Uncensored - Piers Morgan - 20240612_piers-morgan-vs-candace-owens

All Episodes

Previous Next

Plain Text

June 12, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan

01:23:12

20240612_piers-morgan-vs-candace-owens

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Declaring Christ As King 00:02:41
	Why did you leave the Daily Wire?
	A lot of attention has been focused on you constantly referencing Christ as king.
	But to deliberately use that phrase was a deliberate act of provocation to people like Ben Shapiro.
	I want every single person in the world to declare Christ as king, whether you believe them to be a Nazi, a white supremacist, a Jew, a Muslim.
	It is the phrase itself that I want declared.
	Who do you want to win the war?
	Ukraine or Russia?
	I don't want Zelensky to win.
	I don't want Putin to win.
	I believe Zelensky is just as corrupt.
	I believe he is a criminal.
	What percentage of a population has to be killed before we can use the word genocide?
	It's a funny little thing.
	They won't tell you.
	As she said here, I would stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Bridget Macron is in fact a man.
	With that statement, your entire professional reputation goes up in smoke.
	Byrne, you got me.
	You go, girlfriend.
	I'll bet you $100,000 right now that it is established beyond any doubt that she was born a woman.
	Do you accept that?
	No, at worst, at worst, at best, pardon Brigitte Macron is a pervert.
	My next guest is a hugely influential YouTube commentator with an army of followers.
	A person who says they were fired for speaking their mind, but then came roaring back with an even bigger show.
	And no, it's not me.
	Candice Owens launched her new independent show this week.
	She's previously described me as dishonest, a snake, and a toddler.
	But in the true spirit of uncensored, I'm delighted to say Candace joins me now for our first ever interview.
	So finally, Candace Owens, we get to do it.
	I'm very happy to be here, Piers.
	I promise.
	And honestly, credit to your producer because she just was like, I'm going to make it happen no matter what.
	So I have a bunch of ruthless rottviolers of both genders who didn't let it go.
	And what did you want?
	Because you are a fascinating public figure.
	There's no question about that.
	I think we're going to have a fascinating interview.
	I do want to go into some more detail before we start, though, to show the level of my generosity in giving you this platform on my show, given some of the stuff you said about me.
	So April 2020, 2022, when I launched the show with my interview with Trump, it all kicked off, obviously.
	You said, if my team were as unethical and dishonest as the snake Piers Morgan, we'd have sensationally edited this clip of Trump to make it look like he threw a tantrum and asked the cameras to be shut off when in reality the interview is over.
	We simply wanted to chat off camera.
	I responded, I bow to your superior knowledge of being a snake, Candace.
	Tune in on Monday and you'll learn something about real interviews.
The Daily Wire Exit 00:07:22
	You then said Piers is whatever he has to be on any given day for attention.
	He's not guided by any set of principles, which is why I say both sides need to stop platforming his sensationalism.
	In March of that year, I accused you of falling for Putin's propaganda when he invaded Ukraine.
	And I called Putin the new Hitler.
	You said, you're such a toddler, Piers.
	Just way too old to be seriously entering in a literally Hitler analysis.
	Keep yourself contained to mean tweets about Meghan Harry while the adults discuss foreign affairs, NATO, and Western hegemony.
	In March the same year, you wrote with a picture of finding freedom, the most historical thing Piers Morgan has ever read.
	In January 2022, you said, I find Piers Morgan to be morally inconsistent, which breeds intellectual dishonesty.
	I welcome a public discussion with him about systemic racism, a topic with which he's impassioned, although apparently not impassioned enough to speak with me about it.
	Why do you suppose that is?
	You added, we're all at our edge of our seat waiting for an answer here, Piers Morgan.
	Well, okay.
	You should do that more often.
	I like when you read mean tweets about Piers Morgan.
	That was great.
	I salute you for that.
	That was wonderful.
	Exactly.
	And the truth is, I actually do want to give you a platform, and I've no problem with that.
	I would obviously contest much of your characterization of me in some of those mean tweets, but that's fine.
	We can move on because there's a much more interesting story, I think, involving you, which has played out in the last few months, which everybody knows about.
	So let's just talk about that.
	Why did you leave the Daily Wire?
	Well, unfortunately, I can't talk about the specific reasons that I left the Daily Wire, but what I can do is respond to whatever reasons were given to the public.
	And obviously, no sooner did we agree to leave than Andrew Clavin of the Daily Wire did an entire episode stating that the reasons that I was leaving was because I was anti-Semitic and I was engaging in a type of anti-Semitism that was hard to pin down.
	And that is why in my first episode of launching my independent podcast, I hit back pretty hard at him because I think it's pretty despicable, first and foremost, as a colleague who I had a great relationship with to have engaged in that, knowing that I was not at liberty to say anything.
	I thought it was a very underhanded, disgusting tactic, and I responded in force.
	I want to play you what Ben Shapiro told me when I asked him about this on Uncensored.
	One of the consequences of this war has been a lot of very high passions on both sides, a lot of angry disagreements.
	You and your company have been at the center of a very high profile one at the moment with Candace Owens, who's now left Daily Wire.
	Was she fired or did she leave of her own volition?
	I'm not going to speak to this topic, Pierce.
	At all.
	At all.
	The only thing I will say is what I've said all along with regard to Candace or with regard to any of our other hosts.
	I am not in hiring and firing position with the Daily Wire.
	I'm a co-founder of The Daily Wire.
	I'm a co-owner of the Daily Wire.
	I'm not actually in management.
	And as far as the free speech situation, what I will say is that no company has the obligation to literally pay anyone.
	The Daily Wire is a publisher.
	It is not a platform.
	Do you agree with that, Candace?
	Agree with which part?
	Well, okay, any of it.
	Well, I think that it's interesting, and I'd love to sit down with and debate Ben Shapiro on a number of topics, particularly cancel culture, because I know that he's made some comments in the past that he believes that publishers' platforms should allow people to have different ideas.
	And so those particular comments to me sound in contrast to what he has said in the past, but I can't speak on behalf of him, obviously.
	I personally believe that media companies are healthier when you allow people to have different opinions and allow people to debate those opinions.
	Personally, I love to see a debate between two people.
	And so I can only tell you what my perspective is and can't really speak for him.
	I mean, he made the point at the end there that any company, any private company, when it comes to free speech, is not compelled to pay people to work for them.
	I mean, would you accept that as a principle?
	Well, what I would say again is that it just kind of runs into what is wrong.
	I guess the question you could ask is, what is wrong if CNN fires somebody for having a different opinion?
	What then is wrong if Fox News fires somebody for having a different opinion?
	Your answer would have to be that it's not wrong and that companies are at will to curate whatever belief system that they want and to not allow free speech.
	So, you know.
	Out of interest, is it true that you signed an NDA?
	That's why you can't really talk about this in detail.
	I cannot speak in detail about any of that stuff.
	You can't even confirm whether you've had an NDA.
	I am not free to speak about any topic pertaining to contracts signed or not signed.
	And so.
	You see, this is where it gets interesting for me because you referenced Andrew Claven from the Daily Wire.
	I want to play a part of what he said, and then I'll come back to you.
	Yeah.
	The Daily Wire parted ways with Candace Owens, and part of it was things that she was saying that we felt were strongly anti-Semitic.
	And she was doing it in such a way that it was kind of hard to pin down.
	So I was trying to show where these things happen.
	So I'm bemused because I've been involved in a lot of contracts in my time.
	I've been an employer, I've been an employee, and so on.
	I don't understand why somebody from the Daily Wire can be so explicit about the reasons you left, and yet you are not able to be as explicit to defend yourself or to counter what they're saying.
	Amen, Piers.
	Amen.
	I think that is probably a question that was on a lot of people's minds.
	And, you know, what can I say other than what was it that Kanye was saying about contracts?
	And, you know, I think it is, even if you believe that it is valid for that to happen, I think it is immoral to allow someone to attack someone and to not allow them to defend their name.
	And so for me, Andrew actually rose to the level of defamation when he started claiming that I had actually said things that I had never said.
	I mean, he flagrantly lies, and I showed that on my platform when he pretended that I did an episode suggesting that Adolf Hitler burning books was a good thing.
	I wasn't even speaking about Adolf Hitler.
	It's a nonsense to think that I would do that on my platform.
	And it's a trick also.
	It's meant to make people feel emotional and like, oh my gosh, I can't believe that she's supporting Adolf Hitler.
	And I thought it was nasty business.
	I thought it was extremely nasty business.
Defining Genocide 00:15:37
	And, you know, for me, Piers, it's important for me to state my name means a lot to me.
	You know, my grandfather grew up on a sharecropping farm, one of 12 children, you know, in the segregated South, Robert Owens Sr.
	And for him to have worked the way that he worked and to have instilled the Christian values in me that he instilled in me growing up, the idea that I would allow someone to so flagrantly throw dirt on his name, it was never going to fly.
	Did you ever say or do anything which to a Jewish ear could be construed as anti-Semitic?
	Well, let's be clear about all of these topics, whether we're talking about racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, everything can be construed to an ear when you're talking about a subjective ear that I believe that this is racist.
	I mean, I could say, hey, Piers, you even asking me questions.
	To me, it feels racist, Right.
	A feeling and a fact are two different things.
	So what someone construes something is meaningless.
	Factually speaking, I have never said anything that is anti-Semitic.
	And had I have said something that was anti-Semitic, Andrew Claven would have simply showed the clip.
	Right.
	A lot of attention has been focused on you constantly referencing Christ as king.
	Many people believing that although those words in themselves, if you're a Christian, as you are, would not be offensive, that to Jewish people, when they're being whipped up on social media, as they were at the time, by people who are genuine white supremacists and pretty brazen anti-Semites, that being smart as you are, you would have known that, that to deliberately use that phrase repeatedly in that time, in that climate,
	was a deliberate act of provocation to people like Ben Shapiro, who obviously are extremely high-profile Jewish people.
	Do you accept that?
	I'm sorry, which timeframe are you talking about when you say at that time?
	Well, since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
	Yeah, no.
	So that phrase, if you're talking about when it began to be a scandal, because I think everyone was quite confused when there was suddenly this narrative that it could be construed as anti-Semitic, which is why it required so much explaining by people of when it became anti-Semitic.
	I posted a standalone Bible verse, just this is just a pure fact, calling for peace.
	And at the end of the verse, I ended it and said, Christ is king last November.
	Andrew Claven references that.
	The reason why this even became a scandal is because of Andrew Claven.
	Andrew Clavin did an episode called Because Christ is Really King.
	And then he accused me wrongly of spitting that phrase at a Jew.
	That simply never happened, as I showed in my first episode back.
	It was just made that up out of thin air.
	I posted a standalone Bible verse and I wrote at the end of it, Christ is King.
	And then a Jew responded to me telling me to quit my job.
	So what happens sometimes is then time passes and people try to rewrite history, but we're not going to do revisionist history here.
	I tweeted Christ as King appropriately following a Bible verse when I was 38 weeks pregnant.
	And I stand by that proverb and I stand by my declaring Christ to be king as I have done many times.
	Okay, so two things about that.
	Because it's basic Christian doctrine.
	Two things about that.
	Why would you tweet that particular passage from the Bible ending Christ as king on 14th of November 2023?
	What was your motivation?
	I'm happy to answer that question.
	So if people remember what was happening at that time, Ben Shapiro was caught on a tape calling me faux sophisticated and some other stuff, you know, a disgrace, I think was the term.
	And again, I was 38 weeks pregnant, about to give birth, and my husband just told me every media person in the world is contacting you globally, asking you to give a comment, to say something.
	It's obviously a very traumatizing thing to go through in the moment when you're that pregnant and suddenly you're like, I just don't want to deal with this drama.
	I don't mean like trauma in the very leftist.
	I feel traumatized by this, but just it's a lot happening leading up to birth.
	And my husband told me to read the Bible.
	He said, just read the Bible.
	You don't have to answer these media members.
	You don't have to give a comment.
	You don't have to say anything.
	These things are all fickle.
	It doesn't matter.
	Just to be clear on the chronology, because the video of Ben saying what he said, I think her behavior during this is being disgraced without a doubt.
	I think her mother's a message.
	That came first.
	Yeah, that came out on 15th of November 2023.
	But you had posted what you posted on the 14th of November.
	That's not correct.
	You have your timeline wrong.
	It was the video came first.
	So you were responding directly to the video.
	No, I look can I'm yeah, I'm trying to finish the story, but you just have your just so you know, chronologically you have it wrong.
	His insult came first.
	I think it was on the 12th, the insult came.
	Were you made aware of the insult?
	Because it and then did it become.
	I found out on Twitter with everybody else.
	It was just trending, you know.
	And so just to go back into it, my husband told me to read the Bible and to realize that these things are fickle and that all of these journalists that were asking me to respond to them are doing it because all they want is clicks and money and they want you, you know, they want to use you for a moment.
	That's not going to matter in the scheme of things in your life.
	And so I wanted to respond to all of these media members by saying that I'm calling for peace.
	You know, Christ is king of my heart.
	I don't need, I don't need this right now.
	So that was it.
	When you appeared on Tucker Carlson on the 16th of November, you said, I will say, I'm not going to respond with the same ad hominem attack.
	But you also told him that day that that was when you first saw the video.
	I didn't tell him I first saw the video on Tucker Carlson.
	What do you, I don't understand your question.
	What I told Tucker I saw the video on Tucker Carlson?
	No, no, that you had seen the video for the first time that morning.
	That I saw the video trending on Twitter not the morning of Tucker's interview.
	Sorry.
	I'm just trying to work out the exact correct clue.
	Yeah, I can help you.
	Yeah.
	So you saw the video on Twitter and then you on Twitter, yes.
	And then you put out the passage from the Bible as a reaction to seeing the video.
	Yes, like I said, maybe it was 24 hours later after that, when everyone was contacting me for comment, I gave the media no comment.
	So if you look on all the articles, there was no comment given to me at that time about anything because I decided that peace was the best strategy forward.
	Tucker was booked that day, but he had booked me six weeks in advance.
	That was just his luck that that whole incident took place.
	You know, they knew I was going on a show.
	He books way out in advance.
	So it just happened to be his luck or misfortune, whichever way you look at it, that that was going on at the same time.
	So in the buildup to this, you'd already made it clear that you said on Twitter on November the 3rd, no government anywhere has a right to commit a genocide ever.
	There is no justification for a genocide.
	I can't believe this even needs to be said or is even considered the least bit controversial to state.
	You didn't say what you were talking about in that tweet, but it was widely assumed to be Gaza and what Israel was doing in Gaza.
	Is that correct?
	Were you talking about Israel there?
	No, actually, when I wrote that tweet, if you look right before that tweet, I had retweeted and liked something from a journalist named Yashar Ali.
	He had shared a clip of a congressman, Brian Mast, who got up on a platform and said that there's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian life.
	That is despicable, genocidal language.
	And I am paraphrasing here, but Yashar Ali said, and he's pro-Israel, by the way, if I'm judging by what he puts online, he said, can we all just admit that this language is unacceptable?
	And I tweeted that no government in the world, and I was actually commenting on America, genocide is always wrong.
	And so, by the way, even if I was talking about Israel or I was talking about Palestine, that statement should hold.
	There is no justification for genocide.
	I agree.
	I was very surprised to see that tweet go viral and people so angry about it.
	I was actually overseas at the moment.
	I was in the UK.
	And so it seemed very strange to me that people would have a problem with it no matter what side you're on.
	But in that particular moment, I was talking about Brian Mass and on my show, my very next show, I clarified that.
	And do you think for the record that what Israel's been doing constitutes genocide?
	Well, what I've been having trouble is all of the people that are pro-Israel and say it's not a genocide won't tell me what is a genocide.
	How many, what percentage of a population has to be killed before we can use the word genocide?
	It's a funny little thing.
	They won't tell you.
	They won't tell you what constitutes genocide.
	So I would like a clear understanding of how many Palestinians have to die before we are allowed to term it a genocide.
	All of the experts can't agree on what a genocide actually is, but they love to float around the word on virtually every other issue.
	You know, I had Rabbi Barclay on my show on one of my last shows when I was on the Daily Wire and I asked him that question pointedly: what is genocide?
	Let us know, experts, what percentage of the population of Palestinians has to be killed before we are allowed to say that it's genocide.
	What I can tell you is I am completely uncomfortable and utterly against the amount of Palestinian innocent lives that have been lost in this conflict, particularly children.
	And any person who is fearful of stating that the death of innocent children has been utterly unacceptable is a coward.
	I mean, listen, I completely agree, but do you personally think it constitutes genocide?
	Which is the deliberate sued on my show.
	Yeah.
	What is the number?
	What is the official number?
	That's it.
	I mean, somebody tell me, and I'll give you an answer.
	Try it when you have a number.
	I'm not going to put people on both sides of the debate on.
	What do you mean by answer?
	Do they give you an answer?
	Well, no, because here's the point.
	It's not about specific numbers.
	It's about an intent.
	But it has to be.
	Well, no, it's not.
	It's about an intent to eradicate.
	That's not true, Piers, because in America, they say that Native Americans, it was a genocide committed by white men.
	This is what they say, right?
	No, but I'm talking about what the definition of a genocide is.
	But what I'm telling you is that that would be incorrect because the majority of Native Americans died from smallpox.
	It was accidental.
	Some 90% of Native Americans died from smallpox.
	And it's considered a genocide.
	No, I understand.
	I'm telling you what the definition of genocide is, which is not about a specific number in any circumstance.
	It's about an intent to target and eradicate a whole people based on their evidence.
	I'm disputing that by telling you that they legally say within America that Native Americans, a genocide was committed against Native Americans.
	Factually speaking, 90% of them, 90 to 93% of them died from smallpox.
	So it was actually an epidemic, right?
	So is the definition shifting?
	Because it is my understanding from Rabbi Barclay that the definition of anti-Semitism shifts.
	So maybe the definition of genocide has shifted, but genocide.
	Let me read you the exact wording and see whether you think it applies to...
	Well, let me read you the exact word.
	Definition of genocide from the Oxford English Dictionary.
	The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
	So by that definition, do you believe that is what's happening to the Palestinian people and it's being perpetrated by Israel?
	Well, I would say is that Israel has proven in the past that they can be very specific when they want to get somebody out, whether that's a hostage or any other certain military operation.
	And what I am seeing happening, forgetting the specific language of a genocide, is something that I'm using my platform to speak out against because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me what the media calls me.
	I've had every headline.
	I do not believe that they are being careful in what they are doing.
	I think it has been a in almost, it seems to me, the destruction of the hospitals and the schools and of the UN buildings.
	Would you say, peers, that you believe that's unintentional?
	I do not believe Israel's waging genocide.
	I think that...
	Do you believe, but I'm asking you, do you believe that the targeting is not a problem?
	No, no, I'll be clear with you.
	I can answer the question.
	I have said repeatedly in the last few weeks and months that I think the proportionality of Israel's response is now unacceptable.
	And particularly since they decided to go into Rafah, a refugee camp that they set up to then target Hamas in the middle of a refugee camp, we're bound to kill so many innocent civilians in the process.
	I think it's unacceptable.
	But I'm just curious, given that you tweeted about genocide and no government ever has a right to do it, whether by your calculation from that definition, what Israel is doing is deliberately killing a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that national group.
	Yeah, well, what I can say to you, again, because these definitions shift, I don't think we need to focus on the word because I'm telling you what I believe.
	And my belief is that they are not being careful whatsoever.
	My belief is that there has been too much loss of Palestinian life.
	That's different to genocide, though.
	Yeah, but that, kid, that's fine.
	We don't need to put, as I say, I don't know why you're obsessing over this one word.
	Well, because you tweeted about genocide.
	You told me is about Brian Mast.
	So you're harping on this issue.
	There's a lot more topics we should talk about.
	I'm being very clear in how I feel about this issue.
	The Israeli government is not being careful in how they're dealing with this.
	I agree with you that the amount of death has been completely unacceptable.
	When I tweeted that, that was back in November.
	So we're talking way more lives that have been lost.
	And that tweet was about Brian Mast.
	So I get it.
	Here's my reason.
	I've never imagined the amount of dead Palestinian children that I would see on my ex-feed since then.
	It's horrific.
	It's heartbreaking to me as a mother.
	It's horrific to me that the media seems almost complicit in the dehumanization of Palestinians.
	And I will not be on that side because at the end of the day, the hit pieces, the name-calling, the anti-Semitism, the psychopathic language that seems to be coming out of people means nothing.
	And I want to make sure everybody knows this, right?
	At the end of the day, you are going to have to account to God for the things that you allowed, the things that you were complicit in, and for the things that you did not have enough courage to state.
	Okay.
	The amount of death of Palestinian children has been unacceptable.
	Full stop.
	Bibi Netanyahu, in my view, should not be given an invitation to Congress.
	I think it's unacceptable.
	I agree.
	Unacceptable.
	And to be clear, for whatever the reason when it comes to the topic of Israel, it does seem that journalists are fearful to critique Israel.
	Well, I'm not afraid of that.
	Why is that?
	Because I would say, Piers, that you too, you too, you seem a little fearful to critique Israel and to want to always seem that you're coming across a little bit understanding of everything they're doing.
	What is it that makes journalists fearful of saying, like, hey, you know, Israel has done a ton of things that have been very wrong.
	Yes, and I have said they're wrong.
	I think Netanyahu should go.
	I think half of that cabinet should go because some of them have definitely been using genocidal language.
	I think a lot of what Israel's been doing the last few weeks is completely unacceptable.
Nick Fuentes Controversy 00:14:23
	But ultimately, I also, from the start of this conflict, believe that Israel not only had a right to defend itself after the terror attack on October the 7th, but a fundamental duty to its people.
	And here's where I'm just curious about your tweeting through this procedure, this whole war, because on October the 7th, you didn't tweet anything.
	You didn't tweet anything October the 8th.
	And October the 9th, you tweeted so much world peace ever since we got the orange man out of office.
	So glad the adults are back in charge.
	A lot of people say, well, if you care this much about innocent people being killed, why didn't you say anything when 1,200 people were massacred to death in the most brutal, barbaric manner in this awful terror attack by Hamas?
	And nearly 7,000 more were wounded, some of them catastrophically and irreparably.
	Why did that not compel you to say anything?
	Well, first and foremost, Israel is a foreign country.
	So typically I talk about topics that have to do with America.
	Secondly, you're only quoting my Twitter feed.
	I'm also on Facebook.
	I'm also on Instagram.
	I also had a daily podcast in which I did respond directly about what happened and called the events horrific multiple times, multiple times, said what Hamas did was absolutely horrific.
	So you're using a snapshot of my Twitter feed where you're acknowledging that I didn't tweet for days to suggest that I didn't have anything to say about what had happened.
	Now, to be clear, I am consistent on all matters.
	I do not want America involved whatsoever in anything that is happening in Israel.
	I don't want my dollars sent over to Israel.
	We should not be supporting Israel.
	Obviously, Thomas Massey has done a lot of work showing how it doesn't even make economic sense that we have so much debt and yet we're sending money over to support Israel.
	And the biggest issue, by the way, that I have with Israel and talking about them being above reproach is the fact that they are supplying the arms to murder Christians, okay?
	In Armenia, the oldest Christian country in the world, and yet nobody talks about that.
	For whatever reason, it seems to be the circumstance that when Jewish people die in Israel, it's wall-to-wall coverage.
	But when Christians die all over the world, nobody talks about it.
	Everyone wants to correlate everything to World War II.
	Everyone wants to talk about Adolf Hitler and the, and rightfully so, he was a horrific person.
	But nobody wants to talk about Henrik Yogoda, right?
	Nobody wants to talk about the Bolsheviks.
	Nobody wants to talk about the Christian Holocaust.
	I am tired of the media, exhausted of the media not speaking about what is happening to Christians all around the world.
	And it is especially horrific.
	Well, at the exact same time that it is happening, the slaughter of Christians in Armenia, the arms being supplied by Israel, that the media turns the other way and says, oh, okay, but what about what's happening in Israel?
	So you know what I'm asking for?
	Actual equality, okay?
	Because it seems like this is like a special category, the special relationship that we have.
	I'm a Christian first, okay?
	And so my concerns are going to be with what's happening to Christians all around the world because it is us.
	We are the number one most persecuted religion in the world.
	And all Christians watching this need to realize the time is now to start speaking up because we have been silenced about the things that are happening to us for a very long time.
	And the media is very clearly not our friend.
	When there is wall-to-wall coverage of Christians being killed in Armenia, Christians being killed in Nigeria, and the treatment of Christians in America and all across the globe today, then you ask me if I will use my platform and I will use my voice to speak about what's happening in Israel.
	How about that?
	Okay, I think that's a perfectly reasonable point to make.
	The final question I'll ask you on this issue of the Daily Wire centers around the Christ is king, because it had long been a core slogan of people like Nick Fuentes and other, for want of a better phrase, white supremacists, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.
	The Daily Wire co-founder, Jeremy Boring, said on X, how is saying Christ is king anti-Semitic?
	The same way anything becomes anti-Semitic when it's used for the purpose of expressing anti-Semitism.
	It's like asking, how does a shovel become a murder weapon when it's used to murder someone?
	This isn't hard.
	A shovel is not innately a murder weapon.
	Saying Christ is king is not innately anti-Semitic.
	It's all about how a thing is used.
	Saying Christ is king for an evil purpose, like using it as a weapon to express your hatred or disdain for the Jews, is a grave sin.
	God will not be mocked.
	Invoking him in vain self-promotion or to troll Jews or to attack your political rivals is to carry forth his name in vain.
	What would your response be to that?
	My response would be that I am an unapologetic free market capitalist.
	I think Jeremy Boring, as the co-CEO of a Daily Wire, went to the market with his idea on Christ as King, and the market has a right to respond.
	They believe in what he's saying, and they think that what he is saying is true and is right, then they will support the Daily Wire and they will support their mission.
	If they believe that it is wrong, then they will stop supporting the Daily Wire.
	I can't speak on behalf of Jeremy Boring.
	You'd have to book him and he can talk more about his belief that Christ is king can be used like a shovel to murder people.
	You know, what I would say for me is I don't agree with that.
	And so if you find me saying Christ is king to be abhorrent, same thing.
	You don't have to support me.
	You don't have to follow me.
	But let me tell you, I'm going to continue to declare that Jesus Christ is the king of kings.
	Nick Fuentes, who is a Holocaust denier, supported you in what he said was your full-fledged war against the Jews.
	He said, this is the face of a total Jewish defeat.
	We effing got your back, Candace.
	They're filth.
	What would you say to that?
	I would never, ever, ever. describe Jewish people as a whole as filth.
	I don't know what the context of that is.
	Is he referring to the Rabbi Barclay interview?
	But just to be clear, on my record here, I have had wonderful relationships with Jewish people all throughout my life.
	Before I was at Daily Wire, I was at Prager Hugh.
	Dennis Prager, Marissa Strait run that company.
	Marissa Strait is a former IDF soldier.
	That woman treated me like gold.
	We never had any issues whatsoever.
	They were wonderful to me.
	So I genuinely don't know the context of where or why he said that, but I'm just acknowledging that he said the word filth and that I used the word filth to describe Rabbi Shmuly, who you have had on this show.
	And I just want to make it clear to everyone watching that Rabbi Shmueli is in fact a piece of filth.
	Right, but you would not support a full-fledged war against the Jews.
	No, no.
	Or any, by the way, I also would not support a full-fledged war against Muslims.
	I'm not supporting a full-fledged war against Christians.
	And there are some full-fledged wars being launched against Christians.
	So do you feel uncomfortable?
	Okay, so a reasonable question is, do you feel uncomfortable about having support from people like Nick Fuentes then?
	I think it is an absolute nonsense for people.
	I have on Twitter alone, 5.5 million followers.
	I think it's pointedly ridiculous when people do this and they find a comment and they go, do you feel uncomfortable about the fact that this person said this?
	I've had the FBI working with me because there are people that read my tweets and believe that we are in a relationship.
	I had a person who literally left a mental facility because he thought every single one of my tweets was a sign of love and I was speaking in code to him.
	What I'm not going to do is respond to this tactic of pretending that I'm somehow responsible for the 20 million followers and that I should be knowing what they are saying on their private platforms or their personal platforms or their public platforms every minute of every day.
	It's a nonsense.
	You know it's nonsense right now, Piers, if I went into your comments and dug it up and said, do you support this?
	And it's just, let's just not do that.
	Well, no, but Nick accounts for the things that hold me accountable.
	Nick Fuentes is not just one of your 20 million followers.
	Nick Fuentes has millions of followers himself.
	Where does he have?
	No, stop.
	Where does he have millions of followers?
	What platforms?
	Multiple platforms.
	No, no, no.
	He's banned.
	He's banned from X.
	This is very interesting to me because.
	He's banned from X now.
	Yeah.
	He wasn't from X.
	He does not have...
	No, no, he was actually, he doesn't, he does not have, he was banned from YouTube.
	He was banned from X.
	He was banned from, what is the, he's literally been banned from everywhere.
	So when you say something like that, I'm asking you which platform, you just made a statement, he has millions of followers.
	What I just wanted to say is that being hyperbolic.
	Which platform does Nick Fuentes have millions of followers on?
	Well, he doesn't now.
	He's been banned.
	No, no, no.
	Where?
	Which platform did he ever have millions of followers on?
	He is on X.
	He has not millions of followers.
	So which platform did he ever have millions of followers on?
	Well, how many followers has he got?
	Okay, so you don't even know the answer.
	So you're just being hyperbolic again.
	You're making this argument that I am responsible.
	My point was not a message.
	No, he's not just, he's not.
	But that's just not true.
	He hasn't, Piers.
	It's just simply not true.
	Candace, he's a.
	And I answered your question again.
	You asked me a statement about what he said.
	And if I agreed with it, I told you, no, I would never want a war against the Jews.
	No, but my question was, My question is, do you feel whether I agree with somebody?
	My question was, do you feel uncomfortable about him supporting you?
	He's a high-profile person and he said that.
	Do you feel comfortable, given the context of how you left the Daily Watch?
	I want to be clear.
	Yeah.
	I do not know what is the context of what you just said to me.
	As I just said to you, if it was pertaining to Rabbi Shmuly, who I think is a piece of filth who has gotten away with everything in the media, and I am grateful that people are understanding that that man has harassed me for two years.
	And I am grateful that for any person that has supported me in responding to Rabbi Shmuley and his hag daughter, okay?
	If you are going to pointedly ask me if I am uncomfortable with the fact that Nick Fuentes also believes that Christ is king, I want every single person in the world to declare Christ as king, whether you believe them to be a Nazi, a white supremacist, a Jew, a Muslim, it is the phrase itself that I want declared.
	Okay.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	Okay.
	Let's turn to, I would say, a less contentious matter, but it's not really.
	It's Kanye West.
	I interviewed him at length towards the end of last year.
	You've been pretty supportive of Ye, formerly Kanye West.
	Even after he tweeted DEF CON 3 on Jewish people, he posted, I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up, I'm going DEF CON 3 on Jewish people.
	And you wrote on the social media site Parla, if you're an honest person, you do not think this tweet was anti-Semitic.
	I mean, I don't know why would you conclude that?
	Because it seems to me it's a pretty brazen statement of anti-Semitism to go DEF CON 3 on Jewish people.
	How else could it be construed?
	Yeah, sure.
	I can tell you how else it can be construed because this is one of the things that's fascinating.
	First, I'd like to point to how interesting it is that the entire world came down on Kanye West, canceled him, took away his contracts, made his entire family come out and make statements against him when he tweeted that he was going to go DEF CON 3 on some Jewish people, I think is what he wrote verbatim.
	And now we fast forward to today when Israel was going DEF CON 3 on Palestinians.
	He didn't say some.
	He said on Jewish people.
	Okay, sure.
	And now we fast forward to today when Israel is literally going DEF CON 3 on Palestinians and those same media members seem extremely cautious in their language.
	So the tweet is actual death, but the actual bombs being dropped for some reason, real violence is something that the media can get comfortable with.
	I'd like to point to that because now some time has passed.
	But to answer your question of how I could have said that statement, obviously you understand Ye is my friend and I understood what was happening in his life and what had caused him to say that.
	He said when he woke up, he was going to go DEF CON 3 on Jewish people.
	He's talking about specific Jewish people in his life that he believed had been taking advantage of him.
	And he then produced, and whatever reason, the media was not interested in covering it extensively, a tweet from one of those people, Harley Pastornik, threatening to put him on a Psych 5150 hold and to drug him so that his visits with his kids wouldn't be the same.
	How Harley Pastornik has not been chased out of Hollywood after threatening to drug someone and take their kids away is the question that you should be asking.
	Now, I was privy not only to what Harley Paschnik was saying to him, but also to what four other Jewish, happened to be Jewish people were saying to him at that time.
	And I think what happened is that he snapped and he suddenly wanted to aggressively attack those individuals.
	And basically, but Candace, none of that changes the fact that what he tweeted was clearly anti-Semitic.
	When you'd say, I'm going DEF CON 3 on Jewish people, that is a statement of anti-Semitism, indisputably.
	The idea that you would be dishonest if you didn't see that for what it was, whatever the circumstances, whatever was going on behind the scenes, for a guy with his massive following, which I think we can agree was indisputably massive at the time, for him to state that in public on a social media platform was a brazen act of disgusting anti-Semitism.
	And all right, I am.
	So just to be clear, I didn't tweet on Parlor.
	I, on my podcast, gave a full statement saying that if we're being honest, you did not think that he was going to go kill some Jewish people.
	You didn't.
	And I think that if we're being honest.
	Well, you said if you're an honest person, you did not think this tweet was anti-Semitic.
	I did think it was anti-Semitic.
	Everybody did.
	Okay.
	But you didn't.
	Why?
	No, because I knew the backstory.
	So I had more information than the public had.
	Yeah, but the statement that I'm really talking about.
	The statement had no clarification.
	It was unambiguous.
	It was clear.
	Yeah.
	And then when he clarified, when he did try to clarify it, nobody paid attention.
	So can I ask you why did you, did you try to book Harley Pashanuk after you saw what he tweeted to Kanye?
	No, I booked Kanye himself and I interviewed him for two years.
	Yeah, but were you interested?
	That was thereafter when he showed the tweets of what Harley Pastornik said to him.
	Were you outraged by the idea that a Jewish man would threaten to draw someone so that they couldn't see their family?
	Were you out?
Anti-Semitic Tweet Debate 00:03:18
	Is that outrageous?
	Is that anti-black?
	Do you think that that's racist?
	Well, whatever the circumstances of that, that wasn't.
	No, Pierre, answer the question because you're quick to say that a threat that you, that you perceived, the language of him saying that he was going to go DEF CON 3.
	And just to be clear, DEF CON 3 is a defensive military position on some Jewish people or Jewish people as a whole.
	I don't remember the exact tweet.
	You just said that you thought that that was clearly anti-Semitic.
	And now I'm asking you, is it clearly racist?
	What is it clearly when a Jewish man says to a black man, okay, that they're going to drug them out of their minds, effectively MK Ultra them and your visits with your children will never be the same?
	Because if you're asking me between the two, which is worse, it's obviously what Harley Pastornik wrote to Kanye West, which was not reported in the media.
	Because he didn't put that in the tweet.
	Okay, but Kanye tweeted it.
	Kanye tweeted it publicly with Harley Pasterniknik.
	He did after the Fiori blew up issue.
	Why didn't it trend?
	Why wasn't there the same thing?
	I'm not talking about one Jewish person.
	He talked about all of the people.
	No, I am asking you why you were not, why the public was not as outraged as when somebody threatens to drug someone out of their mind as a very serious real threat.
	And it was the same person as he said was the person who first put him in the hospital the first time.
	Right.
	You seem to be okay with it.
	You're just sort of like, well, of course I'm not okay with it.
	His tweet was so much worse.
	You're talking about taking away somebody's kids, putting them into a hospital and drugging them out of their mind.
	Where is your outrage?
	I do not know the background to what you're saying.
	Why does it seem to be that that is always the circumstance?
	Like whenever a person is...
	Because with respect to how they're being threatened.
	No, no, no, no.
	For some reason, you don't want to...
	Pierre, this is very important.
	Let me finish this.
	Let me finish this.
	This seems to be a trend that I had recognized.
	I saw this with Rabbi Schmooley.
	For two years, okay, this rabbi openly threatened me, my family, my livelihood.
	Him and his daughter did this for two years.
	There was no outrage.
	None.
	Zero.
	In fact, you booked Rabbi Shmuel.
	You didn't even ask him about it.
	Did you?
	Did you threaten again?
	And then all of a sudden, I do nothing.
	And the full media is accusing me of anti-Semitism.
	Why does there seem to be this double standard that specific Jewish people, if they want to, can threaten the lives of black people, specific black people?
	I'm giving myself as an example.
	And there's not the same response.
	Like, why wasn't Rabbi Shmooly trending for two years over what he said?
	I don't really, to be honest with you, I don't really, we're going to come to Rabbi Schmoolie, and I might share a lot of your views about Rabbi Schmooley.
	But the point that you seem to be wanting to move on from and deflect from.
	I'm not moving on from it.
	I'm telling you that I had to say that.
	Your response was to somebody to Kanye saying, when I wake up, I'm going DEF GON3 on Jewish people.
	Because you've said this three times and we're going to be able to do that.
	I know, because you don't want to answer the question.
	I told you the reason why I said that is because I was aware of multiple people in his life that were doing something.
	There's no point in belaboring the point.
	I've answered your question.
	I do not accept it.
	I'm simply asking you, when you say, if you are an honest person, you did not think this tweet was anti-Semitic, you're saying that I'm dishonest because I believe what he said was anti-Semitic.
	And I think that's what I'm saying.
	I am saying that, well, first off, just to start back at the beginning of this interview, I think you're dishonest for a lot of other reasons.
Vaccine Policy Flip-Flop 00:09:08
	So don't, please don't harp on this one tweet because you flip-flop on your positions the entire time.
	That's why I tweeted these things about you.
	But everything.
	COVID, you flip-flopped on COVID.
	You flip-flopped on BLM.
	At one minute, you were supporting BLM and then you're like, my son's out protesting.
	It's amazing.
	And then when they're burning stuff down, I don't find you to be someone that actually takes meaningful risks and says what you believe.
	You kind of take both positions all the time.
	Well, actually, I'm not an ideologue about any of it.
	So don't think that's a good idea.
	Don't pretend that's the first time I ever did.
	With respect, I'm not an ideologue about any of these things, right?
	So you want me to be an ideologue?
	You want me to stick to one side on everything?
	No, I'm just saying that it seems like once the conversation cracks, and this is a lot of people in media, they don't take risks.
	They deliver the government talking points and then they move once it kind of becomes okay to question the government.
	So COVID, this was the prevailing narrative.
	You were like, get the vaccine, da-da-da.
	If you don't do the vaccine, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And then all of a sudden now we're finding out that, and you would have called someone like me, what, anti-vax, trying to kill someone, all of these things.
	Well, I didn't get the vaccine.
	My family didn't get the vaccine.
	And now we're on the other side of this thing and people are like, well, maybe I had it wrong.
	Maybe I have some regrets.
	What do you think I've expressed regret?
	I've been going with the mainstream narrative in the beginning.
	Don't just keep talking.
	What do you think I've expressed regret about with COVID?
	Well, let me ask you, are you still standing by all the stuff you said about people being idiots for not getting the vaccine?
	Yeah, the only thing I changed because the scientific advice changed and I've accepted that if there was another health pandemic, I would not rush to accept scientific advice in real time as actually 100% irrefutable, never to change, because science evolves and especially in a health emergency.
	The one thing I have said I changed my mind over because the science advice changed was that originally they advised that if you had the vaccine, then you could not transmit the virus.
	And I was then very censorious towards people who simply refused to have the vaccine because I said, it's not about you.
	It's actually about your ability to transmit it and maybe infect more vulnerable people.
	And I thought it was self-sufficient.
	Let me finish.
	Let me finish.
	And I was very censorious, way too censorious.
	I've admitted that.
	Shouldn't have been so censorious.
	And when the science advice changed and said, actually, there's now evidence that suggests, and in fact, it looks clear, the evidence, that if you have the vaccine, it makes little difference to your ability to transmit the virus or not.
	Then I changed my position.
	And when I was asked about that later, I said, absolutely.
	I should not have been so censorious to people who didn't have it because at that point, it becomes personal choice.
	But if you ask me on the wider picture, do I think the COVID vaccines were a good thing?
	Absolutely.
	Do I think they saved millions of lives?
	Absolutely.
	Do I think the deliberate attempt to discredit all science involved in the COVID pandemic is a dangerous, dangerous thing for society?
	Absolutely.
	Do I know lots of people who died from COVID who would potentially have been saved by a vaccine if it had been there when they caught the virus?
	Absolutely.
	So do not take my one clarification about the ability of a vaccine to prevent transmission as being some great mia culpa that I see.
	That's a huge meacopa, Pierce.
	That's an essential copa.
	Absolutely.
	It's a huge meacopa.
	Because that means that you're not able to go out and have an experimental vaccine in their arm and encourage them not to listen to independent voices that were saying, hold on.
	That's a huge meacopa.
	People died from the vaccine.
	So you're talking about people that died from not getting it.
	There have been scores of people who died from the vaccine.
	There have been scores of people like my grandfather who got the vaccine and then were dead within one year because it led to their dementia suddenly spreading and or advancing rather than in a way.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	I let you, I let you know.
	You did not know that that was down to the vaccine, did you?
	Okay.
	First and foremost, they have admitted so much.
	They lied about the six feet social distancing that just came out two weeks ago.
	And you were on the side of all of these people.
	So don't pretend that that's a small myocopa.
	People died from blood clots pertaining to the vaccines that you were telling them to rush out and get.
	Okay.
	People died.
	Had they have waited and perhaps listened to independent voices and understood that there was some government.
	No, I'd let you talk about your my copal.
	Had they have paused and listened to independent voices who have, I think, probably a greater strength when it comes up to standing up to government initiatives because we recognize that the government is not our friend and we recognize that the government is not trying to save our lives.
	Maybe those people would be alive.
	Maybe my friends who had miscarriages and my friends who were saying that it was impacting their menstruation until the government was ready to admit that seven months later.
	If you had listened to people that were telling you their own experiences, someone I know that went completely blind in one eye because of some weird ocular clots.
	So don't pretend that's a small thing.
	I just want to say, I'm happy to accept that you've changed your mind.
	Let me respond.
	But don't pretend it's a small thing.
	People died from the vaccine.
	Let me respond.
	And by the way, I want to be clear for people watching this.
	He's saying still get it.
	I'm saying still don't.
	Just so you can hear a different opinion.
	Do not allow the government to put that in your arm.
	God's system works.
	The government is not fixing you in any regard.
	And do you feel the same way about the flu shot?
	Yes.
	Oh my gosh.
	I haven't gotten a flu shot since I was like 12.
	Okay.
	And things like polio and measles and all the other shots.
	Yeah, I don't just let's skip to the point.
	You might not know this.
	I don't vax my children.
	They are not vaccines.
	We travel the world.
	My children are never sick.
	I am proudly, as you media terms it, anti-vax.
	I'm very aware of that.
	By the way, entirely coming up with names for people for making sensible decisions.
	I don't believe, oh, big pharma is not God.
	I understand.
	Yeah.
	Of God's voice.
	So I fundamentally, listen, I absolutely respect your right to do what you want for your children.
	I did the complete opposite for mine.
	I believe that all vaccines carry risks.
	By the way, paracetamol carries risks.
	Ibuprofen carries risks.
	Any medication, you will find instances of side effects and deaths.
	Every medication in the world that's ever been created.
	But do I think overall that COVID vaccines save millions of lives and were an incredible thing done at walk speed in the middle of a desperate pandemic that was killing thousands of people every day?
	Absolutely, I do.
	So you and I will disagree.
	I don't know if there's something wrong.
	Well, you and I will disagree.
	We're never going to agree on it.
	100% disagree on that.
	Here's the beauty.
	We don't have to agree about it.
	That's right.
	Right.
	But I wish that when you said you were being censorious, I wish that you would have allowed people who strongly disagreed to present their arguments at that time because I think that a lot of people who are now struggling and getting blood clots and things of that nature, they're allowed to be saved.
	I don't disagree with you.
	I had a lot of people around me dying from COVID in the most hideous, horrendous circumstances.
	The co-presenter of the show, the morning show I was doing, her husband went into a coma and never really came out of it and sadly died a few months ago after four years, right?
	Had there been a vaccine when he got the virus in March and the first weight, he might well have lived.
	I don't think the vaccine would.
	I personally don't believe that the vaccine would have saved them, and it's an impossible metric to know because you don't think the COVID vaccine saved any lives.
	I genuinely do not believe that the COVID vaccine saved any lives.
	You see, I'm just, I'm sorry, you're a smart person, Candace.
	You cannot, thank you.
	You cannot believe that the COVID vaccines saved no lives.
	That is a ridiculous thing to say.
	It's not a, you can't, just because you're saying ridiculous and just because you're using a little hyperbole doesn't make that every single scientist in the world.
	There is not a scientist or a person.
	You just said the science changes.
	I'm literally five minutes.
	I'm going to put a question to you, then you can answer it.
	Every single scientist and doctor in the world that I'm aware of agrees that vaccines save lives.
	They may disagree about various points of government behavior during the pandemic.
	They may disagree about this particular vaccine or another one.
	What none of them have said is what you've just said, which is it never saved any lives.
	None of them.
	I just want to be clear.
	Only you're saying that.
	Whenever you're claiming that there's 100% scientific consensus, you're lying.
	Whether you're talking about climate change, if you make a declaration that there's 100% scientific consensus on something, you're simply lying.
	And by the way, if you, if people, well, let me, you lied, so I'm just going to correct your lie by pointing people to websites that can dispute this narrative because it's a fashionable one to say 100% of experts.
	Let me ask you a question.
	As soon as somebody tells you there's 100% scientific consensus, they're lying to you.
	Let me ask you: can you name me one professional doctor or scientist who genuinely believes, like you, that the COVID vaccines did not save a single life?
	I can point you to many because there are anti-vax vaccines.
	Can you name one?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, here's what I'm going to point to an entire website because this is actually important because RFK Jr. has played a very large role in my awakening about vaccines and my decision not to vaccinate my children.
Conspiracy Theory Consensus 00:14:35
	I recommend you go to the long list of doctors.
	Childrenhealth Defense.org.
	That is his charity.
	And they have multiple doctors listed.
	You can also go to Dr. Greenmom's website if you want a list of doctors who do not vaxx your children because just so you know, they are vaccinating your children because it is profit for them.
	It is a profit incentive for every child that is vaccinated.
	I want to be clear, I'm talking about America.
	I can't speak to the UK laws and the UK policies, but what we are living inside of is actually a corrupt medical drug cartel.
	It is the aspirations of El Chapo when they wanted to have a marriage with the government in order to drug people.
	We achieved that here in the West, in America, CDC.
	They are corrupt.
	The FDA is corrupt.
	They have been poisoning your food.
	And if you believe that they would mandate, you are asking me a question.
	I'm answering it.
	I'm telling you.
	So, veering off into all sorts of other things.
	Let me just ask you on a more all-encompassing thing.
	Do you believe you're prone to promoting conspiracy theories?
	I believe that I am aware where the entire term of conspiracy theory came from.
	Do you know when that became fashionable?
	Tell me.
	No?
	So, the first time that that was sort of entered into a lexicon, that was a CIA term.
	And this is also gets into, and you can look this up right now, Operation Mockingbird after JFK was killed and the government started employing journalists to just repeat what they said.
	Right.
	And I. What do you think happened to JFK?
	He was shot.
	I think everyone knows that.
	Yeah, but who by?
	I have no idea.
	I mean, do you support any conspiracy theory about the JFK shooting?
	Do you know?
	Do you?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I don't reference it.
	No, I was referencing it to tell you a historical point about Operation Mockingbird.
	So back to my original question.
	Do you think you've promoted?
	Hold on, can I just finish my question?
	Do you think conspiracy consciousness that you're giving me five seconds to respond?
	Well, no, you're not asking me to do it.
	I have a question to answer you about the conspiracy theory before you're asking me about JFK getting shot.
	You're giving me the history of conspiracy theories.
	Times, what the media does, and I do believe that people watching the show are awake to this.
	This is why I'm very confident in this discussion about what I am telling them, is that they use this term conspiracy theory so that you don't question the narrative.
	And you just saw this with COVID.
	I simply saw them calling everybody that the idea that the shot was going to stop you from being able to transmit COVID was a lie.
	They were called conspiracy theorists.
	And then it was proven to be true.
	So if it wasn't happening so quickly that all of the conspiracy theories are true.
	None of this is my question.
	I wasn't talking about COVID.
	I simply said, asked you, do you believe that you promote conspiracy theories?
	No, I believe that I have the courage to actually talk about the truth.
	So let me ask you about this.
	Because you said many things.
	Piers, let me finish.
	You've answered my question.
	You have me on your show and I'm answering and you just keep cutting me off.
	No, you keep talking, hoping not to get a supplementary.
	Well, Piers, if you want me to interview you, I'm happy to have you on my show.
	What's the point of you being somebody that's interviewing is you ask a question and you really have time to answer.
	But let me ask you.
	I want to ask you specifically about something you've been promoting that I think is an outrageous conspiracy theory, very offensive, very wrong.
	And I think you've done it just for clout and clicks.
	Now you can respond.
	But it's this question about the French first lady, Brigitte Macron, who you keep saying is a man.
	You've produced zero evidence that she is a man.
	It's been deeply offensive to her, to her husband, President Macron, to all of her family.
	You keep promoting it to millions of people that follow you.
	And I simply ask why.
	She's not a man.
	She's a woman.
	I'm happy to answer the question.
	I think Brigitte Macron is a trans woman.
	And I think the fact that Brigitte Macron.
	Okay.
	Where's your evidence that she is?
	Well, Piers, the thing is, I'm not allowed to speak after you ask me a question.
	So I don't really know what the purpose of this is anymore.
	You just seem to kind of be saying your own thoughts.
	So I'm just surprised you're allowed to allow you to model that.
	Where is your evidence that Brigitte Macron is transgender?
	Well, I did an entire series talking about where this came from.
	And first and foremost, you're pretending that I'm the one that promulgated this.
	In fact, it was three journalists in France that worked on the story for three years and they teamed up with genealogists and they came across and it was absolutely fascinating.
	I read the entire report and everybody watching this rather than listen to Piers Morgan giving you a bunch of adjectives.
	Ridiculous.
	It's awful.
	I can't believe that she's saying this.
	Why don't you go pursue a primary source?
	Why don't you go in as French journalists?
	Because this did not come from me.
	This came from French journalists.
	And while they were in the world, let me finish a statement, Piers.
	While they were working on this piece, the Macrones sent their secret service to interrupt this.
	This is not a normal thing that you do when somebody's about to publish a lie.
	You would just say it's ridiculous, publish it, and we'll dispute it.
	They sent the Secret Service to intimidate these Germanists, journalists.
	They took their phones.
	They held them.
	They wanted to know everyone who was working on the piece.
	And what they uncovered was absolutely fascinating.
	What they uncovered was the fact that Brigitte Macron, who alleges that the person that they are saying is her, is actually her brother, who's never been seen and who they never produced.
	That Brigitte Macron lived as a man for 30 years and then transitioned at the age of 30.
	So he's trying to tell you this is crazy, this is wacky.
	Why don't you just go pursue a primary source?
	I'm not the primary source.
	It would be very easy to dispute this.
	All Brigitte Macron would have to do is produce a single photo of her in the first 30 years of her life or to go on a little walk with her brother, who she alleges that she is not.
	Actually, she refuses to do either.
	She's suing people.
	And the one photo that they keep producing is a photo of her daughter Tiffany.
	Can we get to word in, please?
	Brigitte Macron, as you know, has a libel trial against Natasha Ray, who made the claims that the French first lady was born a man called Jean-Michel Trogner.
	It's due to take place imminently, and we will get to the bottom of this.
	And I'll bet you what if we have a like a hundred thousand-pound bet that it establishes beyond any doubt to a charity of your choice and mine, $100,000, make it dollars, right now, that it is established beyond any doubt that she was born a woman.
	Do you accept that bet?
	I just want to be very clear.
	If you are asking me, after we have just seen these Trump trials, I'm going to place it.
	Whoa, No.
	Stop cutting me off after you ask me a question.
	It's really.
	The question was: Do you accept the bet?
	I am answering your question, but I am allowed to answer your question, Piers.
	After we have just seen these trials with Trump, if you're asking me to wage a bet on the basis of what happened in a trial and in a courtroom, the state versus some journalists, you are out of your mind if you think that would be the wager.
	So I'll do it to you this way.
	Piers, you've got a team of journalists.
	Can you just simply find, she claims that the person that they found is actually her brother?
	Do you mind just finding me some photos of Brigitte Macron growing up for the first 30 years of her life?
	Could you find, and we can make it shorter.
	I'll give you the $100,000.
	Could you just find her brother, who she claims all the photos that they found of Jean-Michel Tragneau, her brother, who says that's actually my brother?
	Okay, great.
	Could you just find a photo and make it easier?
	We don't have to wait for a trial to finish.
	Just find a photo.
	So even produce it.
	You and I can do it live on Twitter.
	You're going to say, this is the photo that I have found of Brigitte Macron.
	And I'll say, oh, you $100,000.
	So even though in February 2023, a French court convicted two women of libel for spreading the transphobic rumors because it was untrue, even though she's suing again against the people who originally made these claims, even if all this comes back and says it's complete lies, you just say, well, it's the legal system.
	So there's actually no way of ever disproving it.
	I don't need a legal.
	I'm saying we don't need a legal system.
	It's disproving your lies.
	Piers, Piers, Piers, we just need a photo.
	I just told you how to disprove it.
	Just a photo.
	Oh, yeah.
	I can imagine if they produced one, what you would say, well, it's a fake.
	It's a fake.
	No, no.
	Conspiracy theories do, Candace.
	Okay.
	So, Piers.
	I don't believe for a moment.
	Do you realize how it's considered that a first lady of the French state is incapable of simply producing photos of her for the first 30 years of her life where she allegedly had three kids?
	That's the conspiracy.
	It's so easy.
	It's such a dumb thing.
	It's so easy to depress.
	Who had her children?
	If she was born a man, who had her kids?
	Who gave birth to them?
	Their research from the genealogists and the journalists that worked on this for three years is that she actually fathered her children.
	She fathered her children.
	Even as you say that, you know, it's complete nonsense.
	No, I actually think it's a complete nonsense to just not just present something as simple as a photo of yourself for the first 30 years of your life.
	So no matter how many times, no matter how many adjectives you use, it's a very easy thing.
	Like if you, I have three kids.
	If you said to me, Candace, I believe you didn't live for the first 30 years, I would just give you 80,000 pictures of me and call you completely insane.
	I wouldn't sue you because it's not.
	Why should Bridget have to do anything?
	Because it takes less time to show some photos of yourself than it does to sue journalists in court and to have the Secret Service go after you.
	Because I do think when they're working, she's not acting like she has nothing to hide.
	Yeah, but here's the problem.
	You see, I think we know that Emmanuel Macron is also a gay man, according to the person who came out right when he was elected and said that he was sleeping with Macron in all those articles, which lends more plausibility.
	And beyond the fact, whether you think she's a man or not, do you not think the story is weird of the age difference like hitting on a 14-year-old little boy that you go to school?
	So there's perversion there.
	It's sick.
	The French people have been outraged.
	Do you think that's weird?
	Yes, I do.
	Yes.
	So there is some weird perversion going on in that relationship.
	We know Manuel Macron affairs with men.
	We know that we can't trace Brigitte Macron for the first 30 years of her life.
	It seems pretty simple to just come out and say, like, there's something weird happening in that relationship.
	Here's the problem.
	You see, I do think you're a smart person.
	I do think you're a compelling talker.
	I understand why you have a big following and you make a lot of interesting points about all sorts of issues, right?
	I do genuinely believe that.
	But when you set your store, you actually said here, I would stake my entire professional reputation on the fact that Bridget Macron is in fact a man.
	You tweeted that in March.
	That's a problem.
	In that second, with that statement, your entire professional reputation goes up in smoke because it's a conspiracy.
	But you have not disproven anything.
	You have an entire, you're just using adjectives here.
	All right, Joe Sidney.
	So you know, we are living.
	Show me the proof he's living in.
	Show me the proof Joe Biden's not a woman.
	Let me, excuse me.
	Show me the proof Donald Trump isn't transgender.
	There are tons of photos of Joe Biden.
	I think Donald Trump was born a woman.
	Show me the proof.
	Okay, there are tons of photos of Trump 20 years ago on Oprah.
	What are you saying?
	That's why I'm saying it's not a problem.
	You're saying you don't believe this.
	You've just done it.
	You've just done it to run riot with a conspiracy theory.
	Okay, you can keep saying conspiracy theory.
	Just know that we're living in this post-mainstream media world.
	So it's not going to discount my thought.
	People are not going to stop listening to me.
	In fact, what's going to happen on the basis of this interview is more people are going to go pursue the primary source and read the report of these three journalists that have been harassed by the state.
	Stop cutting me off.
	Exactly.
	Because they cannot trust people like you to just keep calling everything conspiracy theories.
	It's not going to impact my platform whatsoever.
	In fact, while you were peddling conspiracy theories, whether that be BLM or COVID, I was the person that was telling them the opposite and those things turned out to be true.
	So what's actually happened is that I have built up a repertoire, someone that they can trust because they know that I don't just say what the state wants me to say and that I'm willing to question things.
	What I have said on my platform multiple times is I'm willing to say that this report has been disputed.
	It just simply hasn't been yet.
	All they keep doing is showing a picture of Tafon, Brigitte's daughter, recolorized in black and white and going, oh, no, this is her as a kid.
	But as a mother 13 years of living, just show a photo of yourself.
	We don't need to be debating it.
	Just show a photo of yourself.
	And as a mother yourself, you have no qualms about the hurt that you're causing her kids with this kind of claptrap.
	I mean, I roll, please stop with the sensitivity.
	You are, you've decided that you want to lead a country.
	Okay.
	Honesty is demanded.
	More journalists should be prodding into the story internationally to see what's actually going on here.
	Because at best, you have a perverted story that, in my view, leads way too closely into pedophilia.
	Just a story of how they got together is weird.
	You have an allegedly gay man, the person who's had gay affairs with him, has spoken out, talked about the drugs that he has done with Macron.
	And you have these two people who are utterly demented leading the state of France.
	So like you said, people will make it and go into, but you're a mommy.
	Don't you care about, don't you care, Candace, about how she's feeling?
	No, it's perverted.
	At worst, at worst, at best, pardon, Brigitte Macron Crone is a pervert.
	Let's move to Sean Diddy Combs because you seem to be under the belief that the reason he is not in jail, you said in March, is because he's a Fed CIA asset.
	Kanye tried to tell everybody.
	Do you still believe that?
	Well, I was just reading the actual court documents of what's being filed against him.
	And so I'm following the case.
	But do you believe he's a Fed CIA asset?
	Well, as I've said on my show, if what is in that case, which seemed very compelling because they had pictures and evidence and they were able to show when he shot someone and they told the particular person that cleans up that you're supposed to call that's in the LAPD that allows him to shoot people in broad daylight, allegedly, I'm just saying allegedly because this case is still moving through the system.
	Plus, obviously you saw the video that circulated of him openly beating Cassie, his ex-girlfriend, and the fact that this man is doing all of these things.
	The person filing the lawsuit produced photos of somebody that he had allegedly shot and gave the name of the person at the LAPD that cleaned it up and showed that the media had covered it.
	Yeah, that would show, that would definitely lead me to believe that Diddy is being protected because most people can't shoot somebody in broad daylight and beat their wife.
	Just to be clear in a hotel.
	But again, you have no evidence that he isn't a Fed or CIA.
	No, I'm not the one following the lawsuit.
	So you just read the lawsuits.
	You have no evidence, do you?
	I mean, when you state it as fact, he's not in jail because I covered the lawsuit.
Reading The Lawsuit 00:03:26
	What are you protecting right now?
	It's an open lawsuit that anybody can go read with the photos established.
	So I'm covering it.
	And I am covering this lawsuit.
	This lawsuit, which has been filed with a ton of proof and evidence.
	Again, you're being disingenuous because actually you're stating it as fact.
	No, what I am telling people.
	In the same way you say, I state my entire reputation, Bridget Macron's a man, you also stated this fact, nothing from a lawsuit.
	You just said he's not in jail, you tweeted, because he's a Fed CIA asset.
	Kanye tried to tell everybody.
	Have you read the lawsuit?
	Because it seems like you haven't, obviously.
	But that's your statement.
	No, Did you read the lawsuit?
	That's the first thing.
	Because you're just, we can skip the hyperbolic.
	Did you read the lawsuit?
	I'm asking you.
	Okay, then we're not going to talk about this topic because you're pretending with me.
	Talking about what's in the lawsuit.
	I've read the lawsuit that was filed.
	I'm not talking about a lawsuit.
	I'm not going to let you get the pictures and the proof.
	No, it's all about the lawsuit.
	You can't say I'm not talking about the lawsuit that happened in the world.
	So just to be clear.
	And then you have no evidence.
	Just to be clear.
	Just to be clear, you just said that you wouldn't believe anything from the legal cases which established Bridget Macron is not a man.
	You're racing to believe this wild conspiracy theory about Diddy being a Fed CIA asset because you saw it in a lawsuit.
	Okay.
	You see the slight explanation of the case.
	No, no, no.
	If you have not been following, it's very obvious.
	So there's nobody that's not going to be able to do it.
	So you believe what's in that lawsuit, but you don't believe it.
	Am I going to believe it was to answer your question?
	This lawsuit that was filed, okay, had pictures, pictorial evidence all throughout.
	They also showed you a log of the 911 calls.
	It showed you what the media had reported on and what he actually saw.
	This was not like your average, like, you know, we're debating whether or not you said this in a lawsuit 20 years ago and it's my word versus your word.
	As I said, if you have not actually read the lawsuit and you're just going to do the thing where you call everything a conspiracy theory, I'm bored.
	Let's move on to the next topic.
	But everyone should read that lawsuit in its entirety because it's absolutely fascinating and it does.
	Okay.
	And also, of course, what's going on with Cassie, the lawsuit that she filed against him and then dismissed the lawsuit.
	There is a lot going on with Diddy right now.
	And like I said, the majority of people who have read a lawsuit are aware of this.
	So it's like, I mean, it's like talking about Jeffrey Epstein at this point.
	It's, it's, it's a very interesting lawsuit.
	And I am following it and reporting on it.
	You seem to be doing this thing where when I report on things that are happening, you pretend like I am the primary source.
	Like the journalist worked on this for three years.
	I'm not going to tell the journalists that are how they got.
	This is a problem.
	Candice tweeted about it.
	How could she tweet it?
	Oh, this guy filed a lawsuit with pictures.
	I didn't actually read the lawsuit with the pictures, but I'm pretending that Candace's Twitter was the source for this lawsuit.
	I mean, it's kind of a nonsense.
	Here's the difference between me and you.
	I've actually been a reporter for many, many years.
	You never have.
	So when you say you report on these things, I can tell you, no journalist who's an actual reporter would read a legal filing and then do a tweet which states as fact in their own words, he's not in jail because he's a Fed CIA asset.
	Can he try to travel?
	That's not reporting on a lawsuit.
	That is stating your own personal opinion.
	And if you don't know the difference, it's because you're not a reporter.
	I am.
	Well, now we've arrived at your professionality.
	I guess, Pierce, Piers, tell me more.
	What school did you go to?
Journalism Professionalism 00:05:18
	Tell me what I'm talking about.
	I went to Harlow Journalism College in Essex and England.
	Well, then we better listen to you guys.
	You heard him.
	We got to trust the experts.
	And Piers has been a reporter and he went to a journalistic law school.
	And therefore, whatever conclusions he makes are the professional and the correct ones.
	And you should definitely listen to Piers Morgan.
	I do know the difference between reporting on a lawsuit where you're one removed from the contents of the lawsuit and stating something as fact.
	But I don't think you do because you've never actually been a reporter.
	That's my point.
	Ooh, woo, burn.
	You got me.
	You go, girlfriend.
	Let's talk about Ukraine.
	I don't understand why conservatives in America, a number of conservatives, not all, why so many conservatives seem so determined to let Vladimir Putin rampage his way into sovereign democratic European countries and take them, and why that would be in America's national interest.
	Explain.
	Yeah.
	So it's pretty obvious that it's just a money laundering operation.
	It's very obvious that we have been lied to about what's been going on in that region for a very long time.
	Ukraine has always notoriously been a laundromat for America.
	And I'm sure you may recall, since you seem to be an avid follower of my tweets, where I pointed out that even the New York Times was talking about how corrupt Zelensky was just a couple of years before the war, they were describing him as a corrupt older.
	But that wasn't my question.
	He's now suspended elections.
	He's shut down churches.
	Okay.
	He is conscripting young Christian men to their deaths in a region where Christian men have been.
	None of this was my question.
	Anytime, it's just not, I'm just not answering it quickly enough for you, Piers.
	So go ahead.
	Why do you want Putin to win?
	No, but you are pretending that it's because we want Putin to win.
	Well, that's the consequence of not helping Ukraine.
	It's not about wanting Putin to win.
	It's about realizing that trying to tell us that this person is worse than this person is a nonsense.
	We do not support the war for a ton of reasons because it's money laundering, because it's killing Christians, and because we don't have to.
	I understand.
	You made it clear.
	So why do you want to win?
	It doesn't make you pro-the-that doesn't make you pro-Putin.
	No, it doesn't.
	No, I'm not going to do it for this.
	Pardon?
	Who do you want to win the war?
	Ukraine or Russia?
	Well, I don't really view this regional issue.
	So it's a warned Russia as something that I need to involve myself in and be rooting one way or the other.
	I don't want Zelensky to win.
	I don't want Putin to win.
	I think I do not believe that Zelensky is less corrupt than Putin.
	Just to say, don't be sick.
	I'm sick of Zelensky.
	I believe Zelensky is just as corrupt.
	I believe he is a criminal.
	I am watching videos of him dragging Christian men with crosses around their neck to their death.
	He sickens me.
	He is the person that is taking billions of dollars away from us.
	It's magically all being lost.
	They just don't know where all this money is going to.
	I find him to be absolutely despicable.
	And that's what I'm saying.
	Would rather Putin's money.
	You cannot like the answer, but I'm giving it to you.
	No, it's fine.
	If that's your honest opinion, it's fine.
	But by the absolute process of elimination, that means you want Putin to win then.
	No, I just don't want to be involved in their conflict.
	I hope they both lose.
	So America would no longer lose.
	I hope it just stops.
	I hope they both lose.
	You hope they both, well, how do they both lose a war?
	Just put down your arms and say the war is over.
	That's never going to happen.
	It's a complete pilot sky.
	I'm just telling you, you're not going to make me feel that it's an either or and that I have to do.
	And if China invades Taiwan, because he's a war criminal.
	And if Russia does win in Ukraine and China feels emboldened by America's failure to help it properly, that it then invades Taiwan, would you want to get involved in that?
	Would you be happy for Taiwan to go under as well?
	Well, just to be clear, there's tons of reasons to think that America's weak.
	You don't need Ukraine and what's happening in Russia to believe that you're not weak.
	But you're pretending that if this doesn't happen, then this might happen, which is ridiculous because if you thought America is not a problem.
	I think it's quite logical, actually, to think that China is watching this thinking, you know what?
	Maybe America's not up for the fight anymore because even America...
	Well, I don't know.
	I think they could have probably deduced that from the way that we pulled out of Afghanistan.
	I agree with that.
	We are weak right now.
	The West is weak right now.
	And we're weak because we have men that are acting like women.
	We have journalists that don't have the strength to call out the truth and they're calling everything a conspiracy theory.
	We have women who are no longer leading their households, women who are fearful of standing up for their children, the things that they know that are right or wrong for fear of being called a name.
	And we need to return to a time where people are guided by faith and by God and not by governments and the media institutions.
	We are weak.
	The West is failing.
	The West is falling.
	And the only way that we're going to be able to change that is if we start looking through things through an appropriate lens, right?
	The truth is that we lost the minute we turned away from faith and the minute that we turned away from God.
	That is my belief.
	And I don't put faith in institutions.
	I just don't.
	So I'm done with the military-industrial complex.
	I don't want to support Ukraine.
	I don't want to support Israel.
	I don't want to support any of it.
	I want to support my family.
	And that is where everything begins.
	At home and what would you have done?
	Okay.
	What would you have done in World War II when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor?
Feminist Icons And Faith 00:03:42
	Well, Pierce, that's a very interesting, loaded question.
	And we're going to have to get to it another day because I'm actually covering that next week on my show.
	And I don't want to give anything away.
	Oh, a little tease.
	Two last people.
	Two last people I want to talk to you about quickly.
	Taylor Swift is over here in the UK at the moment on her eras tour.
	I will be attending with my 12-year-old daughter in a couple of weeks, one of her shows.
	I'm a big Swifty fan.
	I think she's a great role model, actually, a brilliant talent, amazing businesswoman, generating billions of dollars, conquering the world of entertainment.
	You think she's a toxic feminist.
	If you've seen what she's ever done in business, how she tries to manipulate her audiences to get out of deals and contracts, she's totally insane.
	She's the most toxic feminist that's ever existed.
	You stand by that.
	Yes.
	No, you don't.
	Yes, I do.
	You think Taylor Swift is the most toxic feminist ever?
	Well, do you want to talk about what she did to Scooter Braun?
	Because it was pretty horrific.
	I think he's awful.
	From my personal view.
	You think he's awful and she's not a person that lied to her fans.
	First off, Taylor Swift is cosplaying a 15-year-old.
	She's 34 years old, shrewd businesswoman.
	She's the same age as me.
	We're born in the same year.
	She's going to be 35.
	That's right.
	She'll be 35 in a couple of months.
	You're young, Cactus.
	So, yes, sure.
	But she's cosplaying a 15-year-old.
	So when Taylor Swift wants to get something done in the business world, what she does, that she jumps on Tumblr and she manipulates a bunch of 15-year-olds into believing, I wrote these songs on my floor.
	And in Scooter Braun, the evil man is trying to take them from me.
	The reality, her dad owned 15% of the company.
	Her dad, therefore, was aware that the business was being sold.
	Her dad signed the deals.
	If Kayla Swift wasn't the most famous woman in the entire world, she would just be wealthy because she comes from a very good background.
	She didn't get into some deal where she was taken advantage of.
	Her dad just didn't think she was going to be as big as she was.
	Scooter Braun simply bought a company and inherited her master's as a result of that.
	Her 15-year-old fans don't understand the way that contracts work.
	Well, she had the last last time.
	Tailstop.
	I'm not done.
	They threatened to kill Scooter Braun and his children.
	He publicly pleaded with her to please tell her fans to stop.
	He said, come to the table, let's talk.
	I please tell your fans.
	And she didn't do it.
	She didn't do it because she wanted out of her contract.
	Right.
	So when you get to the level that you are willing to allow children to be harmed in order to get what you want, you are not a feminist icon.
	That's for me.
	But I want you and your daughter to enjoy the show.
	I hope you shake and post things on your Instagram.
	I'd love to see yours twerking about her 39 years old.
	You want to see me twerking?
	I'll twerk.
	So you're not going to turn me into a Taylor Swift fan because I think even the way she talks is manipulative.
	She talks like this to her fans.
	You're a 35-year-old woman.
	Stop talking like that.
	Maybe that's why I'm fighting to it.
	It was cute.
	It was cute when she was 15.
	I bopped my head to her stuff when she was, you know, thinking about being 50 and all these breakups.
	But by the 38th breakup, I'm starting to wonder if it's her, Pierce.
	I'm starting to wonder if it's her.
	Who's your idea of a feminist icon in the music business?
	Feminist icon.
	I think feminism sucks, but a woman that is someone to look after, my grandma.
	No, no, in the music business.
	Who's the one?
	I think Hollywood's, I think Hollywood's demonic, so I don't model myself after people in Hollywood.
	Just my grandma and all of the stay-at-home moms who give their, you know, give every bit of themselves every day to their children.
	Those are my icons.
	Those are my feminist icons.
	Fair enough.
	Finally, Rabbi Smoody.
	We may find common ground here.
	Rabbi Smooley, your thoughts?
	Mentally unwell, disturbed, violent.
Moderator Threats And Ruin 00:03:37
	And for whatever reason, the media allows him to do things repeatedly.
	I think it's weird that he was on Michael Jackson's list of people that he said were trying to ruin his life.
	And it becomes stranger for me because I had no idea who he was when he started threatening me and my entire livelihood.
	And by the way, posted, what a success.
	I successfully harassed Candace that I was going to ruin her life and I did it.
	Why is a man like that allowed to behave in that way without anyone in his community calling him out for it?
	It's very strange.
	Do you think the way he harasses you is better or worse than the way you harass Brigitte Macron?
	What?
	Serious question.
	That was such a funny question.
	Are you out of your mind?
	I've done two episodes talking about Brigitte Macron.
	I've never, ever, ever threatened anyone's livelihood so that I was going to like ruin them and their lives and going to chase them out.
	Like he's like violent.
	Reporting on a story that journalists report on is not the same as threatening somebody's life for two years with your hag daughter laughing in the background, threatening to take out, you know, front page news and have you labeled an anti-Semite and have your life ruined.
	I mean, that's just like, that's a complete nonsense.
	I don't want anyone.
	Emmanuel Macron, the pervert that went after him when he was 14 years old that he ended up marrying.
	I don't want those people hurt at all.
	I never want to see people like that hurt.
	Finally, you and Ben Shapiro worked together.
	You were gone very well then, obviously.
	Then you fell out.
	You've left.
	A lot of talk about whether you two should get together for a big debate.
	If I was able to make that happen and moderate it, maybe a big uncensored special, the subsidiary rights to your channel and his, I probably wouldn't get away with that, but I'd try.
	Would you let that happen?
	Would you be prepared to publicly debate with no NDAs, all bets off, all information on the table, so that people could finally get to the truth?
	Because at the moment, no one really feels they know what really happened there.
	100%.
	You know, we've reached out in the capacity to try to establish a debate.
	We've offered with the moderator.
	I believe he came back and said he didn't want a moderator.
	So I don't think that he publicly said he didn't want a moderator.
	So I don't think that he would be keen on that offer.
	And then we offered to do this whenever.
	I am very open to have that debate.
	I think it's important to have this debate when you see increasingly people that are being.
	you know, accused.
	I said I wanted to debate on anti-Semitism, the topic of Israel, which is obviously a hot topic.
	And I think that most people would consider Ben to be well-versed in that topic.
	And I'm what's little old to me, like you said.
	I didn't go to your journalistic school of excellence.
	And I didn't, I've never even been a reporter.
	Oh, my.
	Right?
	It should be easy.
	Exactly.
	Candice, we finally did it.
	We did an interview together.
	It went a lot longer than we anticipated, but I actually enjoyed it.
	I actually like arguing with people.
	I think you do too.
	And the truth is, we don't actually have to agree with each other.
	In fact, why should we?
	You know, we don't agree about a number of things.
	We agree about a lot of other things, I'm sure.
	And actually, these kind of conversations, I think, are constructive.
	It's when people disappear off into their rabbit warrens with their tribes and sit there and don't want to engage in people or have conversation or debate or argument.
	That's where the trouble starts.
	I think these kind of conversations are healthy.
	I totally agree.
	People will walk away.
	They'll agree with you some.
	They'll agree with me some.
	They'll be outraged at you.
	They'll be outraged at me.
	And that's what I believe in.
	More speech, not less.
	Hear, here.
	Candice, we end on a point of total agreement.
	Thank you for joining me, NaSensor.
	Don't leave us along next time.
	Thank you.

Chapters

00:00:00 Declaring Christ As King
00:02:42 The Daily Wire Exit
00:10:04 Defining Genocide
00:25:41 Nick Fuentes Controversy
00:40:05 Anti-Semitic Tweet Debate
00:43:23 Vaccine Policy Flip-Flop
00:52:32 Conspiracy Theory Consensus
01:07:07 Reading The Lawsuit
01:10:33 Journalism Professionalism
01:15:52 Feminist Icons And Faith
01:19:34 Moderator Threats And Ruin