"Right Thing To Do!" Diddy's Lawyer vs Piers Morgan On Trump Pardon
Sean “Diddy” Combs has again been denied bail as he awaits sentencing after being convicted of two counts relating to prostitution - but acquitted on the most serious charges of racketeering and sex trafficking. Both could land him with hefty jail terms, but members of his inner circle are hoping that President Trump will cut them short. Nicole Westmoreland was a leading member of Diddy’s all-star defence team, which delivered what Trump called a “sort of victory” in court. She joins Piers Morgan, before he speaks to criminal defense lawyers Bruce Rivers and Mark Eiglarsh and entertainment lawyer Eriq Gardner who give their take on Diddy’s chances as well the Epstein scandal and the Macrons’ defamation lawsuit against Candace Owens. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Coming Home or Pardon00:06:58
We anticipate that on October 3rd, hopefully he'll be coming home.
We do not think that he should spend another day in jail.
Not at all.
White men like Trump need to be banished.
If you're Donald Trump, why if you reread those comments, should you contemplate a potential pardon?
We went to them with questions and they refused to answer.
That is very strange.
What we have here is just a black female Alex Jones.
I mean, that's really what she is.
Bomb thrower, bomb thrower.
Let's conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory.
First of all, she should not be pardoned whatsoever.
She was, there would be no Epstein without Glenn Max.
Of course she wants to get out of prison.
That's exactly why she would ever meet with prosecutors.
Sit her down, let her spew.
Sean Diddy Combs has again been denied bail as he awaits sentencing.
Combs has been in jail since his arrest almost a year ago and wanted to go home on a $50 million bond.
He was acquitted last month on the most serious charges of racketeering and sex trafficking, but convicted of two counts relating to prostitution.
Both could land him with hefty jail terms, but members of his inner circle are hoping that President Trump will cut them short.
Diddy and Trump exchanged mutual declarations of friendship long before the legal case.
The president was reportedly giving serious consideration to a pardon.
But Trump now says that Diddy's criticism of his first presidency has made things more complicated.
Well, Nicole Westmoreland was a leading member of Diddy's all-star defense team, which delivered what Trump called a sort of victory in court.
And she joins me now.
Welcome to Uncensored.
Thank you for having me.
How are you?
Very good.
I just wonder where you think you are in terms of what is going to happen in October with the sentencing.
Because obviously, potentially, Sean Diddy Combs could face a significant period of time in prison.
Are you anticipating that?
Or are you anticipating a more lenient sentence?
Or are you anticipating that President Trump may still intervene and issue a full pardon?
Well, we anticipate that on October 3rd, hopefully he'll be coming home.
But in terms of he wouldn't get a prison sentence at all?
We do not think that he should spend another day in jail.
Not at all.
But he has been convicted of crimes.
People will say, well, why shouldn't he go to jail?
Well, you know, I think that the Man Act was not meant to cover this type of behavior, number one, and that I think you'll find out very shortly that there is no one, no one that we've been able to locate or identify, no case where someone is in jail for the same behavior as Mr. Combs.
And so that's not fair, and that's not right.
Is that actually right?
That nobody that you've been able to find has ever been sent to prison for the things that he's been convicted of.
Listen, we've looked long and hard.
As you know, the judge sent us on a mission to find cases, and that's due September 1st.
But listen, we have not been able to locate a case where anyone is in jail for this type of behavior.
And, you know, The DOJ policy manual doesn't even, you know, they say do not prosecute this type of behavior.
So, no, we haven't been able to find an individual, not a single one.
In relation to the reports, I saw you on CNN yesterday saying that there had been conversations with the Trump administration.
Are you able to say who those conversations were with?
No, no.
I'm not in the weeds on that to that extent.
I'm part of the trial team, and right now we're laser-focused on preparing for October 3rd.
Right, but it's obviously in the remit of the President of the United States to issue a full pardon should he wish to.
He's certainly given some slightly ambiguous statements, President Trump, indicating that it's not something he has completely ruled out.
But he did make a point of saying that he was aware that despite their previous friendship, that Sean Combs had said some pretty negative things about Trump.
I went and did some research and found what those were.
In 2017, when Trump had been president in his first year of his first term, he said to the Daily Beast, to be honest, we don't really give a F about Trump because black people are in the same effed up position.
And in October 2020, he told Charlemagne the God, the radio host, that white men like Trump need to be banished.
And the number one priority is to get Trump out of office.
He said, the real way of thinking is real dangerous.
This man literally threatened the lives of us and our families about going to vote.
We're in a war of love versus hate.
The number one priority to get Trump out of office.
You know, if you're Donald Trump, why if you reread those comments, should you contemplate a potential pardon?
Because you want to do what's right and what's fair, and you're not going to let anything cloud those decision makings.
And so, you know.
Okay, so I would say from your response that you are quite hopeful that he will get pardoned by Donald Trump.
I think being pardoned would be the right thing to do.
So we're hopeful.
It would be an extraordinary thing if he is pardoned.
There were many reports, as you know, before the time came for the jury verdict that he was looking at potentially spending the rest of his life in prison.
A lot of the public opinion, I think, was clouded by the horrendous video of him attacking his then-girlfriend in a hotel corridor.
Irony of the Prosecution Witness00:05:56
You have spoken courageously yourself about your own experience with abuse.
When you watch that video as a woman, notwithstanding the fact that you've been part of his team, what does that make you feel personally about Sean Diddy Combs in the way that he has been violent towards women?
You know, I know, because I've spent a lot of time speaking with him and I've spent a lot of time with him, I know that he knows that that was wrong.
Bottom line, it was wrong.
There are no excuses.
And I appreciate that he knows that.
I feel very confident that nothing similar, anything like that, would ever happen again.
And I know that it did not take him being arrested.
It did not take him being indicted.
It didn't take the tape coming out for him to immediately know that he was wrong, immediately be remorseful, and immediately know that he needed some help.
And so all the way back then in 2016, right after that situation, Mr. Combs checked himself in and he started getting help.
And so that's what I know.
And I'm happy that he started getting help and that he knew that and that he's continued to get help.
And that's what I know.
And that's what I appreciate that he's that he, you know, he was not sober.
He was not sober then.
And he has made a decision for himself to get his life together.
And he's been doing that.
And that's how, you know, that's what I know and that's how I feel about it.
A lot of people have painted a pretty dark picture of what he was like in that period, that he was, you know, we've all read about the freak off parties.
We've read about the violence, intimidation and so on.
Do you genuinely believe he's a reformed character?
Some will say, you know, lepers don't change their spots, that if he gets out and doesn't have to face any jail time or be held accountable for the things he's been found guilty of, notwithstanding you saying there's no precedent for jailing somebody in that position.
They will say that if you put it all together, you've got a guy that behaved pretty badly who ultimately, if he walks free, will have had no actual genuine accountability.
What do you say to people that have that concern?
Well, I think that we need to break that down a little bit because what was going on and the privacy of his bedroom with his girlfriends, consensual adults, you know, I don't think we should put that in the same category.
Now, is he human?
Yes.
Did he make some mistakes in his life?
Absolutely.
Is he getting help for those mistakes?
Yes.
And so I think that we have to look at it from that perspective and not start to say that everything that he did, including, you know, sex with his girlfriends, was something wrong.
That's their bedroom.
Do you believe?
Do you want the federal government in your life?
No, absolutely not.
And do you feel that what the trial established was that actually, despite the claims of the people who were making allegations against him, that everything actually the jury determined turned out in their eyes to be consensual.
It may not be everyone's cup of tea.
It might not be the kind of behavior in a bedroom that some people find acceptable, but it didn't cross the line of being criminal and it was all consensual.
Absolutely.
That's why the jury found him not guilty of sex trafficking.
No force, no fraud, no coercion.
Those were two grown ladies.
They were his girlfriends.
And, you know, the jury saw straight through sex trafficking.
So yes, it was consensual and it was not illegal what they were doing, although that may not be what everybody's doing in their bedrooms, totally understand that, but it was not criminal.
How significant do you think the testimony of the guy who, the escort who called himself the punisher, was?
Because I interviewed him and I believed him.
I thought he was very credible.
And he certainly painted a very different picture of what had gone on to the way Cassie Ventura had described it.
He made it clear that in his eyes, she was the person who organized everything, booked him, paid for it, and seemed very happy about everything, thoroughly enjoyed all their encounters over, I think, a two-year period.
I felt he was both in the court, but also in subsequent interviews, a pretty powerful advocate for your defense.
Agreed.
You know, I'll tell you, I really do not know why the government called him, but glad they did.
So agree.
I think he was powerful and I think he said a lot.
I mean, the irony is he was called for the prosecution and yet he turned out to be a powerful weapon for you guys.
Agreed.
Judge's Consciousness on Charges00:15:11
How is Sean Diddy Combs in himself now?
He's been in prison for a sustained period of time.
He's not been with his family.
He's got a lot of kids.
You know, how would you characterize his state of mind?
Wow, this is definitely the hardest situation he's ever been through in his life.
You know, I think that he's trying to stay positive.
He is trying to continue to fight.
He's trying to be a father from jail, which is very hard and very complicated.
And so, you know, I think that he's doing a lot of thinking and he's continuing to work on himself.
And, you know, he's still trying to be a parent and, you know, just get his life together.
But this is definitely, this is the hardest thing he's been through in his life.
And I think that he's taking it a day at a time.
Were you surprised that a federal judge on Monday denied the motion to allow him to be released on bail?
The prosecutors argued he was a flight risk and a danger.
The judge said that you guys had failed to show sufficient evidence to counter the argument that he's a flight risk.
But on the danger point, there was a letter from his ex-girlfriend, Virginia Quinn, to the judge urging his release, saying he didn't represent a danger.
Were you surprised, given all that, that he wasn't allowed out?
You know, I think that the judge made his decision.
You know, what I really take issue with is the prosecution.
I take issue with the prosecution bringing this case in the first place.
So I think the judge, you know, made whatever decision that he felt like he needed to.
But I think that the real issue is the prosecution having this type of discretion and being able to engage in selective prosecution and targeted prosecution and to have that type of power.
I think that's the real issue.
I just want to play again.
This is the actual clip of Donald Trump talking about the possibility of a pardon.
You know, I was very friendly with him.
I got along with him great and seemed like a nice guy.
I didn't know him well.
But when I ran for office, he was very hostile.
He made some terrible statements.
So I don't know.
It's more difficult.
It makes it more, I'm being honest, it makes it more difficult to do.
But more likely a no for Combs.
That sounds like so.
Okay.
Finally, what is your message to Donald Trump if he's watching this?
To look at the case and make his decisions from there.
I think that pardon him would be the right thing to do given the history of the Manns Act.
You know, if I'm not mistaken, President Trump pardoned Jack Johnson, and the Man Act was used against him.
And so, you know, if he has the opportunity to look through the case and make his decisions from there.
I think looking through the case and the history of the Man Act and where we are now, and that this type of behavior, you know, is not being prosecuted.
It's not, Mr. Combs was prosecuted because he's Sean Puffy Combs.
And that's just not right.
And it's not fair.
And he does not deserve to be where he is right now because of the Man Act.
He just doesn't deserve that.
And so we just like fairness.
We like fairness.
And I'm hopeful that, you know, at the end of the day, that a fair outcome will come from this and that somehow this will turn itself around to be something positive.
Nicole Westmoreland, I really appreciate you coming on uncensored.
It was a very interesting interview.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
President Trump is also reportedly considering a pardon for Ghillaine Maxwell, who's serving 20 years for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's abuse of young girls.
Maxwell was quietly moved to a low-security prison last week.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have now been subpoenaed by a congressional committee investigating the Epstein files fast.
And elsewhere in legal news, my interview with Candace Owens, who's facing a massive defamation suit from the Macrons, has certainly got people talking.
Many think that the French president has overreached.
Many say Candice is doomed.
Well, joining me to discuss all of these legal issues is a panel of legal minds.
A criminal defense lawyer, Mark Eyeglash, the criminal attorney, Bruce Rivers, an entertainment law expert, Eric Gardner.
Well, welcome to all of you.
Let me start with you, Bruce Rivers, if I may, with the Diddy case.
What are you anticipating is going to happen here?
Do you think Trump will issue a full pardon?
Should he issue a full pardon?
And if not, and we get to sentencing on October the 3rd, what is the likely sentence?
Well, I don't think Trump should issue a pardon because pardons are an extraordinary remedy.
However, if Trump thinks he can get something out of the pardon, he will certainly issue it if he thinks he can get something.
But, and I have, I've got a pardon over my shoulder that one of 17 that right over there.
See that?
That's one of 17 that Bush issued.
He hardly issued any pardons.
It's an extraordinary remedy.
Now, I think this judge has kind of foretold what's going to happen here because I think he's going to get a guideline sentence somewhere around 50 months, 50 to 60 months, somewhere in there.
That's my guess.
And he's already served basically half of that.
But the judge is also going to consider some relevant conduct that was acquitted.
And the judge can do that in this case.
Now, I heard that the defense lawyer, the defense in this case was pretty masterful in what they did.
That's a pretty good result because the government wins most of these cases.
But one of the things that she said is that on the pardon issue, well, we've looked for all kinds of cases.
We've never seen a man act like this ever charged out.
Well, wait a second.
Have you ever seen a man act case with all this other relevant conduct?
I bet you you didn't.
With thousands of bottles of baby oil, with all this other stuff going on, with all the abuse and stuff.
So there's a lot more to consider than just the man act by itself.
Mark Eiglosch.
It's interesting to me because I do think the court of public opinion convicted Diddy based on the hotel corridor violent video long before they got to the actual trial for which he was facing these other charges.
But in the end, the jury were not swayed by that video.
They saw it, but they accepted, I think, the argument that it was not relevant to what he was charged with.
What do you feel about that?
I mean, do you feel that the public would tolerate a pardon from Trump, given that video that everybody saw and was horrified by?
Or do you feel that they would also make the calculation the jury did that that had nothing to do with the case?
And actually, the case seemed to establish that everything that went on with these women who were accusing Diddy of wrongdoing, it was all consensual.
Okay, a lot in your question.
First, they would probably be upset with Trump using his cherished pardons on someone like this.
You just saw the interview with Trump.
He said, well, he was nice to me at first and he wasn't nice to me.
When is that a criteria?
Shouldn't it be the case and what this guy did?
Maybe if he's nice to you later, now you're going to give a pardon?
That's not what pardons should be about.
Secondly, the court of public opinion is very different than the court of law.
The court of public opinion is free to have very strong feelings about what Diddy did.
We saw from that video that is proof beyond all doubt that he was abusive towards women.
The other counts, while not necessarily proven, still showed the public that he was a monster and his behavior was abhorrent.
It's entirely different whether the government could prove and they could not the very, very challenging RICO charge typically applied to the mafia, right?
Not necessarily the al Capones of the lube world.
This was a very challenging case, and it doesn't mean that Diddy didn't do it.
It doesn't.
But Eric Gardner, like I said to Nicole Westmoreland, when I interviewed the guy, I can't remember his actual name, but the Punisher, which is his working name as a male escort, I did find him extremely credible.
And he did paint a very different picture to the one that Cassie Ventura was trying to paint, which was that in his estimation, everything had been completely consensual.
I did feel if I'd been on that jury, hearing that guy talk about the dozen or so times he'd met up, that Diddy just sat in the corner watching as she very willingly having booked him and paid for him, willingly engaged in sexual activity with him, and that they carried on for two years doing this quite happily.
I think that would have been a very persuasive argument to me that this was not the way it was being portrayed.
What do you think?
Well, I think that, you know, the jury didn't necessarily declare Diddy innocent.
What they did was that they declared that the prosecutors just had not made the case.
And, you know, there was a lot of criticism in the legal community because prosecutors were very aggressive on this.
They, you know, overcharged Diddy stuff with trafficking and all that.
So you can certainly make judgments that stuff was consensual, but I don't think that you can read the verdict as a declaration that it was all consensual.
I think that there's room for interpretation.
And just to be clear.
Right.
Just to be clear, when Nicole Westmoreland said they could find no other example of anyone who'd been convicted of the charges that he was convicted of in terms of effectively prostitution across state lines, they couldn't find any evidence of anyone being sent to prison for that.
Is that your understanding?
Well, I haven't researched particularly that crime, but from my understanding of what she said, she was basically saying for his types of acts.
So, you know, I don't know whether there's stuff that has ever been charged on free costs and stuff like that and what exactly she was referring to.
But I do know that people have been sentenced for the Man Act before.
She herself referenced a famous example in the box where Jack Johnson, who was pardoned.
So, you know, I also think that, you know, the judge is very conscious of the fact that he was charged with more crimes.
He doesn't seem to be particularly aggrieving about what happened.
And, you know, the fact is that it will be a deterrent effect to sentence him to jail time, you know, the message sent to the community about this.
So I do expect there to be a, you know, a fairly harsh sentence here.
And what do you think that could be?
A few years.
I don't think he'll get the maximum 20, but I definitely think he'll see some jail time.
Really?
Interesting.
And just on that one point, Bruce Rivers, on that one point, what are you anticipating?
I bet he gets somewhere between 50 and 60 months.
But I do take issue with two words that you just used quite happily.
I think Cassie was in this to get something from Diddy clearly, but I don't think she did everything quite happily.
I think if she didn't obey, there were consequences.
And we see that in the video.
So, and then those are the things that the judge is going to take into account when he issues the sentence.
Yeah, Pierce, this case can't plausibly be analogized to what the attorney was talking about.
Those in a vacuum where somebody hires a prostitute and they come across state lines.
That's one thing.
But in federal court, a judge can legally and should consider all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the offense.
The judge sat through weeks of testimony and learned a lot more about what Diddy did and how it pertained to the Man Act charges for which he was convicted.
He has every right to consider that when sentencing him.
What do you think the sentence will be?
A guideline sentence.
Now, the answer is, what is the guidelines?
You know, the defense is arguing it's somewhere in the two-year range.
The prosecution's arguing it's somewhere in the five to six range.
So the first thing that's going to happen in federal court is the judge is going to determine where does he fall within the guidelines.
Prosecution, I think, is asking for a higher sentence because there were allegedly eight victims.
Good luck proving that.
So that's the first thing.
What are the guidelines?
And I think he'll get a guideline sentence from the judge.
And if you were a betting man, what do you think will end up being the sentence?
Probably two to three years, somewhere in there, within the guidelines that the defense is representing.
Interesting.
Okay, let's turn to Candace Owens against the Macrons, which is a fascinating case.
I can't really remember any world leader taking on a podcaster in this way.
However, Mark, it's an interesting case.
Let's watch a little clip from my interview with Candace.
It's been blowing up online from Monday.
Let's take a look at this.
As you say, in a defamation case, it ultimately comes down to truth mattering.
And it seems to me this whole case is going to be resolved in a very straightforward way because the obvious way to prove that you're wrong and have been systematically lying about it, if you've been doing it deliberately or otherwise, but telling a lie about her, which has obviously caused an enormous amount of hurt, is if they just produce evidence she's a woman.
Do you accept if they do that, your whole case disintegrates?
Of course it would disintegrate.
Well, first off, no, they would have to prove the actual malice standard in America, which would mean that we knowingly knew this.
We went to them with questions and they refused to answer.
That is very strange.
The Actual Malice Standard00:08:59
She's not right.
She's only half right.
She's half right.
She's half right.
And she was.
Okay, let me explain everything.
Okay.
In the court of public opinion, she loses if somehow she's proven to be wrong.
Correct.
But in a court of law where she's being sued, there has to be proven actual malice, half of which she just talked about.
If she knew what she was saying was false, she is screwed.
However, there's another part to that.
Actual malice is either you knew it to be false when you said it and wrote about it, or it was a reckless disregard of the truth.
That's probably where, if she's held responsible at all, and I don't know that she will be, that she could be held accountable.
She's going to rely upon Xavier Poussard's book, Becoming Brigitte and or Bridget, whatever they're calling it.
She relied upon that book.
So in her mind, if she believed it to be true, even if it's false, she will survive this lawsuit.
That's very interesting.
And Bruce, there was a thing that got picked up online after I interviewed her where people said you should have challenged her about why the Macrons aren't suing the journalists.
Apparently, in France, the statute of limitations for defamation is three months for proceedings of defamation and insult running on the date of the first publication or posting and becoming by Javier Boussard was published in February 2025.
So there's a very, very narrow period of time where you can take this.
Well, here's the thing.
If that was the case, the Sandy Hook family couldn't have gone after Mr. Jones, right?
And what we have here is just a black female Alex Jones.
I mean, that's really what she is.
Bomb thrower, bomb thrower.
Let's conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory.
It's just ridiculous.
She knows she's not a man.
I mean, that's the other part of this that I think is kind of lost because when you have somebody in the public opinion and it's calling her a man is really comical in a sense.
And so comedians can get away with that kind of stuff, right?
But she's going on and on and on and on about it and people are starting to buy it.
And so, you know, once you cross that threshold, I think the malice and the reckless disregard that Mark talked about is something that can't be ignored.
So honestly, if I were them, I would dismiss her as, you know, whatever.
But I don't know that I would have made fun of her.
That's, you know, you've seen Obama do that kind of stuff where he bats things away with humor.
And I would have probably tried to combat it that way.
But, you know, she's going to have to sleep in the bed she made.
So she may have some risk here.
Yeah, I mean, Eric, I think she's going to lose because I think the Macrons are finally probably going to just simply reveal the results of a sex test.
I mean, that seems to me the most obvious way to emphatically deny this whole, in my view, preposterous narrative that Brigitte Macron is male.
She's a three kids, for goodness sake.
But I think if they were to provide definitive evidence via a sex test that she's a woman, then whatever Candace says about malice and so on, I think she's shown plenty of malice, to be honest with you.
And she's doubled and trebled and quadrupled down, including with me on Monday.
I think if it's proven that Bridget Macron is a woman, as I believe she is, it's game over, isn't it?
Unfortunately, I disagree with you there.
I think that, you know, it's not unlawful to lie about anything.
What is unlawful is to lie about something that hurts someone's reputation.
And there's a bit of wrinkles here.
One is she seems to really truly believe it.
I mean, the fact that she took that crazy bet with you, you know, she believes her crackpot theories.
One can say, oh, she's recklessly disregarding the truth and all that.
But from what I hear, she's basically saying, look, I see the ID tests.
I see the pictures.
And here's my explanation for it.
She lays it down on the table.
And you can disagree with her.
You can think that.
I don't think she does.
Well, okay.
I think there's another problem too, and that's the issue of damages.
You know, can Macron show $1 worth of damages here?
I haven't heard any theory, both specifically or generally, about how he's really been damaged here.
You know, there's all these cases about, you know, calling someone gay when they're not is not defamation.
Is calling someone a man when they're not defamation?
I don't know.
I can't think of any case where that's been established.
And then to, in particular, to specific damages, you know, who believed it?
Who would believe Candace Owens?
And who would believe it in France?
What has happened?
A lot of people are listening to her.
She has millions of people.
I think millions of sources.
I disagree with that.
Mark's right.
I think a lot of people are believing it.
I think there's a lot of harm there.
I'm listening to what she's saying.
She's articulate.
She's intelligent.
She could be dangerous if she's not telling the truth.
But the key is whether, again, it's not if what she's saying is true or not in terms of a legal suit in the court of public opinion, discredit her.
If this is not true, eviscerate her, abandon her.
You can't believe anything that comes from her lips.
But in a court of law, she could be dead wrong.
Listen, Pierce, you've done a lot of wonderful reporting, but there are times you would even concede that you got it wrong.
Getting it wrong because you're basing it upon sources that aren't necessarily accurate is not libelist.
It's not actionable.
It's not defamatory.
It's just.
Funny enough.
It is in my country, funny enough.
It is in my country.
We have very different laws on libel and defamation, and it's much easier.
So they're suing here.
We're suing in Delaware.
In Delaware, getting it wrong doesn't mean that it's actionable.
You've got to know it to be false or a reckless disregard of the truth.
And we're not sure that she's at that point.
And I know it's an extreme example.
It happened to Alex Jones.
You know, he went on and on and on about Sandy Hughes.
You know?
Yes, he did.
Yes, he did.
And he got a billion-dollar award against him, which as far as I'm aware, he's barely paid any of that.
But that was an example of him deliberately, in my view, promoting a lie he knew to be a lie because he was making hundreds of millions of dollars.
And every time he went on the airways and repeated the lie that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, you could see a spike in his earnings, a dramatic spike in his earnings.
So there was an absolute straight line there between promoting a lie, which everybody knew to be a lie, and him making tons of money.
Now, in Candace's case, she has a very popular YouTube channel.
Every time she's talked about the macron, she gets a lot of traffic.
It's not difficult to establish she's making a ton of money out of this.
But the question, and I think Mark's right about this, it comes down in American law, it comes down to did she knowingly do that knowing it was a lie?
And that's going to help the determinating factor.
Pierce, what's going to help her?
And by the way, there's no question she's benefiting.
There's no question she, even when you brought that up, she didn't, she didn't, she didn't somehow say, you're wrong, Pierce.
Of course she's benefiting.
But again, unlike the Sandy Hook case, she can rely first and foremost on a book, a book that was a bestseller, apparently, in France, and use that to say, look, I'm just quoting things from the book.
I believe the book.
It was persuasive to me.
And for what it's worth, that interview that you did with her, Pierce, proved to me that she really does believe this.
Well, I think she, look, I've known Candace a long time.
I wouldn't say that necessarily proves she knows for a fact.
I think she can be extremely, as you touched on earlier, she can be extremely articulate and compelling sometimes in defending the indefensible.
So we shall see.
I just think it'll be fascinating.
If the first thing the Macrons do is reveal the results of a sex test to prove she's a woman, right there, you've got an immediate slam dunk on that part of the argument, which underpins the entire story.
So I think in the court of public opinion, in that moment, Candace is done.
But you're right.
She may be done in the court of public opinion in that eventuality, but not necessarily in an actual quorum.
Really interesting.
Let's just turn finally to the Epstein case.
Epstein Case and Accountability00:10:09
The U.S. House Oversight Committee issuing subpoenas for Bill Clinton, for Hillary Clinton, tons of other people, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, and so on and so on.
You know, I felt about this case, A, that the Trump administration having walked everybody up the hill to get very excited about we're going to reveal everything about Epstein.
Then we had Elon Musk falling out with Trump and saying on X, bombshell, Trump's in the Epstein files.
And then mysteriously, two weeks later, the files are all shut down and that's the end of it.
And then, of course, MAGA, interestingly, rebelling against this because they've been left at the top of the hill, expecting to get all the dirt and then discover that they're being told there isn't any.
So I think it's been very badly handled by the Trump administration.
However, I also said for the Democrats, be careful what you wish for, because there are a lot of senior Democrat people who were caught up in the Epstein world, notably Bill Clinton, who repeatedly went on the Air Lolita or whatever they called it, the Epstein plane.
Now, no suggestion that Clinton broke any laws.
We don't know, but his name will be all over these files.
You know, Bruce, what do you feel about this?
And particularly, we've got Ghillaine Maxwell now giving a lot of recorded evidence about what she's seen, maybe 20 hours or so, of what she may know and may have seen, presumably, to try and get herself out of prison.
What's your overview of where we are with this Epstein scandal?
First of all, she should not be pardoned whatsoever.
She was, there would be no Epstein without Glenn Maxwell.
She recruited these girls.
She brought them in under her wing and fed them to the wolves.
I've never seen a situation where the defendant's lawyer, the principal's lawyer, gets to talk to the witness.
I mean, how is it that Trump's lawyer, I mean, they should have had a line prosecutor.
They should have had an FBI agent there.
And, you know, and anything she says is suspect.
So I don't, I wouldn't trust a word she says.
You know, but release the files.
They're not going to release a jury trans grand jury transcripts, and I don't think they should, but because you're going to re-victimize some people.
But if there's over a thousand women, young ladies, and I don't know if that's an accurate figure or not, but that's been bantered about.
Are we going to re-victimize these girls all over again?
One of whom committed suicide over this?
I mean, she should be afforded no privileges whatsoever.
I mean, she should have gotten a life sentence.
Epstein certainly was looking at a life sentence.
Yeah, I mean, Eric, what's fascinating about this is, well, we know that Epstein abused a lot of young girls.
We know Ghillaine Maxwell was around him for most of that period.
And we know that the only person, despite so many rich, famous, powerful people being in that orbit for two decades, we know the only person who's actually been made accountable is Ghillaine Maxwell, who's been languishing in jail on a 20-year sentence.
You know, many people feel quite rightly, in my opinion, that there must be a lot of powerful men who've just got away with this so far.
And the question becomes: are they going to be held accountable?
And has Ghillaine Maxwell taken this opportunity to get herself out of prison by naming names of rich, powerful, or famous men, maybe all three, who were part of this, who may now get dragged in, making it a much bigger scandal.
And will she also, as part of her deal with the Trump side, have made it crystal clear that Trump did nothing wrong, which may be what Donald Trump wants her to do?
Yeah, I'm very interested in what Ghillaine Maxwell has to say.
That's probably the only new thing I think that will come from all this.
A lot of the stuff that's coming from Congress in terms of subpoenas, I regard as a bit of a sideshow, as a bit of like political tit for tat.
But, you know, her testimony is kind of fresh and new.
And I'm sure she's saying things that she didn't say when she was under indictment and facing prosecution.
Whether or not she's just saying these sorts of things to Engel for a pardon or for leniency, who knows?
But I certainly be there watching.
They riveted her testimony in front of me.
Of course she wants to get out of prison.
That's exactly why she would ever meet with prosecutors.
And we shouldn't be afraid to hear what she has to say.
What prosecutors do routinely is they give her a Castigar letter, a queen for a day letter.
They let her speak.
If it's nothing of value and it can't be corroborated and nobody is ever prosecuted, then she gets nothing.
Only when it leads to substantial assistance, as it's called, which is a high threshold to meet, then prosecutors would consider giving her some benefit.
So no fear.
Sit her down, let her spew.
Here's the problem: she's got an appeal to the Supreme Court to determine whether her case should have ever been brought to begin with.
So now she's holding back.
She's not going to do anything really meaningful until and unless the Supreme say, we're going to pass on your case, which is likely what they're going to do, or we're going to take it up.
She's already received benefits.
She's been moved to a lesser prison.
It seems like these.
I don't know whether that was coincidental or not.
It did happen two days after she met with prosecutors.
Well, Donald Trump, Donald Trump said he knew nothing about Donald Trump said he knew nothing about her being moved to a much more lenient prison.
I find that, I mean, look, I'll take him at face value, but it seems a little implausible given the scale of this Epstein scandal.
You know, what do you think, Bruce?
Well, I think she had this opportunity prior to trial.
And there's a reason that no agreement was made prior to trial.
What Mark's talking about is a proffer letter where she has, she can say anything she wants and she's, and they don't hold it against her.
And so that's you sit down with the government and the idea is that there's no repercussions for you testifying or talking to the government.
In exchange for that, we don't, you know, there's no, we're not going to hold anything against you.
But the problem is, is that she had all this available to her at the outset.
I mean, didn't Bill Gates get divorced because of his predilections at St. James Island?
I mean, I don't know if that's the case or not, but Melinda Gates didn't really talk a lot about it.
Clinton's been on his plane how many damn times?
And the name of the plane, Lolita.
I mean, Bruce, Bruce, Brutus, it's not uncommon for people to speak after their trials.
I mean, we advise clients not to do or say anything unless they have to.
Why cooperate unless you're convicted?
Just because she's giving it now, while it should be considered more a suspect, right?
What's your motive, right?
She's probably going to do what a lot of our clients do.
It wasn't a small fish.
It was a much larger fish and she might implicate people.
So they need to be very careful with what she has to say, but not discredit it just because of the timing of it.
It's called a rule 35.
It's after the fact, after conviction, prosecutors can move the court to lower the sentence that somebody gets.
It happens all the time.
With her, be very suspect, I tell prosecutors, but listen to what she has to say.
Maybe what she says leads to furtherance of investigation towards one of these high-profile guys.
And we want to get at them because if they harm children, Epstein shouldn't be the only one held accountable.
Agreed.
Yeah, I completely agree with that.
And just to be clear, Mark, if she was able to give that kind of lead to investigators that led to somebody potentially being charged with a crime in relation to Epstein and the girls and so on, would that be enough in itself?
I mean, how do they determine what's in this evidence that you've given?
Right.
Welcome to my world.
33 years of doing this.
In spite of my extraordinarily youthful appearance, we are constantly having clients cooperate.
We think it's great.
And then the prosecutors go, yeah, all right.
Maybe it was assistance, but it wasn't substantial assistance.
And that's it.
You can't get the judge to do anything.
It's totally up to the prosecutors.
That's how it works.
And it ain't so fair, Pierce.
That's really interesting.
So it can be left like open-ended, and they can determine whether the consequence of your evidence you give is significant enough to warrant a reduction in your sentence or not.
Not only my worlds.
Yes.
Not only that, when you give that substantial assistance, even if they agree that a lot of times they don't agree to any particular amount.
They just say, Judge, he has done this and it is substantial and we didn't get a conviction.
But here's the other bad things about him.
And they do that all the time.
And it's just like, you know, so they minimize, you know, a lot of times, you know, how much substantial assistance they get.
And so you don't really get any firm commitment.
And they do that because when they go into trial in the other case, when they go into trial in the other case, the witness can't say they're getting a particular benefit.
Right.
Very interesting.
Guys, thank you very much.
That was a really interesting romp through three fascinating cases, but great to get the real legal perspective because often it can be very different, actually, what happens in the law and in a courtroom to what happens on social media in the court of public opinion, which can rage away, but often have little bearing on the reality.
So thank you all very much.
I appreciate it.
Here's Morgan Oson is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show.
We ask for only one simple thing.
Inform, Irritate, Entertain00:00:17
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow PiersMorgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censor media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.