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. Today the Democrats released thousands of pages of records they’ve subpoenaed from the Epstein estate, including emails to and from Jeffrey Epstein mentioning Trump by name, and claiming he spent hours alone with one of Epstein’s victims. The White House has responded, claiming the unnamed victim is Virginia Giuffre, who has never accused Trump of any wrongdoing - and that this has been redacted deliberately to make it seem more incriminating. However the releases also show Epstein exchanging emails in 2019 with author Michael Wolff, from whom he solicits advice on “crafting an answer” for Trump if he was to be asked about Epstein by the media… Joining Piers Morgan to discuss these latest developments is Epstein’s defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz - who is also mentioned in the leaks - plus host of The Edge, Eric Bolling, host of Endless Urgency, Mike Ellis, host of BET News, Marc Lamont Hill and host of The Tara Palmeri Show, Tara Palmeri. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: 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. Tax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/PIERS to speak with a strategist for FREE today 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
Why Release Everything00:08:48
We must reveal everything.
Everything has to come out.
Nothing can be kept secret.
We don't know if they're victims.
Some of them are victims.
Some of them are not victims.
And we have to be able to judge their credibility.
I know what's in those documents.
I know something you don't know.
I know what's in those documents.
It's not convenient for you, Alan, in this moment to tell me that you know something you don't.
I want them out there.
If the judge will give me permission, I have them in my possession.
My lawyers have them.
Judge, let me give them to Piers Morgan.
Hang on, hang on.
I want to stop you because there are more emails being released.
And Alan, there is one that mentions you.
Donald Trump is in the Epstein files.
That is the real reason they've not been made public.
Not my words, but those of Elon Musk at the beginning of his acrimonious departure from the White House.
He deleted the post, but Democrats have never forgotten it.
And today, they release thousands of pages of records that they've subpoenaed from the Epstein estate, including emails to and from the pedophile, which mention Trump by name.
In April 2011, three years after admitting sex crimes with a minor, Epstein wrote to his convicted accomplice, Gillette Maxwell, to say this: I want you to realize the dog that hasn't barked is Trump.
Unnamed victim, the name was redacted, but we now know who that is, spent hours at my house with him.
He has never once been mentioned.
The White House has just responded to this.
It says the unnamed victim is Virginia Duffray, who has never accused Trump of any wrongdoing at all, and that this has been redacted deliberately to make it seem more incriminating.
But there is more.
The releases also show Epstein exchanging emails in 2019 with author Michael Wolfe, from whom he solicits advice on, quote, crafting an answer for Trump to use if he was asked about Epstein by the media.
While discussing Trump's long-held claim that he forced Epstein out of the Mur-a-Lago members' club, Epstein says, Trump says he asked me to resign.
I was never a member, ever.
Of course, he knew about the girls, as he asked Ghelain to stop.
Well, Gillay Maxwell was, of course, convicted of aiding Epstein's sex trafficking of children.
She's the only living person who's been convicted of anything related to this scandal.
But she's asking Trump for a pardon and was moved to a lower security prison after saying this.
I certainly never witnessed the president in any of, I don't recall ever seeing him in his house, for instance.
I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting.
I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.
The president was never inappropriate with anybody.
In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.
Well, to that point, there's no suggestion that Donald Trump broke any law or did anything wrong.
Trump will argue was guilt by association, which is presumably why he backtracked on releasing all of the Epstein files in the first place.
And the White House again says it's a Democrat hoax because Democrats are the ones getting hold of the files and choosing what to selectively release, mostly having not cared very much at all about this story for many years.
The response to that, not unreasonably, will be simple.
Release the files and let people make up their own minds.
Well, joining me to discuss all this is criminal defense attorney and Jeffrey Epstein's former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, the Democrat strategist and host of Endless Urgency, Mike Nellis, the New York Times best-selling author and host of The Edge, Eric Bolling, and the host of Bet News, Mark Lamont Hill.
Welcome to all of you.
Alan Dershowitz, let me just start with you because you're obviously been very involved in this whole thing from start to finish and used to represent Epstein.
Obviously, it's been leaked here.
I would argue, I have some sympathy with the White House in a way that makes it look as damning as possible.
However, and I think it's an important, however, it is certainly, on the face of it, it is stuff that if I was the White House, I'd be pretty concerned.
Sure, because there's guilt by accusation in the country today.
If you're accused, you must be guilty if you're suspected, if they smoke this fire.
I can provide some actual eyewitness testimony.
I was Epstein's lawyer.
I was trying to make him the best possible deal I could make.
That's my job.
That's what I'm supposed to do.
And among the questions I asked him, as any lawyer would, is, can you name people who may have had improper sexual relationships with anybody?
And if we can turn those people over to the government, we can maybe get you a better deal.
And then I went through a variety of names, including Donald Trump.
And Jeffrey Epstein said, no, Trump didn't do anything wrong.
I can't say anything about him that would be helpful to the government, even if the government wanted to get him.
So I put that question to him.
Now, I put it to him well before this email of 2011.
I put it to him in 2006 and 2007 when I was representing him.
But I never, in the years that I represented him, ever heard him saying that Trump was involved in any improper conduct.
He did say, I know that for a fact, that he and Trump had a friendship and that friendship broke up and, you know, that whole story.
The other thing that's important is that we must reveal everything.
Everything has to come out.
Nothing can be kept secret because secrecy just absolutely encourages people to speculate and speculate according to their own narrative, including what has to come out of the names of the accusers.
Because some of the accusers, for example, this woman named Branson, a ransom, she accused Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, a variety of other people of misconduct.
And then it turned out she admitted she made the whole thing up.
So it's very important that to have total and full disclosure, we have disclosure not only of the accusations, but of the credibility or lack thereof of the accusers.
So although I think these revelations are significant, I don't think they do anything to in any way imply or suggest that Trump did anything wrong.
Okay, Mike Nellis, I want to play you a clip before I get your response to that.
This is from David Boyes, who was Virginia Duffray's lawyer, a top American criminal attorney for many decades, also reped a number of other of the Epstein victims.
This is when I asked him specifically about whether he's seen anything against Trump.
Have you ever seen any evidence that would suggest Donald Trump either took part in or was aware of any criminal activity involving Epstein?
Absolutely not.
And we've looked.
We've obviously looked at both President Trump and former President Clinton.
We've looked at all of the really high-profile people.
And between my firm's representation and Brad Edwards' firm's representation, we've represented dozens and dozens and dozens of victims, all of whom we've interviewed.
We've looked at the documents.
And although both Presidents Clinton and Trump had relationships, social relationships with Epstein that I know they regret, there's been no evidence at all.
I'm quite confident that neither of them were involved in the actual sex trafficking or any other sexual activities.
So Mike Nellis, I guess, when I heard that, what I felt was Trump was indisputably a good friend of Epstein for many years.
He said he had no more contact with him after his conviction for pedophilia, which seems that's not been contradicted by any new evidence.
But what you've got here clearly, just on the face of it, when I saw this drop, is you've got emails which are at the very least raising some eyebrows about this, albeit nothing points to any criminality by Donald Trump.
What is your view of this?
Yeah, well, I think if Donald Trump were innocent, he would be falling over himself to release every file that he could that would show that he was innocent to the American people.
The Lack of Transparency00:16:04
And they're doing the exact opposite.
To me, it's he's acting like he's guilty.
What he's guilty of, I don't know.
Did he know what Jeffrey Epstein was doing?
Did he abuse women?
Was he taking out loans from Jeffrey Epstein?
I don't know what it is that he's covering up or who he's covering up for.
But at every stage of this, they have promised transparency and then they have refused to release this.
Pam Bondi says the files are on my desk.
We're going to get them out any day now.
They trot out MAGA influencers to the White House.
They have them waving binders like idiots on the internet.
Whole thing's ridiculous.
And they refuse to just be transparent and release the files.
You said at the beginning of this that you have some sympathy for the White House because Democrats are maybe selectively leaking these things, but the White House can end this at any time by releasing all of the files unretracted outside of the victims' names.
They could do that right.
They're not doing it.
And so I think it's because why not the victims' names?
Why not the victims?
Because I want to make sure that gives a fuller picture.
I want to make sure that.
We don't know if they're victims.
Some of them are victims.
Some of them are not victims.
And we have to be able to judge their credibility.
In my case, for example, Virginia Groufray publicly admitted that she may have misidentified me for years and years and years.
So I'm just making a point.
Why not release everything, everything?
Alan, one, I would ask that you don't interrupt me.
I won't interrupt you if you do the same.
But look, the bottom line here is that Donald Trump has the power to end this scandal right now by releasing the information and then we can hold everybody accountable, Democrat, Republican, everybody in between.
But right now, this White House exists to protect the rich and the powerful, and they are protecting people whose names are in there.
Maybe Donald Trump is guilty.
Maybe he's not.
I don't know.
These emails today sure make him look guilty as hell, but they refuse to do the right thing and just release these files.
They could end this at any time.
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 legend 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 PEERS.
Okay, Mark Lamont Hill, the question I have, well, hang on a second.
The question I have, Mark Lamont Hill, is if there was a smoking gun about Donald Trump, which actually pointed to criminal actions by him, then surely the Democrats who had these files and had all the access, they would have released this before to stop Donald Trump getting re-elected.
That's always been my presumption.
It was like there couldn't have been a more incendiary political weapon if they'd wanted to use it, but they didn't, which suggests to me there isn't a smoking gun in there.
And this drip, drip, drip stuff is very like, you know, entertaining for the media, gets us all going.
It all looks a little bit, oh, what's all this?
But it doesn't really change the bigger picture of, is there any evidence of any criminality?
I don't necessarily see it that way.
First, don't underestimate Democrats' ability to lose elections and to have bad strategy.
That's the first thing.
Second thing is it is entirely possible that there is a smoking gun buried in there.
And my fear is not that there isn't a smoking gun, but that there's also a smoking gun that implicates a bunch of Democrats.
The issue here that you have to think about potentially is that Donald Trump is guilty of something, but so is, I'm just going to throw a name out there, Bill Clinton, because his name has been bandied about a bunch, and a whole bunch of other folk.
And sometimes the powerful protect the powerful, not because they like each other or because they care about each other, but because it's a mutual assured destruction.
I think that's why, and it's, again, it's a rare day, but I agree with Alan Dershowitz that we need full transparency.
We need all the documents released.
We need all the information released and let the American people make determinations about what's true and what's not true so that we don't have to do this drip, drip, drip stuff.
And then finally, the one place where I would disagree with Alan is when he says that there's no even implication here that the president did something wrong.
I mean, when he says, and I'm going to redact the name because he redacted the name, victim spent hours at my house with Trump.
He has never once been mentioned and referred to him as the dog that hasn't barked.
And then said Trump said he asked me, I'm sorry, of course he knew about the girls as he asked Maxwell to stop.
I asked just late to stop.
These are things that do imply that something bad happened.
These are words that imply that he was somehow complicit.
But it doesn't mean he did something sexual.
It doesn't mean that he did something illegal necessarily.
I don't want to overstate anything here.
We have to be careful when we start accusing people of things.
But there absolutely is something that needs to be explained.
And the best way to explain it is full transparency.
But Eric Bolling, you know, the really weird thing about this is that everyone on the Trump side in the run-up to the election were very, very gung-ho about we're going to release all the Epstein files.
We're going to have full transparency.
I remember all this.
And then two things happened, which were just weird.
Elon Musk, who fell out with Trump, suddenly out of nowhere, posts on his own platform, X, the real reason they're not being released is because Trump's in the files.
And then literally within a few days, the whole investigation is just stopped.
And there is no full transparency.
There is no release of all the files.
And so if you're looking at this with a cynical eye, or perhaps a conspiracy theory eye, who knows?
But if you're looking at this, you're thinking, well, what's going on here?
Why was everybody, I had members of the administration on my show saying, we're going to release everything.
We can't wait to do it.
Blah, And then it didn't happen.
And now you've got kind of what I would call political death by a thousand cuts.
We've seen it with formerly Prince Andrew in the UK.
He was done in by leaks from similar leaks of emails.
He's now lost everything in the last couple of weeks because of those leaks.
We're now seeing the heat on Trump.
I suspect there are lots of other high-profile names left in these files we haven't seen.
David Boyes suggested to me that between six and a dozen high-profile men named in the files probably deserve a criminal prosecution.
So there's a long way for this to go.
Can you make sense of how this has all played out?
No, no.
Thank you for having me, Pierce, by the way.
And great, great panel.
Let me take this a little bit differently.
First of all, guys, we have a lawyer on the panel, at least one, maybe two.
An implication is by no means evidence.
Now, we heard the email say, oh, regarding Jeffrey Epstein telling someone, oh, yeah, Trump knew about the girls.
That could be anything, you guys.
That could be new about the girls that Epstein was taking from Mar-a-Lago, because we know he was grabbing women that were working at Mar-a-Lago, using bringing them to do his nefarious things that he was doing with them.
We're jumping to a conclusion, and that's the problem with politics and the media, frankly, the media today right now, Pierce.
None of this stuff has been vetted.
There's no context to any of these leaks and these now the Democrat, the Democrat oversight, Democrats and the Oversight Committee releasing piece by piece little bits here and there.
I agree with you, Pierce.
If there was a smoking gun, we would have known about it by now.
If, God forbid, there's a smoking gun, Trump's involved.
And then there are Bill Clinton and other donors involved.
And everyone said, hey, you know what?
Wink nod.
Let's just all keep our mouths shut.
That's the problem with DC.
And I don't just, I don't think Trump is in that camp.
I also agree that Pam Bondi and Kash Patel came out of the box.
Leading up to their confirmation, right into their confirmation, right out of the box, they said we're going to release the Epstein files in full, unredacted.
Whatever those packets were that some influencers were waving around at the White House, I don't know what changed, but they really, really shot themselves in the foot with the base, MAGA.
MAGA wants to know who did what and when.
I don't even think, I'm going to go out on a limb here.
If Trump's name was in there and he's implicated, I don't even think it would move the needle on his approval rating within MAGA.
But the problem is what he's doing right now, and I'll be very honest with you.
I know the guy for 20 years, what he's doing right now is undermining his own credibility with regard to this topic.
Release it.
No matter what it is, release it.
They'll get over it, Trump.
You're one of a lifetime, if not an eternity, of politicians that ever walk this earth.
They'll get over it.
I think everything should come out unredacted.
Pierce, can I add something?
Yeah, it's interesting.
I very rarely...
Yeah, I was going to say, Mike, I will let you respond, but it's very unusual to have all four panel members agreeing about the fundamental point, which is I think we all believe the best way for this to be dealt with is to release all the files.
What do you want to say, Mike?
Back to Eric.
Yeah.
Well, I want to add something that this White House and Donald Trump are making an intentional political decision.
They've decided that this not knowing, this drip, drip, drip by the Democrats, this conversation about what Trump may or may not have done is better for them politically than just releasing all the files.
So they've decided with great intentionality here that they'd rather keep something hidden, keep a conspiracy out there than just show people whatever the truth is.
Again, I don't know what Donald Trump is guilty of or not guilty of, but I do know that they're hiding this and they've decided that this is politically better for them.
There's a very good chance it could be that he's going to wait.
Let me come to hang on.
Hang on.
Sorry, don't all talk at once.
I want to bring Alan.
Alan, I want to bring you in to respond to that, but I do want to just remind us of what Virginia Dufray says in her book, which is a number one bestseller right now, obviously released posthumously after she so sadly took her life.
But she said, she described the first meeting that the real estate mogul Trump had in 2000, as he was then, with her father, Sky Roberts, when he was working as a maintenance man at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach.
They weren't friends exactly, but dad worked hard and Trump liked that.
I've seen photographs of them posing together, shaking hands.
Trump couldn't have been friendlier, telling me it was fantastic that I was there.
But she made it clear in the book that she did not have any issue with anything Trump had done.
And so if, as the Daily Mail was the first report today, the redacted name, and now we've had the White House confirm it, if the redacted name is indeed Virginia Duffray, then the fact that he spent time talking to her, given that she used to work at Mur-a-Lago, even is Epstein's property, which it all looks bad.
But the fact that it's her, that redacted name, and she's on record now in her own words, saying he never did anything wrong as far as she's concerned.
You know, you put all that together and you've got to think, well, why did they redact that name?
Have they done that deliberately to stir up a political point scoring thing against Trump?
Because once you know it's Virginia Dufray and once you know what she has said about Trump, it's nowhere near as damning.
No, of course I agree with you.
And the fact that Virginia Guffray is mentioned is very significant because she's written the bestseller.
She falsely accused me and then admitted that she may have misidentified me and destroyed my life for years and years and years based on a possible misidentification.
So putting her name out there is very, very important.
But I want to correct the record on the White House.
It's not the White House that's keeping a lot of the most important material out.
It's judges.
Three federal judges in New York have sealed depositions.
I want those depositions out there.
The depositions include depositions of Virginia Guffray.
They include depositions of other alleged accusers and these judges, not the White House.
The White House has no control.
When judges seal materials, there's Judge Presca, there's Judge, I can name two or three other judges, and the New York Times and Piers Morgan ought to be making an application to these judges and demanding that these transcripts be revealed.
Because if there are any smoking guns, if there are any serious accusations, they're in deposition transcripts in my case, in the case of Ghillaine Maxwell, and in other civil cases that have been sealed.
I have been trying to get all these depositions unsealed, and these judges won't do it.
So let's put the blame where the blame belongs on federal judges who are protecting some people.
And that shouldn't be happening.
So let's get everything out there.
I think we're mixing apples and oranges here.
Yeah.
Sorry, I just want to make sure that people understand the depositions that Alan is talking about represent about 3% of what would be considered the Epstein file.
That's the estimate on that.
So 97% of the documents.
I don't agree with that.
That's the estimates that are out there.
I bet that's more than 10%.
Documents that haven't been released are in control of the White House and the DOJ.
They could end this at any time.
Yes, there are some things that are under seal, but the Daisy.
No, they can't because they can't get the judges.
It'll never end as long as judges are sealed.
That's correct, Alan.
But it is not a lot of people who control their destiny.
I know what's in those documents.
I know something you don't know.
I know what's in those documents.
That's why it's so important to get these judicial documents out there.
I want them out there.
If the judge will give me permission, I have them in my possession.
My lawyers have them.
Judge, let me give them to Piers Morgan.
I want to give them to Piers Morgan.
Why, Judge, are you preventing me from disclosing material that would be very, very important in putting a whole picture on this thing?
Well, I don't think we have to get those things out to the United States.
Hang on, guys, guys.
I want to bring in Martin Monhill.
Mark, aside from this, we also have the ongoing situation with Ghillaine Maxwell.
House Democrats have said this week that she's preparing to formally ask President Trump to commute her federal prison sentence.
She's obviously now in a less strict prison as we speak.
She told the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in an interview earlier this year that she never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way and didn't ever recall seeing Trump at Epstein's house, although she had seen him the social settings.
What's interesting about that, I think, is that these emails seem to suggest that she must have known Trump had been at Epstein's house because Epstein's emailing her about it.
So rather like with Andrew, you know, former, the artist formerly known as Prince, although he's not an artist, rather like him, they're being damned in a way by these email leaks contradicting their public statements.
And then if you think, well, if she's lying about that, if she's lying about knowing that Trump had been at Epstein's house, which seems to be the case, what else is she lying about?
And obviously, she has a vested interest in saying whatever it takes to get Trump to commute her sentence.
So all of that is going on as well.
Yeah, I mean, if I were sitting in a prison and Donald Trump were the person who could get me out, I would say that I saw the JFK assassination.
I mean, like, it doesn't matter what the thing is, if I need someone to get out, credibility is shot from Maxwell, but not just for her.
Guilt by Association00:04:00
And I think that's what makes this so messy.
And to beat the dead horse, that's why we need all the information released.
Donald Trump says that he and Epstein fell out over competing interests in a property.
Next thing you know, it's, oh, it's because he was poaching people from Ar-a-Lago.
The stories change.
An email says that she knew that she had no knowledge of Donald Trump's actions later on.
It's like, oh, she definitely knew.
I don't know who to believe.
I don't know what to believe when it comes to these people involved in this scandal because all of them seem to be saying contradictory things.
And that's the danger.
But I can guarantee you one thing: her tune will not change if she's up for a commutation because that's just human nature.
That's just common sense.
You know, what's interesting, Eric, I'm just checking here some background information we had before we did this panel.
In a 2016 deposition for a civil case, Virginia Dufray was asked if she believed Donald Trump had witnessed the sexual abuse of minors in Epstein's home.
She said, I don't think Donald Trump participated in anything.
I never saw or witnessed Donald Trump participate in those acts, but he was in the house of Jeffrey Epstein.
Then she added, I've heard he has been, but I haven't seen him myself, so I don't know.
Now, again, the significance of that, which is nine years ago, is that clearly from the Epstein leaked emails today, he's talking about seeing Virginia Dufray in his house with Donald Trump for a number of hours, which would contradict her statement there, made five years after that email was sent, saying, I haven't seen him myself, so I don't know.
So again, what we're seeing is a kind of through these leaks, because they're coming selectively, we're just seeing a lot of stuff that's been said publicly by everybody involved, seemingly, getting contradicted by the leaks.
But we don't have all the leaks.
We don't have all the information.
And it's quite hard to work out proper context for this stuff.
Pierce, you know, in the sad part is being this far removed from when the actual nefarious operations things were going on in the island and also in Manhattan, et cetera, around the world.
We're looking back and now all of a sudden, any sort of crossing paths with Jeffrey Epstein is some sort of admission of some sort of guilt or an indictment of Trump or anyone else.
Let's not forget Bill Gates was at the many high-level celebrities were at this island.
Did they participate in the sexual rape, the pedophilia going on?
No one knows.
But certainly because they've crossed paths or Epstein casually mentioned someone's name in an email that, yeah, that guy knew doesn't indict them, doesn't make them guilty of it.
And what's happening is now that the Democrats are releasing this the way they are.
And frankly, the way the Trump administration handled the original we're going to release and then pull back is creating this media circus around it.
Clearly, it's a media.
Epstein has massive appeal to the consumer, to the news consumer and the political consumer.
I just don't think it's going to have a political influence the way a lot of the way I believe the Democrats think it will.
My guess is there may be some sort of smoking gun with Trump, but it also will incorporate some high-level donors on both sides, maybe some friends of Trump, certainly some friends of Biden or it would have come out during the Biden administration.
And everyone's staying quiet.
And once again, the American people get screwed.
We get completely blindsided by the swamp and the disgusting shit that goes on.
You know what's even bigger than this that no one's talking about?
The $100 or $200 million that congressional members and senators have paid victims of their own sexual abuse.
Yet we're worried about whether Donald Trump knew or didn't know what was going on at the Epstein mansion when it was going on.
At this point, who the hell really cares?
Well, I got to say, I care, actually, and I've known Donald Trump a long time.
I like him personally.
Who Really Cares Now00:02:33
He's been a friend of mine.
But I care.
I care because 2,000 young women and many underage girls were abused by a lot of rich, powerful people.
And we still have only had one person held accountable for that.
And it was Ghillaine Maxwell, a woman.
So no man has ever been held properly accountable.
Epstein cheated accountability by, I believe, taking his life.
Others think otherwise, but I think he probably did.
I don't mean to belittle the victims.
I'm not belittling the victims.
I agree that anyone who's known to have participated in this as a man or anyone who facilitated the abuse, the pedophilia, Ghelane Maxwell and others, should be held accountable, should be in jail.
I absolutely agree.
I meant for Trump politically, release the stuff.
Let people know.
If you owe back taxes to the IRS, they can garnish your wages and levy your bank accounts.
They can even seize your retirement or take your home.
Don't let the IRS target you.
Call the professionals at Tax Network USA.
Their top tax lawyers and enrolled agents are experts in the powerful programs that can help you to eliminate your tax debt.
Tax Network USA is A-plus rated and has saved more than a billion dollars for their clients.
Whether you owe thousands or millions, one phone call can start the process of taking control.
But you need to act now while you have options.
For a free consultation called Tax Network USA Today at 1-800-958-1000.
Or visit tnusa.com slash peers.
Don't let the IRS be the first to act.
ExpressVPN is the simple way to protect your privacy online.
In the US, 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.
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.
Watergate Parallels Drawn00:15:02
Alan, I want to bring in another sort of twist to this, which is the involvement of Michael Wolfe, the author, who's written, of course, a number of best-selling books about Donald Trump.
He's in this new batch of leaked emails.
It's kind of fascinating.
I mean, it's no secret that he has, I think, over 100 hours of tape of interviews with Epstein.
He's talked publicly about that.
But in an email from January 2019, Epstein writes to Michael Wolf about Donald Trump.
Of course, he knew about the girls as he asked Ghillane to stop.
So we've had that.
Now, that's during Trump's first term, seven months before Epstein takes his life.
Epstein wrote to Wolf, apparently, to address Trump's claim that he asked Epstein to resign his membership.
He claims in these emails that he hadn't done.
The White House says Trump barred him from Mur-a-Lago for being a creep and for stealing employees to go and work for him.
And it turned out to abuse some of them.
But in a third email, Wolf writes, he wrote to Epstein with a subject line heads up.
This is December 15th, 2015.
That's the day of a CNN Republican primary debate.
Wolf says, I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you, either on air or in the scrum afterwards.
Epstein responds, if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?
To which Wolfe replies, I think you should let him hang himself.
If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency.
You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you.
Or if it really looks like he could win, you could save him generating a debt.
Of course, it's possible that when asked, he'll say Jeffrey's a great guy and has gotten a raw deal as a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.
Now, lots to unpack there, but you know, my reading of this: why is Epstein saying if we're able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?
Should we read into that that he's maintaining some contact with Trump, that he actually would want to send his thoughts to Trump?
And then you've got a pretty sort of, I mean, you know, Michael Wolfe's role in this is obviously clearly very some would argue he's just being a, you know, a classic investigative journalist.
But the sort of way he's plotting for Trump to hang himself, as he puts it, by answers that it looks like they may give him to say it all looks a bit, a bit weird, doesn't it?
It does, and we have to understand too that.
You know, when Jeffrey Epstein talks to a journalist, he's talking in his own self-interest.
So we have to ask questions about what is his motive?
Is he telling the whole truth?
Is he trying to curry favor?
Is he trying to attack?
He, he?
We know that Jeffrey Epstein was an extraordinarily manipulative guy, and so you don't take at face value anything he necessarily says, especially when he says it to an interviewer who's going to be writing a book which he hopes will be favorable to him.
So I think skeptical minds have be kept open, which is why every piece of documentation has to be revealed.
Nothing.
By the end of this, there shouldn't be a single piece of paper, a single recording, a single videotape that has been suppressed.
Until everything has been released, nobody can be satisfied that the whole truth has come out.
Even if everything has been released, we have to look at the statements critically because not necessarily are every statement being made absolutely credible and true.
Mike Nellis, I mean, that line, you know, the more you read it, look, it may be misleading.
It might be ambiguous.
I might be misreading it.
But for Epstein to reply to Wolf when he's told CNN are planning to ask him about his relationship with Epstein, if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?
I mean, is there any other way of reading that than that Epstein is still in contact with Trump to be able to do that?
Or what?
I mean, what are we reading into that?
No, I mean, it seems to me like they were still in contact.
We know that they were close.
We know that they were friends.
And I think the other thing I would add to this is the number of times that Donald Trump or someone in his orbit has lied about his relationship with Epstein is just unbelievable to me.
It goes back to the goofy, weird, creepy birthday card that they send.
Even Donald Trump was like, I've never made a doodle in my life when we know document-wise.
He has made doodles like that in the past.
It lines up with what he was doing at the time.
So they just keep lying.
And to me, it does seem like they were probably having contact, probably coordinating on some level.
And Michael Wolf's email is also interesting to me because he's talking about using it as leverage if Donald Trump becomes president of the United States.
If Epstein is in hot water, he wants Trump to win.
He wants to protect Trump, leverage that to get a partner or commutation.
And I want to add something a little bit to what Eric said a few moments ago about why this is so important, because I really believe this Epstein scandal is super important, not just because of the politics of it.
I think the politics on it are going to be a wash because if we get everything out there, there's going to be lots of Democrats implicated, going to be lots of Republicans.
But we're in this situation where a lot of people do not believe that the federal government is going to take care of people and that this government right now under Trump is a protection racket for billionaires and incredibly wealthy and powerful people.
So we need to make sure that all these documents get out there, that these people are exposed, that people are held accountable and they get some justice for these victims.
I think that's incredibly important, regardless of the partisan politics of it.
You go back 20 years to the Wall Street financial crisis.
Nobody was held accountable for crushing the economy.
Nobody was held accountable for all the folks who had their lives ruined and their homes taken away from them.
I think this is the same thing.
We've got to show that this is not a two-tiered justice system where the rich and the powerful can get away with abusing people and destroying people's lives.
Can I just jump in there?
I agree with how unique and hypocritical that is for you to say, Mike, thank you for jumping in on the political nature of whether the political needle moves or not, no matter what's in there.
I agree.
I think it's going to be a wash no matter what names are on there.
I find it kind of funny now you're talking about equal justice applied under the law when the guy Trump just went through four years of the most ridiculous, unequal, two-tiered level of justice that we've ever seen.
Alan can weigh in on this if you think I'm wrong.
I mean, they were making felonies out of misdemeanor charges just so they can see if they can get a felony attached to Trump.
And now all of a sudden, I think the Democrats were wrong.
The lawfare that went on for the four years is wrong.
And I also think that Trump should release this no matter who was in it, even if his own name is smacked up in the middle.
One final thought.
Let's not forget, Donald Trump told his people to disenfranchise Jeffrey, give him back his membership, get him away from Mar-a-Lago.
There's a reason for that.
I mean, all these, this finger pointing is nonsense until we have the names and context of what's going on.
We can't indict and convict Trump until we know what happened and then he goes through the due process.
That's my final thought on this.
But let's understand whether Trump's guilty.
Can I respond to that, Pierce, real quick?
Sorry, just because it was directed to me.
Yeah.
I mean, one, I disagree with the assertion that there was a two-tier justice system for Donald Trump.
I think Donald Trump has committed many crimes and he should be held accountable for that.
Fine, we're going to disagree.
I look forward to you speaking out with just as much veracity as you just had when Donald Trump, you know, indicts Adam Schiff this week, which is supposed to be rumored over some bullshit stuff that they've trumped up.
There is, I'm sure that there have been times in the past under Democratic and Republican administrations where the DOJ didn't do its job the way that it should have.
But in this administration right now, Donald Trump is personally interceding, firing and removing people who aren't going after his political opponents.
The stuff with Tish James, James Comey, it's all bullshit.
And it shows you that everything that Donald Trump does is about these people for the same things that they went after him for, which were bullshit in the first place.
I don't have documents for you, kidding me.
Joe Biden wants to be able to do it.
Joe Biden's not the one who ordered that thing.
Tish James.
Tish James went after Donald Trump for how his mortgage was prepared on a document when she was doing the same damn thing.
But there's no point.
Hold on, there's a different thing here.
At least be fair.
At least be fair about this.
Eric, let me add something, though, because the difference is most of these charges that Donald Trump has had the DOJ bring against Comey and Tish James and others, they're likely going to be thrown out.
The difference is that Donald Trump was found guilty by a jury of his peers of fraud.
Now, it's in the past now.
The American people decided to say it's peers.
The jury of his peers is very, very deceptive on your part.
Let's set the records straight on Trish James.
Trish James ran for office.
The only time I've ever heard a prosecutor do this since Stalin's time on the claim of I'm going to get Trump no matter what he did.
I haven't done any research.
I haven't looked at it.
But my campaign is get Trump.
And she tried to get him in every way.
She tried to invent crime she couldn't find.
Finally, she went after him civilly.
Then they went after him criminally.
I have never seen a weaker criminal case in my 60 years of practicing law than this miraculous conversion of a misdemeanor, which was time barred, into a felony based on multiple choice.
In 60 years, I have never seen a worse case, criminal case, than the one against Donald Trump.
You may be right, you may be right about things that Donald Trump did, but these cases against him by Trish James and by the District Attorney of New York are two of the worst cases I have ever seen in my years of practicing criminal law.
And what we're seeing is warfare and lawfare on both sides, and it has to stop on both sides, not just on one side.
Now, you can't blame Biden for that, but you can blame two Democratically elected New York officials, Trish James and Alvin Bragg.
And Alvin Bragg was just re-elected, and Trish James will probably be re-elected.
They have absolutely violated their norms of criminal justice and done terrible things in order to get Trump.
I wrote a book called Get Trump.
I didn't come up with that title.
That was Trish James's campaign pledge to get Trump.
It reminds me of what Lavrenti Berrier, the head of the FBI, said to Stalin, show me the man and I'll find you the crime.
And that's what these New York law enforcement officials did.
They set out to get Trump.
They looked for crimes.
They couldn't find them.
So they manufactured them.
And I think they'll both be reversed on appeal.
I don't, I don't agree with that.
Hang on, hang on.
Hang on, Mike.
Mike, hang on.
Mike, hang on.
I want to stop you because there are more emails being released as we're speaking.
It's what I've been slightly distracted by as you guys were debating there.
And Alan, there is one that mentions you.
It's kind of, it's not, I would say, significant to what we're talking about.
It's just interesting.
Jeffrey Epstein called Trump borderline insane in a 2018 email exchange with Larry Summers, the former Treasury Secretary and president of Harvard University.
Trump, borderline insane, Epstein writes, who then makes a reference to you, Alan, saying Dersh, a few feet further from the border, but not by much.
In other words, he's suggesting you're nearly borderline insane.
I mean, what is your reaction to that?
Well, at that point, Epstein and I were enemies.
Obviously, he thought I had made him a terrible deal, that sweetheart deal.
He refused to pay me my legal fee.
I threatened to sue him.
I was not in a good relationship with him.
And I terminated any kind of relationship.
I had an academic relationship with him primarily.
I went to a lot of his seminars.
I spoke at one of his seminars.
But as soon as he was arrested and charged, and as soon as I saw the evidence, I no longer went to any of those seminars.
And, you know, Epstein was furious at me.
So I've never seen that email, but I can easily imagine that I'm thinking that I'm a little bit kooky.
But I'll let the public decide my mental status.
You know, it's interesting.
Again, there's another email I want to read to the rest of the panel in a moment, but the veracity of Ghillane Maxwell's testimony is now coming at a lot of heat today following the release of these emails.
You know, Yasharali, who's a very prominent poster on X, has just posted the exchange about the dog not barking and says, you know, the email that's most newsworthy in my mind, and Mike, I'll come to you for this, is the one that Epstein sent to Ghillaine Maxwell in 2011.
This was years before Trump ran for office.
It appears that Ghillaine Maxwell lied to DOJ officials during her meeting with them a couple of months ago.
And that's the inference being that she knew a lot more than she let on.
I do think there's a lot of stuff here coming out which is contradicting again.
And again, I reference the Andrew scandal back in the UK because he was eventually done in several weeks ago because new emails emerged that contradicted his public statements and those made by his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, that they cut all contact with Epstein.
It turned out they hadn't at all.
And the interesting thing about this, there is so much more to come.
One email that we've just had published, Carl Griffin, a reputable producer, has posted an email from a former Obama counsel, Kathy Rumler, in which Epstein says, you see, I know how dirty Donald is.
My guess is that non-lawyers, New York business people have no idea what it is to have your fixer flip.
That seems to be a reference to Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer, flipping on him, obviously, and about business dealings.
The dirty Donald phrase is going viral already.
It's all getting very, very messy, this.
And like I said at the start, it is a kind of political death by a thousand cuts.
And everyone involved is getting dismissed.
I mean, somebody mentioned Watergate earlier.
I happened to be at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library Museum on Monday night doing an event for my book, Woke is Dead.
And it reminded me that in the Nixon scandal, it took a long time for that to unravel.
It took several years before the original Washington Post stuff was really laid bare for everyone to understand how big it was and then all the repercussions.
And here, we're many years in to this scandal.
And yet it seems to me the scandal is burning ever more ferociously.
And I think this is going to get a lot bigger.
Yeah, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
And I think a lot like Watergate, it's going to be death by a thousand cuts because the cover-up is worse than the crime.
Although the crimes here are pretty terrible.
So there might be the one time that that's not the case.
But again, we don't know what Donald Trump has done, but we know he's covering up something either for himself or for other people.
You brought up the Jelaine Maxwell email.
I agree.
She's very likely contradicting what she said at the DOJ earlier this year, which, by the way, is because they're dangling a part in her commutation in front of her.
And also because they moved her into a minimum security prison that she should not be in with the crimes that she has been, she has committed.
Scandal Burns Ferociously00:13:19
So it is about how Donald Trump uses power.
Again, this White House exists as a protection racket for wealthy and powerful people.
Donald Trump has pardoned an unbelievable number of people this year.
He has abused his pardon power.
And by the way, before somebody jumps in, other presidents, including Joe Biden, have also abused their pardon power.
And I think that it's wrong because I know somebody's going to say something about that.
But Donald Trump has pardoned.
pop beaters.
He has pardoned drug dealers.
He has parted other sexual abusers.
He's dangled his pardon in front of Juliet Max.
So did Clinton.
So did Biden.
I already addressed that.
Do you honestly believe?
Okay, so Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in prison in 2019.
So we've had the full extent of the Biden administration to dig into this, to find out.
They had the whole, the Department of Justice had everything that the Trump Department of Justice has.
And you're going to tell me now that somehow Biden either missed it or decided not to release Donald Trump.
Damning evidence on Donald Trump as he's about to become re-elected when all they wanted to do was make sure he wasn't re-elected.
If there was a smoking gun with Donald Trump's name on it, I'm positive we would have seen it before the 2024 election.
I would bet my last, one of my last dollars on that at least.
Why is he holding it out?
Maybe he's playing a political game with the other side.
Like play this cat and mouse game with him and finally maybe at midterms go, what, you want it?
Okay, here it is.
Democrats, see nothing there except Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Larry Summers, and whomever else is on the list that actually participated.
Former presidential.
You know what is fascinating?
What is fascinating, Mark Lamont Hill?
I'll come to you, Mark.
You're muted there.
I don't know if you've hit the wrong button, but just to come to you, you know, the interesting thing to me, just in that latest email I mentioned, you know, it's an email exchange in 2018 with Larry Summers.
This is a former Treasury Secretary, president of Harvard University, who is still in email contact with a convicted pedophile.
I mean, that alone, right?
Under normal circumstances, you go, well, hang on.
What's Larry Summers doing emailing with Jeffrey Epstein so many years after his conviction?
So I've always taken the view with this, that there are people who could claim plausible deniability if they disowned Epstein from the moment of his conviction.
But if you carried on consulting with him afterwards, then I think all that plausibility disappears very quickly.
You know what he is.
Very much so.
Unless you're legal counsel, unless you're legal counsel, there's not a really good reason to hang around Jeffrey Epstein.
And I think that speaks, though, to Eric's question, right, or assertion, which is that if there were a smoking gun, the Biden administration would have used it.
The Harris administration would have used it.
The Democrats would have used any tool they had to get Donald Trump out of office.
I think you're right about that.
If, and this is a huge if, though, Eric, if the only smoking gun is one that implicates Donald Trump.
But as we said earlier, the most likely scenario, quite frankly, is that they're all guilty.
Is it a whole bunch of people who are rich and powerful, who are red and blue, Democrat and Republican, all did a bunch of really crazy stuff.
And it's mutually assured destruction.
It's not that Biden was holding back because he loves Donald Trump or because he was scared to play that card.
It's that playing that card would implicate a whole bunch of people who donate to his campaign.
It implicates a whole bunch of people who support him and who have power that operates outside of the government.
Sometimes I tease or make fun of really the conspiracy theorists on the right and the left.
But sometimes they're not wrong.
Sometimes it's kind of what it looks like.
And so I think that's the most likely outcome is that there's a bunch of powerful people who did a bunch of foul shit and they're doing everything they can to cover themselves at every turn.
You know what, though?
Sometimes.
Hang on, Eric.
Eric, hang on one second.
I mean, to that point, it may well be that as Trump got informed, I don't know, or the White House or somebody got informed of all the other high-profile names in there, there are also prominent donors to the Republican Party, for example.
You know, I know from David Boyce, the criminal lawyer, that he says there are maybe half a dozen, maybe more high-profile names in there who should warrant criminal prosecution.
And who are they?
Why is anyone wanting to protect them?
Let's remember, too, that Virginia Gufray in her new book names names.
She names names.
Whether they're falsely accused like I was or whether they're truthfully accused, I don't know, but she names the man who invented artificial intelligence.
She names the governor of New Mexico.
She names the U.S. representative to the United Nations.
She names a prime minister of a foreign country.
She names Jacques Cousteau's granddaughter.
She names so many prominent names.
They're all in there.
They're in the book.
Now the question is, is it true?
Should there be investigations?
Like there was extensive investigations of me and I was vindicated.
I was able to prove that I was nowhere near her.
I never met her.
I never heard of her.
It was just a completely case of mistaken identification.
That may be the case with others as well.
That's why we can't use the word victims as an end in itself.
If people claim they're victims, they may be victims.
But there are women who have collected money from the Epstein Fund who never met Epstein.
Their lawyers put them up to it.
They made false accusations.
We know the names of at least two or three people who have now admitted making false accusations.
So let's reveal every name.
Let's investigate everything.
Let's find out who the true victims are, who the false victims are, who the perpetrators are.
There are multiple perpetrators and multiple victims.
Let's get at the truth.
Here's the thing, Alan.
There is a class of people in this country, the wealthy and powerful, who are out in there protecting each other.
And that's to the point of Eric.
Like you like to point out, the Biden administration.
You sound like Momdami.
You sound like Mom Dadami.
You don't sound like Momdam.
You feel that way because you're part of that class of people, Alan, and you want to be protected.
Yeah, sure.
I'm part of that class.
I'm a wealthy multi, I'm a law professor who made basically pretty well on your rub elbows with a lot of powerful people.
Nothing wrong with you, Alan.
Yeah, but I'm not a member of that class.
I have a small apartment in New York, but this class nonsense.
And it's just not.
Alan Dershowitz, I mean, I got to stand with Alan.
I got to stand with Alan on that.
He is not an elite.
He's just because he's a Harvard law professor who has represented some of the most powerful and influential figures in the world, who's a best-selling author of numerous books and has had extraordinary influence over global public policy.
That doesn't mean he's an elite.
He's just like you and me.
He can have a beer with us.
The regular guy.
It's the regular guy, Alan.
I'm a regular guy.
As we're talking, I'm going to end what's been a fascinating panel.
And thank you guys for all scrambling so quickly.
It was obviously very late-breaking news, and I really appreciate you joining me.
It's a really interesting debate.
As I'm talking, more and more emails are coming out.
Another email here, which is just more cryptic than anything, from Epstein to Paul Krasner, from Epstein to Paul Krasner in 2017 with the subject heading Trump.
It says the allegation was not at a pedophile party.
It was at my house with me.
To what wording would you suggest I change that?
So we don't, again, know exactly what that means, what it's referring to, but it certainly is going to cause, I think, a lot of speculation, as indeed it already is.
So thank you very much to my panel.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Priscilla.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Pleasure.
Well, I'm joined now by the host of the Tara Palmieri show, Tara Palmeri.
Tara, welcome back to Uncensore.
What do you make of all this stuff crashing out today in these leaked emails?
Well, Pierce, I always believed it would be a drip, drip, drip.
It would always be, you know, these emails from the estate, leaks, whistleblowers that would tell us the full story.
As you and I know, having covered this story for a very long time, the Department of Justice does not self-police when it hands over documents.
They're highly redacted, and that this is the way we're going to learn the full story of Jeffrey Epstein.
It's going to be through putting the pieces together of his correspondence.
You knew, obviously, Virginia Duffrey very well.
She appears to be the redacted name that Epstein's referring to in this already quite infamous email.
She talks about the dog that has embarked being Donald Trump.
She made it clear, I think, while she was alive and in her posthumous book that Trump, as far as she's concerned, never did anything wrong.
What do you read into that email in particular?
You know, I think it's really interesting.
You know, I spent a lot of time with Virginia Guffray, and I did find her to be very open, but I also sense that there were places that she wouldn't go or didn't want to go or had fear about going.
You know, her story is very, it's a story that involves a lot of really powerful people.
And I think she, because of the kind of assault she was under from the press, intimidation, people tried to break into her home, lawsuits, defamation, she was really careful about what she shared.
But you're right.
I mean, she said that she liked Donald Trump.
He was nice.
He was around Jeffrey Epstein and the girls, but she said that he was a perfectly friendly person to her.
At the end of the day, I know that there are men that she was trafficked to that did not make it into her book, not even in the sort of blind item style way that she wrote.
There, you know, she was trafficked to as many as three dozen men.
And they, you don't even know the start of it.
Like, it's, it's incredible.
So I think with this story, we're just going to learn more and more.
And I do think that Virginia, having seen her reputation dragged for decades, she was really careful about what she said publicly.
I mean, do you think we're going to see a lot of high-profile people actually brought to account here?
Do you think this is going to lead inevitably and eventually to criminal prosecutions?
Well, in her depositions alone, there are a lot of redacted names of men.
And these men spent a lot of money and time paying lawyers and fighting in court to have their names redacted.
Those names are in the Epstein files.
If they are ever released or a whistleblower wants to release them, you'll see the names of men that the public has never heard before.
And I think that would be really shocking because some of these people are still leaders.
And, you know, it's not just leaders in finance and academia and in science, leaders in politics.
And I still find it to be shocking that it's only in your country where we've really seen any justice that we've really seen anyone have to pay for their association with Jeffrey Epstein, having to step down from public life.
We haven't had that yet.
Even though, you know, some could argue with the U.S. ambassador, the UK ambassador to the U.S., his email connections are just as close as the ones that President Trump has and others.
So it's very, it's shocking that no one's had to pay a price.
And if anything, what you're going to see is the White House whipping even harder against House Republicans to vote against releasing the Epstein files in a few weeks.
I had a source reach out to me last night saying that Republicans were starting to break and that they thought it would be difficult to vote against releasing the Epstein files.
When that happens, that they would vote yay.
But the pressure is going to be more intense on them now.
I can only imagine the whip count, but I just don't know how they take this vote, especially as these emails come out.
It was strategic.
Democrats knew what they were doing by waiting and holding on to these emails and making it so that it would become so impossible for this party to stand behind the president on this one.
I just don't think it's sustainable that the White House maintains a position, having taken everybody up the hill, saying we're going to release them, we're going to be transparent, we're going to get accountability for the victims and so on, to suddenly put the shutters down and to try and maintain that position, I think, is politically unsustainable.
And I think there were a lot of people breaking ranks.
We know from the MAGA crowd how enraged they are about this.
Trump has to be very careful, I think.
And if I were him, I'd just release the whole lot.
So look, we're just going to release everything and then let everyone gorge over the entrails of all this stuff and hopefully bring the right people to justice.
Tara, I've got to leave it there, but thank you very much, Indeed, for joining me.
Thank you.
Democrats' Strategic Delay00:00:25
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show.
We ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan 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 uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.