for the Princess of Wales, because while this was planned surgery and we're told it was successful, a 10 to 14 day stay in hospital followed by two to three months of recuperation tells us that this was major surgery for the Princess of Wales.
And we've got the Prince of Wales, William, her husband, also now cancelling engagements and taking time off work to be at his wife's side and also looking after their three young children.
So a significant impact on the royal family and their ability to go about their duties.
Yeah, absolutely.
Just turn to Dr. Mark Siegel.
From a medical perspective, Charles is obviously a more straightforward situation.
He's a man in his 70s.
He's got an enlarged prostate.
That's not an uncommon condition for men of that age.
But the procedure itself, he is the monarch.
Will he be put under for this and what will happen?
Absolutely.
And by the way, Sarah said it might have happened precipitously.
What usually happens is these symptoms accrue over many months or years over the age of 70.
80% of men have enlarged prostates.
They don't all need procedures.
But when the medications fail and it's not stopping it so that you get an easy flow, you have a procedure.
And it's all about urine flow with an enlarged prostate.
Exactly.
And if it suspended the flow or it interferes with the flow, you may have a procedure.
Usually these days, Piers, we're using a green laser, which actually is quite a small way to go about it.
It's not a big open procedure.
It's through the urethra, but as Sarah just said, it can work and you're done with it in an hour.
Maybe you're home the next day.
To your point, though, it is done under general anesthesia.
Generally, propofol, which everybody's heard about, that's the Michael Jackson drug.
We use that for colonoscopies for any procedure, but also ketamine.
So propofol plus ketamine is the usual.
We're going to have King Charles in ketamine storm.
Is that the headline next?
I hope not.
But he will probably go.
Why ketamine?
What does that mean?
Well, because it puts you under more.
Propofol is just a milder, lighter anesthesia.
But again, this is an actual procedure.
I thought ketamine was an elephant tranquilizer.
Initially, absolutely.
You have that right.
Back in the 70s, that's what they started for.
You're literally evaporating part of the prostate with this, the front part that's pinching on the urethra.
You're literally using the laser to evaporate it with the money.
And if you don't come along with it, if you don't have that procedure, what happens ultimately?
Well, after a while, the medications fail and you would have to have an open procedure, which again is the old scalpel method.
We're through with that now.
This is a miracle step forward.
Will it have any side effects going forward after he's had the procedure?
For a few days after, you might have some burning when you urinate, some hesitancy when you urinate, a little bit of pain, but then it gradually responds over a few days.
Not like what we're hearing for the princess.
Right, so this looks altogether more serious, and the fact we're not being told what it is suggests there's something more serious going on.
For someone of 42 and otherwise in very good health, to be in hospital for up to two weeks and then have basically three months off work, what does that tell you this might be?
I'm concerned about this.
I like the point that Sarah just made that it was planned, but what does planned mean?
I believe them when they say it's not cancer.
So that's a very, very good point.
Could it be a benign tumor?
Could it be a hernia?
Could it be a gynecological procedure?
Could it be related to...
She had three children in five years, which is a lot, but she was out there saying, I used hypnotherapy for this.
So now she's relying on privacy, and that makes me concerned.
But, Piers, almost every single abdominal surgery I can think of, that's not an emergency, is done through a scope these days or a robot, and you're home in a day.
So I'm concerned.
So what could it be?
I think something might have gone wrong.
I'm worried about a complication.
I'm worried about an infection.
You know, she went in there, maybe something happened she wasn't anticipating.
And two to three months of recovery implies that there's been something major here.
So it may not have been a planned major surgery, but how do we know an infection didn't occur?
How do we know a complication didn't occur?
She's going to be fine.
I have a strong feeling she'll be fine, but the longer-term recovery concerns me that something went wrong.
Sarah, where does this leave us?
If King Charles is unconscious and William is, you know, looking after his kids, and I mean, do we start heading down the list of people if there's some duty that the monarch has to perform?
What actually happens here?
We're kind of into uncharted territory a bit.
Well, look, there's a very set procedure in place should a monarch be incapacitated due to ill health for a short period of time.
And if the king does have to undergo a general anesthetic and is unconscious, then the councillors of state would be called upon should they be needed.
Now the list of the councillors of state is the monarch's spouse, so Camilla, and the next four in line to the throne, traditionally.
Now that list throws up a few problems, as you've alluded to there, Piers, because it's the Prince of Wales, who we know is looking after his wife and children.
Then it's Prince Harry, who's in California.
The next on the list, will he?
No, he won't.
Duke of York, Princess Beard.
But in planning for an occasion like this, the royal family decided that it might be pertinent to add a couple more onto the list.
So we now have the Princess Royal, who is also a Councillor of State, and the Duke of Edinburgh.
So should they be required, they could be called on.
But I think it's highly likely that the king will only be out of action for a very short period of time.
And while he's not conducting public duties, he'll still be receiving his red boxes.
He'll still be able to make decisions as and when they're required.
All right, Sarah Houston in London, thank you very much.
Dr. Musical, great to see you.
Great to see you, Pierre.
Migration as Election Tipping Point 00:05:50
Welcome to New York.
Thank you.
I love New York.
You know I do.
And I hope to come get you back next time I'm here.
Absolutely.
On sense of the next, whether it's small boats from the UK or a so-called invasion of America's southern border, immigration may well be decisive in elections on both sides of the Atlantic this year.
My super PAC joins me to discuss that next live from New York City.
Welcome back to Players Morgana Censored live from New York City.
Joining me now is Fox Nation host Tyrus, Fox Contributor Captain, and former Conservative MP Louise Mensch, a veritable super PAC if ever I saw one.
Immigration.
Let's start with you, Taurus, because whether you're in the UK, and it's a constant debate now, on two levels.
One, the illegal numbers coming in on small boats across the Channel to try and get into Britain that way.
And then surging numbers of legal migrants coming with all their dependent family numbers, rocketing to record levels too.
And then you have here this extraordinary situation on the southern border, which seems to be completely out of control.
It's a migration.
And no one's doing anything about it, right?
So migration and immigration, legal and legal, could end up being a tipping point.
We saw from the Iowa caucus what people were saying, that immigration is their key concern.
It could be the thing that decides both the US and UK election, which may be happening in the same month.
You know, just the Iowa thing real quick.
When I saw that that was the number one concern, concerns me because is that the talking point concern?
Because the good people of Iowa don't have much to worry about in terms of immigration, especially this time of year.
Pretty safe.
Like the winners, I went to school in Nebraska.
It only got colder if you went to Iowa.
But we've got three million court dates, I think, that are backlogged for 10 years.
So even the people who are doing it right can't do it right because of just, it's a migration of just basically, it looks like countries are just emptying their prisons.
They're emptying.
Anybody doesn't want to be here, go.
The gates have been open.
There's been some secret handshake signal that we weren't aware about in America.
So the big concern is that you're hearing it where you would think the argument would be something else in Iowa.
So I'm concerned it's becoming a Republican talking point opposed to actual the states that are really being affected.
Now, if we pull New York and immigration is number one, then the Republicans might have something to get excited about.
But we're just not seeing it in the places where we should be seeing it in America.
How much is this going to help Trump?
I mean, clearly he had a massive victory in Iowa.
Immigration was the number one thing.
He always talks tough on immigration.
He didn't build his wall last time, but the message was clear.
If he gets the chance, he will finish the job.
How much does all this help him?
Well, I think it depends on how much Trump is willing to help himself in terms of actually staying on message.
Because Democrats, obviously, they want this election to be about Trump and Trump is bad and January 6th and all these other things.
All too often, I think what Trump does is he likes to get in the ring with those people and sort of fight with them.
And he will not focus so much on issues like immigration or like the economy and immigration in general.
I mean, the same system we've had in place since the 90s.
We are not. built for this level of influx of people.
But I think that each political side, they feel very comfortable arguing about it and it's a winning issue, right?
I think that Republicans say, look at this, this is out of control.
And the Democrats can pull say, oh, Republicans are heartless.
And they just fight with each other, fight with each other and fight with each other.
Nothing gets solved because for their political careers, it doesn't really benefit them to solve it.
But when that issue doesn't get solved, all the rest of us lose.
You see, and also the debate back in the UK, Louise, anyone in the last few years who's dared to raise concerns about rising immigration has immediately been branded a racist.
And you see the same thing over here, when in fact, most people I know in the UK have a genuine legitimate concern.
And it's on two levels, really.
It's one, whether the huge volumes of legal migrants that we're taking in, many of whom doing important jobs, but bringing with them because of government policy, a lot of family members, are putting massive strain on an already over-creaking infrastructure, not least the National Health Service, education and so on, which I think is a perfectly legitimate concern, notwithstanding we need good skilled workers to come in.
But then you have the issue of the small boats, much smaller numbers, but the optics of people just rocking up in these dinghies, not to mention the danger and the fact these horrible criminal gangs are running it, is really resonating with people.
They want this to stop.
Sunak, to his credit, has actually stopped it by a third with the Albania deal, where it turned out they're all young migrants from Albania, men wanting to make a few quid.
So he's been successful there.
Why Rwanda?
I just don't know why he's going to just get rid of this stupid plan.
Well, I think if you want to deport people, if you want to sort of disincentivize those criminal gangs who are trafficking in human misery and causing people to drown and they don't give a damn about them, you've got to make it not fruitful.
You've got to take away the prize at the end of it.
It's really Pavlovian, if you like.
If you come over here, you will be immediately deported to Rwanda and we will process your claim over there.
This is what the Republicans, by the way, also want on the southern border.
They don't want to pass Ukraine funding unless Biden gets rid of parole, which is exactly the same thing.
It's where you cross the border illegally and then you can apply for asylum inside the United States.
The Republicans want that to go away.
And really, as you say, this is more of an emotional issue than anything else.
And politicians need to understand that.
The immigration crisis in the UK is not from the small boats.
That is a tiny fraction of the immigration numbers.
It is from legal immigration.
Demonizing Language Ratchets Up 00:14:43
I wish the rebels who have now given up in tonight's, most of them have given up in tonight's vote, had just got their...
Vote's not happening, I think, for another hour and a half or so.
It looks, all the signs are that Rishi Sunak will prevail.
Yeah, exactly.
If they wanted to really do something about immigration, they should be tackling legal immigration and where our rules, our laws are at, how many people you can bring in, et cetera, because that's where the real numbers are coming from.
Yeah, it is, yeah.
Okay.
Let's turn to Ben and Jerry's, one of my favorite companies, because on the list of woke virtue signaling imbecilic firms in the world, there they are.
You just think, just give me some damn ice cream and shut up about everything else.
But they cannot stop making statements.
They just demanded, Ben and Jerry's board of directors, a permanent and immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Okay.
But it's the latest of endless pronouncements by people that make ice cream.
Right.
Well, how'd it go?
Was there a shot?
Oh, it's like, you know, did it work?
Ben and Jerry's cutting off ice cream.
Wrap it up, fellas.
Seriously, not a drill.
Everyone wants ice cream.
Why do these companies do this?
Aren't they supposed to give their company back to Native Americans?
Weren't they headquarters on Native American land?
So why are we still Ben and Jerry?
Shouldn't it be something else?
Hiawatha?
Something?
Like, this is the thing about virtue signaling.
It sounds great.
You know how many high fives?
Like, yes, we just stopped what's going on in Israel.
High five because we threatened to not sell ice cream to people who support like this is this is the problem.
It sounds good.
We're talking about it, which means we're all dumber for it.
They continue to like these virtue signaling, but they don't actually really do anything.
And again, you're right.
Just shut up and put the ice cream on the cone or in the bowl.
Sprinkles.
Kat, would you ever buy ice cream?
Would you ever buy an ice cream because of a political position taken by the people that were making it?
Absolutely not.
Conversely.
Conversely, would you actively go?
Because I'm now at the stage where I would actively go out of my way to avoid buying a Ben and Jerry's ice cream because it annoys me.
See, I'm also not there.
As somebody, see, I'm not a left or right.
So if I only...
You'll just eat the ice cream.
Yeah, if I only bought things that agree with me politically, I would never eat again.
I would probably have no friends.
You know, all the people I think who have my political views, like, live out in the woods with an artillery of weapons.
So I would really like to...
Woods is looking good right now.
Woods looks like a good option to me.
Louise, virtue signaling companies are not new, but there seems to be a proliferation of them now.
And they seem to be actively going out of their way to annoy vast swathes of their customer base.
If you're a Jewish person who likes Ben and Jerry's ice cream, you'll be looking at this going, well, where was this after October the 7th?
Why didn't you call for anything then?
So clearly you have a partisan bias against us.
So why should I eat your product?
Exactly.
People back home may not know that Ben and Jerry's, as we like to say, have previous.
On July the 4th last year, they called for giving Mount Rushmore back to the Native Americans because America is so horrible it was founded on stolen land.
But not their own stolen land.
Not their own stuff.
But not their own stolen land.
When Putin invaded Ukraine, the same guy, Ben Cohen, I think his name is, of Ben and Jerry's, he blamed NATO and the US and he put a million dollars into campaigning for America not to give Ukraine weapons to defend themselves.
He blamed everybody except Russia.
Now, these people are Bernie bros, what we call champagne socialists, the Americans call limousine liberals.
And I think there's nothing to pick between hardcore people on the right, the alt-right, and hardcore people on the alt-left.
They're all just extremist nonsense.
I wish I could boycott Ben and Jerry's, but I never eat it because it's an inferior ice cream.
Well, it is a little heavy on the calories on it.
If we're being fair, it's about less.
Obviously, if you have a body like this, you don't eat ice cream at all.
So that's a given.
What a play clip from one of my favorite people, Kamala Harris.
Not for the reasons she would like to be one of my favorite people.
She appeared on The View today, which, by the way, how annoying is the view getting?
God, they're insufferable that a lot, aren't they?
There's a side effect.
But she told Joy Behar that she's scared as heck and we should all be scared about the prospect of Donald Trump getting re-elected by, and let's see what she said here.
This is by who?
Watch this.
Are you scared, first of all, what could happen if Trump ever became, God forbid, president again?
And what are you going to do to stop the crazies?
I am scared as heck.
Which is why I'm traveling our country.
You know, there's an old saying that there are only two ways to run for office.
Either without an opponent or scared.
So on all of those points, yes, we should all be scared.
And no attempt to correct Joy Behar, Torres, when she used that phrase, crazies, about people who may support Trump.
This reminded me of Hillary Clinton with her basket of deplorables jibe about what is in reality tens of millions of Americans.
Listen, you can't compare it to Hillary Clinton because Hillary made a concise, direct argument.
Whether you agree with her or not, she was pretty clear when she spoke.
I still have no idea what Auntie Kamala just said.
I know it's early, but I was hoping the wine wouldn't be served after the interview.
That was a loaded question that was pre-approved.
So when you're not, Kat, on the Gutfell show, we bring this up quite a bit.
When you don't have anything to run on that you want to discuss, because you might get off on a tangent or not know what you're talking about, you and I have discussed this, feelings.
Yeah.
You can discuss feelings.
I'm afraid.
So I can't be wrong.
No one can argue with Auntie Kamala that she's afraid.
And even though you'll say, well, you are the VP and you have the top five armies in the world and you're afraid of the little old man with orangish red hair comb over.
Why would you afraid of it?
What did he do to you?
Like, this is the VP of the United States of America.
And she's afraid.
No, this is the talking point.
I mean, Kat was...
There's no substance.
What do you do for schools?
Nothing, Jeffrey.
We're free.
You know, in the UK, we're panicking now that we may end up with King Harry if we're not very lucky.
You could end up a heartbeat away famously from potentially President Harris.
Yeah.
Your thoughts on that prospect, potentially?
I think that what I think about what concerns me the most, it actually would be the exact kind of rhetoric that we heard on that show, right?
Because when we talk about people, oh, the crazies, that you're reducing these people to this, you pit people against each other, everybody loses.
The only group that doesn't lose is the members of the government, right?
Because if you're voting against the other side because they're evil, then that motivates people to vote for you.
But also when you turn people against each other, it convinces people to willingly give up their own rights for sake of this evil other.
We saw a lot of this, especially since Trump has entered politics.
And I really fear that it's going to get a lot worse in terms of us willingly hating each other based on preconceived notions that someone else who doesn't know you or care about you or your relationships has told you to think.
I think that's so true.
The demonizing language on both sides, actually, has really ratcheted up.
Civilized debate between politicians or about politicians has just disappeared.
Yeah, I watched the interview and I actually thought Kamala did a skillful job in avoiding bombs that were set out for her by the view, whether intentionally or not.
I don't agree with you that she should have said something about the crazies because what I heard from Joy Bauer, who also wasn't very coherent there, I thought she was talking about Trump and his team as being the crazies rather than the Trump voters.
As he says, I don't think you can compare it to Hillary Clinton's direct insult.
Trump voters are a basket of deplorables.
That may or may not have been a reference to Trump voters as opposed to the campaign.
Who knows?
She didn't say anything negative about them.
She was also asked if she agreed with Nikki Haley that America had never been a racist country.
And she skillfully, I thought, avoided saying, yes, America has been racist.
She totally avoided that.
It was a little bit word salad.
But her job now is, at the moment, her job is not to mess up.
And I think in the campaign trail, what you will see Kamala Harris concentrating on is the one really big winning issue that the Democrats have, which is abortion.
There are a lot of women voters, even GOP women voters, who are mad as hell about Roe versus Wade going away.
It doesn't matter what you think about it.
It's a huge election winner for the Democrats.
And that's what Kamala, as the woman in the White House, will be concentrating on.
Well, the other, just quickly, we haven't got much time here, Taris, but Michelle Obama turns 60 today.
Happy birthday to the former first lady.
A lot of people putting her name out there as potentially the savior for the Democrat Party.
Could she be?
I have no idea what her politics are.
So I can't answer that question.
I think every time she steps out of a plane, because she's so beloved by a vast majority of the American people, that they want to say, oh, yes, Chris for a while was Oprah.
Then for a little bit, it was even The Rock.
Like, they just pick people.
This is who we have.
Joe Biden is running for election.
Even if he were to pass on, he would come down from heaven to show up.
He is running.
This idea that he's just going to let go and just, oh, sure, come on in, Michelle.
The Obama-Biden relationship, I think the right likes to think is a close relationship, but it's not.
I don't think it is.
It's not at all.
But I'll have to say, I met the Obamas on one of those famous Christmas parties that they used to do at the White House.
And he was quite cold, actually, Barack Obama, as I would be about standing meeting thousands of people for a picture.
She was incredibly warm, friendly, funny, whatever.
Formidably impressive, actually, as an operator.
Her book sold gazillions of copies.
She's kind of widely respected.
Is it a mad idea?
I mean, I look at Joe Biden and think, walking corpse.
Of course, she's very likable, obviously.
The only question is, why would she want to do that to her?
Well, I don't think she does.
She doesn't, and I wouldn't either if I were, because, as you mentioned, she is widely respected.
She is charming.
People enjoy her.
People respect her.
And that will all change if you become the president.
Nobody exits that being more widely loved.
Louise, you've been a politician.
She has been through the full forensic examination as first lady for eight years.
She's used to that.
I mean, I've heard madder ideas, I got to say.
She's a very likable woman.
I met her too at the Kennedy Central Awards for Jimmy Page.
She was, as you say, lovely, charming.
I don't care what your politics are, very affable.
She's got no political experience whatsoever.
And I think it's difficult for the Democrats who like to say Trump was a disaster.
Look at this celebrity, never run a bath, and yet somehow he's going to be president of the United States while he did a terrible job.
And then you're going to put in a first lady who's never been elected to the town council, please.
Somebody like Amy Klobuchar, it certainly wouldn't go automatically to Carmela Harris.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
But look, you've got two old men running for president.
Both parties need to have a plan for if either one of them has a heart attack on the campaign trail and dies.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, thank you, Pat.
That was obviously brilliant because you're a brilliant pack.
I appreciate it.
Uncensored next, Nikki Haley finished third in the Iowa caucus, but still declared it's a two-person race and that she's in it, not Ron DeSantis.
Can she really stop Donald Trump?
I'll talk to one of her fiercest advocates, Governor Chris Sununa, next.
It's uncensored.
Welcome back to Uncensored, live from New York City.
Donald Trump won by landslide in Iowa.
A monumental boost, of course, for his bid to return to the White House.
Nikki Haley finished a narrow third by Ron DeSantis, but she still said this.
I can safely say tonight, Iowa made this Republican primary a two-person race.
Well, as the primaries move on to New Hampshire, I'm joined by the esteemed governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununa, the only current governor or senator so far to publicly endorse Nikki Haley.
Well, Governor, great to see you.
She seems very confident for someone who came third that it's a two-horse race with her in it.
Why is your preferred candidate so confident?
Because DeSantis left the building.
I mean, Ron has left New Hampshire.
He has no money.
He has no staff.
He's not even competing.
He's literally not competing here.
He's just made an announcement a short time ago that he's going to South Carolina, Nikki's home state, so I'm not sure what he's thinking he's going to get there.
No, this is a two-person race.
This is Trump versus Haley.
All the polls say so.
It's still, I mean, there's, you know, some polls had her tied and everything, but there's still a lot of work to do.
No one thought Trump could even be challenged to be defeated in one of these early states.
Nikki's actually doing it, and I think that's why there's a lot of momentum.
So, no, it's clearly a two-person race.
And as much as Ron might not say publicly, I think they see the writing on the wall as well.
If you're right, and certainly New Hampshire and South Carolina look like potentially much stronger areas for Nikki Haley than Ron DeSantis.
What is the path for Nikki Haley to try and stop the Trump train, which has clearly got off to a rattlingly good start?
Sure.
So let's start with the Trump voter, right?
So right now, if you poll Trump voters, and the number one reason why folks are getting behind Trump, the most common answer given is, well, he's going to win anyway, right?
So I guess we'll just vote for him.
You have that 35% core Trump voter, of course, but a lot of folks are just kind of going with him because they assume it's presumptive.
It's the fait of complete.
It's not.
And as soon as you, I think you shatter that opportunity that Trump has kind of taken advantage of that is just my party and I'm running away with it.
Everyone starts looking at this as a two-person race.
You go into a place like Super Tuesday as a two-person race.
You know, Trump would, in some of those states, he's not even holding 50%.
Well, last time I checked in a two-person race, if you can't get 50%, you lose.
So is that why Trump is attacking Nikki?
He's spending all the money.
Is it not in Nikki Haley's interest for Ron DeSantis to stay in as long as possible?
And I'll explain what I think that may be the case.
Is that Vivek Ramaswamy has pulled out?
Trump's Ego Trip Nomination 00:13:18
Most of his votes will probably go now to Trump because he's backed him.
If Ron DeSantis was to pull out, then you've got to assume that a large number of his would also move to Trump.
So how does that help Nikki Haley if Ron DeSantis pulls out?
Tactically, is it not better if he just links on for a bit?
Yeah, no, look, folks are always trying to judge where voters will go.
In the case of Vivek, I think you're absolutely right.
Most of those will probably become Trump voters because Vivek is crazy.
He's a conspiracy theorist, crazy guy.
Most of the Chris Christie voters are very anti-Trump, so most of them are going to galvanize around the candidate most likely to defeat Trump.
So that's going to be Nikki Haley.
In the case of Ron, it's a little, I don't know what it would be.
So I'm not going to presume where his voters would go.
The big thing that we're focusing on here in New Hampshire, and I think ultimately will have to happen in South Carolina, is getting out the vote, right?
Where Iowa fell really flat, 100, what did Trump get?
Like 56,000 votes?
56,000 people out of over 3 million in Iowa dictated that Trump was going to be the nominee.
Whereas in New Hampshire, again, we'll have a much higher voter turnout.
So the higher the voter turnout, the more likely Nikki is to defeat Trump, right?
Because every new vote that comes to the table is more likely to be with Nikki.
So I don't think they're worrying more about the 4% or 5% of the DeSantis voters and where they go.
It's about driving another 10% or 20% higher on the voter turnout, knowing that that would definitely help.
You know, that never fares well for the incumbent.
And that's effectively what Trump is.
He's effectively an incumbent in this race as the former president.
He almost tries to convince people he wasn't already president and didn't already get a lot of stuff not done.
But that's the situation.
So that's really where we're focusing a lot of our efforts.
I met Nikki Haley for the first time actually in this building.
We were both on Hannity last time I was in New York a couple of months ago.
And we had a nice long conversation.
I was very impressed.
She has a very nice way about her.
She's very engaging, very smart, very charming.
She hasn't given me an interview yet, so maybe you could put a good word in for me after this, Governor.
I'd appreciate it.
But we'll move on from that terrible snub so far.
But I was impressed by her, but a lot of people on the Republican side who are not necessarily her biggest fans say that she's too liberal.
She's not a proper conservative, not a real Republican.
You know her very well.
What do you say to those people?
Too liberal.
She was the Tea Party conservative candidate when she became governor of South Carolina in 2010 and then again in 2014.
So, no, she's as conservative as they come.
And that's, I mean, her credentials as being fiscally conservative, much more fiscally conservative than Trump.
Trump's a disaster when it comes to fiscal conservatism.
Individual liberties, which we pride a lot here in New Hampshire, right?
That the individual comes first, not big government solutions, which Trump tries to do out of D.C.
That doesn't fare too well with conservatives in the live-free or die state, to be sure.
Decentralizing the Department of Education.
So, again, states, localities, individuals, parents have more control over what's happening in the classroom.
Trump didn't do any of that, right?
So she brings these amazing conservative credentials.
And the best one is she gets stuff done, right?
Regardless of where you are on the policy, she gets stuff done.
She has a record of doing it, balancing budgets, all that sort of thing.
Bringing health care reform.
I was promised health care reform from Donald Trump.
We didn't get it, right?
She takes these challenges on and she actually solves things.
So at the end of the day, that's what conservatives want.
They want government that actually moves forward, decentralizes, and again, lets the individual come first.
As you head towards New Hampshire, is she going to take the gloves off now and start pounding Trump?
Because it seems to me the only way anybody is going to actually take Trump down is to start pounding him properly.
And there's obviously lots of ammunition you could go for, but rather like every other candidate, it looks like Nikki Haley has held off doing this because she's worried about aggravating his very loyal supporters.
No, so a couple things there.
So let's look at the Chris Christie.
Chris Christie threw everything and the kitchen sink at Donald Trump and never got past 13%.
So to say that we're just going to hit Trump harder and that will work, Chris tried it.
It was an interesting strategy, one state strategy, clearly did not work.
And again, you kind of hit a cap there.
Nikki doesn't overthink it.
She is who she is.
She'll call Trump out on January 6th and on election denial and all this stuff.
But good candidates talk about what they're bringing to the table, not just what the other guy isn't and what the other guy hasn't done.
Leave it to surrogates like us to complain about Trump.
Nikki's all about herself and she's happy to hit him.
She's worked very closely with him for many, many years, right?
But she understands that she wants to talk about what she's going to do to fix this country, the solutions she's going to bring, her experience, her experience internationally, unmatched.
Trump can't match her experience internationally.
She showed up at the meetings taking all the policy decisions from her and the Department of State.
What she's done working with legislatures.
So this is an amazing candidate with amazing credentials.
And as you say, most importantly, she's just likable.
She's super genuine.
She's definitely.
She's definitely likable.
But what if she's so likable that she gets flatlined in New Hampshire?
Trump barrels through and has another massive victory.
Can you continue past that if that was to happen?
Sure.
Well, look, going to her home state of South Carolina, there's huge opportunities there.
So in the first three states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, there's only one person that has to win all three, and that's Trump.
He's the only one that has set the expectations that he's going to run away with it in all three states.
So anything different than that, whether it's beating him or coming in a close second, that challenges that whole narrative, that presumption that's out there.
So whether it happens in New Hampshire, New Hampshire, I think it will, New Hampshire and South Carolina, that builds momentum in that two-person race, then you hit Super Tuesday, right?
With a one-on-one race going into Super Tuesday, I think anything's on the table.
Okay, and if you would tell Nikki Haley that I'm here tomorrow, we have a slot.
If she fancies an interview, we'd happily take it.
Governor Sunuda, thank you very much.
You bet.
Thank you, buddy.
Uncensored next.
Donald Trump called for unity in his Iowa victory speech, but can he actually deliver unity?
There wasn't much sign of it last time he was president.
I'll talk to one of his biggest backers, the Arizona Senate candidate Carrie Lake.
That's uncensored next, live from you.
Welcome back to Uncensored Live from New York City.
Donald Trump has sounded, well, almost presidential in recent proclamations calling for unity in the party and the country.
That may have broader repeal in the presidential election than the vengeful election denying rants we've become accustomed to.
But can it last?
Which Trump is running for president, the unifier or the divider?
Here to hopefully shed some light is one of his biggest supporters.
He's also got a shout out in his Iowa victory speech, the Arizona Senate candidate and friend of the show, Carrie Lake.
Carrie, good to see you.
How are you?
It's great to be back.
Thank you for having me on today, Pierce.
Well, you just heard a very good pitch for why Nikki Haley is in a two-horse race now with Donald Trump.
And he made a compelling argument, I think, Governor Sununu, that if you look at the path of New Hampshire and South Carolina, you've got to say it favors her over DeSantis.
Do you agree with him this couldn't end up quite quickly as a two-horse race?
You know, I think we're going through some formalities.
I think President Trump is already the nominee and the American people understand that, but it's a little bit of an ego trip for the others and a vanity project.
And I guess we just have to wait until they come to grips with reality that President Trump will be the nominee and he's going to lead us back to our greatest days here in America with a secure border and a great economy and frankly world peace, which I think the whole world will benefit from.
Are we going to get the Trump that we heard in his Iowa victory speech, which was far more unifying?
He's very complimentary about his rivals.
He was very unifying in his language about bringing independents and Democrats together with Republicans, which is what a lot of average Americans, I think, are crying out for, an end of the toxic tribalism and a more unified country.
Is that the Donald Trump we may see if he won a second term, do you think?
I think we will see that.
And, you know, I didn't hear that from the others that were running in their speeches on Monday night.
They were very much still attacking President Trump and the folks who support him.
But President Trump does want to bring this country together.
I talked to him quite often.
And in his policies, he did bring this country together.
You have to remember, when he was president, Pierce, we had an incredible economy.
We had the lowest unemployment rate in the entire time I've been alive.
And that means unemployment rates were low for black Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, white Americans.
His policies were unifying because they helped improve the lives of all Americans.
And we had a secure border.
We weren't being overwhelmed with people invading our country, illegally coming into our country, and taking away from Americans who are many of them homeless on the streets.
And we're watching right now as Joe Biden continues to put the needs of people who come here illegally ahead of American citizens.
So Trump will put the American people first.
What if he's in prison?
I mean, genuine question.
He's facing 91 criminal charges.
What if he's convicted of one or some of those charges and actually gets put into a prison cell?
I mean, it could happen under the Constitution.
He would still be able to run the country, but would that be a good thing?
We've seen the witch hunts.
They've been going on since President Trump had the courage to step into the political arena.
There's been one witch hunt after the next and most of it fueled by the media, sadly.
And even if he was sitting in Alcatraz, the people will vote for him because they know that he is going to put America first.
And in the last three years under Joe Biden, we've watched as America has been put last.
We've learned how he's taken payouts and bribes from some of our adversaries.
And we are all suffering because of it.
And we just want to get policies back that put our country first, strengthen our families, strengthen our border, and strengthen our security.
And carry the problem.
Here's the problem.
I wrote a column yesterday in which I extolled the landslide victory.
It was spectacular.
It's an amazing comeback story unfurling with Donald Trump.
But in the weeds of some of the data were some concerning numbers, like 30% of Republicans when asked said that they would not support him if he was convicted of a crime.
That's a big number of Republicans.
You've got to assume that percentage would go up with independents.
It would be crucial to him potentially winning a general election.
Are you not concerned about that?
I mean, it may well be, as you say, all a liberal witch hunt, or it may not.
But if he's actually convicted, it does seem like many Republicans would be deterred and may prefer to then pivot to another candidate.
Well, you're always going to have those Republicans who have Trump derangement syndrome.
And I think they will eventually start to come around as we get closer to the election.
I've looked at the polls, actually.
I've been following them very closely.
And President Trump is the only Republican who can win and can beat Biden or whomever they put forth as their candidate.
The others can't win.
And you've got to have the Trump supporters behind you to get a victory.
And the Trump supporters' dedication to President Trump, because they know that he's helped us, they know that he's put us first.
His support is a mile deep.
These other guys' support is about an inch deep and it won't last.
If he wants to win a general election, why should any of us accept the result?
Why shouldn't we just all pull a Trump and say, nope, not having it, never happened.
The other guy got Biden got stolen, got robbed, and just keep saying that for the entire tenure of Trump's second term.
I mean, seriously, why shouldn't Americans just return, not me, but Americans just return the favor?
Yeah.
We heard that in 2016.
Remember, Hillary was the original election denier.
That's the term they use.
We've all been called that.
And this is one of the reasons, Pierce, why I've been pushing and working really hard to bring about election reform.
Because frankly, since 2000, we've had elections where one year it'll be the Democrats saying they don't think it was fair.
The next time it's the Republicans.
We have the ability to make our election so fair that we wake up the next day after the election and everyone can live with the results because they know it was fair.
And that's why I continue to push to try to reform our election so that Democrats feel comfortable and believe in the results, independents and Republicans.
And I think President... Kerry, we've debated this before, but my problem with that is to any independent eye, they have been fair.
Your election, Trump's election, they were fair.
And most senior Republicans have accepted this.
And to continue bleating about having an election robbed makes it difficult for you to then claim victory, doesn't it, in elections?
Well, I will point out that you brought up the whole topic.
Fair Elections vs Robbed Claims 00:00:45
So it was your topic that you brought up and asked me about, and I just answered.
So I think we're going to work to bring about reform.
I mean, I think more and more Americans are realizing that mail-in ballots and having them float around out there for a month and voting for a month and counting votes for two weeks is a recipe for fraud to seep into our elections.
And I think all we want is really fair elections that everybody feels comfortable with.
We're running out of time, Carrie.
Very quickly.
Very quickly.
If he offers you the VP, will you take it?
Yes or no?
I'm running for U.S. Senate in Arizona.
I want to help.
I want to help in the U.S. Senate.
So, if I can be helpful.
I'll say that as a yes.
Karen, good to see you.
We've run out of time.
That's it from me.
Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensored.
Deny.
Export Selection