ExpressVPN: Right now you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free. Just scan the QR code on the screen, or go to https://ExpressVPN.com/PIERS and get four extra months for free. President Trump wasted no time in celebrating the resignation of the BBC’s two top executives, after documents leaked to The Telegraph showed it twisted his words in a major documentary aired just before the presidential election. The President is now reportedly considering suing the broadcaster - how can that happen at a taxpayer-funded media group which is sworn to meticulous impartiality? Also; there’s an almighty split playing out in MAGA media; sparked by Tucker Carlson’s interview with Nick Fuentes. On one side are people like Dave Smith, Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, who believe in platforming everyone and letting viewers decide. On the other is Ben Shapiro and those who believe conservatives have a moral purpose and risk surrendering to extremists in the way progressives did to the ultra-woke. And meanwhile Democrats are having their own battle for the future of their movement after Zohran Mamdani’s socialist populism propelled him to victory in the race to be New York City’s mayor. Is he the template for Democratic revival? Or a radical red herring who’s dragging them even further away from national success? Piers Morgan is joined by The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian, founder of Outkick! Clay Travis, PragerU’s Shabbos Kestenbaum, former Obama aide and Mamdani surrogate in New York, Michael Blake and host of The News Agents and former BBC North America Editor, Jon Sopel. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Brooklyn Bedding: Enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you! Visit https://Brooklynbedding.com for 30% off & use promo code PIERS! Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. 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
Fighting Hell in MAGA Media00:02:02
We're gonna walk down to the Capitol and I'll be there with you and we fight We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not gonna have a country anymore The way they spliced his quotes together in order to make it appear as though he was saying something that he didn't say was wrong I think the problem that the legacy media has got is not an institutional left-wing bust.
It's a bit boring It bothers me to no end that someone who was so obviously a chameleon a charlatan was somehow able to fool more than a million New Yorkers into thinking that his populist agenda will ever succeed.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a disgusting war criminal.
I think Zorhan Mamdani standing up and saying that was actually very appealing to New Yorkers.
You're a fan of Stalin's.
Oh, he's an admirer.
For me, the line is whether or not the individual spewing the disgusting anti-Semitic, bigoted, racist rhetoric has an audience or influence of his own.
I don't think anybody should be criticized for anyone they choose to interview on their own show.
Should we, you know, should I have someone like Fuentes on?
President Trump wasted no time in celebrating the resignation of the BBC's two top executives after documents leaked to the Telegraph newspaper showed it twisted his words in a major documentary aired just before the presidential election.
These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of an election, he wrote.
What a terrible thing for democracy.
Well, Trump's critics, of course, are saying the exact same thing about him.
In their eyes, it's yet another major media organization bending the knee under pressure from the White House.
But this case seems fairly simple.
The BBC's most prestigious and long-running documentary show spliced together clips to make it look as though Trump told the January 6 rioters to fight like hell and not to protest peacefully.
How on earth can that happen at a taxpayer-funded media group which is sworn to meticulous impartiality?
The BBC Splicing Scandal00:07:55
Well, the answer can only be institutionalized bias in the legacy media, a subject on which almost every U.S. conservative agrees.
Right now, it feels like they don't agree on much else.
There's an almighty split playing out in MAGA media, sparked by Tucker Carlson's interview with the anti-Semite streamer Nick Fuentes.
On one side are people like Dave Smith, Candice Owens, and Tucker Carlson, who say platform everyone and let the crowd decide.
On the other is Ben Shapiro and those who believe that conservatives have a moral purpose and risk surrendering to extremists in the way that the progressives did to the ultra-woke.
Both have recently appeared, as I have, at Megan Kelly's live tour.
I'll tell you what doesn't change Nick Fuentes' view.
Tucker Carlson with his arm around Nick Fuentes, grinning for the camera while Nick Fuentes tweets out America first and then triumphantly goes on the air the next day to explain that he has essentially used Tucker Carlson as a vehicle for manipulating other people.
Okay, that's what Nick Fuentes is saying.
Not me, Nick Fuentes.
So what do you say to those people who say, why don't you raise any of that?
You know, do your own interview the way that you want to do it.
You're not my editor.
Buzz off.
I mean, I don't know.
You want to go yell at Nick Fuentes?
I'll give you a sell.
Call him.
And go sit and yell at him and feel virtuous or whatever.
That's up to you.
I got the same thing with Putin.
Why aren't you yelling at him?
Okay, why?
So I can show that I'm a good person?
I care about what my wife thinks, my children think, and God thinks.
And that's it.
I don't need to prove that I'm a good person to you.
And while all of this is raging in the backgrounds, Democrats are having their own battle for the soul and the future of their movement.
Zoran Mandani's socialist populism propelled him to victory in the race to be New York City's mayor.
Is he the template for democratic revival or a radical red herring who's dragging them even further away from national success?
Well, plenty to discuss with my panel.
But first, I'm joined by John Sopal.
He's the host of the news agents and the former BBC's North America editor who knows all too well what Trump thinks of his previous employer.
John, welcome to Unsensitive.
Thank you, Piers.
Good to be with you.
So look, no one knows better than you, I guess, about the complexities of working for the BBC with Donald Trump as president.
You had to do that for a number of years.
First of all, you know, my kind of overview about this is that the BBC here dropped a massive own goal, right?
They basically invited exactly what's come.
They said, you know, in the way that they spliced up, the independent film company, October Films, appear to have spliced up the Trump speech in a way that was misleading.
They're basically saying to Trump, come and get us.
I mean, am I overstretching things when I say that?
No, I think it was stupid.
I think it was moronic.
I think it was the sort of error that someone wouldn't even make having just left journalism college.
You cannot misrepresent what people say.
But is it a misrepresentation?
Or did Donald Trump, I mean, look, let's be honest, you know, Donald Trump had tweeted in December, you know, there's going to be a big protest in DC.
Come along.
It's going to be wild.
And the January the 6th Commission said that incited the riots that took place.
A number of the people who appeared in court said they were doing it because Donald Trump had, that's what he thought, that's what they thought he wanted them to do.
Was the BBC wrong to splice together two bits that overcooked what Donald Trump said?
Absolutely they were.
It was foolish.
And I cannot for the life of me fathom why the BBC didn't just, as soon as this was pointed out to them, say, whoa, sorry, that was a terrible thing to have done.
We shouldn't have done it.
And I'm still scratching my head over why the corporation has dragged its feet for over a week since this was in the news.
Tom Mangold, who worked at Panorama for 26 years as an investigative journalist, he said this to Sky News yesterday.
I can't understand how it happened.
I mean, changing somebody's speech by deliberately misediting is the worst crime imaginable in BBC news.
You just don't do it.
This film was made by an independent company called October Films.
But the BBC carries total responsibility for what was in the film and the way in which it was edited.
I mean, you're not the only one, John, scratching your head.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I was going to say, I mean, you talk about scratching your head.
It's kind of inexplicable that nobody at Panorama, which, you know, for American viewers, Panorama is the flagship news show, really, at the BBC.
It's renowned globally for not doing the kind of thing that's happened here.
What do you think?
I mean, the bizarre thing to me is it's led to the downfall of Tim Davey and Deborah Turner.
So two of the very top executives at the BBC have resigned over this.
But neither of them, unless you correct me, I don't think either of them would have been directly involved in what's happened here.
What I haven't seen is any admission of culpability by October Films, nor have I seen anybody at Panorama hold their hand up and say, actually, we're the ones who should be resigning here.
I just can't quite get my head round who's falling on the block and who isn't.
Yeah, look, so when I was in Washington, all through Trump's first term, there were watchwords for our reporting, which was, be careful, be very careful.
But once you've been very careful and you've got all your facts assembled, be bold.
That's what journalism should be like.
You don't do things that open you up to criticism in the way that Panorama has.
Now, my understanding is that on Tuesday of last week, the BBC News executives had kind of got together and said, Christ, we've got a bit of a mess here.
We need to apologise for it.
And for whatever reason, and there are some dark, murky reasons, and there are some more kind of benign reasons, but stupid, they decided not to apologise until the chairman of the BBC went before the committee for, you know, a parliamentary committee and issued a statement today, this lunchtime.
You think, well, hang on, if you have got a vacuum like that, Donald Trump, as sure as eggs is eggs, is going to fill it.
And by God, he has.
And now the DG, the Director General is gone, head of news is gone, and he's threatening to sue the BBC for a cool billion dollars.
Yeah, I mean, you know, Trump's been waging a sort of revenge-tool war on mainstream media in the United States.
He's now turning his turrets on the BBC.
And it may be that that pressure was being expressed behind the scenes.
He's certainly been very gleeful in, I think, the downfall of these executives.
What was interesting to me was this all came about because the Daily Telegraph got a leak of a memo by somebody called Prescott, who had been charged with examining BBC allegations of bias and so on.
It wasn't just about this point.
Also, he concluded the BBC's coverage of the 2024 election was more critical of Trump than of his opponent, Carmela Harris.
He said that he found evidence that the BBC had been one-sided in its coverage of transgender issues, celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity.
And we just saw this farcical situation for me of a presenter called Maxine Croxall, who had rolled her eyes when she was told to read the phrase pregnant people on air, which I think 99% of women in the world would have found very difficult reading because obviously only women get pregnant.
And has now had, because of 20 complaints, you know, finding against her.
So that plays in, I think, to what many people will see as a bias.
Structural Problems at the BBC00:02:07
Anti-Israel bias in BBC Arabic, broader issues in Gaza coverage, ill-researched stories on racism and so on.
Now, the BBC is a massive organization.
So it's not entirely surprising that it's not perfect.
But when you look at the scale of all this, John, you were there many, many years at the BBC.
Is there as many people like Nigel Farage and Trump and others are trying, and Boris Johnson are trying to make the case for, is there an institutional issue here about the way the BBC is run?
There's nothing more important than good sleep, and it's probably time you upgraded yours as I have with our sponsor, Brooklyn Bedding.
Brooklyn mattresses deliver top-tier quality, honest pricing, and true American craftsmanship.
They've won awards and they are one of the very few brands to be endorsed by the American Chiropractic Association.
My Aurora Lux mattress was handcrafted in their Arizona factory and delivered directly to my door.
You can start with their sleep quiz to find your perfect match in just minutes.
And they offer a 120-night comfort trial.
If you don't love it, they'll help you to return it or swap it hassle-free.
Go to brooklynbedding.com and use my promo code Peers, that's P-I-E-R-S, for up to 30% off site-wide.
This offer is not available anywhere else.
Go to brooklynbedding.com and use promo code PEERS for 30% off.
And make sure you mention PiersMorgan Uncensored at Brooklynbedding.com.
Promo code Peers.
Look, I don't want to give the BBC a free pass.
I think there are some structural problems.
I think it can be kind of, you know, very liberal.
I think there was a degree on the trans issue that the BBC was captured by a lobby.
A lot of organizations were, and just gave uncritical coverage to trans issues.
And you end up in the fast call situation where Martine Croxall is hauled over the coals for correcting the phrase pregnant person to pregnant woman.
So look, there are bits of it that are wrong.
But the BBC is also inundated with complaints from pro-Palestinian groups that it's too pro-Israeli.
And so the BBC is under fire the whole time.
Licence Fee Backlash Risks00:14:07
I think where the BBC has an institutional problem is that it's sometimes too slow to say, we screwed that up.
You know, like, months ago, people would have been aware of the splicing together of these two clips from the Trump speech on January the 6th.
And they're thinking, okay, heads down, guys, let's see if we can write this one out.
Let's see if we don't get into trouble.
What the BBC should be doing is celebrating brilliant journalism when there is brilliant journalism.
They've broken some great stories in the past year.
But equally, when you've screwed up, put your hands up and say, we need to investigate why.
The other thing I'd say on an institutional level, they put out a documentary, which they've now pulled on Gaza, where one of the commentators was a kid who was the son of a Hamas official, and they never made that clear.
Now, not a single head has rolled as far as I know over that.
Now, Piers, when you were editor of the Daily Mirror back in the day, if one of your senior people screwed up, you'd show them the door.
And somehow, you know, no one ever is held accountable until it becomes so rotten and so fetid that you end up with the director general, the head of the organization, and the chief executive of BBC News both going on the same evening.
Yeah, it is extraordinary the way it's played out.
And we've seen this time and again with recent BBC scandals.
It's often the way they've handled it so cack-handedly that's caused more damage than the original offense.
John, stay with me.
I'm going to bring in other panel members now.
Anna Kasperin, the executive producer and host at The Young Turks, Clay Travis, founder of Outkick, Shabos Kestenbaum, who's the commentator with Prejudiu, and Michael Blake, he's the former Obama aide and Mandani surrogate in New York.
So welcome to all of you.
Clay Travis, this was really, like I said, an absolute home run for Donald Trump.
The BBC, one of his favorite places to whack, who he's always believed to have been biased against him, basically caught with their pants down, being transparently biased against him.
And now he's on an absolutely triumphant victory lap, including threatening to sue them for a billion dollars.
What do you make of this?
Yes, it's a huge win for Trump.
And I think there's a couple of different ways to analyze this, Piers.
First of all, I've been arguing forever, it feels like, if we just had incompetence in media, wouldn't there be some stories where Donald Trump, I don't know, saved nine kittens from drowning in the Potomac River that ends up not being true, but it goes mega viral.
Everything the mainstream legacy media gets wrong about Trump, it always cuts against him.
In other words, it always hurts him.
That's not negligence.
That's what we call bias.
And that ties into the second part here.
He's already been able to sue ABC.
He's been able to sue CBS.
He sued every news organization out there.
And I do think he's gotten fairly consequential results.
Use 60 Minutes, for an example.
They're now posting the whole part of all interviews as opposed to just editing them.
I think that's actually a win for all voters out there.
But Piers, to go after a foreign news organization who's going to stand up for the BBC in America, this is such an epic win for him.
But again, it also reiterates all the failures.
It's why Trump has won twice.
It's why he is, I believe, right now, if you look, and I'm sure we're going to talk about it, the Democrats bending the knee on their 40-day shutdown, why I think he continues to be at the absolute apex of his political power, because not only are his opponents dishonest, they're also, frankly, morons because they do things like this, which are easy to catch and which everybody can determine is 100% biased against him.
This is a huge win for Trump.
Yeah, Anna Kasparian.
I mean, look, I've worked at the BBC, not as an employee, but as a contributor many times.
I've got a lot of time for people at the BBC.
I think they try very hard to be an impartial news organization.
But this is really bad for the BBC because it allows Donald Trump to exploit it in the way that obviously he does better than almost anyone in the history of modern politics and media.
And, you know, only last night, he, I suspect, realizing the big story is going to be this, has granted sweeping pardons to a number of longtime allies tied to an alleged failed bid to overturn the 2020 election.
Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
You know, he's taken the opportunity to do something that may have got him a lot of criticism, but is kind of being lost in the wash because the narrative around the world at the moment is BBC misled the world about Donald Trump.
Well, let me just be clear about BBC and how what they did was just flatly wrong.
You don't have to be a fan of Donald Trump's to acknowledge that the way they spliced his quotes together in order to make it appear as though he was saying something that he didn't say was wrong.
And when any news organization does something like that, they lose credibility.
And I think that's precisely the reason why these legacy media outlets, both in the UK and quite frankly, especially here in the United States, are losing their audiences.
They're losing their readership if we're talking about print journalism.
And independent media is really thriving.
But of course, there are also downsides to some forms of independent media because there's oftentimes no editorial review of the work that gets put out.
But I think in general, the public, both in the UK and the United States, trust independent sources far more than they do legacy media or corporate media.
At the same time, while the conversation in the UK might be about how Trump is a victim of this biased form of journalism, if you want to call it that, in the United States right now, most of the focus is on the issue of affordability, the fact that inflation has actually gone up a little bit under Trump.
The last report from, you know, our government indicates that it's up to 3.0%.
He's starting to get a little desperate.
So he's starting to propose tariff dividends to the tune of $2,000.
So right now, I'm really happy to see that Americans are hyper-focused on affordability, which is substantive, which is important.
But make no mistake, the media bias issue is not working in the left's favor.
So if the BBC thought that they could get away with this, obviously they didn't.
They need to report the facts accurately.
Yeah, and you know, Shabos, I've often joked to my BBC friends, and I have many BBC friends who've worked there before or currently work there, that you could shoot a harpoon around the BBC newsroom at any given moment, and you would be very, very, very hard pushed to hit a conservative voter, right?
So I think there's got to be a sort of acknowledgement that the BBC historically has been always staffed pretty much.
I mean, John, if you want to contradict me, by all means, contradict me, but I think it would be fair to say most BBC employees skew liberal.
And I think, Shabbos, this has been part of the problem is that inevitably, if you have a group of people who skew that way themselves, and I'm basing that only on how they are with me privately, then there's always this temptation to skew the coverage in a way that is very antithetical to what the BBC stands for.
But like I say, this here has given Trump a brilliant opportunity to do what he loves most, which is whack the mainstream media, play the victim, and also sort of get himself, as Anna said, get himself off the wrap of too much forensic attention on what are some big hot political issues on him right now.
Today's show is sponsored by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night All Natural Supplements.
Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.
Optimum Day boosts your energy and supports weight loss throughout the day.
Optimum night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.
They have countless success stories, including from some very familiar faces.
England ledger Michael Owen, who lost £40.
AFTV's Robbie, who lost more than £100.
To watch their full stories and many more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit oxfordnatural.com slash peers.
And here's the best part.
Use the code peers and get 70% off your first order.
You're 70% off with the code PEIS.
I think you nailed it and you'll be happy to know that.
Anne and I very much agree on this issue.
The BBC splicing Donald Trump, the president of the United States, into saying something he didn't actually say is something you literally see from the Kremlin.
It's literally something you see from North Korea.
It's something you would have seen in the Soviet Union.
And the problems facing the BBC are the same problems facing institutions of higher learning in the United States where Harvard University, for example, 97% of the faculty identify as liberal.
And even if you are liberal, that is very dangerous for the health of a society and for the health of a democracy.
It's fascinating that mainstream media outlets and institutions of higher learning, they care about racial identity, sexual orientation, but the one type of diversity they don't actually care about is intellectual diversity.
And that will be the death knell for so many of these once reputable institutions.
And I think Elon Musk said it the best when he said, you are the media now.
I mean, there's a direct correlation, I think, in the rise in popularity of your show, Piers Morgan uncensored, and the decrease in both trust and popularity of mainstream media outlets like the BBC is because they consistently lie.
It is because it has been proven that they are consistently biased.
You know, the BBC had to retract on average two stories a week on Israel Gaza, which is more than 220 stories total.
This is not an institution that either the American people or the people of Britain will actually trust anymore.
Okay, Michael, I will come to you in a moment, but I want to get John's reaction to that.
Yeah.
Yeah, look, I think the BBC is flawed in an awful lot of ways.
The funny thing is that if you work at the corporation, I think that there is a guilt of being liberal.
And so the papers they look at in the UK most avidly are the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, those that are to the right and thinking, what should we be doing?
Because we get things wrong, because we are this or that.
I don't think that there's institutionally a kind of, oh, we've got to do whatever is liberal.
I just think that there is, look, I think that people care massively about getting things right.
I think the problem that the legacy media has got, it's not an institutional left-wing bias.
It's that it's a bit boring.
And I don't dare, I say this quietly because it's difficult to say out loud.
But they'll say, you know, on a news report, on the one hand, this, on the other hand, that.
Only time will tell.
John Sopol, BBC News, Washington.
No one wants to listen to that.
They want to hear well-informed judgment.
And I think that the kind of BBC and conventional media sacrifices so much ground by being bland and vanilla and being frightened of their own shadows.
Yeah, and the problem, John, actually, is that I've felt for a while the BBC business model is broken and it's a generational thing.
You know, my kids, for example, you know, my sons are 32, 28, 24.
I don't think any of them are going to voluntarily pay a license fee, which is, you know, for American viewers, you have to pay like nearly $200 to have the BBC delivered to your home.
And if you don't, you can go to prison, right?
So it's a kind of state-mandated thing.
If you have the BBC and you watch it, you can be literally, I mean, look at Anna's shaking.
This is true, right?
People have literally been threatened with prison.
And some of them have gone to prison for not paying the licence fee.
The idea that anyone under 40 who are used to paying what they want to pay for streamers like Amazon, Netflix and so on, that they're going to do that, I think is for the birds.
So I do feel, John, that the BBC business model is unsustainable.
And this doesn't help them because, you know, ultimately, unlike everybody else, the BBC is funded by the British taxpayer.
And that gives them a unique place in British public life, a unique responsibility.
And I just feel like this is what we're seeing is the beginning of the end, not of the BBC, but of the BBC's entitlement to charge the British public nearly $200 for the pleasure of enjoying their stuff without it being a voluntary thing.
Look, the BBC has a guaranteed income of £3 billion, £3.5, $4 billion a year.
Which media organisation in today's cutthroat competitive world wouldn't die to have that sort of guaranteed income?
But what is happening now?
And look, you know, I used to, when I was the BBC's North America editor, I'd appear on our main nightly news.
The average age of those watching our nightly news are over 60.
Young people, like you say, Piers, I don't know whether my kids pay a licence fee or not, but I mean, you know, I need to check that.
But of course, what you've got now is you had Boris Johnson, the former prime minister, this week coming out and saying, as a result of this row, I am no longer going to pay the licence fee.
Screw the consequences.
Well, of course, if Boris Johnson is enabling those sort of people to think that he can do it, then an awful lot of people are going to stop paying the licence fee.
And then the BBC is going to be in a situation where it's got to have all these services offering radio and television and online and podcasts and whatever else and a declining revenue because people are voting with their feet and saying, you know what?
I'm not paying anymore.
So I think the model, as it's currently configured, is bad for the BBC.
And what's happened in the past week is just, to put a British phrase on it, bloody awful.
Yeah, I think that's a perfect summary.
Running Congress in the Bronx00:03:57
Michael Blake, thank you for your patience in waiting.
You're a former Obama aid.
You're a Mandani surrogate in New York.
You're running the Congress in the Bronx.
Obviously, a very exciting time for anyone connected to Mandani.
He's come along like a kind of socialist version of Trump.
He's very charismatic, very dynamic.
He brings people with him.
You know, he's a populist in a way, but on the socialist side.
It's a big moment, it feels to me, for left-wing politics in America as to which way they're going to go.
And a lot may hinge on how Mandani does in New York.
If he fails to deliver on all of his big grandiose promises, which I have to say, I fear he will, then that could become a sword of Danocles against the Democrats going into 2028.
Conversely, if he's able to really tackle affordability in a meaningful way that looks like it's worked in New York, that could well be the way that the Democrats win power in 2028 nationally.
What is your view?
Well, first to the previous conversation, given my role with next level sports, I would also agree that there is no acceptable form of editing out factual information.
And quite frankly, if they were just let the whole thing play, we wouldn't be having the conversation right now because Donald Trump clearly said rhetoric that was reprehensible and unacceptable.
There was no reason to make those edits in that regard.
People are speaking and seeking the truth.
As it relates to Zoron, our mayor-elect, you know, I ran in the mayoral primary and Zoran and I cross-endorsed each other.
And largely because we talked about cost of living and affordability being the number one issue.
When people are wondering right now, when one in four New Yorkers are wondering around poverty and paying of their bills, that is far more important than anything else that is happening here.
I served in the Assembly for six years and prior to that, worked with President Obama.
And to your point, Pierce, yes, there will be people that are quite frankly hoping that not everything is accomplished.
But let me tell you, there is no elected official that can accomplish every single thing that they have stated.
And so there has to be the element of saying, how do we address and make progress on these opportunities around cost of living and affordability, which he will.
When you think about what has to happen around groceries, when you think about transportation, when you think about changing the model of what is happening in our communities, he will be able to have success around that.
And when we think about what's happening collectively, whether it be internationally and or domestic, everyone is wondering right now, will you be real with me, direct with me about the challenges that we're facing, and fight for me?
And when you think about last night, what we saw with the Senate and the frustration of Senate Democrats caving, quite frankly, why would you have the energy that just achieved was achieved last Tuesday and not continue to fight?
It is actually more expensive for your medical bills and what happens around ACA than it will be for SNAP.
And it is inhumane that Senate Democrats are working with Republicans to effectively say you have to choose between meals or Medicare.
So when you think about what's happening here in New York with Mayor-elect Mamdani and the wins that happened across the country, the reason why there's such momentum, where Pierce, he received more than a million votes, is that people are listening to how he is addressing cost of living.
Why am I running for Congress in the Bronx?
Because we are still the poorest congressional district in America.
This is all intertwined in how you fight for the core issue of affordability, and that's why he will be successful.
ExpressVPN is the simple way to protect your privacy online.
In the U.S., internet providers record your online activity and can sell your data.
In many countries, they've even legally required to store your information for years.
Along with millions of others, I use ExpressVPN to stop the tracking.
It hides your IP address and it routes all your activity through encrypted servers to keep advertisers and scammers from accessing your data.
Richie Torres and AIPAC Critique00:06:47
You can choose the level of protection you need.
The basic plan is just $3.49 a month, less than 12 cents a day.
Right now, you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN if you go to expressvpn.com/slash peers to scan the QR code on the screen or go to expressvpn.com slash peers to get four additional months of service.
That's expressvpn.com slash peers.
Yeah, the big problem, it seems to me, Clay Travis, is the word affordability works both ways.
I don't think that Mandani is going to be able to afford to do all the things he's promised voters he will do.
Socialism has never worked on any sustained period anywhere in the world.
I don't really see how it's going to start working in New York.
And many people think he's not just a socialist, but a communist talking about wanting to take control of productivity and all that kind of stuff.
It'll be fascinating.
I don't dispute for a moment.
He's not a very charismatic, very capable guy who is a very skilled young politician.
I don't dispute any of those things.
I just dispute his ability to afford to tackle affordability.
I would say a couple of things.
I mean, Zoram Abdani is someone who, his ridiculous posturing is really unfathomable.
This is someone who has said that he has really no thoughts on whether Hamas should disarm, but also believes that Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be arrested.
This is someone who says, yeah, I talk about affordability.
I don't care about the Middle East, when he has literally stated that Palestine is the center of his politics.
Forget about anti-Semitism and forget about Israel.
His policies, if even a tenth of them were implemented on New York City, would be so wildly destructive.
This is someone who believes that we need to have a $30 minimum wage in New York City, which would kill small businesses.
This is someone who believes that in the financial capital of the world, there should not be billionaires, which is ludicrous because in order for any of his policies to actually succeed, whether it's free buses, free healthcare, free grocery stores, you actually need billionaires and millionaires in this city to pay for all of those things.
This is someone who has literally said that we should tax white neighborhoods.
This is someone who believes that government-run grocery stores is not only a good idea, but actually we should be building more of them, which is ludicrous because there are people living in this country today who came from Cuba and Venezuela in boats because of things like government-run grocery stores.
Policies would be so wildly destructive.
And it bothers me to no end that someone who is so obviously a chameleon, a charlatan, whose previous experience was a failed rapper, the self-proclaimed son of a Nepo baby, was somehow able to fool more than a million New Yorkers into thinking that his populist agenda will ever succeed, which is why you have one of his surrogates today already stating he's probably not going to be able to implement any of these policies because of course he won't.
And if I could just say with 30 more seconds, Michael, I'm actually, I live in the district that you are running in.
Richie Torres is my congressman.
And it's interesting because I watch your campaign release video and you talk about Richie Torres is interested in funding the genocide and APAC and all this.
It's funny because New York State Assemblyman Simcha Eichenstein, he said that just a few months ago, you called him and you begged him to endorse him.
And you specifically said that you were the most pro-Israel candidate in the race with a record to reflect it.
But of course, now that Zorhan Mamdani won, you're kind of changing your tune, which is the exact same reason that last night you deleted on all of your Twitter accounts.
You deleted any references to the fact that you've spoken at APAC, you've received money from APAC, you support Israel.
And I got to say, the fact that you make Richie Torres out as a congressman who only cares about Israel, in the last year, Richie Torres has proposed the Women's Health Protection Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, the Healthcare Affordability Act, the Bodega Act, the Food Desert Act.
And in fact, I don't know if the camera will be able to see this, but just this morning, Richie Torres is meeting with business leaders in the Bronx today to talk about SNAP and how disastrous the government shutdown has been.
Meanwhile, you, Michael Blake, are yelling at one of his constituents on TV.
Having a government shutdown is disastrous to the people in our district.
But you're actually stating that, no, the Democrats should not open the government and that people in my district, in our district, who rely on food stamps, they should not receive it because Democrats need to continue to have this government shutdown.
So let me be the first of many constituents who say that I will not be voting for you and I cannot wait for you to receive less than 1% of the vote, which is exactly what you received when you ran for mayor of New York.
Michael, just one question that I would like to ask you after what we just heard.
Is it true you've been deleting all references, as Shabbos said, in the last 24 hours to any pro-Israel sentiments and work you've done for pro-Israel organizations?
That is inaccurate.
Let's walk through the facts that were just stated.
What has been deleted were previous experiences and trips that happened with AIPAC, as I stated that there has been a journey that I've been on from the initial time of visiting, because I've been to Israel twice and it was not anti-Israel, pro-Israel specific to that.
And it was not in the last 24 hours.
Second, I actually received more than 200,000 votes on the mayoral election.
What has been referenced was the first choice election.
So to that point, that data was inaccurate.
Third, what was repeatedly stated was I never said that Zaramdai and the mayor-elect would not be able to achieve everything.
I said that there is no elected official who can achieve everything.
Fourth, I have repeatedly stated that having a criticism around where APAC as an organization currently stands, where to your comment, Richie Torres by itself has acknowledged that he has spoken about what is happening 236% more than he has around poverty, that you can be against AIPAC as an organization and not be anti-Israel.
And we cannot conflate the two.
Okay, but Michael Jampa has been a bit more than a moment.
Michael, but Michael.
Please.
Michael, just to jump in, why did you delete all references to you appearing with APAC?
Because there's been a complete shift in where things, when we think about where AIPAC has gone, there's a substantial shift on where APAC has been and where it is going from here.
And I think when we talk about the journey that we're all on, I've been very clear on that.
Okay.
Okay.
John, I know you're going to leave us.
Thank you very much indeed for your contribution.
Couldn't think of a better person, actually, than the BBC's former North American.
And I have to say, when I used to watch you and the way you covered and reported Trump and handled him, I thought it was an absolute template in how somebody from the BBC should do what is a difficult job.
So I miss you doing that, Ashley.
But great to have you on the uncensored.
Thank you very much.
And I enjoyed Piers very much.
Thanks, John.
Let me come back to Clay.
We've got you back, Clay.
I want to play you a clip from Fox News anchor Tommy Lehran, warning Republican voters to wake up after the results we saw last week.
He makes a good point there, but I will say this.
Young Jews Vote for Mamdani00:15:04
I think that it's always a bad idea when Republicans get too cocky.
I think we've done this before.
We've seen this movie before.
The red waves that were always supposed to crash that never happened.
So whereas I do agree that these elections aren't necessarily a bellwether, we talked about it last weekend.
New Jersey, we wanted to win.
We made some gains, didn't win it.
Virginia, yeah, we maybe didn't have the best candidate.
We lost it.
New York City, they elected a socialist.
You played yourself.
But I do think Republicans would be wise to maybe have a wake-up call here and realize that we can't take anything for granted.
What do you think of that, Clay?
I mean, look, you can't dispute that the Democrats collectively had a very good week, or that Mandani may be a socialist, but the other big winners for the Democrats last week were actually quite moderate.
Does that send you a little alarm bell?
A little bit.
Look, Tommy works with me at Outkick.
She's super smart and very talented in breaking down everything.
And really what you have to go to here is the reality, Piers.
600,000 people didn't show up in Virginia.
600,000 people didn't show up in New Jersey that voted for Donald Trump in 2024, just one year ago.
Now, I know it's an off-year election, and generally speaking, you're not going to have the same turnout.
But if those same people had turned up, Trump actually got more votes than the governor of Virginia and more votes than the governor of New Jersey.
Why did those people not show up?
And I think one of the things that we have learned and should be ominous in 2026 is the people who hate Trump, they show up to vote for Dog Catcher.
They show up to vote for their local community council.
They show up to vote for school boards.
The people who love Trump show up when Trump is on the ballot.
And that is one of the things that I think the Republican Party has to think about in 26 and 28, because mark my words, they're going to quickly pivot in 2027, Piers, from Donald Trump is Hitler.
He's the worst person who's ever existed in the history of the world.
Two, the Republican Party is never going to have anyone as talented as President Trump.
He is a unicorn political genius, and so they are never going to be able to bring out the voters that he did.
And that until we see what happens in 26 and 28 is, I think, the best argument that the Democrat Party has.
And in fact, Pierce, shamelessly, I know you got a book.
I encourage everybody to go buy that.
This book also came out, and it's all about how young men in America move towards Trump.
Sports fans move towards Trump.
But how do Republicans keep them going forward?
And what does the future look like?
The other thing Tommy has said, and I think she's right, women, women, women, women, young women in particular are voting Democrat at record levels.
How do you start to break into that monolithic Democrat Party base?
Trump with white men, black men, Asian men, Hispanic men is doing great.
In fact, look at those returns.
The Republicans still won in Virginia and New Jersey men, but women voted in overwhelming majorities against them.
We got to change that.
All right.
I just want to say something too, which is that Mamdani, I can't work out whether he is a blessing or a curse for the left for the reasons I said earlier that he could turn out to be a brilliantly inspiring leader of New York, transform the city.
Many people don't think he can, including me, but he could do, in which case, obviously he becomes a blessing.
But he can't run for president.
He wasn't born in the United States.
But what he stands for could then be something that somebody like AOC or someone like that could run with.
Or conversely, if it all goes to Helena Hancock in New York and he gets exposed as a very young, very, very inexperienced guy who talked a great game but couldn't deliver it, that could become a massive stick to beat the Democrats with in 2026 and probably 2028.
What do you feel about Mamdani?
Because he is, you know, he's the superstar of American politics right now after Trump.
I think what was so appealing about Zorhan Mamdani was the fact that he really stood out as a young, charismatic, anti-establishment candidate.
And he got incredibly lucky in that the field running against him was, let me just be generous and say pathetic.
I mean, Andrew Cuomo was his main political opponent.
And Cuomo has just a devastating record when you consider the fact that he made the decision to send elderly individuals who had COVID back to nursing homes where they then spread it and killed elderly people in nursing homes.
Of course, Zorhan Mamdani got lucky in regard to all of the other subpar individuals who ran against him.
At the same time, I don't know if his policies are going to work, right?
I'm excited to see what the outcome will be.
What I just found particularly disgusting about how the news media in the United States covered that particular election is that most of the focus was on something he has no jurisdiction over whatsoever, and that's foreign policy.
I don't care about what his views are in regard to what's happening in the Middle East.
I'm going to venture to say New Yorkers didn't care that much until it became a political issue and media just kept asking him about his thoughts on Israel.
And let me just say to Shabos, I'm trying to be a little better today and not yell at you, but I will say this.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiment in regard to Zorhan Mamdani saying that he would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu.
Benjamin Netanyahu is a disgusting war criminal who currently has a warrant out for his arrest from the International Criminal Court.
I think Zorhan Mamdani standing up and saying that was actually very appealing to New Yorkers because it shows that he does not believe in a two-tier justice system where some individuals deserve punishment, but others, including literal war criminals who have engaged in mass slaughter, get to show up to the United States and get away with it.
Yeah, I mean, Shabbos, I think, what was fascinating to me was from a sports.
Well, hang on, Michael.
Hang on, Michael.
Michael, hang on a sec.
Yeah, hang on.
I just want to come to Shabos about one point, which is it was extraordinary that so many young Jews in New York voted for Mamdani, who was simultaneously being branded a kind of Hamas supporter and so on, which I thought was actually a mischaracterization of what he said on the record.
But it was extraordinary and notable that more Jews under, I think it was the age of 35 voted for Mamdani than voted for Cuomo.
How did that happen?
Why did that happen?
Attention podcast, people.
I'm Harry Cole, and I'm invited to something properly different.
Something urgent, something real.
It's called Harry Cole Saves the West.
If you're tired of limp commentary and afraid to offend punditry, then this is the show for you.
We're taking sledgehammers to sacred cows and battling the malign forces tearing apart the US and UK.
From open borders to cultural collapse to economic chaos to the threats to national security, the values and freedoms of the West are under siege like never before.
This is the show where American grit meets British backbone.
We all defend faith, family, freedom, and the future of the West with bold, unapologetic truth-telling.
So if you're ready to push back, ready to stand tall, ready to laugh at the madness, then hit subscribe.
Harry Cole Saves the West right now.
Available wherever you get your podcasts.
The fight back starts here.
And yes, bring the popcorn.
Yeah, I think it's easy to explain.
But first of all, let me say I appreciate Anna, you're not yelling at me.
And I spend a lot of time in LA now.
So next time we're in the same city, let's get a drink.
Piers Morgan will sponsor it.
I'll say two things.
First of all, if you look at the Jews who voted for Zorhan Mamdani, these are Jews who are overwhelmingly have zero affiliation with the Jewish day school, have zero affiliation with the Jewish synagogue, can't speak Hebrew, can't point to Israel on a map, can't identify one of the commandments outside of Tikkun Olam, which have 613 Jewish commandments.
It's not one of them.
These are Jews who really have very little Jewish education, but they have a lot of radical far-left ideologies, and then they use their Judaism and they use their Jewish identity as sort of a scapegoat to advance their political agenda, which is why, for example, when a canvasser came to my door in the Bronx and said, you know, I'm a Jew for Mamdani and I'm voting for Zorhan Mamdani because of my Jewish identity.
And you, sir, should be voting for Zorhan Mamdani because of your Jewish identity.
I said, okay, well, if that's true, if your Jewish identity is so central to your political identity, then you should be able to answer a very basic question on said Jewish identity.
And I asked her what this week's Torah portion is, which was only two weeks after the holiday of Sincha's Torah, where we finished reading the entire Torah.
So she should be able to know.
And of course, she didn't.
So Jews historically, you can go all the way back to the Hebrew Bible.
Jews historically, in small numbers, but never less significant numbers, have voted for things that are not in their best interests.
And the Hebrew Bible is called the Air of Rob, the mixed multitude.
In fact, in Nazi Germany, there was an association called National Association of German Jews, which was the Jewish division of the Nazi party.
All right.
Let me just pivot slightly to Clay Travis again.
I will come to you, Michael.
Don't worry.
Clay, I've got to ask you, whose side are you on in the big issue ripping apart the Republicans?
Are you with Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens?
Are you with Ben Shapiro, Matt Water?
I mean, it seems like the entire online conservative movement is ripping each other to pieces.
Where do you sit with this?
Well, first of all, I'm a big proponent.
As you remember, Piers, I'm currently banned on CNN for saying I only believe in two things completely, the First Amendment and boobs, which was eight years ago.
So I still, I'm not kidding about this, am banned from CNN for saying that.
So look, I think disagreement is actually healthy.
And I think conflict is good.
It's one reason I like your show.
If people make good arguments on one side and the other arguments, and then we have a conflict, we end up in a better place.
I actually, in that particular issue, look, I think Israel has the right to defend itself.
I think that unfortunately there is an anti-Semitism that has risen on the right and has also risen on the left.
It's why I've argued for a long time, Piers, we don't have so much of a political spectrum left and right as we do a big circle.
And it is kind of interesting sometimes when leftists and rightists on extremes end up agreeing that Israel is awful and evil.
I don't believe that, right?
I think Israel is imperfect as every country that has ever been founded in the history of the world.
But if Israel put down its weapons, it wouldn't exist in a week.
If every other country put down their weapons, we would have peace in the Middle East.
So in the context of October 7th, as we have continued since then, we have the right.
Israel does, I believe, to defend itself.
And I say that with not looking at it from a particular religious bent, but just on who has human rights in Israel in the Middle East.
It's gay people have rights in Israel they don't have anywhere else.
If you believe in human rights, you have to believe.
You can't get married, but sure.
Okay, I want to ask Anna on this point.
You know, the whole sort of crux of the argument is whether Tucker Carlson should have platformed Nick Fuentes.
I have not chosen to platform Fuentes.
I think he's a despicable human being who will simply use it to make himself even more notorious and richer.
And I think you've got to have a line with some of these people.
He disputes obvious anti-Semitic horror story stuff.
And I don't think he should be given a platform.
However, Tucker said, I'm entitled to.
He is.
And he did.
Many think he got used and wasn't critical enough or whatever.
But what do you feel, Anna, about that?
Where is that line?
Ben Shapiro says, no, you've got to have a moral purpose.
You shouldn't be platforming people like that.
Should we, you know, should I have someone like Fuentes on?
Should there be lines about who we do and don't platform?
For me, the line is whether or not the individual spewing the disgusting anti-Semitic, bigoted, racist rhetoric has an audience or influence of his own.
And whether people want to believe it or like it or not, the fact of the matter is Nick Fuentes has grown a massive audience.
Some of his live streams on Rumble attract hundreds of thousands of viewers, sometimes as many as 400,000.
So I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here in regard to who's platforming who.
And Tucker Carlson, of course, has become a target because he has his own massive platform.
He's tremendously influential.
And, you know, I'm sympathetic to the arguments that Tucker Carlson could have handled that exchange a lot better, right?
He could have maybe come a little harder against Nick Fuentes.
But anyone who listened to that interview and said that he didn't push back against Fuentes at all is lying.
He did push back against Fuentes, and he focused on the fundamental distinction between the two of them.
While Fuentes believes that there is an organized Jewry that is responsible for U.S. foreign policy, and that has led to basically it's the Jews' fault, right?
That's the argument that he makes.
Whereas Tucker Carlson is very careful and precise in the way he critiques the nation state of Israel and how it has not been beneficial for the United States taxpayer to have our foreign policy be so incredibly supportive and deferential to the Israeli government, regardless of what they engage in, regardless of the political makeup of that government.
And so to me, that's the important distinction here.
There are those who are legitimate anti-Semites who are hateful and they blame the Jews in general.
I've got no interest in them.
And then there are the Tucker Carlsons who's been, I believe, inaccurately labeled as an anti-Semite because he's been so vociferous in his criticism of Israel.
We should be able to be critical of Israel without that type of ridiculous slander and libel being slapped in our faces like that.
Now, in regard to whether or not he should have platformed him, again, I think that the right is kind of making the same mistake that the left did for so many years, which is thinking that if you just ignore certain things, it'll go away.
It's not going to go away.
Nick Fuentes is ascendant right now.
And the real question is, why is he ascendant given what he has said on the record?
And what is the best way to engage without promoting that type of hateful ideology?
And I think that's what Tucker Carlson is attempting to do.
Tucker Carlson's Hateful Ideology00:09:13
He has admitted to Megan Kelly that there are definitely things he wished he did differently in that interview.
But the way that there's been this organized effort to totally destroy him because he had that conversation, I'm sorry, I know that there are multiple outlets, both legacy media and independent media, that have interviewed and done softball interviews of literal war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu, who has slaughtered, literally slaughtered innocents in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon.
And there hasn't been any pushback, okay, from anyone in regard to those interviews taking place.
You want to know why?
Because he's a prime minister of a foreign country.
Regardless of how disgusting he is, he's going to be interviewed.
And the question is, how are those interviews going to be handled?
Is he going to be asked difficult questions or softball questions?
He only grants the interviews to the softball intervention.
Okay, Clay, I know Clay has to go.
I know Clay has to go.
So I want to just give you Clay just a final quick response to that before we let you go.
Look, I don't think anybody should be criticized for anyone they choose to interview on their own shows.
And I also have the same position as you within that context, Piers.
I wouldn't, and we haven't.
We've got the biggest radio show in the country.
I wouldn't put him on our program.
But I also understand why Tucker decides to have conversations.
And I would rather people have those conversations in public, even if I disagree with them.
I would want the broadest possible context.
I just don't think there's much to be gained from his arguments on my show.
I imagine the same thing that you would say about that show.
And then I think there's also a distinction on Netanyahu.
I mean, he is the head of a state.
I think everybody should interview Benjamin Netanyahu.
Pierce, I bet if Kim Jong-un called you up and said, hey, we want to do a North Korea sit-down, you would do a sit-down with North Korea's leader, not because you agree with him or think that he has been treating the people of North Korea well, but just because that is a valid argument that he should be able to make to his larger context.
Like you should talk to the leaders of states, whether it's Putin, whether it's Kim Jong-un, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's Vladimir, whoever it is, right?
So I think there's a pretty big distinction.
Net Netu, though, is that he only gets interviewed by people who are willing to fallate him live on air.
That's the problem with Netanyahu.
I totally agree with you.
First of all, that's a very different.
And that's what we've been seeing.
I think that in my opinion, Benjamin Netanyahu is not a war criminal.
He should be able to travel to the United States and frankly anywhere in Europe.
There is a very different, huge difference having toured the sites between what happened at Nova and what happened in the kibbutzes in Israel and what the response that Israel put in place to Hamas after they kidnapped 250 terrorists.
To me, that equivocation is not morally remotely justified.
And so I think that's a little, frankly, crazy.
Slaughter tens of thousands of innocent kids.
Okay, let me bring it.
Let me bring in Michael.
He's been waiting very patiently.
Let me bring him.
Clay, I'm going to say goodbye to you, Clay.
Thank you very much indeed for joining us.
I know you have to be able to do that.
Thank you, Pierre.
Let me bring Michael in.
Great point.
Balls by Clay Travis.
Buy it in a two-for-one with Woke is dead.
And you won't go wrong in life.
Okay, Michael, you've been listening to all that.
What's your view?
I, for example, I have a big problem with Elon Musk allowing Alex Jones back on X when he decided to change his mind about that because Alex Jones weaponizes lies to make himself very rich.
That's why he had a billion dollar defamation against him from the Sandy Hope families.
You know, people that do that kind of thing, where they're weaponizing lies or genuine hate and anti-Semitism, you know, I think you've got to be very careful about platforming people, but that is their business model.
It is.
So let's talk through the different elements of the conversation.
First, Mayor Alec Mamdani is going to be successful.
It is a reason why more than a million people voted for him because he addressed cost of living and he did not allow the rhetoric that was trying to demonize him to separate and confuse people from that.
To the conversation that was also raised earlier of stating that the Jewish voters that supported him can't identify Israel on a map and don't have Jewish education is totally offensive.
And I can't even understand why that was even stated earlier.
It's another reason why he won.
For stats purposes, just for context, even in the assembly district in the Bronx, where it was indicated that he would not be successful, Mamdani won that district as well.
Let's be very clear.
You can be anti-AIPAC and anti-BB and not be anti-Israel.
You would not say to me right now that if I criticize the U.S. government and Donald Trump that I'm anti-American, I am able to speak up because it is part of a democracy and you recognize the changes that are happening.
Yes, you can say and should be able to say that Hamas had a brutal, inhumane attack that they did on the people of Israel and at the same time that a genocide is happening against the people that are there on the Palestinian side.
You can say both.
As someone who has baptized people in the Jordan River, as someone who has prayed at the Western Wall, who's someone who is an ordained reverend myself, who understands that Jesus was a Jewish man of color and a refugee in a foreign land, I absolutely have the ability to recognize the journey that one is on.
And when we think about what is at stake right here, people saw through the noise.
They were able to say here in New York City that what is what is top of mind for me?
I am wondering how do I pay my milk and my groceries and my bread and what is being told to me and said to me that he is this.
Zora Mamdadi is not anti-Semite.
Full stop.
He is not.
And so someone being critical of a government does not make you as such.
But I do think we are in a moment in time where people are wanting to understand the journey that you have been on.
And so what is being asked and raised earlier, I know it was said tongue in cheek around the dynamic of candidates.
I was a pretty good candidate in Mario primary.
That's why they said it was the breakout star.
But I understand the point that was being made earlier about the other candidates itself.
The dynamic that exists here is that people want to know, are you going to address what's happening in my life?
And that is why he won.
That is why Democrats won last Tuesday.
And that is the shift that is happening on the ground in places like the Bronx, in places like New Jersey and Virginia, where you can understand all at the same time.
Okay, Shabos, final word to you.
Sure, it's interesting.
Michael Blake said he was the breakout star of the New York City mayoral campaign.
I am currently on the New York City Board of Elections website.
This is how many votes you got.
You got 0.4%, 4,366 votes on the first round.
And in the first round, say the full round.
I know, I'm getting there.
I'm about to.
I'm about to.
You're interrupting.
So hang on.
On the second round, he got 4,389 votes.
And then on the third round, he was disqualified.
So, Michael, I live in that district.
So again, hang on.
You're literally lying about stats on a national TV interview.
You have to let me finish.
You're literally lying.
You're literally lying about his stats.
Buddy, buddy, if you're going to yell at me, my name is Michael.
It's not buddy.
As you are aware, rank choice votes.
I am convinced that you are going to be able to do that.
But you just stated an inaccurate stat.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So inaccurate stats.
All I'm trying to say.
All of Michael Blake's viewers, all of the people.
You are showing voters.
Go on the New York City Board of Election.
When you go on to the board of election website, you will see the total votes of someone who's not going to be able to.
Thank you.
You have to let me finish.
Again, this is not going to go well for your congressional campaign if you can't even let your constituents continue to make a point.
You can respond.
You just have to let me make the point first.
So first of all, you're not going to win.
You know you're not going to win, which is why you called Simcha Eichenstein just months before the primary election, begging him to endorse your singing.
Again, you can respond.
You just have to let me finish.
I know you're new to this, but you have to let me finish.
We're getting into the weeds a bit here, Shabos.
So let me just make my general point and then I'll be done.
To Anna, and again, I'm glad Anne and I were having a civil discourse over here.
I have to push back.
I think it's a bit gaslighting to suggest that Zor Mamdani was not campaigning on things pertaining to the Middle East.
This is someone who three years ago, the Democratic Socialist of America Convention, literally said that Palestine was the center of his political identity.
This is someone who a week after October 7th was arrested in the streets for protesting traffic, protesting the genocide in Gaza.
This is someone who took pictures with an unindicted co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
This is someone who made a rap phrasing the Holy Land Fives, which were convicted for providing support for terrorism.
So look, I hope Zor Mondani succeeds.
All of this stuff has been debunked, but okay.
We as New Yorkers also debated by debunked.
He initially made a rap phrasing the Holy Land Five.
He literally campaigned with Hassan Popka, who said that they deserve 9-11.
I'm going to leave it.
I'm going to leave it there before everyone starts shouting at each other.
Hassan: Actions Speak Louder00:02:02
Just when we'd all got to be back on a more friendly even keel.
He did condemn Hassan.
Shabbos, sorry.
I'm not doing that on purpose.
I appreciate it.
Sorry about that.
And I'm glad.
Listen, I'm glad he condemned Hassan, but at the same time, Hassan was at his election victory party.
So I'm glad he condemned, but actions speak louder than words.
Okay, we're going to leave it there on a point of agreement.
Thank you all very much.
Thanks.
I'm going to start by making an apology.
Tennis star Novak Jokovich.
He had a hearing overnight to decide whether he will stay and play the Australian Open, who world number one has been booted out of Australia.
Deportation marks the end of his Australian open hopes.
If I want to go to America, I have to take a test and show my vaccination status.
That's it.
So he shouldn't be allowed to play, right?
It stops you from dying.
I mean, that's the whole point of the vaccine.
He's also a role model who would have definitely deterred a lot of people who perhaps should have the chat.
What you said, it speaks volumes about the person that you are.
I'm just saying I'm not like that.
Is part of you also thinking, I'm not sure I can compete against these guys at this level now?
To your point, yes, I do have more doubts that I can win slams, particularly against these two guys.
I just stared at the wall for 20 or 30 minutes, and that's the first time I felt really empty.
I just want to re-gain the love and passion for the sport because I lost it.
Have you one day played your son at tennis in a...
Oh, I mean, that's a dream.
In a professional game.
You wouldn't let him win, would you?
I would kick his...
On Sinner, is there a cloud over him about the drugs thing?
That cloud will follow him as the cloud of COVID will follow me.
You should ask him.
I only interviewed coats.
I expected worse.
This is not against you and this you're kind of like intelligently